User 463088
Banned
Also, a +7 and a +4 poll from NC dropped her chances today almost 3 points in the state.
Okay,
Bad Nate's model just moved 2 points towards Trump due to the following polls:
NC +4
VA+12
IA (tie) (that they adjust to +1
GA-1 (adjusted to a tie)
National +5
And then one of those Remington polls showing Trump ahead by 10 in MO.
THIS IS STUPID.
Okay,
Bad Nate's model just moved 2 points towards Trump due to the following polls:
NC +4
VA+12
IA (tie) (that they adjust to +1
GA-1 (adjusted to a tie)
National +5
And then one of those Remington polls showing Trump ahead by 10 in MO.
THIS IS STUPID.
You have to be kidding me?
EDIT: Nope.
How is that Iowa poll hurting her when Q has a big Trump lean? Even Harry Enten just tweeted that these are terrible polls for Trump, but his boss disagrees, I guess.
How do we feel about Ohio? I feel like women will turn it blue, but I've got nothing to base that on.
The MO Remington poll sucks for Senate though
For the race to be called before 11pm est, Hillary needs to carry FL, NC, OH, IA and NV before 11. It's possible. I think the media might hold back even if it's looking like she'll carry them all before then. The AP might, but CNN would.
I don't think Sam Wang would. You shouldn't simply ignore a poll completely, just lump it in with the rest and look at the mean.Landline only. Trash it.
The previous Iowa poll from them was Trump by 7!I think the Iowa poll hurts her.
Defend this crabbu!!! You nate mills-Morris lover.
Literally, those are shit. They are owned by a GOP operative. Their Ohio numbers were literally insane. Their NC were slightly worse.The MO Remington poll sucks for Senate though
The MO Remington poll sucks for Senate though
The poll doesn't exist. Cohn linked to an old September poll and confused people.I don't think Sam Wang would. You shouldn't simply ignore a poll completely, just lump it in with the rest and look at the mean.
The article they did recently about their models made me realize they can be discounted completely, relative to others. The transparency was nice; I haven't looked at it since then.Okay,
Bad Nate's model just moved 2 points towards Trump due to the following polls:
NC +4
VA+12
IA (tie) (that they adjust to +1
GA-1 (adjusted to a tie)
National +5
And then one of those Remington polls showing Trump ahead by 10 in MO.
THIS IS STUPID.
Derp.Assumption No. 2: The FiveThirtyEight model is calibrated based on general elections since 1972.
What if we changed this assumption? If we calibrated the model based on presidential elections since 2000 only — which have featured largely accurate polling — Clinton’s chances would rise to 95 percent, and Trump’s would fall to 5 percent.
Looks like Aleppo lost his cool
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...ers-marijuana-interview-video?CMP=embed_video
Yeah, but can you imagine how awesome it would be if, late at night, people are all "Clinton only has 269 electoral votes, the decision could still get passed to GOP Congress if we manage to get Washington, Oregon, and California!"Still won't get her there before 11:00 EST. She will need NE-2 which will close 2 hours before 11:00 EST at 9:00 EST or GA which will close 4 hours before 11:00 EST at 7:00 EST or Arizona which will close 1 hour before 11:00 EST at 10:00 EST.
*IA and NV close at 10:00 EST
I don't think Sam Wang would. You shouldn't simply ignore a poll completely, just lump it in with the rest and look at the mean.
Why does that mean they should be discounted completely? Is 2000 the appropriate starting point or later?The article they did recently about their models made me realize they can be discounted completely, relative to others. The transparency was nice; I haven't looked at it since then.
Derp.
Landline only. Trash it.
Political Polls ‏@PpollingNumbers 5m5 minutes ago
#Florida
Dixie Strategies (10/25-10/26):
Trump 46 (+4)
Clinton 42
Johnson 2
Stein 1
http://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/ar...path=/Manage/Articles/Template-Main&oref=t.co
Derp.
PANIC
It's a total crappy pollster
Follow up tweet from him is showing low black turn-out in VA as well:
@Redistrict
VA: early vote is at only 36% of '12 total in Newport News, 37% in Norfolk, 37% in Petersburg, 28% in Portsmouth. Low AA enthusiasm.
Yeah, but can you imagine how awesome it would be if, late at night, people are all "Clinton only has 269 electoral votes, the decision could still get passed to GOP Congress if we manage to get Washington, Oregon, and California!"
Follow up tweet from him is showing low black turn-out in VA as well:
@Redistrict
VA: early vote is at only 36% of '12 total in Newport News, 37% in Norfolk, 37% in Petersburg, 28% in Portsmouth. Low AA enthusiasm.
Thank you for finding the receipts on this. They will come in very useful.The article they did recently about their models made me realize they can be discounted completely, relative to others. The transparency was nice; I haven't looked at it since then.
Derp.
old poll from September........
Okay,
Bad Nate's model just moved 2 points towards Trump due to the following polls:
NC +4
VA+12
IA (tie) (that they adjust to +1
GA-1 (adjusted to a tie)
National +5
And then one of those Remington polls showing Trump ahead by 10 in MO.
THIS IS STUPID.
It's not, you just got linked to an old article. The new one never mentions the names Kander or Blunt.In my defense, the article is written poorly and hard to decipher
It's not, you just got linked to an old article.
Follow up tweet from him is showing low black turn-out in VA as well:
@Redistrict
VA: early vote is at only 36% of '12 total in Newport News, 37% in Norfolk, 37% in Petersburg, 28% in Portsmouth. Low AA enthusiasm.
@Taniel
@Redistrict are you sure? Those aren't the comparison trends that VPAP is providing.
Okay,
Bad Nate's model just moved 2 points towards Trump due to the following polls:
NC +4
VA+12
IA (tie) (that they adjust to +1
GA-1 (adjusted to a tie)
National +5
And then one of those Remington polls showing Trump ahead by 10 in MO.
THIS IS STUPID.
Why does that mean they should be discounted completely? Is 2000 the appropriate starting point or later?
I believe you are spot on. I've seen Silver, Cohn, Enten and others all refer to this as about a 6-7 point race.I think Ghaleon means the difference compared to others can be discounted in the sense that: all the statisticians seem to agree about where the race is now, they just disagree about how much things can reasonably vary from this point. It'd be more worrying if they had a fundamental disagreement about the present state of the race, but they don't really.
At least, I think that's the sensible way to read it.
Right, and he just had an article stating that the polls ARE NOT tightening, and those who say they are tightening are cherry picking. Then his model drops 4 percent or so based on nothing.
Honestly, I can't figure out anything with regard to polling until I hear from Dick Morris.
If that start to suck sure.This place has really turned against Silver. First Chuck then Silver. Whose next? Nate Cohn? Sam Wang?
I think it is too. This place is so against Nate Silver I assume most criticisms are exaggerated.I think Ghaleon means the difference compared to others can be discounted in the sense that: all the statisticians seem to agree about where the race is now, they just disagree about how much things can reasonably vary from this point. It'd be more worrying if they had a fundamental disagreement about the present state of the race, but they don't really.
At least, I think that's the sensible way to read it.
KAY HAGAN AT THE RALLY. SHE'S RUNNING.
Dakota Access Pipeline protestors are rioting now, setting things on fire. This could get ugly.
Wasn't he busy a few days ago coordinating his outfit with his wallpaper?
It's sad, because I honestly like just about all of the other 538 staff except for Nate. It'd be curious if Enten ends up jumping ship and working with Cohn or somewhere.