|
Putin is bad. Going to war with Putin is also bad. That is my opinion and it is the correct one.
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 17:52 |
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:Better than nuclear war So far, the only war involving nuclear weapons ended rather well, considering.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
CapnAndy posted:I appeal to you, wise goons, to unfuck some dissonance for me. This is my absolute nightmare map, and quite frankly it felt dishonest to turn NC red: This is pretty close to how I think it will go bar maybe a swing state or two. I don't really care for either candidate but I'm pretty shocked at how many people think this thing is "OVER!!!!" when it will probably actually be one of the closest elections in our lifetimes. I think it's very likely to be in the 270-290s range for the winner and 250-260s range for the loser. One required swing state (FL, OH, NC for Trump), (VA, PA, any other midwest rust belt state for Clinton) breaking in the opposite direction could single-handedly torpedo the chances of one of the candidates.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
BigRed0427 posted:ARE YOU loving KIDDING ME!? http://www.vox.com/2016/11/1/13489510/fbi-clinton-foundation Jesus Christ there has to be some sort of recourse for this poo poo, right?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
Libertine posted:This is pretty close to how I think it will go bar maybe a swing state or two. I don't really care for either candidate but I'm pretty shocked at how many people think this thing is "OVER!!!!" when it will probably actually be one of the closest elections in our lifetimes. I think it's very likely to be in the 270-290s range for the winner and 250-260s range for the loser. One required swing state (FL, OH, NC for Trump), (VA, PA, any other midwest rust belt state for Clinton) breaking in the opposite direction could single-handedly torpedo the chances of one of the candidates. You do know PA really isn't a swing state, right? And nor is VA?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:So far, the only war involving nuclear weapons ended rather well, considering. Things get a little more interesting when both sides have thousands of nuclear warheads and submarines tho
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
Silver's clickbait stuff is probably him just hedging his bets for after the election. Polling does seem to be getting less reliable with the British general election last year and the Spanish general election this year having right wing parties doing considerably better than the polls suggested they would. Consequently the reputation of pollsters have taken a significant hit. If the polling is accurate his model reflects that still and he can remain as Wizard Nate. If the polling is inaccurate then he can point to his clickbait articles and say he had more vision and awareness than other pollsters or pundits and stay as Wizard Nate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:So far, the only war involving nuclear weapons ended rather well, considering. Too obvious.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
jesus gently caress, 538 has it down to a 70% clinton victory, from 85? All because of that FBI letter?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
CapnAndy posted:I appeal to you, wise goons, to unfuck some dissonance for me. This is my absolute nightmare map, and quite frankly it felt dishonest to turn NC red: Trump's chances in Nate Silver's model are almost entirely "wait, the polls might all be wrong, and when I mean wrong, I mean WAY Wrong!!! Like beyond the MoE!" If you change that assumption to "nah, the polls are basically right, maybe off by a point or two, and maybe 1 or 2 states will be off by 4 or 5", then Trump's chances dive near zero.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 19:52
|
|
|
speng31b posted:Jesus Christ there has to be some sort of recourse for this poo poo, right? Comey's just building up points now so he can cash them in on a long gig with Fox news. I expect him to resign October 8th, and give the single most woe is me the Clinton's destroyed my career speech he can. Tell-all book forthcoming.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 19:52
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:So far, the only war involving nuclear weapons ended rather well, considering. Almost had me going until this line.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 19:52
|
|
|
Libertine posted:This is pretty close to how I think it will go bar maybe a swing state or two. I don't really care for either candidate but I'm pretty shocked at how many people think this thing is "OVER!!!!" when it will probably actually be one of the closest elections in our lifetimes. I'm assuming your lifetime includes the 2000 election, in which case, this statement is profoundly false.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 19:52
|
|
|
Night10194 posted:Also, isn't some of the uncertainty in Nate's model from the fact that he assumes if you're off in one state, you'll be off in related states, so anything being within margin of error is unnerving to the model's simulations? I don't think there is anything wrong with this assumption, because no reasonable person will say election results across states are independent events. But even so, she has a big enough lead in enough swing states that the polling would need to be extremely inaccurate and fail to catch something big, which I just don't see happening with any significant probability. Is Wang's model a little conservative? Maybe, but I think it's much closer to reality than Nate saying Trump has a 1 in ~3 shot of winning.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 19:52
|
|
|
