Support NeoGAF

[CrisKre]

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.

 

[A Human Becoming]

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

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.

 

[ryutaro's mama]

5 stages of grief.

Tons of HRC supports in denial about the Trump surge and are trying to discredit Nate Silver as a result.

5 stages of ignoring the bolded.

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.

Stay in that bubble with your little MAGA hat, tho.

 

[Lord Frieza]

"Can't compare to Bush, can't compare to Brexit... Romney vs. Obama, on the other hand, is the exact same thing."

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.

 

[Clark W Grizwald]

The debates are going to sink Trump.

I think its going to be the extreme opposite unfortunately

 

[Team Alucard]

Don't you have another totally fictitious map to think up involving the victory of the white supremacist you're supporting?

My predicted map for election night aligns pretty closely with 538's current projection. Only difference is NH.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

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.

I think his best was "go back to Univision".

 

[mo60]

He already surpassed her twice. Around RNC convention and earlier in the year. April, I think.

He has never surpassed her in the majority of popularity vote trackers/models and EV trackers/models in the last year or so.Usually he gets within a point or two of her and then she starts crushing him again.

This for examples still gives her a solid EV lead.
http://election.princeton.edu/

And this still gives her a solid popular vote lead.
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-trump-vs-clinton

 

[Slayven]

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.

Doesn't the electoral college destroy the brexit comparison ?

 

[johnsmith]

Sounds like a lot of you need some Plouffe to calm you down

https://m.soundcloud.com/keepinit16...-plouffe-and-media-coverage-with-glenn-thrush

 

[Lord Frieza]

5 stages of grief.

Tons of HRC supports in denial about the Trump surge and are trying to discredit Nate Silver as a result.

Who is trying to discredit Nate Silver? I don't see anyone saying that. But do you deny that he's an outliner when someone just linked to that fact? Are you discrediting every other aggregator?

Also, why would you trust 538 over random dudes on NeoGAF? Don't be irrational.

What is this shit reply? You didn't quote my whole reply and took what I say completely out of context.

 

[TwoDurans]

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?

 

[Morts]

Trump is going to drag a dead hooker on stage at the first debate, claim Clinton killed her, and win in a landslide.

 

[eBay Huckster]

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.

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.

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?

:jnc

 

[FStubbs]

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.

It's not stupidity, it's malice.

 

[Hoo-doo]

The debates are going to sink Trump.

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.

 

[WonkyPanda]

Also, why would you trust 538 over random dudes on NeoGAF? Don't be irrational.




That's 2 out of how many?

How far back do you want to go?

The 2 polls today have her up, as mentioned. Yesterday's NY times has her up +1. Wednesday's CNN has Trump +5. Last Wednesday's Siena has Trump +1. The 9th has a YouGov Clinton +1.

As a note: This spells one thing, "Volatility." I don't know the conclusory nature of your comment that it's "flipped."

 

[Lord Frieza]

Doesn't the electoral college destroy the brexit comparison ?

I mean, maybe, but I just meant the situation surrounding this election isn't anything like the situation surrounding Brexit. The only thing they have in common is primarily being driven by xenophobia, but the actual situations driving these things are totally different, the way that they unfolded is totally different, there's no real similarities there outside a broad stroke.

 

[HK-47]

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.

 

[Hoo-doo]

Obama wasnt a star debater. His gift was speeches.

His gift was always looking calm, collected, intelligent and presidential though.

 

[Lord Frieza]

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 is a fairly mediocre debater, and it's often acknowledged that Clinton got the clear better of him in their debates in '08. Speech giving and debating are two very different skill sets.

 

[Bladenic]

I feel like every week it's a different story (from different polls?). Last week he was leading, now she's leading again.

Oh well, who cares so long as Trumpet doesn't win

 

[Oriel]

There was no major shitstorms since the Khans.

Yeah, no shitstorms. Sigh... well.....

2nd Amendment people
The Purple Heart
The crying baby
Claiming elections are rigged
Obama and Clinton "co-founded ISIS"

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/08/17/politics/donald-trump-post-convention-controversy-polls-shakeup/

Not forgetting a LOT of other stuff ranging from corrupt campaign practises to Russia influence that's been slowly filtering out into the mainstream.

 

[Lord Frieza]

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.

 

[ryutaro's mama]

I feel like every week it's a different story (from different polls?). Last week he was leading, now she's leading again.

The media is happy that you noticed!

 

[WonkyPanda]

I highly recommend reading on the differences between registered voters and likely voters. Many of the current polls have shifted to the latter and although they have their benefits, one thing LV models tend to overemphasize is enthusiasm.

EDIT: My point here being that we're unequivocally in a high right now (by Trump's standards) and a lull for Clinton. These 2 factors have definitely shifted the polls toward Donald. The extent of which is still unclear and, honestly, we may not know until after the debates. I doubt many pollsters will work before the storm (i.e. the debate)

 

[wumster3000]

I'm going to stop looking. It's killing me.

 

[royalan]

His gift was always looking calm, collected, intelligent and presidential though.

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.

 

[Hoo-doo]

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.

This might be true, my recollection might be a bit vague.

I'm just saying that it's definitely not a sure bet that Hillary is going to sweep the debates and win in a landslide that easy.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

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.

 

[eBay Huckster]

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!)

 

[kamspy]

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.

 

[Bladenic]

The media is happy that you noticed!

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?

 

[Lord Frieza]

And Hillary didn't?

Pretty much every time this subject comes up, I become more and more convinced that few people posting here pay attention to the debates. There's no way anyone can look at Obama's debating and call him a 'star debater.' He's not awful, but it's not his niche at all, and it's very obvious in most of his debates, even the ones he 'wins,' that he's not entirely comfortable in the situation.

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.

A lot of her absence before was to raise campaign money and focus on ground game. I think now that is finished and development, and at this stage in the election, she'll be full time until November. I would hope, anyway.

 

[A Human Becoming]

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.

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.

 

[Toxi]

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.

If 538 is proven accurate in their predictions this election, people continue loving 538.

If 538 isn't, people stop caring about 538, because the only reason people gave a shit in the first place was how accurate 538 had been in the past.

So they at least have an interest in being as accurate as possible.

 

[Lord Frieza]

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!)

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 overall winning chances right now.

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.

Good thing he can't win with just his base then.

 

[johnsmith]

If 538 is proven accurate in their predictions this election, people continue loving 538.

If 538 isn't, people stop caring about 538.

They're going to pull a Rasmussen and fix it at the very end.

 

[eBay Huckster]

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.

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.

 

[WonkyPanda]

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.

Yeah, 538 hasn't hidden the fact that they've been rather bullish on Trump. Whether that's right or wrong, we'll know soon enough. It is true that this election has been very unusual and so, I don't think 538's emphasis on certain factors is necessarily misplaced.

 

[Lord Frieza]

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

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.

 

[Toxi]

They're going to pull a Rasmussen and fix it at the very end.

If they do, they'll hopefully get called out for it and people will move on to other aggregates.

 

[kamspy]

Good thing he can't win with just his base then.

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.

 

[A Human Becoming]

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.

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).

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.

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.

 

[ryutaro's mama]

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?

The media is heavily invested in a "horse race" scenario.

It drives ratings.

 

[Ihyll]

https://dreamact.info/forum/showthread.php?t=74390

 

[Chezzymann]

I really can't wait to read your posts on election night

I want hillary to win, but he's right. We should wait until the aggregate starts to split apart again before saying Hillary is regaining momentum. Hell, thats what people said every time there was a poll showing trump close to hillary back when she had a larger lead.

 

[Euphoria14]

The debates are going to sink Trump.

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.

 

[TheGreatMightyPoo]

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.

I don't think his supporters will be enough.

 

[Lord Frieza]

He has a situation where the debates can only help him.

Nonsense. Even by what you're saying, it doesn't help him any to just energize a base he already has energized that can't get him to the win to begin with. The debates can definitely hurt or 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.

This is just flawed thinking based on the flawed "Trump is Unstoppable" narrative. Negative press has been shown to hurt him in the past (he tanked worse than any other candidate in modern history post-DNC), he can't just do anything and get away scot free. This wasn't even true in the primaries, despite his ultimately winning. It's flawed thinking on a flawed and proven wrong narrative.