Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 06, 2016, 04:23:53 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Election 2016 predictions are now open!.

  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 1076
1  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Democratic Indiana Primary results thread (first polls close at 6pm ET) on: May 03, 2016, 10:29:34 pm
There were more votes for Ted Cruz tonight than Bernie Sanders. Looks like Indiana will be a Trump state in November.

There's really very little historical correlation.
2  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Republican Indiana Primary results thread (first polls close at 6pm ET) on: May 03, 2016, 07:50:46 pm
Did the anti-trans thing backfire?

Really doubt that had much of anything to do with this result
3  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Republican Indiana Primary results thread (first polls close at 6pm ET) on: May 03, 2016, 07:16:24 pm
A county sweep looks unlikely.  Cruz with some pretty strong margins now in LaGrange County (19% in; 56-33 Cruz) and Wells County (36% in; 54-39 Cruz).  Whitley is almost done and Cruz leads (94% in; 46-45 Cruz).  Also a modest Cruz lead in Elkhart (18% in; 44-43 Cruz).  Fort Wayne's Allen (79% in; 45-45 Trump) is also quite close, and a few others are as well.

edit: Well never mind about LaGrange.
4  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Ted Cruz threatens child on: May 03, 2016, 12:27:09 am
The vast amount of Americans would agree with Cruz on this issue.  A number of them wouldn't mind if Cruz administered the spanking personally.

Cruz's response is rather unremarkable.  That kid has problems with boundaries, to put it mildly. 
Spanking is assault, punishable by imprisonment.

That's not the case in the U.S.
Sadly. I disagree with the courts. They're supposed to make rulings without prejudice. Assault is assault, in my book.
No. Spanking is not assault. Throwing your kid down the stairs is assault.

I mean, he's right in the sense that we just happen to carve out an exception to the assault laws to allow spanking.  It's essentially the only case where you can strike someone with the intent to inflict harm where it's legal, besides self-defense or restraint.  It's also not like the guardianship element or power dynamic really makes it different; you can't strike employees or adults over whom you have custody.  It's pretty arbitrary and weird.
5  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Ted Cruz threatens child on: May 02, 2016, 09:36:46 pm
The vast amount of Americans would agree with Cruz on this issue.  A number of them wouldn't mind if Cruz administered the spanking personally.

Cruz's response is rather unremarkable.  That kid has problems with boundaries, to put it mildly. 
Spanking is assault, punishable by imprisonment.

That's not the case in the U.S.
6  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: It's over. on: May 01, 2016, 11:19:12 pm
Quote
I'm glad you find the two guys you know from West Virginia more indicative of that state's results than previous results in socioeconomically and culturally comparable areas.

Clearly the rampant sexism of Atlasia has consequences. Who said they were men?

I'm from the West Coast.  Groups of girls call each other "guys."

Glad to know you've totally given up on wasting our time by defending your 'logic,' though.
7  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Are there results for County level Kansas, Piute or Beaver, UT, or Carroll, AK? on: May 01, 2016, 08:40:53 pm
There was a bug that caused the shading to screw up, which Dave fixed, but I don't think the results themselves have been incorrect?  Also, keep in mind that a lot of the "final" results we see aren't necessarily final for a while, as they account for provisional ballots and the like.  That means that preliminary results (the Atlas and elsewhere) should be checked with official sources if you want to be 100% sure they're actually final.  I haven't noticed the Atlas having more trouble with this than other sources.  In fact, the Atlas seems to do a better job of noting when results are unofficial.  Then again, your use may be more thorough than mine Smiley
8  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: It's over. on: May 01, 2016, 08:29:52 pm
Right, Ben Kenobi, my criticism is that you called Rhode Island for Trump (unlike all those people who didn't!).  That's it.  I am envious of your grasp of Northeastern politics -- almost as envious as your totally reasonable call that Trump would somehow deny Cruz and Kasich the delegate threshold there, which would have required keeping them under 10%.  All of my criticisms of you are because I want Trump to win, because I like him so much, and because I have such an extensive record of making probabilistic evaluations based on my personal desires.  You got me.

I'm glad you find the two guys you know from West Virginia more indicative of that state's results than previous results in socioeconomically and culturally comparable areas.

