• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Presidential Primaries 2016

Puppycow said:
Early returns point to a very good night for Trump and Clinton. I thought they would win of course, but the margins matter here and they are pretty large.

Although they still haven't called the Democratic race yet, so maybe it's actually closer than it appears?
Click to expand...

According to this site (http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/new-york), Clinton is winning the NY area by nearly 2-to-1, but very little reportage from upstate to date. Given a lot of the delegates on both sides will go to the winner of the Congressional Districts, this could give Sanders a boost. On the Republican side, it looks like Trump is ahead everywhere right now.

ETA: Guess great minds think alike...
 
Puppycow said:
Early returns point to a very good night for Trump and Clinton. I thought they would win of course, but the margins matter here and they are pretty large.

Although they still haven't called the Democratic race yet, so maybe it's actually closer than it appears?
Click to expand...

MSNBC and CNN have called it for Clinton.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Current Betting Odds By Maxim Lott and John Stossel (betfair)

It's funny to see Romney has some long shot odds.
Click to expand...

So currently they have Hillary's odds of getting the nomination at 94.8%, and they increased by 5.9% over the last day. For some reason Trump's odds though actually went down a bit, by 1.7% and Cruz's went up by 1.9%. But that's just the last 24 hours and Trump's odds are still up quite a bit over 4 or 5 days ago.

I'm not entirely sure I buy their arguments for why these are better predictors than the polls though. I think the betting odds just reflect the "conventional wisdom" more or less. Like, if you look at the charts of what the odds were in the past, for many months the bettors favored Rubio to be the Republican nominee, while the polls were showing Trump in the lead. In this case at least the polls seem to have been a better predictor than the betting markets were at that time.
 
d4m10n said:
During the 2012 general election , prediction markets did okay, but they didn't have anything on the hardcore data wonks.

http://rationality.org/2012/11/09/was-nate-silver-the-most-accurate-2012-election-pundit/
Click to expand...

Yeah, and the hardcore data wonks rely on polls mostly. But it seems like both methods tend to converge on the right answer the closer you get to the actual moment of truth. I don't think any method is foolproof when you get several months or earlier before the event.

So when they assess the accuracy, are they only considering the last prediction on the day before election day, or the forecast one month out or three months out or whatever. I'm sure the closer we all get to the conventions or election day, the more accurate we will all be in predicting the results.
 
Puppycow said:
Yeah, and the hardcore data wonks rely on polls mostly. But it seems like both methods tend to converge on the right answer the closer you get to the actual moment of truth. I don't think any method is foolproof when you get several months or earlier before the event.

So when they assess the accuracy, are they only considering the last prediction on the day before election day, or the forecast one month out or three months out or whatever. I'm sure the closer we all get to the conventions or election day, the more accurate we will all be in predicting the results.
Click to expand...

Like Karl Rove.
 
You think voting machines are ok as long as there is a paper trail you can audit? Well, not if the problem sits in front of the computer:

Tara West said:
A group of citizens set out to audit the audit performed by the Chicago Election Board and were horrified by what they saw while watching the audit take place.

The group has since voiced their concerns at the Chicago Election Board meeting on April 5, 2016. One of the “audit auditors” from the citizen group testified in front of the Election Board committee that she witnessed shocking altercations to the hand-counted tallies from voting machines by Chicago Election Board auditors, noting that the auditors were changing final tallies in a bid to ensure the results matched the machine counts even when they were off by a significant margin.

In one particularly concerning instance, the citizen group witnessed an auditor erase 21 Bernie Sanders votes and add 49 Hillary Clinton votes in order to ensure the audit matched the machine’s official count. This, according to the group, is proof that the Chicago Election Board is not performing a true audit, but rather performing a “fake” audit that hides the fact that hand-counted votes were significantly different from the machine counted votes in the Chicago area. [...]
Click to expand...


:nope:
 
Republicans Cruz, Kasich reach 'stop-Trump' deal

Republican White House rivals Ted Cruz and John Kasich announced a deal on Sunday to stay out of each other's way in some upcoming state primaries in hopes of blocking front-runner Donald Trump from winning the party's presidential nomination.

Cruz's campaign said in a statement he would focus on the Indiana and give Kasich a clearer shot in Oregon and New Mexico, states where the Ohio governor expects to do well. Kasich, in turn, agreed to shift resources west and away from Indiana.
Click to expand...
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
They don't say which party the new registrants are choosing. It would be nice to know.
Click to expand...

Last week, I sent an email asking about this to the Elections and Voter Information Division of the CA Secretary of State. I'll let you know if they respond.
 
Last edited:
I missed Sanders' town hall but Clinton is having a killer night. I don't for the life of me understand how people can ignore the incredible competence and experience Clinton has and just judge her on gossip and innuendo. I truly don't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom