Slashdot Mirror

This is the P-value in a nutshell: it's the probability that your measurements could be the result of chance.

Quoted from http://fivethirtyeight.com/fea...

A common misconception among nonstatisticians is that p-values can tell you the probability that a result occurred by chance. This interpretation is dead wrong, but you see it again and again and again and again.

Glad I checked first, I was going to link to another 538 article:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/fea...

I'd be surprised if it was anywhere near 56%. I'm a biologist, I don't understand P values, but I am aware that they shouldn't be the gold standard. Ideally scientists in all the different fields would use the statistics that make the most sense for their specific study, and would take the time to figure that out, and reviewers would read up on statistics and think themselves about what statistics would make the most sense for that case.

P0.05 is used everywhere because that simply won't happen. Scientists who aren't statisticians care passionately about only their topic and it isn't statistics. If anyone tries to use something else, everyone including reviewers will demand they use what everyone else uses anyway.

The Republican Party's power is based largely on the manufactured consensus of the fearful, ignorant...

And there is a lot of solid evidence that this not an exaggeration. Five Thirty EIght did a nice analysis of Trump voting areas by education level, and the results are striking - Trump swept the most poorly educated half of America. It may not be fair to say that the stupidest Americans elected Trump, but it is true that most ignorant Americans did.

In all future economies we will have going forward if you want a job you better have a good education. High education jobs are far from universally safe from the Cybernetic Revolution, but the education will be necessary to seize the new opportunities that arise.

So we have the situation that even as the jobs drain away from the working class, the right wing is turning against higher education which is the best tool known to escape from hardship.

What do they expect will keep them absolute destitution if there simply aren't enough decent paying jobs to go around? There is the idea of the Universal Basic Income - but such a socialistic policy of just giving hand-outs to takers (as they themselves would say) is everything their political party is opposed to.

I'm honestly happy Seattle is running this experiment so that we can have some actual data to base future decisions on instead of whining opinions from one side or another. All that said, it appears you guys didn't do such a good job studying...

https://fivethirtyeight.com/fe...

Nielsen refuses to let it go so they can perpetuate the importance of advertisers.

Well, yes, that is their business model. They are in bed with the rest of these antiquated media monoliths. All of them will hold on until it's ripped from their cold-dead-hands...

Here is an interesting read from a few years ago, "Industry pros are asking if Nielsen botched radio ratings — and inadvertently forced stations off the air." https://fivethirtyeight.com/fe...

The DNC should have fielded a better candidate.

1. The "DNC" chose their candidate about as much as Russia chose our president. Democratic voters "fielded" their candidate. By a big majority.

2. You're obviously not talking "better" as in qualifications, you're talking about someone who gave voters the warm fuzzy feelings. Sure, Hillary did not. Speaking as a democrat who voted for Hillary in the primary, I'm very sorry I overestimated the average voter. No sarcasm, I can't fathom what I was thinking at the time. I guess I thought if the country willingly voted for a black dude twice they'd be capable of voting for a competent woman instead of a reality TV show host who has declared bankruptcy many times? My kids and I are going to be paying the price for that blunder. Next time I'll be sure to vote in the primary for whatever white dude I think will be the least offensive to the hick states and hope he picks competent people to actually do shit.

In the past ten years, there has been one successful plane bombing. When the fuck are voters going to grow up and realize it's not something anyone should worry about?

Something like 10,000 people are murdered with guns every year in the US, yet we hear NOTHING about banning laptops on guns!

And CBS poll is of course a trusted source for that information..

I would prefer:
https://projects.fivethirtyeig...
53.7% disapprove and 41.3% approve as of writing this... Of Course, those number are also really bad..

Sure he sounds like that crazy person on the bus, but looking at what he is for:
https://projects.fivethirtyeig...
he's not too crazy.. But still crazy enough that it surprised me that he got elected... On the other hand, Clinton was not really a choice either.

Or what other people is voting for:
https://projects.fivethirtyeig...

Next time, please think and look at who you are voting for... Look at their track-record of what they have voted for in the past and do not only listen to what they say they will do.
https://www.govtrack.us/congre... or look it up elsewhere for someone that's new to congress.

And CBS poll is of course a trusted source for that information..

I would prefer:
https://projects.fivethirtyeig...
53.7% disapprove and 41.3% approve as of writing this... Of Course, those number are also really bad..

Sure he sounds like that crazy person on the bus, but looking at what he is for:
https://projects.fivethirtyeig...
he's not too crazy.. But still crazy enough that it surprised me that he got elected... On the other hand, Clinton was not really a choice either.

Or what other people is voting for:
https://projects.fivethirtyeig...

Next time, please think and look at who you are voting for... Look at their track-record of what they have voted for in the past and do not only listen to what they say they will do.
https://www.govtrack.us/congre... or look it up elsewhere for someone that's new to congress.

And CBS poll is of course a trusted source for that information..

I would prefer:
https://projects.fivethirtyeig...
53.7% disapprove and 41.3% approve as of writing this... Of Course, those number are also really bad..

Sure he sounds like that crazy person on the bus, but looking at what he is for:
https://projects.fivethirtyeig...
he's not too crazy.. But still crazy enough that it surprised me that he got elected... On the other hand, Clinton was not really a choice either.

Or what other people is voting for:
https://projects.fivethirtyeig...

Next time, please think and look at who you are voting for... Look at their track-record of what they have voted for in the past and do not only listen to what they say they will do.
https://www.govtrack.us/congre... or look it up elsewhere for someone that's new to congress.

if you are wanting to take yourself out, you'll take yourself out, doesn't matter the method

FWIH this is probably not true, but:

1. I don't care.

2. More specifically, the way that I care is that they are suffering so badly they hurt literally worse than death. Preventing them from dying so they can continue suffering is a sick form of torture, and talking yourself into it with this "probably a momentary fit of emotion" stuff when you have no idea what it feels like is a type of pollyanaish self-delusion that disgusts me, and the license to be controlling people grant themselves when on a mission to stop someone else's suicide frightens me.

3. Not only do they totally deny the agency of the person in pain, they're willing to ramrod their intervention over bystanding gun users, claiming it justifies gun-grabbing. There are important reasons to keep guns, like to start a revolution or fight an occupation. Reason or not, you simply can't have them: you will literally start a revolution if you try to take them. I don't own a gun, but it's irresponsible in an entitled, petulant, disingenuous way to make smug flippant policy suggestions that would be exceedingly dangerous to implement.

4. There are other ways of addressing gun suicides, even if you want to do it in the torturous way, of keeping the suicidal person alive no matter how much they're suffering rather than making them feel better.

The effect of the 'shy' Trump voter is debatable.

Actually the polls were more accurate than they were in 2012. The analysis of the polls was what was wrong.

First of all, the election was much closer than 2012, so it was well within the possibility that a normal polling error could change the result. This amplifies the "mistake" in people's minds. In 2012 the polls were less accurate, but the errors favored Obama, who won anyway, so no one cares ("The polls said he would win, and he did.").

FiveThirtyEight was getting a lot of flack for giving Trump a 30% chance while some models had him at less than a 1% chance to win.

Again, you could say their model was "wrong" because it gave the person who didn't win a higher chance, but that's not how probabilities work. If you flip heads twice in a row you don't then say "well clearly then it can't be a 50/50 chance". The 30% was probably about right: it's an upset, but not a huge one, if Trump wins.

Actually the polls were more accurate than they were in 2012. The analysis of the polls was what was wrong.

First of all, the election was much closer than 2012, so it was well within the possibility that a normal polling error could change the result. This amplifies the "mistake" in people's minds. In 2012 the polls were less accurate, but the errors favored Obama, who won anyway, so no one cares ("The polls said he would win, and he did.").

FiveThirtyEight was getting a lot of flack for giving Trump a 30% chance while some models had him at less than a 1% chance to win.

