Nate Sliver predicts Clinton win. probability = 0.81

[william.scherk]

Repeating myself a bit, but people underrate how fragile Clinton's Electoral College advantage will be if the race keeps tightening overall.

— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) August 31, 2016

[KorbenDallas]

From Fox, "Professor: 2016 race shatters precedents, defies prediction", with a Nate Silver mention:

 

[Peter]

Not since Henry Kissinger opened the doors to Communist China has there been an event as big as Trump’s trip to Mexico, where he got some agreement . . . according to him . . . but the Spanish translation from the Mexican President, says, no way Jose. So, will the Mexicans build a Berlin Wall with their money to keep their population inside? No. More likely they will cease to get any support from America. All joking aside, how can the Mexicans not emulate the United States with our Constitution and prosperity due to freedom when so many of them would rather live in America? What is wrong with them? Be like us and stay where you are.   

William, from the 14^th Colony, showed an electoral map with Trump getting Virginia, and virtually no one thinks Trump will. Donald’s winning electoral map includes about eight huge “ifs,” but Hillary can win with 272 even if she picks up no tossup states according to The Real Clear Politics map. Is she scandal proof? Dishonesty proof? Unlikeable proof? Bad policy proof? It sure does look like it . . . as of now. Even as Trump’s lesser numbers have increased to 4 to 7 percent below Hillary’s his chances to win have barely gotten any better.

That American University poly sci guy in the video was right since 1984? He sure looks like he wants to get guest speaker gigs on the major news networks, with his demonstrative demeanor. Still that is unbelievable . I think he was lucky. Or a con man. The only projection he said for this election that sounded legitimate was IF Gary Johnson gets to the debates, then all bets are off. If shit happens all bets are off. That’s as poor as the National Enquirer’s psychics who predict what will happen in 2017. There will be an earthquake. A hurricane will happen. A scandal will occur. But when they get specific they are horribly wrong.    

Peter

Robert Tracinski wrote: Anthony Weiner is at it again, a three-time loser caught once again exposing himself in Internet exchanges with younger women--who inevitably hand him over to the tabloids for a feeding frenzy. Given his compulsion toward self-destructive behavior, Anthony Weiner is actually lucky sending revealing photos to girls is his thing. If it were liquor, he'd probably already be lying in the gutter on Skid Row. If it were heroin, he'd probably be dead by now. As it is, his third time will cost him plenty, including his marriage to top Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin and--well, given the circumstances of the latest iteration of this scandal, he may be unlikely to get either custody or visitation rights with his son. But that's his business, and we can only wish it would remain his business. For the rest of us, having the Weiner scandal on the front pages is an early reminder of what it's like having the Clinton family and its hangers-on at the center of American politics. What happens is that everything becomes all about them, and their personal soap operas become national news.

A lot of us remember this from back in the 1990s, when the news was dominated for a decade by Clinton scandals: "bimbo eruptions," shady real-estate deals, suspicious cattle-futures windfalls, abuses of power by Arkansas cronies, the ick-inducing Monica Lewinsky scandal, suspicious presidential pardons, disappearing White House furniture. It was an endless cavalcade of having this one family and all its grasping corruption and personal soap operas dominate the news. The Clintons were hardly the first example of this, and it's no surprise they would draw others into their orbit. In 2011, during the first iteration of Weinergate, I drew the conclusion that "They're All a Bunch of Weiners." end quote 

[BaalChatzaf]

1 hour ago, Peter said:

Not since Henry Kissinger opened the doors to Communist China has there been an event as big as Trump’s trip to Mexico, where he got some agreement . . . according to him . . . but the Spanish translation from the Mexican President, says, no way Jose. So, will the Mexicans build a Berlin Wall with their money to keep their population inside? No. More likely they will cease to get any support from America. All joking aside, how can the Mexicans not emulate the United States with our Constitution and prosperity due to freedom when so many of them would rather live in America? What is wrong with them? Be like us and stay where you are.   

William, from the 14^th Colony, showed an electoral map with Trump getting Virginia, and virtually no one thinks Trump will. Donald’s winning electoral map includes about eight huge “ifs,” but Hillary can win with 272 even if she picks up no tossup states according to The Real Clear Politics map. Is she scandal proof? Dishonesty proof? Unlikeable proof? Bad policy proof? It sure does look like it . . . as of now. Even as Trump’s lesser numbers have increased to 4 to 7 percent below Hillary’s his chances to win have barely gotten any better.

That American University poly sci guy in the video was right since 1984? He sure looks like he wants to get guest speaker gigs on the major news networks, with his demonstrative demeanor. Still that is unbelievable . I think he was lucky. Or a con man. The only projection he said for this election that sounded legitimate was IF Gary Johnson gets to the debates, then all bets are off. If shit happens all bets are off. That’s as poor as the National Enquirer’s psychics who predict what will happen in 2017. There will be an earthquake. A hurricane will happen. A scandal will occur. But when they get specific they are horribly wrong.    

Peter

Robert Tracinski wrote: Anthony Weiner is at it again, a three-time loser caught once again exposing himself in Internet exchanges with younger women--who inevitably hand him over to the tabloids for a feeding frenzy. Given his compulsion toward self-destructive behavior, Anthony Weiner is actually lucky sending revealing photos to girls is his thing. If it were liquor, he'd probably already be lying in the gutter on Skid Row. If it were heroin, he'd probably be dead by now. As it is, his third time will cost him plenty, including his marriage to top Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin and--well, given the circumstances of the latest iteration of this scandal, he may be unlikely to get either custody or visitation rights with his son. But that's his business, and we can only wish it would remain his business. For the rest of us, having the Weiner scandal on the front pages is an early reminder of what it's like having the Clinton family and its hangers-on at the center of American politics. What happens is that everything becomes all about them, and their personal soap operas become national news.

A lot of us remember this from back in the 1990s, when the news was dominated for a decade by Clinton scandals: "bimbo eruptions," shady real-estate deals, suspicious cattle-futures windfalls, abuses of power by Arkansas cronies, the ick-inducing Monica Lewinsky scandal, suspicious presidential pardons, disappearing White House furniture. It was an endless cavalcade of having this one family and all its grasping corruption and personal soap operas dominate the news. The Clintons were hardly the first example of this, and it's no surprise they would draw others into their orbit. In 2011, during the first iteration of Weinergate, I drew the conclusion that "They're All a Bunch of Weiners." end quote 

After Hillary comes Chelsea.  She is 36 years of age,  a natural born American citizen so she is eligible.   

[william.scherk]

4 hours ago, Peter said:

William, from the 14^th Colony, showed an electoral map with Trump getting Virginia, and virtually no one thinks Trump will.

The fourteenth? History is more fun than that, Peter.  The Hudson's Bay Company enjoyed a trade monopoly in these lands, under the British flag. some time after first 'contact' by the Russians and Spanish, before any settlement. British Columbia was later one of several colonies established by the 1850s  Empire period -- after  the Pig War settled the border between British and American territory. The three BC-area colonies joined together in 1866, late in the North American game of putting a 'state' in place. This part of the world was one of the last frontiers, the last 'undiscovered' lands from the European lens, whereas Virginia was seeded much earlier. By the 1850s, Virginia was civilized.  We were still, in Ayn Rand's metaphor, yet to fully seize territory from the 'savages.'  The USA of the time offered no inducements to BC, especially transport links, so we stayed under the Crown.

Re Virginia's tilt come November, conventional wisdom does indeed suggest Clinton will gain its electoral votes.

Trump's path to victory (squeaker or thumper) doesn't rely upon Virginia in all scenarios, however. I'll pay attention to where Pence and Trump spend their time on the hustings. Where do they and PACs and SuperPACs spend on media buys? Where are the Trump-centric Get-out-the-vote efforts staffed and in focus?  Where are the rallies (in which 'media markets')?

I am treating this election right now as a squeaker, in my imagination. And then, when I put a Red Hat on, I can see Trump chomping into Clinton leads such that Florida is again too close to call, where Pennsylvania is on the knife-edge, where Ohio has perhaps tilted red.  This I imagine occurring not in a sudden spike and hold, but a gradual nosing up of 'voter intentions'  in most all the swing-states, across the board.

If you consider polling results are best set aside until (perhaps) the last week or two before election day, I think the Trump campaign itself will tell us by behaviour where he is winning, and where he is gunning.  If we see the Trump roadshow events grow thick on the ground of Blue States, if we see him gunning for New York, California, New Hampshire, Oregon, Minnesota and the like... it could mean a couple of things: He wants to do more than squeak past Hillary Clinton. He wants a thumping Electoral College victory. He is confident of victory in enough swing states that he campaigns for a rout.

4 hours ago, Peter said:

That American University poly sci guy in the video was right since 1984? He sure looks like he wants to get guest speaker gigs on the major news networks, with his demonstrative demeanor. Still that is unbelievable . I think he was lucky. Or a con man.

His name is Allan Lichtman. His 13 Keys approach is easy enough to understand, and provides another way of weighting what could be conceptualized as 'fundamentals' or as pattern persistence in large-scale voter behaviour. He believes that the balance of findings from applying the keys reveal the odds in black and white. 

Here below is a table from an article last updated (by Scott Vehstedt) in June.  It gives a graphic example of how to apply the Lichtman keys to the present race.  The bulk of the article is spent on a careful analysis of the keys, which is well worth reading for the curious.

Approaching the race as a foregone conclusion ... makes for a relatively dull sixty-odd days. Mind you, if I think that Trump will crush it, will win in a landslide, will dispose of Clinton once and for all, then the drama is in the action from here on in. A conviction or feeling of winning is exciting, and a more pleasant excitement than gnawing doubt. 

-- all in all, another tool or lens augmenting our own interior guesses about the outcome.  Add it to your list of forecasts plausible, consider using it to analyze the race without recourse to any public opinion soundings. In context with his other remarks (story on predictions talk at UCLA quotes Lichtman here), sounds like the prof is just not ready to call this thing.

According to Lichtman’s model, the incumbent party, led this year by Hillary Clinton, already has five strikes against it. If that flips to six, she will lose, he said.

The key factor is in the “contest” within the incumbent party. This year that hinges upon whether or not Bernie Sanders supporters will rally at the polls for Clinton, he noted. Lichtman refrained from giving his opinion, but asked the audience to chime in instead. And many seemed to agree that a strong anti-Trump sentiment would nudge Sanders supporters toward Clinton. 

“This is the toughest election I have ever had to call,” Lichtman said.

 

Quote

 

Predicting 2016: How the "13 Keys to the White House" Will Turn in 2016
 ...

In order for the Democrats to hold the White House, 8 Keys must hold TRUE. For the Republicans to retake the White House 6 Keys must turn FALSE.

