Jump to content

Don't panic


laripu
 Share

Recommended Posts

A while ago, when Clinton was down in the polls, some of us on here (not me) were calling for her to step down so Sanders could defeat Trump.

 

Shortly thereafter, Clinton again rose in the polls, and some Republicans were calling for Trump to step down so Pence could defeat Clinton.

 

I believe Clinton's lead will narrow again.

 

Let's look at the math. You'll find the picture I'm talking about here: http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo. Just go down the page until you see " How the forecast has changed". Either the "Chance of winning" tab or the "electoral vote" tab will make it obvious what I'm going to tell you.

 

Look at the graph and in your mind, smooth out the curves. What you see is that Clinton's lead widens, then narrows, then widens, then narrows, then widens..... and will soon narrow. The only questions are, by how much and when?

 

Look at the curves again. The time frame from narrow to next narrow is two months. That's called the period of the curves. It looks like the period is staying the same. So since the previous maximum narrowing was late September, the next maximum narrowing would be late November, after the election - when it will not occur because the election will be long over.

 

If you think it looks like the curves are almost engineered to hit maximum separation in the next three weeks, you're absolutely right. I'm certain the statistics of elections has been studied and applied by Clinton's team. Maybe they had some advice from President Obama's man David Plouffe.

 

Now of course none of this is hard, it's squishy and probabilistic, so the maximum separation could be occurring earlier, maybe soon, and then you'll see some narrowing earlier than intended. That's why I say "Don't Panic". There's always room for scandals on either side, but the maximum narrowing still leaves room for Clinton to win, and we won't get to the maximum narrowing before the election.

 

Just vote.

 

Clinton has the wonderful benefit that everything Trump says to hurt Clinton hurts him as much or more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clinton has the wonderful benefit that everything Trump says to hurt Clinton hurts him as much or more.

Hillary is a genius, she has set Trump up so all he has to do is talk to self destruct, and every time he talks she just continues her sweeping takeover. It's over for the Republican party and everyone knows it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We need leaders who will support the end of Plutocratic rule in the US. Socially Liberal policies combined with maintenance of the economic status quo are not enough. Bernie was a ray of hope in the primaries. Considering Hillary's vast lack of popularity, her first term will be a trial-run only. If she flip-flops on TPP and supports legislation backed by her big donors, she will not get a second term, to be replaced by one of the young Berniecrats.

 

With no enthusiasm, I have cast my early ballot for Clinton ... Obviously far better than Trump, who represents the gaping abyss. If nothing fundamental changes, the Clinton train is rolling toward a big victory in November. No need for panic. Having done this portion of my duty, I identify with these young Americans who would prefer a giant meteor over either candidate.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-meteor-idUSKCN12I20S

Trump? Clinton? Many young Americans prefer giant meteor, poll finds

Young Americans are so dissatisfied with their choices in this presidential election that nearly one in four told an opinion poll they would rather have a giant meteor destroy the Earth than see Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton in the White House.

 

The tongue-in-cheek question was intended to gauge young Americans' level of unhappiness about their choices in the Nov. 8 election, said Joshua Dyck, co-director of UMass Lowell’s Center for Public Opinion, which conducted the poll alongside Odyssey Millennials.

The choice alluded to the Twitter hashtag "#GiantMeteor2016," a reference to an imaginary presidential candidate used to express frustration about this year's election choices.

Some 53 percent of the 1,247 people aged 18 to 35 said they would prefer to see a meteor destroy the world than have Republican New York real estate developer Trump in the Oval Office, with some 34 percent preferring planetary annihilation to seeing the Democratic former Secretary of State win.

Some 39 percent said they would prefer that U.S. President Barack Obama declare himself president for life than hand over power to Clinton or Trump, with 26 percent saying the nation would do better to select its next leader in a random lottery.

Some 23 percent, nearly one in four, preferred the giant meteor outcome to either Trump or Clinton.

- snip -

When asked to choose between the actual candidates, Clinton easily led Trump with 54 percent of respondents to 21 percent in a two-way race.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe Clinton's lead will narrow again.

It's coming, folks. Looking at the curve, the rate of increase had allowed to 0, which means the curve is about to turn. Clinton's lead is about to shrink. It's expected.

 

DON'T PANIC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last debate tonight could disrupt the expected curve .... One way or the other.

Right. HRC had by far her best debate in my estimation. Trump is tanking ( not being illing to accept the results of the election will hurt him). So I believe "the curve" bending to center isn't an inevitability.

 

I think the curve will bend upward.

 

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clinton was pretty funny last night at the Al Smith charity dinner.

 

Trump only had two good jokes, the one about Melania's speech and "pardon me". Everything else he said was mean-spirited. In a Catholic charity dinner he said she hates Catholics, then called her nasty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the curve will bend upward.

Maybe, but I doubt it.

 

The slope of the curve was pretty steep before, and has now gone flat. That's what happens before it starts to drop.

 

In math terms, the first derivative is 0 and the second derivative is negative.

 

If it starts to climb as you say, then this is an inflection point. If it starts to drop then this is a maximum. I'm not saying an inflection point is impossible, but since it hasn't happened yet I think it's unlikely.

 

I think the best we can hope for is that it stays constant. That would be pretty good too: she'd get something like 340 electoral college votes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, the pitfalls of the presidency... And the ill winds that blow through the country each and every four years. Why could we not push a good administration head to move on what most want, how do the promises get from promises to outcomes?

 

I could promise you the world if you follow me --- "I don't want the world, I only want a good and stable democracy supported by an informed citizenry!!!", I say.

 

Somewhere in me is the economist who thinks past money and instead on true resource and sustainability. I want to deal with education in a different way, I want people to be more educated and free and able to make educated judgement as best they can. I want to deal with climate change now, not ten years down the road. Forget what China does, do what we need to do. Believe me, if we do, China will follow suit.

 

The economist in me says it truly is about resource, how much is there, how much does it cost to send resource from point A to point B, and then how do we find a way to distribute it more evenly in a democratic way.

How do we find a way to protect our own citizens without bombing other countries we know next to nothing about, only in the end making the world more dangerous than it already is in the long run?

 

Yeah, how do we help instead of kill, heal instead of make ill, give, rather than take away? The right says it doesn't matter how rich a small percentage of us gets, they say that progress depends on an unfettered supply-side economic sort of scope that in no way transcends total worth, or resource, not in any shape or form; to them it's pure mysticism / got to be magic / you know the kind or maybe you don't or just never will because you're a socialist..."but I'm not, well, not completely that is."

 

Yeah, I want people to think more, and to understand that the value of their own hard work does not need to be solely incentivized by greed!

Peace!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW - I'm voting for Hillary, and hope very much that people like me who support Sanders stay connected and push onward's toward his goals. O, say, in 2000, I thought, if Nader could win, think how hard it would be for him to make hay with the politics we have today. Every move is muted, every idea is squashed away. Look around the world, you see the same thing played out, the dark pinning's with the struggle of what they call power, or power interruptus / a nowhere kind of plan. A shortfall, a short season, a racketeering numbering game, soon they say you'll have to dish out 80% of your hard earned pay in taxation for what that commie wants.

 

It's a disenchantment in serious thought that makes people forget who they are what they are and the constitution of laws they say they own the rights to is what they'll say because they'll get enough to vote the other way, they'll redraw the districts, they won't allow any idea to come to the floor or any kind of fair and truly honest debate.

 

And the money will breeze in out of nowhere, and the adds will come nonstop, and, oh yeah, the talking heads will make some people think the opposite of what is in fact true, and then in another four years there we'll all be, starting again at square one.

 

But how do you fit a square peg into a round whole/ easy when all the square pegs are small and the entire whole they are told is limitless - I mean that's what they always do say anyway. I am not talking elliptical here,

not trying to favor an approach, or a following. I think, or I do know that if you made a lot of sense in this way, they would say that you are hungry for power.. they will use any trick in the book. So was Nader a trickster, some guy who was slippery, just in it to rule?

 

Surely we do know in places like Turkey that shit does go down. It goes down a lot of places, it does. It went down that way in Mother Russia once, they all say!!!

 

Peace!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's coming, folks. Looking at the curve, the rate of increase had allowed to 0, which means the curve is about to turn. Clinton's lead is about to shrink. It's expected.

 

Clinton's lead is not shrinking. It's growing. Mathematical curves are especially useful, in the long run, but have limitations. The shorter the time period, the less chance that a curve can compete with events to predict outcomes.

 

Presidential poll: Hillary Clinton leads Donald Trump by 12 ... - CNN.com

www.cnn.com/2016/10/23/.../hillary-clinton-donald-trump-presidential-polls/
CNN

Hillary Clinton has a 12-point lead over Donald Trump and has reached 50% support nationally ... Updated 3:59 PM ET, Sun October 23, 2016 ..... The results showing Clinton with a growing lead largely match CNN's Poll of Polls, which ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but don't forget to vote

 

Absolutely. The election is not won yet. Many things can still happen to influence the outcome. For instance, WikiLeaks is still promising to release thousands more Clinton emails. That previous emails have failed to land a truly damaging blow is no guarantee that leaks in the next 2 weeks or so, might not contain material which the Trump campaign could exploit to its advantage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will celebrate when freedom is restored (The pat act is pushed into the dust bin of history). I will celebrate when we get universal single payer. I will celebrate when our economy is structured fairly for all, not contorted so the rich get all the gains. I will celebrate when we get enough good people on the Supreme court to rule according to the constitution, not partisan ideology. I will celebrate when we get the corruption of money out of politics. I will celebrate when anyone who wants a decent job can get one. I will celebrate when the wars stop and out military is reigned in to protect our nation, not generate fortunes for a few rich people.Of course this is a partial list, I will probably celebrate other things as well.

 

How many of these things would Hillary do? Let's wait and see. (Yes, I know Trump wouldn't do any of them.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DonJoe: It's very important to remember what absolutely needs to be done. But it's equally as important to work within current political realities without losing hope or giving in to abject cynicism. We reached a low ebb at the end of the W. administration. Although Obama, in many ways, maintained the status quo, he took some steps in the right direction. The same will probably be true with Hillary.

 

Bernie's unexpectedly successful primary run bodes well for future candidates similar to him, who will support more dynamic, less incremental moves to restore true freedom, prosperity and democracy, than at present. What the Nation can't afford, is a huge backward plunge at the hands of a vengeful tyrant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Clinton's lead is not shrinking. It's growing.

 

Right at the moment, it looks like my predicted narrowing is happening. At it's high, right before the third debate, http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/ was predicting 346 EC votes for Clinton, and now it's at 338. It's a very shallow drop and I hope it turns back up.

 

If the slope continues as it's now going, I'd say Clinton wins with between 300 and 310 EC votes. I really hope that's not the case and that the curve turns because of some other stupid thing Trumpelstiltskin says or does. I'd like a Clinton landslide.

 

Trump is now threatening to cancel 70 to 80% of federal EPA regulations. "Let them eat toxic sewage" is his attitude, it seems.

 

 

 

Mathematical curves are especially useful, in the long run, but have limitations. The shorter the time period, the less chance that a curve can compete with events to predict outcomes.

 

Of course they have limitations. But they're not competing with events, they're caused by events. Events can also invalidate them.

 

So far we've seen the pattern that since early June, the spread increases then narrows.and it's done it twice before. If events follow the same sort of pattern we're now in a narrowing phase, and I see that in the data.
What could change that? Lots of things: really good campaigning by Clinton's team, or another Trump scandal or an extraordinary event. Past scandals (or Wikileaks) are probably baked in by now. They won't cause further damage to either side.
So what's an extraordinary event? Here are examples: President Carter's failed rescue attempt of hostages in Iran, George H W Bush puking on a Japanese prime minister etc. If something like this happens close enough to the election, it will change the curve for sure. The most likely such things would be a Trump scandal, a successful terror attack on the US by a Muslim, some new horrible Wikileaks revelation or a health issue for either candidate.
I'm personally hoping for a revelation that Trump uses cocaine, to make the curve separation increase.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for clarifying that events can disrupt a curve in post #23 Laripu. I would be delighted if Trump was caught on videotape snorting a line of gutter glitter in a public latrine, before a speech. He would insist it was computer-generated, of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some people are never going to be happy.

 

Bill

Some people want something better.

 

Some people don't think that Hillary will be an agent for desperately-needed change, but instead as someone who might maintain the current status quo. Some people realize that this is still better than our options under Trump, but better does not equal good. It just equals better that the other possibility.

 

Some people look at the choices available and see no need to be happy if Hillary wins. Some people only see a possibility of a slight sigh of relief and then a need to double down on efforts to get someone elected in 2020 who will actually advocate for the needs of all the people and not just the rich, the powerful, and the token causes.

 

I am one of these people.

 

I don't think that either Hillary OR Trump are good choices. I think they are both dangerous and power-hungry. I think both of them care about their own personal self-interests before anything else. I know that neither of them represents me and I think both of them will leave the country in worse shape than that in which they got it.

 

My only hope is that a revitalized progressive movement will continue and grow, and that we'll survive as a culture long enough to get a decent progressive candidate for 2020.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...