Ed FiveThirtyEight GE Forecast

[Tony Stark]

I would say that Nate Silver is making an educated bet using what he thinks is the best data and he's usually pretty close. However, there is no denying that his selection of criteria for his model is completely subjective. To extend the gambling analogy, the Daily Fantasy Sports bettors have a pretty objective method for picking their teams but their models cannot possibly account for all variables; injuries, flukes, exceptional play, etc.

Silver is basically just using polls and weighing them by their past accuracy. I dunno what is subjective about that.

Do any gamblers have a model that has worked 99% of the time?

 

[xjx388]

You're just pulling numbers out of your ass just like Silver did for Trump in the primary.

Waitaminute . . . I thought you just said he had models that were not based on his gut feeling. So maybe he is somewhat subjective after all.

<snip>Silver's mathematical model has a very good track record. <snip>

So is the model mathematical or does he pull numbers out of his ass?

 

[xjx388]

Silver is basically just using polls and weighing them by their past accuracy. I dunno what is subjective about that.

The fact that he uses polls as his data source. Which polls he uses. How much weight he puts on the polls. However he decides to tweak things based on what his gut tells him like you intimate he did with Trump. Lots of things, really.

Do any gamblers have a model that has worked 99% of the time?

Do we really know that his models are 99% accurate? That seems a bit high. But I'm willing to look at the data if you have it.

 

[sunmaster14]

That's just about the perfect number for you to have pulled out of your ass. If Trump wins, it's high enough for you to claim victory. If Trump loses, it's low enough for you to save face.

Meh. I don't care about saving face. Nobody will remember this thread come election time, except me, in which case I'll only resurrect it if it shows that I was right.

I'm just trying to give my honest assessment. If the numbers look "perfect," it's because my experience has shown me that true probabilities in politics have usually been closer to 50/50, than the "smart" people have previously believed. It's a hard thing judging how the masses will judge things. In part because the judging itself affects how the masses will judge. This isn't like rolling dice or flipping coins.

You're not competing against Nate Silver, you're competing against a proven statistical model.

I have a lot of respect for political polls, and for Silver's methods of weighting them. But the fact remains, his models can't properly account for effects which have not happened yet. His models can tell you with petty good accuracy what the results of an election today would be. He doesn't have much to go on as to how much polls can change over 4 months in an uncertain world made far more uncertain by an extremely unpredictable Republican candidate and a Democratic candidate who is being investigated by the FBI.

 

[Tony Stark]

Waitaminute . . . I thought you just said he had models that were not based on his gut feeling. So maybe he is somewhat subjective after all.
So is the model mathematical or does he pull numbers out of his ass?

Silver giving Trump such a poor chance in the primaries was not based on the data. In fact, he ignored the data because he didn't believe that Republicans primary voters would be as stupid as they clearly are.

The mathematical model that gives Hillary an 80% chance of winning is the same one that correctly picked 49 states in 2008 and 50 in 2012.

 

[lobosrul]

Silver is basically just using polls and weighing them by their past accuracy. I dunno what is subjective about that.

Do any gamblers have a model that has worked 99% of the time?

I think he's also allowing for the amount of time between now and the GE? If we were into October and the polls were showing the same he'd be predicting much lower odds for Trump. Also, some of the battleground states have very few polls taken. 55% chance of Arizona going D, and 29% for Texas are pretty remarkable.

One national poll after another is showing Clinton 5 to 10 points up. Rasmussen is the one exception, but they were the ones predicting a Romney win in '12 if I'm not mistaken.

 

[sunmaster14]

<snip>

And surely you think that the media is against Trump even more than they were Romney? Yet you believe that Trump has a good chance while you were sure Romney would lose? LOL.

Well, when I wrote "sure," I was exaggerating a bit. I meant more sure. As in 80% for Obama rather than 70%. Something like that. I don't think I have ever been more sure than 90% about an important election. Perhaps that is something of a tautology.

As for the media being against Trump, I think Trump has managed to turn that on its head. He has made the media an enemy and therefore blunted its impact. As I've said before, Trump has an almost Three Stooges Syndrome-like protective coating.

As for Hillary's money advantage, I think it won't make much of a difference. Trump gets his message out through the media for free. This is a candidate whose empty podium gets the undivided attention of every news network for 45 minutes straight, while Hillary's speeches go un-aired and barely remarked.

Perhaps the "turn-out" ground game will be much more effective for Hillary than for Trump. No doubt she has a big advantage there. But I've always been a little skeptical of the importance of that. I know people who have volunteered to knock on doors and drive people to the polls, and they've always come back from a hard day's work thinking that it was a total waste of time. Would it make the difference in a Florida 2000 type situation? Sure. Would it make a difference of a whole 1% of the vote? Doubt it.

 

[Tony Stark]

I think he's also allowing for the amount of time between now and the GE? If we were into October and the polls were showing the same he'd be predicting much lower odds for Trump. Also, some of the battleground states have very few polls taken. 55% chance of Arizona going D, and 29% for Texas are pretty remarkable.

