Predict the Election

[lasttriptotulsa]

If Romney gets the same result as the Scott Walker recall, he wins. I just don't see Democrats not voting Romney because of Scott Walker. Anyways, as you said, WI is pretty much a consistent Democrat win in Presidential elections. So I don't have WI going to Romney, but if that stuff starts happening it's going to be a blowout win for Romney.

 

There are severall reasons why Walker won the recall. 1. It was a boughten win from out of state money. 2. The Dems had no real time to campaign. and 3. The Dems did not come up with a strong candidate. Had someone like Russ Feingold ran, he would have won easily.

[mr_genius]

Give it up, Romney has no prayer of getting to 300.

 

hey man, i want Romney to lose. but Romney does clearly have momentum.

[Kyyle23]

Prediction: PAIN

[Soxbadger]

Wisconsin is a difficult one to call because of their voting laws. Bush v. Gore was razor thin http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.p...5&year=2000 and I always felt the difference was Dane County (where University of Wisconsin is located.)

 

I dont see Romney winning, Obama has to many big population states already in the bag. Almost everything has to go right for Romney to even win, let alone landslide.

Edited October 26, 2012 by Soxbadger

[lasttriptotulsa]

hey man, i want Romney to lose. but Romney does clearly have momentum.

 

The momentum he had has leveled off and the numbers are starting to level out. The way its looking, Obama should take Ohio. If he does that, it becomes damn near impossible for Romney to win the election. In my opinion there is a better chance of an Obama blowout than there is of a Romney win.

[Jake]

hey man, i want Romney to lose. but Romney does clearly have momentum.

 

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2...o-have-stopped/

[MexSoxFan#1]

In before Y2HH goes on another "you sheeple" rant

 

I think Obama carries 8 of those 10 swing states, losing FL and CO.

 

Most Election prediction sites and Las Vegas has Obama as the favorite to win but that University of Colorado model that has never been wrong has Romney winning big

Romney 330 to Obama's 208 to be exact, could they be that way off? Mittens would need to win a big chunk of blue states, what gives?

Edited October 26, 2012 by MexSoxFan#1

[mr_genius]

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2...o-have-stopped/

 

we'll see. As it has been documented before, Nate Silver missed pretty badly in 2010 and if he's wrong again in 2012 he will be considered a low tier statistical prognosticator. if he is right, he will be a genius again. just need to wait and see now.

[Soxbadger]

2010 was not a presidential election.

 

I dont even have to research the stats to know that presidential elections have a higher turn out. Id guess that Democrats are something like +2% in Presidential elections due to the higher voter turnout.

 

http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2012...-win-university

 

The Colorado model is not based on voting, its based on economic numbers. That would be the reason it could be way off, as it would seem the model is predicated on assessing how bad the economy is, as opposed to the candidates chances of winning. Its worked from 1980 on, but it would be interesting to see if it predicted right during depressions or other economic down turns.

 

 

[lasttriptotulsa]

In before Y2HH goes on another "you sheeple" rant

 

I think Obama carries 8 of those 10 swing states, losing FL and CO.

 

Most Election prediction sites and Las Vegas has Obama as the favorite to win but that University of Colorado model that has never been wrong has Romney winning big

Romney 330 to Obama's 208 to be exact, could they be that way off? Mittens would need to win a big chunk of blue states, what gives?

 

Yea after reading that Colorado model, they are out of their damn minds. There is no chance that that happens. They have Romney winning WI, IA, OH, and MN? No chance he wins all four of those states especially Minnesota. Obama is holding a comfortable lead there from every poll I've seen.

[mr_genius]

2010 was not a presidential election.

 

House of Rep races can be tough to predict.

[bmags]

House of Rep races can be tough to predict.

 

Also, he doesn't poll. He just averages polls and looks into their worth. off year races feature much, much, much less polls and also much harder to predict voter pools.

[Jake]

we'll see. As it has been documented before, Nate Silver missed pretty badly in 2010 and if he's wrong again in 2012 he will be considered a low tier statistical prognosticator. if he is right, he will be a genius again. just need to wait and see now.

 

Someone already posted on this and I bet he has written on it as well. There's a reason for the level of uncertainty he attaches to things, for one. If he gives 60% certainty to a set of election results, he should only be correct on 60% of them. As a statistician, he would tell you that if he was consistently more correct than his certainty rating, that would reflect some kind of flaw in his model.

 

Of the other aggregators in this election season, he has been consistently less optimistic about an Obama win.

[mr_genius]

Someone already posted on this and I bet he has written on it as well. There's a reason for the level of uncertainty he attaches to things, for one. If he gives 60% certainty to a set of election results, he should only be correct on 60% of them. As a statistician, he would tell you that if he was consistently more correct than his certainty rating, that would reflect some kind of flaw in his model.

 

Of the other aggregators in this election season, he has been consistently less optimistic about an Obama win.

 

he's actually been going in the other direction. He's climbing towards 80% chance of an Obama win even as the polls tighten (as do entities like intrade which has had Obama's odds going down). And as far as the margin of error, if you include that padding, I have correctly picked every state in every presidential election for the past 16 years

 

 

In 2010 Silver had a 70% change that the GOP would gain less than 60 House Seats. They got 64.

 

In 2012 it looks like he will be at a 75% chance of an Obama win. If he's wrong again, of course it's statistically possibly that he has a great system but had the bad luck of hitting the 30% in 2010 and the 25% in 2012. Or maybe he's just not that good.

 

To me, he seems kind of like a Hawk Harrelson to Democrats. They want a homer rooting for their guy and putting out numbers that make them feel good.

Edited October 26, 2012 by mr_genius

[Soxbadger]

In 2012 it looks like he will be at a 75% chance of an Obama win. If he's wrong again, of course it's statistically possibly that he has a great system but had the bad luck of hitting the 30% in 2010 and the 25% in 2012. Or maybe he's just not that good.

 

There is only 1 election. Statistic models are built to predict the more likely outcome, predicting the actual outcome is fortunetelling and I assume if Nate Silver was a fortuneteller he wouldnt need to write to make a living.

 

There is a 50% chance that a coin on any given flip will land heads or tails. Even if it is heads 100 times in a row, it doesnt mean that my model is bad, it just means that there is randomness in any equation.

 

And this statement:

 

(as do entities like intrade which has had Obama's odds going down)

 

Is just false as intrade has Obama trending up over the last 2 days to 63.5% from 55.5%.

 

When I read your posts I feel like your a Packers fan pretending to be a Bears fan. "I love the Bears, but they arent even close to as good as the Packers." Its like you think saying your not voting for Romney will bolster your credibility.

Edited October 26, 2012 by Soxbadger

[bmags]

he's actually been going in the other direction. He's climbing towards 80% chance of an Obama win even as the polls tighten (as do entities like intrade which has had Obama's odds going down). And as far as the margin of error, if you include that padding, I have correctly picked every state in every presidential election for the past 16 years

 

 

In 2010 Silver had a 70% change that the GOP would gain less than 60 House Seats. They got 64.

 

In 2012 it looks like he will be at a 75% chance of an Obama win. If he's wrong again, of course it's statistically possibly that he has a great system but had the bad luck of hitting the 30% in 2010 and the 25% in 2012. Or maybe he's just not that good.

 

To me, he seems kind of like a Hawk Harrelson to Democrats. They want a homer rooting for their guy and putting out numbers that make them feel good.

 

 

Ah, yes, intrade, where a romney supporter just put a huge bet for romney in order to make Obama's adds go down just as Romney camp has made their push to make people believe they are ahead (old Karl Rove trick).

 

Excellent example of good oddsmaking.

[mr_genius]

There is only 1 election. Statistic models are built to predict the more likely outcome, predicting the actual outcome is fortunetelling and I assume if Nate Silver was a fortuneteller he wouldnt need to write to make a living.

 

statistical predictive models are legitimate, not some voodoo science you think it is.

 

There is a 50% chance that a coin on any given flip will land heads or tails. Even if it is heads 100 times in a row, it doesnt mean that my model is bad, it just means that there is randomness in any equation.

 

lol. thanks for tip. i'll pass it on to the American Mathematical Society.

 

 

hey man, just because you want a homer telling you Obama will win, that's fine. when i watch the Sox I want a homer announcer too.

[mr_genius]

guys, don't get so mad just because someone doesn't like your teams homer announcer. i don't get mad when someone makes fun of Ken Harrelson.

 

politics are different. as an unbiased, non-partisan, observer i just don't have any need for a homer rooting for either team.

Edited October 26, 2012 by mr_genius

[bmags]

quality trolling.

[Soxbadger]

statistical predictive models are legitimate, not some voodoo science you think it is.

 

False which is why they are not allowed in court rooms as they are inherently unreliable.

 

IE:

 

Lets pretend its a fact 40% of people have committed a crime. Lets pretend we have 10 people on stage. It is not a fact that 4 of those people have committed a crime.

 

 

 

hey man, just because you want a homer telling you Obama will win, that's fine. when i watch the Sox I want a homer announcer too.

 

I dont care who wins. Both candidates will equally pander to me. Republican, Democrat, it doesnt matter, they both want me to join their club.

 

 

[mr_genius]

False which is why they are not allowed in court rooms as they are inherently unreliable.

 

well i am going to have to disagree. they are useful in business to find patterns in data to zero in on opportunities for financial gain. also, anyone would also be hard pressed to say that the actuary sciences are not important to the insurance industry.

 

we are talking about serious business here, not some Matlock courtroom drama.

[mr_genius]

quality trolling.

 

really bored today. had some projects to do that were planned to last 3 weeks. only took 3 days to finish.

[MexSoxFan#1]

really bored today. had some projects to do that were planned to last 3 weeks. only took 3 days to finish.

To be fair, Silver isn't the only election prediction site that has Obama as favorite to win, right now, if Romney were to win in Nov. it would be seen as an upset.

 

I'm getting kinda tired of the hyper politics going on today, I wish the elections were held tomorrow just so we could move on...

[Soxbadger]

well i am going to have to disagree. they are useful in business to find patterns in data to zero in on opportunities for financial gain. also, anyone would also be hard pressed to say that the actuary sciences are not important to the insurance industry.

 

we are talking about serious business here, not some Matlock courtroom drama.

 

lol

 

You change the goal posts every time. Who said that stats arent useful for business? There is a difference between being useful and being correct. Information is king in business and the more you have, the better off you likely are. But ask any actuary if they can with 100% accuracy predict when I die, and they would say no. Ask any actuary how sure they can be relying on statistics based on opinions.

 

Once again, statistics have a use. But you were attacking Silver for not being right, which is just simply not understanding what statistics are for.

 

/shrugs

 

[knightni]

If it finishes 269-269. Romney gets it. It'll be a close one, that's for sure.