patrick.net

Ironman says

Despite the pretense of scientific detachment, Silver’s models are hardly unbiased. The moment you decide to weight some data sets over others, you’ve introduced bias. Silver’s failed Polls-Plus model incorporated indicators that had virtually no predictive value this year, like endorsements and fundraising totals.

Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics.

Like I said, we're entering a new political system, the 6th or the 7th depending on how you count it. Models for the previous system will yield incorrect results. Or...

"Past results do not equal future returns."

Modern Liberalism - From Teddy to Carter - is going to return. Neoliberalism is on the way out.

tatupu70 says

Well, Nate doesn't really "predict" the winner. The site gives odds on who will win based on several models. Nate saying Clinton has a 93% chance of winning isn't him predicting she'll win. It's saying that based on the model, she'll win 93 times out of 100. So, if there were 100 contests in the primary (with those odds), you'd expect seven where the 93% favorite lost.

Yes, exactly.

It's saying that based on the model, she'll win 93 times out of 100. You might add "she would be expected to win 93."

And to take it one step further, if there were 100s of times that there were 100 contests, sometimes she would win all 100, other times she would win less than 90, but the average number won would be 93. That is, if he is absolutely correct, which he isn't guaranteeing, it's simply his best estimate.

Btw, this is the aspect of statistics that's hardest for students to grasp, and hardest to teach (given time constraints). For further understanding, read about "sampling distributions."

thunderlips11 says

"Past results do not equal future returns."

This is correct. I imagine that Mr. Silver is busy analyzing his model and deciding how to improve it.

thunderlips11 says

Modern Liberalism - From Teddy to Carter - is going to return. Neoliberalism is on the way out.

That would be wonderful

Ironman says

FiveThirtyEight’s homebrew “Polls-Plus” model, which weights several factors based on a secret formula, has been worse at predicting outcomes than a weighted average of the most recent polls.

That's why Silver has a polls only model and a polls plus model. What's your point?

More evidence of poll rigging:
http://truthfeed.com/busted-liberal-media-caught-red-handed-manipulating-polls-for-hillary/15609/

Yes!!!

UNSKEW THE POLLS!!!!!!!!!!

tatupu70 says

Ironman says

has been worse at predicting outcomes than a weighted average of the most recent polls.

Tat did a good job of explaining that arriving at a probability is not a prediction, but using sloppy thinking and sloppy language I guess you can say that polls are predicting a Hillary win.

"weighted average of the most recent polls"

CIC probably means like this:

IT's a good thing that republicans have the libertarian option of Johnson as a protest vote.

I have to admit, that I expected the improvement in RCPs lagging graph above, but I expected a down-tic in Nate Silver's now-cast today.

But nope.

NBC poll

http://news-hl-cm.newsrep.net/h5/nrshare.html

2 polls of Donald Trump's standing in Iowa, exactly one year apart, are a time warp into the 2016 campaign

Two polls of Iowa tell the story of the past year for Donald Trump.

Exactly one year ago, Trump was polling at 17% in Iowa among Republican primary contenders. There were some fresh warning signs about his fledgling, yet burgeoning, candidacy among a 17-candidate GOP field.

One wild and turbulent year later, Trump — the Republican presidential nominee — is leading his Democratic counterpart, Hillary Clinton, in the same poll of the same state.

Trump led 41% to 40% in the survey, released by Suffolk University on Thursday.

So why is he losing? He's a stupid cunt crying rape.

The internal polls must suck for Hillary. The scale of the media attacks, the huge bump in negative ads on Trump, and when Obama interrupts his vacation to raise money for Hillary.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OBAMA?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-08-15-14-15-37

http://www.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/194138/fear-greater-two-evils-spur-high-turnout.aspx?g_source=ELECTION_2016&g_medium=topic&g_campaign=tiles

It doesn't matter how corrupt Hillary is, unless somebody was stupid enough to put in some smoking gun down in an email at State or on her server. And even then with the Slim NYT and Bezos WaPo and Clinton News Network, it'll be quickly excused and passed over.

Hillary voters don't care how in league with foreign governments and big banks she is. The evidence of which is overwhelming.

Now Health, that's something else. I couldn't imagine a candidate not releasing their health records, esp. since the two major ones are around 70 years old.

As for Turnout, it all depends if "Reagan Democrat", Blue Collar Union Members come out in droves, but Blacks don't.

Thing is, it's not the AFT/SEIU employees or bank officials whose lives are on the line, nor are they the ones who make less today with two jobs than they made 20 years ago at one job. Motivation.

You're limiting me to ONE?

http://iwilllookintoit.com/

There's the Pulizer Prize winner talking about UBS, and Saudi Arabia, and KeystoneXL, and... just posted today.

I'm voting for the lesser of two Elvis'

Hillary Clinton has hired a former lobbyist for the company behind the Keystone XL pipeline, further upsetting environmentalists who have long been wary of her commitment to fighting climate change.

BuzzFeed’s Ben Smith reported on Wednesday that the Clinton campaign has hired Jeffrey Berman as a campaign consultant. Berman, who began working for the campaign earlier this month, once lobbied on behalf of TransCanada, the company that hopes to build a pipeline carrying tar sands oil from Canada to the southern coast of the U.S.

R.L. Miller of Climate Hawks Vote said Berman's hiring "is a disappointment—especially as Martin O'Malley is taking flight based on the best climate plan I've seen from a candidate, and Bernie Sanders continues to soar."

