Electoral votes
Hillary Clinton 303.4
Donald Trump 234.4
Gary Johnson 0.2
Popular vote
Hillary Clinton 48.1%
Donald Trump 44.8%
Gary Johnson 5.8%
| Source: | FiveThirtyEight |
| Published: | Jul 13, 2016 |
| Author: | FiveThirtyEight |
| Post Date: | 2016-07-13 17:08:23 by ConservingFreedom |
| Views: | 5256 |
Electoral votes
Hillary Clinton 303.4
Donald Trump 234.4
Gary Johnson 0.2
Popular vote
Hillary Clinton 48.1%
Donald Trump 44.8%
Gary Johnson 5.8%
#1: BorisY To: ConservingFreedom (#0)
yeah
... hellary
by
a
... landslide
... Bencrazi
destroyed
by
her
own
witch
craft
web
poison
Make
America
moth
balled
great
again
love
boris
BorisY posted on 2016-07-13 17:32:34 Reply Private Reply
#2: GrandIsland To: BorisY (#1)
I'm gonna laugh my ass off when the liberal left has that "what the fuck just happened" look on their MSM faces for about a month.
GrandIsland posted on 2016-07-13 17:38:06 Reply Private Reply
#3: misterwhite To: ConservingFreedom (#0)
In November, he explained that Trumps national following was about as negligible as the share of Americans who believe the Apollo moon landing was faked.
On Twitter, he compared Trump to the band Nickelback, which he described as being [d]isliked by most, super popular with a few.
misterwhite posted on 2016-07-13 17:45:17 Reply Private Reply
#4: ConservingFreedom To: GrandIsland (#2)
Birds of a feather flock together - proves nothing about the national vote.
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-07-13 17:49:25 Reply Private Reply
#5: ConservingFreedom To: misterwhite (#3)
And on May 18 he wrote "How I Acted Like A Pundit And Screwed Up On Donald Trump" - fivethirtyeight.com/featu...rewed-up-on-donald-trump/
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-07-13 17:52:27 Reply Private Reply
#6: tomder55 To: ConservingFreedom (#0)
tomder55 posted on 2016-07-13 19:02:15 Reply Private Reply
#7: jeremiad To: misterwhite (#3)
jeremiad posted on 2016-07-13 19:08:25 Reply Private Reply
#8: BorisY To: Willie Green, yukon, roscoe, gatlin, harrowup, all alert canaries, canary island (#2)
all
of
this
black
lives
mattering
is
back
firing
Make
America
red
white
blue
again
love
boris
BorisY posted on 2016-07-13 19:27:39 Reply Private Reply
#9: misterwhite To: ConservingFreedom (#5)
When will he write, "How I Made Lame Excuses For My Emotion-Based Prediction In A Pathetic Attempt To Salvage My Credibility"?
misterwhite posted on 2016-07-13 20:39:26 Reply Private Reply
#10: misterwhite To: jeremiad (#7)
I don't believe that exercising rights is radical -- unless exercising a right is used as justification to violate someone else's right.
misterwhite posted on 2016-07-14 08:21:07 Reply Private Reply
#11: ConservingFreedom To: misterwhite (#9)
In your book the following is a "lame excuse"? In mine it's a mea culpa.
"we were basically acting like pundits, but attaching numbers to our estimates. And we succumbed to some of the same biases that pundits often suffer, such as not changing our minds quickly enough in the face of new evidence. Without a model as a fortification, we found ourselves rambling around the countryside like all the other pundit-barbarians, randomly setting fire to things."
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-07-14 12:23:07 Reply Private Reply
#12: ConservingFreedom To: All (#0)
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-07-14 12:28:22 Reply Private Reply
#13: ConservingFreedom To: tomder55 (#6)
FWIW, 538 puts the probability of Johnson getting any electoral votes at between 1.5% and 7.5% (depending on statistical model).
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-07-14 12:30:27 Reply Private Reply
#14: misterwhite To: ConservingFreedom (#11)
Saying it now sounds like a lame excuse.
misterwhite posted on 2016-07-14 12:31:32 Reply Private Reply
#15: ConservingFreedom To: misterwhite (#14)
That makes less than no sense ... if he'd realized at the time of his prediction that he was playing a pundit rather than doing statistics, he wouldn't have made the prediction.
You seem to be confusing "explanation" with "excuse."
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-07-14 12:45:34 Reply Private Reply
#16: misterwhite To: ConservingFreedom (#15)
He admitted his prediction was not based on a model. Meaning he knew at the time that he was playing a pundit. I'm saying he should have admitted that at the time.
"You seem to be confusing "explanation" with "excuse."
No. It's a lame excuse. We would never have heard this "explanation" had he been proven right.
misterwhite posted on 2016-07-14 13:03:09 Reply Private Reply
#17: ConservingFreedom To: misterwhite (#16)
These two sentences bear no logical relationship to each other - much less the second proving the first.
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-07-14 16:02:46 Reply Private Reply
#18: misterwhite To: ConservingFreedom (#17)
Weren't meant to.
misterwhite posted on 2016-07-14 17:53:34 Reply Private Reply
#19: Vicomte13 To: ConservingFreedom (#0)
Vicomte13 posted on 2016-07-15 07:53:06 Reply Private Reply
#20: tomder55 To: ConservingFreedom (#13)
yes I know there is little chance for that .Ross Perot did not get any. But this is a strange year. Just for fun ; if he took his home state of New Mexico and maybe an independent minded state like NH ......and Evita and Trump end up tied ,but under 270 electors ..... then all bets are off .
tomder55 posted on 2016-07-15 11:45:56 Reply Private Reply
#21: ConservingFreedom To: tomder55 (#20)
Would be a hoot. I just noticed that they have a probability for "Electoral College deadlock: no candidate gets 270 electoral votes": between 0.5% and 0.6%.
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-07-15 12:42:37 Reply Private Reply
#22: ConservingFreedom To: Vicomte13 (#19)
They abstained: in a June 20 podcast (fivethirtyeight.com/featu...rendum-polls-are-a-mess/) on the methodological problems of UK referendum polling, Nate Silver said at the 39:13-remaining mark, "we're not trying to make a forecast of this ourselves".
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-07-15 13:03:13 Reply Private Reply