http://isnatesilverawitch.com/

(11-07-2012 10:46 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(11-07-2012 10:13 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  What they need to come to grips with is that these supposedly skewed dem polls were not. Face it, no one wants to call themselves a Republican any more thanks to W.

This is not entirely true. It looks like a D+6 advantage in the election. Obama got his vote out which was the key.

The polls routinely showed D + 7 or greater. CNN had one last week that was D + 11. That is not the electorate that turned out. So the underlying point the polls were showing more D's than turnout is actually true.

My point was that didn't make sense to me given the state of the economy. These same polls also showed Romney winning independents big and greater republican enthusiasm. Those internals didn't jive with a D + 7 or greater advantage in my opinion. I thought the likely voter screens were being far too generous to Dems. Clearly they weren't.

Silver didn't impress me in 2008 cause it wasn't exactly difficult to predict the 2008 election. He wasn't distinctively better in 2010. His model was spot on this cycle so I give him all the credit for that. But like I said his model is only as good as the data that goes into it. He was fortunate that the data was good.

Kudos to him.

The biggest problem with the current Republican party that I can see is tone deafness. For some reason your party doesn't pay attention to what many Americans think. In exit polls yesterday many Americans see the economy as a problem, but they are not blaming Obama; they still see the actions of Dubya as the problem:


"Early exit polls released on Tuesday evening show that about half of voters still blame President George W. Bush more than President Barack Obama for the country’s economic problems and most cite the economy as their top issue in the election.The exit poll results released by The Associated Press fit with the argument Obama’s team has been making in the lead-up to the election.

Sixty percent of voters named the economy as their top issue, followed by health care in a distant second at 17 percent, the deficit at 15 percent and foreign policy at 4 percent. In 2008, 62 percent of voters said the economy was their top issue."


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83422.html

(11-07-2012 09:33 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I just looked at his blog again. He went 50 for 50. Absolutely amazing.

I don't pay much attention to polls or the predictions of Nate Silver or anyone else, but how can he go 50 for 50 but miss the electoral college? It seems like he's trying to hedge his predictions in at least some of the tough states, predicting they will go both ways and allowing him to claim credit either way.

It seems like he might be more cagey than a witch (not that there's anything wrong with either of those things).

(11-07-2012 11:57 AM)jh Wrote:  

(11-07-2012 09:33 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I just looked at his blog again. He went 50 for 50. Absolutely amazing.

I don't pay much attention to polls or the predictions of Nate Silver or anyone else, but how can he go 50 for 50 but miss the electoral college? It seems like he's trying to hedge his predictions in at least some of the tough states, predicting they will go both ways and allowing him to claim credit either way.

It seems like he might be more cagey than a witch (not that there's anything wrong with either of those things).

No, he predicted 6 slight victories in the states outcomes (IIRC), but then predicted the odds that those six outcomes occurred together, which lead to his prediction of 313 electoral votes. Meaning, he predicted such slight victories in those states, which had absurdly slight victories (he got those states correct, even down to Florida where he predicted a .02% margin of victory for Obama), that the odds that those would all occur were taken into account. His 'by state' predictions were separate from his electoral vote predictions.

Still, seeing as how he's going to be off by either -10 or +19 electoral votes and went 50 for 50 on his state predictions, along with his nailing the Senate/House races, he's the godda@mn man and I'm glad to hear his book sales are skyrocketing.

We'll just have to remember to keep an eye on his numbers for the '14 and '16 elections. LIke I said, I didn't know anything about him until he was mentioned on here...

(11-07-2012 08:20 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(11-07-2012 11:57 AM)jh Wrote:  

(11-07-2012 09:33 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I just looked at his blog again. He went 50 for 50. Absolutely amazing.

I don't pay much attention to polls or the predictions of Nate Silver or anyone else, but how can he go 50 for 50 but miss the electoral college? It seems like he's trying to hedge his predictions in at least some of the tough states, predicting they will go both ways and allowing him to claim credit either way.

It seems like he might be more cagey than a witch (not that there's anything wrong with either of those things).

No, he predicted 6 slight victories in the states outcomes (IIRC), but then predicted the odds that those six outcomes occurred together, which lead to his prediction of 313 electoral votes. Meaning, he predicted such slight victories in those states, which had absurdly slight victories (he got those states correct, even down to Florida where he predicted a .02% margin of victory for Obama), that the odds that those would all occur were taken into account. His 'by state' predictions were separate from his electoral vote predictions.

Still, seeing as how he's going to be off by either -10 or +19 electoral votes and went 50 for 50 on his state predictions, along with his nailing the Senate/House races, he's the godda@mn man and I'm glad to hear his book sales are skyrocketing.

RCP averages went 49/50 assuming FL goes Obama.

(11-07-2012 08:21 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  We'll just have to remember to keep an eye on his numbers for the '14 and '16 elections. LIke I said, I didn't know anything about him until he was mentioned on here...

I was introduced to him a few weeks ago by a pal of mine who had stumbled upon his blog and asked my opinion about it. Read a few of his inputs and realized, holy sh*t, this guy really seems to know his stuff. I'm far from an expert on polls, but I do know more than the average person given I did have to study their methods and scopes all throughout my first time around in college (poli sci degree, aka nice paperweight), so I can usually tell when there's a major problem with their methods.

Though, given the fact he was a sabermatrician who came up with his own, very successful algorithm to predict a baseball players output, the guy obviously knows his stuff. I can't even begin to comprehend what goes into that sort of statistical analysis. Actually, if you want to read a funny, admittedly left leaning article, about him that compares the pundits (both left and right) to the old entrenched baseball scouts when they first heard about those egg-head economists making predictions based on mathematical principles they simply didn't understand, it's right here. It's admittedly left leaning but I've sent it to a few conservative friends and they thought it was entertaining at least, and after this outcome it's even more pertinent to the world of the blogosphere/24hourcycle/messageboards/etc.

(11-06-2012 10:46 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  He had this locked tight. I can't get over how accurate he was. Major Kudos.

Yep, he's a guru.