It's up to you if you want to do a rundown or not; it's your time. Can't promise I'll have time to read all of it, but maybe others will and are interested.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Printable View
It's up to you if you want to do a rundown or not; it's your time. Can't promise I'll have time to read all of it, but maybe others will and are interested.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Hillary has already won
I'll keep it short.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
The primary model by Helmut Norpoth is a strong model that predicts a Trump win a very high percentage of the time. Like all models, it's not perfect, but even if we discard the model, the primaries statistics suggest big lean towards Republican relative to 2012. This includes Trump winning more votes than Clinton did in 2008 and the Democrat primary dropping by 20% while the Republican primary increased by 60% (contrasting competitive years). This signifies a reduction in enthusiasm for Clinton and an increase in enthusiasm for Trump.
Other signs of enthusiasm are a blowout for Trump and devastating for Clinton. His rallies, signage, and merchandise are off the charts in popularity, while hers are in the dumps. In addition, Trump has broken the GOP record for quantity of small donors, while Hillary is way behind Obama.
Even if the polls are rigged, they can be evaluated endogenously for some value. They have consistently shown that the effective incumbent (Clinton) is way below what is considered good for any incumbent, and they have shown that as undecideds and third party votes finally decide, they favor Trump. This is consistent with the orthodox political wisdom we heard about in every election before the current one.
The demographic that the signs suggest Trump does the best with and that he is energizing to turnout is one with the most room for improvement and the one that has been staying home for the last few cycles. Contrast this to Clinton, where there are no signs that she will perform at Obama turnout levels. Just a small solid performance in Trump key demographic and a small underperformance in Clinton's key demographic, which is what signs are pointing towards, gives him the win.
Finally, just step back and take it all in. Nate Antimatter gave Trump a 2% chance to win the nomination and yet he won. This is the type of thing that, when viewed in retrospect, correlates with wins. In the future, we will look back and say the Trump win was pretty obvious, and we will give reasons that include how consistently he outperformed expectations at every turn.
When was that 2% prediction made?
Also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindsight_bias
It's actually pretty annoying that people look at events that are unlikely to happen and when they do happen they make out that the predictions must have been wrong. No something that happens 2% of the time isn't the same as an event that never happens. Any poker player worth their salt knows that through losing thousands of hands they were 98% favourite to win (whilst winning ~98% of those hands in the long run).
Early in the cycle.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
Nate Antimatter's claim to fame is getting an easy to predict election right, an election where no surprises happened. Since then, he's been wrong over and over and over. Today, his bias is blatant. He pulls bull like weights the LA times poll to lean 4 points R for zero reason. Frankly, I've stopped paying attention to Nate Compost. I find it hilarious that back when he had a shred of credibility, he claimed that his poll aggregation strategy would be blown out of the water in a shift election, yet here we are in a shift election and he just keeps shilling.
I agree with this. The issue is that his prediction wasn't reasonable. It was some basic bullshit (stuff that I too fell for) like "it doesn't matter that Trump leads in the polls, he's crazy and he has a ceiling blah blah." I think people would give somebody like Nate Pyrite the benefit of the doubt if a low probability thing happened. The issue is that he applied a low probability to Trump for non-scientific, non-statistical, pro-political-bias reasons.Quote:
It's actually pretty annoying that people look at events that are unlikely to happen and when they do happen they make out that the predictions must have been wrong. No something that happens 2% of the time isn't the same as an event that never happens. Any poker player worth their salt knows that through losing thousands of hands they were 98% favourite to win (whilst winning ~98% of those hands in the long run).
I'm not 100% sure of the point you're getting at, but, yeah, hindsight bias is the thorn in the side for all social models.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
Aug. 2015, six months before the first primary. Another person on his team gave Trump 0% and another gave him a minus 10% chance of winning. Shows how serious that estimate was.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/p...ugust-edition/
The only reason I argue with you guys is I love ya. Each and every one of you doofuses. You're all doofuses even though I'm positive you're each higher on intelligence scale than I am.
i dont mean doofus as an insult. everybody's a doofus as far as im concerned.
So it's people pissing about. A bit idiotic on their part as people will use it to bash them but at the same time just worth ignoring.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
People (and the systems they use) are notoriously bad at putting anything resembling realistic odds on things with very long odds. One of the few things betting companies routinely get wrong is giving people much better odds than they actually deserve when they have a very low chance of getting something right. A good example of this was Leicester city winning the premier league last year.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
The fact that some people are full of shit and are riding a wave of past glory which gives them more say than they deserve in these things is unfortunately something that happens in all walks of life. That isn't to say that just because they say one thing the opposite must be true though. I also agree that people will happily try and "logic" away things that disagree with their view of things however false this is.
I don't remember the last time I heard that word used. Must have gone out of fashion about 15+ years ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I think part of why I use it is the obscurity. Like every normal male on the face of the earth, insults are paramount to interaction with other males, just that they need be not too biting.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
This was an interesting read for me. I'm definitely guilty of over simplying the subjects of this article. Maybe it was already posted but I'll leave it here anyway: https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...cans?CMP=fb_gu
I saved a few linked articles and books mentioned in the article for later reading. I'd be remiss to accuse islamaphobes of over simplifying an entire religion and 1.6 billion people and not recognize my own generalizations.
I prefer cunt.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
brits know that insulting each other is the name of the game. americans have too weak of feelings.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
Tell that to some of the people I've called a cunt.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I remember hitting a one outer in a poker game when all in, then bust out a few hands later. Fat lot of good that 2% did me.
The primary model has some merit given its past success. One thing worth noting is that since the primaries, no-one in history has fallen out of favour with their own party like Trump has.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
He might draw bigger crowds, but how much of that is due to popularity and how much due to the novelty and entertainment value he brings is open to question.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
As far as the merchandise and donors are concerned, Clinton has twice as much funding as Trump. She spends her money on big ticket things like TV ads, whereas Trump spends his on hats and t-shirts. It's a big leap to go from some supporters accepting a free Trump hat at a rally to half the country being wild about him.
Doesn't work that way I'm afraid. You don't get to pick and choose which data from a poll to believe. Either the polls are sound and all of their data is more or less reasonable, or they're biased/rigged and all of their data should be discounted. And this should be done on an individual poll basis and be done objectively, not just cherry picking the data you like and discounting the rest.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
The latest ABC poll (the same one that finished in the top five in accuracy the last three elections) has Clinton at 50%. Other ones have her in the 45-50 % range. There's some that have her lower and obviously these are the only ones you're referring to here. Just want us to be clear on that.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
You're gonna have to show the evidence that this is true, since even the polls that have favored Trump have also been showing the trend of Clinton getting stronger and Trump getting weaker.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Again, please elaborate. 1) Which demographic are you referring to and what signs are suggesting they're going to turn out and vote Trump? 2) What signs suggest Clinton is not going to get a large turnout?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Six months before the first primary. On a scratchpad.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
It's also the kind of thing that correlates with someone who's not yet serious about making predictions.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
IIRC, a lot of the reason people underestimated Trump early in the cycle was because he played coy about whether he really wanted the nomination or was just after some free advertising. It was him who set the expectations low, not others. I don't think anyone is not taking him seriously now.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Here's the thing about this election: The polls are all over the place. You can't have one poll that's +12 and another -2 without somebody being way off. Even if you double the normal margin of error to around 7 points for each poll, they still don't overlap. So even though all the polls follow the same trends in the same directions, it's really hard to get a handle on who's winning by how much.
Online hotel booking confirmed rigged:
https://www.hipmunk.com/tailwind/are.../#.WA5wIsn6N7Z
Something something classified information.
On pace to hit those 348 electoral votes. The voting data so far is showing a very different story than the polls.
I expect a tape will surface shortly of Trump wanting to have sex with his own daughter. Oh wait...
I can't believe how much of a gangster Scott Adams is. He shut down all of CTR (Clinton's paid shills) on twitter with one simple re-frame. It took no longer than 48 hours.
Some of the basics for a ~348 landslide are along the lines of reports of major depression of turnout for Clinton compared to Obama, and huge surge in support of Trump in traditionally blue collar Democrat districts. Illinois is possibly in play because of these. I don't think so though, on account of Chicago being one of the most statist, socialist, welfarist, corrupt, SJW hellholes in the world.
When you've got both the creator of Dilbert and the guy who played Chachi behind you, how can you possibly not win by a landslide?
I get it. The sealed bottle of red pills is still sitting on the counter.
You're right about how far off the polls are though. The last one had Clinton ahead by 17 in Washington. Boy are their faces going to be red when Trump takes that state.
He's not taking Washington. At least not unless something like Crooked getting indicted happens.
It was just an idea I batted around for a while. I think he's going to win by enough to barely take Michigan. Washington will still be several points blue in that situation. For Trump to win Washington, there would need to be severe depression from Sanders voters (could happen) and surprising support among Asians for Trump (could happen). I just don't think it will happen, because if it did, then I'd be way too conservative in my estimates, and I'm generally an edge pusher in estimates.
The blue pills are all gone though.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I know.
You are good with the humor of it though
It's all I have left.
god i cannot wait for a trump presidency. just imagine the number of shit regulations he's gonna cut. and taxes. if you thought 2016 a landslide, it'll be nothing compared to 2020, when the economy is exploding with growth.
i mean the fact that trump will give a simple "fuck you" to stupid inhibitions to energy production will be enough to double or triple rgdp.
Well shit I could be wrong about New Mexico. I used one heuristic, just one, right on the margin, to put it in the Crooked column. But reports of internal polls are showing it's in dead heat. In a way this makes sense since NM is traditional Republican territory and that it will have increased GOP turnout just like Texas is showing. But I put it in the D column due to the crazy amounts of reports of bullying of Mexican Trump supporters inside Mexican communities. I'd be thrilled to bump the forecast up to 353.
I think if you give Trump all the states where Clinton's ahead by 5-10% in the rigged polls, and where the rigged early voting is mostly democrats then it's a clear 353. At least.
I might even toss in Washington for good measure and make it a nice round 365.
Clear. At least. You've convinced me. He's taking Cuckifornia. And Cuckachusetts.
At this rate he'll take Ontario.
Naw I'd defo throw him that Oregon bone first.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I live in Ontario. How do I vote HRC?
I'm surprised the Democrats haven't been in touch with you yet to get you to vote in Michigan.
Dont republicans typically have better early vote turn out?
Bae and I voted Clinton. Our two votes have made Clinton two votes stronger. How do you explain that, wuf? Checkmate.
Haha pretending she doesn't know. It's like when you get pulled over for speeding and you're all "what's the problem officer?".Quote:
Originally Posted by HRC
Don't forget all of your dead relatives, that's gotta be a few more for Clinton.Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
Unfortunately, even though the dead vote is rigged, Trump is so popular he will still win a yuge victory. He's virtually got the sexual predator/paedophile locked up.
Now that Her has secured the presidency, I worry that she doesn't have anyone close to her that can bring her back down to Earth.
Not necessarily. It depends on type, where, when, and many other things. The early voting numbers in totality are devastating for Democrats and look very good for Republicans, even though the media is only covering the small ways in which it looks good for Democrats.Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
In a nutshell, Democrats are way behind where they need to be in order to win Florida or North Carolina. The Florida numbers are the most complete so far, and they're abysmal for Democrats. Others are reporting they think a 10 point win could be in it for Trump in Florida. Which is funny since that was my estimate a month or so ago.
The Midwest numbers are suggesting big time landslide. Blue districts are going red. White turnout is up and black turnout is way down. As more numbers come in, we'll be getting a better picture.
Didnt you say bae is libertarian?Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
That's the shy conservative effect mate, you both clearly voted Trump.Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
An issue with my forecast is that I'm assuming Asian/other will not stray that much from where it was in 2012, yet there is evidence to suggest that the demo could actually favor Trump, which would be a huge twist. My modeling uses what I think are pretty conservative estimates of the increase in white turnout/vote and decrease in blacks. But if I use more liberal estimates that I think are in the cards, states like Jersey and Delaware and Washington and Illinois start flipping.
Malik Obama twitter is the highest level of shitposting in the history of the internet. Barack's own brother wearing a maga hat and saying shit like "you survived 8 years of my brother, you can survive 8 weeks of me."
i mean cmon. shitposting this biting will never happen again
https://twitter.com/ObamaMalik/statu...02741989560320
lol that one uncle, but he's part of the president's family
wufwugy
Is there any evidence that points towards a Clinton win?
hahaha this fucking guyQuote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Well an issue my forecast of a close but not neccesarily overwhelming Clinton win is that I actually use real evidence and not just things I heard on a peculiarly biased website where i get my evidence from. But that's my own fault for being so biased by objective evidence and ignoring the ghoul and other undead vote.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Sorry forgot to mention the vote of the rigged media who also adds at least 1% to the dead vote.
Also, forgot to mention the inestimable number of shy paedophile and sex abuser voters who will definitely align with Trump. 'tis definitely a landslide of at least 400 EV because if there's nothing America wants more it is to show the entire world how they stand for their right to be perverse sexual deviants.
Great question.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
The best evidence she has is the topline of the polls as well as that pollsters are pretty consistently getting big D+ response samples.
The topline is good evidence if we assume the parameters pollsters are using are relatively accurate. I do not think they are accurate and I've tried to back this up previously. Examples of this are where primaries turnout for Democrats was significantly lower than in 2008, yet pollsters are consistently projecting an even larger turnout for Democrats than in 2008. This does not pass the smell test. Where is this turnout gonna come from? It won't be from blacks nor youths. It could be from Hispanics (more specifically Mexicans), and there is indeed evidence to suggest that turnout among Hispanics will probably increase this cycle. She could get increased turnout from women. That may be in the cards, but a counter to that is that there should definitely be increased turnout for Trump with men, so it may be a wash. She definitely will not get increased turnout among whites. All in all, the explanation for the pollsters weighting for greater turnout for Hillary than for Obama 2008 points to either agenda-driven polling or laziness.
The consistent D+ samples are probably a better sign for Clinton. However, there seems to also be something fucky going on there. Apparently email leaks from the Clinton camp have shown them discussing deliberately oversampling demographics favorable to them in order to sway public opinion. Additionally, the D+ sampling is too consistent to make statistical sense. Even if the population will turnout by D+10, we would expect a decent amount of polls to come in with raw samples of R+. Yet they're not. The largest quantity of R+ samples I've seen have been the last week of IBD tracking polls, which every day have had R+ samples and yet have been weighted to reflect ~D+7.
Another thing that helps Clinton is that there are still "values" conservative NeverTrump people. I think this is a wash considering the large number of Bernie Democrats that aren't voting for her.
Another potentially positive point for Clinton is that Independents do not appear to fall for Trump at >15 points. This means that if there is big D turnout, she can win.
On the evidence for Trump victory side, it appears that today Clinton's camp has cancelled appearances in Florida, North Carolina, and Ohio. This would mean that they already know they've lost those. Meanwhile the polls had her leading those big league. Given that Pennsylvania only ran 2.5 points more blue than Ohio in 2012, abandoning Ohio would suggest that she's at best neck and neck in PA. I think it suggests that she's behind in PA because if she was within 3 of Ohio she would not abandon it. This all assumes she really has left those states. A decent amount of what comes from a handful of the sources I use is not accurate.
You realise people cancel appearances in places they put down as wins too right? The idea is to battle it out in close seats not waste your time in places where you already have it won. I'd imagine the people running her campaign are going off the real evidence that everyone else uses rather than your posts on here.
Also if they're pushing all this fake poll shit and trying to rig it then what is the point when it completely undermines the reliability of polls in the future & is so exposed come the end of the cycle? Also why are there no people exposing this? Why are there no people doing the same thing on the opposite side? Do polls really play that big a part of how people vote in the first place? It doesn't all add up.
The early vote data in those states are far more favorable to Republicans than it was in 2012. While you are correct in theory, in this case it would not be that they're leaving those states because they think they're winning. In addition, even if they were 10 points ahead in those states, they would not leave since Trump's path to victory is devastating if he loses one of those states. Also the other states where the Clinton camp has its remaining rallies are in states that favor Clinton even more.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
You're telling me. This is why those that claim the polls are deliberately misleading also claim that they will tighten as the race gets close. This happens in lots of races. We don't know to what degree, if any, that it is due to unethical behavior. The existence of "bad" polls isn't evidence of unethical behavior. Regardless, the answer to your question does include the fact that pollsters can retain credibility by converging on the final result close to the election.Quote:
Also if they're pushing all this fake poll shit and trying to rig it then what is the point when it completely undermines the reliability of polls in the future & is so exposed come the end of the cycle?
Lots of people are. The mainstream media is not. Most people do not hear about it because the vast majority of people consume mainstream sources even when they think they do not.Quote:
Also why are there no people exposing this?
