Alabama Megathread 3: Results Thread

[AtorBoltox]

Cleland?

Pretty young to be voting for the Civil Rights act.

Not young enough for Roy Moore though

[AtorBoltox]

Any other Moore supporters in here?

Head to your local NABMLA meeting

[AtorBoltox]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You understood that perfectly which is why you found the one southern democrat who voted for the civil rights act.

LOL

Is this how you justify supporting a paedophile who said America was 'great' during slavery?

[AtorBoltox]

30 minutes since polls closed and only 1% counted?

[AtorBoltox]

If I lived in Alabama, my vote wouldve gone to Peter Griffin of Quahog.

Wonder when we're gonna get an election between a necrophile and a bestiality enthusiast the way our choices keep getting worse and worse

Bullsh**t. How is a moderate democrat with a distinguished career as a federal prosecutor in any way 'just as bad' as racist, homophobic paedophile who's been kicked off the state supreme court twice?

[AtorBoltox]

IceSpear needs to get out of here.

He'll probably leave the forum for a year again

[AtorBoltox]

wtf I love Alabama now

[AtorBoltox]

This is a great victory for women

[AtorBoltox]

I know a lot of people like to rail on the DNC and the Democratic leadership but you must admit they handled this race perfectly.

Schumer's strategic sense is incredible

[AtorBoltox]

Where are Greedo and Arkansas Yankee?

[AtorBoltox]

Republicans planning to steal the election like they did in 2002?

[AtorBoltox]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's just the maths. Bigger numbers just don't shift around as much. You can clearly see the difference between my bounds and the NYT bounds. My bounds were *much* closer to the final results than the NYT predictions at that point in the race. It wasn't until an hour later that I predicted he'd be held under 50 percent.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's the reason for the bounds. My model went 49/50 for presidential races, it got Wisconsin, Michigan and VA right but missed on Pennsylvania due to Hillary being up so high early on the race and the votes for Trump catching up.

The bounds are supposed to account for the expected swings. It doesn't do great in close races within recount territory. What my model was trying to predict was whether Moore's gap in votes was sufficient to carry him through 100 percent of the electorate. Doing that at 43% is difficult. Was close, missed by a bit though.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The swings were *very* exceptional. At the 70 percent mark Moore was 7% up. At the 81% mark, Moore was up by a percent. That means that of that bundle from 70-81 percent, that it was almost 80, 90 percent Jones.

That's pretty much unheard of. Never seen that before. I was saying that the NYT was crazy sauce and that Jones would be held under 50 percent. Both were true.

Basically if I refine the bounds, it should contain even that massive swing. I kept running the numbers, had no idea why the NYT was predicting Jones +10. It made no sense with Moore being up 7 even at that point.

The big assuming that the NYT is relying on is that the composition of early voters = later voters. This is GIGO early on, because the swings for the small numbers will be swingy and exaggerated later on. It's why my numbers were way smaller at the 10% margins. The NYT model is basically useless for most of the race, but it did get it right in the end. Mine was better early on and came close to getting the final result right.

Perhaps it's e/x. That will be interesting to try. I'll try running the new bounds and say what it says.

Dude just give up. You pulled your 'model' out of your arse