Is this the earliest a Presidential election outcome has been determined?

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

The libtards are turning on Nate Tinfoil, fascinating.

#fascism

[chum1]

Silver had a melt down over that post! 12+ tweets. Haha.

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/794994593574113282

[sys]

heh.  i just came here to post a lol @ that article.

[chum1]

The libtards are turning on Nate Tinfoil, fascinating.

Maybe. For the record, I did not turn.

[sys]

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.

well that's really stupid of you, then.  it is an explicitly mathematical model based on empirical evidence.  it might be accurate or it might not be, but it is 100% mathematical, 0% guess.

[chum1]

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.

well that's really stupid of you, then.  it is an explicitly mathematical model based on empirical evidence.  it might be accurate or it might not be, but it is 100% mathematical, 0% guess.

My issue here is that Silver makes it sound like he's talking about the actual probability when he's really somewhere in between a guess and actual probability. Maybe that's because I'm not accustomed to talk about these sorts of models. I don't agree with the HuffPost guy that straight poll data is the actual probability either if that's what he's suggesting.

[chum1]

But, given that we don't know the actual probability, there is a sense in which the model is merely a mathematically based guess.

[chum1]

Now that I think about it, Silver talking as though the model represents actual probability is problematic. Because he has more than one model, he contradicts himself any time the models don't agree. Obviously, it's impossible that the chance of Clinton winning equals both 0.65 and 0.67.

[sys]

trump announces that he lost nevada.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-early-voting-lines-evidence-rigged-system/story?id=43332509

[sys]

georgia may be more interesting than some of the traditional midwestern swing states.  early voting is way up and hispanic voter turnout is substantially up.  the polls have been surprisingly close there and if turnout really is going to sustain at record levels, it could be as competitive as florida and north carolina.

[sys]

i should rephrase that.  if georgia is close, north carolina and florida probably won't be that close.  so it's more like georgia may be as close as florida and north carolina are expected to be.

[Panjandrum]

i should rephrase that.  if georgia is close, north carolina and florida probably won't be that close.  so it's more like georgia may be as close as florida and north carolina are expected to be.

I bet Huffpost's model wouldn't consider that.

#I'mWithNate

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

If Trump is getting trounced in nv despite polls showing he's ahead, he'll certainly get trounced in the other swing states. I can't imagine nv is that much of an outlier.

[star seed 7]

If Trump is getting trounced in nv despite polls showing he's ahead, he'll certainly get trounced in the other swing states. I can't imagine nv is that much of an outlier.

I read an article about how no one polls NV correctly. The last few elections (including  congress) were all off 6 to 8 points from the polls, likely because of the large spanish speaking population that doesn't get polled correctly. So NV actually is an outlier.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

The national election office said early voting by party is like 50.3% dem, 49.7% pub, but i keep reading articles itt about how hillary is way ahead in early voting.

[gatoveintisiete]

If Trump is getting trounced in nv despite polls showing he's ahead, he'll certainly get trounced in the other swing states. I can't imagine nv is that much of an outlier.

I read an article about how no one polls NV correctly. The last few elections (including  congress) were all off 6 to 8 points from the polls, likely because of the large spanish speaking population that doesn't get polled correctly. So NV actually is an outlier.

  the illegals are not sampled properly in Nevada.

[MakeItRain]

If Trump is getting trounced in nv despite polls showing he's ahead, he'll certainly get trounced in the other swing states. I can't imagine nv is that much of an outlier.

I read an article about how no one polls NV correctly. The last few elections (including  congress) were all off 6 to 8 points from the polls, likely because of the large spanish speaking population that doesn't get polled correctly. So NV actually is an outlier.

  the illegals are not sampled properly in Nevada.

All Spanish speakers are illegal?

[Panjandrum]

The national election office said early voting by party is like 50.3% dem, 49.7% pub, but i keep reading articles itt about how hillary is way ahead in early voting.

Specific states.

I'm sure Trump is gaining a lot in early voting on deep red states, and Hillary in deep blue.

The only ones that matter are the swing states, and she's up in Florida, NC, and NV.  I think I read he's up big in Iowa and Ohio.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Nate Tinfoil was on with George Snuffleapolis this morning, said drms bragged about early voting in '14 and pubs wiped the floor with them.

[sys]

nevada may be an outlier because of mexican american turnout (arizona and colorado should show a similar trend, but it wouldn't necessarily be enough to matter in other states), because of reid's political organization and because legalizing marijuana was on the ballot, potentially turning out voters interested in voting on that issue that would not have otherwise voted.

that said, it does look like you are seeing something of a similar trend in hispanic vote turnout in florida, georgia and north carolina.  in the upper midwest states you are seeing an opposing trend with heavier than expected white turnout.


as i understand it, however, nevada is the only state where it is possible to both get the detailed data on who and where turnout is coming from and that hasn't changed early voting laws from 2012.  so there are more complications and limitation in interpreting data from other states.

[sys]

oh, and black turnout is down pretty much across the board.

[bucket]

oh, and black turnout is down pretty much across the board.

https://twitter.com/AriBerman/status/795275999739056128

[cfbandyman]

Nate Tinfoil was on with George Snuffleapolis this morning, said drms bragged about early voting in '14 and pubs wiped the floor with them.

Non-presidential years I'd definitely agree with it more, presidential years, I think it's more toss up.

[sys]

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/florida-early-voting-230841


decent article on the early voting in florida, what makes it difficult to decipher and what looks good for clinton.

[cfbandyman]

The national election office said early voting by party is like 50.3% dem, 49.7% pub, but i keep reading articles itt about how hillary is way ahead in early voting.

Specific states.

I'm sure Drumpf is gaining a lot in early voting on deep red states, and Hillary in deep blue.

The only ones that matter are the swing states, and she's up in Florida, NC, and NV.  I think I read he's up big in Iowa and Ohio.

I think she'll get NV and NC, but Florida has had way more variance. The fact that NV is following a trajectory similar to 2012 makes me think it'll go dem. I could see the orange one getting FL, and I think he can count of having OH and IA pretty well. If Hilary holds onto NV and NC, and every other state that is more with her (Colorado, NH) she's got this. It'll be closer than 2012, but she gets around 300 EV.