‘Really?’ Chris Wallace Incredulous Pence Insists Big Hispanic Turnout is for Trump Not Clinton

Chris Wallace asked Mike Pence on FOX News Sunday how the Trump campaign plans to go over the top in the next 48 hours given the fact that they’re behind in all the polls.

Pence insisted that Hispanics are coming out for Trump despite reports that they are turning out early in big numbers in states like Nevada, Florida, Arizona, North Carolina and other states.

Responded Wallace: “So you think that all those Hispanics, sir, are coming out to vote for Trump and not for Clinton? Really?”

Wallace later moved on to the subject of concession and returned to promises by Donald Trump that people would have to “wait and see” whether he would accept the results:

“Can you guarantee that if there is a clear winner on election tonight and if Donald Trump should be the loser can you guarantee that he will concede to Hillary Clinton and accept the result of the election and the judgment of the American people?”

Said Pence:

“The campaign has made it very clear. A clear outcome obviously both sides will accept. But I think both campaigns have also been very clear that in the event of disputed results they reserve all legal rights and remedies.”

Watch:

The post ‘Really?’ Chris Wallace Incredulous Pence Insists Big Hispanic Turnout is for Trump Not Clinton appeared first on Towleroad.

‘Really?’ Chris Wallace Incredulous Pence Insists Big Hispanic Turnout is for Trump Not Clinton

4 Candidates Who Could Make Congress Less Awful, More Queer

While the presidential race, and Donald Trump in particular, dominates the media coverage of this year’s election, the down ballot races are almost as important and every bit as fascinating. If Trump suffers a devastating defeat at the polls–looking less likely now–he has the potential to bring down other Republicans with him. Fewer than 60 out of 435 Congressional seats are considered competitive this round, which means the stakes are high and the battles are fierce.

Democrats are counting on a handful of LGBTQ candidates to narrow the GOP hold on the House. While many face an uphill battle, in an election year this volatile, you can’t count anyone out until the votes are counted.

Here’s the low down on four attractive candidates who could change the face of Congress next year:

Matt Heinz of Arizona

Heinz is running for a Congressional seat in the Tuscon area. And not just any seat, but one of the most competitive in the nation. His opponent, Martha McSally, won by a scant 161 votes in 2014, a banner year for her fellow Republicans. Heinz stands to benefit from the backlash against Trump’s anti-immigration policies, which has put the entire state in play for Democrats. However, McSally has a massive war chest, while the Democratic party has largely left Heinz on his own.

Angie Craig of Minnesota

The district Craig seeks to represent includes the southern part of Minneapolis and St. Paul and then more conservative-leaning counties. Craig, a health care executive, is running against Jason Lewis, a conservative talk show host with the rich record of off-the-wall remarks that the job implies. Craig is ahead in the polls and has six times the contributions that Lewis has raised, making her one of the most promising prospects for heading to D.C. next year.

Denise Juneau of Montana

Juneau is seeking to unseat one-term GOP incumbent Al Zinke for Montana’s sole Congressional seat. Twice elected state Superintendent of Public Instruction, Juneau is a native American with deep roots in Montana. She’s facing an uphill battle, though. Zinke has a distinct fundraising advantage, and Montana is traditionally a Republican stronghold. Still, as Juneau proves, Democrats can win statewide office with the right candidate.

Brady Piñero Walkinshaw of Washington

Walkinshaw is seeking to fill the seat left open by retiring veteran Jim McDermott. Walkinshaw would seem the perfect fit for the Seattle-area district, but under Washington law, the top two vote-getters in the primary face off. Walkinshaw’s opponent is fellow Democrat Pramila Jayapal, who is equally progressive, but more in the Bernie Sanders mode. (Sanders endorsed Jayapal.) Jayapal beat Walkinshaw two-to-one in the primary, but he’s waging a sharp campaign. Even if he loses, the 32-year-old Walkinshaw will have other opportunities.

www.queerty.com/4-candidates-make-congress-less-awful-queer-20161106?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+queerty2+%28Queerty%29

Nate Silver Drops F-bomb in Furious Tweetstorm Defending 538’s Prediction Model

Incensed by an article from HuffPost’s Washington Bureau Chief Ryan Grim criticizing 538.com and its prediction model, 538’s election prognosticator Nate Silver unleashed a furious tweetstorm on Saturday.

