• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2015-2016 |OT3| If someone named PhoenixDark leaves your party, call the cops

Status
Not open for further replies.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/iowa-republican/

I read through their methodology, and I get it... But I have a hard time getting it when Trump is up in the un-skewed polls, yet is so significantly down in the 538 model.

Their projected results have him 5% behind Cruz. The RCP aggregate has them roughly tied. I admit that's quite a gap, but don't confuse the probability of outcomes with the predicted percentages.

This happened all the time in the last cycle, people confusing polling % with probably outcome %.
 
Ohio:

Clinton 53%
Sanders 37%
Undecided 10%

Favorability:

Clinton: 66-21 (+45)
Sanders: 58-23 (+35)

Racial makeup:

White: 77%
African-American: 18%
Other: 5%

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2016/01/DemToplines.pdf

Thats...actually pretty good? I cant imaging him not getting waaaay closer if he wins Iowa and New Hampshire. He doesnt need to win the south, he only needs to perform well enough and prove he can get support from minorities. And delegates are proportional after all.

And yeah that Clinton comment being an attack against Sanders is kind of a stretch. She is not that dumb to not know saying something like that would backfire terribly.
 

dramatis

Member
When are the major publications/networks going to post their fancy new tracking Web 2.0 fun page stuffs? I'm actually sort of eager to see how much more sophisticated it can get this year.
 

Holmes

Member
Thats...actually pretty good? I cant imaging him not getting waaaay closer if he wins Iowa and New Hampshire. He doesnt need to win the south, he only needs to perform well enough and prove he can get support from minorities. And delegates are proportional after all.

And yeah that Clinton comment being an attack against Sanders is kind of a stretch. She is not that dumb to not know saying something like that would backfire terribly.
If he doesn't win anything in the South, where does he make up for it in delegates?
 
The "Cruz is going to win the nomination!" shtick he's got going isn't based on any reality though. The party hates Cruz more than Trump, but the main fan of "The Party Decides" thinks Cruz is going to be the nominee?

I'm also not convinced the delegate math is there for Cruz to get a majority. Trump at least has national appeal, can Cruz win enough of the winner-take-all states in areas that aren't rural or deep red to win the nomination?
 

Iolo

Member
I'm also not convinced the delegate math is there for Cruz to get a majority. Trump at least has national appeal, can Cruz win enough of the winner-take-all states in areas that aren't rural or deep red to win the nomination?

Democrats are quaking in their boots.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/01/15/us/politics/ted-cruz-gop-debate.html

For those watching on television, including Democrats who had lumped Mr. Cruz and Mr. Trump together as a dream ticket of easily marginalized (if not parodied) general election candidates, Mr. Cruz seemed like something else: an intelligent and brutal tactician who may prove a more formidable and nimble opponent, should he gain his party’s nomination.
 
If he doesn't win anything in the South, where does he make up for it in delegates?

Its a game of demographics, really. The thing is that the Obama coalition is all over the place between Sanders and Clinton. The few polls that have division by demographics show that:

1. Sanders is commandingly winning with white men (Obama won them in 08) and younger women.
2. A couple of polls (actually just twol lol) suggest Sanders may be already at 30-35% with Hispanics, which is a similar number to what Obama did in 2008. (Hispanics voters skew younger, too.)
3. I have seen polls where Sanders´ support with black people (19-21%) is already above Clinton´s in 2008 (17%)

That could help him survive Super Tuesday, imo. Not saying thats enough for him to win, though.
 

A Human Becoming

More than a Member
Risk of recession is like 10%. Also, it wouldn't have the magnitude of the last one.
Hopefully another recession never will. I don't take today's DOW performance as a sign of a recession: sounds like it's due to falling oil prices (which is good for the American people) and China, which from what I'm reading wouldn't actually affect the US economy much because we export little there.
 

ido

Member
Hey guys, forever a lurker to poligaf, but seeing as how everyone thinks Nate Silver is going down with the Trump ship, what are your thoughts on Sam Wang? Last election cycle I remember I followed Wang more closely than Silver, and of course they both ended up being mostly correct.
 

Makai

Member
Hopefully another recession never will. I don't take today's DOW performance as a sign of a recession: sounds like it's due to falling oil prices (which is good for the American people) and China, which from what I'm reading wouldn't actually affect the US economy much because we export little there.
DOW is just a random collection of large stocks, so it's not a good indicator of anything.
 