 

Key	Truth of Statement	Certainty
1: Party Mandate	X	Absolute
2: Contested Nomination	O?	uncertain
3: Incumbent Status	X	Absolute
4: Third Party Challenge	O	Likely
5: Short-term Economy	O	Likely
6: Long-term Economy	O	Strong
7: National Policy Shift	X	Strong
8: Social Unrest	O	Likely
9: Scandal	O	Likely
10: Foreign Policy Defeats	O?	uncertain
11: Foreign Policy Success	X?	uncertain
12: Incumbent Charisma	X	Absolute
13: Challenger Charisma	O	Strong
Total	Democrats= 6 Republicans=4	3 uncertain

[Updated February 2016] In order to win, Democrats must hold the 6 keys I have turned for them as well as gaining 2 or more of the uncertain keys. For the Republicans to win, they must hold the 4 keys turned for them as well as adding 2 more

 

 

-- to bring the topic back to order, here is Nate from the Gang of Hate, publishing Lichtman's response to a critical article about the key system, five years back:

‘Keys to the White House’ Historian Responds

 

Edited September 1, 2016 by william.scherk
Added link to and quote from Aug 10th Lichtman at UCLA story

[william.scherk]

Nate Silver set his wonk at Medium-High yesterday, in an article called "Election Update: The Swing States Are Tightening, Too"

Quote

In the more poll-obsessed corners of the internet, we’ve been arguing about Hillary Clinton’s decline in the polls against Donald Trump. Everyone seems to agree that Clinton’s lead is down quite a bit in national polls, to an average of around 3 percentage points from a peak of about 8 points shortly after the Democratic convention. But there’s a debate about how this translates to the state level.

My position is that a decline in Clinton’s national polls necessarily means that she’s declined in the states. There’s just no way around this; as we learned on Schoolhouse Rock, the United States is composed of 50 states and the District of Columbia. Perhaps it’s possible Clinton’s declined more in noncompetitive states than competitive ones — for instance, if Trump’s gains have mostly come from Republicans, widening his margins in red states but less in purple states. But that sort of conclusion is usually wishful thinking.¹

[...]

The table below contains a simple average³ of recent polls in what we call “states to watch” — the set of 14 states that are most important to the national outcome. The average includes all polls in each state with a median field date of Aug. 21 or later — that is, polls conducted over the past two or three weeks. In some states, such as Nevada, the only polls that qualify by this definition are the 50-state online polls from Ipsos and SurveyMonkey, but in most others, such as Pennsylvania and North Carolina, there’s quite a lot of data to work with.

Recent swing state polls show Clinton narrowly ahead

STATE (NO. OF POLLS)	SIMPLE AVERAGE
Minnesota (2)	Clinton +8.0
Virginia (4)	Clinton +5.8
Nevada (2)	Clinton +5.5
Pennsylvania (8)	Clinton +5.5
New Hampshire (5)	Clinton +5.3
Colorado (3)	Clinton +3.7
Wisconsin (5)	Clinton +3.3
Michigan (4)	Clinton +3.0
Florida (7)	Clinton +1.6
North Carolina (9)	Clinton +1.2
Ohio (5)	Trump +0.4
Arizona (7)	Trump +2.4
Iowa (4)	Trump +2.5
Georgia (2)	Trump +3.5

Based on polls with a median field date of Aug. 21 or later. Michigan would be the tipping-point state if recent polls are right.

I’ve highlighted Michigan in the table because it would be the tipping-point state if the recent polls are right — that is, the state that would get Clinton to 270 electoral votes if she wins it along with all the states above it. She leads in Michigan by 3 percentage points in the simple average of recent polls, almost exactly matching her lead in national polls. That’s further confirmation that national polls and state polls tell pretty much the same story.

Here is that tabular swing and tipping-point state information translated to Electoral Votes by state, from 270towin.com:

 

Click the map to create your own at 270toWin.com

-- it is kind of fun that Donald Trump is Twitter-touting the 538 products ... 

 

[KorbenDallas]

Headline at Fox "Republican voter registration a bright spot for campaign", which included a nifty interactive graph:

[...]

And in big swing states ranging from Florida to North Carolina to Pennsylvania, there are still more registered Democrats than Republicans.

But the registration shift since 2012 suggests Trump will enjoy a stronger base of GOP voters in some states than did Mitt Romney four years ago.

In Florida, numbers from the secretary of state show Republicans gained 162,000 voters since 2012; Democrats lost nearly 137,000.

In Pennsylvania, Republicans gained 40,000 voters; Democrats lost 178,000.

And in North Carolina, both parties lost members as the number of unaffiliated voters rose. But Democrats lost far more than Republicans in the last four years.

Not all states register voters by party, but a review of eight states that do – Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina and Pennsylvania – showed Democrats since 2012 signed up more than Republicans only in Arizona and Colorado.

Change in Voter Registration in Battleground States | InsideGov

[...]

 

[KorbenDallas]

Allan Lichtman still predicts a Trump win, he appeared on a few news outlets a couple of days ago and in this next video he goes into more detail than in the video posted earlier in this thread:

But, he doesn't seem to be a fan of Trump (he's a progressive and ran as a Democrat in the 2006 Maryland Senate race).  He recently spoke with The Washington Post in this article, and said a few things with some slanting:

Quote

Donald Trump has made this the most difficult election to assess since 1984. We have never before seen a candidate like Donald Trump, and Donald Trump may well break patterns of history that have held since 1860.

We've never before seen a candidate who's spent his life enriching himself at the expense of others. He's the first candidate in our history to be a serial fabricator, making up things as he goes along. Even when he tells the truth, such as, "Barack Obama really was born in the U.S.," he adds two lines, that Hillary Clinton started the birther movement, and that he finished it, even though when Barack Obama put out his birth certificate, he didn't believe it. We've never had a candidate before who not just once, but twice in a thinly disguised way, has incited violence against an opponent. We've never had a candidate before who's invited a hostile foreign power to meddle in American elections. We've never had a candidate before who's threatened to start a war by blowing ships out of the water in the Persian Gulf if they come too close to us. We've never had a candidate before who has embraced as a role model a murderous, hostile foreign dictator. Given all of these exceptions that Donald Trump represents, he may well shatter patterns of history that have held for more than 150 years, lose this election even if the historical circumstances favor it.

Seems to indicate who he's voting for..

[william.scherk]

On 7/31/2016 at 0:55 PM, william.scherk said:

One thing we all do is get down to the level of analysis in a Presidential race that makes sense to us, that feels right, that is reasonable in scope. Nate Silver and the Gang of Hate at 538 are doing what we all do: taking in 'soundings' and interpreting them in forecasts.

This is probably what all of us are still doing, and where we overlap in attention is probably what I noted above: significant differences from the last two Presidentials.  We know Trump electoral college victory depends on making the electoral map different from '08 and '12.

Where we differ is probably where we estimate the ability of the various forecast models to get any state 'right.' at the moment, four weeks out. Thus, even if all the forecast models suggest a map like the one below, each model could be wrong in a different way. We tend to then rely upon the model in each of our minds. So, if all state-by-state analysis then will not 'match' here -- we still get closer to reality. We take in the Other points of view and we adjust our mental calculations.

Or so I figure.

Perhaps if we assess what 'swinger' state polls purport to show from before the debates between Trump and Clinton till today.  Even if analysis is marred by wishful thinking or partisan blindness, we have fun arguing.

My argument is, roughly, it seems like Mr Trump is not winning in key swing states right now.  If he had taken any benefit from the the past month or so, it does not show up in opinion-sampling at the moment. At this point in the 2012 campaign, the Romney campaign was also just not winning over the states he needed.

If Mr Trump appears to be idling or sputtering right now in key places, can he turn it around?  I think he can. I think there is still significant volatility in Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Nevada, Colorado and North Carolina.  If he can turn the corner on the pussy tape and keep punching at his enemy, he can pull out of the apparent poll hole. I expect him to spend today and tomorrow punching at Paul Ryan, and maybe a third day. There are a lot of Republicans to punch right now, from Senators to House Speakers.

Anyway, to trends and challenges and where the Red Hat Campaign is giving its all to turn out a win. Mr Trump's posted schedule tells us Florida, Florida, Florida, Florida, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Iowa and Ohio.  His running mate has one event posted, in Virginia. I guess he has a bone-spur.

On 8/3/2016 at 7:04 PM, william.scherk said:

it is close to conventional wisdom that Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania are key, lock, tumbler to a Trump victory.

 Florida can swing. Among the shitty numbers for other swing states, Florida is much tighter. In Pennsylvania not so tight, but still eminently winnable, if he can run up big numbers outside the urban elite cores.  Ohio is better than even odds to be part of a Trump victory on November 8th. 

I said in August that it was a cash-out moment then, and 'see you in late September.'  I think the thrills and spills of the last pussy+debate week have to soak into the cake a bit and filter down.  I don't really know how wrong my assessment will be. But there it is. Despite a rat-arsed baggage-laden hate-sink Clinton, USS Trump is not winning the beachheads he needs.

I will open the cakebox of opinion sampling and modeling of electoral outcomes again when the calendar says November. It will be almost a almost perfect cake by then. Final stretch polls and forecasts are going to invite a circus of expectations and hoopla. I want to have my blurt then too.

The best electoral drama is when you just don't know, when you don't quite trust either the conventional wisdom or the partisan bubbles to have accurately assessed the game.  Is this election a contest or what!

On 9/1/2016 at 0:22 PM, william.scherk said:

If you consider polling results are best set aside until (perhaps) the last week or two before election day, I think the Trump campaign itself will tell us by behaviour where he is winning, and where he is gunning.  If we see the Trump roadshow events grow thick on the ground of Blue States, if we see him gunning for New York, California, New Hampshire, Oregon, Minnesota and the like... it could mean a couple of things: He wants to do more than squeak past Hillary Clinton. He wants a thumping Electoral College victory. He is confident of victory in enough swing states that he campaigns for a rout.

From 270towin.com:

2016 Election: Clinton vs. Trump

This isn't a popularity contest™

This map will track the electoral vote count for the 2016 presidential election based on polling. You can also see how the map has changed over time. For more information and individual poll results, see thepolling averages page. Note that in a few states, where polling is limited or inconsistent, some weight is given to voting history. 

Close states (poll difference between Clinton and Trump averaging 5 points or less) are shown as toss up (tan). Leaning states (5-10 points) are a lighter blue/red. Darker blue/red states are averaging a spread of greater than 10 points. Last Update: October 10, 2016

 

 

 

This is also from 270towin.com:

 

A Summary of Electoral College Vote Projections

October 5, 2016

With just under five weeks to go until the 2016 presidential election, here's the state of the race from the viewpoint of 14 forecasters. You can find all the associated maps, as well as a few others, on our 2016 Presidential Election Forecasts page.

The various projections have converged in recent weeks, as forecasters are likely giving more weight to polls (vs. earlier in the cycle).

Note that the statistical projections (shaded in gray) may change several times a day as new input data (e.g., polls released that day) are processed by the models. This will lead to more variability vs. the other forecasters.

Edited October 11, 2016 by william.scherk
Added 'there are a lot of Republicans to punch today'

[BaalChatzaf]

On 9/9/2016 at 0:50 PM, william.scherk said:

Nate Silver set his wonk at Medium-High yesterday, in an article called "Election Update: The Swing States Are Tightening, Too"

Here is that tabular swing and tipping-point state information translated to Electoral Votes by state, from 270towin.com:

 

Click the map to create your own at 270toWin.com

-- it is kind of fun that Donald Trump is Twitter-touting the 538 products ... 

 

Silverman is a Bayesian Statistician.  He is constantly updating his Priors to get new Posterior  Probability estimates. 

[william.scherk]

23 hours ago, william.scherk said:

My argument is, roughly, it seems like Mr Trump is not winning in key swing states right now.  

Key term, "Right Now." That is the thing about forecasts and polls. It is always 'right now.'  

Here is a 'right now' snapshot from Utah.  It surprised me.  It looks like there is a possibility that Evan McMullin could win Utah's electoral votes. This is one weird election. What set off those dang Utahns, I'd like to know.

-- click image for polling details.

[william.scherk]

Reviewing this thread for hits and misses. Here I am pining for the fjords:

On 7/4/2016 at 2:12 PM, william.scherk said:

I like how Josh Bernoff at Without Bullshit puts it in his Nate Cohn, Nate Silver describe how they misread Donald Trump:

Similarly, a true analyst is fearless and bold in making predictions. You’re going to be wrong. But slinking away in shame is a waste of resources. True analysts go into the rubble of their predictions and find out what went wrong and why.

I thought to look back in time to this editorial/chat. I needed a refresher:

 

Quote

 

JUN 30, 2016 AT 11:26 AM

An 80 Percent Shot Doesn’t Mean Clinton Is A Sure Thing

A FiveThirtyEight Chat

David (Firestone, managing editor): After a lot of work, our general election forecast has gone live! But not everyone fully understands what a forecast model is. Some people think it’s a poll or are incorrectly saying, “Nate calls the race for Clinton.” Can we start by explaining at a basic level what a forecast model tells us?

Clare (Malone, senior political writer): Say it very, very slowly and use small words, please.

Nate (Silver, editor in chief): Pro buh bil it eez.

Harry (Enten, senior political writer): Looks like some artisanal tea that I’d buy in hipster Brooklyn.

Nate: Not everything 0 percent or 100 percent! Some things in between! Cookie Monster like numbers in between!

Harry: I believe Cookie Monster now eats vegetables.

David: And that in-between number gives Hillary Clinton about an 80 percent chance of winning, which obviously doesn’t mean it’s over.

Clare: Did Cookie vote Trump? Or is he a Bernie Bro?

Nate: I’m sort of annoyed by it being 80 percent, because I feel like that’s the number people most misinterpret. When you say 80 percent, people take that to mean “really, really certain.” It’s not, particularly.

David: I liked your ballgame analogy, Nate, in the article you wrote to accompany the forecast. Teams come back from 20-percent-win situations frequently. In fact, about 20 percent of the time!

Nate: Absolutely amazing how that works!

Clare: You’re annoyed that it’s a high number because people are going to glom onto that and think it holds for the whole election? Not realizing that this is where things stand as of June 29 and that it’ll change as things go on and polls come in?

Nate: It can change, sure. But let’s be clear — 80 percent is the forecast Clinton has to win on Nov. 8. That’s our best estimate of her chances, accounting for the uncertainty between now and then, based on the historical accuracy of presidential polling. If the election were held today instead, she’d be a safer bet still.

So, where has the forecast been between June 30 and now, and what is the current estimation of probabilities? 

Updated seven minutes ago:

Quote

 

[william.scherk]

From Bloomberg Business ... emphasis added.

Quote

Several things jump out. Despite Trump’s claim that he doesn’t believe the polls, his San Antonio research team spends $100,000 a week on surveys (apart from polls commissioned out of Trump Tower) and has sophisticated models that run daily simulations of the election. The results mirror those of the more reliable public forecasters—in other words, Trump’s staff knows he’s losing. Badly. “Nate Silver’s results have been similar to ours,” says Parscale, referring to the polling analyst and his predictions at FiveThirtyEight, “except they lag by a week or two because he’s relying on public polls.” The campaign knows who it must reach and is still executing its strategy despite the public turmoil: It’s identified 13.5 million voters in 16 battleground states whom it considers persuadable, although the number of voters shrinks daily as they make up their minds.

[...]

 “We have three major voter suppression operations under way,” says a senior official. They’re aimed at three groups Clinton needs to win overwhelmingly: idealistic white liberals, young women, and African Americans. Trump’s invocation at the debate of Clinton’s WikiLeaks e-mails and support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership was designed to turn off Sanders supporters. The parade of women who say they were sexually assaulted by Bill Clinton and harassed or threatened by Hillary is meant to undermine her appeal to young women. And her 1996 suggestion that some African American males are “super predators” is the basis of a below-the-radar effort to discourage infrequent black voters from showing up at the polls—particularly in Florida.

[...]

Powered by Project Alamo and data supplied by the RNC and Cambridge Analytica, his team is spending $70 million a month, much of it to cultivate a universe of millions of fervent Trump supporters, many of them reached through Facebook. By Election Day, the campaign expects to have captured 12 million to 14 million e-mail addresses and contact information (including credit card numbers) for 2.5 million small-dollar donors, who together will have ponied up almost $275 million. “I wouldn’t have come aboard, even for Trump, if I hadn’t known they were building this massive Facebook and data engine,” says Bannon. “Facebook is what propelled Breitbart to a massive audience. We know its power.”             

Since Trump paid to build this audience with his own campaign funds, he alone will own it after Nov. 8 and can deploy it to whatever purpose he chooses. He can sell access to other campaigns or use it as the basis for a 2020 presidential run. It could become the audience for a Trump TV network. As Bannon puts it: “Trump is an entrepreneur.”

Whatever Trump decides, this group will influence Republican politics going forward. 

 

[william.scherk]

I am going to keep away from the 538 Gang till five days before the election.  He is looking at the same shitty polls as everyone else. And I am going to avoid places that post things like this:

So, I will pretend there is compromise and just deal with state-by-state polling in this very important time. I don't think there will be rigging in the not-close states, because it doesn't affect the electoral votes. And it costs a lot of time and money to pay off the Republicans in state and county election offices, and to later kill them and vanish their bodies. 

So, fuck eg Texas, and some idiots who were too stupid to figure out the scroll-wheel on the machines in Tarrant County and then rush to Facebook to feed hysteria.  I think it makes more sense to look at the leaners or genuinely 'who knows?' states. Not Texas, not Illinois, not California, not Kentucky. 

I might start with Nevada, or as Mr Trump says it, Nevawda,  From the Real Clear Politics site. "We don't fix the numbers, ma'am, we just report them."

But first, Arizona, home of plenty Canucks on six-month sojourns.

Quote

Polling Data

Poll	Date	Sample	MoE	Clinton (D)	Trump (R)	Johnson (L)	Stein (G)	Spread
RCP Average	9/28 - 10/24	--	--	43.5	42.0	6.3	1.8	Clinton +1.5
Monmouth	10/21 - 10/24	401 LV	4.9	45	46	4	1	Trump +1
Arizona Republic	10/10 - 10/15	LV	4.0	43	38	7	4	Clinton +5
Emerson	10/2 - 10/4	600 LV	3.9	44	42	9	1	Clinton +2
OH Predictive Insights	9/28 - 9/30	718 LV	3.7	42	42	5	1	Tie
NBC/WSJ/Marist	9/6 - 9/8	649 LV	3.8	38	40	12	3	Trump +2
Gravis	8/27 - 8/27	1244 LV	2.8	40	44	8	1	Trump +4
OH Predictive Insights	8/25 - 8/27	728 LV	3.6	40	39	7	1	Clinton +1
Arizona Republic	8/17 - 8/31	704 LV	3.3	35	34	7	2	Clinton +1
CNN/ORC	8/18 - 8/23	809 LV	3.5	38	45	12	4	Trump +7
CBS News/YouGov	8/2 - 8/5	1095 LV	4.8	42	44	5	2	Trump +2

 

-- having looked at that, I expect to see Trump and family and Pence to be thick on the ground in Arizona ...  Over the next three days the candidates will be in AZ, NV, CO, IA, NH and ME (Trump), as well as FL, NH, NC and PA.  

Edited October 29, 2016 by william.scherk

[william.scherk]

For those of a wonkish or 'in the weeds' bent, here is a very useful site put up by the Shareblue folk. A project of a Democratic blue hue, called Benchmark. What makes it interesting to me is their county-by-county breakout of the current presidential race. For example, Nevawda, more of which from RCP below.  Click the image to go to the state+county page.

Now, Nevada/Nevawda late-breaking polls from Real Clear Politics.

Quote

Polling Data

Poll	Date	Sample	MoE	Clinton (D)	Trump (R)	Johnson (L)	Spread
RCP Average	10/20 - 10/27	--	--	45.2	43.5	5.2	Clinton +1.7
Emerson*	10/26 - 10/27	550 LV	4.1	44	42	3	Clinton +2
Gravis*	10/25 - 10/25	875 RV	3.3	46	46	3	Tie
NBC/WSJ/Marist	10/20 - 10/24	707 LV	3.7	43	43	10	Tie
Las Vegas Review-Journal	10/20 - 10/23	800 LV	3.9	48	41	6	Clinton +7
Remington Research (R)	10/20 - 10/22	1332 LV	2.7	44	47	4	Trump +3
KTNV/Rasmussen	10/20 - 10/22	826 LV	3.5	46	42	5	Clinton +4

.... and the chart of the RCP Nevada polling:

[KorbenDallas]

In some Florida news, the latest poll that has Hillary up by 1, Larry Sabato goes on Fox to discuss:

[william.scherk]

Within the discipline of my imagination, only tomorrow begins the 'real'-est part of public opinion sampling. While still wrong, the estimates of voter intention (for the remaining 60 percent in some places who haven't already voted) can give us a thrill, depending on Red Hat or Blue. Even though the last five days will contain polling with comparatively-wrong leads (ie, they won't match) they can still be indicative (eg, if 4/5ths of late-breaking polls show New Hampshire in his reach, the outlier could be discounted). 

For those who believe that the polls are all 'rigged' or have been rigged and yet have confidence that the remaining days' snapshots will be closer to reality than anything before, remember to set a base-line. Remember to incorporate the preceding 'way wrong' polling antecedents, so you can see just how much 'cleanup' the corporate pollsters will have done. I put the example of Colorado below. We can accept the Red Hat wager that the depiction is actually false, false data. 

Anyway, before I do that, I note that Roger Stone is out of the gate one day early citing Nate Silver. This changes everything.

 

Your eyes can see right through this. It might be time to call Colorado for Donald Trump.  And if Colorado falls, can New Mexico be far behind?

Edited November 2, 2016 by william.scherk
Wrong tweet. Righted.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

14 hours ago, william.scherk said:

Anyway, before I do that, I note that Roger Stone is out of the gate one day early citing Nate Silver. This changes everything.

William,

I don't know... I seriously doubt Roger takes Nate Silver seriously. By posting the darling of the ruling class in a "re-aligning," if Stone is true to his previous patterns of behavior, he is mocking the liberals.

Let me be generous to Nate Silver and not accuse him of the gawdawful bias he obviously has to have to make sure his bread keeps buttered. Let's suppose he has no bias. And, like the good folks who defend him always say, he doesn't do any polling. He just data crunches the polls that are out there.

Hmmmmmm...

Where have I seen this pattern before?

Oh wait!

I know.

The subprime mortgage derivatives crash.

 

The interest swap traders didn't make any loans. They merely repackaged loans that were already made into derivatives and trafficked in them. And since the original loans were made to people who couldn't afford them, when these borrowers defaulted, everything built on top of them came crashing down.

In other words, if you repackage shit so it doesn't smell like shit, that doesn't make it unshit. Shit is shit. A is A.

 

And there you have the Nate Silver Conundrum.

The original polls--in an election where the polling company owners want to influence the election--are shit. And repackaged shit is still shit.

Michael

[william.scherk]

19 hours ago, william.scherk said:

Remember to incorporate the preceding 'way wrong' polling antecedents, so you can see just how much 'cleanup' the corporate pollsters will have done.

This is from Philip Bump at the Washington Post, in a useful article "Your one-stop shop for the latest polling averages in the closest states."    

Quote

Or put another way, I made this:

The graphs are marked with the number of days until the election. Four states are flagged with gold stars. Those are states where Donald Trump needs to win at least three: Ohio, Florida, North Carolina and Pennsylvania. If he wins all four, he wins the election. If he wins only two, he doesn't. Keep an eye on those.

This isn't a polling model. It's the RCP average, which includes most recent polling in each state. (The figures above use the average of head-to-head polling.) It's subject to being yanked around by outlier polls (like the poll showing Trump up by 7 in North Carolina, which is most of the reason he leads in the state as of writing). The average is only as good as the number and quality of polls it includes, as we pointed out Wednesday. In 2012, the polls (and therefore the average) often underestimated the margins of victory in the states.

Anyway! May this be a useful tool for you over the next five days, as it has been for me. And how dare you question how obsessive we are about the state of the race! We will out-obsess anyone, anytime. Watch.

 

[william.scherk]

On 6/29/2016 at 3:07 PM, BaalChatzaf said:

Nate Sliver who is a very able statistician concludes that Hillary has an 81 percent chance of winning.

The models at 5thirtyHate self-adjust according to input polls. This is yesterday's odds, as given. Click the image to visit five30h8te's interactive forecasting widgets.  

 

This forecast adds to my uncertainty in having 'called' Florida for Trump (Korben put together a feast of Florida election wonkery in the Why Did Donald Trump Lose blog thread).  I also called Colorado and Nevada for Trump, which prediction looks a bit shaky. 

I found Korben's post valuable for the extra data points that early-voting provides.  Such is the state of your election systems that you get to 'officially' mark your party 'affiliation' with the government body that registers you on the voter lists.  Though your early/in-person/ vote is confidential, the cross-tabs will show aggregate numbers like percentage of votes lodged by GOP/Dem/Ind/NPA by day. The 'votes' themselves have not been counted or tabulated or fraction-magicked with goat blood Huma Podesta Eek. They are just able to be 'tracked' by number-crunching, counting noses.

This means, as Korben showed effectively, that savvy operatives and analysts within and without the parties can 'poll watch' in near-real time right now as Democrats, Republicans, registered Independents, or non-affiliated vote early,  as last-week party registrations are inscribed lists, as the clock ticks.  

They observe the actual numbers of voters who have done their work (via advance polls/early voting) and who are now 'removed' from the 'to mobilize' list. They observe registered voter file data as it is officially processed, and they observe the demographics from 2012 against an emergent demographic right now.  And not all of these They/Thems are from one party.

Which brings me back to Nevada, which I called for Trump. Nhate is still showing Nevada in the Clinton camp, which triggers Cog-Diss Shame Vanity Hate,  but similar 'breaking' totals of  early voter numbers as in Korben's post on Florida are being wonked to death in Nevada.

Here is an excerpt of creepy-news-for-Trump from a local media wonker.  As in Korben's review of turnout by party stripe and ethnicity -- especially even low-propensity Hispanics in Florida in larger media markets -- in Nevada gazillions of Them are getting out the vote in significant numbers.

These are not results like bogus or failed or sham polls, even like last-minute Rush-approved 'realistic' polls. These are comparative numbers of actual herds of voters.  

Quote

UPDATE: The Nevada Early Voting Blog

Jon Ralston

3:15 PM, Oct 21, 2016

2 hours ago

Donald Trump will be in Reno on Saturday, but the Republicans almost certainly lost Nevada on Friday.

Trump's path was nearly impossible, as I have been telling you, before what happened in Clark County on Friday. But now he needs a Miracle in Vegas on Election Day -- and a Buffalo Bills Super Bowl championship is more likely -- to turn this around. The ripple effect down the ticket probably will cost the Republicans Harry Reid's Senate seat, two GOP House seats and control of the Legislature.

How devastating was it, epitomized by thousands of mostly Latino voters keeping Cardenas market open in Vegas until 10 PM? This cataclysmic:

----The Democrats won Clark County by more than 11,000 votes Friday (final mail count not posted yet), a record margin on a record-setting turnout day of 57,000 voters. The Dems now have a firewall -- approaching 73,000 ballots -- greater than 2012 when Barack Obama won the state by nearly 7 points. The 71,000 of 2012 was slightly higher in percentage terms, but raw votes matter. The lead is 14 percentage points -- right at registration. You know what else matters? Registration advantages (142,000 in Clark). Reminder: When the Clark votes were counted from early/mail voting in 2012, Obama had a 69,000 vote lead in Clark County. Game over.

----The statewide lead (some rurals not posted) will be above 45,000 -- slightly under the 48,000 of 2012, but still robust. That's 6 percentage points, or right about at registration. The GOP turnout advantage was under a percent, worse than 2012 when it was 1.1 percent. 

----The Dems eked out a 200-vote win in Washoe and lead there by 1,000 votes. It was even in 2012. The rural lead, before the stragglers come in, is 27,500. It probably will get above 28,000.

----Total turnout without those rurals: 768,000, or 52.5 percent. If overall turnout ends up being 80 percent, that means two thirds of the vote is in -- close to 2012. Republicans would have to not only win Election Day by close to double digits to turn around the lead Hillary Clinton almost surely has in early voting, but they would have to astronomically boost turnout. The goal for the Dems during early voting was to bank votes and to boost turnout as high as possible to minimize the number of votes left on Election Day to affect races. Folks, the Reid Machine went out with a bang.

As an exclamation point to a historic night in Nevada, in which Clinton essentially locked up the state and Hispanics, insulted all cycle by Trump, streamed into the market, here is what the final Cardenas numbers showed (tallied by an on-the-ground activist):

1,904 voted
1,258: Ds, 66%
165: Rs, 9%
481: NPs, 25%

So Cardenas was responsible for adding 1,000 to the Democratic lead.

Trump has almost no path to the presidency without Nevada. He can say whatever he wants in Reno on Saturday and boost rural turnout a lot, but he made his own bed when he announced his candidacy.  

