Reply With Quote
not saying you're wrong, but you make a very broad claim without showing your work.
that's anecdotal, Manny.
not saying you're wrong, but you make a very broad claim without showing your work.
Comparing results against predictions is not anecdotal in the least. There's plenty of other examples aside form Nate Silvers work but I used him as the main example since he's the best. There are plenty of social scientists out there running various prediction models with varying degrees of success but there is absolutely a foundation built for sound election prediction.
I don't disagree, however, I do think the stability of the numbers are still questionable, seeing that there's still decisions to be made that could have a radical impact (ie: VP selection on the GOP). Silvers admits as much when he says he only saw the numbers stabilize in 2008 after the October debates.
Absolutely. The quality of a prediction this far out is much less than a prediction in October. If Obama comes out and punches a baby tomorrow then it obviously changes everything, etc etc. You can't account for future events but you can take note of the current situation as shown by the polls.
In Tight Iowa Race, Romney Struggles to Excite G.O.P. Base
But as he strides toward the traditional show of party unity at the Republican convention this month, Mr. Romney faces a worrisome undercurrent here: that the grass-roots elements who animated the Iowa caucuses - including evangelical Christians, Ron Paul supporters and Tea Party members - are not fully behind his candidacy in a battle that will be determined partly on who turns out his party's base.
"He just doesn't seem to connect well, and I'm not sure he's a strong enough candidate, to be very, very honest," said Steve Boender, a farmer here in southeast Iowa, who supported Rick Santorum in the state caucus. "I'm probably going to hold my nose and vote for him," Mr. Boender added, "but I'm afraid there are a fair amount of people that will" sit on their hands.
Prominent conservatives have called on Mr. Romney to make bolder efforts to rally the Republican base, including Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin and Sarah Palin, who pleaded with him last month to "light our hair on fire."
And Tuesday's victory of Ted Cruz, an insurgent with Tea Party support who vanquished Texas's lieutenant governor in a Senate primary, raised new questions about whether a Republican Party deeply split over its future direction and leadership can fully unite in the November elections behind an establishment politician.
There is little doubt that conservatives want to drive Mr. Obama from office. But whether Mr. Romney - who once backed universal health care and supported abortion rights - can generate the excitement needed to draw these voters to the polls is a question that worries Republicans in a state considered crucial to the Romney playbook.
"Cruz won because he was viewed as the change agent," said Craig Robinson, a former political director of the Iowa Republican Party. He faulted the Romney campaign for playing small ball for much of July by focusing on a statement the president made about who deserves credit for a business's success.
"While Boston is busy attacking President Obama for the remarks he made in Roanoke a few weeks ago, the electorate is clamoring for a candidate who will attack and reform the federal government," Mr. Robinson said, alluding to the headquarters of the Romney campaign.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=955848&f=19
"the electorate is clamoring for a candidate who will attack and reform the federal government,"
If true, it shows how the VRWC has propagandized/indoctrinated the electorate into believing Government Is The Problem, when it's really the 1% and corporations who have corrupted/bribed/owned the govt into doing their bidding.
The stupid, ignorant, non-critical-thinking, disaffected, disengaged, superficial electorate, just the way the VWRC loves them.
guess I'll just have to take your word for it, since you've only given one example to buttress your point.
and none whatsoever to support your generalization
What generalization is that? That election polls can be used to predict election's accurately? Isn't the fact that there are people doing it proof of that? I listed two websites in the OP with well established track records of doing just that. They both have very open and transparent methodologies and their prediction success is far outside the realm of chance. Nate Silver has do ented the accuracy of polls.
I don't get what more I have to prove here. They've come up with a reasoning on how they can predict election results using polling data and they've used these algorithms for many elections over the past decade with very high rate of success that falls outside the envelope of getting lucky.
beg pardon, but so what? why do we need predictive science for elections?
You must not be acquainted with the good ol' American pastime... "I told you so!"
I don't recall that I ever argued for a "need". So why do I now need to prove one?
I don't expect a proof, but it's telling that you have no reply to the question besides parrying it with another.
Its telling when you erect a complete straw man. I didn't argue there was a need for election prediction yet you're making me defend that position. Since it wasn't clear, I don't believe there is a need. I also don't believe that matters.. If election prediction does not interest you, I don't believe anyone is forcing you to click on this thread which will deal with election prediction.
However, if someone is indeed holding a gun to your head and making you read the thread just blink twice. I'll call the cops.
I think I know what this hype is.Statistically this is untrue. If they still don't support the (known) in bent when he is only 90 days from re-election then the majority of the undecideds will break for the challenger.
The leftist media is doing what ever they can to make Romney voters thing it's a waste of time to vote. I'll bet such tactics actually do shave a few fractions of a percent off.
Most of us know that Nate Silver (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/) produces exceptionally high quality electoral college vote analysis. Another analyst that also does excellent quan ative E. C. vote analysis is Sam Wang of Princeton Election Consortium (http://election.princeton.edu/electoral-college-map/). He presently assigns 300 safe votes to Obama and 191 safe votes to Romney, with 47 tossups. Without tossups, he projects Obama 332, Romney 206. His prediction beat Nate's in 2008.
He is definitely worth following.
.
http://election.princeton.edu/electoral-college-map/
Ohio and Florida "Obama safe....?"
LOL...
LOL...
LOL...
LOL...
Are you saying the democrats finally got the voting machine rigging correct?
You guys sure know how to read "smiles".
Most of us know that Nate Silver (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/) produces exceptionally high quality electoral college vote analysis. Another analyst that also does excellent quan ative E. C. vote analysis is Sam Wang of Princeton Election Consortium (http://election.princeton.edu/electoral-college-map/). He presently assigns 300 safe votes to Obama and 191 safe votes to Romney, with 47 tossups. Without tossups, he projects Obama 332, Romney 206. His prediction beat Nate's in 2008.
He is definitely worth following.
http://election.princeton.edu/electoral-college-map/
There is some extreme fantasizing going on with that map.
Look out, Romney to "unleash" Trump to win over working class males!
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...g-Class-Whites
Both of the sites I look at have Florida and Ohio as going Democrat. They are closer than that map, but that map isn't really THAT far from what they depict at all.
There is some extreme fantasizing going on with that map.
Dude, that map has Florida and Ohio as >97.5% chance of voting Obama. That sounds ridiculous to me.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
