Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
November 8, 2016 at 7:25 am (This post was last modified: November 8, 2016 at 7:28 am by Brian37.)
The good news for Hillary is that between all the lowball estimates and high range, I have seen everything from 258 to 272 to 322 at Fivethirtyeight. Nationwide Hillary has a 3 to 4 point average. And Five has Fla leaning blue this morning. But Real clear shows Hillary at only 202 and 270towin at 203. It makes me wonder if maybe those extremes are simply mining for dramatic effect.
I did look up where Obama and Romney were polling this late and Real Clear had Obama only polling at 0.7 and he beat the snot out of Romney. I don't think this election is as close as the right wants everyone to believe. I think this will be called between 10 and midnight for Hillary. My only concern is if it is not a wide margin the asshole right GOP will do the same crap they did upon Obama's first election and promise more obstruction.
Oh and in regards to the title of the thread, DONT grab others privates without their consent. As if that really needs to be said.
I have been comparing the ranges, from the low end 202 to the average 258 to 272 starting point. But with all the ranges most of the final maps from the credible polls still have Hillary wining.
November 8, 2016 at 8:48 am (This post was last modified: November 8, 2016 at 8:52 am by TheRealJoeFish.)
Well, here's how I'd say it: there are 182 EVs that it would be absolutely shocking, pundits-and-pollsters-need-to-start-from-square-one type stuff if Hillary lost. These are: CA, CT, DC, HA, IL, MA, MD, NJ, NY, OR, RI, VT, and WA.
There are another 41 that, the way polls have been going this election, are almost certainly Clinton's: ME (3/4), MN, NM, VA and WI.
And then there are 45 where Trump has never led, that really *should* be Clinton's, although there's a little more uncertainty. These are CO, MI and PA. This takes Hillary up to 268, which is her "firewall" everyone's been talking about.
The way polling's been going, though, she has a better-than-even chance in FL, NC, NH, and NV. This gets her the 322 everyone's been talking about. She could also pick up Maine's more conservative district (Maine gives 2 to the state winner and 1 to the winner of each of its 2 districts), Nebraska's most liberal district (similarly, Nebraska gives 2 to the state winner and 1 to the winner of each of its 3 districts), and (on the outer edge of possibility, in decreasing order), AZ's 11, IA's 6, OH's 18, GA's 16, or - based on recent polling, and this would be the real stunner - AK's 3. Her real "ceiling" is 378; anything beyond that would require flipping Utah, Missouri, South Carolina, or Texas, all of which are very solidly in Trump's camp at present after flirting with maybe looking just a tiny bit like they almost could be swing states if everything went right for Clinton (p.s. it hasn't).
It's the interplay between the "should be Clinton's" and "more likely than not to be Clinton's" categories that's interesting. It would be dramatic if, for instance, Clinton won FL or NC but lost MI or PA. The demographics say that should be possible, although the actual polling's not really saying it's likely. And this is what 538 does so well: they correlate errors across states. They don't say, "well, there's a 20% chance we're off in PA, and a 20% chance we're off in MI, so there's only a 4% chance we're off in both"; rather, they say "there may be a 20% chance we're off in PA, but if we are, it's probably due to factors that will greatly increase us the odds of us being off in MI too." That's part of the reason why they currently give Clinton a 72% chance, whereas a lot of other reputable sites are giving her 95%-99% chances (the betting markets are around 75% to 80% I think).
I'm on record as predicting a close one - 278 for Clinton, 260 for Trump. But that's just sort of my way of expecting what I perceive to be the worst of the "likely" outcomes. I think.
How will we know, when the morning comes, we are still human? - 2D
Don't worry, my friend. If this be the end, then so shall it be.
(November 8, 2016 at 8:48 am)TheRealJoeFish Wrote: Well, here's how I'd say it: there are 182 EVs that it would be absolutely shocking, pundits-and-pollsters-need-to-start-from-square-one type stuff if Hillary lost. These are: CA, CT, DC, HA, IL, MA, MD, NJ, NY, OR, RI, VT, and WA.
There are another 41 that, the way polls have been going this election, are almost certainly Clinton's: ME (3/4), MN, NM, VA and WI.
And then there are 45 where Trump has never led, that really *should* be Clinton's, although there's a little more uncertainty. These are CO, MI and PA. This takes Hillary up to 268, which is her "firewall" everyone's been talking about.
The way polling's been going, though, she has a better-than-even chance in FL, NC, NH, and NV. This gets her the 322 everyone's been talking about. She could also pick up Maine's more conservative district (Maine gives 2 to the state winner and 1 to the winner of each of its 2 districts), Nebraska's most liberal district (similarly, Nebraska gives 2 to the state winner and 1 to the winner of each of its 3 districts), and (on the outer edge of possibility, in decreasing order), AZ's 11, IA's 6, OH's 18, GA's 16, or - based on recent polling, and this would be the real stunner - AK's 3. Her real "ceiling" is 378; anything beyond that would require flipping Utah, Missouri, South Carolina, or Texas, all of which are very solidly in Trump's camp at present after flirting with maybe looking just a tiny bit like they almost could be swing states if everything went right for Clinton (p.s. it hasn't).
