2016 elections - because it's never too early

[Sheilbh]

This piece is really interesting:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/11/upshot/donald-trumps-red-state-problem.html?action=click&contentCollection=upshot&region=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=5&pgtype=sectionfront&_r=0

It fits with an argument that what's distinctive and odd in American politics isn't how the GOP won poor white voters, but how the Democrats won rich, college educated white voters. So what makes the South distinctive is that it's the only area where the GOP have kept their wealthy, college educated vote. If Trump is damaging that (and remember that among white evangelicals those with a college degree voted Cruz, those without voted Trump) then that's a potentially very important demographic shift if the Democrats can capitalise post-Trump.

[Sheilbh]

That is an overly ambitious statement.  How do you know that the probability of Brexit wasn't 15%?  Events that have 15% likelihood still happen one time out of seven.

But, as I say, it's odd given the polls:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/06/britain-s-eu-referendum

[CountDeMoney]

This piece is really interesting:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/11/upshot/donald-trumps-red-state-problem.html?action=click&contentCollection=upshot&region=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=5&pgtype=sectionfront&_r=0

It fits with an argument that what's distinctive and odd in American politics isn't how the GOP won poor white voters, but how the Democrats won rich, college educated white voters. So what makes the South distinctive is that it's the only area where the GOP have kept their wealthy, college educated vote. If Trump is damaging that (and remember that among white evangelicals those with a college degree voted Cruz, those without voted Trump) then that's a potentially very important demographic shift if the Democrats can capitalise post-Trump.

As an aside, I find the demographic "among white voters without a degree" increased profile in recent elections interesting;  I've known plenty of professionals--predominantly cyber, but others--that are very progressive in their politics without a single undergrad credit under their belt, yet derspiess has a bachelors degree.

[CountDeMoney]

Trump: Clinton will only win Pennsylvania if 'they cheat'
By Tyler Pager
Politico.com
Updated 08/12/16 08:02 PM EDT


Donald Trump again raised the specter of election fraud Friday, saying that the only way he would lose Pennsylvania is to Hillary Clinton is if "they cheat."

The Republican nominee, speaking at a rally in Altoona, Pennsylvania, repeated his concerns about the fairness of the election.

"The only way we can lose, in my opinion — I really mean this, Pennsylvania is if cheating goes on and we have to call up law enforcement and we have to have the sheriffs and the police chiefs and everyone watching because if we get cheated out of this election, if we get cheated out of a win in Pennsylvania, which is such a vital state especially when I know what is happening here," he said. "She can't beat what's happening here. The only way they can beat it in my opinion, and I mean this 100 percent, if in certain sections of the state they cheat."

Trump has repeatedly claimed the election is "rigged" against him, laying some of the blame on the media.

Trump is trailing Clinton by more than 9 points in Pennsylvania polls, one of several key battleground states in which he has slumped recently.

[DGuller]

That is an overly ambitious statement.  How do you know that the probability of Brexit wasn't 15%?  Events that have 15% likelihood still happen one time out of seven.

But, as I say, it's odd given the polls:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/06/britain-s-eu-referendum

It's very easy to reason with hindsight.  Maybe it was correct to discount the polls, but those who discounted them got unlucky.  It's impossible to validate the predictive model, the betting market being of them, based on one outcome.

[Berkut]

That is an overly ambitious statement.  How do you know that the probability of Brexit wasn't 15%?  Events that have 15% likelihood still happen one time out of seven.

But, as I say, it's odd given the polls:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/06/britain-s-eu-referendum

It's very easy to reason with hindsight.  Maybe it was correct to discount the polls, but those who discounted them got unlucky.  It's impossible to validate the predictive model, the betting market being of them, based on one outcome.

You see this in wargaming all the time.

People do things that work at low odds, and then proclaim it a good move, or do something that had good odds and doesn't work a bad move.

The outcome doesn't determine the validity of taking the bet.

[garbon]

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/291377-trump-im-running-against-media-not-clinton

Trump: I'm running against media, not Clinton

Donald Trump said Saturday that his true opponent in the general election is the media.

"I'm not running against crooked Hillary, I'm running against the crooked media," Trump said at a rally in Fairfield, Conn. "That's what I'm running against, I'm not running against crooked Hillary."

Trump has repeatedly lashed out at media that he calls "dishonest" over the course of his campaign.

Earlier Saturday, he bashed the New York Times after a report came out in which sources characterized Trump as "sullen" and struggling to recover in light of lagging poll numbers.

He renewed those attacks on the Times at the rally Saturday, saying he's considering revoking their credentials to cover his rallies.

"I'll tell you in particular lately we have a newspaper that's failing badly, its losing a lot of money, its gonna be out of business very soon: the New York Times," he said.

Trump blasted the use of anonymous sources in the Times report, saying "I don't think they have any names."

"They never call me," he added. "It's going to hell."

"Maybe what we'll do," Trump continued, "we'll start taking their press credentials away from them."

Trump has revoked the press credentials of a number of media outlets including Politico, the Washington Post and the Huffington Post.

But The Washington Post, Trump said, has "been much nicer" recently and he may reinstate their credentials.

Trump also blasted CNN for criticizing him for calling President Obama "the founder of ISIS," a comment that the mogul later said was sarcastic "but not that sarcastic."

"CNN is so disgusting," he said. "And by the way their ratings are going down big league, you know why? Because I refuse to be interviewed. And I get high ratings, what can I say?"

"These people are so dishonest," he added.

Trump, frequently pointing to the press area, said that the would prefer to remove news cameras entirely.

"If it were up to me, I'd move those damn cameras the hell out and let the people see properly. I'd move them out," he said.

At another point in the rally, Trump praised a New York Post article and its author, reading some parts aloud, that dealt with his development contributions to New York City.

[Sheilbh]

Nasrallah now quoting Trump at a Hezbollah rally. "Even the Republican candidate now accepts that Obama and Clinton fund and founded ISIS."

This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a "don't you get sarcasm".

[garbon]

Eh, the unlikely become bedfellows and people do fucked up shit. Same script, different cast.

[Razgovory]

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/291377-trump-im-running-against-media-not-clinton

Trump: I'm running against media, not Clinton

Donald Trump said Saturday that his true opponent in the general election is the media.

"I'm not running against crooked Hillary, I'm running against the crooked media," Trump said at a rally in Fairfield, Conn. "That's what I'm running against, I'm not running against crooked Hillary."

Trump has repeatedly lashed out at media that he calls "dishonest" over the course of his campaign.

Earlier Saturday, he bashed the New York Times after a report came out in which sources characterized Trump as "sullen" and struggling to recover in light of lagging poll numbers.

He renewed those attacks on the Times at the rally Saturday, saying he's considering revoking their credentials to cover his rallies.

"I'll tell you in particular lately we have a newspaper that's failing badly, its losing a lot of money, its gonna be out of business very soon: the New York Times," he said.

Trump blasted the use of anonymous sources in the Times report, saying "I don't think they have any names."

"They never call me," he added. "It's going to hell."

"Maybe what we'll do," Trump continued, "we'll start taking their press credentials away from them."

Trump has revoked the press credentials of a number of media outlets including Politico, the Washington Post and the Huffington Post.

But The Washington Post, Trump said, has "been much nicer" recently and he may reinstate their credentials.

Trump also blasted CNN for criticizing him for calling President Obama "the founder of ISIS," a comment that the mogul later said was sarcastic "but not that sarcastic."

"CNN is so disgusting," he said. "And by the way their ratings are going down big league, you know why? Because I refuse to be interviewed. And I get high ratings, what can I say?"

"These people are so dishonest," he added.

Trump, frequently pointing to the press area, said that the would prefer to remove news cameras entirely.

"If it were up to me, I'd move those damn cameras the hell out and let the people see properly. I'd move them out," he said.

At another point in the rally, Trump praised a New York Post article and its author, reading some parts aloud, that dealt with his development contributions to New York City.

Heh, Big tough Donald got punched in the nose and is not now running to teacher.  This is sweet like an orange.

[Gups]

That is an overly ambitious statement.  How do you know that the probability of Brexit wasn't 15%?  Events that have 15% likelihood still happen one time out of seven.

But, as I say, it's odd given the polls:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/06/britain-s-eu-referendum

It's very easy to reason with hindsight.  Maybe it was correct to discount the polls, but those who discounted them got unlucky.  It's impossible to validate the predictive model, the betting market being of them, based on one outcome.

I disagree. There was no good reason to discount the polls (or at least no good reason to discount them as over-estimating the remain vote) and there was no other relevant data to take into account. The polls were showing a slight lead for remain - reasonable odds would have been 3/2 against leave. The odds Sheilbh quoted indicates that the market was very badly mistaken, or perhaps skewed by a small number of large bets. I'm guessing that the kind of people betting large sums on the vote may have been the kind of well-educated urban professionals who (like me) hardly knew anyone in favour of leave.

I had been very impressed by the betting markets record in elections but it clearly failed in this case. That doesn't mean that it is a poor predictive model but it does show that it is fallible.

[Gups]

Yi said the betting market got it wrong, not the bookies.

shazaam

You gamble Guppy?

Not much these days. Online poker used to be a decent ($20K pa) second income for me for 5-6 years until everyone got really good/I got bored and lazy. I wish I'd known about the referendum odds though. £100 on leave would have softened the blow.

[jimmy olsen]

Yi said the betting market got it wrong, not the bookies.

shazaam

You gamble Guppy?

Not much these days. Online poker used to be a decent ($20K pa) second income for me for 5-6 years until everyone got really good/I got bored and lazy. I wish I'd known about the referendum odds though. £100 on leave would have softened the blow.

Woah

[Gups]

Yi said the betting market got it wrong, not the bookies.

shazaam

You gamble Guppy?

Not much these days. Online poker used to be a decent ($20K pa) second income for me for 5-6 years until everyone got really good/I got bored and lazy. I wish I'd known about the referendum odds though. £100 on leave would have softened the blow.

Woah

It's not that impressive. I was probably dedicating 10-15 hours a week to it. I'd have earned more money in the long-term if I'd used the time to focus on my real job.

[CountDeMoney]

I used to be able to count cards, but I would always have to start over after 52.  Never helped me win anything.  So overrated.