Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
So looking through no one had Pensylvainia going trump. A few had Michigan or Wisconsin but not both. Of the famous models Silvers was the closest, exit polls, Huff Post, and PEC took a beating.
It's interesting that things like swing counties and who gets the most votes in primaries which have to be correlations not causation are still alive and well.
Dilbert was wrong as his last post called for a Clinton rigged victory. I assume he is scrubbing that post from existence and claiming he was right all along.
I think a bunch of stuff from Silvers model was bang on.
- if trump he would lose pop vote
- swing states are more sensitive to changes in national popular vote.
- a two - three point polling error is very normal in election campaigns
- given a high number of undecideds and third party their was high uncertainty in the race.
- that if a model predicts something is 30% possible that is pretty good odds of hit happening.
I think future models will have more error added to them as sampling become more challenging
One of the most interesting use of stats will be to check if voter suppression efforts in NC and elsewhere were effective in surpressing AA turnout or if was lack of enthusiasm relative to Obama
|
I did pretty well. I went with Michigan and Wisconsin for Trump.
Quote:
Originally Posted by calgarygeologist
I am definitely not smarter than Nate but here is how I'll divide the states:
Swing States
------------------
Florida - R
Ohio - R
Penn - D
NC - D
Mich - R
Wisconsin - R
Virginia - D
Colorado - R
Wisconson - R
Nevada - D
Minn - R
NH - D
Iowa - R
Popular Vote
-----------------
Clinton - 47%
Trump - 47%
Other - 6%
|