Grim accused Silver of “just guessing” by “changing the results of polls to fit where he thinks the polls truly are, rather than simply entering the poll numbers into his model and crunching them” as opposed to other models that simply look at the hard numbers.

RELATED: Massive Final Weekend Election 2016 Update: Lots of Links

Wrote Grim:

Silver calls this unskewing a “trend line adjustment.” He compares a poll to previous polls conducted by the same polling firm, makes a series of assumptions, runs a regression analysis, and gets a new poll number. That’s the number he sticks in his model ― not the original number.

He may end up being right, but he’s just guessing. A “trend line adjustment” is merely political punditry dressed up as sophisticated mathematical modeling.

Guess who benefits from the unskewing?

By the time he’s done adjusting the “trend line,” Clinton has lost 0.2 points andTrump has gained 1.7 points. An adjustment of below 2 points may not seem like much, but it’s enough to throw off his entire forecast, taking a comfortable 4.6 point Clinton lead and making it look like a nail-biter.

Grim notes that the HuffPost pollster gives Clinton 98 percent chance of winning while the NY Times has Clinton’s chances at 85 percent.

RELATED: Colbert Asks Nate Silver to Predict What Will Happen if Trump Won’t Concede: WATCH

Silver’s model has it as a much tighter race with Clinton currently at 65.5%.

Grim accused Silver of “ratcheting up the panic” unnecessarily, and in favor of Trump:

Silver’s guess that the race is up for grabs might be a completely reasonable assertion ― but it’s the stuff of punditry, not mathematical forecasting.

Punditry has been Silver’s go-to move this election cycle, and it hasn’t served him well. He repeatedly pronounced that Trump had a close to 0 percent chance of winning the Republican primary, even as he led in the polls.

Silver ripped into Grim on Saturday afternoon:

This article is so fucking idiotic and irresponsible. t.co/VNp02CvxlI

— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) November 5, 2016

The reason we adjust polls for the national trend is because **that’s what works best emperically**. It’s not a subjective assumption.

— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) November 5, 2016

It’s wrong to show Clinton with a 6-point lead (as per HuffPo) when **almost no national poll shows that**. Doesn’t reflect the data.

— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) November 5, 2016

Every model makes assumptions but we actually test ours based on the evidence. Some of the other models are barley even empirical.

— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) November 5, 2016

There are also a gajillion ways to make a model overconfident, whereas it’s pretty hard to make one overconfident.

— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) November 5, 2016

If you haven’t carefully tested how errors are correlated between states, for example, your model will be way overconfident.

— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) November 5, 2016

Not just an issue in elections models. Failure to understand how risks are correlated is part of what led to the 2007/8 financial crisis.

— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) November 5, 2016

There’s a reasonable range of disagreement. But a model showing Clinton at 98% or 99% is not defensible based on the empirical evidence.

— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) November 5, 2016

We constantly write about our assumptions and **provide evidence** for why we think they’re the right ones. t.co/IhLKXdxGGK

— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) November 5, 2016

That’s what makes a model a useful scientific & journalistic tool. It’s a way to understand how elections work. Not just about the results.

— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) November 5, 2016

The problem is that we’re doing this in a world where people—like @ryangrim—don’t actually give a shit about evidence and proof.

— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) November 5, 2016

The philosophy behind 538 is: Prove it. Doesn’t mean we can’t be wrong (we’re wrong all the time). But prove it. Don’t be lazy.

— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) November 5, 2016

And especially don’t be lazy when your untested assumptions happen to validate your partisan beliefs.

— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) November 5, 2016

Grim concludes:

We’ll have to wait and see what happens. Maybe Silver will be right come Election Day ― Trump will win Florida, and we’ll all be in for a very long night. Or our forecast will be right, she’ll win nationally by 5 or 6, and we can all turn in early.

If he’s right, though, it was just a good guess ― a fortunate “trend line adjustment” ― not a mathematical forecast. If you want to put your faith in the numbers, you can relax. She’s got this.

(h/t/ politico)

The post Nate Silver Drops F-bomb in Furious Tweetstorm Defending 538’s Prediction Model appeared first on Towleroad.

Nate Silver Drops F-bomb in Furious Tweetstorm Defending 538’s Prediction Model

Chelsea Clinton Spoke to LGBT Voters in N.C.

Chelsea Clinton addressed LGBT voters in North Carolina Saturday.

www.advocate.com/election/2016/11/05/chelsea-clinton-spoke-lgbt-voters-nc