538

[whoman69]

The latest 538 simulations have Obama winning 90.9% of the time with an average of 313.0 EC. The popular vote is seen as 50.8-48.3 or a 2.5 point lead for Obama.

The closest state contests are:
Florida 50.3% Obama
North Carolina 74.4% Romney
Virginia 79.4% Obama
Colorado 79.7% Obama
Iowa 84.3% Obama
New Hampshire 84.6% Obama

The following battleground states are now considered safe Obama meaning more than a 90% probability:
Michigan
Pennsylvania
Wisconsin
Nevada
Ohio

Obama has 303 EC at least 79%
Obama has 332 EC at least 50%

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by WoodDraw

This is complete bullshit, and I heavily doubt we'd be seeing so much bold and caps from you if he was showing Romney up by whatever percentage.

People in this thread fundamentally don't understand statistics or modeling - it's just bizarre. And they're ANGRY about it.

You may want to read my entire post and try to understand it before you spout off like a ****ing idiot. Nothing in my post is bullshit, and if you think I don't understand statistics or modeling than I'd love to see what you base that on. Certainly nothing in my post could lead you to that conclusion.

I state very clearly in my post that I have no problem with Silver. My problem is with the people who try to beat you over the head with his model as if it's a proven predictor of results. It's not. That's pure malarkey. You go on in the next few posts to state many of the reasons why this is the case... so I'm not sure why you think my original post is "bullshit". There simply isn't enough data and (at this point in time) his model is no better than my guesses. I am not saying his model is no better than random guessing nor am I saying his model won't prove it's worth over time and with more data.. I'm talking about why it is mostly "entertainment" at this point and should be viewed as such. If you disagree, are you willing to bet a large amount of money using his model as your sole guide?

This reminds of the article on accuracy regarding weather forecasting.
http://www.freakonomics.com/2008/04/...her-forecasts/
It's not exactly the same but there are some similarities..

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

wellllll today Nate has his nowcast and Nov.6th pretty close to the same now.

Obama 66%
Romney 34%

Pretty impressive movement by Romney. From a 3% nowcast and 22% Nov. 6th forecast a couple of weeks ago.

He could have Romney up by 30 points and I'd say the exact same thing... it's fun but I wouldn't use his (or any other election model) as the gospel truth like many on here are doing.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by WoodDraw

So there's a lot of room to criticize these things. But I think it's helpful to at least know what you're talking about before doing so.

IF this is aimed at me, please explain what you base your attack on. Where have I said one damn thing that makes you think I don't know what I'm talking about here?

Or was this just a general statement and I'm paranoid and reading your post incorrectly.

(got to run, the black helicopters are here)

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by patteeu

OK, that's a fair criticism. "Numerical entertainment" was an unfair description.

May be SLIGHTLY unfair. It wasn't meant to slight what Silver is attempting to do, it was meant to slight those who take it too seriously at this stage in it's development.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by whoman69

Are you really so against 538 because he is giving an answer you don't like? Most services out there will agree that Obama has the easiest path to an electoral victory.

I'm not against 538 at all, I'm against people like you who seem to take it far too seriously and give it far too much weight.

And yes, only a moron wouldn't say that Obama has an easier path to electoral victory. The Democrats ALWAYS have an easier path due to New York and California outweighing Texas in the "don't even bother" column.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

May be SLIGHTLY unfair. It wasn't meant to slight what Silver is attempting to do, it was meant to slight those who take it too seriously at this stage in it's development.

[WoodDraw]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

You may want to read my entire post and try to understand it before you spout off like a ****ing idiot. Nothing in my post is bullshit, and if you think I don't understand statistics or modeling than I'd love to see what you base that on. Certainly nothing in my post could lead you to that conclusion.

I state very clearly in my post that I have no problem with Silver. My problem is with the people who try to beat you over the head with his model as if it's a proven predictor of results. It's not. That's pure malarkey. You go on in the next few posts to state many of the reasons why this is the case... so I'm not sure why you think my original post is "bullshit". There simply isn't enough data and (at this point in time) his model is no better than my guesses. I am not saying his model is no better than random guessing nor am I saying his model won't prove it's worth over time and with more data.. I'm talking about why it is mostly "entertainment" at this point and should be viewed as such. If you disagree, are you willing to bet a large amount of money using his model as your sole guide?

But spouting off like a ****ing idiot is what I do best.


Perhaps I'm a bit biased, because I followed Nate Silver back when he was just a baseball guy. Back in the early 2000s, when a lot of these guys started to enter the mainstream, you couldn't read a forum or watch a game without people ridiculing their work. And a lot of that early stuff ended up not being terribly accurate. But in baseball, you have tons of data, and people built on prior research, refined it, and continue to do so. And it has really revolutionized the sport. Many people continue to fundamentally not understand what it's about.

So I do have a lot of respect for him. I like people that see problems and are intellectually curious enough to take a stab at them. That doesn't mean they're right; but it doesn't mean they're soothsayers either.

I did read your entire post, and I thought it was bullshit. You're right, I did follow up with a couple posts talking about some of the issues with election modeling. Hopefully someone found it interesting. I'm interested in the subject, so that's why I follow this thread. If you want me to say why I thought your post was bullshit I will.

What Nate Silver does is numerical entertainment. That's it. It has ZERO value when correlated to reality. It's so funny... people judge his results based on his FINAL projection ONLY... yet they try to prop up his work RIGHT NOW at this stage as if it is predictive and meaningful. OK, fine if it is predictive and meaningful, let's see metrics and judgements based on his assessments 30 days out, or 28 or whatever.

Honestly, I don't know what a lot of this means. Zero correlation to reality? It's not numerical entertainment. You're saying people judge his results based on the final result, and again, I don't know what that means.

538 expects their predictions to change...that's what they do. So this idea that you should judge them based on what they predict three months before the election is nonsense. If you want a model that does that, you need to look towards one based on fundamentals. His openly takes into account the changing dynamics.

What it does is try to correct for noise.

I have zero problem with Nate Silver, but it is pretty clear there are quite a few here who don't understand that at this point, my "guesses" have as much credibility as his "work." His is just far more entertaining and looks oh so scientific!

Again, this is nonsense. Your guesses do not have the same credibility as his. His "work", as you put it, actually has a basis to it. If course it changes.


You're trying to come back and say you made some reasonable post when you did not.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by WoodDraw

Honestly, I don't know what a lot of this means. Zero correlation to reality? It's not numerical entertainment. You're saying people judge his results based on the final result, and again, I don't know what that means.

538 expects their predictions to change...that's what they do. So this idea that you should judge them based on what they predict three months before the election is nonsense. If you want a model that does that, you need to look towards one based on fundamentals. His openly takes into account the changing dynamics.

What it does is try to correct for noise.

To clarify my post here. People who try to use 538 to predict the outcome of an election AT THIS TIME are ridiculous. They will often point to how accurate he was in 2008 (nice big sample size there) but what they are judging him on is his FINAL prediction not the predictions they are hanging their hat on.. the ones coming 30 days out. I am not saying Silver has to be judged on 30 days out or any other time period... I am just saying that I see a ton of people here who put value in his model based on a judgment of it that doesn't apply to how they are attempting to use it to prop up their beliefs. And that is nonsense.

Originally Posted by WoodDraw

Again, this is nonsense. Your guesses do not have the same credibility as his. His "work", as you put it, actually has a basis to it. If course it changes.

My "guesses" have a basis to them as well. I am not saying random guessing but educated guesses based on data that I have access to. Again, if you feel Nate Silver's work is currently at a point that you want to make a bet on it.. I'm game. My guess is that you don't want to because you know his work is in the earliest of stages and his modelling is not something that can be at all predictive 30 days out. My complaint is against those who claim it is and worship at the 538 altar.

As for having a "basis" for something being enough to make it valid and accurate.. read the link I posted on weather forecasting. There is certainly a more solid basis for that and yet we have almost no credibility in making predictions 10+ days out.

Again, this is much less a critique of his futile attempts to create an accurate model (sorry but he's no Hari Seldon) as it is those who misuse what he is doing and think it is truly predictive.

[AustinChief]

BTW.. if you want to take his prediction at any point and have me make a prediction at that same point in time and then judge me versus him.. I'll take that bet as well. Not because I think I am a political seer, but because I know just how ****ing insane it is to think he is. Especially since he doesn't pretend to be nor is it his intent as many here seem to think.

I'll also take any bets on any city and whether it will rain the next day or not. I get to pick rain or no rain, if I am correct I win. Anyone want to take that bet?

(waiting for the suckers to line up)

[WoodDraw]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

To clarify my post here. People who try to use 538 to predict the outcome of an election AT THIS TIME are ridiculous. They will often point to how accurate he was in 2008 (nice big sample size there) but what they are judging him on is his FINAL prediction not the predictions they are hanging their hat on.. the ones coming 30 days out. I am not saying Silver has to be judged on 30 days out or any other time period... I am just saying that I see a ton of people here who put value in his model based on a judgment of it that doesn't apply to how they are attempting to use it to prop up their beliefs. And that is nonsense.

At this point, I think we're arguing semantics and largely agree. I don't want to call 538 a poll aggregator, because I don't think that's accurate. Like I said, bias plays a role here. Democrats like him right now because it gives them reassurance that Obama is winning. So they want to believe in it. But him saying Obama has a 60% chance of winning still means there is another 40% out there.

I think it's a good model. Certainly better than following one poll and pretending that can predict the election. But by it's nature, it changes.

My "guesses" have a basis to them as well. I am not saying random guessing but educated guesses based on data that I have access to. Again, if you feel Nate Silver's work is currently at a point that you want to make a bet on it.. I'm game. My guess is that you don't want to because you know his work is in the earliest of stages and his modelling is not something that can be at all predictive 30 days out. My complaint is against those who claim it is and worship at the 538 altar.

As for having a "basis" for something being enough to make it valid and accurate.. read the link I posted on weather forecasting. There is certainly a more solid basis for that and yet we have almost no credibility in making predictions 10+ days out.

Again, this is much less a critique of his futile attempts to create an accurate model (sorry but he's no Hari Seldon) as it is those who misuse what he is doing and think it is truly predictive.

My only complaint is against people that don't understand what it is that he's doing. That goes for people on both sides. I wish he could have his own independent blog where he could be a bit more wonkish, but 'tis life.

I'd be happy to make a bet, provided it goes to charity. Perhaps we could actually turn this cesspool of the DC forum into good.

[cdcox]

The 538 predictions are essentially the same as my playoff predictions. They are the best empirical estimate of the odds of the outcome of a race at the time the estimate is made. They include a degree of uncertainty, hence why the favorites are given odds of winning rather than saying candidate or team x is going to win for sure.

To anyone pointing at Romney's resurgence as evidence of the fallibility of the system, doesn't understand what the method claims to do. A real life event changed the odds, namely, Romney trouncing Obama in the first debate. No unbiased observers were predicting that to happen. The magnitude of that event was akin to a huge upset in the NFL. If the two had battled to a standoff, the race would not have tightened and Obama would probably have easily won. So back when Obama had an 80+% chance of winning the election, it meant that in 5 similar presidential races, the trailing candidate would typically win about 1 in 5 and that some game changing event would need to happen.

So think of these prediction tools as an instantaneous snapshot of the current situation. Understand that the odds are just that, and that the underdog sometimes wins. If you view them with that kind of understanding, these tools are pretty dang useful.

[whoman69]

Romney now has a better than one to three odds of winning according to current numbers. They calculate a 62.9% chance of Obama victory, down from a high of 86.1% on Oct. 3. Most interesting are some competitive states moving to the Romney favored column. Romney is now the slight favorite in Virginia (51.3), Colorado (55.8) and increasingly in Florida (65.5). Romney still has room to make up. If all races go as currently called Obama will have 281 EC.

[whoman69]

Numbers are shifting back to Obama the last few days. Obama picked up ground in 5 of 10 national polls published today, while Romney increased in none. From the last time I posted Virginia has moved towards Obama with almost no advantage now to either candidate (50.3% to Obama). Colorado has moved from lean Romney to lean Obama (52.5%). Florida still remains in the Romney category. 538 gives Obama a 66% chance of victory.

[Comrade Crapski]

Nate Silver is a Koz Kid.

[mnchiefsguy]

Originally Posted by whoman69

Numbers are shifting back to Obama the last few days. Obama picked up ground in 5 of 10 national polls published today, while Romney increased in none. From the last time I posted Virginia has moved towards Obama with almost no advantage now to either candidate (50.3% to Obama). Colorado has moved from lean Romney to lean Obama (52.5%). Florida still remains in the Romney category. 538 gives Obama a 66% chance of victory.

http://realclearpolitics.com/epolls/...llege_map.html

RCP seems to disagree. Electoral College is down to 201 to 191, with the rest being toss ups. Romney is continuing to gain in the "likability" rating, up to 4.8 from a -1.2 just before the first debate.

As much as Nate Silver does not want to admit it, this is a dogfight, and is going to be a very, very close election. I think the 66% number is soft.