Nate Silver can suck it

[johnhannibalsmith]

Originally Posted by JustRalph

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!!!!??!?!?!

[GameTheory]

Originally Posted by JustRalph

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]

Originally Posted by bigmack

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 Same theory I guess

[NJ Stinks]

Originally Posted by JustRalph

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.

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]

Originally Posted by NJ Stinks

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

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]

Originally Posted by NJ Stinks

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

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]

Originally Posted by JustRalph

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]

Originally Posted by NJ Stinks

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

[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]

Originally Posted by ceejay

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]

Originally Posted by lamboguy

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).