2016 Democratic Thread

[StrangeSox]

What is the deposition from? Is it from the author of that book that was sued over calculating his wealth?

 

Trump gave the testimony in June at a law office in Washington in connection with one of two lawsuits he filed last year after prominent chefs reacted to the controversy over his remarks by pulling out of plans to open restaurants at his new D.C. hotel.

 

[bmags]

O I C

[Steve9347]

Hillary is +12% in Polls Plus since Monday. Perhaps I need to have slightly more faith in humanity.

[StrangeSox]

Hillary is +12% in Polls Plus since Monday. Perhaps I need to have slightly more faith in humanity.

Nate's model is intentionally ridiculously reactive this year, showing huge swings for slight changes.

 

They also use the Google Consumer Research poll which no one else is using and they weigh it the most heavily for some reason.

[bmags]

Nate's model is intentionally ridiculously reactive this year, showing huge swings for slight changes.

 

They also use the Google Consumer Research poll which no one else is using and they weigh it the most heavily for some reason.

 

I think I figured it out, on keepin it 1600 they mentioned that they take recent national polls or state polls and factor that into the trend and apply it to their overall model. It assumes the trend continues.

 

So on Monday, you had a weekend of weak polls for Hillary - in that system it will assume that the trend would continue and pushes it to a net +2 or +3 for trump. But that makes it a lot more reactive to new polls, versus past years where it's model stayed fairly static even as pollercoasters happened.

 

Very weird.

[lostfan]

Nate's model is intentionally ridiculously reactive this year, showing huge swings for slight changes.

 

They also use the Google Consumer Research poll which no one else is using and they weigh it the most heavily for some reason.

I don't recall him doing this "probability" thing in 2008 or 2012.

[bmags]

Also I'd be very surprised if Hillary doesn't win NC. SS - this is a state without jill stein on ballot and where with a .1 polling difference, you should see ground game matter.

[bmags]

I don't recall him doing this "probability" thing in 2008 or 2012.

 

He did, I think election day 2012 they showed Obama with a lead of 1.2 points or something but a 90% odds of winning due to his showings in swing states.

 

I think Silver is right to be skeptical because it's a lot easier to say Obama is more certain when he polls at 48-49%. When you are polling at 45% there is a lot more variance - especially when historically undecideds swing to the non-incumbent (which hillary WOULD BE). OTOH, in the primaries undecideds swung away from Trump.

[StrangeSox]

I don't recall him doing this "probability" thing in 2008 or 2012.

 

His model had some shifting like this in 2012, and that's how he was able to call Florida on the last day for Obama due to some last-minute shifts the other models smoothed out.

 

But it sometimes produces really weird results. They'll shift a poll by Suffolk University a couple of points in say NC because back in June in a NY poll, they were a couple of points out of line (for lack of a better word). There's some pretty big assumptions baked into that methodology such as maybe they have polling demographics issues in one state but not the other? It also plays weird games average/shifting around polls even when the polls clearly and publicly shift their whole methodology--how much sense does it make to shift a Reuters/Ipsos poll based on what they did in June and July when they changed their model in August?

 

The Now-Cast is set up to explicitly swing back and forth wildly. Whether that's Nate becoming more of a pundit, trying to drive page-clicks or thinking is provides some sort of valuable service is up for discussion I suppose.

 

I think I figured it out, on keepin it 1600 they mentioned that they take recent national polls or state polls and factor that into the trend and apply it to their overall model. It assumes the trend continues.

 

So on Monday, you had a weekend of weak polls for Hillary - in that system it will assume that the trend would continue and pushes it to a net +2 or +3 for trump. But that makes it a lot more reactive to new polls, versus past years where it's model stayed fairly static even as pollercoasters happened.

 

Very weird.

 

Yeah, that trend projection thing is one of the issues with it. If a candidate has a few polls in a row showing them declining a bit, it projects that out to some degree as continuing forever. So if you start with an average of +5 in Florida, and then you get a week of +2's and +3's, their model might shift to projecting the other person winning even though you're still clearly ahead.

 

There's also no explanation for how and why they "correct" different polls different amounts at different times, even from the same pollster in the same state. He's putting tons and tons of special sauce into it. Others like PEC just take the raw state aggregates and go from there.

Edited September 30, 2016 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

He did, I think election day 2012 they showed Obama with a lead of 1.2 points or something but a 90% odds of winning due to his showings in swing states.

 

I think Silver is right to be skeptical because it's a lot easier to say Obama is more certain when he polls at 48-49%. When you are polling at 45% there is a lot more variance - especially when historically undecideds swing to the non-incumbent (which hillary WOULD BE). OTOH, in the primaries undecideds swung away from Trump.

 

Isn't this not actually true? I thought that came up a lot in 2012 with Romney hopefuls.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix...the-challenger/

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/do-pre...rd-challengers/

 

Also important to note that we have about 1/3 fewer state polls at this point than we did in 2012.

Edited September 30, 2016 by StrangeSox

[Steve9347]

Nate's model is intentionally ridiculously reactive this year, showing huge swings for slight changes.

 

They also use the Google Consumer Research poll which no one else is using and they weigh it the most heavily for some reason.

Oh yeah, I'm well-aware of what they're doing. I love, love, love that podcast. I geeked out so hard with the fivethirtyeight / keepin' it 1600 crossover yesterday.

[caulfield12]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/alicia-machado-i...-162627092.html

 

Wonder if anyone ever had Alicia Machado as the one name that would bring Trump's campaign down?

[greg775]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/alicia-machado-i...-162627092.html

 

Wonder if anyone ever had Alicia Machado as the one name that would bring Trump's campaign down?

Limbaugh made a great point today. Wolf Blitzer would NEVER EVER have mentioned something about Bill Clinton's indiscretions but he goes after Trump on this today as a gift to Hillary.

Look ... Trump needs to all out attack the Clintons now. This is ridiculous. Everybody's jumping on Trump over Alicia. It's time Trump attacks the Clinton family about all of Bill's transgressions and Hillary's alleged making life hell on those who cheated with Bill. Limbaugh had some good points today about this issue. Limbaugh especially attacked Wolf.

[RockRaines]

Limbaugh made a great point today. Wolf Blitzer would NEVER EVER have mentioned something about Bill Clinton's indiscretions but he goes after Trump on this today as a gift to Hillary.

Look ... Trump needs to all out attack the Clintons now. This is ridiculous. Everybody's jumping on Trump over Alicia. It's time Trump attacks the Clinton family about all of Bill's transgressions and Hillary's alleged making life hell on those who cheated with Bill. Limbaugh had some good points today about this issue. Limbaugh especially attacked Wolf.

LOL, yeah the media never talked about it. Uh huh. I guess you blacked out for all of those years.

 

I hope Trump does attack her about her spouse cheating, then she can point out he cheated on his wife, while she was at church with their kids, and had a kid out of wedlock.

[greg775]

Does anybody else hate the word "lozenge?" I think it should be banned from the language. I prefer the Chicago way of saying it. "I'm going to buy some cough drops. Does anybody have a cough drop?"

 

Anyhow I despise Hillary but this story on her coughing is ridiculous. ...

 

http://www.theamericanmirror.com/video-hil...f-coughing-fit/

 

Lozenge as a word ... yay or nay?

[BigSqwert]

Does anybody else hate the word "lozenge?" I think it should be banned from the language. I prefer the Chicago way of saying it. "I'm going to buy some cough drops. Does anybody have a cough drop?"

 

Anyhow I despise Hillary but this story on her coughing is ridiculous. ...

 

http://www.theamericanmirror.com/video-hil...f-coughing-fit/

 

Lozenge as a word ... yay or nay?

 

I would prefer if you just posted entire transcripts from Limbaugh's daily show. #ricola

[Steve9347]

The latest Polls Plus has greg775 down 3% to 97% for people who want to see him keep posting in this thread.

 

I mean, SERIOUSLY YOU PROVIDE NOTHING OF SUBSTINANCE.

[greg775]

The latest Polls Plus has greg775 down 3% to 97% for people who want to see him keep posting in this thread.

 

I mean, SERIOUSLY YOU PROVIDE NOTHING OF SUBSTINANCE.

How can you say that? I quote different announcers/broadcasters/shows; I link to a lot of articles; I express my opinions about both candidates whom I dislike. How can you say I provide nothing of substance when I link articles? Just cause I guess I have opinions different from yours I must be worthless poster in your eyes.

Again ... I post links and examples.

[Steve9347]

How can you say that? I quote different announcers/broadcasters/shows; I link to a lot of articles; I express my opinions about both candidates whom I dislike. How can you say I provide nothing of substance when I link articles? Just cause I guess I have opinions different from yours I must be worthless poster in your eyes.

Again ... I post links and examples.

There's another thread here suited for you perfectly.

[Middle Buffalo]

How can you say that? I quote different announcers/broadcasters/shows; I link to a lot of articles; I express my opinions about both candidates whom I dislike. How can you say I provide nothing of substance when I link articles? Just cause I guess I have opinions different from yours I must be worthless poster in your eyes.

Again ... I post links and examples.

I don't know that I've seen evidence of you disparaging both top candidates in the same manner, but that's your right. You seem to be a little more aggressive when it comes to HC.

 

I also don't see evidence that you "learn" from things others post. Also your right. You often acknowledge a good point made that is in opposition to one of your posts, which is fairly uncommon in this forum, but then you go right back to posting the same things.

 

On another topic of sorts, I wonder how you can justify saying that you are going to vote for Jesse Ventura, who, last I checked, isn't running. That seems like you are not taking your right to vote seriously. That, to me, is a slap in the face of our military who have sacrificed for that right. Yet, you are so upset that football players are not honoring the National Anthem and flag properly because it is an affront to our military.

[caulfield12]

The fact that Bill Clinton's indiscretions were already the subject of the 1992 and 2000 elections and are still front and center tells you everything you need to know about 2016.

 

Notice, it wasn't an issue in 2008 to Obama, because the differences are obvious enough without bringing them up.

 

Trump has been married three times, twice to immigrants, who are now conveniently enough, bad for America.

 

Why would a serious newsperson spend ANY time on this subject, just because Trump brings it up to deflect? Next he'll be taking credit for turning Alicia Machado into a successful actress/model/spokesperson near the age of 40 when most American actresses are consigned to "mother/caregiver" roles in the movies.

 

Search Alicia Machado Maxim 2007 Greg.

 

 

[Quin]

How can you say that? I quote different announcers/broadcasters/shows; I link to a lot of articles; I express my opinions about both candidates whom I dislike. How can you say I provide nothing of substance when I link articles? Just cause I guess I have opinions different from yours I must be worthless poster in your eyes.

Again ... I post links and examples.

 

You post worthless links to right-wing talking heads and examples and ignore empirical evidence when presented to you.

[greg775]

I don't know that I've seen evidence of you disparaging both top candidates in the same manner, but that's your right. You seem to be a little more aggressive when it comes to HC.

 

I also don't see evidence that you "learn" from things others post. Also your right. You often acknowledge a good point made that is in opposition to one of your posts, which is fairly uncommon in this forum, but then you go right back to posting the same things.

 

On another topic of sorts, I wonder how you can justify saying that you are going to vote for Jesse Ventura, who, last I checked, isn't running. That seems like you are not taking your right to vote seriously. That, to me, is a slap in the face of our military who have sacrificed for that right. Yet, you are so upset that football players are not honoring the National Anthem and flag properly because it is an affront to our military.

I am a little more mean toward Hillary cause I despise her elitism and lying throughout the years. I feel like she's being coronated and being given a lifetime achievement award with the Presidency when I feel she'll be our worst ever. However I can't condone Trump. I mean, geez, I am college educated and I feel he is a.) not a good person. b.) a ruthless businessman. c.) will never be able to lead others because when you are that rich you are out for YOURSELF (just like rich Hillary).

 

You post worthless links to right-wing talking heads and examples and ignore empirical evidence when presented to you.

Cmon. That's unfair. I link a lot of people and listen to all the heavy hitters. I don't ignore things presented to me. Most things don't change my opinion, however.

 

This.

 

You don't engage in any sort of discussion, Greg. You make a statement, usually centered around what you heard on Hannity or what Rush said on some conservative talk show, claim XYZ, then members respond to what you say....and you go dark. You say nothing.

 

THAT'S why people feel the way they do about your posts.

I disagree that I 'go dark.'

[greg775]

And as far as my support of Jesse, well, I don't mean to disparage the military. He was in the military as a matter of fact. But I feel like Hillary is a very bad candidate and Trump is a lol, cmon you gotta be kidding candidate. Gary Johnson doesn't make me feel great about his leading the USA so that leaves Jesse.

WHy not vote for him? It's my right.

[caulfield12]

You and Southsider2k5 are going to write-in Ventura and Romney...pretty incredible.

 

I honestly might prefer Trump to Ventura, although it's a close call.