Does TIA hang out somewhere else now?

[benburch]

I've looked, but I cannot find a blog or website of his.

[texpatriot2004]

1. I don't know I have missed him and wish he were still here. n/t

[alittlelark]

2. He has been ' persona non grata ' here for quite awhile....

I am always up for a new path....

The truth is the path I follow.

[emcguffie]

9. Why? What happened? nt

[garybeck]

3. TIA, if you are lurking, here are some ideas.

There is a discussion board at Solar Bus. It's not as fancy as DU but it would suffice. here's a link:

http://www.solarbus.org/forum/

you'll see the section on the 2004 election there. it hasn't had a lot of action lately but it's there if people want it and I will not ban TIA.

and don't forget that Rhandi Rhodes, Thom Hartman, and Mike Malloy both have discussion boards that get a lot of action, and they all support our cause.

[texpatriot2004]

4. Hey there Garybeck thank you for the link n/t

[anaxarchos]

5. Try here....

http://www.progressiveindependent.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=120

:-)

[FogerRox]

6. I'm sure he would be welcome here-

http://www.realrepublic.com/forum/index.php

[Mister Ed]

7. I'd like to see TIA's research published in book form

It'd be great if he'd team up with a writer and publisher who could help him make a cogent presentation of the material to the public at large, outside of the blogosphere.

[autorank]

8. Check this out...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2091559

[IndyOp]

18. I LIKE this prediction ---

"I predict that when he reaches a consensus 35% in the non-corporate polls, the "election fraud" issue will be raised about 2004 and 2000."

Please, baby, please --

I spent a solid hour on Sunday morning doing my part: The new local MoveOn Political Action rep asked me to meet with him and become a precinct rep. I spent a full hour speaking at high speed (complete with raised voice and sometimes frenetic hand/arm gestures) getting the guy up to speed on the 2004 theft. I explained to him that I would become a MoveOn precinct rep when MoveOn made election fraud & reform their #1 issue. I told him that nothing he was doing would matter for shit if MoveOn did not deal with the fraud issue. He was stunned speechless. I'll wait a day or two more and call to invite him to the local Iraq war protest and have another go at him. If MoveOn would give a platform to people who know their shit in regards to fraud & reform -- that would be a huge development.

I also am scheduling several public lecture/discussions on fraud and reform -- I'll go anywhere and talk to anyone.

PUSH. Then PUSH HARDER. Then PUSH AGAIN.

:kick:

[byronius]

10. And Perhaps This --

www.truthisall.net

[anaxarchos]

11. TIA claims he had nothing to do with that....

He says he is waiting for someone to take credit.

Either way, it is too cool.

[Awsi Dooger]

12. Excellent at math but zero clue regarding basic political factors

I wondered what happened to TIA. Normally when I click on this forum it's bombarded by his wild threads, with every conceivable twisted claim. Not that I'm glad he's apparently gone. He certainly worked hard and inspired passion around here. He's the only guy who whined and wanted to post a poll asking if I was a troll, after I had the audacity to point out he didn't know how to calculate basic margin for error.

TIA's latest piece is a perfect example of his political ignorance, assigning numbers where they don't belong:

"If we fit a 4th degree polynomial to Bush's historical ratings (using CBS polling numbers) from Feb. 2001, it looks like he may be headed down to 30% in Feb. '06."

That's rank lunacy. But very familiar. TIA has projected Bush's approval numbers to where no man has gone before repeatedly. Once again TIA applies math where it has no relevance, and he can't see beyond his tunnelvision digits at the common sense or historical truths that refute the math. He did the same thing after both the 2002 and 2004 elections, desperately clinging to early preference polls (2002) and, of course, glorious exit polls (2004). Interesting how he altered his point of reference. It didn't matter to TIA if every partisan index evaluation of the state's longterm voting tendencies screamed that certain exit polls had to be screwy.

Anyway, back to this example. Bush has a huge base of support. Both parties, in fact, can claim a solid base of no less than 44-45% nationwide. The other day a poll indicated Bush retains support of 85% of Republicans. Go ahead, now do the basic math from that point, setting aside a 4th degree polynomial, whatever the hell that is. If Bush starts out with 44-45% of the country, it would take a betrayal of 33% of them to dive toward that 30% nationwide support. Yeah, the blinders-on Republicans who applauded the Iraq war, insisted the Swift Boat Liars were heros, thought Bush won every debate, and continue to believe Gore tried to steal Florida are now determined to dismiss Bush to the tune of 1 in 3. And even if that were true, it still requires assigning Bush a grand total of ZERO percent support among the other 55% or so who are not among his GOP base.

If you want to believe all that, you're probably among the group who insisted Kerry would win by landslide. It's not a landslide climate. There is no such thing as 30% support. Nor 70% support.

[Febble]

13. "Fitting a 4th degree polynomial"

simply means that the data can be reasonably approximated by a smooth line with three kinks in it.

If Bush's popularity took a sudden upswing, you'd need to add another kink, probably, making it a 5th degree polynomial, although you might find that a 3rd degree (two kinks) would do just about as well.

Curve fits are descriptive, not predictive. The lower the polynomial, the simpler the relationship, so a linear fit (no kinks) might even suggest that there is a simple predictive rule. For example a negative linear fit (a straight downward slope) might suggest a simple rule: the longer Bush stays president the more unpopular he becomes. However, the more kinks you have to include to fit the curve to the data, the more complex the relationship you have to posit.

What the fit really tells you is that there is a high degree of auto-correlation in the data - what Bush's rate was yesterday is a good determinant of what it will be today - in other words, on the whole the curve is smooth. It is also generally downward. Where it is not smooth is where a big event happens - 9/11, invasion of Iraq etc. However, the curve fit does not really capture this, as the upswings are much sharper than the slow declines, and you would need a very much higher order polynomial, or some other function altogether, to model this characteristic.

What the general shape of the plot (not the fit line) tells you is that a general rule (Bush gets more unpopular the longer he hangs around) is modified by a second rule which is that where big events occur, he gets a boost to his popularity. The fact that the polynomial fit has to have as many as 3 kinks to get a good fit tells you that these boosts are not uncommon.

So what I would conclude from TIA's plot is that Bush needs a big event to rescue him from his current decline, and that the probability of such an event in any given year is occurring is about one in two or one in three (and is there a trend for these events to become less common?) But we can't even say much about how far the current decline will continue, even if uninterrupted, because although the decline looks roughly linear after each boost, it probably has a floor somewhere above 0% (and a ceiling somewhere below 100%). Extreme percentages are inherently more rare than middling ones.

But drawing a wiggly line through a plot and assuming that the wiggle you chose was the right wiggle and that no future wiggles will occur in order to predict where the wiggly line will go next is not just politically ignorant - it's mathematically absurd.

Mind you, I still think Bush is toast.

[Cookie wookie]

17. Glad to see you back.

Thought you were gone for good. I never understood most of what you were posting back in those days, but I did find it worth trying to understand.

Welcome back!

[byronius]

14. You're, like, talking shit or something, huh? In backhand code. Oh.

I figured it out with the crack about the polynomial. Math. Whatever THAT is. pbbbbttthh.

[anaxarchos]

15. Could you post a link to your troll poll?

I'd like to see it.

[Febble]

16. Is this what you want?

http://www.progressiveindependent.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=120&topic_id=81

Maybe it's a joke. I've never been quite sure about TIA's sense of humour.