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%

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by bsp4444

Anybody get the Kiplinger Letter? They have it Obama 277 to Romney 235 with 26 toss up EC votes.

So they have declared Obama the winner?

[bsp4444]

"This is not an endorsement, just straight talk about the probable outcome." That's how they worded it.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by whoman69

If you want to post a source that uses numbers, not opinion, to say Romney is going to win, be my guest. Don't give me the guy from Colorado that says Romney is going to get 330 EC. Despite the claim his system has been right every election since 1980 it was developed after the last election and has never been tested on an election that hasn't already been finished.

Once this election is over and Obama wins, he'll tweak his formula to account for the results, and once again he'll be able to say that his system has been correct on every election since 1980. I doubt he'll mention that he really means retroactively correct.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by ChiefsandO'sfan

President Barack Obama could lose his home state of Illinois in November if a hurricane develops on Lake Michigan and wipes out Chicago on Tuesday morning, a new poll shows.

That is just really, really stupid. I made it a little more plausible.

However, Mitt will be losing his home state(s) of MA and MI, and Ryan will be losing WI, so nice going there.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by whoman69

You are in no position to talk about only listening to things you want to hear. You are the poster child for that malady.

If I'm the poster child, it seems like I'd be an expert at identifying such things. The difference between you and me is that I recognize that my beliefs are based more on assumptions than math. You don't seem to recognize that your beliefs are no different because you're dazzled by an abundance of numerical data and a smart guy who manipulates them in ways that might as well be magic to you.

Your challenge to "use ... numbers not opinion" is a confession of your ignorance.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by bsp4444

"This is not an endorsement, just straight talk about the probable outcome." That's how they worded it.

Unacceptable!

[dirk digler]

Good article on the others besides Nate that are using statistical analysis to predict who is going to win...

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012...s-obama-romney

Wang runs the Meta-Analysis model for the Princeton Election Consortium. Professor Wang, who made a name for himself in neuroscience and biophysics, took the statistical analyses he'd applied in those fields and transposed them to the mess of electoral politics. He developed the model in 2004 initially to help predict the most strategic way to allocate of campaign donations. The model, based on a slew of state polls, calculates each candidate's probability of winning in the Electoral College if the election were held today.

Track record: The group behind Meta-Analysis stakes out their election-prediction street cred like so: "In 2004, the median decided-voter calculation captured the exact final outcome. In 2008, the final-week decided-voter calculation was within 1 electoral vote."

Current prediction: As of October 30, Wang gives Barack Obama a generous 92-98 percent chance of reelection, and an estimated 303 electoral votes.

[J Diddy]

Originally Posted by patteeu

If I'm the poster child, it seems like I'd be an expert at identifying such things. The difference between you and me is that I recognize that my beliefs are based more on assumptions than math. You don't seem to recognize that your beliefs are no different because you're dazzled by an abundance of numerical data and a smart guy who manipulates them in ways that might as well be magic to you.

Your challenge to "use ... numbers not opinion" is a confession of your ignorance.

I urge you to provide 1 piece of evidence where you thought at any point you were wrong....about anything. It cannot be done.

[bsp4444]

Republican New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg endorses Obama.

[whoman69]

Originally Posted by patteeu

If I'm the poster child, it seems like I'd be an expert at identifying such things. The difference between you and me is that I recognize that my beliefs are based more on assumptions than math. You don't seem to recognize that your beliefs are no different because you're dazzled by an abundance of numerical data and a smart guy who manipulates them in ways that might as well be magic to you.

Your challenge to "use ... numbers not opinion" is a confession of your ignorance.

Opinions are like assholes, and you're the biggest one here. Yet you don't bring anything to back your opinion except your opinion.

Your view of anyone who posts contrary to you


Your view of yourself

[thecoffeeguy]

You Too Can Be Like Former Daily Kos Blogger Nate Silver
By: Erick Erickson (Diary) | November 1st, 2012 at 02:18 PM | 10


Nate Silver has all the liberals calmed down these days. he is the Xanax of the activist left, nervous about Tuesday. In an article HotAir linked to earlier today about rich, white San Francisco residents so upset by the thought of a Romney win they can’t use their home gyms, Mary Katharine Ham found this hilarious quote about a liberal who watched the first debate:

“After I read Nate Silver the other day, I felt better,” Blume said.

It is as if the former Daily Kos blogger who went on to be the lefty pollster du jour at the New York Times is some sort of magician. Actually, he’s not. He’s a smart guy to be sure, but my buddy Sean Davis has a great must read about how you too can be the next Nate Silver with a cheap Microsoft Excel spreadsheet plugin whether or not you’ve ever had a Daily Kos account.

I spent a few hours re-building Nate Silver’s basic Monte Carlo poll simulation model from the ground up. It is a simplified version, lacking fancy pollster weights and economic assumptions and state-by-state covariance factors, but it contains the same foundation of state poll data that supports Nate Silver’s famous FiveThirtyEight model. That is, they are both built upon the same assumption that state polls, on average, are correct.

After running the simulation every day for several weeks, I noticed something odd: the winning probabilities it produced for Obama and Romney were nearly identical to those reported by FiveThirtyEight. Day after day, night after night. For example, based on the polls included in RealClearPolitics’ various state averages as of Tuesday night, the Sean Davis model suggested that Obama had a 73.0% chance of winning the Electoral College. In contrast, Silver’s FiveThirtyEight model as of Tuesday night forecast that Obama had a 77.4% chance of winning the Electoral College.

So what gives? If it’s possible to recreate Silver’s model using just Microsoft Excel, a cheap Monte Carlo plug-in, and poll results that are widely available, then what real predictive value does Silver’s model have?

What might make the difference between the Sean Davis and the Nate Silver model? Well, Silver, in 2008, had access to internal Obama polling that he never disclosed. Maybe he has access to some this time as well.

In other words, it is worth noting to those on the right beating up Silver that the data is shaping his model. He is not shaping the data.

But it is also worth noting that for all the super-special pride accredited to Nate Silver and his predictive powers, you too can do it with a cheap Excel plugin.

Lastly, as a number of people have noted, including Sean Davis in this piece, the big issue this year is whether or not the state polls are wrong. If they are, then Silver is wrong. If they are right, Silver is right. It’s that simple. As Sean notes about 2010

State polling averages were wrong in Alaska (they said Joe Miller would be elected), wrong in Colorado (they said Ken Buck would be elected), and embarrassingly wrong in Nevada (they said Harry Reid would be involuntarily retired). FiveThirtyEight incorrectly forecast the winner in each of those states, perfectly reflecting the inaccurate information contained in the state polls.

Thus, of the five major state races in which polls were wrong over the last four years, Silver only got one right. I’m no baseball scout, but batting .200 when it counts won’t get you into the big leagues, let alone the All-Star game.

Well now...

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by bsp4444

Republican New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg endorses Obama.

That's an endorsement I could live without. Now that he's the soda Nazi, the only bigger joke out of NYC is Trump.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by J Diddy

I urge you to provide 1 piece of evidence where you thought at any point you were wrong....about anything. It cannot be done.

I'll let one of my critics testify on my behalf:

Originally Posted by whoman69

You admitted you didn't even know that Rasmussen had state polls.

I had said that I didn't think Gallup or Rasmussen did state by state polling. I knew one of them didn't, but I didn't think the other did either. It turns out that I was wrong and I had no problem admitting it. Satisfied?

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by bsp4444

Republican New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg endorses Obama.

Bloomberg was a lifelong democrat who only became a Republican because it afforded him an easier path to election as Mayor of NYC. No one confuses him with a real Republican. This is a case where RINO is actually appropriate.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by whoman69

Opinions are like assholes, and you're the biggest one here. Yet you don't bring anything to back your opinion except your opinion.

Your view of anyone who posts contrary to you

Your view of yourself

I sense a monster inferiority complex at work here.