4 ms·

> If you live in Wyoming, the electoral college does not help you, because your vote is secure. For now. But if Wyoming doesn't like what happens with Republic

by smsm42 7y ago

> If you live in Wyoming, the electoral college does not help you, because your vote is secure. For now. But if Wyoming doesn't like what happens with Republican party, it can change. There's a huge inertia in large parties, so probably won't happen overnight, but it's not a law of nature. From what I've heard, one of the reasons 2016 election went the way it did because Democrats considered certain states (not Wyoming) "secure" and didn't campaign there, while Republicans did, and turned out they've been not as secure as it seemed. The margins of victory in many states are not that wide, and the margins of uncertainty in any polls are wide, so it's never certain forever.

hyperpape 7y ago
I think it was pretty systematic. If you look at 538 (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/ https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/), they were pretty accurate predicted which states were most and least likely to vote Trump or Clinton. It's just that in several states where they thought Clinton had a small lead, she lost. Meanwhile, there were no states they thought Trump had a small lead but he lost. The comparative judgments (Wisconsin is easier for Clinton to win than North Carolina, which is easier than Alabama) were right. The absolute judgments (Clinton will win Wisconsin) were wrong. If you had gone back in time and told Clinton's team "all the polls are too positive for you, you don't have a safety margin" they'd have known that Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania were at risk.
- smsm42 7y ago
  > "all the polls are too positive for you, you don't have a safety margin" they'd have known On my memory, this is not the first time polls tilt left. Politicians should have already learned that this is possible, especially with such an unorthodox candidate as Trump. My point also was that not many states are really "safe", yet less - forever. Relatively yes, some are further from the middle than others, but it's not a static picture and it's not a product of some permanent law but only current configuration which should never be taken for granted.
- Marazan 7y ago
  Clinton's internal polling showed they were in trouble in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. In an act of self sabotaging 12-d chess they decided not to campaign there to give the impression they were safe. As a gambler betting on the election this cost me a lot of money.
  - mtremsal 7y ago
    > they decided not to campaign there to give the impression they were safe. Fascinating. Would you happen to have a link or more details on the rationale?

by smsm42 7y ago

hyperpape 7y ago

I think it was pretty systematic. If you look at 538 (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/ https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/), they were pretty accurate predicted which states were most and least likely to vote Trump or Clinton. It's just that in several states where they thought Clinton had a small lead, she lost. Meanwhile, there were no states they thought Trump had a small lead but he lost. The comparative judgments (Wisconsin is easier for Clinton to win than North Carolina, which is easier than Alabama) were right. The absolute judgments (Clinton will win Wisconsin) were wrong. If you had gone back in time and told Clinton's team "all the polls are too positive for you, you don't have a safety margin" they'd have known that Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania were at risk.

smsm42 7y ago
> "all the polls are too positive for you, you don't have a safety margin" they'd have known On my memory, this is not the first time polls tilt left. Politicians should have already learned that this is possible, especially with such an unorthodox candidate as Trump. My point also was that not many states are really "safe", yet less - forever. Relatively yes, some are further from the middle than others, but it's not a static picture and it's not a product of some permanent law but only current configuration which should never be taken for granted.
Marazan 7y ago
Clinton's internal polling showed they were in trouble in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. In an act of self sabotaging 12-d chess they decided not to campaign there to give the impression they were safe. As a gambler betting on the election this cost me a lot of money.
- mtremsal 7y ago
  > they decided not to campaign there to give the impression they were safe. Fascinating. Would you happen to have a link or more details on the rationale?