**** Elections thread *****

[wufwugy]

[BankItDrew]

Cue Alex Jones in being 100% serial about HRC and her lizard family tree.

[wufwugy]

If this is true it probably increases my respect for Trump the most:

[wufwugy]

The Florida absentee ballot delivery numbers suggest the result may be around 53/46/1 Trump/Clinton/Other. My gut says closer to 54/45/1. This would suggest Trump will win many blue wall states.

[Poopadoop]

So the debate tomorrow: 90 minutes, no breaks. Hillary requested a foot stool but it was refused. When was the last time she stood up for 90 minutes straight I wonder?

[wufwugy]

When was the last time she stood up for 90 minutes straight I wonder?

When she was threatening Juanita Broaddrick at the fundraiser.

[JKDS]

She will dominate.

[wufwugy]

I'd love an explanation for why/how.

[boost]

The Florida absentee ballot delivery numbers suggest the result may be around 53/46/1 Trump/Clinton/Other. My gut says closer to 54/45/1. This would suggest Trump will win many blue wall states.

Drivel.

[BankItDrew]

I don't see how Trump doesn't crush HRC in the debates (as far as overall national perception is concerned).

Facts don't matter against Trump. He has a way of dismantaling his opponents on stage.

[Savy]

I'd love an explanation for why/how.

Have you seen the cool shit holograms can do?

[wufwugy]

Drivel.

That makes so much sense. Thank you.

[Poopadoop]

Wuf, can you explain how you reached that conclusion? All you said was something about absentee ballot delivery numbers and how they led you to forecast some result. It did all seem a bit vague. Maybe that's because I don't know wtf an absentee ballot delivery number is or how it's supposed to be a forecasting tool.

[OngBonga]

I have no clue what an absentee ballot is either and I just skimmed over that comment of wuf's, while nodding at boost's response.

[Poopadoop]

An absentee ballot is what they give to people who can't go to a voting booth on election day. Soldiers overseas, for example. Still don't know where the delivery number thing comes in or how it leads to the lolTrumpwinsFlorida conclusion.

[OngBonga]

Soldiers overseas, for example.

So there will be a disproportionate amount of military workers in the ballot? Hmm I wonder if that will affect the prediction.

[Poopadoop]

So there will be a disproportionate amount of military workers in the ballot? Hmm I wonder if that will affect the prediction.

That's my guess. A lot of soldiers asked for ballots maybe and they tend to vote Republican? Even if that's true, I'm not sure how that leads to the precise predictions he's giving though.

But, I'm sure Wuf will clarify the situation for us soon and give rock-hard evidence for his calculations based on something he read on one of those Trump for Prez websites.

[wufwugy]

Florida 2012 absentee ballot returns (I think it was returns, not delivery) were 43% Democrat, 40% Republican, 17% Independent/Other. The election results were ~50/49/1.

Florida 2016 absentee deliveries (not returns) are 43% Republican, 37% Democrat, 20% Independent/Other.

If we assume that this breakdown matches booth voting, that deliveries match returns (they probably don't, but they should be expected to be close), and if we assume that each candidate receives 100% of their party support (they don't but it is probably an irrelevant distinction), then we can say that Obama got ~43% on a 43/55/2 split of Independent/Other (it was slightly higher), and Romney got the 55. These numbers don't add up exactly but they're very close. This made Obama's vote total 43+.43*17=50.31 (he got 50.01).

Assuming this breakdown for 2016, it gives Trump 43+.55*20=54. Though, I think he will get closer to 60% of Independent/Other, which would give him 55% of the vote, but previously when I stated my thoughts I used a different method that dropped everything by 1 percentage point (which is where I got the "53% but I think 54%).

[Poopadoop]

Ya, perfect. And if we extrapolate these results from people in one state who have asked for a ballot but haven't voted yet to the entire country, Trump wins every state 55% to 45% give or take a percentage point or two margin of error. Might be three points in some states where the election takes place on a cloudy day which tends to do something funny, but I'm being conservative here.

