PoliGAF 2016 |OT11| Well this is exciting

Status
Not open for further replies.
Emarv said:
I'm curious how much of PoliGAF does early voting?
Click to expand...

I've done it on my first free day in every election cycle so far (I early vote in person, which necessitates catching buses to the other side of Franklin County because Columbus is fucking worthless)

this year, it's either happening on 10/13 or 10/18 depending on how lazy I am that Thursday
 
Yeah, I fully agree with you guys that the nowcast shouldn't exist - at least not in its current form. As it is, all it does is generate clicks and incite panic. I think there is some merit to a current electorate snapshot, but the way it's presented on 538 makes things look more volatile than they actually are. Nate himself has said countless times that the nowcast doesn't account for long term trends.

Also, I have no problem with having both polls only and polls plus being on the stats page, but I dont understand why polls only is the default metrics. Nate has said before that polls plus is the most accurate and least volatile. If that's the case, then why not make it the default view so it's cited more? It doesn't make sense to me.
 
On early voting.

11/08/2016 GENERAL ELECTION Standard Mail 09/21/2016

It's happeninnngggg. Wonder when my ballot will get here. The primary ballot took like 2 days.
 
PBY said:
Cs3-YPyVYAAgFXX.jpg

Which is whiter?
Click to expand...

What I love about rooms like this is how long it often takes white people to realize that there are no POC in the room with them. I've been in so many situations where I'm the only POC out of like 50 people and I mention it to a friend and they're like "Huh, didn't even realize."

Then another POC person walks in the room, looks around and makes eye contact with you and you're both like

tumblr_lesewbCi2J1qaqaiy.gif
 
It's pretty standard that a broadcast show would do better with viewers than a cable show. My guess is Sam Bee et al. closes the gap a bit more in the demo, but still.
 
Fragamemnon said:
Plenty of students in NY/NJ who attend the University of New Jersey-Durham (also known as "Duke") requesting ballots. Solid stuff for Clinton/Ross/Cooper.



Wyoming is the only state where you can say a candidate won by 41, and then have to answer "41 thousand or 41%?"
Click to expand...
Do NJers really take up a significant part of Duke's student body? I'm a Jerseyan myself and I've never heard this, though I do know a few friends who are obsessed with Duke.

Personally I went to TCNJ so I'm kind of out of touch with colleges outside the state.
 
Just a reminder of the margins in Wyoming to make you laugh:

Romney: 170,962 (+101,676)
Obama: 69,286

Ohio was decided by 166,277 votes in 2012.
 
B-Dubs said:
Does Autism Speaks advocate that vaccines cause autism?
Click to expand...

They're "vaccines cause autism"-curious at times.

Autism Speaks is mostly an organization about helping parents "deal with the pain of" having autistic children and trying to "cure" autism.

Autistic people really dislike Autism Speaks for some reason.
 
B-Dubs said:
Does Autism Speaks advocate that vaccines cause autism?
Click to expand...
They used to, and I think these days they use wishy washy rhetoric along the lines of "vaccines haven't been proven to cause autism, but it's probably still worth looking into just to be sure" which is basically the Jill Stein argument. In the past they spent A LOT of money on research into autism and vaccines, even after the original study was proven to be bunk.

From what I've heard, Autism Speaks is just a shitty organization all around. The one person on the board of trustees who was autistic left because he got frustrated with how the organization was run. Apparently a lot of their charity money goes towards executive salaries.
 
ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
They're "vaccines cause autism"-curious at times.

Autism Speaks is mostly an organization about helping parents "deal with the pain of" having autistic children and trying to "cure" autism.

Autistic people really dislike Autism Speaks for some reason.
Click to expand...

I mean, I went on their website just to check and they have a pretty clear position on vaccines not causing autism in their policy section.

BiggNife said:
They used to, and I think these days they use wishy washy rhetoric along the lines of "vaccines haven't been proven to cause autism, but it's probably still worth looking into just to be sure" which is basically the Jill Stein argument. In the past they spent A LOT of money on research into autism and vaccines, even after the original study was proven to be bunk.

From what I've heard, Autism Speaks is just a shitty organization all around. The one person on the board of trustees who was autistic left because he got frustrated with how the organization was run. Apparently a lot of their charity money goes towards executive salaries.
Click to expand...

I can't say I know a whole lot about them outside of that show they do to raise money for research in NYC once a year.
 
Emarv said:
I'm curious how much of PoliGAF does early voting? Texas doesn't start until like 2 weeks before the election, and generally my wife and I enjoy participating in the atmosphere of election day.

Do any of you nice fellas and ladies always vote early? Or is it conditional on your schedules that year?
Click to expand...

My understanding is that Kentucky requires a pretty solid excuse for absentee/early voting, so I'll be voting in person. I find it to be a pleasant civic ritual, and my work is fine with coming in late for voting, so it's not big deal.
 
The under-Wyoming EV differences in 2012 by total vote were:

Nebraska's 2nd: 19,087
Maine's 2nd: 28,783
New Hampshire: 39,643
Alaska: 42,036
North Dakota: 63,336
South Dakota: 65,571
Nevada: 67,806
Florida: 74,309
New Mexico: 79,547
Iowa: 91,927
North Carolina: 92,004

dat swing state of Alaska!
 
Trump hasn't led a non-Ipsos Wisconsin poll, yet. And those are +1.

He doesn't have a single poll above 41% and almost all of his are sub 40%.

This election is so weird in that people don't want to "commit" to Hillary until the last minute that the margins are throwing everyone off. We're so used to saying "+2" or "+4" we are now forgetting to think about the absolute numbers because we never had to think about them before.

If Trump can't crack 40 in Wisconsin polling in late Sept, how is he capable of winning the state?

Hillary is 41-48.


I'm going to predict this now: If nothing major in this race changes, the polling is going to look bad because of this unwillingness to commit til the last minute, especially for Hillary. That and 3rd party overstatements in the national polling (what is partly to blame destroying 538's model IMO).
 
Hillary and Trump had a good response to the most recent events in the black community. Looking at the rhetoric from Trump and his surrogates though, I think he may benefit more with whites and slightly increase his support with a handful of African Americans. Michael Nutter just got destroyed by an African American Trump surrogate on CNN a few mins ago. Hopefully CNN posts that online later.
 
B-Dubs said:
Does Autism Speaks advocate that vaccines cause autism?
Click to expand...

They aren't explicitly anti-vaccine or "vaccines cause autism" so much as they are heavily invested in the narrative the autistic children are nothing but monsters and support parents demanding government answers to questions that don't really have answers. As such, they flirt very heavily with anti-vaccine advocacy but also try to give themselves plausible deniability.

It's a support group for parents of autistic children, built on the backs of actual people with autism.
 
whyamihere said:
Just a reminder of the margins in Wyoming to make you laugh:

Romney: 170,962 (+101,676)
Obama: 69,286

Ohio was decided by 166,277 votes in 2012.
Click to expand...
If only Romney could have moved all of his voters from Wyoming to Ohio.

Well. Then he still would have lost. Also Obama would win Wyoming. That'd be a weird map.
 
Black Mamba said:
Trump hasn't led a non-Ipsos Wisconsin poll, yet. And those are +1.

He doesn't have a single poll above 41% and almost all of his are sub 40%.

This election is so weird in that people don't want to "commit" to Hillary until the last minute that the margins are throwing everyone off. We're so used to saying "+2" or "+4" we are now forgetting to think about the absolute numbers because we never had to think about them before.

If Trump can't crack 40 in Wisconsin polling in late Sept, how is he capable of winning the state?

Hillary is 41-48.


I'm going to predict this now: If nothing major in this race changes, the polling is going to look bad because of this unwillingness to commit til the last minute, especially for Hillary. That and 3rd party overstatements in the national polling (what is partly to blame destroying 538's model IMO).
Click to expand...

The other side, though, is that people could swing to Trump. We still have a month and a half left, and if she has bad debates, it's a possibility.
 
Black Mamba said:
Trump hasn't led a non-Ipsos Wisconsin poll, yet. And those are +1.

He doesn't have a single poll above 41% and almost all of his are sub 40%.

This election is so weird in that people don't want to "commit" to Hillary until the last minute that the margins are throwing everyone off. We're so used to saying "+2" or "+4" we are now forgetting to think about the absolute numbers because we never had to think about them before.

If Trump can't crack 40 in Wisconsin polling in late Sept, how is he capable of winning the state?

Hillary is 41-48.


I'm going to predict this now: If nothing major in this race changes, the polling is going to look bad because of this unwillingness to commit til the last minute, especially for Hillary. That and 3rd party overstatements in the national polling (what is partly to blame destroying 538's model IMO).
Click to expand...

Yeah, the high level of undecideds + the 3rd party vote is really testing a lot of these models.

Plinko said:
The other side, though, is that people could swing to Trump. We still have a month and a half left, and if she has bad debates, it's a possibility.
Click to expand...

The counterpoint is that we know what these undecideds and 3rd party voters look like, and they are not Trump voters.
 
Plinko said:
The other side, though, is that people could swing to Trump. We still have a month and a half left, and if she has bad debates, it's a possibility.
Click to expand...

It's very unlikely many people swing to trump at this point. The majority of the undecided lean more towards Hilary from what I recall.
 
B-Dubs said:
I mean, I went on their website just to check and they have a pretty clear position on vaccines not causing autism in their policy section.



I can't say I know a whole lot about them outside of that show they do to raise money for research in NYC once a year.
Click to expand...
The autistic community has been pretty clear that they do not think Autism Speaks properly represents them as a community and I think that is a pretty good indicator that they have failed as an organization

They treat autism as a disease and I can understand why an autistic person would not be a big fan of their life long condition being equated to a disease like cancer, and even implying its something that can and should be "cured."
 
I'm in Ohio and mailed out my absentee ballot request this morning. My main concern now is wearing a hole through the oval next to Hildawg's name when the ballot arrives.
 
While we're on the topic, I thought the article was fairly decent:

Hmm, There May Be A Link Between Vaccines And Political Pandering: The presidential candidates offer conflicting medical advice | HuffPo

I found it amusing for two reasons.

The first is that I've historically had a lot of suspicion with the Clintons and health care because they are very good friends and have occasionally advocated for long-time friend and complete quackpot Dr. Hyman. It's amusing that in 2016 I'm now forced to concede she has by far the least conspiratorial-laced health care policies, aided by the relative insanity of Stein and Trump and the 'shrug-ism' of Johnson.

The second is that this article is from HuffPo, which has consistently historically been a mouthpiece for anti-vaccine lunatics like Jim Carry and Jenny McCarthy. In the past few years I've had to admit their science reporting has drastically improved, though they still invite a few crazy people to do opinion pieces more often than they should.

edit:
I'm also kind of amused because I think those brief summaries could also be used as a general summary for the campaign in a vast majority of issues:
Clinton: Here's what it is
Trump: 9/11 was an inside job!
Stein: MOONBATS
Johnson: Please like me
 
Plinko said:
The other side, though, is that people could swing to Trump. We still have a month and a half left, and if she has bad debates, it's a possibility.
Click to expand...

If you're not voting for Trump now, you're not voting for him. Unless something major happens, I don't see how anyone who isn't convinced by Trump now will be later.

What's the argument?

And yes, you could try "isn't the same true of Hillary?" But the answer is "no." You've either already convinced yourself you're voting for a bigot or you won't. The only question left is if you will vote Hillary or 3rd party (or not at all). And the answer to that question will likely be the result of whether you think Trump may win or not.

That's why we see Hillary's numbers fluctuate greatly and Trump's remain fairly stable.


Nearly every pollster that asks the right questions in swing states and other polls find that the "undecided voter" is predominately pro-Obama. Trump doesn't have more votes to get. He can only win if turnout is down among the Obama coalition.

Win or lose, Trump will receive less votes than Mitt Romney. Mark it down.
 
Black Mamba said:
If you're not voting for Trump now, you're not voting for him. Unless something major happens, I don't see how anyone who isn't convinced by Trump now will be later.

What's the argument?

And yes, you could try "isn't the same true of Hillary?" But the answer is "no." You've either already convinced yourself you're voting for a bigot or you won't. The only question left is if you will vote Hillary or 3rd party (or not at all). And the answer to that question will likely be the result of whether you think Trump may win or not.

That's why we see Hillary's numbers fluctuate greatly and Trump's remain fairly stable.


Nearly every pollster that asks the right questions in swing states and other polls find that the "undecided voter" is predominately pro-Obama. Trump doesn't have more votes to get. He can only win if turnout is down among the Obama coalition.

Win or lose, Trump will receive less votes than Mitt Romney. Mark it down.
Click to expand...
He will most likely also receive less votes than John Mccain.
 
Reid J. Epstein ‏@reidepstein 13m13 minutes ago

Bobby Knight introducing Trump today in Toledo: "I've studied history, I think, as much as anybody has."
Click to expand...

Professor Bobby Knight, Chair of the Trump University History Department
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT2| Well, maybe McMaster isn't a traitor.
397 398 399 400 401
20K
2M
ShadowSwordmaster replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2016 |OT16| Unpresidented
395 396 397 398 399
20K
1M
PKrockin replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2016 |OT15| Orange is the New Black
396 397 398 399 400
20K
2M
The Technomancer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2016 |OT13| For Queen and Country
386 387 388 389 390
19K
2M
Magni replied
Top Bottom