Author Topic: Election 2016  (Read 169606 times)

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63786
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Election 2016
« Reply #1025 on: November 07, 2016, 04:59:50 PM »
Larry Sabato's final prediction is Hillary landslide win.

Table 1: Crystal Ball 2016 election projections



THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE

Map 1: Crystal Ball Electoral College projection



THE SENATE

Map 2: Crystal Ball Senate projection


http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/our-final-2016-picks/

Thin Lizzy

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18404
  • It’s all a fraud
Re: Election 2016
« Reply #1026 on: November 07, 2016, 05:28:04 PM »
Awhile ago, I stopped looking at Google News because it was so obviously biased.

Having just briefly gone over the latest batch of Wiki Podesta Emails, I saw one in which Google CEO Eric Schmitt wanted to meet with Podesta. There's also one in which Soros wanted to meet with him.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63786
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Election 2016
« Reply #1027 on: November 07, 2016, 05:38:47 PM »
Awhile ago, I stopped looking at Google News because it was so obviously biased.

Having just briefly gone over the latest batch of Wiki Podesta Emails, I saw one in which Google CEO Eric Schmitt wanted to meet with Podesta. There's also one in which Soros wanted to meet with him.

I don't blame you.  There is an extreme bias infecting the MSM.  The sad part about it is people who only get their news from one source, or don't follow the news closely, don't realize how badly they are being manipulated. 

TheGrinch

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5029
Re: Election 2016
« Reply #1028 on: November 07, 2016, 05:39:29 PM »

Thin Lizzy

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18404
  • It’s all a fraud
Re: Election 2016
« Reply #1029 on: November 07, 2016, 05:49:49 PM »
I don't blame you.  There is an extreme bias infecting the MSM.  The sad part about it is people who only get their news from one source, or don't follow the news closely, don't realize how badly they are being manipulated. 

I remember hearing an interview with a defector from the Old Soviet Union.

He said people there didn't read the Pravda for the news, but for the Party Line. Wikileaks has shown that it's no different, here.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63786
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Election 2016
« Reply #1030 on: November 07, 2016, 05:51:51 PM »
I remember hearing an interview with a defector from the Old Soviet Union.

He said people there didn't read the Pravda for the news, but for the Party Line. Wikileaks has shown that it's no different, here.

Sad but true.   :-\

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63786
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Election 2016
« Reply #1031 on: November 07, 2016, 06:02:53 PM »

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63786
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Election 2016
« Reply #1032 on: November 07, 2016, 06:34:09 PM »
Good summary.  Nobody really knows.  The answer is coming soon.

Why Nobody Has Any Idea What Will Happen Tuesday
Posted on November 7, 2016
by Keith Koffler

Don’t listen to pollsters. Don’t listen to people who can feel what’s happening on the ground. Don’t listen to anybody. If anything, trust your own gut, because you have as much idea as anyone what will happen Tuesday.

As I’ve watched and analyzed this race, I’ve come to the conclusion that there are just too many variables in play this year for anyone to make a serious prediction.

Even in normal years, the lack of foreknowledge can be striking. In 2004, John Kerry was certain, early on Tuesday evening, that he was going to win. In 2012, Mitt Romney was pretty certain of the same thing, also early Tuesday evening. Not Monday. Tuesday.

You know, President John Kerry and President Mitt Romney.

Let’s start with the polls.

I don’t think pollsters have figured out how to conduct surveys in the modern era. The golden days of calling everybody at home on the landline are long gone. Two new variables have been introduced — cell phones and online responses. I don’t think pollsters understand yet how to weigh these factors, which are constantly evolving as people’s habits continually change, and those with the oldest approach to technology die off while young adults who don’t even know what a landline looks like come of age. That’s one reason the polls are literally all over the place, sometimes even 15-20 points apart.

Anyway, even if you believe the polls, they show a very close race with a slight Clinton advantage. But so many big states are tossups, including Florida, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and perhaps Michigan, which leans Clinton, and Ohio, which leans Trump. Beyond that, New Hampshire, Nevada, Colorado, and possibly Iowa, which leans Trump, and New Mexico, which leans Clinton, are tossups. And maybe even a few others.

It’s true, more tossups have to break Trump’s way. But it’s still crazy close. Nate Silver, perhaps the nation’s best political prognosticator, gives Trump and a one in three chance to win.

But these polls mean little for other reasons. First of all, we don’t know how many people are lying when they say they don’t support Trump, particularly those in the undecided column. Lots of people don’t want to admit they back Trump. Clinton, for all her extraordinarily negative features, is generally held as the more socially acceptable choice. You support Trump, and a woman is on the phone asking you who you will vote for. What do you say? Proabably, you say you will support him. But maybe you don’t.

We also have no idea about voter turnout. Clinton and the Democrats no doubt have a well-oiled, superior ground game. But is it as good as Obama’s? I doubt it. A good ground game requires get-out-the-vote volunteers who love their candidate. Nobody loves Hillary except Chelsea and Huma.

