Trump's chances of winning are up to 32.3% tonight, that an increase of approx 3% in the last few hours. Plus 538's State by State map is showing Florida with its highly important 29 ECVs as being red, well light pink actually, for the first time.
The Trump train inches towards its destination. Will it make it? Find out Nov 8th!
Probably because I have been blitzed by Plato every other minute for the last three days, I now instinctively expect Trumpton to win. But your post earlier was sound: how the devil does he get to 270? NV and CO look bad for him, which leaves him with PA or a very unlikely Midwest route. PA has not returned a Republican for time. I'm happy enough with my position - I win big on Trump and decently on the narrow Hillary victory. I lose on HC 300+. I hope this latest rumpus will shift the odds, and I can then cover HC 300+ if she does a Cameron 2015.
My 260 included a Trump NV, and he'd have to win FL, OH, IA, NC too. He needs one other state but nothing looks promising for him at the moment.
With the Rockies looking good for Hillary, it would have to be something bizarre like this:
Trump's chances of winning are up to 32.3% tonight, that an increase of approx 3% in the last few hours. Plus 538's State by State map is showing Florida with its highly important 29 ECVs as being red, well light pink actually, for the first time.
The Trump train inches towards its destination. Will it make it? Find out Nov 8th!
Probably because I have been blitzed by Plato every other minute for the last three days, I now instinctively expect Trumpton to win. But your post earlier was sound: how the devil does he get to 270? NV and CO look bad for him, which leaves him with PA or a very unlikely Midwest route. PA has not returned a Republican for time. I'm happy enough with my position - I win big on Trump and decently on the narrow Hillary victory. I lose on HC 300+. I hope this latest rumpus will shift the odds, and I can then cover HC 300+ if she does a Cameron 2015.
My 260 included a Trump NV, and he'd have to win FL, OH, IA, NC too. He needs one other state but nothing looks promising for him at the moment.
With the Rockies looking good for Hillary, it would have to be something bizarre like this:
‘I’m particularly pleased to see that Craig Oliver… sorry Sir Craig, is here tonight. In his book he said that when he heard the result of the referendum, he walked out of the office and as he walked into Whitehall started wretching violently.
I have to say that I think we all understand that feeling, most of us experienced it too when we saw his name on the resignations honours list.’
"Tonight I’ve bought Clinton ECVs at 302 because I think that the polling and markets have over reacted to Friday’s FBI move."
I think it is worth reflecting that Clinton's estimated vote percentage (538, polls only) has dropped by precisely 1% since the FBI intervention, to 48.6%. We are five days on from that now, and Nate Silver reckoned the model would be showing the full effect after 5-7 days. I doubt the FBI will succeed in delivering much more than that 1% to the Trump cause.
Before the FBI intervention, Clinton's rating had dropped by just 0.2% from its peak of 49.8% at around the time of the third debate. The narrowing of the race during that period was almost entirely due to a 1% increase in Trump's rating, which coincided with a 1% decrease in Gary Johnson's. Probably in retrospect that shouldn't have been unexpected, but with Johnson now down to a little more than half his peak, I wonder whether there is much more there for Trump to squeeze.
Clinton's lead, according to 538, now stands at 3.5%. I wonder if it's likely to drop much below that by polling day. If it doesn't, we are back to Trump needing a large systematic error in the polls (albeit one only half as big as he would have needed at the height of Clinton's dominance).
Well, it seems to me that 538 is a much more sophisticated model, and likely to be closer to the truth. (Though, of course, if it's so complicated they can't get their sums right, that's a problem!)
But even for a smaller lead of 1.9%, the same argument applies to some extent. (I had previously been thinking Clinton's lead on 538 might go down to 2.5% or so.) I think Trump would still need something more than statistical sampling error to overcome that 1.9% lead, given that the margin of error of a polling average is much smaller than for an individual poll.
‘I’m particularly pleased to see that Craig Oliver… sorry Sir Craig, is here tonight. In his book he said that when he heard the result of the referendum, he walked out of the office and as he walked into Whitehall started wretching violently.
I have to say that I think we all understand that feeling, most of us experienced it too when we saw his name on the resignations honours list.’
There are some under 30 people on this site (kl4, Morris Dancer I think?) I think they'd be good for a night out.
Morris is the life of the party
He's always come across as a nice guy on this site. I've never heard him be outright critical of whole groups of people either. Although I can't say I'm really an F1 fan. Now that whole sport bores me....
Don't forget to compliment him on his trebuchet....
I had to google that - 'trebuchet'. Not surprised an F1 fan has an engine.
See them being used in the defence of Minas Tirith in ROTK. Also a large on at Warwick Castle.
I meant it ironically, as I have been called that a number of times, not least for pointing out that the WWC is more diverse in its views on political and social issues than some on here would allow.
The other thing that keeps this place more civil than most internet sites is the betting. I have made some of my bigger profits here betting against my own favoured outcomes, and indeed will be in profit if Trump wins as that is where the value has been.
I do wonder if some value is returning to Clinton, and am tempted to go fossicking for it tommorow.
Alas, since my retirement, aside from trivial wagers for charity or a bottle, I can only bet in cash with bookies (a promise to my wife) and that means getting a bus to the nearest town. So I can't take advantage of shifts in markets or indeed short-term tips. If Trump wins then the Llama beer account will be substantially boosted (got a few quid on very early in his run) but I cannot be bothered to do any more.
By the way, I was chatting to a gaming friend earlier today he is a cardiologist in Suffolk and is very pessimistic about the NHS. He says that 30% of the GPs are going to retire in the next few years and the whole thing is on the point of collapse. What would be your views?
‘I’m particularly pleased to see that Craig Oliver… sorry Sir Craig, is here tonight. In his book he said that when he heard the result of the referendum, he walked out of the office and as he walked into Whitehall started wretching violently.
I have to say that I think we all understand that feeling, most of us experienced it too when we saw his name on the resignations honours list.’
I've just listened to the tape on his twitter feed. Nowhere did I hear him say that. He did say it was too close to call, while his US correspondent said he had spoken to an FL pollster who said 25% of GOP-identifier early voters had voted for Hillary. The rest of the dialogue was just poll ramping/cherry picking (in both directions).
lol. He was a quasi-retired wine merchant married to a Jewish Liverpudlian doctor. Now lives abroad, but provides amusing, acidic commentary on UK Labour politics on Twitter
I think it's fair to say that he's not entirely enthused by the Corbyn and McDonnell takeover of the Labour Party.
Not exactly a shock, given he is Tony Blair's biggest fan and spent years before infecting PB fighting with the Social Worker types on other internet forums and talk radio.
He's genuinely funny. Very acerbic, but funny. It's a pity he can't be enticed back to the forum.
I'm about to go to bed so enjoy the last word but you were out of order with tim.
Internet forums have strange and nuanced rules, especially about identity. You have always made your identity known and well done you. tim did not want his to be made known and you made it known (whether or not it had been previously).
He's been a complete failure for France. I don't think there is a single metric by which he has improved France since he took over in 2012. I think by this point it's highly unlikely he will stand again, better to bow out mildly gracefully!
I've just listened to the tape on his twitter feed. Nowhere did I hear him say that. He did say it was too close to call, while his US correspondent said he had spoken to an FL pollster who said 25% of GOP-identifier early voters had voted for Hillary. The rest of the dialogue was just poll ramping/cherry picking (in both directions).
So they are even doing poll ramping and cherry picking on the radio then!
What ARE you talking about. This is just about the only site where you can come, and announce yourself as Corbynite, BNP voter, feminazi, Thatcherite, Holocaust denier (within reason) Scot Nat, Cornish nationalist, terrible drunk, millionaire gay lawyer, quasi-Marxist, Nick Palmer ex MP, mad cat owner, Tory, shady businessman, insane train geek, and even ageing bald europhile Lib Dem, and you will be given a hearing, and a good discussion, until and unless you say something TRULY outrageous. Or you go on about Scottish subsamples.
This is the most tolerant and generous of blogs. All can come and all can rant. And they really really do. I defy you to find a saner blog with a wider ranger of commenters.
Spot on, Mr. T. This site is really like the public bar in a decent pub full of all sorts of people and, at its best, several different conversations going on at the same time. This evening for example we have had the usual USA election chatter interspersed with economic data, the merits of Northern Ireland and, earlier, recipes for Christmas puddings, plus some offbeat views on what constitutes Lutheranism. Alas for once we have had nothing on engineering, cricket or trains.
Goes off to consider which of SeanT's categories I fit into. Terrible drunk? Not really. Mad cat owner? Possibly I suppose but really none of them fit terribly well. Could we not have a new category of a mild-mannered, sort of elderly person who is a bit to the right on some issues and a bit to the left on others who likes cats (and dogs) and a drink, is a bit of an English nationalist but colour blind and who is jolly keen on engineering, quite likes watching cricket, cooking/eating well and playing computer games.
Ultimately HL we are all in a minority of one :-).
I write as a member of the metropolitan elite, despite living a quiet life in a suburb of an obscure English provincial city, supporting a party that will probably not see power during my remaining lifetime.
PB needs its off topic conversations in order to build the bonds that keep tbe political disputes mostly civil.
Quite so, Dr Sox. I have to say I have never thought of you as a member of the metropolitan elite, though.
Bakerloo elite? Piccadilly elite?
Thank you, Dr. Prasannan. That really made me laugh.
Maybe in the circumstances District Elite might be the most appropriate.
By the way, how does it feel to be referenced by SeanT as an "Insane train Geek"?
lol. He was a quasi-retired wine merchant married to a Jewish Liverpudlian doctor. Now lives abroad, but provides amusing, acidic commentary on UK Labour politics on Twitter
I think it's fair to say that he's not entirely enthused by the Corbyn and McDonnell takeover of the Labour Party.
Not exactly a shock, given he is Tony Blair's biggest fan and spent years before infecting PB fighting with the Social Worker types on other internet forums and talk radio.
He's genuinely funny. Very acerbic, but funny. It's a pity he can't be enticed back to the forum.
A State Department official appeared to coordinate with Hillary Clinton's nascent presidential campaign hours before the former secretary of state's exclusive use of private emails was first detailed in a news account last year, newly released hacked emails show.
Among other things, he minimises the likely effect of the reduced turnout among black voters, saying it has already been accounted for in the polls. In fact, he suggests that many polls' likely voter screening may be excluding many who say they are less than "almost certain" to vote, and that Clinton has a big lead in this group.
"Tonight I’ve bought Clinton ECVs at 302 because I think that the polling and markets have over reacted to Friday’s FBI move."
I think it is worth reflecting that Clinton's estimated vote percentage (538, polls only) has dropped by precisely 1% since the FBI intervention, to 48.6%. We are five days on from that now, and Nate Silver reckoned the model would be showing the full effect after 5-7 days. I doubt the FBI will succeed in delivering much more than that 1% to the Trump cause.
Before the FBI intervention, Clinton's rating had dropped by just 0.2% from its peak of 49.8% at around the time of the third debate. The narrowing of the race during that period was almost entirely due to a 1% increase in Trump's rating, which coincided with a 1% decrease in Gary Johnson's. Probably in retrospect that shouldn't have been unexpected, but with Johnson now down to a little more than half his peak, I wonder whether there is much more there for Trump to squeeze.
Clinton's lead, according to 538, now stands at 3.5%. I wonder if it's likely to drop much below that by polling day. If it doesn't, we are back to Trump needing a large systematic error in the polls (albeit one only half as big as he would have needed at the height of Clinton's dominance).
Well, it seems to me that 538 is a much more sophisticated model, and likely to be closer to the truth. (Though, of course, if it's so complicated they can't get their sums right, that's a problem!)
But even for a smaller lead of 1.9%, the same argument applies to some extent. (I had previously been thinking Clinton's lead on 538 might go down to 2.5% or so.) I think Trump would still need something more than statistical sampling error to overcome that 1.9% lead, given that the margin of error of a polling average is much smaller than for an individual poll.
We will see on the night but RCP have been recording the poll average since 2000 and called every election winner right, 538 have only been polling more recently. Goodnight
"Tonight I’ve bought Clinton ECVs at 302 because I think that the polling and markets have over reacted to Friday’s FBI move."
I think it is worth reflecting that Clinton's estimated vote percentage (538, polls only) has dropped by precisely 1% since the FBI intervention, to 48.6%. We are five days on from that now, and Nate Silver reckoned the model would be showing the full effect after 5-7 days. I doubt the FBI will succeed in delivering much more than that 1% to the Trump cause.
Before the FBI intervention, Clinton's rating had dropped by just 0.2% from its peak of 49.8% at around the time of the third debate. The narrowing of the race during that period was almost entirely due to a 1% increase in Trump's rating, which coincided with a 1% decrease in Gary Johnson's. Probably in retrospect that shouldn't have been unexpected, but with Johnson now down to a little more than half his peak, I wonder whether there is much more there for Trump to squeeze.
Clinton's lead, according to 538, now stands at 3.5%. I wonder if it's likely to drop much below that by polling day. If it doesn't, we are back to Trump needing a large systematic error in the polls (albeit one only half as big as he would have needed at the height of Clinton's dominance).
Well, it seems to me that 538 is a much more sophisticated model, and likely to be closer to the truth. (Though, of course, if it's so complicated they can't get their sums right, that's a problem!)
But even for a smaller lead of 1.9%, the same argument applies to some extent. (I had previously been thinking Clinton's lead on 538 might go down to 2.5% or so.) I think Trump would still need something more than statistical sampling error to overcome that 1.9% lead, given that the margin of error of a polling average is much smaller than for an individual poll.
We will see on the night but RCP have been recording the poll average since 2000 and called every election winner right, 538 have only been polling more recently. Goodnight
A State Department official appeared to coordinate with Hillary Clinton's nascent presidential campaign hours before the former secretary of state's exclusive use of private emails was first detailed in a news account last year, newly released hacked emails show.
"Tonight I’ve bought Clinton ECVs at 302 because I think that the polling and markets have over reacted to Friday’s FBI move."
I think it is worth reflecting that Clinton's estimated vote percentage (538, polls only) has dropped by precisely 1% since the FBI intervention, to 48.6%. We are five days on from that now, and Nate Silver reckoned the model would be showing the full effect after 5-7 days. I doubt the FBI will succeed in delivering much more than that 1% to the Trump cause.
Before the FBI intervention, Clinton's rating had dropped by just 0.2% from its peak of 49.8% at around the time of the third debate. The narrowing of the race during that period was almost entirely due to a 1% increase in Trump's rating, which coincided with a 1% decrease in Gary Johnson's. Probably in retrospect that shouldn't have been unexpected, but with Johnson now down to a little more than half his peak, I wonder whether there is much more there for Trump to squeeze.
Clinton's lead, according to 538, now stands at 3.5%. I wonder if it's likely to drop much below that by polling day. If it doesn't, we are back to Trump needing a large systematic error in the polls (albeit one only half as big as he would have needed at the height of Clinton's dominance).
Well, it seems to me that 538 is a much more sophisticated model, and likely to be closer to the truth. (Though, of course, if it's so complicated they can't get their sums right, that's a problem!)
But even for a smaller lead of 1.9%, the same argument applies to some extent. (I had previously been thinking Clinton's lead on 538 might go down to 2.5% or so.) I think Trump would still need something more than statistical sampling error to overcome that 1.9% lead, given that the margin of error of a polling average is much smaller than for an individual poll.
We will see on the night but RCP have been recording the poll average since 2000 and called every election winner right, 538 have only been polling more recently. Goodnight
Pedant mode.. 538 haven't been polling at all
You are right but neither have RCP it is polling averages they record and they are the two main sites that record that
A State Department official appeared to coordinate with Hillary Clinton's nascent presidential campaign hours before the former secretary of state's exclusive use of private emails was first detailed in a news account last year, newly released hacked emails show.
lol. He was a quasi-retired wine merchant married to a Jewish Liverpudlian doctor. Now lives abroad, but provides amusing, acidic commentary on UK Labour politics on Twitter
I think it's fair to say that he's not entirely enthused by the Corbyn and McDonnell takeover of the Labour Party.
Not exactly a shock, given he is Tony Blair's biggest fan and spent years before infecting PB fighting with the Social Worker types on other internet forums and talk radio.
He's genuinely funny. Very acerbic, but funny. It's a pity he can't be enticed back to the forum.
I'm about to go to bed so enjoy the last word but you were out of order with tim.
Internet forums have strange and nuanced rules, especially about identity. You have always made your identity known and well done you. tim did not want his to be made known and you made it known (whether or not it had been previously).
That violated one of the more important rules.
This is a bit selective.
tim was outed by someone else (not me I hasten to add)
I knew who he was from another forum, where his charm and wit made him enemies (hard to believe I imagine).... as it happened those enemies were of the Corbynista variety rather than tories and one of them followed him here for a while.
You might be interested to know that on the other forum he was alleged to have actually shared details of someones internet life with his employer.
I have a vague recollection of the facts of that one, but I will offer him more benefit of the doubt than he ever showed a poster on here.
Things he did on this forum were bad enough though and that is why his details got posted.
They should't have posted his details - but his twitter feed (I think it was) made it very easy to find out who he was anyway.
Tim being tim then tried to blame his outing on someone else he didn't like on here.
top bloke really - unless you were not Labour and/ or a man.
"Tonight I’ve bought Clinton ECVs at 302 because I think that the polling and markets have over reacted to Friday’s FBI move."
I think it is worth reflecting that Clinton's estimated vote percentage (538, polls only) has dropped by precisely 1% since the FBI intervention, to 48.6%. We are five days on from that now, and Nate Silver reckoned the model would be showing the full effect after 5-7 days. I doubt the FBI will succeed in delivering much more than that 1% to the Trump cause.
Before the FBI intervention, Clinton's rating had dropped by just 0.2% from its peak of 49.8% at around the time of the third debate. The narrowing of the race during that period was almost entirely due to a 1% increase in Trump's rating, which coincided with a 1% decrease in Gary Johnson's. Probably in retrospect that shouldn't have been unexpected, but with Johnson now down to a little more than half his peak, I wonder whether there is much more there for Trump to squeeze.
Clinton's lead, according to 538, now stands at 3.5%. I wonder if it's likely to drop much below that by polling day. If it doesn't, we are back to Trump needing a large systematic error in the polls (albeit one only half as big as he would have needed at the height of Clinton's dominance).
Well, it seems to me that 538 is a much more sophisticated model, and likely to be closer to the truth. (Though, of course, if it's so complicated they can't get their sums right, that's a problem!)
But even for a smaller lead of 1.9%, the same argument applies to some extent. (I had previously been thinking Clinton's lead on 538 might go down to 2.5% or so.) I think Trump would still need something more than statistical sampling error to overcome that 1.9% lead, given that the margin of error of a polling average is much smaller than for an individual poll.
We will see on the night but RCP have been recording the poll average since 2000 and called every election winner right, 538 have only been polling more recently. Goodnight
Well, first, I didn't say I thought 538 had been doing it longest - I said I thought 538 was more likely to be accurate.
