http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/does-trump-cruz-or-rubio-have-the-best-pre-debate-chance/
Look at this shit. Harry Enten gives "Other" a better chance than Trump.
-
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 |OT2| Pls print
- Thread starter ivysaur12
- Start date
- Status
Look at this shit. Harry Enten gives "Other" a better chance than Trump.
The classy-as-always-Milwaukee-County-sheriff
https://twitter.com/SheriffClarke/status/665373128386846720
https://twitter.com/SheriffClarke/status/665373128386846720
so very, very classy.
In light of whats happened, I kinda scrapped my debate thread for something a little more toned down (but still full of tired jokes).
Your boy just called him out lol
@realDonaldTrump Boy is this guy @ShepNewsTeam tough on me. So totally biased. As a reporter, he should be ashamed of himself! #Trump2016
Nate's not entirely wrong about using Thanksgiving an inflection point, I'm not sure people are suddenly going to be changing their minds after Thanksgiving, but it would still take a monumental swing that I'm not sure we're going to see for Trump to lose. I still think he's undervaluing the current polls and Trump's support though.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Cruz having twice as good of odds as Carson and Trump seems a little off to me.
Most GOP leadership would rather set themselves on fire than have Cruz lead the party and I don't think Trump or Carson would get as bad of a reaction.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Lindsey Graham and Hillary Clinton certainly have many foreign policy failures, but uhh, they still have a shit ton of knowledge and experience in that field.
shinra-bansho
Member
Future President.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Ben Carson's campaign manager in Mississippi supported Jim Crow, helped reduce the sentences of cross-burners, and strongly opposed the Civil Rights Act.
This just makes me sad.
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2015/11/13/3721990/carson-charles-pickering/
He's also got fucking Birchers and anti-vaxxers on his team also.
This just makes me sad.
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2015/11/13/3721990/carson-charles-pickering/
He's also got fucking Birchers and anti-vaxxers on his team also.
Batshit. Hype people up for war and then send their kids to die in some decade-spanning bullshit. Par for the course for the US military industrial complex. This election is important, moreso than others. With 1 side, we're going to get dragged into a war that will span another decade or more with no beneficial results. And then we'd probably stir up Iran enough to go into open conflict with them. War is all our kids would ever know.
I can't tell if it's Trump or Carson.....he did use the word think, and that makes it seem like Carson.
Basileus777
Member
It's Carson.
RustyNails
Member
Seriously. Like, they don't even know what they want. SEND IN THE MARINES is their immediate response to every fucking thing. This quasi religious army worship has made the neocon idiots into thinking we are invincible masterchief supersoldiers that will solve every problem on the face of the earth. Send them where? Syria? Iraq? Who will lead those country after we spend another trillion dollars and watch thousands of our soldiers die? How will we pay for it? Fuck those stupid inconvenient questions.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
In a post-Carter world, I can't imagine "other" ever being the right choice. I don't see that sort of thing ever happening in this environment. 1976 proved you can't just sleep on the early states and announce your candidacy way late in the cycle. And that was before 24 hour news networks put this much focus on the elections this early on, airing every primary debate on television with ratings that rival the NFL.
Filing deadlines have already passed for 4 states, and every few days there's another state you'd be forfeiting by not filing on time.
I can see having to wait until Iowa to trust polls, but surely you have to at least be established as a possibility at this point to have any shot.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
The Syrian War will involve us having to fight and defeat ISIS, Assad, and al-Nursa and Assad could have help from Russia and Iran. Then, after we push back those forces, we'll have to entirely rebuild a nation that has been destroyed by Assad and find a good government to build up (and we've sure fucking done well there in the recent past). This war might take longer than Iraq.
RustyNails
Member
I remember people asking the same questions about Iraq, like what's at stake, how it will embolden Iran, destabilize the middle-east. But the talking points from the W administration started calling these journalists and pundits unpatriotic and doubting the ability of our glorious army, the armor plate of god himself. The trap was set already by W and his "ur with us or against us" crap.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Will Nate move the goalposts after Thanksgiving?
At this point, Trump has maintained the lead for such a length of time that his candidacy continues to gain legitimacy. It's moved from, "Now way this will happen, it's just a fad" to "I can see that happening". In some ways, that's huge for Trump.
