Nate Silver can suck it

[GameTheory]

I kid Nate Silver, I kid.

Ok, let's talk about polls while we still have a chance! Yeah! I'm starting a new thread here to give the prez odds thread a break, and also to draw more attention to myself.

As a jumping off point, let's look at some things wonderboy Nate Silver has to say in his explanation/defense of his model:

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/02/nov-1-the-simple-case-for-saying-obama-is-the-favorite/

In reaction to some "pushback" against his projection as Obama as a solid favorite, he responds:

What I find confounding about this is that the argument we’re making is exceedingly simple. Here it is:

Obama’s ahead in Ohio.

A somewhat-more-complicated version:

Mr. Obama is leading in the polls of Ohio and other states that would suffice for him to win 270 electoral votes, and by a margin that has historically translated into victory a fairly high percentage of the time.

The argument that Mr. Obama isn’t the favorite is the one that requires more finesse. If you take the polls at face value, then the popular vote might be a tossup, but the Electoral College favors Mr. Obama.

So you have to make some case for why the polls shouldn’t be taken at face value.

So far, so good. And he's right, you do need to justify yourself if you are not going to take the polls at face value. But he's missing half of that equation. You also have to justify yourself if you ARE going to take the polls at face value. What I'm going to argue is that there is no "face value" to a poll. The impression is that a poll is what it is ("it's scientific!"), and if you are going to tweak it, then you better have a good reason. That's true, but again you also need a good reason to accept it as-is since they are tweaked by the pollster and we need to know their reasons in order to accept them. Or maybe they are not tweaked by the pollster and they let the chips fall where they may, but I will argue that that is a distinction without a difference. (I think they SHOULD tweak the samples generally because it is necessary to correct for sampling errors.)

So then Nate goes on to say that it is possible that most of the polls could be biased in one direction. He expands on this in the next day's post:

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/03/nov-2-for-romney-to-win-state-polls-must-be-statistically-biased/

I recommend you read both of those if you are interested, but the newer post can be summed up by it's title: "For Romney to win state polls must be statistically biased". And that's absolutely true, so an even shorter summary might be "Duh." And his main argument against them not being biased is recent history of them being more-or-less correct. He does claim, by the way, that his model explicitly accounts for this possible bias (whether it is for or against a particular candidate). From the second article:

The FiveThirtyEight forecast accounts for this possibility. Its estimates of the uncertainty in the race are based on how accurate the polls have been under real-world conditions since 1968, and not the idealized assumption that random sampling error alone accounts for entire reason for doubt.
It is unclear what his actual method is here -- it sounds like he is not really talking about adjusting the accuracy of individual polls (I don't think), but adding a measure of uncertainty to his simulations that creation his projections. I think he does some sort of Monte Carlo simulation, but I haven't followed him enough to know. Anyway, from what I've read of him (which is fairly lightly) I gather he does not dig into individual polls and simply creates his weighted average without considering the poll internals. But really I'm not sure -- certainly he doesn't seem to talk about adjusting polls individually, and I've seen him be dismissive of the idea of digging into individual polls because he doesn't weight any one poll very much and seems to assume that bias errors will generally cancel themselves out in the average. (I've got his book sitting here -- if he turns out to be right about everything maybe I'll read it.) But in this latest article he is acknowledging the idea that most of the polls could in fact be tilted in one direction which would bias his projection also, but since he doesn't really believe it he isn't going into depth on the ways he could be wrong. So let's cover some of that ground. But despite the title (which is mainly for forum user "Jake"'s benefit), this post actually isn't about Nate Silver other than a starting point indicating what the general consensus on the polls out in the world is, or at least in liberal circles. Anyway, let's now leave Mr. Silver aside.

(cont...)

[GameTheory]

(...cont)

Ok, so polls: art or science? In every interview with a pollster that I've seen, they are asked this question, and they all answer MOSTLY art or at least HALF art. That's the pollsters talking, so let's just put aside right away that polls are these objective scientific snapshots -- they aren't. They try to be of course, but the means to get there is highly subjective and involves human beings making judgement calls about what to include and why, etc. And that's fine, that's the best we can do, but just realize that.

Taking polls at "face value" or interpreting them with our own tweaks and added complexities: is there a fundamental difference? No.

Is it "valid" to interpret/tweak a poll (in general)? Yes.

Is it "valid" to take a poll at face value? Only if you've already got reason to trust the implicit or explicit model that underlies the poll.

And this is the key, all polls make assumptions about the makeup/structure of the population they are polling -- they have an underlying model, all of them. Even if the pollster doesn't "weight" any group or trait in particular and it is up to random chance, THAT IS STILL A MODEL, just one that wasn't explicitly chosen. And in political polling, there is really no such thing as just leaving it up to random chance because it is non-random whether people respond to the poll or not. There is no particular reason to believe a random sample is representative of the voting population as a whole. In fact, there are lots of good reasons to think otherwise. (This is going to be long enough already without going into detail about that here, but maybe in the subsequent discussion.) Pollsters know this, so many of them do introduce weights among the traits and groups in order to hopefully better capture the true population. (Or in some cases unfortunately, in order to deliberately skew the results one way or another for their client. We'll ignore that possibility and assume all these big league pollsters cited in the media are actually trying their best.) But it is "valid" to weight a poll sample in some manner. And that's where the most of art of the thing resides. None of them explicitly reveal all of their methods, but some of them do in broad strokes, usually something along the lines of looking at the region in question, using the registered voter percentages and census figures to come up with a target sample population, and then tweaking that by historical turnout figures for those groups in statewide elections. So that approach attempts to do the arty part in a more or less mechanical "scientific" way. Others may be more aggressive by making assumptions about what they think the difference in turnout will be this time and adjust for that, or that have a whole sideline activity that constantly tries to keep up with the electorate, current enthusiasm, etc to generate precise estimates of turnout based on current conditions. (Rasmussen does some of that -- he has a moving dynamic model, and a pretty good one it seems.) In any case, the resulting target sample is just an educated guess. I'll get back to this.

The other big remaining piece of the "art" side of the puzzle during the final month or so of the campaign is the "likely voter screen". Once that wire starts getting close, the pollsters all switch to "likely voter" models which attempt to focus in on people that will actually cast ballots rather than just anyone that is registered. This is pure art, and there is nothing much to be said about it, except for the early voting problem which I'll get to in a second. Putting early voting aside, they ask a few questions about enthusiasm, have you voted before, etc, to determine if you are a likely voter. In general, the tighter the screen, the more it favors Republicans because there are many more registered Democrats than Republicans (thanks to Motor Voter laws and other such measures that have gotten lots of people to register to vote that often don't care about voting), but those registered Democrats turn out in fewer numbers than Republicans. But most "unlikely" voters are self-screened by not answering polls. Otherwise we'd have to conclude that all likely voter screens are total hogwash because they typically let through 80-90% of the poll respondents, which is obviously far far above the actual turnout gap between registered and actual voters -- a level of 70% is record-breaking in reality. So really we have no idea how accurate these screens are, but the looser they are, the more they skew Democrat.

EXCEPT in the case of early voting -- if you say you voted already, there is nothing else to ask -- you automatically make it through the screen. And early voting favors Democrats because that is a big strategy for them. So with early voting added in, the polls will tend to skew Democrat no matter how tight the screen is. Everybody that claims to have voted is through the screen, so now if for the remaining people you make it too loose you are letting in too many more Democrats (that won't really vote) vs Republicans (who will), but if you tighten it up then your not-yet-voted Democrat numbers will be better but you start turning away Republicans that will in fact vote as "unlikely". So early voting skews Democrat, and heavily. There doesn't seem to be a strategy by the pollsters yet to deal with this -- the ones that don't shoot for particular target sample proportions anyway. They need to adjust but if they've taken an anti-adjustment stance then what we tend to see is the "+D" numbers go up with the early voting. We are definitely seeing this effect in Ohio in some of the polls -- I suspect when they are way off they will come up with something for next time as early voting is becoming more and more prevalent. For instance, if we look at the last three PPP (Public Policy Polling) polls in Ohio, we see them go from D+4 to D+6 to D+8. Significantly, Obama's lead over those polls doesn't go up! It is actually down a point in the last poll from the first, but with a +4D greater advantage in the last poll from the first. What does that tell you?

Other polls seem to more tightly control their samples and you don't see this creeping +D with the early voting.

Here's a quote from Battleground Watch discussing the early voting problem:

Early voting is creating a unique problem for polling organizations this year in that the results will skew in favor of the party with the higher early turnout, in this case the Democrats. This built in early voting bias to polls greatly diminishing the polls actual value since you know up front one party’s partisans are over-sampled. Since Democrats tend to vote early, you see the Democrat candidate typically leading by wide margins in early voting according to many polls. When it comes to polling results, all voters who said they already voted make it through the likely voter screen and end up in the final results. This means a sizable pro-Democrat segment of those polled are guaranteed to make it through the likely voter screen. This inherently over-samples Democrats which practically guarantees a favorable result for Democrats. This is how a poll consistently shows Democrat turnout levels at or greater than the best in a generation turnout Democrats enjoyed in 2008 despite mountains of evidence saying otherwise.

See this blog post for some more detail about how that skew works and the difference in strategy between the campaigns on early voting: http://jhpolitics.com/2012/10/how-early-voting-is-skewing-the-polls/


(cont...)

[GameTheory]

(...cont)

Ok, moving on, so what about the science part? What CAN we take away from polls at face value?

Well, the direct questions and answers: If they ask who you are voting for, or your age, or what party or ideology do you consider yourself, there is no reason to question those answers. Sure, people can lie, but that's got to be a pretty small number. So that's the actual "opinion of the people" part of the poll (which the turnout numbers are not), but we want to use a whole bunch of such q&a sessions to predict things like who's going to win and by how much. But because we know that the population of poll respondents does NOT represent the entire voting population at large (and the margin of error does not address this question, see my previous post about polling cats & dogs in the prez odds thread), that's where the art comes in and we start weighting our samples and looking at the main variables we are interested in (who are you voting for) cross-referenced with other traits like party id, sex, age, etc. And how we weight those samples controls the "top-line" results of the poll. (e.g. Obama 47, Romney 45). Because the opinion part of the polls are very consistent within regions and groups. For instance, if you break it down by (self-identified) party id, which correlates highest with breaking for one candidate or the other, the results are always around a 90-10 split for the "my party" guy and then the independents break where ever they break for that particular region and set of candidates. And you will generally see strong agreement in all the polls within these categories, even if their top-lines are completely different. (Independents vary the most, but the self identified groups are always between 88-92 for their guy. 88% percent represents a very UNENTHUSIASTIC response to a party candidate within that party.) Close to the election you don't see significant changes in those numbers, so the top-lines result is ultimately controlled almost completely by the makeup of the sample.

It is easiest to pick on party id as *the* factor to look for here, and that's the one people always talk about (which is exactly what I'm going to do as well), but realize there are an infinite number of ways to slice up this data.

Ok, so all of the above boils down to this: the top-line poll results you see are FAR more "turnout estimate models" than they are representative of "the opinion of the people". So just remember when comparing polls with vastly different results what the real differences are. If you drilled into those polls you'd find near identical numbers under the Republican, Democrat, and Independent categories, and the reason they have different top-line results is because the proportions of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents varies wildly between them. So on the science side, we've got numbers that are essentially fixed and that everybody agrees on, and so the difference between the polls is almost exclusively on the art side. (This is not necessarily true over time, but right near the end of the election it is.) So what are we looking at when we see a poll result? An estimate of the TURNOUT in the *opinion* of the pollster. That's it! But their opinions are not (usually) wild guesses -- they are based on the census, voter registrations, historical turnout, and their likely voter screen. But please realize how sensitive these numbers are. Just one percentage point from one party's column that should be in the other party's column has a major effect because they all vote 90-10 for their guy. So polls with a 2 point spread, that means nothing. The exit polls aren't even that accurate, often off by 1.5pt or more for each candidate. (Early voting is now a problem for exit polls too, but it is factored in.) The level of precision people ascribe to these polls is simply not there.

Which is why we make averages, right? Yes, that does improve things, but if all the DRI (Democrat-Republican-Independent) mixes in each poll are systematically off in most of the polls in one direction, then that error will still be baked into the average rather than canceled out between them, which is the usual justification of the averaging in the first place.

So what I do is to separate the art and science parts of the poll by making two weighted averages.

The first is the percentage votes for each candidate by each party id sub-group. So I'll look at several polls, and maybe one of the will have Dems voting for Obama:Romney at 90:10, and another will have 92:8, and another will have 89:11 and then I'll weight those by sample size to get an estimate of how self-labeled Democrats are going to vote, and then do the same with Republicans and Independents. These numbers I really pay attention to, they are not opinions (of the pollster), and it doesn't even matter if the pollster is biased -- these numbers should still hold as long as the pollster isn't just fabricating data (which some of them clearly do, but mostly small-timers).

Then I take a separate weighted average of the DRI mix used in each poll to get a grand average of all the polls turnout estimate. And then I can put those two resulting sets of averages back together and do the math to come up with a weighted poll of polls (that is still using the internal models of the pollsters). If the pollsters are accurate in their models, this will give a very good projection. But I'm also free to ignore the DRI average and substitute what I might feel is a better turnout estimate and create a different projection that way -- substituting my art for theirs. Not all polls give out all the information I need to calculate the averages (or you have to pay for it), so I don't use Rasmussen and some others.

So the first question is: are the pollsters turnout estimates (DRI mix) any good? Well, that depends on whether you believe the exit polls -- it gets murky when you start comparing one poll to another to check for accuracy, especially since in states with early voting adding them to the exit poll is tricky business, and the turnout model of the exit poll could also be flawed. Whaddya gonna do? (And as we are about to find out, the polls turnout projection and the reported turnout on the exit poll are wildly different.) I've concentrated most of my analysis on Ohio and Colorado. If Romney wins those, he wins. I think it is safe to say that if he wins Ohio in defiance of the polls and wins Colorado also (which I actually think might be tougher) then it is a pretty good bet he is also going to win all those other swing states where he is tied or leading and so will have at least 275 electoral votes. Both Ohio and Colorado are heavy early voting states.

Let's look at 2008.

According to my average of the 2008 polls taken just before election day in Colorado, the pollsters projected DRI was 40:38:22. (Once again that's 40% Dems, 38% Reps, and 22% Inds) What did the exit poll say? 30:31:39. Not even close to the projection, and that is a trend I see in most of the 2008 data -- the polls projections have way too many Democrats and far too low Independents compared to the exit polls. And for Colorado anyway, that independent number of the exit poll is more plausible as more people in Colorado (where I am) do think of themselves that way, but they lean Democrat. Independents leaned Democrat in Colorado even towards Kerry in 2004, and are projected to so again this year which is one reason I think Colorado may be tougher for Romney than Ohio even though it appears he is polling better here. Anyway, even though the projection mix and the exit poll mix are very much different, the projections made using the pollsters' model in 2008 was actually spot-on. I usually normalize the numbers as if all votes went to one of the two main candidates, so I'm not looking at exact vote numbers. My normalized 2008 projection for Colorado using the polls turnout estimate: 54.7-45.2. Actual (normalized) results: 54.4-45.6. WOW that's close. That's closer than the exit poll itself predicted using its own DRI mix and vote-by-party id percentages. It predicted 53.3-46.7, which over-estimated McCain. Still, that could just an accident. What if I plug-in the exit polls reported DRI mix with my calculated numbers for how each group would vote? Then I get 55.1-44.9, which over-estimates Obama. Of course, if you are doing this before the election, you don't have an exit poll to give you a DRI mix -- you either use the pollsters or tweak it or base it on the previous election or just make one up.

2008 in Ohio pollsters projected DRI mix: 45:39:16. Again, independents so low. Exit poll reported mix: 39:31:30. That looks closer to reality for 2008. The pure poll projection for 2008 Ohio: 52.2-47.8. Actual results: 52.3-47.7. Wow, again. Predictions don't get closer than that. (Again, these numbers are normalized to sum to 100%.) I'm going to have a lot of trouble arguing against using the pollsters numbers for 2012, aren't I? They nailed this thing in 2008, at least in CO & OH. (Actually, I nailed it using their numbers, but anyway.) Exit poll prediction was: 53.6-46.4, over-estimating Obama. And using the exit DRI mix with the poll numbers for how those groups would vote: 53.9-46.0, over-estimating Obama even more. But to repeat, there is no exit poll before the election so that's just a curiosity. However, we would like to have some historical numbers to use in order to help guide us as we come up with a turnout projection for this year, so it would be nice if the exit poll numbers were accurate. No way of knowing.

And now 2012.

In Colorado, my current DRI projection from the polls is: 34:34:32. Not as rosy for Obama as 2008's 40:38:22, but in Colorado independents lean Dem so it still points to an Obama win: 50.7-49.3 (normalized), although a thin one. (He won by nearly 9 points normalized in 2008.) But certainly not a lock this time. What if we use the 2008 exit poll turnout numbers (30:31:39)? Then we get dead solid even -- Obama ahead by only a 1/3 of a normalized point.

So what happens in Colorado this year? By the pollster's numbers, a thin Obama win. By the 2008 exit polls, a tie, uncallable. Move any of the turnout projections towards Romney at all, and Romney wins. But Colorado is very tough -- population is expanding with people moving from other states, mostly to the urban areas. (Denver public school district is currently the fastest growing the nation.) Those new people probably lean Democrat, but conservative stronghold Colorado Springs is growing as well, and then we've got places like Aspen and Vail full of rich people and all the rural areas that always go red. And, enthusiasm for Obama *is* down overall if not necessarily among hard-core Democrats. Among independents it is definitely way down from 61-39 to 53-47. And enthusiasm for Romney is much higher than McCain among Reps: from 89-11 to 94-6. 94 is about as high as it gets for in-party numbers, and 89 is pretty bad actually. So I think the best scenario for Obama is that any possible (but not assured) favorable changes within the population in the state are canceled out by his lower popularity and Mitt's much better showing. Remember the exit poll in 2008 actually had 1 point more Republicans than Dems and with independents being higher than either, and over-estimated McCain. Let's assume the Dem-Rep mix was a rounding error and give 1 pt back to the Dems from the Reps. That gives us 31:30:39, which would have predicted the 2008 election spot-on. Using that mix for 2012, we get a projection of 51.0-48.9, almost exactly the same as the current polls projection of 50.7-49.3. Different roads to the same result.

Here's where the art really takes over. We have seen that the pollster's turnout projections compared to the exit polls turnout estimates are VASTLY different -- not even close. And they are all just polls. So at this point anybody inclined to argue simply that "pollsters know what they are doing, we should just go by their estimates" doesn't have a leg to stand on. You can't argue that pollsters are always right when their own polls are wildly differing on the equivalent figures. So is the sampling from an exit poll more representative of the voting population than pre-election sampling? Common sense says yes, and the exit polls have much larger samples than the normal pre-election polls. But still they could be skewed depending on where you do your exit polling, and how you account for early voting which means you are adding telephone samples back into the mix. Polling is more difficult than ever -- these figures just can't be that precise. Anyway, I choose the exit polls as more plausible and less arbitrary than the pre-election turnout estimates. You may disagree, and start throwing "historical accuracy" at me, but certainly exit polls historical record at predicting elections is at least as good pre-race polls, right?

Ok, so if a 31:30:39 DRI mix picked the 2008 election spot-on, and that same mix predicts a 2 pt win by Obama this time, what does that mean? I don't think anybody is going to argue that this election is going to be MORE favorable turnout-wise for Obama than last time, even in Colorado where maybe the Democrat population has increased. So Obama's best scenario is a thin win in Colorado. If he wins big in Colorado (he did win by 9 last time), then I am totally out to lunch and I apologize you've read this far. But we've got to ask how plausible is it that turnout will even be equally as favorable to Obama this time? Not likely, I think. To get an idea of what high Republican turnout in Colorado might look like, consider than the 2004 exit polls were 29:38:33 -- R+9. Such things are possible in this state. If turnout is like that, Romney wins by 7 points. But, that's probably not plausible either. Obama is an incumbent and still well-regarded among his base, not a lame-o loser like John Kerry who wasn't well-regarded by anybody. But similarly, enthusiasm for Romney is well above that for McCain. Does it approach incumbent George Bush 2004 levels? Maybe, but he is the challenger so let's assume not. Independents are tough to figure -- they haven't gone over to Romney en masse (they went for Kerry even), but they are way less sweet on Obama. That could just mean the ones that voted for him last time have largely decided just to stay home. I'm going to say independents are going to be closer to a 1/3 of the electorate this time rather than the very high figure of 39% reported last time. So let's lower independents, add some to Repubs, and also add some to Dems, but less than Repubs. Remember these are percentages so D's and R's can go up relatively simply by I's staying home. Basically I'm assuming that D's will turn out in the same numbers, R's will turn out in much greater number, and the independents will turn out less. How about 33:34:33? That gets us absolutely tied -- a re-count situation with Romney winning by 100 votes or something. These are not absolute predictions but just plausible scenarios -- more plausible I think than what the raw polling is giving us. I'm trying to be very conservative and be generous to Obama -- he's the incumbant and incumbants are hard to beat. But seriously, the range of the plausible goes from a very thin Obama win to a big Romney win. But the most likely is Romney by a point or two at least. But I do find Colorado hard to figure.

Objection: "But you're just pulling numbers out of your ass!" Well, yeah, that's the art side, and the pollsters do the same. That's my point. ALL TURNOUT ESTIMATES ARE PULLED OUT OF ASSES! So we look at history and current conditions, etc to guide us. But in the end there is always something arbitrary about them.

On to Ohio. It seems like it should be a slam-dunk for Romney, given that we are talking about Obama being tied in Colorado which he won by *9* last time, greater than the national average. He won Ohio by only 4 or 5 pts (depending on where you look -- I actually see at least 3 different results for Ohio 2008 from different sources), well less than the national average. And everybody agrees that Romney is winning Ohio independents handily. So what's going on? How could Obama possibly be winning Ohio?

Using all the pollster numbers gives us a projection of Obama winning by 3 points: 51.5-48.5. Using the 2008 exit polls, we get Obama by 4.5 points: 52.3-47.7. But the exit polls for 08 also over-estimated Obama in 08, so if we dial back the Dems a bit to give it a 37:32:31 DRI mix, that would have hit 2008 spot-on. If we compare the pollsters turnout DRI mixes from 08 to 12 it looks like this: from 45:39:16 to 38:31:30, which like in Colorado actually ends up slightly rosier than a slight tweak to the exit poll to get it in line. Their projection actually looks much more normal this time as the independent number isn't absurdly low anymore. Anyway, using my modified 2008 exit poll DRI mix, the projection is now Obama by 2 points: 51-49.

So again we ask, is it really plausible that the turnout in 2012 will be just as favorable to Obama as it was in 2008? Once again, let's see what a high Republican turnout in Ohio might look like. The 2004 exit poll reports 35:40:25. If we use that, Romney wins by 6. But, as in Colorado, probably more realistic is to split the difference while still favoring Obama. Moving the turnout rates only a single point from 2008 towards Romney to 36:33:31 gets us a absolute tie. Isn't it reasonable to think that the shift towards Romney will be at least that much? If so, Romney wins.

I would like to sum up now, but I'm sick of writing this, so we'll cover any confusion in later discussion.

And now a final wrinkle -- the big-ass storm. Did it help Obama? Probably. Will it tip it in his direction if it needed tipping? Maybe. I've got no answers for that, and there isn't enough time for the polls to really reflect it. But a bunch of very late polls moving towards Obama (or vice-versa) could be the real deal. I had expected the election to have obviously broken for one guy or another by now, so that still can happen very late storm or not, reflected in the polling or not. Gallup suspended national polling early due to the storm. Hard to say what the final effect will be, if any, since the hardest hit areas are already going for Obama. It did kind of stop the Romney campaign in its tracks and take him off people's radar. Who knows?


Here's some more crap to read on similar subjects:

http://www.redstate.com/2012/10/31/on-polling-models-skewed-unskewed/


Discuss.

[GameTheory]

That final link I provided to redstate.com is definitely worth reading. (I hadn't actually read it until just now.) I could have just pointed to that.

[horses4courses]

Put a little thought into this, have we? :lol:

I'll never look at polls quite the same way again....... ;)

[nearco]

Is there a Cliff Notes version???

[PaceAdvantage]

Is there a Cliff Notes version???Why would you want one?

[GameTheory]

McLaughlin in that redstate article makes the very good point that these state polls are the *only* thing pointing to an Obama win as every other fundamental and historical indicator points strongly to Romney. An Obama win in this situation would truly be totally unprecedented.

[Marshall Bennett]

I would have had to start this thread a week ago to type all of that. :cool:

[GameTheory]

I would have had to start this thread a week ago to type all of that. :cool:
I did!

[Pace Cap'n]

Why would you want one?

tldr

[GameTheory]

tldr
Not tl;mr? Aww...

[Track Collector]

Great post GameTheory! :ThmbUp:

Given all this information, betting on Obama with all those different places that Lamboguy quotes at the recently listed odds sure looks like a huge underlay, even if he somehow does end up winning.

[maddog42]

Gametheory:
I read your entire Post, er uh, Posts, and I read the redstate.com article. Both were informative and enlightening and I found very little to disagree with. I would also give caution to going against Silver since the Redstate article gave him a lot of credit for being a baseball statistical whiz. Both you and the article hinged your pro-romney argument on an enthused Republican turnout and a depleted Democratic turnout. This will surely be somewhat true, but how much? I am slightly critical of Silver also, in that unCommon sense tells me that anytime a candidate polls so close nationally and in razor thin state polls then he has a good chance of winning. Obama should be the favorite;he is certainly trending better, but I would only go 60-40. This 83% favorite rating that Silver gives Obama is stupid. Much of your model and the Redstate model compares the drastic differences between the 2004 and 2008 turnout rates. I am pretty sure the turnout rates for Republicans will be somewhere between these 2 extremes.
Thanks for the hard work and the informative posts. I always appreciate a
thread such as this that is based on sound and reasonable assertions.

[JustRalph]

McLaughlin in that redstate article makes the very good point that these state polls are the *only* thing pointing to an Obama win as every other fundamental and historical indicator points strongly to Romney. An Obama win in this situation would truly be totally unprecedented.

This has been the really odd thing to me. I have a complete distrust of all media. I don't believe hardly any of it anymore. So the polls in the states are an enigma to me. I don't think you can buck the trends of history in a national election. There is tons of data to fall back on. If I was a betting man When it comes to elections I would go with the national historical trends. But nothing is the same as it used to be. The level of corruption is beyond anything I could have ever imagined. There are no real jounalists anymore. Nothing is the same. It could all be disinformation. In fact I am sure it is. Who the hell knows what is really going to happen.

When I start to think the historical trends are reliable I have to remind myself that the mainstream media is so invested in Obama that it may be completely impossible for Romney to win. The media controls the ill-informed at a level that could lead to there never being another Repub Prez. We may have finally crossed the threshold of the takers out numbering the makers. It could really be that simple.

If so, Ayn Rand's world from Atlas is just around the corner.

If you aren't familiar with Rand.....check it out.

[johnhannibalsmith]

This has been the really odd thing to me. I have a complete distrust of all media. I don't believe hardly any of it anymore. So the polls in the states are an enigma to me. I don't think you can buck the trends of history in a national election. There is tons of data to fall back on. If I was a betting man When it comes to elections I would go with the national historical trends. But nothing is the same as it used to be. The level of corruption is beyond anything I could have ever imagined. There are no real jounalists anymore. Nothing is the same. It could all be disinformation. In fact I am sure it is. Who the hell knows what is really going to happen.

When I start to think the historical trends are reliable I have to remind myself that the mainstream media is so invested in Obama that it may be completely impossible for Romney to win. The media controls the ill-informed at a level that could lead to there never being another Repub Prez. We may have finally crossed the threshold of the takers out numbering the makers. It could really be that simple.

If so, Ayn Rand's world from Atlas is just around the corner.

If you aren't familiar with Rand.....check it out.

This post pretty much explains my own problem with even getting interested in polling. When you poll every single day and find variance worth reporting in such small intervals, it makes it hard for me to either take seriously the poll itself (themselves) or the process which obviously feels that it can dictate swings in opinion almost at will.

I'm with you on the media at this point. I tend to read almost all mainstream or left type media (and I'm not really sure why, I think just to be entertained and feed my own skepticism) and the absolute, unrelenting press to "make this happen" is why I voted that Obama would win in the poll. Not because I think polls support it, but just because I think it has all the genuineness of a WWF cage match. For gawds sake, the AP released an "AP NEWSBREAK!" yesterday that Jon Cusack of "I want my two dollars!" fame was going to make a Rush Limbaugh movie. WHAT!!!!??!?!?! :D

[GameTheory]

When I start to think the historical trends are reliable I have to remind myself that the mainstream media is so invested in Obama that it may be completely impossible for Romney to win. The media controls the ill-informed at a level that could lead to there never being another Repub Prez. We may have finally crossed the threshold of the takers out numbering the makers. It could really be that simple.Unprecedented things do happen, but that's not the way to bet. Just pointing out that it is actually Silver and the state pollsters that are sticking their necks out here even though it is being presented like the rest of us who are pointing out the obvious are part of that "war on objectivity" that the liberals say we are part of. As McLaughlin says, in order for them to be right, it means something totally unprecedented has occurred; but if we "poll deniers" are right then it just means the polls were wrong in the usual way polls have been wrong lots of other times. I'm not even necessarily blaming the pollsters -- it is a tough business getting tougher. And they've canceled many of the exit polls for non-swing states, so it will be even harder in the future to look at the past data when some of those places are competitive again and they are looking for guidance.

Of course I could be all wet too, and even if I'm right this time I'm liable to be all wrong next time. That's the nature of trying to predict history before it happens...

[bigmack]

30% of households are officially 'cellphone only' - no landline. Poses a HUGE problem for pollsters and they'll readily admit it.

Ask any 'BO is a lock' goof about turnouts & independents. It's not happy news.

Not a chance for BO.

[GameTheory]

30% of households are officially 'cellphone only' - no landline. Poses a HUGE problem for pollsters and they'll readily admit it.The non-robo ones call both. And they are mixing in online polls now too, don't know how that works. But still, non-polling of cellphone only houses would skew Republican and not the other way around, unless they are over-compensating for it. Of course, I'm one of those households but we are neutral (one R vote, one D vote). But then again we're not answering the phone either...

[JustRalph]

Geldings never win the KY Derby is all heard .........

I bet anyway :lol: Same theory I guess

[NJ Stinks]

The media controls the ill-informed at a level that could lead to there never being another Repub Prez.



Yea, it's not that more people reject what Republicans stand for - it's the media. :rolleyes:

One more comment. I thought it was the liberals who were supposed to believe they were the smart ones and everybody else was dumb.

[GameTheory]

Yea, it's not that more people reject what Republicans stand for - it's the media. :rolleyes: Except when they lose. Then it isn't their message that people are rejecting, that possibility is never ever considered, it is because not everybody received their message and they don't realize how IMPORTANT it is and they need to push it harder harder harder.

One more comment. I thought it was the liberals who were supposed to believe they were the smart ones and everybody else was dumb.It is. If you disagree with a liberal, they can hardly believe it -- how could you ever disagree with something so obvious? Everything is incredibly obvious to liberals and only needs justification to the idiot non-liberals who can't recognize reality staring them in the face.

And to get back on-topic to the subject of polls, that reminds me of a hilarious comment I read the other day at the bottom of one of those articles about polls. It said if the Republicans win, it won't be because the polls were wrong, but because the Republicans will somehow cheat a several point swing out of the votes -- the polls being wrong is just impossible, so any deviation from them in Republicans favor will exclusively be to cheating. Talk about denial of reality. He's all ready to deny it even before it happens!

[JustRalph]

Yea, it's not that more people reject what Republicans stand for - it's the media. :rolleyes:


Really? You want to have that discussion? Why is Fox news number 1 and actually beating prime time news broadcasts from the likes of NBC News? Why do over 50% of the country now call themselves Conservative and only 23% liberal? There is a huge group that falls somewhere in between and they are certified ill informed or stupid. More than likely just "not engaged" believe me they are out there. There is no wholesale rejection of Republicans. In fact I am very encouraged this year after watching several Black Republicans/Conservatives (there is a difference) come to the forefront. Including many that are younger. I don't hold myself to toe the line as a Repub, as I have too many Libertarian leanings. But when it comes to deciding which side to support in this screwed up 2 party only system, I am so far away from the left there is no choice to be made.

Your so called rejection isn't reflected in the informed citizen that seeks out a better news product. See the paragraph above for reference

The low info voter is still watching Brian Williams, and his brethren.

Goes back to the point that the informed are slowly but surely being outnumbered by the ill informed. Who are still nuzzling at the teat of the mainstream media. There are enough of them in this screwed up uneducated world that we have fostered for 40 years, to make the difference now.

[NJ Stinks]

Really? You want to have that discussion? Why is Fox news number 1 and actually beating prime time news broadcasts from the likes of NBC News? Why do over 50% of the country now call themselves Conservative and only 23% liberal? There is a huge group that falls somewhere in between and they are certified ill informed or stupid. More than likely just "not engaged" believe me they are out there. There is no wholesale rejection of Republicans. In fact I am very encouraged this year after watching several Black Republicans/Conservatives (there is a difference) come to the forefront. Including many that are younger. I don't hold myself to toe the line as a Repub, as I have too many Libertarian leanings. But when it comes to deciding which side to support in this screwed up 2 party only system, I am so far away from the left there is no choice to be made.

Your so called rejection isn't reflected in the informed citizen that seeks out a better news product. See the paragraph above for reference

The low info voter is still watching Brian Williams, and his brethren.

Goes back to the point that the informed are slowly but surely being outnumbered by the ill informed. Who are still nuzzling at the teat of the mainstream media. There are enough of them in this screwed up uneducated world that we have fostered for 40 years, to make the difference now.

I'm pretty tired, Ralph, but I will say this tonight. FOX News gets the far right every night. That leaves ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN to get the other 75% out there. And most of those 75% don't have the time or the inclination to consume like the devout FOX viewer.

[badcompany]

I'm pretty tired, Ralph, but I will say this tonight. FOX News gets the far right every night. That leaves ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN to get the other 75% out there. And most of those 75% don't have the time or the inclination to consume like the devout FOX viewer.

To a liberal "The Far Right" is anyone a Swedish hair to the right of Noam Chomsky :lol:

[ceejay]

GT-

I find issues of data analysis more interesting than the political side and that is what my comments related to.

I liken Silver's model to a model that predicts head-to-head horserace matchups given the relative odds. For example, a 5-2 horse might have a 75% likelihood of beating a 8-1 horse in a 10 horse field (all numbers made up). But, the specific details of the race might lead one to bet on the underdog.

Silver's model is not calling this election a lock for Obama. Today's iteration makes it closer to 6-1. Intuitively, I think it is a little closer than that but it is not even close to being 50-50. If you want someone who is calling the election a lock you might look at this guy:
http://election.princeton.edu/
he makes the odds of reelection >50-1. But, of course we have all seen $100 horses.

