NH-UNH: Clinton +11, Clinton +10 (4-way)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 02:16:04 AM
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 General Election Polls
  NH-UNH: Clinton +11, Clinton +10 (4-way)
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
Author Topic: NH-UNH: Clinton +11, Clinton +10 (4-way)  (Read 13466 times)
TarHeelDem
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,448
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: November 06, 2016, 11:55:44 PM »

TIGHTENING!!!!
Logged
OneJ
OneJ_
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,834
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: November 07, 2016, 12:00:45 AM »

Time to place NH back on Safe D cause TN was right, LOL!
Logged
BoAtlantis
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 791


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: November 07, 2016, 12:02:00 AM »

Peter Alexander ‏@PeterAlexander 
Peter Alexander Retweeted Dave Wasserman
Trump heads to NH tomorrow night as *new poll shows him trailing by double digits.


lol....
Logged
Darthpi – Anti-Florida Activist
darthpi
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,708
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.13, S: -6.87

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: November 07, 2016, 12:02:22 AM »

Wait.... B-B-BUT MUH 4 JUNK POLLS! MUH ELASTICITY! MUH TRUMP GOOD FIT FOR NH! MUH 2000! MUH BUSH! MUH RIGHT KIND OF REPUBLICAN! MUH TREND R! MUH TREND R WHITES! MUH SWING STATE! MUH NH MALES! MUH NH MORE LIKELY TO VOTE R THAN FL! MUH MUH!

Called it. Angry White NH females will turn it out in record-breaking numbers for their beloved Hillary and deliver Trump, who is seen as a member of the anti-Women hate group (also known as the Republican Party), a good trashing. Trump never had a chance here, and no Republican was going to win NH. NH is 100000% gone for the GOP.

In light of recent developments, I think we should change this meme to "Nasty New Hampshire women"
Logged
Fuzzybigfoot
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,211
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: November 07, 2016, 12:03:32 AM »


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXqwtUUPe0w
Logged
Joe Biden is your president. Deal with it.
diskymike44
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,831


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: November 07, 2016, 12:04:53 AM »

Wait.... B-B-BUT MUH 4 JUNK POLLS! MUH ELASTICITY! MUH TRUMP GOOD FIT FOR NH! MUH 2000! MUH BUSH! MUH RIGHT KIND OF REPUBLICAN! MUH TREND R! MUH TREND R WHITES! MUH SWING STATE! MUH NH MALES! MUH NH MORE LIKELY TO VOTE R THAN FL! MUH MUH!

Called it. Angry White NH females will turn it out in record-breaking numbers for their beloved Hillary and deliver Trump, who is seen as a member of the anti-Women hate group (also known as the Republican Party), a good trashing. Trump never had a chance here, and no Republican was going to win NH. NH is 100000% gone for the GOP.

Anddd there he is haha
Logged
Dr. Arch
Arch
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,452
Puerto Rico


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: November 07, 2016, 12:10:40 AM »

Peter Alexander ‏@PeterAlexander 
Peter Alexander Retweeted Dave Wasserman
Trump heads to NH tomorrow night as *new poll shows him trailing by double digits.


lol....

The wonders of not having any internals. He's completely at the mercy of public polling and scrambling to keep things together.
Logged
NOVA Green
Oregon Progressive
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,418
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 on: November 07, 2016, 12:14:53 AM »

Wait.... B-B-BUT MUH 4 JUNK POLLS! MUH ELASTICITY! MUH TRUMP GOOD FIT FOR NH! MUH 2000! MUH BUSH! MUH RIGHT KIND OF REPUBLICAN! MUH TREND R! MUH TREND R WHITES! MUH SWING STATE! MUH NH MALES! MUH NH MORE LIKELY TO VOTE R THAN FL! MUH MUH!

Called it. Angry White NH females will turn it out in record-breaking numbers for their beloved Hillary and deliver Trump, who is seen as a member of the anti-Women hate group (also known as the Republican Party), a good trashing. Trump never had a chance here, and no Republican was going to win NH. NH is 100000% gone for the GOP.

In light of recent developments, I think we should change this meme to "Nasty New Hampshire women"

Hmmm.... am wondering if TN Volunteer should post two short personal video uploads depending upon if the state turns out to be won by "Angry NH Women" or "Nasty NH Women"?

Either way, it would be fun to watch, similar to other statements that individuals have made on the forum regarding "eating their hats", "eating their shoes", etc.... Wink

All playful @ TN Volunteer and all other players....

If NH is C +10 vindication, if Trump wins NH, "angry white theory = bunk", if Clinton wins NH by +2-4 Huh?
Logged
HAnnA MArin County
semocrat08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,037
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: November 07, 2016, 12:19:20 AM »

Beautiful poll! Thank you, angry women of New Hampshire (and TNVolunteer).

"Oh my God, we're gonna be President!"
Logged
Holmes
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,719
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -5.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #59 on: November 07, 2016, 12:20:22 AM »

Muh muh.
Logged
psychprofessor
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,293


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #60 on: November 07, 2016, 12:42:50 AM »

Okay, I've calmed down, lol. But seriously, why is it so hard for people to accept that NH is a solid Democratic state? What makes people think it's in play?

trafalgars
Logged
Cashew
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,559
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #61 on: November 07, 2016, 12:50:04 AM »

Okay, I've calmed down, lol. But seriously, why is it so hard for people to accept that NH is a solid Democratic state? What makes people think it's in play?
Horse race. Both sides have to be equal, no matter how ridiculous the map looks.
Logged
HAnnA MArin County
semocrat08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,037
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #62 on: November 07, 2016, 12:58:42 AM »

Okay, I've calmed down, lol. But seriously, why is it so hard for people to accept that NH is a solid Democratic state? What makes people think it's in play?

My guess is that blue avatars have a problem with wanting to live in the past: they think the New Hampshire of 2004 is still there today. As the Republican/Trump Party continues to be hijacked by the crazies, I'm guessing the good people of New Hampshire don't want to vote for a party that contains so many deplorables. Might be an elitist thing, too (don't want to be associated with the party of dumb blue-collar white redneck Southern men)?
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #63 on: November 07, 2016, 01:03:59 AM »

Let's predict how much Nate Silver adjusts this toward Trump "out of caution"

I'm sure it'll reduce HRC's chances to win by 2% and flip Maine.

Sigh.  OK, fine, don't bother to even superficially understand how that stuff works guys, whatever. Smiley

Aggressive trendline adjustments to a noisy dataset are like turning the amps up to 11 at a Skrillex concert.

On what basis are you convinced Silver's trendline adjustments are too aggressive?  We have past empirical data that Silver claims he used to make these decisions.  I'm always wary of dismissing models like that because they come out with counterintuitive results unless we can explain why some other approach is more sound.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,714
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #64 on: November 07, 2016, 01:09:11 AM »

Let's predict how much Nate Silver adjusts this toward Trump "out of caution"

I'm sure it'll reduce HRC's chances to win by 2% and flip Maine.

Sigh.  OK, fine, don't bother to even superficially understand how that stuff works guys, whatever. Smiley

Aggressive trendline adjustments to a noisy dataset are like turning the amps up to 11 at a Skrillex concert.

On what basis are you convinced Silver's trendline adjustments are too aggressive?  We have past empirical data that Silver claims he used to make these decisions.  I'm always wary of dismissing models like that because they come out with counterintuitive results unless we can explain why some other approach is more sound.

Dude, Nate Silver is literally doing with polls what that Dean Chambers moron criticizing him was doing in 2012.
Logged
ApatheticAustrian
ApathicAustrian
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,603
Austria


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #65 on: November 07, 2016, 01:13:46 AM »

i don't have the statistical knowledge to judge what silver is doing but since the margins for obama in some states have been reaaaaally low in 2012, i guess silver bets that trump could kind of "steal" some states with hilarious low margins, while lose other.....less important ones...in giant landslides.

Logged
NOVA Green
Oregon Progressive
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,418
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #66 on: November 07, 2016, 01:17:26 AM »

I think the key question isn't if Clinton will NH, but rather by how much?

Will it be D+2 PVI or D+5 PVI, or???

On surface, it appears to be a state that is swung hard D in the Obama era, and in many ways it does not appear to be natural Trump territory, and we saw a few bizarre recent polls that showed it closer than expected at the height of "ComneyGate" that could just be a combo of both bad polling and selective response bias, that we have seen for both parties at the height of negative news cycles.

NH does seem like a state that is potentially more volatile than many others to each change in the new cycles over the past month or two, so I could see it being either a total Clinton blowout, or a fairly tight race once results roll in Tuesday Night.
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #67 on: November 07, 2016, 01:19:03 AM »
« Edited: November 07, 2016, 01:23:08 AM by Alcon »

Let's predict how much Nate Silver adjusts this toward Trump "out of caution"

I'm sure it'll reduce HRC's chances to win by 2% and flip Maine.

Sigh.  OK, fine, don't bother to even superficially understand how that stuff works guys, whatever. Smiley

Aggressive trendline adjustments to a noisy dataset are like turning the amps up to 11 at a Skrillex concert.

On what basis are you convinced Silver's trendline adjustments are too aggressive?  We have past empirical data that Silver claims he used to make these decisions.  I'm always wary of dismissing models like that because they come out with counterintuitive results unless we can explain why some other approach is more sound.

Dude, Nate Silver is literally doing with polls what that Dean Chambers moron criticizing him was doing in 2012.

No, he's not.  What are you talking about?  The trend-line adjustment?  If so, unless I'm gravely off somehow, you fundamentally misunderstand how that works.
Logged
Seriously?
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,029
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #68 on: November 07, 2016, 01:40:24 AM »
« Edited: November 07, 2016, 01:49:35 AM by Seriously? »

Peter Alexander ‏@PeterAlexander 
Peter Alexander Retweeted Dave Wasserman
Trump heads to NH tomorrow night as *new poll shows him trailing by double digits.


lol....

The wonders of not having any internals. He's completely at the mercy of public polling and scrambling to keep things together.
Ummm. In what alternate universe do you think that Trump does not have internals? Of course he has internals at this point of the race. It's the whole reason that he went to Minnesota today, his internals saw him within striking distance.

Both candidates are not contesting a state in the final 48 hours that has a double-digit lead for Clinton. It would be an absolutely idiotic thing to do for both campaigns if their internals were showing that wide of a gap.
Logged
ApatheticAustrian
ApathicAustrian
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,603
Austria


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #69 on: November 07, 2016, 01:49:34 AM »

Both candidates are not contesting a state in the final 48 hours that has a double-digit lead for Clinton. It would be absolutely idiotic if their internals were showing that wide of a gap.

he has had internals but he seemed to have cut off most of his pollsters (some of his close aids even confirmed off the records that they did not poll MN recently) and like most desperate candidates, who would need some impropable (not impossible) breakthrough to win, he is just pushing each brick and try to find the loose one.

if there is one, he would find it, if not....bad luck.

imho camping 24/7 in MI/PA would have been the most realistic way...if they are up for grabs.
Logged
Desroko
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 346
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #70 on: November 07, 2016, 02:45:34 AM »
« Edited: November 07, 2016, 02:50:54 AM by Desroko »

Let's predict how much Nate Silver adjusts this toward Trump "out of caution"

I'm sure it'll reduce HRC's chances to win by 2% and flip Maine.

Sigh.  OK, fine, don't bother to even superficially understand how that stuff works guys, whatever. Smiley

Aggressive trendline adjustments to a noisy dataset are like turning the amps up to 11 at a Skrillex concert.

On what basis are you convinced Silver's trendline adjustments are too aggressive?  We have past empirical data that Silver claims he used to make these decisions.  I'm always wary of dismissing models like that because they come out with counterintuitive results unless we can explain why some other approach is more sound.

You're wary of dismissing a model that shows a counterintuitive result, but you uncritically accept outliers.

Polling results are extraordinarily noisy under the best of circumstance. If you want empiricism, simulate an election in which underlying voter intentions remain at 52-48, and commission one poll per day for 100 days, each with a 3 MoE and no nonrandom error. It looks like an EKG in tachycardia, except less regular. Feel free to adjust those trendlines after every new survey, but you're just chasing noise.

And of course, no poll is free of nonrandom error, which means that very favorable condition simulations like the above are less noisy than real world conditions. To start, much polling "movement" is actually differential nonresponse:

http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/published/swingers.pdf

http://www.columbia.edu/~rse14/Erikson_Panagopoulos_Wlezien.pdf

When you control for nonresponse, you find that polling margins are much more stable than an entertainment website would have you believe:

https://today.yougov.com/news/2016/11/01/beware-phantom-swings-why-dramatic-swings-in-the-p/

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/most-voters-havent-changed-their-minds-all-year/

TLDR: Unsophisticated people are impressed by the bells and whistles in a model. But all bells and whistles really do is make noise.


Logged
Seriously?
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,029
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #71 on: November 07, 2016, 02:54:08 AM »
« Edited: November 07, 2016, 03:05:25 AM by Seriously? »

Both candidates are not contesting a state in the final 48 hours that has a double-digit lead for Clinton. It would be absolutely idiotic if their internals were showing that wide of a gap.

he has had internals but he seemed to have cut off most of his pollsters (some of his close aids even confirmed off the records that they did not poll MN recently) and like most desperate candidates, who would need some impropable (not impossible) breakthrough to win, he is just pushing each brick and try to find the loose one.

if there is one, he would find it, if not....bad luck.

imho camping 24/7 in MI/PA would have been the most realistic way...if they are up for grabs.
Kellyanne Conway specifically said on Fox & Friends this morning that they ran an internal that had MN with Hillary by 3, which is why the scheduled the stop. The polling is primarily running out of her outfit right now. She's a pollster by trade.

Obviously, you can do the math on Wisconsin if they canceled a rally in Wisconsin in favor of Minnesota.
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #72 on: November 07, 2016, 03:19:32 AM »

You're wary of dismissing a model that shows a counterintuitive result, but you uncritically accept outliers.

I'm honestly trying to figure out whether you do know what you're talking about and I'm misunderstanding, or you're just spouting jargony nonsense.  I'm not saying that to be mean...I'm having trouble telling, and you may be making a great point.

Even if I were to "uncritically accept outliers," I'm not sure why that's mutually exclusive or at tension with accepting that good statistical modeling can sometimes generate counterintuitive results.  If anything, the premise behind including outliers, assuming that's what you mean by "uncritically accepting them, is that it's better to throw valid data points (or apparently valid points) together in the pot and hopefully let methodological quirks, sampling error, etc., cancel each other out.  I also have no earthly idea what point you're making with the Upshot link.

Polling results are extraordinarily noisy under the best of circumstance.  If you want empiricism, simulate an election in which underlying voter intentions remain at 52-48, and commission one poll per day for 100 days, each with a 3 MoE and no nonrandom error. It looks like an EKG in tachycardia, except less regular. Feel free to adjust those trendlines after every new survey, but you're just chasing noise.

I'm not an idiot.  I know how statistical distributions work Tongue

Are you somehow under the impression that Silver is just extrapolating trendlines, and not accounting for the obvious fact that small movements are oftentimes simply fluctuations based on statistical noise?  If so, what do you base this belief on?  And, before you ask me on what basis I assume that Silver isn't tempering the pitch of his trendlines based on the (often-likely) possibility they're simply statistical noise, here's why:

1. Because that would require assuming Silver selectively doesn't account for margin of error and the likelihood of statistical noise in this component of his model, while he frequently writes about this elsewhere, and accounts for much more complex "unknown unknowns" like the historical probability of systematic polling error.

2. Because this would make no sense in light of his claim that there's empirical basis to his trendline adjustments model, unless you're arguing that his data set of past trendlines vs. final outcomes coincidentally happened to match the modeling he's now doing that you deem overly aggressive.

Being that neither of those seem particularly plausible to me, I don't think I can agree with the assumptions you seem to be making about Silver's model.

And of course, no poll is free of nonrandom error, which means that very favorable condition simulations like the above are less noisy than real world conditions. To start, much polling "movement" is actually differential nonresponse:

http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/published/swingers.pdf

http://www.columbia.edu/~rse14/Erikson_Panagopoulos_Wlezien.pdf

When you control for nonresponse, you find that polling margins are much more stable than an entertainment website would have you believe:

https://today.yougov.com/news/2016/11/01/beware-phantom-swings-why-dramatic-swings-in-the-p/

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/most-voters-havent-changed-their-minds-all-year/

Differential nonresponse is an interesting topic, and I have some thoughts on Silver's approach to it.  I don't have time to write them out now.  (Trust me -- this isn't a dodge.  Look at my post history.  I'm a dork and would do it!)

TLDR: Unsophisticated people are impressed by the bells and whistles in a model. But all bells and whistles really do is make noise.

I'm a staunch opponent of overfitting and complex models meant to hide weak logic.  I just don't think that all complication is inedible number garnish.
Logged
Phony Moderate
Obamaisdabest
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,298
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #73 on: November 07, 2016, 05:20:38 AM »
« Edited: November 07, 2016, 05:41:09 AM by Phony Moderate »

Even if this poll turns out to be completely on the nose (and maybe it will), this thread is yet another classic Atlas overreaction. Just another reminder that overenthusiasm combined with not-completely-taking-the-facts-on-board isn't just a Trumpster/BernieBro thing, it's an American thing.

And to repeat, it could be right - just to avoid being called a spoilsport.
Logged
rafta_rafta
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 926


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #74 on: November 07, 2016, 05:30:35 AM »

It's an outlier , but shows that HRC is pulling away from the orange fascist
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4  
« 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 0.062 seconds with 12 queries.