SmokeMaxX

Member
Hey guys, forever a lurker to poligaf, but seeing as how everyone thinks Nate Silver is going down with the Trump ship, what are your thoughts on Sam Wang? Last election cycle I remember I followed Wang more closely than Silver, and of course they both ended up being mostly correct.
Although I think Trump has a fairly high likelihood of being the nominee (and much more than a few months ago when I said 0%), I'm definitely not jumping off of the Nate Silver train. Trump hasn't won the nomination yet; there's still a long road ahead. Honestly the establishment really doesn't have a good candidate and that's a problem.
 

Pryce

Member
So is there any chance Sanders can win against Hillary when it comes to the old vote?

He's killing her with youth, white men and is competitive with Hispanics. It seems that he gets killed with the middle aged and up vote.
 

dramatis

Member
So is there any chance Sanders can win against Hillary when it comes to the old vote?

He's killing her with youth, white men and is competitive with Hispanics. It seems that he gets killed with the middle aged and up vote.
I'm not trying to start anything, but I'm curious why you don't mention the black vote?
 

Makai

Member
Hey guys, forever a lurker to poligaf, but seeing as how everyone thinks Nate Silver is going down with the Trump ship, what are your thoughts on Sam Wang? Last election cycle I remember I followed Wang more closely than Silver, and of course they both ended up being mostly correct.
I think even Nate's polls-only model will be fine. I like him more than Wang and Sabato purely because of production values.
 

Iolo

Member
Hey guys, forever a lurker to poligaf, but seeing as how everyone thinks Nate Silver is going down with the Trump ship, what are your thoughts on Sam Wang? Last election cycle I remember I followed Wang more closely than Silver, and of course they both ended up being mostly correct.

Wasn't Sam Wang almost comically wrong about the 2014 midterm results?
 

ido

Member
No. I believe his model took longer to move towards reality than name's but it got there by election day.

Wang also doesn't interject personal opinion. Just math.

Which I think is part of the reason I tend to view his data more often, but I was curious what people thought of his projections here.

And double checking the 2014 midterms, it didn't look like he was really wrong about them?
 

Pryce

Member
I'm not trying to start anything, but I'm curious why you don't mention the black vote?

Because South Carolina is after Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada.

Plus, to be honest, from the polls that I have looked at, it's not worth talking about since Clinton has such a large lead.
 

Fuchsdh

Member
Man, Nate's really going to go down with this ship.

While I don't like wishing ill on people there would be some poetic justice for a pundit to see their star rocket so high with being so on-point one election and just sinking the next when they're so off-base.

DOW is just a random collection of large stocks, so it's not a good indicator of anything.

Only 30, if I recall, and the selection is a bit random. Why is Apple not included, for instance, despite its massive market cap?
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/iowa-republican/

I read through their methodology, and I get it... But I have a hard time getting it when Trump is up in the un-skewed polls, yet is so significantly down in the 538 model.

Dropping Trump's projected outcome 6.3 percentage points in Iowa and 7.6 in New Hampshire is really intense for there being 2-3 weeks to go. I don't know if I've ever seen a model deviate from the straight polling projections so much.
 

Makai

Member
I just remembered a less-mentioned Jeb/Trump exchange - the Charleston Boeing plant

Trump was talking about how all of the Boeing factories are built in China now. Jeb said, "there's one a mile down the road, Donald."

This looked pretty bad to me because I knew about the Charleston plant. It was a pretty big deal because it moved there to avoid workers rights laws. But then it kept going.

Trump said he meant plants would be built in China in the future (clearly a lie). Jeb said Donald should check if the plant is in Charleston when he gets back to the airport. Trump said, "Okay, I'll check for you."

Destroyed. Trump doesn't even have to be right to win. He turned Jeb's response into his response. Jeb hung his head in shame.
 

ctothej

Member
Anyone know why Clinton is only at 66c on PredictIt for winning the primary? Seems absurdly low... Unless there's something I'm missing.
 

dramatis

Member
Because South Carolina is after Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada.

Plus, to be honest, from the polls that I have looked at, it's not worth talking about since Clinton has such a large lead.
I was mistaking your post to be musing about national demographics, so sorry about that.

There doesn't seem to be much Nevada polling? Huffpo only has Nevada for Republicans.

Short of a major event in the next two weeks, it's probably unlikely much will change, even with the debate. I don't know if Iowa/NH wins will tilt old people in Bernie's favor though.
 

NeoXChaos

Member
The Iowa caucuses are not a popular vote election.

