Talk Elections

Clinton 48
Trump 38
Johnson 6
Stein 1

2-way: Clinton 51, Trump 40

Bye bye Trump

http://cola.unh.edu/sites/cola.unh.edu/files/research_publications/gsp2016_fall_pressengov110616.pdf

RIP

TNVolunteer just got a boner.

LOL

Now it's starting. ;) The avalanch is coming.

WOW, WOW, WOW

Go, Maggie Hassan!

Looks like joke predictions get you far:

LMFAO! So, taking all polls into account... Clinton by 5 or 6, then?

Hassan 48, Ayotte 43 for the Senate seat. The angry New Hampshire women who did not respond to NH polls during Comeygate have returned in force

:O

So now the Nevada plus New Hampshire way for Trump is out, looks like he needs another midwestern state in order to win. (Or Virginia)

;)

Then again, he could be into femdom...

Comey-gate probably didn't move numbers, it just caused democrats to stop answering phones.

woah

Thank you angry women of NH!  Your 25 point margin for Clinton is much appreciated.

is that poll any good?

University of New Hampshire is a good pollster.

Thanks. Can't wait to see what Nate Silver does with this.

Underestimated Obama by 2.5 in 2012.

This effectively shuts down Trump's last remaining path.

Yeah, he has to win Pennsylvania now, lol.

the angry NH woman are back on board!

Hopefully this poll is close to the truth.

()

No one on the Twitters talking about this. Wonder why.

AYY LMAO



()

would love to see more polls of NH right now but too close i fear.....

+10 seems mad, but i would take +4 any day.

No paths left for Trump.

Clinton surge!

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

I swear, these NH polls give me whiplash.

Roll the credits.

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

Makes sense. Finally a poll that says what polls have been saying for months until Comey sent them into horse race mode.

dem great hope, UNH! Great honer

Just as I've been saying the entire time - The Gold Standard says this is approaching a double digit race nationally. I feel comfortable extrapolating that.

Someone check on TNVolunteer. Pretty sure he had a heart attack when he seen the thread lol.

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

dat elasticity tho

TREMENDOUS!!!

A beautiful pink wave of feminine fury will wash over the Granite State in 48 hours.

Lead increased by 3 from the previous poll. Encouraging.

So before everyone starts popping champagne corks or drowning their sorrows in tears of cheap KY/TN Bourbon (Canadian Man myself), how credible is UNH as a polling org, and plus we have seen a ton of bizarre whiplashes from NH over the past four weeks alone...

Is there an outlier on the margins, or simply that NH Indies are fickle and like their moment in the sun (As they do every Feb every four years) just shouting out for attention?

WTF is going on with all this???

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

What's the history of this poll and why is it so far off from Trump +5?  Are Democrats really suggesting there was a poll off by 16 points? If so what is your reasoning?

If it wasn't clear, I'm just being facetious.

LOOOOOOL!! I laughed way harder at all of this than I should've. Stay classy TNV :).

TN Volunteer will win the Nobel Prize in Political Science once this is all over, believe me. 

you ok there?

TNV just made my night.

Maybe they'll even name it after him, after they create it.

TIGHTENING!!!!

Time to place NH back on Safe D cause TN was right, LOL!

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


lol....

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXqwtUUPe0w

Anddd there he is haha

The wonders of not having any internals. He's completely at the mercy of public polling and scrambling to keep things together.

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.... ;)

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 ????

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

() (http://s1068.photobucket.com/user/cdsnider0485/media/IMG_0822_zpszisddhtw.png.html)

Muh muh.

trafalgars

Horse race. Both sides have to be equal, no matter how ridiculous the map looks.

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)?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

You're wary of dismissing a model that shows a counterintuitive result, but you uncritically accept outliers (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/presidential-polls-forecast.html?action=click&contentCollection=upshot&region=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=sectionfront).

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 (http://ekg tachycardia). 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 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014829631500140X).

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.

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.


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

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.


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!)


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.

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.

It's an outlier , but shows that HRC is pulling away from the orange fascist

I think is an outlier, but I don't think it's a huge one. I never bought the tie idea.

538 is less likely to be predictive than its peers because it's the outlier, regardless of the methodological problems we'll get into. You don't throw the outlier away, but you have to recognize it for what it is instead of accepting it at face value - which is a problem that 538 itself struggles with, as we'll see below.

The model is a black box when it comes to exact methodology, so no one knows exactly what Silver is doing. But it is very naive, which can be fairly easily demonstrated by polling database and probability updates.

1. The trend line adjustments are heavily affected by outliers, even those that clearly did not presage an actual trend. This is visible even among highly rated outfits with low house effects, which in theory will be affected mostly or entirely by the trendline adjustments. Move to excel, sort by date, and find the rolling average - there are sharp changes to the adjustment average that are precipitated by outlier polls that did not actually presage a trend. The USC/LA Times poll did it in nearly every time. Prudent trendline adjustments shouldn't fall for these, but the 538 model is too naive and accepts them at face value - likely because it's mean-based and/or has a short memory, and ends up amplifying polling noise that smooths out over the long term and in the median.

2. Single surveys in thinly-polled states produce large swings in probability. See Nov. 4 at 5:18 pm, Nov. 3 at 11:17 am, Nov. 2 at 7:04 pm, Nov. 1 at 1:41 pm, and many more - though my personal favorite is Oct. 23 at 4:41 pm. An Oklahoma result of R+30/33 - almost exactly the 2012 margin - was enough to move the estimate a point and a half by itself. Lol, bullsh**t. Likely because the state correlation is assumed to be too high, and because the model lacks information in non-battlegrounds and thus places too much importance on individual surveys - which is exactly the sort of thing 538 is supposed to prevent. (We won't touch the fact that Trump +30/33 in OK is actually a fairly neutral or pro-Clinton result.) Better modeling would have this information priced in, and would not derive national trends from individual state surveys.

3. Some believe that the model is double-counting national and state polling. So essentially, if we have a national trend of Trump +1 over a week, and a state trend of Trump +1, the model counts it as +2 instead of +1. 538 says it only uses national polling to inform the adjustments and produce the projected vote margin, though outlier polls have swung the probability harder than seems reasonable if that were true. I'm not entirely sure what's going on there, but it would explain a lot.

4. And of course, as pointed out earlier, trends are mostly artifacts of nonrandom polling error and methodological changes (including but not limited to herding), not changes in voter intention among the population. You can ask a single panel over the course of an election, or use control questions, or simply look at changes in demo response rates in raw polling data, and that becomes abundantly clear. 538 doesn't have an "approach" to this beyond literally modeling this noise.

As for why his methods all seem designed to amplify noise and increase variance - clicks. 538 is owned by ESPN, which is under severe financial pressure and which has already shut down Grantland, the closest thing to 538 under its umbrella. Silver is trying to keep his vertical economically viable, and I don't blame him for that much.

Sorry for the late reply. My clients are APAC-based, and I work when they do.

Lol, stop it. At least read their models description or something. It does not amply noise, no.
It gives not double trends state + national, no.









About this poll. TN Volunteer cherry picked it, lol. Hillary won't win it in landslide, not even close, unless there will be a polling error across all states & nationally, lol

I love this statement.  It applies to most engineering projects as well.

ANGRY WOMEN WITH A VENGEANCE

Pile of state poll junk.