One national poll after another is showing Clinton 5 to 10 points up. Rasmussen is the one exception, but they were the ones predicting a Romney win in '12 if I'm not mistaken.

Yes, definitely. If the polls are this bad for Trump in October, his odds will be much lower than they currently are.

And yeah, Rasmussen is a terrible pollster and favors Republicans.

 

[Tony Stark]

Well, when I wrote "sure," I was exaggerating a bit. I meant more sure. As in 80% for Obama rather than 70%. Something like that. I don't think I have ever been more sure than 90% about an important election. Perhaps that is something of a tautology.

As for the media being against Trump, I think Trump has managed to turn that on its head. He has made the media an enemy and therefore blunted its impact. As I've said before, Trump has an almost Three Stooges Syndrome-like protective coating.

As for Hillary's money advantage, I think it won't make much of a difference. Trump gets his message out through the media for free. This is a candidate whose empty podium gets the undivided attention of every news network for 45 minutes straight, while Hillary's speeches go un-aired and barely remarked.

Perhaps the "turn-out" ground game will be much more effective for Hillary than for Trump. No doubt she has a big advantage there. But I've always been a little skeptical of the importance of that. I know people who have volunteered to knock on doors and drive people to the polls, and they've always come back from a hard day's work thinking that it was a total waste of time. Would it make the difference in a Florida 2000 type situation? Sure. Would it make a difference of a whole 1% of the vote? Doubt it.

The media allowing Trump to spew his garbage for free probably hurts him more than helps him because Trump is an idiot with poor impulse control. The whole Judge Curiel thing, for instance.

 

[Varanid]

72.2% is good turnout for a country without mandatory voting laws.

Fair enough. I had heard something on the news about trying to overturn the results because they didn't have 75% turnout.

 

[Varanid]

I've met all kinds. Some believe in the Gambler's Fallacy and think that if red shows up a lot in roulette, black is "due". I don't think those kinds of idiots bet on political outcomes. I don't. But I may be wrong, and gamblers, as a group, may be a bunch of idiots.

That hasn't been my experience. Do you have evidence to support that gamblers don't care about odds when they bet?

No, but odds are a reflection of perception -- they don't have any concrete value.

 

[nelsondogg]

Silver giving Trump such a poor chance in the primaries was not based on the data. In fact, he ignored the data because he didn't believe that Republicans primary voters would be as stupid as they clearly are.

...

Actually, I think he did not believe the Republican party would be so stupid / ineffectual. He thought they would use their power to stop him, but they didn't try until it was far too late.

 

[Varanid]

At this point, we can't even say with certainty who the candidates will be, let alone the winner. Bernie Sanders is convinced that he's going to be the nominee, and if Crooked Hillary is indicted he probably will be.

Another poster who cannot avoid childish names. Shouldn't you be commenting on a YouTube video somewhere?

 

[lobosrul]

No, but odds are a reflection of perception -- they don't have any concrete value.

Not always. In sports or horse betting yes. But Blackjack for example there is a hard mathematical number on what your odds are based on your cards and what the dealer is showing.

 

[Tony Stark]

The fact that he uses polls as his data source. Which polls he uses. How much weight he puts on the polls. However he decides to tweak things based on what his gut tells him like you intimate he did with Trump. Lots of things, really.

Do we really know that his models are 99% accurate? That seems a bit high. But I'm willing to look at the data if you have it.

As far as I know, he uses all the polls. He weighs them on based on how accurate they have been in the past. He doesn't tweek them based on his gut.

The Trump thing was not based on a mathematical model or data at all. He didn't tweek the polls, he outright ignored them. The prediction was purely him being a (bad) pundit and not understanding how stupid Republicans are.

And look at his model's record at calling states in the past. 99/100 for the last two elections. 99%.

 

[Tony Stark]

Actually, I think he did not believe the Republican party would be so stupid / ineffectual. He thought they would use their power to stop him, but they didn't try until it was far too late.

Yes, I suppose that may be a more accurate.

 

[Fudbucker]

Another poster who cannot avoid childish names. Shouldn't you be commenting on a YouTube video somewhere?

Will we be seeing the same kind of chiding when childish names are used to describe Trump and Sanders?

 

[wareyin]

Will we be seeing the same kind of chiding when childish names are used to describe Trump and Sanders?

Why assume that we will see childish names for Trump or Sanders? Especially Sanders, as he is done, kaput, out of the running.

 

[Varanid]

Not always. In sports or horse betting yes. But Blackjack for example there is a hard mathematical number on what your odds are based on your cards and what the dealer is showing.

Sure, but the odds of an election are determined by the perception of the gamblers. The odds fluctuate to try to keep even money on both sides of the bet, no?

I'm not a gambler, so I am ready to be corrected.

 

[Varanid]

Will we be seeing the same kind of chiding when childish names are used to describe Trump and Sanders?

You won't see that from me.