Again, you could say their model was "wrong" because it gave the person who didn't win a higher chance, but that's not how probabilities work. If you flip heads twice in a row you don't then say "well clearly then it can't be a 50/50 chance". The 30% was probably about right: it's an upset, but not a huge one, if Trump wins.

"A 2013 Department of Agriculture report, for instance, found that, in 2001, farms of 1,000 acres or more accounted for 5.6 percent of all farms and controlled 46.8 percent of all cropland. In 2011, those large farms still represented 5.6 percent of all farms, but now they controlled 53.7 percent of cropland." (source).

So it is true that "small farms" (i.e. under 1,000 acres) "operate nearly half of farmland", but that number is going down quickly.

A "family farm" can still be a farm of over 1,000 acres. Kind of like the Trump "family business".

What is a "farm"? "any place from which $1,000 or more of agricultural products were produced and sold, or normally would have been sold, during the reference year." So it includes land that could, theoretically, produce agricultural income, even if the owners never had any intention of donning a pair of overalls. These aren't the farms of the poor; they're the yards of the upper-middle-class.

Trump is having much less effect than you would like to think

Actually, he's having a lot more effect than I'd like to think. I hadn't previously appreciated his skills at petulance and disorganization.

much less in the direction you would like to think.

No, I'm fairly certain I have the direction of travel correct.

Infowars, really? You do realize that Alex Jones has admitted in court proceedings that he's just playing a character and doesn't actually believe the stuff he says, don't you?

The actual tweet is a reply to Kanye West: "@kanyewest you should make a shirt that says, "being white is terrorism"". Kanye West - the "George Bush doesn't care about black people" guy. The Obama hasn't accomplished as much as Bush because "...he ain't got those connections. Black people don't have the same level of connections as Jewish people...We ain't Jewish. We don't got family that got money like that." guy. The reason-he-lost-an-awards-show being "maybe my skin's not right" guy. A guy who's a living parody of himself.

And a guy who runs a fashion line. Hence the joke about the T-shirt.

Of course, to you people the problem isn't the fact that Russia not only launched an aggressive campaign against the public to shift the election, but also tried to compromise voting software and spearfish local election officials. No no, that's not the problem at all. The problem is that someone dared leak the fact that they did this. And that it's someone who doesn't like Trump - like most Americans. And oh my god, she also supports BLM, like the majority of people her age group - including white people in her age group. Clearly the problem isn't a major effort by a hostile power to compromise an election - it's that a person who agrees with the stances of the majority dared tell people about it! Damn her!

No, the comment was modded down because it's flamebait. It was modded down correctly. When you make sweeping generalizations about all people within a country, especially when you're insulting them, you're not being constructive at all. You just want people to respond angrily.

Back in November, 71% of Americans supported the Paris Climate Accords. A majority in every US state supported the Paris Climate Accords. Here are some sources:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/11/21/trump-wants-to-dump-the-paris-climate-deal-but-71-percent-of-americans-support-it-survey-finds/
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2017-06-01/a-bipartisan-majority-thinks-the-us-should-stay-in-the-paris-agreement
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/01/trump-leaves-paris-climate-agreement-though-americans-supported-it.html

Most Americans do support the Paris Climate Accords. Trump did not win the popular vote and won the electoral vote by a narrow majority. Russia attempted to influence the US election in Trump's favor, something that is generally accepted regardless of whether Trump's campaign was complicit in that meddling. Trump's approval rating is estimated at 39.1% while 54.8% of Americans disapprove of him. Here's a source for that, too:
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/

It is completely ignorant and unhelpful to blame and insult all Americans when a majority of Americans do not support Trump and a substantial majority of Americans disagree with Trump on withdrawing from the Paris Climate Accords. Your post and the grandparent post are not factually correct, nor do they contribute any substance to the discussion. They're just attempts to insult Americans and evoke angry responses. That is why your post and its parent deserve to be modded down.