[wufwugy]

You did the same type of thing with Crooked's health that I do here. It's about using what you have to make the best judgments you can.



On a side note, there is a lot that suggests landslide that the Ostrich Brigade denies. Undecideds being so high and the convergence for Trump we've seen suggests that we could be seeing a 60-70% break of undecideds to Trump. The high poll numbers Trump shows in blue states. The below the charts enthusiasm regarding Crooked rallies/signage compared to the huge enthusiasm for Trump. These each individually suggest landslide, but obviously they're rough.

[wufwugy]

Oh btw I didn't mean that the florida numbers will transpose to the rest of the country. There is very strong correlation, however. Where the country moves, states move, and vice versa. Given how Florida is pretty much the most evenly divided state in the country, a significant win there would happen along with a landslide in the rest of the country some crazy high percentage of the time.

[Poopadoop]

You did the same type of thing with Crooked's health that I do here. It's about using what you have to make the best judgments you can.

There's a difference between saying "The accumulation of converging lines of evidence points to a definite motor impairment that could be PD" versus "This one bit of evidence tells us exactly what the outcome of the election in this state will be within a percentage point."

On a side note, there is a lot that suggests landslide that the Ostrich Brigade denies. Undecideds being so high and the convergence for Trump we've seen suggests that we could be seeing a 60-70% break of undecideds to Trump. The high poll numbers Trump shows in blue states. The below the charts enthusiasm regarding Crooked rallies/signage compared to the huge enthusiasm for Trump. These each individually suggest landslide, but obviously they're rough.

Still don't know half of what you're talking about but at least you're not making giant leaps of reason here afaik.

[Poopadoop]

Oh btw I didn't mean that the florida numbers will transpose to the rest of the country.

I was joking. Satire, sarcasm, mocking, whatever you want to call it. Not serious there.

[wufwugy]

"This one bit of evidence tells us exactly what the outcome of the election in this state will be within a percentage point."

Good news. I didn't say that.

[Poopadoop]

Speaking of Hillary, is the debate still going ahead? I'm half expecting her to cancel on some euphemism for "unable to keep her balance for 90 minutes" grounds.

[Poopadoop]

Good news. I didn't say that.

I'm terribly sorry if I misunderstood you. But no-one else seemed to understand you either.

[wufwugy]

Then I misunderstood you. But no-one else seemed to understand you either then.

I used to (and probably still do) speak in emphatic tones and words, so my use of "this suggests that" is probably often viewed as "this therefore absolutely that."

[OngBonga]

I'm terribly sorry if I misunderstood you.

*British sarcasm. Politely taking the piss.

[Poopadoop]

*British sarcasm. Politely taking the piss.

Hehe don't tell him!

[Poopadoop]

The Florida absentee ballot delivery numbers suggest the result may be around 53/46/1 Trump/Clinton/Other. My gut says closer to 54/45/1. This would suggest Trump will win many blue wall states.

The reason I think people took umbrage with this was that it was difficult to see how absentee ballot numbers could predict the outcome so precisely or why your gut should add another point for Trump. From that you then concluded that Trump will win many more states.

[wufwugy]

I read it pre-edit.

And that is sarcasm very rare in the states.

[wufwugy]

The reason I think people took umbrage with this was that it was difficult to see how absentee ballot numbers could predict the outcome so precisely or why your gut should add another point for Trump. From that you then concluded that Trump will win many more states.

Ah I see. I meant if the assessment was right then it would mean the blue wall coming down.

[Poopadoop]

Florida 2012 absentee ballot returns (I think it was returns, not delivery) were 43% Democrat, 40% Republican, 17% Independent/Other. The election results were ~50/49/1.

Florida 2016 absentee deliveries (not returns) are 43% Republican, 37% Democrat, 20% Independent/Other.