I would be lying if I said that I read your entire treatise then you may have addressed this, but I see an advantage (evaluation-wise) in models that aggregate data in that perversely when you add noise to a noisy system you decrease overall noise because by definition noise is random. Of course, this can get you in trouble if you apply it in the wrong places and that type of logic led to the creation of toxic mortgage-backed securities that in large part caused the current recession.

Models are just models. Probabilistic models need to be interpreted carefully. As I understand it Silver's model is probabilistic and uses probabilistic inputs (which actually have some deterministic base inputs).

In the real world the choice of what model to apply in any given setting matters. Professionally I am a geologist and Petrophysicist. I found a well that I do not believe the original drller applied appropriate models on a particular geological horizon. As a result, they plugged the well. When I applied my deterministic petrophysical model the interpretation is that there is oil in the well. So, multiple professionals can look at the same input data and come up with different interpretations based on the model that they apply. And, in this case the choice of model has led me to a drillable prospect

[ArlJim78]

I've seen the same comments on a number of places that people are coming up with the same "Silver" results by using a Monte Carlo simulation of the major polls.

there is much art to these polls as GT has pointed out. there will be a lot to rehash beginning tomorrow night.

I look for things like who is paying for the poll, what is their track record, how much money did they spend, etc. Polling over and over and going for maximum accuracy is expensive.

[GameTheory]

I find issues of data analysis more interesting than the political side and that is what my comments related to.

I liken Silver's model to a model that predicts head-to-head horserace matchups given the relative odds. For example, a 5-2 horse might have a 75% likelihood of beating a 8-1 horse in a 10 horse field (all numbers made up). But, the specific details of the race might lead one to bet on the underdog.

Silver's model is not calling this election a lock for Obama. Today's iteration makes it closer to 6-1. Intuitively, I think it is a little closer than that but it is not even close to being 50-50. If you want someone who is calling the election a lock you might look at this guy:
http://election.princeton.edu/
he makes the odds of reelection >50-1. But, of course we have all seen $100 horses.

I would be lying if I said that I read your entire treatise then you may have addressed this, but I see an advantage (evaluation-wise) in models that aggregate data in that perversely when you add noise to a noisy system you decrease overall noise because by definition noise is random. Of course, this can get you in trouble if you apply it in the wrong places and that type of logic led to the creation of toxic mortgage-backed securities that in large part caused the current recession.

Models are just models. Probabilistic models need to be interpreted carefully. As I understand it Silver's model is probabilistic and uses probabilistic inputs (which actually have some deterministic base inputs).Yep, all correct. Silver's model is probabilistic, that's true (any decent model is implicitly if not explicitly), and it seems like he keeps warning people to keep that in mind even though he's got a very high likelihood of Obama winning and they are not listening to him. If Obama loses, I doubt too many of his supporters are going to say, "Yeah, well, he *did* say Romney would win in 2 out of 10..." And Silver can claim he was "right" either way and he'd be correct cause you can't judge probabilistic models on one-off events, although you can say they were more right than wrong or vice-versa. I'm not suggesting he would make that claim, only that he could, and he has left himself that out. It would depend on the nature of the loss. If Romney trounces and gets 315 electoral votes and wins all sorts of states like Wisconsin, Iowa, etc etc, then Silver will have no choice but to say he was all wet, and that he really needs to start digging into these poll internals (which is basically my argument). If Romney squeaks out a 275 vote victory with hair's breadth wins in Ohio and Colorado while barely taking Virginia, etc, then Silver can claim without embarrassment "those are the breaks, oh well". And I can also claim I was right...

[lamboguy]

does anyone know the percentage breakdown between registered democrats and republicans, and the number of independents?

[GameTheory]

does anyone know the percentage breakdown between registered democrats and republicans, and the number of independents?That's all state-by-state data. In some states (like Ohio), you don't even pick a party. But in general, there are more registered Democrats. (Which doesn't mean anything because they all just signed up at the DMV but not cause they really wanted to vote -- motor voter and similar measures swelled the Dems ranks on paper).

[Jake]

Gametheory:
I read your entire Post, er uh, Posts, and I read the redstate.com article. Both were informative and enlightening and I found very little to disagree with. I would also give caution to going against Silver since the Redstate article gave him a lot of credit for being a baseball statistical whiz. Both you and the article hinged your pro-romney argument on an enthused Republican turnout and a depleted Democratic turnout. This will surely be somewhat true, but how much? I am slightly critical of Silver also, in that unCommon sense tells me that anytime a candidate polls so close nationally and in razor thin state polls then he has a good chance of winning. Obama should be the favorite;he is certainly trending better, but I would only go 60-40. This 83% favorite rating that Silver gives Obama is stupid. Much of your model and the Redstate model compares the drastic differences between the 2004 and 2008 turnout rates. I am pretty sure the turnout rates for Republicans will be somewhere between these 2 extremes.
Thanks for the hard work and the informative posts. I always appreciate a
thread such as this that is based on sound and reasonable assertions.
Maddog,

Not surprisingly, I agree with all your points. Obama has been trending better than Romney in the last 3 weeks and the last week. I think the 83% probabilistic scoring is very optimistic, but Silver is certainly willing to hang it out there based on all his filters, so even if top heavy it is indicating where he think the trends are driving this outcome. I agree that 60% for Obama makes the most sense to me. I think using historical turnout rates is the weakest part of any argument, either side, because the microtargeting and technology and pure money/manhours has shifted everything. I saw a poll today that 8O% of Obama voters are voting for him (instead of just voting against Romney), while 35% of the Romney voters are just revenge voting against Obama instead of strongly supporting Romney himself. How does something like that affect turnout precedence? Who can really model that well.

Finally, all this make me believe Silver use of current rolling poll averages is actually the most accurate way to gauge possible turnout, as long as his weights aren't wrong. He does mixed models here, including 2004 and 2008, so I think he might be assuming as well that the turnout rate will be somewhere between those two sets of numbers. No way to know for sure, though.

Jake

[bigmack]

I saw a poll today that 8O% of Obama voters are voting for him (instead of just voting against Romney), while 35% of the Romney voters are just revenge voting against Obama instead of strongly supporting Romney himself.
:lol: That's a poll I HAVE to see. Link?

[Jake]

The non-robo ones call both. And they are mixing in online polls now too, don't know how that works. But still, non-polling of cellphone only houses would skew Republican and not the other way around, unless they are over-compensating for it. Of course, I'm one of those households but we are neutral (one R vote, one D vote). But then again we're not answering the phone either...

It does skew Republican. Which is why polls like Rasmussen is more likely to be inaccurate, not more, in states like Nevada or Colorado with high hispanic numbers, or where college kids are likely to vote--both voting blocks trending toward Obama. Not sure about the Legalize Grass supporters, though, suspect they couldn't find their phones landline or cell to take a poll.

[GameTheory]

It does skew Republican. Which is why polls like Rasmussen is more likely to be inaccurate, not more, in states like Nevada or Colorado with high hispanic numbers, or where college kids are likely to vote--both voting blocks trending toward Obama. Not sure about the Legalize Grass supporters, though, suspect they couldn't find their phones landline or cell to take a poll.Rasmussen and SurveyUSA (which is all automated also) have been shown to be just as accurate as anyone else, and Rasmussen consistently rates very highly (post 2000 when they changed up) compared to others. All the attacks on him are pure partisanship. My main point is the ANY method of reaching voters is likely to skew some way or another, so the pollster better deal with it...

[Jake]

:lol: That's a poll I HAVE to see. Link?

Try CNN. They should have it posted somewhere. It came up during a verbal discussion between a Republican pollster and a professor. I thought it was a key distinction. It may actually indicate that Republican voters are more strongly motivated to go to the polls than Democratic voters. Another polls I saw on the television indicated a 70%-70% split between the two parties in terms of being strongly motivated or not to vote. Gauging the marginally motivated to vote and how that works its way into the turnout numbers is about the ground game in those swing states.

[johnhannibalsmith]

... Not sure about the Legalize Grass supporters, though, suspect they couldn't find their phones landline or cell to take a poll.

Perhaps you're just being funny and lighthearted - but in all seriousness, I think it's hard to find too many single-issue, "grassroots" poltical activist groups that have been much more effective politically than these groups and their supporters.

[Jake]

Rasmussen and SurveyUSA (which is all automated also) have been shown to be just as accurate as anyone else, and Rasmussen consistently rates very highly (post 2000 when they changed up) compared to others. All the attacks on him are pure partisanship. My main point is the ANY method of reaching voters is likely to skew some way or another, so the pollster better deal with it...

Yes, Rasmussen has consistent rates compared to others, but they will be most skewed precisely in those states that have a high precentage of cell phone voters that he is not reaching. Let's get this straight right now, not all attacks on him are partisanship. Or, should we say all attacks on Silver or Politico or WSJ polling are partisan--is this how you are making your arguments these day? Yes all methods of reaching voters have bias in them, but you can ask why and where that bias might be coming from. Which is precisely why you are assessing Silver.

And, what the title of this thread? Hmm, there's a clue there just might be hint of partisianship in your postings. So, do we blow off what you have to say because you might prefer Romney. Give me a break.

Jake

[GameTheory]

Yes, Rasmussen has consistent rates compared to others, but they will be most skewed precisely in those states that have a high precentage of cell phone voters that he is not reaching. Let's get this straight right now, not all attacks on him are partisanship. Or, should we say all attacks on Silver or Politico or WSJ polling are partisan--is this how you are making your arguments these day? Yes all methods of reaching voters have bias in them, but you can ask why and where that bias might be coming from. Which is precisely why you are assessing Silver.

And, what the title of this thread? Hmm, there's a clue there just might be hint of partisianship in your postings. So, do we blow off what you have to say because you might prefer Romney. Give me a break.

Seriously dude, what's with the attitude? Lighten up. You seem to take every comment as a personal affront for some reason. I'm starting to think you are a completely humorless person.

Every liberal attacks Rasmussen, most without knowing a thing about him -- it is just dogma. Rasmussen = Fox = Republicans = right-leaning skewed. I guarantee 99% percent of those people don't know a single iota about his track record for accuracy. Isn't that obvious?

[Jake]

Perhaps you're just being funny and lighthearted - but in all seriousness, I think it's hard to find too many single-issue, "grassroots" poltical activist groups that have been much more effective politically than these groups and their supporters.


Yes, I was trying to be funny, seldom works. I live in a state with this on the ballot, so I know how effective their organizations politically, at least here. Seriously, I think they are a possible tipping factor in the Colorado race, precisely because of the number of storefronts selling grass on most streets in Denver. And, I don't think supporters will be casting their votes for Romney. What I don't know is how well they have been polled. And, in case you missed it, neither candidate in their stump speeches are bringing up legalizing weed as an economic solution.

[GameTheory]

Yes, I was trying to be funny, seldom works. I live in a state with this on the ballot, so I know how effective their organizations politically, at least here. Seriously, I think they are a possible tipping factor in the Colorado race, precisely because of the number of storefronts selling grass on most streets in Denver. And, I don't think supporters will be casting their votes for Romney. What I don't know is how well they have been polled. And, in case you missed it, neither candidate in their stump speeches are bringing up legalizing weed as an economic solution.
I live in Denver, and voted both for Romney and for the legalizing weed measure.

[Jake]

I live in Denver, and voted both for Romney and for the legalizing weed measure.

Then, I suggest you lay off the weed before you post!


Jake

[GameTheory]

Then, I suggest you lay off the weed before you post!
Never touch it. I'm high on life.