Furthermore, many cities and states are still making strong efforts to address climate change. California, by itself, is the world's sixth largest economy. Trump's decision to withdraw from the Paris agreement will not impede California from continuing to impose measures that go beyond what the US committed to do.

Incendiary remarks deserve to be modded down as flamebait, especially when those remarks aren't rooted at all in fact.

Hillary claims she lost because of Trump's superior data operation?
FiveThirtyEight a month before the election: "Clinton has more than twice as many field offices as Trump nationwide (489 vs. 207), and her organization dominates Trump’s in every battleground state."

Don't party just yet.

Lets assume that those 4 and 6 percent respectively actually do vote for the other team, which, I think you will agree, will not happen....

Clinton: 65,844,610 (48.2%)
Trump: 62,979,636 (46.1%)

Clinton: 61,893,933(94%) + 2,519,186 (Trumps 4%) = 64,413,119
Trump: 60,460,450(96%) + 3,950,677 (Clinton's 6%) = 64,411,127

That's a squeeker! But I mean, lets not pretend that anyone who voted for Clinton is going to vote for Trump. In all likelihood, it will come down to the same 70,000 votes it did last time, except the dems are actually going to fight for them this time.

Meanwhile in the real world (outside the echo chamber of Breitbart), Trump's approval ratings just keep plummeting

FiveThirtyEight had an article a few days ago suggesting that Trump support is even weakening with the Republican base.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/fe...

And before people start mouthing off about Silver, he was the one guy who was actually giving Trump a reasonable chance of winning (1 in 4, as I recall).

This is Trump's real problem. If Republicans going into the mid-terms begin to fear for their own skin because Trump is sufficiently unpopular, they'll run, not walk from Trump. The same thing happened with Nixon, where while the Dems controlled the House and could have him impeached, it was still going to require Republican Senators to actually convict. When it became clear to Nixon that he was losing support among Republican Senators, he had little choice but to resign or face conviction.

I think the Administration is already entering serious crisis mode. Fox is reporting Bannon is going to lead some sort of "A team" of lawyers and spin doctors to battle a possible impeachment. Trump needs to keep enough of the Republican base loyal to scare the GOP into backing off, and if Bannon can't pull that off, then I think Trump is toast. If someone as close to him as Kushner ends up having been compromised, and worse, compromising him, then there really is nowhere left to hide and no one left to blame.

I just simply don't get it. People like Pence, Kushner and Sessions don't seem like idiots, so why in the name of fuck were they trying to pull these stunts? Was it to protect Trump? Did they think the three letter agencies don't keep on eye on everyone who is interacting with Russian officials or other important Russians? The level of arrogance overriding any kind of rationality is mind boggling. Trump I can understand, he's clearly an idiot, probably suffering dementia or some other cognitive decline. But these other guys, whatever you think of them, seem to be reasonably intelligent and thoughtful people.

5:38 wrote an article on high tuition recently. As you mention, it's a combination of issues.

First, of all, elections are won and lost not by single things but by collections. One can have more than one mistake or more than one event leading to an election win or loss. Second, the evidence that serious attempts at hacking Clinton did occur is overwhelming, and saying otherwise is simply ignoring the evidence. We even know the exact phishing attempts that lead to the hacks http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/310234-typo-may-have-caused-podesta-email-hack?. Third of all, if you do want to actually point to other things that had an impact also, the statistical evidence that Comey's actions mattered is an almost complete slamdunk. See https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-comey-letter-probably-cost-clinton-the-election/. Facts matter.

= = = Nobody has published polling statistics showing how many Clinton supporters reversed course because of the original e-mail investigation or the announcements made just 11 days before the election. If polling statistics demonstrating Clinton lost a significant number of voters because of the e-mail investigation I am sure the information would have been trotted out by now. = = =

Nope, nobody:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/fe...

The worst they showed is that Hillary was paid by banks to speak. We knew that already. We also know that corruption did not win HRC the nomination.

The big news organizations didn't publish on it? Yeah, I forgot only the little guys like Time or CNN ran with stories from it.

(/sarcasm) The big news organizations if anything failed to report clearly enough on the DNC e-mails. Too many bernie-bros who were convinced it proved the Clintons used their Benghazi military to crush Sanders, rather than "There was nothing much interesting in them."

As for not publishing the e-mails themselves, that's kind of the SOP. Wikileaks publishes everything down to social security numbers and GPS coordinates of informants in war zones, responsible news organizations attempt to hide private details like phone numbers. No shit they didn't publish the leaks directly, that would have been irresponsible.

If you exclude the corrupt liberal magnet sanctuary cities, Trump is widely supported.

At the moment, 40.7 percent of the U.S. population approves of Trump, while 53.7% disapprove.

so your definition of "corrupt liberal magnet sanctuary cities" seems to be "the majority of Americans."

https://projects.fivethirtyeig...

when we started cutting all the federal funds. They warned about this in the 90s when the cuts started and everybody said it wouldn't matter because salaries would be so high to compensate. Meanwhile we've still got folks spreading the already disproved lies that it's all because of fancy dorms and rich teachers. Yeah, a few nasty little diploma mills were taking advantage of the loan programs. The last administration shut that down. Of course, I'm not expecting the current administration to be so student friendly...

Don't fool yourself. Trump ran on racial anxiety, not economic insecurity.
Yeah the talking heads who don't want to upset the racist snowflakes by calling them racist say it was economic anxiety.
But the numbers say otherwise - during the republican primaries Trump voters averaged $72K/yr income.
That's $16K above the median national income.
He lost the $50K and under vote 53/41 in the general election too.

It easy to say bernie would have won, but he never had to run against trump and despite exaggerated portrayals of the DNC email leaks, clinton never took off the kid-gloves during the primary.

538 says you're wrong

Summary: 2/3 of the hikes are directly due to states cutting their funding to their state university system, forcing them to make up the difference through tuition. Public higher education used to be free in a lot of states. IOW, states for decades have been jointly deciding to divest from public higher education, and use the money elsewhere (in my state, that's on tax cuts to wealthy residents). If their kids are the only ones who can afford college now, I'm guessing you won't hear them complaining much.

because 538 says you're wrong, and they have sources. College started going up massively in the 90s when Clinton started cutting federal funds and shoot up like crazy when the Bush cuts hit.

538 says you're wrong.

Its interesting that you were happy to make an issue of proudrooster's wording but didn't really dispute the underlying claim that businesses did not hire because of obamacare.

That itself is a big assumption based on little evidence.

The facts are that growth in full-time employment was not affected by Obamacare.
Nor was growth in part time employment.
The only perceivable impact was in the transition of current part-time employees to full-time employees.
And even then, the number was pretty small, on the order of 0.2% of all jobs.

For a different view:
Science Isn't Broken (It’s just a hell of a lot harder than we give it credit for.)

So far, no major revolts with Republicans.

Shachar

I can't tell, but maybe you've just got your fighting hat on and you're determined to shit on anyone who doesn't agree with every single thing you say.
 
Someone lambasting both Jackson and Bush has nothing to do with my talking point narrative. You are not a part of that narrative, you are just some guy on the internet. Maybe I can dumb this down: Andrew Jackson is not a counter example to the grandparent's claim that Trump is the worst person to ever win/run for the presidency.

Why would I need to cite a claim that Jackson was not entirely to blame for the Indian Removal act and its consequences? Especially to someone who agrees with this very thing in the next paragraph? Why are you arguing with that point and then agreeing with it right afterwards?

And also: why do you think that super delegates and party support would have changed anything in the Democratic nomination? Your original post was about keeping ourselves grounded in reality, and that is not reality. Here, I'll even cite this one, because I know how you love that.

Yea, sure. The same polls that showed Hillary would win in a landslide.

None of the polls showed a landslide. They showed Hillary ahead, but never by anything that would be called a landslide.

I still go with https://fivethirtyeight.com/ as the most accurate polling analysis; their predictions on the eve of the election estimated Hillary had about a 75% chance of winning. Her supporters, however, apparently misread that "25% chance of Trump winning" as essentially the same as zero.

Pretty much in agreement with the parent here...

I'd like to suggest that people not jump to conclusions. My own knee-jerk reaction was that it's a silly idea. But, as you suggest, I think it's a good idea for us to try and experiment with it. We'll certainly need to do something for future generations. Also, there are several ways to implement this experiment, so we shouldn't necessarily jump to conclusions if the first attempt doesn't prove successful.

Five Thirty Eight did a good article on this a while back.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/fea...

Still not a citation - if you're making the claim, burden of proof lies on you to back it up. Fivethirtyeight, which is a highly credible source in my experience, lists it at 379,000, less than half of your number: https://fivethirtyeight.com/fe...

That same site disagrees with your reasoning as well - is the problem a skills gap, or is it that companies aren't really willing to pay to get the right people hired? Generally, a worker shortage doesn't mean that there aren't any qualified applicants - it means that there aren't qualified applicants turning up at the price you're willing to pay.

As well, all the trendlines for manufacturing job growth are pointing in the wrong direction right now - the manufacturing sector is always doing everything it can to minimize labor costs, and there are a lot of technologies on the horizon that promise to continue that trend. The major sectors for job growth involve services.

why we tolerate these people? I just realized I can't afford a house because of how the mathematics of mortgages work. I never bothered to do the math since I never thought I could buy one. After 10 years of paying down debt and saving I thought I was ready. Not so much. The way mortgage math works out you're paying almost all interest for the first 15 years of a 30 year loan ( stretched to 30 years since these bastards took 20% from me). Then I need extra insurance since the 2008 crash & a couple family illnesses (thanks private medical system) wiped out my savings. And I need home owners. And I have to pay HOA fees because we cut so much funding outside of rich neighborhoods there's no money to cut weeds and fix roads. It all kept adding up until I realized it'd be more than I could afford what with a kid in college and the real reason it costs $100k to go to college.

Not just all the cost, but all the _risk_ is on the home owner. The banks make sure they get their interest up front. And they take my tax dollars to guarantee the loans and hold the entire f'n country hostage if we don't pay.

Every last one of us except 1% is getting screwed by this. Why the hell do we tolerate it? Why don't we force the banks profits _down_ and our standard of living _up_? Why is the free market so much more God Damned important that we'd throw our lives away chasing Any Rand's ghost? Fuck.

Actually, most presidents do in fact keep most of their campaign promises...

"Political scientists have been studying the question of campaign promises for almost 50 years, and the results are remarkably consistent. Most of the literature suggests that presidents make at least a “good faith” effort to keep an average of about two-thirds of their campaign promises..."

https://fivethirtyeight.com/fe...

Interesting you should say that. Looks like Reagan had an unusually low percentage of kept promises compared to other presidents.

But you know, they didn't call him the teflon president for nothing. The way his legend has grown over the years, seems like embalming fluid must have been fortified with teflon.

Just to begin the breakdown of fake news here: elected politicians actually do deliver on the majority of their promises (66.7% of such promises in the U.S.). That 83% of Americans believe otherwise is simply one of their many mass delusions.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trust-us-politicians-keep-most-of-their-promises/

let him unilaterally decide whatever he wants.

Me thinks he learned this whole executive order thing from the previous holder of the office...

As far as number of executive orders is concerned, Obama's record was far below average.

"...Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos has made no secret about his desire to win an Academy Award..."

And he's throwing cash around to do it. According to FiveThirtyEight, "Loving" and "Manchester by the Sea" are roughly tied in ad-space purchases in the Hollywood Reporter which is over double that of their nearest competitors:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/fe...

It is because Left Wingers keep parroting "Clinton won the Popular Vote" as if that mattered.

Except it does. Why?

Because it shows Trump is LYING about a landslide.

If you weren't a partisan hack, you'd oppose that too, and point out the real facts. You can't though, because again, you're a partisan hack.

Which you can't even admit, but have to lie about and pretend you're some kind of neutral observer. Who consistently repeats right-wing lies. Huh.

You think we're dumb as you are? We're not, we spot your lies.

When liberals offer that up, it opens up every other comparison out there. Hillary lost the election, popular vote doesn't count. If you wanted it to count, the vote totals would change, substantially.

Whah-whah. It does count. Because that way, we know exactly how broken the Electoral College system is, and no, not every other comparison. Your false allegations about Hillary losing in 49 states, for example. Trump's assertions of a landslide. Those are still lying bullshit.

A lot of Republicans in California don't vote because what is the point?

All evidence indicates a lot of Americans don't vote, period.

Turnout drop is arguable, but even that aside, 90 million non-voters. That's how Trump was able to win Wisconsin with fewer votes than the losing side got in 2004.

Exaggeration, hyperbole, and confusing a personal opinion with a law of nature... Man, you hit the trifecta there.

Uh... exaggeration and hyperbole are the same thing. How exactly can they make up two parts of a trifecta?

Anyhow, this is far from merely a "personal opinion." Monopoly has been criticized ever since it was originally rejected by Parker Brothers for game play that grew too long and tedious. They only picked it up after it became a minor "craze" in the mid-30s. It certainly had novel elements that made it appealing, but that doesn't mean it also didn't have serious flaws.

Anyone who has played a lot of Monopoly knows a number of the major flaws for family gaming. But don't listen to me on this. Here's just one post which sums up a lot of the major issues:

It suffers from problems that most game designers nowadays try to avoid. First, players can be eliminated. This is no fun -- unless, of course, the eliminated player finds something better to do than play Monopoly -- and games are meant to be fun. Second, there is often a runaway leader. Someone can snap up a juicy monopoly early on, and that quickly becomes that. The rest of the game is pro forma and boring. And games aren't meant to be boring. Third, there is what's known to game designers as a kingmaking problem. A losing player can often choose, typically via a lopsided trade of properties, who wins the game. This is also no fun and negates whatever skill was required to begin with.

Oh, and it also takes a really long time to play.

This is hardly the only criticism of the game. See for example here or here. And if you want some more criticism along with recommendations for better, more engaging games, see here.

None of this means a given person can't or shouldn't like Monopoly. It just means that most people who spend a lot of time playing a variety of board games tend to think Monopoly has serious flaws. And if you're trying to meet certain common goals of family gameplay (e.g., long-term engagement for most people, avoiding long drawn-out concluding play between a minority of players that is exceptionally unlikely to actually change the outcome, etc.), Monopoly has only one advantage -- it's well-known. If you're willing to try out "new things," there are a lot of really good options out there.

Britain also does well compared to the EU

Actually it was Hillary Clinton's infamy and unfitness for office that elected Donald Trump, in a close contest of infamy and poor fit for the job.

Well, you're right it was close, but don't tell Trump. He thinks he won HUGELY! HUGELY! He's still convinced it was the biggest ass-kicking in electoral history.

It isn't. So maybe you should call Trump up and tell him.

Trump outperformed Romney in non-whites across the board.

It's still being argued, but a 2 percent gain? Color me unimpressed.

Dems could have run just about anyone but Clinton and taken the office. But no.

A hypothetical we can't test, like it or not.

Bringing up 538 is pretty random. But since you did. He was the one pollster who consistently said that Trump had at least a 30% chance of winning.

trump-is-just-a-normal-polling-error-behind-clinton

nate-silver-fivethirtyeight-trump-forecast

nate-silver-warns-media-against-dangerous-assumption-trump-isnt-really-closing-in-on-hillary

election-update-why-our-model-is-more-bullish-than-others-on-trump

nate silver forecasts showing clinton with 99 chance of winning dont pass commonsense test

nate silver projects trump will win florida

nate silver 511 chance trump-winning-if-election-held-today

nate silvers terrifying-prediction prepare president-trump

election update as the race-tightens-dont-assume-the-electoral-college-will-save-clinton