So why should getting it right build trust?
by itself, it shouldn't. Over time with enough of them it should make it a better indication of quality, but we also need to look at the failures and see why it failed over a much longer period of time.
So why should getting it right build trust?
But even a Trump victory isn't evidence of a model being wrong. Let's say we play Russian Roulette and I give you a six-chamber gun and tell you there's an 83% chance that you'll survive. If then you die, that isn't evidence that my projection was wrong. I was also telling you you had a 17% chance of dying. Unlikely, but totally possible. Unlikely things happen.
And to respond to the person I'm the other thread saying it was the nowcast in this graph, it wasn't. The nowcast is even more volitile, him thinking the polls only was a nowcast actually shows how it's a problem how volitile Silver's model is. A model should not swing from 50% chance to 80% chance in a relatively short span of time unless something major happens, which is not the case.An animated graph of all the major polling trackers. Silver's frequently diverges from the pack, especially in the last week.
https://twitter.com/jshkatz/status/793553664724140032
Then why not just have the nowcast? The whole point of polls only and polls plus is to predict November, which thr model clearly does no do. A model of the election should not be this volitile. Not in a race like this.I think I figured out the problem. You want Nate to build a model that tells the future, Nate built a model that takes polls and calculates the chances of who's going to win.
Nate isn't in the business of telling the future, only what the current data says.
Actually, it's been a remarkably stable year. Clibton has always led, by about a 4%, though the margin has changed from 2% to 8% over time. Every election since the 2000's has been far more stable than those before, because of hyper-partisanship.I guess I don't see instability as a sign of model weakness. Speaking subjectively, this has been a pretty unusual election! Emails, leaks, Russia, taxes, sexual assault, you name it. It's hard to forecast something as unusual as this year when there isn't really precedent for these kinds of things. So, I don't necessarily dismiss model uncertainty as bad math.
There are lots of other measures that we can use. i.e. historically high unfavorable numbers for both candidates, that would suggest uncertainty as well.That's not to say that I believe Nate's numbers to be gospel but I don't think being lower than the rest invalidates his findings.
Then that means these aggregates can never be wrong. You can literally have any % chance for Hillary to win other than 0/100% and it would be correct.But even a Trump victory isn't evidence of a model being wrong. Let's say we play Russian Roulette and I give you a six-chamber gun and tell you there's an 83% chance that you'll survive. If then you die, that isn't evidence that my projection was wrong. I was also telling you you had a 17% chance of dying. Unlikely, but totally possible. Unlikely things happen.
Then that means these aggregates can never be wrong. You can literally have any % chance for Hillary to win other than 0/100% and it would be correct.
How do you judge how good a poll aggregate is then?
Then that means these aggregates can never be wrong. You can literally have any % chance for Hillary to win other than 0/100% and it would be correct.
How do you judge how good a poll aggregate is then?
his site seems to be very hyperbolic lately but man does he not get me worried.
if clinton was still strong heading into this stretch why did her campaign suddenly shift all resources back to the states she MUST win?
Because she has the resources to do so.his site seems to be very hyperbolic lately but man does he not get me worried.
if clinton was still strong heading into this stretch why did her campaign suddenly shift all resources back to the states she MUST win?
his site seems to be very hyperbolic lately but man does he not get me worried.
if clinton was still strong heading into this stretch why did her campaign suddenly shift all resources back to the states she MUST win?
his site seems to be very hyperbolic lately but man does he not get me worried.
if clinton was still strong heading into this stretch why did her campaign suddenly shift all resources back to the states she MUST win?
Brexit taught me that polls are interesting but the worst thing you can do is start thinking any of them are infallible. No matter how scientific the method, at the end of the day it's still using a few thousand peoples stated voting intention to project that of 120+ million actual voters.
Best thing you can do is accept that you don't know who will win, no one does. All you can do is vote (and campaign if that's your thing) and let the results fall where they will.
here in Portugal news keep saying that polls are neck and neck lately, and you guys keep saying Clinton is safe. So which is it?