Beyond this thread is there any decent streaming source of day of election coverage all day long?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 19:54
|
|
|
remusclaw posted:Comey's just building up points now so he can cash them in on a long gig with Fox news. I expect him to resign October 8th, and give the single most woe is me the Clinton's destroyed my career speech he can. Tell-all book forthcoming. I've travelled forward in time from Oct 8th to tell you that this does not happen
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 19:55
|
|
|
It was mentioned obliquely a few pages ago (and indirectly on the last page) but something very weird is going on with one of the FBI's Twitter accounts. After a year plus dead it comes back to life posting a link to Fred Trump's FBI files, followed by records management and ethics standards and policy directive documents, and then documents on Hillary, Petraeus, video from last year's Baltimore protests, and now, of course, an investigation into the Clinton Foundation that everyone has picked up on. Almost makes you wonder if it's a deep cyber security infiltration black flag operation given what we know about Russia's interference in our elections so far...  EDIT: And no one has picked up on the Baltimore protest videos? That's the tweet that seems really odd and suspicious on its face (not to mention the strange highlighting of documents about FBI ethics and records management standards) ComradeCosmobot fucked around with this message at 19:58 on Nov 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 19:55
|
|
|
Even though demographic shifts are assumed to be good for Democrats in the near future, I'm worried that Dems are losing their stronghold in the Rust Belt midwest states. If OH and IA vote for Trump, it might be the start of a major continuing shift in that region, and the lost votes may not be made up elsewhere. I hope I'm wrong and the Dems take control of GA, AZ, and TX really soon. Anyway that's my arzy for the day.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 19:55
|
|
|
axeil posted:You don't think in an election between an avowed socialist and a rapist people would flock to a moderate option? Bloomberg would have at the very least made NY close and may have been able to win CT because unlike those two, he would've been able to appeal to moderate Dems and Republicans. True, he could have been "Johnson, but not an idiot." He couldn't win. Hillary *does* appeal to moderate Democrats, that's her whole "thing." She doesn't appeal to left-wing Democrats who liked Bernie.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 19:55
|
|
|
ReV VAdAUL posted:Silver's clickbait stuff is probably him just hedging his bets for after the election. Polling does seem to be getting less reliable with the British general election last year and the Spanish general election this year having right wing parties doing considerably better than the polls suggested they would. Consequently the reputation of pollsters have taken a significant hit. One of the more anti-arzy thoughts from Nate, is the couple times he's talked about his worry that the polls might be off, he's said he's more concerned that the polls might be greatly underestimating Clinton, rather than underestimating Trump.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
DICKS FOR DINNER posted:It was a dumb thing for Brazile to do, but it was one question regarding the water crisis in Flint, for a town hall event held in Flint. The reason it's kind of nothing is because yeah, of course there would be a question about that. I was watching MSNBC after work yesterday and they had some dude on who was like "either CNN straight up gave Clinton the question or the Clinton campaign questioned everyone who was going to be in the audience." I yelled at the TV, "What, you mean like how preparing for a debate is now a bad thing??" I forgot how the general population thinks being smart and prepared
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
WeAreTheRomans posted:I've travelled forward in time from Oct 8th to tell you that this does not happen Whoops. November, OK.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
Cimber posted:jesus gently caress, 538 has it down to a 70% clinton victory, from 85? All because of that FBI letter? No. As has been repeated multiple times over in the thread, take a look at the actual numbers for the support of each candidate. Clinton's popularity hasn't decreased much- Trump has just gained. The narrowing of the playing field is largely a result of Johnson voters defecting to Trump, if the popular vote tallies are any indication.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:True, he could have been "Johnson, but not an idiot." He couldn't win. Axeil is like, the perfect Bloomberg voter, so he thinks that there are millions of others out there like him.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
Since we brought up Wisconsin, in future elections Im much more concerned about it becoming a true battleground state especially as the Democratic party continues to embrace minorities. I'm concerned about the entire midwest shifting, but heavily white Wisconsin seems to be losing out on the higher education bulwark that's holding up Dem white voter percentages elsewhere.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
Rabble posted:I was watching MSNBC after work yesterday and they had some dude on who was like "either CNN straight up gave Clinton the question or the Clinton campaign questioned everyone who was going to be in the audience." I yelled at the TV, "What, you mean like how preparing for a debate is now a bad thing??" Turns out that one of the CNN people *did* slip Hillary a heads-up for the topic of one of the questions. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/cnn-donna-brazile_us_58176f0ae4b0990edc325a78 So it wasn't "CNN" but "Someone at CNN"
