Octopus Overlords

I just read this:

CNN wrote:Donald Trump's campaign manager Kellyanne Conway complained Wednesday his remarks about how Hillary Clinton "has to go to jail" are being taken "literally."

That was followed immediately with:

Earlier Wednesday, Trump had said Clinton "has to go to jail" over her use of a private email server

How does one take that figuratively? I can only imagine the self-loathing that is required to go on TV and try to defend this stupidity.

Defiant wrote:
There have been other polls that have shown the same kind of thing - that enthusiasm among Clinton supporters is higher than Trump supporters.

Well, I hope you (and the polls) are right. I thought the whole point of this tangent was that they might be off, so citing more of them is circular reasoning. Mostly, I just can't fathom anyone being enthusiastic about Hillary Clinton.

I'll believe the polls Nov. 9. There's still the possibility of a Brexit (or Tom Bradley)-like finish.

Kraken wrote: Well, I hope you (and the polls) are right. I thought the whole point of this tangent was that they might be off, so citing more of them is circular reasoning.

Well, sure, if we ignore the polls, anything might happen. Just keep in mind, if the bulk of the polls are wrong - and that's a possible, but very unlikely possibility - they're just as likely to be wrong in Trump's favor as they are in Clinton's favor.

tgb wrote:I'll believe the polls Nov. 9. There's still the possibility of a Brexit (or Tom Bradley)-like finish.

If our election was based on a popular vote like the Brexit referendum, I would share your concern. I never thought I would say this, but thank God for the electoral college.

tgb wrote:I'll believe the polls Nov. 9. There's still the possibility of a Brexit (or Tom Bradley)-like finish.

The Brexit polls were still showing a tight finish, and many were still within the margin of error. It's considered shocking in that the majority of the polls were showing a victory for Remainers, but it was WAY closer than this race is showing.

The main reason for the Brexit switcheroo was that young voters didn't show up at the polls. I'd hope that in this country, by now, pollsters realize that young voters never show up and take that into consideration.

Carpet_pissr wrote:

tgb wrote:I'll believe the polls Nov. 9. There's still the possibility of a Brexit (or Tom Bradley)-like finish.

If our election was based on a popular vote like the Brexit referendum, I would share your concern. I never thought I would say this, but thank God for the electoral college.

The Electoral College would be very unlikely to save us from President Trump. When the popular vote gets close, by and large so does the vote in the swing states. In fact, the main areas where Clinton is doing disproportionately well is in red areas (e.g., Texas, Georgia, etc.) where she's still likely to lose. As a result, as indicated in 538's models, Trump is more likely to win the electoral college while losing the popular vote, and vice versa.

YellowKing wrote:

tgb wrote:I'll believe the polls Nov. 9. There's still the possibility of a Brexit (or Tom Bradley)-like finish.

The Brexit polls were still showing a tight finish, and many were still within the margin of error. It's considered shocking in that the majority of the polls were showing a victory for Remainers, but it was WAY closer than this race is showing.

The main reason for the Brexit switcheroo was that young voters didn't show up at the polls. I'd hope that in this country, by now, pollsters realize that young voters never show up and take that into consideration.

Yup - as things stand now (with Clinton ahead by 7ish points on average, with that being mostly before Trump's bad third debate and bad following week), the polls would need to be off by a historic never-before level amount. That's *possible*, but super unlikely. Trump at this point basically needs probably two big anti-Clinton October Surprises *and* a big polling miss to have a chance.

As I think others have said, there are several reasons to think that Clinton will have a turnout advantage - she's stronger among people who traditionally vote than Trump, she has a much stronger ground game, and Trump has been telling his supporters that the vote will be rigged (so what's the point). I guess in terms of turnout I'm mostly worried about voter suppression.

But isn't voter suppression mostly in the states controlled by bigots that will vote for Drumpf anyway? Though I suppose it could have an effect on Congress,

Jaymann wrote:But isn't voter suppression mostly in the states controlled by bigots that will vote for Drumpf anyway? Though I suppose it could have an effect on Congress,

Nope. Voter ID laws were passed (and mostly struck down) in North Carolina and Pennsylvania, among others. Both are swing states (Pennsylvania less so this time). But Pennsylvania is also where Trump has been telling people at rallies to "monitor" the voting stations...

El Guapo wrote:

Carpet_pissr wrote:

tgb wrote:I'll believe the polls Nov. 9. There's still the possibility of a Brexit (or Tom Bradley)-like finish.

If our election was based on a popular vote like the Brexit referendum, I would share your concern. I never thought I would say this, but thank God for the electoral college.