I'll dive deeper into the numbers later to show just how deep the wave could be Tuesday.

[...]

Yeah.  I will add this to the pot of uncertainty, and show  what the very 'blue' Benchmark state of the race is in Nevada.  Click the image for the page containing the interactive county-by-county results (also containing all the polling incorporated in their map).  It is a pretty confident Blue prediction, and fits with Ralston's cattle-drive nose-counts. 

Still, this seems to me a bit less predictable. Is that bias?  Have I spent so much time giving the Trump campaign the benefit of the doubt that I put a mental thumb on the scales?

 

Edited November 5, 2016 by william.scherk
Grrrrammar, Nevawda Map. Gazillions.

[william.scherk]

I expect few OL readers are consulting the Huffington Post poll aggregator this season. Compared to the other big houses at NYT (Nate Cohn) and elsewhere (RCP), it shows a definite 'bent,' and that bent seems to apprise Clinton's chances as up to three percentage points over the the 538 readings.

Which led to a minor kerfuffle and a few acid tweets:

 Ryan Grim / The Huffington Post:

Nate Silver Is Unskewing Polls — All Of Them — In Trump's Direction  —  The vaunted 538 election forecaster is putting his thumb on the scales.  —  During the 2012 election, Republicans who hated the daily onslaught of polling showing that Mitt Romney was headed toward a comfortable defeat turned …

+

Discussion: Business Insider, Mediaite, Politico and Lawyers, Guns & Money

RELATED:

 Nate Silver / FiveThirtyEight: 
Election Update: The Campaign Is Almost Over, And Here's Where We Stand

Discussion: CNN, Daily Kos, Politico, The Week, Hot Air, Guardian, Scripting News, Business Insider and Hullabaloo

[william.scherk]

Could it be that Nate Silver is defying conventional wisdom?  He is taking heat today from the usual suspects, and his Sunday appearance is going to make him some new friends ... from The Hill, which tacks just slightly right.

Quote

Hillary Clinton is one state away from losing the presidential election, FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver said Sunday. 

While the Democratic presidential nominee has a 65.7 percent chance of winning the presidency on Tuesday, she is not "in a terribly safe position," the pollster said on ABC's "This Week." 

"The electoral map is actually less solid for Clinton than it was for Obama four years ago," Silver said. 

Silver came to notoriety by correctly predicting President Obama's victories in 2008 and 2012. 

Clinton is weaker among Midwestern voters, while Obama had leads in states like Ohio. 

In FiveThirtyEight's election forecast, Clinton has the 270 electoral votes needed to clinch the White House. 

"Clinton has about 270, so she's one state away from losing the Electoral College," he said. 

"You would rather be in her shoes than [Republican nominee] Donald Trump, but she's not in a terribly safe position."

I wonder if anybody taped "the shows" for the GOP candidate.

[BaalChatzaf]

Nate is doing his  Bayesian Statistics Thing.  That is what he does for a living.

 

[KorbenDallas]

Larry Sabato has made his final prediction on the election:

President Hillary Clinton,

Bill Clinton, First Dude

And a Republican House, Dem Senate:

[william.scherk]

My family is groaning through the speechifying. Echoes of last night: "What about Florida?"  "Gone." 

Here is a place that just has to be full of groans today. I give a snapshot of the corner of 538 main page  where the final 'calls' were made before any results were in. 

were in

. 

I didn't beat Nate's forecast exactly, but I did edge out 538 in calling the race early last night.  I was significantly wrong in my map, missing Nevada, but it made no difference to the outcome. 

Over at the list of pundits, writers, pollsters and associated yahoos I keep at Twitter, in the bulls-eye today are all manner of political-science 'data' pretensions, from Nate and the gang to all echelons of wrong polling, wrong projections, wrong estimates of turnout, and all the concurrent  incorrect assumptions, bias, blindness, and other defects of reason.  

Many of the long-winded #Nevertrumpers are feeling pretty good, on balance, at least those who consider themselves GOP conservative wingers -- because they don't own Trump and they don't own Clinton.  They get to dissent, heavily.  

A lot of what you might call groaning admissions of bias and wishful thinking among the lesser and greater pundits and wonks. It is a good thing to see folks admit error. I have seen several mentions of Eating Crow and some manful  'I blew it' admissions.  I will leave that to your tastes, if you want to sample it.

Otherwise, hmmmm. Polls, schmolls. All polls are wrong. Except those that were right. Take a bow LA Times.

-- one other place that was bizarre last night in predictions, Infowars.  While I was just shading my map Victory Red, Alex and his skimpy election crew were thinking like Julien Assange -- that the powers-that-be would somehow prevent a Trump win. I realized that the skimpies weren't even looking at results most of the time. Their conspuratorial mindset had gelled around the notion of a stolen election.  Not even funny.

I estimate that in the entire United States, there are only five thousand people talking about a rigged election. And all but three are of Democratic stripe.  But I can do a proper trawling and bring something back for that other lively Rigging thread.

Was a storied election here in Canada, in the Reagany years, where the Conservative had a huge majority in the dissolved House of Commons.  The next House only had two seats for the party.  Our headlines were full of adjectives crushing, overwhelming, and so on.  This is when the sell-by date has passed and the national mood is majority Throw The Bums Out.  Electoral slaughter.  From 200 seats to 2.  Political death.

In America that satisfaction is almost always tempered.  The popular vote is split almost exactly.  An opposition to the Trump administration is built-in.   Up here, the incoming majority leader almost always achieves public backing at above 60 percent. There is a 'honeymoon' window of opportunity.  Down there right now I am most sobered by the notion of 'two Americas' reflected in those county-by-county electoral maps today. 

Family member sighs, says "I am going to eat my feelings today."

Pancakes for all!