Nate Silver 538
Options
Comments
-
The Juggler said:
I saw the four way split this morning. Wouldn’t that give more credit to the “its alot more like 2016 than we think” theory?0 -
mickeyrat said:mrussel1 said:
If he had any integrity, he'd look at the 75% and cut it in half. Then double it.dignin said:
What do suggest Nate do then? Lie about the math? I don't understand what you want.Lerxst1992 said:The Juggler said:78%. Now the highest percent 538 has given him since June...Nate is risking looking foolish. If he says 75 isn’t 100 two elections in a row he will be ridiculed. He has admitted he does not count court challenges and other election tricks in his odds which seems foolish given the constitution gives huge advantages to the incumbent in close elections, especially one willing to bend rules to maximize that advantage. Also considering the majority of swing state polling is within moe.
BtW Univ WI poll today has Biden up 4 with 4% undecided. Glancing at all the state polling this week it looks very similar to 2016. Even more so this week.
what?Russ, is our goal to politely discuss the election or to have a safe space for Biden? Cook says a 1% NCW shift, just outside trumps estimated 2016 performance, could move 50 electoral votes. That appears to be interesting, but I guess there are other priorities here.I posted interesting topics regarding demo splits according to Cook Political, and also how the House decides contested elections, and Pelosi could override a Gore like Court decision and manipulate article I ala McConnell. No interest on this forum I guess.0 -
The Juggler said:
You might be missing some sarcasm here, Mickmickeyrat said:mrussel1 said:
Simple math.mickeyrat said:mrussel1 said:
If he had any integrity, he'd look at the 75% and cut it in half. Then double it.dignin said:
What do suggest Nate do then? Lie about the math? I don't understand what you want.Lerxst1992 said:The Juggler said:78%. Now the highest percent 538 has given him since June...Nate is risking looking foolish. If he says 75 isn’t 100 two elections in a row he will be ridiculed. He has admitted he does not count court challenges and other election tricks in his odds which seems foolish given the constitution gives huge advantages to the incumbent in close elections, especially one willing to bend rules to maximize that advantage. Also considering the majority of swing state polling is within moe.
BtW Univ WI poll today has Biden up 4 with 4% undecided. Glancing at all the state polling this week it looks very similar to 2016. Even more so this week.
what?
doesn't that arrive you right back at 75%?I think M is looking to give Biden a participation trophy.0 -
Lerxst1992 said:Cook political report has an interesting tool where you can adjust turnout by demographic and see how that impacts electoral college.
It’s starts with trumps best demo, non college whites at 55% (Biden win w 307 electoral votes). Increasing that demo to 60% gets trump a win with about 280 EVs. 59% turnout, reduces it to 230 EVsI cant imagine a 1% turnout difference in trumps base nets a 50 EV difference, but it underscores how difficult a job pollsters have to get the polls accurate and account for even a tiny increase in trump base turnout. It ain’t helping my confidence with pollsters and if it’s this much of a difference 538 is really off their rockers w .77
HOW IT WORKS: Start with the results of the previous election, adjusted fordemographic change since 2016. Then, adjust the sliders below to see how shifts inturnout and support among five demographic groups could swing the Electoral CollegeSorry but this is damn interesting, as is the Supreme Court vs House analysis to decide contested elections. Clearly I’m in the wrong place.0 -
Participation trophy? I thought was were talking about Nate.Lerxst1992 said:The Juggler said:
You might be missing some sarcasm here, Mickmickeyrat said:mrussel1 said:
Simple math.mickeyrat said:mrussel1 said:
If he had any integrity, he'd look at the 75% and cut it in half. Then double it.dignin said:
What do suggest Nate do then? Lie about the math? I don't understand what you want.Lerxst1992 said:The Juggler said:78%. Now the highest percent 538 has given him since June...Nate is risking looking foolish. If he says 75 isn’t 100 two elections in a row he will be ridiculed. He has admitted he does not count court challenges and other election tricks in his odds which seems foolish given the constitution gives huge advantages to the incumbent in close elections, especially one willing to bend rules to maximize that advantage. Also considering the majority of swing state polling is within moe.
BtW Univ WI poll today has Biden up 4 with 4% undecided. Glancing at all the state polling this week it looks very similar to 2016. Even more so this week.
what?
doesn't that arrive you right back at 75%?I think M is looking to give Biden a participation trophy.
