Predict the Election

[bmags]

Okay, so why are we giving him props?

 

LOL:

Nate Silver

 

✔

 

@fivethirtyeight

 

CAN'T BELIEVE METOROLOGISTS USED MATH AND SCIENCE TO PREDICT THIS STORM. THEY MUST BE MAGIC WIZARDS.

 

[StrangeSox]

hahaha that's awesome

[NorthSideSox72]

Obama wins. Not because I am a supporter, but because a lot of the prediction models agree it will be him. He takes Ohio and PA.

You were his biggest fan in here in 2008. What made you change your mind, exactly?

 

[mr_genius]

LOL:

Nate Silver

 

✔

 

@fivethirtyeight

 

CAN'T BELIEVE METOROLOGISTS USED MATH AND SCIENCE TO PREDICT THIS STORM. THEY MUST BE MAGIC WIZARDS.

 

no no no, math and science cannot be trusted. it's all a 50/50 coin flip. that's why Nate Silver's 95% forecast of a calm, clear night in NY last night was actually perfectly reasonable.

[mr_genius]

Hey regardless what you think about Rasmussen, give the man some props for giving us ESPN.

 

i do give him props for that, even if he did sell too early.

[Soxbadger]

no no no, math and science cannot be trusted. it's all a 50/50 coin flip. that's why Nate Silver's 95% forecast of a calm, clear night in NY last night was actually perfectly reasonable.

 

Hahaha the comedian is back.

 

What is funny, is you are actually proving my point. You just still cant grasp the concept.

 

Models are built for numerous events over time. If a model is wrong on a single event, that does not necessarily mean that the model is wrong. In order to determine if the model is wrong you would need lots of events, to determine if it was accurate within a certain tolerance.

 

But thanks for once again proving why whether Silver is right or wrong this election, it doesnt mean that his model is flawed, it just means he was right or wrong this election. Because no where is anyone saying "100% certainty" just like a weatherman says "70% chance of rain". If it doesnt rain that day, its not necessarily that the model was wrong, it very well could be the model was right, this just fell into the 30% category.

Edited October 30, 2012 by Soxbadger

[mr_genius]

Hahaha the comedian is back.

 

What is funny, is you are actually proving my point. You just still cant grasp the concept.

 

Models are built for numerous events over time. If a model is wrong on a single event, that does not necessarily mean that the model is wrong. In order to determine if the model is wrong you would need lots of events, to determine if it was accurate within a certain tolerance.

 

But thanks for once again proving why whether Silver is right or wrong this election, it doesnt mean that his model is flawed, it just means he was right or wrong this election. Because no where is anyone saying "100% certainty" just like a weatherman says "70% chance of rain". If it doesnt rain that day, its not necessarily that the model was wrong, it very well could be the model was right, this just fell into the 30% category.

 

as your humble student, i am surprised. that's what i have said from the start! looks like the student has become the grand master.

 

looks like all that college math has paid off too, i won an internet debate (finally). i am emailing the university of illinois to thank them for making me take all these requirements for a silly computer science degree. just look at all this crap they make you do! https://wiki.engr.illinois.edu/display/unde...ee+Requirements

 

it's now all worth it.

Edited October 30, 2012 by mr_genius

[Jake]

mr. genius always keeps me rolling

[NorthSideSox72]

Romney making big pushes now in PA and the loose ME district. They've got oodles of money to spend, so, why not?

 

Anyone think, if he loses in 2012, Romney might run a third time in 2016? Become like the Gephardt of the GOP - the perpetual candidate?

 

 

[mr_genius]

Romney making big pushes now in PA and the loose ME district. They've got oodles of money to spend, so, why not?

 

Anyone think, if he loses in 2012, Romney might run a third time in 2016? Become like the Gephardt of the GOP - the perpetual candidate?

 

he won't run again, but if he did he would lose in the GOP primary.

[NorthSideSox72]

he won't run again, but if he did he would lose in the GOP primary.

Probably.

 

Might be a fun thread right after the election, to have discussions of who the likely 2016 candidates are for both parties.

 

[StrangeSox]

Probably.

 

Might be a fun thread right after the election, to have discussions of who the likely 2016 candidates are for both parties.

I'll take the cyanide, please.

[SOXOBAMA]

Pretty funny video

 

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/mich...fw-obama-384394

[SOXOBAMA]

Dems Crushing GOP In #NC--- Early Votes #NorthCarolina---- Dems 49.2% vs GOP: 31.2% #POLLS

 

 

A Great Dem Surge In #NV EARLY VOTES---- #NEVADA 483,873 --- Dems 44.6% vs GOP 37.5% ---- 49.9% of 2012 Totals vs 2008

 

 

EARLY VOTES ---- #IOWA 497,725 --- Democrats + Obama 44.2% vs Republican + Romney 32.1% ---32.2% of Votes in Iowa vs 08 Totals #POLLS

 

[Reddy]

After the storm, Chris Christie's endorsement, and Romney NOT sending aid to NY, Obama's got this in the bag.