If we assume that this breakdown matches booth voting, that deliveries match returns (they probably don't, but they should be expected to be close), and if we assume that each candidate receives 100% of their party support (they don't but it is probably an irrelevant distinction), then we can say that Obama got ~43% on a 43/55/2 split of Independent/Other (it was slightly higher), and Romney got the 55. These numbers don't add up exactly but they're very close. This made Obama's vote total 43+.43*17=50.31 (he got 50.01).

Assuming this breakdown for 2016, it gives Trump 43+.55*20=54. Though, I think he will get closer to 60% of Independent/Other, which would give him 55% of the vote, but previously when I stated my thoughts I used a different method that dropped everything by 1 percentage point (which is where I got the "53% but I think 54%).

...and here you go from one assumption to some math to another assumption to some more math and so on without providing any evidence that your assumptions are accurate. That doesn't mean they're wrong, it just means no one can judge whether or not they're a solid basis for making predictions.

For example, what's to say that the relationship between the absentee ballots by party in 2012 and the overall outcome in Florida will be the same this year? Is there some consistency in this relationship over the past X number of elections? If so, that would strengthen this assumption.

What's to say deliveries will match returns this time, or that each candidate receives 100% of their party vote, and that the split of the independent vote this year will be the same as in 2012?

Any one of these things could be different than in 2012, and you even acknowledge that yourself. So doing math based on assuming they're all going to be true will obviously give you some pretty unreliable numbers. You could be way low, way high or somewhere near the truth. It's impossible to judge though because none of your assumptions appear to be solid.

That's why i was joking saying let's just assume that these numbers apply across the country. Ya dig?

[Poopadoop]

I read it pre-edit.

And that is sarcasm very rare in the states.

I've lived in America too. Great place, but ya no-one would get that joke. Sorry Wuffy.

[Poopadoop]

I meant if the assessment was right then it would mean the blue wall coming down.

Why would Trump winning Florida mean a landslide? I'm not being funny I really just am that ignorant of US politics (you're lucky I even understood what a 'blue wall' is).

[Poopadoop]

Wow I didn't realise so many people did this absentee voting thing.

http://www.scpr.org/news/2016/09/23/...sentee-voting/

This is interesting:

"Early voters are people who have already made up their minds," McDonald said. "Clinton and Trump supporters will vote right now, and it won't matter what happens until Election Day. They're well-educated and dedicated."



Hmmm:

"It's not clear how the feelings toward these candidates will affect early voting. Partisan divisions are at their highest levels in decades, and although both candidates hold record-low favorability ratings, Clinton and Trump supporters tend to be pretty adamant about their candidate of choice."

No kidding...



And apparently the results of these early votes are made public as they come in. Didn't know that either.

[wufwugy]

...and here you go from one assumption to some math to another assumption to some more math and so on without providing any evidence that your assumptions are accurate. That doesn't mean they're wrong, it just means no one can judge whether or not they're a solid basis for making predictions.

The assumptions have a degree of accuracy, just nobody knows how much. This is what happens in predicting elections.

For example, what's to say that the relationship between the absentee ballots by party in 2012 and the overall outcome in Florida will be the same this year?

Nobody, except that it will be close because it is always close. In a way, I'm doing what the pollsters (the ones you think I may be dismissing) are doing: extrapolating from past trends.

My real thoughts are that Trump will win a larger proportion of his party and the other party than Romney did, and that Clinton will win a lower proportion of her party and the other party than Obama did, which would mean that my numbers are overly conservative. I haven't added this because it is much harder to quantify, so I just picked a model that would explain 2012 and have placed it on 2016.

What's to say deliveries will match returns this time,

I haven't seen data on this in the past. Without data on it, a good assumption is that it'll be close because returns should correlate well with deliveries.

or that each candidate receives 100% of their party vote,

They won't, but using the more accurate numbers won't change things much. IIRC candidates tend to get high 80s-mid 90s of their party support. Getting more accurate on this parameter would help Trump in my opinion.

and that the split of the independent vote this year will be the same as in 2012?

It likely will be much more divergent. Trump's polls with independents is quite a bit better than I remember of Romney's.

