Nate Silver 538

1679111250

Comments

  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon Winnipeg Posts: 35,808
    Faux news is fudging the numbers toward Sleepy Woke Joe Basement Biden to energize the base and scare undecideds. Faux knows the deplorables only listen or watch faux.
    i was honestly thinking this might be the motivation too. 
    Come on guys. Fox's polling is quality.
    as has been demonstrated recently, i don't know much about polling, who to trust and who not to. why would fox's polling be so good if their reporting is the shits?

    i saw that nate rates is an A-, i'm just curious as to why one segment of their operation is tip top notch and the other is not. 
    Their reporting isn't shit. Chris Wallace is the best in the business. It's the prime time line up that is absolute horse shit. 

    Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson have absolutely nothing to do with their polling. That's why I'd be they probably spent zero time talking about how poorly Trump is doing in their polls. 
    i was obviously talking about their prime time, yes, not wallace. their morning show is also partisan trash though. 
    Darwinspeed, all. 

    Cheers,

    HFD




  • OnWis97OnWis97 St. Paul, MN Posts: 4,814
    Faux news is fudging the numbers toward Sleepy Woke Joe Basement Biden to energize the base and scare undecideds. Faux knows the deplorables only listen or watch faux.
    i was honestly thinking this might be the motivation too. 
    Come on guys. Fox's polling is quality.
    as has been demonstrated recently, i don't know much about polling, who to trust and who not to. why would fox's polling be so good if their reporting is the shits?

    i saw that nate rates is an A-, i'm just curious as to why one segment of their operation is tip top notch and the other is not. 
    Their reporting isn't shit. Chris Wallace is the best in the business. It's the prime time line up that is absolute horse shit. 

    Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson have absolutely nothing to do with their polling. That's why I'd be they probably spent zero time talking about how poorly Trump is doing in their polls. 
    i was obviously talking about their prime time, yes, not wallace. their morning show is also partisan trash though. 

    And has been for 20, plus years.  I used to watch it during the 2000 election season.  The same two make clowns have been on the whole time and it's been awful the whole time, I assume (I've missed the last 19 years or so).  Also Brian Kilmeade doesn't get the credit people like Tucker and Reilly get for being awful, but he deserves it.
    1995 Milwaukee     1998 Alpine, Alpine     2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston     2004 Boston, Boston     2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty)     2011 Alpine, Alpine     
    2013 Wrigley     2014 St. Paul     2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley     2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley     2021 Asbury Park     2022 St Louis     2023 Austin, Austin
  • The JugglerThe Juggler Behind that bush over there. Posts: 47,141
    OnWis97 said:
    Faux news is fudging the numbers toward Sleepy Woke Joe Basement Biden to energize the base and scare undecideds. Faux knows the deplorables only listen or watch faux.
    i was honestly thinking this might be the motivation too. 
    Come on guys. Fox's polling is quality.
    as has been demonstrated recently, i don't know much about polling, who to trust and who not to. why would fox's polling be so good if their reporting is the shits?

    i saw that nate rates is an A-, i'm just curious as to why one segment of their operation is tip top notch and the other is not. 
    Their reporting isn't shit. Chris Wallace is the best in the business. It's the prime time line up that is absolute horse shit. 

    Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson have absolutely nothing to do with their polling. That's why I'd be they probably spent zero time talking about how poorly Trump is doing in their polls. 
    i was obviously talking about their prime time, yes, not wallace. their morning show is also partisan trash though. 

    And has been for 20, plus years.  I used to watch it during the 2000 election season.  The same two make clowns have been on the whole time and it's been awful the whole time, I assume (I've missed the last 19 years or so).  Also Brian Kilmeade doesn't get the credit people like Tucker and Reilly get for being awful, but he deserves it.
    It has gotten progressively worse over the last two decades.

    I'd take O'Reilly over tucker. And Hannity and Colmes at least pretended to show both points of view
    chinese-happy.jpg
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 28,602
    OnWis97 said:
    Faux news is fudging the numbers toward Sleepy Woke Joe Basement Biden to energize the base and scare undecideds. Faux knows the deplorables only listen or watch faux.
    i was honestly thinking this might be the motivation too. 
    Come on guys. Fox's polling is quality.
    as has been demonstrated recently, i don't know much about polling, who to trust and who not to. why would fox's polling be so good if their reporting is the shits?

    i saw that nate rates is an A-, i'm just curious as to why one segment of their operation is tip top notch and the other is not. 
    Their reporting isn't shit. Chris Wallace is the best in the business. It's the prime time line up that is absolute horse shit. 

    Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson have absolutely nothing to do with their polling. That's why I'd be they probably spent zero time talking about how poorly Trump is doing in their polls. 
    i was obviously talking about their prime time, yes, not wallace. their morning show is also partisan trash though. 

    And has been for 20, plus years.  I used to watch it during the 2000 election season.  The same two make clowns have been on the whole time and it's been awful the whole time, I assume (I've missed the last 19 years or so).  Also Brian Kilmeade doesn't get the credit people like Tucker and Reilly get for being awful, but he deserves it.
    It has gotten progressively worse over the last two decades.

    I'd take O'Reilly over tucker. And Hannity and Colmes at least pretended to show both points of view
    Yeah, I think Alan Colmes got tired of being verbally abused every night and just left.  That was the end of any semblance of objectivity prime time. 
  • OnWis97OnWis97 St. Paul, MN Posts: 4,814
    I read one of those "liberal talking points" books by Al Franken and when he'd reference "Hannity and Colmes," the "Colmes" would be in a smaller font.  That was a nice little touch of truth, I am sure (I never really watched that one).
    1995 Milwaukee     1998 Alpine, Alpine     2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston     2004 Boston, Boston     2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty)     2011 Alpine, Alpine     
    2013 Wrigley     2014 St. Paul     2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley     2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley     2021 Asbury Park     2022 St Louis     2023 Austin, Austin
  • OnWis97 said:
    I read one of those "liberal talking points" books by Al Franken and when he'd reference "Hannity and Colmes," the "Colmes" would be in a smaller font.  That was a nice little touch of truth, I am sure (I never really watched that one).
    This is what Hannity and Colmes was...

    https://youtu.be/t_Nh5IGMo8g
    2000: Camden 1, 2003: Philly, State College, Camden 1, MSG 2, Hershey, 2004: Reading, 2005: Philly, 2006: Camden 1, 2, East Rutherford 1, 2007: Lollapalooza, 2008: Camden 1, Washington D.C., MSG 1, 2, 2009: Philly 1, 2, 3, 4, 2010: Bristol, MSG 2, 2011: PJ20 1, 2, 2012: Made In America, 2013: Brooklyn 2, Philly 2, 2014: Denver, 2015: Global Citizen Festival, 2016: Philly 2, Fenway 1, 2018: Fenway 1, 2, 2021: Sea. Hear. Now. 2022: Camden

    Pearl Jam bootlegs:
    http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
  • MayDay10MayDay10 Posts: 11,604
    if they had that format now, Colmes would receive routine threats to his life.
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 28,602
    OnWis97 said:
    I read one of those "liberal talking points" books by Al Franken and when he'd reference "Hannity and Colmes," the "Colmes" would be in a smaller font.  That was a nice little touch of truth, I am sure (I never really watched that one).
    This is what Hannity and Colmes was...

    https://youtu.be/t_Nh5IGMo8g
    Haha.. I remember that episode.  Dead on.
  • Lerxst1992Lerxst1992 Posts: 6,094

    jesus. those are big numbers. i wasn't expecting that. 
    Yeah and Fox is graded A- by 538


    But, Fox polls are very biased to favor democrats. Now what one would expect, but that’s how 538 rates their polls

    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/
  • Lerxst1992Lerxst1992 Posts: 6,094
    mrussel1 said:
    Faux news is fudging the numbers toward Sleepy Woke Joe Basement Biden to energize the base and scare undecideds. Faux knows the deplorables only listen or watch faux.
    i was honestly thinking this might be the motivation too. 
    Come on guys. Fox's polling is quality.
    as has been demonstrated recently, i don't know much about polling, who to trust and who not to. why would fox's polling be so good if their reporting is the shits?

    i saw that nate rates is an A-, i'm just curious as to why one segment of their operation is tip top notch and the other is not. 
    Fox News likely doesn't poll directly themselves.  They are a sponsor for a professional polling company.  Here's the disclosure from their crosstabs. 

    The Fox News poll is based on landline and cell phone interviews with approximately 1000 randomly chosen registered voters nationwide and is conducted under the joint direction of Beacon Research (D) (formerly known as Anderson Robbins Research) and Shaw & Company Research (R). For the total sample, it has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. When necessary, minor weights are applied to age, race, education and gender variables to bring the sample into conformity with the most reliable demographic profiles. Fox News polls are not weighted by political party. Results from Fox News polls before February 2011 were conducted by Opinion Dynamics Corp. Anderson Robbins Research changed its name to Beacon Research in 2019; the polling team is unchanged since 2011.

    Considering how polarized the electorate is, the following statement gives me pause relying on their polls

     Fox News polls are not weighted by political party.”
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 28,602
    mrussel1 said:
    Faux news is fudging the numbers toward Sleepy Woke Joe Basement Biden to energize the base and scare undecideds. Faux knows the deplorables only listen or watch faux.
    i was honestly thinking this might be the motivation too. 
    Come on guys. Fox's polling is quality.
    as has been demonstrated recently, i don't know much about polling, who to trust and who not to. why would fox's polling be so good if their reporting is the shits?

    i saw that nate rates is an A-, i'm just curious as to why one segment of their operation is tip top notch and the other is not. 
    Fox News likely doesn't poll directly themselves.  They are a sponsor for a professional polling company.  Here's the disclosure from their crosstabs. 

    The Fox News poll is based on landline and cell phone interviews with approximately 1000 randomly chosen registered voters nationwide and is conducted under the joint direction of Beacon Research (D) (formerly known as Anderson Robbins Research) and Shaw & Company Research (R). For the total sample, it has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. When necessary, minor weights are applied to age, race, education and gender variables to bring the sample into conformity with the most reliable demographic profiles. Fox News polls are not weighted by political party. Results from Fox News polls before February 2011 were conducted by Opinion Dynamics Corp. Anderson Robbins Research changed its name to Beacon Research in 2019; the polling team is unchanged since 2011.

    Considering how polarized the electorate is, the following statement gives me pause relying on their polls

    ” Fox News polls are not weighted by political party.”
    Right, they believe demographics is more predictive evidently. 
  • The JugglerThe Juggler Behind that bush over there. Posts: 47,141
    edited September 2020
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Faux news is fudging the numbers toward Sleepy Woke Joe Basement Biden to energize the base and scare undecideds. Faux knows the deplorables only listen or watch faux.
    i was honestly thinking this might be the motivation too. 
    Come on guys. Fox's polling is quality.
    as has been demonstrated recently, i don't know much about polling, who to trust and who not to. why would fox's polling be so good if their reporting is the shits?

    i saw that nate rates is an A-, i'm just curious as to why one segment of their operation is tip top notch and the other is not. 
    Fox News likely doesn't poll directly themselves.  They are a sponsor for a professional polling company.  Here's the disclosure from their crosstabs. 

    The Fox News poll is based on landline and cell phone interviews with approximately 1000 randomly chosen registered voters nationwide and is conducted under the joint direction of Beacon Research (D) (formerly known as Anderson Robbins Research) and Shaw & Company Research (R). For the total sample, it has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. When necessary, minor weights are applied to age, race, education and gender variables to bring the sample into conformity with the most reliable demographic profiles. Fox News polls are not weighted by political party. Results from Fox News polls before February 2011 were conducted by Opinion Dynamics Corp. Anderson Robbins Research changed its name to Beacon Research in 2019; the polling team is unchanged since 2011.

    Considering how polarized the electorate is, the following statement gives me pause relying on their polls

    ” Fox News polls are not weighted by political party.”
    Right, they believe demographics is more predictive evidently. 
    For those scoring at home, Fox is +1.4 Dem. 

    According to Gallup, the average percent of people in this country who identify as Democrat is around +4%  since the Corona Virus kicked into high gear in April (the latest one is +1 Dem). Scroll down further and you'll see Independents also lean more left. So, yeah...no surprise that Fox has a high rating. Thanks for bringing this up, Lerx:

    https://news.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx
    Post edited by The Juggler on
    chinese-happy.jpg
  • Lerxst1992Lerxst1992 Posts: 6,094
    edited September 2020
    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 EVs 

    I 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 College
    Post edited by Lerxst1992 on
  • mickeyratmickeyrat up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 35,425
    mrussel1 said:
    dignin 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 do suggest Nate do then? Lie about the math? I don't understand what you want.
    If he had any integrity, he'd look at the 75% and cut it in half.  Then double it. 

    what?
    _____________________________________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 '14
  • darwinstheorydarwinstheory LaPorte, IN Posts: 5,692
    🚀 science!
    "A smart monkey doesn't monkey around with another monkey's monkey" - Darwin's Theory
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 28,602
    mickeyrat said:
    mrussel1 said:
    dignin 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 do suggest Nate do then? Lie about the math? I don't understand what you want.
    If he had any integrity, he'd look at the 75% and cut it in half.  Then double it. 

