concha Posted August 26, 2020 Report Share Posted August 26, 2020 26 minutes ago, Atticus Finch said: Yes, I "ridicule" crappy polls that got lucky once. Twice. At least. In the same election. I think the Trafalgar guys are laughing at you, Andy. 🤡 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atticus Finch Posted August 26, 2020 Report Share Posted August 26, 2020 32 minutes ago, concha said: You said "Trump always had about a 1/3 chance to flip those Midwestern states if everything broke in his favor". You were NOT talking about the electoral college in general. Nowhere does Nate Silver identify MI, WI and PA and assign a 30% or 1/3 chance of winning them all. Why would I have to lie about Trump having a 30%~ chance of winning the electoral college when he, indeed, did? That covers the entire thing. Whether you dishonestly break it down by state to try to cover for you utter incompetence in understanding probabilities. You are, as usual, deflecting away from the fact that you fundamentally misunderstand math and probabilities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atticus Finch Posted August 26, 2020 Report Share Posted August 26, 2020 Don't listen to concha. Read someone who actually understand probabilities. Final Election Update: There’s A Wide Range Of Outcomes, And Most Of Them Come Up Clinton Our forecast has Clinton winning the national popular vote by 3.6 percentage points, which is similar to her lead in recent national polls. Her chances of winning the popular vote are 81 percent, according to our forecast. So what’s the source of all the uncertainty? And why does the same model1 that gave Mitt Romney only a 9 percent chance of winning the Electoral College on the eve of the 2012 election put Trump’s chances about three times higher — 28 percent — this year? It basically comes down to three things: First, Clinton’s overall lead over Trump — while her gains over the past day or two have helped — is still within the range where a fairly ordinary polling error could eliminate it. Second, the number of undecided and third-party voters is much higher than in recent elections, which contributes to uncertainty. Third, Clinton’s coalition — which relies increasingly on college-educated whites and Hispanics — is somewhat inefficiently configured for the Electoral College, because these voters are less likely to live in swing states. If the popular vote turns out to be a few percentage points closer than polls project it, Clinton will be an Electoral College underdog. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
concha Posted August 26, 2020 Report Share Posted August 26, 2020 1 hour ago, Atticus Finch said: Why would I have to lie about Trump having a 30%~ chance of winning the electoral college when he, indeed, did? That covers the entire thing. Whether you dishonestly break it down by state to try to cover for you utter incompetence in understanding probabilities. You are, as usual, deflecting away from the fact that you fundamentally misunderstand math and probabilities. I just point out your lies, Andy. You have dodged and changed your story in an unhinged manner, flailing around to cover yourself. "They weren't wrong with their percentages at the state levels either. Trump always had about a 1/3 chance to flip those Midwestern states if everything broke in his favor." Actually, they were. Nate Silver admits in his 11 November 2016 piece where he pats himself on the back for being less egregiously wrong than the likes of the NYT: "...Clinton underperformed her polls significantly throughout the Midwest and the Rust Belt: by 4 points in Michigan and Minnesota, by 5 points in Pennsylvania and by 6 points in Iowa, Ohio and Wisconsin." That's pollster for "the polls were really fucking off in those states". And Silver's individual odds for winning the states were in the teens to low 20s. I provided a piece by an MIT statistician that showed even you count correlation between the states, the likelihood of winning them was less than 11%. 🤡 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bormio Posted August 26, 2020 Report Share Posted August 26, 2020 Trump did not need to win all those states to win the EC - as it turned out only needed Wisconsin of the 3 (would have won 270-268), since he got the 1 vote in Maine. Winning all 3 was a much lower probability than winning the EC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atticus Finch Posted August 26, 2020 Report Share Posted August 26, 2020 9 minutes ago, Bormio said: Winning all 3 was a much lower probability than winning the EC But he won them all narrowly and for the same reason. The reason that Nate Silver laid out. If one moved then they all would. This was known 4 years ago and you bozos are still confused. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
