badlatitude

Nate Silver: We're now projecting total turnout in the presidential race to be 154 - 165 million

Recommended Posts

The bigger the turnout the better for the Democrats, looks like the bloodbath Trump was afraid of.

Nate Silver : we're now projecting total turnout in the pres race to be 154 million, maybe 165M

Based on an update we'll be releasing later today, we're now projecting total turnout in the presidential race to be 154 million, with an 80th percentile range between 144 million and 165 million. In 2016, turnout was 137 million, by comparison. 
 
Link to tweet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Biden might win by over 20 million votes. 
Trump won't get as many as he did 4 years ago.

Bloodbath is right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wish I shared all you all's optimism.  Nate guessed wrong last time (I think he rightfully justified it with statistics and chances assigned).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Biden might win by over 20 million votes. 
Trump won't get as many as he did 4 years ago.

Bloodbath is right.

Blood coming out of his wherever!

 

VOTE!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Biden might win by over 20 million votes. 
Trump won't get as many as he did 4 years ago.

Bloodbath is right.

It is easy to see why he is out there claiming fraudulent election, it's fixed, Hunter Biden, and everything else he can throw into the pot. How soon before we see the first indictment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, badlatitude said:

It is easy to see why he is out there claiming fraudulent election, it's fixed, Hunter Biden, and everything else he can throw into the pot. How soon before we see the first indictment? Pee-Pee Tapes?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, bridhb said:

Wish I shared all you all's optimism.  Nate guessed wrong last time (I think he rightfully justified it with statistics and chances assigned).

I share the same reservations, but I believe Nate has made the necessary adjustments to his algorithms and research data. I guess we'll see, but I remain impressed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Left Shift said:

It is easy to see why he is out there claiming fraudulent election, it's fixed, Hunter Biden, and everything else he can throw into the pot. How soon before we see the first indictment? Pee-Pee Tapes?

He and Giuliani can go on the road and make a show out of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

High turnout favors democrats. If you are in favor of Republicans you need to help keep the number of voters down. 
Stay away from the polls so republicans can win!!! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

That Nate Silver guy said that Ridgelines suck. He’s pretty sharp.

Where does he stand on the F-35?

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Where does he stand on the F-35?

- DSK

Not below it when it is airborne. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

The bigger the turnout the better for the Democrats, looks like the bloodbath Trump was afraid of.

Nate Silver : we're now projecting total turnout in the pres race to be 154 million, maybe 165M

Based on an update we'll be releasing later today, we're now projecting total turnout in the presidential race to be 154 million, with an 80th percentile range between 144 million and 165 million. In 2016, turnout was 137 million, by comparison. 
 
Link to tweet

That's fantastic news. More Americans voting than ever regardless of the outcome. 

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Raz'r said:

Biden might win by over 20 million votes.

So maybe he's actually got a chance at making it to 270?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Jules said:

So maybe he's actually got a chance at making it to 270?

Unless all the Republican governors change out the electors for some more favourable to the mango.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, badlatitude said:

I share the same reservations, but I believe Nate has made the necessary adjustments to his algorithms and research data. I guess we'll see, but I remain impressed.

 

Most of the polls he aggregates have changed their sampling methodology to make sure the are adequately capturing the proportion of white poorly educated likely voters who overwhelmingly support Trump.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Not below it when it is airborne. 

That’s not very often.  They can get shot down by a well aimed mini cannon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Where does he stand on the F-35?

- DSK

The wing 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Fakenews said:

Most of the polls he aggregates have changed their sampling methodology to make sure the are adequately capturing the proportion of white poorly educated likely voters who overwhelmingly support Trump.  

Well, he'll have to change his sampling again when they go the way of the covered wagon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bridhb said:

Wish I shared all you all's optimism.  Nate guessed wrong last time (I think he rightfully justified it with statistics and chances assigned).

Nate was pretty much exactly right regarding the 2016 popular vote.  That's that thing that doesn't have a single piece of legal significance in the USA.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Nate was pretty much exactly right regarding the 2016 popular vote.  That's that thing that doesn't have a single piece of legal significance in the USA.

 

But completely wrong on the EC... 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I recall, he had it at 60% Clinton to 40% Trump. A 40 % chance is still a big chance. Nate was not wildly off, people just misunderstood the significance of what he was saying. 

The probabilities now look like 87% Biden 12% Trump. That is a one in ten chance that Trump could win as of today, not if the election was held today since it factors in that the race could shift from now until the election. I don't expect that will happen, but recognize that time adds uncertainty so I understand why he does not have it at the 99% I have it at. 

 

Edited to add: I had the probabilities off as MJ has them correctly stated above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Why do you spew stupid incorrect shit? 

Thanks for the idea…here's sayin' the same thing, haiku-style:
here we are again
still regurgitating spewl—
13 days to go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, LenP said:

If I recall, he had it at 60% Clinton to 40% Trump. A 40 % chance is still a big chance. Nate was not wildly off, people just misunderstood the significance of what he was saying. 

The probabilities now look like 87% Biden 12% Trump. That is a one in ten chance that Trump could win as of today, not if the election was held today since it factors in that the race could shift from now until the election. I don't expect that will happen, but recognize that time adds uncertainty so I understand why he does not have it at the 99% I have it at. 

"Chance to win" isn't a figure you can measure for accuracy after a single event, and IMO is just as useful as fight or football odds...in other words, not useful.  Nate's models got the popular vote percentages to within a percent IIRC.  And again, "popular vote" is a red herring used by both parties to distract people who are unable to process the idea of a single race that depends on 50 outcomes, not one outcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, benwynn said:

I sure could use a little preprocessing right about now.

Nate Silver suggested that if you want to carry three sheets of plywood and a few cinder blocks in your truck, there’s a 99% chance you will choose something other than a Ridgeline. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, benwynn said:

I sure could use a little preprocessing right about now.

 

1 minute ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Nate Silver suggested that if you want to carry three sheets of plywood and a few cinder blocks in your truck, there’s a 99% chance you will choose something other than a Ridgeline. 

** Pre-processing Complete **

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we tied Trump to the bottom of an f35 and dropped him on China, would he be consider a weapon of mass destruction?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Raz'r said:

Biden might win by over 20 million votes. 
Trump won't get as many as he did 4 years ago.

Bloodbath is right.

Too bad that's only a figure of speech.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vote 

for the love of humanity 

 

JUST VOTE.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep it ain’t over till it’s actually over hopefully it’s really unfair.

So unfair that Donnie might have move to another country.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Grrr... said:

If we tied Trump to the bottom of an f35 and dropped him on China, would he be consider a weapon of mass destruction?

Not sure the F35 has that payload capacity.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, benwynn said:

Not sure the F35 has that payload capacity.   

Especially if it is raining that day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Republicans!!! This is an emergency!!

if there are too many votes the Dems will win!!

Stay home!! Keep the turnout low!!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Grrr... said:

If we tied Trump to the bottom of an f35 and dropped him on China, would he be consider a weapon of mass destruction?

I noticed in the short bit of the debate I watched that they had several profile shots. He is looking more and more like Taft every day. He might be the greatest US president ever at least in avoirdupois.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now