HOW ARE YOU A REAL PERSON
9  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Are there results for County level Kansas, Piute or Beaver, UT, or Carroll, AK? on: May 01, 2016, 08:16:05 pm
These results are actually available on this site Smiley

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/index.html

If you go up to "Primary by Year" you can choose 2016 Democratic or 2016 Republican

Beaver UT was Sanders 24, Clinton 20 and Cruz 229, Trump 87, Kasich 47.  Low turnout because of the caucus system.

Piute UT was Sanders 2 (yes, that's it) and Cruz 86, Trump 70, Kasich 12.  Ditto.

I assume you mean Carroll County AR (Arkansas), in which case the GOP Primary vote was Trump 1555, Cruz 1119, Rubio 815, Carson 314, Kasich 207, Other 138.  The Democratic vote was Sanders 1109, Clinton 1069, Other 41.
10  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: It's over. on: May 01, 2016, 08:00:15 pm
I made my predictions back in February and said Trump would be around 1k in the delegates, I was closer than 538, and made correct calls in WI. Wink

So again, you're harping on a state that I awarded to Trump, said would be solid Trump and it went that way.

Struck the parts that aren't relevant replies to my criticisms of your methodological explanation of your Rhode Island allocation.  Try again.  I will repost the criticism verbatim if you've lost it.

Quote
Look at the county maps in Virginia, Pennsylvania, Kentucky and Tennessee.  Trump did not win the Appalachian portions of those states because of vote-splitting; he just won them.

*sigh*. He won VA, KY and lost in Ohio. He's not a strong nominee by any stretch of the name. A weak nominee like Romney would have wrapped it up with OH and FL. He did not. A weak nominee like Romney would have finished him off in WI, and not need it to go to NY, Trump needed that.

Again, struck the parts that aren't relevant to my criticism.  I agree he's a relatively weak nominee.  My criticism of your methodology is not "Trump is a strong nominee."  You're babbling.  Again, I will repost the criticism verbatim if you've lost it.

I get what you're saying, but I just don't see the core faith in WV must go Trump other than that he needs it for his delegates. Wink

I don't have "core faith" that West Virginia will go Trump.  I think you're trying to imply that I only think Trump will win West Virginia because I want him to, which is totally ridiculous because: 1) I don't like Trump at all; and, 2) if you check my post history, you'll find very little connection between things I want to happen and things I predict will happen, because I'm aware that my preferences don't have any more influence on reality than anyone else's.

Show me data. I'm not sure I buy the consensus here, and I am keeping it a Cruz call.

I just did...the county thing, which you seem to have ignored, and which you could have checked, even if you hadn't been aware that we have a poll (which has also been pointed out to you).  That's obviously a much better approach than extrapolating from a non-random sample of n=2.

I wish I had a national county map handy so I could show you how West Virginia forms a giant hole surrounded by strong Trump areas in every adjacent county with similar socioeconomic features.  Would you accept that that's much stronger evidence than "I know two Cruz voters there"?
11  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: It's over. on: May 01, 2016, 07:42:01 pm
Why does everyone assume Trump is going to dominate WV and CA?

You didn't read this thread at all, did you? Tongue
12  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: It's over. on: May 01, 2016, 07:38:13 pm
And yet, my delegate totals were correct. Wink

Your Rhode Island defense made no sense and I believe you stopped replying.  I'm glad you have been correct about other things in your life, but that's immaterial to how much the Rhode Island portion (and the rationale, which apparently reflects on your overall methodology) was flaming nonsense.

Quote
Check the primary maps for Virginia, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, and Tennessee.  Also, considering you have a non-random sample of n=2, and the margin of error on a sample size of n=2 would be massive either way, the fact that you even invoked two people you know in WV as a rebuttal...pretty ridiculous.

I suggest you answer my question. Oh, and Trump won KY, and TN because of the vote split between Cruz/Rubio.

Uh, I was answering your question.  What other topic do you think I was addressing when I told you to check out Trump's previous showings in the region?

I don't think it's unreasonable to think it's possible that West Virginia would vote Cruz; I think it's unreasonable to assume it's likely.  You seem to have been asserting that you thought it was likely Cruz would win West Virginia (I don't know what else "I can't see that" would mean, in response to a post about West Virginia being compositionally strong for Trump).

Look at the county maps in Virginia, Pennsylvania, Kentucky and Tennessee.  Trump did not win the Appalachian portions of those states because of vote-splitting; he just won them.  Is that evidence perfect?  No -- it requires making some inferences that may be inaccurate.  The point is that it's  strong evidence.  It's sure a heck of a lot stronger than "I know two people in West Virginia and they really like Ted Cruz."

You seem to chronically misunderstand how probability (and specifically language around probability) works.  No amount of faux-cocky winky emoticon use is going to compensate for that.
13  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: It's over. on: May 01, 2016, 07:09:30 pm
Quote
I can't believe I spent so much time arguing with you in detail in that delegate allocation thread.

I hadn't seen a West Virginia poll. Is it really so unbelievable that WV which is pretty conservative would go Cruz?

Check the primary maps for Virginia, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, and Tennessee.  Also, considering you have a non-random sample of n=2, and the margin of error on a sample size of n=2 would be massive either way, the fact that you even invoked two people you know in WV as a rebuttal...pretty ridiculous.
14  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: It's over. on: May 01, 2016, 06:19:20 pm
Quote
You seriously believe he's not an awfully good fit for that state?

Given that the only 2 West Virginians that I know are vastly in the tank for Cruz? I don't see it.

I can't believe I spent so much time arguing with you in detail in that delegate allocation thread.
15  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: How did Trump win Fairfield County so big? on: May 01, 2016, 04:35:17 am
I'm interested specifically in people's thoughts about how Trump pulled off a (plurality) win in Greenwich.  It can't be lack of Republicans (Republicans have an easy plurality in registration).  I'm also not sure the "Trump appeals to rich people because he's stuck-up" argument flies, considering how badly Trump got trounced in areas with comparable demographics elsewhere.  Are there really that many commuters to NYC in Greenwich?  The median commute time doesn't really suggest it.  I know nothing about this area.  Could it just be broader, cross-demographic cultural appeal?  Greenwich's socioeconomic profile aside, its ethnic make-up (lots of Italian-Americans and Irish-Americans) has previously skewed toward Trump.
16  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Lepage vetoes heroin treatment, tells addicts to just die already on: April 30, 2016, 04:19:28 am
At least LePage is being consistent in his denigration of drug addicts.

Unlike the rest of the Republican Party, which wanted to be "tough on those drug-using hooligans" for 50 years until the hooligans started to be white people in the suburbs, who of course must be treated with compassion and second/third/fourth chances.

If I'm not mistaken the heroin addict population has been predominately White since the late 1960s.

Heroin was much more of a counterculture drug until the overprescription of opiates in the 1990s and 2000s fueled a boom a few years later.  Heroin users were always whiter, but before that boom, they weren't nearly as common nor sympathetically middle-class.

LePage is obviously trying to ruin some botched variant of the "let them hit rock bottom" argument, but even that is dangerous and misguided.  By the time someone is in the position to get revived by a cop with Narcan, they're already close enough to bottom that they're willing to potentially die for their drug of choice.  The idea that addicts go "well, it's OK to use because someone might have Narcan," but would otherwise stop using, is totally ridiculous.

LePage is probably being a moralist, not a sadist like the title indicates, but in this case moralism will have a body count.
17  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Republican Acela Corridor Tuesday results thread (all polls close at 8pm ET) on: April 27, 2016, 07:00:27 am
It's actually even sillier.  In RI you get delegates for hitting 10% both statewide and congressionally.  Cruz is currently winning 3 delegates because he didn't fall under 10% in RI-1 or statewide.  Ben's Rhode Island baseline (Trump's "on-track" number there) would have required Trump to keep both Cruz and Kasich under 10% statewide and in both congressional districts.  Obviously, a world where Trump manages that is very likely a world where he's on-track to win 1,237 pledged delegates.

When I was watching MSNBC last night they mentioned something about getting all the delegates automatically if you got over two-thirds of the votes; perhaps they got that wrong, I dunno.  Either way its ridiculous, the "Trump has to limit the other candidates below 10% of the vote everywhere!!" thing is just more so.

It's confusing, but I think the deal is that if all three candidates broke 10% in a congressional district, all three of them get delegates.  However, if one candidate breaks 67%, they're guaranteed two of the three delegates -- but they only get all of them if no other candidate breaks 10%.

