Say it ain't so Nate....538 Poll

[Kilgore]

Election Update: Democrats Should Panic … If The Polls Still Look Like This In A Week

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-democrats-should-panic-if-the-polls-still-look-like-this-in-a-week/

I hope Hillary has a great week, and Trump does something spectacularly stupid.

[ffr]

1. Democrats Should Panic?

Democrats don't panic. Our lives don't revolve around fearing the latest media scare. We're resilient. While you might panic, democrats move to action.

Take me for instance. I'm volunteering my time today to register voters. It's only 3 hours of my time and will have an impact at the polls by election eve. Doing my part.

No panic here. Sorry. I have important work to do for Hillary and down ballot democrats.

[upaloopa]

2. No Democrats should not panic. If Trump were to win even you should panic. But he won't and we

won't

[bullimiami]

3. My heart says our country will prove its better than Trump.

If my heart is wrong then we have really descended into a very sad state.

[Cosmocat]

39. I will be honest

I don't want it, but I am getting wore out and as truly horrific as it could be, would almost be OK with Trump winning on the outside chance that the morons in this country would get a much needed wake up call.

[moonscape]

45. Well, the world wouldn't be okay. The way I

talked myself off the depression ledge in 2000 when Bush was elected was with the lie, 'How much damage could he actually do in 4 years?'

Well - way more than I could have imagined. And Trump would make me crazy nostalgic for Bush.

The horror is beyond my imagination.

[Cosmocat]

48. Here is the thing about Bush II

This country WILL NOT hold republican's responsible unless they are complete flaming disasters.

The continued indulgence of conservatism by us defies any level of common sense and responsibility.

But time after time after time after time, they fuck shit up, they say and do abhorent shit and somehow there always is the frame on EVERYTHING that there is an evil liberal boogyman that justifies it all, and best we get this false equivilency bullshit that "they are all the same" that somehow ALWAYS benefits republicans.

I still have visceral memory of election night in 2000, knowing it was going to be bad, telling people in the bar we in how bad it was. And, as you noted, Ws tenure was even worse than even I expected.

However, it took W to get 2006 and 2008, the only election where this country held these assholes responsible and elected democrats to control DC in the last four decades.

Barrack Obama has been a darn fine POTUS, and the republicans have on their best god damned day been useless, and most days have actively worked AGAINST this country for the last 8 years out of there deranged hatred of any POTUS democrat. AND, the stupid as shit people in this country saw fit to give them the biggest mid term win since the last time they gave the assholes a huge ass mid term win and otherwise never held these dickheads even the first big responsible.

AND TODAY, this party has the most comically bad POTUS candidate in our history a fricken testical hair away from winning.

Now, is is certainly preferable, but lets be honest about what happens if Hillary wins - it will be four or eight more years of what we have seen the last eight years.

Republicans being out and out seditious bastards and this country blaming Hillary for it.

The only way we get any real movement, unfortunately is if they get full power and fuck it up in on massive scale the way they do it.

[Nay]

51. Thank you. The people in this country have gone crazy; it's been a combination of

things that have led us to this cliff edge, but what you say is exactly what will happen. The hope that Trump/Republican voters will "wake up" if things get really bad is wishful thinking at its worst. THEY WILL NEVER WAKE UP. Their ideology and brain makeup doesn't allow them to make rational decisions. They will always be able to find someone else to blame.

[underpants]

4. Next Tuesday

4 days from now. That, in my opinion, is when we will get a real look at how the health episode impacted the race.

Solver's article is very carefully written to avoid backlash from the left. I still know that he has the best model.

[upaloopa]

5. The best model is how voters effect the electoral count. We know pretty much Ttrump can't win that

Last edited Sat Sep 17, 2016, 07:05 PM - Edit history (1)

model.

The voters taken as a whole mean little.

[underpants]

11. You are right

BUT remember we are a nation of followers.

The math is permanently against a Repub winning the general - they need a blow out - but I'm still nervous.

[CanadaexPat]

6. It will be Hillary in an EC landslide.

I'm not preaching complacency - we need a massive win to govern - but just pointing out that this poll obsession is just noise and media drama.

[Loki Liesmith]

7. Nate's model oscillates too much

If it's predictions change every few days it's is not a good predictive model.

[Orrex]

9. 538 is actually very good at its intended purpose

As long as we recognize that its intended purpose is to generate clicks...

[Blue Idaho]

18. ^^^This!^^^

[uponit7771]

14. +1

[Imperialism Inc.]

20. So, wait. You are suggesting an epistemology where one

doesn't change their opinion as new information becomes available? That sounds like a really bad idea to me.

[Loki Liesmith]

21. That's why I didn't suggest it

[Imperialism Inc.]

23. Sure you did.

You said, "If it's predictions change every few days it's is not a good predictive model." That's a ridiculous thing to say. A good model should change every time it gets new information. A model that got new polls but didn't "oscillate" would be a bad model. How would that even work? Every model out there does the same thing; as they should.

[Loki Liesmith]

28. Incorrect

Last edited Sat Sep 17, 2016, 08:46 PM - Edit history (1)

A model should not change when it gets new information. Assuming an initially well fit model It should change when it gets enough relevant information to throw its hypotheses into enough doubt that a new set of hypotheses are warranted.

The art of building a statistical model (and I have built many over the course of my career) is to determine what the threshold is for a change in hypotheses.

If a model designed to predict an event many months out from its inception is to be judged good, it must be judged not only on its accuracy, but its consistency. A better model is one that correctly predicts the outcome and does so over the longest possible span. If I predict the election outcome absolutely correctly a day before the vote, that may be good. Predicting it within a small delta many months before is better.

I could create a model that samples from a white noise distribution for electoral vote outcomes, and there is a decent probability that one of the samples would be very close to the actual outcome. However the time average of predictions would be very far from the actual outcome. Because my model got it right once on the interval, is that a good model?

Look at the time average of a model's predictions. If a model is close immediately before the election and yields a reasonably close time average over outcomes, that is a good model.

I submit there are other election models out there that meet this criteria better than Silver's. He could improve his models greatly, and their stability, with more parsimony and fewer nuisance parameters. It makes things jump around too much.

Also, I am quite aware of what I said in my previous posts. I would hazard I actually know more about what I said that then you do.

Cheers,

[backscatter712]

27. He actually shows 3 models:

One that predicts what would happen if the election happened today, one that only uses the numbers from the polls to predict what will happen in November, and one that also takes into consideration economic conditions and other variables.

That last model is generally pretty stable.

[Loki Liesmith]

30. That last one troubles me

Because such a model can not be tested. I understand its use, and I have a similar model. But I have a philosophical problem with it.

[alcibiades_mystery]

8. Are you throwing a party?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

16. You never know ?

[Kilgore]

17. No way, we need to redouble the GOTV efforts!!

[alcibiades_mystery]

25. Mmmm-hmm

OK, buddy.

[Kilgore]

33. Perfect example of shooting your own on DU.

I say Good Day!

[alcibiades_mystery]

43. Who you're fooling...

Nobody.

[asiliveandbreathe]

10. I'll take Clinton 60 vs trump 40 anyday -

the gyration of the polling is to be expected...even 57 - 43 - sweet!!!!!

Obama vs romney was what, 51-47...I do not believe it will be that close - I have trust in the American people...

[uponit7771]

15. +1

[moman]

12. Silver ought to panic

Silver ought to panic.

If Trump wins ?

Who knows how long he is going to put up with some nerdy guy making negative comments about him?

After all in Trumpworld,Silver is likely a "loser!"

[book_worm]

13. What a downer, thanks.

[RAFisher]

19. The LA Times poll today already has Trump losing ground.

Yes I know that poll favors Trump. But the 1st derivative (slope) of the results have been pretty accurate. Each day is based on results of the last 7 days so it's still including responses from right after the deplorables and trip. I expect it to continue to fall day, especially after Trump latest shit.

[Chemisse]

36. That is encouraging. n/t

[DFW]

22. Trump ALWAYS says something spectacularly stupid

If the media remain silent or don't emphasize it, then in the voters' minds, it never happened.

They can sell more ads for useless insurance, dishwasher soap and Ethereal Cereal if they can report that the race remains excitingly close.

[Kilgore]

24. Ethereal Cereal

Actually sounds interesting, but will I pass my drug test?

[DFW]

40. Never heard of Ethereal Cereal or Putney Swope? Allow me to introduce you....

To the Truth And Soul Advertising Agency:

[Fast Walker 52]

47. yep... of course he does, and of course the media downplays it

[tymorial]

26. He does something spectacularly stupid every week

And it doesn't seem to make a difference with his supporters.


I need a vomit bag and America needs an enema

[Duval]

29. I hope Hillary will begin talking about issues.

I'm tired of the negatives already, back and forth. The people want to know specifics and how they are going to help.

[moman]

35. Disagree

I don't think Trumps supporters give a damn about issues.

All they care about is that they believe he is going to do something about

"Them," such term applicable to any group they don't like.

It's about the hate,always the hate.

[Chemisse]

37. The problem is that the media won't cover her 'issues' comments.

They just want the inflammatory statements for good headlines.

That's why she made the 'deplorables' remark, in my opinion, because good or bad, it gave the media something more interesting to talk about than the emails or the Foundation. And at least every time they talk about it, they have to say Trump supporters and deplorables in the same sentence, and that can't be all bad.

[Ligyron]

31. The problem is: Trumps so incredibly dangerous to our national health

and the stakes are so high that I don't feel comfortable without a safe margin between us and the hideous possibility he'd actually become President.

I said I wouldn't panic unless Hills fell below a 60% chance of being President - and that just happened.

How unbelievably ignorant and stupid can our fellow countrymen be? I have visitors from Australia coming to visit next week and I dread the conversations to come, lol.

[Chemisse]

38. It is trully amazing

That a candidate can be so utterly unqualified - and even dangerous - and yet this country is so divided that right-wingers blind themselves to the perils and support him anyway.

[Nay]

52. It means there is something seriously, seriously wrong with this country. nt

[Chemisse]

54. I agree.

And I just have no clue how we can fix it.

[Drunken Irishman]

32. I swear I remember reading something strikingly similar in 2012 after the first debate.

[ucrdem]

34. Panic away but she's still going to win, and probably win big.

The first debate is a week from Monday and that's when the crystal ball becomes crystal clear. Don't miss it!

[DCBob]

41. That map still gives Hillary a 279-259 win. I will gladly take that.

I doubt it will be that close but even with the "bad news" week Hillary still wins.

[fierywoman]

42. wanna stay sane?

Read Princeton Election Consortium (Sam Wang) every day. He's more accurate than Nate.

[JimGinPA]

46. Thanks For The Link nt

[randome]

49. I hope the Sun keeps rising in the East and setting in the West.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]"The whole world is a circus if you know how to look at it."
Tony Randall, 7 Faces of Dr. Lao (1964)[/center][/font][hr]

[NHDEMFORLIFE]

50. Under normal circumstances, Nate is right

But these are anything but normal circumstances. Trump is n absolute lunatic. Rhetoric aside, this is the first time a major party has had a lunatic for a nominee. The birther issue will go down as the end of his "surge." He didn't just lie about his obsession with it; he came off looking like someone lost in a swamp of neurotic denial.
The man is a sociopath.

[Loge23]

53. National stress level must be close to red-lining

I wonder what all of this is doing to our collective stress level in this country?
Already I know of friendships being strained, bitter arguments breaking out, people already panicking about what life would like under a alt-right regime.
Foreign real estate values, particularly in Mexican and Canadian expat centers, must be on the rise (strictly speculating here).
There's a sense of fever pitch rising and I'm not sure I want to around when the dam breaks.