Comments on FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: Popular Vote Scenario Tester, Online Version [UPDA...

酒店經紀人, 菲梵酒店經紀, 酒店經紀, 禮服酒店上班, 酒店小姐兼職, 便服酒店經紀, ...

2009-10-09T04:07:34.116-04:00

酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,

艾葳酒店經紀公司提供專業的酒店經紀, 酒店上班小姐,八大行業,酒店兼職,傳播妹,或者想要到打工兼差、...

2009-09-09T03:53:16.518-04:00

艾葳酒店經紀公司提供專業的酒店經紀, 酒店上班小姐,八大行業,酒店兼職,傳播妹,或者想要到打工兼差、打工,兼差,或者八大行業,酒店兼職,想去酒店上班, 日式酒店,制服酒店,ktv酒店,禮服店,整天穿得水水漂漂的,還是想去制服店當上班小姐,水水們如果想要擁有打工工作、晚上兼差工作、兼差打工、假日兼職、兼職工作、酒店兼差、兼差、打工兼差、日領工作、晚上兼差工作、酒店工作、酒店上班、酒店打工、兼職、兼差、兼差工作、酒店上班等,想了解酒店相關工作和特種行業內容,想兼職工作日領、假日兼職、兼差打工、或晚班兼職想擁有快速賺錢又有保障的工作嗎???又可以現領請找專業又有保障的艾葳酒店經紀公司!

艾葳酒店經紀是合法的公司工作環境高雅時尚，無業績壓力，無脫秀無喝酒壓力，高層次會員制客源，工作輕鬆，可日領、現領。
一般的酒店經紀只會在水水們第一次上班和領薪水時出現而已，對水水們的上班安全一點保障都沒有！艾葳酒店經紀公司的水水們上班時全程媽咪作陪，不需擔心！只提供最優質的酒店上班,酒店上班,酒店打工環境、上班條件給水水們。心動嗎!? 趕快來填寫你的酒店上班履歷表

水水們妳有缺現領、有兼職、缺錢卡奴的煩腦嗎?想到日本留學缺錢嗎?妳是傳播妹??想要擁有高時薪又輕鬆的夜間兼職工作,打工機會和,假日打工,假日兼職賺錢的機會嗎??想實現夢想卻又缺錢沒錢嗎!??
艾葳酒店台北酒店經紀招兵買馬!!徵專業的酒店打工,想要去酒店的水水,想要短期日領,酒店日領,禮服酒店,制服店,酒店經紀,ktv酒店,便服店,酒店工作,禮服店,酒店小姐,酒店經紀人,
等相關服務幫您快速的實現您的夢想~!!

^^ nice blog!! ^@^徵信, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社...

2009-03-11T04:39:00.001-04:00

^^ nice blog!! thanks a lot! ^^徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社, 徵信...

2009-03-11T04:39:00.000-04:00

情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,...

2009-02-12T00:22:00.000-05:00

徵信社, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, ...

2009-02-09T01:36:00.000-05:00

At the end of the day, these scenarios are just th...

2008-06-05T14:29:00.000-04:00

At the end of the day, these scenarios are just that. Scenarios. Hardcore rules folks agree that Obama won the delegates according to the rules of the DNC. According to the universal rules of voting, Clinton wins since you count every vote certain and add estimates for the unreleased caucuses’ numbers, since those had real votes that can be counted precisely. Unfortunately, you cannot count the uncommitted precisely, and Obama took his name of the ballot anyway. In essence, account for everyone who actually pulled the lever. She won the vote Obama the delegates. If Gore recounted the entire state of FL he could have, would have, maybe have won the Presidency. Nevertheless, he did win the most votes. Votes are votes. No way to mess with them after the fact, they are what they are. There is a name and voters. Delegates and interpretations of the votes will be forever messed with, of course.

hosertohoosier,You seem to be missing the point of...

2008-06-03T11:32:00.000-04:00

hosertohoosier,

You seem to be missing the point of why the popular vote, electoral vote etc., is irrelevant to THIS Democratic primary. If any or all of these other metrics were in play, instead of limited to delegate count, all of the candidates would have varied their campaign strategies accordingly, presumably leading to a different outcome. Put another way, the outcome in this election [with regards to popular vote, electoral votes, etc] has no necessary relationship to the outcome of another election where any of these were the preferred metric. Obama may very well have won those too, with a different campaign strategy.

However, I too think it makes more sense to model the primary after the electoral vote. Seems like that would pick the strongest presidential candidate. Maybe in the future...

Only people who long ago gave the race to Obama an...

