US Gen. Election Thread V: The Hunt for Red October Surprise

[Kravanica]

Ok, so credit where credit's due, #DrainTheSwamp is a good slogan.

This is my swamp. You can't drain my swamp.

[Kravanica]

Nearly 100% of Democrats and a bit more than 80% of Republicans are in agreement that Trump's refusal to recognize the election outcome was outrageous. Even if the Trump voters might stir up some trouble, the GOP seems to indicate that they do plan to accept the 2016 result with or without Donald Trump. If Trump loses by a big enough margin as he seems destined to- the party is concerned how violent it might get and it is really distressing them. It would be the opening shots of a Republican party civil war.

"Opening shots"?

The Republican Party's been having a Civil War for some time now. Their conservative base has been thoroughly disgusted by their leadership.

[Frank Zipper]

Watched an interesting documentary on how we got to the Trump campaign

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04b183c

Adam Curtis is a bit too propagandist for my taste, but it is an interesting take on recent history if you can watch it.

[Eol Sha]

Interesting tidbit I just thought about.

Clinton wore red to the first debate, blue to the second, and white to the third.

That's funny.

[The Adonalsium]

I think last night was the best debate in this election. I think it was a tie.

Though Trump's comment about "bad hombres" was hilarious.

How? He did not answer any questions

[Eol Sha]

I think last night was the best debate in this election. I think it was a tie.

Though Trump's comment about "bad hombres" was hilarious.

How? He did not answer any questions

I feel the same way. How can you consider the debate close at all when one of the candidates refuses to answer questions and repeatedly goes off on all kinds of tangents unrelated to that question? It makes no sense.

[Ifreann]

Interesting tidbit I just thought about.

Clinton wore red to the first debate, blue to the second, and white to the third.

Just sayin', guys.

[Jolthig]

I saw that Donald Trump shot himself in the foot again last night...yet again!

[Thermodolia]

Interesting tidbit I just thought about.

Clinton wore red to the first debate, blue to the second, and white to the third.

What happened to the republicans?

[Thermodolia]

That's almost enough for me to have some modicum of respect for Graham. Almost.

Graham has been on fire at points in this election.

In the primaries, I remember him saying he tried to run, but no one would vote for him, so he dropped out and endorsed Jeb! No one would vote for him and he dropped out, so Graham endorsed Rubio. People stopped voting for him and he dropped out. "Every time I endorse someone, they drop out. With that in mind" and he reaches down and pulls out a hat and puts it on his head, "Lets make America great again!"


He also made the comment that the choice between Trump and Cruz is like choosing whether to be shot or poisoned.

I've said before if this whole government thing doesn't work out he should really try comedy.

[Yasuragi]

And then there's the beginning of the end of Clinton's "bounce" on 538...

Tbh, I think this election is going to be a lot closer than I'm comfortable with.

[The Emerald Dawn]

The organization that hosts the Emmys would like everyone to know it's not rigged.

That was funny too, but this quip at the bottom caught my eye:

Others to have commented include television producer Greg Berlanti, who made reference to Alec Baldwin's impersonation of Trump on Saturday Night Live.

"The closest Donald Trump will ever get to an Emmy is when Alec Baldwin wins one for playing him," tweeted the executive producer of Supergirl and Arrow.

Bazinga.

We, in the industry, call that a "boom".

[The Romulan Republic]

And then there's the beginning of the end of Clinton's "bounce" on 538...

Tbh, I think this election is going to be a lot closer than I'm comfortable with.

Its a relatively slight drop, and though a few states have shifted closer to leaning red or leaning blue, it hasn't changed the map much that I can see.

Also, we have not yet had time to get in poll results from after the last debate (which Clinton won yet again, and I think Trump's suggestion that he may not accept the result if he doesn't win will help solidify the support of those who are on the fence about weather to vote for Clinton (and their must be some, or we wouldn't be getting all these little twitches back and forth in the polls).

Also, while it does little to directly help Clinton, I note that McMullen is up to over 22% chance of victory in Utah in the Now-cast. Which means, yes, McMullen has a better chance of winning Utah from Trump than Trump does of winning the election as a whole.

[Lady Scylla]

And then there's the beginning of the end of Clinton's "bounce" on 538...

Tbh, I think this election is going to be a lot closer than I'm comfortable with.

Its a relatively slight drop, and though a few states have shifted closer to leaning red or leaning blue, it hasn't changed the map much that I can see.

Also, we have not yet had time to get in poll results from after the last debate (which Clinton won yet again, and I think Trump's suggestion that he may not accept the result if he doesn't win will help solidify the support of those who are on the fence about weather to vote for Clinton (and their must be some, or we wouldn't be getting all these little twitches back and forth in the polls).

Also, while it does little to directly help Clinton, I note that McMullen is up to over 22% chance of victory in Utah in the Now-cast. Which means, yes, McMullen has a better chance of winning Utah from Trump than Trump does of winning the election as a whole.

I'm following the BBC's polls since they're taking the American polls, and then averaging the numbers.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37450661

[The Emerald Dawn]

Its a relatively slight drop, and though a few states have shifted closer to leaning red or leaning blue, it hasn't changed the map much that I can see.

Also, we have not yet had time to get in poll results from after the last debate (which Clinton won yet again, and I think Trump's suggestion that he may not accept the result if he doesn't win will help solidify the support of those who are on the fence about weather to vote for Clinton (and their must be some, or we wouldn't be getting all these little twitches back and forth in the polls).

Also, while it does little to directly help Clinton, I note that McMullen is up to over 22% chance of victory in Utah in the Now-cast. Which means, yes, McMullen has a better chance of winning Utah from Trump than Trump does of winning the election as a whole.

I'm following the BBC's polls since they're taking the American polls, and then averaging the numbers.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37450661

47-43, and 43-41.

It's an interesting massage, but it doesn't do much for the kinks.

[The Romulan Republic]

Its a relatively slight drop, and though a few states have shifted closer to leaning red or leaning blue, it hasn't changed the map much that I can see.

Also, we have not yet had time to get in poll results from after the last debate (which Clinton won yet again, and I think Trump's suggestion that he may not accept the result if he doesn't win will help solidify the support of those who are on the fence about weather to vote for Clinton (and their must be some, or we wouldn't be getting all these little twitches back and forth in the polls).

Also, while it does little to directly help Clinton, I note that McMullen is up to over 22% chance of victory in Utah in the Now-cast. Which means, yes, McMullen has a better chance of winning Utah from Trump than Trump does of winning the election as a whole.

I'm following the BBC's polls since they're taking the American polls, and then averaging the numbers.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37450661

So does fivethirtyeight, although they also adjust for stuff like historical trends.

Interestingly, I see that Clinton's odds of winning on fivethirtyeight are now identical in the Now-cast and Polls-only (86.2%).

[Lady Scylla]

I'm following the BBC's polls since they're taking the American polls, and then averaging the numbers.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37450661

So does fivethirtyeight, although they also adjust for stuff like historical trends.

I'm not familiar with 538, so I'm a bit hesitant.

[Guy]

538's forecasts far too bouncy. Way too much reliance on the delta for a singular poll when adjusted for the delta of the average. It's an interesting method, but honestly probably not as good. Aside from the overall average being far more predictive, it also overweights bouncier polls in the forecast.

To put that in real terms: One bad Rasmussen for Clinton (C+) had a higher effect than a great Selzer (A+). You can't say a statement like "the end of Clinton's bounce" due to a single poll.

I'm a convert to the Upshot model.

Having said all that, it's still the gold standard, and certainly more accurate than a straight average (like BBC's) that doesn't take into account adjustments through time, or correlations between states, or the quality of each pollster, or pollsters' house bias.

