2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

ninebeanrows

MadYaker wrote: »

What time will we know the results from Florida?

I think we will know around 2.30am

aloyisious

Comical Travel advisory, just in case..............

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjA9-KC2JnQAhUMLsAKHXJqBrMQFggcMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishcentral.com%2Ftravel%2Fa-guide-on-moving-to-ireland-in-case-donald-trump-is-elected&usg=AFQjCNEyWq1387DjJ8qZ9JgbcdN1phsj9A

Billy86

Not looking God for Trump early on...

Here s where the candidates stand in the additional six states as of 11:45 a.m.:

Colorado (59.8 percent of expected votes observed):
Clinton 46.3 percent
Trump 43.6 percent

Florida (52.4 percent of expected votes observed):
Clinton 48.6 percent
Trump 45.2 percent

Iowa (33.3 percent of expected votes observed):
Clinton 48.5 percent
Trump 43.5 percent

Nevada (46.2 percent of expected votes observed):
Clinton 46.7 percent
Trump 45.2 percent

Ohio (22.7 percent of expected votes observed):
Clinton 47.9 percent
Trump 43.9 percent

Wisconsin (24.7 percent of expected votes observed):
Clinton 52.7 percent
Trump 40.3 percent

InTheTrees

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

It's why it's difficult to believe he has no hope.
Rallies have 20k plus people compared to Clintons 300 .
She needs to hold a free concert and even then can't top a Trump rally.
I guess popular vote will be Trumps but Clinton will win with a lot less actual votes.

It's not difficult to believe at all.

The trump campaign constantly exaggerates.

Christy42

Billy86 wrote: »

Not looking God for Trump early on...

What are these? Exit polls? voter affiliations?

Also pink as I want to follow them as they get updated.

Billy86

Christy42 wrote: »

Billy86 wrote: »

Not looking God for Trump early on...

What are these? Exit polls? voter affiliations?

Also pink as I want to follow them as they get updated.

Sorry, thought I had linked them! http://www.politico.com/live-blog-updates/2016/11/2016-election-results-exit-polls-and-analysis-000013

InTheTrees

Billy86 wrote: »

Not looking God for Trump early on...

]

Where did you get those numbers? Are they early voting numbers or exit polls from today?

The reason I ask is that exit poll numbers won't be reported here in the us until after the last polls close but presumably the same moratorium doesn't apply in Europe?

InTheTrees

Billy86 wrote: »

Sorry, thought I had linked them! http://www.politico.com/live-blog-updates/2016/11/2016-election-results-exit-polls-and-analysis-000013

Seems unusual for them to be reporting exit polls.

Good numbers though. I'm happy. I hope the trend continues.

Zubeneschamali

For the really OCD out there, live updates on battleground states:

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

Right now, Clinton winning Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, Ohio and Wisconsin, Trump winning Pennsylvania.

Bloody Sylvanians.

TheDoctor

Do they count early votes before today?

Wondering will it mean results earlier tonight if such a large portion did vote early.

TheDoctor

The 538 final prediction if not already posted here

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/final-election-update-theres-a-wide-range-of-outcomes-and-most-of-them-come-up-clinton/

InTheTrees

TheDoctor wrote: »

Do they count early votes before today?

Wondering will it mean results earlier tonight if such a large portion did vote early.

Here in Washington It's mail in voting only, there's no polling places. Also the same in Oregon.

I'm not sure when they release a final count. After the morning post arrives and gets counted?

Black Swan

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

It is the state-by-state electoral college numbers that tell which prediction is better.

My earlier post(s) were admittedly relaxed, descriptive, and not inferential consistent with the spirit and intent of this discussion forum. If someone wanted to know state-by-state if forecasts by comparative organisations were better or worse, a simple intuitive eyeballing, tabling, graphing, or elementary arithmetic computation perhaps with percentages may fail to suggest with any rigour if they were better or worse, given the limitations and problematic nature of such intuitive or elementary approaches; e.g., random variability, different types of error, confidence levels, etc., would not be accounted for and could lead to completely spurious conclusions (see Darrell Huff in "How to Lie with Statistics" for a fun read).

Someone may elect to use a bit higher level of analysis to see if there might be statistical differences between comparative state-by-state forecasts, perhaps using a nominal win/loss by organisation forecast chi square matrix at the p<.05 level of significance? Or perhaps raising the analysis a step higher to the ordinal level by taking into account the light to dark blue, red, and grey colours of the states appearing in the 50 state forecast maps by organisation and subjecting it to an ordinal test of significant differences? Of course, both nominal and ordinal data treatments would be nonparametric and subject to the appropriate cautions when interpreting the results. At first blush it's doubtful that we could raise this comparative analysis to the parametric level acknowledging the varying degrees of subjective opinion evident between different organisations and their state-by-state colour assignments (but after a bit of needed sleep, I might think of creative ways to accomplish this).

In concluding, yes, I know that my earlier comments were relaxed and descriptive and not inferential, but who wants to go into such analytic detail when commenting on this election? Then again, if you are having trouble getting enough sleep, my above statistical rambling may be helpful? And if you are really in need of sleeping help, you are encouraged to visit and post in our Sleeping & Dreaming forum. This makes me YAWN just thinking about it.

**Apologies Zubeneschamali. I'm wired by tired after a work all-nigher, and way too much java!** :eek:

Sofa Spud

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

For the really OCD out there, live updates on battleground states:

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

Right now, Clinton winning Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, Ohio and Wisconsin, Trump winning Pennsylvania.

Bloody Sylvanians.

Interesting site but needs a pinch of salt - PA is not an early voting state, so their numbers are based on less than 5% of the vote being observed and they have a huge difference between rural and city votes -rural is almost all republican and cities are more even with a slight edge to the Dems. Florida is interesting, as they have over 50% observed and a 3 point lead for Clinton, which could be credible. 4pt lead for Clinton in Ohio feels very high - another state with a huge differences between rural and urban.

Part of me just wants to switch off until about 4am.

Overheal

Speaking of switching off 9 states have referenda on the ballot for marijuana. https://www.google.com/amp/m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5820c74ce4b0e80b02cba484/amp?client=safari

Sofa Spud

Overheal wrote: »

Speaking of switching off 9 states have referenda on the ballot for marijuana. https://www.google.com/amp/m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5820c74ce4b0e80b02cba484/amp?client=safari

That's an interesting one - would wonder what's the tipping point of states that have passed it before it drives federal legislation....

Black Swan

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

For the really OCD out there, live updates on battleground states:

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

Right now, Clinton winning Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, Ohio and Wisconsin, Trump winning Pennsylvania.

Bloody Sylvanians.

It's way, way too early in the state-by-state elections to even think about calling any of them, with the possible exception of Colorado, where early voting in 2014 mid-term and 2016 presidential were/are norms; i.e. Pennsylvania is not an early voting state, and Philly with the largest urban city population in the state is typically late in making its contribution.

Sofa Spud wrote: »

Interesting site but needs a pinch of salt - PA is not an early voting state

Indeed!

Sofa Spud wrote: »

Part of me just wants to switch off until about 4am.

This would be a very smart move indeed given the nature of US presidential elections.

Sofa Spud

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

OK, interesting, they just updated their totals and Florida is now 49-45% for Clinton and 75% of the vote observed - that's potentially big, or yuge, take your pick.

Ohio still has Clinton ahead, by one point, with 60% observed - would not have expected that.

Also, with 46% of PA observed, Hillary has a 4pt lead - again, would not have expected that - 20% ahead in Pittsburgh, which you would expect to be closer if Trump was winning the white working class.

Still, my spidey senses says it's still way too early to be taking any of this seriously, but it's interesting to see how it pans out...

K-9

Sofa Spud wrote: »

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

OK, interesting, they just updated their totals and Florida is now 49-45% for Clinton and 75% of the vote observed - that's potentially big, or yuge, take your pick.

Ohio still has Clinton ahead, by one point, with 60% observed - would not have expected that.

Also, with 46% of PA observed, Hillary has a 4pt lead - again, would not have expected that - 20% ahead in Pittsburgh, which you would expect to be closer if Trump was winning the white working class.

Still, my spidey senses says it's still way too early to be taking any of this seriously, but it's interesting to see how it pans out...

Looking at Nate's final call on the election he rightly pointed out polls underestimated Obama's vote last time out. I kind of assume any differences in the polls will go Trump's way but it is just as likely it could go Clinton's.

gosplan

Sofa Spud wrote: »

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

OK, interesting, they just updated their totals and Florida is now 49-45% for Clinton and 75% of the vote observed - that's potentially big, or yuge, take your pick.

Ohio still has Clinton ahead, by one point, with 60% observed - would not have expected that.

Also, with 46% of PA observed, Hillary has a 4pt lead - again, would not have expected that - 20% ahead in Pittsburgh, which you would expect to be closer if Trump was winning the white working class.

Still, my spidey senses says it's still way too early to be taking any of this seriously, but it's interesting to see how it pans out...

I think the fact that they pretty much ALL need to be wrong for Trump to get in is huge.

If not all, then maybe 6/8.

Something seriously wrong with the model if 3/4 of those states flip at this stage.

Sofa Spud

gosplan wrote: »

I think the fact that they pretty much ALL need to be wrong for Trump to get in is huge.

If not all, then maybe 6/8.

Something seriously wrong with the model if 3/4 of those states flip at this stage.

Agreed, but it really is way too early - you could have a situation where even at 90% observed it could still swing the opposite way, depending on the precincts, especially as a lot of the swing states have sizeable variances between rural and urban voters.

It's fun to keep us occupied until after midnight, but it really is coated in a lot of salt. You would hope that PA and NH are safe, but for Ohio to come into play is significant - it went for Obama both times but has been trending Trump for quite a while.

K-9

Ohio has been consistently Trump though. Pennsylvania could be key, he takes that and he's in with a real chance.

TheDoctor

All about Florida, lose that and it's done

InTheTrees

Everyone's been talking about the "secret" trump voters. I think there's going to be a sizable turnout of "secret" Hillary voters.

Sofa Spud

K-9 wrote: »

Ohio has been consistently Trump though. Pennsylvania could be key, he takes that and he's in with a real chance.

They've just updated again - the maps and the percentage of voters has been removed, showing just the vote totals now, but she's leading in every state, and significantly so in Florida. Really surprised about Ohio - it's a slender lead - but if she won that and held everything else, then it's a very clear margin of victory.

But, again, it's too early yada yada blah blah blah....

PopePalpatine

InTheTrees wrote: »

Everyone's been talking about the "secret" trump voters. I think there's going to be a sizable turnout of "secret" Hillary voters.

I've been wondering that myself for the past couple of days. Perhaps there's legions of silent Clinton voters married to anything-but-silent Trump voters out there, who are unwilling to come out about supporting her?

Rjd2

InTheTrees wrote: »

Everyone's been talking about the "secret" trump voters. I think there's going to be a sizable turnout of "secret" Hillary voters.

Well Trump has done wonders for the Hispanic turnout this year to be fair on him.:)

He definitely will have first time voters, but it will be somewhat offset by those who may have decided to stay at home if the republicans had fielded a generic candidate coming out to vote for Clinton.

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I've been wondering that myself for the past couple of days. Perhaps there's legions of silent Clinton voters married to anything-but-silent Trump voters out there, who are unwilling to come out about supporting her?

You could be right, you recall Sanders v Clinton? You look at the rallies and how vocal and passionate the Sanders fans were compared to supposedly Clinton?

Well when it was all said and done Bern got trashed, it will be similar for Donald.

I don't like HC, but people underestimate how popular she is.

Sofa Spud

Sky just reported that Trump called into Fox, complaining of widespread voter fraud across the country - guy has no shame...

PopePalpatine

I recall Sanders winning Michigan too despite all the polls projecting a Hillary win, I still have a doubt in the back of my mind that Trump could pull off a win there.

Timberrrrrrrr

Sofa Spud wrote: »

Sky just reported that Trump called into Fox, complaining of widespread voter fraud across the country - guy has no shame...

He was always going to say this, he knows he can't win but being the egomaniac that he is he will only accept "fraud" as his reason for losing.

Stheno

Apparently his lawyer is already in court in nevada trying to have votes from one polling station thrown out


http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-11-08/trump-seeks-court-order-against-county-registrar-in-nevada

Itssoeasy

Sofa Spud wrote: »

Sky just reported that Trump called into Fox, complaining of widespread voter fraud across the country - guy has no shame...

Well fox seem to be having Donald and his family on for a few hours.

Nody

Stheno wrote: »

Apparently his lawyer is already in court in nevada trying to have votes from one polling station thrown out

Already thrown out; basically he complained that one voting station was open for 2h after the announced closing time. However the Nevada voting law requires any station to remain open after closing time to allow everyone who was in the queue at the time of planned closure to cast their vote which was what happened. Article here.

Itssoeasy

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I recall Sanders winning Michigan too despite all the polls projecting a Hillary win, I still have a doubt in the back of my mind that Trump could pull off a win there.

yeah I'm the same. I mean a few weeks ago no I felt that Clinton would win easily but like you I have this doubt for whatever reason that I can't shake.

Sofa Spud

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I recall Sanders winning Michigan too despite all the polls projecting a Hillary win, I still have a doubt in the back of my mind that Trump could pull off a win there.

The one thing to consider with that result - the polls were so pro-Hillary in the run-up, with Saint Nate giving her 99% chance to win the day before, so a lot of Clinton voters decided not to go out in nasty weather to vote and Bernie's highly motivated voters did. Now we're seeing a lot of voters, especially the Latino vote, energised to vote against Trump, and that could be the deciding factor...

cnocbui

Itssoeasy wrote: »

yeah I'm the same. I mean a few weeks ago no I felt that Clinton would win easily but like you I have this doubt for whatever reason that I can't shake.

They voted for Bush twice!, so Trump isn't a stretch at all, unfortunately.

Overheal

Stheno wrote: »

Apparently his lawyer is already in court in nevada trying to have votes from one polling station thrown out


http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-11-08/trump-seeks-court-order-against-county-registrar-in-nevada

Judge smacked him down

aloyisious

Nody wrote: »

Already thrown out; basically he complained that one voting station was open for 2h after the announced closing time. However the Nevada voting law requires any station to remain open after closing time to allow everyone who was in the queue at the time of planned closure to cast their vote which was what happened. Article here.

That might be the same hearing where the judge threw out an application by the Trump campaign for details of the polling station staff. She denied it as well, saying she wasn't going to allow people to troll the staff by twitter.

gitzy16v

https://twitter.com/lordaedonis/status/79601607423...

im sure its an innocent explantion,surely it be easier to change the vote after.

its from another forum...not sure if link works

Ronin247

Paddy Power has Trump 4/1 with Hillary 1/6 . I usually find when there is that much difference in bookmakers odds that they are fairly sure on the issue.


I will be so glad to see the back of Trump.

paulie21

Sky seem to be tipping Trump taking Florida, Ohio & N Carolina

price690

Ronin247 wrote: »

Paddy Power has Trump 4/1 with Hillary 1/6 . I usually find when there is that much difference in bookmakers odds that they are fairly sure on the issue.


I will be so glad to see the back of Trump.

Wasn't the stay campaign for Brexit similarly odds on aswell when polls closed?

RobertKK

So change is the biggest factor for choosing their candidate at 38%


Another poll had a majority who want a strong leader.

blackcard

paulie21 wrote: »

Sky seem to be tipping Trump taking Florida, Ohio & N Carolina

In the RealClear Politics Poll of Polls, he is ahead in all three states, albeit narrowly in Florida. He really only needs to turn a 0.6% deficit in New Hampshire and he could be president. He has other options in Pennsylvenia, Michigan and Colorado. Clinton is still favourite but it is not over yet.

Itssoeasy

Cuyahoga County in Ohio has been mentioned in on CNN. That's the same county in Ohio that Karl rove lost it on Fox News in 2012.

captbarnacles

Trump out a point and half in betting since this morning

captbarnacles

nm nearly 2 points nows

RobertKK

CNN exit poll says racial turnout is similar to 4 years ago.

Latino vote up 1%

captbarnacles

woah what just happened? trump went from 7 to 8's in 30 secs

BorneTobyWilde

He really can't .
Even if he could they would not allow it.