Statistikhengst's ELECTORAL LANDSCAPE no. 2

[flacaltenn]

Regarding Gary Johnson - I wonder if he intentionally acts goofy to help out Trump.

Difference is that Gary came out that day and apologized. That's honesty and humility. Didn't wait for the focus group results to "spin it". And besides -- He DID answer the question. And the LParty has been ABSOLUTELY correct and consistent on MidEast policy for 30 years.

Wanna see Trump mocking a retard? I think you already have. Did HE apologize?

I'm suggesting Johnson did know what Aleppo is. He may be sabotaging his own candidacy because he recognizes that Hillary is a threat to liberty.

If this is true Johnson is admirable. Sacrificing himself for his country.

Well that didn't happen. A CIC who doesn't plan on rescuing, invading, rebuilding, or changing the leadership there doesn't really NEED to know a complete map of the territory. Question was a gotcha from a bunch of hand-wringers who just sit there and watch the carnage that THEIR GUYS helped to create in the 1st place. Their guys includes Clinton and the Obama.

 

[Pop23]

I find It funny how a statistical guy does not realize that California skews the national polls by 2.6 million votes.

That's 2.6 million votes out of a possible 129 million total votes max, or 1.8% of the entire vote, which has zero implication on the EC.

Factor all of those other Blue State overvotes, deduct the Red State overvotes and the polls are overestimating Clintons lead by 3.9% and the swing states are not yet factored in.

Clinton needs a national lead of 3.9% to compete in the swing states.

At a 2% lead as of today, she loses the majority of those states and blue states start turning red.

NO.

It does not.

In fact, California polls (the aggregate) were off 7.6 points to the RIGHT in 2012.

So, no.

Learn something practical for a change: simple math.

You were Saying? Seems I nailed it

Learn something practical for a change: simple math (and how to adjust polling results)

 

[theHawk]

I find It funny how a statistical guy does not realize that California skews the national polls by 2.6 million votes.

That's 2.6 million votes out of a possible 129 million total votes max, or 1.8% of the entire vote, which has zero implication on the EC.

Factor all of those other Blue State overvotes, deduct the Red State overvotes and the polls are overestimating Clintons lead by 3.9% and the swing states are not yet factored in.

Clinton needs a national lead of 3.9% to compete in the swing states.

At a 2% lead as of today, she loses the majority of those states and blue states start turning red.

NO.

It does not.

In fact, California polls (the aggregate) were off 7.6 points to the RIGHT in 2012.

So, no.

Learn something practical for a change: simple math.

You were Saying? Seems I nailed it

Learn something practical for a change: simple math (and how to adjust polling results)

Poor liberals. Their polls couldn't help them on election night.

 

[Sherry]

Live by the polls, die by the polls.

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

[snicker]

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

HERE.

All the numbers through 31 October, 2016, t-minus 8 days.

Facit: Clinton is still verifiably ahead, considerably so in the electoral vote.

Without tossups:
Clinton 328 / Trump 210 / Margin: Clinton +118 EV

With tossups:
Clinton 288 / Trump 198 / Tossups 52 / Margin: Clinton +90 EV

Without tossups:
Clinton 328 / Trump 210 / Margin: Clinton +118 EV


Only a 192 EV swing......

 

[Jroc]

HERE.

All the numbers through 31 October, 2016, t-minus 8 days.

Facit: Clinton is still verifiably ahead, considerably so in the electoral vote.

Without tossups:
Clinton 328 / Trump 210 / Margin: Clinton +118 EV

With tossups:
Clinton 288 / Trump 198 / Tossups 52 / Margin: Clinton +90 EV

Stat needs new landscapers

 

[theHawk]

HERE.

All the numbers through 31 October, 2016, t-minus 8 days.

Facit: Clinton is still verifiably ahead, considerably so in the electoral vote.

Without tossups:
Clinton 328 / Trump 210 / Margin: Clinton +118 EV

With tossups:
Clinton 288 / Trump 198 / Tossups 52 / Margin: Clinton +90 EV

Man, where has Statistikhengst been?

We need him to remind us how smart he is about statistics.

 

[Zander]

Stat is either curled up in the fetal position with his thump in his mouth, or out on a ledge somewhere.

His "prognostications" exposed him to be a total and complete failure! He's been crowing for 2 years how: "hiLIARy is a LOCK!! It's math!!" "She can't lose" "It's statistically impossible" "Yadda yadda yadda"

Now he's been humiliated and exposed as an incompetent hack.

