|
Didn't Grantland get killed because of drama with Bill Simmons specifically? Unless Nate goes totally nuts after the election I can't imagine it's a similar situation.
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 17:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 10:04 |
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Yes, that's the reasoning behind it, but the odds of her winning were not dramatically different today from yesterday. When you consider that the alternative to that Comey letter was a follow up letter saying that the emails were relevant to Clinton I would disagree with the idea that it didn't affect anything
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 17:29
|
|
|
Nate's model is mediocre and actual senate polling appears to indicate that the senate should flip, with IL, NV, PA being on lock, with NH looking good to. NC appears to be a total tossup in the senate as well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 17:29
|
|
|
As I understand it, there's three possible outcomes tomorrow Virtually guaranteed - Clinton wins. The world doesn't explode Very possible - Clinton wins and Dems take the senate. Senate becomes an appointment rubber stamping machine, vacancies are filled so we get a functioning federal government and a generation of liberal darkness from the Supreme Court Unlikely but possible - Clinton wins and Dems take Senate and House. Functioning government, sin-cursed Supreme Court, big parts of Clinton's platform passed into law, everything is wonderful and flowers until the next midterm election
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 17:30
|
|
|
CascadeBeta posted:Yeah I feel like Nate's model probably makes sense but the polls this year have been really bad. Like the model freaks out when a poll has a +12 HRC lead flip to a +1 Trump, but I think that any model that weights that poll would do that. That being said, I'm not a statistician so I could just be talking out my rear end. Nate's model probably also just isn't well suited to a situation where we have unprecedented 'undercount' participation. His model probably accurately accounts for uncertainty in terms of "this election is so loving weird, there's a limit to what we can know and what polling can predict" -- he may well be right, but people will turn on him because they are angry he will bother to be uncertain and stick with the formula rather than tell people what they want to hear, or what's likely based on data we now have which is not incorporated into poll predictions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 17:34
|
|
|
seiferguy posted:I really want to know how this guy ended up becoming a faithless elector. This dumb rear end in a top hat is going to basically write himself into the history books. When people look at 2016 maps, WA will look weird because he wants to be a special snowflake. A couple pages back now, but no one answered you so here is my effort post take. While the rest of the country has been moving left, WA didn't stop in its tracks and stop moving to the left. The political culture of WA is distinct. The areas that go traditionally blue also tend to be somewhat further left than the rest of the democratic party and the areas that are traditionally republican are also fairly socially liberal. The I-5 corridor from Olympia north to Seattle/Everett has a pretty large population of non-white people, especially immigrants who's families have suffered regardless of whether a republican or a democrat is the president. Those that have become involved locally have seen democrats work against the specific policies that they've worked towards(see things like the $15 minimum wage and currently attempts to bring some sanity to rent in Seattle). Then you have a candidate like Bernie Sanders screaming revolution blah blah. So what you're seeing is a new generation of fairly progressive people, with no real loyalty to the democratic party having gotten involved in the party because of Bernie decided to run as a democrat. They don't give a poo poo about party loyalty or even the party itself. That atmosphere leads to people like this guy, I doubt he will have any real impact on the election and the rest of whether its good or not is probably an "in the eye of whether your identity is democrat or not" kind of thing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 17:33
|
|
|
Ein Sexmonster posted:Nate's model is mediocre and actual senate polling appears to indicate that the senate should flip, with IL, NV, PA being on lock, with NH looking good to. NC appears to be a total tossup in the senate as well. The NH-Sen average is: +1.7 Ayotte (and would be higher, but there is one +4 Hassan) PA-Sen is: McGinty +2 NV-Sen is: Cortez: +0.4 NC-Sen is: Burr +2.2 Illinois is the only one that is close to "on lock"
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 17:35
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Illinois is the only one that is close to "on lock" Thank christ it is too. Another term of Mark Kirk would seriously put a downer on everything.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 17:36
|
|
|
It seems a little weird to be panicking about white turnout in Florida unless you're assuming that every white vote is a vote for Trump even though that includes white women and whites with college educations.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 17:37
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:The NH-Sen average is: +1.7 Ayotte (and would be higher, but there is one +4 Hassan) Nevada isn't even going to be close, the GOP is toast there. PA has decisively turned toward McGinty, Toomey hasn't polled ahead in ages. NH is a bit squishier but we'll see. NC is the least likely but it's still in reach Also WI is a lock too. Sarmhan fucked around with this message at 17:41 on Nov 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 17:37
|
|
|
Dear lord its now 45% chance wise for senate to be retaken by Dems. I am NOT going to make it through at this rate.  Ein Sexmonster posted:Stop using 538 lol. The eternal political pessimist in me will always believe in the worst case scenario on polls.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 17:37
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Didn't Grantland get killed because of drama with Bill Simmons specifically? Unless Nate goes totally nuts after the election I can't imagine it's a similar situation. Yeah. Simmons burned all of his bridges and poached all of his editorial talent. Nate hasn't done anything comparable.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 17:37
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:It seems a little weird to be panicking about white turnout in Florida unless you're assuming that every white vote is a vote for Trump even though that includes white women and whites with college educations. Have you ever met white people from Florida?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 17:38
|
|
|
Ein Sexmonster posted:Stop using 538 lol. Those aren't from 538. Those are from the RCP polling average with partisan pollsters removed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 17:38
|
|
|
ddogflex posted:Have you ever met white people from Florida? Sadly I have and that's why this whole loving election makes me so nervous. Are white people in the rest of the country significantly less bad? I'm very concerned my loving stupid relatives in Florida are going do a bad thing and vote for Trump because they don't have two braincells to rub together between the entire gaggle of them (except one cousin, who isn't incredibly stupid but still hates Clinton for some reason).
