[BunnyGo]

luke warm, on 2012-October-28, 06:34, said:

ok, what odds you giving?

40-1 on Michigan 30-1 on Penn.

[TimG]

Flem72, on 2012-October-27, 08:18, said:

This whole polling business -- and I guess that's exactly what it is, a busness -- confuses the hell out of me. How can NYT/Silver claim O by that kind of margin, while Dick Morris predicts R gets 330-50 electoral votes?

Silver doesn't claim that Obama is going to win by a 70:30 margin, he claims that there is a 70% chance that Obama is going to win.

[PassedOut]

TimG, on 2012-October-28, 09:24, said:

Silver doesn't claim that Obama is going to win by a 70:30 margin, he claims that there is a 70% chance that Obama is going to win.

Yes, Nate even allows for the possibility of a Romney landslide (double-digit popular vote margin): a 00.1% chance. Dick Morris predicts (hopes) that this chance comes up, and it is not completely impossible...

[luke warm]

BunnyGo, on 2012-October-28, 07:25, said:

40-1 on Michigan 30-1 on Penn.

just so there's no misunderstanding, if i take $50 each on romney and if he wins both, you owe me $3500, right? of if he wins MI but not PA, you owe me $1950... if PA but not MI, you owe me $1450

hell i'd bet $100 bucks on almost anything... since i don't know you or your trustworthiness, how do you propose we proceed? what do you say about letting fred or someone as honest holding our money? there are a lot of people on here i trust... Phil would work for mem if he's willing... i can paypal my funds to him, you do the same, he can then xfer it to the winner (taking out 10% for his fee, of course)... will that work? whatcha say Phil, you up for it?

[lalldonn]

What are those odds lol. Even Nate only has Obama 94% to win PA, meaning you should have offered more like 15-1, if you really felt like risking a lot to win a little. I mean, I almost want to throw 20 bucks on each for Romney myself.

[cherdano]

In a shocking development, the NY Times has endorsed Obama for president. That's it, the election is decided!

[BunnyGo]

cherdano, on 2012-October-28, 15:09, said:

In a shocking development, the NY Times has endorsed Obama for president. That's it, the election is decided!

It was fun to read their endorsements since 1860.

[y66]

Guest post # 2 from Krugman: The War on Objectivity

Quote

Brad DeLong points me to this National Review attack on Nate Silver, which I think of as illustrating an important aspect of what’s really happening in America.

For those new to this, Nate is a sports statistician turned political statistician, who has been maintaining a model that takes lots and lots of polling data — most of it at the state level, which is where the presidency gets decided — and converts it into election odds. Like others doing similar exercises — Drew Linzer, Sam Wang, and Pollster — Nate’s model continued to show an Obama edge even after Denver, and has shown that edge widening over the past couple of weeks.

This could be wrong, obviously. And we’ll find out on Election Day. But the methodology has been very clear, and all the election modelers have been faithful to their models, letting the numbers fall where they may.

Yet the right — and we’re not talking about the fringe here, we’re talking about mainstream commentators and publications — has been screaming “bias”! They know, just know, that Nate must be cooking the books. How do they know this? Well, his results look good for Obama, so it must be a cheat. Never mind the fact that Nate tells us all exactly how he does it, and that he hasn’t changed the formula at all.

This is, of course, reminiscent of the attack on the Bureau of Labor Statistics — not to mention the attacks on climate science and much more. On the right, apparently, there is no such thing as an objective calculation. Everything must have a political motive.

This is really scary. It means that if these people triumph, science — or any kind of scholarship — will become impossible. Everything must pass a political test; if it isn’t what the right wants to hear, the messenger is subjected to a smear campaign.

It’s almost besides the point to notice that the whole notion that Nate Silver is somehow serving Obama’s interests by skewing the results is bizarre. This race is going to be decided by actual votes, not perceptions of “momentum”. But then posturing and bragging seems to be central to the right’s theory, for reasons I don’t get.

[kenberg]

If I understand it correctly, Silver not only predicts that Obama will win re-election but he predicts the results for every state. If other prognosticators are doing the same, then we should soon be in possession of results that will tell us something about how good their models are.

It is a bit tricky, of course. If a meteorologist says that there is a 60% chance of rain and it doesn't rain, we should not rush to judgment about his qualifications . He did, after all, say there was a 40% chance it wouldn't rain. Sometimes the best percentage line of play is not the right way (meaning the way that works) to play any given hand. Still, if a guy makes predictions for every state we should be able to make some reasonable assessment when the results come in.

Evaluating predictive models is always a bit chancy. We are currently experiencing heavy rains from Sandy, just as predicted, and I imagine the heavy winds will come tonight, just as predicted. But suppose they don't. No doubt there will be someone somewhere who predicted that the winds will miss this part of Maryland. It does not follow that next time I should listen to him when making my plans.

Anyway, we shall soon see. If Nate Silver's predictions come in on the money in a large number of states as Obama sails to re-election with approximately the electoral count Silver envisions, Nate's future will be bright. As for me, I am not betting the house on the results. I am voting for Obama. I think my wife is. I'm not prepared to say what anyone else is doing.

As to the war on objectivity, if someone somewhere has ideas about how to get people to stop the name calling, it would be good to hear from them. For example, I plan to vote in favor of same sex marriage on the Maryland ballot. I do not think that everyone who votes against it has a phobia. Possibly they simply have a different view of marriage. It happens. I haven't decided yet on how I will vote on the expansion of gambling referendum. I voted against the introduction of gambling four years ago but, since (surprise! surprise!) it is bringing in less money than was promised, the thought is to do more of it. I suppose as long as we are doing it we may as well do it right. Still, I find it repugnant to base the state's finances on ripping off the brain dead. I'll do my best to do what is right, and I hope to approach it objectively.

[luke warm]

lalldonn, on 2012-October-28, 12:34, said:

What are those odds lol. Even Nate only has Obama 94% to win PA, meaning you should have offered more like 15-1, if you really felt like risking a lot to win a little. I mean, I almost want to throw 20 bucks on each for Romney myself.

yeah, those are pretty good pot odds

[PassedOut]

Interesting that considering all that has transpired in the last five months, the US presidential election stands just where it did in early June: Oct. 28 - In Swing States, a Predictable Election?

Quote

When we introduced this year’s FiveThirtyEight forecast model on June 7, the closest states were Colorado, Ohio and Virginia, each of which slightly favored Mr. Obama. In Florida and North Carolina, meanwhile, we had Mitt Romney listed as a modest favorite.

Pretty much the same could be said about the race today. In fact, our projected leader in all 50 states is the same as it was at our launch of the forecast in June.

At least the TV stations and sign printers have made good money for awhile...

[kenberg]

Good. Silver lists the predictions for the 18 states where it is expected to be close or fairly close. Assume (?) we agree that the other states are settled enough so that no one gets applause for predicting them. Here is where the action is. Could those who are skeptical of his predictions suggest the states, or links to other predictions suggesting states, where the predictions are different?

I got the horse right here his name is Paul Revere, and there's this guy who says if the weather's clear....

We shall see. I'll hold the bets. For a small fee.

[luke warm]

kenberg, on 2012-October-29, 12:06, said:

We shall see. I'll hold the bets. For a small fee.

i was offered odds on 2 states, just waiting to hear from him... something tells me he bit off more than he wanted to, tho... and i'd be glad to let you hold the money for a 10% fee... sounds reasonable

[Thiros]

mike777, on 2012-October-27, 23:47, said:

my point....rerun
-----------


but fwiw

I am shocked by ND win wow......

FL loses...ND ..OK lose...wow....

Who the heck thinks Irish can win in 2012?

--

Florida was playing over their heads all year. Georgia has them beat in the talent department, they just found it in themselves to get it together and assert themselves as the better team.

