|
WampaLord posted:Because There are three buckets: 1. the polls are more or less correct 2. the polls are wrong so much so that voters actually elect Trump 3. the polls are wrong to the same degree as #2 above, but in favor of Hillary Basically he is saying that #2 has a 30% chance of happening in his model right now, but I would contend that #3 has an equally likely chance in that case (or close to it). What evidence is there to suggest that the polls will skew Clinton's favor? That means that the polls being more or less correct only has a 40% chance of happening under Nate's model, which I call bullshit on.
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 19:31
|
|
What if all the polls are wrong?!? 
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 08:20 |
|
|
Cabbit posted:Didn't he get burned on the primaries about Trump? Dude's hedging his bets like a motherfucker. noooooooooooooo he isn't. The model was set long, long before the primary finished. DaveWoo posted:Quinnipiac's going to be dropping some swing state polls then. They tend to lean a bit to the right.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 19:32
|
|
|
*republicans disenfranchise people as a specifically stated goal* Look both sides are susceptible to doing bad things to win *republicans refuse to govern and pass unconstitutional things constantly* Both parties are so bad you know *republicans strongly support a fascist idiot racist with zero policy positions.* Look we can't just go judging whole parties. There are good ideas on both sides.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 19:32
|
|
|
i am the bird posted:Supposedly Kasich has no interest returning to DC (unless as president) and he's almost definitely running for president in 2020. Would it look good if he became senator and immediately started a presidential campaign? There is no way Kasich is getting the 2020 nomination after refusing to vote for Trump.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
Mind_Taker posted:There are three buckets: I wouldn't be surprised at all if Clinton won by 15-20 points, like, 60-40 or something ridiculous like that. I have a hard time believing Trump's supporters are actually going to show up to the polls.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 19:34
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Because you're being flippant but the polls can and have been wrong in the past. The thing is if you say they could be off by 3 points on the Clinton said, she still wins, just by a lot more, but if you fall off the other side it can lead to a Trump win. This isn't that hard people.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 19:34
|
|
|
weekly font posted:I work in a school for rich white kids and uh, not the ones that will grow up to be white men, that's for sure. You two should really keep saying racist poo poo like that. Hopefully to your employers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 19:35
|
|
|
Sky Shadowing posted:Sons of Roosevelt, of Kennedy! I know. It’s all wrong. By rights we shouldn’t even be here. But we are. It’s like in the great elections, Mr. Arzy. The ones that really mattered. Full of tax cuts and bad foreign policy they were. And sometimes you didn’t want to know the end. Because how could the end be happy. How could the world go back to the way it was when so much Reagan and GWB had happened. But in the end, it’s only a passing thing, this GOP. Even Trump must pass. A new day will come. And when the sun shines it will shine out the clearer. Those were the elections that stayed with you. That meant something. Even if you were too small to understand why. But I think, Mr. Arzy, I do understand. I know now. Folk in those stories had lots of chances of voting third party only they didn’t. Because they were holding on to something.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
empty whippet box posted:I wouldn't be surprised at all if Clinton won by 15-20 points, like, 60-40 or something ridiculous like that. I have a hard time believing Trump's supporters are actually going to show up to the polls. Republicans have done a really good job at voter suppression recently, though 
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
axeil posted:you're being flippant but the polls can and have been wrong in the past. The thing is if you say they could be off by 3 points on the Clinton said, she still wins, just by a lot more, but if you fall off the other side it can lead to a Trump win. 538 can and has been wrong in the past, and they've been by far the most sensitive to any polling changes. It's fair to say they overestimate the probability of things being totally wrong. Why they do this is up to debate, but probably involves self preservation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 19:38
|
|
|
axeil posted:you're being flippant but the polls can and have been wrong in the past. The thing is if you say they could be off by 3 points on the Clinton said, she still wins, just by a lot more, but if you fall off the other side it can lead to a Trump win. Notice I said but what if all the polls are wrong? Individual polls have been wrong and will continue to be wrong. Nate's entire thing is aggregating and weighing them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 19:38
|
|
|
Non Serviam posted:You two should really keep saying racist poo poo like that. Hopefully to your employers. Observations on the behavior of extremely privileged white children is not racism.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Worked for Obama As soon as I posted, I thought, "...oh wait." But also, Kasich ain't Obama. mcmagic posted:There is no way Kasich is getting the 2020 nomination after refusing to vote for Trump. He had no legitimate shot in 2016 but he still ran. It's incredibly unlikely that he'll ever be the nominee but I don't think that's going to stop him. He'll have too many people in his ear talking about how he can be the "adult in the room." edit: I don't know if this means anything for a potential senate run, though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
