Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

2016 Election Thread

TheLeviathan

By TheLeviathan
in The Sports Bar

Recommended Posts

ashbury GOAT

ashbury

Verified Member
Posted
Posted

Part of the reason for that is the system uses a t-distribution model, which naturally leaves more wiggle room for less likely outcomes (but outcomes that are still feasible).

I saw Nate's discussion of this a day or so ago.

 

Maybe the choice of distribution makes sense earlier in the election process, and a more "normal" one (pun semi-intended) as we come down to the wire, since some kinds of Black Swan events (e.g. definite signs of a recession's onset) are coming off the table.

 

Individual polls have sampling errors in the 3-4% range, if not worse, but part of the whole idea of poll aggregation is that this kind of range drops off pretty sharply when independent pollsters are considered. (Of course, they independently could make the same mistakes of certain kinds, given the state of the art.)

 

I dunno. We are potentially one debate away from being able to judge that the needle isn't going to move anymore, at least not in Trump's direction, and with a lead where it's currently at, it's possible that reputable analysts will begin to call the race. Silver's outfit not doing so seems overly cautious. Call it 99% and leave open a really monstrous Black Swan. But, I suppose, that cuts down on page clicks. :)

  • Replies 6.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Brock Beauchamp GOAT

Brock Beauchamp

Site Manager
Posted
Posted

 

I saw Nate's discussion of this a day or so ago.

 

Maybe the choice of distribution makes sense earlier in the election process, and a more "normal" one (pun semi-intended) as we come down to the wire, since some kinds of Black Swan events (e.g. definite signs of a recession's onset) are coming off the table.

 

Individual polls have sampling errors in the 3-4% range, if not worse, but part of the whole idea of poll aggregation is that this kind of range drops off pretty sharply when independent pollsters are considered. (Of course, they independently could make the same mistakes of certain kinds, given the state of the art.)

 

I dunno. We are potentially one debate away from being able to judge that the needle isn't going to move anymore, at least not in Trump's direction, and with a lead where it's currently at, it's possible that reputable analysts will begin to call the race. Silver's outfit not doing so seems overly cautious. Call it 99% and leave open a really monstrous Black Swan. But, I suppose, that cuts down on page clicks. :)

I'm not sure how FiveThirtyEight plans to handle the final week or two of the election. I know that in the past, Silver has "called" each state and predicted a winner. This algorithm isn't really built to do that because it intentionally bakes in variables over multiple election scenarios, leading to a 100% chance either side wins a virtual impossibility.

 

I suspect that at some point, he'll call each state as he has done in the past. It makes sense to use this algorithm for the lead-up to the election but at some point, you have to push all the chips to one side or the other. The algorithm is good for getting you 25 miles into the marathon but isn't really equipped to run that last mile.

Brock Beauchamp GOAT

Brock Beauchamp

Site Manager
Posted
Posted

That could be interesting.

I doubt it. Given the way Warren has gone hard at big business and her popularity in Massachusetts, I don't see anyone short of Jesus unseating her.

 

Could you imagine how badly she'd eat Schilling alive in a debate? Man, that'd be a spectacle. Warren is fierce.

biggentleben FCL Twins

biggentleben

Verified Member
Posted
Posted

 

I doubt it. Given the way Warren has gone hard at big business and her popularity in Massachusetts, I don't see anyone short of Jesus unseating her.

Could you imagine how badly she'd eat Schilling alive in a debate? Man, that'd be a spectacle. Warren is fierce.

 

Is there a way to make that Pay-Per-View? It'd pay off a significant portion of the national debt.

Bark's Lounge Ft Myers Mighty Mussels

Bark's Lounge

Verified Member
Posted
Posted

For the last month I believe I have posted out of fear and anger on this political forum. I am embarrassed by that.

 

I think I am out of gas with watching this stuff, reading it, etc., etc.

 

I don't like candidate (D), and I hate candidate ®. Since 2000, I would have expected progress from our society, even though 9/11 happened and all that awful stuff. Yes, I am saying that, social progress was made amongst people during the GWB era. People lined against him still felt a bit of optimism.

 

We just keep getting dumber, it's like half of our society is on the meth train and the highest level of education is "Golden Books", and hate pamphlets.

 

I really appreciate Obama. He's cool, slick, and wise to the tricks. I am not in agreement with some of the stuff he has done, but he looks like a god compared to the new field.

 

I wish we had done better in nominating our candidates. This year I am voting "D". "R" is a hate conjurer and has aligned the worst of us in this election year, the very, very worst.

 

From my view point this election is important, but we will be stagnated under the best option, and the the worst option will lead us down the road to ruin.

 

I do not look forward to 2020... Yuck. Go Clinton!

 

 

TheLeviathan MVP

TheLeviathan

Old-Timey Member
Posted
  • Author
Posted

 

I doubt it. Given the way Warren has gone hard at big business and her popularity in Massachusetts, I don't see anyone short of Jesus unseating her.

Could you imagine how badly she'd eat Schilling alive in a debate? Man, that'd be a spectacle. Warren is fierce.

 

Interesting can mean a lot of things, :)

 

Also, recent polls have shown other Republican potentials have a shot at beating her.  And, as always, a non-presidential cycle is always dangerous for any Dem.

ashbury GOAT

ashbury

Verified Member
Posted
Posted

Why would you watch? Unless you think it will entertain you, why watch at this point?