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 17:41
|
|
|
RCP IIRC isn't really a good aggregator either because they bend over backwards to include any polls that will make the race seem closer than it actually is, usually by way of sitting on super outdated polls.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 17:41
|
|
|
RCP is bad for predicting outcomes. There's literally a day left just wait and see at this point (or better, try to do something about it).
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 17:42
|
|
|
PST posted:Ground game matters. But! https://twitter.com/seanspicer/status/795634995218022401
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 17:41
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Sadly I have and that's why this whole loving election makes me so nervous. Are white people in the rest of the country significantly less bad? There's a reason why "Florida man" is a running gag
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 17:42
|
|
|
All polls are bad, hail satan
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 17:42
|
|
|
Doorknob Slobber posted:A couple pages back now, but no one answered you so here is my effort post take. While the rest of the country has been moving left, WA didn't stop in its tracks and stop moving to the left. The political culture of WA is distinct. The areas that go traditionally blue also tend to be somewhat further left than the rest of the democratic party and the areas that are traditionally republican are also fairly socially liberal. I'm pretty familiar with the demographics of WA State (I live here, I figured my av might have given that away  ), it was more how did he get picked by the Dems and now he's got a chance to be a faithless electorate. Seems like there should have been some better vetting going on.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 17:42
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Didn't Grantland get killed because of drama with Bill Simmons specifically? Unless Nate goes totally nuts after the election I can't imagine it's a similar situation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 17:42
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Those aren't from 538. Those are from the RCP polling average with partisan pollsters removed. And WI, PA, and IL are very likely to go dem for senate. So you literally need one of the toss-up states (IN, NC, MO and NH). Wang still has the dems at 80%.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 17:44
|
|
|
ddogflex posted:Have you ever met white people from Florida? I know what you're talking about but I know people who I would never have thought would ever vote for a Democrat their entire lives that are voting for Clinton Note: Mostly women
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 17:45
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Those aren't from 538. Those are from the RCP polling average with partisan pollsters removed. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 17:47
|
|
|
We are not in 2012?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 17:47
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:It seems a little weird to be panicking about white turnout in Florida unless you're assuming that every white vote is a vote for Trump even though that includes white women and whites with college educations. Yuuuup. Women and whites with college degrees have moved way towards Hillary from 2012, and whites without college degree have moved more towards Trump. White turnout up doesn't mean Trump will outperform Romney (doesn't mean he won't either, of course).
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 17:48
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:We are not in 2012? Every indication this year has been that Nevada is not being polled correctly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 17:49
|
|
|
Heller (R-NV) also won a Senate seat that same election.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 17:49
|
|
|
I believe the point is that RCP undersold Obama's numbers by near as makes no difference 4 points, and in general just seem to go out of their way to make any given race always seem closer than it actually is.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 17:50
|
|
|
Hmm, Manischewitz isn't the best mixer but I have had some divine bourbon-base kugels: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNWrg5ANBCw It's an easy almost-spoonerism to make but holy poo poo 
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 17:50
|
|
|
Young Hegelian posted:PLZ DNR You can make this even more fun if you give Clinton NE-2 and Trump ME-2.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 17:50
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:We are not in 2012? You're correct, Romney had a GOTV operation in 2012.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Heller (R-NV) also won a Senate seat that same election. By 3 fewer points than which he was polled.  Which (surprisingly!) is about the same as Obama's extra margin. Now tell me what this means in a race where they're effectively tied and the same polling errors appear to be happening again.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
The first of Trumps five rallies today is done. He hit all his greatest hits, with an added bonus of "if black people love Hillary so much why haven't they come out to vote for her" and him implying that all of the billions that the US gives to the UN goes directly to terrorists.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 17:52
|
|
|
computer parts posted:By 3 fewer points than which he was polled. What is wrong with that man's face? It looks... off.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 17:52
|
|
|
Nate RFB posted:I believe the point is that RCP undersold Obama's numbers by near as makes no difference 4 points, and in general just seem to go out of their way to make any given race always seem closer than it actually is. The same point is that down ballot votes are not a 1:1 correlation with top of the ticket votes. This is especially true in places like Nevada. Heller ran almost 8 points better than Romney against a former Lt. Governor.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 17:52
|
|
|
Nate RFB posted:RCP IIRC isn't really a good aggregator either because they bend over backwards to include any polls that will make the race seem closer than it actually is, usually by way of sitting on super outdated polls. They don't really bend over backwards, they run a moving average and the frequency of polls has been lower this election which keeps older samples in longer.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 17:53
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:The same point is that down ballot votes are not a 1:1 correlation with top of the ticket votes. The point is that you haven't proven this. Every indication is that Nevada votes far bluer than it polls, and right now the polls are dead even.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 10:04 |
|
|
computer parts posted:The point is that you haven't proven this. The 2012 results prove it. Heller ran 8 points better than Romney. That is by definition not a 1:1 correlation between ticket results. People saying that NV-Sen is "a lock" because Clinton is ahead are not looking at the full picture. I agree that Cortez is the slight favorite, but not a lock at all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 17:56
|
|