    what?
    Simple math. 
  • dignindignin Posts: 9,303
    Calculating Figure It Out GIF
  • The JugglerThe Juggler Behind that bush over there. Posts: 47,141

    chinese-happy.jpg
  • mickeyratmickeyrat up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 35,425
    mrussel1 said:
    mickeyrat said:
    mrussel1 said:
    dignin 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 do suggest Nate do then? Lie about the math? I don't understand what you want.
    If he had any integrity, he'd look at the 75% and cut it in half.  Then double it. 

    what?
    Simple math. 

    doesn't that arrive you right back at 75%?
    _____________________________________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 '14
  • The JugglerThe Juggler Behind that bush over there. Posts: 47,141
    mickeyrat said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mickeyrat said:
    mrussel1 said:
    dignin 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 do suggest Nate do then? Lie about the math? I don't understand what you want.
    If he had any integrity, he'd look at the 75% and cut it in half.  Then double it. 

    what?
    Simple math. 

    doesn't that arrive you right back at 75%?
    You might be missing some sarcasm here, Mick


    chinese-happy.jpg
  • Lerxst1992Lerxst1992 Posts: 6,094



    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?
  • Lerxst1992Lerxst1992 Posts: 6,094
    mickeyrat said:
    mrussel1 said:
    dignin 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 do suggest Nate do then? Lie about the math? I don't understand what you want.
    If he had any integrity, he'd look at the 75% and cut it in half.  Then double it. 

    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.
  • Lerxst1992Lerxst1992 Posts: 6,094
    mickeyrat said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mickeyrat said:
    mrussel1 said:
    dignin 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 do suggest Nate do then? Lie about the math? I don't understand what you want.
    If he had any integrity, he'd look at the 75% and cut it in half.  Then double it. 

    what?
    Simple math. 

    doesn't that arrive you right back at 75%?
    You might be missing some sarcasm here, Mick



    I think M is looking to give Biden a participation trophy.
  • Lerxst1992Lerxst1992 Posts: 6,094
    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 EVs 

    I 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 College


    Sorry but this is damn interesting, as is the Supreme Court vs House analysis to decide contested elections. Clearly I’m in the wrong place.
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 28,602
    mickeyrat said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mickeyrat said:
    mrussel1 said:
    dignin 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 do suggest Nate do then? Lie about the math? I don't understand what you want.
    If he had any integrity, he'd look at the 75% and cut it in half.  Then double it. 

    what?
    Simple math. 

    doesn't that arrive you right back at 75%?
    You might be missing some sarcasm here, Mick



    I think M is looking to give Biden a participation trophy.
    Participation trophy?  I thought was were talking about Nate.  

    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.  
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 28,602



    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?
    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.  
  • dignindignin Posts: 9,303
    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 EVs 

    I 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 College


    Sorry but this is damn interesting, as is the Supreme Court vs House analysis to decide contested elections. Clearly I’m in the wrong place.
    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.

    This election isn't another 2016, way too many variables have changed.

  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 28,602
    dignin 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 EVs 

    I 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 College


    Sorry but this is damn interesting, as is the Supreme Court vs House analysis to decide contested elections. Clearly I’m in the wrong place.
    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.

    This election isn't another 2016, way too many variables have changed.

    This is exactly correct.  Somehow people (particularly Trump supporters) think something less than 100% is equal to 101%. 
  • Lerxst1992Lerxst1992 Posts: 6,094
    mrussel1 said:
    dignin 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 EVs 

    I 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 College


    Sorry but this is damn interesting, as is the Supreme Court vs House analysis to decide contested elections. Clearly I’m in the wrong place.
    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.

    This election isn't another 2016, way too many variables have changed.

    This is exactly correct.  Somehow people (particularly Trump supporters) think something less than 100% is equal to 101%. 


    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.


  • mrussel1 said:
    dignin 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 EVs 

    I 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 College


    Sorry but this is damn interesting, as is the Supreme Court vs House analysis to decide contested elections. Clearly I’m in the wrong place.
    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.

    This election isn't another 2016, way too many variables have changed.

    This is exactly correct.  Somehow people (particularly Trump supporters) think something less than 100% is equal to 101%. 


    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.


    He doesn't know shit about getting new voters in that demo. Putin on the ritz does though.
    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;

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
Sign In or Register to comment.