"Trump's election to lose"
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 01:49:40 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential Election
  "Trump's election to lose"
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: "Trump's election to lose"  (Read 815 times)
ursulahx
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 527
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: September 23, 2016, 02:47:46 AM »

This is the first thing I've seen which has really troubled me. Those of you who are Political Wire members will have seen the alert about the findings by Predata, who monitor online activity relating to political campaigns and who called the Brexit result against the grain of predictions (Predata claim they don't do predictions, but they're crowing about calling Brexit right. Hmm...).

This is Predata's article: https://medium.com/@predata/the-predata-us-election-special-september-16-2016-in-the-digital-realm-its-starting-to-look-ef3d1a207a4d#.vpt8jdvbu

Can anyone give me rational, convincing reasons why I shouldn't take this seriously? Coupled with John Judis's plausible criticism of Clinton's lack of a positive message (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/--100769), I'm beginning to think she's throwing away what should have been a slam dunk.
Logged
Seriously?
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,029
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: September 23, 2016, 02:51:34 AM »

Because this is new-age stuff that has no real scientific basis?

If you are rooting for Hillary! you should be more concerned that she's basically one state away from losing right now in the polls.
Logged
ursulahx
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 527
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: September 23, 2016, 03:03:46 AM »

There's nothing "new age" about this kind of data analysis, it's already proved surprisingly perceptive in gauging under-the-radar opinion.

I realise you're trolling, but I don't see that Clinton is one state away from losing - that's one of the few things that gives me reassurance. Two states, perhaps.
Logged
Panda Express
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,578


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: September 23, 2016, 03:09:31 AM »
« Edited: September 23, 2016, 03:17:18 AM by Vox Populi »

If you are rooting for Hillary! you should be more concerned that she's basically one state away from losing right now in the polls.

We'll NEVER let you break the freiwall!
Logged
afleitch
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,834


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: September 23, 2016, 03:12:15 AM »

There's nothing "new age" about this kind of data analysis, it's already proved surprisingly perceptive in gauging under-the-radar opinion.

I realise you're trolling, but I don't see that Clinton is one state away from losing - that's one of the few things that gives me reassurance. Two states, perhaps.

I think my issue is it shows that Trump was basically always ahead throughout the campaign.
Logged
Seriously?
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,029
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: September 23, 2016, 03:13:08 AM »

Because this is new-age stuff that has no real scientific basis?

If you are rooting for Hillary! you should be more concerned that she's basically one state away from losing right now in the polls.
It's one state. All Trump needs is CO or NH + ME-02 or PA or WI or MI or VA right now to take the lead.

And no. I am not trolling. I don't think that data matters as much as scientifically-based polling.
Logged
Ebsy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,001
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: September 23, 2016, 03:13:47 AM »

Yes obviously the most accurate election predictions are found in Medium essays.
Logged
Hilldog
Rookie
**
Posts: 117
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: September 23, 2016, 03:54:29 AM »

We'll see after the debates what gets analyzed, edited into sound bites, and put into ads.  "I don't know why I'm not up by 50 points" isn't exactly a way to relate to the common man.
Logged
Rules for me, but not for thee
Dabeav
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,785
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.19, S: -5.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: September 23, 2016, 04:05:26 AM »

Hillary keeps putting on rants like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EyoKB3ZHSc

And she'll scare many, many voters away! *shudder*
Logged
StatesPoll
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 441
WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: September 23, 2016, 04:56:50 AM »

Because this is new-age stuff that has no real scientific basis?

If you are rooting for Hillary! you should be more concerned that she's basically one state away from losing right now in the polls.
It's one state. All Trump needs is CO or NH + ME-02 or PA or WI or MI or VA right now to take the lead.

And no. I am not trolling. I don't think that data matters as much as scientifically-based polling.

Don't forget New Jersey Wink


1. New Jersey, Google Consumer Survey 9/14-9/20, 655 LV   
TRUMP 36.19% | Hillary 35.6% | Johnson 5.48%

2. Virginia,  Google Consumer Survey 9/14-9/20, 616 LV 
TRUMP 36.84% | Hillary 36.26% | Johnson 7.64%



Logged
Adam Griffin
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,090
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: September 23, 2016, 06:13:55 AM »

It's sad and disturbing that we have an entire generation of active posters on this forum who are not familiar with the phrase "my numbers", for it is very much applicable here.

Of course, if you read the fine print, you'll see the hefty disclaimer of basically "these are not polls, they're not predicting chances/outcome of anything, and just show how much chatter on the internet there is about each candidate - good, bad or indifferent".
Logged
Fmr President & Senator Polnut
polnut
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,489
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: September 23, 2016, 06:21:57 AM »

Twaddle
Logged
Frozen Sky Ever Why
ShadowOfTheWave
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,610
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: September 23, 2016, 07:31:57 AM »

We'll see after the debates what gets analyzed, edited into sound bites, and put into ads.  "I don't know why I'm not up by 50 points" isn't exactly a way to relate to the common man.

The common man is trash, this election has proven that pretty decisively.
Logged
ursulahx
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 527
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: September 23, 2016, 07:44:56 AM »

Sorry, but couple this analysis - whether you think it's legitimate or not (I messaged Sam Wang about it, and he seemed unconvinced) - with the polling results showing much greater enthusiasm among Trump supporters (46% Trump vs only 33% Clinton in WaPo/ABC News), and add to it the fact that Clinton's campaign doesn't seem to have a theme, and I'm wondering if the firewall really can hold.

After being so bullish just a few days ago, I'm now actually worried. Only the reassurances of the likes of Mitch Stewart and David Plouffe are reminding me that Clinton's got this covered more than she appears to.
Logged
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: September 23, 2016, 08:02:21 AM »

The data is not polling, but it is still worth noting IMO.

Polls reflect a snapshot of the electorate as it reacts to the candidates and the events around them. Part of that reaction is to media mentions of the candidates - broadcast, cable, print, and online. Anyone tracking media mentions of candidates a year ago as a guide to the outcome would have put money on Trump to win the nomination. It was an accurate leading indicator of where polls would go, and eventually how the primary would turn out.

Correlations between online occurrences of a candidate and the election itself is a similar measure. Like media mentions a year ago these correlations can show what the electorate will be reacting to in advance of the polls. That makes it a potential leading indicator.

I claim no knowledge of how they count "signals" for the candidates and the election, so I can't say how much weight to put on their correlations. I would say that it would be silly to put no weight on these correlations. They are based on real data that influences the election.
Logged
angus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,423
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: September 23, 2016, 09:32:18 AM »
« Edited: September 23, 2016, 01:27:11 PM by angus »

Because this is new-age stuff that has no real scientific basis?

I agree that the label New Age works well here, but it is very scientific.  

Their hypothesis seems to be that by monitoring internet activity they can measure stochastic correlations and use these to assign a probability.  Their experiment seems simple enough, although details are not provided in the linked article.  Their conclusion, at least in the UK vote to exit the European Union, was that the yes vote was more likely.  Here, they are not making a prediction.  They are simply saying that in the "battleground" states Trump's index is slightly higher than Clinton's. Despite the somewhat misleading title "Trump's election to lose" the study seems rigorous enough to me, at least on the surface.  It would be nice if they had shared their algorithm, but they may want to capitalize on it later if it turns out to have consistent predictive value, so you can't blame them for their secrecy.

Edit:  That said, I think it is still Clinton's election to lose.  Monday's debate will be important.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.037 seconds with 12 queries.