"isn't the whole point that he has model with its fatter tails and t-distribution stuff and then just pumps the numbers from polls in? Looks like the tails need to be way fatter."
Absolutely not, the polls were wrong not the model. If the prediction had been closer to 50% then the polls were by definition useless (since all the polls showed Trump losing, so a 50% chance would imply the polls were random noise) and therefore the model was also worthless.
As a side issue - I wonder how some of the DNC folks are feeling this morning, knowing that they rigged the primary against a candidate who might have beaten Hillary to the nomination?
Knowing what we know now about the Primary process in the Democratic party, I wonder if the thought that it was rigged was the issue that kept other better candidates from even bothering to run?
I dunno, but I wished Biden had tried to run. Would have opened some possibilities perhaps.
Biden would have never, ever, ever lost Wisconsin.
Nor PA.
He would have used his anger at Trump's malaky better than Clinton. Where was her passion?
Some spectacular meltdowns happening on the 5live phone in.
Middle class mums who haven't been to the US beyond Orlando wailing for their children's future..
Hilarious.
Everyone needs to calm down. I felt sick to the stomach this morning, but hopefully the truth is that the US constitution was written by geniuses who saw this day coming.
Except that you have a president who has little respect for it, backed by both houses of congress who take a pretty one eyed view of it themselves, as Merrick Garland might confirm...
It's what the "little people" want under a full democratic vote
Not sure after that where your issue is?
The little people voted Clinton. Trump won all income groups from the middle up.
So there was no WWC surge for Trump?
No, he won non college educated white people but they are very middle class. Older people are much more likely to have or have had good jobs without a degree then their children or grandchildren. Basically social mobility (the American dream) is dead in america and Britain because middle class skilled jobs you can do without going to uni have been hollowed out. So trump had a point on this front.
I was more worried what would happen to people of colour in the states, they must be shitting themselves especially Muslims.
Am I missing something? If Hillary manages to win Michigan she's in the 240-269 band, right? I was just matched at 10.0 but there's still a bit at over 6.0, but Michigan itself is around 1.6 Trump.
Secretary of State perhaps? Donald Trump as the most powerful man on earth with Farage buzzing around his backside like a fly - today reality has taken the form and tone of some horrifically dark satire.
Am I missing something? If Hillary manages to win Michigan she's in the 240-269 band, right? I was just matched at 10.0 but there's still a bit at over 6.0, but Michigan itself is around 1.6 Trump.
Argh, YES!
(Originally said no, but forgot about MN).
218 right now, 228 with MN, 244 with MI, 248 with NH.
According to Fox Hillary is now only 300,000 votes behind in the popular vote. I don;'t know what the market price is at the moment but seems like a buy.
All of San Francisco and most of LA county now in, they were the real popular gains for Hillary
CNN have LA county at 64%, so about another million votes due from there.
All the red counties apart from Kern are in, it's only Dem strongholds left.
I had a brief crisis of confidence in NY Times model based on Michigan (Which itself turned out to be CNN not quite showing what was happening) so bottled my bet. Shameful.
Some spectacular meltdowns happening on the 5live phone in.
Middle class mums who haven't been to the US beyond Orlando wailing for their children's future..
Hilarious.
Everyone needs to calm down. I felt sick to the stomach this morning, but hopefully the truth is that the US constitution was written by geniuses who saw this day coming.
Except that you have a president who has little respect for it, backed by both houses of congress who take a pretty one eyed view of it themselves, as Merrick Garland might confirm...
It's what the "little people" want under a full democratic vote
Not sure after that where your issue is?
The little people voted Clinton. Trump won all income groups from the middle up.
Wrong kind of little people. Many of them would have no folk memory of a golden past that they wanted to return to. The aggrieved, disinherited middle are more Don's folk.
And we've decades of this to go. One poetic definition of austerity is " decades of falling Western living standards until they meet rising asian living standards in the middle. "
"I spent almost two years working for Nate Silver’s website FiveThirtyEight, where I hoped to learn the secrets of political forecasting. I walked away totally disillusioned. It sometimes seemed as though their interpretation of the math wasn’t free from subjective bias. There was also a certain arrogance that comes from being part of an elite that “gets the numbers”, and an entrenched hierarchy meant that predictions weren’t properly scrutinized."
A big problem is also that Nate Silver by his own admission doesn't actually spend much time on number crunching anymore and furthermore 538 makes it money from sports predictions. The last interview I heard with him, he actually sounded less than happy about how his work is, too much management / business meetings and not enough doing the things he enjoys.
Well to be fair to him, he was the most thoughtful of the online analysts - yesterday there were plenty of commentators laughing at him for giving Trump a 30% chance. In effect he was whispering to PBers to lay Clinton. As it were.
Yup, if you've got basically all the polls pointing at a small but significant lead for candidate A, it's hard to see how you can expect somebody running a model crunching them giving much more than a 30% chance to candidate B.
Isn't the whole point that he has model with its fatter tails and t-distribution stuff and then just pumps the numbers from polls in? Looks like the tails need to be way fatter.
How much fatter can you be? I mean, if you're just fattening the tail then the most you could conceivably go would be a 50%, implying that the polls are so utterly awful that a lead in them means nothing. But they're not that bad; The national polling was only a few % out. So intuitively giving a polling failure of the scale we saw *in one particular direction* more than 30% would seem really weird.
There's a separate argument to be made that there's a systematic Brexit-style bias that needs fixing, but that sounds like something the pollsters should be fixing themselves, not something we should expect a poll-munging model to do.
So will he repeal Obamacare? He is very powerful now with both the senate and Congress. 20 million people now have healthcare that didn't before.
I am not sure he will. There will need to be an alternative first, you'd have thought. A lot will depend on who he surrounds himself with, because trump will not be doing much day to day presidential work. He'll be more Reagan in that respect than (Bill) Clinton.
Out of interest, do we think Hillary would have won in 2008 if she had been the candidate instead of Obama?
Yes, she would have effectively been running as a referendum on the (pretty despised by that point) Bush administration just as much as Obama was and the global financial meltdown would still have happened as well.
Am I missing something? If Hillary manages to win Michigan she's in the 240-269 band, right? I was just matched at 10.0 but there's still a bit at over 6.0, but Michigan itself is around 1.6 Trump.
"I spent almost two years working for Nate Silver’s website FiveThirtyEight, where I hoped to learn the secrets of political forecasting. I walked away totally disillusioned. It sometimes seemed as though their interpretation of the math wasn’t free from subjective bias. There was also a certain arrogance that comes from being part of an elite that “gets the numbers”, and an entrenched hierarchy meant that predictions weren’t properly scrutinized."
A big problem is also that Nate Silver by his own admission doesn't actually spend much time on number crunching anymore and furthermore 538 makes it money from sports predictions. The last interview I heard with him, he actually sounded less than happy about how his work is, too much management / business meetings and not enough doing the things he enjoys.
Well to be fair to him, he was the most thoughtful of the online analysts - yesterday there were plenty of commentators laughing at him for giving Trump a 30% chance. In effect he was whispering to PBers to lay Clinton. As it were.
An example being from the Huffington Post two days ago: "While I love following the prediction markets for this year’s election, the most popular and widely quoted website out there, fivethirtyeight.com, has something tragically wrong with its presidential prediction model. With the same information, 538 is currently predicting a 65 percent chance of a Clinton victory, while HuffPost’s Natalie Jackson and Adam Hooper are projecting a 98 percent chance,[1] and Sam Wang at Princeton Electoral Consortium is predicting a >99 percent chance.[2] What gives?"
Given that a day out, national polls were converging around a 3-4% lead in national polls, and the state polls turned out to be even further out in Clinton's firewall states, it was to the credit of 538 that they factored in the possibility of systematic polling bias and the interdependence of error in different states by giving Trump as much as a 30% chance. 538 emerge from this with a lot of credit.
Some spectacular meltdowns happening on the 5live phone in.
Middle class mums who haven't been to the US beyond Orlando wailing for their children's future..
Hilarious.
Everyone needs to calm down. I felt sick to the stomach this morning, but hopefully the truth is that the US constitution was written by geniuses who saw this day coming.
Except that you have a president who has little respect for it, backed by both houses of congress who take a pretty one eyed view of it themselves, as Merrick Garland might confirm...
It's what the "little people" want under a full democratic vote
Not sure after that where your issue is?
The little people voted Clinton. Trump won all income groups from the middle up.
Wrong kind of little people. Many of them would have no folk memory of a golden past that they wanted to return to. The aggrieved, disinherited middle are more Don's folk.
I detect a degree of cynicism in your comments. I don't think the white white working class in the west should be condemned for their nostalgia. In many respects it is justified. Although ethnic minority voters are often no wealthier, they are more optimistic. They or their parents or grandparents after all have come from circumstances far more severe than any young Americans are likely to encounter.
So will he repeal Obamacare? He is very powerful now with both the senate and Congress. 20 million people now have healthcare that didn't before.
He has the problem that May has, but worse - he needs to offer some payback to the 'little people' who gave him his bedrock support, yet represents the Republican Party that normally sells them morality and 'the dream' in exchange for keeping them poor and working hard.
Do we yet know the turnout figures. The Brexit result was held to be a consequence of people who normally didn't vote doing so. Did Trump "find" some new voters?
Clinton's problem was the problem the left has across the west currently: there are not enough poor people. There are plenty of median wage earners who believe they should be earning more and who feel left behind, but these people are also aspirational and do not want to be seen as victims. But they do want to feel that the government is on their side. The left just doesn't speak their language right now.
Someone of the left gets it.
The real issue though will be how to alter that while we hang onto the financial system we currently have, where ZIRP has created huge money creation for the short term market 'Gamblers'. That money never makes it out of the banking system to real people, looking to invest in productivity rather than static assets such as housing. It's ramped dead assets, and stripped productive ones of capital investment.
"Ah, Michigan - yes, tightened a little with the most recent polling districts - Clinton needs around 60% in the remaining districts to return (depending on their size) - not beyond the realms. I had on a brief glance put it in the Trump column. So, possible ECVs (given Trump Arizona, Clinton Minnesota) are actually 289/293/305/309."
Nope, she doesn't have a path, the % are no accurate. There are some small Republican counties which will boost trump plus these Dem counties and a 15,000+ vote Trump lead:
Am I missing something? If Hillary manages to win Michigan she's in the 240-269 band, right? I was just matched at 10.0 but there's still a bit at over 6.0, but Michigan itself is around 1.6 Trump.
I THINK this is a perfect arb
+27.41 Other +355.50 240-269
-186.60 Dem Michigan +116.27 GOP Michigan
There is only one way for Hillary to get to that band,
Assume Minnesota is won
99% in, 1% ahead
NE CD1 and NH doesn't make it
Either I'm +27.41 +116.27 GOP wins Or +355.50 -186.60 Dem wins
Please find fault with the reasoning (Please check I've not just chucked away £200 or so)
Don't see any comments from Meeks or Tyson either. Perhaps they are holding their powder for the legal challenge to overrule the will of the people. Or...perhaps they are Just out for the night as nothing important is happening
On Que. Lady on BBC claiming that Quote
"USA is waking up to a situation "half the country had not voted for"
"USA is waking up to a situation "half the country had not voted for"
unquote
Oh FFS here we go again...
It is one of the features of elections that in nearly all of them under any system the result is one which 'nearly half' (or more than half, depending on system) didn't vote for.
It seems to be an issue when a right party wins, not a left. Most odd and uneducated of commentators not to know this simple fact.
The elections where nearly 100% vote for a candidate tend to be won by the likes of Putin and Mugabe, so I think having about 50 not voting for could be described as an advantage of democracy.
Saint Obama only got 51% last time, so by these idiots logic the same is true of Obama administration.
People say a 50-50ish election result shows a country is "divided". But in many ways it at least shows two evenly matched sides who could both have had a chance of victory.
A 60-40 or 70-30 split is in many ways more divisive. The victor has no need to appeal to the 30% or 40% - they don't need the votes. So why reach out to them? Stuff 'em.
And the losers have no sense that they could win by democratic means. Would require a huge swing. They have no buy-in to The System. Then you are forced to look for ways of having your voice heard beyond the ballot. Things get pretty dangerous at that point.
You often see this pattern in developing countries, particularly with imbalanced social or ethnic groups. The US has done very well, given its demographics, has done very well to avoid this kind of division. If we had 60-40 splits primarily based on racial polarisation, that would be a far more divided country than a 50-50 one.
Some spectacular meltdowns happening on the 5live phone in.
Middle class mums who haven't been to the US beyond Orlando wailing for their children's future..
Hilarious.
Everyone needs to calm down. I felt sick to the stomach this morning, but hopefully the truth is that the US constitution was written by geniuses who saw this day coming.
Except that you have a president who has little respect for it, backed by both houses of congress who take a pretty one eyed view of it themselves, as Merrick Garland might confirm...
It's what the "little people" want under a full democratic vote
Not sure after that where your issue is?
The little people voted Clinton. Trump won all income groups from the middle up.
Wrong kind of little people. Many of them would have no folk memory of a golden past that they wanted to return to. The aggrieved, disinherited middle are more Don's folk.
I detect a degree of cynicism in your comments. I don't think the white white working class in the west should be condemned for their nostalgia. In many respects it is justified. Although ethnic minority voters are often no wealthier, they are more optimistic. They or their parents or grandparents after all have come from circumstances far more severe than any young Americans are likely to encounter.
It isn't cynicism particularly. The figures here: http://tinyurl.com/pljocf7 show anyone below $49,999 voted Dem, in substantially larger numbers than 2012.
I'm aware of the lure of nostalgia, but I'm generally of the view that too much indulgence in it will always cause disappointment, sometimes with disastrous results.
DAmn it, I placed everything I had on popular vote but Betfair actually released some more funds shortly afterwards that I wasn't expecting, I could have had double on it!
So will he repeal Obamacare? He is very powerful now with both the senate and Congress. 20 million people now have healthcare that didn't before.
I am not sure he will. There will need to be an alternative first, you'd have thought. A lot will depend on who he surrounds himself with, because trump will not be doing much day to day presidential work. He'll be more Reagan in that respect than (Bill) Clinton.
He'll need to appoint those people however. Let's no forget that the first thing a President does is appoint thousands of people. Not quite like a British government inheriting a massive civil service.
Nigel has accepted an invitation to meet the POTUS elect on Saturday.
First in the queue for trade deal
Who is Farage to start negotiating Anglo-American trade deals? Or has Trump installed him as his British viceroy.
Expect an appointment to the HOL anytime soon and a role in international trade
I don't think that would be a good idea. May will have enough trouble keeping the various Tory elements on board and cooperative. The last thing she'd need is some comic-cut Kipper wielding influence - a man who has openly declared his intention to destroy the Tory party.
Some spectacular meltdowns happening on the 5live phone in.
Middle class mums who haven't been to the US beyond Orlando wailing for their children's future..
Hilarious.
Everyone needs to calm down. I felt sick to the stomach this morning, but hopefully the truth is that the US constitution was written by geniuses who saw this day coming.
Except that you have a president who has little respect for it, backed by both houses of congress who take a pretty one eyed view of it themselves, as Merrick Garland might confirm...
It's what the "little people" want under a full democratic vote
Not sure after that where your issue is?
The little people voted Clinton. Trump won all income groups from the middle up.
Wrong kind of little people. Many of them would have no folk memory of a golden past that they wanted to return to. The aggrieved, disinherited middle are more Don's folk.
I detect a degree of cynicism in your comments. I don't think the white white working class in the west should be condemned for their nostalgia. In many respects it is justified. Although ethnic minority voters are often no wealthier, they are more optimistic. They or their parents or grandparents after all have come from circumstances far more severe than any young Americans are likely to encounter.
It isn't cynicism particularly. The figures here: http://tinyurl.com/pljocf7 show anyone below $49,999 voted Dem, in substantially larger numbers than 2012.
I'm aware of the lure of nostalgia, but I'm generally of the view that too much indulgence in it will always cause disappointment, sometimes with disastrous results.
You talk about nostalgia as if they've just been infected with it. The thing that strikes me the most is that Trump voters expect the past to be worse than the present, Clinton voters the opposite.
CNBC speculating that Trump speech had "Keynsianism" in big bright lights, heralding an era of spend spend socialism and Trump reaching across the aisle to do deals with Bernie thus earning 80% approval rates.
Some spectacular meltdowns happening on the 5live phone in.
Middle class mums who haven't been to the US beyond Orlando wailing for their children's future..
Hilarious.
Everyone needs to calm down. I felt sick to the stomach this morning, but hopefully the truth is that the US constitution was written by geniuses who saw this day coming.
Except that you have a president who has little respect for it, backed by both houses of congress who take a pretty one eyed view of it themselves, as Merrick Garland might confirm...
It's what the "little people" want under a full democratic vote
Not sure after that where your issue is?
The little people voted Clinton. Trump won all income groups from the middle up.
The AA little people voted Clinton - big difference.
Will the Trump victory cause Theresa to push for a hard Brexit?
She already has been, not least because it is the most achievable.
A hard Brexit is all that's on offer from the other side. It will strengthen her hand though. And put the wind up the other big players in the EU who are seeking re-election.
Comments
Absolutely not, the polls were wrong not the model. If the prediction had been closer to 50% then the polls were by definition useless (since all the polls showed Trump losing, so a 50% chance would imply the polls were random noise) and therefore the model was also worthless.
30% is fine.
He would have used his anger at Trump's malaky better than Clinton. Where was her passion?
Basically social mobility (the American dream) is dead in america and Britain because middle class skilled jobs you can do without going to uni have been hollowed out. So trump had a point on this front.
I was more worried what would happen to people of colour in the states, they must be shitting themselves especially Muslims.
Hahahahahhahahahhahahahahhahaha.
(Originally said no, but forgot about MN).
218 right now, 228 with MN, 244 with MI, 248 with NH.
'What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.'
There's a separate argument to be made that there's a systematic Brexit-style bias that needs fixing, but that sounds like something the pollsters should be fixing themselves, not something we should expect a poll-munging model to do.
"While I love following the prediction markets for this year’s election, the most popular and widely quoted website out there, fivethirtyeight.com, has something tragically wrong with its presidential prediction model. With the same information, 538 is currently predicting a 65 percent chance of a Clinton victory, while HuffPost’s Natalie Jackson and Adam Hooper are projecting a 98 percent chance,[1] and Sam Wang at Princeton Electoral Consortium is predicting a >99 percent chance.[2] What gives?"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/whats-wrong-with-538_us_581ffe18e4b0334571e09e74
Given that a day out, national polls were converging around a 3-4% lead in national polls, and the state polls turned out to be even further out in Clinton's firewall states, it was to the credit of 538 that they factored in the possibility of systematic polling bias and the interdependence of error in different states by giving Trump as much as a 30% chance. 538 emerge from this with a lot of credit.
The real issue though will be how to alter that while we hang onto the financial system we currently have, where ZIRP has created huge money creation for the short term market 'Gamblers'. That money never makes it out of the banking system to real people, looking to invest in productivity rather than static assets such as housing. It's ramped dead assets, and stripped productive ones of capital investment.
Nope, she doesn't have a path, the % are no accurate. There are some small Republican counties which will boost trump plus these Dem counties and a 15,000+ vote Trump lead:
Washtenaw - only 1267 votes remaining
https://electionresults.ewashtenaw.org/electionreporting/nov2016/index.jsp -
Wayne - not sure but CNN says 99% returned. 1% is around 7,000 votes
Genesee - again I haven't checked these but if the 97% is accurate, there are only 6,000 votes left.
So she cannot win.
+27.41 Other
+355.50 240-269
-186.60 Dem Michigan
+116.27 GOP Michigan
There is only one way for Hillary to get to that band,
Assume Minnesota is won
99% in, 1% ahead
NE CD1 and NH doesn't make it
Either I'm +27.41 +116.27 GOP wins
Or +355.50 -186.60 Dem wins
Please find fault with the reasoning (Please check I've not just chucked away £200 or so)
A 60-40 or 70-30 split is in many ways more divisive. The victor has no need to appeal to the 30% or 40% - they don't need the votes. So why reach out to them? Stuff 'em.
And the losers have no sense that they could win by democratic means. Would require a huge swing. They have no buy-in to The System. Then you are forced to look for ways of having your voice heard beyond the ballot. Things get pretty dangerous at that point.
You often see this pattern in developing countries, particularly with imbalanced social or ethnic groups. The US has done very well, given its demographics, has done very well to avoid this kind of division. If we had 60-40 splits primarily based on racial polarisation, that would be a far more divided country than a 50-50 one.
I'm aware of the lure of nostalgia, but I'm generally of the view that too much indulgence in it will always cause disappointment, sometimes with disastrous results.
Their earlier headline was "Nightmare: President Trump". Now, it's "Mourning in America".
They've also posted a long explanation about why they're dropping the silly "Editors Note" that they used to attach to every Trump article.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/note-to-readers-why-were-dropping-our-donald-trump-editors-note_us_5822b734e4b0aac624883e87