JNLister

Paid Members
  • Content count

    3,796
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About JNLister

  • Rank
    European Champion
  • Birthday 09/29/1976

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.johnlisterwriting.com
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Location
    Longsight, Manchester

Recent Profile Visitors

11,303 profile views
  1. If you follow https://twitter.com/davidbix, he's been posting some snippets from the script, including this: He's also working on getting a bunch of people together to do a live readthrough of the whole thing.
  2. Tough to know if that would have stayed the same had Sanders got the nomination and attracted all the attention/mudslinging that comes with being the candidate. I think that would have hurt him a lot, but there's also an argument he might have done better in the rust belt states where Trump wound up winning it.
  3. As for errors, of the supposed three big misses, two were largely problems with interpretation while the other was a historically minor-medium error that played out badly. The national polls for Trump-Clinton were only a percentage or two high. The state polls in the swing states were a little more out but still not far off. The problem was that a lot of people looked at them and concluded each of the swing states had a small chance of overstating Clinton, so the chance that they'd all be off must be tiny. What they didn't realise (and that Nate Silver/538 did warn about) is that the states weren't completely isolated cases. If, for example, Wisconsin was overstating Clinton then it was probably for a reason (eg undersampling white working class folk) and that reason likely applied in similar states such as Minnesota and Michigan. While slightly more of the late polls for the EU referendum showed Remain ahead, the averages were very much within a margin of error. The problem is that a small margin of error is a big issue when it's a vote with only two options that ends up very close. Interpretation was also an issue as a lot of people assumed there'd be a swing on the day with people going safety first. 2015 we covered at the time. There were some genuine problems (mainly that pollsters didn't realise/cope with the fact that people who bothered to respond to polls were more likely to be politically engaged) but mathematically the 'miss' wasn't huge. In fact it was barely bigger than the amount polls overstated Labour in 1997, it's just that the outcome (Labour wins huge) was the same either way. In 2015 having an error that was right at the edge of the margin of error (overstating Labour by 3 points, understating Conservatives by 3 points) had the disastrous result of moving you from "it's in doubt whether the Tories will get most votes" to "the Tories get a majority."
  4. The size of the sample is statistically much less important than people think. What's far more important is that its properly sampled and reflects the public. If you go from 2,000 (the usual common size) to 10,000 the margin of error only drops from 3% to 1%. Anything above 10,000 would make virtually no difference. (Margin of error is a statistical term that in effect means in 95% of polls, the figures will be within that range of the actual result.) The best analogy I've heard is a chef testing how salty a pot of soup is. If it's properly stirred, a teaspoon will be enough (because it's a representative sample of the whole pot.). If you dump the salt in and don't stir it at all, you can taste half the pan and still not know.
  5. Yep, did a piece for FSM a few years back. And marked out very quietly.
  6. On the upside, the time I interviewed him was the easiest transcription job ever as I never once had to stop the playback so my typing could catch up.
  7. Conservatives 10 points ahead of Labour in Wales (40% to 30%). If that holds up, it would likely translate to Conservatives winning a slim majority of the seats in Wales. To put that in perspective, Labour have had the most votes and the most seats consistently since 1922.
  8. Saw it noted today that this is the first general election since 1992 (when Major held out to the last possible moment) that wasn't on the same day as the May local elections. While local authorities always count the general election votes first, they have to verify all the ballot papers for all elections before starting on any counting. That means this year's results should be done earlier in the night than usual across the board.
  9. Plus there's a difference between who owns the copyright and who physically owns the tapes.
  10. That's one of the big factors in the result (as in the seat count rather than who gets into number 10.) Most of the classic Labour-Tory marginals are Conservative already thanks to Brown and Miliband's performances. That means Labour can actually lose a fair few points to the Conservatives from this position without losing too many seats, simply because there aren't that many very close ones left. The question is whether you get that type of swing or a massive one like the Lib Dem drop or SNP rise last time where its big enough that suddenly dozens of theoretically safe seats become vulnerable. The other big question is what happens to the likely drop in UKIP support -- which party do they switch to and just as importantly where. You could have UKIP hold up in seats and letting Labour win there. Alternatively you could get seats -- likely in the north -- where some UKIP voters switch to Conservative because they're happy with the Brexit plan, while some Labour supporters switch to UKIP, and then on paper it looks like a Labour > Conservative swing. I don't think the overall result is in any doubt, but there are definitely circumstances where the vagaries of votes translating to seats winds up with the Tories not increasing their majority enough to make the whole thing feel like it's been worthwhile (other than buying another two years).
  11. And for the virtually nothing that it's worth, I had a play about with the vote share from last time, the various swings I think might happen, a potentially naiive belief that Labour and the not-being-punished Lib Dems both have a minimum vote share, and a belief that tactical voting will be a little higher than normal, then crunched the numbers at Electoral Calculus and came up with Conservatives on 359, Labour on 193 and Lib Dems on 21, for a Conservative majority of 68. Urgh.
  12. This looks to be the best of this year's batch of "which party is closest to my views" sites: http://uk.isidewith.com I say best, but I don't think I'll be voting SNP like it advised.
  13. I've just discovered there's a wrestling circuit on the Channel Islands that last summer had Ophidian from Chikara and Joe E Legend (ie Just Joe) as regulars, with Tatanka as the guest visitor.
  14. There's a glorious moment that I often cite where for some reason they phone the speaking clock and in the background Gareth checks his watch. Doesn't sound much, but it's perfect in context and completely fitting the character. Apparently McKenzie Crook adlibbed it because he had a sudden flash that that's exactly what Gareth would do.
  15. To be fair, the Holly title shot was below both the Raw title match and the Royal Rumble in both the running order on the night and the hype level. In theory at least, Jinder Mahal is the main event here.