ND's win over Oklahoma surprised me as well, but Oklahoma struggled so mightily with UTEP that by now we should realize that they just aren't all that great. ND certainly has their best team in a very long time but I'm still skeptical that they can complete a perfect regular season. They still have to travel to USC, who is still very capable of rising to the occasion and beating them. Even if ND is undefeated at selection time, the pool of title game candidates is crowded and they have Alabama and Oregon (to say nothing of a couple of others) to worry about. Honestly, they should be thrilled if they end up with a victory in a BCS bowl (other than the national championship game).

[cherdano]

kenberg, on 2012-October-29, 09:20, said:

Anyway, we shall soon see. If Nate Silver's predictions come in on the money in a large number of states as Obama sails to re-election with approximately the electoral count Silver envisions, Nate's future will be bright. As for me, I am not betting the house on the results. I am voting for Obama. I think my wife is. I'm not prepared to say what anyone else is doing.

You are writing as if Nate Silver had no track record. He got into politics during the 2008 primaries, having instant huge success when he accurately predicted Obama-Clinton primary results that the majority of polls missed by a lot. (Moreover, his methodology showed that the race was very stable, without any of the "momentum" shifts that the press reported: a demographic regression analysis predicted each state's result with small error.)
He then was very accurate in his 2008 presidential election predictions, getting 49/50 states right, and I think all Senate races.

[kenberg]

cherdano, on 2012-October-29, 18:03, said:

You are writing as if Nate Silver had no track record. He got into politics during the 2008 primaries, having instant huge success when he accurately predicted Obama-Clinton primary results that the majority of polls missed by a lot. (Moreover, his methodology showed that the race was very stable, without any of the "momentum" shifts that the press reported: a demographic regression analysis predicted each state's result with small error.)
He then was very accurate in his 2008 presidential election predictions, getting 49/50 states right, and I think all Senate races.

Yes, I am aware of that. We shall see if he repeats. Success is a good predictor of success. So perhaps he will. But in the most practical of terms, I do not regard this success as so impressive that I am prepared to bet money on his advice. But perhaps I am cautious. I miss out on opportunities,. I also miss out on negative opportunities.

I only suggest that we identify a prominent forecaster who has had a decent, though less spectacular, record in the past, see what he says, and await the results to see who does better. Really, I see this as supportive of Silver. If someone wants to argue that Silver is way off, I invite a nomination for someone who can do a better job of state by state forecasting. Then we will see. I would expect Silver to welcome the challenge.

[billw55]

If Silver has another good showing, I suspect he will then be inundated with attempts to buy/influence him in future elections (if this is not already happening).

[hrothgar]

billw55, on 2012-October-30, 06:31, said:

If Silver has another good showing, I suspect he will then be inundated with attempts to buy/influence him in future elections (if this is not already happening).

Part of the reason that folks value Silver's analysis is the transparency of the system that he has in place.

Silver posted his methodology long before this election cycle started.

Since then, the main thing that he has been doing is describing the results and pointing out what he views as flaws in the techniques that other people are using.

I'm not saying that he can't be bought, however, I suspect that this would not be as valuable as one might think.

[billw55]

hrothgar, on 2012-October-30, 07:04, said:

Part of the reason that folks value Silver's analysis is the transparency of the system that he has in place.

Silver posted his methodology long before this election cycle started.

Since then, the main thing that he has been doing is describing the results and pointing out what he views as flaws in the techniques that other people are using.

I'm not saying that he can't be bought, however, I suspect that this would not be as valuable as one might think.

Agree all around. But I doubt that any of that will stop people from trying.

[BunnyGo]

luke warm, on 2012-October-29, 13:34, said:

i was offered odds on 2 states, just waiting to hear from him... something tells me he bit off more than he wanted to, tho... and i'd be glad to let you hold the money for a 10% fee... sounds reasonable

I already sent you a PM, since I didn't want to distract the whole thread.