• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2016 |OT13| For Queen and Country

Status
Not open for further replies.
Blue Texas. Is....is this real life? I want it to happen, even if it's not probable. I would lose my shit on election night if it went blue.

I think it's going to be damn close... but I'd love to see it go blue. It'd mean that the last large population state is no longer reliable for Republicans. They'd be screwed for generations if they have to start actively campaigning in Texas.
 

StoOgE

First tragedy, then farce.
Blue Texas. Is....is this real life? I want it to happen, even if it's not probable. I would lose my shit on election night if it went blue.

Travis, Tarrant and Dallas counties are up. Valley is turning out. #believe

Travis is literally double where we were this time in 2012. And that's by % of RV. Raw total is higher than that.
 
Daily reality check, since poligaf's manic tendencies continue unabated:

- Texas will not be going blue, even with increased turnout by latinos and more Republicans crossing over to vote D. Please don't get to the point where you'll be disappointed if Hillary doesn't win Texas. Because you WILL be disappointed.

- Marco Rubio is going to win his senate race and will be running for President again in 2020. Chuck Schumer is actually right for once.

- The House of Reps. is not going to flip.

- Hillary Clinton is still on track to win by 5-8 points. A solid win no matter how you cut it, and nothing to complain about.

No lies detected.
 

Gruco

Banned
I don't get why people keep acting like the Florida senate race is particularly close. For every poll that has Rubio up 1 or 2 there's another where he's up nearly double digits. Nothing shows Murphy with an actual lead.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/senate/florida/

As I said in the post you responded to, it's more about the other Senate races (other than MO and NC) being either pointless or locked up, which makes a longer shot like this a more enticing option. That and the likelihood of turnout gap / Hispanic undercounts making the Dem gap likely larger than being currently polled.
 

Kaiterra

Banned
Sean Duffy just broke CNN kayfabe for me with this fake ass backdrop of the Wausau, Wisconsin skyline behind him where he would have to be hovering several feet in the air above a parking lot. Also the weather is wrong.
 

Kusagari

Member
Iowa seems to be looking pretty good to me based off tightening polls and the early vote.

Is Ohio the more likely flip for Trump at this point?
 
I don't get why people keep acting like the Florida senate race is particularly close. For every poll that has Rubio up 1 or 2 there's another where he's up nearly double digits. Nothing shows Murphy with an actual lead.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/senate/florida/

I say this every couple pages.

Puerto Rico's economy collapsed this decade. Thousands of families a week have been flooding into central Florida since 2010 or so. It's hard to put a number on how many since the last census was 2014, but some estimates put this number as high as million in that span. And unlike Mexicans, Puerto Ricans are all eligible to vote.

Puerto Ricans absolutely do not like Marco Rubio. They vote along the same lines as Latinos do nationally, about 75% democratic this year in favor of Clinton, per Latino decisions.

There is no way for Rubio to survive an election if these people show up to polls, because no one is going to ticket split in his favor.

And so far, they are. Latino early voting is up 99% in Florida. First time and inconsistent voters were 44% of that total...meaning they didn't show up on an LV screen.

Explain to me how Rubio wins when he's only up 2 or 3% among "likely" voters.
 

Jeels

Member
Travis, Tarrant and Dallas counties are up. Valley is turning out. #believe

Travis is literally double where we were this time in 2012. And that's by % of RV. Raw total is higher than that.

So these centers have grown rapidly in population, weren't they going to be up anyway?
 

Kaiterra

Banned
lol at Duffy's shilling ass both spreading all these voter fraud conspiracy theories but also admitting they have no factual basis after Wolf presses him on it. What a disingenuous turd. I really hate that guy. His office is like a block from my house, too. I can smell the bullshit from here.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Travis, Tarrant and Dallas counties are up. Valley is turning out. #believe

Travis is literally double where we were this time in 2012. And that's by % of RV. Raw total is higher than that.

Don't you dare make me believe, don't you do it.
 

Kusagari

Member
I say this every couple pages.

Puerto Rico's economy collapsed this decade. Thousands of families a week have been flooding into central Florida since 2010 or so. It's hard to put a number on how many since the last census was 2014, but some estimates put this number as high as million in that span. And unlike Mexicans, Puerto Ricans are all eligible to vote.

Puerto Ricans absolutely do not like Marco Rubio. They vote along the same lines as Latinos do nationally, about 75% democratic this year in favor of Clinton, per Latino decisions.

There is no way for Rubio to survive an election if these people show up to polls, because no one is going to ticket split in his favor.

And so far, they are. Latino early voting is up 99% in Florida. First time and inconsistent voters were 44% of that total...meaning they didn't show up on an LV screen.

Explain to me how Rubio wins when he's only up 2 or 3% among "likely" voters.

I don't think anyone thinks Puerto Ricans are going to split ticket for Rube.

The concern I've had from day one is he survives because of Cubans split ticket voting and I still think that is why he ultimately wins.

The race is going to be close regardless, he obviously isn't up double digits, and enough Cubans split ticket voting could be the difference maker.
 

