I sure hope not, but worth consideration.
This election isn't over yet and I'm not backing off my plan to A) Vote, and B) Personally goad and follow up with at least 2 people I suspect might not bother to vote to make sure they do, even if it means I have to pick them up and we go together. Hillary only of course :p
Don't believe the math because it isn't truthy enough? The linked article explaining the truthiness is talking exclusively about post-convention bounces, not noise, not reversion to the mean, not all the polls, not all the statistics. Play me out, keyboard Nate: With that said, it’s not the massive polling miss that would concern me if I were Clinton. Instead, I’d worry about what might happen if Trump was on a rising trajectory as Nov. 8 approaches, having cut my lead down to 3 or 4 percentage points, and then there was a more modest polling error on the order of what we saw in advance of Brexit, where the final polls were off by about 4 points. Polling errors of that magnitude are considerably more common than 6- or 7-point errors.And the reason why they're baloney has nothing to do with conspiracy theories, partisan weighting, or even Russian hacking. It's all about common sense.
It’s not that the arguments for why the polls could be underrating Trump’s support (e.g. the supposed presence of “shy Trump” voters) are all that strong. There are reasons to think the polls could be underrating Clinton’s support instead of Trump’s, in fact. But polls aren’t always as accurate as they were in the past few presidential elections, and given the large number of undecided voters, they could be off in either direction. A 6- or 7-point polling error is just on the outer fringe of what’s possible based on the historical record in U.S. elections.
Well, you can't expect this guy to "believe" math when he doesn't understand it: The Rasmussen poll had Clinton ahead by seven points on Monday, but Trump took the lead in that poll by Thursday morning by two points, a swing of 128 percent! No, that's a 5 percent and 9 percent swing, respectively. This is the same as when a food gives you a "200% increase" in the odds of you getting some obscure cancer, when the study measured a 0.001% chance in on cohort and 0.003% in the other. It's just wrong, and it's one of the many ways media unintentionally mislead the public--reporters aren't generally well versed in statistics. I'm of a mind with Silver. I think it would be far more likely than not for someone to under report voting for Clinton. To get truthy myself, I think that Trump supporters are macho, and friends of Trump supports feel the need to keep up. When your buddy starts making fun of you for not drinking Miller Lites at the same rate as him, you have an incentive to lie about your beer chugging skills. My guess is that there's a lot of people who are closet Clinton supporters, but who feel the need to keep up appearances. I wouldn't bank on it, however. Actually, that's not true. I gave Clinton 429 electoral votes in our office pool, by far the most of anyone who's playing. It's unlikely she'll get there, but I think the chances are well beyond non-zero. Clinton thus jumped to a 14-point lead over Trump in the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll on Monday, only to see that lead significantly drop to nine points in the same poll just one day later. That's a 36-percent swing in 24 hours.
I'm of a mind that it's fuckin' 24 days to the election and STILL nobody is talking about the elephant in the room.
They fucked us in Michigan by passing some new rules about signature eligibility in ballot drives, which state and federal courts have said was a legal thing to do. Makes sense though, because Michigan is usually like the 48th state to catch up to whatever the national trend is. Heaven forbid we be on the leading edge of anything.
Or people really change their mind after sexual assault revelations. Peter Thiel isn't giving up on Trump yet, however.
Can somebody please explain why Thiel is supporting Trump?
Thiel has it lodged in his head that he's a self-made billionaire who has risen against the odds to the top of the neolibertarian pile through merit and that the closer we can get to Grover Norquist's drowned bathtub government the more his ubermensch ideals will be to fruition. Having read a book about Thiel and a book about Musk, they're both assholes but Thiel is a big asshole.
I can't stand Thiel and that's a really good description of why. Recently watched Best of Enemies, and he strikes me as the type of person who is completely inline with William Buckley and The National Review. Really need to learn more about Buckley and Vidal now.
I have a feeling you might like George Packer's The Great Unwinding. It's a pretty nice set of essays on these United States and the people who make it up. In case you wanted some Jay Z, Oprah, Newt Gingrich and Joe Biden to go with your Peter Thiel.
The more I see in life the more I learn that when you hope for something to be some way, but there are indications it isn't really going to go that way, it is going to go wrong. I keep running into these situations of slightly false information giving hopes where they shouldn't be hope at all. So, hell no, Clinton is winning this election in a relative landslide and the nation will wipe their brow and continue on with their day.