D
Deleted member 848
Guest
this **** simply doesn't make sense to me. Do people realize that voting shouldn't take this long? I've never waited longer than 30 minutes to vote in any election.
Never Trump
- Thread starter colton
- Start date
this **** simply doesn't make sense to me. Do people realize that voting shouldn't take this long? I've never waited longer than 30 minutes to vote in any election.
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
Trump is just as crooked.
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
#GiveLimbaughASafeSpace
Why didn't you mail in your ballot?
I have never waited more then 5 minutes. Could be higher than average voter turnout. IIRC [MENTION=14]colton[/MENTION] is a Utah resident an this place is charged up right now. It is such an interesting story here cause Utah could possibly vote democrat or we can give Hillary the presidency by voting 3rd party. My guess is Utah is hyper get out the vote. Everyone has there agendas an this year your vote in Utah may actually matter.
All my social media is blowed up with political propaganda. I feel like a Iowa resident.
The reason the line was long is because this year it's supposed to be all mail-in voting. They have some places where you can vote in-person, but not as many as they would normally have. I've never waited even close to 5 min to vote. This year I didn't wait at all, I mailed in my ballot a couple weeks ago.
I've been following the polls and EC map closely. If he sweeps the "battle grounds" he wins narrowly in the EC. If she sweeps the "battle grounds" she wallops him in the EC.
If Utah and N.M go third party and Trump pulls most of the other battlegrounds it might go to congress. Highly unlikely but mathematically possible.
I think they split the "battle grounds" and she wins solidly in the EC.
There is not mail in voting in Utah county where Colton is. That was just SLC county.
Jonah
Well-Known Member
One day before the election. Can the Never Trump people finally relax? With one notable exception, the best aggregators now put Clinton anywhere from an 85 to 99 percent favorite to win the presidency. If Trump wins it will be the biggest upset in modern presidential history. Much more surprising, for example, than Truman/Dewey way back in 1948.
Still, there is some nagging doubt. Nate Silver of 538, easily the most popular and one of the most accurate of the aggregators, has Clinton at only a 65 percent favorite. Silver’s relatively favorable outlook for Trump has caused considerable controversy and angst amongst Trump detractors. Some even accuse him of a bad faith adjustment to his calculations in order to make the race seem more competitive and thereby increase traffic to his ESPN sponsored website.
In contrast to Silver is Sam Wang of the Princeton Election Consortium, which now puts Clinton at a greater than 99 percent win probability. While not nearly as well known or popular, the Princeton Election Consortium has been even more accurate over the last two presidential elections than 538. Wang essentially called the election for Clinton weeks ago.
It’s easy for conformation bias to seep into our search for answers, which is probably why I give more credence to Wang than Silver, but he does have a more academic approach and a much less volatile model over the last few months.
Here is a recent article, in fairly technical detail, on the Princeton model:
https://election.princeton.edu/2016/11/06/is-99-a-reasonable-probability/
Still, there is some nagging doubt. Nate Silver of 538, easily the most popular and one of the most accurate of the aggregators, has Clinton at only a 65 percent favorite. Silver’s relatively favorable outlook for Trump has caused considerable controversy and angst amongst Trump detractors. Some even accuse him of a bad faith adjustment to his calculations in order to make the race seem more competitive and thereby increase traffic to his ESPN sponsored website.
In contrast to Silver is Sam Wang of the Princeton Election Consortium, which now puts Clinton at a greater than 99 percent win probability. While not nearly as well known or popular, the Princeton Election Consortium has been even more accurate over the last two presidential elections than 538. Wang essentially called the election for Clinton weeks ago.
It’s easy for conformation bias to seep into our search for answers, which is probably why I give more credence to Wang than Silver, but he does have a more academic approach and a much less volatile model over the last few months.
Here is a recent article, in fairly technical detail, on the Princeton model:
https://election.princeton.edu/2016/11/06/is-99-a-reasonable-probability/
Oh, I thought it was state-wide.
I'll relax when I wake up on Wednesday.