StoOgE

First tragedy, then farce.
So these centers have grown rapidly in population, weren't they going to be up anyway?

Travis (Austin) is up double by % of RV who have voted. So population growth won't play a role there at all and would actually mean the raw vote is even higher.

Also, Austin is growing fast. It isn't doubling in size every 4 years.
 

Cybit

FGC Waterboy
I think Ghaleon means the difference compared to others can be discounted in the sense that: all the statisticians seem to agree about where the race is now, they just disagree about how much things can reasonably vary from this point. It'd be more worrying if they had a fundamental disagreement about the present state of the race, but they don't really.

At least, I think that's the sensible way to read it.

Pretty much this. If you think presidential elections after 2000 are fundamentally different than the ones before - you're going with Upshot or PEC. If you think modern elections start at 1976, and that pollsters aren't capable of being as inaccurate as they were earlier, then you're going with the 538 model.

Uh, what's going on at 538. Hill at 83% polls-only? Should I get out the rubber sheets?

Basically means that there's a 10-15% chance that completely insane shit happens (due to small sample sizes for presidential elections), and then minor variations. Remember that the polls being weakened in the model are the ones that were right after the last debate when Clinton was at her peak. So a Clinton +6 poll might actually be weaker than a Clinton +10 poll that is pushed down as it is replaced.
 

Man God

Non-Canon Member
The point is that Florida polling is likely to be off dramatically because of the influx of Puerto Ricans. It could really go either way in the Senate race.

I expect Clinton though will win bigly.
 
I don't think anyone thinks Puerto Ricans are going to split ticket for Rube.

The concern I've had from day one is he survives because of Cubans split ticket voting and I still think that is why he ultimately wins.

The race is going to be close regardless, he obviously isn't up double digits, and enough Cubans split ticket voting could be the difference maker.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. There are only 1.3 million Cubans in Florida total.

The INCREASE in the PR population has been around a million.

There aren't enough ticket splitting Cubans in the state to counter it.
 
The point is that Florida polling is likely to be off dramatically because of the influx of Puerto Ricans. It could really go either way in the Senate race.

I expect Clinton though will win bigly.

Exactly. Any poll you see regarding Latino preferences is going to be wildly off.

It's going to exclude recent immigrants that are first time voters, and most pollsters don't bother polling in Spanish.

The democratic ground game on the other hand has been targeting them explicitly...no such operation exists to get Cubans to the polls. Even Romney had a ground game in 2012. Trump has virtually nothing.

LD also mentioned that no one actually bothers to separate Latinos out by place of origin...a Cuban is the same as a Mexican is the same as a PR. Over sampling Cubans more likely to speak English (because they've been in FL longer) will make Latinos seem more friendly to republicans than they actually are.
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
I'd settle for democrats barely missing flipping the house with like +5% combined popular vote on house races and setting up a scenario where Republicans have to compromise with democrats when the far right refuses to do anything reasonable.

Might create a situation where democrats have to vote for Paul Ryan to be speaker to basically save the country from ruin, but I'm ok with that.
 
Daily reality check, since poligaf's manic tendencies continue unabated:

- Texas will not be going blue, even with increased turnout by latinos and more Republicans crossing over to vote D. Please don't get to the point where you'll be disappointed if Hillary doesn't win Texas. Because you WILL be disappointed.

- Marco Rubio is going to win his senate race and will be running for President again in 2020. Chuck Schumer is actually right for once.

- The House of Reps. is not going to flip.

- Hillary Clinton is still on track to win by 5-8 points. A solid win no matter how you cut it, and nothing to complain about.
What a load of debbie downer, this guy.
 

Cyanity

Banned
Can anyone explain to me how to tell if a poll is an outlier? I've always just been using 538's grading.

Is it more than two standard deviations away from the mean? Then it's an outlier. I think the average is around Clinton +7 right now, right? Idk what the standard deviation is, but I'm guessing two standard deviations away in either direction would be Hillary +11 or higher, and Hillary +3 or lower. Anything outside of those ranges could probably be considered an outlier right now.
 

StoOgE

First tragedy, then farce.
Can anyone explain to me how to tell if a poll is an outlier? I've always just been using 538's grading.

It's an outlier if it doesn't jive with the average of other polls.

A pollster rating has more to do with how good a pollster is. Being an outlier just means a poll is divergent from the average. And outlier can be right, but generally looking at an aggregate will smooth out bad polls.
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
Can anyone explain to me how to tell if a poll is an outlier? I've always just been using 538's grading.

There's not really a hard fast rule. Just if it looks like an outlier, it usually is, and it should be treated as such until you get confirmation from another poll.

At this point, if a single poll starts getting news coverage everywhere, it's probably an outlier.
 

Vahagn

Member
No, she probably never asked for this shit.

Also can anyone point me to links that disprove the George Soros rigging the election conspiracy? Please and Thank you.

Dude. No.

Don't entertain every dipshit conservative argument or conspiracy theory. The second you respond to it directly you're just legitimizing it as a theory.
 

