Support NeoGAF

[McDougles]

I also suspect as the polls tighten that 3rd party support will shift to Hillary. It seems that she has lost some voters to the libertarian party (poor Stein), and I would expect especially in swing states for those to peel back to Hillary.

Ya, nah. No sympathies for pushing anti-vaccination theories (anti-regulatory bodies), anti-science theories on wireless internet, GMO scare-mongering and anti-nuclear-energy policies.

If anything, I'm glad Stein proved that left-leaning 3rd party isn't the best answer for the casual Bernie supporter.

 

[Version 3.0]

Yep, and Trump has shown consistently that he feeds off a crowd. Compare the recent rally in Arizona about immigration, and how fired up the crowd was, and how fired up it made him. Compare that to, say, the Pennsylvania rally he had a few weeks back (the one with the really bizarre charts he held up), and how much smaller and deader the crowd was there, and how much more docile he is. And his comments about how his debate strategy is about being a spectacle, akin to a Wrestlemania main event, shows this to be something he's aware of, to some degree. I think the fact that the crowd is silent during the debates is going to take a lot of the wind out of his sails, a lot more than probably maybe even he realizes it will.

Will the crowd be silent? There were a couple of primary debates where the crowd was booing him, and he reacts to that poorly. It'd be great to see him attack the audience, or go on a "I've got bigger crowds" or "the election is fixed" rant.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Will the crowd be silent? There were a couple of primary debates where the crowd was booing him, and he reacts to that poorly. It'd be great to see him attack the audience, or go on a "I've got bigger crowds" or "the election is fixed" rant.

They have to be silent. These debates have actual rules

 

[bachikarn]

Nate's model needs to be more stable for it to be a good predictor model. Whats the point if it oscillates like crazy?

 

[Lord Frieza]

Will the crowd be silent? There were a couple of primary debates where the crowd was booing him, and he reacts to that poorly. It'd be great to see him attack the audience, or go on a "I've got bigger crowds" or "the election is fixed" rant.

General debate crowds have to be silent or be removed, yes.

 

[Angelus Errare]

Nate Silver is literally the only person I listen to regarding election polls. That dude is on point.

Yup, he was dead on about Trump during the primaries...

 

[Aeriscloud]

The Cough to Crooked rate in the debates is going to be important.

 

[Phrozenflame500]

Nate's model needs to be more stable for it to be a good predictor model. Whats the point if it oscillates like crazy?

I'd argue the fact that it does oscillate like crazy proves it's a good predictor model. We're still pretty far out from the election, and there's significantly more uncertainty in the form of a lot more undecideds/third-party this year.

 

[2MF]

This is a very important point. Trump's debate strategy was to shout insane 1 liners and then let everyone else talk for 2-3 minutes about things he didn't understand, and then chime in and try and sound tough.

That's going to be hard to do 1 v 1.

I also suspect as the polls tighten that 3rd party support will shift to Hillary. It seems that she has lost some voters to the libertarian party (poor Stein), and I would expect especially in swing states for those to peel back to Hillary.

Paraphrasing someone I saw in quora, he spews a bunch of junk which cannot possibly be rebutted in any reasonable amount of time, and then parties over the leftovers.

I don't like Hillary Clinton much, but please Americans don't get complacent - go out and vote in the election, and call on other likely Hillary voters to do the same. Brexit was enough for this year.

 

[zelas]

It hasn't even been 24 hours since labor day. Come on now. People who's lives will actually be at risk under a Republican presidency aren't losing their shit so hard, so often. There should be a moratorium on "I'm scared" threads until mid to late October.

Yup, he was dead on about Trump during the primaries...

His model was accurate wasnt it? He just didnt want to believe it iirc.

 

[BluePigGanon]

538, pfft. I'm sticking to PEC - not because I like their numbers better, but because 538's are dopey volatile.

Even in the worst case scenarios, Clinton has a ridiculous number of safe electoral votes. Trump, as of today, is a longshot. His only hope is something just nuclear - like Assange actually having a smoking gun (which I doubt, or he would've shown it by now), or... I don't even know what.

The media needs this to seem close. But it's always come down to the math. Until someone can show how Trump is going to do better in all the demographics than McCain or Romney, I'm not buying my one-way tix to Canada.

 

[Version 3.0]

General debate crowds have to be silent or be removed, yes.

Ah. How about that, rules! Isn't there a Town Hall setting? That might be interesting, if the questions aren't pre-approved (by Trump).

