Live Presidential Forecast

http://www.nytimes.com/elections/forecast/president?1

by tomp • 10 years ago

226 257 10 years ago

nytimes.com

evantahler2• 10 years ago

This is very cool. I'd love to see a tech write up later this month... and some stats!

the_duke10• 10 years ago

It sure looks good.

I hope there's a solid statistical model behind it too though.

evantahler2• 10 years ago

Yeah... the jitter being fake (and fast?) seems unnecessary per your other comment.

If the jitter was an actual uncertainty measure or something... or less fast...

Arkaad2• 10 years ago

Wouldn't that influence the voters?

refurb2• 10 years ago

Not sure why you're getting downvoted.

I know in Canada they have a media blackout for each timezone until polls close (or are almost closed). The assumption is people will change their vote based on early counts.

However, that may have changed with the internet since you can't stop anyone from getting early results.

Edit: yup, looks like Canada stopped that back in 2014 [1]

[1]http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/election-reforms-include-end...

wyldfire3• 10 years ago

The assumption is people will change their vote based on early counts.

I think the most likely problem is not votes being swayed by popularity -- probaly moreso is turnout being impacted by a large lead.

Rexxar• 10 years ago

Nice but the three top gauges are moving suspiciously fast. Do they add a little random the the real number to give a sort of error margin visualisation ?

artursapek2• 10 years ago

Yeah, it looks hilariously fake.

the_duke10• 10 years ago

I just checked.

They gauges moving around is definitely random.

The updates are done with a "president.json" file, fetched every 15 seconds, but the timestamp in the json data only changes every 30-180 seconds.

So all of the movement is just random jitter to make it engaging.

Maybe a bit disingenuous.

(Note: I first thought they might be using websockets, but no WS connection is made on the page. Only a ajax fetch of president.json)

yoloswagins2• 10 years ago

Check the websocket connection. Haven't noticed anything interesting coming down the pipe yet, but NYT is using it.

pat_space2• 10 years ago

Thanks the_duke!

Steko2• 10 years ago

I think the idea is to indicate these numbers have error bands:

The estimates below include an estimate of uncertainty. We expect the uncertainty around these estimates to narrow, especially after races are called.

I don't see any reason why we'd expect the uncertainty to be updated more than every 30-180 seconds or why any of this is the least bit "disingenuous".

yankyou3• 10 years ago

I'd venture further to say it's a perversion of "news" for a news site to be injecting garbage into the data for entertainment purposes.

yoloswagins2• 10 years ago

Looking though the source code, they have a jitter amount. It adds a little visual interest.

pat_space2• 10 years ago

I thought the same thing, would like to see the background calculations running all three.

revelation2• 10 years ago

That's random, there is no network activity. Screams "black pattern", who on earth randomizes a graph on election results. Come on.

artursapek2• 10 years ago

NYT is not known for accuracy

susw2• 10 years ago

Disable jitter by running the following in console:

  require('forecast/jitter').get = function(){return 0;}

the_duke10• 10 years ago

Haha, awesome find.

Did you just dig through the code or are you a NYT dev?

farnsworth• 10 years ago

Increase the jitter amount with the following:

  require('forecast/jitter').get = function(){return Math.random()*10;}

Tinyyy• 10 years ago

I think it's an interesting way to represent uncertainty; it seems pretty intuitive to me.

ajmurmann• 10 years ago

It is a intuitive visualization, but also makes it hard to tell when things actually change.

eltoozero• 10 years ago

A decent mechanism to minimize page refreshes at the very least.

Periodic real updates with something more expressive than a spinner, which have never been convincing enough to keep me from mashing reload.

andr2• 10 years ago

There is a proliferation of predictive models and their outcomes vary widely. LA Times consistently predicted a Trump win, FiveThirtyEight was down to a coin toss a few times, while The New York Times was persistently pro-Hillary. While those models were meant to help people make sense of the large number of individual polls, now we need models to make sense of the models.

dj-wonk5• 10 years ago

Yes, and this is a good thing.

It is better than what we do, informally. We all use models (of some sort) when we process information; e.g. I discount certain publications and value others. But few people actually make their models explicit and ask others to critique them.

Making a model public and explicit is a great first step. Building more models on top is a good thing, not a bad thing.

mattnumbe4• 10 years ago

I feel that I'm an educated person, and I try to keep up with politics in America, but I really don't understand our system. How can some states be called with less than 20% of the votes being counted?

coddingtonbear• 10 years ago

Exit polling, usually.

andr2• 10 years ago

Just like there are swing states, there are swing counties. As soon as you figure their results out, you can call the state with a good degree of confidence.

positr0n2• 10 years ago

I believe each individual network calls them at their own discretion. It's not an official "call" by the government or anything.

As to why so early, they have enough confidence in exit polls and other previous polls to say that, for example, Hillary is not going to win Oklahoma.

shostack• 10 years ago

Is there any research on this news impacting voter participation? Ie if they feel their party is losing do they throw in the towel even though they still might have had a chance?

smcl• 10 years ago

It's weird - I see "Reporting %" as a stat but it's not clear to me whether that means "percentage of possible votes counted" or "percentage of counties/constituencies counted". If it means the latter then I can absolutely see why 20% would call it, it just means there's lots of low-population counties. If the former then it's just speculation I think.

protomyth6• 10 years ago

If the 20% is from the Democratic part of the state and the rest of the districts to report are Republicans and the Democrat is not ahead (or reversed) then you can make a call. It really does matter which districts have fully reported.

Someone3• 10 years ago

'Call' doesn't mean the result is guaranteed; it means that the person making the call is very sure that will be the result. See it as "if I were a bookmaker, I would take a X:1 bet on this" for a fairly large value of X.

Those making a call will typically check how well the results for the counties that reported results so far correlate with the polls and historical results, guesstimate what that would mean for the other counties, and call it when they think the result is clear (hopefully, they employ statisticians to make the call, but even then, it remains an inexact science)

For example, if a state has had over 90% votes for party P in all its counties in the past ten elections, the polls say that won't change, results of ten percent of counties nicely distributed over the state in terms of city/countryside, rich/poor, race, etc. show it hasn't changed, making the call that P will win is easy. Everybody would take that bet.

For an example of 'calling it' going wrong, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dewey_Defeats_Truman.

cruisestacy• 10 years ago

Watch live streaming: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y60wDzZt8yg

the_duke10• 10 years ago

Off topic, but I might as well say it here:

I just tuned in to CNN: I think the way they cover the results is ridiculous.

They just babble off random, pointless numbers without pause, with their fancy interactive maps in the background.

They announce small changes with a sensationalism that's almost pathetic (KEY RACE ALERT! ALL OFF A SUDDEN Clinton takes the lead in Florida!! (by 20k votes... with a vote count of 30%).

Very little actual, substantive discussion of key results to watch out for, of key states, ...

One of the biggest news channels in the world should be able to do a bit better than that, IMO.

jdavis7032• 10 years ago

One of the top stories on the homepage this afternoon was about how everyone in the Trump family was glancing over to see how the other members voted. Are grade school antics what the system has come down to?

lucio3• 10 years ago

Their function is to entertain, information is an afterthought. It is not a managerial decision, all TV is directed by ratings, "entertainment" is what people want, so "entertainment" is what they give to them.

emp_zealoth2• 10 years ago

I tried watching CNN once, when I was stuck somewhere. Im not from US of A. It was a painful experience, realising just how much of a piece of trash that channel is

They would spend riddiculous amount of time on hearsay or drama, then just switch to some kind of "news" stripped of any context one could use to actually get some information

anonymfus• 10 years ago

Viewing is banned in Russia by uploader :-(

geowwy2• 10 years ago

And Australia

jakebasile• 10 years ago

Maybe PBS NewsHour?

_RPM• 10 years ago

Why is voting actually hard to do? Even though we're so encouraged to vote, there is a lot of red tape. For example, depending on your street address, you may have to vote at a garden variety pick of a building. At my university, I couldn't vote in building A because my apartment was on street X. I ultimately was not able to vote today because it was actually _hard_ to vote.

coderdude• 10 years ago

Freedom isn't easy.

Jokes aside, you're overstating the difficulty to vote. You couldn't vote today because you couldn't pick the building to vote at?

afterburner• 10 years ago

It's hard in the US.

mattnumbe4• 10 years ago

Do you watch Last Week Tonight? People used to use Monday as a travel day to vote on Tuesday. It may not be so easy now, but they're trying to make it _easier_

Steko2• 10 years ago

they're trying to make it _easier_

Not everywhere.

nradov• 10 years ago

Well if you're too lazy to walk across the street then just vote by mail.

davidw• 10 years ago

I need a drink. Or three :-/

Grazester• 10 years ago

I knew if I started I would not be able to stop!!

M_Grey13• 10 years ago

On the bright side, there will be no denying what a deeply stupid group of people we are, as a nation after this.

angerman• 10 years ago

According to the nytimes it looks like the following right now:

- President: Democrats (72%), - Senate (76%) and House (>95%): Republicans

Is this a good outcome for a democracy? And if so, why? Wouldn't this mean that the system is effectively gridlocked?

jdavis7032• 10 years ago

Ideally politicians would be adults and work out deals, like in the old days. Or maybe this is why most democracies have parliamentary systems.

andars6• 10 years ago

I'm not convinced that such "old days" ever existed. I'm open to the idea, but the more I learn of history, the more it seems like the deals were the exception, not the rule. The system was designed from the beginning to make things difficult.

drcode• 10 years ago

As someone who feels that most times new government initiatives have a net negative impact, a gridlocked system sounds like a decent outcome, all things considered.

krapp• 10 years ago

"That government is best which governs least, because its people discipline themselves." (Thoreau)

Gridlock in the US government is a feature, not a bug, if for no other reason than it forces polarized, mutually opposed interests to compromise their principles and self-interest to get anything done.

Analemma_2• 10 years ago

Refresh your page. Upshot has Trump with a 59% chance to win.

Natsu3• 10 years ago

FL, NH and MI are leaning Trump at the moment. It's looking a lot closer than it did even last week.

miguelrochefort• 10 years ago

Trump wins. GG.

adamconroy• 10 years ago

the necks got off their sundecks it seems

up_so_floating4• 10 years ago

This sort of rhetoric is precisely what inspires people to vote for Trump.

emp_zealoth2• 10 years ago

I like how none of the charts actually match another

keithnz• 10 years ago

Why isn't the president decided by the percentage of votes? Seems to me, there are a lot voters whose vote essentially are useless?

I kind of understand the house and senate being more regional representation, but the president kind of represents all Americans, no?

up_so_floating4• 10 years ago

You are not alone; many Americans have the same question.

stass3• 10 years ago

And the answer can be easily found in e.g. Federalist papers and even Wikipedia.

castratikron• 10 years ago

It was originally designed to stop stupid people from throwing the election. We'll see tonight if it still works.

75j4• 10 years ago

Which stupid people are you referring to?

unclenoriega• 10 years ago

Wouldn't we not know until the Electoral College meets?

humanrebar6• 10 years ago

No, it was originally a compromise between having congress pick the president and a pure popular vote.

shaftoe• 10 years ago

The United States is/was a collection of independent state governments. At one point, many state governments selected the electoral college representatives from their states. Until it was amended, states governments chose their senators.

There are political and historical reasons for having the system work this way, much like how the ordering of primaries is a contentious and complicated arrangement.

quadrangle3• 10 years ago

Yeah, the entire system is screwed up by this insane electoral college. But majority-rule is insane even on a popular vote. The only good way to elect consensus candidates who serve everyone well is to implement score voting http://scorevoting.net/

JoshTriplett• 10 years ago

Several systems work well for electing a good consensus candidate in a single-winner election, including Condorcet, Approval, and various forms of range voting.

PDoyle• 10 years ago

I'm not sure it's the only way. There are ranked-ballot systems that are good too, like Single Transferable Vote.

The point is, first-past-the-post has almost every possible flaw you can have in a voting system.

ajhofmann• 10 years ago

Aside from the obviously fake jittering gauges, it seems like whenever I reset the page the pointer goes to about 68% and then after 5-10 seconds jumps to 77%. Not sure if it's caching a number and then updating or supposed to make me stay on the page.

5511997• 10 years ago

Florida for Trump.

Trump is the new President!

Have a look at https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald to see what kind of people voted for Trump. MAGA!

Edit: Downvote all you want doesn't change the outcome :)

up_so_floating4• 10 years ago

I went to a Trump rally recently and found it truly unbelievable. Thousands of people, all demographics seemingly represented, lined up for hours despite the cold, dark night and horrible parking conditions. Trump was over two hours late, and the rally did not end until past 1am, but the energy and general goodwill towards each other persisted the entire time.

5511997• 10 years ago

Yes! It doesn't matter what sex, color, sexual orientation or if we agree with everything - we are UNITED! This is a movement. Establishment vs anti-Establishment. People over globalism.

internaut2• 10 years ago

! Trump wins Florida!

Favorite Reddit comments so far.

"There is still California, there's always money in the banana stand."

"CNN, now is not the time to be playing an advert for The Man In The High Castle".

5511997• 10 years ago

Have a look at the electoral votes map.

Even NYTIMES gives Trump +95% change to win.

mcphilip• 10 years ago

It's looking like it might be a Brexit moment for the USA. The filter bubble echo chamber of social media and 24/7 coverage of celebrities stumping for Clinton is going to leave a lot of people shocked tomorrow when/if it's officially given to Trump.

M_Grey13• 10 years ago

Then you'll see the economic fallout, and then it's just four years of misery, and people who can afford to, getting the hell out.

morgante• 10 years ago

Where is there to "get out" to though? Economically the US has been outperforming the rest of the world recently.

I'm especially worried because the developer job market is a lot worse outside the US than inside it. I genuinely don't know where to go (recession seems inevitable).

MichaelBurge• 10 years ago

Canada's immigration site is down due to volume.

It won't happen, but it'd be hilarious if the Democrats planned to rig future elections by importing millions of immigrants to vote for them, and they instead end up emigrating by the millions to Canada thus swinging it in the opposite direction.

ythl2• 10 years ago

Come on, at least give the guy a chance before bashing the future economy.

chiaro2• 10 years ago

To be fair, the polls were consistently in the opposite direction. 538 had clinton at 70%, PEC at 99%, everyone else somewhere in between. It's a black swan event, bubble or no.

trhway2• 10 years ago

LA times had it for trump. They had their own weighting. Their results when adjusted for commonly accepted weighting matched the common poll average. So it is in the weighting.

humanrebar6• 10 years ago

A new wrinkle on the Bradley effect, maybe?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_effect

inimino3• 10 years ago

A 30% probability event coming to pass isn't a black swan event. This term is unfortunately overused for anything unexpected but that isn't what it means.

lucio3• 10 years ago

It is a black swan event? or there are significant problems with the polls?

Alex3917• 10 years ago

I had a feeling this was going to happen today when I saw that virtually everyone in my Facebook feed and everyone on the streets of NYC was supporting Hillary. Every extra +1 in NYC is pretty much going to be -1 in a swing state.

As one of the hundreds of folks banned from DailyKos for being too liberal, I've been spending some time reading the Trump subreddit, and I have to say that Hillary has run perhaps the worst campaign in memory:

- Rigged the primaries against Bernie, disenfranchised hundreds of thousands of voters, and cheated during the debates.

- Spent 5x more on paid media advertising, and got all the social media sites to censor pro-Trump messages.

- Paid shills to attack anyone who disagrees with her policies on social media.

- It looks like there is a good chance her campaign was behind the attempt to frame Assange for pedophilia.

- Made gender her primary selling point with her #imwithher slogan. (Imagine if she had gone with something like #TheNextAmerica instead, to contrast with MAGA.)

- Accusing Trump of saying and doing tons of things he didn’t actually say or do.

- Characterizing Trump supporters as racists, bigots, deplorables, etc.

- Paying people to incite violence at Trump rallies

- Accusing Russia of hacking her campaign’s emails when in fact it was oedesta who gave out his password to a phishing site… twice… without two-factor enabled.

- Having Bill meet with Loretta Lynch during the email investigation. Then appointing Podesta's close friend to run the email investigation which resulted in a last minute FBI coup forcing Comey to make a statement.

I didn't vote for Trump, I don't support Trump, and I'm as horrified that he's going to be President as anyone else. But I have to say the actions of the DNC, Hillary, her campaign, and many of her supporters have been egregiously bad.

And now everything is super fucked.

edit: For everyone downvoting me, go turn on The Young Turks livestream and hear it from Cenk.

75j4• 10 years ago

Yep. Trump is a monster, but this feels sort of good knowing how Clinton and her supporters acted. If only people could have seen the light about the Clintons a year ago, then maybe there would've been better choices today.

And remember! The blame for a Trump presidency lies with none other than Hillary Clinton. She's the one that cheated a popular opponent in the primaries, that strategized to promote Trump during the Republican debates, that infiltrated the media and turned journalists into self-admitted "hacks", and she's the one that interjected herself into the presidential race despite knowing that her "scandals" -- electoral corruption, mishandling of classified information, pay-for-play at the Clinton foundation, Bill's history of child rape, etc. -- all disqualify her as a viable opponent to Trump.

flukus11• 10 years ago

Everyone mentions Brexit but I have to wonder it the roots of this goes back to the 90's. Remember the battle of seattle and the likes?

I can think of a few other more local (to Australia) events that seem to make sense when you factor in this bubbling discontentment.

M_Grey13• 10 years ago

The roots of this are 8 years of a black man in the White House.

RandomOpinion• 10 years ago

Not surprised; a day of reckoning was bound to come for the left. Consider that even if Trump had lost, his power base would still have existed afterward. Trump is not the problem, Trump is a symptom.

The American left took its eyes off of what's important, namely the working class, and instead spent its time and political capital on frivolous[0] causes. This is a wake-up call to refocus.

[0] Lots of things some might consider important are frivolous when you're living paycheck-to-paycheck.

basch• 10 years ago

This isnt a day of reckoning for the Left. He hijacked the GOP against its own will and destroyed the DNC. That's a collapse of two establishment parties, not one.

pastProlog• 10 years ago

One person who has been clear-headed about this for weeks is Michael Moore. Michigan and Wisconsin were supposed to be in the bag for Hillary, but that looks like where the surprise swing is coming from. Moore said from on the ground it felt like white working class people suffering from deindustrialization felt Hillary would do little for them, and might pick up the Molotov cocktail of Trump to throw into the system. His comments have been in lots of pro-Trump videos for weeks. Looks like he was right.

SuperManfred• 10 years ago

The season finale of the USA, representative democracy is in a bubble and the bust is inevitable.

andars6• 10 years ago

Meh. The United States has been through some pretty rough times. It is, of course, impossible to predict the future by looking at the past, but it seems unlikely that this is anywhere near the "season finale".

ant6n6• 10 years ago

Definitively season finale. But it's already renewed for another season.

protomyth6• 10 years ago

This is rather mild considering some of the previous elections. Heck, this probably won't even be decided by the House.

humanrebar6• 10 years ago

On the other hand, the USA has contentious elections on a regular basis with basically no violence. That's the real strength of representative democracy.

majewsky3• 10 years ago

My guess is that we're headed towards the season finale, but only in a few years. The left already had their moment of huge disappointment (when Obama was elected for "Change", and was not able to actually change anything). Now the right will have the same experience as they far overestimate Trump's ability to follow through on his proposals (e.g. fighting rampant corruption).