Cyanity

Banned
There's not really a hard fast rule. Just if it looks like an outlier, it usually is, and it should be treated as such until you get confirmation from another poll.

At this point, if a single poll starts getting news coverage everywhere, it's probably an outlier.


There is a hard and fast rule. The rule is literally "anything more than two standard deviations from the mean in either direction can be considered an outlier". If you have all of the sample numbers used to create the average, then you simply sum all of the individual values squared times N (total number of values), minus the sum of all individual values, and that sum itself squared, all divided by N times N-1. This is the variance. Take the square root of variance and you have standard deviation.
 
Daily reality check, since poligaf's manic tendencies continue unabated:

- Texas will not be going blue, even with increased turnout by latinos and more Republicans crossing over to vote D. Please don't get to the point where you'll be disappointed if Hillary doesn't win Texas. Because you WILL be disappointed.

- Marco Rubio is going to win his senate race and will be running for President again in 2020. Chuck Schumer is actually right for once.

- The House of Reps. is not going to flip.

- Hillary Clinton is still on track to win by 5-8 points. A solid win no matter how you cut it, and nothing to complain about.

I'm going to save this one for November 9th. It's going to be delicious to read, over and over and over...
 

mo60

Member
No, she probably never asked for this shit.

Also can anyone point me to links that disprove the George Soros rigging the election conspiracy? Please and Thank you.

Dude does not own any of the voting machines r/donald and other donald trump supporting places are talking about. Any problems with the voting machines are mostly caused by human error.
 
So these centers have grown rapidly in population, weren't they going to be up anyway?

Texas has had the worst turnout in the country for years. We are at the fucking bottom. Our turnout has trended below our population growth. In many counties turnout was worse in 2012 than it was in 2008 despite substantial population growth in that time.

So hopefully the increased turnout means we at least get out of the bottom 5 this year.
 

StoOgE

First tragedy, then farce.
Is it more than two standard deviations away from the mean? Then it's an outlier. I think the average is around Clinton +7 right now, right? Idk what the standard deviation is, but I'm guessing two standard deviations away in either direction would be Hillary +11 or higher, and Hillary +3 or lower. Anything outside of those ranges could probably be considered an outlier right now.

Standard deviations are super fun to calculate. It's the square root of the deviation of the data set from the mean.

Basically average everything, figure out how to group them around the average and figure out what the standard deviation from the average is at. So if the average is 7 and you group them up and most polls are around 5-9 your standard deviation is +/-2. So 2 standard deviations would be +/-4 from the average.

The standard deviation is smaller for data that is closer to the average and larger for data that is more desperate. So a smaller standard deviation points to a more accurate data set.

I may be half right on this. I had a risk quant explain it to me from the equity derivatives desk from Goldman for like 5 real drunk hours.
 
There is a hard and fast rule. The rule is literally "anything more than two standard deviations from the mean in either direction can be considered an outlier". If you have all of the sample numbers used to create the average, then you simply sum all of the individual values squared times N (total number of values), minus the sum of all individual values, and that sum itself squared, all divided by N times N-1.

Well yes, that addresses the technical definition of "outlier" but not the colloquial definition.

Technically an outlier could be a result that deviates from the mean with good reason and be worth paying attention to.

Colloquially "outlier" has come to mean something that's SO far off that it should just be discarded...like the LA times thing with two black guys (one of whom likes Trump) out of a 3K sample, or the IBD poll that's laughably republican up until the last week when it's arbitrarily moved to the mean without explanation.
 

StoOgE

First tragedy, then farce.
Well yes, that addresses the technical definition of "outlier" but not the colloquial definition.

Technically an outlier could be a result that deviates from the mean with good reason and be worth paying attention to.

Colloquially "outlier" has come to mean something that's SO far off that it should just be discarded...like the LA times thing with two black guys (one of whom likes Trump) out of a 3K sample, or the IBD poll that's laughably republican up until the last week when it's arbitrarily moved to the mean without explanation.

Both Wall Street firms I worked for assessed the risk pool at 3 standard deviations based on the potential that 3 standard deviations could be correct. They weighted that risk, but people should be aware that an outlier could absolutely be the only correct data point.

We are dealing with probabilities. So it is less probable, that a data point less than 1 standard deviation awa.

Which is to say, LA Times could be right. Get the rubber sheets ready.
 
Any suggestions of voter fraud or rigging should be banned outright without evidence backing the matter up. Especially this extremely loose conspiracy bullshit.
- Trump campaign admits only chance to win is through voter suppression, three major voter suppression operations under way against idealistic white liberals, young women, and African Americans
If the details there are the best they have to "suppress," they're going to need to work harder.
What's happening with the Dakota pipeline right now really deserves it's own thread.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/10/dapl-protest-photos-dakota-access-pipeline-arrests
ND police must have been desperate for an excuse to get out their military equipment. And, uh, this picture is pretty intimidating:
Cvyrzb_UMAEyqoW.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom