Nate Silver Nov. 4th Update: Obama has 85.1% chance of winning

[Nbadan]

As confident as I am that given the current polling data, Obama's road to re-election is much easier than Romney's chances of ever living on Penn Ave, I learned in 2000 never to go absolute again in any election again....it's all about turn-out now..and I see both sides equally fired up in some aspects, and not so much in others...for instance, will the evangelical vote show up for Romney and will the Progressive vote turn out for Obama...

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Model that has correctly predicted every election since 1980, predicts Romney winning 330-208.

I'm not advocating it, just putting it out there.

http://www.colorado.edu/news/release...win-university

The state-by-state economic data used in their model have been available since 1980. When these data were applied retroactively to each election year, the model correctly classifies all presidential election winners, including the two years when independent candidates ran strongly: 1980 and 1992. It also correctly estimates the outcome in 2000, when Al Gore won the popular vote but George W. Bush won the election through the Electoral College.

It does not say that. it says that if you take the model and apply it retroactively it works. It's oh so obviously a correlative analysis of the variables they found to be significant. It's hindsight and not predictive.

[DarrinS]

It does not say that. it says that if you take the model and apply it retroactively it works. It's oh so obviously a correlative analysis of the variables they found to be significant. It's hindsight and not predictive.

Duh, er. Already pointed out by ElNono.

[boutons_deux]

Last Pew poll before election shows President Obamas rebound from low point after first debate

The latest poll by The Pew Research Center shows Barack Obama rebounding and edging ahead of Mitt Romney in the final days of the campaign, after the president’s favorability dropped significantly following his lackluster performance in the first debate last month.

Obama now holds a 48 percent to 45 percent lead over Romney, according to Pew’s national survey of likely voters last week. When undecided voters are taken into account in Pew’s final estimate of the national popular vote on election day, Obama maintains the lead at 50 percent to Romney’s 47 percent.

The uptick is significant given that just a week ago, before the destruction wrought by Hurricane Sandy along the East Coast, the candidates were deadlocked at 47 percent each. Pew researchers attribute Obama’s growth in popularity in part to how he handled the storm’s aftermath, which earned a 69 percent approval rating among likely voters, including the majority of swing voters.

http://mobile.boston.com/art/35/poli...UvXuB81N/story

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Duh, er. Already pointed out by ElNono.

And further illustrated by me. I put in the quote that makes it obvious to anyone else who reads it. Did you not say that you were an engineer? this is basic stuff and should have been obvious to anyone with training. Well that or anyone with basic reading comprehension, the words 'applied retroactively' meaning what they mean.

So did you get this from a mailer, just not bother to read it or both?

[DarrinS]

Pew poll D+6 oversample.

[DarrinS]

And further illustrated by me. I put in the quote that makes it obvious to anyone else who reads it. Did you not say that you were an engineer? this is basic stuff and should have been obvious to anyone with training. Well that or anyone with basic reading comprehension, the words 'applied retroactively' meaning what they mean.

So did you get this from a mailer, just not bother to read it or both?

Point was already conceded.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Point was already conceded.

Sure because it's blatantly obvious but I want to know how on Earth you could miss that?

[DarrinS]

Sure because it's blatantly obvious but I want to know how on Earth you could miss that?

I'm human. Why are you such an asshole?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I'm human. Why are you such an asshole?

i am only this way towards people that exhibit certain behavior. The reason why I treat you as such has been widely talked about. if you like we can rehash the specifics.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Further: the le of the article was

Updated election forecasting model still points to Romney win, University of Colorado study says

where did you get the notion that it had predicted the last 8 elections? it said that neither in the le nor the article itself.

[DarrinS]

If there model WAS applied to every election since 1980, it WOULD HAVE correctly predicted every election -- asshole.

[DarrinS]

But, you can place your bets on a model based on polls that have a 9% response rate.

[ChumpDumper]

Darrin working hard to convince himself Romney will win.

[DarrinS]

Darrin working hard to convince himself Romney will win.

Meh, I'm just not as confident as Nate Silver.

[Latarian Milton]

i also want obama to lose but i genuinely know it's not gonna happen tbh

[GoodOdor]

Darrins went full re in the 2008 election - he's not making that mistake again.

[MannyIsGod]

Nate's model updated with today's polls show's Obama at greater than 9:1 to win tomorrow.

[MannyIsGod]

If I remember correctly 94% to win in 08. Tomorrow may end up being more of the same.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

I'm not so sure about him giving Florida to Obama. I think that's pretty solid Romney at this point and if Obama wins it it means he has 330+ electoral votes.

[DarrinS]

If I remember correctly 94% to win in 08. Tomorrow may end up being more of the same.

it, why not 99%?

[Drachen]

it, why not 99%?

because that would not conform with the results of the model.

[DarrinS]

Darrins went full re in the 2008 election - he's not making that mistake again.

Lol, join date 10-30-2010

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=22768

[ploto]

I'm not so sure about him giving Florida to Obama. I think that's pretty solid Romney at this point and if Obama wins it it means he has 330+ electoral votes.

Polls are all over the place in Florida:

NBC Obama 49-47

PPP Obama 50-49

Reuters 47-47

Mason Dixon has Romney up by 5

[FuzzyLumpkins]

If there model WAS applied to every election since 1980, it WOULD HAVE correctly predicted every election -- asshole.

So if the model had existed --which it did not-- at the time of those elections then if they had made a prediction based on the model it would have been correct.

Are you familiar with the term 'predicted' or better yet the notion of how past tense works. Past tense means sometime in the past the action took place. Predict means to make known in advance. Had the model sometime in the past made known in advance an election?

This is why I am an asshole to you. You claim to be an engineer. Do you have any notion of how models are built or how data is correlated to events? You should. Either you are stupid or you are intentionally misleading.