The Electoral College would be very unlikely to save us from President Trump. When the popular vote gets close, by and large so does the vote in the swing states. In fact, the main areas where Clinton is doing disproportionately well is in red areas (e.g., Texas, Georgia, etc.) where she's still likely to lose. As a result, as indicated in 538's models, Trump is more likely to win the electoral college while losing the popular vote, and vice versa.

Unless I am reading something wrong, 538 shows an insurmountable lead in the EC poll votes (and polls plus forecast), compared to a rather tight race in the popular vote (if I am reading that wrong, please someone call me out and explain). Also, considering the controversial nature of Trump, I would expect this to be a year where more votes in the EC might choose to stray from the popular vote compared to historical norms.

Carpet_pissr wrote: Unless I am reading something wrong, 538 shows an insurmountable lead in the EC poll votes (and polls plus forecast), compared to a rather tight race in the popular vote (if I am reading that wrong, please someone call me out and explain).

Right now, Clinton is leading by about six or seven polls, but if you look at the close swing states (NV, AZ, IA, FL, OH, NC, ME-2) she's winning by one to three points. If her lead shrunk by 4 points, and that was consistent everywhere, she'd be losing those state (or, if her lead shrunk by 2-3 points, but mostly occurred in the swing states). She'd still have a 2-3 point lead, and she'd have the barest win in the electoral college, but if she lost one more state anywhere, she'd lose that.

Carpet_pissr wrote:

El Guapo wrote:

Carpet_pissr wrote:

tgb wrote:I'll believe the polls Nov. 9. There's still the possibility of a Brexit (or Tom Bradley)-like finish.

If our election was based on a popular vote like the Brexit referendum, I would share your concern. I never thought I would say this, but thank God for the electoral college.

The Electoral College would be very unlikely to save us from President Trump. When the popular vote gets close, by and large so does the vote in the swing states. In fact, the main areas where Clinton is doing disproportionately well is in red areas (e.g., Texas, Georgia, etc.) where she's still likely to lose. As a result, as indicated in 538's models, Trump is more likely to win the electoral college while losing the popular vote, and vice versa.

Unless I am reading something wrong, 538 shows an insurmountable lead in the EC poll votes (and polls plus forecast), compared to a rather tight race in the popular vote (if I am reading that wrong, please someone call me out and explain). Also, considering the controversial nature of Trump, I would expect this to be a year where more votes in the EC might choose to stray from the popular vote compared to historical norms.

538 shows about a 7 point Clinton lead (on average). That *is* a pretty insurmountable lead with so little time left (though not completely insurmountable). But the point is that if that vote lead evaporates, so will her electoral college lead. That's what happened when Clinton's post-convention lead fell apart in September - as her national polling lead disappeared she fell behind in Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Nevada, etc., and her "firewall states" (PA, CO) were getting close when her lead was down to a point or two. Because of course the national polling average is going to have a link to various state polling averages.

And no, disloyal electoral college electors definitely would not save us from Trump. First, in general state law requires electoral college electors to vote however their state voted. Secondly, in a situation where Trump won enough electoral votes to be President through the popular vote, what do you think would happen if a few electors switched their votes to give the election to Clinton?

Carpet_pissr wrote:

El Guapo wrote:The Electoral College would be very unlikely to save us from President Trump. When the popular vote gets close, by and large so does the vote in the swing states. In fact, the main areas where Clinton is doing disproportionately well is in red areas (e.g., Texas, Georgia, etc.) where she's still likely to lose. As a result, as indicated in 538's models, Trump is more likely to win the electoral college while losing the popular vote, and vice versa.

Unless I am reading something wrong, 538 shows an insurmountable lead in the EC poll votes (and polls plus forecast), compared to a rather tight race in the popular vote (if I am reading that wrong, please someone call me out and explain). Also, considering the controversial nature of Trump, I would expect this to be a year where more votes in the EC might choose to stray from the popular vote compared to historical norms.

From 538's polls-plus forecast:

Clinton wins popular vote but loses Electoral College -- 5.3%
Trump wins popular vote but loses Electoral College -- 0.6%

I predict that Trump winning the popular vote, but losing the electoral college will result in widespread gnashing of teeth. It may also result in a lot demands for abolishing the electoral college, as well as a large majority of our populace believing that Trump should have won, and thus we have an illegitimate government.

In other words, business as usual.

Someone should totally start a rumor that Clinton was born in Belize or something. We need 4 (or 8) more years of birth certificate denial.

El Guapo wrote: And no, disloyal electoral college electors definitely would not save us from Trump. First, in general state law requires electoral college electors to vote however their state voted.

Only about half of state laws require this (remember, there were faithless electors as recently as 2000, when one of the Democratic electors swapped the P and VP slots) and in some states it's only a fine (it would be really easy to get one side or the other to pay the fines for the elector).

