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 27th October 2016, 03:50 PM   #321
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 52,823
Originally Posted by Garrison View Post
And you are still doing nothing but guessing, there's nothing to stop the trend reversing over the next few days, but hey if you need to cling to the hopes of a Trump victory go right ahead.
To be fair, Don despises Trump,but was shell shocked by the Britex vote and seems not to grasp the differences between a referendum and a US Presidential Election.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb 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 27th October 2016, 03:51 PM   #322
jt512
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,754
Originally Posted by Jrrarglblarg View Post
The % chance of winning is a weird thing to discuss. Voters are not pachinko balls, the behaviour is not actually random.

Voters may not be random, but polls are. They're samples of voters, and sampling implies random sampling error. That's the fundamental source of uncertainty in the election forecast. Then you add in uncertainty from unknown events that occur between the forecast and the election that can change voters' minds; and then you add in uncertainty from not knowing who the undecideds will vote for. All these sources of uncertainty lead to a probabilistic forecast about the election results. I don't find it weird at all.
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 27th October 2016, 03:59 PM   #323
Tony Stark
Philosopher
 
Tony Stark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 9,626
Just to give you guys an idea of how the 538 forecast moves, the following polls changed it by 1.2 points in Donald's favor.

Virgina - Hillary +12
North Carolina - Hillary +4
National - Hillary +6
Iowa - Tie
Georgia - Donald +1
Missouri - Donald +11

This doesn't make sense to me but whatever.
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 27th October 2016, 04:15 PM   #324
ddt
Mafia Penguin
 
ddt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 19,579
Originally Posted by Tony Stark View Post
Just to give you guys an idea of how the 538 forecast moves, the following polls changed it by 1.2 points in Donald's favor.

Virgina - Hillary +12
North Carolina - Hillary +4
National - Hillary +6
Iowa - Tie
Georgia - Donald +1
Missouri - Donald +11

This doesn't make sense to me but whatever.
The differences in the map w.r.t. yesterday I note are that Ohio and Arizona have turned from light-blue to light-red.
__________________
"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." - "Saint" Teresa, the lying thieving Albanian dwarf

"I think accuracy is important" - Vixen
ddt 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 27th October 2016, 04:19 PM   #325
jt512
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,754
Originally Posted by Tony Stark View Post
Note that Silver's model is the only one below 90% (others are as high as 98% and 99%) and at this time in 2012 he only had Obama at 75%.

I'm not even a little bit worried.

I'm still worried. The only forecast I've seen at or above 98% is that of Sam Wang's so-called "Princeton Election Consortium." and I'm pretty sure his model is systematically over-confident: it is blind to the existence of undecided voters and wrongly ignores the correlations among state outcomes.
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 27th October 2016, 04:24 PM   #326
Tony Stark
Philosopher
 
Tony Stark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 9,626
Originally Posted by ddt View Post
The differences in the map w.r.t. yesterday I note are that Ohio and Arizona have turned from light-blue to light-red.
Arizona and Ohio are still blue though.
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 27th October 2016, 04:25 PM   #327
Tony Stark
Philosopher
 
Tony Stark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 9,626
Originally Posted by jt512 View Post
I'm still worried. The only forecast I've seen at or above 98% is that of Sam Wang's so-called "Princeton Election Consortium." and I'm pretty sure his model is systematically over-confident: it is blind to the existence of undecided voters and wrongly ignores the correlations among state outcomes.
The HuffPo forecast has Hillary at 98%. It takes into account undecided voters, though probably not to the extent that Silver's model does.

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/...cast/president

Last edited by Tony Stark; 27th October 2016 at 04:29 PM.
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 27th October 2016, 05:02 PM   #328
Garrison
Philosopher
 
Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 5,679
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
To be fair, Don despises Trump,but was shell shocked by the Britex vote and seems not to grasp the differences between a referendum and a US Presidential Election.
I don't think he wants Trump to win for ideological reasons but just so he can say, 'I told you so'.
__________________
So I've started a blog about my writing. Check it out at: http://fourth-planet-problem.blogspot.com/
And my first book is on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B077W322FX
Garrison 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 27th October 2016, 05:31 PM   #329
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by jt512 View Post
Voters may not be random, but polls are. They're samples of voters, and sampling implies random sampling error. That's the fundamental source of uncertainty in the election forecast. Then you add in uncertainty from unknown events that occur between the forecast and the election that can change voters' minds; and then you add in uncertainty from not knowing who the undecideds will vote for. All these sources of uncertainty lead to a probabilistic forecast about the election results. I don't find it weird at all.
The weird part is that we think we are less uncertain about the uncertainty, that we have captured it somehow, reigned it in and measured it. It's the assumption that the uncertainty is of a certain type (and flavor) that gives us some certainty about it.
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 27th October 2016, 05:36 PM   #330
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trebuchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Port Townsend, Washington
Posts: 32,412
I really REALLY wish 538 had something on the House like they do on the senate. My attempt to Google this afternoon wound up leading me to an RCP link which said the Dems would take it. In 2006.
__________________
Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.
Trebuchet 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 27th October 2016, 05:38 PM   #331
Tony Stark
Philosopher
 
Tony Stark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 9,626
Originally Posted by Trebuchet View Post
I really REALLY wish 538 had something on the House like they do on the senate. My attempt to Google this afternoon wound up leading me to an RCP link which said the Dems would take it. In 2006.
There is less polling data on the House. That said, Republicans will probably keep it, though I expect more people to vote for Democrats.
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 27th October 2016, 08:48 PM   #332
xjx388
Moderator
Moderator
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10,076
Originally Posted by Garrison View Post
And you are still doing nothing but guessing, there's nothing to stop the trend reversing over the next few days, but hey if you need to cling to the hopes of a Trump victory go right ahead.
That's what everyone is doing. Sure, there's a certain level of educated guessing but still.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 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 27th October 2016, 09:41 PM   #333
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility (USA, sort of)
Posts: 26,611
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
To be fair, Don despises Trump,but was shell shocked by the Britex vote and seems not to grasp the differences between a referendum and a US Presidential Election.

Were the best, most respected predictions in consensus that there was a better than 80% chance of Brexit not passing less then two weeks before the referendum
__________________
"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."

"Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation."
quadraginta 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 27th October 2016, 10:54 PM   #334
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 41,468
I wouldn't fret too much. Every aggregator has Clinton nearly locked into 272, with a high probability to get 330 to 350. The only map that is trying to give the GOP hope is the RCP average and they do that by giving credibility to Bob's Forecasting of Mizzoura, a pollster neither 538 nor PEC even bother to rate. That's how PA turned "toss-up" on their map.

Also bear in mind that if you toss out the hi/lo polls on a daily basis, Hillary's national lead is more like 7.5 than 5.7 currently shown on RCP.

If they pollsters who care about their ratings follow the usual pattern, they'll start moving to a realistic figure beginning of next week. They want to be within striking distance of the actual result on election night. (RCP doesn't care - they never take a poll of their own and can always deny their right-leaning choices to maintain that mask of neutrality.)

PA's the key. If it actually shifts to Trump, then Trump could have a chance in hell, but only if he sweeps every toss-up state, which is a huge order. All Hillary has to do is take FL or OH and the tally is back to a W. Or she takes NC and NV. But the chance of her losing PA is so small that even Nate's most conservative (of the aggregators) still has her at over 85%.
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.
Foolmewunz 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 27th October 2016, 11:58 PM   #335
jt512
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,754
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
But the chance of her losing PA is so small that even Nate's most conservative (of the aggregators) still has her at over 85%.

Now down to 80% in Polls-Plus. One chance in five for Trump. Too high for my tastes. I hope his model is underconfident.
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, 12:28 AM   #336
Tony Stark
Philosopher
 
Tony Stark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 9,626
Originally Posted by jt512 View Post
Now down to 80% in Polls-Plus. One chance in five for Trump. Too high for my tastes. I hope his model is underconfident.
He's down in every PA poll.

Silver's model is the outlier. Every other one has Hillary at at least a 94% favorite in PA.
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, 12:52 AM   #337
jt512
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,754
Originally Posted by Tony Stark View Post
He's down in every PA poll.

Silver's model is the outlier. Every other one has Hillary at at least a 94% favorite in PA.

He's the outlier, but he might be the only one doing it right. His model seems to take more seriously the possibility that the polls might have a consistent bias across states. As he explains here, in 2012 Obama outperformed his polls by 2 or 3 percentage points in almost every swing state. Were Trump to do that this election, he could beat the Electoral College forecast by 50 or more electoral votes, enough to win.
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, 12:57 AM   #338
Tony Stark
Philosopher
 
Tony Stark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 9,626
Originally Posted by jt512 View Post
He's the outlier, but he might be the only one doing it right. His model seems to take more seriously the possibility that the polls might have a consistent bias across states. As he explains here, in 2012 Obama outperformed his polls by 2 or 3 percentage points in almost every swing state. Were Trump to do that this election, he could beat the Electoral College forecast by 50 or more electoral votes, enough to win.
Nah, even if Donald over performed his poll numbers by 2-3 points he would still lose. That might be enough to get Florida, Ohio, Iowa, North Carolina, Arizona, and Nevada, but he needs more than those to win.

And really, it is far more likely that he will underperform due to his terrible ground game.
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, 01:23 AM   #339
jt512
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,754
Originally Posted by Tony Stark View Post
Nah, even if Donald over performed his poll numbers by 2-3 points he would still lose. That might be enough to get Florida, Ohio, Iowa, North Carolina, Arizona, and Nevada, but he needs more than those to win.

538's polls-only forecast shows Clinton ahead, but by less than 3 percentage points, in FL (29 EV), NC (15), OH (18), AZ (11), NV (6), IA (6), and ME-2nd dist. (1). So, if the polls are systematically off by up to 3 points, it would seem that Trump could win the Electoral College.

Quote:
And really, it is far more likely that he will underperform due to his terrible ground game.

I don't understand why the polls are systematically off in some election years, but you're mentioning only one possible one reason. Surely there are others.

Last edited by jt512; 28th October 2016 at 01:27 AM.
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, 01:29 AM   #340
Tony Stark
Philosopher
 
Tony Stark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 9,626
Originally Posted by jt512 View Post
538's polls-only forecast shows Clinton ahead, but by less than 3 percentage points, in FL (29 EV), NC (15), OH (18), AZ (11), NV (6), IA (6), and ME-2nd dist. (1). So, if the polls are systematically off by up to 3 points, it would seem that Trump could win the Electoral College.
Winning all of those states would not be enough to win him the election. He would have to flip at least one more blue state.

Quote:
I don't understand why the polls are systematically off in some elections, but you're mentioning only one possible one reason. Surely there are others.
Kind of a big one. I will be surprised if Donald doesn't underperform.
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, 01:46 AM   #341
jt512
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,754
Originally Posted by jt512 View Post
538's polls-only forecast shows Clinton ahead, but by less than 3 percentage points, in FL (29 EV), NC (15), OH (18), AZ (11), NV (6), IA (6), and ME-2nd dist. (1). So, if the polls are systematically off by up to 3 points, it would seem that Trump could win the Electoral College.
Originally Posted by Tony Stark View Post
Winning all of those states would not be enough to win him the election. He would have to flip at least one more blue state.

Yeah, you're right. After that is accounted for, his model must be assuming that there is more uncertainty in the polls than the other forecasters' models are.
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, 02:40 AM   #342
ddt
Mafia Penguin
 
ddt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 19,579
Originally Posted by Tony Stark View Post
Arizona and Ohio are still blue though.
Just to be sure I'm not dreaming, I just reloaded the 538 page.
The last run, as of this post, is 8 hours old.

In the Now-cast, both AZ and OH are red (AZ: Trump 50.8%; OH: Trump 54.8%).
In the Polls-only-cast, they're both blue
In the Polls-plus-cast, they're again both red
__________________
"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." - "Saint" Teresa, the lying thieving Albanian dwarf

"I think accuracy is important" - Vixen
ddt 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, 02:41 AM   #343
Tony Stark
Philosopher
 
Tony Stark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 9,626
Originally Posted by ddt View Post
Just to be sure I'm not dreaming, I just reloaded the 538 page.
The last run, as of this post, is 8 hours old.

In the Now-cast, both AZ and OH are red (AZ: Trump 50.8%; OH: Trump 54.8%).
In the Polls-only-cast, they're both blue
In the Polls-plus-cast, they're again both red
Ok, I was just looking at polls only.
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, 02:57 AM   #344
gypsyjackson
Graduate Poster
 
gypsyjackson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Posts: 1,381
I stayed up to watch the 2008 results roll in, but I can't recall when they began. I intend to do so for this one, as some sort of catharsis to ease the horror and sick fascination/frustration this election has produced in me.

So can anyone tell me roughly when the first states will start to declare, or when the networks will start calling them? Either Eastern or GMT will be fine. Ta.
gypsyjackson 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, 03:03 AM   #345
Tony Stark
Philosopher
 
Tony Stark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 9,626
Originally Posted by gypsyjackson View Post
I stayed up to watch the 2008 results roll in, but I can't recall when they began. I intend to do so for this one, as some sort of catharsis to ease the horror and sick fascination/frustration this election has produced in me.

So can anyone tell me roughly when the first states will start to declare, or when the networks will start calling them? Either Eastern or GMT will be fine. Ta.
Probably around the time polls close on the east coast. So like 8pm Eastern.
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, 03:05 AM   #346
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 41,468
Originally Posted by jt512 View Post
Yeah, you're right. After that is accounted for, his model must be assuming that there is more uncertainty in the polls than the other forecasters' models are.
If you look at the schedule, they apparently have strange hopes/needs.

Friday for Trump - NH and ME in the afternoon. He's not stealing NH but must believe the noise out of the libertarian and FOTL camps is promising. If they think it's close, that single vote in ME2 could be important, but there was someone on his team saying they thought they could take all of ME. Frankly, it sounds like they had a day to kill and are trying to show Donald as indefatigable. That image helped a hoarse Bill Clinton and helped Harry Truman. I doubt it works but their polling may show they're close enough that it's worth sending His Orageness.
Friday for Trump - IA. They're worried. Clinton is ahead in one poll and within the MoE in others. There's a solid Dem base in the state - enough to steal it if the GOP falls asleep.

Saturday for Trump - CO and AZ. He has no support from the CO GOP and not much hope. Maybe he's planning to incite a riot, fight with the fire marshals again, create some noise. Seems a filler on his way to AZ. It's scheduled for noon, so it'll be rushed as he has to get in and out of there and down to Phoenix for 3:00.
AZ? Yep. Clinton's team head-faked a big week there last week. He's now having to show up to keep AZ in the red column.

Pence is in the important/must win states - PA and NC. No surprise there - sensible moves in terms of the states' importance, but Pence gets no media time compared to Trump. It's the Trump schedule that's puzzling. I'd have Pence in AZ, CO, NH, ME and put Trump in PA and NC and even another run down to Friendly Florida (that's a different state from Florida Florida).
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.

Last edited by Foolmewunz; 28th October 2016 at 03:07 AM.
Foolmewunz 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, 03:16 AM   #347
gypsyjackson
Graduate Poster
 
gypsyjackson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Posts: 1,381
Originally Posted by Tony Stark View Post
Probably around the time polls close on the east coast. So like 8pm Eastern.
Sweet. 1am I can handle. Hopefully they'll be up to 270 by 3am (10ET)! Thanks very much.
gypsyjackson 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, 03:29 AM   #348
Tsukasa Buddha
Other (please write in)
 
Tsukasa Buddha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,302
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.
__________________
As cultural anthropologists have always said "human culture" = "human nature". You might as well put a fish on the moon to test how it "swims naturally" without the "influence of water". -Earthborn

Last edited by Tsukasa Buddha; 28th October 2016 at 03:53 AM.
Tsukasa Buddha 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, 03:30 AM   #349
Tony Stark
Philosopher
 
Tony Stark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 9,626
Originally Posted by gypsyjackson View Post
Sweet. 1am I can handle. Hopefully they'll be up to 270 by 3am (10ET)! Thanks very much.
If they call Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, or probably even New Hampshire for Hillary it will basically be over. Not technically perhaps but losing any of those states would make it almost impossible for him to win. And if Pennsylvania is called, he would basically have to win every swing state to win.

This is, I think, a very conservative map. Basically best case scenario for Trump

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, 03:38 AM   #350
gypsyjackson
Graduate Poster
 
gypsyjackson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Posts: 1,381
Good to know - useful that the swing states are broadly early closers.
gypsyjackson 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, 05:18 AM   #351
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by Tony Stark View Post
If they call Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, or probably even New Hampshire for Hillary it will basically be over. Not technically perhaps but losing any of those states would make it almost impossible for him to win. And if Pennsylvania is called, he would basically have to win every swing state to win.

This is, I think, a very conservative map. Basically best case scenario for Trump


But the election isn't for a couple of weeks. No one wins or loses until then. Is the map showing what will happen in two weeks time? Are they allowed to change the map next week?

This is all very confusing.
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, 05:22 AM   #352
Tony Stark
Philosopher
 
Tony Stark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 9,626
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
But the election isn't for a couple of weeks. No one wins or loses until then. Is the map showing what will happen in two weeks time? Are they allowed to change the map next week?

This is all very confusing.
If the polls swing to Donald bigly, I think that is the best be can hope for. He has no realistic path. Which additional blue state(s) do you think he can swing?
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, 05:25 AM   #353
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by Tony Stark View Post
If the polls swing to Donald bigly, I think that is the best be can hope for. He has no realistic path. Which additional blue state(s) do you think he can swing?
I have no idea. The only thing I've heard of interest is that every president since X (some god-awful long time ago) has won Ohio.
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, 05:27 AM   #354
Tony Stark
Philosopher
 
Tony Stark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 9,626
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
I have no idea. The only thing I've heard of interest is that every president since X (some god-awful long time ago) has won Ohio.
And if Donald does win Ohio, he still won't win. Unless he swings a bunch of other states too. As the map shows.
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, 05:32 AM   #355
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by Tony Stark View Post
And if Donald does win Ohio, he still won't win. Unless he swings a bunch of other states too. As the map shows.
It would be more convincing if the election were tomorrow. It's like we are talking about going on vacation in a couple weeks and I'm obsessing about today's weather report. I get that it's the only weather report we have, it's just not the one I'm really interested in.
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, 05:34 AM   #356
Tony Stark
Philosopher
 
Tony Stark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 9,626
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
It would be more convincing if the election were tomorrow. It's like we are talking about going on vacation in a couple weeks and I'm obsessing about today's weather report. I get that it's the only weather report we have, it's just not the one I'm really interested in.
Again, this is a very conservative map not one I think is likely. And Hillary still wins with it. Unless you can name an additional blue state that Donald can flip I'm not even sure why you are replying.
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, 05:41 AM   #357
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by Tony Stark View Post
Again, this is a very conservative map not one I think is likely. And Hillary still wins with it. Unless you can name an additional blue state that Donald can flip I'm not even sure why you are replying.

Because I'm interested in the meaning of probability. I even started a thread on it.

Is it your contention that the map will not (or cannot) change in the next two weeks? Did it change in the last two weeks?

If the election were some kind of sum over previous polls, I think I'd get it. But I don't think that's how it works. I bet you could even find different maps posted in this very thread that don't match the current map. And if the map has changed, why do we think it is now stable?

This is like the stock market, where they warn you that "past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results" - critical thinking 101.
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, 05:46 AM   #358
Tony Stark
Philosopher
 
Tony Stark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 9,626
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
Because I'm interested in the meaning of probability. I even started a thread on it.

Is it your contention that the map will not (or cannot) change in the next two weeks? Did it change in the last two weeks?

If the election were some kind of sum over previous polls, I think I'd get it. But I don't think that's how it works. I bet you could even find different maps posted in this very thread that don't match the current map. And if the map has changed, why do we think it is now stable?

This is like the stock market, where they warn you that "past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results" - critical thinking 101.
Yes it is my contention that the map will not change to the point that the very conservative map that still has Donald losing plus at least one additional blue state ends up being the real one. Telling that you can't even suggest which state this might be. Because it doesn't exist.
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, 05:54 AM   #359
bonzombiekitty
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,777
Originally Posted by marplots View Post

Is it your contention that the map will not (or cannot) change in the next two weeks? Did it change in the last two weeks?
The map posted is the most conservative Clinton win scenario. Based on the current polling, in all the blue sections in that map, Clinton has a pretty solid lead.

The state that Trump has the best chance of flipping is PA, and Clinton leads in polls such that it would take a really wild swing in public perception of her or a systemic failure in polling for her to lose. There's less than 2 weeks left in the election - this close to the day, there's not much room for big swings. Not only is there just not much time left, by this point there's not many people left that can be swayed (granted, this election there seems to be more than normal) so something like that is very unlikely.

If Clinton takes PA, she's won unless something crazy happens.

Last edited by bonzombiekitty; 28th October 2016 at 05:56 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, 05:59 AM   #360
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by Tony Stark View Post
Yes it is my contention that the map will not change to the point that the very conservative map that still has Donald losing plus at least one additional blue state ends up being the real one. Telling that you can't even suggest which state this might be. Because it doesn't exist.
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?

In other words, can you imagine (realistically) a major swing toward Hillary?

Last edited by marplots; 28th October 2016 at 06:00 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
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 09:36 AM.
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.