The math is straightforward .75(.5)(2)=x where x = Biden's chance of winning. If Nate had any sense or shame or credibility, he would apply this time tested equation.0 -
Green party isn't on the ballot in PA or WI. Libertarian is. So the answer is maybe, but not always, but perhaps a little.Lerxst1992 said:The Juggler said:I saw the four way split this morning. Wouldn’t that give more credit to the “its alot more like 2016 than we think” theory?0 -
The issue I have is you calling 538's math foolish. You seem to want to say that 538 should be calling this more 50/50, when the math actually calls for around 75/25. What you don't seem to understand is that in 4 simulated coin flips Biden would win 3 times while Trump wins once. Nobody here is excited about those odds, of course we want Biden winning 4 of those coin flips but the math doesn't show Trump winning 2 of those coin flips either. Biden is still the odds on favourite.Lerxst1992 said:Lerxst1992 said:Cook political report has an interesting tool where you can adjust turnout by demographic and see how that impacts electoral college.
It’s starts with trumps best demo, non college whites at 55% (Biden win w 307 electoral votes). Increasing that demo to 60% gets trump a win with about 280 EVs. 59% turnout, reduces it to 230 EVsI cant imagine a 1% turnout difference in trumps base nets a 50 EV difference, but it underscores how difficult a job pollsters have to get the polls accurate and account for even a tiny increase in trump base turnout. It ain’t helping my confidence with pollsters and if it’s this much of a difference 538 is really off their rockers w .77
HOW IT WORKS: Start with the results of the previous election, adjusted fordemographic change since 2016. Then, adjust the sliders below to see how shifts inturnout and support among five demographic groups could swing the Electoral CollegeSorry but this is damn interesting, as is the Supreme Court vs House analysis to decide contested elections. Clearly I’m in the wrong place.
This election isn't another 2016, way too many variables have changed.
0 -
This is exactly correct. Somehow people (particularly Trump supporters) think something less than 100% is equal to 101%.dignin said:
The issue I have is you calling 538's math foolish. You seem to want to say that 538 should be calling this more 50/50, when the math actually calls for around 75/25. What you don't seem to understand is that in 4 simulated coin flips Biden would win 3 times while Trump wins once. Nobody here is excited about those odds, of course we want Biden winning 4 of those coin flips but the math doesn't show Trump winning 2 of those coin flips either. Biden is still the odds on favourite.Lerxst1992 said:Lerxst1992 said:Cook political report has an interesting tool where you can adjust turnout by demographic and see how that impacts electoral college.
It’s starts with trumps best demo, non college whites at 55% (Biden win w 307 electoral votes). Increasing that demo to 60% gets trump a win with about 280 EVs. 59% turnout, reduces it to 230 EVsI cant imagine a 1% turnout difference in trumps base nets a 50 EV difference, but it underscores how difficult a job pollsters have to get the polls accurate and account for even a tiny increase in trump base turnout. It ain’t helping my confidence with pollsters and if it’s this much of a difference 538 is really off their rockers w .77
HOW IT WORKS: Start with the results of the previous election, adjusted fordemographic change since 2016. Then, adjust the sliders below to see how shifts inturnout and support among five demographic groups could swing the Electoral CollegeSorry but this is damn interesting, as is the Supreme Court vs House analysis to decide contested elections. Clearly I’m in the wrong place.
This election isn't another 2016, way too many variables have changed.0 -
mrussel1 said:
This is exactly correct. Somehow people (particularly Trump supporters) think something less than 100% is equal to 101%.dignin said:
The issue I have is you calling 538's math foolish. You seem to want to say that 538 should be calling this more 50/50, when the math actually calls for around 75/25. What you don't seem to understand is that in 4 simulated coin flips Biden would win 3 times while Trump wins once. Nobody here is excited about those odds, of course we want Biden winning 4 of those coin flips but the math doesn't show Trump winning 2 of those coin flips either. Biden is still the odds on favourite.Lerxst1992 said:Lerxst1992 said:Cook political report has an interesting tool where you can adjust turnout by demographic and see how that impacts electoral college.
It’s starts with trumps best demo, non college whites at 55% (Biden win w 307 electoral votes). Increasing that demo to 60% gets trump a win with about 280 EVs. 59% turnout, reduces it to 230 EVsI cant imagine a 1% turnout difference in trumps base nets a 50 EV difference, but it underscores how difficult a job pollsters have to get the polls accurate and account for even a tiny increase in trump base turnout. It ain’t helping my confidence with pollsters and if it’s this much of a difference 538 is really off their rockers w .77
HOW IT WORKS: Start with the results of the previous election, adjusted fordemographic change since 2016. Then, adjust the sliders below to see how shifts inturnout and support among five demographic groups could swing the Electoral CollegeSorry but this is damn interesting, as is the Supreme Court vs House analysis to decide contested elections. Clearly I’m in the wrong place.