2008-06-02T23:38:00.000-04:00

Only people who long ago gave the race to Obama and are now trying to avoid apologizing pretend that tne number of people casting ballots is irrelevant. Clinton's claim has always been ballots cast by a real human being and counted.

1. Caucus estimates are not ballots cast.

2. Turn out in MI and FL doubled turnout from 2004 and 2000, a whole lot of real people voted.

3. RBC voted to seat full delegations - their primary question to MI was "does this reflect voter intent" they seem to think votes matter.

4. Obama deciding to not appear on MI ballot was, like his caucus wins, was the result of a campaign tactic (can't have it both ways but to be fair, you can include this "estimate" from the exit poll).

Given these considerations.

Ballots cast =

-ID, NE, WA Primary totals.
-MI with 75% of uncommitted to Obama
-FL
-PR (Guam and VI for that matter)

Result: Clinton +122718

You can also try eliminating both MI and the Caucuses:

Result: Clinton +117564

Every scenario that uses humans voting goes to Clinton.

For a better analysis of candidate strength, that is what super delegates are suppose to care about, see the link below. This was fun but if you want to win in November, time to stop playing games now.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2008/05/a_review_of_obamas_voting_coal_iii.html

People keep on making the mistake that primaries a...

2008-06-02T18:55:00.000-04:00

People keep on making the mistake that primaries and caucuses are for the Democratic Party to get a measure of “The Peoples Will” and it is being used here to denigrate caucuses. Primaries and caucuses are actually a mechanism that each state uses to pick who they think will be the best candidate in the general election, nothing more and nothing less.

Look at other the other parties like the Green Party, the Libertarian Party, etc., they don’t have 50 state wide primaries to pick their candidates and I don’t hear an outrage about that is not the peoples will. Each “party” has their own way of selecting a candidate for the general election. The Democratic Party lets each state individually choose the way they want to allocate their delegates. The majority of states think that the best way to select a candidate is through a primary, others think that the best way to select a candidate is through a caucus.

"So voters didn't think that the person with the m...

2008-06-02T17:30:00.000-04:00

"So voters didn't think that the person with the most votes would win? I highly doubt that. People expect their electoral system to pick the winner in line with the popular vote."

Whether they did or not is irrelevant. The point is that the effect of caucuses is to suppress votes, thus no state would hold them if there really was a "popular vote." The very fact that four states didn't bother to count votes proves that there is no popular vote.

"That is a great argument to get rid of caucuses. Unfortunately, caucuses were held this year. You either accept that they are a legitimate expression of the people's will or you don't (if not, you just fully disenfranchised all caucus states and gave Clinton the pledged delegate lead)."

I don't accept them as a legitimate expression of popular will, but under the DNC's nominating rules this was a delegate race. States are assigned fixed delegate totals for this very reason. Turnout is irrelevant. Voting percentage is all the matters according to the delegate race. This is the race Obama and Clinton agreed to. The rules were fair for both sides. Obama won on the merits.

"The only reason you feel the popular vote is unfair to caucus states is because turnout was lower there. This is only unfair if the people who didn't come out to vote in caucus states deserve to have their non-votes counted. So yes, you were saying that they deserve a to be counted, even if you weren't explicit about it. If you have another argument that doesn' involve turnout, please give it."

They deserve to be counted, yes, but they can't be because we can't know the identity nor preference of those who didn't vote in a caucus but would have voted in a primary. Thus, I'm not saying they "should" be counted. I'm saying their exclusion is a reason why a "popular vote" is invalid.

hosertohoosier wrote: "Obama gained 28 net delega...

2008-06-02T17:20:00.000-04:00

hosertohoosier wrote: "Obama gained 28 net delegates more than he would have if the primary results in WA, ID and NE were used (instead of the caucus votes)."

I am a Washington voter. I would have voted (for Obama) in the primary if it were going to be counted. I knew the rules beforehand, so I went to the caucus and didn't waste the stamp on the primary ballot.

It's meaningless to run a contest under one set of rules and then make claims about who the winner would be under a different set of rules. The participants in the contest take the rules into account when making their decisions. Your calculated 38-delegate swing, especially the caucus/primary state part of it, is illusory at best.

hosertohoosier,"If caucuses are legitimate, how is...

2008-06-02T17:19:00.000-04:00

hosertohoosier,

"If caucuses are legitimate, how is Michigan not legitimate? Both are highly skewed processes that unfairly benefited one candidate or another."

I already addressed this to you in another thread. Caucuses are legitimate in the delegate contest because they were an even playing field for all the candidates. All were on the ballot, all were allowed to campaign, all were told it would count. Michigan is not legitimate because none of the above three things were true for its contest. The bipartisan Michigan Democratic Party agrees.

From a "popular vote" standpoint, no national count is legitimate due to the mass inequalities. Closed primaries are not legitimate to add along open primaries. Caucuses are not legitimate to mix with primaries. Non-binding primaries are not legitimate. Michigan is not legitimate. Each of these are more illegitimate than the other. Closed primaries are more legit than caucuses, and caucuses are obviously more legit than straw polls that the candidates and voters were told would not count.

"Look at the difference between the WA primary and WA caucus - Obama won the caucus 2-1, and the primary by 5 points (with ~700,000 people showing up)."

It's patently absurd to count any contest that everyone was told would not count. This is like counting exhibition games. Do you recognize that Obama had a vastly superior organization for the causes in WA? Do you wounder why he didn't use it for the non-binding primary? Think that might've had an impact? Have you done a county-by-county analysis of the turnout to see how consistent it was with Washington's legitimate elections? I have heard that turnout in King County, the largest county and one Obama won by 45 points, had very low turnout. Maybe Clinton supporters are more likely for whatever reason to vote in a contest that doesn't count. Who knows. It doesn't matter, because it doesn't count.

"In the last poll to include all candidates (in December 2007), Obama was at 20%. Assigning Obama all of the uncommitted votes in one's assessment is more than generous (that exit polls showed an even narrower race than anybody predicted furthers my argument that MI's unrepresentativeness BENEFITED Obama/uncommitted)."

This is preposterous. You've now reduced yourself to saying Clinton was hurt by facing uncommitted rather than Obama and Edwards. The exit poll itself flatly contradicts this. Nate demonstrated that the preferences of the voters was: Clinton 46.6%, Obama 38.4%, Edwards 12.9%. 18% of Obama supporters and 30% of Edwards supporters voted for Clinton because their choices weren't on the ballot, but somehow that helped uncommitted. Even Lanny Davis hasn't made this argument.

You're also placing an absurd amount of importance on that 11/30 - 12/03 Michigan poll, ignoring that at that time, Obama was getting beaten badly almost everywhere, including by double-digits in New Hampshire, where he'd been campaigning extensively for months, as opposed to Michigan.

"Polls taken over how people would vote in a Michigan redo showed Clinton slightly ahead."

Source? The only poll I'm aware of is Rasmussen's, which showed a tie even though Obama hadn't campaigned.

Your premise is mistaken: there is no way to "cou...

2008-06-02T16:46:00.000-04:00

Your premise is mistaken: there is no way to "count" the popular vote as there is during the general election.

One can only estimate it.

The thing to do is to put up estimates that make sense and a framework to interpret them, if any.

The aggregate vote is a combination of things: open/closed, primary/caucus; one prima-caucus, and a two or three non-binding primaries. For some, the aggregate vote is not known/published (IA, WA, NV, ME).

BEST ESTIMATES PROCEDURE:

For my spreadsheet
1. I haven't taken any adjustment for open vs. closed. I didn't find big differences in the turnout figures, but I don't have nearly the database that you do.
2. I did do a caucus-to-primary adjustment. There is smaller turnout in the caucuses than the primaries. To get a reasonable tally, they have to be scaled. The caucuses also tended to have wider margins. I normalized them, with a few exceptions (e.g. D.C. and Hawaii). My adjustment is based on Kerry turnout figures, which is not as good, maybe, as the way you do turnout, based on registered voters, a data set I don't have.
3. The non-binding primaries are ignored as too biased.
4. Using both parts of the primary-caucus could only make sense if one could adjust for "duplicates", people who voted in both. That's too hard to hard to do.

After that, it's Michigan and Florida.

5. Everyone was on the ballot, so I use Florida. I don't scale it up (turnout was way too low to be 'normal'), because the results of the FL election are obviously biased and it would simply magnify it.
6. It's really hard to say that less people voted than actually did, so I use the Clinton figure from Michigan. I don't scale MI for the same reason: magnifying a bias.
7. Add 19,444 for Obama in Michigan due to the 30,000 write-in votes, split according to exit polls for non-Clinton voters.
8. Adjust Obama vote from Michigan as you like using exit polls, but never at zero, which is a nonsense estimate if there ever was one.

As for the territories that do not impact the general election, the question is one of how to display the results, I believe.

I just show these totals separately. The reader/user can decide how important they are.

spreadsheet link via Zoho (not updated for PR yet)

Hillary's latest ad says"17 million Americans have...

2008-06-02T15:18:00.000-04:00

Hillary's latest ad says

"17 million Americans have voted for Hillary Clinton...more than for any primary candidate in history"

That's not factually correct, because 5 states had more than one election, which she redefines somehow as not voting.

You can argue that the advisory primaries shouldn't count, but her ad isn't making some sort of nuanced argument.

It just boldly says more people voted for her. Which isn't even literally true.

Also there were actually 18+ million votes cast for a ballot with the name Clinton on it during this primary season. The same is true for Obama. And under reasonable predictions (and reasonable estimates of strictly unverifiable vote totals), that number with Obama's name will be slightly higher by tomorrow night than Clinton's. So we can ignore the fact that Uncommitted is not Obama's name in Michigan.

FYI, I didn't and won't be voting for Obama in 2008, but I will sure as hell be glad when Hillary, master liar, has finally said "No Mas" to her campaign farce.

Thanks for the additional information. Adjusting ...

2008-06-02T14:26:00.000-04:00

Thanks for the additional information. Adjusting for 2/3 TX Primary 1/3 TX Caucus, and wiping out caucus votes for the three states that had primary advisories as well, I got Clinton 18,619. Reversing that, and not counting the advisory primaries, I get Obama 53,210.

Based on the assertion that the advisories "would not count" of course the Obama number is more fair, unless the states explain that the primaries count for popular vote stats. Anyone know if this is the case?

And, in any event, Nate has clearly and firmly demonstrated just how unreasonable it is to claim the popular vote as a measure of anything, when there were no rules in place at the outset for counting the popular vote.

Anonymous June 2, 2008 10:41 AM wrote: "There is ...

2008-06-02T14:10:00.000-04:00

Anonymous June 2, 2008 10:41 AM wrote: "There is no real way to count the popular vote and it is dishonest, disingenuous and dishonorable to say otherwise."

I think this is correct. And it is the reason why I believe Clinton is making a strategic mistake right now by adamantly saying that she has won the popular vote. It pisses off the Obama supporters and makes her appear "dishonest, disingenuous and dishonorable." I think she is going to have trouble with more educated voters if she gets into another democratic primary in the future. The hugs with Obama later this week (assuming they are forthcoming) won't fully solve it either.

As for my other representativeness argument - look...

2008-06-02T13:53:00.000-04:00

As for my other representativeness argument - look at Ohio.

Clinton got 55% of the two-candidate vote, Obama got 45. If Ohio were perfectly proportional, the delegates would have gone 78-63, instead of 75-66.

In Pennsylvania they would have gone 87-71 instead of 85-73.

In Georgia it would have been 59-28 rather than 61-26.

There was a 3 delegate swing out of Illinois in Obama's favour.

A 3 delegate swing to Clinton in NY.

A 1 delegate swing to Obama in North Carolina.

1 del swing to Clinton in MA.

1 del swing to Obama in WI.

1 del swing to Obama in MD.

1 del swing to Obama in PR.

2 del swing to Clinton in KY.

2 del swing to Obama in NV.

1 del swing to Clinton in CO.

1 del swing to Obama in Kansas

1 del swing to Obama in SC.

1 del swing to Clinton in IN.

1 del swing to Obama in CT.

1 del swing to Obama in Maine.

1 del swing to Clinton in AR.

1 del swing to Clinton in TN.

Net result: swing of ten to Clinton, minus swing of 20 to Obama. Obama gained 10 net delegates more than state-by-state PR would have predicted (I looked at more states than listed above).

Obama gained 28 net delegates more than he would have if the primary results in WA, ID and NE were used (instead of the caucus votes).

A 38 delegate swing is a big deal, especially since most of the states involved were part of the February stretch - aiding as they did in the notion of Obama's post-Super Tuesday "inevitability" (alongside the primary calendar) and limiting Clinton's gains from PA, TX and Ohio.

Obama is presently ahead by 113 pledged delegates. If the fairer rules I mentioned had been used in apportioning delegates, Obama's lead among pledged delegates would only be 37.

awesome. what about an Operation Chaos/Republican...

2008-06-02T13:32:00.000-04:00

awesome. what about an Operation Chaos/Republican Mischief vote calculation, where available. Example, subtracting out the Clinton and Obama voters who said on exit polls they planned to vote for McCain in the General? (E.G. 18% of the electorate in Indiana's primary, the subset in which 88% voted for Clinton)
--Dave

In the context of this nomination cycle, not only ...

2008-06-02T13:30:00.000-04:00

In the context of this nomination cycle, not only is any attempt to measure "popular vote" flawed, the term itself has no meaning. For a term to be defined there must be a general consensus as to what it means. Not only that, if we are attempting to measure it, there must be a reasonable operational definition of the term.

