|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 07 2016 03:29 Mohdoo wrote:
Nate Silver will not suffer if Clinton wins. But if Trump wins, he is suddenly some sort of mathematical mastermind who suddenly has the far and away biggest shlong at the table.
At the end of the day, I think 538 has let themselves deviate a bit too much from the math. A lot of their articles have been really click-baity these past couple months as they realize they can cash in. Nate Silver has so much to gain by making his model artificially inflate Trump's chances. People are constantly checking 538 to see how things are going. When things are close, or possible at least, people listen.
Nate Silver wins if Clinton barely edges out Trump since that's basically what he predicts. PEC and HuffPo and others predict a blowout.
Last time, Silver drew fire for predicting an Obama electoral blowout. This time, he draws fire for not predicting a Hillary blowout. Funny how that works, isn't it?
|
Canada11607 Posts
Last time, Silver drew fire for predicting an Obama electoral blowout. This time, he draws fire for not predicting a Hillary blowout. Funny how that works, isn't it?
It's possible they over-corrected from 2012. But that's just a hypothetical; I'm more of a history guy than a math guy, so I don't know the really nitty gritty of what he's doing vs other poll aggregators.
|
On November 07 2016 03:32 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2016 03:29 Mohdoo wrote:
Nate Silver will not suffer if Clinton wins. But if Trump wins, he is suddenly some sort of mathematical mastermind who suddenly has the far and away biggest shlong at the table.
At the end of the day, I think 538 has let themselves deviate a bit too much from the math. A lot of their articles have been really click-baity these past couple months as they realize they can cash in. Nate Silver has so much to gain by making his model artificially inflate Trump's chances. People are constantly checking 538 to see how things are going. When things are close, or possible at least, people listen. Nate Silver wins if Clinton barely edges out Trump since that's basically what he predicts. PEC and HuffPo and others predict a blowout. Last time, Silver drew fire for predicting an Obama electoral blowout. This time, he draws fire for not predicting a Hillary blowout. Funny how that works, isn't it?
Oddly, he's predicting a Clinton blowout as more likely than the other sites. He's basically just factoring in polling uncertainty while the others are trying to take the polls at their word.
|
On November 07 2016 03:35 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +Last time, Silver drew fire for predicting an Obama electoral blowout. This time, he draws fire for not predicting a Hillary blowout. Funny how that works, isn't it? It's possible they over-corrected from 2012. But that's just a hypothetical, I'm more of a history guy than a math guy, so I don't know the really nitty gritty of what he's doing vs other poll aggregators.
Don't worry, as someone who does have some insight into the nitty-gritty of what the pollsters/forecasters do (see my earlier post on Bayesianism for some info) I will also say that I have no idea what the other poll aggregators are doing. Their methods are something of a head-scratcher.
On November 07 2016 03:36 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2016 03:32 LegalLord wrote:On November 07 2016 03:29 Mohdoo wrote:
Nate Silver will not suffer if Clinton wins. But if Trump wins, he is suddenly some sort of mathematical mastermind who suddenly has the far and away biggest shlong at the table.
At the end of the day, I think 538 has let themselves deviate a bit too much from the math. A lot of their articles have been really click-baity these past couple months as they realize they can cash in. Nate Silver has so much to gain by making his model artificially inflate Trump's chances. People are constantly checking 538 to see how things are going. When things are close, or possible at least, people listen. Nate Silver wins if Clinton barely edges out Trump since that's basically what he predicts. PEC and HuffPo and others predict a blowout. Last time, Silver drew fire for predicting an Obama electoral blowout. This time, he draws fire for not predicting a Hillary blowout. Funny how that works, isn't it? Oddly, he's predicting a Clinton blowout as more likely than the other sites. He's basically just factoring in polling uncertainty while the others are trying to take the polls at their word.
If that's what it is then everyone else is wrong. This is like the textbook definition of an election with a lot of uncertainty.
|
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said Friday that she plans to vote in favor of legalizing recreational marijuana in California.
"I will vote for it, but I have not made a public statement about it until right this very second," Pelosi, who represents the district that serves San Francisco, told the editorial board and reporters at the Los Angeles Times.
Pelosi's stance on the issue makes her one of the highest ranking politicians in a relatively small group openly supporting legalization of the drug for recreational use. It's more common for lawmakers to support its medical use.
The state ballot measure in question is California's Proposition 64, which if passed would treat marijuana much like alcohol. Recreational marijuana would be legal for those over the age of 21, and the state would tax its growth and sales in addition to regulating its distribution. Medical marijuana is already legal in California.
The question of whether pot should be legal is a big theme on state ballots this year. Arizona, Maine, Massachusetts, and Nevada are also voting on measures that would make the drug legal to possess and use in small amounts for people over 21. Four other states are voting to legalize medical marijuana: Arkansas, Florida, Montana, and North Dakota.
According to the Atlantic, recent polls show that voters in the five states deciding on recreational marijuana are leaning toward legalization. If all the measures passed, marijuana would be legal for 25 percent of the country's population, up from where it is currently, at 5 percent.
That echoes a national trend. According to a recent Gallup poll, public support for legal pot has climbed to 60 percent — the highest level recorded by the polling group in nearly 50 years. The move toward acceptance might mean more politicians will soon join Pelosi in openly supporting similar measures across the country.
Recreational marijuana is already legal in Colorado, Alaska, Washington, Oregon and the District of Columbia (though in D.C. it's still illegal to buy or sell it).
Looking at the two states with the longest track records with legal pot — Colorado and Washington, which both legalized it in 2012 — there's evidence that the drug's status has been good to the states' economies. In 2015, Colorado saw a $2.39 billion boost in its economy and the pot industry is credited with creating over 18,000 jobs, according to the Denver Post. A majority of Coloradans also say legalization has been good for Colorado and its economy, according to a recent poll. Washington has collected nearly $70 million in taxes related to marijuana and expects to see more than $1 billion in the next four years, according to Bloomberg.
Source
|
On November 07 2016 01:06 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2016 00:56 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 07 2016 00:53 xDaunt wrote:On November 07 2016 00:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 06 2016 15:33 xDaunt wrote:On November 06 2016 15:03 Danglars wrote:On November 06 2016 14:39 Aquanim wrote:
...we would not have an interesting discussion on that topic.
Let me just mimic your quoting style for a moment. I've found time and time again the partisan attachment to Clinton is the best explanation for making the choice that her record just contains small mistakes or lapses in judgment. I say this only to illustrate, and feel free to snip all justification for my conclusions out of future quote trains, that if nobody can find common ground on a very lengthy and transparent record, the possibility of good debate vanishes. I can absolutely see your point that no further enlightening discussion seems possible on that topic. I just wish the most active arguers from the left + Show Spoiler +(some on right too, but they already get massive scorn) would acknowledge the glaring and massive flaws of BOTH candidates, which may or may not be individually and subjectively disqualifying, to preserve the idea that productive discussion can occur on ANY topic whatsoever. There's no use talking forestry at all if one party thinks million acre fires might just be a very plucky isolated square kilometer sending up disproportionate smoke. I really don't get why so many of the leftist/liberal posters go so far out of their way to fellate the Clintons. The Clintons are patently vile by any measure and should be readily acknowledged as such. I certainly understand the argument that the Clintons are comparatively better than Trump and can respect it, but the degree to which some posters stick their heads in the sand regarding who they're supporting simply boggles the mind. That's fantastic news to hear! And what direct evidence showed you this or are you just making speculative claims? I'd love to see it so I can show my peers and convince them of your obviously fact filled and evidence laden view. There have been plenty of posts made by me and by others illustrating exactly what the problem is with the Clinton Foundation, ranging from internal memos to third party reporting. And that's before even getting into the seedier side of the Clintons' political history. So far you've posted old articles of accusations that the foundation has apologized and made changes for. The accusation primarily being why Qatar gave 1/12th as much as England to the foundation. Are you actually arguing that the Clintons are clean and that they don't run their foundation with any appearance of impropriety? And if not, then what's your point?
I'm saying that when you're accusing a group of spending money to help foreign interest, show the action or actions being done in foreign interests and don't point at middle easterners accusing them of never wanting to give to charity.
|
Hyrule19264 Posts
Even though the modnote has been there a while, apparently people thought that since it's so old it can be ignored.