This election isn't another 2016, way too many variables have changed.Not foolish, just underestimating the trump effect on elections.
Most significantly, elections are not about flipping a coin. According to Cook, Trumps 2016 performance at getting NCWs is about 4% from a huge statistical advantage, where one percent of this demo can net trump 50 EVs.He was at .55 NCW 2016 turnout. At .59 Biden still wins with @ 280 EVs. Thats great, we can all exhale. At .60 turnout, it goes to 230 and trump wins. THATS the tipping point here, this potential wave trump has access too. Being by far The largest demo (by far can not be emphasized enough), it is foolish to discount this phenomenon. That’s not even close to flipping a coin. It’s extraordinarily biased and a weighted coin.I’m hoping trump never gets there, but I am not shutting my eyes about it either. He proved in 2016 he knows how to get new voters from this demo to vote. No reason he can not find new voters there again. That’s why 77% is way off.0 -
He doesn't know shit about getting new voters in that demo. Putin on the ritz does though.Lerxst1992 said:mrussel1 said:
This is exactly correct. Somehow people (particularly Trump supporters) think something less than 100% is equal to 101%.dignin said:
The issue I have is you calling 538's math foolish. You seem to want to say that 538 should be calling this more 50/50, when the math actually calls for around 75/25. What you don't seem to understand is that in 4 simulated coin flips Biden would win 3 times while Trump wins once. Nobody here is excited about those odds, of course we want Biden winning 4 of those coin flips but the math doesn't show Trump winning 2 of those coin flips either. Biden is still the odds on favourite.Lerxst1992 said:Lerxst1992 said:Cook political report has an interesting tool where you can adjust turnout by demographic and see how that impacts electoral college.
It’s starts with trumps best demo, non college whites at 55% (Biden win w 307 electoral votes). Increasing that demo to 60% gets trump a win with about 280 EVs. 59% turnout, reduces it to 230 EVsI cant imagine a 1% turnout difference in trumps base nets a 50 EV difference, but it underscores how difficult a job pollsters have to get the polls accurate and account for even a tiny increase in trump base turnout. It ain’t helping my confidence with pollsters and if it’s this much of a difference 538 is really off their rockers w .77
HOW IT WORKS: Start with the results of the previous election, adjusted fordemographic change since 2016. Then, adjust the sliders below to see how shifts inturnout and support among five demographic groups could swing the Electoral CollegeSorry but this is damn interesting, as is the Supreme Court vs House analysis to decide contested elections. Clearly I’m in the wrong place.
This election isn't another 2016, way too many variables have changed.Not foolish, just underestimating the trump effect on elections.
Most significantly, elections are not about flipping a coin. According to Cook, Trumps 2016 performance at getting NCWs is about 4% from a huge statistical advantage, where one percent of this demo can net trump 50 EVs.He was at .55 NCW 2016 turnout. At .59 Biden still wins with @ 280 EVs. Thats great, we can all exhale. At .60 turnout, it goes to 230 and trump wins. THATS the tipping point here, this potential wave trump has access too. Being by far The largest demo (by far can not be emphasized enough), it is foolish to discount this phenomenon. That’s not even close to flipping a coin. It’s extraordinarily biased and a weighted coin.I’m hoping trump never gets there, but I am not shutting my eyes about it either. He proved in 2016 he knows how to get new voters from this demo to vote. No reason he can not find new voters there again. That’s why 77% is way off.09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
Dude.. sorry, you don't have the background or analysis in this topic to declare that Silver's 75 or 77% is way off. Your assumption also discounts the massive move of suburbanites toward the D. That was clear in the analysis post 2018 and the numbers are bearing out the same this time. Trump won the suburbs in 16 and he is losing them today. They are not exactly chock full of NCWs. Women have also jettisoned the R party dramatically since 16 as well. So the statement that NCW's moving from 55 to 60% turnout wins the election for Trump ignores every other demographic move.Lerxst1992 said:mrussel1 said:
This is exactly correct. Somehow people (particularly Trump supporters) think something less than 100% is equal to 101%.dignin said:
The issue I have is you calling 538's math foolish. You seem to want to say that 538 should be calling this more 50/50, when the math actually calls for around 75/25. What you don't seem to understand is that in 4 simulated coin flips Biden would win 3 times while Trump wins once. Nobody here is excited about those odds, of course we want Biden winning 4 of those coin flips but the math doesn't show Trump winning 2 of those coin flips either. Biden is still the odds on favourite.Lerxst1992 said:Lerxst1992 said:Cook political report has an interesting tool where you can adjust turnout by demographic and see how that impacts electoral college.
It’s starts with trumps best demo, non college whites at 55% (Biden win w 307 electoral votes). Increasing that demo to 60% gets trump a win with about 280 EVs. 59% turnout, reduces it to 230 EVsI cant imagine a 1% turnout difference in trumps base nets a 50 EV difference, but it underscores how difficult a job pollsters have to get the polls accurate and account for even a tiny increase in trump base turnout. It ain’t helping my confidence with pollsters and if it’s this much of a difference 538 is really off their rockers w .77
HOW IT WORKS: Start with the results of the previous election, adjusted fordemographic change since 2016. Then, adjust the sliders below to see how shifts inturnout and support among five demographic groups could swing the Electoral CollegeSorry but this is damn interesting, as is the Supreme Court vs House analysis to decide contested elections. Clearly I’m in the wrong place.
This election isn't another 2016, way too many variables have changed.Not foolish, just underestimating the trump effect on elections.
Most significantly, elections are not about flipping a coin. According to Cook, Trumps 2016 performance at getting NCWs is about 4% from a huge statistical advantage, where one percent of this demo can net trump 50 EVs.He was at .55 NCW 2016 turnout. At .59 Biden still wins with @ 280 EVs. Thats great, we can all exhale. At .60 turnout, it goes to 230 and trump wins. THATS the tipping point here, this potential wave trump has access too. Being by far The largest demo (by far can not be emphasized enough), it is foolish to discount this phenomenon. That’s not even close to flipping a coin. It’s extraordinarily biased and a weighted coin.I’m hoping trump never gets there, but I am not shutting my eyes about it either. He proved in 2016 he knows how to get new voters from this demo to vote. No reason he can not find new voters there again. That’s why 77% is way off.0 -
Suburbanites love the Dmrussel1 said:
Dude.. sorry, you don't have the background or analysis in this topic to declare that Silver's 75 or 77% is way off. Your assumption also discounts the massive move of suburbanites toward the D. That was clear in the analysis post 2018 and the numbers are bearing out the same this time. Trump won the suburbs in 16 and he is losing them today. They are not exactly chock full of NCWs. Women have also jettisoned the R party dramatically since 16 as well. So the statement that NCW's moving from 55 to 60% turnout wins the election for Trump ignores every other demographic move.Lerxst1992 said:mrussel1 said:
This is exactly correct. Somehow people (particularly Trump supporters) think something less than 100% is equal to 101%.dignin said:
The issue I have is you calling 538's math foolish. You seem to want to say that 538 should be calling this more 50/50, when the math actually calls for around 75/25. What you don't seem to understand is that in 4 simulated coin flips Biden would win 3 times while Trump wins once. Nobody here is excited about those odds, of course we want Biden winning 4 of those coin flips but the math doesn't show Trump winning 2 of those coin flips either. Biden is still the odds on favourite.Lerxst1992 said:Lerxst1992 said:Cook political report has an interesting tool where you can adjust turnout by demographic and see how that impacts electoral college.
It’s starts with trumps best demo, non college whites at 55% (Biden win w 307 electoral votes). Increasing that demo to 60% gets trump a win with about 280 EVs. 59% turnout, reduces it to 230 EVsI cant imagine a 1% turnout difference in trumps base nets a 50 EV difference, but it underscores how difficult a job pollsters have to get the polls accurate and account for even a tiny increase in trump base turnout. It ain’t helping my confidence with pollsters and if it’s this much of a difference 538 is really off their rockers w .77
HOW IT WORKS: Start with the results of the previous election, adjusted fordemographic change since 2016. Then, adjust the sliders below to see how shifts inturnout and support among five demographic groups could swing the Electoral CollegeSorry but this is damn interesting, as is the Supreme Court vs House analysis to decide contested elections. Clearly I’m in the wrong place.
This election isn't another 2016, way too many variables have changed.Not foolish, just underestimating the trump effect on elections.