 

[HTupolev]

Even if Hillary is experiencing severe health issues, I'm perplexed as to how it's significantly getting people to swing Trumpward? It's not like her running mate is Palin.

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

They have to be silent. These debates have actual rules

They clapped in that town hall debate though didn't they? Or am I remembering wrong?

 

[Xe4]

Warning in terms of complacency: At 10:30pm on the night the votes of Brexit came in, bookies were giving 11/1 on event of a Brexit Leave vote winning, the media were implying Remain had done it and even all the key members of Leave campaign were implying they thought theyd lost.

It ain't over till it's over, no matter how barking the Political players may be

It seems like every time the polls aren't 100% in Clinton's favor, people can't stop mentioning Brexit. Stop it. The situations aren't the same.

Nate's model is way too volitile, Clinton has an 80% chance of winning even if polls were tied, simply because of the electoral college advantage. And she's 4% ahead. Nate's model is playing up the variability for clicks.

Sam Wang has her at 93% and NY times at 84%. I'll take Nate as the odd man out here. His model had been way too volitile for me to be trusting swings like that.

Also, as Brian pointed out, I haven't been too fond of 538 recently, with their pundit shenanigans.

Too bad no one read my thread: http://m.neogaf.com/showthread.php?t=1274349

 

[2MF]

I'd argue the fact that it does oscillate like crazy proves it's a good predictor model. We're still pretty far out from the election, and there's significantly more uncertainty in the form of a lot more undecideds/third-party this year.

That doesn't really make sense. At most you could say "does not disprove that it's good".

I can easily make a model which oscillates like crazy and is just spewing out random noise (perhaps I can even seed its randomness with Trump quotes).

 

[7DollarHagane]

Honestly trump is a doofus and shouldn't be president, but this hyperbole about nazi Germany and the end of the world is ridiculous.

There are enough checks and balances in the government that 4 years of the worst president of all time will mean little in the grand scheme of things.

Yeah, it will probably stifle liberal movements because of the supreme Court picks, but that stuff comes along anyways if it's the will of the people.

 

[Foffy]

If she loses, she can just run again in 2020, yeah? She can try to become True Leader of Trumpville in all of the cities not entirely up in flames then.

 

[Ambient80]

Not this year. He was adamant Trump wouldn't win the primaries long after it was obvious he would

His model, however, was spot on.

 

[BluePigGanon]

Even if Hillary is experiencing severe health issues, I'm perplexed as to how it's significantly getting people to swing Trumpward? It's not like her running mate is Palin.

I mean... the sort of voter who is swayed by something as insubstantial as that isn't voting for her anyway.

 

[2MF]

I mean... the sort of voter who is swayed by something as insubstantial as that isn't voting for her anyway.

Ladies and germs... this is what I call wishful thinking.

 

[Lord Frieza]

They clapped in that town hall debate though didn't they? Or am I remembering wrong?

I think clapping is only allowed at the end, but I may be misremembering, they may allow clapping at the end of a candidate's allotted time (I was out of the country in '12 and missed all the debates, so my memory may be fuzzy). But I know things like cheering, booing, jeers, shouting, etc. isn't allowed, especially not during a candidate's allotted time.

 

[Zukkoyaki]

His model, however, was spot on.

It was obvious to everyone for months that Trump was going to win the primary.

 

[pigeon]

Honestly trump is a doofus and shouldn't be president, but this hyperbole about nazi Germany and the end of the world is ridiculous.

There are enough checks and balances in the government that 4 years of the worst president of all time will mean little in the grand scheme of things.

This is mostly false. Here's an article about why:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/04/o...what-president-trump-could-or-couldnt-do.html

And he could bar Muslims from entering the country under existing law, which authorizes him to bar classes of aliens whose entry he determines “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.”...
Can he slap tariffs on China, as he has threatened? Yes, he can. Congress has delegated to the president the power to retaliate against foreign countries that engage in unfair trade practices like dumping, leaving it to the president and trade officials to determine what that means....
The World Trade Organization ruled the steel tariffs illegal in that case. But Mr. Trump could simply ignore its judgment, and indeed withdraw the United States from the W.T.O., just as President Bush withdrew the United States from the Antiballistic Missile Treaty in 2002. While he’s at it, Mr. Trump could tear up the North Atlantic Treaty, which created NATO, an organization that he has called “obsolete.”...
In May, Mr. Trump vowed to rescind President Obama’s environmental policies. He would be able to do that as well. He could disavow the Paris climate change agreement, just as President Bush “unsigned” a treaty creating an international criminal court in 2002. He could choke off climate regulations that are in development and probably withdraw existing climate regulations. Even if a court blocked him, he could refuse to enforce the regulations, just as Mr. Obama refused to enforce immigration laws...
He wouldn’t be able to put someone in jail merely for criticizing him. But he could direct agencies to use their vast regulatory powers against the companies of executives who have displeased him, like Jeff Bezos, for example, the founder of Amazon. Mr. Trump has already hinted that he would go after Amazon for supposed antitrust violations.
He could direct the Department of Justice to investigate his critics by prioritizing categories of crimes they may have committed. Political opponents could be accused of campaign finance law violations. Former government officials, like Hillary Clinton, could be accused of violating secrecy laws. Even if the charges come to nothing, the legal fees for defendants will be hefty.
Mr. Trump could also crack down on journalists who report on national security issues by enforcing federal secrecy laws more aggressively than previous presidents...
There is a netherworld of laws that presidents are supposed to comply with but courts don’t enforce. He could send military forces into a foreign country without authorization from Congress; courts would most likely stay out of the dispute. What of his suggestion earlier this year to kill the families of terrorists? Courts typically defer to the executive on matters concerning military activities abroad.

This also doesn't cover the president's power to unilaterally and without obstacle utilize nuclear weapons, of course.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

What the fuck? How can this be happening? America pls

Ugh, I can't wait for November to come and go and get this over with. >_<

 

[TwoDurans]

I won't worry until her lead doesn't widen after the debates. I'm expecting her to light him up when they're face to face. He won't be able to dodge questions, and give half answers when the moderators are asking point blank and she has the ability to call him out on his BS.

If her lead doesn't widen after all of that happens... I'll start looking at houses in Canada.

 

[Rentahamster]

This could be our Nazi Germany moment. And we can't rely on the Republicans in Congress to do anything to stop Trump if he were to win. Anyone else worried?

Depends on my frame of reference. In terms of not getting my ideal political candidate in, yes, I'm worried. But that's always worried me, and probably will forever.

In terms of thinking that Trump is the second coming of Hitler? No, not worried. Trump is a lot of things, but he's just a guy. The system is too big for any President to fuck up that badly anymore. The political extremes always think the other side's presidential candidate is Hitler. It happened to President Obama all the time.

 

[Lord Frieza]

What the fuck? How can this be happening? America pls

Ugh, I can't wait for November to come and go and get this over with. >_<

What, that Hillary is winning? I don't know, she's a more moderate-friendly candidate as opposed to Trump, who caters almost exclusively to the far right.

 

[BluePigGanon]

Ladies and germs... this is what I call wishful thinking.

I don't think my feeling that people are looking for a way to rationalize their vote for Trump or against "Crooked Hillary" is exactly wishful thinking.

 

[bachikarn]

I'd argue the fact that it does oscillate like crazy proves it's a good predictor model. We're still pretty far out from the election, and there's significantly more uncertainty in the form of a lot more undecideds/third-party this year.

Maybe it correctly captures the uncertainty better, but that still makes it a bad predictor model. I also doubt there is that much uncertainty. I trust Wang and his 92% probability of a Clinton win.

 

[BluePigGanon]

I won't worry until her lead doesn't widen after the debates. I'm expecting her to light him up when they're face to face. He won't be able to dodge questions, and give half answers when the moderators are asking point blank and she has the ability to call him out on his BS.

If her lead doesn't widen after all of that happens... I'll start looking at houses in Canada.

My understanding is that debates rarely move the needle much. Kerry murdered Bush in the debates and it didn't matter.

I keep hearing that there the numbers are right now is pretty much where they'll be on Election Day. Which probably means Clinton beating Trump by a similar margin Obama beat Romney.

 

[Durden77]

Trump's campaign has been very smart "Trump decisions" lately, which blows my mind because I figured when he hired Breitfart he would go further off the deep end. I very much saw his popularity getting back neck and neck with Hillary being a possibility after these past few weeks with the way his campaign has been running.

Anerica is a fickle place that wants to like Trump. They just don't want to seem like COMPLETE idiots when doing it, or at least a good bit of them. Many still will, but many have lines they just simply can't cross that he was crossing left and right not too long ago.

