Hillary won more votes for President

dignin

PJ_Soul said:

Free said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

pjalive21 said:

CNN and you liberal rag is done as the rest of your polling bullshit

CNN was very good at the coverage tonight until it was clear their message wasn't getting through to the blue.
Polls? What are those?
Flush.

polls have always meant nothing.

True. I mentioned long ago that the exact same thing happened in the last provincial elections in BC. All polls indicated a sure win with a comfortable margin for NDP right up until the polls closed, and then the Liberals won. I haven't trusted political polls since.
I wonder if Nate Silver feels like a heel this morning?

Nate was the only one giving him a chance, and had repeatedly warned that Trump had a chance and that he was a few percentage points of polling error to win. For every 3 coin flips Trump could win, those are not bad odds.

dignin

JC29856 said:

mrussel1 said:

Here is some fascinating statistics, published today by Politico. The punchline is that Trump would need to win 70% of white males in order to win the general election. But here's what's working against him:
- No GOP candidate in the last half century has won more than 63% of white males
- The turnout rate for white males is very high already, so not much 'enthusiasm' room to grow
- Trump's favorable/unfavorable for Hispanics is -50%. That's astoundingly bad. Experts predict he might get 15% of the Hispanic vote. Bush peaked at 35%. Everyone else on the GOP has been much lower. Estimates are that Hispanic turnout will be 15% greater in '16 than in '12. So Trump's problem is exasperated even vs. Romney.
- Asian-Americans are also similarly negative on him.
- Romney only won 5% of the black vote in 2012. Don't think for a second that Obama is not going to savage Trump in the run up to the election. There is no way he will get the 12% Bush got.
- Women are just as bad of a problem. Dems typically win 53% of the woman vote. He has to win 62% of all women + 70% of white men.

For you political wonks, it's a good read: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/donald-trump-needs-7-of-10-white-guys-213699?o=1

Woot!

interesting!

A bigger person wouldn't scour through these threads to rub past statements in. Isn't winning enough?

PJ_Soul

dignin said:

PJ_Soul said:

Free said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

pjalive21 said:

CNN and you liberal rag is done as the rest of your polling bullshit

CNN was very good at the coverage tonight until it was clear their message wasn't getting through to the blue.
Polls? What are those?
Flush.

polls have always meant nothing.

True. I mentioned long ago that the exact same thing happened in the last provincial elections in BC. All polls indicated a sure win with a comfortable margin for NDP right up until the polls closed, and then the Liberals won. I haven't trusted political polls since.
I wonder if Nate Silver feels like a heel this morning?

Nate was the only one giving him a chance, and had repeatedly warned that Trump had a chance and that he was a few percentage points of polling error to win. For every 3 coin flips Trump could win, those are not bad odds.

I was just wondering because even at 6pm last night he had Clinton with a 78% chance of winning. Yes, that gives Trump a 22% chance... but come on. It was a serious failure of political polling, which he is supposed to specialize in. I bet this hurts his career.

lolobugg

PJ_Soul said:

dignin said:

PJ_Soul said:

Free said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

pjalive21 said:

CNN and you liberal rag is done as the rest of your polling bullshit

CNN was very good at the coverage tonight until it was clear their message wasn't getting through to the blue.
Polls? What are those?
Flush.

polls have always meant nothing.

True. I mentioned long ago that the exact same thing happened in the last provincial elections in BC. All polls indicated a sure win with a comfortable margin for NDP right up until the polls closed, and then the Liberals won. I haven't trusted political polls since.
I wonder if Nate Silver feels like a heel this morning?

Nate was the only one giving him a chance, and had repeatedly warned that Trump had a chance and that he was a few percentage points of polling error to win. For every 3 coin flips Trump could win, those are not bad odds.

I was just wondering because even at 6pm last night he had Clinton with a 78% chance of winning. Yes, that gives Trump a 22% chance... but come on. It was a serious failure of political polling, which he is supposed to specialize in. I bet this hurts his career.

he is probably done... just like everyone at the DNC affiliated with the Clinton machine.

dignin

PJ_Soul said:

dignin said:

PJ_Soul said:

Free said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

pjalive21 said:

CNN and you liberal rag is done as the rest of your polling bullshit

CNN was very good at the coverage tonight until it was clear their message wasn't getting through to the blue.
Polls? What are those?
Flush.

polls have always meant nothing.

True. I mentioned long ago that the exact same thing happened in the last provincial elections in BC. All polls indicated a sure win with a comfortable margin for NDP right up until the polls closed, and then the Liberals won. I haven't trusted political polls since.
I wonder if Nate Silver feels like a heel this morning?

Nate was the only one giving him a chance, and had repeatedly warned that Trump had a chance and that he was a few percentage points of polling error to win. For every 3 coin flips Trump could win, those are not bad odds.