Most significantly, elections are not about flipping a coin. According to Cook, Trumps 2016 performance at getting NCWs is about 4% from a huge statistical advantage, where one percent of this demo can net trump 50 EVs.He was at .55 NCW 2016 turnout. At .59 Biden still wins with @ 280 EVs. Thats great, we can all exhale. At .60 turnout, it goes to 230 and trump wins. THATS the tipping point here, this potential wave trump has access too. Being by far The largest demo (by far can not be emphasized enough), it is foolish to discount this phenomenon. That’s not even close to flipping a coin. It’s extraordinarily biased and a weighted coin.I’m hoping trump never gets there, but I am not shutting my eyes about it either. He proved in 2016 he knows how to get new voters from this demo to vote. No reason he can not find new voters there again. That’s why 77% is way off.Scio me nihil scire
There are no kings inside the gates of eden0 -
mrussel1 said:
Participation trophy? I thought was were talking about Nate.Lerxst1992 said:The Juggler said:
You might be missing some sarcasm here, Mickmickeyrat said:mrussel1 said:
Simple math.mickeyrat said:mrussel1 said:
If he had any integrity, he'd look at the 75% and cut it in half. Then double it.dignin said:
What do suggest Nate do then? Lie about the math? I don't understand what you want.Lerxst1992 said:The Juggler said:78%. Now the highest percent 538 has given him since June...Nate is risking looking foolish. If he says 75 isn’t 100 two elections in a row he will be ridiculed. He has admitted he does not count court challenges and other election tricks in his odds which seems foolish given the constitution gives huge advantages to the incumbent in close elections, especially one willing to bend rules to maximize that advantage. Also considering the majority of swing state polling is within moe.
BtW Univ WI poll today has Biden up 4 with 4% undecided. Glancing at all the state polling this week it looks very similar to 2016. Even more so this week.
what?
doesn't that arrive you right back at 75%?I think M is looking to give Biden a participation trophy.
The math is straightforward .75(.5)(2)=x where x = Biden's chance of winning. If Nate had any sense or shame or credibility, he would apply this time tested equation.
now I get it. you are employing algebra. I was regularly napping during algebra...
_____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '140 -
both sexes...static111 said:
Suburbanites love the Dmrussel1 said:
Dude.. sorry, you don't have the background or analysis in this topic to declare that Silver's 75 or 77% is way off. Your assumption also discounts the massive move of suburbanites toward the D. That was clear in the analysis post 2018 and the numbers are bearing out the same this time. Trump won the suburbs in 16 and he is losing them today. They are not exactly chock full of NCWs. Women have also jettisoned the R party dramatically since 16 as well. So the statement that NCW's moving from 55 to 60% turnout wins the election for Trump ignores every other demographic move.Lerxst1992 said:mrussel1 said:
This is exactly correct. Somehow people (particularly Trump supporters) think something less than 100% is equal to 101%.dignin said:
The issue I have is you calling 538's math foolish. You seem to want to say that 538 should be calling this more 50/50, when the math actually calls for around 75/25. What you don't seem to understand is that in 4 simulated coin flips Biden would win 3 times while Trump wins once. Nobody here is excited about those odds, of course we want Biden winning 4 of those coin flips but the math doesn't show Trump winning 2 of those coin flips either. Biden is still the odds on favourite.Lerxst1992 said:Lerxst1992 said:Cook political report has an interesting tool where you can adjust turnout by demographic and see how that impacts electoral college.
It’s starts with trumps best demo, non college whites at 55% (Biden win w 307 electoral votes). Increasing that demo to 60% gets trump a win with about 280 EVs. 59% turnout, reduces it to 230 EVsI cant imagine a 1% turnout difference in trumps base nets a 50 EV difference, but it underscores how difficult a job pollsters have to get the polls accurate and account for even a tiny increase in trump base turnout. It ain’t helping my confidence with pollsters and if it’s this much of a difference 538 is really off their rockers w .77
HOW IT WORKS: Start with the results of the previous election, adjusted fordemographic change since 2016. Then, adjust the sliders below to see how shifts inturnout and support among five demographic groups could swing the Electoral CollegeSorry but this is damn interesting, as is the Supreme Court vs House analysis to decide contested elections. Clearly I’m in the wrong place.
This election isn't another 2016, way too many variables have changed.Not foolish, just underestimating the trump effect on elections.
Most significantly, elections are not about flipping a coin. According to Cook, Trumps 2016 performance at getting NCWs is about 4% from a huge statistical advantage, where one percent of this demo can net trump 50 EVs.He was at .55 NCW 2016 turnout. At .59 Biden still wins with @ 280 EVs. Thats great, we can all exhale. At .60 turnout, it goes to 230 and trump wins. THATS the tipping point here, this potential wave trump has access too. Being by far The largest demo (by far can not be emphasized enough), it is foolish to discount this phenomenon. That’s not even close to flipping a coin. It’s extraordinarily biased and a weighted coin.I’m hoping trump never gets there, but I am not shutting my eyes about it either. He proved in 2016 he knows how to get new voters from this demo to vote. No reason he can not find new voters there again. That’s why 77% is way off.0 -
What’s not to lovemrussel1 said:
both sexes...static111 said:
Suburbanites love the Dmrussel1 said:
Dude.. sorry, you don't have the background or analysis in this topic to declare that Silver's 75 or 77% is way off. Your assumption also discounts the massive move of suburbanites toward the D. That was clear in the analysis post 2018 and the numbers are bearing out the same this time. Trump won the suburbs in 16 and he is losing them today. They are not exactly chock full of NCWs. Women have also jettisoned the R party dramatically since 16 as well. So the statement that NCW's moving from 55 to 60% turnout wins the election for Trump ignores every other demographic move.Lerxst1992 said:mrussel1 said:
This is exactly correct. Somehow people (particularly Trump supporters) think something less than 100% is equal to 101%.dignin said:
The issue I have is you calling 538's math foolish. You seem to want to say that 538 should be calling this more 50/50, when the math actually calls for around 75/25. What you don't seem to understand is that in 4 simulated coin flips Biden would win 3 times while Trump wins once. Nobody here is excited about those odds, of course we want Biden winning 4 of those coin flips but the math doesn't show Trump winning 2 of those coin flips either. Biden is still the odds on favourite.Lerxst1992 said:Lerxst1992 said:Cook political report has an interesting tool where you can adjust turnout by demographic and see how that impacts electoral college.
It’s starts with trumps best demo, non college whites at 55% (Biden win w 307 electoral votes). Increasing that demo to 60% gets trump a win with about 280 EVs. 59% turnout, reduces it to 230 EVsI cant imagine a 1% turnout difference in trumps base nets a 50 EV difference, but it underscores how difficult a job pollsters have to get the polls accurate and account for even a tiny increase in trump base turnout. It ain’t helping my confidence with pollsters and if it’s this much of a difference 538 is really off their rockers w .77
HOW IT WORKS: Start with the results of the previous election, adjusted fordemographic change since 2016. Then, adjust the sliders below to see how shifts inturnout and support among five demographic groups could swing the Electoral CollegeSorry but this is damn interesting, as is the Supreme Court vs House analysis to decide contested elections. Clearly I’m in the wrong place.
This election isn't another 2016, way too many variables have changed.Not foolish, just underestimating the trump effect on elections.
Most significantly, elections are not about flipping a coin. According to Cook, Trumps 2016 performance at getting NCWs is about 4% from a huge statistical advantage, where one percent of this demo can net trump 50 EVs.He was at .55 NCW 2016 turnout. At .59 Biden still wins with @ 280 EVs. Thats great, we can all exhale. At .60 turnout, it goes to 230 and trump wins. THATS the tipping point here, this potential wave trump has access too. Being by far The largest demo (by far can not be emphasized enough), it is foolish to discount this phenomenon. That’s not even close to flipping a coin. It’s extraordinarily biased and a weighted coin.I’m hoping trump never gets there, but I am not shutting my eyes about it either. He proved in 2016 he knows how to get new voters from this demo to vote. No reason he can not find new voters there again. That’s why 77% is way off.Scio me nihil scire
There are no kings inside the gates of eden0 -
It's a massive, throbbing advantage as we penetrate the fall months and finish with the election. I'd put my moneyshot on Biden every time, not just 77% of the time.static111 said:
What’s not to lovemrussel1 said:
both sexes...static111 said:
Suburbanites love the Dmrussel1 said:
Dude.. sorry, you don't have the background or analysis in this topic to declare that Silver's 75 or 77% is way off. Your assumption also discounts the massive move of suburbanites toward the D. That was clear in the analysis post 2018 and the numbers are bearing out the same this time. Trump won the suburbs in 16 and he is losing them today. They are not exactly chock full of NCWs. Women have also jettisoned the R party dramatically since 16 as well. So the statement that NCW's moving from 55 to 60% turnout wins the election for Trump ignores every other demographic move.Lerxst1992 said:mrussel1 said:
This is exactly correct. Somehow people (particularly Trump supporters) think something less than 100% is equal to 101%.dignin said:
The issue I have is you calling 538's math foolish. You seem to want to say that 538 should be calling this more 50/50, when the math actually calls for around 75/25. What you don't seem to understand is that in 4 simulated coin flips Biden would win 3 times while Trump wins once. Nobody here is excited about those odds, of course we want Biden winning 4 of those coin flips but the math doesn't show Trump winning 2 of those coin flips either. Biden is still the odds on favourite.Lerxst1992 said:Lerxst1992 said:Cook political report has an interesting tool where you can adjust turnout by demographic and see how that impacts electoral college.
It’s starts with trumps best demo, non college whites at 55% (Biden win w 307 electoral votes). Increasing that demo to 60% gets trump a win with about 280 EVs. 59% turnout, reduces it to 230 EVsI cant imagine a 1% turnout difference in trumps base nets a 50 EV difference, but it underscores how difficult a job pollsters have to get the polls accurate and account for even a tiny increase in trump base turnout. It ain’t helping my confidence with pollsters and if it’s this much of a difference 538 is really off their rockers w .77
HOW IT WORKS: Start with the results of the previous election, adjusted fordemographic change since 2016. Then, adjust the sliders below to see how shifts inturnout and support among five demographic groups could swing the Electoral CollegeSorry but this is damn interesting, as is the Supreme Court vs House analysis to decide contested elections. Clearly I’m in the wrong place.
This election isn't another 2016, way too many variables have changed.Not foolish, just underestimating the trump effect on elections.
Most significantly, elections are not about flipping a coin. According to Cook, Trumps 2016 performance at getting NCWs is about 4% from a huge statistical advantage, where one percent of this demo can net trump 50 EVs.He was at .55 NCW 2016 turnout. At .59 Biden still wins with @ 280 EVs. Thats great, we can all exhale. At .60 turnout, it goes to 230 and trump wins. THATS the tipping point here, this potential wave trump has access too. Being by far The largest demo (by far can not be emphasized enough), it is foolish to discount this phenomenon. That’s not even close to flipping a coin. It’s extraordinarily biased and a weighted coin.I’m hoping trump never gets there, but I am not shutting my eyes about it either. He proved in 2016 he knows how to get new voters from this demo to vote. No reason he can not find new voters there again. That’s why 77% is way off.0 -
www.myspace.com0 -
Lol 😂 I’m donemrussel1 said:
It's a massive, throbbing advantage as we penetrate the fall months and finish with the election. I'd put my moneyshot on Biden every time, not just 77% of the time.static111 said:
What’s not to lovemrussel1 said:
both sexes...static111 said:
Suburbanites love the Dmrussel1 said:
Dude.. sorry, you don't have the background or analysis in this topic to declare that Silver's 75 or 77% is way off. Your assumption also discounts the massive move of suburbanites toward the D. That was clear in the analysis post 2018 and the numbers are bearing out the same this time. Trump won the suburbs in 16 and he is losing them today. They are not exactly chock full of NCWs. Women have also jettisoned the R party dramatically since 16 as well. So the statement that NCW's moving from 55 to 60% turnout wins the election for Trump ignores every other demographic move.Lerxst1992 said:mrussel1 said:
This is exactly correct. Somehow people (particularly Trump supporters) think something less than 100% is equal to 101%.dignin said:
The issue I have is you calling 538's math foolish. You seem to want to say that 538 should be calling this more 50/50, when the math actually calls for around 75/25. What you don't seem to understand is that in 4 simulated coin flips Biden would win 3 times while Trump wins once. Nobody here is excited about those odds, of course we want Biden winning 4 of those coin flips but the math doesn't show Trump winning 2 of those coin flips either. Biden is still the odds on favourite.Lerxst1992 said:Lerxst1992 said:Cook political report has an interesting tool where you can adjust turnout by demographic and see how that impacts electoral college.
It’s starts with trumps best demo, non college whites at 55% (Biden win w 307 electoral votes). Increasing that demo to 60% gets trump a win with about 280 EVs. 59% turnout, reduces it to 230 EVsI cant imagine a 1% turnout difference in trumps base nets a 50 EV difference, but it underscores how difficult a job pollsters have to get the polls accurate and account for even a tiny increase in trump base turnout. It ain’t helping my confidence with pollsters and if it’s this much of a difference 538 is really off their rockers w .77
HOW IT WORKS: Start with the results of the previous election, adjusted fordemographic change since 2016. Then, adjust the sliders below to see how shifts inturnout and support among five demographic groups could swing the Electoral CollegeSorry but this is damn interesting, as is the Supreme Court vs House analysis to decide contested elections. Clearly I’m in the wrong place.
