2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumNate Silver moved Florida (and North Carolina) to Trump...
Last edited Tue Nov 1, 2016, 04:56 PM - Edit history (4)
in the now cast and polls plus. Polls only remains blue. Remember folks the only poll that matters is the election day poll. Also Why does 538 polls change so fast?
Update: Polls only has also now turned red.
Update2: Polls only has now turned bad to blue! Why is it changing so much?
Update3: NC goes red in polls-plus forecast.
Dem2
(8,168 posts)Even though his sense told him that he couldn't possibly win, he's now erring on the side of extreme caution. I hope he's way too conservative in his analysis.
I live in Miaimi and travel the state regularly, Florida is about to be a Blue State that is as dependable as New York or California
Sounds good to me. Hoping for the same here in NH.
AgadorSparticus
(7,963 posts)With the latino vote and all. I know nate can be once bit and twice shy, but....this seems kind of drastic....
getagrip_already
(14,764 posts)It takes trending into account, as well as news cycle trends.
But the polls have been tightening, and newer polls count heavier than older ones. You can go to his site and see a detailed explanation.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)it is spitting out given state and national polls.
Florida leans about 3 points to the right of the country as a whole, and Clinton is up by about 3 points nationally.
And, early voting results have been pretty disappointing. So, there's a very good case to be made that Trump is slightly favored to win Florida.
Joe941
(2,848 posts)we GOTV.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)with regard to absentee voters (tons of Democrats requested absentee ballots but never returned) and African-Americans (early vote WAY down for African-Americans from 2012).
I know a lot of people there who are busting their asses and lord knows they're doing everything they can.
But the Clinton management team for Florida is not as good at their job as Obama's team was.
CherokeeDem
(3,709 posts)Anyone can request a ballot, no reason needed. Those voters who have not mailed them back yet, may find the time to early vote or vote on election day.
Well.. one can hope....
Joe941
(2,848 posts)CherokeeDem
(3,709 posts)Native
(5,942 posts)DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)"But the Clinton management team for Florida is not as good at their job as Obama's team was. "
This is what happens when you leave Debbuie Wassermann Schultz in power for too long, and let Human Abedin be stupid enough to point emails where her cyberporn addict husband can try to use her computer.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)It's mind-boggling that they just kind of assumed black turnout would happen by itself.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)Oh I dunno, a Florida Democrat? And 2000 did not give hints of shenanigans, or Rick Scott? All of this happened when DWS had her iron hands on the wheel.
Native
(5,942 posts)You're throwing down a major supposition and not backing it up. As for AA votes being down from 2012, the article on 538 was only able to compare early votes thru this morning to the TOTAL early votes for 2012. There is still time to reach the same thresholds from 2012.
Additionally, the Tampa Bay Times wrote an article critical of Hill's team with regard to registrations (why aren't they at the ball park registering soccer moms?), and lo and behold when it was all over and done with, they exceeded numbers from 2012 and 2008. Fortunately, the TB Times wrote about that too.
Think positively!
Lefthacker
(264 posts)Is still up in Florida according to 538. I haven't seen Nate change it yet.
Foggyhill
(1,060 posts)With a veneer of stats
When héll lose big in his predictions I don't want to hear about him ever again
Very bad method and s crapload of opinions
Way too much variance in his predictive model
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)Congratulations, you won nothing.
okieinpain
(9,397 posts)jcgoldie
(11,631 posts)Aside from your inability to type coherent sentences, I also got a kick out of the irony of pulling a percentage completely out of your ass in order to criticize a statistical model.
Foggyhill
(1,060 posts)Clearly opinion unlike his pseudo science
So your comment is just a load of hot air
Thanks for the laugh though
ScienceIsGood
(314 posts)ScienceIsGood
(314 posts)helpisontheway
(5,008 posts)of toss up. I listened to the podcast last night and they were playing down Hillary's national lead. They said she does not have a sturdy lead compared to others that have had leads going into presidential campaign. They said that Hillary's national lead is because of strong support in states like California and Texas. Ugh..I hope Hillary is able to hold Florida.
I have been reading Steve Shales posts and he says Florida is tight but Hillary still has a chance. He is basing his info on early votes.
Cosmocat
(14,565 posts)and nate explains what you noted in his analysis.
Hill's national lead is getting watered down with larger proportions being in states she has big leads in or some republican states that she can't win, like Texas, that normally the D will lose by 15, but she is only down like 6 percent.
Ohio has been the one swing state she never has been able to get any real traction, and the way things are breaking right now is a bell weather for the "rust belt" surge Trump has been playing all along, and we are seeing Mich and Wisky tightening more than we would be comforable with. Pa is buffered by the eastern part of the state.
BobbyDrake
(2,542 posts)Stunts are to be expected.
Cosmocat
(14,565 posts)the numbers are the numbers ...
Demsrule86
(68,586 posts)Electoral votes by the way...
Hillary Clinton
307.6
Donald Trump
229.1
apnu
(8,758 posts)She can lose FL and OH and still win. CO will stay blue.
AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)It appeals to their belief in models. Nonsense, but comforting nonsense.
Foggyhill
(1,060 posts)Relying on suspect models, data, emotions to move markets so not a surprise
OkSustainAg
(203 posts)at this point in the election. I mean Honestly undecided.
andym
(5,444 posts)Partisans tend to vote-- for example, I assume almost everyone on DU will vote or already has voted. It is the lukewarm supporters that are always the problem.
Foggyhill
(1,060 posts)There is no science behind him
andym
(5,444 posts)because most of the polls that he uses for his models ask that specific question about whether you will vote-- thus the difference between registered and likely voters in all these polls. As for science-- statistics itself is scientific, but its use is an art form.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)Foggyhill
(1,060 posts)I went a bit more into his use of
Sampling elsewhere and how it relates to the analysis part.
The stat part and proper sampling are two distinct areas
Btw, You are the one making it personal for who knows what reason
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)Cosmocat
(14,565 posts)Johnson and Stein votes are peeling off.
Collectively, it is most certainly enough to chip at a candidate who isn't at 50%.
regnaD kciN
(26,044 posts)
but numerous analysts have noted an unusually-high percentage of true undecideds (not Johnson/Stein backers) for this point in an election. It adds a pretty unsettling "crapshoot" aspect to predictions.
Response to Joe941 (Original post)
Joe941 This message was self-deleted by its author.
andym
(5,444 posts)Florida is actually close according to his models. If you can help with the GOTV there, please do.
Foggyhill
(1,060 posts)Doesn't matter how much stats you use if you data is flawed.
The stat parts only works on a true random poll of the underlying pop you attempt to measure
If you don't have that because most polls have massive methodological failings, you got nothing to say in this pop and stats don't apply
Thats my beef with him
Also, adding up a lot of those crap flawed polls is not supported by math at all
This simply bad math and yes got a load of advanced math in my background
Florida is always close but that's ALL you can say and he keeps changing his percentages around
andym
(5,444 posts)I'm sure his models do have defined confidence intervals-- not sure where he reports them though-- would be interesting to read more about his methods.
Foggyhill
(1,060 posts)A random sample of the likely voters
The confidence intervals relies on a certain assumptions about the distribution of the polled data. If the polled data is heavily biased because say you only called land lines, then you don't have a sample of the general population
You get info on these land line people and a margin of error on them. Extrapolating that to gen pop would be wrong because the characteristics of that pop is very different from the general pop (in the pre cell days this wasn't the case)
If you sample 10000 trump voters out of 10000 because you had the worse polling methods, yoûre not getting a 0.1% error margin out of it
Polling methods and stat analysis are not same though they are conflated
andym
(5,444 posts)Determining whether you have a fair sample is difficult. That's why Silver uses historical accuracy as one of his criteria for weighting polls. History in this case includes accuracy of polling during the primaries if available. But 538 and other meta sites try to account for bias-- things like under polling if Hispanic speakers etc. In the past including the recent past, meaning the primaries, which were severely under polled compared to the general election, 538 had an excellent record, despite some very notable failures like the Demoratic Michigan primary, which would be a good example to support your view-- however it was just the exception, and not the rule.
Bottom line it is very difficult to attempt to unskew polls based on presumed bias or under polling as Mitt Romney's team found out, and more importantly the meta polling analysis by sites like 538 have worked well in the past, including the recent past, which suggests that enough good data is being gathered to draw accurate conclusions.
Foggyhill
(1,060 posts)I am not unskewing data; you can't unskewing something when both the bias is unknown and the actual error is unknown
I'm saying people are abusing the polls actual meaning. ThAt this abusers seems to be done deliberatively by the media and pollers.
In fact since methodology is so often so bad, who knows really how skewed it actually is, they certainly don't
If the actual sample is not a random sample of the gen pop of likely voters the margin of error you get is for what you actually sampled, not the general pop
That's the misrepresentation. So, the actual margin of error would be much bigger and who knows what the actual tesult would be.
Getting a good sample is hard but most don't even try
AgadorSparticus
(7,963 posts)That would explain the false slants and his skewed numbers. I personally think that they threw out shit polls just to muck up the Blue tide we will see nov 8.
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(108,023 posts)Trump will have to sweep all battleground states to win>
http://www.electoral-vote.com/
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_elections_electoral_college_map.html
Motley13
(3,867 posts)votes cast
dem 1.5 mil 30.77% of registered dems
rep 1.5 mil 33.18% of registered reps
0rganism
(23,957 posts)for HRC to be running even in FL early votes is actually good news
Native
(5,942 posts)Ligyron
(7,633 posts)There's no way enough people here will vote for Trump. He's too vulgar and crass to be accepted as our President
Joe941
(2,848 posts)Farmgirl1961
(1,493 posts)Suppose that might change after more early voting -- especially this weekend's drive?
It doesn't make sense with the huge Latino population there polling for Hillary. I know Hillary doesn't need Florida, but man -- it'd be nice to not have it go Trump.
Joe941
(2,848 posts)I hope that turns around.
Farmgirl1961
(1,493 posts)And this weekend was the big "Souls to the Polls" turn out. Does that start Friday or is it Sat/Sun? What's the weather forecast looking like for the upcoming weekend in Florida (I'm sure it depends on location)?
blm
(113,064 posts)We have to support swing states in their GOTV efforts. NC race, for example, is crucial to who controls Senate.
BadDog40
(273 posts)Farmgirl1961
(1,493 posts)We can see that Nate Cohen's 538 site is way more volatile than the majority of other polling sites. The trend during the last week+ has been that Hillary is "losing" a bit of ground and Trump is "gaining" a bit of ground.
Over the course of the next days, as more people engage in early voting and we continue to get more information and of course lots and lots and lots of polling numbers (good, bad, ugly, whatever), what do any of you who follow the statistics and polls and know a heck of a lot more than me and lot of us at DU predict to see on 538?
I ask more so I can be more prepared -- i.e. if the numbers continue on their current trajectory. On the other hand, I'd be thrilled to hear that there will be a "bottoming out" somewhere along the line as all the "undecideds" figure out where they stand.
Foggyhill
(1,060 posts)Shes never been more than 4% up in Florida
Most times 1-3%
Polls done have 3-4.5% margins of error
If you had 10 polls showing him with a higher scores you can probably assume hés ahead. But that would not be certain
regnaD kciN
(26,044 posts)the head of 538 is Nate SILVER. Nate COHN runs the New York Times "Upshot" projection service.
Beartracks
(12,816 posts)The idea that any expression of concern is unwarranted can skew fellow Dems into thinking, "Hey, it's no biggie if I can't make it to the polls next week, Hillary's got it in the bag anyway."
Run like hell, everyone. Run like hell to the polling places on Election Day. We need Every Vote to send Trump, and a bunch of Repub blowhards, home. Leave no room for spin, or doubt, or statistical whining. Let's win BIG.
============
Farmgirl1961
(1,493 posts)Because it does. This is not an election to sit out (none of them are...ever...I've never not voted).
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)Talks of "the blacks did not get out to vote!" When some of us Floridians were warning everyone all along that Rick Scott and his barbie bribe taking attorney general were going to try every dirty trick in the book to make sure blacks and other minorities could not vote.
Florida should have been dealt with 16 years ago, but of course, we had a Florida person running the campaign, the same person who kept pushing Charlie Crist on us.
We Warned YOU
and we warn you now, if you try to scapegoat us again, or do the inevitable "why can't we get rid of Florida" posts, than you can enjoy running with low wallets.
blm
(113,064 posts)Game over for Trump and McConnell's leadership.
Farmgirl1961
(1,493 posts)blm
(113,064 posts)GOTV for Mecklenburg County Dem party has the most targeted GOTV machine in the Charlotte area where most of the Dem votes are in NC.
http://www.meckdem.org
Let's make this a separate link so other DU folks know where to find this thread and can contribute to Deborah Ross.
blm
(113,064 posts).
chimpymustgo
(12,774 posts)blm
(113,064 posts)I think it's NC, Florida, Pennsylvania, Missouri and Nevada that are close.
What a difference it will make in those states to help them with this final push to GOTV. Those blue ballots and gas cards don't pay for themselves.
LAS14
(13,783 posts)LAS14
(13,783 posts)Joe941
(2,848 posts)nolabels
(13,133 posts)Well this time it looks more than week should be adhered to.
Those people who think they pull the strings need to keep it close and have pulled out all stops quite early.
Just think how they are, some might even get replaced at their jobs because it. I always try to look at the other side's point of view before going to the reaction button
0ccy01
(18 posts)I live here and there is no enthusiasm for Hillary. Lots of love for Trump especially along the I-4 corridor that won Florida for Obama, a terrible sign for H. I hate living here
moonscape
(4,673 posts)to be confused with a concern troll?
Joe941
(2,848 posts)polls only and now cast remain in the blue column. What data is being used for these changes?
MadBadger
(24,089 posts)obamanut2012
(26,080 posts)Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)The difference between "Trump will definitely win 49.9% of the vote in Florida" and "Trump will definitely win 50.1% of the vote in Florida" would be immensely significant.
But what Silver's models are saying is that we've gone from "Trump has a 49.9% chance of winning Florida" to "Trump has a 50.1 % chance of winning Florida" (or whatever the numbers are). And the difference there isn't terribly significant.
Joe941
(2,848 posts)LAS14
(13,783 posts)budkin
(6,703 posts)And they are highly weighted by 538
StevieM
(10,500 posts)Last edited Tue Nov 1, 2016, 10:48 PM - Edit history (1)
committed their illegal acts.
Hillary was on pace to win by 10 points and with 375 electoral votes. She was likely to win Arizona IMO, and possibly even Georgia. We were going to have a substantial margin in the Senate and possibly even challenge for control of the House.
Then the abuses of power happened. And now the race is much closer then we could have imagined. And I do fear that North Carolina may go to Trump.
I pray that Survey USA poll is as flawed as you say it is.
For the record, I am not just handwringing. I canvassed both days last weekend. I am doing my part to beat Trump.
obamanut2012
(26,080 posts)triron
(22,006 posts)obamanut2012
(26,080 posts)At least a nice Carolina blue.
okieinpain
(9,397 posts)think that trump won. i believe there is something going on and I don't think even if the dnc knew and had proof that they would expose what happen for fear of creating a panic.
but there is something wrong, how can trump win NC, but the Dem candidate win the Gov Chair. didn't the polls pick that race correctly but it was wrong with clinton / trump.
[link:http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/governor/nc/north_carolina_governor_mccrory_vs_cooper-4096.html|
DarthDem
(5,255 posts)This particular concern has been washed away already. Time to move on to another set of pearls!
ham_actor
(38 posts)Wasn't only a week ago that 538 had Clinton winning Ohio and Iowa as well as being comfortably ahead in Florida and North Carolina? Now all four of those states have gone to Trump? Whatever the validity of the statistical models 538 uses elections in the real world are not subject to the kind of volatile shifts that 538 portrays. Are there really 5 to 10% of the electorate who change their minds and their votes that quickly and easily? I might add that 538 is the only one that has been subject to such volatility. PEC, The New York Times-Upshot, Huff Post and others have been much more consistent. Though Clinton's chances of winning have decreased from 93 to 88% in the last week in the Upshot estimate for instance, this is a far cry from more than 14 point drop in her chances from 538. Frankly I don't know which is correct but I think that 538 is immersed in a statistical universe and isolated from political reality.