How good the GOP ground game will be is anyone’s guess. And, balancing Hillary’s organizational muscle is what seems to be more passion among Trump voters. Will still-furious Sanders voters turn out in the needed numbers for Clinton? Will African Americans?

Nobody knows the answers to these questions. The answers could cause dramatic shifts to the poll numbers we see.

I believe this election could end up deadlocked, with recounts, lawyers, and even civil unrest. Or Clinton could win in a landslide. Or, yes, Trump could win in a landslide.

We simply do not know.

http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2016/11/07/idea-happen-tuesday/

Thin Lizzy

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18404
  • It’s all a fraud
Re: Election 2016
« Reply #1033 on: November 07, 2016, 06:43:50 PM »
Disturbing. 

He's pissing himself at the thought of Trump winning and Rudy Giuliani being named special prosecutor.

He helped funnel money to the wife of the guy who led the email investigation. She received funding for her campaign from a Clinton PAC.

James

  • Guest
Re: Election 2016
« Reply #1034 on: November 08, 2016, 08:00:53 AM »

Yamcha

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 13292
  • Fundie
Re: Election 2016
« Reply #1035 on: November 08, 2016, 08:23:57 AM »
Of course Philly would cause problems

a

Las Vegas

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7423
  • ! Repent or Perish !
Re: Election 2016
« Reply #1036 on: November 08, 2016, 08:25:30 AM »
Google is in the business of meddling.  Real creeps.

Google search results can influence an election

Google long ago went from being a mere directory of the internet to a shaper of online reality, helping determine what we see and how. But what power does Google have over the "real" world – and especially the volatile one of closely contested elections?

Psychologist Robert Epstein has been researching this question and says he is alarmed at what he has discovered. His most recent experiment, the findings of which were released on Monday, found that search engines have the potential to profoundly influence voters without them noticing the impact. Epstein has coined a term for this power: Search Engine Manipulation Effect, with the acronym SEME.

Epstein, former editor-in-chief of Psychology Today and a vocal critic of Google, has not produced evidence that this or any other search engine has intentionally deployed this power. But the new experiment builds on his earlier work by measuring SEME in the concrete setting of India's national election, for which voting concluded on Monday.

With a group of more than 1800 study participants – all undecided voters in India – the research team was able to shift votes by an average of 12.5 per cent to favoured candidates by deliberately altering the rankings in search results, Epstein said. There were also increases in the likelihood of voting and in measurements of trust for the preferred candidates, and there were decreases in the willingness to support rivals. Fewer than 1 of every 100 participants, meanwhile, detected the manipulation in the results.

"It confirms that in a real election, you can really shift voter preferences really dramatically," said Epstein, now a senior research psychologist for the American Institute for Behavioural Research and Technology, a non-profit group based in California, which conducted the study.

Sceptics of Epstein's previous work, which was presented at last year's meeting of the Association of Psychological Science, noted that voters typically have a range of information sources beyond what search engines provide and are swayed by other factors, such as party allegiances, potent issues and ethnic and religious affiliations.
Advertisement

Besides, these sceptics have said, operators of major search engines, including Microsoft and Yahoo, have incentives to avoid even the appearance of manipulating elections given the fierce backlash that would result from discovery.

Google officials, in response to Epstein's latest research, said: "Providing relevant answers has been the cornerstone of Google's approach to search from the very beginning. It would undermine people's trust in our results and company if we were to change course."

Epstein's previous study measured the ability of a fictitious search engine called "Kadoodle" to influence impressions of research subjects in California about candidates in the Australian federal election – something the subjects presumably knew little about.

For the new study, Epstein's team used advertisements to recruit undecided voters for India's national election, encouraging them to sign on to a web portal. After answering some general questions, the subjects were presented with the Kadoodle search engine and encouraged to query information on the major candidates in the election: Rahul Gandhi, Narendra Modi and Arvind Kejriwal.

But Kadoodle was rigged. Each of the subjects was randomly assigned to a group favouring one of the candidates. The top 10 links Kadoodle produced all featured web pages favouring that candidate; favourable links to the other two candidates, meanwhile, fell to the bottom of the search results. After viewing the search results, typically for 10 or 11 minutes, the subjects were queried on their voting preferences.

Among the group shown pro-Gandhi rankings, his support increased by 26.5 per cent. For Kejriwal, the increase was 11.3 per cent, for Modi 9.1 per cent. Each experimental group was the same size, in part to minimise any potential effect on the election itself.

Some outside experts agree that a dominant search engine such as Google does have extraordinary power to alter how people and events are viewed. Fewer are convinced that anyone in a position to deploy this power would do so.

"It could potentially turn an election around," said Panagiotis T. Metaxas, a Wellesley College computer science professor who has studied search engine manipulation. "Humans are very manipulable ... Advertisement is really the science of doing that."

Metaxas has also studied how Google has displayed search results in elections dating back to 2008. He concludes that the company is well aware of the potential for creating bias among voters and works to prevent that by standardising how it displays results, with the most prominent links to candidates' own web pages and entries on Wikipedia.

He also is sceptical of potential government efforts to regulate how search engines present their results, which according to some legal experts enjoy First Amendment protection in the United States – just as a newspaper editor's decision about what to put on the front page would.

Epstein, whose research into this subject started after a run-in with Google in 2012, said even without deliberate manipulation, search engines tend to favour frontrunners by featuring links that are popular, creating a snowball effect that could benefit candidates who initially have only a small edge in popular support. There is evidence that such an effect has favoured Modi in the Indian election, Epstein said.

"Even if you're not doing it deliberately, you are driving votes," he said. "They are running a system that is determining the outcome of elections."

Yamcha

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 13292
  • Fundie
Re: Election 2016
« Reply #1037 on: November 08, 2016, 10:05:39 AM »
Defacing the grave of Susan B. Anthony in the name of Hillary Clinton.

https://www.instagram.com/p/BMjeB75A453/
a

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63786
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63786
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63786
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Election 2016
« Reply #1040 on: November 08, 2016, 10:10:38 AM »
Final prediction by Silver:

Despite what you might think, we haven’t been trying to scare anyone with these updates. The goal of a probabilistic model is not to provide deterministic predictions (“Clinton will win Wisconsin”) but instead to provide an assessment of probabilities and risks. In 2012, the risks to to Obama were lower than was commonly acknowledged, because of the low number of undecided voters and his unusually robust polling in swing states. In 2016, just the opposite is true: There are lots of undecideds, and Clinton’s polling leads are somewhat thin in swing states. Nonetheless, Clinton is probably going to win, and she could win by a big margin.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/final-election-update-theres-a-wide-range-of-outcomes-and-most-of-them-come-up-clinton/?ex_cid=2016-forecast

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63786
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Election 2016
« Reply #1041 on: November 08, 2016, 10:15:45 AM »
Almost every national poll has Hillary ahead, except the LA Times and this one, which was the most accurate poll in 2012:

Trump Holds 2-Point Lead Over Clinton As Election Day Arrives: Final IBD/TIPP Poll Results
JOHN MERLINE

As voters go to the actual polls to cast their ballots in what has been an unprecedented presidential election, Republican Donald Trump held onto a 2-point lead over his Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton — 45% to 43% — in a four-way matchup, according to the final IBD/TIPP presidential tracking poll. Libertarian Gary Johnson captures 8% support from likely voters, while Green Party candidate Jill Stein gets 2%.

. . . .

http://www.investors.com/politics/trump-holds-2-point-lead-over-clinton-as-election-day-arrives-final-ibd-tipp-poll-results/

Yamcha

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 13292
  • Fundie
Re: Election 2016
« Reply #1042 on: November 08, 2016, 10:29:21 AM »
a

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39468
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Election 2016
« Reply #1043 on: November 08, 2016, 10:35:52 AM »
This feels way better than 2008 or 2012.   Go trump. !   

Yamcha

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 13292
  • Fundie
Re: Election 2016
« Reply #1044 on: November 08, 2016, 10:38:30 AM »
a

James

  • Guest
Re: Election 2016
« Reply #1045 on: November 08, 2016, 10:49:40 AM »
WOW! HILLARY SUPPORT CRASHES IN REUTERS LIKELY TURNOUT POLL=> Down 8 Pts. in 4 Days to 36%



Democratic Party presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s support has nosedived in the three days leading up to election day.

Hillary Clinton is down to 35.9 percent of likely voters in the Reuters five day rolling poll.

LOOK AT THIS REUTERS TREND LINE!

HILLARY SUPPORT HAS COLLAPSED – IN FOUR DAYS!


http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/11/wow-hillary-support-crashes-reuters-likely-turnout-poll-36-percent/

Yamcha

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 13292
  • Fundie
Re: Election 2016
« Reply #1046 on: November 08, 2016, 10:51:38 AM »


RCP just turned Florida red...

Shit is going to be so interesting tonight. C'mon New Hampshire.
a

James

  • Guest
Re: Election 2016
« Reply #1047 on: November 08, 2016, 10:53:23 AM »

Thin Lizzy

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18404
  • It’s all a fraud
Re: Election 2016
« Reply #1048 on: November 08, 2016, 10:53:59 AM »


RCP just turned Florida red...

Shit is going to be so interesting tonight. C'mon New Hampshire.

I like the chances in NH. That's Bernie country. Dems, there, hate Hillary. Remember the Primary numbers?

SOMEPARTS

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15877
Re: Election 2016
« Reply #1049 on: November 08, 2016, 10:55:41 AM »
Some really big and respected polls starting to turn. Nobody wants to be wrong now...time to fess up.