• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

OT: American Politics

Kidding aside tho...how did u go from believing just the other day that "Trump has a 33% chance of winning, always has"...to now saying Clinton will win 323 electoral votes?

You either believe it's a close race, or not, no?
 
Last edited:
Montana said:
Kidding aside tho...how the hell do you go from believing just the other day that "Trump has a 33% chance of winning, always has"...to now saying Clinton will win 323 electoral votes?

....those two ideas run counter one another from a probabilistic standpoint. You either believe it's a close race, or not.
Click to expand...
Because internal polls are within 3% in Michigan and Wisconsin which gives him an outside shot at winning.
 
That still doesn't make those two numbers jive.....but I digress. Much of this thread is just us pulling sh*t out of our assess.
 
Montana said:
Kidding aside tho...how did u go from believing just the other day that "Trump has a 33% chance of winning, always has"...to now saying Clinton will win 323 electoral votes?

You either believe it's a close race, or not, no?
Click to expand...

If there is a polling error, its likely to effect more than one state. Ie if Trump outperforms his polls by 2-3% he's likely to do 2-3% better in more than just one state. States are also highly correlated, if one starts moving others states withe similar demos will move with it.

Ie if you believe trump flips pennsylvania (i don't think he will but work with me).... if you believe he's flipping Penn, he's also now way more likely to also flip Michigan. If you think he's getting NC, it makes him way more likely to get Florida.
 
Montana said:
That still doesn't make those two numbers jive.....but I digress. Much of this thread is just us pulling sh*t out of our assess.
Click to expand...

All of this is pulling numbers from our asses. But a lot of the states are highly linked - ie. she might win 4-5 states by only a couple percentage points. So she might end with 323, but also a very carefully shifted few hundred thousand votes would be enough to put Trump over the top.
 
BKerr said:
322 for me... i think he takes one EC vote out of Maine.
Click to expand...


Very possible.


Also heard someone was claiming that if Hillary wins, they won't vote as their state did, and give her their electoral vote. Don't know the validity of that rumor tho.
 
Montana said:
That still doesn't make those two numbers jive.....but I digress. Much of this thread is just us pulling sh*t out of our assess.
Click to expand...
I'm of the mindset of trends. If he miraculously wins Michigan and Wisconsin he's winning much more. Elections seem to work that way. Underswells.
 
BKerr said:
If there is a polling error, its likely to effect more than one state. Ie if Trump outperforms his polls by 2-3% he's likely to do 2-3% better in more than just one state. States are also highly correlated, if one starts moving others states withe similar demos will move with it.

Ie if you believe trump flips pennsylvania (i don't think he will but work with me).... if you believe he's flipping Penn, he's also now way more likely to also flip Michigan. If you think he's getting NC, it makes him way more likely to get Florida.
Click to expand...

That's Nate's theory....but many disagree. The odds of a polling error (aka margin of error)......all having the identical error, in all necessary states, all in the *same* direction.....is phenomenally low.

I think tying together "states swing one way, other states will follow".....is perfectly fine in terms of believing in momentum & it's value cross state lines, polling trending, etc......but going a step further and tying that to polling errors doing so well, in synchronicity....across the board......is a bridge too far.

The odds of a polling error going in one direction.....is equally possible in both directions......in each individual instance (state).

Them all being wrong.....In the same direction...across states....In precisely the states he needs......is phenomenally low. (Ie - not 33%.....and especially so if you think she's going to win 323 electoral votes).
 
If you're saying one day that you believe Trump has had a 33% chance of winning the entire election cycle. .....and now say you think Clinton will win 323 electoral votes?



You're talking out your ass with a bullhorn. (Imo)
 
worm said:
what is this?
Click to expand...

A guy (Deion Sanders) who starts celebrating a touchdown a little early because he's so far ahead of the defenders, and at the last second ... keeps the ball in his hand and continues to stroll into the endzone for an amazingly easy touchdown with no negative consequences whatsoever.
 
Last edited:
axlsalinger said:
A guy (Deion Sanders) who starts celebrating a touchdown a little early because he's so far ahead of the defenders, and at the last second ... keeps the ball in his hand and continues to stroll into the endzone for an amazingly easy touchdown with no negative consequences whatsoever.
Click to expand...

ya - I thought maybe primetime ran to the wrong endzone or something but I could not figure it out

there is a clip of some dude that drops the ball on the 1 yard line though
 
Demon...Rats

Ahh wikileaks is such a beautiful treasure trove of Truth . Thank you dear beautiful Universe for this life to witness this amazing time in human history <3

[video=youtube;V3mC2wl_W1c]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3mC2wl_W1c[/video]
 
We start by generating the sharpest possible snapshot, based on state polls. State polls are more accurate than national polls, which at this late date are a source of unnecessary uncertainty.

For each state, my code calculates a median and its standard error, which together give a probability. This is done for each of 56 contests: the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and five Congressional districts that have a special rule. Then a compounding procedure is used to calculate the exact distribution of all possibilities, from 0 to 538 electoral votes, without need for simulation. The median of that is the snapshot of where conditions appear to be today.

Note that in 2008 and 2012, this type of snapshot gave the electoral vote count very accurately – closer than FiveThirtyEight, in fact.

This approach has multiple advantages, not least of which is that*it automatically sorts out uncorrelated and correlated changes between states. As the snapshot changes from day to day, unrelated fluctuations between states (such as random sampling error) get averaged out. At the same time, if a change is correlated among states, the whole snapshot moves.

The snapshot gets converted to a Meta-Margin, which is defined as how far all polls would have to move, in the same direction, to create a perfect toss-up. The Meta-Margin is great because it has units that we can all understand: a percentage lead. At the moment, the Meta-Margin is Clinton +2.6%.

Now, if we want to know what the statistical properties of the Meta-Margin are, we can just follow it over time:

MM_history-unlabeled-6nov2016.png


This variation over time automatically tells us the effects of correlated error among all states. Uncorrelated error is cancelled by aggregation under the assumption of independence; what is left is correlated variation.

To turn the Meta-Margin into a hard probability, I had to estimate the likely error on the Meta-Margin. For the home stretch, the likely-error fomula in my code assumed an Election Eve error of*0.8% on average, following a t-distribution (parameter=3 d.f.). The t-distribution is a way of allowing for “longer-tail” outcomes than the usual bell-shaped curve.

So…there’s only one parameter to estimate. Again, hooray! However, estimating it was an exercise in judgment, to put it mildly. Here are some examples of how the win probability would be affected by various assumptions about final error:


PEC-various-error-models.jpg


As you can see, a less aggressive approach to estimating the home-stretch error would have given a Clinton win probability of 91-93%. That is about as low as the PEC approach could ever plausibly get.

I have also included the prediction if polls are assumed to be off by 5% in either direction on average. It is at this point that we finally get to a win probability that is as uncertain as the FiveThirtyEight approach. However, a 5% across-the-board error in state polls, going against the front-runner, has no precedent in data that I can see.

Bottom line:*Using the Princeton Election Consortium’s methods, even the most conservative assumptions lead to a Clinton win probability of 91%.
Click to expand...




....and they currently project HTC winning 313 Electoral Votes.
 
BKerr said:
If there is a polling error, its likely to effect more than one state. Ie if Trump outperforms his polls by 2-3% he's likely to do 2-3% better in more than just one state. States are also highly correlated, if one starts moving others states withe similar demos will move with it.

Ie if you believe trump flips pennsylvania (i don't think he will but work with me).... if you believe he's flipping Penn, he's also now way more likely to also flip Michigan. If you think he's getting NC, it makes him way more likely to get Florida.
Click to expand...

the early voting has convinced me there's a latino wave the polls are forced to ignore..

320ish makes sense with current polling, a latino wave puts another 2-3 states in the blue column.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top