But in any case, since you've already pointed out that Clinton still has a lead of 1.9% in the RCP average, when you say RCP has always called the winner right, that only goes to back up what I'm saying. If Clinton's lead remains close to the current figure, even though that is now smaller than it was, there would have to be systematic errors in the polls to allow Trump to win.
Well, it seems to me that 538 is a much more sophisticated model, and likely to be closer to the truth. (Though, of course, if it's so complicated they can't get their sums right, that's a problem!)
It's worth noting that 538 have 3 models, and the "now-cast" is comparable to RCP's poll averaging. However, it weights different polls, it incorporates state and national into a single model, and takes account of sample size. None of this is terribly sophisticated or controversial, it's just making better use of the same polling data.
The other two models they use are a bit more speculative, using things like data on demographic shifting, economic modelling and so on.
lol. He was a quasi-retired wine merchant married to a Jewish Liverpudlian doctor. Now lives abroad, but provides amusing, acidic commentary on UK Labour politics on Twitter
I think it's fair to say that he's not entirely enthused by the Corbyn and McDonnell takeover of the Labour Party.
Not exactly a shock, given he is Tony Blair's biggest fan and spent years before infecting PB fighting with the Socialist Worker types on other internet forums and talk radio.
I forgot about his spats on talk radio.
I remember now that he was not a fan of Mr Galloway.
Did you come across him on left leaning sites too then (before here)?
On both their national poll tracker and RCP's average, Trump seems to be breaking through his previous ceiling, albeit less dramatically in the case of 538.
On both their national poll tracker and RCP's average, Trump seems to be breaking through his previous ceiling, albeit less dramatically in the case of 538.
Also, Pong please stay on this site. SeanT telling people to 'fuck off' is just SeanT being SeanT. That's probably polite by his standards, if anything.
Also, my telling Pong to fuck off the site was a sardonic reference to my personal inability to drive anyone off the site, unless they actually want to leave. Only Mike bans or blocks (and he has yellow carded me on occasions, for a time, when I've been OTT).
The ONLY person I might have "hounded off the site" is tim, but that's after he was exceptionally nasty for quite a while to several posters, and then he made personal remarks about my real life, so I responded in kind, given that his bogus and then real identity had already been exposed by others.
And quite frankly I'd like to see tim back on the site. He was an asset. His waspish wit is missed, on the PB Left.
lol. He was a quasi-retired wine merchant married to a Jewish Liverpudlian doctor. Now lives abroad, but provides amusing, acidic commentary on UK Labour politics on Twitter
I think it's fair to say that he's not entirely enthused by the Corbyn and McDonnell takeover of the Labour Party.
Not exactly a shock, given he is Tony Blair's biggest fan and spent years before infecting PB fighting with the Social Worker types on other internet forums and talk radio.
He's genuinely funny. Very acerbic, but funny. It's a pity he can't be enticed back to the forum.
I'm about to go to bed so enjoy the last word but you were out of order with tim.
Internet forums have strange and nuanced rules, especially about identity. You have always made your identity known and well done you. tim did not want his to be made known and you made it known (whether or not it had been previously).
That violated one of the more important rules.
This is a bit selective.
tim was outed by someone else (not me I hasten to add)
I knew who he was from another forum, where his charm and wit made him enemies (hard to believe I imagine).... as it happened those enemies were of the Corbynista variety rather than tories and one of them followed him here for a while.
You might be interested to know that on the other forum he was alleged to have actually shared details of someones internet life with his employer.
I have a vague recollection of the facts of that one, but I will offer him more benefit of the doubt than he ever showed a poster on here.
Things he did on this forum were bad enough though and that is why his details got posted.
They should't have posted his details - but his twitter feed (I think it was) made it very easy to find out who he was anyway.
Tim being tim then tried to blame his outing on someone else he didn't like on here.
top bloke really - unless you were not Labour and/ or a man.
Tory voting women got a special type of bile.
tim was outed by the nastiest right wing person in PB.
The stock markets are starting to display nervousness about Trump, and even our ailing £ has stopped sinking against the $, even as the € rises past 90p.
Well, it seems to me that 538 is a much more sophisticated model, and likely to be closer to the truth. (Though, of course, if it's so complicated they can't get their sums right, that's a problem!)
It's worth noting that 538 have 3 models, and the "now-cast" is comparable to RCP's poll averaging. However, it weights different polls, it incorporates state and national into a single model, and takes account of sample size. None of this is terribly sophisticated or controversial, it's just making better use of the same polling data.
The other two models they use are a bit more speculative, using things like data on demographic shifting, economic modelling and so on.
Sorry, but it's absolutely not the case that the "now-cast" is significantly different from the "polls only". The first currently shows a Clinton lead of 3%, the second one of 3.2%.
Comments
Playing around wih this and it seems Clintons vote is so inefficient she has to be ahead 10% with college educated whites.
http://www.270towin.com/maps/jKJRX
In the same league as rogerdamus.
‘I’m particularly pleased to see that Craig Oliver… sorry Sir Craig, is here tonight. In his book he said that when he heard the result of the referendum, he walked out of the office and as he walked into Whitehall started wretching violently.
I have to say that I think we all understand that feeling, most of us experienced it too when we saw his name on the resignations honours list.’
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/11/theresa-may-turns-sir-craig/
But even for a smaller lead of 1.9%, the same argument applies to some extent. (I had previously been thinking Clinton's lead on 538 might go down to 2.5% or so.) I think Trump would still need something more than statistical sampling error to overcome that 1.9% lead, given that the margin of error of a polling average is much smaller than for an individual poll.
And less than a stopped clock.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApwIGvUjZoE
By the way, I was chatting to a gaming friend earlier today he is a cardiologist in Suffolk and is very pessimistic about the NHS. He says that 30% of the GPs are going to retire in the next few years and the whole thing is on the point of collapse. What would be your views?
Internet forums have strange and nuanced rules, especially about identity. You have always made your identity known and well done you. tim did not want his to be made known and you made it known (whether or not it had been previously).
That violated one of the more important rules.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPt77GRyagA
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/hacked-emails-show-clinton-campaign-communicated-state-43248321
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/03/upshot/early-vote-in-north-carolina-seems-to-confirm-a-clinton-lead.html
Among other things, he minimises the likely effect of the reduced turnout among black voters, saying it has already been accounted for in the polls. In fact, he suggests that many polls' likely voter screening may be excluding many who say they are less than "almost certain" to vote, and that Clinton has a big lead in this group.
tim was outed by someone else (not me I hasten to add)
I knew who he was from another forum, where his charm and wit made him enemies (hard to believe I imagine).... as it happened those enemies were of the Corbynista variety rather than tories and one of them followed him here for a while.
You might be interested to know that on the other forum he was alleged to have actually shared details of someones internet life with his employer.
I have a vague recollection of the facts of that one, but I will offer him more benefit of the doubt than he ever showed a poster on here.
Things he did on this forum were bad enough though and that is why his details got posted.
They should't have posted his details - but his twitter feed (I think it was) made it very easy to find out who he was anyway.
Tim being tim then tried to blame his outing on someone else he didn't like on here.
top bloke really - unless you were not Labour and/ or a man.
Tory voting women got a special type of bile.
But in any case, since you've already pointed out that Clinton still has a lead of 1.9% in the RCP average, when you say RCP has always called the winner right, that only goes to back up what I'm saying. If Clinton's lead remains close to the current figure, even though that is now smaller than it was, there would have to be systematic errors in the polls to allow Trump to win.
The other two models they use are a bit more speculative, using things like data on demographic shifting, economic modelling and so on.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/updates/
I remember now that he was not a fan of Mr Galloway.
Did you come across him on left leaning sites too then (before here)?
That's where I first had the "pleasure"
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/national-polls/
https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/793992020847108098