-
Right, and that is where the low Romney probability comes from -- his popular vote polling looks great, but he has a huge hill to climb for available electoral votes.
Eckfords ⚾ on
October 30, 2012 3:16 PM
-
As for the predictive value of his model, you could only assess that after a bunch of presidential elections. If his model favors the loser election after election, then yeah, the model sucks. For 2012, I don't see how he could get pilloried.
Eckfords ⚾ on
October 30, 2012 3:15 PM
-
I think the biggest thing people are missing about Silver's model is that the likelihood of winning percentage is based on the electoral college numbers - he also has the popular vote pegged at 50-49 right now.
Caimans 🐊 on
October 30, 2012 3:13 PM
-
I think this discussion is a pretty clear indication that we need the vote-off period to end.
Eckfords ⚾ on
October 30, 2012 3:13 PM
-
Ultimately he is playing with poll data, and I can't think of a more volatile/useless data set than pre-election poll data.
Eckfords ⚾ on
October 30, 2012 3:11 PM
-
My stat background minimal, which is why I read an expert. I agree with what you are saying - he is just assessing the likelihood. But if he has Obama at 75% and Romney iwns, that looks bad on his model even if technically allows for that outcome.
Caimans 🐊 on
October 30, 2012 3:10 PM
-
The model and its daily % figures may be exactly right, but that can't really be verified.
Eckfords ⚾ on
October 30, 2012 3:09 PM
-
He does predict the number of electoral college votes each candidate will receive. He has 294.6-243.4 right now.
-
Maybe I'm unclear on what he's trying to do.
Eckfords ⚾ on
October 30, 2012 3:08 PM
-
I agree I'd like to see some actual predictions for him come election day, but I find the model fascinating and 538 is my go to on the current state of the election.
Caimans 🐊 on
October 30, 2012 3:08 PM
-
Yeah Knight you may have more of a stat background than I have, but my understanding is that his model is not saying that an Obama victory will happen. He is just assessing its likelihood.
Eckfords ⚾ on
October 30, 2012 3:07 PM
-
The funny thing is it seems like 40+% of the country actually does think Romney is in the lead.
Caimans 🐊 on
October 30, 2012 3:07 PM
-
That's the whole point that *he* is not predicting anything - his model is telling us what the odds are based on the data that is currently available - you are right that it won't mean anything until November 6.
Caimans 🐊 on
October 30, 2012 3:06 PM
-
I mean how many Americans really think that Romney is more likely to win than Obama? Not many. If you're writing for a high-profile publication, then use the data to tell us something we don't know!
Eckfords ⚾ on
October 30, 2012 3:05 PM
-
War Horse I completely understand his column. If the election were held today and Romney won in a landslide, his model would in fact be wrong. If his model looks on 11/6 as it does today and Romney wins at all, his model will be wrong.
Caimans 🐊 on
October 30, 2012 3:05 PM
-
Now if he were to predict the total number of Romney electoral votes and Romney exceeded that by 30, then yeah, that would be bad.
Eckfords ⚾ on
October 30, 2012 3:02 PM
-
You think? If he gives Romney a 30% shot at winning and Romney wins, then his model will have totally allowed for that outcome. I don't think that would reflect poorly on him.
Eckfords ⚾ on
October 30, 2012 3:02 PM
-
It's not as if his model suggests the race is that close. If Romney wins a race Silver thinks he has a 1 in 4 chance of winning, that's pretty discrediting. Seems to me like there's plenty on the line.
-
My problems with Silver would be exactly the same if he had an 80% Romney win probability. I just don't think he's really putting anything on the line because a raw win probability can't be proven wrong.
Eckfords ⚾ on
October 30, 2012 2:50 PM
-
It's not so much that I object to his method, I just don't find his work compelling or interesting.
Eckfords ⚾ on
October 30, 2012 2:48 PM
-
Yeah, well *I* predicted a big swing in the House in favor of Republicans.
Eckfords ⚾ on
October 30, 2012 2:48 PM
-
That was after his blog migrated to NYT. I don't remember a whole lot of objeciton to his method at that time.
-
In 2010, Silver's model also correcly predicted 34 ot 36 Senate elections and 36 of 37 gubernatorial elections, and a big swing in the House in favor of Republicans.
-
Poll data is a measure of voter opinion that is often proven to be dead-wrong on election days. So I'm skeptical of what past poll data can tell us. Each cycle there's really only one poll that matters.
Eckfords ⚾ on
October 30, 2012 2:43 PM
-
I'm not convinced that 1980 poll data has any bearing on Obama's 2012 win probability. But I'm not a statistician.
