2016 Postmortem

regnaD kciN

(26,044 posts) Thu Nov 3, 2016, 01:47 AM Nov 2016

BREAKING: Major shift in Princeton Election Consortium numbers…

Using the Bayesian probability model, Sam Wang has just changed Clinton's win probability from 99% to…

…100%!

(Doesn't mean we should ease off in our effort, though!)

21 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

BREAKING: Major shift in Princeton Election Consortium numbers… (Original Post) regnaD kciN Nov 2016 OP

So, it is possible. Cracklin Charlie Nov 2016 #1

yes, if sane people get out and vote Tom Rivers Nov 2016 #2

Wow! triron Nov 2016 #3

hope it don't rain, our people will stay home while the repukes will crawl through broken glass to putitinD Nov 2016 #4

Excellent prediction. Now go out there and make it so. nt Buns_of_Fire Nov 2016 #5

Message auto-removed Name removed Nov 2016 #13

Dont do this night owl MyNameIsKhan Nov 2016 #6

So, you're saying there's a chance? Wounded Bear Nov 2016 #7

Awesome, now the Senate-control numbers need to get there ... n/t moonscape Nov 2016 #8

BREAKING: Major shift in Princeton Election Consortium numbers… LenaBaby61 Nov 2016 #9

When Dr Wang said a few weeks ago that he would eat a bug if Hillary lost... Princess Turandot Nov 2016 #10

lol.. Didn't know that.. pic of dear him in post below.. Cha Nov 2016 #12

Sam Wang.. always liked him.. Cha Nov 2016 #11

As I've often said of statistics... randome Nov 2016 #15

But 90% is more than "might." It is "almost certainly" whereas 10% is "almost certainly not." :-) RBInMaine Nov 2016 #16

Except when the dreaded modern god Outlier strikes! randome Nov 2016 #20

Except good prediction models are weighted and based on aggregates which diminish outliers. RBInMaine Nov 2016 #21

This message was self-deleted by its author MBS Nov 2016 #17

For being a dead heat... Norbert Nov 2016 #18

Dec 1969 #

Cracklin Charlie

(12,904 posts)

1. So, it is possible.

Reply to regnaD kciN (Original post)

Thu Nov 3, 2016, 01:51 AM

Nov 2016

Sounds great to me!

Tom Rivers

(459 posts)

2. yes, if sane people get out and vote

Reply to regnaD kciN (Original post)

Thu Nov 3, 2016, 01:54 AM

Nov 2016

and do not let the gop suppression/depression tricks work! when voters THINK, dems WIN, period, end of story.

triron

(22,003 posts)

3. Wow!

Reply to regnaD kciN (Original post)

Thu Nov 3, 2016, 01:57 AM

Nov 2016

100% bayesian and 98% random drift.
Going tpo bed. Will sleep better.

putitinD

(1,551 posts)

4. hope it don't rain, our people will stay home while the repukes will crawl through broken glass to

Reply to regnaD kciN (Original post)

Thu Nov 3, 2016, 01:58 AM

Nov 2016

cast their vote for the pussy grabber.

Buns_of_Fire

(17,180 posts)

5. Excellent prediction. Now go out there and make it so. nt

Reply to regnaD kciN (Original post)

Thu Nov 3, 2016, 02:04 AM

Nov 2016

Response to Buns_of_Fire (Reply #5)

Name removed Message auto-removed

MyNameIsKhan

(2,205 posts)

6. Dont do this night owl

Reply to regnaD kciN (Original post)

Thu Nov 3, 2016, 02:10 AM

Nov 2016

Wounded Bear

(58,656 posts)

7. So, you're saying there's a chance?

Reply to regnaD kciN (Original post)

Thu Nov 3, 2016, 02:27 AM

Nov 2016

moonscape

(4,673 posts)

8. Awesome, now the Senate-control numbers need to get there ... n/t

Reply to regnaD kciN (Original post)

Thu Nov 3, 2016, 02:47 AM

Nov 2016

LenaBaby61

(6,974 posts)

9. BREAKING: Major shift in Princeton Election Consortium numbers…

Reply to regnaD kciN (Original post)

Thu Nov 3, 2016, 03:39 AM

Nov 2016

STILL work to do between now and next Tuesday, but very interesting and nice to hear.

Sam's been very bullish on Hillary all election cycle long.

Princess Turandot

(4,787 posts)

10. When Dr Wang said a few weeks ago that he would eat a bug if Hillary lost...

Reply to regnaD kciN (Original post)

Thu Nov 3, 2016, 03:47 AM

Nov 2016

I figured that he had already reached 100% in his own mind, based on the statistics.

Cha

(297,240 posts)

12. lol.. Didn't know that.. pic of dear him in post below..

Reply to Princess Turandot (Reply #10)

Thu Nov 3, 2016, 03:54 AM

Nov 2016

Cha

(297,240 posts)

11. Sam Wang.. always liked him..

Reply to regnaD kciN (Original post)

Thu Nov 3, 2016, 03:53 AM

Nov 2016

https://twitter.com/SamWangPhD?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

randome

(34,845 posts)

15. As I've often said of statistics...

Reply to regnaD kciN (Original post)

Thu Nov 3, 2016, 06:37 AM

Nov 2016

[hr][font color="blue"][center]A 90% chance of rain means the same as a 10% chance:
It might rain and it might not.[/center][/font][hr]

RBInMaine

(13,570 posts)

16. But 90% is more than "might." It is "almost certainly" whereas 10% is "almost certainly not." :-)

Reply to randome (Reply #15)

Thu Nov 3, 2016, 06:41 AM

Nov 2016

randome

(34,845 posts)

20. Except when the dreaded modern god Outlier strikes!

Reply to RBInMaine (Reply #16)

Thu Nov 3, 2016, 06:55 AM

Nov 2016

[hr][font color="blue"][center]A 90% chance of rain means the same as a 10% chance:
It might rain and it might not.[/center][/font][hr]

RBInMaine

(13,570 posts)

21. Except good prediction models are weighted and based on aggregates which diminish outliers.

Reply to randome (Reply #20)

Thu Nov 3, 2016, 07:06 AM

Nov 2016

Response to regnaD kciN (Original post)

MBS This message was self-deleted by its author.

Norbert

(6,040 posts)

18. For being a dead heat...

Reply to regnaD kciN (Original post)

Thu Nov 3, 2016, 06:44 AM

Nov 2016

These numbers seem slightly lopsided.

Reply to this discussion