Chitchat [US election] Current model predictions

[flatearther]

Most probable scenario is for Trump to win Florida, and take exactly 270 EVs by also taking North Carolina, Ohio, and Arizona.

Another way for Trump to win 270 EVs is if he wins the states where Romney lost by the second to sixth narrowest margins four years ago, i.e. New Hampshire (4 electoral votes):
wikipedia.org/wiki/United States presidential election in New Hampshire, 2012
plus the four states (excluding Florida, the state that Romney lost by the narrowest margin of only 0.88%) that I mentioned in another thread of yours:
sammyboy.com/showthread.php?237273-US-election-Florida-Ohio-North-Carolina-Arizona-Colorado&p=2532026#post2532026

No. It all goes down to Pennsylvania.

Yes, Pennsylvania happens to be the state where Romney lost by the fifth narrowest margin four years ago:
wikipedia.org/wiki/United States presidential election in Pennsylvania, 2012
and its 20 electoral votes can replace Virginia's and Colorado's combined 22 electoral votes, and Trump can still win with a total of 273 electoral votes, instead of the 275 I mentioned earlier:

If Trump wins all the states (206 electoral votes) that the Republican candidate (Mitt Romney) won four years ago:
wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012#Results



then he only needs to win the states where Romney lost by the four narrowest margins:
wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012#Close races

Florida - 29 electoral votes:
wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Florida, 2012

Ohio - 18 electoral votes:
wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Ohio, 2012

Virginia - 13 electoral votes:
wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Virginia, 2012

Colorado - 9 electoral votes:
wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Colorado, 2012

206 + 29 + 18 +13 + 9 = 275
(Trump needs 270 to win, out of 538 electoral votes)

206 (Republican EVs for 2012) + 18 (Ohio) + 13 (Virginia) + 9 (Colorado) + 20 (Pennsylvania) + 4 (New Hampshire) = 270

 

[Thick Face Black Heart]

Another way for Trump to win 270 EVs is if he wins the states where Romney lost by the second to sixth narrowest margins four years ago, i.e. New Hampshire (4 electoral votes):
wikipedia.org/wiki/United States presidential election in New Hampshire, 2012
plus the four states (excluding Florida, the state that Romney lost by the narrowest margin of only 0.88%) that I mentioned in another thread of yours:
sammyboy.com/showthread.php?237273-US-election-Florida-Ohio-North-Carolina-Arizona-Colorado&p=2532026#post2532026

206 (Republican EVs for 2012) + 18 (Ohio) + 13 (Virginia) + 9 (Colorado) + 20 (Pennsylvania) + 4 (New Hampshire) = 270

[TD="class: statelist-state"][/TD]
[TD="class: statelist-ecvotes"][/TD]
[TD="class: statelist-pollmargin"][/TD]
[TD="class: statelist-switch"][/TD]
[TD="class: statelist-pollmargin statelist-margin-cell rep-margin-cell"]
Virginia and Colorado should go to Clinton as she has quite a good lead in those states.

If Clinton wins all states in which she has a lead (no matter how small) according to FT latest poll, she gets 312 EVs.

If Trump wins all states in which he has a lead (no matter how small), plus Florida (29) AND North Carolina (15) in which Clinton only has a very small lead ( < 2 percent), then Trump gets 299 EVs.

It is more likely that Trump will take both FL and NC because early polling data puts Republicans in the lead.

[/TD]

[TD="class: statelist-state"][/TD]
[TD="class: statelist-ecvotes"][/TD]
[TD="class: statelist-pollmargin statelist-margin-cell dem-margin-cell"][/TD]
[TD="class: statelist-switch"][/TD]
[TD="class: statelist-pollmargin"][/TD]

[TD="class: statelist-state"][/TD]
[TD="class: statelist-ecvotes"][/TD]
[TD="class: statelist-pollmargin"][/TD]
[TD="class: statelist-switch"][/TD]
[TD="class: statelist-pollmargin statelist-margin-cell rep-margin-cell"][/TD]

[TD="class: statelist-state"][/TD]
[TD="class: statelist-ecvotes"][/TD]
[TD="class: statelist-pollmargin"][/TD]
[TD="class: statelist-switch"][/TD]
[TD="class: statelist-pollmargin statelist-margin-cell rep-margin-cell"][/TD]

[TD="class: statelist-state"][/TD]
[TD="class: statelist-ecvotes"][/TD]
[TD="class: statelist-pollmargin statelist-margin-cell dem-margin-cell"][/TD]
[TD="class: statelist-switch"][/TD]
[TD="class: statelist-pollmargin"][/TD]

[TD="class: statelist-state"][/TD]
[TD="class: statelist-ecvotes"][/TD]
[TD="class: statelist-pollmargin"][/TD]
[TD="class: statelist-switch"][/TD]
[TD="class: statelist-pollmargin statelist-margin-cell rep-margin-cell"][/TD]

[TD="class: statelist-state"][/TD]
[TD="class: statelist-ecvotes"][/TD]
[TD="class: statelist-pollmargin statelist-margin-cell dem-margin-cell"][/TD]
[TD="class: statelist-switch"][/TD]
[TD="class: statelist-pollmargin"][/TD]

[TD="class: statelist-state"][/TD]
[TD="class: statelist-ecvotes"][/TD]
[TD="class: statelist-pollmargin statelist-margin-cell dem-margin-cell"][/TD]
[TD="class: statelist-switch"][/TD]
[TD="class: statelist-pollmargin"][/TD]

[TD="class: statelist-state"][/TD]
[TD="class: statelist-ecvotes"][/TD]
[TD="class: statelist-pollmargin"][/TD]
[TD="class: statelist-switch"][/TD]
[TD="class: statelist-pollmargin statelist-margin-cell rep-margin-cell"][/TD]

[TD="class: statelist-state"][/TD]
[TD="class: statelist-ecvotes"][/TD]
[TD="class: statelist-pollmargin statelist-margin-cell dem-margin-cell"][/TD]
[TD="class: statelist-switch"][/TD]
[TD="class: statelist-pollmargin"][/TD]

[TD="class: statelist-state"][/TD]
[TD="class: statelist-ecvotes"][/TD]
[TD="class: statelist-pollmargin"][/TD]
[TD="class: statelist-switch"][/TD]
[TD="class: statelist-pollmargin statelist-margin-cell rep-margin-cell"][/TD]

[TD="class: statelist-state"][/TD]
[TD="class: statelist-ecvotes"][/TD]
[TD="class: statelist-pollmargin statelist-margin-cell dem-margin-cell"][/TD]
[TD="class: statelist-switch"][/TD]
[TD="class: statelist-pollmargin"][/TD]

[TD="class: statelist-state"][/TD]
[TD="class: statelist-ecvotes"][/TD]
[TD="class: statelist-pollmargin"][/TD]
[TD="class: statelist-switch"][/TD]
[TD="class: statelist-pollmargin statelist-margin-cell rep-margin-cell"][/TD]

 

[Thick Face Black Heart]

Each statistical company has its own methodology to account for these variances. As with any forecasting, there is always room for error. Any student of statistics 101 knows that. Dumping a whole load of statistical jargon might impress an ignorant reader, but for people who know Math that's just stating the obvious.

Having said that, this is not an excuse for you to make big claims and just randomly declare everyone is biased against Trump and slot all the toss-ups and states which indicate Clinton holding a minor lead into Trump's pockets. Just because there are occasional times where forecasts were inaccurate is no justification for you to use your hotch potch kopitiam "model".

Rather than poking obvious "holes" inherent in any stochastic process that most people already know, how about you furnish some evidence of your kopitiam model? Give us something tangible on how you arrive at your anything 2% or less in favor of Clinton = Trump conclusion. Why 2%, not 1% or 3%? What's the rationale behind that? Why 2% of a FT list? For a RCP list is it still 2%? Or some other %? Why? Demonstrate some rigorousity in your thought process instead of spewing a list of terms that you googled off the net.

I do not have to google any of those terms because I have taught Econometrics to polytechnic and undergraduate students at private institutions before. I also know that stochastic modelling is the incorrect term to use here, whereas each and every of my terms is relevant to the purpose of forecasting election results based on random samples. If it is not clear to you why cross sectional data could be more relevant than time series data, or why non-stationarity could compromise the validity of forecasting methods using a time series model, I suggest we don't go there.

 

[Thick Face Black Heart]

Florida (29)
North Carolina (15)
Pennsylvania (20)
Colorado (9)

If Clinton wins NC, Penn, and Colorado (OR if she takes Florida PLUS one other), she is almost certain to win, because these are the states in which she enjoys the smallest margins over Trump and which incidentally carries the most number of EVs among the battleground states.

Trump must win all states in which he is currently leading (however small that lead is), and he must also take at least two out of the above four states. This means in particular he absolutely must get Ohio, Arizona, Iowa, and then get at least two of the above.

 

[MaximiLian]

haolian thread in disguise

 

[frenchbriefs]

majority of those who vote early via absentee or mail-in ballots are typically responsible, well-informed, well-read, fiscally conservative, civic-minded, patriotic americans who lean republican. we are always on time, ahead of others, well prepared, strategic in thinking and planning, and wealthy. and we can't be that stupid and implusive to line up last minute to vote as that kind of procrastinating behavior only applies to lazy, fat, irresponsible, always late, ill-planned, loser dems with nothing in the bank. too bad the % of these losers are exploding, in fact now at a tad over 69% from the last 2016 financial report on amount of cash savings in bank accounts. you can bet that half of these losers don't even vote as they can't get their fat arses off the couch.

