.,.,
Printable View
.,.,
.,./
,,,
Umm no. As an engineer I figured you'd know the difference between "71.4% of the vote" and a 71.4% chance of winning the election. If I roll a dice and say there is an 83.3% chance of rolling a 1,2,3,4 or 5, but I happen to roll a 6, it doesn't mean the original statement was incorrect. He currently shows Mitt with a 99.9% chance of winning, with 59% of the votes. And for the record, many on the left were mocking him because he was giving Trump such good odds, and he wrote several articles in the days before the election, explaining how Trump could very well win. But yeah, if you are making statistically analysis a 0 sum game, then I guess you could say he was wrong. But he did nail 2008 and 2012, only missing 1 state each year.
I agree, very poor wording on my part. Hard to believe I have a degree in mathematics with an emphasis on statics.
Nate gave Crooked Hillary a 71.4% chance of winning. She was slaughtered... Nate wasn't even close.
But my original question is still valid... are the models wrong again?
[emoji631]
I'll give you a mulligan on the stats portion, but I think "slaughtered" is a little overboard considering A) Hillary won the popular vote and B) Trumps victory ranked the 46th (out of 58) largest electoral college victory. Well behind both Clinton wins and both Obama's wins. He did however, beat out both of W's wins. Washington is still the only back to back unanimous winner. Reagan's win in 1984 was before my time, but must have been something. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...College_margin
My unscientific result prediction:
National:
- GOP keeps senate
- Dems take house by 10 seats
Local
- Mia wins
- Amendment 1 passes
- Amendment 2 and 3 fail
- Prop 1 fails
- Prop 2 fails (by 1 vote thanks to Sombeech)
- Prop 3 passes
- Prop 4 passes
- Mitt wins in a landslide and immediately sucks up to Trump and tries to pretend he wasn't the #1 anti-trump guy 18 short months ago. Left or right aside, has there ever been a politician with less actual conviction than Mitt? His positions always 100% line up with the popular position of the moment, and will change as soon as the voters change. A true weasel.
I think Prop 2 will pass. I'll even put money on it. Everyone, and I mean everyone I've spoken to about it says they're gonna vote for it. It has momentum. It'll be close, but it'll pass.
...https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...bdd46659c8.jpg
Climb-Utah.com
Jobs not mobs... looks like it might be a better message than we hate Trump... in two weeks we will know for sure.
GOP surges in key battleground states, blunting Democrats hope for 'blue wave'
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ear...s-of-blue-wave
Herbert has already torpedoed prop 2 by already calling for a special session of the legislature to "deal" with the issue.
https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics...awmakers-hold/
This was parked across from a high school in Lehi, opponents of Prop 2. None of this "metaphor" is true under Prop 2. Its funny their website is thetruthaboutprop2..
Attachment 91003
So this Prop 2 is just medical, not recreational, right? If it passes, I reckon pot will be legal from coast to coast within 5 years.
...https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...0f1a1f4466.jpg
Climb-Utah.com
....https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...90936b65b1.jpg
Climb-Utah.com
I got these from a Russian hacking website... LMAO...
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...5fac73b04b.jpg
Climb-Utah.com