For instance, RI-1 looks like it was about 61% Trump, 26% Kasich, 11% Cruz.  That means all three candidates get one delegate, since all three broke 10% and no candidate hit 67%.

RI-2 looks like it was about 66% Trump, 23% Kasich, 9.8% Cruz.  Since Cruz is probably under 10%, he doesn't get any delegates.  That means Trump is likely to get 2 delegates and Kasich 1 (proportional).  If Cruz goes over 10%, the split there will be 1-1-1.  However, if Cruz goes over 10% but Trump also goes over 67%, Cruz does not receive a delegate, because hitting 67% guarantees Trump 2 of the 3 delegates.  If that happens, the delegate split will remain Trump 2, Kasich 1 (since Kasich beats out Cruz for the third delegate).

This all means that Trump would have had to keep Cruz and Kasich under 10% of the vote (statewide and in each CD) to be "on-track" in Ben's math.  That would require Trump to have won (statewide and in each C) with an absolute minimum of just over 80%.*  After all, keeping Cruz and Kasich under 10% requires Trump to be that high.  

Even if Rhode Island gave a delegate sweep at 67%, Ben's "on-track" number would be too high there, but since it doesn't, his number is completely ridiculous.

(this all assumes I'm not messing some detail up -- this is complex stuff)

* - I'm not sure whether this math includes the other ballot options -- Uncommitted, Marco Rubio, and Write-in -- but it doesn't matter much.  That just knocks Trump's minimum down to like 78%.
18  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Republican Acela Corridor Tuesday results thread (all polls close at 8pm ET) on: April 27, 2016, 06:46:31 am
the idea that trump underperformed in Rhode Island because he didn't get the 67% he needed in both districts to get a sweep is silly; especially since making a landslide prediction like that based on absolutely no evidence for it (no polls had him that high, he were in the high 50s sure but he'd have needed literally every undecided voter to get to the 2/3rds mark and that almost happened, surprisingly).  Its almost as if you didn't actually look to see what the delegate rules where in every state before you began randomly giving numbers to people...

It's actually even sillier.  In RI you get delegates for hitting 10% both statewide and congressionally.  Cruz is currently winning 3 delegates because he didn't fall under 10% in RI-1 or statewide.  Ben's Rhode Island baseline (Trump's "on-track" number there) would have required Trump to keep both Cruz and Kasich under 10% statewide and in both congressional districts.  Obviously, a world where Trump manages that is very likely a world where he's on-track to win 1,237 pledged delegates in a walk.  Think of it this way: Trump would have had to take almost two-thirds of Kasich's Rhode Island vote share.  It's ridiculous that Ben would require that for Trump to be "on-track."

Ben, are you seriously postulating that Trump gets little to none of the "unpledged" PA delegates, even among those who've publicly endorsed Trump or at least to support their district's winner? if so, Alcon's rght that your model is whack.

To be totally clear, I do think that assumption is wrong, but I also have other problems with the model.  Basically, that he's determining what delegates Trump needs to be "on-track" to clinch based on something besides a probabilistic evaluation of the 1,237 easiest pledged delegates for Trump to get (or 1,237 minus 50 or whatever).  That means his "model" doesn't indicate whether Trump is "on-track" at all...I'm not sure what he thinks it does, honestly.
19  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Republican Acela Corridor Tuesday results thread (all polls close at 8pm ET) on: April 27, 2016, 05:38:59 am
Yes, it does because he lost delegates that a sweep would have gotten him. Every delegate counts. I said the same after New York and folks laughed at me then.

...Do you really not understand how this totally fails to address my criticism?  I'm happy to explain it in great, excruciating detail, but seriously dude, can you re-read my post and think it over for a few minutes first?  (My entire point is about prioritizing which delegates Trump "needs" to be "on-track" and which he doesn't.)

Also, as the gentleman above notes, Delaware is winner-take-all.  I assume you maybe meant Rhode Island, in which case "but in the end, my model predicted [Trump] would be 50 short" is a total non-sequitur.  I feel like you're talking more than you're thinking here.
20  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Republican Acela Corridor Tuesday results thread (all polls close at 8pm ET) on: April 27, 2016, 04:33:51 am
I'm sorry, the math was done long before Wisconsin, and before Wyoming and Colorado. Trump has been in trouble for a long time, since he lost Ohio to Kasich. Said it then, say it now.

We are just about done the primary season. Romney had it wrapped up by Wisconsin, and his run was very late. Trump has not managed to do that. By losing in Wisconsin, he assured that he would not mathematically be able to clinch pledged delegates before California. Cruz now has no incentive to drop before California.

None of that has anything to do with how little sense it made to model a sweep in Rhode Island.

You're assuming that each state is linked to each other. I am not. I am treating each state as it's own mini-election. Trump's strongest states are in this corridor, ergo I assign delegates to his strong states before assigning them to his weak states.

Even if Rhode Island is one of Trump's best states, that doesn't mean it's easier for him to sweep the Rhode Island delegates than pick up the equivalent number of delegates in, say, Indiana or California.

Here's an extreme version of that illogic.  If you assume that every delegate is easier to obtain in strong Trump states than in weaker Trump states, Trump will never be "on-track" if he's losing any delegates in any of his strongest states.  That's obviously not the case.

If your model doesn't mean to establish whether Trump is "on-track," and is simply a hypothetical scenario involving a ridiculously bad prediction of Rhode Island, OK, fine.  But if that's the case, it makes no sense as a rebuttal to the claim that a contested convention just became less likely tonight.

It's not nonsense. I'm sorry you can't understand that Trump has been behind since he lost Ohio. Those delegates need to be made up. It's like Alice and Wonderland. He has to run twice as hard to catch up.

My argument is that you are using the wrong way of establishing Trump's "baseline" of need.  It says absolutely nothing about whether I think Trump is above or below his baseline.

That it predicted the delegate counts correctly is a solid indicator that my model is working well.

I'm not sure you have a "model" so much as a set of predictions, but in any case...

It's quite possible that the rest of your "model" is logical.  Even if it's not logical (or a model at all), it's quite possible that the rest of your "model" involves reasonable predictions.  But your use of your model as a baseline for what's "on-track" was not logical, and your model's prediction for Trump's baseline in Rhode Island was not reasonable.
21  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Republican Acela Corridor Tuesday results thread (all polls close at 8pm ET) on: April 27, 2016, 03:56:09 am

The delegates have to come from somewhere. I didn't feel comfortable predicting a sweep of NY, and I felt more comfortable in predicting a sweep tonight. I come out just about right, and more right than 538.

I'm just going to keep repeating this until you understand it.  You're claiming that your model indicates what Trump "needs" in each state to be on track to win 1,237 pledged delegates -- or, in fact, to fall 50 short.  You were claiming that Trump "lost ground" tonight on what he needs to lose by 50 pledged delegates, because he failed to stay on-track by not sweeping Rhode Island.

In other words, your model assumed Trump needed to keep Cruz and Kasich under 10% in both Rhode Island congressional seats to stay "on-track."  That would have been a huge overperformance, obviously.  If Trump overperformed in every subsequent state to that extent, he'd easily win more than 1,237 pledged delegates.  In other words, a delegate sweep of Rhode Island isn't "on-track" to win 1,237 pledged delegates (let alone fall 50 short).  It's way overboard.

That's not a model of what Trump "needs."  It's not a model of what keeps him "on-track."  It's a theoretical scenario you've created where Trump falls short of 1,237 pledged delegates while winning a freakish super-victory in Rhode Island for no reason.  That seems pointless to me as a "model."  It's also objectively not a sound rebuttal of the post you originally replied to, which claimed that Trump was on-track.

So far it's called Wyoming (Cruz sweep), Colorado (Cruz sweep), Wisconsin within a point, and got the delegate totals correct for NY and the corridor tonight.

You're right, that perhaps Indiana will be a win for Trump, but I'm predicting a Cruz victory here.

What were your predictions tonight?

Things that have nothing to do with the validity of my logical criticism of your model:

1. Whether you predicted delegates accurately in past races.

2. Whether I predicted delegates accurately in past races.

3. Anything about either me or you.

Things that do have to do with the validity of my logical criticism of your model:

1. The logical validity of my logical criticism of your model.
22  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Republican Acela Corridor Tuesday results thread (all polls close at 8pm ET) on: April 27, 2016, 03:22:01 am
edit based on your last post: dude that is not what "pledged delegates" are.  Delegates do not become "pledged" once they vote.  "Pledged delegates" are delegates who are elected or appointed with the specific directions to support a given candidate at the convention (at least on the first ballot).  Mr. Morden's point is that there are a bunch of unpledged delegates that will be voting on the first ballot, so Trump doesn't need to enter with 1237 pledged delegates to be on-track to win, unless you expect he'll get no votes from unpledged delegates.