Mind_Taker posted:There are three buckets: This is close, but not quite how it works. He uses a t-distribution rather than a normal so the tails are fatter than normal. You also aren't taking into account the general way the states are mixed. If you move everything 10 points to Clinton she still doesn't win every state, it matters where the vote shifts. To that point, this is why he has his intercorrelations between states. Someone earlier called bullshit on this, but we know certain groups of states will vote similarly. New England votes similarly as does the Southeast, as does the West, etc. You can quibble on what level of correlation you should have but I'm sick of this thread sticking their heads in the sand and screaming LALALA CAN'T HEAR YOU every time someone brings up the potential that Nate Could Be Right. Statistics needs to be a mandatory high school course, good lord.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:There is no way Kasich is getting the 2020 nomination after refusing to vote for Trump. That will stop him from running, why?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Notice I said but what if all the polls are wrong? RCP's average for Obama was 0.7 in 2012. He won by 3.9. So yes. All the polls could be wrong. edit: to elaborate, there may have been a national poll that had Obama up 3.9 but the trick would be knowing which poll it was that was actually right before getting the result.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
i am the bird posted:As soon as I posted, I thought, "...oh wait." But also, Kasich ain't Obama. Republican have forfeited any right they might ever have had to claim to be the adult in the room.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 19:42
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Notice I said but what if all the polls are wrong? Michigan in the Democratic primary this year would like a word with you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 19:42
|
|
|
Lemming posted:Republicans have done a really good job at voter suppression recently, though I thought a ton of the voter suppression bullshit was getting tossed to the various  E: I'm an idiot that doesn't know the 3 branches of US government. funeral home DJ fucked around with this message at 19:45 on Nov 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 19:42
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:That will stop him from running, why? It might make him more likely to run for Senate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
axeil posted:This is close, but not quite how it works. He uses a t-distribution rather than a normal so the tails are fatter than normal. You also aren't taking into account the general way the states are mixed. If you move everything 10 points to Clinton she still doesn't win every state, it matters where the vote shifts. To that point, this is why he has his intercorrelations between states. Someone earlier called bullshit on this, but we know certain groups of states will vote similarly. New England votes similarly as does the Southeast, as does the West, etc. You can quibble on what level of correlation you should have but I'm sick of this thread sticking their heads in the sand and screaming LALALA CAN'T HEAR YOU every time someone brings up the potential that Nate Could Be Right. We're not ignoring the potential that Nate could be right, we are pointing out his model is much more conservative than every other projection used by almost 15%. If Nate is creating an aggregate that is an outlier its not sticking your head in the sand to acknowledge that difference.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
remusclaw posted:Republican have forfeited any right they might ever have had to claim to be the adult in the room. It's a bummer but half of the country and almost all of the media disagree. I still have co-workers walking around talking about how Republicans are the party of personal responsibility and in the same breath saying that Trump isn't a "real republican." Great taking responsibility for the candidate your idiot party members chose there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 19:44
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:It might make him more likely to run for Senate. Maybe, though I get the feeling he doesn't want to be in the legislative branch again.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
They probably won't cover the Child Rape because they said they wouldn't. CNN said the story doesn't meet their journalistic standards the day after the Second Debate when talking with a Trump surrogate as a reply to him brining in the Clinton rape accusers. "We could attack Trump on this too. He's accused of rape of a minor, but we don't because those stories don't hit our standard for coverage, but bringing in Hillary's accuser's opens the door for us to cover it!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
Cabbit posted:Didn't he get burned on the primaries about Trump? Dude's hedging his bets like a motherfucker. Not really. What happened with the primaries is that his model suggested that Trump had the best chance of winning and he, the person, chose to follow the popular punditry that suggested Trump had no real shot and would drop out. It's not an indictment of his model, which has been set for months and isn't getting updated on the fly to put a thumb on the scale. 538 just has a more conservative model compared to other poll aggregators. It doesn't mean it's bad, or wrong or whatever, it just has a different methodology. Divorce your thoughts about it from your thoughts about Nate Silver as a person or pundit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
Supraluminal posted:Michigan in the Democratic primary this year would like a word with you. But didn't Silver get caught just as off guard as everyone else by that?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:Observations on the behavior of extremely privileged white children is not racism. Generalizations about "white men" are no different from generalizations about "black men." The same people who criticize Trump for his sweeping generalizations don't hesitate to do the same. It also reeks of white guilt, which is pathetic.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
The biggest problem in Nate's model is two things: 1. States are assumed to be correlated with each other, as in one state will largely vote like a similar state. It leads to poo poo like this: https://twitter.com/jbarro/status/793884434600693760 2. The really dumb weighting he gives to polls, namely the fact that Google Consumer Surveys gets weighted higher than say Monmouth, Fox News, or NBC/WSJ for a national poll.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
Covok posted:They probably won't cover the Child Rape because they said they wouldn't. CNN said the story doesn't meet their journalistic standards the day after the Second Debate when talking with a Trump surrogate as a reply to him brining in the Clinton rape accusers. "We could attack Trump on this too. He's accused of rape of a minor, but we don't because those stories don't hit our standard for coverage, but bringing in Hillary's accuser's opens the door for us to cover it!" hahahahahaHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:We're not ignoring the potential that Nate could be right, we are pointing out his model is much more conservative than every other projection used by almost 15%. If Nate is creating an aggregate that is an outlier its not sticking your head in the sand to acknowledge that difference. SpiderHyphenMan posted:How the hell does Nate justify having Clinton's odds at <70% when her winning every state where she has at least a 70% chance gives here 272 EVs? WampaLord posted:Please tell me this is a joke post. WampaLord posted:Because weekly font posted:Nate is And that's just one page.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
eviltastic posted:But didn't Silver get caught just as off guard as everyone else by that? Michigan in the primaries is the single great polling upset of all time, and while it COULD happen again, it's pretty unlikely.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
Non Serviam posted:Generalizations about "white men" are no different from generalizations about "black men." oh boy
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:It might make him more likely to run for Senate. For some reason I thought you were talking about Trump, which tickled me immensely, I love the idea of him spending the rest of his life (and money) running losing campaigns for increasingly lower offices. First Senate, then Governor, then Mayor, and finally, on his death bed, Trump gets the news he lost his bid for head of his own building's Tenant Association.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:oh boy Please explain to me why generalizing about race and gender is OK then.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
Lemming posted:hahahahahaHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA If I wasn't at work, I would find the video.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
Lemming posted:hahahahahaHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA I assume that's code for "makes one candidate look so bad we can't realistically cover him without looking like monsters so it's better we just ignore it." I mean I could see the argument of not propagating a potentially false story but a) they've been doing that with Clinton for years and b) lol CNN and journalistic integrity.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
axeil posted:And that's just one page. how is pointing out that Nate's model is an outlier freaking out about Nate Silver? His model is an outlier and he factors a higher level of voter uncertainty. That is not calling to question the guy as a pundit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
axeil posted:This is close, but not quite how it works. He uses a t-distribution rather than a normal so the tails are fatter than normal. You also aren't taking into account the general way the states are mixed. If you move everything 10 points to Clinton she still doesn't win every state, it matters where the vote shifts. To that point, this is why he has his intercorrelations between states. Someone earlier called bullshit on this, but we know certain groups of states will vote similarly. New England votes similarly as does the Southeast, as does the West, etc. You can quibble on what level of correlation you should have but I'm sick of this thread sticking their heads in the sand and screaming LALALA CAN'T HEAR YOU every time someone brings up the potential that Nate Could Be Right. I have a math degree with graduate level statistics work dude. You're basically saying voting between certain states are correlated, which I certainly agree with. However, we have polls in these states and the aggregate of all of these polls suggests that Clinton is the clear EV winner right now. Yes, there can be a departure from the polling, but unless you have specific evidence to suggest Hillary will not outperform polls with close to equal probability as Trump will, it implies that there is only a 40% chance that current polling is more or less correct under Nate's model, which I have a hard time believing. Mind_Taker fucked around with this message at 19:53 on Nov 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
Covok posted:They probably won't cover the Child Rape because they said they wouldn't. CNN said the story doesn't meet their journalistic standards the day after the Second Debate when talking with a Trump surrogate as a reply to him brining in the Clinton rape accusers. "We could attack Trump on this too. He's accused of rape of a minor, but we don't because those stories don't hit our standard for coverage, but bringing in Hillary's accuser's opens the door for us to cover it!"  gently caress the media burn it all down Donnie
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 08:20 |
|
|
Non Serviam posted:Please explain to me why generalizing about race and gender is OK then. power
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 19:51
|
|