So he disappeared. No surprise. Leftists are cowards.

 

[Pop23]

Stat is either curled up in the fetal position with his thump in his mouth, or out on a ledge somewhere.

His "prognostications" exposed him to be a total and complete failure! He's been crowing for 2 years how: "hiLIARy is a LOCK!! It's math!!" "She can't lose" "It's statistically impossible" "Yadda yadda yadda"

Now he's been humiliated and exposed as an incompetent hack.

So he disappeared. No surprise. Leftists are cowards.

It's what happens when you look at the polls and don't adjust for surplus votes from the large BLUE or RED states.

I nailed it and pocketed a cool grand because I did the math.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Stat is either curled up in the fetal position with his thump in his mouth, or out on a ledge somewhere.

His "prognostications" exposed him to be a total and complete failure! He's been crowing for 2 years how: "hiLIARy is a LOCK!! It's math!!" "She can't lose" "It's statistically impossible" "Yadda yadda yadda"

Now he's been humiliated and exposed as an incompetent hack.

So he disappeared. No surprise. Leftists are cowards.

I am doing well and prospering, thanks.

I just don't have much time for assholes like .... you....

 

[Mad Scientist]

Stat just admit you were wrong.

If you were right you'd be shoving in our faces everyday.

 

[Zander]

Stat is either curled up in the fetal position with his thump in his mouth, or out on a ledge somewhere.

His "prognostications" exposed him to be a total and complete failure! He's been crowing for 2 years how: "hiLIARy is a LOCK!! It's math!!" "She can't lose" "It's statistically impossible" "Yadda yadda yadda"

Now he's been humiliated and exposed as an incompetent hack.

So he disappeared. No surprise. Leftists are cowards.

I am doing well and prospering, thanks.

I just don't have much time for assholes like .... you....

No time? Yet you felt compelled to repy....

How does it feel to be exposed as a clown faced turd?

Enjoy eating crow Stat, you, more than anyone here, have earned it. You're a big mouthed fool.

 

[WelfareQueen]

HERE.

All the numbers through 31 October, 2016, t-minus 8 days.

Facit: Clinton is still verifiably ahead, considerably so in the electoral vote.

Without tossups:
Clinton 328 / Trump 210 / Margin: Clinton +118 EV

With tossups:
Clinton 288 / Trump 198 / Tossups 52 / Margin: Clinton +90 EV

God you're a cowardly stupid fuck. I said this in the 2014 election post-mortem. Try and learn something moron because I nailed it and your STUPID prediction is in my sig. I-D-I-O-T



Statistikhengst's ELECTORAL LANDSCAPE no. 2



Pretty fair analysis. The Dems were vulnerable to some degree because of the States in play (i.e more GOP red States). The overall GOP margin (approx +5) isn't as relevant imho for that reason.


I would pose several questions based on the election results.


1. Why were all the pollsters so wrong? The modelling was obviously way off. More than 100% in fact. The generic GOP ballot pre-election was + 2.5% per RCP. I assume this was why the pollsters used the modelling they did...but even so...they slightly biased against the GOP even based on this data. Again....why?


2. What happened to the vaunted Dem get out the vote machine? I think the Dem assumption that minorities will turn out heavily for white candidates when a black man is not on top of the ticket is clearly dead. This is now two election cycles with no Obama at the top of the ticket, and minorities largely stayed home. Why?

3. Can Dems assume minorities will turn out as heavily for Hillary Clinton as Obama? I think the answer is clearly no. I believe Hillary will have a much more difficult time then most Democrats assume. I'm not saying she cannot or will not win....but if the GOP puts forth a viable candidate I think the race should be very competitive.

4. Has the Democrat Party lost White Voters? The data suggests the Democrat Party has largely lost White male voters....maybe forever. Romney captured almost 2/3rd of the white male vote. Now White women now seem to be trending away from the Dems in a big way. There is an excellent article by the Associated Press regarding the movement of whites away from the Democrat Party.

A key quote: "Democratic Senate candidates lost ground among white voters by an average of 10 points compared with 2008. White voters abandoned Democrats in droves in places with heated contests as well as those without much action."

Kay Hagan got just 33% of the white vote.
Mark Warner 37% of the white vote.
Mary Landrieu 18% of the white vote.

Even in blue Illinois: "Democratic Senator Dick Durbin captured 43 percent of the white vote in his successful bid for re-election, that's down 18 points from his support among whites in 2008."


News from The Associated Press

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]