Quote:
Originally Posted by Parallex
Well of course... any statement that proclaims there is a 0% chance of something is wrong on the face of it. But I don't think the likelihood is 50-50 either. Clinton easily just had the worst two weeks of her campaign and Trump didn't draw even. Sure she could have more bad weeks... but I don't think that's any more likely then Trump having more bad weeks.
Her campaign still has...
A: More money
B: A better ground game
C: Better (albeit of the less bad variety) favorable/unfavorable rating
And if there isn't any then she wins, if it's polling bias the other way she wins by an Obama 2012 margin. It's silly to fret about the maybe's of a polling bias because you don't know that any exist, that if it exists it's against Trump, and in all likelihood (in the aggregate) it doesn't. I'm as terrified about the prospect of Donald Trump having codes to a nuclear arsenal but now is not the time to freak out. If Trump is ahead in enough states to get 270 electoral college votes in a months time... that's the time to start building your bunker.
|
Id agree it's not 50/50 and think it's higher than the current model suggests. I'd buy Hillary stock at the current price of 63%. However I'd likely not go over the 75% point.
I do think polling inaccuracy has a greater probability here then in previous elections because of the 3rd party vote. It increases the variability of the results beyond the statistical +/- 3% that the sampling shows. Ground game being worth about 1-2% offsets some of this risk. But anyone saying no path is greatly under estimating trumps chances.
Up to what's likelihood would you bet Hillary?
I think there is an opportunity with the betting sites here as they appear to track the 538 forecast so public money is effectively betting on Nate's model so is there room for sharp money to do better based on things his model doesn't consider?