Please stop bringing up Brexit. If you don't know the reasons why you should look up what the Brexit polls actually looked like, and compare them to what Hillary's poll's look like. There a huge differece. Britain leaving the EU is shocking like Trump winning the nomination was, in the sense that the polls said one thing but our guts another. That's absolutely 1000000000000000% NOT the case here.Brexit taught me that polls are interesting but the worst thing you can do is start thinking any of them are infallible. No matter how scientific the method, at the end of the day it's still using a few thousand peoples stated voting intention to project that of 120+ million actual voters.
Best thing you can do is accept that you don't know who will win, no one does. All you can do is vote (and campaign if that's your thing) and let the results fall where they will.
Brexit taught me that polls are interesting but the worst thing you can do is start thinking any of them are infallible. No matter how scientific the method, at the end of the day it's still using a few thousand peoples stated voting intention to project that of 120+ million actual voters.
Best thing you can do is accept that you don't know who will win, no one does. All you can do is vote (and campaign if that's your thing) and let the results fall where they will.
his site seems to be very hyperbolic lately but man does he not get me worried.
if clinton was still strong heading into this stretch why did her campaign suddenly shift all resources back to the states she MUST win?
whats interesting is that most major polling place projects a 85% to 99% probability that Clintoin wins. But 538 is at 60% right now? I wonder why 538 is on a such a outlier.
Clinton is pretty safe. Early voting has been good for Hillary in states like Florida and North Carolina. She also has poll leads in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. If she captures four of these states, the race is practically over. If she captures all of them, you can expect the senate to flip democrat and there will probably be a closer house of reps.
PollyVote, which has predicted the past three elections with incredible accuracy, their margin of error has been less then 1%, has Clinton winning the popular vote 53 to 47.
Here is their last three election predictions
Obama 2012:
Actual - 52.0%
Prediction - 51.3%
Obama 2008:
Actual - 53.7
Prediction - 53.9
Bush 2004:
Actual - 51.2
Prediction - 51.5
http://charts.pollyvote.com
Wow, that site has Florida clearly in the blue. While I certainly hope Florida ends up going to Clinton, putting it as squarely Democrat right now seems a bit too optimistic.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/florida/
Florida is close, and there's a pretty insane spread in the recent polls. So that leads to a more uncertain position even off of a similar average lead.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/florida/
Florida is close, and there's a pretty insane spread in the recent polls. So that leads to a more uncertain position even off of a similar average lead.
whats interesting is that most major polling place projects a 85% to 99% probability that Clintoin wins. But 538 is at 60% right now? I wonder why 538 is on a such a outlier.
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com...residential-general-election-trump-vs-clinton
She's led all year in the polling averages. The EV indicates that she might be out performing them because a large proportion of it is from new or lapsed women and Hispanic voters, who don't make it through likely voter screens. 55% of the EV is from women.
I think the spread we're seeing in the polls reflects the increase in polls conducted as election day nears, rather than increased uncertainty.
Nate Silver has talked about it on their podcast. 538's model accounts for a larger potential systemic polling error than other models. That is the main reason. It may also be more aggressive about extrapolating perceived trends than others.
I think the big dilemma for this year is disagreement on the composition of the electorate. Poll variance is generally quite a bit higher this year than last cycle, which implies that the results depend more greatly on assumptions than usual.
The flipside is that the spread may have been artificially low previously, due to herding.
Yeah. Correlations between states and state polls and national polls is a really tough topic to model. I think part of Wang's overestimation of odds his simulations, and his mid-year change in expected volatility based on this year's polling volatility. I don't think that assumption is justified.
Just a heads up but Hillary has been trending upwards on 538 all morning. It appears that whatever was going on with their model might be correcting itself.
More polls. There's been a shortage of good quality polls the last week, which put more emphasis on their trend adjustments.
Yeah I noticed that as well. They're still incredibly conservative compared to most polls, but they're correcting in states where they clearly appeared to have a weird trend.
e: This is why I find the polling data infinitely more entertaining than the election itself (much how I love advanced stats in baseball more than watching games). The way things get calculated and the models and tools used to adjust and forecast is just so interesting to me. When did the PPP polls come out? E: Quick tweet with the hard numbers. This probably has a lot to do with it.
New @ppppolls dump of battleground state polling:
NH: Clinton 48-43
NV: Clinton 48-45
WI: Clinton 48-41
PA: Clinton 48-44
NC: Clinton 49-47
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/florida/
Florida is close, and there's a pretty insane spread in the recent polls. So that leads to a more uncertain position even off of a similar average lead.
Yeah I noticed that as well. They're still incredibly conservative compared to most polls, but they're correcting in states where they clearly appeared to have a weird trend.
e: This is why I find the polling data infinitely more entertaining than the election itself (much how I love advanced stats in baseball more than watching games). The way things get calculated and the models and tools used to adjust and forecast is just so interesting to me. When did the PPP polls come out? E: Quick tweet with the hard numbers. This probably has a lot to do with it.
New @ppppolls dump of battleground state polling:
NH: Clinton 48-43
NV: Clinton 48-45
WI: Clinton 48-41
PA: Clinton 48-44
NC: Clinton 49-47
Yeah I noticed that as well. They're still incredibly conservative compared to most polls, but they're correcting in states where they clearly appeared to have a weird trend.
e: This is why I find the polling data infinitely more entertaining than the election itself (much how I love advanced stats in baseball more than watching games). The way things get calculated and the models and tools used to adjust and forecast is just so interesting to me. When did the PPP polls come out? E: Quick tweet with the hard numbers. This probably has a lot to do with it.
New @ppppolls dump of battleground state polling:
NH: Clinton 48-43
NV: Clinton 48-45
WI: Clinton 48-41
PA: Clinton 48-44
NC: Clinton 49-47
Clinton is pretty safe. Early voting has been good for Hillary in states like Florida and North Carolina. She also has poll leads in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. If she captures four of these states, the race is practically over. If she captures all of them, you can expect the senate to flip democrat and there will probably be a closer house of reps.
PollyVote, which has predicted the past three elections with incredible accuracy, their margin of error has been less then 1%, has Clinton winning the popular vote 53 to 47.
Here is their last three election predictions
Obama 2012:
Actual - 52.0%
Prediction - 51.3%
Obama 2008:
Actual - 53.7
Prediction - 53.9
Bush 2004:
Actual - 51.2
Prediction - 51.5
http://charts.pollyvote.com
Voter supression isn't that effective. It can make a huge difference in local and statewide elections, but not enough for a national elections where Hillary leads by the ammount she is.If Hillary wins North Carolina, it'll be an early Thanksgiving miracle.
I just don't believe it. They will stop at nothing to rig it for Donald. They already have.
Voter supression isn't that effective. It can make a huge difference in local and statewide elections, but not enough for a national elections where Hillary leads by the ammount she is.
I'd give it a 75% chance NC goes blue on Tuesday.
Like an hour ago. Trump recently had a great round of state polling in those states. PPP has softened some of those fears, despite them not being a great firm.
Why is PPP not a great firm? I thought they had a pretty good rep.
Agreed. I'm looking forward to the post-mortems on the effectiveness of different LV screens. My hypothesis is they are missing the new and reactivated voters we're seeing in places like FL, but we'll see.I think the big dilemma for this year is disagreement on the composition of the electorate. Poll variance is generally quite a bit higher this year than last cycle, which implies that the results depend more greatly on assumptions than usual.
The flipside is that the spread may have been artificially low previously, due to herding.
They do, which is why they get a ton of work from campaigns and other interested groups.
Agreed. I'm looking forward to the post-mortems on the effectiveness of different LV screens. My hypothesis is they are missing the new and reactivated voters we're seeing in places like FL, but we'll see.
Ah, I was wrong, I thought they were in the C range, not the B range. They've mentioned irritation with their joke push-polls, but their core work is good it seems.
Just a heads up but Hillary has been trending upwards on 538 all morning. It appears that whatever was going on with their model might be correcting itself.
Nope. At 64.2% now, continuing her downward trend.
FL and NC both red, at R+0.3
The current map on 538 is disgusting. I can't believe that much of the country wants Donald Trump to be fucking president.
I think I'm gonna go vote tomorrow, and then turn off the news until Tuesday.