This election isn't another 2016, way too many variables have changed.Not foolish, just underestimating the trump effect on elections.
Most significantly, elections are not about flipping a coin. According to Cook, Trumps 2016 performance at getting NCWs is about 4% from a huge statistical advantage, where one percent of this demo can net trump 50 EVs.He was at .55 NCW 2016 turnout. At .59 Biden still wins with @ 280 EVs. Thats great, we can all exhale. At .60 turnout, it goes to 230 and trump wins. THATS the tipping point here, this potential wave trump has access too. Being by far The largest demo (by far can not be emphasized enough), it is foolish to discount this phenomenon. That’s not even close to flipping a coin. It’s extraordinarily biased and a weighted coin.I’m hoping trump never gets there, but I am not shutting my eyes about it either. He proved in 2016 he knows how to get new voters from this demo to vote. No reason he can not find new voters there again. That’s why 77% is way off.Scio me nihil scire
There are no kings inside the gates of eden0 -
Just never underestimate the secret hate vote that doesn’t always show up in polls. I still want to see a blue tidal wave so large that this version of the Republican Party can never do this again.0
-
mrussel1 said:
Dude.. sorry, you don't have the background or analysis in this topic to declare that Silver's 75 or 77% is way off. Your assumption also discounts the massive move of suburbanites toward the D. That was clear in the analysis post 2018 and the numbers are bearing out the same this time. Trump won the suburbs in 16 and he is losing them today. They are not exactly chock full of NCWs. Women have also jettisoned the R party dramatically since 16 as well. So the statement that NCW's moving from 55 to 60% turnout wins the election for Trump ignores every other demographic move.Lerxst1992 said:mrussel1 said:
This is exactly correct. Somehow people (particularly Trump supporters) think something less than 100% is equal to 101%.dignin said:
The issue I have is you calling 538's math foolish. You seem to want to say that 538 should be calling this more 50/50, when the math actually calls for around 75/25. What you don't seem to understand is that in 4 simulated coin flips Biden would win 3 times while Trump wins once. Nobody here is excited about those odds, of course we want Biden winning 4 of those coin flips but the math doesn't show Trump winning 2 of those coin flips either. Biden is still the odds on favourite.Lerxst1992 said:Lerxst1992 said:Cook political report has an interesting tool where you can adjust turnout by demographic and see how that impacts electoral college.
It’s starts with trumps best demo, non college whites at 55% (Biden win w 307 electoral votes). Increasing that demo to 60% gets trump a win with about 280 EVs. 59% turnout, reduces it to 230 EVsI cant imagine a 1% turnout difference in trumps base nets a 50 EV difference, but it underscores how difficult a job pollsters have to get the polls accurate and account for even a tiny increase in trump base turnout. It ain’t helping my confidence with pollsters and if it’s this much of a difference 538 is really off their rockers w .77
HOW IT WORKS: Start with the results of the previous election, adjusted fordemographic change since 2016. Then, adjust the sliders below to see how shifts inturnout and support among five demographic groups could swing the Electoral CollegeSorry but this is damn interesting, as is the Supreme Court vs House analysis to decide contested elections. Clearly I’m in the wrong place.
This election isn't another 2016, way too many variables have changed.Not foolish, just underestimating the trump effect on elections.
Most significantly, elections are not about flipping a coin. According to Cook, Trumps 2016 performance at getting NCWs is about 4% from a huge statistical advantage, where one percent of this demo can net trump 50 EVs.He was at .55 NCW 2016 turnout. At .59 Biden still wins with @ 280 EVs. Thats great, we can all exhale. At .60 turnout, it goes to 230 and trump wins. THATS the tipping point here, this potential wave trump has access too. Being by far The largest demo (by far can not be emphasized enough), it is foolish to discount this phenomenon. That’s not even close to flipping a coin. It’s extraordinarily biased and a weighted coin.I’m hoping trump never gets there, but I am not shutting my eyes about it either. He proved in 2016 he knows how to get new voters from this demo to vote. No reason he can not find new voters there again. That’s why 77% is way off.Dude, the mistake Silver is making is this is not statistics, it’s political science. Trump has tapped into something pollsters did not identify last time. There is a better than 23% chance he can do it again.
lets fire up that time machine...again,
....PoliticsClinton Dominates in Key Philadelphia Suburbs, Bloomberg Poll Finds
Losing Pennsylvania’s 20 Electoral College votes would sharply curtail Trump’s paths to the White House.October 13, 2016, 5:00 AM EDT0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.1K Flea Market
- 39.1K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.7K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help