|
On November 04 2020 12:02 BigFan wrote: I think Trump takes this. He seems to be performing better than expected in all the important states.
Too early to say, WI MI and PA don't mean much without the early voting
|
On November 04 2020 12:03 AsariCommando wrote:Only 20% reporting and that's largely not getting into mailed-in ballots yet.
Ohhh I see. Thought the perecentage will be much higher since we're already getting results from Utah and Arizona
|
On November 04 2020 12:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:What percent of the votes? Edit: Only 20%? Then no. Yeah, it's too early to say anything about Pennsylvania. Philadelphia County, which is currently sitting at 94-6 Biden only has 9% of votes in.
|
If Trump wins Ohio by <2%, then it indicates that polls were generally correct. If he wins it by more than that then he will probably have an even more ridiculous number of electoral popular vote split than 2016.
|
On November 04 2020 11:58 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2020 11:54 LegalLord wrote:On November 04 2020 11:49 KwarK wrote:On November 04 2020 11:45 LegalLord wrote:On November 04 2020 11:42 KwarK wrote:On November 04 2020 11:41 PhoenixVoid wrote: I don't know if pollsters and election modellers will recover from this. This is looking like a 5-6 point miss despite all their pleas that they adjusted their models weighing for education and asserted that the shy Trump supporter and social desirability effect didn't exist, or performed well in the midterms. It appears they didn't catch the significant jump in support for Trump or voting depression for Biden in black and hispanic support, and the overwhelming turnout for Trump. Democrats aren't capturing that midterm energy at all.
This is looking like a very good map for Trump right now. Biden's slipping in Ohio and that's one of his few chances at keeping his election odds from not completely collapsing. If he loses Ohio, Pennsylvania is favouring Trump. Models assign probability, they don’t pick winners. You can’t say that the statistical model was wrong just because a coin cane up heads twice in a row. More like a die landing on 6 twice in a row, really. Polls were off by too much to simply write it off as "in the margin of error" two elections in a row. Which is why models like the 538 models gave Trump a serious chance to win, despite the polls, because they know that you can't trust polls blindly. 30-35% chance Trump in 2016? Reasonable chance he wins, that can be in the margin of error. That, followed by the 10% chance Trump has according to 538 in 2020? Less credible that the underlying data is reliable. Are you sure you know what a margin of error is? There isn't a margin of error with something saying 10% Trump, 90% Biden, just as there isn't with them saying 25% HH, 25% TT, 50% 1 heads 1 tails in 4 coinflips. A specific result doesn't imply an erroneous probability. A poll has a margin of error, they say it'll be 52 +-4. That means any result in the 48-56 range is acceptable and anything outside that indicates a fuckup. A probability does not have a margin of error. If they say there's a 10% chance of it happening and it happens then that doesn't indicate a fuckup.
I think this boils down to your interpretation of MoE. One usually defines a confidence interval using some cut-off, i.e. we believe with 95% certainty between 52 +- 4. At the end of the day, any event is possible in a statistical model it just may be unlikely. Furthermore, 52 +-4 does NOT imply that any value between 48 and 56 is equally likely.
The point people are trying to make is that the results either lie outside or consistently to one side of the model's prediction. This is possible, sure, but it is unlikely and it is more likely that the polling methodology has not accounted for some bias.
At the end of the day, polling is super hard. The 538 guys talk about the lack of survey response which leads to extreme selection bias which needs to be corrected.
|
Apparently 80% of Arizona's vote was early voting and was all counted prior to today.
They just hit 60% reporting with Biden at 55.9%.
|
PA counts mail in ballots the latest of pretty much any state. If it comes to PA, then we won't know the result for at least 72 hours, probably more likely a week.
|
United States10402 Posts
On November 04 2020 12:03 StasisField wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2020 12:00 FlaShFTW wrote: I come back from Dinner: Trump is now closed the gap in Ohio and the previous rural districts are now strong again. Blue counties are not showing enough of a vote to combat. Looks like Ohio is still gonna be red again. Biden now really needs to run the table. There are still plenty of votes in urban areas for Ohio so there is still a chance it goes blue. I'm just nervous. Trump is now ahead in Ohio by 2 points. Erie is almost in already at 88% and Trump actually gained 4 points there. Not sure if Biden's urban gain is enough.
|
Trump is going to call it before PA can get the absentee votes in, isn't he?
|
On November 04 2020 12:07 vult wrote: Trump is going to call it before PA can get the absentee votes in, isn't he? oh absolutely
|
Too early to call states like Pennsylvania and Arizona in the first place.
One state was expected to have a major blue shift (PA) while the other was expected to have a major red shift (Arizona) due to mail-ins AKA early votes would show a big advantage for the other party, but the party gets reversed by the opposing party's mail-in votes.
I'll be watching Pennsylvania with intense interest though it'll take a while for the mail-ins to settle. That's where, if Trump wins, Trump is pumping his fist and the Biden camp is left shaking their heads.
|
On November 04 2020 11:58 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2020 11:54 LegalLord wrote:On November 04 2020 11:49 KwarK wrote:On November 04 2020 11:45 LegalLord wrote:On November 04 2020 11:42 KwarK wrote:On November 04 2020 11:41 PhoenixVoid wrote: I don't know if pollsters and election modellers will recover from this. This is looking like a 5-6 point miss despite all their pleas that they adjusted their models weighing for education and asserted that the shy Trump supporter and social desirability effect didn't exist, or performed well in the midterms. It appears they didn't catch the significant jump in support for Trump or voting depression for Biden in black and hispanic support, and the overwhelming turnout for Trump. Democrats aren't capturing that midterm energy at all.
This is looking like a very good map for Trump right now. Biden's slipping in Ohio and that's one of his few chances at keeping his election odds from not completely collapsing. If he loses Ohio, Pennsylvania is favouring Trump. Models assign probability, they don’t pick winners. You can’t say that the statistical model was wrong just because a coin cane up heads twice in a row. More like a die landing on 6 twice in a row, really. Polls were off by too much to simply write it off as "in the margin of error" two elections in a row. Which is why models like the 538 models gave Trump a serious chance to win, despite the polls, because they know that you can't trust polls blindly. 30-35% chance Trump in 2016? Reasonable chance he wins, that can be in the margin of error. That, followed by the 10% chance Trump has according to 538 in 2020? Less credible that the underlying data is reliable. Are you sure you know what a margin of error is? There isn't a margin of error with something saying 10% Trump, 90% Biden, just as there isn't with them saying 25% HH, 25% TT, 50% 1 heads 1 tails in 4 coinflips. A specific result doesn't imply an erroneous probability. Eh, that's a pretty weak argument on semantics. While it's possible for it to be off by that much purely "by chance," getting two results in a row that seem out-of-family is a perfectly good reason to wonder if your underlying assumptions were off.
If I had a die that I could only roll twice and both times the result was a 6, that'd be a very good reason to suspect it might not be a fair die. Could just be a 3% random chance, but the odds are against that.
|
Biden Trump basically equal in NC with 86% reporting
|
Trump now leading in NC as well.
|
Serious question : if the popular vote winds up 54% Biden, Trump 46%, but Trump wins the electoral college, what do we think the impact is? It is a possible result right now. Of course he keeps the presidency, but with that kind of gap I'm not sure I see how it ends well.
|
im seeing NC completely tied with 88% reported, anyone having something more than that?
|
United States43989 Posts
On November 04 2020 12:09 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2020 11:58 KwarK wrote:On November 04 2020 11:54 LegalLord wrote:On November 04 2020 11:49 KwarK wrote:On November 04 2020 11:45 LegalLord wrote:On November 04 2020 11:42 KwarK wrote:On November 04 2020 11:41 PhoenixVoid wrote: I don't know if pollsters and election modellers will recover from this. This is looking like a 5-6 point miss despite all their pleas that they adjusted their models weighing for education and asserted that the shy Trump supporter and social desirability effect didn't exist, or performed well in the midterms. It appears they didn't catch the significant jump in support for Trump or voting depression for Biden in black and hispanic support, and the overwhelming turnout for Trump. Democrats aren't capturing that midterm energy at all.
This is looking like a very good map for Trump right now. Biden's slipping in Ohio and that's one of his few chances at keeping his election odds from not completely collapsing. If he loses Ohio, Pennsylvania is favouring Trump. Models assign probability, they don’t pick winners. You can’t say that the statistical model was wrong just because a coin cane up heads twice in a row. More like a die landing on 6 twice in a row, really. Polls were off by too much to simply write it off as "in the margin of error" two elections in a row. Which is why models like the 538 models gave Trump a serious chance to win, despite the polls, because they know that you can't trust polls blindly. 30-35% chance Trump in 2016? Reasonable chance he wins, that can be in the margin of error. That, followed by the 10% chance Trump has according to 538 in 2020? Less credible that the underlying data is reliable. Are you sure you know what a margin of error is? There isn't a margin of error with something saying 10% Trump, 90% Biden, just as there isn't with them saying 25% HH, 25% TT, 50% 1 heads 1 tails in 4 coinflips. A specific result doesn't imply an erroneous probability. Eh, that's a pretty weak argument on semantics. While it's possible for it to be off by that much purely "by chance," getting two results in a row that seem out-of-family is a perfectly good reason to wonder if your underlying assumptions were off. If I had a die that I could only roll twice and both times the result was a 6, that'd be a very good reason to suspect it might not be a fair die. Could just be a 3% random chance, but the odds are against that. 18% chance, given that you would conclude that it was a rigged die on any result obtained twice, not just 6 twice. Which is the point. 18% of the time you're claiming you have a rigged die when it's far more likely that it's the 1/6 chance that it just happened than someone rigged your die.
|
On November 04 2020 12:09 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2020 11:58 KwarK wrote:On November 04 2020 11:54 LegalLord wrote:On November 04 2020 11:49 KwarK wrote:On November 04 2020 11:45 LegalLord wrote:On November 04 2020 11:42 KwarK wrote:On November 04 2020 11:41 PhoenixVoid wrote: I don't know if pollsters and election modellers will recover from this. This is looking like a 5-6 point miss despite all their pleas that they adjusted their models weighing for education and asserted that the shy Trump supporter and social desirability effect didn't exist, or performed well in the midterms. It appears they didn't catch the significant jump in support for Trump or voting depression for Biden in black and hispanic support, and the overwhelming turnout for Trump. Democrats aren't capturing that midterm energy at all.
This is looking like a very good map for Trump right now. Biden's slipping in Ohio and that's one of his few chances at keeping his election odds from not completely collapsing. If he loses Ohio, Pennsylvania is favouring Trump. Models assign probability, they don’t pick winners. You can’t say that the statistical model was wrong just because a coin cane up heads twice in a row. More like a die landing on 6 twice in a row, really. Polls were off by too much to simply write it off as "in the margin of error" two elections in a row. Which is why models like the 538 models gave Trump a serious chance to win, despite the polls, because they know that you can't trust polls blindly. 30-35% chance Trump in 2016? Reasonable chance he wins, that can be in the margin of error. That, followed by the 10% chance Trump has according to 538 in 2020? Less credible that the underlying data is reliable. Are you sure you know what a margin of error is? There isn't a margin of error with something saying 10% Trump, 90% Biden, just as there isn't with them saying 25% HH, 25% TT, 50% 1 heads 1 tails in 4 coinflips. A specific result doesn't imply an erroneous probability. Eh, that's a pretty weak argument on semantics. While it's possible for it to be off by that much purely "by chance," getting two results in a row that seem out-of-family is a perfectly good reason to wonder if your underlying assumptions were off. If I had a die that I could only roll twice and both times the result was a 6, that'd be a very good reason to suspect it might not be a fair die. Could just be a 3% random chance, but the odds are against that.
Two 6's in a row is a 1 in 36 chance.
As a person who plays several hobbies that roll large amounts of D6's, you would be amazed how many times I see utterly ridiculous rolls, e.g. rolling snake eyes twice in a row, or rolling three 20's on 3D20, or rolling five 1's out of five D6's.
These things do happen.
|
Arizona chunk just came in, looks good for biden. Arizona pretty much come downs to maracopa and biden has a big lead there.
|
On November 04 2020 12:11 Shingi11 wrote: Arizona chunk just came in, looks good for biden. Arizona pretty much come downs to maracopa and biden has a big lead there.
This.
Arizona actually looks like it can break for Biden, which would drastically change the narrative.
|
|
|
|
|
|