Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • TalkRational: We can't be bothered to ban you.

Topic: 2016 Election (U.S. Presidential, duh) (Read 53424 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
Re: 2016 Election (U.S. Presidential, duh)
Reply #4100
"We wait, miserably, for the dong shot."

  • MSG
Re: 2016 Election (U.S. Presidential, duh)
Reply #4101
comey says emails are related to the private server.  reuters, citing an anonymous government source, reporting that they were not *on* her private server.  and meep says they weren't sent *by* her.  .................. so, were they sent *to* her?  or did they simply talk *about* the email server arrangement?  is there another possibility here that I'm not thinking of?

this report that it's connected to weinergate would make it strange that comey says he is checking them for classified information (their contents seemingly have to be pretty peculiar or a salad of unrelated stuff), though it might explain his comment about a "connection to a different case".  it would also suggest huma abedin is a sender or receiver.
http://www.newsweek.com/fbi-reviewing-more-clinton-emails-514825
braying among the ruins

  • el jefe
  • asleep till 2020 or 2024
Re: 2016 Election (U.S. Presidential, duh)
Reply #4102
good explanation.  thanks.

  • rigorist
Re: 2016 Election (U.S. Presidential, duh)
Reply #4103
The fact Anthony Wiener is still alive kind of puts the lie to all those "Hillary kills everyone who fucks with her" stories. 'Cause that fucknut should be right at the top of any kill list.

  • el jefe
  • asleep till 2020 or 2024
Re: 2016 Election (U.S. Presidential, duh)
Reply #4104
you stole that joke.  rejected, 102 (a)(1)

  • rigorist
Re: 2016 Election (U.S. Presidential, duh)
Reply #4105
I steal all my jokes.

  • MSG
Re: 2016 Election (U.S. Presidential, duh)
Reply #4106
braying among the ruins

  • Pingu
Re: 2016 Election (U.S. Presidential, duh)
Reply #4107
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • el jefe
  • asleep till 2020 or 2024
Re: 2016 Election (U.S. Presidential, duh)
Reply #4108
Reuters / Ipsos finds that clinton leads by 15 points among early voters over the last two weeks.  that should insulate her against a drop she might be seeing in the remaining 10 days.

https://politicalwire.com/2016/10/29/clinton-banks-early-vote/


dark horse hypothesis:  clinton's drop in the polls is to some extent just an artifact of her supporters being disproportionately represented among the people who have voted already, and said people being excluded by subsequent likely voter screens.  in other words, her early voting effort is building her a big lead among the already-voted, but in so doing is sucking people out of the pile of voters that likely will vote for her, thus pulling those numbers down.

this assumes the likely voter screens take out people who have voted already.  I don't know whether that's true.  and I don't know whether that information is even publicly available, because, iirc, pollsters like to keep the formulas in their likely voter screens secret.  however, I would bet they do weed out people who've already voted if only because they'd be stupid not to.

if true, one thing I wonder is whether poll aggregators (looking at you, nate) are compensating for this effect.

Re: 2016 Election (U.S. Presidential, duh)
Reply #4109
I just want to know if this election will involve dong pics.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

  • Pingu
Re: 2016 Election (U.S. Presidential, duh)
Reply #4110
Reuters / Ipsos finds that clinton leads by 15 points among early voters over the last two weeks.  that should insulate her against a drop she might be seeing in the remaining 10 days.

https://politicalwire.com/2016/10/29/clinton-banks-early-vote/


dark horse hypothesis:  clinton's drop in the polls is to some extent just an artifact of her supporters being disproportionately represented among the people who have voted already, and said people being excluded by subsequent likely voter screens.  in other words, her early voting effort is building her a big lead among the already-voted, but in so doing is sucking people out of the pile of voters that likely will vote for her, thus pulling those numbers down.

this assumes the likely voter screens take out people who have voted already.  I don't know whether that's true.  and I don't know whether that information is even publicly available, because, iirc, pollsters like to keep the formulas in their likely voter screens secret.  however, I would bet they do weed out people who've already voted if only because they'd be stupid not to.

if true, one thing I wonder is whether poll aggregators (looking at you, nate) are compensating for this effect.

I don't think pollsters are stupid enough to screen out "already voted" when they apply their "likely voter screen". 

Why wouldn't they include them?  They are the likeliest voters of the lot.
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • Pingu
Re: 2016 Election (U.S. Presidential, duh)
Reply #4111
One reason for the drop in her likelihood estimates (as opposed to her averages) is that there is a lot of variance (more than average) in the poll numbers. 

Also, the 538 probabilities are mostly based on state polls, and the effect of those can give quite a lot of extra uncertainty if a big state gets closer to 50:50.

The 538 national poll average is mostly tightening because Trump is picking up votes, not because Clinton is losing them.  Silver thinks it's "Republicans coming home".
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • SkepticTank
  • Global Moderator
  • Calmer than you are
Re: 2016 Election (U.S. Presidential, duh)
Reply #4112
I just want to know if this election will involve dong pics.
Well, Wiener is somehow involved in the latest wikileaks, is that close enough?

  • Pingu
Re: 2016 Election (U.S. Presidential, duh)
Reply #4113
It's not a wikileak.  Just a dong.
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: 2016 Election (U.S. Presidential, duh)
Reply #4114
New national poll, taken before FBI review, finds Clinton, Trump neck and neck

Quote
Clinton's 47%-45% edge in the new Washington Post/ABC tracking poll released Saturday is within the poll's 3-point margin of error. As recently as Sunday, Clinton led Trump 50% to 38% in the poll.

:staregonk:
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • el jefe
  • asleep till 2020 or 2024
Re: 2016 Election (U.S. Presidential, duh)
Reply #4115
Reuters / Ipsos finds that clinton leads by 15 points among early voters over the last two weeks.  that should insulate her against a drop she might be seeing in the remaining 10 days.

https://politicalwire.com/2016/10/29/clinton-banks-early-vote/


dark horse hypothesis:  clinton's drop in the polls is to some extent just an artifact of her supporters being disproportionately represented among the people who have voted already, and said people being excluded by subsequent likely voter screens.  in other words, her early voting effort is building her a big lead among the already-voted, but in so doing is sucking people out of the pile of voters that likely will vote for her, thus pulling those numbers down.

this assumes the likely voter screens take out people who have voted already.  I don't know whether that's true.  and I don't know whether that information is even publicly available, because, iirc, pollsters like to keep the formulas in their likely voter screens secret.  however, I would bet they do weed out people who've already voted if only because they'd be stupid not to.

if true, one thing I wonder is whether poll aggregators (looking at you, nate) are compensating for this effect.

I don't think pollsters are stupid enough to screen out "already voted" when they apply their "likely voter screen". 

Why wouldn't they include them?  They are the likeliest voters of the lot.
what a nasty woman

  • el jefe
  • asleep till 2020 or 2024
Re: 2016 Election (U.S. Presidential, duh)
Reply #4116
or was it "such a nasty woman"?

Re: 2016 Election (U.S. Presidential, duh)
Reply #4117
lol you had second thoughts about that like 7 hours later?

  • el jefe
  • asleep till 2020 or 2024
Re: 2016 Election (U.S. Presidential, duh)
Reply #4118
I came back and saw no reply, and thought people may not have caught the reference.  that made me wonder if I got the quote wrong.  these are the only logical possibilities, because the joke was objectively good.

  • Pingu
Re: 2016 Election (U.S. Presidential, duh)
Reply #4119
Never mind that, why on earth do you think anyone would leave "already voted" out of their poll?
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • Pingu
Re: 2016 Election (U.S. Presidential, duh)
Reply #4120
I mean, they even try to estimate them for exit polls!
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • el jefe
  • asleep till 2020 or 2024
Re: 2016 Election (U.S. Presidential, duh)
Reply #4121
I was thinking for some reason that was the thing they'd actually be measuring.  you shot it down, soundly, so as a joke I gave the trump reply to valid rebuke.

  • nostrum
  • easily led
Re: 2016 Election (U.S. Presidential, duh)
Reply #4122
could Trump actually win this thing? 

  • Pingu
Re: 2016 Election (U.S. Presidential, duh)
Reply #4123
I was thinking for some reason that was the thing they'd actually be measuring.  you shot it down, soundly, so as a joke I gave the trump reply to valid rebuke.

:)
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • Pingu
Re: 2016 Election (U.S. Presidential, duh)
Reply #4124
Anyway, to answer your question, here's Mark Blumenthal:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-blumenthal/how_do_polls_and_exit_polls_ha_b_725345.html

It's from 2008, but I wouldn't expect it to be different.
I have a Darwin-debased mind.