It's the interplay between the "should be Clinton's" and "more likely than not to be Clinton's" categories that's interesting. It would be dramatic if, for instance, Clinton won FL or NC but lost MI or PA. The demographics say that should be possible, although the actual polling's not really saying it's likely. And this is what 538 does so well: they correlate errors across states. They don't say, "well, there's a 20% chance we're off in PA, and a 20% chance we're off in MI, so there's only a 4% chance we're off in both"; rather, they say "there may be a 20% chance we're off in PA, but if we are, it's probably due to factors that will greatly increase us the odds of us being off in MI too." That's part of the reason why they currently give Clinton a 72% chance, whereas a lot of other reputable sites are giving her 95%-99% chances (the betting markets are around 75% to 80% I think).
I'm on record as predicting a close one - 278 for Clinton, 260 for Trump. But that's just sort of my way of expecting what I perceive to be the worst of the "likely" outcomes. I think.
Nope, Nate has her above 300, me personally, since I started paying attention to polls in 08, but especially in 12, I really do not see this as being as close as the right wants everyone to believe. I have meddled with the interactive maps and Trump can win FLA and NC and Ohio and still lose. As of this morning Hillary is leading in FLA. Hillary will be over 300 and the election will be called between 10pm and midnight.
(November 8, 2016 at 8:48 am)TheRealJoeFish Wrote: Well, here's how I'd say it: there are 182 EVs that it would be absolutely shocking, pundits-and-pollsters-need-to-start-from-square-one type stuff if Hillary lost. These are: CA, CT, DC, HA, IL, MA, MD, NJ, NY, OR, RI, VT, and WA.
There are another 41 that, the way polls have been going this election, are almost certainly Clinton's: ME (3/4), MN, NM, VA and WI.
And then there are 45 where Trump has never led, that really *should* be Clinton's, although there's a little more uncertainty. These are CO, MI and PA. This takes Hillary up to 268, which is her "firewall" everyone's been talking about.
The way polling's been going, though, she has a better-than-even chance in FL, NC, NH, and NV. This gets her the 322 everyone's been talking about. She could also pick up Maine's more conservative district (Maine gives 2 to the state winner and 1 to the winner of each of its 2 districts), Nebraska's most liberal district (similarly, Nebraska gives 2 to the state winner and 1 to the winner of each of its 3 districts), and (on the outer edge of possibility, in decreasing order), AZ's 11, IA's 6, OH's 18, GA's 16, or - based on recent polling, and this would be the real stunner - AK's 3. Her real "ceiling" is 378; anything beyond that would require flipping Utah, Missouri, South Carolina, or Texas, all of which are very solidly in Trump's camp at present after flirting with maybe looking just a tiny bit like they almost could be swing states if everything went right for Clinton (p.s. it hasn't).
It's the interplay between the "should be Clinton's" and "more likely than not to be Clinton's" categories that's interesting. It would be dramatic if, for instance, Clinton won FL or NC but lost MI or PA. The demographics say that should be possible, although the actual polling's not really saying it's likely. And this is what 538 does so well: they correlate errors across states. They don't say, "well, there's a 20% chance we're off in PA, and a 20% chance we're off in MI, so there's only a 4% chance we're off in both"; rather, they say "there may be a 20% chance we're off in PA, but if we are, it's probably due to factors that will greatly increase us the odds of us being off in MI too." That's part of the reason why they currently give Clinton a 72% chance, whereas a lot of other reputable sites are giving her 95%-99% chances (the betting markets are around 75% to 80% I think).
I'm on record as predicting a close one - 278 for Clinton, 260 for Trump. But that's just sort of my way of expecting what I perceive to be the worst of the "likely" outcomes. I think.
Nope, Nate has her above 300, me personally, since I started paying attention to polls in 08, but especially in 12, I really do not see this as being as close as the right wants everyone to believe. I have meddled with the interactive maps and Trump can win FLA and NC and Ohio and still lose. As of this morning Hillary is leading in FLA. Hillary will be over 300 and the election will be called between 10pm and midnight.
Well, I more or less agree with you. If I had to pick now, I'd say she's over 300. But when I make a prediction I stick with it dammit! All I'm really getting at with an official prediction of "278-260" is really what you're saying: reminding myself that "Trump can win FLA and NC and Ohio and still lose." I just need to keep repeating that to myself. All of the stat sites say the most likely outcome is 322-256, and I'm certainly a believer in statistics.
How will we know, when the morning comes, we are still human? - 2D
Don't worry, my friend. If this be the end, then so shall it be.
All I'm really getting at with an official prediction of "278-260" is really what you're saying: reminding myself that "Trump can win FLA and NC and Ohio and still lose." I just need to keep repeating that to myself. All of the stat sites say the most likely outcome is 322-256, and I'm certainly a believer in statistics.