Probably because credibility would be stripped immediately. Polling exists in a Democrat ethos, and all pollsters -- except a small few -- are hardcore Democrats. The vast majority of polling entities are owned by hardline Democrats. Not all of them are, but ones that aren't also exist within an establishment Republican (like Fox) ethos as well as require the Democrat ethos giving them credibility.Quote:
Why are there no people doing the same thing on the opposite side?
In order for a pollster to fudge numbers for the opposite side, they would have to give the finger to the entire juggernaut of mainstream media. It's not really something that happens. There is no incentive to do this since it would only work if somebody had a strong enough foresight that their side would win. That would be the only way they could survive the election cycle. The mainstream media owns the airwaves even when it looks like they don't. Instead people take to twitter and other forums to try to expose the polls using their methodologies and parameters. A polling company trying to fudge numbers for the other side would get little air time too. The media already doesn't report polls that don't favor Clinton.
Very much so. They're a persuasion tactic to get undecideds on your side (everybody likes backing a winner) and demoralizing the opposition.Quote:
Do polls really play that big a part of how people vote in the first place?
In this particular cycle, I think it backfires.
BTW none of what I posted here is evidence for unethical polling. I merely responding to your questions with the rationale behind why things could be a certain way. I would use an entirely different approach if I were trying to demonstrate unethical polling.
I'm not sure why you think I just go on opinion or on what people say. Most of what I've posted in this thread has come from me reading the poll pdfs and pointing out reasoning flaws.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
What I find strange is the great defense of the polls. The polls assume Clinton will get 2008 Obama levels with blacks. Nobody in their right mind believes this. It is after putting together a large number of these types of bad reasoning in the polls that I claim they're way off. And now that election results have begun coming in, they have shown the polls are indeed way off.
In speech and thought "No one in their right minds" should not be synonymous with "No one who agrees with me"
Point taken. But to be clear I'm not saying people who disagree with me (at least I'm not trying to). It takes some wind-surfing-a-tornado level mental gymnastics to think blacks will turnout more for her than for Obama.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
Yeah, I mean, I think you're not wrong but you're being at least a little hyperbolic. If there is no reason given for predicting a higher black turnout for Clinton than Obama, it certainly is a place to dig, but there are plenty of explanations that are on the non conspiratorial side of Occam's razor. Remember, BLM did not exist pre Obama. It didn't exist until after his second term had started. Sure Obama got a big turn out from the black vote simply by dint of being black, but Clinton is running on a platform on continuity of the first black president and in support of a highly energised movement that likely makes single issue voters out of non voters.
Your critique of this prediction works for the opposite prediction eight years ago: the expectation that Obama will see a lower turn out from the black vote than Kerry did is on its face silly-- but this works because there was far more congruence in the mood of the country in 2004 and 2008 which rendered Obama's blackness far closer to an isolated variable.
edit: to be clear, I'm not arguing this as fact, I don't have the data to support any of this. My point isn't to prove that Clinton will see a bump in the black vote over Obama, but instead that she could and that there are potential reasons to predict as much which do not amount to lolriggedpolls.
It depends on how they arrive at their estimate: If they just assume some large number of black people will vote because that gives them the result they want, then yeah that's wrong. And they wouldn't be taken seriously as a pollster if they did that.
But if they're basing it on the number of black poll respondents that report that they're going to vote/have already voted, then that's perfectly reasonable and you can't argue that 'no way polls are rigged cause Clinton isn't black like Obama'.
Some pretty fuzzy logic here: She's not campaigning in places where the polls have her way ahead, therefore she knows she's losing them. How does she 'know' she's losing when the evidence says she's winning?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Sure, but you usually only speak in generalities - e.g.., polls are rigged by saying blacks will turn out in 2012 numbers. When you've actually argued about a specific issue with a specific poll or polls, I've seen that it comes down to you not understanding polling well enough. The Arizona poll where you criticized it for being D+ something is one example where you argued a bias existed where I had to explain to you how they arrived at their final (unbiased) figures. Thus your credibility as a critic of polls is low. Maybe you should try to learn how the polls work so you can evaluate them objectively; then you could provide specific critiques that are actually valid.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
As it is, you sound like you're just parroting whatever conservative website that is trying to argue the polls are rigged using faulty reasoning.
