He continues the “racism, anti-Semitism, misogyny” bleating, which confirms I made the correct choice. Tired of decades of that BULLSHIT.
Thanks, Nate! David > On Nov 10, 2016, at 7:14 PM, Chris Hahn <[email protected]> wrote: > > Silver is clearly the guy to follow. Interesting analysis. > <> > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Centroids > Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2016 5:27 PM > To: Centroids Discussions <[email protected]> > Subject: [RC] What A Difference 2 Percentage Points Makes > > Nate Silver had gotten lots of flack for giving Trump a 30% chance. > > > > What A Difference 2 Percentage Points Makes > http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-a-difference-2-percentage-points-makes/ > > <http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-a-difference-2-percentage-points-makes/> > (via Instapaper <http://www.instapaper.com/>) > > Here’s the Electoral College map we’re going to end up with, assuming that > every uncalled state goes to the candidate leading in the vote count there as > of 4 p.m. Eastern time on Wednesday. There’s a sea of red for President-elect > Donald Trump > <http://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/2016-election-results-coverage/?ex_cid=extra_banner>. > He earned 306 electoral votes and became the first Republican since 1988 to > win Michigan, Wisconsin or Pennsylvania. > > <http://www.270towin.com/> > More Politics <http://fivethirtyeight.com/politics/> > Just think about all the implications of this: > > The Democrats’ supposed “blue wall” — always a dubious proposition > <http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/there-is-no-blue-wall/> — has crumbled. > Indeed, with Hillary Clinton’s defeat, Democrats may have to rebuild their > party from the ground up. > But the Republican Party is also forever changed > <http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-end-of-a-republican-party/>. The GOP > has learned that there’s a bigger market for populism, and a far smaller one > for movement conservatism > <http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/marco-rubio-never-had-a-base/>, than > many of us imagined. The Party of Reagan has been supplanted by the Party of > Trump. > The divide between cultural “elites” in urban coastal cities and the rest of > the country is greater than ever. Clinton improved on President Obama’s > performance in portions of the country, such as California, Atlanta and the > island of Manhattan. But whereas Obama won Iowa by 10 percentage points in > 2008, Clinton lost it by 10 points. > America hasn’t put its demons — including racism, anti-Semitism and misogyny > — behind it. White people still make up the vast majority of the electorate, > particularly when considering their share of the Electoral College > <http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-trump-could-win-the-white-house-while-losing-the-popular-vote/>, > and their votes usually determine the winner. > One fact that doesn’t fit very well into this narrative is that Clinton leads > in the popular vote count. She should eventually win the popular vote by 1 to > 2 percentage points <http://www.nytimes.com/elections/forecast/president>, > and perhaps somewhere on the order of 1.5 million to 2 million votes, once > remaining mail-in ballots from California and Washington are counted, along > with provisional ballots in other states. > > But ignore that for now — elections, after all, are contested in the > Electoral College. (Hence the name of this website.) So here’s another > question. What would have happened if just 1 out of every 100 voters shifted > from Trump to Clinton? That would have produced a net shift of 2 percentage > points in Clinton’s direction. And instead of the map you see above, we’d > have wound up with this result in the Electoral College instead: > > <http://www.270towin.com/> > Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Florida flip back to Clinton, giving > her a total of 307 electoral votes. And she’d have won the popular vote by 3 > to 4 percentage points, right where the final national polls had the race > <http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/national-polls/> > and in line with Obama’s margin of victory in 2012. If this had happened, the > interpretation of the outcome would have been very different — something like > this, I’d imagine: > > Republicans simply can’t appeal to enough voters to have a credible chance at > the Electoral College. While states like Ohio and Iowa might be slipping away > from Democrats, they’ll be more than made up for by the shift of Arizona, > North Carolina and Florida into the blue column as demographic changes take > hold. Democrats are the coalition of the ascendant. > The United States was more than ready for the first woman president. And they > elected her immediately after the first African-American president. With > further victories for liberals over the past several years on issues ranging > from gay rights to the minimum wage, the arc of progress is unmistakable. > American political institutions are fairly robust. When a candidate like > Trump undermines political norms and violates standards of decency, he’s > punished by the voters. > In light of Trump’s narrow victory, these arguments sound extremely > unconvincing. But they’re exactly what we would have been hearing if just 1 > out of 100 voters had switched from Trump to Clinton. So consider that there > might be at least partial truth in some of these points. > > Likewise, if Clinton had just that small, additional fraction of the vote, > people would be smugly dismissing the arguments in the first set of bullet > points — even though they, too, would have been just 2 percentage points away > from seeming incredibly prescient. > > Interpretation of the polling would also have been very different. If Clinton > had done just 2 points better, pollsters would have called the popular-vote > margin almost on the nose and correctly identified the winner > <http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/> in all states > but North Carolina. > > We’ll have more to say about the polling in the coming days. But to a first > approximation, people are probably giving the polls a little bit too much > blame. National polls will eventually miss the popular vote > <http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-polls-missed-trump-we-asked-pollsters-why/> > by about 2 percentage points, which is right in line with the historical > average > <http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-is-just-a-normal-polling-error-behind-clinton/> > (and, actually, a bit better than national polls did in 2012 > <http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html>). > State polls had considerably more problems, underestimating Clinton’s > complete collapse of support among white voters without college degrees but > also underestimating her support in states that have large Hispanic > populations, such as New Mexico. > > Given how challenging it is to conduct polls nowadays > <http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-state-of-the-polls-2016/>, however, > people shouldn’t have been expecting pinpoint accuracy. The question is how > robust Clinton’s lead was to even a small polling error. Our finding, > consistently, was that it was not very robust > <http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/final-election-update-theres-a-wide-range-of-outcomes-and-most-of-them-come-up-clinton/> > because of the challenges Clinton faced in the Electoral College, especially > in the Midwest > <http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-the-state-of-the-states/>, > and therefore our model gave a much better chance > <http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/presidential-polls-forecast.html#other-forecasts> > to Trump than other forecasts did. > > But that’s not very important. What’s important is that Trump was elected > president. Just remember that the same country that elected Donald J. Trump > is the one that elected Barack Hussein Obama four years ago. In a > winner-take-all system, 2 percentage points can make all the difference in > the world. > > > > Sent from my iPhone > -- > -- > Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism > <http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism> > Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org > <http://radicalcentrism.org/> > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout > <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>. > > -- > -- > Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism > <http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism> > Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org > <http://radicalcentrism.org/> > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout > <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>. -- -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
