Hillary just lost the election.

Politics & Elections
742

You have expertly rebutted a point I was not attempting to make.

Math is good for such as, say, hard science with rock solid empirical facts. Yes, this rock sample is 33.4% iron, 23% carbon, so on and so forth. Totally works. “Social sciences” are affected by this craving for empirical fact in a place where it simply does not exist, i.e, people. Hard science permits empirical precision, indeed, “social science” may wish that it did, but mostly doesn’t. You can’t make a precise conclusion about what white people think without explicitly defining “white people”.

And there are aspects of “social sciences” where such precision is possible, we know to a pretty fine point how many of us make X amount of money, how many don’t, stuff like that. But human opinion is cloudy, murky with a chance of meatballs.

I have some confidence in polling when it comes to broad strokes and trends. But when it gets to 45% Clinton, 44% Trump…not so much. Indefinite in, indefinite out. For me, the trend that suggests that Texas and Georgia may be “in play”, despite having been adamantly Pubbie since God graduated high school…that’s pretty hefty. That speaks in the broad and inclusive evidence I trust.

Now, I freely admit I am a mathtard, had to take Algebra I twice and cheat to get a “D”. But I note that people who are good at math tend to think that means they are just generally smarter. Ain’t necessarily so. No matter how smart you are at math, if your input is not reliably precise, then your conclusion cannot be either.

Makes arithmitical sense that 35% of the voters is a one in three chance of winning, but only if that 35% becomes 51%, which changes the assumptions!

743

That example illustrates another reason I don’t think the 538 probabilities should be emphasized as much as they are. The first reason as I gave above is no statistical proof that the probabilities given by that model are valid. ‘Nate Silver called all 50 states’ is not such proof, which would be dozens or preferably hundreds or higher order of magnitude of trials where 65% probability from the model led to victories close to 65% of the time. But there’s just no way to test the model this way, given that national elections only happen every 4 yrs and the country and its politics can significantly change over only a few 4 yr cycles.

Your argument IMHO illustrates a second problem. If the Nate Silver of the universe you describe collected poll v outcome date over a number of cycles (with the same political conditions) he’d find almost no volatility in polls and outcomes, since the Centrist party wins almost every election. Thus in the next election his model would say the Centrist had virtually 100% chance of wining, both because they’d be ahead in the current polls and the backward looking historical data of volatilities and corrlations of polls v outcome and outcome v outcome (one state’s outcome relatively to another’s and so forth) would show highly predictable results. The Baboons’ chances would show up as almost zero, not as 1/3.

It’s my distinct impression that a lot people mix up in their minds somehow the concept of being ahead 65%-35% to having a 65% chance of winning, which you seem to pretty directly conflate in your example. And there isn’t enough thought or understanding about the connection between how far you’re ahead in the polls and how high is the probability of winning. To go back to the Centrist v Baboon universe, the 538 model of that universe would understate the Baboons’ chances even if politics started to change and Baboons did much better in the polls, because the model would still get its volatility from a backward look at history, it can’t pick up a sudden increase in volatility likely to accompany the change in politics. The Nate Silver of that universe would probably realize and comment on that, but it’s still a weakness in more subtle cases.

A smaller version of that could be happening now. Trump’s different appeal could be increasing the likelihood of a big move in the polls or a big error in the polls, but the model’s view of that is historical: it can’t be otherwise. I’m not saying that is happening, or has to be in Trump’s favor if so (maybe there’s some big swing against him at the last minute as people hesitate for vote for such a ridiculous person for such a high office, which wouldn’t have applied to the less ridiculous Romney, McCain, Bush, Reagan etc). I would just reiterate the limitations I see on 538’s prob numbers. They aren’t really tested, and too many people seem to confuse in their minds being ‘ahead’ 30 points in winning % v being ahead 30% in the polls.

As for relatively thin offshore betting site trading that did appear to be wrong footed seriously in the Brexit vote, though polls per se were not. It’s shaping up potentially similarly actually if Clinton holds onto 65% probability in betting odds when up only 1.1% in the RCP national avg, if that were to persist.

744

Um, yeah, of course they did. Why would they say anything else?

745

The deplorable comment doesn’t mean squat. If anything, she was underestimating the sick puppies among the Trumpians.

Of course you say it’s a tight race, else your voters don’t think they have to turn out. Just like when Enormous U plays Drano Tech, the coach always says they expect a tough game and will have to play their best, even though their starters have tee times in the third quarter.

746

"Hillary just lost the election."

Only in the fevered wetdreams of rightwingnutjobs.

747

The Trump Organization’s foreign connections actually do tie into two issues that are very big for many Trump fans:

1: America First! Sure, it’s great that Our Trump is an Amazing Businessman doing deals all over, but…this reminds me of those pesky commercials about how Trump did all those deals for making his brand-name merchandise overseas…I’d rather not think about that…

2: Our Guy is Beholden to No One! He’s His Own Man! But here’s all this talk about all those Foreigners who own pieces of Our Guy’s businesses…what’s up with that?..I’d rather not think about that…

These two issues (America First and Trump’s shaky Alpha Male image) are very important to the average Trump voter. The Newsweek story does have the potential to hit them where they live.

748

Probably to counter the Trump campaign rhetoric about how they are closing in fast and will win big in November. Just a guess though.

749

Seems like a cogent assessment of things. I guess the flip side to this, too, is that Trump, being an unknown commodity in political terms, comes with either a yellow caution flag or a red warning flag, depending on your perspective. I suspect some people who say they’re voting for the Don might say to themselves “I just can’t – I just can’t vote for this guy,” and chicken out and probably not vote at all, so that might work in Hillary’s favor. I want to believe that anyway.

750

If Hillary is a mortal lock by 20 points, according to polls, then less of her voters will turn out, they’ll relax. One percent, five percent, who knows, but less. Fewer. Dems already have the White House, if they don’t get any more than that, its not really much of a win. They need turnout, big time, and Trump is the gift that keeps on grifting.

751

I disagree – it makes her look like the typical condescending Washington pol. I think it’s clearly damaging, but I would agree that the damage is not necessarily permanent. Nothing a good debate performance couldn’t fix, at least. I suspect that from now until about 2 weeks post debate will be when minds are made up.

752

Trump won’t do it. He’s already looking for an “out”, some objection that he can sell to his onions as plausible. Won’t take much. Hillary debating him would be like you or I playing tic-tac-toe with a chicken. He will bail.

753

I haven’t underplayed anything; I am very much aware of the danger Donald Trump and alt-right neo-fascists represent. They will scar this country forever if they are voted into office.

My response was late-night rambling and poorly written. I would have voted for Sanders over Trump for certain. I’m just saying that, for any Bernie Bro who might be reading while smirking and saying “We told you so,” I can honestly say that I don’t regret voting Clinton over Sanders a bit, regardless of whether Clinton ends up losing or winning. She was clearly more qualified and capable of being president than Bernie, who has good intentions but would have probably been a pretty poor president. So I can live with knowing that I voted for a losing candidate.

Clinton was a logical choice and the Democratic party and voters were right to support her. Unfortunately, she’s just been a pretty bad campaigner and some of her flaws have been on full display. And in the end, whether we like it or not, campaigning comes with the territory. She knew that from day one more than anyone. It’s up to the candidate to lay out a winning strategy and execute it, and the definition of success changes from year to year, race to race.

754

Well I was thinking it would be about a 5% swing on that issue alone. I greatly underestimated. Polls only has him now at 38.6%. The Nowcast is at 43.4%. That’s a big jump and there are a lot of individual polls that show him ahead. 538 has him less than 2% behind on the popular vote.

Before the 11th he had slowly gained but it seemed to flatten out until the health issue came up.

755

I don’t agree, but it doesn’t actually matter. My point is that the argument for pneumonia connecting up to a big Clinton narrative is pretty tenuous. Notwithstanding the right-wing fever swamps, there is no national narrative about her being too frail to be President. It isn’t motivating people not to vote for her, nor is it motivating Trump die-hards to turn out.

The best connection they have is that it reflects on her secrecy. But the Trump campaign hasn’t really pushed that line, in large part because they can’t–since they have a candidate who won’t even disclose his tax returns, and since Hillary has since disclosed much more medical info than Trump.

So I’m just not seeing it. But my point from the beginning is that all this amateur punditry is a little much. This forum is obviously partly about amateur punditry. But I feel like the ratio is way out of whack, to the point that no one talks about how they actually feel about the issues and events any more, and instead it’s all second-level discussion about how some imagined other will feel about the issues and events.

756

But shouldn’t actual discussion of issues just go in GD?

757

Maybe I’m wrong but I would think a thread along the lines of “Hillary Clinton isn’t physically fit to be President” or “Donald Trump cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons” would go in Elections.

Except we see very little of that discussion. Instead, 90% of it is “I’m guessing that a whole bunch of other people are going to think Hillary Clinton isn’t physically fit to be President” and “I’m betting that in two weeks 538 will show that people think Donald Trump cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons.”

758

I’m very interested to know what smart, engaged people think about the election and the candidates. I’m less interested to know what they think about what other people will think. And that’s largely because I think such punditry is really speculative and unreliable and therefore uninteresting except as an insight into the psychology of the pundit.

But that’s just me bellyaching. Obviously the majority of posters disagrees.

759

Oh, I see what you mean - guess that’s not what I was thinking of as issues. Yeah, if anyone does speak about an issue like that they general just get a fairly partisan “rebuttal” or backslapping.

760

I don’t think so. Yes, issues are discussions however, these issues specifically deal with an upcoming election. Sort of like opinions on food are statements of opinion that could go in IMHO but since we have a specific form to address those opinions, café society, the discussion goes on there. When you have a choice between a general form and a specific form you should always go with the specific.

761

No, but there is a national narrative about her being secretive and hiding the truth from people, which fuels conspiracy theories. And Hillary’s decision to hide her illnesses after weeks of Trump campaign’s tossing Loose Change type innuendo around was a score for Trump. You’re focusing on the frailty, which I agree is a relative non-issue by itself, assuming that she doesn’t remain sick and off the campaign trail. But it’s her repeatedly denying reports and then having to come out and “clarify” earlier statements after “short circuiting” or “powering through.” You can discount this all you want, but the polls clearly indicate that it’s a needle mover. Is it permanent? Of course not. We’re at the stage when people are watching and they’re going to react to various tidbits and Trump will have his bad days. But they’d better be careful about counting on him to be the daily train wreck that he has at times been – the campaign overhaul has instilled a sense of discipline and restraint that hasn’t been seen. It’s about as much of a “pivot” as we’re going to get but it’s a pivot nonetheless.

The Trump campaign isn’t going to do this overtly. It’ll be covert, and it will involve trolling from surrogates. They’ll let voters fill in the gaps.