I'm pretty sure the Ipsos map and their polling are entirely separate. There's actually not a single Ipsos poll listed on FiveThirtyEight for Vermont. For the states they do use them their weight has been reduced since Nate decided Ipsos dividing their national numbers by each state wasn't as substantial as state specific polls.because fivethirtyeight has the "let's include everything" approach in a year where almost everything is shit
aggregate of aggregates still has literally everyone else above 65% Clinton and the biggest substantive difference between them is only 538's including shit like those weird Ipsos polls where Vermont goes for Trump
5 stages of grief.
Tons of HRC supports in denial about the Trump surge and are trying to discredit Nate Silver as a result.
I mean, they were, but does that mean that they'll be 100% accurate for this one? It's worth mentioning that 538 also had Trump losing the primaries to Cruz I believe, despite the fact that everywhere else was reporting Trump as the clear winner. At some point, you have to acknowledge when someone is the outliner. Though, yes, it doesn't neccessarily discredit them.
"Can't compare to Bush, can't compare to Brexit... Romney vs. Obama, on the other hand, is the exact same thing."
The debates are going to sink Trump.
Don't you have another totally fictitious map to think up involving the victory of the white supremacist you're supporting?
Trump knows how to come up with zingers with or without Ailes. I doubt anyone was coaching him for the "only Rosie O'Donnel" quip.
He already surpassed her twice. Around RNC convention and earlier in the year. April, I think.
Romney vs Obama is a much closer comparison point to this election than Brexit and Bush. It's not exactly the same, no, but we're seeing a lot of the same trends, as well as large surge that Romney seemed to have that made people think it would be a snapshot finish race around this time, despite it ending up a blowout more or less for Obama.
It's much closer than Brexit and Bush, though. Sorry to put a wedge in that fear-mongering for you.
5 stages of grief.
Tons of HRC supports in denial about the Trump surge and are trying to discredit Nate Silver as a result.
Also, why would you trust 538 over random dudes on NeoGAF? Don't be irrational.
I'm pretty sure the Ipsos map and their polling are entirely separate. There's actually not a single Ipsos poll listed on FiveThirtyEight for Vermont. For the states they do use them their weight has been reduced since Nate decided Ipsos dividing their national numbers by each state wasn't as substantial as state specific polls.
So you're saying if there's a bowl full of skittles, and half of them are voting for Clinton, Trump won't want to reach in and grab a handful?
At this point Im freaking out about the prospect of a Trump presidency and can not believe just how much of an actual possibility it is.
People are so stupid its tragic.
The debates are going to sink Trump.
Also, why would you trust 538 over random dudes on NeoGAF? Don't be irrational.
That's 2 out of how many?
Doesn't the electoral college destroy the brexit comparison ?
Or so we just keep saying, hoping like hell that it's actually true.
The debates could easily sink Clinton depending on the circumstances. She isn't some star debater like Bams often was.
Obama wasnt a star debater. His gift was speeches.
Or so we just keep saying, hoping like hell that it's actually true.
The debates could easily sink Clinton depending on the circumstances. She isn't some star debater like Bams often was.
There was no major shitstorms since the Khans.
His gift was always looking calm, collected, intelligent and presidential though.
I feel like every week it's a different story (from different polls?). Last week he was leading, now she's leading again.
His gift was always looking calm, collected, intelligent and presidential though.
Yeah, I'm also sure you never saw Obama actually debate. Go and watch his debates with Clinton in '08, or even his first with Romney in '12. He doesn't totally lose his cool, but he's much less collected in all of those than you probably think.
Did his model for the 2012 election consistently diverge from everyone else then too?Unfortunately, I still have no reason to trust Silver's priors (and thus his model) over Cohn's or Wang's (or even Sabato's ratings) at this point in the game. Not to say he ain't shit, just that it's kinda weird that his model alone has consistently diverged from everyone else doing poll aggregation all year long.