Any one of these things could be different than in 2012, and you even acknowledge that yourself. So doing math based on assuming they're all going to be true will obviously give you some pretty unreliable numbers. You could be way low, way high or somewhere near the truth. It's impossible to judge though because none of your assumptions appear to be solid.

Welcome to how we do it in politics. I beat the polls in 2012 by doing this sort of stuff. I hope that's not a coincidence.

[wufwugy]

Why would Trump winning Florida mean a landslide? I'm not being funny I really just am that ignorant of US politics (you're lucky I even understood what a 'blue wall' is).

Florida is the state closest to 50/50. While it is very likely to not be the tipping point state this cycle, the tipping point state is likely to run ~3 points more blue than Florida. This suggests that if Trump were to win by 9 points in Florida, he would win by ~6 nationally, which qualifies as landslide.

Right now it's looking like Colorado will be the tipping point state. I think Trump will win many bluer states beyond that, which is a different way to signify landslide in the US.

[wufwugy]

Actually, a better way of describing what I meant is that Florida is likely to run about 3 points redder than the nation. So a 9 point Trump win in Florida would likely be associated with a 6 point win nationally.

[Poopadoop]

I'm not saying you don't have reasons for making these assumptions. What I'm saying is that each assumption you add into your model adds a corresponding amount of noise, to the point where your prediction comes close to being meaningless.

Add to this the fact that most professional modellers are predicting Florida to be a statistical tossup, and there's even less reason to accept your analysis of Florida being a Trump ass-kicking as being a solid one.

Moreover, and I don't mean to suggest there's anything deliberate about this on your part, but all of your various predictions seem to be closely in line with your professed desires.

[wufwugy]

I'm not saying you don't have reasons for making these assumptions. What I'm saying is that each assumption you add into your model adds a corresponding amount of noise, to the point where your prediction comes close to being meaningless.

Add to this the fact that most professional modellers are predicting Florida to be a statistical tossup, and there's even less reason to accept your analysis of Florida being a Trump ass-kicking as being a solid one.

You know how I've been talking about how the problem with the polls are that they're using poor parameters? Well, the Florida absentee ballot numbers suggest very strongly that to be the case. This type of thing puts some huge asterisks next to much of the professional analyses. The level of rigor of the model I presented is about as much as the one they're using. In fact, my model is probably better than theirs. They're assuming laughably bad demographic turnouts. I'm assuming a basic correlation between ballot types and votes given. Florida has a 9 point swing towards Republican in their 2 million early voters. It would be very hard for this to mean that Trump would not have a similar swing.

Moreover, and I don't mean to suggest there's anything deliberate about this on your part, but all of your various predictions seem to be closely in line with your professed desires.

I might argue that this type of thing helps keep me more honest than I otherwise would be. I don't like being a fool.

[wufwugy]

Many pollsters are using such awful models that they may be better explained by corruption than incompetence.

[Savy]

Wow that's hard to watch, to think people make their mind up over these debates is frightening. Absolute dross.

[wufwugy]

He is destroying her so bad it hurts to watch.

Love the "you've been fighting ISIS your entire adult life" line. Bait that the doofus journos gonna take tomorrow. They'll be arguing about how ISIS was actually created under Obama's term.

[wufwugy]

Wow that's hard to watch, to think people make their mind up over these debates is frightening. Absolute dross.

I agree though. It was very upsetting to me before I learned that when it comes to persuasion, facts don't matter.

[Savy]

I agree though. It was very upsetting to me before I learned that when it comes to persuasion, facts don't matter.

That doesn't make it less crap to watch.

Hopefully someone else starts posting in here with you so I get a running commentary without having to watch.

[Poopadoop]

Dunno. I think the Hillary double is holding her own.

[Poopadoop]

Oooh, race relations. Time for Trump to show his great statesmanship.

[wufwugy]

Hillary for sure looks good-ish here because she doesn't look like death and seems normal.

I'm curious that Trump mentioned stop and frisk. I wonder what the intention is. He A/B tested that one a week or so ago. It must have tested well, but I thought it didn't.

[wufwugy]

I think Trump's strategy is to beat her up in this debate but then get much softer in the final debate. It'll give him the best of both worlds: airing her dirties and looking aggressive but still ending on the look of calm and collected.

[Poopadoop]

Hillary for sure looks good-ish here because she doesn't look like death and seems normal.

Hologram.

[Poopadoop]

If you watch this in the States do you just get this one same wide camera angle all the time? I want to see Hillary's eyes rolling around in opposite directions.

[Savy]

Maybe they used a bad looking double originally so when they used a good double no one would question it, explains her ducking the press. You'd think as she was dying they'd still wheel a double about but this was genius.

[wufwugy]

dual screen

https://www.c-span.org/2016presidentialDebates/

[JKDS]

As expected, shes crushing him

[Poopadoop]

Grazie.

Donald talking about how well he gets along with minorities....okaaaay.

[Poopadoop]

She's just laughing at him. He really looks like a clown talking about how great his resort is too. Like wtf who cares? You're not running for the Chamber of Commerce here guy.

[wufwugy]

Serious skills always going to the persuasive language. Who says "I have been given great credit for this wonderful thing I did."? People using the influence principle of social proof do. I wish I felt comfortable talking like that.

[wufwugy]

She's just laughing at him. He really looks like a clown talking about how great his resort is too. Like wtf who cares? You're not running for the Chamber of Commerce here guy.

Yeah I know. It sounds dumb to the small proportion of people looking for substance. But for everybody else (and truthfully even for those looking for substance), it's very persuasive.

[JKDS]

BTW: Stop and Frisk

Its blurred in the debate. But theres two things

Stop and Frisks, ie "Terry Stops" are constitutional. Provided an officer has reasonable suspicion that you are committing a crime, and that you may pose a threat, he may stop and frisk you for weapons.

But...New York's policy for Stop and Frisk...the one being argued about by the parties (not the general one above) was found to be racially motivated. The vast majority just "happened" to be minorities that got stopped and frisked. So while the policy in general is constitutional and fine, the disparate impact of New York's implementation of it was not.

[wufwugy]

Grazie.

Donald talking about how well he gets along with minorities....okaaaay.

Well, he's done way way way way way more for minorities than Clinton has. That's for sure.

[JKDS]

Shes practically dying as he explains his birther change of heart.

[Poopadoop]

You're watching this live? That was like half an hour ago.

(it gets even better).

[Poopadoop]

Lol all she has to do is quote some of his idiotic past comments and she wins easy.

[JKDS]

Youtube has a stream!

But ya, I'm behind

I think it ends in real time soon

[wufwugy]

Oh shit, he said it: stamina. The ultimate linguistic kill shot on her.

[Poopadoop]

To be honest, I do find the moderator's questions pretty biased. Seems like he's only asking Trump the hard questions, not Clinton.

[Savy]

Trump cracked me up then talking about Rosie O'Donnel saying how he said some pretty nasty things but no one thinks she didn't deserve it

To be honest, I do find the moderator's questions pretty biased. Seems like he's only asking Trump the hard questions, not Clinton.

"Mrs Clinton would you hold this magnet"

[Savy]

The host then thinking Trump was going to ignore him

[Savy]

"We have to remember that this has been fought on Hillary's terms, the issues..."

hahahahaha

[Poopadoop]

I think she owned him. I would have expected it to be the other way around.

[JKDS]

Many of the hard questions were on correcting trumps misstatements though.

But hillary got zero tough questions. Fair? Eh maybe.

[Poopadoop]

She just showed him no respect at all, like he was a lightweight. She kept calling him Donald ffs.

I think he looked uncomfortable a lot of the time as well.

[wufwugy]

I think she owned him. I would have expected it to be the other way around.

I thought he got stomped in every debate before, but the results are showing that he keeps coming out on top.

[Poopadoop]

Many of the hard questions were on correcting trumps misstatements though.

Which he then denied vehemently lol, even stuff that's on the record. "Nope, never happened."