TrueBlueGED

Nathan Wurtzel ‏@NathanWurtzel 30m30 minutes ago I got the primaries wrong because I doubted the polls. I got the general wrong because I believed the polls. This about sums it up for me. The important thing to do now is to thoroughly investigate why and work to correct the mistakes for 2018 and beyond. That's gonna take time to do, but it shall be done.

Been over for awhile now.

Holy smokes.

I've been musing about his speakership. For better or worse, the Republican Party is now Trump's. If he pushes, a new speaker could well be in order.

I've long said that a Trump presidency wouldn't be as bad as a Trump candidacy. I stand by it. Now that he's actually won, he'll get the GOP's A-grade foreign policy team, and they will prevent any true insanity. I think. Well, Belichick traded away Chandler Jones and Jamie Collins because he didn't want to pay them. What's the military equivalent? Giving our F-35s and new USS Gerald Ford away?

Correct. Maybe, maybe not. The Act, in full force, could have been used as a tool to challenge new-for-2016 voting restrictions in important swing states: NH, OH, WI, VA, AZ. Like I said, waaaaaay more post-election analysis needs to be done, was just tossing it out as a possibility.

Essentially the Supreme Court ruled that racism isn't a demonstrated enough problem anymore, and the formula automatically qualifying states for pre-clearance under Section 5 of the VRA was out-dated and no longer applicable. They said that Congress was free to amend the Act with a new formula...but with the current partisan makeup of Congress, that had a zero chance of happening.

That's gonna be game. Even if she wins Michigan, she'll also have to win NH, NV, and a congressional district in NE while holding everything else still uncalled. I hate you right now.

Gonna take a good deal of post-election digging to see if it mattered, but regarding Clinton's underperformance in urban areas: this is the first election since 1975 to be held without the full protection of the Voting Rights Act. I don't think it's a safe assumption that his voters would have gone overwhelmingly to Clinton.

Despite my repeated wrongness about Trump, I did call that the Democrats who were celebrating his nomination were crazy to do so. Because, ya know, this could happen.

Yes. But given my track record this election, I should probably just post a shoulder shrug emoji :lol:

I don't think so. The surge of support in rural America for Trump compared to what McCain and Romney produced is the biggest factor. I don't see a realistic way Clinton gets to 270 without Michigan. I mean, it's technically possible, but....yea, without Michigan she's cooked.

Assuming we believe just raw aggregates of polls, a pre-election 3-4% Clinton advantage is within the margin of error for a 1% Clinton popular win but EC loss. So not sure about the epic part. What needs to be re-evaluated in the certainty that many models put out there. In other words, it looks like Silver was right about the combination of volatility and uncertainty being higher than normal. That being said, the political science models (the stuff that is published by early September and doesn't respond to polls through the fall campaign) all had the race as much tighter than the more mainstream statistical models at places like 538, Upshot, Pollster, etc. If anything, this election is strong support for the fundamentals-based models, with the candidate-agnostic fundamentals pointing in the range of a tossup to lean Republican. As usual, even if the eye test is right this time, it has been wrong far more often than statistical forecasts historically.

I don't think much--the notion that there was any significant number of undecideds remaining a week out from the election doesn't hold too much water. This was a forecasting error. The story of this election is going to be demographics--white working class voters mobilizing in a block like they haven't in the past, and a massive urban-rural divide with Clinton's inability to replicate Obama's turnout numbers among, in particular, African Americans. As I mentioned earlier, Trump is doing better than Romney in rural America, and Clinton is doing worse than Obama in urban America.

The cool thing about pollsters, statisticians, and empiricists in general is we learn and get better. Which is more than can be said for talking heads. Even if Clinton pulls it out, it's a forecasting error in how it came about. Being right for the wrong reasons, if you will. I look forward to engaging in the post mortem one way or the other.

Let's say Trump wins Michigan; Clinton would have to win Nevada, New Hampshire, and Arizona to still win. Unlikely. Alternatively, if she wins Michigan, Trump could still get to 270 with NH, NV, and AZ. Gonna be a late night, I think.

Correct.

At this point? Probably not. Until more precincts are in I'd stick with the pre-election forecasts. Wayne County (which went 73% for Obama in 2012), for instance, has 900 precincts outstanding. But given the way the rest of the map has looked, Michigan is certainly in play.

Trump's lead down to 22k in Virginia with 60 Fairfax precincts and 70 Prince William precincts still outstanding. He's probably cooked there. In a word: concern. All eyes on Michigan.

If Clinton loses Virginia, proceed to panic. Looking like Michigan may be the tipping point state for the election.

*glances at percent of California reporting* Popular vote projections still have her likely to win by 3-4%. Her issue right now is Trump is out-performing Romney in the rural areas, and she isn't out-performing Obama in the urban areas. Looking at Virginia, she's down by ~68k votes statewide, but heavily Democratic counties like Fairfax are still only barely over half reporting. Loudoun still has 14 outstanding precincts, and she's running up 14% there.

They're all going to be functionally the same, just a matter of layout preference.

In non-political news, Patrik Laine now leads the league in goals with 9. Stud.

Certainly could. It was a genuine coin flip. If it continues to be this close, it's also possible it doesn't get called until well after midnight.

That's because they're not meant to be way on. Aside from about 10 implementation problems with exit polls, they're not representative samples of state electorates. For all intents and purposes. He'd have to pick off a couple blue states in the midwest to compensate, but that's extraordinarily unlikely to happen .