[Jake]

Look, when you make a statement that "all attacks are pure partisanship", you're making it personal. And, this is the perfect followup, by the way. "I'm starting to think you are a completely humorless person." and "I guarantee 99% percent of those people of those people don't know a single iota about his track record for accuracy. Isn't that obvious" Lighten up, dude. What's the matter here?, is making false conjectures with hokey guarantees (love the 99% direct marketing persuader) how it works here. Simple question: is Rasmussen more or less likely to miss polling cell phone voters who lean democratic in certain states, given his automated method, including where he gets his polling phone numbers? I think you do know the answer, but prefer to make it all about being partisan.

Always glad to laugh around the table over a couple of beers. But find the shake and bake answers less than light hearted. Jake

[Valuist]

:

One more comment. I thought it was the liberals who were supposed to believe they were the smart ones and everybody else was dumb.

Jerry, its not a lie if you believe it.

[GameTheory]

Look, when you make a statement that "all attacks are pure partisanship", you're making it personal. And, this is the perfect followup, by the way. "I'm starting to think you are a completely humorless person." and "I guarantee 99% percent of those people of those people don't know a single iota about his track record for accuracy. Isn't that obvious" Lighten up, dude. What's the matter here?, is making false conjectures with hokey guarantees (love the 99% direct marketing persuader) how it works here. Simple question: is Rasmussen more or less likely to miss polling cell phone voters who lean democratic in certain states, given his automated method, including where he gets his polling phone numbers? I think you do know the answer, but prefer to make it all about being partisan.

Always glad to laugh around the table over a couple of beers. But find the shake and bake answers less than light hearted. JakeOk, I tried, but you're committed to some sort of hostility. Nevermind...

[thaskalos]

Ok, I tried, but you're committed to some sort of hostility. Nevermind...

In all fairness, given the time you dedicated to this posting...is it unfair that some of us might have expected a slightly different title? :)

[GameTheory]

In all fairness, given the time you dedicated to this posting...is it unfair that some of us might have expected a slightly different title? :)I made it clear that it was a joke in the very first line of the post, and then farther down that it was intended as a light-hearted needling of Mr. Jake -- an attempt to soften him up a bit which obviously failed since he is still responding to everything I say like I'm insulting his wife. (I'm sure Mrs. Jake is just lovely if there is such a person.) And then I explicitly stated it really isn't about Nate Silver at all, and that I'm not even much interested in Nate Silver other than as a touchstone and conversation starter. Was this guy the best man at all of your weddings or something? I have not thrown a single bit of actual malice at Nate Silver, or Jake, or anybody. Just working on this puzzle of an election, trying to figure it out, that's all. I've got no stake in being right, or in anybody else being wrong. Just fun & games, which I've said a bunch of times, and after tomorrow it will be over and that will be that. It's not like any of this jabbering on the horse racing board actually determines the election -- we're just watching along, and whatever happens will be more aligned with what one person thought might happen than another. So what. What's to get all upset about?

[thaskalos]

I made it clear that it was a joke in the very first line of the post, and then farther down that it was intended as a light-hearted needling of Mr. Jake -- an attempt to soften him up a bit which obviously failed since he is still responding to everything I say like I'm insulting his wife. (I'm sure Mrs. Jake is just lovely if there is such a person.) And then I explicitly stated it really isn't about Nate Silver at all, and that I'm not even much interested in Nate Silver other than as a touchstone and conversation starter. Was this guy the best man at all of your weddings or something? I have not thrown a single bit of actual malice at Nate Silver, or Jake, or anybody. Just working on this puzzle of an election, trying to figure it out, that's all. I've got no stake in being right, or in anybody else being wrong. Just fun & games, which I've said a bunch of times, and after tomorrow it will be over and that will be that. It's not like any of this jabbering on the horse racing board actually determines the election -- we're just watching along, and whatever happens will be more aligned with what one person thought might happen than another. So what. What's to get all upset about?

As a dispassionate observer, with only a faint interest in the upcoming election...I can only guess that Jake sensed a certain "seriousness" on your part...and decided to match it with some of his own.

Nothing to get upset about...and I've enjoyed reading the views of you both. :ThmbUp:

[Jake]

I made it clear that it was a joke in the very first line of the post, and then farther down that it was intended as a light-hearted needling of Mr. Jake -- an attempt to soften him up a bit which obviously failed since he is still responding to everything I say like I'm insulting his wife. (I'm sure Mrs. Jake is just lovely if there is such a person.) And then I explicitly stated it really isn't about Nate Silver at all, and that I'm not even much interested in Nate Silver other than as a touchstone and conversation starter. Was this guy the best man at all of your weddings or something? I have not thrown a single bit of actual malice at Nate Silver, or Jake, or anybody. Just working on this puzzle of an election, trying to figure it out, that's all. I've got no stake in being right, or in anybody else being wrong. Just fun & games, which I've said a bunch of times, and after tomorrow it will be over and that will be that. It's not like any of this jabbering on the horse racing board actually determines the election -- we're just watching along, and whatever happens will be more aligned with what one person thought might happen than another. So what. What's to get all upset about?

No hostility, just a bit hard nosed. I guess I expected a little more here, some concrete numbers or something, anything. Instead it's been pretty weak, at least in my opinion. No straight answers here to questions. This is your thread, and I will leave you to it. It's a sloppy playing field but it's all yours.

Jake

[GameTheory]

No hostility, just a bit hard nosed. I guess I expected a little more here, some concrete numbers or something, anything. Instead it's been pretty weak, at least in my opinion. No straight answers here to questions. This is your thread, and I will leave you to it. It's a sloppy playing field but it's all yours.

I am sorry you were unimpressed by the several thousand words I posted above and my detailed analysis of Colorado and Ohio, which it seems like was chock full of numbers. Guess they weren't "hard" enough for you, but since the thrust of my argument is that all these turnout estimates are "soft" subjective numbers I don't know what to tell you. I spent like 10 hours going over the polls for just those 2 states from this election and the last one, making spreadsheets, writing programs to do the number-crunching, etc, and then several hours over several days to type it all up. I mean, you did see all that, right? The first three posts in this very thread?

So I'm sorry if that wasn't good enough for you to even make a comment on it, but again, who is paying me exactly to do this? You have been able to get away with "see Nate Silver" for your analysis -- I actually had to do the work and what I posted has way more detail than anything you've offered, so what the hell? If I wanted to do the whole country, it would be a beyond a full time job and I'd need assistants...

[JustRalph]

How does a guy who is averaging a +15 lead with independents lose?

I guess we will find out tomorrow

[Pace Cap'n]

How does a guy who is averaging a +15 lead with independents lose?

Fifteen is a good number, but the number that scares me is 47.

[GameTheory]

A reliable source predicts Romney win:

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/entertainment/2012/11/how-washington-redskins-may-have-predicted-election/58679/

[jdhanover]

So Nate Silver was right. Horseracing lesson here - don't let emotions cloud the judgment/analysis of facts and figures.

[nearco]

So Nate Silver was right. Horseracing lesson here - don't let emotions cloud the judgment/analysis of facts and figures.

It's so odd to see on a HANDICAPPER's forum, people making predictions with their hearts and not their heads. I would think most people aren't playing horses like that.
Or maybe it's a good think to have people like that in the pari-mutuel pools... :lol:

[Uncle Salty]

It's so odd to see on a HANDICAPPER's forum, people making predictions with their hearts and not their heads. I would think most people aren't playing horses like that.

I'm always amazed by this too. PA General Handicapping and PA Off Topic feel like two completely different places...

[thaskalos]

When people get emotional about things, they see whatever they want to see...and hear whatever they want to hear.

And they often overlook the obvious...even when it stares them right in the face.

[redshift1]

http://isnatesilverawitch.com

[Uncle Salty]

Silver is 50 for 50 on his EC predictions...even FL and VA. A victory for the rationality and objectiveness...

[redshift1]

Silver is 50 for 50 on his EC predictions...even FL and VA. A victory for the rationality and objectiveness...

A victory for both rationality and objectivity. As his model is a function of the reliability and validity of the aggregate polls and careful attenuation of the Rasmussen bias. He just won the WSOP for pollsters without ever taking a poll.

.

[TrifectaMike]

A victory for both rationality and objectivity. As his model is a function of the reliability and validity of the aggregate polls and careful attenuation of the Rasmussen bias. He just won the WSOP for pollsters without ever taking a poll.

.
To all aspiring horesplayers:

There is a very particular kind of science behind Nate’s predictions. He uses what’s called Bayesian modeling, named after the Rev. Thomas Bayes, an 18th-century mathematician.

Mike (Dr Beav)

[Dahoss9698]

It's so odd to see on a HANDICAPPER's forum, people making predictions with their hearts and not their heads. I would think most people aren't playing horses like that.
Or maybe it's a good think to have people like that in the pari-mutuel pools... :lol:
This isn't a handicapper's forum for the most part.

It's a political board with a tiny bit of horse racing mixed in. Most of the smart horse racing people have been run off by the idiots with the high post counts because the owner of the site has shown he prefers quantity over quality.

I'm just glad I didn't spend 10 hours doing something (for no reason) only to be totally wrong. That must really suck.

[PaceAdvantage]

Most of the smart horse racing people have been run off by the idiots with the high post counts because the owner of the site has shown he prefers quantity over quality.It's interesting you should state such a thing. You don't know how many emails and PMs I've received over the years telling me YOU'RE one of those idiots who has run people off...not saying I agree with them, just saying what your public perception is with some people who no longer post here.

And yet, I kept you aboard...you'd think you'd be nicer to me...

[Jake]

Ok, I tried, but you're committed to some sort of hostility. Nevermind... It's Rick, isn't it? Never was any hostility here, only an effort on my part to actually talk real numbers about the strengths and weaknesses of Silver's methods. Tearing apart his work this last year, I found that he had crafted an approach that overcame some of the unfalsifiablity problems common in probabilistic models. I thought I would share this on Pace's forum, because this is really about prediction markets, which in turn are really just binary wagers/options with given odds. It's where the future of betting is going worldwide these days. Big mistake on my part to even try and discuss that here. I know your background and some of your efforts with machine learning, so I guess I thought you would bring that side to any discussion. I was wrong, and if I seemed overheated at times, my honest apologies. It was just frustrating knowing what the numbers were saying, and also knowing where the biases were in Nate Silver models, and not being able to have an intelligent conversation along those lines about this. Instead it was the partisan and cult nonsense, which isn't part of my game at all. Hey, good luck with any writing in the future. You have a strong knack for it, and a good vibe, whether you take a smoke or not. Regret not being able to have seen your second half posting on Silver, though. Jake

[horses4courses]

Silver is 50 for 50 on his EC predictions...even FL and VA. A victory for the rationality and objectiveness...

Impressive.
I learned first of his blog in early Sept. via my sister-in-law, who works in the State Dept. - seems he has plenty of followers in Washington.
Have to believe this guy is pretty impartial, too.
Calls it as he sees it with accuracy, evidently.

[A. Pineda]

Impressive.
I learned first of his blog in early Sept. via my sister-in-law, who works in the State Dept. - seems he has plenty of followers in Washington.
Have to believe this guy is pretty impartial, too.
Calls it as he sees it with accuracy, evidently.
He didn't do too badly this time.



http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_md3q54Tltp1qa0uujo1_500.jpg

[lamboguy]

Impressive.
I learned first of his blog in early Sept. via my sister-in-law, who works in the State Dept. - seems he has plenty of followers in Washington.
Have to believe this guy is pretty impartial, too.
Calls it as he sees it with accuracy, evidently.
i would love to know how he got Florida right? i got it wrong, i figured the fix would be in, but the fix backfired in this state. i can't believe that people waited for 7 hours to vote for either one of those 2 candidates.

[johnhannibalsmith]

... i can't believe that people waited for 7 hours to vote for either one of those 2 candidates.

And yet....... you were betting on them?

[lamboguy]

And yet....... you were betting on them?if the price was right i would bet on you too!

[Dahoss9698]

It's interesting you should state such a thing. You don't know how many emails and PMs I've received over the years telling me YOU'RE one of those idiots who has run people off...not saying I agree with them, just saying what your public perception is with some people who no longer post here.

And yet, I kept you aboard...you'd think you'd be nicer to me...
Considering how many views some of my threads have generated you would think you would be a little nicer to me.

But hey...like usual you dont refute anything i say (because you cant) but feel the need to pull your power trip. So lame.

[PaceAdvantage]

Considering how many views some of my threads have generated you would think you would be a little nicer to me.

But hey...like usual you dont refute anything i say (because you cant) but feel the need to pull your power trip. So lame.I thought I just posted that I WAS being nice to you...you've pushed a lot of people away...one would THINK that would make me NOT be nice to you...

[PaceAdvantage]

Considering how many views some of my threads have generated you would think you would be a little nicer to me.

But hey...like usual you dont refute anything i say (because you cant) but feel the need to pull your power trip. So lame.There is no refuting silliness, so why bother. The composition of the board goes through constant changes, and has been doing that for the past 13 years (except for Tom of course)...people come, people go...there's no real argument to be had either way...you're going to bring up your list of "smart" people who have stopped posting. Others won't agree with everyone on your list. I can pull up the people who have stopped posting because of you, and I know damn well you won't consider any of them "smart." But others will disagree with your assessment.

It's not a productive road to wander down, but then again, that's kind of your shtick at times...

But once again, you've succeeded in getting another thread way off topic. We're all guilty of that...you seem to be extra keen at it though...congrats!

[Tom]

It's a political board with a tiny bit of horse racing mixed in. Most of the smart horse racing people have been run off by the idiots with the high post counts

And yet here you are, crying and whining yet again. Ever the victim.
What kind of a fool does that make you? :lol:

[kingfin66]

There is no refuting silliness, so why bother. The composition of the board goes through constant changes, and has been doing that for the past 13 years (except for Tom of course)...people come, people go...there's no real argument to be had either way...you're going to bring up your list of "smart" people who have stopped posting. Others won't agree with everyone on your list. I can pull up the people who have stopped posting because of you, and I know damn well you won't consider any of them "smart." But others will disagree with your assessment.

It's not a productive road to wander down, but then again, that's kind of your shtick at times...

But once again, you've succeeded in getting another thread way off topic. We're all guilty of that...you seem to be extra keen at it though...congrats!

Why so much sarcasm all the time?

[PaceAdvantage]

Why so much sarcasm all the time?I don't see much of any sarcasm in my last reply.

[ceejay]

So, in the end did Silver get lucky twice (or 3 times, including 2010 – as I understand it)? Or, are his models serious tools?

[iceknight]

So, in the end did Silver get lucky twice (or 3 times, including 2010 – as I understand it)? Or, are his models serious tools? His models have been successful in baseball, before he came to political stuff

[Dahoss9698]

There is no refuting silliness, so why bother. The composition of the board goes through constant changes, and has been doing that for the past 13 years (except for Tom of course)...people come, people go...there's no real argument to be had either way...you're going to bring up your list of "smart" people who have stopped posting. Others won't agree with everyone on your list. I can pull up the people who have stopped posting because of you, and I know damn well you won't consider any of them "smart." But others will disagree with your assessment.

It's not a productive road to wander down, but then again, that's kind of your shtick at times...

But once again, you've succeeded in getting another thread way off topic. We're all guilty of that...you seem to be extra keen at it though...congrats!

And once again you've shown you have no integrity.

Yay!

[PaceAdvantage]

And once again you've shown you have no integrity.

Yay!Yeah, I have no integrity. Who the hell are you anyway?

Listen, if you want a refund of your membership fee, contact customer service.

[sammy the sage]

This isn't a handicapper's forum for the most part.

It's a political board with a tiny bit of horse racing mixed in. Most of the smart horse racing people have been run off by the idiots with the high post counts because the owner of the site has shown he prefers quantity over quality.

I'm just glad I didn't spend 10 hours doing something (for no reason) only to be totally wrong. That must really suck.

Really...you have 5x's the # of posts in HALF the time... :lol:

[Rookies]

He didn't do too badly this time.



http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_md3q54Tltp1qa0uujo1_500.jpg

He was UBER impressive:

"Mr. Silver’s forecasts received the most attention during this campaign, and he was accordingly the main target of attack. His track record remains impressive. In 2008, Mr. Silver made the right call in 49 of 50 states and in all 35 Senate races. That gives him an accuracy rating of 98.2 per cent in the last two presidential elections."

See: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/us-election/nate-silver-got-it-right-but-how-did-the-other-forecasters-and-pollsters-do/article5034108/

BM tried to throw us off the scent early with that ReallyScrewedUpPolls.com gibberish, which most people on my side, hooted at.
And Gamer's treatise, which caused further scrutiny, but less mockery.

I stuck to a similar alignment of polls, like Silver, at realclearpolitics.com with my own predictions. It was tried and true for me since 2008. Despite BM's scoffing, I used examples of several battleground states (Ohio, Iowa, Michigan, Pennslyvania, Nevada and Wisconsin) where the President lead either wire to wire in almost every set of polls or at least 6 months.

Why would that all change on Voting Day?

[kingfin66]

I don't see much of any sarcasm in my last reply.

It's not a productive road to wander down, but then again, that's kind of your shtick at times...

But once again, you've succeeded in getting another thread way off topic. We're all guilty of that...you seem to be extra keen at it though...congrats!

I would consider this to be sarcasm. Of course, I wasn't necessarily referring to just this post. I guess I could point it out every time I see it, but would would be the point?

[hcap]

One of the main reasons Conservatives got it SO wrong was the Conservative media.


http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/11/how-conservative-media-lost-to-the-msm-and-failed-the-rankandfile/264855/

"Conservatives were at an information disadvantage because so many right-leaning outlets wasted time on stories the rest of America dismissed as nonsense. WorldNetDaily brought you birtherism. Forbes brought you Kenyan anti-colonialism. National Review obsessed about an imaginary rejection of American exceptionalism, misrepresenting an Obama quote in the process, and Andy McCarthy was interviewed widely about his theory that Obama, aka the Drone Warrior in Chief, allied himself with our Islamist enemies in a "Grand Jihad" against America. Seriously?

Conservatives were at a disadvantage because their information elites pandered in the most cynical, self-defeating ways, treating would-be candidates like Sarah Palin and Herman Cain as if they were plausible presidents rather than national jokes who'd lose worse than George McGovern.

How many months were wasted on them?

How many hours of Glenn Beck conspiracy theories did Fox News broadcast to its viewers? How many hours of transparently mindless Sean Hannity content is still broadcast daily? Why don't Americans trust Republicans on foreign policy as they once did? In part because conservatism hasn't grappled with the foreign-policy failures of George W. Bush. A conspiracy of silence surrounds the subject. Romney could neither run on the man's record nor repudiate it. The most damaging Romney gaffe of the campaign, where he talked about how the 47 percent of Americans who pay no income taxes are a lost cause for Republicans? Either he was unaware that many of those people are Republican voters, or was pandering to GOP donors who are misinformed. Either way, bad information within the conservative movement was to blame."

One olf the biggest purveyors of nonsense

http://unskewedpolls.com/

http://media.salon.com/2012/11/dick_morris_fox_square.jpg

[PaceAdvantage]

The most damaging Romney gaffe of the campaign, where he talked about how the 47 percent of Americans who pay no income taxes are a lost cause for Republicans? Either he was unaware that many of those people are Republican voters, or was pandering to GOP donors who are misinformed. Either way, bad information within the conservative movement was to blame."

One olf the biggest purveyors of nonsense

http://unskewedpolls.com/Are you telling me that sound byte of 47%....you honestly believe that cost Romney REPUBLICAN votes? You are going to sit there and tell me there are Republicans out there, upon hearing that, switched their vote to Obama?

Just trying to clarify what I seem to be reading from you...

[hcap]

Are you telling me that sound byte of 47%....you honestly believe that cost Romney REPUBLICAN votes? You are going to sit there and tell me there are Republicans out there, upon hearing that, switched their vote to Obama?

Just trying to clarify what I seem to be reading from you...I am telling you self-dishonesty was the operative policy. La-La Land replaced rationality

[PaceAdvantage]

I am telling you self-dishonesty was the operative policy. La-La Land replaced rationalityMaybe you can just answer my direct question? Enough with the games and nonsense.

[johnhannibalsmith]

He's saying that the misinformation from the right wasn't as effective as the misinformation from the left. The right believed what they were selling, as did the left, and one had to be right. May the best liar win.

[hcap]

I don't know if repugs switched, but those few undecided were more motivated to vote Dem and Romney's crass remarks helped to get out the Dem base.

Not a shinning moment

But read rthe Atlantic article. Off topic echoes those idiots more so than the far left extremists.

[hcap]

He's saying that the misinformation from the right wasn't as effective as the misinformation from the left. The right believed what they were selling, as did the left, and one had to be right. May the best liar win.Bull, no real equivalancy here. Nate Silver nailed it and many posters here pointed to his forecast as did the Left mostly. To wit this thread

Unskewed Polls and DickHead Morris have few Leftie counterparts.

[Rookies]

PA- NO election is won or lost on a single issue.

In no particular order:

1) The 47% comment will go down as one of the Top 10 faux pas by any candidate in an election in a western democracy all time. It was Marie Antoinette obtuse and would rival Obama's " Guns & Religion" remark in 2008, except it was much, much more defined.(And this is notwithstanding, that I believed Romney didn't do terribly in the campaign.)

2) The illegal immigrant position of conservative republicans translated into a: " We hate Hispanics and want nada to do with them"position. Hispanics are the rising demographic in America and the Republican share of their vote has declined the past 3 Prez elections.

3) I'm trying my damndest not to deride or crucify a persons' religious beliefs. But, it is surely a 'test of faith' to simply describe the positions of Con Evangelical Christians, Todd Akin & Richard Mourdock as merely extreme. When the electorate of two fairly strong Red States decide to ensure that these two loons snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, you know the women's vote has become a huge Democrat factor. I believe women voters are connecting the dots of the Venn diagram between Evangelical Christians and the Tea Party and the result is snake eyes. Other Tea Party stars went down

4) Migration. Some Southwestern & Southern Red States are being transformed by a combination of Hispanic births and movement of Dems from Blue States. These are: New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado, Florida, Virginia and South Carolina. And to come? Arizona & ...here it comes... TEXAS!

5) Gay Marriage. This is a non issue in a civilized society, certainly Canada. Obama & the Dems pushed all in here to resolve this once and for all. The Republicans are lined up with some of the most oppressive countries and regimes in the world. They need to give it up and move on.

6) Urban-Rural & Young-Old. I don't need to point out who is who here, but the word on the left in each coupling is growing and the word on the right is Republican- pun intended.

If the Republicans are going to turn this around, they need to re-think their entire strategy.They could still win a Prezzy election in the future, but the Dems would have to pick a particularly abhorrent candidate who offends women :rolleyes: or minorities :rolleyes: and have a huge turnout of the remaining Grumpy Old White Men.

A Rubio, with a complex, filtered position on immigration, (get the criminal illegals + keep the family oriented ones) might do that.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Bull, no real equivalancy here. Nate Silver nailed it and many posters here pointed to his forecast as did the Left mostly. To wit this thread

Unskewed Polls and DickHead Morris have few Leftie counterparts.

Sure, Nate Silver did a tremendous job, but that is itself a false equivalancy in the context of the actual content of the article and your using the Atlantic article to support the silly case that everyone that thought Romney was winning was doing so because of "conservative media" and that everything conservative is a lie and everything liberal is the God's honest truth. There's a lousy premise going on between you and the author that somehow everyone that considers themselves conservative is glued to Beck, Hannity, and that nitwit Morris.

The article begins soundly enough with trying to understand why guys like Morris were wrong, but then devolves into nonsense like what you excerpted. Do you really believe that people thought Obama would lose because of birtherism, Kenyan colonialism, jihadism in America, and the rest of that silliness? It's just a smug piece about how smart liberals are and how dumb conservatives are and exploits Silver's standing in liberal circles to make bogus claims that conservatives were listening exclusively to those fringe people and then basing their opinions on the beliefs of fringe elements, while they never doubted SuperSilver for a second.

The reality, if you actually reflect back on this board, with the exception of a few select folks that thought Obama was a loser - was that historical trends in elections relating to economy primarily were the end-all-be-all for most Romney supporters. Read the opening salvos in this very thread. Does any of that sound like a guy that had been glued to WorldDailyNut or whatever you call it? It's a guy making a prediction based on his own data and perspectives. The article basically sucks and the only point it succeeds in making is that Nate Silver was perhaps the smartest guy in the room after all. All the nonsense about right-wing propoganda about Kenyan communists leading people astray is false equivalancy. They were just flat out wrong in how they analyzed trends. Making fun of Glenn Beck is just for the amusement of other sharpies is just silliness that lends nothing to the redeeming parts of the article, which were basically just to point out that Nate Silver was a whole lot better than Rove and Morris.

I didn't think Obama would lose. I've watched plenty (more than plenty) of Rove, Morris, and the gang. I didn't pay an undue amount of attention to Silver. I know few people on either side of the ideological spectrum that had an opinion and was basing it on the pundits that they watched most. I just think this whole premise is a lousy stereotype and illogical.

[lsbets]

How did Silver do compared to the RCP average?

[Tom]

"Conservatives were at an information disadvantage because so many right-leaning outlets wasted time on stories the rest of America dismissed as nonsense.

1. 16 trillion heading to 20 trillion
2. 23 million out of work
3. A dead ambassador and Navy Seals hung out to die
4. Repeated lies about a video to cover up incompetence


Yes, we should have focusing on the imaginary war on women.
Are you using medical mary jane?

[johnhannibalsmith]

PA- NO election is won or lost on a single issue.

In no particular order:

1) The 47% comment will go down as one of the Top 10 faux pas by any candidate in an election in a western democracy all time. It was Marie Antoinette obtuse and would rival Obama's " Guns & Religion" remark in 2008, except it was much, much more defined.(And this is notwithstanding, that I believed Romney didn't do terribly in the campaign.)

It wasn't even a faux pas, it was an illumination of Romney's achilles heel - that he was a chameleon that would say whatever it was that the target audience wanted to hear and eventually, that lack of sincerity would come back to haunt him in a context that could be used against him in the worst possible way - the stereotypes of him.


2) The illegal immigrant position of conservative republicans translated into a: " We hate Hispanics and want nada to do with them"position. Hispanics are the rising demographic in America and the Republican share of their vote has declined the past 3 Prez elections.

This one is actually baffling. The President campaigned on comprehensive reform in 2008 and then walked in with the ability to press on with it and did nothing. Nothing. Then in a last ditch effort right before the debates, he comes with an executive order, something he campaigned against, to appease them. The President is simply very fortunate that some of the key hispanic leaders decided to be loyal to the party and make this whole thing nice for him. Yes, the Republicans did nothing tangible to capitalize on the President's indifference for three and a half years, but it wasn't like they held the key to the castle either in making it happen. At best, they both ignored hispanics and Democrats outside of the White House better have gotten a pretty healthy quid pro quo agreement for the future in return for delivering the voters.

3) I'm trying my damndest not to deride or crucify a persons' religious beliefs. But, it is surely a 'test of faith' to simply describe the positions of Con Evangelical Christians, Todd Akin & Richard Mourdock as merely extreme. When the electorate of two fairly strong Red States decide to ensure that these two loons snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, you know the women's vote has become a huge Democrat factor. I believe women voters are connecting the dots of the Venn diagram between Evangelical Christians and the Tea Party and the result is snake eyes. Other Tea Party stars went down

There's nothing really to debate here, other than that the extreme positions of those morons like Akin and the other idiot really were simply well parlayed into Presidential politics by the media. Benghazi details were being released daily and the networks were leading with this story of Mourdock. I mean, yeah, vote those assholes out of their seats, but they really aren't exactly speaking for Romney. It just was great manipulation to make some sort of correlation simply because they were in the same party.

4) Migration. Some Southwestern & Southern Red States are being transformed by a combination of Hispanic births and movement of Dems from Blue States. These are: New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado, Florida, Virginia and South Carolina. And to come? Arizona & ...here it comes... TEXAS!

Several of those are Dem states and others swing and others are getting purpler, but I'm telling you, Obamacare will have to kill a lot of geezers for the cultures of Arizona and Texas to swing liberal simply because of population composition. I posted this in another thread, but I heard this last election, and having moved from New York, a true blue state, I didn't buy it whatsoever. Arizona elected "no-earmark" Jeff Flake over former Republican nominated Surgeon General turned democrat Carmona because there is still a lot of Southwestern, anti-Cali-Liberal sentiment here. Not to mention, many of the hispanics here that have made America their culture have grown up and assimilated in the culture - otherwise it would be a 100% sweep for Dems instead of 77% with that blowhard Arpaio running his trap for votes. It may happen eventually, but it will take more than a hispanic population in the very short term.

5) Gay Marriage. This is a non issue in a civilized society, certainly Canada. Obama & the Dems pushed all in here to resolve this once and for all. The Republicans are lined up with some of the most oppressive countries and regimes in the world. They need to give it up and move on.

Like illegal immigration, this is another area where the President hardly pushed all-in. He pushed just enough to get there. He had to make sure that blacks would still show up at 95% or better in spite of 25% unemployment before he could even make a move personally. But yeah, there's just no reason to be on the opposite side of this issue now if politics is your game. It's a two-party scam and nobody would rush over to Obama and Dems at this point. You had the right candidate - he wasn't principled anyway - what the hell.

6) Urban-Rural & Young-Old. I don't need to point out who is who here, but the word on the left in each coupling is growing and the word on the right is Republican- pun intended.


I should have just touched on the one or two I wanted to because this is getting tiresome. I have to be honest, I've read that like seven times and I'm only sort of sure I know what you are talking about, so... :D

If the Republicans are going to turn this around, they need to re-think their entire strategy.They could still win a Prezzy election in the future, but the Dems would have to pick a particularly abhorrent candidate who offends women :rolleyes: or minorities :rolleyes: and have a huge turnout of the remaining Grumpy Old White Men.

A Rubio, with a complex, filtered position on immigration, (get the criminal illegals + keep the family oriented ones) might do that.

What they need to do, sad as it may sound to the stalwarts, is let the liberal policies sink or swim. Stop giving them excuses for why they couldn't get this done or make that work. Just let them have the ball and put up as little resistance as possible. Let them either fix it or completely destroy it. The way it sounds now, both sides seem to think one or the other is inevitable, so if you really think that salvation is higher taxes and more spending - go for it. Eventually, if the other side is right, the economy will collapse, big government will cause meltdown, and they can play white (and hopefully black and brown) knight. Nobody stands for much anymore anyway, it's all just a big game. Might as well see what happens when the bullshit that gets thrown around for consumption actually reaches fruition and then maybe we can find out if anyone is right at all.

[Dahoss9698]

Yeah, I have no integrity. Who the hell are you anyway?

Listen, if you want a refund of your membership fee, contact customer service.
I love when you talk tough.

Not as funny as when Tom does, but equally effective.

[redshift1]

How did Silver do compared to the RCP average?

RCP correctly predicted 49 out of 50 (missing Florida). Silver predicted 50 out of 50 pending the Florida finals. As I recall 2 or 3 other polling entities correctly predicted 50 out of 50 as well. Rasmussen was less accurate erring several times with swing state predictions.

To be fair there was a real buzz about conservative enthusiasm that never materialized and a perceived bias among pollsters favoring democrats that made many feel the race was closer than it was. Most of the liberal leaning people I know felt Romney had a real chance at winning the presidency.

.

[Tom]

I love when you talk tough.

Not as funny as when Tom does, but equally effective.

I'll match PA's refund if you go away.

[Dahoss9698]

I'll match PA's refund if you go away.
Sharp post.

[hcap]

Sure, Nate Silver did a tremendous job, but that is itself a false equivalancy in the context of the actual content of the article and your using the Atlantic article to support the silly case that everyone that thought Romney was winning was doing so because of "conservative media" and that everything conservative is a lie and everything liberal is the God's honest truth. There's a lousy premise going on between you and the author that somehow everyone that considers themselves conservative is glued to Beck, Hannity, and that nitwit Morris.You are missing just how far out in La-La Land most conservatives who bought the Fox/Redstste/Forbes/National Review/Karl Rove spin were. It was notr just WorldNutDaily and Glenn Beck, it was the mainstream of the conservative media that pushed a "feel good" about Romney agenda. They wanted a win, and let their heads get filled with an alternate reality

Unskewed Polls and other distortions of the political landscape were convenient crutches latched onto by the want a win Right

The Left not only cited Nate Silver, but the Mainstream polls. This was not good enough for many on the right. That is why Bigmack lost himself. And many conservative Mainstream pundits predicted a Romney win.

No equivalency here. The Dem underground did not did not significantly influence the Left. Unskewed Polls and Morris tainted the Right

[PaceAdvantage]

Morris? Dick Morris? I don't recall seeing him ONCE this election season...maybe because I wasn't watching any cable news...

I don't know who you think you're fooling. You're talking about such a SMALL NUMBER of people when you refer to these "many on the right" who are immersed in all this campaign minutia.

None of this concerns the great unwashed masses who head to the polls every year. None of it...

They only know what they are told from the media, the President, maybe they saw or heard Romney once or twice in a debate or on the news somewhere where he was being portrayed in a no doubt unflattering manner, and they know what their friends and family think.

I love how some think on here...that everyone is IMMERSED in this stuff like we are day to day...it's just not reality.

That's why having the media (ABC, NBC, CBS, along with the majority of popular print and web media, Letterman and HOLLYWOOD) firmly on your side, as Obama and the Dems have had all these years, is such a TREMENDOUS advantage...you'll never admit it, but if the playing field were level in those arenas, there is absolutely no way in hell Obama wins two days ago.

In fact, it's shocking Romney was able to garner 48% of the popular vote in this kind of rigged environment...

[johnhannibalsmith]

You are missing just how far out in La-La Land most conservatives who bought the Fox/Redstste/Forbes/National Review/Karl Rove spin were. ...

Well okay. If we are talking specifically about those that sit glued in front FOX/etc/etc/etc and then parroted what the majority were saying, then okay, but he didn't spend 200,000 words ever really describing which "conservatives were shocked". I don't really think the author made much of a distinction between saying "those conservatives that..." and "conservatives" in general - just as he failed to reflect on the "liberals that actually..." versus "liberals" in general.

It's okay, there's plenty of right-wing liberal media hating, its not like this guy invented a niche style. But, top to bottom, that's what he spends most of his time doing - blasting right-wing media and transposing that "stupidity" onto conservatives. If you polled 100% of Obama voters that were convinced they were voting for the inevitable winner, I bet that far less than 10% have any friggin' idea who Nate Silver is. Basically the same thing for the other side... they were running robocalls everywhere just to tell people WHEN election day was in the days and hours leading up to Tuesday... I think we're overestimating the extent of most voters access to election information, even bad information.

[hcap]

Morris? Dick Morris? I don't recall seeing him ONCE this election season...maybe because I wasn't watching any cable news...

I don't know who you think you're fooling. You're talking about such a SMALL NUMBER of people when you refer to these "many on the right" who are immersed in all this campaign minutia.


You are in denial about the demographics. The country is moving to the Left. Elderly white men will no longer effect elections as they have in the past.

