whyamihere
Banned
It would be sort of amazing if GOTV was able to swing a 6-7 point deficit for Clinton, but I'm suspect.
-
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 2016 |OT11| Well this is exciting
- Thread starter Crayons
- Start date
- Status
It would be sort of amazing if GOTV was able to swing a 6-7 point deficit for Clinton, but I'm suspect.
Black Mamba
Member
Exactly. Quickly correct him or make a comment about how he's wrong.
Worse off than 2008?
"No Mr Trump, we're not worse off. When Obama took off, 900k people were losing jobs per month. When he took office, we were left by the worst recession ever since the GD. Today, we've had X months of job growth, cut UE in half, deficit in half, etc etc. But that doesn't mean we still don't have lots of work to do. Many folks rightfully feel they have been left behind. That's why I have a plan for student loans where Y. And a plan for infrastructure where Z. ETC."
"No, Mr. Trump. Crime is not the worst it's ever been. In fact, crime is way down. According to X, crime is Y right now. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for less crime. And my plan to do that is Z. We will not racially profile. We will work with both law enforcement and the community to come together because that's how these things will be solved. Together. All of us, Americans, together. Because we are greater when we all work together."
Stuff like that.
Black Mamba
Member
Not if she actually does it when Trump says something completely incoherent. Which there's a high likelihood of.
She could do it in a number of ways. For instance:
"Well, I'm not sure how to respond to Mr. Trump because he completely ignored your question. But I'm happy to address the question you asked."
Aaron Strife
Banned
My hope is that Clinton wins back the undecideds/3rd party voters who were previously pulling for her. Iowa seems to be the same as the national situation where Clinton's numbers fluctuate whereas Trump's stay the same, only far more volatile.
I continue to think that the DNC was the blueprint for the rest of the election.
- Positive messaging and policy proposals: 90% of the time
- Disqualifying Trump: 10% of the time
- Use of celebrities and AAA surrogates: 100% of the time
Finale Fireworker
Member
What are the topics for the three debates again? In order?
Debate 1: Emails
Debate 2: Emails 2: The Rebirth
Debate 3: Emails 3: Tokyo Drift
Domestic policy, Town hall, Foreign policy
whyamihere
Banned
2 E 2 Mails
Finale Fireworker
Member
Thank you. I just found a great breakdown here as well: http://www.uspresidentialelectionnews.com/2016-debate-schedule/2016-presidential-debate-schedule/
If anyone else is interested.
She should kill it in all 3, but I suspect she'll do particularly well in the Town Hall and Foreign policy one.
Maryland is one of the states I thought had a chance at being at least a 30 point win for hilary in this election along with New York and California.
ayyy. Wang has been brutal to Nate this season
Veritigo_X
Member
They're actually dropping the numbering at Debate 3 so the audience doesn't feel like they have to watch the first two debates to understand the third.
With your debate moderators: Benjamin Ghazi, Jason Chaffetz, and Trey Gowdy.
I'm not too worried about it. He'll bring up Benghazi again. He'll say she and Obama created ISIS, etc. He'll say we need to bomb the hell out of them and stop the refugees from coming in. That's pretty much what he'll say.
I suspect Clinton will show her knowledge very well in this arena as well.
Based on the audience questions in the CIC forum, the town hall will be
"Hillary, why are you so unlikable"
vs
"Mr. Trump, why is Hillary so unlikable"
balladofwindfishes
Member
Some of Trump's scariest statements had to do with FP. Versus Clinton, who is a former Secretary of State.
Fragamemnon
Member
more awful from Cheeto Jesus regarding the Charlotte protests:
I read this as "they're criminals, they're drug addicts/dealers, and some, I assume, are good people."
I read this as "they're criminals, they're drug addicts/dealers, and some, I assume, are good people."
BlastProcessing
Member
The difference is that Biden would have been savaged by the public and press if he bullied Palin off of her talking points. That will be fair game for Clinton.
FTFY.
BlastProcessing
Member
Do people know that the Wang has his own podcast?
I just started listening to it and so far so good.
I posted about it a little while back. It's pretty solid but the most recent episode on Gender is incredible. Highly recommended.
Honestly I am kind of tired of Nate and Wang constantly throwing shit at each other
I'd be far more interested in a one on one discussion with each other about why their models differ and what the strengths and weaknesses of each are but when you have nate saying "anyone who disagrees with my model just doesn't like the results" and Wang essentially saying "I think 538's model sucks" I doubt that'll ever happen.
Don't forget special guest Albert Leppo
balladofwindfishes
Member
Considering this is behind a paywall, can you summarize?
I think you can just copy and paste the url into google and access the article through there without the paywall.
Black Mamba
Member
Wang has explained, though. Any forecast that is volatile to anything but obvious major shifts isn't very good.
Basically, the polling has been more volatile this election and Nate's model is being exposed as a result.
Wang's right. What he's arguing is that Nate's model apparently isn't that useful for predictions way in advance because it's not really predicting the future, it's interpreting the present.
Now, if you mean on the technical details, I haven't noticed him making one. But I will say this, I think the big flaw is Nate used a loess regression which turns in aggressive results. For one, I think using such a regression is incorrect in this situation and for another, his inputs into the regression are completely wrong.
Wang is an actual professor that has advanced knowledge of statistics. Silver is a very smart guy who learned stats but doesn't understand stats (if you understand what I'm saying) and often misapplies them (not just in politics, he does it in sports too!).
He was lucky that 4 years ago the model wasn't volatile largely because the incumbent input was there and the polling was better.
IggyChooChoo
Member
I agree. She's prepared to be president, and he isn't -- and even his own base knows that, to some degree. Clearly demonstrating the difference between a bullshitter and a president would be very discouraging for his base, and very encouraging for ours.
Basically, you're not a good weatherman if you can't predict shit beyond the obvious when it isn't normal weather outside.
Like Southern California weathermen who are great at predicting light showers from time to time and mostly just sunny days year round, but suddenly are as good as looking outside the window when a few freak storms pass through.
That's ok, but Nate's model is starting to look as good as a simple poll aggregate in this more volatile election. Which, again, wouldn't be a bad thing if he didn't like as a perfect oracle everyday.
I mean, he just published this:
Clinton’s Leading In Exactly The States She Needs To Win
Oh, really Nate?
Of course, he ads the Here’s why that isn’t as good as it sounds just so you freak out a bit.
User 463088
Banned
Y'all should watch Designated Survivor. It was good.
And not Adam level good. Actually good. Fiance even liked it.
And not Adam level good. Actually good. Fiance even liked it.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
DVR'd it and may watch it tonight. Nice to hear some positive impressions of it.
Good news, the promos for it actually got me interested in a broadcast TV political drama for once.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Clinton probably ends up holding the edge in NV/NC/FL based on demographics. OH/IA/ME-2 will be much harder pulls because it involves swaying white people.
Black Mamba
Member
Agree.
My problems with Nate this year is
1. He seems to think his model is the best no matter what and is immune to any criticism
2. He's become a pundit.
3. He writes BS headlines and paragraphs because his site is desperate for clicks. He never did this in the past that I can recall.
banefirelord
Banned
That premise is top notch, so I'm glad it turned out well. Doubt I'll find any time to watch it, though.
Black Mamba
Member
I have so many new seasons of Netflix shows to catch up on it's not even funny.
No way I'm starting a new one!
No way I'm starting a new one!
User 463088
Banned
They were smart to keep the OMG POLITICS N BOMBS N OMG to a minimum. They let it unfold organically, while showing that the politics are going to be the crux of the series. I'd say 8/10. Definitely going to stick with it.
But, what's up with all political dramas and the main character playing with their wedding ring? It's like lazy political writer trope 101.
But, what's up with all political dramas and the main character playing with their wedding ring? It's like lazy political writer trope 101.
Can you imagine being the Donald Trump stand-in for a mock debate with Hillary Clinton? How does that work? What do you say?
I know I've never said anything about Nate until now, but I pretty much have the same issues too. It's a damn shame.:/
Aaron Strife
Banned
Rallies = winning, just ask Bernie
Dubbedinenglish
Banned
They should unlock Twitter after hours of video watched lol.
User 463088
Banned
You throw literal shit and see what happens.
Black Mamba
Member
You pick random words out of a hat and say them?
Seriously, I don't think it's so hard. Trump's very predictable in many ways.
Ask me a debate question and I'll answer it like Trump!
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked