Slate/Votecastr real time election projections

[The Other Castro]

Ummm hello they have Jill Stein at 1.7% in Nevada. JILL STEIN IS NOT ON THE BALLOT! This is a sham.

[JA]

Wow IA, OH, and FL all look good for trump.

lol, okay. I'm leaving this thread. I decided not to follow the model for the same reasons this thread is going nuts right now.

Stop bed-wetting. It is fun, no?

Arch isn't bed-wetting. People here are just taking this way too seriously. These aren't actual, raw numbers from counted ballots that say Clinton or Trump. In most instances, they are far too small a percentage of the eventual turnout to amount to anything meaningful (ie Pennsylvania). That some people think this shows anyone is winning any state is dumb.

[JerryArkansas]

Wow IA, OH, and FL all look good for trump.

lol, okay. I'm leaving this thread. I decided not to follow the model for the same reasons this thread is going nuts right now.

Stop bed-wetting. It is fun, no?

It isn't bed as much as a bad version of a good model starting to get people excited for no good reason.

What's the difference between early voting thread?

What you did there, was projecting as well, no?

You didn't read the post. 

[JerryArkansas]

Ummm hello they have Jill Stein at 1.7% in Nevada. JILL STEIN IS NOT ON THE BALLOT! This is a sham.

Bad version of a good system.

[MasterJedi]

Remember 2004 guys, "it looks like a landslide folks!".

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Wow IA, OH, and FL all look good for trump.

lol, okay. I'm leaving this thread. I decided not to follow the model for the same reasons this thread is going nuts right now.

Stop bed-wetting. It is fun, no?

Arch isn't bed-wetting. People here are just taking this way too seriously. These aren't actual, raw numbers from counted ballots that say Clinton or Trump. In most instances, they are far too small a percentage of the eventual turnout to amount to anything meaningful (ie Pennsylvania). That some people think this shows anyone is winning any state is dumb.

So was early voting. Right? It is exactly the same.

Wow IA, OH, and FL all look good for trump.

lol, okay. I'm leaving this thread. I decided not to follow the model for the same reasons this thread is going nuts right now.

Stop bed-wetting. It is fun, no?

It isn't bed as much as a bad version of a good model starting to get people excited for no good reason.

What's the difference between early voting thread?

What you did there, was projecting as well, no?

You didn't read the post. 

Yes, I did. Early voting thread also made people "to get people excited for no good reason."

It is exactly the same.

[BlueSwan]

Slates Maps are absolutely infuriating. I cant see Clark County or Miami-Dade since the damn thing is off the bottom of the map and I cant scroll down.

A map? Where? Anybody have a link?

[Eraserhead]

This already seems like a flop.

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

OK, right now Ohio is 11 points to the left of Pennsylvania. #dealignment

[The Other Castro]

Yeah this appears to be what I thought it would be. An inaccurate model based on partial information designed to give people heart attacks. What a joke.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

Wow IA, OH, and FL all look good for trump.

lol, okay. I'm leaving this thread. I decided not to follow the model for the same reasons this thread is going nuts right now.

Stop bed-wetting. It is fun, no?

It isn't bed as much as a bad version of a good model starting to get people excited for no good reason.

What's the difference between early voting thread?

What you did there, was projecting as well, no?

You didn't read the post. 

i'm not sure if little big pisspot can read at all tbqh

[The Free North]

Slates Maps are absolutely infuriating. I cant see Clark County or Miami-Dade since the damn thing is off the bottom of the map and I cant scroll down.

A map? Where? Anybody have a link?

Votecastr....slate...maps

http://www.slate.com/votecastr_election_day_turnout_tracker.html

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Slates Maps are absolutely infuriating. I cant see Clark County or Miami-Dade since the damn thing is off the bottom of the map and I cant scroll down.

A map? Where? Anybody have a link?

Votecastr....slate...maps

http://www.slate.com/votecastr_election_day_turnout_tracker.html

Thanks!

[JA]

Wow IA, OH, and FL all look good for trump.

lol, okay. I'm leaving this thread. I decided not to follow the model for the same reasons this thread is going nuts right now.

Stop bed-wetting. It is fun, no?

Arch isn't bed-wetting. People here are just taking this way too seriously. These aren't actual, raw numbers from counted ballots that say Clinton or Trump. In most instances, they are far too small a percentage of the eventual turnout to amount to anything meaningful (ie Pennsylvania). That some people think this shows anyone is winning any state is dumb.

So was early voting. Right? It is exactly the same.

Wow IA, OH, and FL all look good for trump.

lol, okay. I'm leaving this thread. I decided not to follow the model for the same reasons this thread is going nuts right now.

Stop bed-wetting. It is fun, no?

It isn't bed as much as a bad version of a good model starting to get people excited for no good reason.

What's the difference between early voting thread?

What you did there, was projecting as well, no?

You didn't read the post. 

Yes, I did. Early voting thread also made people "to get people excited for no good reason."

It is exactly the same.

I'm not sure what Arch's activities were on that thread, but I know that I invested nothing in those numbers. All they showed were early and absentee voting by party identification; that didn't prove anything to me in terms of votes for Clinton or Trump.

[BlueSwan]

Slates Maps are absolutely infuriating. I cant see Clark County or Miami-Dade since the damn thing is off the bottom of the map and I cant scroll down.

A map? Where? Anybody have a link?

Votecastr....slate...maps

http://www.slate.com/votecastr_election_day_turnout_tracker.html

Thank you! Wonder why they had to hide it like that!

[The Free North]

The process by which these maps are made is still incredibly murky to me.

[Devout Centrist]

Guys calm the f**k down, you're extrapolating from small estimates and with Pennsylvania, the early vote is very strict. Stop panicking.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

I'm not sure what Arch's activities were on that thread, but I know that I invested nothing in those numbers. All they showed were early and absentee voting by party identification; that didn't prove anything to me in terms of votes for Clinton or Trump.

So you are saying, you weren't "projecting" NV, CO and VA in to Clinton's pocket based on EV. Or Florida?

This model does basically the same, but uses sophisticated algorithms. Obama used similar

[JerryArkansas]

Wow IA, OH, and FL all look good for trump.

lol, okay. I'm leaving this thread. I decided not to follow the model for the same reasons this thread is going nuts right now.

Stop bed-wetting. It is fun, no?

Arch isn't bed-wetting. People here are just taking this way too seriously. These aren't actual, raw numbers from counted ballots that say Clinton or Trump. In most instances, they are far too small a percentage of the eventual turnout to amount to anything meaningful (ie Pennsylvania). That some people think this shows anyone is winning any state is dumb.

So was early voting. Right? It is exactly the same.

Wow IA, OH, and FL all look good for trump.

lol, okay. I'm leaving this thread. I decided not to follow the model for the same reasons this thread is going nuts right now.

Stop bed-wetting. It is fun, no?

It isn't bed as much as a bad version of a good model starting to get people excited for no good reason.

What's the difference between early voting thread?

What you did there, was projecting as well, no?

You didn't read the post. 

Yes, I did. Early voting thread also made people "to get people excited for no good reason."

It is exactly the same.

No it isn't.

[The Free North]

Guys calm the f**k down, you're extrapolating from small estimates and with Pennsylvania, the early vote is very strict. Stop panicking.

No one is taking PA seriously nor any of this yet since, again. I don't think anyone has any idea what the data they're showing actually represents.

[Sigh144]

Why is everyone freaking out?

This thing isnt a real vote tracker, but even if it was, it has Clinton leading in nearly every state lol

Trump is "winning" in PA because PA has no early vote, the absentee's skew heavily older....we already knew this.

Relax people./

The Dplorable Confederates are going down hard tonight.

[The Other Castro]

Jon Ralston ‏@RalstonReports  37s38 seconds ago
So Stein on the ballot here (she's not), bizarre Clark numbers and wrong number (off by 150K) of reg voters there. Model probs, @votecastr?

Everyone relax.

[The Free North]

I'm not sure what Arch's activities were on that thread, but I know that I invested nothing in those numbers. All they showed were early and absentee voting by party identification; that didn't prove anything to me in terms of votes for Clinton or Trump.

So you are saying, you weren't "projecting" NV, CO and VA in to Clinton's pocket based on EV. Or Florida?

This model does basically the same, but uses sophisticated algorithms. Obama used similar

Well that was my point earlier. If this represents early votes around the state, then we can extrapolate a bit on that given historical voting tendencies and the like.

But that is a big 'if'.

[Mike88]

Calm down everyone. Just chill, please. If you want to calm down, go to Benchmark Politics twitter feed. They are saying that Turnout is high in many Clinton counties.

[SunSt0rm]

I am not going to trust this, Stein isnt on the ballot in Nevada