Mr. Gin, aye, Trump is two women short of a threesome. But Clinton would be in prison if she had a different surname.
As I've said before, I'd probably want to be in Utah so I could vote for someone who wasn't either of them.
It's Crooked Hilary vs a man who behaves like a deranged frat boy, who no one in their right mind would entrust nuclear firing codes to.
I've reluctantly come to the conclusion that Crooked Hilary is the lesser evil, in the same way that being beheaded is preferable to being hanged, drawn and quartered.
'Germany ignored the Fiscal Compact (effectively green-lighting the rest of the eurozone to do so), France breached EU law by banning imports of our beef...maybe when it comes to trade negotiations with third parties we shouldn't let ourselves be so bound by the rules.'
How could they prove we were actually negotiating as opposed to exchanging ideas ?
Anyway Tusk's promise of hard Brexit leaves us no choice.
Update on the ECV probability distributions of the 538 and HuffPost election models (see my posts yesterday for more details):
Clinton Bands 538 Huff
================================
Under 250 9.35% 1.18%
250-259 1.98% 0.87%
260-269 2.59% 1.31%
270-279 3.90% 2.42%
280-289 3.36% 2.47%
290-299 3.69% 4.19%
300-309 4.50% 6.24%
310-319 5.23% 6.50%
320-329 5.91% 8.09%
330-339 5.47% 8.86%
340-349 7.43% 19.04%
350-359 8.22% 16.84%
360-369 7.41% 7.70%
370-379 6.18% 5.21%
380-389 4.43% 2.88%
390-399 3.38% 2.30%
400 or over 16.99% 3.91%
================================
Prob Clinton win 86.09% 96.64%
Implied fair value for spreads markets:
Clinton ECVs 339.4 339.0
Clinton 270-up 75.4 69.7
Clinton 300-up 51.3 41.9
Clinton 330-up 31.0 18.6
Trump 270-up 5.9 0.6
Trump 300-up 2.8 0.1
Trump 330-up 1.2 0.0
Nate Silver isn't sure is he.
He wrote an article a few days ago explaining that 538 has a wider distribution than Huff because a) 538 assumes more correlations between states so differences don't even out so much and b) 538 uses fat tailed t distributions rather than normal distributions.
If 2 years ago you had told me the Rep VP would be doing a camapign stop in Utah to shore up support I would have called you a madman.
The question is: McMullin is close to evens on betfair, do I lay off my bet or let it ride?
Is only a tenner, it is going all the way to the finish line.
I suspect the Trump internal polling and local offices are telling the campaign that they're in trouble in the state. You don't send one of your few half decent surrogates to Utah unless alarm bells are ringing ,when he should be in Florida, North Carolina, Ohio or Pennsylvania.
I'd take some profit on the bet and let the rest run for fun.
BTW .... I know you've an interest in Texas too. There is a big Univision bi-lingual poll of the state out later this week
'Germany ignored the Fiscal Compact (effectively green-lighting the rest of the eurozone to do so), France breached EU law by banning imports of our beef...maybe when it comes to trade negotiations with third parties we shouldn't let ourselves be so bound by the rules.'
How could they prove we were actually negotiating as opposed to exchanging ideas ?
Anyway Tusk's promise of hard Brexit leaves us no choice.
Well exactly, and what are they going to do if we and Australia sign a trade deal in record time once we're out of the EU? Renege on whatever deal we have with them and screw over their exporters?
It's in the Podesta Emails that the Hillary strategy was a flood of polling with skewed samples and saying that the election was already over. And it's happening in real time.
Pollsters are rapidly heading for the gutter of public disrepute to join journalists, ad men, lawyers, and professional politicians.
I think you've just listed all the pb.com readership!
What I find touching is that PB reverts to polling-is-almost-infallible. It's been wrong many times and still it's used as some Delphic data source.
Clinton's lead is so clear cut though that the pollsters wouldn't just have to be "wrong" for Trump to win they'd have to have a complete and utter catastrophe to the point where they might as well just give up and go home.
It would be the polling disaster to end all polling disasters... On a par with that Populus "Eve Of Referendum" poll giving REMAIN a 10% lead!