I was just wondering because even at 6pm last night he had Clinton with a 78% chance of winning. Yes, that gives Trump a 22% chance... but come on. It was a serious failure of political polling, which he is supposed to specialize in. I bet this hurts his career.

That was during election night. Seeing the early returns in Florida looked good for Clinton, that's why her chances were better. Look to about 3 days leading up to the election. Most outlets had her in the 90% to 99% range and they were laughing at Nate and his 65% range. He was wrong, and I'm sure it hurts, but not that wrong.

PJ_Soul

dignin said:

PJ_Soul said:

dignin said:

PJ_Soul said:

Free said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

pjalive21 said:

CNN and you liberal rag is done as the rest of your polling bullshit

CNN was very good at the coverage tonight until it was clear their message wasn't getting through to the blue.
Polls? What are those?
Flush.

polls have always meant nothing.

True. I mentioned long ago that the exact same thing happened in the last provincial elections in BC. All polls indicated a sure win with a comfortable margin for NDP right up until the polls closed, and then the Liberals won. I haven't trusted political polls since.
I wonder if Nate Silver feels like a heel this morning?

Nate was the only one giving him a chance, and had repeatedly warned that Trump had a chance and that he was a few percentage points of polling error to win. For every 3 coin flips Trump could win, those are not bad odds.

I was just wondering because even at 6pm last night he had Clinton with a 78% chance of winning. Yes, that gives Trump a 22% chance... but come on. It was a serious failure of political polling, which he is supposed to specialize in. I bet this hurts his career.

That was during election night. Seeing the early returns in Florida looked good for Clinton, that's why her chances were better. Look to about 3 days leading up to the election. Most outlets had her in the 90% to 99% range and they were laughing at Nate and his 65% range. He was wrong, and I'm sure it hurts, but not that wrong.

Fair enough, I guess it stands out because he is the only person I have ever seen hang his own name and personal reputation to political polling. I actually thought that was strange, but wasn't quite sure why... now I think I have some clarity, lol.
BTW, there might be a lot of broke people and a few new rich people in BC right now. It turns out that this US election was the most betted-on event in our history, lol. Even more than the superbowl. And Trump winning had pretty high odds. Now I wish I'd thrown down a few bucks on him, lol. Actually, it did occur to me (it was all set up online by the BCLC), but I figured betting for Trump to win was just morally wrong.

rssesq

dignin said:

JC29856 said:

mrussel1 said:

Here is some fascinating statistics, published today by Politico. The punchline is that Trump would need to win 70% of white males in order to win the general election. But here's what's working against him:
- No GOP candidate in the last half century has won more than 63% of white males
- The turnout rate for white males is very high already, so not much 'enthusiasm' room to grow
- Trump's favorable/unfavorable for Hispanics is -50%. That's astoundingly bad. Experts predict he might get 15% of the Hispanic vote. Bush peaked at 35%. Everyone else on the GOP has been much lower. Estimates are that Hispanic turnout will be 15% greater in '16 than in '12. So Trump's problem is exasperated even vs. Romney.
- Asian-Americans are also similarly negative on him.
- Romney only won 5% of the black vote in 2012. Don't think for a second that Obama is not going to savage Trump in the run up to the election. There is no way he will get the 12% Bush got.
- Women are just as bad of a problem. Dems typically win 53% of the woman vote. He has to win 62% of all women + 70% of white men.

For you political wonks, it's a good read: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/donald-trump-needs-7-of-10-white-guys-213699?o=1

Woot!

interesting!

A bigger person wouldn't scour through these threads to rub past statements in. Isn't winning enough?

For the "deplorables" NOPE.

BS44325

PJ_Soul said:

dignin said:

PJ_Soul said:

Free said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

pjalive21 said:

CNN and you liberal rag is done as the rest of your polling bullshit

CNN was very good at the coverage tonight until it was clear their message wasn't getting through to the blue.
Polls? What are those?
Flush.

polls have always meant nothing.

True. I mentioned long ago that the exact same thing happened in the last provincial elections in BC. All polls indicated a sure win with a comfortable margin for NDP right up until the polls closed, and then the Liberals won. I haven't trusted political polls since.
I wonder if Nate Silver feels like a heel this morning?

Nate was the only one giving him a chance, and had repeatedly warned that Trump had a chance and that he was a few percentage points of polling error to win. For every 3 coin flips Trump could win, those are not bad odds.

I was just wondering because even at 6pm last night he had Clinton with a 78% chance of winning. Yes, that gives Trump a 22% chance... but come on. It was a serious failure of political polling, which he is supposed to specialize in. I bet this hurts his career.

The only person who saw it at 6pm was me.

PJ_Soul

BS44325 said:

PJ_Soul said:

dignin said:

PJ_Soul said:

Free said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

pjalive21 said:

CNN and you liberal rag is done as the rest of your polling bullshit

CNN was very good at the coverage tonight until it was clear their message wasn't getting through to the blue.
Polls? What are those?
Flush.

polls have always meant nothing.

