Reply With Quote
Actually, a good amount of polls turn out to be surprisingly accurate. What I was pointing out was something else: Does 1 or 2 fairly correct predictions indicate an infallible track record? I would say the sample is too low.
None of these polls are even close to accurate for a million reasons. These polls have a small sample of less than a 1,000 people and are usually done by phone. The polls usually don't include the names of 3rd party candidates too.
Actually, a good amount of polls turn out to be surprisingly accurate. What I was pointing out was something else: Does 1 or 2 fairly correct predictions indicate an infallible track record? I would say the sample is too low.
The one question I didn't ask was if Silver's numbers are included in the Real Clear Politics numbers?
Obama Extends Narrow Lead Over Mitt Romney
WASHINGTON, Oct 28 (Reuters) - President Barack Obama has extended his narrow lead over Republican challenger Mitt Romney among likely voters in a race that remains statistically tied nine days before the election, according to a Reuters/Ipsos tracking poll released on Sunday.
Obama has a 49 percent to 46 percent edge over Romney, marking a 1 point increase from Saturday but still within the daily online survey's 4 percentage-point credibility interval for likely voters.
Swings could be possible in the remaining days of the campaign, however. Fifteen percent of registered voters say they could still change their minds and vote for a different candidate.
The precision of Reuters/Ipsos online polls is measured using a credibility interval. In this case, the poll has a credibility interval of plus or minus 4.0 percentage points for likely voters. (Editing by Alistair Bell and Eric Beech)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...=Daily%20Brief
Gecko now 30 electoral votes short of 270
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes...r/nate-silver/
Nope. RCP is a poll aggregation site much like Silver's 538. Neither site does polls, they simply take the ones available and weigh them depending on their methodology, which is clearly different. They're basically compe ors.
AFAIK, RCP doesn't use historical data or economic data to weigh their numbers, while 538 does.
Nate Silver's methodology is a Rube Goldberg machine. Most of his numbers are so much hand-waving. In other words, he's a fraud.
RCP's "poll of polls" is totally invalid. By aggregating polls the way they do, they simply amplify the sample error. So Romney has a 0.7% edge or whatever, but the MoE is like 10%. It's meaningless.
Virtually all the people you trust to give you a barometer of the race are ing idiots and you trust them because you too are ing idiots. Just pull a number out of your ass based upon your own biases and be done with it; that's all the journalists are doing once you get past the smoke and mirrors.
Could be. Results come up sooner or later and that's what gives/removes credibility from any of these outfits.
It's way too easy for Silver to massage his multiple layers of numbers to get results that look like other pollsters, and then take credit for the results. Even if he gets close, he's still a fraud.
Can you give an example of how he weights things that amounts to 'hand waving?' Empirically speaking the method was successful for all of your 'hand waving.'
Well, the massaging certainly uses other people's polls. What would be weird is if it wouldn't look anything like the other pollsters. After all, polling from many different outfits aren't all that different either. If he's indeed close, he should certainly take credit for it.
The conventional wisdom about this year’s presidential race is that it has broken out of stasis to become wildly unpredictable.
And yet, after a period of polling turmoil following President Obama’s convention in Charlotte, N.C., and Mitt Romney’s sharp rebound after the first presidential debate in Denver, the polling in most swing states now looks very similar to the way it did for much of the late spring and summer.
When we introduced this year’s FiveThirtyEight forecast model on June 7, the closest states were Colorado, Ohio and Virginia, each of which slightly favored Mr. Obama. In Florida and North Carolina, meanwhile, we had Mitt Romney listed as a modest favorite.
Pretty much the same could be said about the race today. In fact, our projected leader in all 50 states is the same as it was at our launch of the forecast in June...
The states where Mr. Obama has made gains since the June forecast are fewer in number (although the fact that Ohio is among them makes Mr. Obama’s electoral math stronger)...
In blue states, Mr. Obama’s numbers are little changed on average from the June forecast...
It’s in deeply red states where the forecast has shifted more. On average, Mr. Romney has gained two percentage points since June between the red states you see in the chart below...