0xmohit2• 10 years ago

Honest question: Doesn't it get difficult to decide who to vote when you have such choices?

protomyth6• 10 years ago

I voted 3rd party to try to get the Libertarians above the % threshold on matching funds. It worked in 1992 but was squandered in 1996 by Perot's party. I was hoping it might work again with a party not built around one man. Sadly, the Libertarians did everything in their power to screw this one up too.

themantalope• 10 years ago

Libertarians had a real chance to stand out as a actual alternate response to the static and predictable policy stances of the Dems and Repubs. However, Gary Johnson struck out badly on several occasions, especially when it came to his knowledge of international politics. And that weird interview when his tongue just stopped working for 30 seconds but he kept on talking.

protomyth6• 10 years ago

I leave work and I see Clinton is the probable winner. I drive home, get some dinner, and I get a text from the WSJ that stock futures are crashing because Trump might win?!? What the friggin hell pollsters? I get the feeling some explaining on the part of the newspapers and new networks is in order.

3apo• 10 years ago

For poll statistics this is like cigarettes not causing cancer moment

tedunangst3• 10 years ago

Well, the reason we still have the election instead of just polling people is because the polls aren't always accurate.

Jtsummers2• 10 years ago

Polls don't tell you who will vote.

60% of a state may be for one candidate, but if only 80% of them go out to vote, the other candidate will win.

That's what we're seeing here today.

the_duke10• 10 years ago

If any mod is reading this, I think it may be smart to close this thread down, since it will spiral into political drama very soon.

(I assume their will be a post discussing the result...)

sverige• 10 years ago

What's wrong with political drama? And I don't see any here yet, still pretty much the usual.

75j4• 10 years ago

This thread is very civil so far.

I complained recently that political discussions are too easily suppressed on HN, and dang's response was that they inevitably veer into flame wars, and that preemptively flagging political threads is necessary / ok. I hope this thread continues to disprove that, since HN is an important place for political discussion to be happening.

the_duke10• 10 years ago

I love rational political discourse, but there are plenty of places where you can discuss those things on the web.

I rather enjoy that the mods apparently want to keep those topics a bit out of the limelight and focus on technical subjects.

Analemma_2• 10 years ago

Ask HN: who's hiring overseas?

ChuckMcM• 10 years ago

One thing is for certain, political strategy is never going to be the same.

threesixandnine2• 10 years ago

At this time we still cannot be sure who will win but all this to me looks like a big fuck you. It looks like a middle finger and it shows how disconnected media moguls, establishment, bureaucracy and "righteous" leftists-democracts are with the people on the ground.

It went so far that people who would vote for Trump lied in polls just so that they don't receive strange looks or something worse. That is the fear above mentioned "establishment" instilled into people. And it's not just US...

The meltdown of the "media" and shock is just pure funny.

Let's forget about all the controversy around Clinton family. I will just leave this[0] here.

[0]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1582795/Hillary-Cl...

petre• 10 years ago

Well, you can't blame them. They really wanted Hillary to win, while conveniently trying to manipulate the public at the same time.

ant6n6• 10 years ago

Bernie was leftist. Clinton, not so much.

It's strange, as an outside observe I see hate spewed against giant swaths of the population (the 'establishment', the 'leftists', the muslims, the hispanics, the blacks or whatever) from Trump supporters. But those same people keep complaining about the hate they perceive from the left or whatever.

It's bizarre. Are people supposed to embrace the racism, sexism and bigotry?

m_mueller3• 10 years ago

I think people have more problems with a candidate trying to shut down uncomfortable opinions through the back door than with a candidate who's openly sexist and xenophobic.

threesixandnine2• 10 years ago

Nice try at straw man.

A lot of things can be misinterpreted if you already have your mind in the specific drawer.

You remember when Trump said that Putin is strong leader and afterwards that if he is the president US won't be weak anymore? Well, he actually meant that Obama is weak and not that Putin is strong. But most of the media and people interpreted that as a thumbs up for Putin. Actually it was thumbs down - as in - it won't be so easy with me.

lake99• 10 years ago

The meltdown of the "media" and shock is just pure funny.

Oh good. It's not just me, there are others who want Trump to win just for the lulz. I don't care for his presidency, but Clinton belongs behind bars right now. I hope Trump wins and then does something to land him behind bars too. That would be my preferred outcome. The media has to change too, but I don't think a Trump presidency would be capable of bringing that about.

throwanem3• 10 years ago

It went so far that people who would vote for Trump lied in polls just so that they don't receive strange looks or something worse.

Hi there.

I swear to God, it's like coming out all over again. That this should be true of any political stance is utterly absurd, but, hey, here we are.

sbuttgereit• 10 years ago

It's interesting looking at the way some of the prediction markets behaved through this cycle. Up until results started coming in, sites like predictit.org were all "predicting" overwhelming Clinton victory. That so far has clearly not panned out.

I think it says that these prediction markets aren't so good at actually predicting anything: all they really do is sort of act as a barometer of how media narratives influence popular thought on certain subjects. I do expect that they will correlate with outcomes better than 50/50... but not so much so that the "wisdom of crowds" line is really justified.

Animats• 10 years ago

Dow futures down 752. Canada's immigration site down.

The Trump transition team, in rented office space in Washington, just became very important. They're Trump's HR department, and have to recruit the several thousand people the President gets to appoint. Because Trump isn't tightly connected to the "Republican establishment", the usual suspects aren't in line for those jobs. So where do they come from? Business?

Will Peter Thiel go to Washington? Secretary of Commerce, perhaps?

fgandiya• 10 years ago

Any suggestions on a country to start a career in tech. I was considering the US, but now I'm changing my mind.

joeguilmette• 10 years ago

The internet. Live somewhere cheap that you enjoy. Southeast Asia and Eastern Europe are favorites.

boulos• 10 years ago

Sigh. Since nobody has mentioned it (yet), but we wouldn't be having this conversation if we had Runoff Voting (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting).

satysin• 10 years ago

5am here in the UK. This is just insane to watch.

Damian_Reloaded• 10 years ago

Well I think I've lost the little shatters of respect I had left for the United States. I do wish you can get out of this mess unharmed though.

AKifer• 10 years ago

Makes me laughing all these predictions and poll pre-election giving an advantage to Hillary, and suddenly the odds were flipping around. This gives a clear lessons to all these politicians who used to manipulate the media and the statistics. I feel sad for all these people who did their best to stop the big wave. Trump literally won the silent majority.

0xmohit2• 10 years ago

So America is going to be great again. Congratulations!

andars6• 10 years ago

Here is a survey of some extremely unlikely but entertaining outcomes.

1) Neither candidate gets 270, McMullin gets at least 1, either from Utah or a faithless elector. The "never trump" republicans in the House elect McMullin over Trump. End result: Evan McMullin as president

2) Same as 1), but with Gary Johnson

3) Majority in electoral vote, but some faithless electors withhold their vote. I'd actually very much like to see this happen, as it would be far more interesting to see the House have to decide on this.

4) Tie, deadlock in House and Senate. End result: Paul Ryan as president

humanrebar6• 10 years ago

Republicans would never choose a pro-choice president. Gary Johnson is not an option.

andars6• 10 years ago

Last year, I would have agreed with you. However, I have wholesale lost all faith in my ability to understand how politics works. I would have said that this country would never elect Donald Trump, reality TV star (I understand other things as well), as president of the United States.

Live Presidential Forecast

Related Stories