The bigger problem is that electors are usually selected to be loyal to the candidate (or at least, the party). OTOH, there have been at least a couple of reports of electors saying they wouldn't vote for Trump (in Florida and TX, IIRC), so it's still possible, even if very, very, very unlikely (and wouldn't matter unless it was close to a tie anyway)

Edit:
Texas elector threatens not to vote Trump

Democratic elector says he may reject Clinton

And there was at least one story about a potential faithless elector in Florida for Trump, but I cant find it right now.

Defiant wrote:The bigger problem is that electors are usually selected to be loyal to the candidate (or at least, the party).

And that particular point is a very big deal this year. Normally being loyal to the candidate means being loyal to the party and vice versa, but that does not really hold true so much this year. At least a stronger case could be made this year than ever before (or at least in modern political history) to break with tradition.

Carpet_pissr wrote:

Defiant wrote:The bigger problem is that electors are usually selected to be loyal to the candidate (or at least, the party).

And that particular point is a very big deal this year. Normally being loyal to the candidate means being loyal to the party and vice versa, but that does not really hold true so much this year. At least a stronger case could be made this year than ever before (or at least in modern political history) to break with tradition.

I could see a higher-than-normal number of Trump electors vote for Clinton if Clinton wins in a landslide. That would provide cover for any unbound electors who want to vote their conscience (and/or be on the winning side). But in that scenario, of course, it doesn't matter.

In a situation where a few electors switching their votes would change the outcome, those electors would be well aware of the enormous hammer that Trump and his supporters (and the GOP) would bring down on their heads. It's possible, and I would salute them for it...but it seems vanishingly unlikely, and definitely not something that I would want to count on or that would bring me any solace as someone terrified of Trump.

El Guapo wrote: bring me any solace as someone terrified of Trump.

That's really all I'm trying to do here. I'll take anything.

Carpet_pissr wrote:

El Guapo wrote: bring me any solace as someone terrified of Trump.

That's really all I'm trying to do here. I'll take anything.

There are plenty more reasons to not be shitting your pants at the moment: (1) Clinton's up by a lot in the polling averages - more than Obama was ahead of Romney at this point, and at least comparable to Obama's lead over McCain - with very little time left; (2) with this margin, any polling errors (to be sufficient to change the outcome) would have to be historic first-ever type polling failures; (3) while you occasionally see a few polls showing Trump close or leading, they're pretty much all from places with a pro-Trump house effect this cycle; even where you see those, most of the time, when you look at the trend in that particular poll, it's in a pro-Clinton direction; (4) even if those polls worry you, there are at least as many showing Clinton blowout (double-digit win); and (5) there are at least as many reasons to think that Clinton may outperform her polling (better ground game, supporters who don't think the election is rigged, dispirited GOP anti-Trump voters) as there are to think that Trump would outperform rolls.

El Guapo wrote:at least comparable to Obama's lead over McCain

Yep. Just for comparison, Obama had about a 5-8 point lead in October/Early November.

For the last two weeks (but not the entire month) Clinton's average has been ~5-7 points (in both the 2 way and 4 way averages)

YellowKing wrote:

tgb wrote:I'll believe the polls Nov. 9. There's still the possibility of a Brexit (or Tom Bradley)-like finish.

The Brexit polls were still showing a tight finish, and many were still within the margin of error. It's considered shocking in that the majority of the polls were showing a victory for Remainers, but it was WAY closer than this race is showing.

The main reason for the Brexit switcheroo was that young voters didn't show up at the polls. I'd hope that in this country, by now, pollsters realize that young voters never show up and take that into consideration.

I think the Colombian peace treaty vote might be a better cautionary tale; it was favored 2:1. Turnout on election day was poor because the weather sucked and people felt sanguine about it passing.

But as others have noted, it's unlikely to happen here because the national popular vote is irrelevant; only the turnout in a handful of states matters.

Still, it's a non-zero probability.

Kraken wrote:Still, it's a non-zero probability.

Measurably so...

Anyone who reads 538 as saying that Clinton's lead is "insurmountable" is indeed reading it wrong. The Trumpocalypse is not impossible, just somewhat improbable. It's slightly more likely than rolling a 1 on a d8.

Max Peck wrote:Anyone who reads 538 as saying that Clinton's lead is "insurmountable" is indeed reading it wrong.

Clinton's lead (in getting to 270) is *substantial*. Not insurmountable. But *almost* insurmountable.

Sure, it's not "insurmountable", there's just no precedence for a shift that big late in the game happening. And, as fivethirtyeight has said, it would generally require several things to happen to give Trump a shot (eg, an October surprise or two to shift things in his direction, and a polling error to fill that gap).

