New way to advertise your candidate: burn down a nigra church and spraypaint ‘Vote Trump’ on it. That will draw support from all quarters.
Has Trump addressed this at all? Any normal candidate would be frantically denouncing this and distancing himself as quickly as possible.
Apparently there is a gofundme that has raise over $120K.
There’s your problem right there.
You don’t have to price anything. You just have to create enough doubt among undecided voters, mere days before the ballots are cast. It’s what the other side has done with all the e-mail hoopla. Trump has admitted what amounts to sexual assault, including underage pageant contestants, several come forward to verify this assault, and now a 13 year old (at the time) victim hits the spotlight (though we knew about her months ago). Fits the profile. Who would support a pedophile for President? The reason he keeps harping on the “Hillary should be in jail” theme is because he knows that’s where he should be. But who has the balls to stop him? Ironically, it could be those without balls at all.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Price=prove
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I hope Sam Wang is right. He’s got Clinton as a sure thing which is much more comforting than the nosediving 538 horror show.
If he’s not, he’s done. He got 2014 badly wrong until the very end.
That’s a bit further down on my list of concerns.
for the first time in a few days, Trump’s momentum seems to have halted. He lost a point in the LA Times poll and CBS came out with a poll showing her 4 points ahead. She now leads by 2.2 in the RCP average, compared to 1.7 yesterday.
One piece of good news for Trump: a NH poll showing him leading by 1.
Okay. Let’s also not forget to throw in the undersung but by most scorecards actually most accurate aggregator - Drew Lizner, formerly pushing his crunching under the Votamatic flag but now the guts of Daily Kos’s numbers.
Cause on the one end we have Wang just playing for a high Brier score (which rewards and punishes confidence as well as accuracy … thus being wrong in a state when you called it by 0.3% probability hurts you less than being wrong if you had called it with 75% probability, but being right works the opposite way). IOW 100% is just silly.
And on the other hand we have Silver fairly consistently giving the lowest confidence to his predictions.
Lizner? Who minimally has previously done as well as either of them? Between the two.
Wang’s saying 100%. Silver’s saying 66%. Lizner’s saying 92%.
UpShot’s model is also in the middle section at 86% - which turns out to be the exact average of the aggregators - the meta-aggregation.
FWIW.
By the way in a note today Wang said “100%” is a software glitch. It should be “>99%”.
Also, in another note he said there are now polls post-Comey in all swing states except Michigan and Iowa and Clinton still leads comfortably enough in all of them to be comfortable in the forecast. He also suggests there is something wrong with Nate Silver’s model to lead to so much uncertainty but I’m not competent enough to understand it.
Aiyeeeeee! He’s also up by five in Ohio: http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/02/politics/presidential-polls-2016-election-hillary-clinton-donald-trump/
I’ve already written Ohio off. It’s going to Trump.
One more bit to note - My read was Wang long ago stating that the Bayesian prior for the polling was C+4 +/-3.
538’s PollsOnly, uncertainty and all, is aggregating the popular vote as C+3.3 right now. HuffPo Pollster C+4.7. RCP the outlier at 1.7.
Now polls can be off, again we know that the real aggregators (and RCP does not qualify there) were off by as much as 2.4 in 2012 (an unusually off year). But you do gotta give Wang his props here. His Bayesian prior for the polling was pretty much dead on.
I’m not quite so pessimistic. Obama carried the Buckeye State both times; Hillary could still win here.
One doesn’t see a good use of “aiyeeee” very often. Kudos.
Thanks. This election cycle has given me far too many opportunities to use it.
Aaarrgh! me hearties! Aaarrgh! Aaarrgh!
(Dying Like A Pirate Day)