2016: Polls

User avatar
Slartibartfast
Posts: 7047
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

Re: 2016: Polls

#2251

Post by Slartibartfast » Sun Nov 06, 2016 6:20 pm

Sugar Magnolia wrote:So if it was really a "Comey effect" we should see the same movement the other way with his new announcement?
Yeah, we'll be able to see that in the polls in about a week---week and a half tops... um... I think we have a little problem.
:towel:
"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
---Sun Tzu (quoting Thomas Jefferson)
nam-myoho-renge-kyo---Thomas Jefferson (quoting Slartibartfast)

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 15761
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: 2016: Polls

#2252

Post by Reality Check » Sun Nov 06, 2016 6:23 pm

Sugar Magnolia wrote:So if it was really a "Comey effect" we should see the same movement the other way with his new announcement?
We probably won't see the full effect in the polls of the latest Comey announcement because most polling is winding down. However, if you check the betting markets Clinton is up almost 5% in the last day on Maxim Lott and John Stossel's site. Most of the movement came since the Comey letter. Clinton is now at 82.7%. That is about what the downward move was on October 28th.

As with all the prognosticating sites the proof will come on election day.

https://electionbettingodds.com/
"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
Flatpointhigh
Posts: 7940
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2011 1:05 pm
Location: Hotel California, PH23
Occupation: Voice Actor, Podcaster, I hold a Ph.D in Procrastination.
Contact:

Re: 2016: Polls

#2253

Post by Flatpointhigh » Sun Nov 06, 2016 6:27 pm

There was also an apparent Market move upwards even though there is no trading until tomorrow.

My Name is...
Daffy Duck.. woo hoo!
Cancer broke me

User avatar
Slartibartfast
Posts: 7047
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

Re: 2016: Polls

#2254

Post by Slartibartfast » Sun Nov 06, 2016 6:43 pm

Reality Check wrote:
Sugar Magnolia wrote:So if it was really a "Comey effect" we should see the same movement the other way with his new announcement?
We probably won't see the full effect in the polls of the latest Comey announcement because most polling is winding down. However, if you check the betting markets Clinton is up almost 5% in the last day on Maxim Lott and John Stossel's site. Most of the movement came since the Comey letter. Clinton is now at 82.7%. That is about what the downward move was on October 28th.

As with all the prognosticating sites the proof will come on election day.

https://electionbettingodds.com/
That sounds like what I'd expect from the betting markets, I'm just dubious that it reflects real movement in the state of the race.
"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
---Sun Tzu (quoting Thomas Jefferson)
nam-myoho-renge-kyo---Thomas Jefferson (quoting Slartibartfast)

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 15761
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: 2016: Polls

#2255

Post by Reality Check » Sun Nov 06, 2016 8:16 pm

Slartibartfast wrote: That sounds like what I'd expect from the betting markets, I'm just dubious that it reflects real movement in the state of the race.
Comey just took away Trump's primary talking point for the last week and it will have no effect on the race? Do you mean Clinton was going to win anyway? I would agree with that.
"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
Fortinbras
Posts: 2924
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2015 10:08 am

Re: 2016: Polls

#2256

Post by Fortinbras » Sun Nov 06, 2016 8:22 pm

The email fuss was kept alive through most of the Early Voting periods, and even now the Trump campaign is claiming that Comey backed off only because of some sort of extortion by HRC. I bet on Election Day a good many people still won't be aware that Comey has cleared HRC because it came too late to be in the Sunday funnies.

I am still worried that Trump might win. I have given up on thinking of escaping to another country; I am now looking to form a suicide pact.

User avatar
maydijo
Posts: 2764
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2016 10:23 pm
Location: where women glow and men plunder
Occupation: harassing marsupials

Re: 2016: Polls

#2257

Post by maydijo » Sun Nov 06, 2016 9:36 pm

Fortinbras wrote: :snippity:
I am still worried that Trump might win. I have given up on thinking of escaping to another country; I am now looking to form a suicide pact.
I hope you're not serious. Trump isn't worth that. You are way too important to way too many people. As my daughter told me when I was thinking of renouncing my citizenship, "It's just four years." And we've lived through shitty presidents before.

User avatar
Fortinbras
Posts: 2924
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2015 10:08 am

Re: 2016: Polls

#2258

Post by Fortinbras » Sun Nov 06, 2016 10:39 pm

In the space of one hour tonight (Sunday, Nov. 6th) the odds of HRC winning moved up, on the John Stossel website, by almost 5%, to 83%:

https://electionbettingodds.com/WIN_cha ... ossel.html





- - - - - - -
And, yes, there's something about Trump that sends a mating call to David Duke and the KKK. And Trump couldn't quite get around to repudiating them. A German news magazine described him as crazy - and the Germans claim to have some familiarity with crazy political leaders. He's actually solicited for assassins. Goddam right I'm considering a suicide pact.