Eckfords ⚾ on
October 30, 2012 2:42 PM
-
I do but it depends on the data set. I like in-game win probability models, for example. And I trust them because they are based on a huge sample of events that actually transpired.
Eckfords ⚾ on
October 30, 2012 2:41 PM
-
Basically I'm still unclear on what Silver has done outside of predicting the 2008 electoral map. Nice work if you can get it though.
Eckfords ⚾ on
October 30, 2012 2:40 PM
-
So you don't think models that assign probabilities of different outcomes have value?
-
And most important of all -- his data is inherently flawed. He uses polls, which historically have been pretty close to worthless unless they're taken within 24 hours of election.
Eckfords ⚾ on
October 30, 2012 2:37 PM
-
And most important of all -- his data is inherently flawed. He uses polls, which historically have been pretty close to worthless unless they're taken within 24 hours of election.
Eckfords ⚾ on
October 30, 2012 2:37 PM
-
And the NYT thing is not in fact BS. His "predictions" for the NYT are much safer and blander than what he did pre-NYT.
Eckfords ⚾ on
October 30, 2012 2:36 PM
-
Silver is not actually *predicting* anything. No risk, no balls, and thus no value. He cannot be proven wrong with 538.
Eckfords ⚾ on
October 30, 2012 2:34 PM
-
He's not predicting the margin of victory by which a candidate will win. He is talking about relative probability of victory. He is not predicting anything. If Romney wins, that will have been one of the possible outcomes of his model.
Eckfords ⚾ on
October 30, 2012 2:34 PM
-
Knights I don't think you understand his column. If Romney wins in a landslide, Silver is *not*, in fact, wrong. This is my point.
Eckfords ⚾ on
October 30, 2012 2:31 PM
-
I'll take Nate Silver back in baseball! My issue with some of his daily percentage point predictions is how much they seemingly tick up or down. Are there really that many undecided voters to change probabilities by full percentage points on daily basis
-
he relies on his reputation to keep readership - why would he skew any data? If he is completely wrong and Romney is actually ahead right now and wins in a landslide he loses all credibility and goes back to baseball
Caimans 🐊 on
October 30, 2012 10:47 AM
-
if you want Romney to win get out there and make some phone calls and make sure people are getting to the polls, don't get mad about a statistician telling you things aren't going your way.
Caimans 🐊 on
October 30, 2012 10:46 AM
-
and the NYT things is BS, it's the same 538 blog I've been reading since Obama vs Clinton in 07, it just happens to be under the NYT banner now
Caimans 🐊 on
October 30, 2012 10:45 AM
-
he didn't just get the presidential electoral map right in 2008, he called damn near every Senate race as well.
Caimans 🐊 on
October 30, 2012 10:44 AM
-
it seems the only people mad at Silver are Romney voters upset at the data - I followed Silver very closely in 2008 and he was completely spot on. His system has been proven to work in the past and I believe he's probably right this time around too.
Caimans 🐊 on
October 30, 2012 10:44 AM
-
that was the impressive statistic that people give him credit for along with his PECOTA analysis for baseball...they aren't the same, but he does have a very good, if not genius statistical mind
-
he should publish predictions like he did for the last election that predict the actual popular vote disparity in whihc he predicted every state how they would vote within one percentage point of variance
-
I think there is a small difference here....74% or 24% is the overall "betting percentage" if you had to simply predict the outcome at this moment...on the other hand...
-
I honestly don't understand the purpose of his column.
Eckfords ⚾ on
October 30, 2012 9:23 AM
-
Whatever the result, he can say that his "calculations" accounted for it. Good for his job security, but not so interesting to read about.
Eckfords ⚾ on
October 30, 2012 9:22 AM
-
The problem is that he is not predicting anything. How do you verify whether an Obama victory had a 74% or a 24% of happening? He's basically paid to make NYT readers feel better about themselves.
Eckfords ⚾ on
October 30, 2012 9:21 AM
-
I'm sure nobody wants to talk about politics here BUT based on what Silver has to work with I don't see the problem with his predictions.
-
I love how all these baseball guys on Twitter are rallying to defend Nate Silver's credentials. As if baseball statistics and poll data are even remotely similar.
Eckfords ⚾ on
October 29, 2012 6:59 PM
-
It's not the offseason until the arbitration period ends.
-
Congrats to Giants...once the playoffs started I thought SF and WAS were the two best teams, so not a big surprise here. Would have been interesting if Strasburg had remained in the rotation. Is it now officially the off season?
Previous 50 messages |
Next 50 messages