I'm seriously considering putting some money down on something like PredictIt for Trump to win the Nomination. Currently at 21%.
I should also consider shorting Cruz, cause no way in fuck that is happening, lol. and it's at 22%!
On the other hand, I don't see Trump making much progress in the general election.
1.) He burned the bridges with Hispanics in one of the most insane ways possible.
2.) I don't see him resonating with moderates at all.
The bigger question before we even get that far; How much more of a circus can the Republican Convention be at this point? If trump still has 40%+ of the vote after Thanksgiving, the convention could seriously be a clusterfuck of epic proportions.
At this point, Trump has maintained the lead for such a length of time that his candidacy continues to gain legitimacy. It's moved from, "Now way this will happen, it's just a fad" to "I can see that happening". In some ways, that's huge for Trump.
I'm seriously considering putting some money down on something like PredictIt for Trump to win the Nomination. Currently at 21%.
I should also consider shorting Cruz, cause no way in fuck that is happening, lol. and it's at 22%!
On the other hand, I don't see Trump making much progress in the general election.
1.) He burned the bridges with Hispanics in one of the most insane ways possible.
2.) I don't see him resonating with moderates at all.
The bigger question before we even get that far; How much more of a circus can the Republican Convention be at this point? If trump still has 40%+ of the vote after Thanksgiving, the convention could seriously be a clusterfuck of epic proportions.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
Remember when Howard Dean was going to get the 18-25 year olds out to vote?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJXr_dTgwMk
I'm sure it'll happen someday.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJXr_dTgwMk
I'm sure it'll happen someday.
WayneMorse
Banned
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/14/u...orism-focus-after-paris-attacks-cbs-says.html
CBS is reshaping the debate tomorrow to be more focused on national security and foreign policy.
To be honest I think Hillary will dominate this, she's had four years at the state department to hone her policy, she should be on point if she's as ready as she was during the Benghazi hearings.
CBS is reshaping the debate tomorrow to be more focused on national security and foreign policy.
To be honest I think Hillary will dominate this, she's had four years at the state department to hone her policy, she should be on point if she's as ready as she was during the Benghazi hearings.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Uuuuggggghhhh, I hate hearing Hillary talk about foreign policy. Women's rights Hillary > Most Hillaries >>>> Foreign policy Hillary
User 463088
Banned
Ohhhh, yes. HIllary knows her shit on foreign policy. Sanders...eh, not quite as much. A foreign policy debate should favor Hillary. She's already seen as better able to handle national security and foreign policy than Sanders by a decent margin in several polls I've read. The fact that they had to change it because of the violence in Paris...I just get so sick of all of us killing each other over nothing. It sickens and saddens me.
Azure Dream
Member
You know how you get the 18-25s out to vote? You let them do it on their smart phones. Like banking, health care, and everything else they already do that needs to be secure.
airmangataosenai
Member
This seems pretty condescending.
Azure Dream
Member
I don't understand why you see it that way.
Voting is pretty much as antiquated as it gets. In my county I basically fill out circles on the equivalent of Scantrons, and it wasn't that long ago that they were still using "punch the pin through the paper." And expecting people to make special trips to polling stations to make a handful of choices, when they already handle so many other vital things in their life through digital devices...
So when I see snarky comments about "I'm sure youth will come out to vote some day," that's how I think you'd take it to them. Stop making them jump through hoops to do it. It's a massive inconvenience for an antiquated system that they already have trouble believing they can influence.
Take our country back!
Coriolanus
Banned
On the terror attack being used politically, sure. It obv will. Ain't no way the republicans are gonna be able to carry that all the way to the elections tho. A year from now Joe McAverageVoter won't give much of a fuck about any specific event that happened in France and we'll be back to background islamophobia, same as usual.
Silver linings and all.
Silver linings and all.
Manmademan
Member
Nate and his team don't understand it either, thus the doubling down on nonsense theories to explain why Trump couldn't win, rather than admitting this campaign simply defies all previous models and no one anywhere has an explanation for it.
Well, no explanation other than "conservatives are even dumber and more racist than anyone likes to admit"
Yellowtail
Member
Nate Silver has been a joke in these primaries. For someone that's become famous for accurately aggregating polls, it's insane to watch him throw them all out for 'The Party Decides' trutherism. His team obsess over their endorsement tracker in every roundtable discussion, even as it becomes increasingly evident that the GOP establishment no longer has full control over the process.
At the very least he needs to start acknowledging that Trump is a black swan event.
neurosisxeno
Member
Exactly. Or just implement the system Oregon has where they send you the ballot weeks in advance and you can fill it out at home. A lot of young people just don't make the time to get out and vote, and allowing them plenty of time to do it (although you can get a mail in ballot, that requires contacting your local city\town hall) would definitely increase the turnout.
This election is very unusual in his defense. Nobody really knows how someone like Ben Carson is polling well or even how Trump went from a joke candidate 4 years ago to the frontrunner for several months now.
I agree with making it easier to vote but that's just BS. They/my peers just don't have their priorities right a lot of the time.
Manmademan
Member
There simply isn't enough reliable data for Silver and Co. to do what they're best at. We get sporadic national polls with questionable sampling (*cough*quinnipiac*cough)- and as we saw with the senate races in 2014 state level polling can be all over the place for anything that's not a general presidential election.
So they've been reduced to filling airtime with your garden variety political pundit bullshit and they are AWFUL at it.
I got piled on the last time I mentioned that fivethirtyeight was full of shit when it came to anything regarding the trump campaign and keeps making things worse by doubling down on previous predictions, rather than backing away and admitting that they don't have a clue here and neither does anyone else.
Of course we know. It just requires acknowledging that the primary is completely hijacked by racists and lunatics, there are a LOT more of them in the republican party than people would like to admit and trump and carson are catering directly to them. Good luck getting anyone to put that shit in print though!
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I do find it weird how bad polling is in the United States. The United Kingdom is a much smaller country with much less money invested in the political sphere, and yet the polling is inordinately better. To contrast: the average sample size of a UK poll is ~1,000 gathered over a single day; in the US it is probably ~500 gathered over several. UK polls are typically stratified by gender, age group (typically between 5 different age demographics), region, newspaper readership, party self-identification, and ethnicity; US polls are typically stratified by gender, age group (usually between 3 different age demographics) and self-identified race. UK polling companies are strongly regulated by the British Polling Council and must by law release all their tables with full sampling specifications and no UK polling company can have partisan affiliation; US polling companies are under no obligation to release tables and sampling specifications and are often partisan bodies (PPP as an example) which may have non-accuracy motives. The UK typically has at least 1 poll conducted a day (the YouGOV/Sun dailies) and several more on a guaranteed weekly basis; the US will often go for a week or two without a poll from anyone.
When you hold all this in mind, and then remember that even in the UK pollsters struggled to find accurate samples and thus were out by 3% by the average UK general election prediction, then US polling just looks like nonsense.
When you hold all this in mind, and then remember that even in the UK pollsters struggled to find accurate samples and thus were out by 3% by the average UK general election prediction, then US polling just looks like nonsense.
Not sure if it's been mentioned, but apparently
It the bill that Wendy Davis stood for a whole day in the Texas legislature to filibuster. We're going to have a circus (again) on this next June.
The case, Whole Woman's Health v. Cole, was brought by Texas abortion providers challenging Texas's House Bill 2, which the legislature enacted into law in July 2013.
It the bill that Wendy Davis stood for a whole day in the Texas legislature to filibuster. We're going to have a circus (again) on this next June.
US polling is better closer to the actual election.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Most of the things I mentioned don't go away closer to the election. Sample sizes rise somewhat, but that's about it. The RCP average the week before the election was Obama 48.8% Mitt Romney 48.1%. That's only marginally more accurate than the UK for a nation with a political system that should be much easier to predict (50 variables vs. 650, plus a much higher population so greater convergence).
It's RCP though.
Despite all your complaints, we have a Nate Silver and a Sam Wang, who made fairly accurate predictions using their models, while the UK had pretty bad polling during their general elections. So how is the polling in UK inordinately better than the US again?
Manmademan
Member
Most of the things you mentioned are false.
