• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2016 |OT11| Well this is exciting

Status
Not open for further replies.
Marquette releasing their Wisconsin poll in 7 minutes.

Their last poll had Clinton up 15 but that was right after the convention, so I wouldn't expect something so gaudy.
 

thebloo

Member
Why is Ashley Johnson about to cry?

acting.gif
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Monmouth don't publish their RV -> LV methodology and it is really annoying me.

EDIT: blargh and an eighth of the sample was treated differently why aren't contamination effects isolated boo

EDIT2: y'all guys are really weird about Nate. As the number of factors you include goes up, so does the uncertainty. In exchange, you get more accuracy (assuming those factors do have causal effect and you have determined the causation properly). Nate's explicitly said he's built his model to include as many factors as possible - so it naturally has higher uncertainty. Wang's model is... incredibly simple. He even treats states as independent events, which in my personal opinion is too simple and produces an unrealistically high level of certainty. There are advantages and disadvantages to either choice. Nate didn't kill your dog.
 

Holmes

Member
If New Hampshire is the tipping point state, it'd be weird for a tipping point state to be at or near a double digit victory and the rest of the states afterwards to be Republican.
 

ShOcKwAvE

Member
I visited Ellis Island for the first time yesterday, and what struck me the most was the museum's section on the political environment during the early 1900s. Reading about the immigration opponents and their propaganda sounded EERILY like what we're witnessing now from Trump and the R party...100 years later.
 

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
LOL at MU for drawing out a poll like this. Just post it!
 
If New Hampshire is the tipping point state, it'd be weird for a tipping point state to be at or near a double digit victory and the rest of the states afterwards to be Republican.

Alternately, if New Hampshire is the tipping point state at that margin then she's winning by 8%.
 

GutsOfThor

Member
Is it just me or did we go from saying last month that she was going to get as close to 400 ev's as possible to now just hoping she gets 270? Has it really gotten that bad? I haven't been paying attention much the past few weeks.
 

Gotchaye

Member
The fights between Silver, Cohn, Wang, etc have been fascinating this cycle. We are currently watching really smart people debate over a field that is still essentially brand new about how to approach these types of models. Silver has been fairly open about what he's doing and we'll see on Nov 8th how close he really is. Rewarding and giving voice to those other individuals has been really cool, this cycle. But picking teams just feels silly to me (outside of tongue-in-cheek stuff).

We won't, really. All of these models are going to be pretty close together at the start of November. And of course the election is only one sample - they're offering probabilities. Trump winning wouldn't tell you that much about whether 538 was doing a better job all along than the others.

The "did they call it right?" question is just not that interesting. That's basically just averaging the latest polls, though there's a bit more you can do like trying to figure out if a pollster has a house effect. The reason these sites are interesting is that they try to forecast the election well in advance, without the benefit of polls released November 1st. But you never get a great check on this because even if one was moving by 20 points every week and the other barely moved, they're all going to end up in basically the same place when the election actually happens, and the election result doesn't tell you anything about how the voters got there.
 
Is it just me or did we go from saying last month that she was going to get as close to 400 ev's as possible to now just hoping she gets 270? Has it really gotten that bad? I haven't been paying attention much the past few weeks.

worse than bad , man. losing florida, ohio and barely above water in viriginia, nc, and wisconsin. also rumors that kaine's absence on trail is related to prepping by clinton team of eventuality that hillary will succumb to the common cold after election.
 
Is it just me or did we go from saying last month that she was going to get as close to 400 ev's as possible to now just hoping she gets 270? Has it really gotten that bad? I haven't been paying attention much the past few weeks.

we went from a high point to a low point and now we're back on an upswing

otherwise, listen to incognito. place bets according to that post right there.
 

thebloo

Member
I wish everybody's tag would show their true "face". Troll, panicker, hater, racist, etc.

It would make browsing much more relaxing.
 

GutsOfThor

Member
worse than bad , man. losing florida, ohio and barely above water in viriginia, nc, and wisconsin. also rumors that kaine's absence on trail is related to prepping by clinton team of eventuality that hillary will succumb to the common cold after election.


Shit....



we went from a high point to a low point and now we're back on an upswing

otherwise, listen to incognito. place bets according to that post right there.

Thanks. Hopefully the upswing lasts a while.
 

Emarv

Member
We won't, really. All of these models are going to be pretty close together at the start of November. And of course the election is only one sample - they're offering probabilities. Trump winning wouldn't tell you that much about whether 538 was doing a better job all along than the others.

The "did they call it right?" question is just not that interesting. That's basically just averaging the latest polls, though there's a bit more you can do like trying to figure out if a pollster has a house effect. The reason these sites are interesting is that they try to forecast the election well in advance, without the benefit of polls released November 1st. But you never get a great check on this because even if one was moving by 20 points every week and the other barely moved, they're all going to end up in basically the same place when the election actually happens, and the election result doesn't tell you anything about how the voters got there.

Eh, I kind of agree, but if we devalue the importance of the Nov 8th results, then what are we even arguing about with 538 currently? What even is the point of these forecasts other than fun ways to look at poll trendlines? For that we could just look at the RCP poll aggregate and call it a day. Silver and Wang became famous for a reason and that wasn't just calling Obama or McCain the winner.

Their models are meant to lead to Nov 8th and give us more than just who wins, but how close they end up being to the predictor, in addition to the individual state margins and state congressional races. I'd argue that if those margins are closer than the other models, then that does add more veracity to the methodology used by the "winner".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom