Posted Nov 5, 2012, 6:10 PM UTC
I smell a cod pricy theorist.
I know that was autocorrected and I don't give a duck.
I don't understand your post.
you panicked at the Y2k bug, didn't you.
No - but now I'm furiously googling "cod pricy theorist" and "y2k bug."
Aaaaaannnnd .... still nothing.
You didn't find anything for "y2k bug"? Your google-fu needs work.
Enough with the fucking vote tampering questions already! For fucks sake, hasn't this question been asked enough?
Use the fucking search function and take this bullshit to r/politics.
hasn't this question been asked enough
Apparently not. And, I'm not asking about the vote tampering. I'm actually asking whether or not Nate Silver's model can be trusted given the vote tampering by Republicans.
There is a skill called: Reading Comprehension. It takes practice.
It can't be trusted, and it has nothing to do with vote tampering.
The problem is the polling industries can't decide whether the electorate will be closer to '04 (R Heavy) or '08 (D Heavy) in composition. If it looks anything like '08, Obama wins. If it looks anything like '04, Romney wins. It's why the polls are all over the map. Silver simply lumps these polls and takes an average. I bet his averages are pretty far off in one direction or the other.
Ok - Silver uses weights and accounts for bias, though - you don't think that validates his forecast, then? I think he does a lot more than just take the average.
Weighting of the polls isn't the problem. The polls aren't showing a normal distribution, they're showing lots of extremes based on differing assumptions in what the electorate will be composed of. If we had a good idea of who's voting then his style of statistical analysis would be effective, but it's entirely likely the polls are introducing a systematic error in which case analyzing the polls and calculating the odds is meaningless.
Here's a good article on the flaws in Silver's model. I think this guy is too bullish on Romney, but I think it shows well that we have no fucking clue who's going to win.
Great, thanks! In a very very simplified nutshell - we shouldn't rely solely on heavily mathematical models when attempting to predict Human behavior, like voting. I would lean toward agreeing with that. I followed one of the comments after the article to the University of Colorado's forecast, too. They're predicting as strong a victory for Romney as Nate Silver is for Obama! (330 electoral votes for Romney and 208 for Obama)
Yeah everyone is all over the map as to where the race is heading because all the different trends and indicators are all over the map. My official prediction is stock up on popcorn and energy drinks because we'll be up late on election night.
I would imagine there is cheating on both sides. Should it balance out?
There is evidence for systemic or institutional tampering by the Republicans but I'm not aware of similar evidence of tampering by the Democrats. I'd be happy to see any if you can link it!
I'm not a Democrat, I'm just interested in the election results because I do live in the States and it matters. Also because I'd like to know which news agency's election coverage to watch for entertainment. haha
If it's likely Obama will win, then I want to watch Fox's people fall apart. If Romney is likely to win, then I want to watch MSNBC's people commit mass seppuku.
I'm a democrat, but I just think both sides play that stuff. In my home county, it was democrrats that got in trouble with vote tampering. Some people even went to federal jail over it. I just don't want to think that my side is spotless. Spotless they are not.
[deleted]
Who are you quoting?
He's quoting Simple-ish.
MAVP: Thank you for asking this question. I have wondered (and worried) about it often. I have asked this question several times, but usually as part of discussions in existing threads. This has helped me to understand it a bit better.
I'm still concerned, and probably won't relax until Wednesday, should Obama win. For info, have you seen [Yes, Nate Silver Is Betting The Farm] (http://www.businessinsider.com/yes-nate-silver-is-betting-the-farm-2012-11)?
For what it is worth, I don't think you have been condescending to everyone in this thread, and I think you have handled your responses brilliantly.
The model takes into account historical trends - not historical trends minus cheating. If they've done it in the past, it's accounted for.
Oh! I hadn't thought of it that way. So, are you saying that his model takes the historical poll data, the election results, and weighs the discrepancies between the two?
Yeah, basically. Read these blog posts for more discussion of the model and history:
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/03/nov-2-for-romney-to-win-state-polls-must-be-statistically-biased/
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/27/oct-26-state-poll-averages-usually-call-election-right/
I'm still looking for a post he made a few weeks back that had a great summary of what has been happening for the last 50 or more years and how accurate polls tend to be vs. the final result. I will add that in an edit as soon as I find it.
Edit: Here it is - http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/24/the-statistical-state-of-the-presidential-race/
Cool, thanks! A lot more statistical math than I'm prepared for, but I get what he's saying.