Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Buzz Clik
Buzz Clik's Journal
Buzz Clik's Journal
November 17, 2016
"Now who's smart?"
===============
NOTE: this was the only copy I could find online. I'd been thinking about this skit and it's relevance today. Steve Martin, Gilda Radner, Bill Murray... but I don't agree with the superimposed text: "How the one percent rise to power." It's true for some of the one percenters, but not all. My point in posting this is the incredible entitlement our knuckledragging friends on the right are feeling right now, their empowerment to embrace the xenophobia of their new man crush, and their overwhelming but undeserved smugness in declaring, "Now who's smart?" Stupid people rarely know that they are stupid.
Knuckledraggers rise to the top.
"Now who's smart?"
===============
NOTE: this was the only copy I could find online. I'd been thinking about this skit and it's relevance today. Steve Martin, Gilda Radner, Bill Murray... but I don't agree with the superimposed text: "How the one percent rise to power." It's true for some of the one percenters, but not all. My point in posting this is the incredible entitlement our knuckledragging friends on the right are feeling right now, their empowerment to embrace the xenophobia of their new man crush, and their overwhelming but undeserved smugness in declaring, "Now who's smart?" Stupid people rarely know that they are stupid.
November 8, 2016
I wanted to give this thread a big thumbs up!
FOR TONIGHT: Please, please refrain from posting a new thread for every idle thought
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2603976
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2603976
November 5, 2016
It's been interesting to watch 538's national trend as it hacks into into Hillary's lead every day:
But, we all know that the national poll is meaningless -- it's ONLY the state polls that matter. So, 538's article was disturbing.
As it happens, I decided to kill thirty minutes of my lunch hour yesterday, and I loaded all 538's "predicted margin of victory" data into a spreadsheet (current as of noon Friday EDT). I do this to let me push the numbers around and draw my own conclusions. So, being very familiar with their numbers, I found it quite curious to see all the hand wringing in this morning's article. So. I went back to the spreadsheet and entered all of today's numbers from 538 (as of 3 pm EDT). It was remarkable that, with only 6 exceptions, 538's predictions for every single state ticked toward Trump by at least 0.2% and as much as 2.5%, with an average of about 1%. This makes no sense. Polling data doesn't move like that in 24 hours with absolutely nothing else going on. This swing, by the way, was indeed ground shaking for Clinton. Her "solid" electoral votes (using this 538 data set) dropped by about 10; Florida and Nevada swung from virtual ties into the Trump column.
The only way this trend in 538's predictions could make sense would be if new polling data showed an across-the-board swing toward Trump. So, I checked the polls, and the only new data were from Survey Monkey, who released data for just about every state. There was movement both ways, but Florida and New Hampshire were most interesting. Florida, which 538 had in 24 hours swung from 0.2 for Clinton to 0.2 for Trump, showed no change in Survey Monkey, who continue to show HRC with a 2% lead. Only one poll in Florida during the last week has favored Trump (Remington), while the other seven polls favor Clinton. New Hampshire, according to 538, dropped from a 3% HRC lead to less than 2% overnight, whereas the only new poll (Survey Monkey) gives HRC a 10 point lead.
538 also brought up Michigan as an example of concern: they ticked their projection from 4.2% victory for Clinton to 3.8%. The new Survey Monkey poll was unchanged and a new PPP poll gives MI to HRC by 5%.
I am not buying into 538's pronouncement of a tightening race. It's stable. Clinton's lead is comfortable. If you take the straight polling numbers from pollster.com and add up the electoral votes, you get this:
Electoral votes in states with a lead significantly greater than margin of error:
HRC: 268, Trump 164
Add in those states at the margin of error:
HRC: 301, Trump 170
About the latest angst from 538...
fivethirtyeight.com came out with this late yesterday:
But those state polls? Not a lot of good news for Clinton. There’s more data showing a tied race in New Hampshire. And Clinton’s lead in Pennsylvania is down to about 3 percentage points in our forecast. Polls in Michigan have also been tightening, with an unusually large number of undecided voters. Polling in New Mexico has been tight enough that we’re now considering it a “state to watch,” although that may reflect an abundance of caution. Clinton’s numbers have held up better in Wisconsin and Virginia, while the data has been very mixed in Colorado.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-national-polls-show-clintons-lead-stabilizing-state-polls-not-so-much/
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-national-polls-show-clintons-lead-stabilizing-state-polls-not-so-much/
It's been interesting to watch 538's national trend as it hacks into into Hillary's lead every day:
But, we all know that the national poll is meaningless -- it's ONLY the state polls that matter. So, 538's article was disturbing.
As it happens, I decided to kill thirty minutes of my lunch hour yesterday, and I loaded all 538's "predicted margin of victory" data into a spreadsheet (current as of noon Friday EDT). I do this to let me push the numbers around and draw my own conclusions. So, being very familiar with their numbers, I found it quite curious to see all the hand wringing in this morning's article. So. I went back to the spreadsheet and entered all of today's numbers from 538 (as of 3 pm EDT). It was remarkable that, with only 6 exceptions, 538's predictions for every single state ticked toward Trump by at least 0.2% and as much as 2.5%, with an average of about 1%. This makes no sense. Polling data doesn't move like that in 24 hours with absolutely nothing else going on. This swing, by the way, was indeed ground shaking for Clinton. Her "solid" electoral votes (using this 538 data set) dropped by about 10; Florida and Nevada swung from virtual ties into the Trump column.
The only way this trend in 538's predictions could make sense would be if new polling data showed an across-the-board swing toward Trump. So, I checked the polls, and the only new data were from Survey Monkey, who released data for just about every state. There was movement both ways, but Florida and New Hampshire were most interesting. Florida, which 538 had in 24 hours swung from 0.2 for Clinton to 0.2 for Trump, showed no change in Survey Monkey, who continue to show HRC with a 2% lead. Only one poll in Florida during the last week has favored Trump (Remington), while the other seven polls favor Clinton. New Hampshire, according to 538, dropped from a 3% HRC lead to less than 2% overnight, whereas the only new poll (Survey Monkey) gives HRC a 10 point lead.
538 also brought up Michigan as an example of concern: they ticked their projection from 4.2% victory for Clinton to 3.8%. The new Survey Monkey poll was unchanged and a new PPP poll gives MI to HRC by 5%.
I am not buying into 538's pronouncement of a tightening race. It's stable. Clinton's lead is comfortable. If you take the straight polling numbers from pollster.com and add up the electoral votes, you get this:
Electoral votes in states with a lead significantly greater than margin of error:
HRC: 268, Trump 164
Add in those states at the margin of error:
HRC: 301, Trump 170
Profile Information
Member since: Mon Dec 22, 2003, 11:13 AMNumber of posts: 38,437