Republicans on the other hand have gone further right. If Romney had started his bid from the middle he might have won. But the repug primaries FORCED him right.

Today's Repug primaries would have screwed Reagan

[PaceAdvantage]

You are in denial about the demographics. The country is moving to the Left. Elderly white men will no longer effect elections as they have in the past.

Republicans on the other hand have gone further right. If Romney had started his bid from the middle he might have won. But the repug primaries FORCED him right.

Today's Repug primaries would have screwed ReaganYou're living in a dream world if you think the Republican party is too far right. They're not nearly as conservative as they need to be. You can fool some of the people with your nonsense talk...but if Republicans move any further left, you might as well put a big fat D next to their names.

And your race baiting ("elderly white men") bullshit doesn't fly here either.

And thank you for only replying to a small portion of my post...I know, we're all guilty of doing that at times...but it didn't go unnoticed.

[hcap]

Well okay. If we are talking specifically about those that sit glued in front FOX/etc/etc/etc and then parroted what the majority were saying, then okay, but he didn't spend 200,000 words ever really describing which "conservatives were shocked". I don't really think the author made much of a distinction between saying "those conservatives that..." and "conservatives" in general - just as he failed to reflect on the "liberals that actually..." versus "liberals" in general.

It's okay, there's plenty of right-wing liberal media hating, its not like this guy invented a niche style. But, top to bottom, that's what he spends most of his time doing - blasting right-wing media and transposing that "stupidity" onto conservatives. If you polled 100% of Obama voters that were convinced they were voting for the inevitable winner, I bet that far less than 10% have any friggin' idea who Nate Silver is. Basically the same thing for the other side... they were running robocalls everywhere just to tell people WHEN election day was in the days and hours leading up to Tuesday... I think we're overestimating the extent of most voters access to election information, even bad information.Well, I would venture that we here on off topic are a bit more engaged in what the polls say and what the pundits pontificated than most. And those of us who tried to understand the politics on the right and left were the ones that had to judge our respective parties BS. But the right's BS was affected by Fox and Karl Rove much more than the Left's Dem underground

The average voter comes into the fray late and without as much investigation. The low information voter on both sides were not primarily the ones affected by the puindits USUALLY. But Fox is an exception. It reaches many ands am radio as well. I would guess the Righty BS was a bit more out there. But not enough to win with a changing electorate. Your major obstacle to a party too far right and too far in the past

[hcap]

You're living in a dream world if you think the Republican party is too far right. They're not nearly as conservative as they need to be. You can fool some of the people with your nonsense talk...but if Republicans move any further left, you might as well put a big fat D next to their names.

And your race baiting ("elderly white men") bullshit doesn't fly here either.

And thank you for only replying to a small portion of my post...I know, we're all guilty of doing that at times...but it didn't go unnoticed.Elderly white men race baiting? Gee, I guess I am pulling the race card. Like the Kenyan, crap your compadres like to "joke" about. The only racists here are some of the Tea Party birther types that have repeatedly brought up that bullshit.

Yes, ELDERLY WHITE MEN was in fact what Romney/Ryan were counting on. As well as the blue collars of Ohio and other states affected by the auto bailout. Well guess what? Not enough bought their line. In fact the VP choice of Ryan did not help. Women, Latinos, blacks and the under 30 didn't buy in either.

Yes Republicans were co-opted by the TPiers and their extreme cynical Repug handlers (Dick Army etc) in 2010, and you guys are paying for it now. The old republican party of Reagen, Eisenhower and Lugar is gone. Unreasonable social conservatives took control in 2010.

Libertarianism may be an answer if it steers clear of the same pitfalls and somehow also addresses minority concerns. But Ayn Rand doesn't like either social conservatives or social liberals. If you can package Libertarianism for a changing world including the rise of Global Corporatocracies, not the local merchant of the 187th century, (which is hard to imagine), the basic appeal of Libertarianism may be more successful than what the Repugs have become.

[TrifectaMike]

[QUOTE=hcap]
Libertarianism may be an answer if it steers clear of the same pitfalls and somehow also addresses minority concerns. [QUOTE]

Can you explain-- minority concerns

Mike (Dr Beav)

[hcap]

Pretty obvious. But not knowing is one of the reasons why the dynamic duo lost.

Hint: It is not self deportation :)

[TrifectaMike]

Pretty obvious. But not knowing is one of the reasons why the dynamic duo lost.

Hint: It is not self deportation :)

You didn't answer my question. So, I'll ask another. What is the correlation between minority concerns and self deportation?

Mike (Dr Beav)

[Dahoss9698]

And your race baiting bullshit doesn't fly here either.

Since when?

[JustRalph]

Libertarians will never make dent. I wish they could. The States would never allow.

Libertarians values also neuter the States. National Guard Troops are in place for a reason.

[PaceAdvantage]

Since when?Since always buddy.

BTW, our operators are standing by 24/7 waiting for your call.

[NJ Stinks]

Morris? Dick Morris? I don't recall seeing him ONCE this election season...maybe because I wasn't watching any cable news...

I don't know who you think you're fooling. You're talking about such a SMALL NUMBER of people when you refer to these "many on the right" who are immersed in all this campaign minutia.

None of this concerns the great unwashed masses who head to the polls every year. None of it...

They only know what they are told from the media, the President, maybe they saw or heard Romney once or twice in a debate or on the news somewhere where he was being portrayed in a no doubt unflattering manner, and they know what their friends and family think.

I love how some think on here...that everyone is IMMERSED in this stuff like we are day to day...it's just not reality.

That's why having the media (ABC, NBC, CBS, along with the majority of popular print and web media, Letterman and HOLLYWOOD) firmly on your side, as Obama and the Dems have had all these years, is such a TREMENDOUS advantage...you'll never admit it, but if the playing field were level in those arenas, there is absolutely no way in hell Obama wins two days ago.

In fact, it's shocking Romney was able to garner 48% of the popular vote in this kind of rigged environment...


I agree with one thing for sure. It is amazing that Romney got 48% of the vote. In order to get that 48% he had to overcome:

1. That he paid 14% on over $21M and said it was fair.

2. That unlike almost everybody, he hides much of his money off-shore in trusts.

3. That he made a fortune working for a company that made a fortune sending American jobs overseas or down-sizing.

4. That he got caught calling 47% of the potential voters irresponsible deadbeats.

5. That his version of Hanoi was Paris, France does not jive with the Romneys supposedly understanding the struggles of the average American.

6. That he flip-flopped on just about every big issue out there in the last 10 years - or from week to week. Nobody - including Republicans - knew what this guy really stood for excluding tax cuts.

Now one could blame "ABC, NBC, CBS, along with the majority of popular print and web media, Letterman and HOLLYWOOD" for exposing/commenting on all of the above. And one could laud FOX News and other conservative media for their "kind of rigged environment" whereby they tried to sweep this stuff about Romney under the rug.

In short, I guess you and I have a different idea of what constitutes a "kind of rigged environment" when it comes to Mitt.

[PaceAdvantage]

I agree with one thing for sure. It is amazing that Romney got 48% of the vote. In order to get that 48% he had to overcome:

1. That he paid 14% on over $21M and said it was fair.

2. That unlike almost everybody, he hides much of his money off-shore in trusts.

3. That he made a fortune working for a company that made a fortune sending American jobs overseas or down-sizing.

4. That he got caught calling 47% of the potential voters irresponsible deadbeats.

5. That his version of Hanoi was Paris, France does not jive with the Romneys supposedly understanding the struggles of the average American.

6. That he flip-flopped on just about every big issue out there in the last 10 years - or from week to week. Nobody - including Republicans - knew what this guy really stood for excluding tax cuts.

Now one could blame "ABC, NBC, CBS, along with the majority of popular print and web media, Letterman and HOLLYWOOD" for exposing/commenting on all of the above. And one could laud FOX News and other conservative media for their "kind of rigged environment" whereby they tried to sweep this stuff about Romney under the rug.

In short, I guess you and I have a different idea of what constitutes a "kind of rigged environment" when it comes to Mitt.I'm not sure which of any of the things you just listed, even if all true, somehow negate him from being a good president.

I'm glad you admit though, that the only job the media believed they had was "exposing" Romney and in turn, sweeping everything negative about Obama under the rug.

Has there been even ONE hard-hitting, investigative piece done on Obama since he declared his intentions to run for President before the 2008 campaign, by a mainstream media news outlet? ONE?

[NJ Stinks]

I'm not sure which of any of the things you just listed, even if all true, somehow negate him from being a good president.

I'm glad you admit though, that the only job the media believed they had was "exposing" Romney and in turn, sweeping everything negative about Obama under the rug.

Has there been even ONE hard-hitting, investigative piece done on Obama since he declared his intentions to run for President before the 2008 campaign, by a mainstream media news outlet? ONE?

Collectively, the items I listed would make it hard for Romney to get 48% of the vote no matter how one felt about his ability to lead.

Previously in another thread, I printed questions posed by a 60 Minutes interview with Obama before this election that I consider hard-hitting.

[Tom]

NJ demonstrates why the "not so bright" should not watch MSNBC.

[Dahoss9698]

Since always buddy.

BTW, our operators are standing by 24/7 waiting for your call.
de·ni·al (d-nl)
n.
An unconscious defense mechanism characterized by refusal to acknowledge painful realities, thoughts, or feelings.

[hcap]

Libertarianism may be an answer if it steers clear of the same pitfalls and somehow also addresses minority concerns.

Can you explain-- minority concerns

Mike (Dr Beav)
Mike, my point was women, and minorities are asking for an affirmative pro-active government to help balance systemic inequalities. Libertarians are against that sort of government intervention. Even though there is a built in appeal to Libertarianism to many. It's sounds very rational. I was an adherent when I was younger. Until I realized we are no longer living in an 18th century agrarian/early industrial society, and just like the government needs checks and balances so too the power players today----global corporatocracies.

[TrifectaMike]

Mike, my point was women, and minorities are asking for an affirmative pro-active government to help balance systemic inequalities. Libertarians are against that sort of government intervention. Even though there is a built in appeal to Libertarianism to many. It's sounds very rational. I was an adherent when I was younger. Until I realized we are no longer living in an 18th century agrarian/early industrial society, and just like the government needs checks and balances so too the power players today----global corporatocracies.
I have no problem with your explanation. However, the only sector which has benefited from the administrations policies is the global corporatocracies... certainly NOT the middle class!

Mike (Dr Beav)

[Tom]

....my point was women, and minorities are asking for an affirmative pro-active government to help balance systemic inequalities.

You mean like Obama paying women on the WH staff less than men, and Obama not having given women and minorities prominent roles in his administration?

[PaceAdvantage]

de·ni·al (d-nl)
n.
An unconscious defense mechanism characterized by refusal to acknowledge painful realities, thoughts, or feelings.Your biggest mistake in all of this is your thinking that I care about certain things way more than I actually do...

Although I will grant you one thing. I'm probably in total denial as to just how large of a disruptive and damaging force you can be around here at times.

[Dahoss9698]

Your biggest mistake in all of this is your thinking that I care about certain things way more than I actually do...

Although I will grant you one thing. I'm probably in total denial as to just how large of a disruptive and damaging force you can be around here at times.
Keep pandering to Tom. It's what you do best.

[Tom]

You some new material, boy.
Your schtick is schtarting to schtink.
Maybe growing a set would ease your need to compensate.

[ceejay]

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/22/oscar-predictions-election-style/
For what it is worth, Silver's Oscar prediction model worked out pretty well.

[barn32]

5) Gay Marriage. This is a non issue in a civilized society, certainly Canada. Obama & the Dems pushed all in here to resolve this once and for all. The Republicans are lined up with some of the most oppressive countries and regimes in the world. They need to give it up and move on.
"Like illegal immigration, this is another area where the President hardly pushed all-in. He pushed just enough to get there."

Did you really mean to say this?