• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

'17 Specials & '18 Midterms Thread

It really is a silly thing to criticize people for using the available data at the time to make predictions about the election outcome, that proved to be incorrect. The data were flawed and the models interpreting those data were flawed and therefore the predictions were erroneous, also, events occurred between July and November that swung the polls (e.g., the Weiner letter). Predictions made on July based on data up to and at that point are subject to more uncertainty than predictions made in October. There are stochasticities in any system that are difficult to predict but the best predictive models incorporate the most and the relevant stochasticities and the results are expressed in terms of probabilities of occurrence not specific outcomes. The primary issue with many pre-election prediction models was that they failed to account for the high levels of dislike for each of the main candidates. We'd never had an election in the era of modern statistics, where both candidates had such high unfavorable or unlikeable ratings and most models did not even have those data as part of the prediction. That means they failed to account for an heretofore unimportant model parameter, which introduced significant unmodeled uncertainty into the predictions. The data indicated that Hillary was ahead in the polls right up to the very end but her unlike-ability, made the election outcome much more volatile to late season stochasticities, like the Weiner letter.

Well said. Also if you look at the polls from the summer through October, there was an ebb and flow. For a few weeks, Hillary would have a big lead, then Trump would close the gap. Hillary would take a big lead. Then Trump would close the gap. The polls a week before the election showed a downturn for Hillary. The election took place during a period in which Trump closed the gap.
 
Well said. Also if you look at the polls from the summer through October, there was an ebb and flow. For a few weeks, Hillary would have a big lead, then Trump would close the gap. Hillary would take a big lead. Then Trump would close the gap. The polls a week before the election showed a downturn for Hillary. The election took place during a period in which Trump closed the gap.

But, if we'd only listened to the genius and wisdom that is bkf, and chosen some more suitable Dem than Hillary, then people like him wouldn't have been forced, apparently against their will, to vote for Trump (even though they've supported everything he's done in office). That's what bob is so worked up about, and kept ranting about for months and months in 2017 and 2018, until his banning. If only the Millennial idiots on this board had listened and heeded his great insight and brilliance in 2016, then none of Trump's craziness would now be happening. For bob, it's all about his ego, all the time.
 
Avalon, my favorite thing about Brat was when I awoke the morning after he beat Cantor to NPR replaying some of his remarks. He had 2 sentences back to back that I found risible. "We need to get back to constitutional principles." [applause] "We need to get back to our Judeo-Christian values." [applause] He's a college prof - I think econ at Randolph Macon, and he's as tea baggy as they get. My dad was a big fan of his before he moved out of VA (they had lived in the West End).
 
That Donald won the electoral college and presidency doesn’t mean the polling (which tracks the popular vote) was inaccurate. Sure it struggled a lot in some states but the “polling and data sucked in the 2016 election” from a macro level continues to be wrong.
 
That Donald won the electoral college and presidency doesn’t mean the polling (which tracks the popular vote) was inaccurate. Sure it struggled a lot in some states but the “polling and data sucked in the 2016 election” from a macro level continues to be wrong.

I just read where the Republican candidate is 35 points ahead in the Massachusetts Governor's race. How can that possibly be?
 
I just read where the Republican candidate is 35 points ahead in the Massachusetts Governor's race. How can that possibly be?

He's the incumbent and generally approved of across America. Doesn't follow the party line and supports things like maternity leave, emissions reductions, affordable housing. One of the first to pull back National Guard from Trump's border quagmire.
 
Good God, how does anyone get suckered into again engaging with Promise-Keeper Bob on predictions and polling around the 2016 election -- all that wrinkled mound of murder, senility and insurance fraud has been able to talk about for a year and a half.
 
That Donald won the electoral college and presidency doesn’t mean the polling (which tracks the popular vote) was inaccurate. Sure it struggled a lot in some states but the “polling and data sucked in the 2016 election” from a macro level continues to be wrong.

I don't think I said “polling and data sucked in the 2016 election”. I asserted that it was probably flawed and that the models used to interpret the polling data were also flawed...primarily in that they did not sufficiently consider the volatility that emerges with high unfavorable ratings for both candidates in a race. So when 46% of the poll respondents say they are going to vote for Hillary and only 42% say they are going to vote for Trump it is, under normal circumstance, reasonable to conclude that Hillary is probably going to win, but that prediction discounts the fact the 56% of people also say they don't really like Hillary. So when bad news comes out just days before the election up to 56% of the 46% that said they would vote for her might be less motivated to vote for her. Obviously that is a major simplification of the math, but the point is I don't think most predictive models in 2016 effectively accounted for the high unfavorable ratings for both candidates and failed to account for the volatility that would create.
 
BKF & SwissChaletDeac aren't the only people who have said that the Democrats screwed their chances by leaving Crooked Hillary as the candidate. Ask any Bernie supporter, for one example. As a matter of fact, I think I remember BKF saying early-on that the election was going to be much closer than everyone on the boards thought because millions of Americans despised Hillary Clinton. And, of course, he was ridiculed for saying that by the board geniuses who continued to smugly predict a landslide win for Hillary with an EV total approaching or exceeding 400.

It seems as though the Democrats keeping Hillary on the ticket was a fatal fuckup would be fairly common knowledge by now for anyone with a $200K WF degree.

LOL. If you are going to do this, at least troll all the way and use the screen name "John Miller".

 
Came here to post the same thing:



Tough district at R +10 and Trump +13, but Cook Political recently moved it from Solid to Likely R.

 
Is that a Popovich sighting at 2:28?
 
Cook Political moved Ojeda's district from Likely Republican to Lean Republican.

WV-03: Why a District Trump Won by 50 Points Is at Risk for GOP

Ojeda received three times as many primary votes as Miller, but that's mainly because so many reliably GOP voters are still registered Democrats. Democrats believe Ojeda can win if he can make it a personality contest between a rabble-rousing "badass" war hero and the wealthy, less charismatic Miller. But as Miller becomes better known and Republicans try to nationalize the race, that could be tough.
 
House primary previews for next Tuesday:

data for politics #4: New York, Colorado and Maryland

Maryland

MD-06: Maryland only has one House primary worth watching - in MD-06, a Democratic-leaning open seat. Self-funding Democrats have had a rough 2018, but liquor magnate David Trone hopes to reverse that trend. His main challenger, Aruna Miller, is a woman of color so we all know who Sean is cheering for here.

In the year of the woman, can a $10 million man win a House seat?

That is not an exaggeration, dude has spent $9.6 million as of 6/6.

Miller, 53, a two-term delegate, hopes that voters tire of Trone’s ubiquitous television ads and dismiss him as a dilettante trying to buy his way into national politics. Only two years ago, Trone spent $13 million on his losing campaign for the adjoining 8th District seat won by Jamie B. Raskin (D).
 
Back
Top