IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags 2016 elections , donald trump , fivethirtyeight.com , hillary clinton , Nate Silver , political predictions , public opinion polls

Reply
Old 28th October 2016, 06:01 AM   #361
bonzombiekitty
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,777
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
I can't suggest it because I have no way to gather such data and I don't have any hunches to replace the missing data.

Just to make a point though - would you be surprised if the map went even more blue than now, that Hillary picked up more states (on the same source's map) in the next couple of weeks?
No we wouldn't be surprised as it's a very conservative map for her. We're not saying Trump is expected to win FL, OH, etc... for the purpose of a conservative map, we're granting him those wins. The ones that ARE granted to her, are, as far as we can tell, showing pretty solid leads for her. It's expected that she'll likely take more such as NC.

Last edited by bonzombiekitty; 28th October 2016 at 06:05 AM.
bonzombiekitty is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2016, 06:05 AM   #362
Tony Stark
Philosopher
 
Tony Stark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 9,626
Originally Posted by bonzombiekitty View Post
No we wouldn't be surprised as it's a very conservative map for her. It's expected that she'll likely take more such as NC.
Yep, exactly.
Tony Stark is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2016, 06:09 AM   #363
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by bonzombiekitty View Post
No we wouldn't be surprised as it's a very conservative map for her. We're not saying Trump is expected to win FL, OH, etc... for the purpose of a conservative map, we're granting him those wins. The ones that ARE granted to her, are, as far as we can tell, showing pretty solid leads for her. It's expected that she'll likely take more such as NC.
Originally Posted by Tony Stark View Post
Yep, exactly.

Well, I was asking about this map as redrawn from the same source. And I want to know if the expectation is that this version will/could swing more Hillary in the next two weeks. Clearer? What say you?

ETA: And, we should also assume that whatever data they are using to draw the map changes - so it's not just some preference of the map maker, but represents some real change they capture. In other words, whatever bias they might have, that bias is stable and doesn't increase just because the election is closer.

Last edited by marplots; 28th October 2016 at 06:12 AM.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2016, 06:15 AM   #364
Tony Stark
Philosopher
 
Tony Stark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 9,626
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
Well, I was asking about this map as redrawn from the same source. And I want to know if the expectation is that this version will/could swing more Hillary in the next two weeks. Clearer? What say you?
I'm the one who made that map. Others have made the same one for the same reasons. Because it is the best that Donald can realistically hope for and he still loses (if you disagree point out which additional blue state(s) he can flip). I don't expect that there will be reason for me to change it to favor Hillary even more.

Last edited by Tony Stark; 28th October 2016 at 06:16 AM.
Tony Stark is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2016, 06:18 AM   #365
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by Tony Stark View Post
I'm the one who made that map. Others have made the same one for the same reasons. Because it is the best that Donald can realistically hope for and he still loses (if you disagree point out which additional blue state(s) he can flip). I don't expect that there will be reason for me to change it to favor Hillary even more.

Oh, I misunderstood. I thought it was from one of the polling outfits. Very nice map though. Well done.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2016, 06:21 AM   #366
bonzombiekitty
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,777
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
Well, I was asking about this map as redrawn from the same source.
It's a custom map. The base map comes from a poll aggregator - 270towin.com. I stand slightly corrected - NH is the biggest chance of Trump winning, but i don't know of anyone that really expects him to win there; Clinton has had a consistent lead in polls there.

Wisconsin has limited polling data, and will show up as a swing state on several aggregators, but I don't know of anyone that thinks Trump has a shot at winning it. The polls that have been done there over the past month all have Clinton leading.

Quote:
And I want to know if the expectation is that this version will/could swing more Hillary in the next two weeks. Clearer? What say you?
The expectation that it will swing more Hillary is very high (again Clinton will probably take NC too as she has had a pretty consistent lead in polls there too). That map is giving Trump a lot of advantages and shows that Trump will have to win at least one state that will be VERY hard for him to win. And that's just looking at public polls. I've heard rumors that internal polls are showing bigger problems for Trump, but those are just rumors.

As of now Trump has to rely on two important things. Undecideds/Potential Third party voters breaking for him significantly and voter turnout. Last I heard, the former tended to be taking away from Clinton more than Trump, so if they decide to opt for a major party candidate, it's probable that they'll break for Clinton. As for the latter, all the stories I have heard indicate the Trump campaign has a terrible ground game, which has historically translated to lower turnout.

So he's got some high hurdles to cross. Not impossible. But not easy. Clinton has the wider, easier path, but she could still fall off it.

Last edited by bonzombiekitty; 28th October 2016 at 06:29 AM.
bonzombiekitty is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2016, 06:28 AM   #367
UWdood
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 30
538 got Trump wrong 7 times, apologized, and said their bias is clean now. Yet it is still clear they still use "oversampled" polls and others that keep putting Democratic turnout at +8, Obama's highest popularity. Does anybody believe the democrats are as energized as they were in 2008? Oh boy. Ohh boy oh boy oh boy oh boy.

Believe what you will.
UWdood is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2016, 06:30 AM   #368
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by UWdood View Post
538 got Trump wrong 7 times, apologized, and said their bias is clean now. Yet it is still clear they still use "oversampled" polls and others that keep putting Democratic turnout at +8, Obama's highest popularity. Does anybody believe the democrats are as energized as they were in 2008? Oh boy. Ohh boy oh boy oh boy oh boy.

Believe what you will.
citation needed for the highlighted.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2016, 06:31 AM   #369
Tony Stark
Philosopher
 
Tony Stark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 9,626
Originally Posted by UWdood View Post
538 got Trump wrong 7 times, apologized, and said their bias is clean now. Yet it is still clear they still use "oversampled" polls and others that keep putting Democratic turnout at +8, Obama's highest popularity. Does anybody believe the democrats are as energized as they were in 2008? Oh boy. Ohh boy oh boy oh boy oh boy.

Believe what you will.
Didn't you people say the exact same thing in 2012? How did that work out for you?
Tony Stark is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2016, 06:34 AM   #370
bonzombiekitty
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,777
Originally Posted by UWdood View Post
538 got Trump wrong 7 times, apologized, and said their bias is clean now. Yet it is still clear they still use "oversampled" polls and others that keep putting Democratic turnout at +8, Obama's highest popularity. Does anybody believe the democrats are as energized as they were in 2008? Oh boy. Ohh boy oh boy oh boy oh boy.

Believe what you will.
538 said they were wrong about Trump mostly because Silver went into pundit mode and ignored the polls and his own models.

They use a bunch of mainstream public polls created by professionals who have an idea of how to conduct a poll.

Personally, this seems to be a significant difference on how polls are handled by both sides of the aisle. When Dems see polls turning against them they tend to think "oh crap. why are we losing?" when Reps see polls turning against them they start thinking "No way we are losing, the polls must be biased!"
bonzombiekitty is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2016, 07:31 AM   #371
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,203
The Good news is that Clinton's actual poll numbers are still holding up in the mid-40's. The Bad news is that Trump is starting to draw Republican voters back off Johnson, whose numbers have dropped significantly while Donald's have grown. This is why the gaps is "closing."
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2016, 07:32 AM   #372
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
The Good news is that Clinton's actual poll numbers are still holding up in the mid-40's. The Bad news is that Trump is starting to draw Republican voters back off Johnson, whose numbers have dropped significantly while Donald's have grown. This is why the gaps is "closing."
But has the country been gerrymandered enough to account for his imminent destruction in both the minority and women's vote?

He'll be lucky to get 5% minority and 10% women.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2016, 08:06 AM   #373
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trebuchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Port Townsend, Washington
Posts: 32,413
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
But has the country been gerrymandered enough to account for his imminent destruction in both the minority and women's vote?

He'll be lucky to get 5% minority and 10% women.
Other than the constitutionally required overweighting of the Senate to small states, gerrymandering can't really have an effect on the presidential election due to nearly all states being winner-take-all. If all the states apportioned EV's like Maine and Nebraska then it could be significant.

He'll do better with women than that and perhaps with some minorities.
__________________
Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.
Trebuchet is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2016, 09:41 AM   #374
Suddenly
No Punting
 
Suddenly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Not In Follansbee
Posts: 4,214
538 has Trump at about 18% right now.

For my own sanity I need to find an overconfident Clinton supporter with deep pockets. If I can find someone to give me at least 40-1 on a Trump win, and can escrow, I'd probably get about 5K down.

I figure I'm perfectly happy being out 5K if it means avoiding a Trump presidency. If there is a Trump presidency, I have at least 200K. I'll use that to finance a move to a solidly blue state as the Federal government will no longer be a check on the excesses of the more conservative states especially once Trump appoints Ted Nugent to the Supreme Court.

If I can get a decent price I always bet against what I want to happen. I'm the king of emotional hedging.
Suddenly is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2016, 12:05 PM   #375
jt512
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,754
Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha View Post
For those following 538 numbers, keep in mind "polls-plus" has been worse than "polls-only". At least in last proper analysis I read. Google just shows him saying plus has been better 57% of the time.

Source?
jt512 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2016, 01:59 PM   #376
varwoche
Penultimate Amazing
 
varwoche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 15,624
Originally Posted by Suddenly View Post
538 has Trump at about 18% right now.

For my own sanity I need to find an overconfident Clinton supporter with deep pockets. If I can find someone to give me at least 40-1 on a Trump win, and can escrow, I'd probably get about 5K down.

I figure I'm perfectly happy being out 5K if it means avoiding a Trump presidency. If there is a Trump presidency, I have at least 200K. I'll use that to finance a move to a solidly blue state as the Federal government will no longer be a check on the excesses of the more conservative states especially once Trump appoints Ted Nugent to the Supreme Court.

If I can get a decent price I always bet against what I want to happen. I'm the king of emotional hedging.
I have also considered this concept, believe me.
__________________
To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.
varwoche is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:45 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.