PDA

View Full Version : Nate Silver thinks it is time for Dems to Panic



genglandoh
09-23-2016, 10:07 AM
Well it has been a week since Nate Silver wrote this story and the national polls look about the same.
But on the RCP electoral map (no tossups) Trump is gaining, Trump is at 266 and Hillary is at 272.
All Trump has to do is win one more state like CO.
CO -RCP Average Hillary is up 2.5 but the last poll was tied

Title: Election Update: Democrats Should Panic … If The Polls Still Look Like This In A Week
Link: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-democrats-should-panic-if-the-polls-still-look-like-this-in-a-week/

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_elections_electoral_college_map_no_toss_ups.h tml

Norman Bernstein
09-23-2016, 10:15 AM
Your first link is a week old.

Your second link is a 'no toss-up' map, which is completely meaningless. Ain't nobody has a crystal ball, yanno.

Try 270towin.com for a far more objective picture, if it's maps you like.

On second thought, don't.... you won't like it.

David G
09-23-2016, 10:17 AM
Lordy, I do get tired of hyperbolic misrepresentation.

Bobcat
09-23-2016, 10:19 AM
Lordy, I do get tired of hyperbolic misrepresentation.

It's the stock in trade of certain posters.

genglandoh
09-23-2016, 10:25 AM
Your first link is a week old.

Your second link is a 'no toss-up' map, which is completely meaningless. Ain't nobody has a crystal ball, yanno.

Try 270towin.com for a far more objective picture, if it's maps you like.

On second thought, don't.... you won't like it.

Norm I think you must have not read my post or even the title of Nate Silvers story.
Last week Nate Silver said that Dem should panic is the polls are the same in 1 week.

So Yes the link to Nate Silvers story is 1 week old.

Norman Bernstein
09-23-2016, 10:28 AM
By the way, there's a reason I don't look at www.realclearpolitics.com.

Forget genglandoh's 'no tossup' map, it's useless, and look at the 'poll based' maps. RCP has both PA and VA shown as 'tossups'... but click on those states, and you'll see that every poll listed has Clinton ahead by a substantial margin, above the margin of error, in those states... that's 36 electoral votes that RCP's map falsely calls a 'toss-up'.

THAT is why I look at 270towin instead. 270towin shows states as 'tossups' ONLY if the polls report less than a 5% margin, which means it's too close to call, when compared with the margin of error of most polls. If the polls report a 5% to 10% lean, 270towin shows them as 'leaning', which is certainly a conservative approach.

Norman Bernstein
09-23-2016, 10:30 AM
So Yes the link to Nate Silvers story is 1 week old.

1 week, in a Presidential campaign, is ancient history.

Tom Montgomery
09-23-2016, 10:30 AM
This poll result was released Wednesday:


Hillary Clinton (http://topics.wsj.com/person/C/Hillary-Clinton/6344) is maintaining her edge over Republican rival Donald Trump (http://topics.wsj.com/person/T/Donald-Trump/159) despite recent campaign setbacks, but the 2016 presidential race continues to tighten going into the homestretch, a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll has found. After a rocky week of controversy over her health and for calling some of Mr. Trump’s supporters “deplorables,” the Democratic nominee leads Mr. Trump by 6 percentage points, 43% to 37%, among people likely to vote, the survey found. Two third-party candidates drew 12% support.

It is the first Journal/NBC News survey this year to focus on the opinions of people likely to vote. Among all registered voters, a slightly broader group than those designated as likely voters, Mrs. Clinton leads by 5 percentage points, narrower than her 9-point lead in the August Journal/NBC News survey.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clinton-leads-donald-trump-by-6-points-in-latest-wsj-nbc-poll-1474491609

genglandoh
09-23-2016, 10:33 AM
By the way, there's a reason I don't look at www.realclearpolitics.com (http://www.realclearpolitics.com).

Forget genglandoh's 'no tossup' map, it's useless, and look at the 'poll based' maps. RCP has both PA and VA shown as 'tossups'... but click on those states, and you'll see that every poll listed has Clinton ahead by a substantial margin, above the margin of error, in those states... that's 36 electoral votes that RCP's map falsely calls a 'toss-up'.

THAT is why I look at 270towin instead. 270towin shows states as 'tossups' ONLY if the polls report less than a 5% margin, which means it's too close to call, when compared with the margin of error of most polls. If the polls report a 5% to 10% lean, 270towin shows them as 'leaning', which is certainly a conservative approach.

I do not think you understand the RCP no tossup map.
Please look at it again.
It gives both PA and VA to Hillary for just the reason you stated.

Norman Bernstein
09-23-2016, 10:34 AM
Just consider this.. from that Nate Silver article:


On Thursday alone, polls were released showing Clinton behind in Ohio, Iowa and Colorado — and with narrow, 3-point leads in Michigan and Virginia, two states once thought to be relatively safe for her.

Was that true, a week ago?

Today, RCP's state polling reports Clinton ahead in every poll covered by RCP, and by an average of +6.6 points, in VA.... NOT 3 points... and the same in Michigan, with an average of +5.2 points.....

...yet, RCP's map still calls these 'toss-ups'.

RCP sucks.

Norman Bernstein
09-23-2016, 10:36 AM
I do not think you understand the RCP no tossup map.

I understand it just fine... and it's crap.... it's a crystal ball projection not based on real data.... doesn't matter if it gives PA and VA to Hillary. The site isn't trustworthy, based on the way it treats states which are clearly leaning.

genglandoh
09-23-2016, 10:41 AM
Just consider this.. from that Nate Silver article:



Was that true, a week ago?

Today, RCP's state polling reports Clinton ahead in every poll covered by RCP, and by an average of +6.6 points, in VA.... NOT 3 points... and the same in Michigan, with an average of +5.2 points.....

...yet, RCP's map still calls these 'toss-ups'.

RCP sucks.

Again the RCP no tossup map has Hillary winning VA and MI.
It has Trump winning Ohio because he is ahead in the polls. (see below)
But the 270towin it has Hillary winning Ohio.

Polling Data for Ohio from RCP



Poll
Date
Sample
MoE
Trump (R)
Clinton (D)
Spread


RCP Average
8/29 - 9/20
--
--
45.0
43.2
Trump +1.8


FOX News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2016/09/21/fox-news-poll-ohio/)
9/18 - 9/20
737 LV
3.5
45
40
Trump +5


Suffolk* (http://www.suffolk.edu/documents/SUPRC/9_15_2016_marginals.pdf)
9/12 - 9/14
500 LV
4.4
42
39
Trump +3


Bloomberg (https://assets.bwbx.io/documents/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/r2.771xfmKOI/v0)
9/9 - 9/12
802 LV
3.5
48
43
Trump +5


CNN/ORC (http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2016/images/09/14/ohiopoll.pdf)
9/7 - 9/12
769 LV
3.5
50
46
Trump +4


CBS News/YouGov* (https://www.scribd.com/document/323620144/CBS-News-2016-Battleground-Tracker-Ohio-September-11-2016#from_embed)
9/7 - 9/9
994 LV
3.9
39
46
Clinton +7


Quinnipiac (https://www.qu.edu/images/polling/ps/ps09082016_pg92cxm.pdf)
8/29 - 9/7
775 LV
3.5
46
45
Trump +1




Correction: I am very sorry I was looking at the 2012 Actual map from 270towin website.
So I am wrong they are not giving Ohio to Hillary.

Norman Bernstein
09-23-2016, 10:47 AM
But the 270towin it has Hillary winning Ohio.

No, it does not.

270towin shows Ohio as a tossup, with Trump leading by 2%... which, exactly according to their standards, makes it a toss-up because the margin is less than 5%.

You could at least tell the truth about this stuff, while spewing your hyperbole.

genglandoh
09-23-2016, 10:51 AM
No, it does not.

270towin shows Ohio as a tossup, with Trump leading by 2%... which, exactly according to their standards, makes it a toss-up because the margin is less than 5%.

You could at least tell the truth about this stuff, while spewing your hyperbole.

I am very sorry I was looking at the 2012 Actual map from 270towin website.
So I am wrong they are not giving Ohio to Hillary.

I added a correction to my post.

David G
09-23-2016, 10:53 AM
Lordy, I do get tired of loud, persistent, clueless, hyperbolic misrepresentation.

genglandoh
09-23-2016, 11:03 AM
Back to the subject.
RCP has the EC summary at Hillary 200, Trump 164 Toss-up 174
27towin has it at Hillary 200, Trump 163, Toss-up at 175.

For the states you listed
PA Both sites have is as toss-up.
VA Both sites have it as toss-up.
MI Both sites have it as toss-up.
OH Both sites have is as toss-up.

So I really do not know what your beef is all about.
The two sites match each other.

What I do like about RCP is it shows you the poll data it is using.
I can not find where 270towin shows you the poll data it is using.

Here are the two maps for reference.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_elections_electoral_college_map.html

http://www.270towin.com/

Norman Bernstein
09-23-2016, 11:03 AM
As should be obvious, I follow this stuff VERY closely.... closely enough to know that it's an absurd and ridiculous effort to be a 'cheerleader' for my preferred candidate. There are far, far too many unknowns in this, or ANY Presidential election, to be sure of the outcome.

Which is why suggestions that one side or the other should 'panic', are frankly juvenile... and Nate Silver should know better.

Of all the various sites that I watch... and there are many... I still think that 270towin.com is one of the best. It provides the straightforward poll-based map, with a very conservative definition of what the difference is between 'leaning' and 'toss-up'.

To only a slightly lesser degree, I also think that their 'pundit-based' map, which is really a mixture of both poll data and professional observer information, is a very good product. Polls are important, but don't always represent all sorts of state-level dynamics that can be part of the estimation of results. Unsurprisingly, the pundit-based map is more optimistic for Hillary... but it doesn't mean it's right.

As for my own 'estimation', I still feel fairly good for Hillary's chances... but I'm nowhere near enough of a complete fool to be cheerleading, like some here. The truth is that it's a close race, it may get even closer, and cheerleading is really stupid.

Ted Hoppe
09-23-2016, 11:08 AM
Nate Silver thinks it time for more self relevance and personal promotion. He is part of the problem.

bobbys
09-23-2016, 11:52 AM
it's a fact HC has had a bad few weeks while DT is building momentum..

Norman Bernstein
09-23-2016, 12:25 PM
Back to the subject.
RCP has the EC summary at Hillary 200, Trump 164 Toss-up 174
27towin has it at Hillary 200, Trump 163, Toss-up at 175.

For the states you listed
PA Both sites have is as toss-up.
VA Both sites have it as toss-up.
MI Both sites have it as toss-up.
OH Both sites have is as toss-up.

So I really do not know what your beef is all about.

You originally provided a link to the 'no tossup' map. THAT was my 'beef', as you put it. I said, and still maintain, that 'no tossup' maps are worthless and useless.


The two sites match each other.

What I do like about RCP is it shows you the poll data it is using.
I can not find where 270towin shows you the poll data it is using.



The difference is that RCP's maps don't reflect the polling, based on defined rules or thresholds. RCP shows Hillary ahead by more than the typical margin of error, in VA and PA, but their maps show the two states as tossups. I'm not disagreeing with RCP's state by state polling data.... I'm disagreeing with the fact that they have no defined criteria for what is or is not a tossup state.... and they shows states as tossups when one candidate's polls in that state are above the margin of error. That is both misleading, and just plain wrong.

David G
09-23-2016, 12:28 PM
Oops... did I say clueless? I should have said 'incorrigibly clueless'.

ljb5
09-23-2016, 12:28 PM
it's a fact HC has had a bad few weeks while DT is building momentum..


I think that's a fair assessment....But it's also fair to say that Hillary has had a consistent lead throughout the entire campaign, except, perhaps for one day.

At times, her lead has been monumental... at worse, it has been reliable. Trump has never had a lead. On Trump's best day, he has been behind Hillary on her worst day.

So, if you think it's time for Democrats to panic now, then you have to recognize that Republicans have been in a panic all along.

And, frankly, I think that's a fair assessment of the Republican situation. I mean, when George Bush Sr. says he's voting for Hillary, and serious conservative newspapers who have reliably endorsed Republicans refuse to endorse Trump, that indicates that something is breaking down in the party.

Rum_Pirate
09-23-2016, 12:29 PM
Why don't you gentlemen wait a few weeks and the question as to whom will be the next President of the USA will be settled?

In the interim, you could or might like to use your time to post some interesting non-political Threads and Posts, on the basis that nether of you is going to change the other's mind re the political scene.

CWSmith
09-23-2016, 12:32 PM
Why don't you gentlemen wait a few weeks and the question as to whom will be the next President of the USA will be settled?

In the interim, you could or might like to use your time to post some interesting non-political Threads and Posts, on the basis that nether of you is going to change the other's mind re the political scene.

At the very least, could we please have a meaningful political thread like the value of universal health care or foreign policy? These "odds to win" threads make me feel like I'm in Vegas - all the headache and none of the fun.

Ted Hoppe
09-23-2016, 12:37 PM
it's a fact HC has had a bad few weeks while DT is building momentum..

the fact is that those pundits and media in general have a vested interest in building DT so they get more advertising money. I do not think it was by chance that Matt Lauer did not follow up on Trump's non sequiturs and babble. Nor did we hear how Hilary was going to rein in Wall Street criminals. Those who are entrusted to be the watchmen over our republic and fourth estate have abandoned their posts. Nate Silver Press release pronouncement is the news rather that the quality of journalism that presses our politicians to speak truthfully or with wisdom.

Norman Bernstein
09-23-2016, 12:43 PM
the fact is that those pundits and media in general have a vested interest in building DT so they get more advertising money.

Might be just a little over the top, but I will admit that there's no question that the more outrageous things Trump says, the more the media will cover him... and the bigger the ratings.


Nor did we hear how Hilary was going to rein in Wall Street criminals.

Forums, town halls, and debates NEVER get into specifics. For that information, you'd have to examine the campaign websites closely... something few Americans do. Since I have a big interest in this stuff, I've looked.... Hillary has extensive, almost exhaustive, position papers on all major issues. Trump's site reads like a recitation of stump speeches, with essentially no actually fleshed-out detailed policy items.


Those who are entrusted to be the watchmen over our republic and fourth estate have abandoned their posts. Nate Silver Press release pronouncement is the news rather that pressing our politicians to speak truthfully or with wisdom.

I would agree that you describe the situation.... but I'm not going to blame the fourth estate. The media has only ONE bias: ratings.... and deep reports on policy details do NOT result in high ratings. It is what it is, unfortunately.

Ted Hoppe
09-23-2016, 12:57 PM
Might be just a little over the top, but I will admit that there's no question that the more outrageous things Trump says, the more the media will cover him... and the bigger the ratings.

Forums, town halls, and debates NEVER get into specifics. For that information, you'd have to examine the campaign websites closely... something few Americans do. Since I have a big interest in this stuff, I've looked.... Hillary has extensive, almost exhaustive, position papers on all major issues. Trump's site reads like a recitation of stump speeches, with essentially no actually fleshed-out detailed policy items.

I would agree that you describe the situation.... but I'm not going to blame the fourth estate. The media has only ONE bias: ratings.... and deep reports on policy details do NOT result in high ratings. It is what it is, unfortunately.

Put together your comments - it is a grim reflection on the current journalistic climate. Granted they are in the business of entertainment rather than objective news. Trump is a creation of this time. Our candidates in this situation and how we came to have two low grade candidates suggest we do not care enough. We still operate receiving Web 1.0 journalism for "free" while the costs of not proper balanced reporting is costing us trillions in losses and taking of public property for private corporate use at free or discounted rates and impinges personal freedoms.

Norman Bernstein
09-23-2016, 01:05 PM
Put together your comments - it is a grim reflection on the current journalistic climate. Granted they are in the business of entertainment rather than objective news. Trump is a creation of this time. Our candidates in this situation and how we came to have two low grade compliancy suggest we do not care enough. We still operate receiving Web 1.0 journalism for "free" while the costs of not proper balanced reporting is costing us trillions in losses and removal of public and personal freedoms.

I don't disagree.... except to point out that there is still some outstanding journalism being done... some major papers have really superb reporters who dig deep into stories and rake up a great deal of muck.

But you're right, the great unwashed public cares less, these days.

That's why I think that revelations of people's stupidity... which are done by folks like Jimmy Kimmel, for the sake of laughs... are actually quite profound:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2ZZc7iNygA

L.W. Baxter
09-23-2016, 01:08 PM
What would it mean to you, Geng, if I panicked?

David G
09-23-2016, 08:45 PM
See what I mean?

So... after a month or so of Trump's 'probability of winning' getting nearer and nearer to Hillary's - once coming as close as 55% to 45% - they have started to diverge again over the last few days. See the "How the Odds Have Changed" chart at the link below. Nate Silver has Hillary at 61.4% as of 3 hours ago (by his most conservative measure).

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/#plus

Cuyahoga Chuck
09-23-2016, 08:57 PM
Good to hear, Dave. but I won't stop worrying till I see Hillary keeping control of the situation at the debate. Trump has a lot of experiance in front of the cameras and he knows how to posture.

David G
09-23-2016, 09:34 PM
Well... as always... we're simply reading the tea leaves - until the actual elections.

Two more soggy dribblings --

https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/de793c12-12cd-35df-82a5-943127547593/nate-silver-says-i-should-be.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/09/19/why_her_poll_decline_could_be_good_news_for_clinto n_131820.html

genglandoh
09-26-2016, 12:10 PM
Nate Silver is giving Trump a 54.3% chance to winning the election if the election was held today.
(Hillary is at 43.7%)

Click on the now cast option.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo#now

Norman Bernstein
09-26-2016, 12:18 PM
Nate Silver is giving Trump a 54.3% chance to winning the election if the election was held today.
(Hillary is at 43.7%)

Click on the now cast option.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo#now

Not that you'd care, but that is the judgment of his 'polls plus' forecast. The 'polls only' forecast is precisely the opposite. You are, as is typical of you, cherry-picking.

I still watch 270towin's 'polls only' electoral map, because it's the only assessment that is unaffected by opinion. In that map, it's Clinton 217, Trump 121, with 200 'toss-up' (by their criteria: anything better than a 5% lead is treated as leaning.. tossups are states with a lead or lag of less than 5%).

Trump needs to capture 149 of 200 toss-up electoral votes.... Hillary needs only 53. If she takes PA, MI, WI, and CO, she's over the top.

http://www.270towin.com/map-images/clinton-trump-electoral-map

Joe (SoCal)
09-26-2016, 12:22 PM
Nate Silver is giving Trump a 54.3% chance to winning the election if the election was held today.
(Hillary is at 43.7%)

Click on the now cast option.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo#now

NOPE - Close but no cigar

https://scontent.frir1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/t31.0-8/p960x960/14435088_10208732841411864_1187710953187883823_o.j pg

genglandoh
09-26-2016, 12:22 PM
Not that you'd care, but that is the judgment of his 'polls plus' forecast. The 'polls only' forecast is precisely the opposite. You are, as is typical of you, cherry-picking.

I still watch 270towin's 'polls only' electoral map, because it's the only assessment that is unaffected by opinion. In that map, it's Clinton 217, Trump 121, with 200 'toss-up' (by their criteria: anything better than a 5% lead is treated as leaning.. tossups are states with a lead or lag of less than 5%).

Trump needs to capture 149 of 200 toss-up electoral votes.... Hillary needs only 53. If she takes PA, MI, WI, and CO, she's over the top.

Every avalanche starts with one snowflake.

David G
09-26-2016, 12:24 PM
Over at 538 - Silver certainly shows Trump decreasing the gap. as of about 10 minutes ago. This 'nowcast' even shows Trump slightly ahead. The nowcast being the most volatile of his three models, and the most likely to change tomorrow. The other two models show Clinton ahead, but the gap narrowing for the last couple of days --

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/#plus

TomF
09-26-2016, 12:26 PM
Panic isn't the correct response - the correct response for most Dems is organizing to get the vote out.

This vote is, as others have said before, an IQ test for America. It amazes me that so many people can be so unable to judge Trump and Clinton using the same measuring stick.

genglandoh
09-26-2016, 12:28 PM
NOPE - Close but no cigar


Thank you Joe, this is not the forecast for if the election was held today.
If you look at the website there are 3 options on the upper left, select now cast and you will see the forecast I am talking about.

Norman Bernstein
09-26-2016, 12:30 PM
Thank you Joe, this is not the forecast for if the election was held today.
If you look at the website there are 3 options on the upper left, select now cast and you will see the forecast I am talking about.

Joe is a great deal smarter than that... and smarter than you. He doesn't simply search for the result that pleases him most.

Norman Bernstein
09-26-2016, 12:32 PM
When push comes to shove enough people have an innate sense of deceny to reject Trump. I'm convinced that we will see this on election day. And the indecent folks? They simply don't turn out to vote in any significant numbers.

I wish I could be so optimistic... but I can't. I hope you're right... but I can't live on faith alone.

Yes, Donald Trump COULD win this election... and then, God help us.

I wish there was something I could do about it... but I live in MA, so there's nothing I can do locally.

ccmanuals
09-26-2016, 12:39 PM
I think the spate of recent ads using Trump's own words will go a long way encouraging republicans to stay home on election day.

genglandoh
09-26-2016, 12:41 PM
Joe is a great deal smarter than that... and smarter than you. He doesn't simply search for the result that pleases him most.

Calm down.
I did not say Joe was stupid, I just explained now he could find the forecast I was talking about.

TomF
09-26-2016, 12:43 PM
Calm down.
I did not say Joe was stupid, I just explained now he could find the forecast I was talking about.What seems odd, geng, is that you assumed that Joe wasn't familiar with Silver's three different projection models. They've come up before, eh? And he's among the more technologically ... active ... of us. :D

genglandoh
09-26-2016, 12:53 PM
What seems odd, geng, is that you assumed that Joe wasn't familiar with Silver's three different projection models. They've come up before, eh? And he's among the more technologically ... active ... of us. :D

Not odd at all.
I was talking about the Now-cast forecast.
Joe posted a different forecast and added "NOPE - Close but no cigar"

It seemed that he was saying my post had the wrong numbers.
So, I just explained to him how to find the forecast I was talking about.

David G
09-26-2016, 12:57 PM
Dingleberries... gotta dingle.

genglandoh
09-26-2016, 02:46 PM
Not that you'd care, but that is the judgment of his 'polls plus' forecast. The 'polls only' forecast is precisely the opposite. You are, as is typical of you, cherry-picking.

I still watch 270towin's 'polls only' electoral map, because it's the only assessment that is unaffected by opinion. In that map, it's Clinton 217, Trump 121, with 200 'toss-up' (by their criteria: anything better than a 5% lead is treated as leaning.. tossups are states with a lead or lag of less than 5%).

Trump needs to capture 149 of 200 toss-up electoral votes.... Hillary needs only 53. If she takes PA, MI, WI, and CO, she's over the top.

http://www.270towin.com/map-images/clinton-trump-electoral-map

I am not to sure about the 270towin map.
It does not seem to be following the 5% rule you are talk about.
1. TX - 270towin has it as toss but Trump is ahead +7.4 (38 EC Votes)
2. MS - 270towin has it as toss but Trump is ahead +15 (6 EC Votes)

So the total would be
Hillary 217
Trump 165

Added
Sorry I do not make it clear
I am getting the numbers from RCP website.
Comparing the two websites.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_elections_electoral_college_map.html
I also had a typo the second State should be MS or MI.

Joe (SoCal)
09-26-2016, 02:50 PM
Joe is a great deal smarter than that... and smarter than you. He doesn't simply search for the result that pleases him most.

:D .

Joe (SoCal)
09-26-2016, 02:52 PM
What would really be smart Geng is to look at these numbers tomorrow ;)
Even smarter would be to look at the results on Nov 2nd ;)

Norman Bernstein
09-26-2016, 02:58 PM
I am not to sure about the 270towin map.
It does not seem to be following the 5% rule you are talk about.
1. TX - 270towin has it as toss but Trump is ahead +7.4 (38 EC Votes)
2. MI - 270towin has it as toss but Trump is ahead +15 (6 EC Votes)

So the total would be
Hillary 217
Trump 165

I don't know where you're getting your numbers.

270towin has Michigan up +4 for Hillary., Texas up +4 for Trump, both of which are 'toss-up', by their criteria. Few people expect, or have expected, Texas to go Hillary's way.

Not every state has 'fresh' polls, so the averages include polls which may be a few days old.

ljb5
09-26-2016, 03:15 PM
I don't know where you're getting your numbers.

270towin.com has a feature where you can click on each state and make it appear however you like, just to see how the electoral math might work under different scenarios.

Perhaps Geng has fooled himself into thinking that's his clicking represents the actual state of the race. I wouldn't be surprised.

skuthorp
09-26-2016, 03:22 PM
The Dem's panic? If there's a question it's the country that needs to panic.

Actually they do anyhow, looking at your choices.

Jim Bow
09-26-2016, 03:28 PM
Can you say "deplorable hyperbolic misrepresentation" ten times real fast?

ljb5
09-26-2016, 03:31 PM
I don't know where you're getting your numbers.

I was thinking maybe geng doesn't know the difference between MI and MS, MN, ME, MO or MT.... but none of those have Trump up by 15 either.

Also, MI has 16 EC votes, not 6....

The states that have 6 are Iowa, Nevada, Arkansas, Utah, Kansas and Mississippi.

So maybe he meant Mississippi, instead of Michigan... but even Mississippi only has Trump up by two, not fifteen.

It shouldn't be this difficult to figure out what he's taking about. If he said stuff that was true and made sense, it would be self-evident.

genglandoh
09-26-2016, 03:38 PM
I don't know where you're getting your numbers.

270towin has Michigan up +4 for Hillary., Texas up +4 for Trump, both of which are 'toss-up', by their criteria. Few people expect, or have expected, Texas to go Hillary's way.

Not every state has 'fresh' polls, so the averages include polls which may be a few days old.

Sorry I do not make it clear
I am getting the numbers from RCP website.
Comparing the two websites.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...llege_map.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_elections_electoral_college_map.html)
I also had a typo the second State should be MS or MI.

I fixed the other post.

ljb5
09-26-2016, 03:47 PM
Sorry I do not make it clear
I am getting the number form RCP website.
Comparing the two websites.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...llege_map.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_elections_electoral_college_map.html)
I also had a typo the second State should be MS or MI.

I fixed the other post.

That still doesn't make sense, because 270toWin does not have MS as a tossup.

So you're going over to RCP to find the results of a single poll by a a Republican firm from a month and a half ago, and then you're going over to 270towin which shows MS in the Trump column and saying that they have it as a tossup?

I'm not sure you're doing this properly. It kinds seems like you're trying to carve your own path through the data.

How about you just take a step back, accept the analysis and judgement of those who really know what they're talking about, and stop trying to act like you can change the color of the sky by arguing with it.

C. Ross
09-26-2016, 06:15 PM
I yield to no one in my opposition to Trump.

But if the Clinton campaign and the DNC aren't deeply concerned they're foolish or negligent. They are steadily losing ground to a buffoonish near-nazi with historic negatives. She should be SMOKING Trump.

Tom Montgomery
09-26-2016, 06:18 PM
There are three debates yet to be held.

A bit early to declare a winner of the general election.

Fear not. The Donald will be The Donald and Hillary Clinton will be Hillary Clinton.

genglandoh
09-26-2016, 11:23 PM
Nate Silver is giving Trump a 54.3% chance to winning the election if the election was held today.
(Hillary is at 43.7%)

Click on the now cast option.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo#now

I just checked Nate Silvers Now-cast.
It changed 5 hours ago (before the debate).

It is now Trump 47.9% Hillary 52.1%.
I guess Nate got a few nasty emails and changed his forecast.

TomF
09-27-2016, 09:07 AM
I just checked Nate Silvers Now-cast.
It changed 5 hours ago (before the debate).

It is now Trump 47.9% Hillary 52.1%.
I guess Nate got a few nasty emails and changed his forecast.Why ever would Silver lay himself open to such a criticism, when his whole practice is based on 3 different models that blip up and down tracking different weightings of independent data?

Silver's every shift in the odds of each of his models will have a paper trail behind it, or he'll have put himself out of work. You're an engineer - a data guy. You should know this.

Norman Bernstein
09-27-2016, 09:12 AM
It seems to me that people tend to forget that Silver is playing the role of odds-maker... which is as far from possible, from an objective measure of this election.

It isn't known if the things that he takes into account, to determine what his 'odds' are, are actually significant, of if he's misreading the clues. This isn't like handicapping a horse race.

I have respect for what he does... but when it comes to elections, and especially, just 6 weeks before the election, the ONLY 'handicapping' I'm interested in is the electoral vote counts... because that is how we elect a President.

In a day or two, we might see whatever effect the first debate has had, on the prospects for either candidate. Until then, it still looks like a squeaker in favor of Hillary.

ljb5
09-27-2016, 09:44 AM
I am not to sure about the 270towin map.
It does not seem to be following the 5% rule you are talk about.
1. TX - 270towin has it as toss but Trump is ahead +7.4 (38 EC Votes)
2. MS - 270towin has it as toss but Trump is ahead +15 (6 EC Votes)



Can you explain where you got the information "MS - 270towin has it as toss but Trump is ahead +15 (6 EC Votes)"?