"For us it’s a signal that she continues to be willing to work with oil and gas interests and take money from folks who are committed to have a pathway to fossil fuels," said Ben Schreiber, Friends of the Earth's climate and energy program director.

In 2008, political operatives described Berman as an “unsung hero” of Obama’s upset win over Clinton, due to a strategy that won Obama more delegates in key primaries when Clinton was still ahead in the popular vote. After Obama’s win, Berman joined the lobbying firm Bryan Cave LLC, which retained TransCanada as a client until 2013.

Federal disclosures show that TransCanada paid Bryan Cave $120,000 to lobby the State Department—to “monitor climate change legislation and presidential permit process for TransCanada Keystone Pipeline,” per the disclosure form—while Clinton was secretary. Berman is listed as the lobbyist on this issue.

In 2010, Clinton said she was "inclined" to approve a permit for the pipeline. She's refused to take a position ever since. “I have steadily made clear that I'm not going to express an opinion” she said in January, which also happened to be the same week the Senate considered a bill to fast-track the six-year-long delay to a permit. Clinton’s extended network has other connections to TransCanada, like her 2008 national deputy campaign manager Paul Elliot, now an in-house lobbyist for TransCanada. And the Wall Street Journal reported in February that between Clinton's tenure at the State Department and campaign for president, the Clinton Foundation received millions of dollars in donations from ExxonMobil and nearly half a million dollars from Canada's Foreign Affairs, Trade and Management agency, which supports the pipeline.

Just a coinky-dinkles that the Clinton Foundation was given big bucks from ExxonMobile and the Canadian Agency pushing KeystoneXL when Clinton was Sec. of State.

Probably just wanted to donate money to Haitian Relief.

Sorry, that was just Hedge Funds. Here's Securities/Investment and Commercial Banks

Nope.

Like I said, only a naive person believes powerful institutions write big checks to candidates expecting nothing in return.

Although she should be in jail for the emails. DoD workers are in jail for far fewer classified emails and mere negligence in handling them.

Meanwhile in Serbia:

#serbia

Also in Serbia:

zzyzzx says

Also in Serbia:

His nationalism and racism are what they respect. YOu must be so proud.

Trump is on a little uptick. He appears to have Georgia back, and is down to about 87% now-cast probability that Hillary wins.

Did he take a few days off from campaigning or something ?

www.youtube.com/embed/Jmdf-T1owis

oh regarding Serbia and Trump, https://southfront.org/trump-we-created-chaos-we-should-not-have-attacked-serbia/

Latest LA Times poll. Trump only trailing by 1%.

That huge lead Hillary had just a few days ago is rapidly eroding.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/

joshuatrio says

Latest LA Times poll. Trump only trailing by 1%.

That huge lead Hillary had just a few days ago is rapidly eroding.

Wait...uhh

Overnight, her lead shrunk to only .6%

THE BITCH IS FALLING

www.latimes.com/politics/

joshuatrio says

Latest LA Times poll. Trump only trailing by 1%.

That huge lead Hillary had just a few days ago is rapidly eroding.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/

Why did you leave out the rest of it, especially the part about who do you think will win is much better indicator? Look a little further into the poll next time.

Uhhhh, I got my poll from the LA Times... Looks like you got yours from Nate Silver?.

Iowa State Fair poll:

Yesterday my IT shop took me to my BD lunch.
The CIO who just this past March during the early Primaries, when Hillary was still running around the country in media silence securing delegates votes. And Trump hadn't shined the Roach spot light on her yet. He said during a trip in March, Trump may win the Primaries, but Hillary will be the next President. I said what do you mean, and read off the laundry list of charges that those of us, who don't follow CNN and Huffingshit knows as common knowledge. He just laughed and shrugged it off like it was tinfoil hat conspiracy theory talk, and I invented it my self. He hadn't heard no such news. He said even if those allegations were true, he's a lifelong Democrat and would be voting for her. That was March!
Now yesterday during lunch, he was the piping up about how we're screwed with the two choices but he was most terrified of Hillary. He said no way no how should that maniac ever be President.

Then the project manager said... "Did you hear her in that speech She gave, she said she promises to raise taxes on the middle class."

And here I thought Breitbart wasnt' reaching anybody. I know they didn't get all of these "lies" from CNN.

Latest LA Times poll.... Trumps winning :)

Somehow I knew Hillary couldn't keep it up.

trump has run virtually no ads and we havent even started the debates.

secondly most of the polls are bullshit numbers.

Trump now up 2%.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/

Trump up by 5% in PA now:
http://www.projectexecution.consulting/cepexpoll/

TRUMP LEADS CLINTON by 5+ POINTS in the KEY BATTLEGROUND STATE of PENNSYLVANIA

Trump leads Clinton 41.9 percent to 36.5 percent, with 21.5 percent voters undecided. Trump’s lead is just inside the margin of error and marks the first time that the Republican candidate is catching up in the traditional stronghold state of the democratic party.

joshuatrio says

Trump now up 2%.

Hang in there, mate. At least you've found the one that says what you want it to say. Squeeze that puppy like your life depended on it.

joshuatrio says

Uhhhh, I got my poll from the LA Times... Looks like you got yours from Nate Silver?.

No I read the part that where the LA times explains how the poll is conducted and what it means. The link is right there on the LA times page you posted. You didn't see it? No interest in what it means or why?