The evidence I am referring to is the early vote. The polls, up until very recently (like today, maybe yesterday), had her quite a bit ahead. But as we all know, the actual voting results matter more than the polls, and those results in OH FL and NC are devastating to Clinton. She is significantly underperforming Obama at this point 4 years ago and projections have Trump winning all those states handily.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
In North Carolina, which Romney won in 2012, R is down but D is down even more than R, and I is up way more than 2012. I went for Romney and in the 2016 primaries went Republican by 10 points. Clinton's camp would be reasonable to project a loss here.
In Ohio, there is significant increase in white vote and decrease in black vote. I forget the other numbers, but they point at an R win. This, along with the movement seen from early vote in the rest of the Midwest, suggests she should embrace for a big loss in Ohio.
In Florida, it's basically Clinton's nightmare. D early vote is way behind where it was in 2012. R early vote is high and climbing as the late opening R counties are coming in.
I misread that thing. I thought the D+ was the weight, not the raw sample. Reading things incorrectly happens from time to time. You'd be well advised to not read more into this. I admitted I read it wrong as soon as you pointed it out. Even though you interpret this as reducing my credibility, it actually gives me more credibility since it shows that I change my claims based on new information.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
You can say you misread it, but fact is you either didn't understand it and/or you hadn't looked into it critically but had accepted someone else's conclusion. Either that or it's a major coincidence that you and someone who runs a conservative website happened to reach the same flawed conclusion independently.
Moreover, that's the only poll you bothered to mention by name (though in fact you didn't - you only gave enough information that I could dig it out myself). The rest of the time you just seem to be speaking of polls in general which makes it impossible to evaluate your claims.
So here's a challenge for you: Name a couple of polls that are overestimating the black vote. Explain how they are doing it and why their reasoning is flawed. Put links up to their methods.
The flawed conclusion was mine alone. I misread it because frankly I'm a little tired of this stuff so I haven't been reading them that closely the last couple weeks. I just briefly read something and thought it said something different than it said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I have discussed specific polls many, many times here. I don't do it that often anymore because the response is always the same. There's something about me that galvanizes people, and they just gotta disagree.Quote:
Moreover, that's the only poll you bothered to mention by name (though in fact you didn't - you only gave enough information that I could dig it out myself). The rest of the time you just seem to be speaking of polls in general which makes it impossible to evaluate your claims.
How about I don't? I did this stuff extensively a while back when I was busy reading the pdfs and it didn't matter then. It won't matter now.Quote:
So here's a challenge for you: Name a couple of polls that are overestimating the black vote. Explain how they are doing it and why their reasoning is flawed. Put links up to their methods.
Now that the early voting has started, I don't care about the polls much anymore. Now is when my claims are put to the test. So far I appear to have been right. The early voting is showing a much different result than the polls that I criticized did. Go figure.
Wuf, news flash: it's not up to you to determine how credible you are.
The weighting of the polls was a key part of your argument, a part of your argument that was built on a faulty premise. The weighting of the polls actually means the opposite of what you thought it meant. Now you realize this, yet your position has not shifted at all. If this was not a key part of your argument, then you have conveyed your ideas poorly, and that's on you. If it is a key part of your argument, then your insistence on remaining just as steadfastly adamant makes you less credible.
You may be right about all of this, but that has zero bearing on your credibility. Hand waving and shifting goal posts is not conducive to a productive exchange of ideas. And again, if you feel you're not doing this, that's fine, but you should understand that if everyone else thinks you are, that's probably what matters-- the common denominator is you.
Also, I'm having a tough time finding anyone who reads the early voting stats the way you do. Mostly I see articles saying, on the national level, it looks to be favoring Clinton, but that not a ton can be reasonable garnered from early votes. Fox news reads it as predictive of neck and neck races in swing states, but even they don't see signs of Trump landslides. So, again, maybe the media is biased, the polls are rigged, etc, but for your claims to be true, a series of fantastic premises need also be true, yet you're coming up more than a bit short of providing fantastic evidence.
