09-23-2016 09:42 PM
#2251
| |
|
|
09-23-2016 09:56 PM
#2252
| |
Cue Alex Jones in being 100% serial about HRC and her lizard family tree. | |
09-24-2016 11:47 PM
#2253
| |
|
If this is true it probably increases my respect for Trump the most: |
09-25-2016 11:50 AM
#2254
| |
|
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. |
09-25-2016 01:19 PM
#2255
| |
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? | |
09-25-2016 02:58 PM
#2256
| |
| |
09-25-2016 04:03 PM
#2257
| |
She will dominate. | |
09-25-2016 10:03 PM
#2258
| |
|
I'd love an explanation for why/how. |
09-25-2016 10:37 PM
#2259
| |
09-25-2016 10:46 PM
#2260
| |
I don't see how Trump doesn't crush HRC in the debates (as far as overall national perception is concerned). | |
09-25-2016 10:52 PM
#2261
| |
| |
09-26-2016 04:05 PM
#2262
| |
| |
09-26-2016 04:30 PM
#2263
| |
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. | |
09-26-2016 04:34 PM
#2264
| |
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. | |
| |
09-26-2016 04:42 PM
#2265
| |
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. | |
09-26-2016 04:51 PM
#2266
| |
| |
| |
09-26-2016 04:58 PM
#2267
| |
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. | |
09-26-2016 05:09 PM
#2268
| |
|
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. |
Last edited by wufwugy; 09-26-2016 at 05:11 PM. | |
09-26-2016 05:17 PM
#2269
| |
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. | |
Last edited by Poopadoop; 09-26-2016 at 05:24 PM. | |
09-26-2016 05:27 PM
#2270
| |
|
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. |
09-26-2016 05:39 PM
#2271
| |
|
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. |
09-26-2016 05:45 PM
#2272
| |
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." | |
09-26-2016 05:46 PM
#2273
| |
09-26-2016 05:47 PM
#2274
| |
| |
09-26-2016 05:49 PM
#2275
| |
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. | |
09-26-2016 05:50 PM
#2276
| |
Last edited by Poopadoop; 09-26-2016 at 05:53 PM. | |
09-26-2016 05:54 PM
#2277
| |
| |
09-26-2016 06:13 PM
#2278
| |
| |
09-26-2016 06:34 PM
#2279
| |
09-26-2016 06:37 PM
#2280
| |
09-26-2016 06:39 PM
#2281
| |
|
I read it pre-edit. |
09-26-2016 06:42 PM
#2282
| |
| |
09-26-2016 06:55 PM
#2283
| |
...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. | |
09-26-2016 06:58 PM
#2284
| |
09-26-2016 07:08 PM
#2285
| |
09-26-2016 07:17 PM
#2286
| |
Wow I didn't realise so many people did this absentee voting thing. | |
Last edited by Poopadoop; 09-26-2016 at 07:26 PM. | |
09-26-2016 07:33 PM
#2287
| |
|
The assumptions have a degree of accuracy, just nobody knows how much. This is what happens in predicting elections. |
09-26-2016 07:38 PM
#2288
| |
|
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. |
09-26-2016 07:39 PM
#2289
| |
|
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. |
09-26-2016 07:56 PM
#2290
| |
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. | |
09-26-2016 08:48 PM
#2291
| |
|
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. |
09-26-2016 08:52 PM
#2292
| |
|
Many pollsters are using such awful models that they may be better explained by corruption than incompetence. |
09-26-2016 09:27 PM
#2293
| |
|
Wow that's hard to watch, to think people make their mind up over these debates is frightening. Absolute dross. |
09-26-2016 09:31 PM
#2294
| |
|
He is destroying her so bad it hurts to watch. |
09-26-2016 09:35 PM
#2295
| |
| |
09-26-2016 09:36 PM
#2296
| |
| |
09-26-2016 09:41 PM
#2297
| |
Dunno. I think the Hillary double is holding her own. | |
09-26-2016 09:45 PM
#2298
| |
Oooh, race relations. Time for Trump to show his great statesmanship. | |
09-26-2016 09:50 PM
#2299
| |
|
Hillary for sure looks good-ish here because she doesn't look like death and seems normal. |
09-26-2016 09:52 PM
#2300
| |
|
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. |
09-26-2016 09:55 PM
#2301
| |
09-26-2016 09:57 PM
#2302
| |
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. | |
09-26-2016 09:58 PM
#2303
| |
|
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. |
09-26-2016 09:59 PM
#2304
| |
|
dual screen |
09-26-2016 10:04 PM
#2305
| |
As expected, shes crushing him | |
09-26-2016 10:04 PM
#2306
| |
Grazie. | |
09-26-2016 10:07 PM
#2307
| |
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. | |
09-26-2016 10:08 PM
#2308
| |
|
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. |
09-26-2016 10:09 PM
#2309
| |
| |
09-26-2016 10:12 PM
#2310
| |
BTW: Stop and Frisk | |
09-26-2016 10:16 PM
#2311
| |
| |
09-26-2016 10:22 PM
#2312
| |
Shes practically dying as he explains his birther change of heart. | |
09-26-2016 10:24 PM
#2313
| |
You're watching this live? That was like half an hour ago. | |
09-26-2016 10:26 PM
#2314
| |
Lol all she has to do is quote some of his idiotic past comments and she wins easy. | |
09-26-2016 10:26 PM
#2315
| |
Youtube has a stream! | |
09-26-2016 10:35 PM
#2316
| |
|
Oh shit, he said it: stamina. The ultimate linguistic kill shot on her. |
09-26-2016 10:35 PM
#2317
| |
To be honest, I do find the moderator's questions pretty biased. Seems like he's only asking Trump the hard questions, not Clinton. | |
09-26-2016 10:39 PM
#2318
| |
| |
09-26-2016 10:40 PM
#2319
| |
|
The host then thinking Trump was going to ignore him |
09-26-2016 10:41 PM
#2320
| |
|
"We have to remember that this has been fought on Hillary's terms, the issues..." |
09-26-2016 10:43 PM
#2321
| |
I think she owned him. I would have expected it to be the other way around. | |
09-26-2016 10:44 PM
#2322
| |
Many of the hard questions were on correcting trumps misstatements though. | |
09-26-2016 10:45 PM
#2323
| |
She just showed him no respect at all, like he was a lightweight. She kept calling him Donald ffs. | |
09-26-2016 10:46 PM
#2324
| |
| |
09-26-2016 10:46 PM
#2325
| |