Alabama Megathread 3: Results Thread

[An American Tail: Fubart Goes West]

Write ins will get counted now, won't they? They're bigger than the margin between Jones and Moore.

[HisGrace]

As happy as I am I can't shake the fact that half of the state voted for a man who had considerable evidence showing that he was predatory against underage women all because he had an R next to his name.

Yeah, this is just a minimum threshold good thing but still a positive result.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Moore can't legally ask for a recount if the margin is over 0.5, right?

[Mike Thick]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

SOP with the Dim's tactics.

When is Franken going to resign?

We're gonna do a recount and keep counting. Just like you guys did to Coleman.

Coleman never led by anything close to what Jones is leading by

[MAINEiac4434]

Moore can't legally ask for a recount if the margin is over 0.5, right?

He can if he pays for it. He could pay for a recount even if he lost by 20 points.

[Bidenworth2020]

Moore can't legally ask for a recount if the margin is over 0.5, right?

if under 0.5, it is automatic

[Southern Delegate matthew27]

I don't believe I've ever been so happy to have been wrong about politics.

[emailking]

As happy as I am I can't shake the fact that half of the state voted for a man who had considerable evidence showing that he was predatory against underage women all because he had an R next to his name.

Yeah, this is just a minimum threshold good thing but still a positive result.

I thought write in had to have won or be within recount territory of winning to get counted. You're not supposed to write in someone that's on the ballot.

[Bidenworth2020]

Moore can't legally ask for a recount if the margin is over 0.5, right?

He can if he pays for it. He could pay for a recount even if he lost by 20 points.

does he have the cash?

[Wisconsin+17]

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.

[Stranger in a strange land]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

SOP with the Dim's tactics.

When is Franken going to resign?

We're gonna do a recount and keep counting. Just like you guys did to Coleman.

Coleman never led by anything close to what Jones is leading by

Maybe Big Luther can hold a seat he wasn't elected to for a few more weeks, but that's about all a recount could accomplish.

[Kamala]

[Arkansas Yankee]

Moore just said God is in control.  Well God just said Bye Bye!

The Moore crowd was singing hymns.  Sacreligous. My wife is so mad she is spitting nails.

[Devout Centrist]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

SOP with the Dim's tactics.

When is Franken going to resign?

We're gonna do a recount and keep counting. Just like you guys did to Coleman.

Wow. This is one of the most pathetic responses of the night. Have some dignity.

[ProudModerate2]

Recount baby. Still TCTC and we won't finish the night before we know the results.

Surprised by the swing though. Only the second time it's swung that much over that much over the course of the night. It's unusual. Usually ballots over 70 percent of the electorate won't swing more than 3 percent. Tonight it did.

I'll have to check my bounds. See if it's better with 3/x vs 2/x. Not sure. Anyways, NYT saying it was Jones +10 was crazy sauce. I was right about Jones being under 50, though.

The cuck returns to grace us with his terrible opinions

OMG.
He is back for "more" humiliation.
See his new post, five comments above this one.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

The Alabama SoS looked so done in the interview.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Moore can't legally ask for a recount if the margin is over 0.5, right?

He can if he pays for it. He could pay for a recount even if he lost by 20 points.

does he have the cash?

I can't possibly imagine.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm the quack? LOL.

NYT had the race at 10% Jones at one point. Yeah, sure I missed. But we're in recount territory. I did predict Jones under 50 percent well early.

So obviously I was close. Just gotta tweak a few things.

[fluffypanther19]

Recount baby. Still TCTC and we won't finish the night before we know the results.

Surprised by the swing though. Only the second time it's swung that much over that much over the course of the night. It's unusual. Usually ballots over 70 percent of the electorate won't swing more than 3 percent. Tonight it did.

I'll have to check my bounds. See if it's better with 3/x vs 2/x. Not sure. Anyways, NYT saying it was Jones +10 was crazy sauce. I was right about Jones being under 50, though.

You are the 4th bigger loser tonight after Moore, Trump, and Bannon, "baby". You are the statistical equivalent of a quack. You've shrunk from mere hack to outright troll.

On behalf of every likable person here, GTFO.

amen f@ck off ben Kenobi

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We'll see what the numbers say when all the ballots are counted. That is what you guys said about Coleman, right?

[TheSaint250]

This feels justified in a way with Franken (and other House members) resigning and Moore losing.

[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

[Sumner 1868]

Moore can't legally ask for a recount if the margin is over 0.5, right?

He can if he pays for it. He could pay for a recount even if he lost by 20 points.

does he have the cash?

He can get it rather easily. Evangelicals love donating.

[Comrade Funk]

[Dr. Arch]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm the quack? LOL.

NYT had the race at 10% Jones at one point. Yeah, sure I missed. But we're in recount territory. I did predict Jones under 50 percent well early.

So obviously I was close. Just gotta tweak a few things.

Not-In-Recount-Territory