Presidential Election Prediction Thread

[Kepler]

Re: Presidential Election Prediction Thread

They should be forgiven for earlier misses...but as soon as the early voting came in, they should have known. They're experts at this.

Harry Enten beat everybody to the punch on WI. I forget what the pct responding was when he grokked, but he had it in the 30s based on the precincts from Milwaukee coming in early. This was when the major networks were still treating the whole shebang as a close call.

The irony is Nate says a thousand times a month that these are not predictions, they are guesses about the target population based on polling and historical observation. If a different electorate shows up on election day and his model mismatches the actuals on all 50 states wrong, he still isn't necessarily "wrong."

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Presidential Election Prediction Thread

Harry Enten beat everybody to the punch on WI. I forget what the pct responding was when he grokked, but he had it in the 30s based on the precincts from Milwaukee coming in early. This was when the major networks were still treating the whole shebang as a close call.

Not too impressed. When folks were concerned with Virginia...

I think VA will stay blue. I'm concerned about WI and MI. Detroit (Wayne) is just 12% in...but bizarrely its only 49-46 for Hillary. Hopefully a Detroit flood is going to hit.

...and 23 minutes later...

WI may be gone. 38% of vote is in...assuming the numbers are right, 82% already voted in Milwaukee.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Presidential Election Prediction Thread

Not so much a prediction as a fascinating post mortem datum:

I haven't had a chance to double-check this assertion yet. I was told that, if you only take NY-IL-CA, then Clinton had 4.8 million more votes than Trump. If you take the entire rest of the country, then Trump had 4.6 million more votes than Clinton.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Presidential Election Prediction Thread

Not so much a prediction as a fascinating post mortem datum:

I haven't had a chance to double-check this assertion yet. I was told that, if you only take NY-IL-CA, then Clinton had 4.8 million more votes than Trump. If you take the entire rest of the country, then Trump had 4.6 million more votes than Clinton.

I haven't had a chance to check this either. But I've heard that if you eliminate the deep south, Clinton wins in a major landslide.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Presidential Election Prediction Thread

Since this is the Presidential Election Prediction thread, and not the Presidential Election of 2016 Prediction thread, I have a prediction for the 2020 election:

During his first term, Trump will have a list of things he wants to accomplish, and he will accomplish them all. By 2020, he will say "my work here is done." and will not run for reelection.



and this second item is not so much a prediction as an observation of a meme I've seen circulating: It is a picture that says "Our First Woman President" "Ivanka 2024"

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Presidential Election Prediction Thread

I haven't had a chance to check this either. But I've heard that if you eliminate the deep south, Clinton wins in a major landslide.

Right, if you only count the Northeast and the west coast, that is certainly true.

Here is a great website for voter turnout data: http://www.electproject.org/home/voter-turnout/voter-turnout-data

It leads you to state websites.

IL had no link.
CA: HRC 5.6 million, DJT 3.0 million
NY: HRC 4.1 million, DJT 2.6 million
For those two states, because of rounding, HRC 9.7 million, DJT 5.7 million. or 4.0 million more.

Nationally: HRC 60.3 million, DJT 59.9 million. or 0.4 million less. So even if you look only at NY and CA, then in the rest of the country Trump has 3.6 million more votes.

 

[Runsub5]

Re: Presidential Election Prediction Thread

............

During his first term, Trump will have a list of things he wants to accomplish, and he will accomplish them all.........

Much of it is campaign rhetoric. It will be interesting to see what his agenda is and how successful he will be at achieving it. He maybe too busy tracking down a couple of interns Bill Clinton told him about.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Presidential Election Prediction Thread

Right, if you only count the Northeast and the west coast, that is certainly true.

Here is a great website for voter turnout data: http://www.electproject.org/home/voter-turnout/voter-turnout-data

It leads you to state websites.

IL had no link.
CA: HRC 5.6 million, DJT 3.0 million
NY: HRC 4.1 million, DJT 2.6 million
For those two states, because of rounding, HRC 9.7 million, DJT 5.7 million. or 4.0 million more.

Nationally: HRC 60.3 million, DJT 59.9 million. or 0.4 million less. So even if you look only at NY and CA, then in the rest of the country Trump has 3.6 million more votes.

See that's the problem with the electoral college though. Just as you're doing, if they live in x location...they kind of don't count. Believe me, people in CA, NY, IL, TX are already paying. Their votes don't count. Because only swing states count. Additionally, those states are double penalized. Because of the electoral system small states like WY and AK get more representation than big states on an impact on the electoral college.

So while you're trying to downplay the impact of these voters because of where they live (which I would argue doesn't make much sense)...they're already getting a diminished amount of electoral votes in regions of the map that have no impact on choosing the president.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Presidential Election Prediction Thread

See that's the problem with the electoral college though. Just as you're doing, if they live in x location...they kind of don't count. Believe me, people in CA, NY, IL, TX are already paying. Their votes don't count. Because only swing states count. Additionally, those states are double penalized. Because of the electoral system small states like WY and AK get more representation than big states on an impact on the electoral college.

So while you're trying to downplay the impact of these voters because of where they live (which I would argue doesn't make much sense)...they're already getting a diminished amount of electoral votes in regions of the map that have no impact on choosing the president.

So you're basically saying you want to abolish states and create mob rule? We've already done away with the 17th amendment, after all...

 

[mookie1995]

See that's the problem with the electoral college though. Just as you're doing, if they live in x location...they kind of don't count. Believe me, people in CA, NY, IL, TX are already paying. Their votes don't count. Because only swing states count. Additionally, those states are double penalized. Because of the electoral system small states like WY and AK get more representation than big states on an impact on the electoral college.

So while you're trying to downplay the impact of these voters because of where they live (which I would argue doesn't make much sense)...they're already getting a diminished amount of electoral votes in regions of the map that have no impact on choosing the president.

How does 3+3 get more weight than 55?

 

[joecct]

I haven't had a chance to check this either. But I've heard that if you eliminate the deep south, Clinton wins in a major landslide.

Eliminate the coasts and Trump wins in a walk.

Hmmm.. Maybe there is a method to his stance on climate change...

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Presidential Election Prediction Thread

I haven't had a chance to check this either. But I've heard that if you eliminate the deep south, Clinton wins in a major landslide.

I've been saying on this board for years that the wrong army won the civil war. This election proves it.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Presidential Election Prediction Thread

See that's the problem with the electoral college though. Just as you're doing, if they live in x location...they kind of don't count. Believe me, people in CA, NY, IL, TX are already paying. Their votes don't count. Because only swing states count. Additionally, those states are double penalized. Because of the electoral system small states like WY and AK get more representation than big states on an impact on the electoral college.

So while you're trying to downplay the impact of these voters because of where they live (which I would argue doesn't make much sense)...they're already getting a diminished amount of electoral votes in regions of the map that have no impact on choosing the president.

What you see as a problem was intended by the Founders to be a feature.

The Electoral College was specifically designed to make sure that a person had broad-based national support to become President of the entire nation. You might disagree but that is what they intended. They were obsessively concerned about factions and about demagogues. They did not want a few concentrated population centers to be able to dominate national politics.

It is the same reason that each state has two Senators regardless of population. To protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority.



PS an odd choice of words for you, "downplay." It was purely descriptive: here are numbers. By design I repressed my urge to add spurious commentary, so that the numbers would stand alone all by themselves as pure data points.

 

[joecct]

See that's the problem with the electoral college though. Just as you're doing, if they live in x location...they kind of don't count. Believe me, people in CA, NY, IL, TX are already paying. Their votes don't count. Because only swing states count. Additionally, those states are double penalized. Because of the electoral system small states like WY and AK get more representation than big states on an impact on the electoral college.

So while you're trying to downplay the impact of these voters because of where they live (which I would argue doesn't make much sense)...they're already getting a diminished amount of electoral votes in regions of the map that have no impact on choosing the president.

I live in MD. The last time my vote counted towards the Electoral College was 1984. It is what it is.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Presidential Election Prediction Thread

I've been saying on this board for years that the wrong army won the civil war. This election proves it.

The Civil War was fabricated by the Rothschild brothers (at the time), and actually had a lot to do with banking, as well as slavery. With two "more manageable" countries, they'd be easier to take over. Obviously they scored a huge victory in 1913. Now people are waking up and starting to want to dump centralization.

 

[unofan]

How does 3+3 get more weight than 55?

Because Wyoming has about 150k people per electoral vote, while California it's more like 500k.

 

[mookie1995]

Because Wyoming has about 150k people per electoral vote, while California it's more like 500k.

Not wyomings fault

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: Presidential Election Prediction Thread

Because Wyoming has about 150k people per electoral vote, while California it's more like 500k.

Like I posted somewhere around here we were about 125,000 votes (in MI, WI, AZ total) from 269-269.

Imagine the confusion/faux rage/furor when the House has 50 votes (States) for 435 members.

 

[unofan]

Not wyomings fault

Ok. But they are still overrepresented.

 

[mookie1995]

Ok. But they are still overrepresented.

Somehow that may have been the founders intent. To allow a somewhat equal representation of the states. No?

To want something else is to not want the united states of america