True. I mentioned long ago that the exact same thing happened in the last provincial elections in BC. All polls indicated a sure win with a comfortable margin for NDP right up until the polls closed, and then the Liberals won. I haven't trusted political polls since.
I wonder if Nate Silver feels like a heel this morning?

Nate was the only one giving him a chance, and had repeatedly warned that Trump had a chance and that he was a few percentage points of polling error to win. For every 3 coin flips Trump could win, those are not bad odds.

I was just wondering because even at 6pm last night he had Clinton with a 78% chance of winning. Yes, that gives Trump a 22% chance... but come on. It was a serious failure of political polling, which he is supposed to specialize in. I bet this hurts his career.

The only person who saw it at 6pm was me.

Well I guess you're a genius, lol. I figured the swing states might pull it out.... Also, someone was trolling here and making fake announcements before I even got home. Silly me, I thought he wasn't lying, so thought things were going better than they really were before I even got home.
I dunno, I think I figured it would be Trump for sure around 7pm Pacific. I watched a little longer after that and then turned it off in disgust. I woke up at 1am for some reason, and checked to see if maybe Clinton somehow eked out a win... obviously I had trouble getting back to sleep.

lukin2006

This thread should be deleted or renamed Hillary For President 2020...lmfao.

rssesq

diazepam 5m, and its free up there. lmao

BS44325

PJ_Soul said:

BS44325 said:

PJ_Soul said:

dignin said:

PJ_Soul said:

Free said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

pjalive21 said:

CNN and you liberal rag is done as the rest of your polling bullshit

CNN was very good at the coverage tonight until it was clear their message wasn't getting through to the blue.
Polls? What are those?
Flush.

polls have always meant nothing.

True. I mentioned long ago that the exact same thing happened in the last provincial elections in BC. All polls indicated a sure win with a comfortable margin for NDP right up until the polls closed, and then the Liberals won. I haven't trusted political polls since.
I wonder if Nate Silver feels like a heel this morning?

Nate was the only one giving him a chance, and had repeatedly warned that Trump had a chance and that he was a few percentage points of polling error to win. For every 3 coin flips Trump could win, those are not bad odds.

I was just wondering because even at 6pm last night he had Clinton with a 78% chance of winning. Yes, that gives Trump a 22% chance... but come on. It was a serious failure of political polling, which he is supposed to specialize in. I bet this hurts his career.

The only person who saw it at 6pm was me.

Well I guess you're a genius, lol. I figured the swing states might pull it out.... Also, someone was trolling here and making fake announcements before I even got home. Silly me, I thought he wasn't lying, so thought things were going better than they really were before I even got home.
I dunno, I think I figured it would be Trump for sure around 7pm Pacific. I watched a little longer after that and then turned it off in disgust. I woke up at 1am for some reason, and checked to see if maybe Clinton somehow eked out a win... obviously I had trouble getting back to sleep.

I saw it at 6pm Eastern! I am a genius! (A lucky one)

Gern Blansten

PJ_Soul said:

dignin said:

PJ_Soul said:

Free said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

pjalive21 said:

CNN and you liberal rag is done as the rest of your polling bullshit

CNN was very good at the coverage tonight until it was clear their message wasn't getting through to the blue.
Polls? What are those?
Flush.

polls have always meant nothing.

True. I mentioned long ago that the exact same thing happened in the last provincial elections in BC. All polls indicated a sure win with a comfortable margin for NDP right up until the polls closed, and then the Liberals won. I haven't trusted political polls since.
I wonder if Nate Silver feels like a heel this morning?

Nate was the only one giving him a chance, and had repeatedly warned that Trump had a chance and that he was a few percentage points of polling error to win. For every 3 coin flips Trump could win, those are not bad odds.

I was just wondering because even at 6pm last night he had Clinton with a 78% chance of winning. Yes, that gives Trump a 22% chance... but come on. It was a serious failure of political polling, which he is supposed to specialize in. I bet this hurts his career.

He doesn't do the polling though...he just has a model that interprets the polling that is provided to him.

I say he did better than anyone else...he gave Trump a 30% chance when no other model that I saw did. I don't know where the 22% chance came from. Silver's model froze at midnight Monday since there were no more polls to update the model. It is still on his site showing the 30% chance for Trump.

BS44325

Gern Blansten said:

PJ_Soul said:

dignin said:

PJ_Soul said:

Free said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

pjalive21 said:

CNN and you liberal rag is done as the rest of your polling bullshit

CNN was very good at the coverage tonight until it was clear their message wasn't getting through to the blue.
Polls? What are those?
Flush.

polls have always meant nothing.