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, that was the implication, but those were not his exact words.

When they asked him if he'd accept the results of the election, he said he'd have to wait and see.

Which effectively means, "If we win, it was legitimate. If we lose, it wasn't."

He literally said its rigged because Clinton is allowed to run.

[Ashlak]

Just set up a gladiatorial arena, give them weapons, and let them fight over the presidency.

Of course, lions will be set loose on the winner.

[The Romulan Republic]

Going to be interesting to see what fivethirtyeight looks like after we get the post-final debate polls in.

Barring some shocking development in the next two and half weeks, where we are then will probably be pretty much the final state of the race before election day.

[Yasuragi]

And then there's the beginning of the end of Clinton's "bounce" on 538...

Tbh, I think this election is going to be a lot closer than I'm comfortable with.

Its a relatively slight drop, and though a few states have shifted closer to leaning red or leaning blue, it hasn't changed the map much that I can see.

Also, we have not yet had time to get in poll results from after the last debate (which Clinton won yet again, and I think Trump's suggestion that he may not accept the result if he doesn't win will help solidify the support of those who are on the fence about weather to vote for Clinton (and their must be some, or we wouldn't be getting all these little twitches back and forth in the polls).

Also, while it does little to directly help Clinton, I note that McMullen is up to over 22% chance of victory in Utah in the Now-cast. Which means, yes, McMullen has a better chance of winning Utah from Trump than Trump does of winning the election as a whole.

Utah will be interesting, yes.

I don't know... I know there's precious little evidence for it, and it's been debunked in the past, but I can't shake the feeling that party loyalty is too entrenched in American politics -- that a lot of ~waffling~ Republicans will end up voting for Trump because of the (R), despite publicly and privately disapproving of him. I don't want that to happen, but a high single digit 'blowout' by Clinton seems..... too good to be true? If that makes sense?

[The Romulan Republic]

Its a relatively slight drop, and though a few states have shifted closer to leaning red or leaning blue, it hasn't changed the map much that I can see.

Also, we have not yet had time to get in poll results from after the last debate (which Clinton won yet again, and I think Trump's suggestion that he may not accept the result if he doesn't win will help solidify the support of those who are on the fence about weather to vote for Clinton (and their must be some, or we wouldn't be getting all these little twitches back and forth in the polls).

Also, while it does little to directly help Clinton, I note that McMullen is up to over 22% chance of victory in Utah in the Now-cast. Which means, yes, McMullen has a better chance of winning Utah from Trump than Trump does of winning the election as a whole.

Utah will be interesting, yes.

I don't know... I know there's precious little evidence for it, and it's been debunked in the past, but I can't shake the feeling that party loyalty is too entrenched in American politics -- that a lot of ~waffling~ Republicans will end up voting for Trump because of the (R), despite publicly and privately disapproving of him. I don't want that to happen, but a high single digit 'blowout' by Clinton seems..... too good to be true? If that makes sense?

Its not impossible. As I recall, Obama got about an 8% win in 2008, and while Obama may have been more liked than Obama, and able to capitalize off of Bush's failures, he was also running against a less loathsome opponent and a better organized and more cohesive Republican Party.

Their seem to be more people going third party this time, though.

[Cymrea]

I was really hoping for a viable third-party nominee, but neither Johnson nor Stein look terribly sane, let alone presidential. And while they have some interesting ideas, the lack of tight cohesion in their policies renders them disappointingly unviable.

Trump...is an unmitigated - though oft-aggravated - disaster.

So, vote Hillary?

[The Emerald Dawn]

I was really hoping for a viable third-party nominee, but neither Johnson nor Stein look terribly sane, let alone presidential. And while they have some interesting ideas, the lack of tight cohesion in their policies renders them disappointingly unviable.

Trump...is an unmitigated - though oft-aggravated - disaster.

So, vote Hillary?

(Image)

In Oregon? You could vote Bert/Ernie and the states still going Hillary.