But there is no such consensus and no such operational defintion. Every party to this debate attempts to impose its own defintion and its own operational measures. What we have is the equivalent of the story of the thower of Babel.

This philosophical quibble, however, is also somewhat irrelvant. What we are witnessing are attempts on the part of the candidates to impose their own perspective by trying to define the vocabulary to be used. Those who wish to end or severely restricty abortion, for example, won the verbal battle by successfully claiming the label, "Right to Life."

How about this?Add up the caucus states (and estim...

2008-06-02T13:08:00.000-04:00

How about this?

Add up the caucus states (and estimates) separately from primary states. Then apply an adjustable primary vote/caucus vote factor before adding them up.

It makes no real sense to add caucus votes directly to primary votes - they just aren't the same thing.

Corrections are needed to the spreadsheet.Democrat...

2008-06-02T11:44:00.000-04:00

Corrections are needed to the spreadsheet.

Democrats Abroad are not people like in Guam or Puerto Rico, who have no right to vote in the general election. They are US citizens with full voting rights, who happen to live abroad, and who the Democratic Party gave them rights to vote in the primary (because voting from abroad is a PITA enough, without making it less useful because it is a primary).

Other nits: the turnout in Washington caucus was 244,458 according to the Seattle Post Intelligencer. AP reports pegged Iowa's turnout as a bit lower than the spreadsheet (220,588 vs. 236,00 in the spreadsheet).

Big nits:
I don't know where you got 750,000 for the Texas caucus. I could only find one report from a Dallas news organization that guessed 1,100,000.

Double Counting:
Since the Texas delegates are explicitly picked using potential double voting on a 2 to 1 ratio, then I suggest counting the Texas Primary as 2/3 of a vote, and the Texas caucus as 1/3 of a vote.

Now for the creative bullshit (spreadshit in industry lingo): Since Hillary doesn't mind redefining things to whatever suits her momentary numbers, I suggest

1) Counting all votes, no matter for what (including advisory primaries).
2) Giving her her no votes for Obama/Edwards/Richardson in Michigan crap because....
3) Give Obama a huge percent of Edwards million plus votes, and Richardson/Dodd's 150,000 votes because they all endorsed Obama.
Even if you were generous and split that 50% for Obama, 25% for Clinton and 25% for the original candidate because the voters don't like the big 2, that still gives Obama a half million vote lead.

One thing that is abundantly clear from reading al...

2008-06-02T11:41:00.000-04:00

One thing that is abundantly clear from reading all these posts is that using any metric to count the popular vote is deeply flawed.

There is no real way to count the popular vote and it is dishonest, disingenuous and dishonorable to say otherwise.

Regarding the question of primaries versus caucuses, a caucus is a fair way to pick a candidate. Each state’s party has a right to pick a candidate by any way they want. That is democracy. If a state wants to choose a candidate by having a combination of a hotdog eating contest and dart contest, then that is the parties’ right, but it is agreed that you will not get the best candidate. However, the goal of a caucus is to get the best candidate and there are states that think the best way to get a “Democratic Party” candidate is to hold a caucus. Caucus states want people who are deeply passionate about a candidate to debate each other to pick the candidate of their state. That is their right.

Hosertohoosier,If we're going to try to judge the ...

2008-06-02T11:39:00.000-04:00

Hosertohoosier,

If we're going to try to judge the "will of the people", and we're considering polls, then we have to consider that every national poll shows Obama leading Clinton among primary voters. The will of the people is clear.

I'm not sure which Michigan polls you're looking at, but a poll taken shortly after Clinton's victory in Ohio showed the race tied, 41-41:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/michigan/election_2008_michigan_democratic_presidential_primary

And that's before Obama even set foot in the state.

This is consistent with what we've seen everywhere else: Obama underperforms in non-binding contests and in states in which he has not campaigned. If the contest in January had been binding, he would have campaigned in the state and the end result probably would have been closer to Poblano's demographic analysis: about an 80,000 vote win for Obama.

I just realized I could use exit poll data to demo...

2008-06-02T11:33:00.000-04:00

I just realized I could use exit poll data to demonstrate that Obama's core groups were over-represented in the MI vote.

23% of voters were black. Now in 2004 and 2000 MI was a caucus, so I don't have primary exit polls. However, I do have the exit poll from the general. 11% of voters there were African American, 88% went for Kerry. Since Kerry got 51% overall in MI, one can infer 19% of his support was among African Americans.

What about old people, one of Clinton's core groups? 15% of 2008 MI primary voters were >65, the exact proportion >65'ers took in Kerry's 2004 bid.