[cherdano]

Zelandakh, on 2016-October-18, 07:37, said:

From the link, it seems that HC's numbers in all of the suggested 240 votes are above 85%, while DT's numbers are above 70% in all of the 191 except Alaska, where he is given at 65.3%.

Let me put it this way: the current projection has an average of 192.9 delegates for Trump, and the mode of the distribution seems to be at about 180.

Quote

That Alaska might be in play is evidence that the election is pretty much already over. But if you are providing the link as evidence that only (at most) 20% of voters really matter then I think you have failed.

Fair enough. The voter power index (which, I think, measures the relative likelihood of a single vote in a given state swinging the electoral college) has 16 states with an above average index (above 1.0), and this includes WI, MI, MN, FL, OH, PA, VA, NC.

[Zelandakh]

You genuinely believe there is a 2.7% chance (about 1 time in 37) that Wisconsin will be decided by a single vote at this point? Or Michigan 2.3% (1 in 43). Or Virginia 1.4% (1 time in 71)? If you believe internet statistics like that, I have a lovely bridge for you, going super-cheap!

The other states represent the given 20% (everything between Colorado and Arizona on the "snake" graph line). To be honest, I would be far more likely to believe a 1 vote difference for Alaska (Voter power index 1.2) than any of the 3 blue states in the 240 ECVs you listed.

[helene_t]

Zelandakh, on 2016-October-18, 08:58, said:

You genuinely believe there is a 2.7% chance (about 1 time in 37) that Wisconsin will be decided by a single vote at this point?

I think it should read: 2.7 times bigger chance that a single vote in WI swaps the election than the chance that a single vote in an average state (or something like that) swaps the election.

[barmar]

cherdano, on 2016-October-18, 07:15, said:

They just said that they didn't even consider 3rd party candidates since this is an election between Clinton and Trump. Trust, you wouldn't have liked the result any better if they had bothered to look at Johnson.

"Last Week Tonight" this week did a report on Stein and Johnson. You're quite right, they have no idea how they would put their ideas into practice.

[Winstonm]

Nate Silver's 538 site now shows the Democrats with a 77.4% chance of reclaiming the Senate. I wonder when Republicans will grasp that appeals to only their base - such as the latest John McCain outrageous statement to not allow any votes for Clinton judge appointees -antagonizes the majority of the country.

Sometimes, before progress can be made, the rot must be cut out. Votes matter.

[cherdano]

Zelandakh, on 2016-October-18, 08:58, said:

You genuinely believe there is a 2.7% chance (about 1 time in 37) that Wisconsin will be decided by a single vote at this point? Or Michigan 2.3% (1 in 43). Or Virginia 1.4% (1 time in 71)? If you believe internet statistics like that, I have a lovely bridge for you, going super-cheap!

By "relative likelihood" I meant what Helene describes, not likelihood. (Nate Silver's reputation as a stats guru may be overhyped, but I can promise you he is smart enough to know that switching a single vote in Wisconsin doesn't have a 2.7% chance of flipping the election.)

[onoway]

Yesterday had a long sort of discussion with a woman who was hysterically making all sorts of accusations against HC beginning with a somewhat startling claim she was somehow to blame for Watergate. What it all came down to in the end was that she hadn't booted Bill out after Monica. There was a whole lot of that hostility towards her showing up at the time for that. I think there are still quite a few women, probably with cheating exes, who wanted her to validate their own conviction that a cheater ought always to be punished severely and won't forgive her for not doing so. It's a peculiar thing that most of them would probably call themselves feminists, but all they are really doing is exchanging the tyranny of male opinion for the tyranny of female opinion. Letting down the side..I.e. not to be seen to be punishing the guy, overrides any other information, it simply becomes irrelevant. It was an illuminating conversation for a little while but eventually was like trying to talk to a 2 year old having a tantrum.

[y66]

The white flight of Derek Black Wow!

[Zelandakh]

onoway, on 2016-October-18, 14:31, said:

Yesterday had a long sort of discussion with a woman

This story is a good example of why DT missed a chance by not highlighting her "stand be your man" stance when asked for a positive trait in the second debate. Appealing to the 1950s ideals of your base combined with making your opponent seem impotent, ineffective and non-feminist to your opponent's base is an opportunity that does not come along so often.

[billw55]

onoway, on 2016-October-18, 14:31, said:

Yesterday had a long sort of discussion with a woman who was hysterically making all sorts of accusations against HC beginning with a somewhat startling claim she was somehow to blame for Watergate. What it all came down to in the end was that she hadn't booted Bill out after Monica. There was a whole lot of that hostility towards her showing up at the time for that. I think there are still quite a few women, probably with cheating exes, who wanted her to validate their own conviction that a cheater ought always to be punished severely and won't forgive her for not doing so. It's a peculiar thing that most of them would probably call themselves feminists, but all they are really doing is exchanging the tyranny of male opinion for the tyranny of female opinion. Letting down the side..I.e. not to be seen to be punishing the guy, overrides any other information, it simply becomes irrelevant. It was an illuminating conversation for a little while but eventually was like trying to talk to a 2 year old having a tantrum.

So if HC had left Bill, then this woman would like her just fine. Right? Sure.

[kenberg]

onoway, on 2016-October-18, 14:31, said:

Yesterday had a long sort of discussion with a woman who was hysterically making all sorts of accusations against HC beginning with a somewhat startling claim she was somehow to blame for Watergate. What it all came down to in the end was that she hadn't booted Bill out after Monica. There was a whole lot of that hostility towards her showing up at the time for that. I think there are still quite a few women, probably with cheating exes, who wanted her to validate their own conviction that a cheater ought always to be punished severely and won't forgive her for not doing so. It's a peculiar thing that most of them would probably call themselves feminists, but all they are really doing is exchanging the tyranny of male opinion for the tyranny of female opinion. Letting down the side..I.e. not to be seen to be punishing the guy, overrides any other information, it simply becomes irrelevant. It was an illuminating conversation for a little while but eventually was like trying to talk to a 2 year old having a tantrum.

It has often been noted that Trump has brought in a lot of people who have not been much involved before Just guessing, but she sounds like one of them. It is true that I am more upset by this election campaign than by others, but from what I have seen it is the forty or fifty year olds who have just discovered politics that are the most detached from reality. Of course I might have her wrong.

I wonder of anyone has done a poll: Trump support among those who did not vote in 2012 and Trump support among those who did.

[kenberg]

Time for the Craziest Guess show. What will happen in the debates tonight?

I think that we will hear more about the Supreme Court. Hillary Clinton has already said that she has "a bunch of litmus tests". Presumably having to pass a bunch of litmus tests would discourage any self-respecting potential candidate from applying, but no matter. John McCain says none of them will be considered anyway. Eight Is Enough? Didn't I hear that somewhere? And then 7? 6? .... And Then There Were None? I heard that somewhere too, I think.

[Al_U_Card]

Likely just another round of name-calling and mud-slinging if they both hold true to form. The latest DNC revelations may come into play, certainly as damning as any chauvinist machinations of La Donald.

It rarely gets better because the slippery slope pretty much guarantees a LCD type of approach. And that denominator is so low as to beggar belief. If Anderson Cooper is a mod, perhaps he will bring up the DNC stuff, as he already reported it on CNN.

We live in hellaciously interesting times, don't we?

[kenberg]

Al_U_Card, on 2016-October-19, 16:26, said:

Likely just another round of name-calling and mud-slinging if they both hold true to form. The latest DNC revelations may come into play, certainly as damning as any chauvinist machinations of La Donald.

It rarely gets better because the slippery slope pretty much guarantees a LCD type of approach. And that denominator is so low as to beggar belief. If Anderson Cooper is a mod, perhaps he will bring up the DNC stuff, as he already reported it on CNN.

We live in hellaciously interesting times, don't we?

Is that LCD or LSD? I am desperately trying to think of some reason why I can't make time to watch this. I am usually very pleased to have been born in this country. I think of it as a lucky gift. Right now, I am embarrassed. I don't like that.

[hrothgar]

kenberg, on 2016-October-19, 17:36, said:

Is that LCD or LSD? I am desperately trying to think of some reason why I can't make time to watch this. I am usually very pleased to have been born in this country. I think of it as a lucky gift. Right now, I am embarrassed. I don't like that.

I am sitting in my hotel room in Osaka. Going to watch the first 60 minutes of the debate, then hop the bullet train to Narita for the start of the long trip back to Boston...

[kenberg]

hrothgar, on 2016-October-19, 18:17, said:

I am sitting in my hotel room in Osaka. Going to watch the first 60 minutes of the debate, then hop the bullet train to Narita for the start of the long trip back to Boston...

Sounds good. Bullet train. Osaka. Narika. Got it. "I would love to hear more of the debate, but the train is waiting." Yep, should work.

[hrothgar]

Chris Wallace did a good job tonight

Election pretty much looks over and done.
Wednesday the 9th could be interesting however...

[Zelandakh]

hrothgar, on 2016-October-20, 02:11, said:

Chris Wallace did a good job tonight

Before you praise him too much, might be an idea to look up partial-birth abortion. Putting myths into the questions hardly seems like good practice to me.

As for the election, I think it has been over for some time and this debate will not change anything in that regard. For Fox, this was more about securing a place at the table so they can have the right influence in a contest where it really matters.

[cherdano]

Zelandakh, on 2016-October-20, 03:15, said:

Before you praise him too much, might be an idea to look up partial-birth abortion. Putting myths into the questions hardly seems like good practice to me.

I should say I didn't watch, I only read the transcript.
I thought Wallace was good - he got the candidates to answer questions they should answer, or to justify policy positions they should justify.

I also genuinely believe he tried to be fair. That makes it the more interesting where he slipped and editorialised, presumably without being aware. The debt is a big issue right now. "Partial-birth" abortions. The stimulus "led to" slow growth. "And since this is a question for both of you, secretary Clinton", what about your husband. "Clinton, in your plan, [more government...], more penalties".

It's not easy to climb out of the Fox universe for one night.

[kenberg]

Candidates, all candidates, can be slippery. I thought the moderstor made a decent and somewhat successful effort ot get them to say something.

As to their economic policies and the debt, as I understand it Clinton's "not adding a penny to the debt" refers to not adding a penny to the projected debt as things are headed now. It's not the same thing. But at least it was a coherent statement. Trump's was, basically, "Everything will be great". No, not his exact words there, but nothing specific at all.

On accepting the results of the election, Trump's response was something about corrupt newspapers, the New York Times wrote an article about it, and they don't even care. Incoherent is too mild a characterization. I guess "I'll keep you in suspense" could be called coherent. But put them together and it becomes "I'll not accept the results because the NYT wrote an article and they don't even care".

And so on.

We don't expect much from debates and we don't get much. After some wine, I could watch it without throwing up. I guess that's something. I do think Wallace did a good, not great, job.