He is starting to make all of them feel comfortable again, you can laugh and hate him all you want, but as long as this country is run by a primarily white-male centric, he will still be a powerhouse and a threat in his own way as long as he makes stable-enough choices in the eyes of those people.

Shit's scary and people I feel got way too comfortable when he was getting crushed into the ground. All he's ever needed this entire election cycle is one big rebound, it's the story of his campaign.

 

[Eidan]

2016 desperately needs a Clinton "I Got This" pic.

 

[RoKKeR]

The Tightening is upon us.

 

[Brinbe]

Chill the fuck out. Wait till the debates.

This is a horse race and things naturally tighten. Hillary will pull back ahead soon enough.

 

[entremet]

What the fuck? How can this be happening? America pls

Ugh, I can't wait for November to come and go and get this over with. >_<

Enjoy the ride. It's fun.

 

[Lord Frieza]

Trump's campaign has been very smart "Trump decisions" lately, which blows my mind because I figured when he hired Breitfart he would go further off the deep end. I very much saw his popularity getting back neck and neck with Hillary being a possibility after these past few weeks with the way his campaign has been running.

Anerica is a fickle place that wants to like Trump. They just don't want to seem like COMPLETE idiots when doing it, or at least a good bit of them. Many still will, but many have lines they just simply can't cross that he was crossing left and right not too long ago.

He is starting to make all of them feel comfortable again, you can laugh and hate him all you want, but as long as this country is run by a primarily white-male centric, he will still be a powerhouse and a threat in his own way as long as he makes stable-enough choices in the eyes of those people.

Shit's scary and people I feel got way too comfortable when he was getting crushed into the ground. All he's ever needed this entire election cycle is one big rebound, it's the story of his campaign.

Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Ummm

Have they?

 

[SDCowboy]

Chill the fuck out. Wait till the debates.

This is a horse race and things naturally tighten. Hillary will pull back ahead soon enough.

Back ahead?

 

[IrishNinja]

I haven't witnessed a more lousy liberal candidate in my entire lifetime.
And people like Nate Silver & Paul Krugman, when they over-defend her, feed the rightful skepticism and paranoia over how much of an insider she is.

You weren't alive for John Kerry?

my very first thought, exactly

Literally the worst poster on NeoGAF.

He is so butthurt about the primary that he is okay with and wants white nationalism to take control of the country just to spite Hillary.

I keep forgetting not to take you seriously. My bad.

i mean, at least he doesn't have NY or cali on the map this time, forget which one it was on the last one but equally hilarious

 

[Pamplemousse]

Hillary will win. Anyone watching politics has known this for a while now. It comes down to the electoral college. Trump would need a miracle to get to 270 while Hillary has a pretty easy ride.

 

[BlastProcessing]

Sam Wang's take:

Holidays are over. I see that journalists, including poll aggregators, are still focused on the Presidential horserace. As Electoral-Vote.com has pointed out, sites such as FiveThirtyEight are under economic pressure to attract traffic. And there is nothing to attract eyeballs like a crazy Presidential race. Still, from a substantive standpoint, it might be more appropriate to spend efforts on, I dunno…issues? See this excellent critique of media coverage by Jeff Jarvis, which includes a good hard whack at the media obsession with “balance” and polls – basically, tricks to let reporters escape engaging head-on with substantive issues. If journalists insist on horserace coverage, at least focus on downticket races in Senate, House, and even state legislatures – and maybe write about some issues along the way. These races will determine the power dynamic in 2017 under the new President, whoever she may be.

Just to remind everyone, variations in this year’s race are quite narrow, consistent with the last 20 years of partisan polarization. Polarization has made both the GOP and Democratic nominees unacceptable to nearly all supporters of the other party. In addition, Donald Trump is radioactive to about one-fifth of his own party. As a result, this year’s race is full of melodrama, but numerically stable. In 2016, the Princeton Election Consortium’s state poll-based aggregate has only varied between a median outcome of 310 and 350 EV for Hillary Clinton.

The Meta-Margin, which is defined as the front-runner’s effective lead using Electoral College mechanisms, is a very low-noise and stable measure – as opposed to single polls, which can be all over the place. You should generally ignore single polls, especially ones that surprise you. The Meta-Margin has varied between Clinton +2.5% and Clinton +6.5%, and is now at Clinton +4.0%, close to the season average of 3.8%. If it left the 2.5-6.5% range, that would be interesting. That has not occurred yet.

Until either Sam Wang or Nate Cohn indicate that something has fundamentally changed about the race, everyone should calm down.

 

[Maintenance]

Without Florida he can't win, so until that happens don't lose your minds. If the US election was votes only he could pull an upset, but since you guys use electoral colleges, it's a lock.

 

[High Fry Frow]

What, that Hillary is winning? I don't know, she's a more moderate-friendly candidate as opposed to Drumpf, who caters almost exclusively to the far right.

What god-damn class of moderate Americans are you guys talking about!? They seem to be existing in increasingly smaller amounts...

 

[Durden77]

Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Ummm

Have they?

Yes, they have. I don't mean good decisions in general, I mean good decisions to bring any straggling supporters back on board. That's why I said Trump decisions.

His campaign is obviously a lot more stable and on target now that back around the Khans. At least in the eyes of the people that want to support him.

 

[Dirca]

 

[A Human Becoming]

Hillary still has a substantial lead and that's what matters. That said, I think some people on GAF can't admit to themselves it's going to be closer then they want it to be (in a sane world it would be a blow out). It sucks, but when Hillary is almost as unliked as Donald Trump, that's the reality of the situation.

I wish we stopped having these threads.

 

[jstripes]

What the fuck? How can this be happening? America pls

Ugh, I can't wait for November to come and go and get this over with. >_<

The media wanted a "horse race" because it's good for ratings, so they've been busy giving Clinton a handicap.

 

[qcf x2]

I know people will say to calm down, that Hillary's post-convention bump just faded away. But still, this is scary to me. If this Forecast is correct, we have a 1/3 chance of electing who is arguably the worst candidate that either party has put up in decades, centuries, or ever. This could be our Nazi Germany moment. And we can't rely on the Republicans in Congress to do anything to stop Trump if he were to win. Anyone else worried?

lol, you need to get your head checked if you feel that way. Besides, if arguably the worst candidate ever doesn't win then that means that arguably the 2nd worst candidate put up in decades, centuries, or ever wins. You get the survival supplies, I'll get the popcorn.

 

[Atilac]

The most accurate polls before the last ones are late augusts polls, what were the numbers for that?

 

[Lord Frieza]

My understanding is that debates rarely move the needle much. Kerry murdered Bush in the debates and it didn't matter.

I keep hearing that there the numbers are right now is pretty much where they'll be on Election Day. Which probably means Clinton beating Trump by a similar margin Obama beat Romney.

I feel like this probably isn't true, though I don't have sources handy. The Kerry/Bush election was a super tight one the whole way through more or less. I think the debates don't matter a lot when the two candidates are more or less on equal footing. And, I know, I know, Bush has a rep for being a doofus and totally retarded and etc., etc., but the reality is that he knew what he was doing, even if the fact that he was a horrible speaker (and possibly had the absolutely worst speeches ever) colored him a different way. He may have gotten destroyed in those debates (I really don't recall), but I doubt it was that bad to the general public.

Let's face it, Hillary and Trump are not on equal footing at all. Trump consistently shows he has no real policies outside his fantasy la-la land wall and Muslim ban and his vanilla as hell tax policy that even he seems to have forgotten. He also has very little grasp on current policies, current events, and is totally clueless on foreign policy to an almost comedic degree. His strategy in debates so far has been to start a fire, let everyone else drag themselves into, shut up and wait for more opportunities to start fires. Not only is this strategy not a good one for 1-on-1 debating, he's also debating one of the best political debaters on the current landscape, someone who isn't easily going to be shook. He's also shown that he really doesn't like it when debates don't go his way, such as the debacle with Megyn Kelly.

Clinton, on the other hand, has a lot of experience in debating, she knows how to handle herself incredibly well, and knows policy to almost startlingly T. She understands the ebb and flow of it, and isn't going to be dragged into the mud easily, and is going to challenge her opponent (which, as said above. Trump has an issue with).

There's such a gap there that I think this debate is going to highlight the large discrepancies between the two, and it has the potential to have a serious effect. I mean, really, just going to videos of Trump speaking to Hillary speaking can be jarring, since he's overly repetitious, uses basic vocabulary, and really doesn't have a good handle on structures of speeches. While Hillary speaks like...well, like a person above high school level basically. And while she isn't the best speaker, she has an obvious grasp of the language, uses varied language, and ultimately understands that speeches aren't just a collection of thoughts you shit out and need to have some degree of structure and points.