Look at that eyeball, and tell me why it wouldn't. :)

Squirrel GOAT

Squirrel

Community Moderator
Posted
Posted

Why would you watch? Unless you think it will entertain you, why watch at this point?

I didn't watch the others. Thought I should watch one of them. But I can't.

Vanimal46 Cooperstown

Vanimal46

Old-Timey Member
Posted
Posted

 

Why would you watch? Unless you think it will entertain you, why watch at this point?

Watched the first two... Now I have zero interest in the 3rd one. Might as well bring out a UFC octagon and let them duke it out. 

stringer bell Cooperstown

stringer bell

Verified Member
Posted
Posted

I'm not sure how FiveThirtyEight plans to handle the final week or two of the election. I know that in the past, Silver has "called" each state and predicted a winner. This algorithm isn't really built to do that because it intentionally bakes in variables over multiple election scenarios, leading to a 100% chance either side wins a virtual impossibility.

 

I suspect that at some point, he'll call each state as he has done in the past. It makes sense to use this algorithm for the lead-up to the election but at some point, you have to push all the chips to one side or the other. The algorithm is good for getting you 25 miles into the marathon but isn't really equipped to run that last mile.

I check 538 every day during election season. While their formulas are conservative about Hillary's presidential prospects, I have watched with interest 538's projection for the US Senate. Until about a week ago, it seemed like control was up for grabs, but their models seem very optimistic for the Democrats in the last few days. The current projection is flips in NC, MO, IN, NH, PA, WI, IL, and a hold in Nevada. That would be a wipeout for the GOP.
Brock Beauchamp GOAT

Brock Beauchamp

Site Manager
Posted
Posted

 

I check 538 every day during election season. While their formulas are conservative about Hillary's presidential prospects, I have watched with interest 538's projection for the US Senate. Until about a week ago, it seemed like control was up for grabs, but their models seem very optimistic for the Democrats in the last few days. The current projection is flips in NC, MO, IN, NH, PA, WI, IL, and a hold in Nevada. That would be a wipeout for the GOP.

Yeah, I've been keeping an eye on that as well and noticed a dramatic shift over the past 7-10 days.

 

One more misstep by Trump and this thing could get really ugly for the GOP.

Mike Sixel GOAT

Mike Sixel

Old-Timey Member
Posted
Posted

I am pretty sure the GOP will take the wrong lesson out of this election....that it was all Trump's fault.

 

And, I wonder what the democrats are learning here? Are they figuring out they need to actually start working on who their leaders are, and what their actual message is? Because I don't really see a plan there either...

Squirrel GOAT

Squirrel

Community Moderator
Posted
Posted

 

Yeah, I've been keeping an eye on that as well and noticed a dramatic shift over the past 7-10 days.

 

One more misstep by Trump and this thing could get really ugly for the GOP.

Or one more misstep by Clinton, and well ...

 

It ain't over 'til it's over.

nicksaviking MVP

nicksaviking

Community Moderator
Posted
Posted

 

Or one more misstep by Clinton, and well ...

 

It ain't over 'til it's over.

 

Well Fox News' Chris Wallace probably won't call out Trump for his lies like Cooper and Raddatz did.

 

I'm sure he'll be fair, but there's a small part of my brain telling me that the media, including (especially) Fox News, would prefer a close race the last couple of weeks as a blowout by Clinton will get people to start tuning out election coverage early.

USAFChief GOAT

USAFChief

Twins Daily Contributor
Posted
Posted

This debate is supposed to center on foreign policy, correct?

 

This would seem like an opportunity for Trump to let us know if he has one, but I won't hold my breath.

Brock Beauchamp GOAT

Brock Beauchamp

Site Manager
Posted
Posted

 

Or one more misstep by Clinton, and well ...

 

It ain't over 'til it's over.

The thing about Clinton is that she doesn't really misstep in these situations. She's a notorious preparer and while she won't outright dominate someone in a single move, it's also unlikely she fumbles in the open field.

 

It would take a damning revelation - I mean something really bad - to move the needle substantially at this point.

 

I expect Clinton to spend the night in a prevent defense because she has more to lose than gain in the final debate.

Squirrel GOAT

Squirrel

Community Moderator
Posted
Posted

 

The thing about Clinton is that she doesn't really misstep in these situations. She's a notorious preparer and while she won't outright dominate someone in a single move, it's also unlikely she fumbles in the open field.

 

It would take a damning revelation - I mean something really bad - to move the needle substantially at this point.

 

I expect Clinton to spend the night in a prevent defense because she has more to lose than gain in the final debate.

Well, I meant between now and the election, not just tonight.

 

And foreign policy ... I expect Trump to just say 'Benghazi' every chance he gets.

Squirrel GOAT

Squirrel

Community Moderator
Posted
Posted

 

 

This debate is supposed to center on foreign policy, correct?

This would seem like an opportunity for Trump to let us know if he has one, but I won't hold my breath.

Well, does he really have a policy for anything so far?

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing
The Twins Daily Caretaker Fund
The Twins Daily Caretaker Fund

You all care about this site. The next step is caring for it. We’re asking you to caretake this site so it can remain the premier Twins community on the internet.

Become a Caretaker

  • Member Statistics

    20,448
    Total Members
    48,845
    Most Online
    Eric M
    Newest Member
    Eric M
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...