Did his model for the 2012 election consistently diverge from everyone else then too?
I'd really love to believe that 538 is just being supremely pessimistic/conservative in its estimates, truly. But their previous predictions (on the presidential, I'm aware of their primary flub) being so spot-on is hard to shake off.
The media is happy that you noticed!
And Hillary didn't?
Hopefully, the polls are settling. I'm just nervous because the Clinton campaign has a history of taking growing leads as a sign to stop campaigning aggressively. You can't take your foot off Trump's neck.
What's odd is FiveThirtyEight's Senate projection is nearly identical to Wang's. I think their presidential forecast might be more susceptible to undecideds compared to others and the trend line calculation over compensates for changes. Nate seemed to even slightly hint at the latter.Neat!
Unfortunately, I still have no reason to trust Silver's priors (and thus his model) over Cohn's or Wang's (or even Sabato's ratings) at this point in the game. Not to say he ain't shit, just that it's kinda weird that his model alone has consistently diverged from everyone else doing poll aggregation all year long.
If 538 is proven accurate in their predictions this election, people continue loving 538.Did his model for the 2012 election consistently diverge from everyone else then too?
I'd really love to believe that 538 is just being supremely pessimistic/conservative in its estimates, truly. But their previous predictions (on the presidential, I'm aware of their primary flub) being so spot-on is hard to shake off.
They were right there with PEC as far as I can remember... which is even weirder, because I don't think anyone substantively changed their models between 2012 and 2016 if it wasn't Silver. (Wang sure didn't!)
If Trump wins the debates it galvanizes his base.
If Trump loses the debates it galvanizes his base.
Soundbites from the debates and interviews regarding the debates will serve as free advertising from now until election day.
They're going to pull a Rasmussen and fix it at the very end.If 538 is proven accurate in their predictions this election, people continue loving 538.
If 538 isn't, people stop caring about 538.
Yeah, pretty sure Silver was in line with everyone else in '12. It's been a pretty weird cycle for him, it seems. He totally misshot on Trump winning the primaries, and now he's an outliner (somewhat radically really) to Trump's over winning chances right now.
What's odd is FiveThirtyEight's Senate projection is nearly identical to Wang's. I think their presidential forecast might be more susceptible to undecideds compared to others and the trend line calculation over compensates for changes. Nate seemed to even slightly hint at the latter.
FWIW, it was Silver the pundit who totally misshot - from what I can remember of this spring (i.e., what I haven't blocked out because people keep relitigating it), the model was actually fairly accurate
If they do, they'll hopefully get called out for it and people will move on to other aggregates.They're going to pull a Rasmussen and fix it at the very end.
Good thing he can't win with just his base then.
They only got a few primaries wrong. He and the rest of his staff were in denial for months (like most people in the media).Did his model actually show Trump winning the primaries then and he just said otherwise then? I can't remember, I thought his numbers were actually off, too.
You're oversimplifying there a bit. You can say Nate clung onto indicators of the past too strongly that supported Trump losing, but there was plenty of room for skepticism, not magic.FWIW - from what I can remember of this spring (i.e., what I haven't blocked out because people keep relitigating it), the model was actually fairly accurate, it was just that Silver kept arguing in articles that it was wrong and Trump was totally going to lose to XYZ because establishment magic.
I mean, I don't keep up that much. But I swear I'll see a headline proclaiming Hillary leading by a lot, then I'll see one with Trump leading. Are potential voters that volatile?
I really can't wait to read your posts on election night
The debates are going to sink Trump.
I don't think his supporters will be enough.What are you talking about?
This man could throw a tantrum, claim bias and unfairness from the moderators and walk out and his supporters would love him even more for it.
He has a situation where the debates can only help him.
Anyone who would be scared away by his gaffes are already long gone. (Is there anything he could say at this point to drive away people who aren't already gone?)
The worst thing the media could probably do to him is embrace him.