Clinton is likely ahead but the likes of ABC and NBC will be basing their minority turnout on 2012 when it is likely to be lower for example, white working class turnout higher and they are already factoring in white college graduates voting for Hillary on about the same turnout. I still think if Hillary wins it will be closer to the LA Times margin
It's in the Podesta Emails that the Hillary strategy was a flood of polling with skewed samples and saying that the election was already over. And it's happening in real time.
Go on, give us a link to the e-mail on wiki leaks then.
Miss Plato, springtime for AfD in Bavaria? Winter for Merkel and CDU?
Whoever could've predicted that letting in a million people without any vetting might go wrong? Ah, that's right. Everybody who isn't off their bloody rocker.
It's in the Podesta Emails that the Hillary strategy was a flood of polling with skewed samples and saying that the election was already over. And it's happening in real time.
Absolute rubbish. I think people whining about oversamples do not understand polling.
Its better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool...
Possibly you could explain how this was given as advice from a senior member of a progressive polling organisation to a political strategist and head of a democratic PAC. I am sure both must be completely ignorant of how polling works.
It's clearly talking about "oversampling" as a method of getting more detailed results on that demographic for their internal polling.
There's two parts to balancing polling, sampling and weighting. Sampling is who you talk to, weighting is how much you pay attention to their responses (so for example if your sample's male-female ratio is out of whack you weight it to even it out).
Polls can look at a lot of things, or rather you can get one dataset of responses and draw several bits of info from it.
If you're doing a representative poll anyway, then you could also as part of that get information on what a particular group is doing. But you need a decent sample size for that group. So you ask the pollster to oversample group x while they're doing their phone calls.
At the end you have a dataset with enough of group x responses to analyse that group on its own, then for your representative poll you downweight their responses back in line with the demographics.
It's a way of getting more info by using overlapping datasets for separate analyses.
I don't disagree with any of that, but the panel survey experience from 2015 has shown us that you can't realistically deskew an unrepresentative sample, especially given how rubbish people seem to be at recalling who they voted for last time around so past-vote weighting seems precarious at best. Also if you have a biased sample you have to be able to deskew it on all the factors that bias that sample, and you don't know what most of those are (particularly the case with political polling which is largely self-selected, and you dont know why that person chose to take part in your survey - how do you control for "political obsessiveness" for example)
Also if one were a "progressive" polling and research organisation looking to ramp your prefered candidate, oversampling demographics known to be sympathetic to your candidate and then not controlling for that demographic (eg, weighting by race) would give you the sort of result you wanted whilst looking innocuous.
Well the groups they refer to as being oversampled are mainly racial demographic groups. There are some issues regarding self-reporting of ethnicity (for example do people consider themselves hispanic or not) but it's comparatively easier to downweight their responses to balance your sample.
I mean at an extreme level you could just ignore all the responses of group x beyond the number you need.
But this is all irrelevant (interesting to a poll nerd like me, but irrelevant) because the polls being referred to are internal campaign polls. They rarely see the light of day outside campaign strategy meetings. And if they do then it's usually part of the air war of "clinton campaign thinks they're winning x voters" and you get a better idea by watching where they put their campaign resources anyway.
The media polls being widely reported are generally commissioned by news media outlets independently, and they wouldn't want campaigns anywhere near them.
Miss Plato, springtime for AfD in Bavaria? Winter for Merkel and CDU?
Whoever could've predicted that letting in a million people without any vetting might go wrong? Ah, that's right. Everybody who isn't off their bloody rocker.
Have you seen the frontpage photo of the supposed 16yrs Ethiopian? He's almost 40. This is just alienating even more of the soft support for helping migrants. When Buerk was in Ethiopia during the famines - nobody looked double their natural age and older. It's insulting our intelligence.
Heathrow 3rd runway is a depressing decision. ATM machine have some more of our money Britain alive and well. Heathrow Hub was the smarter, leaner, better value for the UK choice.
There's two parts to balancing polling, sampling and weighting. Sampling is who you talk to, weighting is how much you pay attention to their responses (so for example if your sample's male-female ratio is out of whack you weight it to even it out).
Polls can look at a lot of things, or rather you can get one dataset of responses and draw several bits of info from it.
If you're doing a representative poll anyway, then you could also as part of that get information on what a particular group is doing. But you need a decent sample size for that group. So you ask the pollster to oversample group x while they're doing their phone calls.
At the end you have a dataset with enough of group x responses to analyse that group on its own, then for your representative poll you downweight their responses back in line with the demographics.
It's a way of getting more info by using overlapping datasets for separate analyses.
I don't disagree with any of that, but the panel survey experience from 2015 has shown us that you can't realistically deskew an unrepresentative sample, especially given how rubbish people seem to be at recalling who they voted for last time around so past-vote weighting seems precarious at best. Also if you have a biased sample you have to be able to deskew it on all the factors that bias that sample, and you don't know what most of those are (particularly the case with political polling which is largely self-selected, and you dont know why that person chose to take part in your survey - how do you control for "political obsessiveness" for example)
Also if one were a "progressive" polling and research organisation looking to ramp your prefered candidate, oversampling demographics known to be sympathetic to your candidate and then not controlling for that demographic (eg, weighting by race) would give you the sort of result you wanted whilst looking innocuous.
Not entirely true. For example, if you were to oversample African Americans, it would be a pretty trivial matter to 'deskew' the sample, simply by correcting for the actual population percentage.
In any event, where is the evidence they used oversampling to 'ramp' the polling (back in 2008...), rather than entirely legitimately ? And is there any evidence at all, other than the Trumpian stream of consciousness, that pollsters are ramping now ?
''Whoever could've predicted that letting in a million people without any vetting might go wrong? Ah, that's right. Everybody who isn't off their bloody rocker.''
Mass immigration is a key power, perhaps the key power of the 21st century.
That is why the British people voted to take control of it, and why they will be satisfied with nothing less, whatever the economic arguments.
Incidentally, I know there is a lot of focus on Nate Silver but there is also the Princeton Election Consortium which, using a similar methodology of state polls, rates Hilary's chances as either 97% or 99% depending on the model.
Unusually, over the past 24 hours the number of ECVs forecast by Sporting and by Nate Silver for each of the two candidates have moved in OPPOSITE directions:
POTUS Countdown (24 hr changes)
Sporting Index Mid-Spreads:
Clinton 330 (+5) Trump 207 (-6)
538.com Predictions:
Clinton 339 (-2) Trump 198 (+2)
Do either of them actually know what's happening?
Well I suppose they're converging.
I'd take the over on both tbh. (Or since spread betting is too scary for my blood I'd take the old fashioned betting odds)
I caught the start of the Sky paper review [missed all the front pages, alas] but didn't watch long due to the monotone opinion of the three (all pro-Calais migrants coming here).
''Whoever could've predicted that letting in a million people without any vetting might go wrong? Ah, that's right. Everybody who isn't off their bloody rocker.''
Mass immigration is a key power, perhaps the key power of the 21st century.
That is why the British people voted to take control of it, and why they will be satisfied with nothing less, whatever the economic arguments.'
Not surprising - members are banned from entereing into trade negotiations whilst members of the EU.
There's form on this - he said the same just after the vote and was slapped down by Turnbull. I'm certain that there will be plenty of social interactions between Australia and the UK in the next 2 years followed by a rapid negotiation of a treaty.
How very odd. It may or may not be unlawful for the UK, in what way is Australia bound by the provisions of the Lisbon and Maastricht Treaties ?
Perhaps the EU has applied pressure to Oz. They could still be dragged into any court issue even if they are not accused of any wrongdoing personally.
Also, playing nice with large trading blocs is the diplomatic thing to do, regardless of the strict legalities of a particular issue!!
Basically, but in a post-CETA failure world the EU will matter a lot less in global trade terms. If the EU can't get CETA through in the next year or so they may as well close up shop to the outside world.
I'm hearing a modified CETA may be agreed imminently. We'll see.
Not surprising - members are banned from entereing into trade negotiations whilst members of the EU.
There's form on this - he said the same just after the vote and was slapped down by Turnbull. I'm certain that there will be plenty of social interactions between Australia and the UK in the next 2 years followed by a rapid negotiation of a treaty.
One can have hypothetical discussions. Even hypothetical discussions that get very detailed.
All that being said, I very much doubt we'll manage it in two years, what with all our other negotiators busy in Brussels.
How very odd. It may or may not be unlawful for the UK, in what way is Australia bound by the provisions of the Lisbon and Maastricht Treaties ?
Perhaps the EU has applied pressure to Oz. They could still be dragged into any court issue even if they are not accused of any wrongdoing personally.
Also, playing nice with large trading blocs is the diplomatic thing to do, regardless of the strict legalities of a particular issue!!
Basically, but in a post-CETA failure world the EU will matter a lot less in global trade terms. If the EU can't get CETA through in the next year or so they may as well close up shop to the outside world.
I'm hearing a modified CETA may be agreed imminently. We'll see.
This was agreed between the commission and Canada already and derailed by a few Belgians. I don't see what they can change to make it acceptable unless they gut it.
'Within Texas, Travis County is known as an exceptionally culturally "liberal" region and a stronghold of the Texas Democratic Party.[24] The county voted for the Democratic candidate in six of the most recent seven US Presidential elections (and its one vote for a Republican was for George W. Bush, the sitting Texas Governor). Few county-wide elected positions are even contested by Republican candidates.[25] In 2005 it was the only county in Texas to vote against the Proposition 2 state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.'
How very odd. It may or may not be unlawful for the UK, in what way is Australia bound by the provisions of the Lisbon and Maastricht Treaties ?
Perhaps the EU has applied pressure to Oz. They could still be dragged into any court issue even if they are not accused of any wrongdoing personally.
Also, playing nice with large trading blocs is the diplomatic thing to do, regardless of the strict legalities of a particular issue!!
Basically, but in a post-CETA failure world the EU will matter a lot less in global trade terms. If the EU can't get CETA through in the next year or so they may as well close up shop to the outside world.
I'm hearing a modified CETA may be agreed imminently. We'll see.
This was agreed between the commission and Canada already and derailed by a few Belgians. I don't see what they can change to make it acceptable unless they gut it.
This is a new modification, apparently. It's a story from a tier one (US) investment bank, so I'm sure it has some basis in fact.
There are two ways it might work: one, it may be cut in scope so that the EU agrees it via QMV, or two, there may be concessions that satisfy the Waloons.
How very odd. It may or may not be unlawful for the UK, in what way is Australia bound by the provisions of the Lisbon and Maastricht Treaties ?
Perhaps the EU has applied pressure to Oz. They could still be dragged into any court issue even if they are not accused of any wrongdoing personally.
Also, playing nice with large trading blocs is the diplomatic thing to do, regardless of the strict legalities of a particular issue!!
Basically, but in a post-CETA failure world the EU will matter a lot less in global trade terms. If the EU can't get CETA through in the next year or so they may as well close up shop to the outside world.
I'm hearing a modified CETA may be agreed imminently. We'll see.
This was agreed between the commission and Canada already and derailed by a few Belgians. I don't see what they can change to make it acceptable unless they gut it.
This is a new modification, apparently. It's a story from a tier one (US) investment bank, so I'm sure it has some basis in fact.
There are two ways it might work: one, it may be cut in scope so that the EU agrees it via QMV, or two, there may be concessions that satisfy the Waloons.
A move to pass by QMV would mean gutting it and there is no satisfying the Waloons. I'm sure the commission and Canada have made modifications, but then they also thought CETA would pass as is.
@Alistair I expect turnout will be up on 2012. How much, I'm less sure.
I'm all over the shop on what I think turnout will be. I'm leaving the market well alone. It's no "Indy Ref Turnout 75%+ at better than evens" that's for sure.
I thought the Waloons objected to the ISDS component? Easy fix, get rid of the ISDS.
How will investor-state disputes be arbitrated then? I highly, highly doubt that Canada will accept ECJ arbitration and the EU will be unable to accept a transfer of sovereignty to Canada.
How very odd. It may or may not be unlawful for the UK, in what way is Australia bound by the provisions of the Lisbon and Maastricht Treaties ?
Perhaps the EU has applied pressure to Oz. They could still be dragged into any court issue even if they are not accused of any wrongdoing personally.
Also, playing nice with large trading blocs is the diplomatic thing to do, regardless of the strict legalities of a particular issue!!
Basically, but in a post-CETA failure world the EU will matter a lot less in global trade terms. If the EU can't get CETA through in the next year or so they may as well close up shop to the outside world.
I'm hearing a modified CETA may be agreed imminently. We'll see.
This was agreed between the commission and Canada already and derailed by a few Belgians. I don't see what they can change to make it acceptable unless they gut it.
This is a new modification, apparently. It's a story from a tier one (US) investment bank, so I'm sure it has some basis in fact.
There are two ways it might work: one, it may be cut in scope so that the EU agrees it via QMV, or two, there may be concessions that satisfy the Waloons.
A move to pass by QMV would mean gutting it and there is no satisfying the Waloons. I'm sure the commission and Canada have made modifications, but then they also thought CETA would pass as is.
What odds a colossal EU grant lands in Wallonia within 12 months.
How very odd. It may or may not be unlawful for the UK, in what way is Australia bound by the provisions of the Lisbon and Maastricht Treaties ?
Perhaps the EU has applied pressure to Oz. They could still be dragged into any court issue even if they are not accused of any wrongdoing personally.
Also, playing nice with large trading blocs is the diplomatic thing to do, regardless of the strict legalities of a particular issue!!
Basically, but in a post-CETA failure world the EU will matter a lot less in global trade terms. If the EU can't get CETA through in the next year or so they may as well close up shop to the outside world.
I'm hearing a modified CETA may be agreed imminently. We'll see.
This was agreed between the commission and Canada already and derailed by a few Belgians. I don't see what they can change to make it acceptable unless they gut it.
This is a new modification, apparently. It's a story from a tier one (US) investment bank, so I'm sure it has some basis in fact.
There are two ways it might work: one, it may be cut in scope so that the EU agrees it via QMV, or two, there may be concessions that satisfy the Waloons.
A move to pass by QMV would mean gutting it and there is no satisfying the Waloons. I'm sure the commission and Canada have made modifications, but then they also thought CETA would pass as is.
What odds a colossal EU grant lands in Wallonia within 12 months.
There are two ways it might work: one, it may be cut in scope so that the EU agrees it via QMV, or two, there may be concessions that satisfy the Waloons.
Insulting a bunch of misguided HRE/French is not a way to impress Junior: They are "Wallies" (or Walloons)!
Incidentally, I know there is a lot of focus on Nate Silver but there is also the Princeton Election Consortium which, using a similar methodology of state polls, rates Hilary's chances as either 97% or 99% depending on the model.
Yes, but unfortunately the presentation of the Princeton data is so abysmal that it's impossible to get a proper handle on exactly what they are forecasting. They do publish a histogram of the ECV probability distribution, but only as a now-cast, not a forecast. It has a very narrow spread indeed. Overall, the whole thing looks rather odd.
There's also the NYT model, which looks very good. Edit: I see they now do publish an ECV histogram. I'll see if I can add it to my analysis
High early voting figures in Austin are undeniably good for the Democrats.
Not sure about that. Trump may have motivated and enthused parts that Romney could not reach.
As an advocacy group - they're very motivated re converting friends and family. Counting GOP offices as some do misses the point. The GOP aren't helping much - but it's the grassroots who are talking people round in Walmart queues.
I've no idea who's winning - but so far in early voting in FL - Trumpers are GOTV at just above 41% compared to Hillary at 40%. It's close.
I thought the Waloons objected to the ISDS component? Easy fix, get rid of the ISDS.
How will investor-state disputes be arbitrated then? I highly, highly doubt that Canada will accept ECJ arbitration and the EU will be unable to accept a transfer of sovereignty to Canada.
The EU and CAnada are, broadly, two liberal western democracies. If one and the other cannot trust each others legal system to fairly adjudicate a legal dispute between corporation and nation then the concept of free trade is basically a nonsense.
F1: Ladbrokes has the markets up for Mexico. Got to go now, but I'll check them (after perusing a circuit guide, got a feeling it's tight and twisty but need a refresher) when I return.
Comments
I've reluctantly come to the conclusion that Crooked Hilary is the lesser evil, in the same way that being beheaded is preferable to being hanged, drawn and quartered.
'Germany ignored the Fiscal Compact (effectively green-lighting the rest of the eurozone to do so), France breached EU law by banning imports of our beef...maybe when it comes to trade negotiations with third parties we shouldn't let ourselves be so bound by the rules.'
How could they prove we were actually negotiating as opposed to exchanging ideas ?
Anyway Tusk's promise of hard Brexit leaves us no choice.
BREAKING: German media report police conducting 13 anti-terror raids around country - @i24NEWS_EN
The difference in spread is striking.
Whoever could've predicted that letting in a million people without any vetting might go wrong? Ah, that's right. Everybody who isn't off their bloody rocker.
I mean at an extreme level you could just ignore all the responses of group x beyond the number you need.
But this is all irrelevant (interesting to a poll nerd like me, but irrelevant) because the polls being referred to are internal campaign polls. They rarely see the light of day outside campaign strategy meetings. And if they do then it's usually part of the air war of "clinton campaign thinks they're winning x voters" and you get a better idea by watching where they put their campaign resources anyway.
The media polls being widely reported are generally commissioned by news media outlets independently, and they wouldn't want campaigns anywhere near them.
For example, if you were to oversample African Americans, it would be a pretty trivial matter to 'deskew' the sample, simply by correcting for the actual population percentage.
In any event, where is the evidence they used oversampling to 'ramp' the polling (back in 2008...), rather than entirely legitimately ?
And is there any evidence at all, other than the Trumpian stream of consciousness, that pollsters are ramping now ?
Also, I don't think Trump understands what 'vote suppression' actually means:
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/donald-trump-polls-230266
Mass immigration is a key power, perhaps the key power of the 21st century.
That is why the British people voted to take control of it, and why they will be satisfied with nothing less, whatever the economic arguments.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-decides-on-new-runway-at-heathrow
AP
BREAKING: Obama administration says healthcare https://t.co/Elaw2I8wgo premiums will go up by double-digit percentages next year.
I'd take the over on both tbh. (Or since spread betting is too scary for my blood I'd take the old fashioned betting odds)
I caught the start of the Sky paper review [missed all the front pages, alas] but didn't watch long due to the monotone opinion of the three (all pro-Calais migrants coming here).
Wikileaks
A list of the more than 3000 attachments released so far in the #PodestaEmails #HillaryClinton https://t.co/txqBHm3nBQ https://t.co/vqEgR3tr95
https://twitter.com/KUT/status/790756623467675648
''Whoever could've predicted that letting in a million people without any vetting might go wrong? Ah, that's right. Everybody who isn't off their bloody rocker.''
Mass immigration is a key power, perhaps the key power of the 21st century.
That is why the British people voted to take control of it, and why they will be satisfied with nothing less, whatever the economic arguments.'
Spot on.'
Zac Goldsmith has already tendered his resignation to Richmond Park Conservative association, my colleague @Martha_Gill has discovered.
We'll see.
All that being said, I very much doubt we'll manage it in two years, what with all our other negotiators busy in Brussels.
https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/790869734166237184
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travis_County,_Texas
Texan Dems are coming out early and hard...
Not clear if he will fight a by-election, or under which colours.
There are two ways it might work: one, it may be cut in scope so that the EU agrees it via QMV, or two, there may be concessions that satisfy the Waloons.
https://twitter.com/BrianSpanner1/status/790867660686917632
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Wallonia.svg
There's also the NYT model, which looks very good. Edit: I see they now do publish an ECV histogram. I'll see if I can add it to my analysis
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/presidential-polls-forecast.html?_r=0
I've no idea who's winning - but so far in early voting in FL - Trumpers are GOTV at just above 41% compared to Hillary at 40%. It's close.
http://tinyurl.com/hgvk7vy
[Src.: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37760187]
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37761668
There have been site problems before today (but this week): Always blame the children!
[Src.: http://politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com/discussion/comment/1313742/#Comment_1313742]
rcs1000 Posts: 14,513
12:01PM