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 19:59
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:I'm assuming your lifetime includes the 2000 election, in which case, this statement is profoundly false. No that's exactly in line with what I posted. I think it's very likely this thing is as close as 270s to 260s and looking at the 2000 electoral map you could flip Iowa and Virginia and have pretty close to that with a narrow Clinton win. So many of the battleground states right now are in the polling margin of error and both candidates have must win states in that lot. If the polling is off considerably in only one of the battleground states (which happened several times in the primaries with polls being off on the results), then that could swing the whole result.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 19:59
|
|
|
Northjayhawk posted:One of the more anti-arzy thoughts from Nate, is the couple times he's talked about his worry that the polls might be off, he's said he's more concerned that the polls might be greatly underestimating Clinton, rather than underestimating Trump. I generally put a lot of stock in the idea that the polls are accurate, but one thing i think they probably can't capture that well is the fact that Clinton has a big gotv effort and Trump sent one bus to one rally one time
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 19:59
|
|
|
BigRed0427 posted:ARE YOU loving KIDDING ME!? http://www.vox.com/2016/11/1/13489510/fbi-clinton-foundation Guy Goodbody posted:The only argument against it that anyone has put forward was just this Guy Goodbody posted:So far, the only war involving nuclear weapons ended rather well, considering. As much as I don't like texas, I don't want a nuclear crater where it was either, or anywhere else for that matter. your gimmick is bad. nuclear war is bad.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 19:59
|
|
|
Ein Sexmonster posted:Isn't going after the finances of the elite reasonably safe and effective? It typically just means they have to steal some more money. Sometimes they then have to start a war to gain back the popular support they lost by stealing that money from the populace.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 20:00
|
|
|
Lemming posted:Sincere question: how is the EC stacked towards Democrats? Gore won the popular vote by a half a million vote margin and still lost the EC (pretend he actually lost Florida by a little bit instead of won by a little bit, that could have gone either way) Turnout in 2000 was abnormally low, around the lowest ever recorded (I believe 96 was actually the lowest of the 20th Century). Still, let's look at that map:  The major difference between this one and the projected 2016 map (assuming Florida goes red) is 4 states - Virginia, North Carolina, Nevada, and Colorado. There's also Iowa and New Hampshire but they're traditional swing states, so let's ignore them. Those 4 new swing states made up 39 electoral votes in 2000, and 43 votes in the upcoming election. That's 16% of all the votes you need to win the election. So yeah, very slight demographic changes in a few states give massive returns.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 20:02
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:I'm assuming your lifetime includes the 2000 election, in which case, this statement is profoundly false. 2004 was really close too, they didn't officially call Ohio until a day or two after election day. I'd be very surprised if this one didn't get called the night of
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 20:02
|
|
|
Anyway my side of the polling situation is that the most likely really is a not-close Clinton victory, but the situation at present seems highly unusual, and that alone is enough to inject a lot of uncertainty into the forecast however close we get to election day. I think the undecided voters really point to the importance of propensity to vote to all this. Wang might well be right that a polarized electorate means Dems won't flip to Republican but they can still sit home and not vote in large numbers. Masses of Republican leaning undecideds might well break for Trump in the next few days, and if they did they wouldn't do so locally, but nationally, creating that correlated movement towards Trump. Wang's median based methodology creates a lot of stability because it lets him totally ignore the minority of pro-Trump pollsters. But this is just a statistical artefact and a foolish one to reason with.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 20:02
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:The only argument against it that anyone has put forward was just this
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
Lemming posted:Sincere question: how is the EC stacked towards Democrats? Gore won the popular vote by a half a million vote margin and still lost the EC (pretend he actually lost Florida by a little bit instead of won by a little bit, that could have gone either way) Basically yeah. States that voted red in the 2000 election like Nevada are shifting toward blue. This is coupled with reapportionment of electoral votes that favors blue states (Nevada gained 2 EV since 2000 and Ohio lost 3). The minority vote is not only taking over traditional GoP strongholds, but also taking EVs from the ones that remain.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:Turns out that one of the CNN people *did* slip Hillary a heads-up for the topic of one of the questions. Ah ok, well I stand mistaken...This was a dumb thing to do but it's also not a campaign ending scandal. I'd be interested to see if anyone "affiliated with the media" sent emails to the trump side...
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
Rabble posted:Ah ok, well I stand mistaken...This was a dumb thing to do but it's also not a campaign ending scandal. I'd be interested to see if anyone "affiliated with the media" sent emails to the trump side... Alas, Wikileaks can only hack Democrats, so we will never know. Probably not though. Trump sucked at the debate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 20:04
|
|
|
CapnAndy posted:I appeal to you, wise goons, to unfuck some dissonance for me. This is my absolute nightmare map, and quite frankly it felt dishonest to turn NC red: As far as I've read, the reason 538's model is the most pessimistic for Clinton is because it's the model that most heavily accounts for a Total Polling Failure in either direction. This uncertainty inherently favours the underdog unless the leader is WAY ahead, like Clinton was a couple weeks back. 538's simulations are more likely than others to produce a Clinton landslide (which doesn't actually improve her victory odds because it's just running up the score), but also more likely to produce a Trump win. For Trump to win, the polls can't just be wrong in some of the swing states; the polls would have to be wrong in basically ALL of them. 538 treats this most seriously as a possibility, which is why they're at 71% for a Clinton win, compared to Huffpost's 98%, PEC's 99%, and NYT's 88%. Whether that's a strength or a weakness of Silver's model is something I'm finding hard to assess due to my own inexpertise and bias. Frankly I just want to take a weeklong nap right now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 20:05
|
|
|
Lemming posted:Sincere question: how is the EC stacked towards Democrats? Gore won the popular vote by a half a million vote margin and still lost the EC (pretend he actually lost Florida by a little bit instead of won by a little bit, that could have gone either way) I think partly it's because the red states tend to be deeper red than the blue states are blue. Republicans win a lot of their safe states by 20+ points, the Democrats less so. This means the Democrats have the edge in the electoral map under normal circumstances, but in abnormal years it would favour the Republicans. A Democrat winning by 10 points wouldn't look much different from the 2008 map. A Republican winning by 10 points would be an EC wipeout.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 20:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 17:52 |
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:Probably not, but annoying the UK and the USA together would amuse him. Russia is already devoting considerable resources to hacking and propaganda directed at the West. They've been linked to various far right groups and efforts to push them in elections across Europe as well. CapnAndy posted:I appeal to you, wise goons, to unfuck some dissonance for me. This is my absolute nightmare map, and quite frankly it felt dishonest to turn NC red: Does directly linking 270towin actually work for anyone? The images have never, ever shown up properly for me.  Colonel J posted:I know it's not a scandal that Hillary was "told some questions for the debate in advance", but I'm not sure exactly why. Usually you guys are good at explaining this stuff. It was a townhall, not a debate, and "you'll be asked about the lead poisoning of the very town this is hosted in" is like saying "hey you'll be asked about foreign policy and probably Syria and Russia specifically, at the foreign policy debate." Maybe Trump is stupid enough to not already know it was going to be a topic but Clinton literally holes up for days brushing up on policy and talking points before debates. Basically, Trump's base eats it up because they're equally short-sighted.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 20:06
|
|
