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%

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

I've noticed Pato's absence tonight.

I imagine he's curled up in a pool of urine and tears.

Shocking that a guy might not be around at 1:30 in the morning. Shocking.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Hoover

Anyway, I'm here to eat my crow. Nate Silver is a GOD.

Yeah, Nate Silver dominated. And those that had blind faith in him (even if they told themselves that their blind faith was an allegiance to math) picked the right horse.

[whoman69]

538 is so far perfect on the presidential race with only Florida left. 538 predicted an Obama victory there and with the current count Obama leads by just over 46000 votes.

538 has a bit less accurate on the Senate where polls are fewer and far between. For example, he couldn't call Indiana until a post Mourdock bombshell poll came out about 20 days after the fact. As it looks right now, even though races in MT and ND aren't called, that he predicted 31 of 33 races. If anything, despite the claims of liberal bias, when he errs he errs on the side of Republicans.

538 predicted a Republican victory for Berg in North Dakota with a 92.5% chance. Guess he shouldn't have trusted right leaning polls Rasmussen and Mason Dixon so much. 538 also predicted a 66% chance of a Rehberg victory in Montana despite the fact that Tester had been ahead in most of the polls including a 10/29 Rasmussen poll. At least the North Dakota race was pretty close.

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by patteeu

Yeah, Nate Silver dominated. And those that had blind faith in him (even if they told themselves that their blind faith was an allegiance to math) picked the right horse.

So you think his methods are pretty sound now?

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by patteeu

Here's one for you, Pitt Gorilla.

I am sorry you were made to look stupid. Better luck next time.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by Hoover

I believe its only appropriate to post on this thread tonight.

My read of the presidential race in Iowa and beyond was more than off. In Iowa Obama dominated in eastern Iowa, which isn't out of character, but its an area that Romney has/had been strong in for quite some time. The most shocking result was that Obama got 60% of the vote in Scott County. That's an ass kicking. He also increased his margin in Polk County which shocked me.

Not to make excuses, but the one thing that may have clouded by opinion of Iowa was the two western Iowa congressional races. Tom Latham defeated another sitting member of congress (Boswell) by 8 points. Over 20,000 people who voted for Obama in Polk County also pulled the lever for Latham.

Steve King, who someone on here said had nothing going on, defeated Christie Vilsack, the wife of a former Iowa Governor and current US Sec of Ag Tom Vilsack, got her ass kicked. King won by 8 points as well.

There is nothing for me to hang my hat on, but I did predict that Republicans would lose seats in the Iowa House. Nailed it actually, which sucks. Iowa Republicans had a chance to win the state senate but two incumbents going down put an end to that.

Anyway, I'm here to eat my crow. Nate Silver is a GOD.

Hoover

You saw with your heart, not with your head. Romney lost by 6 points. I didnt see any polls saying Obama would win by 6 points. Why did that happen?

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Literature

So you think his methods are pretty sound now?

I've never doubted his math. I questioned whether he was making the right assumptions and using the right inputs.

People like Rasmussen and the guys at Gallup use a lot of math too. That's why the people cheering a victory for math here, like dirk for example, look so stupid.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by patteeu

Yeah, Nate Silver dominated. And those that had blind faith in him (even if they told themselves that their blind faith was an allegiance to math) picked the right horse.

you are still trying to say you were right. Your horse was just unlucky?

It's non-partisan, scientific math, simple arithmetic.

[Mr. Flopnuts]

Originally Posted by patteeu

I've never doubted his math. I questioned whether he was making the right assumptions and using the right inputs.

People like Rasmussen and the guys at Gallup use a lot of math too. That's why the people cheering a victory for math here look so stupid.

I can't imagine anyone from this website more upset over the results of last night more than you. I admire your ability to keep your cool through just about anything. That's real talk.

There was no candidate for me. So I'm just having some fun ****ing with some of the ones who drive me batshit. That's not you. I couldn't disagree with you anymore in some areas, and I know the feeling is likewise, but kudos for not getting worked up into a hypertension tizzy.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by patteeu

I've never doubted his math. I questioned whether he was making the right assumptions and using the right inputs.

People like Rasmussen and the guys at Gallup use a lot of math too. That's why the people cheering a victory for math here, like dirk for example, look so stupid.

Over sampling Republicans and not calling cell phones in 2012 is not getting the right inputs into their math.

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by patteeu

I've never doubted his math. I questioned whether he was making the right assumptions and using the right inputs.

People like Rasmussen and the guys at Gallup use a lot of math too. That's why the people cheering a victory for math here, like dirk for example, look so stupid.

Rasmussen and gallup were wrong too so apparently their math sucks as well.

You have been on here for days deriding anybody that believed NS was right but in the end he was right just like he was in 2008, 2010 and now 2012. I tried to tell you but you didn't want to listen.

[tiptap]

Originally Posted by patteeu

I've never doubted his math. I questioned whether he was making the right assumptions and using the right inputs.

People like Rasmussen and the guys at Gallup use a lot of math too. That's why the people cheering a victory for math here, like dirk for example, look so stupid.

It is the actual manipulation of the numbers by Right leaning polling that entailed assumptions based upon political affiliation that was repudiated. Nate's tweaks were based upon demographics much less fluid like socio economic, changes in population and even race that people self identify with little immediate control. The bulk of information though was from the collection of many many polls with a Baysean statistic approach.

[FD]

Originally Posted by patteeu

Like what?

Basic faith in things like the CLT.

[Reaper16]

Originally Posted by patteeu

Yeah, Nate Silver dominated. And those that had blind faith in him (even if they told themselves that their blind faith was an allegiance to math) picked the right horse.

This isn't just sour grapes. It's a damn vineyard.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

you are still trying to say you were right. Your horse was just unlucky?

It's non-partisan, scientific math, simple arithmetic.

Rassmussen's methodology is also non-partisan, scientific math, simple arithmetic. He got it wrong though.