concha Posted August 26, 2020 Report Share Posted August 26, 2020 Just now, Atticus Finch said: But he won them all narrowly and for the same reason. The reason that Nate Silver laid out. If one moved then they all would. This was known 4 years ago and you bozos are still confused. "They weren't wrong with their percentages at the state levels either." 🤡 Of course they were. Silver even admitted it. 🤡 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bormio Posted August 26, 2020 Report Share Posted August 26, 2020 8 minutes ago, Atticus Finch said: But he won them all narrowly and for the same reason. The reason that Nate Silver laid out. If one moved then they all would. This was known 4 years ago and you bozos are still confused. That is not necessarily true. They do not always have results within 1-2% of one another. Michigan is the most liberal of the 3 politically. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atticus Finch Posted August 26, 2020 Report Share Posted August 26, 2020 3 minutes ago, Bormio said: That is not necessarily true. They do not always have results within 1-2% of one another. That's not what Nate Silver said though. He said it specifically about Trump and his base. You're clueless, Dr. Quack. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atticus Finch Posted August 26, 2020 Report Share Posted August 26, 2020 15 minutes ago, concha said: Of course they were. We know that you don't understand percentages. No need to keep repeating it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bormio Posted August 26, 2020 Report Share Posted August 26, 2020 6 minutes ago, Atticus Finch said: That's not what Nate Silver said though. He said it specifically about Trump and his base. You're clueless, Dr. Quack. Low black turnout killed Clinton in MI, the margin was 11,000 votes. Philly turnout was normal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atticus Finch Posted August 26, 2020 Report Share Posted August 26, 2020 3 minutes ago, Bormio said: Low black turnout killed Clinton in MI, the margin was 11,000 votes. Philly turnout was normal Yeah, it was a fluke. It was about 80,000 votes in three states. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
concha Posted August 26, 2020 Report Share Posted August 26, 2020 52 minutes ago, Atticus Finch said: We know that you don't understand percentages. No need to keep repeating it. 🤣 You couldn't even get Nate Silver right when you changed your story. Meanwhile, I provided back-up from an MIT statistician... 🤣 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I AM IRONMAN Posted August 26, 2020 Report Share Posted August 26, 2020 7 minutes ago, concha said: 🤣 You couldn't even get Nate Silver right when you changed your story. Meanwhile, I provided back-up from an MIT statistician... 🤣 Dandy boy is a legend in his own mind. He really needs to seek serious professional help. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HSFBfan Posted August 27, 2020 Author Report Share Posted August 27, 2020 Rasmussen in a general election poll has it as a 1 pt lead for biden If that's true biden is toast Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zulu1128 Posted August 27, 2020 Report Share Posted August 27, 2020 Despite all this bluster after the fact, Andy still defiantly guaranteed that Clinton would beat Drumpf soundly, right up until Election Day lol. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atticus Finch Posted August 27, 2020 Report Share Posted August 27, 2020 Zulu1128 comes out of his avoid-talking-about-Trump hibernation to lie. Nobody is surprised. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zulu1128 Posted August 27, 2020 Report Share Posted August 27, 2020 5 minutes ago, Atticus Finch said: Zulu1128 comes out of his avoid-talking-about-Trump hibernation to lie. Nobody is surprised. No, you definitely predicted that Clinton would win convincingly lol. Sorry. 🤷♂️ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atticus Finch Posted August 27, 2020 Report Share Posted August 27, 2020 Just now, zulu1128 said: No, you definitely predicted that Clinton would win convincingly lol. Sorry. 🤷♂️ No, I said she would win and that she would win historic margins among minority voters. I was wrong. But you're lying about the convincingly part. Again, nobody is surprised. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zulu1128 Posted August 27, 2020 Report Share Posted August 27, 2020 21 minutes ago, Atticus Finch said: No, I said she would win and that she would win historic margins among minority voters. I was wrong. But you're lying about the convincingly part. Again, nobody is surprised. You said she'd win the election convincingly. Not sure why you're choosing to lie about something so silly...pretty much everyone said the same thing. 🤷♂️ 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bormio Posted August 27, 2020 Report Share Posted August 27, 2020 12 minutes ago, zulu1128 said: You said she'd win the election convincingly. Not sure why you're choosing to lie about something so silly...pretty much everyone said the same thing. 🤷♂️ He just mad 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HSFBfan Posted August 27, 2020 Author Report Share Posted August 27, 2020 no likely voter polls today Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I AM IRONMAN Posted August 27, 2020 Report Share Posted August 27, 2020 1 hour ago, Bormio said: He just mad Dandy Andy is a big bleeding vagina. Hope He sticks around after the election..although I have him on ignore Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zulu1128 Posted August 27, 2020 Report Share Posted August 27, 2020 FWIW, both the battleground state polling and the betting markets are tightening a significant degree this week. Maybe Don Lemon was right lol. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HSFBfan Posted August 27, 2020 Author Report Share Posted August 27, 2020 8 minutes ago, zulu1128 said: FWIW, both the battleground state polling and the betting markets are tightening a significant degree this week. Maybe Don Lemon was right lol. Let the riots continue. Helping trump daily Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.