Predictions for the 2016 Election

[Augustus]

From what evidence was your statement here (with which I agreed) derived:

What you called me irrational and ignorant for were the following points:

1. Polls are less accurate than you think
2. Don't be surprised by any results within the margin of error
3. The real MOE is actually larger than the one they state, so don't be surprised by any results within double the stated MOE
4. Polls may be systematically underestimating Trump's vote
5. Trump's chance of winning is significantly higher than most people expect.

What I was wrong about was to think that a trend across polls could make Clinton a slight favourite. From now on I'm going to consider any result within double the MOE as being too close to call as it is noise rather than information.

 

[Nous]

What you called me irrational and ignorant for were the following points:

1. Polls are less accurate than you think
2. Don't be surprised by any results within the margin of error
3. The real MOE is actually larger than the one they state, so don't be surprised by any results within double the stated MOE
4. Polls may be systematically underestimating Trump's vote
5. Trump's chance of winning is significantly higher than most people expect.

What I was wrong about was to think that a trend across polls could make Clinton a slight favourite. From now on I'm going to consider any result within double the MOE as being too close to call as it is noise rather than information.

I don't remember calling you irrational and ignorant.

 

[Augustus]

I don't remember calling you irrational and ignorant.

To the best of my knowledge, your claims are made out of ignorance.

 

[Nous]

To the best of my knowledge, your claims are made out of ignorance.

I don't remember calling you irrational and ignorant.

Hopefully you recognize the difference. You did ignore my several requests for you to support your claim of a double-size margin of error.

 

[ShivaFan]

There is something some of you do not understand.

But I only deal the cards, the dealer deals from the deck face down. Just one person in the employ of many in the casino. The card deck. Holds the funny little stick at the crap table.

Moves the chips around.

But when the card is turned over face up, the ten of spades isn't called the nine of hearts. There is no cheating. Cheaters are shot.

The days of CLINTON BUSH are over.

Up until 11:08 PM Pacific Time Tuesday night, Bill Clinton was the effective head of the Democratic Party. After 11:08 PM, Barack Obama became the effective head of the Democratic Party of the United States of America.

After he leaves office, he ain't going anywhere. It is what it is.

 

[Nous]

I'm still wondering from what evidence you derived this (with which I agreed):

A trend across multiple polls, even within the margin of error, could make one the favourite.

She'll probably win . . .

 

[Acim]

Trump wins the people votes, electorate chooses Clinton.

Was only the exact opposite of this Acim. Nice going. Don't worry, because of the results, you are forgiven.

 

[Augustus]

Hopefully you recognize the difference.

No real difference.

I'm still wondering from what evidence you derived this (with which I agreed):

Do you actually read replies? I've answered this about 3 times already, the last time 2 posts ago.

Ok, once again...

When the polls are within a range of 2x MOE both parties have a reasonable chance of winning. No result within this range should be considered a surprise.

Even though both candidates have a reasonable chance, the candidate in the lead across the board will probably win more times than the trailing candidate will in analogous situations. From this I reasoned that she was a slight favourite, not the practical certainty that you were claiming. As I mentioned in my 1st post, Trump at 5-1 was the better value bet as his chances were being underestimated.

As I mentioned 2 posts ago, I've now realised that even making one candidate a slight favourite in these situations is too much. Given that each election is a unique event, it is unwise to reason from past trends. So from now on I will consider anything within 2x MOE to be too close to call based on polls alone.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

One thing I found anomalous, was that I could swear there were mostly Dem yard signs in the neighborhoods around me last couple of elections. Almost nothing but Trump signs this year- literally 99 to 1 wherever I went- and the county result came out barely a double digit win for Trump. I heard this repeated a couple of times, if pollsters counted the signs, the result was clear.

I almost suspect they really were rigging it, just not quite enough!