[Jake]

Obama should hammer away in the affected areas about Romney's anti-FEMA stance.

[Jake]

Dems Crushing GOP In #NC--- Early Votes #NorthCarolina---- Dems 49.2% vs GOP: 31.2% #POLLS

 

 

A Great Dem Surge In #NV EARLY VOTES---- #NEVADA 483,873 --- Dems 44.6% vs GOP 37.5% ---- 49.9% of 2012 Totals vs 2008

 

 

EARLY VOTES ---- #IOWA 497,725 --- Democrats + Obama 44.2% vs Republican + Romney 32.1% ---32.2% of Votes in Iowa vs 08 Totals #POLLS

 

Would have to see how reliable that tends to be in predicting the results. I have no idea if one party or the other tends to turn out early

[Jake]

Not sure what polls came out overnight, but Silver's odds for Obama jumped considerably since I went to bed last night. Electoral average from 294 to 299, odds of winning from 73 to 77. Average pop. vote now at 50.4-48.5

[StrangeSox]

He updates in the evening or at night based on his Monte Carlo sims of the polls released that day, at least as far as I understand it. RCP lists the polls as they're released if you want to find out exactly what came out.

[Jake]

He updates in the evening or at night based on his Monte Carlo sims of the polls released that day, at least as far as I understand it. RCP lists the polls as they're released if you want to find out exactly what came out.

 

Good tip. I don't go there often because their "method" is basically just averaging all of the polls with no adjustment for partisan lean, etc. I see that several polls came out today showing BO winning: MI +3, VA +2, VA -5, OH +5, FL +1, PA +4 (+/- reflects the incumbent's standing)

 

Yesterday several polls came out showing basically a national tossup with 1 point spreads on the national, plus R-leaning Rasmussen with Romney +2. Yesterday also had another OH state poll with Obama +3.

 

That's a good couple days of polling thus far for Obama, even if some of those state polls are leaning D a little bit. I'd still like to see Silver offer his thoughts on the early voting results coming in. I'm sure that they must be generally D-leaning for them to look like that.

[NorthSideSox72]

Good tip. I don't go there often because their "method" is basically just averaging all of the polls with no adjustment for partisan lean, etc. I see that several polls came out today showing BO winning: MI +3, VA +2, VA -5, OH +5, FL +1, PA +4 (+/- reflects the incumbent's standing)

 

Yesterday several polls came out showing basically a national tossup with 1 point spreads on the national, plus R-leaning Rasmussen with Romney +2. Yesterday also had another OH state poll with Obama +3.

 

That's a good couple days of polling thus far for Obama, even if some of those state polls are leaning D a little bit. I'd still like to see Silver offer his thoughts on the early voting results coming in. I'm sure that they must be generally D-leaning for them to look like that.

There is also a time factor at play here, though I am not sure exactly how he uses that. Each day approaching the election, the leads any candidate has become more solid, for two reasons. One is early voting already underway, taking some play out of the number later. The other is that there is less chance as each day goes by of a trend-changing event.

 

[Jake]

There is also a time factor at play here, though I am not sure exactly how he uses that. Each day approaching the election, the leads any candidate has become more solid, for two reasons. One is early voting already underway, taking some play out of the number later. The other is that there is less chance as each day goes by of a trend-changing event.

 

That's true. The interesting thing here is that normally polls will reflect a tightening race as we get closer to election day, but to my eyes it appears (at least in battleground states) it is simply moving towards Obama.

[StrangeSox]

That's true. The interesting thing here is that normally polls will reflect a tightening race as we get closer to election day, but to my eyes it appears (at least in battleground states) it is simply moving towards Obama.

 

That may be an artifact of the race tightening so drastically after the first debate and things fading from that.

[Jake]

In other nudes, Nate Silver's article today I think is particularly interesting since it talks about the potential shortcoming of his model, compares to other models like his, and gives more detail on the state vs national poll dilemma. fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com

[MexSoxFan#1]

Dems Crushing GOP In #NC--- Early Votes #NorthCarolina---- Dems 49.2% vs GOP: 31.2% #POLLS

 

 

A Great Dem Surge In #NV EARLY VOTES---- #NEVADA 483,873 --- Dems 44.6% vs GOP 37.5% ---- 49.9% of 2012 Totals vs 2008

 

 

EARLY VOTES ---- #IOWA 497,725 --- Democrats + Obama 44.2% vs Republican + Romney 32.1% ---32.2% of Votes in Iowa vs 08 Totals #POLLS

I don't have a link but I heard on TV last night that Obama is up huge in OH early voting...the Democrats have really got their early voting ground game in high gear. The GOP will need a HUGE turnout to overcome some of the deficits we're seeing.