Quote
But, again, unless I'm missing something, that makes no sense.  You're saying he fell short of what he "needed," but you had him winning all delegates in Rhode Island.  A world in which Donald Trump wins Rhode Island by enough to win all of its delegates, is a world where Donald Trump obviously wins California and Indiana by enough that it doesn't matter.  You're incorrectly modeling what Trump "needs."

Again, no I'm not. Trump needs 1237. To get there, there are several paths, but all of them have him at 1k delegates at this point in the race.

This is why he threw his trumpertantrum over Colorado's delegates. He did the math and realized that even with a sweep tonight - which he was denied, he would fall short.

You argued that Trump "needed all the delegates tonight" to hit 1237.  You argued this based on your model.  I'm asking why your model assumes Trump's most likely (let alone necessary!) route to 1237 involves a sweep in Rhode Island.  A Trump delegate sweep in Rhode Island would have required an epic overperformance -- obviously a much more unlikely outcome than Trump overperforming enough in other upcoming states enough to hit 1237.  If Trump is keeping Cruz and Kasich below threshold in Rhode Island, he's probably "on track" to win the remaining states by way more than he needs to.  If that's the case, your model doesn't represent what Trump needs to be "on track," which makes it effectively useless except as an obscure hypothetical.

Am I missing something here?  Mr. Morden?  Anyone?
23  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Republican Acela Corridor Tuesday results thread (all polls close at 8pm ET) on: April 27, 2016, 02:31:30 am
Quote
You just told me nothing about your methodology and didn't answer the concern I raised

I ran off the delegate totals and estimated that Trump would be regionally stronger in the NE, with additional Kasich support and Cruz support. You're right, he wasn't expected to do as well in RI, but that was the only path I saw to him getting to 1237.

I was not far off. I had him under in NY and so the numbers come out correct. He still needed to be at 1k to be on course for the nomination.

But, again, unless I'm missing something, that makes no sense.  You're saying he fell short of what he "needed," but you had him winning all delegates in Rhode Island.  A world in which Donald Trump wins Rhode Island by enough to win all of its delegates, is a world where Donald Trump obviously wins California and Indiana by enough that it doesn't matter.  You're incorrectly modeling what Trump "needs."
24  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Republican Acela Corridor Tuesday results thread (all polls close at 8pm ET) on: April 27, 2016, 02:05:00 am
Quote
I haven't looked at your methodology, but really?  It seems like it would make more sense to estimate where Trump is at in remaining states, and keep increasing his performance in each state linearly until he hits 1237.  That obviously wouldn't have involved winning every delegate in Rhode Island (unless I misremember their allocation methodology), because that would require such an absurdly strong performance that he would have clinched via big victories in Indiana and California first.  No?

He needed to be at 1k after April and the NE.  Getting zero delegates in Colorado and losing Wisconsin bigly hurt him badly for the nomination.

Coming into WI and CO put him right at 1235. Right now I have him at 1185, falling short of the nomination.

I had him winning every delegate tonight and 75 in New York. So my prediction ran about spot on.

You just told me nothing about your methodology and didn't answer the concern I raised Tongue
25  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Republican Acela Corridor Tuesday results thread (all polls close at 8pm ET) on: April 27, 2016, 01:21:50 am
Quote
A contested convention just became much less likely.

Actually, Trump managed to lose ground. He needed all the delegates tonight. Did well everywhere but Rhode Island.

My original tabs put him about 50 short of the nomination.

I haven't looked at your methodology, but really?  It seems like it would make more sense to estimate where Trump is at in remaining states, and keep increasing his performance in each state linearly until he hits 1237.  That obviously wouldn't have involved winning every delegate in Rhode Island (unless I misremember their allocation methodology), because that would require such an absurdly strong performance that he would have clinched via big victories in Indiana and California first.  No?
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 1076


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines