|
canepazzo posted:Unreported in that earlier advertising blitz from Camp Trump - they pulled ads from PA. Read it as you will. Why waste money in a state you're guaranteed to win? 
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2016 16:52
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 21:30 |
|
|
https://twitter.com/JeffersonObama/status/793574975877767168 Personally, I'm shook.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2016 23:58
|
|
|
That's a good write-up, although calling PA "competitive" is a bit of a stretch. It pretty much never turns red outside of landslide elections.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2016 00:48
|
|
|
Northjayhawk posted:The GOP usually doesn't get wiped out in PA and they are obviously able to elect the random GOP senator here and there, but they always seem to fall several points short. IIRC, one of the Bush aides in 2004 called PA "fool's gold for Republicans", which seems like a fair assessment. It looks appealing to the GOP because it awards a lot of electoral votes and the margin is always fairly close, but Philadelphia pretty much ensures it'll remain blue outside of a horribly loopsided election.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2016 01:02
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:It's funny how everyone believed the polls when they were in Clinton's favor and laughed at the conservatives in denial. Now the shoe's on the other foot, we are all going on about how unreliable and biased the polls are. But the polls are still in Clinton's favour. 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2016 12:24
|
|
|
Denzer posted:You guys forgot one thing about Trump, he's been in like five Wrestlemanias. After Trump loses, the Clinton campaign will unmask him to reveal that he was actually Vince Foster in disguise. "It's me, Hillary! It was me all along, Hillary!"
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2016 12:41
|
|
|
El Disco posted:Also "I only voted Trump because Hillary is worse. She wants to nuke Russia, castrate all men, institute full communism, open our borders to all the terrorists, etc." Those all sound like reasonable policies to me.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2016 12:55
|
|
|
Mountaineer posted:Could someone please explain what makes "internal polling" so special? Are internal polls somehow more accurate than public polls? Two things, mostly: 1. Campaigns have a vested interest in knowing the exact state of the race, so they're willing to invest tons of resources into polling. They pay top-level firms for continuous updates, giving them a fairly accurate overview of the current situation and preventing single outliers from distorting the results. 2. Campaign teams usually have better knowledge of demographics and voter preferences than your average independent polling firm. In early October, there was a story about the Clinton campaign having IDed and modeled every voter in a battleground state. That kind of data allows for much more accurate results. That doesn't mean a campaign is always more informed than the general public, though. A big problem of Romney's team was that they focused on polls which conformed to their narrative and treated all others as outliers. But in general, internal polling should give you a more accurate picture of the race than whatever the public gets. Doubly so in a year like this where good external polls seem to be something of a rarity. Samuel Clemens fucked around with this message at 13:15 on Nov 2, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2016 13:13
|
|
|
Social Studies 3rd Period posted:also there's complaints of the last several days that - funnily - right when we need it most, there seems to be few good polls coming out and a surplus of garbage and/or tracking. I genuinely wonder what polling will look like in 2020. If the trend holds, all the good firms will either have stopped or be working for one of the campaigns, leaving us with tracking polls and Rasmussen. 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2016 13:22
|
|
|
Tell her to register an account.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2016 13:56
|
|
|
Radish posted:
Hm, Blacks do indeed rule, so this checks out.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2016 14:14
|
|
|
OgreNoah posted:In Michigan at least the only "early" voting is for absentee ballots, which is for people not here, and old people. Old people are more conservative naturally. And Clinton still seems to be winning. IIRC, PA and VA have similar requirements. Early voting in those states comes primarily from military and older people, which skew Republican.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2016 14:23
|
|
|
Clinton winning bigly with the 100+ years old women demographic.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2016 14:44
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Clinton actually does win the 87+ demographic of olds, possibly because it's the age group of individuals who helped defeat Hitler. I was just making a dumb joke about this being the second woman I've seen who's more than a hundred years old and voting for Clinton, but that's cool to know. Thanks.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2016 14:52
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:This has to be a polling error, as well. Previous estimates have mostly put her around 7, there's no way she shot up to 19. MSU is usually a fairly reliable pollster, but my guess would be that this particular poll overestimates Johnson's chances. He gets 11% of the vote, which strikes me as unrealistic. Even if all those voters switched to Trump in the end, he'd still be losing by a considerable margin, though.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2016 15:32
|
|
|
WV and KY should have gone blue as well for the sake of aesthetics.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2016 15:40
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:In the midst of all of this Sam Wang's probability just went up Makes sense. Trump winning MI is one of the few avenues to victory he has left, so that poll is bad news for him. There's also this: https://twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/status/793823086676103169 Which suggests that Clinton is on track to win NC.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2016 15:46
|
|
|
nimh posted:
In what world is NH blue but CO a toss-up?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2016 15:49
|
|
|
Uranium 235 posted:Fun fact: if Hillary wins Colorado and the rest of this map is correct EXCEPT McMullin wins Utah, then the decision goes to the House I think your arithmetic is a bit off there, chief.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2016 16:05
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper is a far better poster than we deserve.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2016 16:08
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Hillary should be holding up the KKK Newspaper's Trump endorsement at every single rally. Huh? mcmagic posted:I don't get why she's going to back to the Machado messaging. Seems like everyone who is going to be motivated by that already is. mcmagic posted:I understand what the goal is but I don't think it's very effective at this point. She needs some affirmative message.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2016 17:26
|
|
|
Zerilan posted:Getting nervous about election again someone please link some good anti-arzy news. If the previous 100 pages of this thread didn't cure your arzyism, I'm afraid you're beyond help. Just go outside and enjoy the weather.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2016 21:51
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:I expect Trump to win the popular vote but lose the EV map, and go away bickering that the electoral college rigs elections. You are Nate Silver, and I claim my five pounds.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2016 22:41
|
|
|
I miss the days when Dilbro's insanity was funny rather than outright horrible.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2016 22:55
|
|
|
freebooter posted:Like, similarly, I've always assumed I enjoy a high standard of living because my TV and my t-shirts and my car and literally everything else is manufactured in China/India/Bangladesh by workers earning $1 a day or whatever. Which makes me uncomfortable, but if you asked me if I could wave a wand and pay much much more money for domestically manufactured goods, I would stare at my feet and mutter "no." Welcome to the Republican party.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2016 23:55
|
|
|
uncertainty posted:Could someone link to the other guys forecasts that have showed up in this thread again? They are not in the op and I don't know what to google for. (I vaguely remember him being at MIT or princeton?) Sam Wang: http://election.princeton.edu/
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2016 00:02
|
|
|
canepazzo posted:E: without fail, one of the comments will be from a deplorable lamenting their "sampling D+8" skewing the poll and bla bla bla. Why's it always +8, never +7 or +18, always +8? Is it a Billmitchellism? It's not too hard to figure out why deplorables have an obsession with the number eight.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2016 00:07
|
|
|
I don't know why you're all dogpiling on Joementum for what is a pretty funny joke. Edit: Beaten like Trump in the polls.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2016 00:17
|
|
|
Arrgytehpirate posted:How do I even begin to respond to this? Poster is a 30 y/o vet. Remind him that only one of the candidates has talked about censoring the press, and it's not Hillary.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2016 00:19
|
|
|
"Hey, Steve, have you seen the latest poll. I'm doing bigly in the west of Virginia." "I think that's West Virginia." "Whatever. Divert some funds there."
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2016 00:27
|
|
|
Freakazoid_ posted:welp looks like hillary's gonna win, guess that means I can vote third party without feeling bad about it If you can find a decent third party, sure. I haven't seen one yet.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2016 00:33
|
|
|
Donkwich posted:Part of me wishes Trump could be president only for them, and only they'll have to deal with the consequences of their decision. Put Trump in charge of Great Britain. That island is doomed anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2016 00:35
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:Any new analysis on the early voter numbers? Look up Schnorkles posts in the C-SPAM Trump thread if you want a detailed breakdown. The short version is that Dems are doing well in NV, CO, and NC, and not so hot in OH and IA. FL initially looked very promising for the GOP, but the Dems have slowly been gaining ground over the last couple of days.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2016 00:43
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:Not really somewhere I want to go. It's basically this thread, but with less arzying and more drinking.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2016 00:50
|
|
|
Northjayhawk posted:He actually isn't. If Clinton wins by exactly the margin we expect and exactly the states we expect, that doesn't prove his uncertainty wrong. We'd need a hundred years of elections to have enough data to know that he's being too careful. Protecting his reputation is why some of us suspect he's doing this. True, but people's trust in a given model mostly comes down to optics. If Clinton wins with a comfortable margin, Nate will be known as the guy who underestimated her chances while everyone else was much more confident in her victory.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2016 01:38
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:A comfortable margin is absolutely inside the values supported by Nate's model. It's not about statistical rigorisity, it's about public perception. Most people don't care about the underlying assumptions of a model, they just want someone who can correctly identify the winner. Why listen to the guy whose model has high uncertainty when you have another model which shows the same results but with much more confidence?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2016 01:50
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:In principle yes, though in the long run, you want somebody who is calibrated well. Sure, but with elections only happening every four years and so many factors changing in the interim, identifying the best model is no easy feat. Maybe Nate's assumptions are the most accurate ones. Or maybe Wang is right and presidential elections are actually very stable because they mostly come down to fundamentals.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2016 01:58
|
|
|
Hillary's chance to win in the PEC model is 98% in the random drift and >99% in the Bayesian one. Which seems reasonable unless you assume that polling is significantly biased in her favour.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2016 13:42
|
|
|
Harrow posted:Going by past elections where high turnout favors Democrats and early voting favors Democrats, the record-high numbers voting early in several states is pretty great news for Democrats, right? Probably, although the myriad of changes since 2012 and the fact that only a small percentage of total voters participates in EV makes it difficult to reach any definite conclusions. As best as we know, Clinton is currently doing well in NV, CO, and NC, though FL and OH are still up in the air.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2016 14:03
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 21:30 |
|
|
Nessus posted:I get the feeling we may narrowly lose Ohio, but we will know that Satan, Loki, or SOMEONE is looking out for us if they narrowly get Ohio.................... and narrowly lose Texas. Not gonna lie, I'd be okay with a scenario where Clinton loses OH and FL and still wins the election. The tears from all the old white men who realise that they no longer decide elections would be glorious.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2016 14:08
|
|