User avatar
Plutodog
Posts: 11952
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 10:11 pm

Re: 2016: Polls

#2259

Post by Plutodog » Sun Nov 06, 2016 10:51 pm

Relax a bit Fortie...and tell me WTF??? :think:
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
The only good Bundy is an Al Bundy.

User avatar
NotaPerson
Posts: 3334
Joined: Mon May 18, 2015 9:33 pm

Re: 2016: Polls

#2260

Post by NotaPerson » Sun Nov 06, 2016 10:59 pm

So they are basically predicting a landslide win for Trump in the popular vote, but a landslide win for Clinton in the Electoral College.

Okay then. :smoking:
Am I being detained?

User avatar
Slartibartfast
Posts: 7047
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

Re: 2016: Polls

#2261

Post by Slartibartfast » Sun Nov 06, 2016 11:18 pm

Forti,

Keep watching the meta-margin! It's pretty much stayed at +2.6% all weekend. Nice and boring. Don't worry---maydijo is right, Trump isn't worth that even in jest. Win or lose I believe people of good faith will rise up against Trump and his movement---how can we do otherwise? No matter what happens all the maggots have been exposed. Al Franken promised Senate hearings on Comey and the FBI. We've got to start holding people accountable for their actions sometime, why not now?

RC,

I think Hillary's chances are >99% at this point and weren't significantly effected by Comey. Barring something unforeseeable, the only way I can see Trump winning is if he is able to rig the election. Which he is totally trying to do. My guess (and hope) is that he is not competent enough to succeed and so far the evidence is consistent with that theory.

Nota and Dawg,

We know that the heavily weighted 18-year old pro-Trump African-American is from Illinois. Assuming the EV prediction came from the polling data, he could only have had an impact on Illinois which is solidly Democratic. No reason to assume that their populations in the rest of the states aren't more or less representative (although I wouldn't be surprised to see a couple of outliers in either direction too. also). The Dornsife poll never really held any good news for Trump, it was just easy to spin that way.
"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
---Sun Tzu (quoting Thomas Jefferson)
nam-myoho-renge-kyo---Thomas Jefferson (quoting Slartibartfast)

User avatar
Slartibartfast
Posts: 7047
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

Re: 2016: Polls

#2262

Post by Slartibartfast » Mon Nov 07, 2016 12:44 am

Great post by Sam Wang, I think everyone should read it:

http://election.princeton.edu/2016/11/0 ... obability/
"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
---Sun Tzu (quoting Thomas Jefferson)
nam-myoho-renge-kyo---Thomas Jefferson (quoting Slartibartfast)

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 44903
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: 2016: Polls

#2263

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Mon Nov 07, 2016 1:05 am

A couple of months ago Nate Silver promised to debate Sam Wang on their different statistical approaches, after Sam said this election was very stable and Silver said it was very volatile. Sam has remained available to debate Silver but Silver has been a no show.

User avatar
Slartibartfast
Posts: 7047
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

Re: 2016: Polls

#2264

Post by Slartibartfast » Mon Nov 07, 2016 1:40 am

Sterngard Friegen wrote:A couple of months ago Nate Silver promised to debate Sam Wang on their different statistical approaches, after Sam said this election was very stable and Silver said it was very volatile. Sam has remained available to debate Silver but Silver has been a no show.
I doubt Nate wants to compare his model to Sam's... "more epicycles" is hardly a selling point. Besides, Nate's having enough trouble with HuffPo:

http://www.mediaite.com/online/nate-sil ... al-column/

Although I do think that the allegations of Nate having his finger on the scale are over the line.
"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
---Sun Tzu (quoting Thomas Jefferson)
nam-myoho-renge-kyo---Thomas Jefferson (quoting Slartibartfast)

User avatar
bob
Posts: 27062
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: 2016: Polls

#2265

Post by bob » Mon Nov 07, 2016 2:39 am

Silver pokes Wang when he writes, "But a model showing Clinton at 98% or 99% is not defensible based on the empirical evidence."

Yet, when Clinton wins, both Silver and Wang can essentially say, "I called it." Folks will be more impressed that Wang said it with more confidence, but that still won't prove who was right (or more right).
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 10446
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: 2016: Polls

#2266

Post by Mikedunford » Mon Nov 07, 2016 3:20 am

bob wrote:Silver pokes Wang when he writes, "But a model showing Clinton at 98% or 99% is not defensible based on the empirical evidence."

Yet, when Clinton wins, both Silver and Wang can essentially say, "I called it." Folks will be more impressed that Wang said it with more confidence, but that still won't prove who was right (or more right).
:winner:

"Tuesday, a mighty empire will fall."
-Nate "The Pythia" Silver*





*Yes, it's satire.
"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.

User avatar
Slim Cognito
Posts: 6634
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2014 8:37 am

Re: 2016: Polls

#2267

Post by Slim Cognito » Mon Nov 07, 2016 6:44 am

bob wrote:Silver pokes Wang when he writes, "But a model showing Clinton at 98% or 99% is not defensible based on the empirical evidence."

Yet, when Clinton wins, both Silver and Wang can essentially say, "I called it." Folks will be more impressed that Wang said it with more confidence, but that still won't prove who was right (or more right).
We can compare their ECV predictions. Silver still shows Florida (light) red.
Goldie reports the party a success and all zombies inebriated eliminated.
ImageImageImage x4

User avatar
Tiredretiredlawyer
Posts: 9232
Joined: Tue May 10, 2016 2:56 pm
Location: Animal Planet
Occupation: Permanent probationary slave to 1 dog, 1 cat, and 1 horse, 4 granddogs, and one grandcat.

Re: 2016: Polls

#2268

Post by Tiredretiredlawyer » Mon Nov 07, 2016 9:46 am

Slartibartfast wrote:Great post by Sam Wang, I think everyone should read it:

http://election.princeton.edu/2016/11/0 ... obability/
Muchas gracias otra vez, Slarti. Te amo. :lovestruck:
A 19th Amendment Centennial Moment: Helen Keller supported women’s suffrage and was a co-founder of the American Civil Liberties Union.

User avatar
BillTheCat
Posts: 4496
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 4:25 pm

Re: 2016: Polls

#2269

Post by BillTheCat » Mon Nov 07, 2016 10:05 am

Slartibartfast wrote: Although I do think that the allegations of Nate having his finger on the scale are over the line.
For lack of a better term?

Seems like an apt description.
'But I don't want to go among mad people,' said Alice. 'Oh, you can't help that,' said the cat. 'We're all mad here.'
-Lewis Carroll

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 44903
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: 2016: Polls

#2270

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Mon Nov 07, 2016 10:32 am

Silver should just give Mrs. Clinton a 50.1% chance of winning and then take a victory lap on Wednesday morning. (There is that problem of Florida and North Carolina, though. Nate has Trump winning those states. Not. Gonna. Happen.)

User avatar
esseff44
Posts: 12507
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 12:40 am

Re: 2016: Polls

#2271

Post by esseff44 » Mon Nov 07, 2016 10:55 am

It was good to see two new polls this morning with New Hampshire back at 11 points in Clinton's favor. Those 4 EV's are crucial in a worst case scenario giving Clinton 272. That's been her floor all the way through.

Here's some of the latest poll results in battle ground states.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016 ... polls.html

User avatar
Slartibartfast
Posts: 7047
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

Re: 2016: Polls

#2272

Post by Slartibartfast » Mon Nov 07, 2016 11:08 am

Moar from HuffPo on Nate and 538's model:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/wha ... 4571e09e74

Note: the author doesn't understand that the PEC doesn't have a model simulation that they run, but rather a mathematical calculation.
"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
---Sun Tzu (quoting Thomas Jefferson)
nam-myoho-renge-kyo---Thomas Jefferson (quoting Slartibartfast)

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 15761
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: 2016: Polls

#2273

Post by Reality Check » Mon Nov 07, 2016 11:18 am

Sterngard Friegen wrote:Silver should just give Mrs. Clinton a 50.1% chance of winning and then take a victory lap on Wednesday morning. (There is that problem of Florida and North Carolina, though. Nate has Trump winning those states. Not. Gonna. Happen.)
:rotflmao: I had an uncle who never believed in statistics. People tried to explain probabilities to him he said he didn't buy it. He said "Everything in life is 50/50. Either it does or it doesn't."
"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
much ado
Posts: 1834
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 12:56 am
Location: The Left Coast

Re: 2016: Polls

#2274

Post by much ado » Mon Nov 07, 2016 11:26 am

Reality Check wrote:
Sterngard Friegen wrote:Silver should just give Mrs. Clinton a 50.1% chance of winning and then take a victory lap on Wednesday morning. (There is that problem of Florida and North Carolina, though. Nate has Trump winning those states. Not. Gonna. Happen.)
:rotflmao: I had an uncle who never believed in statistics. People tried to explain probabilities to him he said he didn't buy it. He said "Everything in life is 50/50. Either it does or it doesn't."
Was he any good at poker?

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 15761
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: 2016: Polls

#2275

Post by Reality Check » Mon Nov 07, 2016 11:49 am

much ado wrote:Was he any good at poker?
I never knew him to play poker but he was lucky as hell in card games that didn't require a lot of skill. He passed away over 50 years ago so I only knew him when I was a young child. I heard a lot of stories about him from my older siblings.
"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

Post Reply

Return to “Presidential Election”