Of the remaining gains that Mr. Romney has made in national polls, much of it may have come from his improved performance in deeply red states; that is where our state-by-state forecasts show his numbers improving the most...
There is a pretty good possibility, however, that our forecast in every state on Nov. 6 will be the same as it was on June 7. Colorado, Virginia and Florida, being the closest states in the forecast now, are the most likely to switch sides...
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes...able-election/
If Romney doesn't take Ohio AND Florida, nothing else that he does will matter. Even if he wins both, he could still lose, but if he loses either, it's lights out.
It's a 50/50 game. Of course some polls will turn out to reflect the outcome. Some won't.
So...? Aren't we free to pick and choose what we read and post?
The state "fundamentals" and the poll weighting are completely subjective.
Like most polls, Silver is only held accountable for his final prediction before the election. This leaves several months to push-poll before taking a final gander before the election of where the polls are and making a prediction somewhere in the middle.
Anybody could do that. Anybody who looks at multiple polls on the eve of the election can make a halfway decent prediction. Silver is no different than you or I or anybody else doing that, but he adds all these layers of fake statistical bull allegedly "backing" his prediction in order to impress the innumerate. He makes a living off of your credulity.
How can you be certain that they are 'subjective' and not tied to something empirical? For example, if he were to take the accuracy or bias of particular polls then how is that not 'objective.' I asked for examples not generalizations that amount to hand waving.
So you are saying that he makes his weighting up and bases them off of nothing objective? Or do you have no idea what he bases them off of and instead are literally parroting what he says about Rasmussen and others in regards to polling. I say the last because what you are saying is literally what he said about Rasmussen bias relative to their final prediction.
And all forecasting makes a living off of 'credulity' at the same time his forecasting was spot on last time around as has been do ented. I give credence because of a shockingly accurate prediction from the last time around.
62% at intrade
Silver does not just look at polls. He actually factors in all types of economic data, past voting records... when he makes his projections. He discusses on his site what he does for states that don't have very good polling.
Sam Wang predicts an electoral total of:
http://election.princeton.edu/2012/1...ack/#more-8151Obama: 305
Romney: 233
And he predicts the probability of Obama re-election: Random Drift 93%, Bayesian Prediction 98%. The key difference is that Sam Wang argues that Nate introduces other factors that Sam does not believe have any predictive relevance:
I believe Silver doesn’t extract all the information and tends to add unnecessary factors, which leads to blurry probabilities and poor time resolution. However, his intuitions about the data are excellent and he is very concerned with getting things right. For purposes of popular consumption, he is a fine and honest nerd.
Ipsos/Reuters Daily Election Tracking: Obama 47% - Romney 46%
Thursday, November 01, 2012
Washington, D.C. - Today’s Reuters/Ipsos Daily National Poll shows that - for the third day in a row - there has been no change in the headline numbers, with 47% of likely voters saying they will vote for Obama and 46% for Romney.
With around a quarter (26%) of registered voters saying they have already voted, Obama leads Romney by 52%-43% of those who have already cast a vote...
http://ipsos-na.com/news-polls/press...e.aspx?id=5868
For an in-depth explanation of Nate Silver's process of analysis:
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes...ed/#more-37099
Silver has the Dems holding the Sentate 53 - 47.
With the destructive Repugs holding the House, they will continue to obstruct all Dem initiative, will gut and/or defund any and all regulations and regulatory agencies, plus the Senate Repugs will filibuster everything, if they can' kill it in committe.
I thought this was funny
I will laugh if Gary Johnson and klan member Virgil Goode screw Obama or Romney out of winning Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and Colorado. Gary Johnson could screw Obama out of winning Colorado and Romney out of winning Ohio and Florida. Virgil Goode could Romney up in Virginia since he has connections to the hillbilly folks there in certain areas of the state.
the fringe canddiates have always screwed up races, thats how bill clinton got in. obama gets compared to carter alot, i think he is more like HW bush. except int his case the roles are reversed, romney was the one running like an idiot.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