I will say that I am surprised that the predictions haven't gone up simply because the likeliest late game changer event has passed (the third debate) without a shift having happened, which should mean that there's much less chance of a game changer going forward (as compared to a week ago), but it might be that's not built in to the model.

Max Peck wrote: It's slightly more likely than rolling a 1 on a d8.

Great...back to biting my fingernails until the election. Those are indeed much worse odds than I was hoping for at this stage.

RunningMn9 wrote:

Max Peck wrote:Anyone who reads 538 as saying that Clinton's lead is "insurmountable" is indeed reading it wrong.

Clinton's lead (in getting to 270) is *substantial*. Not insurmountable. But *almost* insurmountable.

I was riffing on the use of a black-and-white term like "insurmountable" when referring to anything on 538 -- they're statisticians, they bend over backwards to avoid that sort of thing.

Besides, I couldn't pass up the opportunity to post such a beautiful probability density plot, and I needed some sort of snarky comment to go with it.

Carpet_pissr wrote:

Max Peck wrote: It's slightly more likely than rolling a 1 on a d8.

Great...back to biting my fingernails until the election. Those are indeed much worse odds than I was hoping for at this stage.

Yeah, as gamers we all know that 1 always comes up at the worst possible time.

Carpet_pissr wrote:

Max Peck wrote: It's slightly more likely than rolling a 1 on a d8.

Great...back to biting my fingernails until the election. Those are indeed much worse odds than I was hoping for at this stage.

I've totally made harder savings throws many times.

Trump is coming.

I looked, and there before me was a pale horse! Its rider was named Death Donald,

I just remembered. My mother has told me before that my grandmother had a dream before I was born. They were going to name me Donald, and I'd grow up to be president. My mother hates the name Donald.

Therefore, it's my mother's fault, as the Donald presidential fate has now fallen on another.

Isgrimnur wrote:I just remembered. My mother has told me before that my grandmother had a dream before I was born. They were going to name me Donald, and I'd grow up to be president. My mother hates the name Donald.

Therefore, it's my mother's fault, as the Donald presidential fate has now fallen on another.

Now we at least have someone to reasonably attach the blame to......

I Just Want Nate Silver to Tell Me It’s All Going to Be Fine
https://www.wired.com/2016/10/just-want ... D=22851637

So...on a lighter side...maybe?

The 281 People, Places and Things Donald Trump Has Insulted on Twitter

Some of those named are now retweeting this as a point of pride

coopasonic wrote:

Carpet_pissr wrote:

Max Peck wrote: It's slightly more likely than rolling a 1 on a d8.

Great...back to biting my fingernails until the election. Those are indeed much worse odds than I was hoping for at this stage.

Yeah, as gamers we all know that 1 always comes up at the worst possible time.

Do we have Advantage or Disadvantage in this Roll under the 5th Edition ruleset?

coopasonic wrote:

Carpet_pissr wrote:

Max Peck wrote: It's slightly more likely than rolling a 1 on a d8.

Great...back to biting my fingernails until the election. Those are indeed much worse odds than I was hoping for at this stage.

Yeah, as gamers we all know that 1 always comes up at the worst possible time.

Do we have a re-roll available? That would be great.

I agree that given the consequences of a Trump victory 1-in-8 is still terrifyingly high. BUT like I said most of the qualitative non-poll factors are helpful for Clinton rather than Trump (the only one I worry about is voter suppression, especially since most of the swing states are GOP run).

Kraken wrote:

YellowKing wrote:

tgb wrote:I'll believe the polls Nov. 9. There's still the possibility of a Brexit (or Tom Bradley)-like finish.

The Brexit polls were still showing a tight finish, and many were still within the margin of error. It's considered shocking in that the majority of the polls were showing a victory for Remainers, but it was WAY closer than this race is showing.

The main reason for the Brexit switcheroo was that young voters didn't show up at the polls. I'd hope that in this country, by now, pollsters realize that young voters never show up and take that into consideration.

I think the Colombian peace treaty vote might be a better cautionary tale; it was favored 2:1. Turnout on election day was poor because the weather sucked and people felt sanguine about it passing.

But as others have noted, it's unlikely to happen here because the national popular vote is irrelevant; only the turnout in a handful of states matters.

Still, it's a non-zero probability.

I would also wager that polling in Colombia is more difficult and less reliable as a general rule.

When Trump keeps saying in his speeches, "we are winning, media is lying", and his surrogates keep coming on TV and saying, "polls are all over the place, we are really not losing" (although even Kellyanne couldn't bring herself to say that yesterday, we'll see what her spin is today) - anyway, that actually makes me quite happy, if they truly believe that, they can go on believing that until November 8th. Works for me.

Rip wrote: Trump is coming.

On who?