The rules in the OP will be strictly enforced.
|
On November 06 2016 08:42 NukeD wrote:Interesting link on worldwide Trump v Hillary polls: worldwide.vote
Finland 67% Trump? AHAHAHAQHAHHAHAHAHAHA
User was warned for this post
|
On November 07 2016 04:04 Luolis wrote:Finland 67% Trump? AHAHAHAQHAHHAHAHAHAHA
Yeah. Remind me to read what i post in the future lol.
User was warned for this post
|
On November 07 2016 03:05 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2016 01:29 Nebuchad wrote:On November 07 2016 01:17 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 07 2016 00:55 Nebuchad wrote:On November 06 2016 22:37 Biff The Understudy wrote:
In this exerpt, Grim is clearly talking about the whole election (51 states). You quote one sentence while we (you in the first place) are talking about the Florida result, forgetting to mention the context, which is the whole election,
Further in the article he said the result of Florida mattered very little to prove anything here:
538 also has Clinton winning the national, the difference between the two models will be on the results of Florida and a few other states. What do you think "we'll see" means in terms of national results, when both entities agree on the most likely national result? Obviously it refers to the gap between the two candidates, and that gap is Florida and Cie. Besides, do you think there is some sort of special difference between a national poll and a state poll, that makes it so that someone who thinks the national result is indicative of who was right about national polls doesn't also have to think that the state result is indicative of who was right about state polls? I'd like to hear what you think that difference is. Btw it's cool that you jump to claiming dishonesty after two posts, makes me really want to debate you. The whole election prediction is 51 different predictions put together, and it's this aggregate of predictions that makes our friend from the HP argue that the election will prove which model is better. You then argue that the guy is stupid because Florida alone won't be able to prove the merit of their models, and when i point it out you answer with an out of context sentence that refers to the whole thing. I get you don't like me, but I have nothing against you. I just tell you that you are mixing up two things and that you refuse to admit it, hence me questioning your good faith, especially after the extremely aggressive msg you wrote me the other day. So if you put your grudge on the side: You are right about Florida alone not being a good way to prove the merit of a model. The whole election is in fact 51 predictions. That's a good test. Silver became famous overnight for getting it right in 2008 The guy said "we'll see who is right" talking about the whole thing. You said he said it about Florida. I point it out and say that you either misread or are not quoting in good faith. And that's it. I'm pretty sure the fact that I don't like you hasn't been part of my argument so far, I'm not sure why you bring that up. In those 51 predictions, how many do they disagree on? Well, I suspect you would have listened to what I have been saying the last three pages if there weren't something personal, so, yes you didn't bring it up your feelings but they sweat in your attitude. To answer your question, it changes all the time, because 538 in particular has a lot of states around the 50% mark. About the two models disagreeing right now, on top of Florida (538 gives a 52% chances to Trump while HP think Clinton has 91,6% chances to win it), we have: Ohio: 538 sees a 67% chance of Trump win. HP sees 57% of a Clinton win. Nevada: 539 51,5% Trump, HP 78,5% Clinton North Carolina: 538 52% Trump, HP 90% Clinton There might be others I am missing, and it might change in the next hours. You can check: http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2016/forecast/president#likely-votes-clintonhttp://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/So now, for example, if 538 is right and Trump wins the four of them, we know for sure that their model is most certainly better than the Huff Post, because losing states in which you have 90%, 78,5%, 57% and 91,6 (Florida) chances to win is statistically extremely, extremely unlikely. That's why the Huff Post puts Clinton chances at 98,4%. What is interesting is that Silver problem with the HP forecast is that from what I understood they don't consider that polling errors in one state mean anything in another, which is a bit ludicrous. If polls underestimated Trump chances by 3 point in Colorado, for example (and that's very possible, it's a high but nonetheless normal margin of error), it is more than likely they also underestimated them in New Mexico and Arizona. That's why Trump chances are 35% according to 538, and 1,6% in the HP model. And again, I have nothing against you and never had and I am discussing in good faith.
In terms of actual results, they predict the same winner on every state but NC and Florida (something weird with Ohio according to what you say here as they have Trump winning in numbers but they have 57% confidence of Clinton winning?). What you're going to be able to measure on election day is the actual results, not the confidence in the results. It stands to reason that you would compare those numbers rather than the confidence that they put in them.
It already accounts for the large difference in predicted chances of winning, cause Trump has absolutely no chance of winning without NC and Florida, that 1,6% seems optimistic.
I'd be making the same case if I was against someone else... Sometimes people just think you're wrong, you know.
|
|
|
On November 07 2016 04:13 plasmidghost wrote:
Hmm, Trump's having rallies in Minnesota, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Virginia today, he's a pretty big underdog in each state but it might be enough of an enthusiasm burst to get people to vote for him, maybe he'll win one of them
He needs a win in one of those states or Wisconsin or New Hampshire to win. It makes more sense than Hillary going to Arizona.
|
On November 07 2016 04:04 Luolis wrote:Finland 67% Trump? AHAHAHAQHAHHAHAHAHAHA
LoL that is an online poll, you know, the kind where more people vote for trump than the given country's population....
There was a real poll linked earlier here, with trump in the single digits worldwide iirc :D Not that it matters, it is not that interesting to the average joe in my experience. For example, the office has all kinds of political talk, but never about us politics, at most about how the us is bad or not as a whole...
|
|
|
On November 07 2016 04:13 plasmidghost wrote:
Hmm, Trump's having rallies in Minnesota, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Virginia today, he's a pretty big underdog in each state but it might be enough of an enthusiasm burst to get people to vote for him, maybe he'll win one of them
Think these last minute events show that the public polling is not what they are seeing in their internals.
Maybe I'm missing something, but is it odd that the new NBC poll asked 50% Obama voters and 35% Romney voters in their new poll?
|
|
|
Given how much irregularity there is this time, and how much emphasis there is on a higher than normal risk for polling to be unreliable; plus the changes in the support base compared to the usual distribution, it makes sense to campaign widely for more chances at unexpected upsets. or at least that sounds very plausible.
|
Hispanic voters could be poised to deliver a historic rebuke to Donald Trump and the Republican Party.
Early-vote statistics from battleground states with large Hispanic populations show record turnout among a bloc that has voted at a lower rate than whites or blacks in past elections. If, as some polls suggest, Hispanic voters are supporting Hillary Clinton by blowout margins, these numbers could sink Trump in a handful of states that are essential to his path to 270 electoral votes.
In Nevada, Latino turnout propelled Democrats in Clark County — the population center that's home to Las Vegas — to a record-breaking close on Friday, driving up the Democratic lead in early ballots cast to 72,000. That's enough, according to veteran Nevada political analyst Jon Ralston, to essentially tie a bow on the state for Clinton.
Four years earlier, when President Barack Obama won the state by 7 points, Democrats led Clark County in ballots cast by 71,000 at the end of early voting in 2012.
State GOP Chairman Michael McDonald responded to the sudden electoral tremors Saturday by suggesting there were shady dealings behind the surge, referring to “a certain group.”
“Last night, in Clark County, they kept a poll open till 10 o’clock at night so a certain group could vote,” said McDonald at a Trump rally in Reno. “It wasn’t in an area that normally has high transition. The polls are supposed to close at 7. This was kept open till 10. Yeah, you feel free right now? Think this is a free or easy election?”
In his speech following those remarks, Trump suggested there might be wrongdoing at "certain key Democratic polling locations in Clark County."
"Folks, it's a rigged system. It's a rigged system. And we're going to beat it," he said.
In Florida, which tracks turnout by race and ethnicity, Hispanics have so far cast about 14 percent of the 5.7 million early and absentee ballots cast. That puts Hispanics far ahead of where they were in casting early ballots relative to 2012.
That follows Florida Democratic strategist Steve Schale's analysis, which notes that, through Wednesday alone, Hispanic turnout in 2016 had already exceeded — by 170,000 ballots — Hispanic early voting in the entire 2012 cycle. And Schale noted that many of them are first-time voters, who Democrats see as crucial targets in the early-voting period.
Similar signs suggest Democrats are seeing robust Hispanic turnout in Arizona as well. And even Texas, considered out of reach for Democrats, is seeing a surge across the state's most populous counties.
Latino turnout has historically lagged that of most other races and ethnicities — even among those eligible to cast ballots. In 2012, 62 percent of all U.S. citizens voted in the presidential election — but only 48 percent of Hispanic citizens did. Meanwhile, higher percentages of white citizens (62 percent) and black citizens (66 percent) participated.
Source
|
|
|
Because she's a bad candidate. Plain and simple.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