True. I mentioned long ago that the exact same thing happened in the last provincial elections in BC. All polls indicated a sure win with a comfortable margin for NDP right up until the polls closed, and then the Liberals won. I haven't trusted political polls since.
I wonder if Nate Silver feels like a heel this morning?

Nate was the only one giving him a chance, and had repeatedly warned that Trump had a chance and that he was a few percentage points of polling error to win. For every 3 coin flips Trump could win, those are not bad odds.

I was just wondering because even at 6pm last night he had Clinton with a 78% chance of winning. Yes, that gives Trump a 22% chance... but come on. It was a serious failure of political polling, which he is supposed to specialize in. I bet this hurts his career.

He doesn't do the polling though...he just has a model that interprets the polling that is provided to him.

I say he did better than anyone else...he gave Trump a 30% chance when no other model that I saw did. I don't know where the 22% chance came from. Silver's model froze at midnight Monday since there were no more polls to update the model. It is still on his site showing the 30% chance for Trump.

Silver was bang on considering the numbers publicly available. He stressed in the days before that her electoral vote tally was not safe. If you look at the raw numbers it would not have taken much for a handfull of states to have gone the other way.

rssesq

did anyone see Rachel Maddow last night? Her neck grew another 3 inches.

dignin

BS44325 said:

Gern Blansten said:

PJ_Soul said:

dignin said:

PJ_Soul said:

Free said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

pjalive21 said:

CNN and you liberal rag is done as the rest of your polling bullshit

CNN was very good at the coverage tonight until it was clear their message wasn't getting through to the blue.
Polls? What are those?
Flush.

polls have always meant nothing.

True. I mentioned long ago that the exact same thing happened in the last provincial elections in BC. All polls indicated a sure win with a comfortable margin for NDP right up until the polls closed, and then the Liberals won. I haven't trusted political polls since.
I wonder if Nate Silver feels like a heel this morning?

Nate was the only one giving him a chance, and had repeatedly warned that Trump had a chance and that he was a few percentage points of polling error to win. For every 3 coin flips Trump could win, those are not bad odds.

I was just wondering because even at 6pm last night he had Clinton with a 78% chance of winning. Yes, that gives Trump a 22% chance... but come on. It was a serious failure of political polling, which he is supposed to specialize in. I bet this hurts his career.

He doesn't do the polling though...he just has a model that interprets the polling that is provided to him.

I say he did better than anyone else...he gave Trump a 30% chance when no other model that I saw did. I don't know where the 22% chance came from. Silver's model froze at midnight Monday since there were no more polls to update the model. It is still on his site showing the 30% chance for Trump.

Silver was bang on considering the numbers publicly available. He stressed in the days before that her electoral vote tally was not safe. If you look at the raw numbers it would not have taken much for a handfull of states to have gone the other way.

Yeah, next election he is still the guy that I will go to when looking for predictions.

PJ_Soul

Gern Blansten said:

PJ_Soul said:

dignin said:

PJ_Soul said:

Free said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

pjalive21 said:

CNN and you liberal rag is done as the rest of your polling bullshit

CNN was very good at the coverage tonight until it was clear their message wasn't getting through to the blue.
Polls? What are those?
Flush.

polls have always meant nothing.

True. I mentioned long ago that the exact same thing happened in the last provincial elections in BC. All polls indicated a sure win with a comfortable margin for NDP right up until the polls closed, and then the Liberals won. I haven't trusted political polls since.
I wonder if Nate Silver feels like a heel this morning?

Nate was the only one giving him a chance, and had repeatedly warned that Trump had a chance and that he was a few percentage points of polling error to win. For every 3 coin flips Trump could win, those are not bad odds.

I was just wondering because even at 6pm last night he had Clinton with a 78% chance of winning. Yes, that gives Trump a 22% chance... but come on. It was a serious failure of political polling, which he is supposed to specialize in. I bet this hurts his career.

He doesn't do the polling though...he just has a model that interprets the polling that is provided to him.

I say he did better than anyone else...he gave Trump a 30% chance when no other model that I saw did. I don't know where the 22% chance came from. Silver's model froze at midnight Monday since there were no more polls to update the model. It is still on his site showing the 30% chance for Trump.

Right, interpreting poll results. FFS. All I am saying is that Nate Silver really hitched his name to all his reports, basically set himself up as THE go-to source, and damn, the results of this election probably won't be good for his career.
He was speaking live on ABC when he said it was up to 78% (he was asked why it went up). I guess that was around 6pm PST, maybe even later. He looked pretty stressed out actually, ha.

JC29856

rssesq said:

did anyone see Rachel Maddow last night? Her neck grew another 3 inches.

Lol...I kinda enjoyed watching msnbc and cnn

rssesq

Don't fret all. There's always Kanye in 2020.

Ledbetterman10

rssesq said:

Don't fret all. There's always Kanye in 2020.

Fuck that. Give me Dwayne The Rock Johnson.