I like 538 but the credit they get for the last two elections is a little overblown.
There might be 5 or 6 swing states out there so over two elections you might have 12 difficult choices. So assuming a 50/50 odds random chance gives you a 3/1000 chance of winning. Now even the 6 closest states probably have a 60% favourite which increases the chances of randomly going 11/12 or better is about 1/50.
So if in 2008 there were 50 websites predicting election results you'd expect in 2016 to have a few Nate Silvers existing. The other thing is that you'd expect eventually an election to occur where 538 would go 0/6 on swing states otherwise the probiotics assigned to the favourites wouldn't be high enough. In the end if you did the analysis I don't think you could say you have statisticly significant evidence that Nate is better than you would expect from random chance.
To me the value in any of these aggregates is doing all the leg work to interpret all of the polling out there in a constant methodology to provide a baseline of information around the spin. Also there work on inferring the effect of each state based on the behaviours of surrounding states, demographics and national trends.
The Following User Says Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
Pence is more problematic than Trump, in a lot of ways.
You got that right, while Trump can (and does) lie 37 times a day because he's a moving target, Pence has actual history (EDIT: policy history), and there's lots there. I don't know why Clinton hasn't done much (or anything really?) along those lines.
Or maybe highlighting the history of the VP doesn't get anywhere with the electorate because the Presidential candidate is the one that sets the policy?
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
The Following User Says Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
So if in 2008 there were 50 websites predicting election results you'd expect in 2016 to have a few Nate Silvers existing.
Haha I never thought of it that way, kind of like the example of becoming a investing god with the investing newsletter. Send out a million newsletters, half saying buy the other half saying sell. After the result, send out a half million to the ones you got right, do it again. Do that a few times and you'll have a small number of people that will give you all their money because you're always right!
Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
To me the value in any of these aggregates is doing all the leg work to interpret all of the polling out there in a constant methodology to provide a baseline of information around the spin. Also there work on inferring the effect of each state based on the behaviours of surrounding states, demographics and national trends.
That's a great way to put it.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
You got that right, while Trump can (and does) lie 37 times a day because he's a moving target, Pence has actual history, and there's lots there. I don't know why Clinton hasn't done much (or anything really?) along those lines.
Or maybe highlighting the history of the VP doesn't get anywhere with the electorate because the Presidential candidate is the one that sets the policy?
Pence has an awful record in Indiana, his history essentially stands against everything I believe to be important, and I don't know that Trump wouldn't just hand the reigns to him if he won the Presidency. Trump doesn't want to do the grunt work, he wants the glory and the attention. Can you really see him working to help craft policy?
Pence, on the other hand, would be happy to fill Scalia's SCOTUS position with an even farther right judge, and would happily convince Trump to sign whatever right-wing legislation that was put on his desk, to hell with women's rights, LGBT rights, workers' rights, etc.
I agree with that... Didn't Trump offer somebody director of foreign and domestic policy (so, everything) if they joined his campaign?
He reportedly offered the VP position to governor Kasich, in which it was reported that his son told a Kaisch rep that Kaisich would be doing the foreign and domestic policy.
Trump would be making America Great Again.
Among the small number of American newspapers that have embraced Donald Trump’s campaign, there is one, in particular, that stands out.
It is called the Crusader — and it is one of the prominent newspapers of the Ku Klux Klan.
Under the banner “Make America Great Again,” the paper’s current issue devoted its entire front page to a lengthy defense of Trump’s message — an embrace some have labeled a de facto endorsement.
Quote:
the Crusader’s Pastor Thomas Robb wrote. “You can see it on the shirts, buttons, posters and ball caps such as the one being worn here by Trump speaking at a recent rally. … But can it happen? Can America really be great again? This is what we will soon find out! While Trump wants to make America great again, we have to ask ourselves, ‘What made America great in the first place?’ " the article continues. “The short answer to that is simple. America was great not because of what our forefathers did — but because of who our forefathers were.
America was founded as a White Christian Republic. And as a White Christian Republic it became great.”
I like 538 but the credit they get for the last two elections is a little overblown.
There might be 5 or 6 swing states out there so over two elections you might have 12 difficult choices. So assuming a 50/50 odds random chance gives you a 3/1000 chance of winning. Now even the 6 closest states probably have a 60% favourite which increases the chances of randomly going 11/12 or better is about 1/50.
So if in 2008 there were 50 websites predicting election results you'd expect in 2016 to have a few Nate Silvers existing. The other thing is that you'd expect eventually an election to occur where 538 would go 0/6 on swing states otherwise the probiotics assigned to the favourites wouldn't be high enough. In the end if you did the analysis I don't think you could say you have statisticly significant evidence that Nate is better than you would expect from random chance.
To me the value in any of these aggregates is doing all the leg work to interpret all of the polling out there in a constant methodology to provide a baseline of information around the spin. Also there work on inferring the effect of each state based on the behaviours of surrounding states, demographics and national trends.
Yes, but the reason we know about those swing states, and the ones that are locks is because this data mining occurs.
History and common sense can give you (largely correct) assumptions about the outcomes, this is basically just corroborating that assumption.
I agree with what GGG is saying as far as predicting it goes, but that doesn't mean the data is meaningless. It's the science behind his very basic breakdown of it. How did he come up with 5 or 6 swing states? Because people are going through piles of data (god knows why), to build models that show us those tendencies. We have learned so much about the demographics of large and tiny regions of the US because of this type of data.
Why are there swing states?
What areas cause the swing?
Which ones have seen the most changes?
etc...
these are all questions that can be answered with enough hard data about which way people are voting.
It's sort of amazing "neither" isn't the overwhelming choice here. Still, that people think Trump is more honest and trustworthy shows why Hillary is vulnerable.
Quote:
A 59 percent majority of likely voters disapprove of Clinton's handling of questions about her use of personal email while secretary of state. This number, however, is no higher than the 60 percent who disapproved just over one week ago, before the FBI's announcement Friday that it may examine additional emails after previously closing its investigation in June.
However, Trump has opened up an eight-point advantage over Clinton on which candidate is more honest and trustworthy, leading 46 to 38 percent among likely voters. The two candidates were tied on this measure the last time a Post-ABC poll asked the question in September; when asked individually, past polls found majorities seeing each candidate as dishonest.
Quote:
Fully 67 percent of independents in the latest survey disapprove of Clinton's handling of questions on this issue (56 percent "strongly"), and even 29 percent of Democrats give her negative marks for the way she's addressed the email issue.
Independents and Democrats are where Clinton has lost the most ground to Trump on the question of honesty since early fall. At that point Trump held a narrow five-point edge among independents on which candidate is more honest and trustworthy (45 to 40 percent), but in the latest poll Trump leads by 23 points with independents on this question (49 to 26 percent), a shift due mostly to a fall-off among Clinton and a rise in the percentage saying "neither" is honest.
Among Democrats, the share saying Clinton is more honest than Trump has dipped from 86 percent in early September to 76 percent today; Republicans have changed little in their view that Trump is more honest (86 percent then, 87 percent now.)
A tightening of the election is, counter-intuitively, good news for Hillary. She has never polled behind Trump. The election has always been her's to win. Her base is larger than Trump's. The only real risk she faces is complacency and protest votes.
With the fear of god being jolted through her base we'll see likely record democratic turnout. If you don't think this is welcome news for the Democrats then why are they broadcasting how much the race is tightening to their supporters?
Nate Silver is right to question whether there's a systemic polling error going on. I think that that outcome shouldn't be dismissed. However, on the balance, what is the likelihood that there's a systemic error on the Trump side versus the Clinton side? I think it's much more likely that Hillary support/votes are being under-sampled what with their superior analytics and GOTV machine.
We'll see I guess. But signs are still pointing to a big Clinton win.
I like 538 but the credit they get for the last two elections is a little overblown.
There might be 5 or 6 swing states out there so over two elections you might have 12 difficult choices. So assuming a 50/50 odds random chance gives you a 3/1000 chance of winning. Now even the 6 closest states probably have a 60% favourite which increases the chances of randomly going 11/12 or better is about 1/50.
So if in 2008 there were 50 websites predicting election results you'd expect in 2016 to have a few Nate Silvers existing. The other thing is that you'd expect eventually an election to occur where 538 would go 0/6 on swing states otherwise the probiotics assigned to the favourites wouldn't be high enough. In the end if you did the analysis I don't think you could say you have statisticly significant evidence that Nate is better than you would expect from random chance.
To me the value in any of these aggregates is doing all the leg work to interpret all of the polling out there in a constant methodology to provide a baseline of information around the spin. Also there work on inferring the effect of each state based on the behaviours of surrounding states, demographics and national trends.
It isn't just the presidential election though that he called. In 2012 he called many many more down ballot races as well. They talked about it on the Daily Show at the time.
Also to call 9 swing states correctly, something that no pollster nor any other aggregate statistician did, is not something that can just be written off.
In 2008 he called 49 of 50 states (50 of 51 if you include DC) for the presidential race. He called every single Senate race correctly.
In 2010 he called 36 of 37 gubernatorial races. 34 of 37 senate races
IN 2012 he called all 51 of 51 for the presidential election. No pollster or other aggregate models predicted every single swing state but 538/Nate did.
That is very unlikely to be random chance. He has proven to have a better model than anyone else at this point. Doesn't mean he is always correct or that his current model tweakings will be the best now but his track record does indeed speak for itself.
Jon Stewart, you abandoned us in our time of greatest need!
Stewart also addressed the question he gets most often these days: Doesn’t he wish he were still on television every night to take on Trump. After working as a “turd miner” for nearly two decades, now that a “s**t asteroid” has hit Earth, he’s perfectly happy staying out of it.
It isn't just the presidential election though that he called. In 2012 he called many many more down ballot races as well. They talked about it on the Daily Show at the time.
Also to call 9 swing states correctly, something that no pollster nor any other aggregate statistician did, is not something that can just be written off.
In 2008 he called 49 of 50 states (50 of 51 if you include DC) for the presidential race. He called every single Senate race correctly.
In 2010 he called 36 of 37 gubernatorial races. 34 of 37 senate races
IN 2012 he called all 51 of 51 for the presidential election. No pollster or other aggregate models predicted every single swing state but 538/Nate did.
That is very unlikely to be random chance. He has proven to have a better model than anyone else at this point. Doesn't mean he is always correct or that his current model tweakings will be the best now but his track record does indeed speak for itself.
I know that and in general I agree with you,
And in general I agree with you that his model is reasonably accurate and more importantly the underdogs win at about he expected rates. However going 34/37 on senate races is likely a coin flip as there are only 5-6 competitive races each term. So if you consider 6 meaningful predictions each time and run the odds. He has gone 25/30 which if you give the random selection a 60% chance of being right has about a 1/500 chance.
The other part is that his model could be just as accurate as it is right now and he could only have predicted 20/30 close races correctly. His predictions would be just as accurate but he wouldn't be as famous. An example of this is his Obama / Florida race which his model showed a .1% edge for Obama. This is a meaningless difference between a .1% edge for Romney yet allows him to go perfect.
I think in general the last Month he has been trying to get this point across that when Trump had a 15% chance and if he were to win that that would be well within his model prediction.
He gets too much credit when he is right and not enough credit if he is wrong even though his model predicts he should be wrong regularly.
A federal judge Tuesday ordered representatives from the Donald Trump campaign and the Nevada Republican Party to appear at a hearing in his courtroom Wednesday afternoon in a lawsuit filed by Nevada Democrats accusing them of the engaging in voter intimidation tactics.
U.S. District Judge Richard Franklin Boulware also ordered the Trump campaign and state party to turn over any training materials they provided to "poll watchers, poll observers, exit pollsters or any other similarly tasked individuals."
At the hearing, the Trump campaign and the Nevada GOP should be prepared to respond to the motion for a temporary restraining order that the Democrats requested in the lawsuit, the judge's order said.
Voter supression efforts planed by white nationalists.
“We are organizing poll watchers in urban areas to cut down on the most traditional type of voter fraud. We also will have stationary cameras hidden at polling locations in Philadelphia, to monitor anyone that comes in to vote and make sure that the same people are not voting at multiple locations. If we see people voting in multiple locations the footage will be submitted to the FEC as well as put out on social media to undermine the legitimacy of Clinton should she steal the election,” an anonymous representative of alt-right Web site, TheRightStuff.biz, told Politico in an e-mail, adding that some people will also be “going in to the ghettos in Philly with 40s and weed to give out to the local residents” in order to depress minority voter turnout.
So I joked about Michelle and Hillary and Bill's illegitimate kid. I totally missed this yesterday somehow
Quote:
Filmmaker Joel Gilbert, the conspiracy theorist who believes President Obama has a secret Muslim prayer inscribed on his wedding ring, made a splash in 2012 when he said Obama had plastic surgery to conceal that his real father was labor activist Frank Marshall Davis, who raised his son to lead a communist revolution.
Four years later, and just in time for Election Day, Gilbert is back with a new film alleging that Bill Clinton has a 30-year-old son he sired with a black prostitute. And on Tuesday, Gilbert hauled the young man to Washington and gave him a speech to read to the TV cameras at the National Press Club.
“As you can see I’m the black son of former president Bill Clinton and the stepson of Hillary Clinton,” the young man, Danney Williams, read as Gilbert, off to the side, mouthed many of the words.
Actually, you could only see him as Clinton’s son if you imagined Clinton six inches shorter, with a different build and different facial features. But no matter.
“At this time I am reaching out to Miss Lewinsky, Monica Lewinsky,” Williams went on, looking to Gilbert for instruction and holding up a letter. “I’m asking that Miss Lewinsky allow me to borrow her blue dress in order to obtain a DNA sample of my father’s, former president Bill Clinton, in order to finally prove that he is my father.”
In fact, Williams’s DNA was tested, 17 years ago, when his mother sold it and her story to a tabloid, which compared the boy’s genetic material to Clinton’s DNA markers and concluded Clinton wasn’t his father.
That essentially ended the intrigue — until late last year, when longtime Donald Trump adviser Roger Stone declared: “I will get justice for Danney Williams — stay tuned.” The Trump confidant had decided the original DNA work was wrong, and he teamed up to make that case with conspiracy-minded radio host Alex Jones, an avid Trump backer who lent his InfoWars news outlet to the cause.
Gilbert, who was hired by Stone’s pro-Trump super PAC to design a “Super Trump” billboard for Times Square in September, made a film about Williams. The pro-Trump outlet Breitbart News, whose former chief Stephen Bannon now runs Trump’s campaign, and the Drudge Report began to trumpet the long-debunked love-child story. Gilbert is a fixture on InfoWars, which live-streamed Tuesday’s event.
It feels really bizarre that sites like Drudge and InfoWars have become aligned to a specific candidate rather than spewing unfocused crazy and counter-culture politics.