I will go figure: Early voters are self selecting and tend to not, as a group, be representative of voters overall. Further, different types of early voting tend to attract different types of voters. So early early voting returns, when early voting is predominantly mail in, will show one thing, but in person early voting will show another. The polls you refer to are not attempting to predict the early vote. You're trying to use a screwdriver to drive a nail and complaining about the results.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Absolutely. I added the type of logic that can be derived from the fact that those with credibility are never those who aren't wrong, but those who admit when they are wrong and change views accordingly.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
It was one poll where I thought the unweighted data was the weighted data. This poll was not relevant nor essential for my arguments.Quote:
The weighting of the polls was a key part of your argument, a part of your argument that was built on a faulty premise. The weighting of the polls actually means the opposite of what you thought it meant. Now you realize this, yet your position has not shifted at all. If this was not a key part of your argument, then you have conveyed your ideas poorly, and that's on you. If it is a key part of your argument, then your insistence on remaining just as steadfastly adamant makes you less credible.
Poopy has made it sound much different than it is.
I bet. All the mainstream coverage I've seen has been misleading. It's something like how they show that D is beating R in North Carolina, and then they use that to claim it's a good sign for D. Not so fast. D always beats R in NC. It has a ton of legacy Democrats commonly found in the Deep South and Appalachian states who vote red in presidential elections. From what I've seen, the totality of the race shows both D and R down in NC, but Independents up big time. NC turnout looks more favorable for R than it did in 2012. The next time I come across the data for this, I'll post it.Quote:
Also, I'm having a tough time finding anyone who reads the early voting stats the way you do.
Yeah I haven't provided any evidence of this, frankly. I don't bookmark stuff, but I'll keep in mind that maybe I can post it when I see it.Quote:
Mostly I see articles saying, on the national level, it looks to be favoring Clinton, but that not a ton can be reasonable garnered from early votes. Fox news reads it as predictive of neck and neck races in swing states, but even they don't see signs of Trump landslides. So, again, maybe the media is biased, the polls are rigged, etc, but for your claims to be true, a series of fantastic premises need also be true, yet you're coming up more than a bit short of providing fantastic evidence.
Evaluating the race based on early votes is mostly just about measuring change from the previous elections, because the points you make about how they're different types of voters is generally true.
I would like to note that months ago I evaluated this election using a very critical eye. Back then I backed everything up with data. But the last couple weeks I've been mostly just a fan boi, which is why I'm not much presenting data anymore.
I'm just looking forward to the results coming in.
We'll call it a brief spell of laziness on my part.
Also if the mainstream media is reporting that it's a dead heat, it shows the polls have been wrong since they have had Trump very far behind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
It's because you make fantastic claims while providing nothing to back them up. When you say 'the evidence shows...' and then don't explain what that evidence is or how it leads to your conclusion, it's fucking annoying.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
When you actually present evidence that supports an argument rather than just claiming it's out there somewhere, and that evidence is solid, I'll be the first to say you're right.
i have done that and it makes little difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
but i'll take your word for it, that in the future it will matter.
Okay here's data on North Carolina: http://www.oldnorthstatepolitics.com/
Key points:
"Registered Democrats are 4.2 percent behind their same day 2012 total numbers, while registered Republicans are 4.5 percent ahead of their numbers. Registered unaffiliated voters are 36.9 percent ahead of their same day all absentee ballot totals from 2012. "
Also here's a sizable bump of white votes and big drop of black votes.
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-WU-CT0q4a...Bby%2BRace.jpg
The above strongly suggests that Trump will win North Carolina by more than Romney did. Perhaps significantly so.
I don't know of a source on Florida that is equally as good as this one, but the conservative sources covering this are a bit more bullish on Florida than North Carolina. Though the data is more scattered, from what I've seen they're right to be more bullish. But I won't mention the reasons why since I don't have the data in front of me. I'll post it if I come across it again.
The graph right below that one on that same website shows fewer white republican voters, about the same democrat, and more 'others'. Doesn't that suggest that those extra white voters are mostly due to a big surge in 'other', combined with a moderate drop in republicans? How does that make Trump a strong favorite?
Edit: And the graph below that shows a yuge majority of the democrat early voters are women. Can't see that being good for Trump.
Seems like one explanation for why fewer blacks are voting early.
http://heavy.com/news/2016/10/early-...lorado-nevada/Quote:
In North Carolina, 17 counties controversially decreased the number of early voting locations, said NBC News; this has resulted in long lines at some polling places and lower early voting tallies. NBC said one county, Guilford County, which houses the largely black city of Greensboro, “cut early voting locations from 16 to just one.”
Independents broke for Romney and broke for the Republican primaries. They're likely to break for Trump.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Even without this, the D to R swing is 8.7 points. That's very big.
That's pretty normal. Most Democrats are female.Quote:
Edit: And the graph below that shows a yuge majority of the democrat early voters are women. Can't see that being good for Trump.
Could be. From my experience, there is a ton of noise when it comes to reporting on polling locations.Quote:
Seems like one explanation for why fewer blacks are voting early.
It appears they forgot to tell Bill.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
http://www.twcnews.com/nc/triad/news...g-rallies.html
and Pence didn't seem to get the memo either
Quote:
He and Mike Pence have events planned in several other tight states over the next couple of days including Michigan, Florida and Pennsylvania.
Do you have any data regarding this?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
It does seem like something. Not sure how significant it is though. It's not as if there's suddenly more republicans than democrats voting early there.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I made along post about this and it got deleted by FTR so I'll summarise.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
Wuf has been chatting shit for as long as the election has gone on, this is by no means anything against him it's just what he chooses his free time on. He picks a side of an argument and goes after it. This is if anything a credible procedure for any side in an attempt to understand the things they did right/wrong and maybe some basic logic on why.
At the same time what he says has quite literally always been shown to be bollocks. The important thing isn't the result it's the logic and they have also mostly added up to be rubbish as has been states many times. A lot of the things he says are very easily opposed and at the same time a lot of what he says doesn't make sense in the big picture.
As a result the point isn't so much to argue based on truths stated by either side (true of anything) but based on what is being said in little context.
Don't kid yourself. You would think this regardless of what I say.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
Not on me. I'll post it if I see it again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
The swing relative to the closest previous elections is what matters. It's typically a very reliable tool for projecting the outcome.Quote:
It does seem like something. Not sure how significant it is though. It's not as if there's suddenly more republicans than democrats voting early there.
I figured the early reports would not tell the whole story. Note, I included a disclaimer on that one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Showyourwork.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
It's the orthodox wisdom of politicians and pundits. This is probably because vote for a candidate correlates very highly with turnout by that candidate's party. It's never a 1:1 correlation, but it's usually 5:4 or closer. 5:4 is actually pretty rare and low. In 2012 Obama got 92% of the Democrat vote and Romney got 93% of the Republican vote. Romney got 50% to Obama's 45% of Independents nationwide, so there's part of some evidence Poopy asked for http://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls...ps-voted-2012/Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
When there is a shift in party turnout, the orthodox wisdom is that this means that there is a similar shift towards the candidate that represents that party. If we use the 2012 model, an 8.7 point shift from D to R in North Carolina would have given Romney close to a 10 point win instead of the 2 point one he got. We can't ever extrapolate perfectly or make extremely accurate projections with this knowledge, but it is common to use when projecting the winner and whether it might be by a lot or by little.
Ya, but my household voted Hillary, and thats two votes Trump didnt get. You-cant-explain-that.gif
It's unlikely that this is the case. I couldn't care less who won the election & at the same time I've taken on board a lot of the economic things you talk about in other threads.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
It's also quite possible that all this particular swing tells us is that the state of N. Carolina succeeded in making it harder for blacks to vote early. Not everyone is keen to stand in line for four hours to vote.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Are you saying black people are lazy or have ADHD?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
It's not the early reports. It's that nothing has actually been cancelled. It's that the whole thing was made up.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
http://www.snopes.com/white-house-ca...a-appearances/
Notsureifserious.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by BankItDrew
I'm saying people don't like to stand in line for four hours, and a lot of the people given that option were black as part of an apparently deliberate strategy of a republican state to fuckulate the democrat vote.
https://thinkprogress.org/north-caro...80d#.oog8xd85d
I didn't see the point in mentioning the ethnicity.
The point is that blacks tend to vote democrat. So when a republican-run state government deliberately makes it harder to vote in counties that are predominantly black, it's easy to see their motivation. US Supreme Court already ordered N. Carolina to stop some other cheap voter rights abuses they were trying to pull, so it seems pretty clear it's deliberate.Quote:
Originally Posted by BankItDrew
http://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme-...ina-1472673999
It's also a sad day for democracy. Everyone should have the opportunity to vote early without standing in line for four hours, not just the people in counties that are more likely to share the political views of the party that's running the election in that state.