patrick.net

So Jazz.... at no time has a president won the popular vote but lost the electoral college vote, thus losing the presidency? Are you saying that's never happened before?

Then you misunderstood my original post, because that was my point. You say that there's great gravity to her potential loss in the early voting due to Comeys announcement. I said, it doesn't really matter because the situation was resolved before Tuesday when the rest of the country, and more importantly, the college votes occur. And you said I was wrong. Now you say that I'm changing the subject. Seriously, no more wine for you! ;)

jazz music votes early says

accuse me of being drunk.

Because you said I changed the subject when that subject was the very point of my original post.... but I was just kidding about the drinking. Notice the wink-smiley face after The sentence. A commonly recognized symbol for kidding around.

turtledove says

So Jazz.... at no time has a president won the popular vote but lost the electoral college vote, thus losing the presidency? Are you saying that's never happened before?

The electoral college is based on the popular vote in each state. Each early vote counts as much as each vote on the 8th, so there is no'real vote'. Plus, if Clinton wins Florida, it is pretty much over. More than 2/3rds of the Florida vote is expected to be early. So if there were a 'real' vote, it would be the early vote.

That said, I agree with Obama that Comey is an honest person doing his best, but that he made a mistake going public. Note that reopening the investigation and going public are two different things. Like I said many times, they could filter through the bulk of those emails very quickly. So he could have realized quickly that there was probably nothing much there.

Strategist says

My point....no one knows nor cares about Aleppo. If i owned Aleppo, i would trade it for a car.

Then your point is sadly mistaken. A great many people know and care about what has happened to Aleppo and the people living there.

Tenpoundbass says

I think Hillary has peaked.

Lol, Hillary's early voting push may be all she gets.

If so, it shows how few people want her "out of prison."

"Is that what CNN and Mother Jones told you today?"

No--but you go right ahead and keep posting articles from zerohedge. That's a well respected, unbiased source.

http://www.politico.com/states/florida/story/2016/11/florida-democrats-widen-early-vote-lead-thanks-to-south-florida-sunday-blowout-107167?lo=ap_e3

turtledove says

I thought something was up when Obama said that Comey was just doing his job.

Yes, I'd be surprised if Obama does not coordinate with Clinton.

An analogy with the investigations of Bill 20 years ago is false. The republicans are now lying low because they don't like Trump. Wait until after the elections.

We'll find out tonight!

"Nice job disproving the email in the OP.... Why do you hate FACTS???"

I love facts. Let me know when you decide to start posting some.

It's not a prediction. It's his summary of where the polling stands stated in terms of probabilities.

How accurate was Nate in the Primaries?

I bought some Hillary at -300 last week and sold most of it back yesterday with Trump +420.

I still think Hillary wins, but I'm not the type to pass up free money

How accurate was Nate in the Primaries?

Pretty accurate actually. His demographic model performed very well.

It looks about right. However, there are a number of toss-ups that happen to be in Clinton's columns. She will likely win, but she will likely lose at least one of NV, FL, NC, and NH. Nate is showing them all blue, but that doesn't mean that he'd tell you he thinks that they will all go that way. You can go look at the individual likelyhood of Hillary winning each state.

NH: 70%
NV: 58%
NC: 55%
FL: 55%

That means that if these were statistically independent (no underlying bias towards one candidate across states) that Clintons chances of winning all of these states are just:
0.7*0.58*0.55*0.55 = 12%. Trump's chances of winning all of them are 0.3*0.42*0.45*0.45 = 2.5%. So, even if the polls are fair, he has a 2.5% chance of winning all of those states. If you assume inherent bias in his favor, his odds go up.

So, Nate would predict that she will likely not win all of those states. But if you had to bet on any one in particular, you would be better off betting on Clinton.

Tampajoe says

It's not a prediction. It's his summary of where the polling stands stated in terms of probabilities.

Uhhhh... seriously?

Send Nate back to the Sewer where he came from. This Clown has never been known until he was conscripted by the Media to derail Trump's Primary. He released bogus polls the whole damned time. And for the last 4 months, every Liberal on the planet has been lying and denying that Nate Sliver never had one single Primary poll right the whole time. Not even one, everyone of the candidates at one point or another. Was going to be the candidate that was going to end Trump's chances the following Tuesday. Every single last one of them.
They kept repeating over and over "Trump has no clear path to victory" remember that?

After today, let's hope Nage the not so Great Sivler goes back to hell where the Liberals found him.

Ironman says

Here is RCP today without toss-ups and where they think states will go:

All Trump needs to do is flip NH.

joshuatrio says

Uhhhh... seriously?

Yes. Read my post if you want to know why.

Here's a summary of his model: http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo
Here's what Nate's prediction is:
On popular vote. Most likely outcome is Clinton by 3.5. He has editorialized that it might be more like 4 by the time the polls, b/c they are moving in her direction and the polls lag. He's also said that usually, things fall within 2 points of the expected mean, but things can clearly be and have been off by more than two. You can eyeball the popular vote distributions to see that he gives her about a 20% chance of beating her in the popular vote. One tail on a single deviation is about 16%. He's closer than that though.

He gives Trump a 30% chance of winning the electoral college. If you eyeball that chart (mentally integrate over Clinton with 270-360), you get about a 50% chance (0.6*90). There's clearly a 30% chance of Trump winning. That leaves about a 20% chance of Clinton getting > 360. What I think is interesting is that the peak on that distribution is so broad. I think that his model must not assume that the states are independent (as it shouldn't). Otherwise, I would think that the peak would be narrower.

Silver is predicting she'll win by 3.5%. I agree with him that it will probably be 4%. I'd be surprised if it wasn't between 1% and 7%. You posted facts without any interpretation. You want to be able to imply something without offering an opinion, so that you can hedge your bets.

I think that the polls are pretty accurate and the results usually fall within +-2%. I don't believe that there is any giant conspiracy of Jewish overlords controlling the banks and media and skewing these polls for Clinton. If you do (like Trump and Giuliani) then go ahead and tell us what you think the popular vote will be.

Here's what oversampling means and how it is legitimately used: http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/25/politics/donald-trump-polls-rigged-oversampling-democrats/

That particular sample may be of by a couple percent. But there is probably a reason so many polls keep getting lots more dem responses. It might be a different way they are asking the questions. For example, how are you registered. Might give a different result from how do you identify. How you identify might be impacted by how you are voting in the present election or how you feel today.

Trump's internal polling agrees with the major polls, so trump knows they are fair. He's just lying about it. You actually believe the lie.

This shit cracks me up.

I don't believe God will allow a nuclear holocaust. But the end of the world could be near.

Watch CNN now for a good laugh...

APOCALYPSEFUCK_is_ADORABLE says

TRUMPLIGULA!'s FIRST DICTATES:

OBAMFUCK: Back to Kenya!

IHLLARY: Under arrest by AG Steven Segal

God willing.

No I'm just watching CNN trying to come to terms with the facts. Wolf almost pissed his pants because Clinton was up 99 votes in NH. Only to be disappointed 45 seconds later.

I guess you flail a lot when you don't get your talking points direct from the DNC. Guess they're not picking up the phone.

"Hello Donna?"
"Donna... can you hear me.?"

"Donna... Donna?"

YesYNot says

ilver is predicting she'll win by 3.5%. I agree with him that it will probably be 4%. I'd be surprised if it wasn't between 1% and 7%. You posted facts without any interpretation. You want to be able to imply something without offering an opinion, so that you can hedge your bets.

Lock & Load.

My BIL is SWAT in LA and said they've been called up as have reserve officers.

Hiillary should be arrested, not for the emails, but for blowing the election by not nominating anybody popular for VP and for letting her husband meet with the justice gal and for keeping on that bitch that was caught interfering in Sanders' race.

BLM and Lindsay Graham and IHLs, looting stores and burning cars.

Hey Gary, shut the fuck up

Well, there is this issue of Clinton conceding defeat to trump...seems like lot of people didn't think he could win, myself included.

Sanders vs trump prob would have been closer. Time for establishment to reinvent themselves

Not necessarily fan of trump but the media co it use to act surprised when they were lying about trump odds along. Funny that so many are brainwashed by the news

MMR says

Well, there is this issue of Clinton conceding defeat to trump...seems like lot of people didn't think he could win, myself included.

Sanders vs trump prob would have been closer. Time for establishment to reinvent themselves

Not necessarily fan of trump but the media Pretends to act surprised when they were lying about trump all along.

The only appropriate action to events with "zero" implied probabilities is to bet on them.

Favorable risk/reward.

Following a political theology can lead to disappointment.

Peter P says

The only appropriate action to events with "zero" implied probabilities is to bet on them.

I tried. He refused. Tried to dodge with only 9:1 odds.