Politics Indiana: Trump in a romp, Sanders ahead of Clinton, CNN reports Cruz dropping out, Kasich too

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
dviss1 said:
Thre would be a huge market for insurance that covers elective procedures. Everything else is a common IMHO.



No vote Bernie. Bernie Wan Kenobi, he's our only hope!
Click to expand...

You do realize that "elective surgery" is any procedure that isn't such an emergency that they wheel you into the operating room to save your life. Immediately.

upload_2016-5-5_7-29-17.png
 

Attachments

  • upload_2016-5-5_7-29-17.png
    upload_2016-5-5_7-29-17.png
    68 KB · Views: 18
538/Nate Silver got it wrong because of an over-reliance on the "party decides" political theory of primaries, that even with no "smoke-filled back rooms," the party still wields enough power, via control over party apparatus and donors as well as the influence of endorsements, to steer the nomination to the guy they want. There's been a lot of evidence for this in the past, but Trump blew through that, largely because of how much free media he generated. You don't really need party apparatus or donors if you generate ~$2 billion of media time, at no cost to you. As for endorsements, well...in probably the least establishment-friendly primary of all-time, that proved to work in Trump's favor too.

538 has two projection models, Polls Only and Polls Plus. Polls Only just goes by the polling data, averaged and weighted for recency and house bias. Polls Plus adds in external factors, things like endorsements and organizational strength...essentially things that mostly (but not only) track the establishment's thumb on the scales.

During the primary, their Polls Only projection model was pretty much always dead on. Their Polls Plus model tended to underrate Trump for the reasons given above, though it actually rarely got states wrong--when it was wrong, it was mostly wrong on how wide the polling spread would be, underrating his delegate gains. Even then, though, their model weren't off by a lot (I watched their models pretty consistently, since this primary has been fascinating)--the 538 writers were just skeptical of their own results because Trump was so unlike past candidates and it seemed somewhat unthinkable, for empirical reasons based in past races, that the party wouldn't unify and drive Trump out.

There is no "party decides" theory working against Trump in the general election, though, and no particular reason to doubt the polling data. Doubting the polling data, after all, was what got 538 and Nate Silver, the people you're railing against, in trouble. ;)
 
What do you disagree with? I simply pointed out why they got it wrong...I didn't try to suggest they didn't get it wrong.

Knowing why something was gotten wrong is useful, especially when you say "THEY GOT TRUMP WRONG CLEARLY EVERYONE'S GETTING TRUMP WRONG AGAIN."

I mean, by your logic, Trump will rule America as a king for the rest of eternity. Constitutional limits? Human life spans? Please...that's "expert talk" and experts got Trump wrong.
 
Minstrel said:
What do you disagree with? I simply pointed out why they got it wrong...I didn't try to suggest they didn't get it wrong.

Knowing why something was gotten wrong is useful, especially when you say "THEY GOT TRUMP WRONG CLEARLY EVERYONE'S GETTING TRUMP WRONG AGAIN."

I mean, by your logic, Trump will rule America as a king for the rest of eternity. Constitutional limits? Human life spans? Please...that's "expert talk" and experts got Trump wrong.
Click to expand...

I think he was so certain that he gave odds: 2% chance. Not "I doubt he's going to be the nominee." 2% is a number you'd expect he means with certainty. The guy is all about the odds.
 
By my logic, Trump is going to erase Hiliar's lead in the polls as he did with the republicans (starting with Jeb), and then he'll be victorious in the election. That's not with certainty, it's just what the pattern has been. If the prognosticators have been wrong all along and they're now saying he has no chance, it suggests they're still wrong.
 
Denny Crane said:
I think he was so certain that he gave odds: 2% chance. Not "I doubt he's going to be the nominee." 2% is a number you'd expect he means with certainty. The guy is all about the odds.
Click to expand...

Right...so he got it wrong. However, that was in defiance of the polling numbers. His site had the polling right, and his site's models generally correctly called the states and even the vote shares (in the case of Polls Only). So the moral of the story is, trust the data. Instead, you're making the same mistake Nate Silver did, in ignoring it. ;)

To wit:

By my logic, Trump is going to erase Hiliar's lead in the polls
Click to expand...

Just as Nate Silver assumed that Marco Rubio was going to erase Trump's lead in the polls. Assuming someone is going to erase polling leads tends to lead to being wrong a lot. It's surprising that you've decided to follow Silver's approach in discounting polling leads! It almost sounded like you were criticizing him before, but it turns out you wanted to emulate him.
 
just wow.