Sample sizes in US polling for GENERAL elections are never less than 1500 or so, which is enough to give you a margin of error of about 2.5% or so. Getting more accurate than that means polling like ten times as many people. no one does this, it would be phenomenally expensive for no benefit. PRIMARY elections (which we're in now) are dealing with a population 1/4 to 1/3 as large (many primaries are closed or restricted to registered party members and not everyone) so don't need huge sample sizes.
You're also making the mistake of using the RCP average, which is a straight average of a small number of polls, and RCP doesn't weight them. There is a MASSIVE Gap right now between the RCP and Huffpost averages right now, and Huffpost is using a lot more polls and weighting them accordingly.
The only major pollster that was off significantly from the final margin in the 2012 presidential election was Gallup, and that's because gallup was making some seriously flawed assumptions in their weighting and admitted as much after the race was over. Gallup won't be polling the presidential race this round because of all the heat they caught.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Nate Silver's entire job is unskewing polls, though.He doesn't just plug polling numbers into some sort of swing calculator, he actually weights down particular polls or adjusts them according to historic biases. That job doesn't really exist in the UK, I think because political punditry in the UK doesn't get quite the spectator sport following (and thus money) that the American one seems to. Most predictions were literally just the polling average stuck into a uniform swing calculator.
Besides, the UK's *polling* was not bad. E.g., Labour's share of the vote was about 2% less than predicted, the Conservatives 3% more; compared to the US having Romney off by 1% and Obama off by 3%. What was bad was not the popular vote prediction, which was roughly equally as inaccurate as the United States, but the seats won prediction, and that is always going to be harder because in the United States you have to predict 50 states whereas in the UK you have to predict 650 constituencies, so local variance has a lot more impact.
BertramCooper
Banned
Who cares? It's true.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I'm not talking about the primary election polls, I'm talking about the head to head match-up polls for the presidential which still have very small samples, although for the record even the primary polls have terrible margins - the amount of people who voted in the Democratic primary in 2008 is larger than the number of people who voted in the UK general election in 2005, so you should expect the Dem primary to have larger sample sizes (it doesn't).
I also just reject the notion that most presidential polls used samples of 1,500 - to take an example from about a month before the presidential election (as things ramp up in the final month, which is also the same for the UK), you have a CBS/NYT poll for October 27th-29th with a sample of 600, a TTIP with a sample of 900, an Ipsos with a sample of 800. Even the polls with big sample sizes (there's a few with 2000) are misleading because UK polls are conducted daily, while US polls gather their sample data over multiple days, so on average about 500 per day get sampled, often less, compared to 1000 per day in the UK. Before the final fortnight of the US presidential election 2012, I couldn't find a single example of a company polling a 1,000-size sample in a single day. All polls using 1,000+ sample sizes were spread over *at least* 3 days.
Even in this thread, with very informed people who read a variety of sources, there's still a big streak of denial when it comes to the influence of racism on our politics. Nobody wants to think racism is as bad in the US as it clearly is. It's at the bedrock of our political divide, and we need to face it and address it instead of throwing our hands up in the air in faux-bafflement at the self-destructive behavior of conservative voters.
The Scottish Referendum polling was terrible.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Referendums are very different from elections, that's not a fair comparison. Additionally, Scotland is not the UK. A better comparison would be whether Scottish polling was better or worse than Texan polling in the Holyrood elections vs. the Texas Legislature elections. Scotland's was better.
Manmademan
Member
and as I pointed out, all of the general election head to head polls have sample sizes of around 1500 and margins of error of about 2.5%. There is no reason to increase the sample size because it will not give you a more accurate poll unless you increase it to an insane degree for another 1%. No one does this, because of the expense. You do not understand how sample sizes work.
Weren't you saying you were looking at the RCP Average? Because this is the final month of polling of the 2012 Race:
Politico at 1000LV, Rasmussen at 1500, Gallup at 2700, ABCNews at 2745, Monmouth at 1400, NBC news at 1475, Pew Research at 2709.
CNN and IBD are in the 700 range, but note that the margin of error is higher at 3.5 and 3.7 because of this.. Those polls carry less weight because they are less accurate. Whether you poll these people all on a tuesday, or 1/3 on tuesday, 1/3 on wednesday, and 1/3 on friday makes no difference either, since presidential preferences do not change that fast, especially among likely (not registered) voters. That particular bit of hair splitting is nonsense.
You don't understand polling as well as you think you do.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I know exactly how sample sizes work; it's part of my profession. I am disputing the fact that US polling companies poll 1,500 people a day. They do not. They poll 500 people a day, then release a poll after three days. In contrast, UK pollsters typically actually poll 1,000 people in a day. That means both a) UK polling is more sensitive to daily trends, and b) UK polling has a smaller margin anyway when comparing like for like because in 3 days you end up with 3,000 sample vs. 1,500.
Weren't you saying you were looking at the RCP Average? Because this is the final month of polling of the 2012 Race:
Politico at 1000LV, Rasmussen at 1500, Gallup at 2700, ABCNews at 2745, Monmouth at 1400, NBC news at 1475, Pew Research at 2709.
Look at the dates for those polls. You'll notice every single one is conducted over 2-3 days. Suppose that there was a last-minute swing towards a particular candidate. In the UK, this would be more easily noticed as polls would record on average 46/54 one day, 48/52 the next, and 50/50 on the third. In the United States. they would record 48/50 on the final day (and that would be the only poll) because they gathered the data over several days. In some elections this can be critical - a lot of research papers suggest that a huge amount of voters only solidify their choices in the final few days of an election process. When you're looking at those, you'll notice that the best one is Pew Research which polled about 900 people each day. You can go into the tables to find a day by day break-down... but this will have a larger margin of error than a UK poll. Alternatively, you can take the whole 2,709 sample... but it blunts your ability to spot trends, and it will be less accurate than taking three days' worth of UK polling data and putting those samples together anyway.
EDIT: In fact Pew Research is conducted over 4 so it is even worse than that.
Manmademan
Member
find a new profession then. There is no reason to poll 1500 people all in the same day because presidential preferences do not change that fast outside of major telegraphed events like presidential debates. And even THOSE are unlikely to change in a single day since many viewers don't watch debates live, they watch post debate analysis or time shift via youtube. whether you poll them on the same day or over three days is completely irrelevant.
In the last day of the race? Implying that this is even possible demonstrates a laughable level of comprehension on your part regarding US politics. The US electorate is EXTREMELY polarized and very few voters are truly up for grabs. Unless Obama got caught with a dead boy or live girl on live television there is no reason to think daily sampling is preferable to a three day.
you'll also note that Gallup which had a 2700 voter poll (VERY close to your 1K a day) was the farthest off base at Romney+1.
You do not understand polling. The reason why Pew is accurate and Gallup wasn't despite sample sizes is because all of those polls WEIGHT THEIR RESULTS to make a prediction about who is more likely to turn out on election day. Pew was more accurate because their weighting was more accurate. Gallup was off base by a mile because they made bad assumptions and assumed that republicans would be overrepresented, despite the number of people in their poll. Gallup came out and made a public statement admitting as much.
Gallup Explains What went wrong in 2012 polling
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Sanders Stans now disputing polling as if that will make up for Hillary's massive, consistent lead.
The loss of the innocent lives in Paris (now 129, according to BBC), is a tragedy, that we, the United States, are in large part responsible, for creating the barbaric monster, that is the Islamic State, by deposing Sadam Hussein, the dictator that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11, without a plan or the huge resources required to make Iraq a viable country, after the fact. Yes, there will be plenty to talk about on foreign policy, such as Bernie's stand against the second Iraq war, where he and others predicted the turmoil that would be unleashed, and the establishment war machine has a lot to answer for.
Hillary's op-ed How I Would Reaffirm Unbreakable Bond With Israel and Benjamin Netanyahu was not helpful, at all, with her saying "ld also invite the Israeli prime minister to the White House in my first month in office". A significant factor for the decades long tension, in the region, is our sometimes too cozy relationship with Israel, which, although Obama has achieved nothing on this front, I believe his heart was in the right place, but, with with Hillary, I see little distinction between her adoration for Netanyahu, and the Republicans, when Netanyahu's hardline stance is a big part of the problem. As Bernie has said, no one is talking about weakening the security of Israel, we just believe the Palestinian people have just as much of a right to live in peace and prosperity, with their own state.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked