Support NeoGAF

[VeryGooster]

Obama Zone is my favorite Sonic level

 

[Lord Frieza]

Hillary will probably win, just based on the fact Trump has zero minority support. But the victory will be very narrow. Both candidates are hated this election.

I think an Obama style win this election could only happen if Sanders had won, or any other democrat who wasn't plagued with "likable" issues.

She'll probably win because she's way ahead in the polls, has always been ahead in the polls to varying degrees, including with the potential of flipping at least two traditionally Republication states, and we're only two weeks away from election. This narrative we have that Trump is any kind of deadheat with Clinton is simply not that accurate. This election has always been Clinton's to lose, and only twice can you really say the race has been all that close.

Sanders doesn't have anything to do with anything, and honestly, it probably wouldn't do a lot better than Clinton did at the end of the day. I know this strikes at the very soul of BoBers, but it's probably true.

 

[gabbo]

Hillary will probably win, just based on the fact Trump has zero minority support. But the victory will be very narrow. Both candidates are hated this election.

I think an Obama style win this election could only happen if Sanders had won, or any other democrat who wasn't plagued with "likable" issues.

Not really the case anymore I don't think. Clinton may not be the most popular candidate ever, but she's only seemingly hated by Trumps supporters at this point. Or those delusional Sanders people

 

[LiveFromKyoto]

I highly recommend going w/ Sam Wang for analysis instead- http://election.princeton.edu/ Having to monetize his site (and get his contract renewed by ESPN) has led to Nate warping his behavior in the process, and it hasn't been pretty.

This election's all but over. The question isn't whether or not Clinton wins, it's how big the margin is and whether or not Dems can get one or both houses of congress in the process. Pretending Trump actually has a chance is chicken-little territory indulging liberal bad habits/thought processes.

I'm pretty sick of the knee-jerk "NO YOU SHOULD ONLY LISTEN TO SAM WANG" response every 538 mention gets. Anyone who actually listens to their podcasts knows that this whole "Nate is just a clickbait pundit" thing is some bizarre fantasy that internet political nerds have engaged in to try and seem more in the know. 538's insights have been well reasoned and on-point throughout this election. When you actually listen to them talk, they're fully self-aware about the greater context of what they're saying, they're not spitting ESPN hot takes.

This article isn't punditry, this isn't click-bait chicken little, this is probability. What you're saying is in the realm of punditry. Sam Wang's not sitting there saying Clinton has a 100% chance to win either, because factually she doesn't. This election hasn't even happened yet.

 

[Chamber]

Hillary will probably win, just based on the fact Trump has zero minority support. But the victory will be very narrow. Both candidates are hated this election.

I think an Obama style win this election could only happen if Sanders had won, or any other democrat who wasn't plagued with "likable" issues.

What do you consider narrow? Trump is going to have a hard time even getting 200 EV's much less getting close to 270. He's never really had a realistic path to 270.

 

[BorkBork]

There are still way too many darkest timelines out there. Go out and vote!

 

[A Human Becoming]

My animosity's towards the indulgent clickbait. If the polls were closer, it'd be one thing, but this is a blowout, and we've never seen someone make this kind of turnaround.

It is when they altered said methods to produce endless click bait.

What do you consider clickbait? I posted the McMullin article as an example because it's an extremely unlikely scenario without a title that reflects that.

I remember people accusing their article about Millenial support for Hillary being weak as 'trolling'. The Washington Post this week wrote an article about how it's been a problem for her and there's mixed improvement. I don't think those same people would accuse WaPo of trolling when it's using polling data like FiveThirtyEight did.

There are things to criticize FiveThrityEight but some of it comes from people who already don't like the site pushing back against things they don't want to hear.

Hasn't 538's model been pretty accurate all year? Yes, even in the R primaries? I read their election updates, and check the "Chances to Win" graph once or twice a day. I feel like everyone's complaints basically amount to "CORPORATE SELLOUT!!!!" even though the model, which is what put them on the map, is still extremely accurate.

Their model is also relatively unchanged from 2012 (according to Nate at least). I've yet to see any evidence they've sold out except for the nowcast which Nate has admitted is to compete with poll aggregates like RCP. That doesn't mean everything else they do should be discredited.

 

[kirblar]

What do you consider clickbait? I posted the McMullin article as an example because it's an extremely unlikely scenario without a title that reflects that.

I remember people accusing their article about Millenial support for Hillary being weak as 'trolling'. The Washington Post this week wrote an article about how it's been a problem for her and there's mixed improvement. I don't think those same people would accuse WaPo of trolling when it's using polling data like FiveThirtyEight did.

There are things to criticize FiveThrityEight but some of it comes from people who already don't like the site pushing back against things they don't want to hear.

Their model is also relatively unchanged from 2012 (according to Nate at least). I've yet to see any evidence they've sold out except for the nowcast which Nate has admitted is to compete with poll aggregates like RCP. That doesn't mean everything else they do should be discredited.

The Millenial thing's been widely noted- if someone was using THAT to talk about clickbait w/ 538, they're a dummy.

Here's the thing about models like the nowcast- once you have them, you're declaring that having something "spicy" is more important than being thorough/accurate in your predictions. Nate completely ignoring data during the primaries and declaring that Trump couldn't win is another problem point- he's become what he railed against for literally every election cycle - a Washington trash pundit pulling ideas out of his ass. He made his name being the stats guy giving cold data analysis, and the moment he got a big contract and needed to draw in readers, he threw that hat away. Trust is very hard to get back once you've lost it, and Nate lost mine a long time ago.

This entire cycle, we have known that the demographics were against Trump in ways that were going to make his election incredibly difficult. Any analysis of the election needed to take place in this context -Clinton has always been the favorite, and it's been on Trump to catch up. But acknowledging that doesn't get you hits. Everything they now do seems to be framed in a way that seems to be designed to prey on liberal electoral panic. I'm sure the data analysis in some of the articles is still good- but it's all covered in this obnoxious glaze that I don't want to have to encounter.

 

[King Tubby]

The McMullin articles were obviously just for fun (you have to find SOMETHING to write about every day) and people got their panties in a twist as if this was actually some new thing you needed to worry about. No, it was just an interesting deep dive into a weird electoral situation and a weird hypothetical. Nate Silver and FiveThirtyEight are just fine. PEC is just fine.

 

[Rentahamster]

Its funny that conservatives blame the 2008 election on McCain not being conservative enough. Then Romney was just a squish! Now Trump is right wing fascist. Somehow we have to loop back around to communism right?

What's funny about that is Trump wasn't exactly the conservative candidate in the primaries. That was Ted Cruz. Pundits like Glenn Beck and Mark Levin, who identify with the "conservative" label much more than the "Republican" label favored Cruz over Trump by far. Guys like that that started the #NeverTrump movement.

Trump didn't win over hardcore conservatives by bashing on free trade or Bush's legacy. They thought he was a liberal infiltrator because of his actions in the past.

 

[Y2Kev]

Hasn't 538's model been pretty accurate all year? Yes, even in the R primaries? I read their election updates, and check the "Chances to Win" graph once or twice a day. I feel like everyone's complaints basically amount to "CORPORATE SELLOUT!!!!" even though the model, which is what put them on the map, is still extremely accurate.

Actually, their polls-plus model (their "model") was less accurate than the regular polls only so they're de-emphasizing it during the general.

 

[Sweeney Tom]

I highly recommend going w/ Sam Wang for analysis instead- http://election.princeton.edu/ Having to monetize his site (and get his contract renewed by ESPN) has led to Nate warping his behavior in the process, and it hasn't been pretty.

This election's all but over. The question isn't whether or not Clinton wins, it's how big the margin is and whether or not Dems can get one or both houses of congress in the process. Pretending Trump actually has a chance is chicken-little territory indulging liberal bad habits/thought processes.

Agreed completely. Still go out and vote

 

[Guy LeDouche]

So you're telling me there's a chance

Shook Nate is shook.

Sam Wang has had the best tracking all along.

 

[NealMcCauley]

Voted today in TN. Saw a shit ton of young people.

 

[Wafflecakes]

I hope to vote on Monday... not that my vote will make a difference in Idaho.

Kind of wish I had left my registration in Utah, because there is at least a slight chance of it counting there.

 

[Guy LeDouche]

I hope to vote on Monday... not that my vote will make a difference in Idaho.

Kind of wish I had left my registration in Utah, because there is at least a slight chance of it counting there.

A landslide win via the national popular vote is as important as ever. Every vote counts.

 

[MIMIC]

Not surprising. Hillary will probably win pretty comfortably at this point.

 

[KHarvey16]

Actually, their polls-plus model (their "model") was less accurate than the regular polls only so they're de-emphasizing it during the general.

The models for the primary were entirely different. Who said they were de-emphasizing the election polls-plus because of the way the primary polls-plus performed?

Also polls only, polls plus and the nowcast are all their models. Polls-plus adds things like economic data and weights third parties and uncertainty a bit differently (in the presidential election, anyway - the primary version was different and considered completely different factors).

 

[rokkerkory]

I want a blowout of 7-8% popular vote and over 300 EC for Hillary

 

[Lord Frieza]

I want a blowout of 7-8% popular vote and over 300 EC for Hillary

The former isn't impossible but not likely, the latter is looking very likely, though.

 

[YaBish]

THE OBAMA ZONE

 

[A Human Becoming]

Here's the thing about models like the nowcast- once you have them, you're declaring that having something "spicy" is more important than being thorough/accurate in your predictions.

I don't know where you're getting it being more important, especially when they've constantly downplayed it. It's a separate thing that doesn't detract from the work they've done and continue to do.

Nate completely ignoring data during the primaries and declaring that Trump couldn't win is another problem point- he's become what he railed against for literally every election cycle - a Washington trash pundit pulling ideas out of his ass. He made his name being the stats guy giving cold data analysis, and the moment he got a big contract and needed to draw in readers, he threw that hat away. Trust is very hard to get back once you've lost it, and Nate lost mine a long time ago.

This entire cycle, we have known that the demographics were against Trump in ways that were going to make his election incredibly difficult. Any analysis of the election needed to take place in this context -Clinton has always been the favorite, and it's been on Trump to catch up. But acknowledging that doesn't get you hits. Everything they now do seems to be framed in a way that seems to be designed to prey on liberal electoral panic. I'm sure the data analysis in some of the articles is still good- but it's all covered in this obnoxious glaze that I don't want to have to encounter.

Nate has admitted he was dumb for acting like a pundit during the primaries. If you don't trust anything he says after he's acknowledged his mistake and has been working to not do so again that's your prerogative, but I'm willing to give people who are forthright a chance to rebuild that trust.

Every article I've read by them has framed Trump being at a disadvantage needing to improve to catch up. I don't buy the liberal electoral panic because even if the demographics have been against Trump, there have been enough unknown variables to leave a level of reasonable uncertainty. Maybe Sam Wang's approach that the final vote will always return to the mean is right, but I think there's value in skepticism of undecideds, thirty-party votes and unfavorability ratings.

 

[shadowsdarknes]

Even if its irrational, Im still afraid of many Republicans saying, "Screw it Ill vote Trump anyway"at the last minute.