Where did 2% come from? It's a PRECISE figure. He could have said, "my gut says he can't win the nomination." But he didn't.


I explained my reasoning. The pollsters and prognosticators got it all wrong so far. So if you want to be right, you go against what they now predict. That's all there is to it.
 
Denny Crane said:
I explained my reasoning. The pollsters and prognosticators got it all wrong so far. So if you want to be right, you go against what they now predict. That's all there is to it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but that reasoning is based on an incorrect premise. The polls have pegged Trump pretty perfectly all along. If Trump had been trailing in the polls all along, you'd have a point.

Your reasoning is really, "The polls don't say what I want now, so I'll pretend they've been wrong all along." :)
 
Poll projected him with a 15 point lead and he won by 16.6%? Well, that's convincing. #unskewthepolls
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/03/u...on-donald-trump-heres-what-it-means.html?_r=0

Polls Were Way Off on Donald Trump. Here’s What It Means.
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-ohio-republican-presidential-primary

Polls: Kasich 40.1%, Trump 37.1%
Actual: Kasich 47%, Trump 36%

It's not so good for Hiiar/Sanders.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-the-polls-missed-bernie-sanders-michigan-upset/

Why The Polls Missed Bernie Sanders’s Michigan Upset

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-how-bernie-sanders-won-indiana-20160503-story.html

How Bernie Sanders beat the polls and won Indiana
 
How much is Mags paying you to post about Trump?
 
Maddow. Take it for what it's worth (not much).

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/new-polling-points-raised-ceiling-republican-frontrunner

New polling points to a raised ceiling for Republican frontrunner

As the race for the Republican presidential nomination has unfolded, there’s been ample talk about Donald Trump’s “ceiling.” The argument has long been that the New York developer may enjoy support from some modest contingent within the GOP, but there’s a limit to his appeal. The question is when Trump would reach that cap and where it stands.

But the campaign season progressed, and Trump’s national support grew, there was a near-constant reevaluation of what, exactly, this ceiling might be. As of late yesterday, it appears we’ll have to adjust our assumptions about the limits of his Republican backing once again.
 
Utah.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/utah-republican/

upload_2016-5-5_10-34-26.png

AAEAAQAAAAAAAALIAAAAJDIwNDg2M2VkLWYzMTAtNDE5OC04MWUyLTlhYzgyNGIwOWU4MA.jpg



upload_2016-5-5_10-36-12.png
 

Attachments

  • upload_2016-5-5_10-34-26.png
    upload_2016-5-5_10-34-26.png
    14.1 KB · Views: 20
  • upload_2016-5-5_10-36-12.png
    upload_2016-5-5_10-36-12.png
    87.2 KB · Views: 19
If polls are no good and shouldn't be believed, Denny, why are you constantly posting them?

barfo
 
barfo said:
If polls are no good and shouldn't be believed, Denny, why are you constantly posting them?

barfo
Click to expand...

It's the best we have, as far as the "current score" is concerned. It's useful, but not gospel.
 
Denny Crane said:
It's the best we have, as far as the "current score" is concerned. It's useful, but not gospel.
Click to expand...

So we should look at them, but believe in them only to the extent that they agree with your preferences.

barfo
 
barfo said:
So we should look at them, but believe in them only to the extent that they agree with your preferences.

barfo
Click to expand...

You do that.

I look at them and look for trends. You can have polls from 2 pollsters that are different. The RCP average isn't an accurate picture of the peoples' sentiment - it's just an average of poll results where the polls are radically different types. Some polls are likely voters, some are registered voters, some are just the population at large. What the RCP average does tell you is the most recent polls favor whichever candidates and an indication of the strength of the sentiment. Not accurate.
 
If there were EVER a year for a strong centrist third-party candidate to make a run, this would be it. If the Libertarians could put forth somebody who's socially progressive, fiscally conservative, and not crazy, that person would stand a great chance.

Not gonna happen though.
 
PtldPlatypus said:
If there were EVER a year for a strong centrist third-party candidate to make a run, this would be it. If the Libertarians could put forth somebody who's socially progressive, fiscally conservative, and not crazy, that person would stand a great chance.

Not gonna happen though.
Click to expand...

I agree, though it would probably also need to be someone with existing national name recognition and a lot of charisma, in order to really catch lightning in a bottle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top