This statement does not seem to be supported by any interpretation of any data from any website.

And you already corrected it once.

David G
09-27-2016, 11:13 AM
Incorrigibly Clueless Dingleberries gotta dingle...

ljb5
09-27-2016, 07:57 PM
Sorry I do not make it clear
I am getting the numbers from RCP website.
Comparing the two websites.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...llege_map.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_elections_electoral_college_map.html)
I also had a typo the second State should be MS or MI.

I fixed the other post.

And yet, still, it doesn't make sense.

Any explanation?

genglandoh
09-28-2016, 08:13 AM
That still doesn't make sense, because 270toWin does not have MS as a tossup.

So you're going over to RCP to find the results of a single poll by a a Republican firm from a month and a half ago, and then you're going over to 270towin which shows MS in the Trump column and saying that they have it as a tossup?

I'm not sure you're doing this properly. It kinds seems like you're trying to carve your own path through the data.

How about you just take a step back, accept the analysis and judgement of those who really know what they're talking about, and stop trying to act like you can change the color of the sky by arguing with it.

If you look at the 270towin map that Norm posted is does show MS as a toss-up.
Then look at the RCP website and you will see Trump is winning at +15


Not that you'd care, but that is the judgment of his 'polls plus' forecast. The 'polls only' forecast is precisely the opposite. You are, as is typical of you, cherry-picking.

I still watch 270towin's 'polls only' electoral map, because it's the only assessment that is unaffected by opinion. In that map, it's Clinton 217, Trump 121, with 200 'toss-up' (by their criteria: anything better than a 5% lead is treated as leaning.. tossups are states with a lead or lag of less than 5%).

Trump needs to capture 149 of 200 toss-up electoral votes.... Hillary needs only 53. If she takes PA, MI, WI, and CO, she's over the top.

http://www.270towin.com/map-images/clinton-trump-electoral-map


Polling Data



Poll
Date
Sample
MoE
Trump (R)
Clinton (D)
Spread


Magellan (R) (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/2016/MagellanBR-YP_Poll_Toplines_081616.pdf)
8/11 - 8/11
1084 LV
2.9
54
39
Trump +15



http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ms/mississippi_trump_vs_clinton-5857.html

ljb5
09-28-2016, 08:35 AM
If you look at the 270towin map that Norm posted is does show MS as a toss-up.
Then look at the RCP website and you will see Trump is winning at +15




Polling Data



Poll
Date
Sample
MoE
Trump (R)
Clinton (D)
Spread


Magellan (R) (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/2016/MagellanBR-YP_Poll_Toplines_081616.pdf)
8/11 - 8/11
1084 LV
2.9
54
39
Trump +15



http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ms/mississippi_trump_vs_clinton-5857.html



Ah.

I see the source of your confusion. What you're looking at there is the polling map. Tan indicates either that the state is too close to call OR that there is no recent polling data to report.

Nobody thinks Mississippi is a toss-up, and you would have to have a terribly jaundiced opinion of the intelligence of the people over at 270towin.com to simply assume they are making a dumb mistake.

As a general rule of thumb, if you're feeling superior because you think you've caught an expert making a mistake, you need to spend just an extra minute or two making sure you fully understand. Because, chances are, you're the one who has made the mistake.

David G
09-28-2016, 03:16 PM
538 shows Hillary's lead continuing to slowly grow. For now: http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/#plus

David G
09-28-2016, 04:06 PM
Of course... there'll be NO shifting of Trump's core group --

https://scontent-sjc2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-0/s480x480/14492564_1377233092290189_3196834234744641360_n.jp g?oh=1480b2d9bad76d36f0afb5977a5a2285&oe=58ABB85E

bobbys
09-28-2016, 04:28 PM
Don't believe everything you read on the Internet... Abraham Lincoln...

David G
09-28-2016, 07:57 PM
As of an hour ago... the gap continues to grow -- http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/#plus

ljb5
09-28-2016, 08:08 PM
As of an hours ago... the gap continues to grow -- http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/#plus

There hasn't been a good poll in Florida in a few weeks. When we do get one, I expect Florida to turn back to blue, and we'll see a 6% increase in Hillary's chance of winning.

ljb5
09-29-2016, 07:49 AM
There hasn't been a good poll in Florida in a few weeks. When we do get one, I expect Florida to turn back to blue, and we'll see a 6% increase in Hillary's chance of winning.

12 hours later, looks like I was right.

New poll in Florida shows Hillary up, Florida is back to blue at five thirtyeight.com and Hillary is back to 61%.

genglandoh
09-29-2016, 12:24 PM
I looks like Hillary is very worried about Florida.
1. Huge Trump rallies.
2. Block voter turnout.
3. She is targeting Florida in the next few weeks.

https://hillaryspeeches.com/scheduled-events/

Title: Clinton's 'Florida freak out' is all about turnout and race
Hillary Clinton is leading Donald Trump in Florida by just half of a point, according to the RealClearPolitics average of all current polls.
Top Clinton campaign strategists are becoming increasingly worried about carrying the 29-electoral vote Sunshine State on Election Day. And they should be. Trump has won four of the last seven published Florida statewide polls for one thing, but there's something even more troubling for Team Clinton: Strong African American voter turnout is very much in doubt.
Link: http://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/28/clintons-florida-freak-out-is-all-about-turnout-and-race-commentary.html

Title: Clinton campaign in ‘panic mode’ over Florida black voters
MIAMI — To kill Donald Trump's chances of capturing the White House, Hillary Clinton needs to win Florida. And to do that, she needs a big minority turnout.
But Democrats are beginning to worry that too many African-American voters are uninspired by Clinton’s candidacy, leading her campaign to hit the panic button this week and launch an all-out blitz to juice-up voter enthusiasm.
Link: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/hillary-clinton-florida-black-voters-228822

Norman Bernstein
09-29-2016, 12:35 PM
I looks like Hillary is very worried about Florida.
1. Huge Trump rallies.

The size of Trump's rallies has nothing to do with the election... it indicates absolutely nothing. Hillary has had big rallies, as well. We don't elect Presidents based on the size of their rallies.... if it were true that 'rally size' was the leading indicator, then Trump would be leading in the polls... and he isn't.


Hillary Clinton is leading Donald Trump in Florida by just half of a point, according to the RealClearPolitics average of all current polls.

She was trailing him until recently.... and now both Nate Silver, as well as 270towin, shows her ahead.... in 270towin, it's by three points... not huge, but significant. The 270towin average is far more stringent, and far more reliable, than the RCP average, which may include some very old polls... they don't publish their criteria for what polls are included, whereas 270towin DOES.


MIAMI — To kill Donald Trump's chances of capturing the White House, Hillary Clinton needs to win Florida.

No, she actually doesn't. This is a thing called 'paths to victory', and reflects the number of different ways in which Hillary could win, versus Trump. You can Google this; Hillary has VASTLY more potential paths to win, even without Florida.... Donald Trump has many fewer paths to win.

The NYT assessment is that Hillary has 693 different paths to win.... Trump has 315. see http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/presidential-polls-forecast.html?_r=0 and scroll to the bottom.

Talk about voter turnout is just talk... it cannot be assessed before the election actually happens.

Joe (SoCal)
09-29-2016, 12:42 PM
Bwaaaa Ha Ha :D

https://scontent.frir1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/t31.0-8/14524629_10208758079922811_416622398712338415_o.jp g

genglandoh
09-29-2016, 12:53 PM
Title: Trump is headed for a win, says professor who has predicted 30 years of presidential outcomes correctly
Allan Lichtman, a distinguished professor of history at American University, created his "13 Keys to the White House" more than 30 years ago—and he's ready to predict who will win in 2016. (Peter Stevenson/The Washington Post)
Link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/23/trump-is-headed-for-a-win-says-professor-whos-predicted-30-years-of-presidential-outcomes-correctly/

Norman Bernstein
09-29-2016, 12:55 PM
Title: Trump is headed for a win, says professor who has predicted 30 years of presidential outcomes correctly
Allan Lichtman, a distinguished professor of history at American University, created his "13 Keys to the White House" more than 30 years ago—and he's ready to predict who will win in 2016. (Peter Stevenson/The Washington Post)
Link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/23/trump-is-headed-for-a-win-says-professor-whos-predicted-30-years-of-presidential-outcomes-correctly/

Good for you, geng... you found a news article that suits your confirmation bias! You can stop reading the news now :):):)

(While you're reveling in the glow, you just MIGHT want to read up on something called 'correlation vs. causation', and then read this guy's basis for his predictions)

genglandoh
09-29-2016, 01:04 PM
Trumps number should go up as he
1. Out spends Hillary in ads.
2. Conducts more and larger rallies in key battleground states.

Hillary's only hope is if she can distract voters from the issues and keep throwing mud.

Title: Trump Campaign Plans $140 Million Ad Buy
Donald Trump's campaign is planning for what it says will amount to $140 million worth of advertising from now until Election Day.
The total, if executed, would include $100 million in television airtime and $40 million in digital ads, according to senior communications adviser Jason Miller.
The plan represents a new approach for the billionaire businessman, who has repeatedly bragged in recent weeks about how much less he's spent than Democratic rival Hillary Clinton and seemed to rely heavily on free media coverage of his large rallies.
Through this week, the Trump campaign has put only about $22 million into TV and radio ads for the general election, according to Kantar Media's political advertising tracker.Clinton has spent more than five times as much on those kinds of ads, $124 million so far.
Link: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireS...d-buy-42322113 (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/trump-campaign-plans-140-million-ad-buy-42322113)

Norman Bernstein
09-29-2016, 01:08 PM
Trumps number should go up as he
1. Out spends Hillary in ads.
2. Conducts more and larger rallies in key battleground states.

Hillary's only hope is if she can distract voters from the issues and keep throwing mud.

Title: Trump Campaign Plans $140 Million Ad Buy
Donald Trump's campaign is planning for what it says will amount to $140 million worth of advertising from now until Election Day.
The total, if executed, would include $100 million in television airtime and $40 million in digital ads, according to senior communications adviser Jason Miller.
The plan represents a new approach for the billionaire businessman, who has repeatedly bragged in recent weeks about how much less he's spent than Democratic rival Hillary Clinton and seemed to rely heavily on free media coverage of his large rallies.
Through this week, the Trump campaign has put only about $22 million into TV and radio ads for the general election, according to Kantar Media's political advertising tracker.Clinton has spent more than five times as much on those kinds of ads, $124 million so far.
Link: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireS...d-buy-42322113 (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/trump-campaign-plans-140-million-ad-buy-42322113)

You're going to need a new set of pom-poms if you keep this up.

David G
09-29-2016, 01:44 PM
Meanwhile - as of 45 minutes ago - 538 shows Hillary's chance of winning at about 60%, and her lead continues to grow. After about 2.5 days, I think the shape of the post-debate reaction is showing.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/#plus

ljb5
09-29-2016, 02:01 PM
(While you're reveling in the glow, you just MIGHT want to read up on something called 'correlation vs. causation', and then read this guy's basis for his predictions)

If you have two data points, you can calculate an equation (Ax+B) that fits them both perfectly....until the third data point arrives.

At that point, you can calculate an equation (Ax^2+Bx+C) that fits three data points perfectly... until the fourth data point arrives.

At that point, you can calculate an equation (Ax^3+Bx^2+Cx+D) that fits four data points perfectly.... until the fifth data point arrives....

Each of these fits all the data points perfectly and has zero utility to predict future data.

Joe (SoCal)
09-29-2016, 04:29 PM
Hillary Just went up another point :D How's that working for you Geng ?:D

David G
09-29-2016, 04:42 PM
Yes, Hillary's lead continues to grow. By Silver's most conservative model, she's now up to 61.1% likelihood to win.

And the Nowcast which geng was so taken with - which is the most volative, most likely to change tomorrow, and most indicative of the trend - now has her at 72.4%

I think it's becoming pretty clear that she's getting a bump from the debate.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/#plus

And his take on why it matters -- http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-even-a-small-post-debate-bounce-could-make-a-big-difference-for-clinton/?ex_cid=2016-forecast

David G
10-01-2016, 10:47 AM
As of 3 hours ago --

Polls+ -- Hillary @ 64.4% chance of winning
Nowcast -- 74.9%

And the growth in her lead has stopped. For the moment.

Joe (SoCal)
10-01-2016, 11:31 AM
67.7 this morning :D
Can't for the next debate

Donald Keep late night Tweeting :D

David G
10-03-2016, 10:25 AM
As of this morning --

Polls+ -- Hillary has a 65.2% chance of winning. The gap is growing again.
Nowcast -- 76.3%

David G
10-03-2016, 07:20 PM
As of 'bout 30 minutes ago -- bit of a jump for Hillary

Polls+ -- 68.7%
Nowcast -- 79.6%

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/#now

David G
10-04-2016, 11:39 AM
As of an hour ago --

Polls+ -- Hillary's at 69% chance of winning. And the lead is growing.
Nowcast -- 80.3%

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/#now

Joe (SoCal)
10-04-2016, 11:43 AM
Bwaaaa ha ha

https://scontent-lax3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/t31.0-8/14480601_10208796196995714_8031428879116778403_o.j pg

David G
10-04-2016, 12:01 PM
Nate Silver: how big is Hillary's lead?

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-how-big-is-hillary-clintons-lead/?ex_cid=2016-forecast

David G
10-05-2016, 12:38 PM
As of this morning -- http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/#now

John of Phoenix
10-05-2016, 12:54 PM
This just in!

FiveThirtyEight

Who will win the Senate?
Chance of winning control

Democrats 61.7%
Republicans 38.3%

ljb5
10-05-2016, 03:56 PM
I'm starting to panic!

ljb5
10-05-2016, 03:57 PM
My eyes are watering.

My head is rolling back.

I can't breath.

ljb5
10-05-2016, 03:58 PM
Oh, never mind.

It was just a sneeze.

TomF
10-05-2016, 04:30 PM
Oh, never mind.

It was just a sneeze.Better luck next time. :D

C. Ross
10-05-2016, 04:56 PM
I'm glad Ms. Clinton's prospects are improving. Considering the opponent, the goal ought to be crushing defeat, like 1972 or 1984.

Trump's 40% of the vote base seems impermeable. I am really worried about the 10-15% of voters in the middle, who may have never voted before and are therefore completely unpredictable. I've seen this movie, when Minnesota elected Jesse Ventura.

Sickeningly, I think a Trump victory is still within reach.

Joe (SoCal)
10-05-2016, 05:47 PM
76% - 23% as of 3:30 PST :D :D :D

Canoeyawl
10-05-2016, 06:07 PM
76% - 23% as of 3:30 PST :D :D :D

No one is going to go with a loser...
It can be human nature to go with an underdog, but a friggin loser out of the gate? Nope.

David G
10-06-2016, 09:47 AM
As of this morning --

Polls+ -- Hillary is at 74.7% chance of victory... and rising.
Polls Only -- 78.3%
Nowcast -- 85.1%

Joe (SoCal)
10-06-2016, 09:57 AM
https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/t31.0-8/14560150_10208814608936001_1581712050094785826_o.j pg

​Bwaaaaaa ha ha :D :D

John of Phoenix
10-06-2016, 10:03 AM
This just in!

FiveThirtyEight

Who will win the Senate?
Chance of winning control

Democrats 61.7%
Republicans 38.3%What, this is chopped liver?

The best policies on the planet go nowhere with a red Senate, not to mention a SCOTUS nominee.

Paul Pless
10-06-2016, 10:03 AM
anybody here panicking?

didn't think so. . .

John of Phoenix
10-06-2016, 10:09 AM
Even the reds are sanguine.

"We create our own reality."

:D LMAO :D

David G
10-06-2016, 10:36 AM
What, this is chopped liver?

The best policies on the planet go nowhere with a red Senate, not to mention a SCOTUS nominee.

You're right - quite important.

David G
10-06-2016, 01:25 PM
Predictit - the market based prediction tool - has Clinton's chances holding steady the last few days at 73-74%

https://www.predictit.org/Browse/Category/6/US-Elections

David G
10-06-2016, 09:28 PM
As of an hour ago --

Polls+ -- 75.4% chance of winning for Hillary. Continuing to rise.
Polls Only -- 78.7%
Nowcast -- 87.1%

David G
10-07-2016, 09:42 AM
As of this morning --

Polls+ -- 75.7%. Hillary's lead is still growing... but seems to be flattening out.
Polls Only -- 79.3%
Nowcast -- 86.5%

Norman Bernstein
10-07-2016, 09:59 AM
I'm not a fan of the fivethirtyeight 'chances of winning' thing.... it incorporates a great deal of rather amorphous elements.

I much prefer the 270towin electoral map analyses. Their own analysis defines strict rules for deciding which states are 'leaning', which states are 'solid', and which states are 'toss-ups'. Right now, their 'polls only' map shows Hillary at 260, Trump at 164, and 114 'toss-ups'.

More interestingly, the website also shows the maps of 12 separate organizations, like NPR, the AP, fivethirtyeight's 'polls plus', and nine others. Out of those maps, 10 of the twelve show Hillary as over the 270 mark.... the other two show her very close to it.

Of course, we're a month out, with two more debates to go.... but there also have been reports and observations that the number of undecided voters has shrunken and stabilized... and Johnson has been flaming out. Barring a 'true' October surprise, or some debate upset, the direction is fairly clear, I think.

Paul Pless
10-07-2016, 11:15 AM
Their own analysis defines strict rules for deciding which states are 'leaning', which states are 'solid', and which states are 'toss-ups'. .and fuvethirtyeight doesn't employ 'strict analysis'?

David G
10-07-2016, 08:26 PM
As of this evening --

Polls+ -- 76.7%. Biggest spread in the last 3 weeks or so. Still growing. I'm just glad that when the time comes that Trump finally realizes he is sinking beyond hope... that he has no access to nukes.
Polls Only -- 80.5%
Nowcast -- 86.9%

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=2016-senate-forecast#plus

Lew Barrett
10-07-2016, 10:56 PM
Dear Higher Power,
You know I only ask for stuff when I really, really, really need it. Please make this be over.

Also, it's not too much to ask for a happy ending is it? You know: More libs on the court, single payer, etc etc. Please, please. I promise to be good. Just make it end.

PS. Thanks for the fun times with the biker crowd here in 'bama. The practice session at the track was great and I am pleased you instructed all the cool guys here to vote for Hill cause the Trump signs they handed out in this state, while not as numerous as I thought they would be are huuuuge. But the museum is nice so thanks!

David G
10-07-2016, 11:12 PM
Roll with it, Lew. You're tough.

As of 1/2 hour ago --

77.8% (w/314 electoral votes projected)
81.8% (330)
87.4% (338)

Lew Barrett
10-08-2016, 12:29 AM
You're a sweetheart. I'm in a crappy hotel with part time Internet so just a quickie to say I'm gonna make it. I just want it over. Victory and then over.

Lew Barrett
10-08-2016, 12:31 AM
Know what I mean, Gene? I want to return to our regularly scheduled programming.

Lew Barrett
10-08-2016, 12:44 AM
Seems like if you stay up late enough, everybody else goes to bed and you get some bandwidth in this dump. It's a Hampton inn in Burmingham AL. The town is overrun with every kind of motorcycles ever made anywhere and all these guys brought their devices. But being up late allows connectivity so I learned something. Trump may tweet late at night because his servers, like a crappy Hilton's, don't have the bandwidth. But late at night, you can get on without having to pay for an upgrade. Or maybe he tweets late because he's taking speed. He seems sort of speedy by nature but not in a good way. One or the other I guess!

Anyway, the motorcycles and the racing is terrific. And the attendees are too. Barber for president! Look it up. Barber vintage days. I bet he has more money than Trump. Woo hoo!

David G
10-08-2016, 09:12 AM
I fear we may have lost Lew... run away with a motorcycle gang <G>

David G
10-08-2016, 12:43 PM
As of this morning --

Polls+ -- 77.3%. (314) Leveling off
Polls Only -- 81.4% ((329)
Nowcast -- 87% (337)

Paul Pless
10-08-2016, 01:45 PM
Seems like if you stay up late enough, everybody else goes to bed and you get some bandwidth in this dump. It's a Hampton inn in Burmingham AL. The town is overrun with every kind of motorcycles ever made anywhere and all these guys brought their devices. But being up late allows connectivity so I learned something. Trump may tweet late at night because his servers, like a crappy Hilton's, don't have the bandwidth. But late at night, you can get on without having to pay for an upgrade. Or maybe he tweets late because he's taking speed. He seems sort of speedy by nature but not in a good way. One or the other I guess!

Anyway, the motorcycles and the racing is terrific. And the attendees are too. Barber for president! Look it up. Barber vintage days. I bet he has more money than Trump. Woo hoo!

Looking forward to a dedicated thread with positive press for my home state.

Trump suffers from poor bandwidth eh? Thanks for the giggle.

David G
10-08-2016, 02:44 PM
Predictit now has the Dems with 84% chance of winning the presidency.

67% chance of taking back the Senate.

50% chance of Ryan withdrawing his Trump endorsement.

Joe (SoCal)
10-08-2016, 02:53 PM
Predictit now has the Dems with 84% chance of winning the presidency.

67% chance of taking back the Senate.

50% chance of Ryan withdrawing his Trump endorsement.

What's the over/under of Madam President Hillary appointing Obama SCJ after the midterm cleanse ? :D

Joe (SoCal)
10-08-2016, 03:15 PM
Retweeted Nate Silver (@NateSilver538):

Exclusive @FiveThirtyEight projection on what the Electoral College would look like if women refuse to vote Trump.
https://t.co/kmjxmjnY1l

https://scontent-dft4-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/14517553_10154128147203687_2588982178687102451_n.j pg?oh=db4a35ab426eda1bab2e0f955878367b&oe=586D00FA

David G
10-08-2016, 03:17 PM
What's the over/under of Madam President Hillary appointing Obama SCJ after the midterm cleanse ? :D

No betting on that question, afik. You could start it, though. <G>

David G
10-08-2016, 04:00 PM
The Bottom Could Fall Out For Trump -- Nate Silver

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-bottom-could-fall-out-for-trump/

David G
10-09-2016, 11:13 AM
As of this morning --

Polls+ -- 77.8% of Hillary winning (314 electoral votes projected). Holding pretty steady at this level.
Polls Only -- 81.5% (330)
Nowcast -- 86.3% (335)

David G
10-09-2016, 01:24 PM
538 says polling just prior to the 2nd debate is 'more predictive'. See the post above for the #'s...

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/first-debate-losers-arent-more-likely-to-rebound-in-the-second-debate/?ex_cid=2016-forecast

David G
10-10-2016, 11:30 AM
As of a few minutes ago --

Polls+ -- 78.9% chance of winning for Hillary. (316 electoral votes projected) Largest lead shown an the graph that starts in early June.

Polls Only -- 82.2% (332)

Nowcast -- 86.7% (337)


Analysis: The Second Debate Probably Didn’t Help Trump, And He Needed Help

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-second-debate-probably-didnt-help-trump-and-he-needed-help/?ex_cid=2016-forecast

David G
10-10-2016, 11:52 AM
There WAS some substance to be found in the second debate. Not as much from Trump as from Hillary... but better effort from both of them in that regard. Keeping in mind, of course, that for Tramp... we are definitely grading on a curve.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/obamacare-aleppo-and-coal-the-second-debate-had-substance-too/?ex_cid=2016-forecast

David G
10-10-2016, 12:19 PM
Predictit has Clinton up to 82%

https://www.predictit.org/Browse/Group/67/National

David G
10-10-2016, 08:53 PM
From 538 --

Election Update: Polls Show Potential Fallout From Trump Tapehttp://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-polls-show-potential-fallout-from-trump-tape/?ex_cid=2016-forecast

David G
10-10-2016, 11:25 PM
As of this evening --

Polls+ -- 79.6% (318)
Polls Only -- 82.8% (332)
Nowcast -- 87% (336)

David G
10-11-2016, 09:48 AM
Clinton's lead continues to edge up and up: http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo#now

Norman Bernstein
10-11-2016, 09:52 AM
One poll I saw on Morning Joe this morning puts Clinton's lead now at +14.

The panelists were asked if it was over.... all but one agreed.

Of course, there are 28 days to go, still time for more October surprises..... except that, at this point, there appears to be far more dirt waiting to be exposed on Trump, than Clinton. Her advantage, in this race, is that all her dirt has been exposed for nearly three decades, so it's harder to find fresh material.

TomF
10-11-2016, 09:53 AM
Clinton's lead continues to edge up and up: http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo#nowGood grief. She's cracked the 80% barrier in all of Silver's three models. A very modest projection in all models for Dems to assume Senate leadership too, though I underscore that the projection is modest. I think that really should be interpreted as "we just don't know".

Keith Wilson
10-11-2016, 10:05 AM
The pollster.com aggregation now shows her up by 7.4% (http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-trump-vs-clinton), and that's still to a large extent before 'grab them by the p*ssy'.

David G
10-11-2016, 12:56 PM
As of about 45 minutes ago. Still not a lot of data post 'p***y-grab' --

80.2%
83.4%
87.8%

David G
10-12-2016, 10:13 AM
As of this morning --

Polls+ -- 83% chance of Hillary winning (324 electoral votes projected)
Polls Only -- 86.2% (341)
Nowcast -- 90.8% (347)

The gap seems to once again be rising - as the response to Tramp's 'Pgrab' comments, and to the 2nd debate begin to show.

Tom Montgomery
10-12-2016, 10:18 AM
Thing are rapidly going south on Trump and his Bilge supporters.

I notice that RonW lurks but has pretty much refrained from posting over the last few days. Is that a sign that the Bilge rww contingent will fall silent after November 8?

Naw.... I expect that, on the contrary, there will be much loud wailing, gnashing of teeth, accusations of fraud and a fix, etc.

Tom Montgomery
10-12-2016, 12:28 PM
An Ohio poll released today shows Clinton with an 11 point lead over Trump in Ohio. RonW and genglandoh must be suffering mightily today.

And in other news... Clinton, Trump and third party candidate Evan McMullin are in a statistical dead heat this morning in UTAH!

David G
10-13-2016, 09:37 AM
As of this morning --

Polls+ -- 82.9%
Polls Only -- 86.8%
Nowcast -- 89.7%

David G
10-13-2016, 09:07 PM
As of this evening --

Polls+ -- 82.7% (323)
Polls Only -- 86.1% (339)
Nowcast -- 88.7% (340)

Hillary has been riding a divergent trend since 9/26/16 - let's hope it continues.

David G
10-14-2016, 11:49 AM
Leveling off as of this morning...

Paul Pless
10-14-2016, 11:50 AM
Leveling off as of this morning...i'm good

Tom Montgomery
10-14-2016, 11:57 AM
It was reported this morning on a Texas news outlet that a poll shows that Donald Trump's lead in Texas has slipped to only 4 percentage points.... within the margin of error.

Read about it here: http://www.wfaa.com/mb/news/local/texas-news/new-poll-trump-lead-shrinks-in-texas-within-margin-of-error/335896258

David G
10-14-2016, 08:22 PM
As of this evening -- Hillary's #'s are down slightly.

David G
10-16-2016, 10:10 PM
As of this evening --

Polls+ -- 83.1% chance of Hillary victory (323 electoral votes projected)
Polls Only -- 86.6% (340)
Nowcast -- 88.8% (341)

It'll be interesting - and, I suspect, depressing - to see how Trump assimilates the increasingly unavoidable.

David G
10-17-2016, 10:45 AM
As of this morning... I had kinda figured that she had plateaued at the upper bound of voters who weren't rabid wingnuts. But her lead increased again - into new territory --

Polls+ -- 84.8% chance of winning (327 electoral votes projected)
Polls Only -- 87.7% (343)
Nowcast -- 89.8% (344)

From 538 - the 'state of the race' -- http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-where-the-race-stands-with-three-weeks-to-go/?ex_cid=2016-forecast

TomF
10-17-2016, 10:54 AM
The surprising thing on 538 today is that the polls-plus model is now giving 68.5% odds that the Dems will take the Senate too. This Trump dumpster fire is going to burn quite a lot of what the Republicans used to own.

Flying Orca
10-17-2016, 12:19 PM
The surprising thing on 538 today is that the polls-plus model is now giving 68.5% odds that the Dems will take the Senate too. This Trump dumpster fire is going to burn quite a lot of what the Republicans used to own.

Love it.

David G
10-17-2016, 01:53 PM
Women are winning the election for Clinton --

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/men-are-treating-2016-as-a-normal-election-women-arent/?ex_cid=2016-forecast

Flying Orca
10-17-2016, 01:58 PM
Women are winning the election for Clinton --

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/men-are-treating-2016-as-a-normal-election-women-arent/?ex_cid=2016-forecast

With any luck, after Clinton wins, the RWWs will unveil a nasty misogynist streak, just as they did their nasty racist streak when Obama won. It really is better to have these things out in the open so everyone can see the festering sores for themselves.

Keith Wilson
10-17-2016, 02:39 PM
... after Clinton wins, the RWWs will unveil a nasty misogynist streak . . . They already have. As their demographic base shrinks as a percentage of population,the Republicans are engaged in a wholehearted effort to shrink it further. About 1965, they lost the vote of anyone with an ancestor who was a slave. They've now pretty much lost anyone who had a Spanish-speaking ancestor. And they're doing their best to lose the vote of anyone with two X chromosomes. The gender gap in this election is larger than any ever seen. (data here (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/men-are-treating-2016-as-a-normal-election-women-arent/))

Flying Orca
10-17-2016, 02:58 PM
They already have.

Oh, I know, I'm just hoping they'll double down. I think the only hope for US politics is the flaming destruction of the Republican party's ongoing infatuation with crazy, followed by the establishment (under that name or some other) of a responsible alternative to the Democrats.

David G
10-17-2016, 08:28 PM
As of this evening... the lead is growing again. The 'Nowcast' model has broken 90% chance of Clinton winning. But Nate Silver confirms my sense that it'll be difficult for her to climb much higher --

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/#plus

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-clintons-big-lead-means-a-steadier-forecast/?ex_cid=2016-forecast (http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/#plus)

skuthorp
10-17-2016, 08:41 PM
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/...forecast/#plus (http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/#plus)

What really concerns me about the map and the country is the enormous divide between sometimes neighbouring states. For instance,
Indiana, Trump 91.9%. Illinois 92.2%. And New Mexico and Texas for goodness sake.
Also the coast/inland divide, they could be two separate countries.

TomF
10-18-2016, 06:18 AM
73% odds of Dems winning the Senate, in the polls plus model.

No wonder the Rep hierarchy is trying to mollify people over claims the election is rigged. Trump's message, which is really only a variation of all those "we need voter ID to combat massive fraud" messages Reps have said for years, is backfiring.

Jeff was right all along, it's gonna be a blowout. Not as big as it ought to be, but still. The humiliation will be hyoooge.

Paul Pless
10-18-2016, 06:28 AM
The humiliation will be hyoooge.

Do you think there'll be another autopsy commissioned?

Canoez
10-18-2016, 06:30 AM
Do you think there'll be another autopsy commissioned?

Why would they bother? They didn't listen to the first one.

TomF
10-18-2016, 06:31 AM
Nope. The cause will be obvious enough.

Besides, the RNC will have their civil war occupying them, so won't have time to ignore a thoughtful report again for a few years.

Keith Wilson
10-18-2016, 07:15 AM
What really concerns me about the map and the country is the enormous divide between sometimes neighbouring states. For instance,Indiana, Trump 91.9%. Illinois 92.2%. And New Mexico and Texas for goodness sake.
Also the coast/inland divide, they could be two separate countries.Well, yes, but . . .Remember those are their estimates of the odds of a candidate winning the state's electoral votes, not popular vote percentages. A given spread in the polls produces larger odds as the election gets closer - after all, the odds are 100% that somebody's going to win the election. The popular vote totals will be much closer. For example, Illinois (with a huge multi-ethnic metropolitan area) is polling 49.7 Clinton, 32.2. Trump (http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-illinois-president-trump-vs-clinton). Indiana, next door but largely white, small cities and smaller towns, also the home of the Republican VP candidate, is polling 47.1 Trump, 36.5 Clinton. (http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-indiana-president-trump-vs-clinton) Trump's a very polarizing candidate, but maybe not as much as one might think.

David G
10-18-2016, 12:17 PM
I'm just curious about something.

OP - what would you say the panic level among Democrats is at this point in time?

And... as a corollary... do you EVER get tired of being incorrect?

Cuyahoga Chuck
10-18-2016, 07:44 PM
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/...forecast/#plus (http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/#plus)

What really concerns me about the map and the country is the enormous divide between sometimes neighbouring states. For instance,
Indiana, Trump 91.9%. Illinois 92.2%. And New Mexico and Texas for goodness sake.
Also the coast/inland divide, they could be two separate countries.

2010 was a census year and the Repugnicans won a lot of states which they gerimandered the hell out of.

David G
10-20-2016, 01:01 PM
As of this morning. Her lead is leveled off, even down slightly. The results of last nights debates haven't begun to show... but it's hard to see how she could edge much higher.

Polls+ -- 83.8% chance of HRC winning. (327 electoral votes projected).

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo#plus

TomF
10-20-2016, 01:24 PM
The results of last nights debates haven't begun to show... but it's hard to see how she could edge much higher.I think that's an important point. There's very little that could happen, I think, to give a level of certainty that edged higher than maybe 90% in the least cautious model. Because there are still opportunities for the Mothership to show up over DC, and remove the human-like skin from Clinton's lizard-person real features. There are still opportunities for twenty-five or so tearful former Chippendales dancers to turn up at a Trump rally, with pictures not only of their wild nights romping with Clinton in her dungeon of pleasures, including when she laughed and tossed acid into their faces so they could never work again.

Unlikely, but possible. God knows that Breitbart has staff out there looking for those broken Chippendales, and some of the tinfoil hatters are madly beaming signals into the universe trying to contact those Lizard People before November 8 rolls around.

I suspect that even if the Mothership and the Chippendales turned up on the other side of the issues, and instead went on to unveil these as further and mostly improbable Trump offences against humanity, that some states would still cast majorities of votes for him. Making it difficult to project a 100% Electoral College result certainty.

But I simply can't reasonably foresee anything happening to deflate her electoral results other than typical Dem apathy and low turnout. Though God knows how anyone can actually be apathetic, this time out.

David G
10-20-2016, 04:34 PM
Nate Silvers column on the 'state of the race' as of today --

Clinton Probably Finished Off Trump Last Nighthttp://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clinton-probably-finished-off-trump-last-night/?ex_cid=2016-forecast

Norman Bernstein
10-20-2016, 04:44 PM
I think voter apathy works against the trailing candidate, as much, or possibly more so, than the other way around. Nobody wants to vote for the loser.

David G
10-21-2016, 11:31 AM
This morning NS is showing over 70% chance of D's taking the Senate...

Chris249
10-21-2016, 05:51 PM
T here are still opportunities for the Mothership to show up over DC, and remove the human-like skin from Clinton's lizard-person real features. There are still opportunities for twenty-five or so tearful former Chippendales dancers to turn up at a Trump rally, with pictures not only of their wild nights romping with Clinton in her dungeon of pleasures, including when she laughed and tossed acid into their faces so they could never work again.



Watch out - Ron may soon use your post to start a thread saying "un-named sources confirm that Clinton is an alien lizard who tortures humans".

David G
10-22-2016, 10:22 AM
Watch out - Ron may soon use your post to start a thread saying "un-named sources confirm that Clinton is an alien lizard who tortures humans".

Didn't Ron already say that on another thread??

leikec
10-22-2016, 10:42 AM
Didn't Ron already say that on another thread??

Probably.

Jeff C

David G
10-22-2016, 03:05 PM
Still bumping along with Hillary in the 80 - 85% chance of winning range.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo#plus

David G
10-24-2016, 11:47 AM
No big changes. Trump is running out of time, if he expects to catch up --

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo#plus

David G
10-24-2016, 03:16 PM
And... even if the R's hadn't chosen a sociopathic buffoon as their candidate - they are still fighting demographics. This one from 538 struck home because my wealthy FIL lived in Wyomissing. If I'd taken his offer of work, I'd probably live there now too.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/one-pennsylvania-county-sees-the-future-and-not-everyone-likes-it/

Rum_Pirate
10-24-2016, 03:36 PM
And... even if the R's hadn't chosen a sociopathic buffoon as their candidate - they are still fighting demographics. This one from 538 struck home because my wealthy FIL lived in Wyomissing. If I'd taken his offer of work, I'd probably live there now too.


While fighting demographics is a big area, if the Republican party had chosen a reasonable candidate, instead of (as you describe Mr Trump) 'a sociopathic buffoon', their candidate would be way ahead of where Mr Trump is now.

Especially when one considers that that 'reasonable candidate' would have embraced all the various people whether country of origin, race colour and creed and sexes and sexual preferential people etc, etc, that Mr Trump has insulted so far (he may insult more and others tomorrow).

Had a 'reasonable candidate' been appointed by the Republican party, that candidate would likely be streets a ahead of Mrs Clinton, given that she is (well say recently) only a few points ahead of Mr Trump and the disastrous (self imposed) negative baggage that is is carrying.

It is sad that the American public, is being asked to vote between the current candidates.

ljb5
10-24-2016, 04:23 PM
While fighting demographics is a big area, if the Republican party had chosen a reasonable candidate, instead of (as you describe Mr Trump) 'a sociopathic buffoon', their candidate would be way ahead of where Mr Trump is now.

Especially when one considers that that 'reasonable candidate' would have embraced all the various people whether country of origin, race colour and creed and sexes and sexual preferential people etc, etc, that Mr Trump has insulted so far (he may insult more and others tomorrow).

Had a 'reasonable candidate' been appointed by the Republican party, that candidate would likely be streets a ahead of Mrs Clinton, given that she is (well say recently) only a few points ahead of Mr Trump and the disastrous (self imposed) negative baggage that is is carrying.

Speculating on what the race would be like if the Republicans had picked a reasonable candidate is like speculating which NBA team an amoeba would play for, if it could dunk a basketball.

The fact that the Republicans picked an unreasonable candidate is not some minor detail or random occurrence. Picking unreasonable candidates is fundamental to what modern Republicanism is. You can't take that away from them and pretend like they're still the same party.

Rum_Pirate
10-24-2016, 04:40 PM
Speculating on what the race would be like if the Republicans had picked a reasonable candidate is like speculating which NBA team an amoeba would play for, if it could dunk a basketball..

You exaggerate, surely? :ycool:

LeeG
10-24-2016, 04:52 PM
You exaggerate, surely? :ycool:

You ignore the simple reality that a majority of Republicans picked Trump. He was not a candidate thrust upon the voting public. It is sad they picked a narcissicist buffoon who appeals to people's lesser natures.

ljb5
10-24-2016, 05:13 PM
You exaggerate, surely? :ycool:

It's possible.

To be honest, I was laughing so hard when I read "if the Republican party had chosen a reasonable candidate" that I sorta got light-headed for a moment there.

Paul Pless
10-24-2016, 05:16 PM
lol

Hugh Conway
10-24-2016, 05:21 PM
Especially when one considers that that 'reasonable candidate' would have embraced all the various people whether country of origin, race colour and creed and sexes and sexual preferential people etc, etc, that Mr Trump has insulted so far (he may insult more and others tomorrow).

Except of course that many in the current Republican party wouldn't consider such a person a "reasonable candidate" and some wouldn't even consider said candidate a "Republican". The current mess is on one side of the party a sum of the prior distortions - the anti-immigrant rhetoric of Pete Wilson, the refusal of Bob Dole to admit cigarettes cause cancer, the Gay marriage hysteria of W, and many others - and a logical, pragmatic, pro-business, pro-individual righs conservatism. The trouble is the distorted side is winning.

Nothing interested in the nihilistic destruction of everything can be called "conservative".

David G
10-24-2016, 07:28 PM
The latest ABC polling shows more people than ever voting for Hillary to support her, rather than to oppose Tramp.

The inverse is true for Tramp.

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/diminished-enthusiasm-dogs-trump-clinton-gains-affirmative-support-111804589--abc-news-topstories.html

http://www.langerresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/1184a22016ElectionTrackingNo.2.pdf

David G
10-25-2016, 10:23 AM
Still bumping along with Hillary in the 80 - 85% range for 'chance of winning' --

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo#plus

David G
10-26-2016, 07:41 PM
Is the race tightening?

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-is-the-presidential-race-tightening/?ex_cid=2016-forecast

David G
10-27-2016, 09:50 AM
Still bumping along in the same range.

Now it looks like 2:1 odds the D's retake the Senate.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/senate/?ex_cid=2016-forecast

David G
10-30-2016, 01:36 PM
Hillary's lead is shrinking, and there's this Comey 'October Surprise' yet to be accounted for.

From 538 -- how much impact do OS's tend to have?


Some of the October surprises listed above (the halt in bombing in North Vietnam and Bush’s DWl) appeared to have a modest effect on the polls. Others, less so. All told, these surprises moved the polls — from the week before to the final week — about 1 or 2 percentage points, on average. None of the surprises on this list moved the polls by more than 2 points.

Again, this isn’t a full list, but it makes sense that late campaign news would have a limited impact. The later in a campaign an external shock occurs, the more voters have already made up their mind and the more impressions of the candidates are fixed. October surprises, in other words, may have less of an effect because they come in October.

That doesn’t mean, however, that the 2016 presidential race is decided. Clinton currently has a national polling lead of about 5 points, according to FiveThirtyEight’s forecast (http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/). In three of the campaigns listed here (1980, 2000 and 2012), the final polling average was off by 3 percentage points or more. Even if the polls don’t move, they could just be wrong.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-much-do-october-surprises-move-the-polls/?ex_cid=2016-forecast

Daniel Noyes
10-30-2016, 01:53 PM
this just out on MSN new NBC polls

Republicans' growing unity behind Donald Trump has helped pull him just one percentage point below Hillary Clinton and placed GOP leaders who resist him in a vulnerable position, according to the latest Washington Post-ABC News Tracking Poll (http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/politics/washington-post-abc-news-tracking-poll-october-25-28/2115/).

A majority of all likely voters say they are unmoved by the FBI's announcement Friday (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-campaign-scrambled-saturday-to-respond-to-renewed-fbi-investigation/2016/10/29/54fce40e-9df4-11e6-a0ed-ab0774c1eaa5_story.html?hpid=hp_rhp-top-table-main_campaignprint-810pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory)that it may review additional emails from Clinton's time as secretary of state. Just over 6 in 10 voters say the news will make no difference in their vote, while just over 3 in 10 say it makes them less likely to support her; 2 percent say they're more likely to back her as a result.
http://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AAjBGGc.img?h=525&w=728&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f

Tom Montgomery
10-30-2016, 02:42 PM
National tracking polls are worthless.

The only thing that matters are the state-by-state polling results.

As of about one hour ago (2:45 pm EST, 10/30/16) Nate Silver gives Hillary Clinton a 78.9% chance of winning vs. a 21% chance of winning for Donald Trump.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo

David G
11-01-2016, 04:03 PM
Nate Silver shows HRC's support eroding. She's down to about 70% chance of winning. Dems winning the Senate is about the same.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo#plus

Garret
11-01-2016, 04:11 PM
Nate Silver shows HRC's support eroding. She's down to about 70% chance of winning. Dems winning the Senate is about the same.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo#plus

Actually - 71/29 & that's down 18 points in 3-4 days. Last week she was @ 89%

John of Phoenix
11-01-2016, 04:15 PM
Have any of our reds taken any of the bets that have been offered? :D

David G
11-01-2016, 04:16 PM
And here's a 538 chat about the 'level of panic' each side should be feeling. Some interesting thoughts... but my takeaway is no different than the #'s above -- http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/on-a-scale-of-1-to-10-how-much-should-democrats-panic/

delecta
11-01-2016, 04:20 PM
I seem to recall that Nate had it all wrong with the primaries, if it makes you guys feel better keep linking to him. I see Florida and Ohio going to Trump at this point and getting damn close in North Carolina.

This is actually getting scary.

delecta
11-01-2016, 04:23 PM
Have any of our reds taken any of the bets that have been offered? :D

At this point I'm up for a bet, what do you propose?

John of Phoenix
11-01-2016, 04:24 PM
It's reassuring that these folks don't take themselves TOO seriously.

The Chia Pet election one week out: Clinton has slight edge; both have some unfortunate "back hair" pic.twitter.com/gycyH3PU9e (https://t.co/gycyH3PU9e)

John of Phoenix
11-01-2016, 04:25 PM
I'm in for a WB hat on the lady.

http://www.woodenboatstore.com/images/uploads/Cotton_Cap_Khaki_Blue_Logo_546ckbP.jpg

John of Phoenix
11-01-2016, 05:11 PM
Talking Big Bucks musta scared him off. :D

Tom Montgomery
11-01-2016, 05:12 PM
They would have to shed their anonymity to either collect or pay off on a bet.

Fat chance.

Hugh Conway
11-01-2016, 05:13 PM
maybe he's researching why Nate was wrong on the primarys.

delecta
11-01-2016, 05:14 PM
I'm still waiting.

John of Phoenix
11-01-2016, 05:15 PM
Me too.

:D LMAO :D

delecta
11-01-2016, 05:19 PM
Me too.

:D LMAO :D

Why do you have to be so annoying all the time? Is it the agent orange, being a liberal, or are you just not a nice person.

Want to make some sort of bet or not?

Garret
11-01-2016, 05:29 PM
Why do you have to be so annoying all the time? Is it the agent orange, being a liberal, or are you just not a nice person.

Want to make some sort of bet or not?

See post # 197 - IOW - he did.

John of Phoenix
11-02-2016, 09:13 AM
Why do you have to be so annoying all the time?Thank you. It's nice to have one's efforts recognized. Remember, I used to be a loyal republican. That's where I learned it and I just can't seem to shake it.


See post # 197 - IOW - he did.Thank you too, Garret.

OK, any of you reds in this for a WoodenBoat hat? Do I have to explain how this works? :D LMAO :D

delecta
11-02-2016, 09:16 AM
I don't want a hat LOL, What else you got to offer?

John of Phoenix
11-02-2016, 09:18 AM
WHO doesn't want a WB hat?

How about a pie?

delecta
11-02-2016, 09:20 AM
I've got lobsters, what do you have out there in Phoenix that might be interesting to a foodie? :)

John of Phoenix
11-02-2016, 09:29 AM
What's wrong with pie?

Garret
11-02-2016, 09:32 AM
What's wrong with pie?

Unless it's Moose Turd Pie. (if you've never heard of Utah Phillips, this might not make sense).

David G
11-07-2016, 01:17 PM
On the eve of election day... and after days of falling HRC numbers... 538 now shows a few days of better chances for HRC. She's up to about 2:1 over D.Tramp in 'chance of winning'. And the lead is growing again --

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo

Lew Barrett
11-07-2016, 01:25 PM
Just one more day! Go Higher Power! Ewya has heard me!

http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/74/39/da/7439da92bfc08237f20496828977dbe0.jpg

Keith Wilson
11-07-2016, 02:02 PM
Unless it's Moose Turd Pie. (if you've never heard of Utah Phillips, this might not make sense).It's good, though! :D

Garret
11-07-2016, 02:53 PM
It's good, though! :D

Ha! Why am I not surprised?

Garret
11-07-2016, 02:54 PM
On the eve of election day... and after days of falling HRC numbers... 538 now shows a few days of better chances for HRC. She's up to about 2:1 over D.Tramp in 'chance of winning'. And the lead is growing again --

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo

Yep - but Comey got the senate turned around was 58/42 Dems - now 55/45 Reps.

TomF
11-07-2016, 03:17 PM
Yep - but Comey got the senate turned around was 58/42 Dems - now 55/45 Reps.Shyte! That's a very nasty turn of events.

John of Phoenix
11-07-2016, 03:37 PM
Yep - but Comey got the senate turned around was 58/42 Dems - now 55/45 Reps.


Shyte! That's a very nasty turn of events.And some reds wonder WHY he did it. Rockin' the Celebration!

David G
11-08-2016, 10:08 AM
538 this morning shows HRC chance of winning at 71% and climbing.

Chance of Dems taking the Senate, though is almost exactly 50/50.