View attachment 28824

so how come republican states are the poorest in america,the bottom 20 states in america are almost exclusively republican,the highest levels of illiteracy and retardation,are the biggest welfare queen states in america,biggest leeches in america,somehow mistakens gross stupidity for exceptional intelligence like tonychat,not to mention the most bible thumping and loves their retarded gun laws and a whole bunch of other stuff,the fattest and most obese states mobility scooter riding morbid cunts with their huge cameltoes,and probably unofficially the most mtgow states which is like the retarded siblings of feminists.

it seems like the qualities u envision republicans to be seem to be the polar opposite of reality.

republicans are poor as fuck,under educated,minimum wage earners,underskilled and being manipulated by billionaire scums like sheldon adelson and rich tycoons and corporations and they dont even know it.george soros whom everyone thinks is a monster,is democrat leaning and has donated over 11 billion dollars to various causes in his life same with other democrat billionaires.the top 20 most generous billionaires guess which side do they vote for?bill gates,warren buffet,george soros,chuck feeney.eli broad,michael bloomberg,li ka shing....

http://www.businessinsider.sg/most-...-world-2015-10/?r=US&IR=T#o7uy4wQZL4mqZuQt.97

 

[eatshitndie]

so how come republican states are the poorest in america,the bottom 20 states in america are almost exclusively republican,the highest levels of illiteracy and retardation,are the biggest welfare queen states in america,biggest leeches in america,somehow mistakens gross stupidity for exceptional intelligence like tonychat,not to mention the most bible thumping and loves their retarded gun laws and a whole bunch of other stuff,the fattest and most obese states mobility scooter riding morbid cunts with their huge cameltoes,and probably unofficially the most mtgow states which is like the retarded siblings of feminists.

it seems like the qualities u envision republicans to be seem to be the polar opposite of reality.

they are not true conservatives. they are republicans in name only (rino). the main reason they vote republican is because voting democrat is counter to their hatred of unqualified and illegal immigrants "stealing" their lowly paid jobs forever. and then you have the religious right who are not always wealthy, but actually poor, stuck in their ways, and hoping for a godly miracle to lift them out of misery and poverty.

 

[Thick Face Black Heart]

Each statistical company has its own methodology to account for these variances. As with any forecasting, there is always room for error. Any student of statistics 101 knows that. Dumping a whole load of statistical jargon might impress an ignorant reader, but for people who know Math that's just stating the obvious.

Having said that, this is not an excuse for you to make big claims and just randomly declare everyone is biased against Trump and slot all the toss-ups and states which indicate Clinton holding a minor lead into Trump's pockets. Just because there are occasional times where forecasts were inaccurate is no justification for you to use your hotch potch kopitiam "model".

Rather than poking obvious "holes" inherent in any stochastic process that most people already know, how about you furnish some evidence of your kopitiam model? Give us something tangible on how you arrive at your anything 2% or less in favor of Clinton = Trump conclusion. Why 2%, not 1% or 3%? What's the rationale behind that? Why 2% of a FT list? For a RCP list is it still 2%? Or some other %? Why? Demonstrate some rigorousity in your thought process instead of spewing a list of terms that you googled off the net.

Poll numbers are for people to interpret and use according to their own judgement. They are not some magic numbers cast in stone. Up to now you have not said anything to refute my points, whereas I have made it perfectly clear that poll numbers are simply a statistic derived from what could possibly be a biased sample, and that it is up to us to use them with care and understand their potential pitfalls.

So who's the unobjective one here?

 

[Thick Face Black Heart]

so how come republican states are the poorest in america,the bottom 20 states in america are almost exclusively republican,the highest levels of illiteracy and retardation,are the biggest welfare queen states in america,biggest leeches in america,somehow mistakens gross stupidity for exceptional intelligence like tonychat,not to mention the most bible thumping and loves their retarded gun laws and a whole bunch of other stuff,the fattest and most obese states mobility scooter riding morbid cunts with their huge cameltoes,and probably unofficially the most mtgow states which is like the retarded siblings of feminists.

it seems like the qualities u envision republicans to be seem to be the polar opposite of reality.

republicans are poor as fuck,under educated,minimum wage earners,underskilled and being manipulated by billionaire scums like sheldon adelson and rich tycoons and corporations and they dont even know it.george soros whom everyone thinks is a monster,is democrat leaning and has donated over 11 billion dollars to various causes in his life same with other democrat billionaires.the top 20 most generous billionaires guess which side do they vote for?bill gates,warren buffet,george soros,chuck feeney.eli broad,michael bloomberg,li ka shing....

http://www.businessinsider.sg/most-...-world-2015-10/?r=US&IR=T#o7uy4wQZL4mqZuQt.97

*************

 

[Thick Face Black Heart]

Poll numbers are for people to interpret and use according to their own judgement. They are not some magic numbers cast in stone. Up to now you have not said anything to refute my points, whereas I have made it perfectly clear that poll numbers are simply a statistic derived from what could possibly be a biased sample, and that it is up to us to use them with care and understand their potential pitfalls.

