Author Topic: Is this the earliest a Presidential election outcome has been determined? (Read 21602 times)

Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) · « **Reply #150 on:** November 03, 2016, 08:17:58 PM »

A poll consistently showing trump with <38% of the popular vote at this juncture has a mumped up sample, sorry.

It deserves no weight.

Panjandrum · « **Reply #151 on:** November 04, 2016, 04:33:03 PM »

You can probably take Colorado off of the table. A lot of stuff has come in the past few days, and all of it is really +3 to +6 Clinton (when adjusted for poll bias).

22 polls were added to PA on 538 that include the Comey press release or came after. 19 are for Clinton, 2 are for Trump, and there's one tie.

Michigan had 16 polls added to 538 in the same time frame, and none of them had Trump winning. The side did adjust a few to Trump for potential poll bias, but it was 12 Clinton, 3 Trump, and 1 tie.

I think her firewall is safe up to New Hampshire. That one is going to be close.

Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) · « **Reply #152 on:** November 04, 2016, 08:55:31 PM »

Quote

Votes that are cast early are secret and often not counted until Election Day, but many states release party registration information of the voters who have requested and returned absentee ballots or have voted in-person. That means the early-voting numbers don’t take into account the behavior of independent voters, nor can they account for voters who are registered with one party but cast ballots for the candidate of another party.

Clearly the early returns show independents breaking for hilltard.

Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) · « **Reply #153 on:** November 04, 2016, 08:57:42 PM »

Best case scenario: trump wins NV, NC, NH and FL. Hilltard wins CO.
Everything else stays the same.

Tied at 269. Congress picks a non-psychopath.

steve dave · « **Reply #154 on:** November 04, 2016, 08:59:58 PM »

don't they have to pick one of the psychopaths though? I thought you had to win a state or some crap (I have no idea if that's true). how dreamy would it be if john boehner was named pres?

Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) · « **Reply #155 on:** November 04, 2016, 09:01:30 PM »

I don't know either, but that spoils my best case scenario if true, so stfu about it.

steve dave · « **Reply #156 on:** November 04, 2016, 09:05:45 PM »

star seed 7 · « **Reply #157 on:** November 04, 2016, 09:11:44 PM »

Veep covered this

steve dave · « **Reply #158 on:** November 04, 2016, 09:13:01 PM »

until jake and the neverland pirates covers it I'm not going to know

sys · « **Reply #159 on:** November 04, 2016, 10:18:54 PM »

yeah, that's why evan has to win utah to fulfill the white horse and fill the oval office with diet coke and hummus.

steve dave · « **Reply #160 on:** November 04, 2016, 10:23:41 PM »

imagine a biden boehner presidency guys. even tim huelskamp (RIP) would have to vote for that.

Panjandrum · « **Reply #161 on:** November 05, 2016, 03:25:00 AM »

Trump needed depressed turnout in Clark County, and he didn't get it. They crushed single day early voting records today. Given that Dem turnout was +61k already, that's probably not a good sign.

Even if he flips NH, it means he has to flip CO, MI, or PA. His best bet may be Michigan at this point. Nevada is probably off the table. Hillary probably has close to a double digit lead there, and I think over 60% of the vote is already in.

Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) · « **Reply #162 on:** November 05, 2016, 08:08:53 AM »

Heard on the radio yesterday that a record 8.1 million people are registered to vote in Kansas.

Dugout DickStone · « **Reply #163 on:** November 05, 2016, 10:11:45 AM »

Quote from: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 05, 2016, 08:08:53 AM

Heard on the radio yesterday that a record 8.1 million people are registered to vote in Kansas.

Heard in my brain KS is and always was Trump

Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) · « **Reply #164 on:** November 05, 2016, 12:35:39 PM »

You realize only like 3 million people live in ks, right?

Dugout DickStone · « **Reply #165 on:** November 05, 2016, 12:41:52 PM »

Quote from: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 05, 2016, 12:35:39 PM

You realize only like 3 million people live in ks, right?

If that

steve dave · « **Reply #166 on:** November 05, 2016, 01:20:23 PM »

am I registered to vote in KS if I was and then moved and registered in NE?

star seed 7 · « **Reply #167 on:** November 05, 2016, 01:28:41 PM »

Probably

wetwillie · « **Reply #168 on:** November 05, 2016, 01:35:29 PM »

Quote from: steve dave on November 05, 2016, 01:20:23 PM

am I registered to vote in KS if I was and then moved and registered in NE?

https://myvoteinfo.voteks.org/VoterView/RegistrantSearch.do

Dugout DickStone · « **Reply #169 on:** November 05, 2016, 01:35:49 PM »

Quote from: steve dave on November 05, 2016, 01:20:23 PM

am I registered to vote in KS if I was and then moved and registered in NE?

Doesn't matter just go write in ph69

star seed 7 · « **Reply #170 on:** November 05, 2016, 01:37:04 PM »

Welp, DickStone guessed it

Tobias · « **Reply #171 on:** November 05, 2016, 02:35:15 PM »

sys · « **Reply #172 on:** November 05, 2016, 02:54:09 PM »

panj's nevada guy says the game's over in nevada. no way to know if it's a one off or if symptomatic of the trump campaign's lack of organization.

http://www.ktnv.com/news/ralston/the-nevada-early-voting-blog

steve dave · « **Reply #173 on:** November 05, 2016, 03:09:39 PM »

Quote from: sys on November 05, 2016, 02:54:09 PM

panj's nevada guy says the game's over in nevada. no way to know if it's a one off or if symptomatic of the trump campaign's lack of organization.

http://www.ktnv.com/news/ralston/the-nevada-early-voting-blog

every state needs (maybe has but we don't know about them?) somebody doing this stuff. really interesting.

chum1 · « **Reply #174 on:** November 05, 2016, 04:10:02 PM »

Quote

If he’s right, though, it was just a good guess ? a fortunate “trend line adjustment” ? not a mathematical forecast.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_581e1c33e4b0d9ce6fbc6f7f

Completely agree here. I've read a few Silver posts recently. He talks in terms of "probability" and "chances of winning" and "%." What he's doing, however, is not assigning actual probabilities.

Some accuse him of being quasi intellectual - somewhere in between punditry and statistical analysis. I would agree with that idea in the above sense.

Additionally, what he's saying is very counterintuitive to me. Imagine that you were to make 99 copies of Earth and watch what happens in each. According to Silver, 65 of those Earths elect Clinton and 35 Earths elect Trump. Based on my experience, the world is FAR, FAR more deterministic than that.