SNL’s version of Debate 2: - YouTube
Per 538, she currently has a 13.9% chance of taking Texas in polls only. Very unlikely, but not zero.
That’s actually better than Trump’s current chances of taking the general election (13.8%). So by your criterion, Trump has zero chance of winning the general.
Exactly.
But that’s wrong.
It won’t be in three weeks.
Trump’s response. Aww, did widdle Trumpy-wumpy get his widdle feewings hurt? So sad!
You mean the “boring, unfunny show” that you agreed to host a year ago? That show? It’s like he can’t just say “I disagree” or “I don’t like it” or “they’re assholes”. It always has to be “they’re jealous” or “they’re failing” or “they’re boring”. He’s so fucking pathetic.
Of course the probability of something happening is 100% after it’s happened.
You’re also assuming that there will be no more shifts in the polls in the next 3 weeks. Three weeks ago Clinton had a 24% chance of winning Arizona, and now she’s at 51%.
I’m loving SNL’s election skits this year. Especially the fake Trump ad about he supports women’s right to guns to defend themselves. It’s a little weird that none of the SNL cast are in it. And also that it airs outside of SNL for some reason.
Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
An interesting line in a 538 article caught my eye the other day.
In other words, yeah, even 538 (or at least that particular writer) thinks that Trump probably has a zero percent chance.
Trump has to hate:
[QUOTE=El Trompo]
Watched Saturday Night Live hit job on me.Time to retire the boring and unfunny show. Alec Baldwin portrayal stinks. Media rigging election!
[/QUOTE]
No wonder he sees infotainment places like FOX and Infowars as serious news, but it shows once again how vindictive and a waste of time and resources Trump will get into if he becomes president.
Another way to put it is: If the polls are correct, Clinton has a 100% chance of winning. What is the chance that the polls are not correct? We think there’s a 15% chance that the polls are off enough that Trump will actually win.
HRC is 99.9% winning in CA, according to 538. Not even NY is higher (they are at 99.7%), although that is certainly within the margin of error.
A lot of scientists did. A lot of public intellectuals did, and they made their case in public. I would have had a fighting chance at being against SDI as a huge waste of money had I been of age in 1984.
OK, Reagan appointed James Watt Secretary of the Interior. Does that burnish his environmentalist credentials?
This is so economically incoherent it isn’t an argument for or against anything at all.
Ah, the old “What your candidate is alleged to have done is much worse than what mine is known to have done!” tactic.
And there could be no better description of the concept of “margin of error” than these two facts.
:smack: Did not mean to imply that at all (esp. if it obscured my actual point)…
Trump and his supporters don’t give a shit about anyone but themselves. That those that feel they are economically challenged think that a rich man (born on third base with a silver spoon in his mouth) that is also bad at business is going to do anything but help himself shows just how uniformed his supporters are.
Perhaps all his supporters wish they where also born with a billon in their pocket. And that trump will simply open up manufacturing/mining jobs just by getting the supervisor to open the gate to the factory. They think it’s that simple.
Pence is still not getting the memos from HQ. He said on one of the Sunday talk shows that he and Trump will live by the election results.
Trump’s surrogates (i.e., Giuliani), are still trying to rely on the proven liar, self-proclaimed boy pimp for their eyewitness proof that one of the alleged encounters never happened. Jake Tapper didn’t buy it.
There’s been a persistent criticism of 538 this year that their model is set to be way too sensitive. If you look at a graph of the 538 polls only model vs prediction markets, you can see much wilder swings. Even compared to other poll aggregators, 538 is far more sensitive.
Remember, all of 538’s predictions are untestable except at the point the election actually occurs. The way the model is set up, it starts off with extremely high variance which slowly whittles it’s way down to election day. Whether this was done out of a good hearted desire to accurately model truth or a subconscious pressure to garner more pageviews, it’s had the effect of making this race seem much more like a rollercoaster.
Personally, I’ve found following prediction markets to be far more informative than poll aggregators. The prediction markets didn’t take Trump seriously during the primaries until February even though all the media was melting down about it far before. The prediction markets correctly interpreted Trump’s convention bounce as not a big deal but that the Access Hollywood tapes were.
That’s pretty awful. Hope they drag him off to court ASAP.
Pence wants a political life after Trump.