So who's the unobjective one here?

In fact, I am so objective, that even though I want Clinton to win, but if the poll numbers suggest that Trump will win, and my own analysis confirms it, I will start a thread explaining Trump will win.

So who's the objective one here? :-)

 

[Liquigas]

I do not have to google any of those terms because I have taught Econometrics to polytechnic and undergraduate students at private institutions before......

Sorry, to digress a bit. You actually teach econometrics to poly students and undergraduates? They can understand linear regression analysis? Back in the 1980s, only econs honours students are allowed to study econometrics in NUS.

 

[Thick Face Black Heart]

Sorry, to digress a bit. You actually teach econometrics to poly students and undergraduates? They can understand linear regression analysis? Back in the 1980s, only econs honours students are allowed to study econometrics in NUS.

I won't know what they do at nus. In pte institutions they water it down so students can pass. Every one takes basic stats which covers normal distribution and hypothesis testing and then only selected majors go higher up

 

[yinyang]

US election: Is Trump or Clinton going to win?

Anthony ZurcherNorth America reporter

http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37884603

On the eve of the presidential election, Hillary Clinton appears to be opening up some daylight between her and Donald Trump in the final round of national opinion surveys.

This shouldn't come as a total surprise, since a glance at the past six months of polls show that every time it looks like Mr Trump is going to surpass his Democratic opponent in the standings, the trend reverses itself.

The American people, perhaps, could never quite get their heads around the prospect of a Trump presidency, and countervailing forces asserted themselves every time it looks like that might be a reality. If that's the case here, then the timing may be just right for a comfortable Clinton win.

None of the polls, of course, take account of how voters are reacting to the FBI clearing Clinton of criminality on the latest batch of emails. Here's my blog on how that twist may impact the election.

These are the latest predictions from the number crunchers at some US media:
New York Times Upshot: Clinton has 84% chance of winning
FiveThirtyEight: Clinton has 65% chance
HuffPost: Clinton has 98% chance

---

Of course, the US election isn't won based on national preferences, it's a state-by-state slog to reach 270 electoral votes. The latest round of battleground polling shows there are still just enough toss-up states to allow Mr Trump to win the presidency.

To prevail the Republican would have to either clear the table when it comes to these states or post a surprise win in a place like Pennsylvania, Michigan or Virginia, where polling shows Mrs Clinton ahead.

Such a shoot-the-moon scenario is certainly possible, and it could be aided by polling that underestimates white voter turnout or overestimates Mrs Clinton's support in key constituencies like blacks and the young.

For this to become a reality, however, Mr Trump would essentially have to be perfect or polling would have to be off in a variety of disparate states that have decidedly different electorates. An error in New Hampshire polling, for instance, wouldn't mean expectations in Florida would be more likely to be wrong. A miss in Michigan would have little bearing on the fate of Colorado.

Mr Trump would also have to count on the evidence of massive Hispanic turnout in early voting not panning out when votes are counted on Tuesday night.

Heading into election day, the Clinton team has reason for cautious optimism. A Trump win at this point would have to be considered a modest (but far from unprecedented) upset.

 

[swimorsink]

So what is it going to be? America run by a serial liar or and uncouth American neanderthal.

 

[Thick Face Black Heart]

Current model predicts trump will won florida and north carolina. That will make him almost certain to win the white house

 

[zhihau]

Current model predicts trump will won florida and north carolina. That will make him almost certain to win the white house

Lai ah! Who open plate ah?

44:48 Swee boh?

 

[Thick Face Black Heart]

Lai ah! Who open plate ah?

44:48 Swee boh?

I already placed my bet bro. Heart is with Hillary but money is on Trump.

 

[Thick Face Black Heart]

Trump will win Florida, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Nevada and Iowa.

I don't see any route for Clinton to 270

 

[hbk75]

Trump will win Florida, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Nevada and Iowa.

I don't see any route for Clinton to 270

why u say so? polls is like confirm clinton to win.

 

[Thick Face Black Heart]

why u say so? polls is like confirm clinton to win.

I go by financial times polls which in my opinion is among the more unbiased. I put every state that clinton has a lead as a win for her - and i still get her under 269 evs

Of course ft may be wrong and i am be even more wrong. I hope i am wrong because i want clinton to win