I've had people say it's a hardening, actually ~ US presidential election 2016 part 9/11 never forget

i know there's some reason why letting congress pick the president in order to get bernie into office won't work but i just can't figure out what

encouraging people likely to vote trump to remain in the path of a *deadly* storm doesn't seem like a strategically good move for trump turnout (see also soliciting votes from the terminally ill)

https://twitter.com/DRUDGE/status/784121449606852608

I would have no qualms about advising people who don't believe in climate change to head on down to the beach

he's moved on to a different tactic:

Direct eyewall hit for Freeport in next hour. Will ground observations match the Hurricane Center's claimed 140 mph sustained winds?

http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/station_page.php?station=spgf1 Buoy off Freeport, in direct line of eyewall. Let's watch the data come in...

cool, so if the buoy that he has identified as being nearby (??) doesn't get "the Hurricane Center's claimed 140 mph sustained winds?" (source???) then liberals are lying to people in order to get them to worry about climate change.

also...matt drudge only has 4 tweets since 2011, and they're all from today? or does he delete them all the day after he posts them or something? god he's a fucking weirdo

lol, what does he think that the hurricanes are calibrated to distribute exactly 140 mile an hour winds for hundreds of miles? hell, hurricane force winds only extend 45 miles from the thing

why would fake reports of extreme weather convince these people that climate change is real when real reports of extreme weather haven't made a dent

i don't know why i care, but here is what the hurricane center actually said:

DISCUSSION AND 48-HOUR OUTLOOK
------------------------------
At 500 PM EDT (2100 UTC), the eye of Hurricane Matthew was located
near latitude 26.2 North, longitude 78.6 West. The hurricane
is moving toward the northwest near 14 mph (22 km/h), and this
general motion is expected to continue tonight with a turn toward
the north-northwest early Friday. On the forecast track, the
eye of Matthew should move near or over Freeport in the Bahamas
in the next hour or so, and move close to or over the east coast
of the Florida peninsula through Friday night.

Maximum sustained winds are near 140 mph (220 km/h) with higher
gusts. Matthew is a category 4 hurricane on the Saffir-Simpson
Hurricane Wind Scale. Some fluctuations in intensity are likely
while the hurricane moves toward the coast of Florida.

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/text/refresh/MIATCPAT4+shtml/062051.shtml

so if winds don't reach what the hurricane center set as a worst case scenario, the govt is lying to you. also, if winds exceed what the hurricane center set as the worst case scenario, they're incompetent.

god he's a manipulative asshole

science!

xp

speaking of...

http://wonkette.com/607281/rush-limbaugh-pretty-sure-liberals-cant-wait-for-hurricane-matthew-to-kill-everybody

That's not true, Rush. I just can't wait for the hurricane to kill you.

Drudge is clumsily shoehorning in a climate change point but there are lots of doofusy civilians that think they're entitled to pinpoint accurate forecasts and scream hell or high water here for "false alarms". y'know instead of being relieved they're alive and had a chance to protect themselves.

hell, there were those geologists who got convicted of manslaughter in Italy 5-6 years ago simply cos they *failed to predict an earthquake*

For those more daring than I, Rosa Clemente(Green VP candidate in '08) went on W Kamau Bell & Hari Kondabolu's show to defend the Green Party, voting your conscience, American 3rd parties, etc

https://megaphone.link/FL2720523205

they're still trying to extradite Amanda Knox for a 5.7 from a couple months ago

hahahahahahahaha

Drudge is clumsily shoehorning in a climate change point but there are lots of doofusy civilians that think they're entitled to pinpoint accurate forecasts and scream hell or high water here for "false alarms". y'know instead of being relieved they're alive and had a chance to protect themselves.

the weather channel is a fundamentally unserious org and is implicated in this

Otm re: weather channel bias.

John Coleman is a dumbshit , almost forgot about that ridic shit he said

I feel like I'm becoming more and more of a Nate Silver skeptic. In one of their podcasts recently they laid out all the factors that could come into play - early voting, better ground game by Democrats, expected performances in the next debates, higher voter registration among minorities, high numbers of late deciders, etc. - but none of this is factored into their "polls plus" model at all - instead it contains economic data and the idea of a pull towards equilibrium at 50-50, two factors which they have admitted aren't really relevant. But Nate still doesn't seem to want to talk about this - 538 just keeps on putting out articles about the different combinations of states which could add up to a majority, instead - which is surely only interesting from their point of view.

They're also all pretty much dismissing the now-cast at this point. I guess they'll do a lot of rethinking after the election. I still like their podcasts, though.

This has turned into a rout again.

why does he try to smolder for the camera? https://www.google.com/search?q=nate+silver&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X

there are some people on twitter saying really stupid shit and claiming to be on the eastern Florida coast and I hope they wise up or are proven right before they are proven very, very wrong

Well, proven right insofar as the hurricane not wreaking complete havoc, not them being right about weather alerts being ignorable

if they paid attention they'd realize the forecast doesn't show the heaviest winds coming in until like 2 am. so if they stay there a bit longer they might regret it.

really wouldn't wanna mess around with that

yeah the claim is now Hillary is advertising a ton on the weather channel so it's a scam, but she also wants people to die, and also the hurricane is fake

man this post-factual world is gonna get weird

scott refuses to extend FL registration deadline (which is tuesday).

why does he try to smolder for the camera? https://www.google.com/search?q=nate+silver&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X

― 𝔠𝔞𝔢𝔨 (caek), Friday, 7 October 2016 00:44 (forty-eight minutes ago) Permalink

that's way too much Nate Silver

Silver's hairline is the stuff of nightmares. He's one of those people who literally cannot get a flattering haircut.

I'm sorry, I know this is a dead horse for everyone here, but the biggest Bernie fan in my feed just keeps going and going and going -- he moans endlessly about how many of his friends he's had to block because they're voting for Clinton, but then, today, says he thinks Clinton probably stole Massachusetts. How do you think both a) I'm surrounded by sheeple who support Hillary Clinton, and b) Clinton couldn't possibly have actually won, who would vote for her?

https://twitter.com/adrian_gray/status/784211583421542401

Clinton winning 94% of Obama approvers. Would be new high.

McCain '08: 89%
Gore '00: 77%
Bush '88: 84%
HHH '68: 64%
Nixon '60: 68%

poor Hubert

They're also all pretty much dismissing the now-cast at this point. I guess they'll do a lot of rethinking after the election. I still like their podcasts, though.

This is good; I stopped reading their polling articles because they kept throwing "but the nowcast says this" analysis into every article. They'd always include their boilerplate explaining the limits of the nowcast, but it still felt like scare-tactic clickbait, not much better than random speculation about who has "momentum."

I don't mind that they're bullish on Trump compared to other predictors, that's fine and makes sense to me. It's the volatility that has caused me to take them less seriously. Clinton will have a few weaker polling days and suddenly her chances drop 10-15%. Then they're back up 20% in the 4 days after the debate.

obviously that debate was major, i'm not denying that, it just feels like 538's numbers have been all over the place to the point that I don't really trust the heights or depths of their bounces.

Nate has actually done the opposite of what you'd expect (well, if he was still at NYT and not at Disney) and interpreted these swings as this race being one of the more "volatile" races in recent memory, while meanwhile Sam at PEC has said the complete opposite, that this has been the most stable campaign in years (it should be noted, his Bayesian forecast even went through a significant reduction in Clinton's odds too, but nowhere near as stark or immediate as Nate's).

Sam has basically said, in very nice veiled words, that maybe Nate should look at his model.

This may have already been linked, but i thought this 538 critique was interesting, even as i admit that i'm not really qualified to evaluate it on its merits. http://predictwise.com/blog/2016/09/poll-aggregation-fight/

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/donald-trump-town-hall-debate-prep-229267

“I said forget debate prep. I mean, give me a break,” Trump said at one point. “Do you really think that Hillary Clinton is debate-prepping for three or four days. Hillary Clinton is resting, okay?”

Y'all talking shit like you don't remember the bad old days of the Carville/Huffington/Dowd/Tucker Carlson/etc/etc reality-free punditocracy. We live in a golden age of evidence-based election coverage thanks largely to NS. If you don't like his particular prediction, take an average of his, the daily kos one (actually very good), sam wang, and predictwise. The result will be more stable (good for your delicate constitutions) and is likely more accurate than any one of them alone.

i mean, maybe silver is right and it is uniquely volatile! I think i'm maybe also swayed by the fact that, whatever his talents as a data journalist, his website is just not very good by any measure.

thank god there's no more reality-free punditocracy

Like, as far as I know, his model and those of any other principled predictor are set in stone (code) from the beginning of their coverage of this election cycle. It's not like they go in by hand and tweak shit to make the results more click-baity (I hope!).

Hey, the punditocracy doesn't exist for those of us who Don't Watch TV™

it still shows up in my twitter feed from time to time tbh

The historical data piece of his model is based on basic antagonisms like incumbent party/opposition and republican/democrat that are less meaningful in a year where a weirdo is facing off against a lightning rod

fwiw i don't believe silver is changing his model in real time at all, and my critique wasn't meant to deny him credit for his past accomplishments. he may be right about this election's unique day-to-day volatility, though that seems hard to truly measure given that there will only be one outcome. I've just mentally started to file his forecast as more noise than signal, that's all.

go in by hand and tweak shit to make the results more click-baity

Oh I think that's part of what they have been doing, incrementally anyway

NS and 538 seem to be backsliding towards a more fact-fungible world of political reporting where every day is new exciting horse race fodder, while other peers (mostly hobbyists with other day jobs) are actually pressing forward with the sober analysis that made 538 viable in the first place. Additionally, his OG, more boring methods have been picked up by other wonky sites that generally avoid horse race reporting because they've staked claims to other foci and perspectives as their bread and butter, cf TPM