Each of Iowa's 1,681 precinct caucus sites are like a bunch of tiny states in an electoral college setting. Every four years, each precinct is given a set number of delegates, but instead of that number being based on the total population of the precinct, it's based on how many Democrats voted in recent presidential and gubernatorial elections.

This is where it gets interesting.

Like the rest of the nation, 2014 was a notoriously low-turnout election for Iowa Democrats. The Democrats who did vote skewed older, more conservative, and more likely to vote for Hillary. In addition, there are many precincts that might have a lot of people that voted Democrat, but for whatever reason don't participate in the caucuses.

Let's say we have two precincts—A and B—that are very different demographically, but because their democratic voter tallies were approximately the same, are each allotted two delegates by the party. On caucus night, it doesn't matter how many people show up at precinct A or B, both will only have a hand in selecting two delegates that night—even if 200 people show up to precinct A and 20 people show up to precinct B.

In 2008, this scenario played out somewhat to the detriment of then-Senator Barack Obama. He was still able to win, but it’s likely he actually won by a larger popular vote margin than the delegate count that was reported caucus night.

Take Johnson County, for example. It's home to the University of Iowa and has the state's largest proportion of people who vote Democrat. On the 2008 caucus night, 18,363 people showed up to participate in Johnson County's Democratic caucus. That comes out to 7.7 percent of the 239,872 people who showed up to vote statewide on caucus night. Obama ended up winning 52 percent, or 71.7 of 137 delegates allotted to Johnson County, to John Edwards's 24 percent (32.8 delegates) and Hillary Clinton's 20 percent (28 delegates).

However, even though 7.7 percent of the voters came from Johnson County, they were only able to select 5.5 percent of the delegates, leaving in the lurch thousands of people who effectively didn't have their vote heard.

In other words, in areas like Johnson County and other areas where the number of people that showed up was higher than delegates allocated (usually higher-populated areas), Obama's vote was under-counted, which in turn meant that in less populated areas Hillary Clinton’s and John Edwards’s votes were over-counted. In a state where Obama won 40 of the more populated counties and Hillary Clinton and John Edwards won the remaining 59 counties that tended to less populated, this setup has the potential to give some voters a greater voice than others.

In 2016, it’s fair to say that Bernie Sanders will likely have a similar base of support as Barack Obama had in 2008; Hillary Clinton will have her same base as 2008, and the two will split the rest.

The polls say that this thing is going to be close. So it's likely that Hillary Clinton could narrowly win the Iowa caucus with delegates while losing the popular vote.

Tom Slockett, Johnson County Auditor and Elections Commissioner from 1977 until 2013, concurred. "It would seem logical to assign additional delegates to precincts where caucus night attendance has reached designated thresholds," Slockett told me. "This is not rocket science."

- See more at: http://www.progressive.org/news/201...e-popular-vote-heres-how#sthash.wcRtAQZZ.dpuf
 

sangreal

Member
I just remembered a less-mentioned Jeb/Trump exchange - the Charleston Boeing plant

Trump was talking about how all of the Boeing factories are built in China now. Jeb said, "there's one a mile down the road, Donald."

This looked pretty bad to me because I knew about the Charleston plant. It was a pretty big deal because it moved there to avoid workers rights laws. But then it kept going.

Trump said he meant plants would be built in China in the future (clearly a lie). Jeb said Donald should check if the plant is in Charleston when he gets back to the airport. Trump said, "Okay, I'll check for you."

Destroyed. Trump doesn't even have to be right to win. He turned Jeb's response into his response. Jeb hung his head in shame.

Trump was talking about Boeing building plants in China to sell planes to China, and he was right. He didn't say all Boeing planes, he specifically referred to planes for the chinese market

http://www.wsj.com/articles/boeing-plans-new-deal-in-china-1442955334

though I am not surprised he failed to mention it is mostly due to his party's opposition to ex-im
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
I've gone all in on Trump. Got about 600 shares on the nomination and put some on him winning Iowa too.

Christ above. I'm not putting any more than I already have on him, 300 shares is more than enough for me. I wonder how Cerium is feeling with his 1500 shares, we got in about the same time so he should be getting close to doubling his money as well. If I had gone in as much as he had I'd be seriously considering getting out about now.
 
Christ above. I'm not putting any more than I already have on him, 300 shares is more than enough for me. I wonder how Cerium is feeling with his 1500 shares, we got in about the same time so he should be getting close to doubling his money as well. If I had gone in as much as he had I'd be seriously considering getting out about now.
Depending on how he does in the upcoming primaries I might cash out after Super Tuesday. If he has a commanding lead by then I'll stay in.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom