320 Electoral votes? More than Bush?

Country has gone more far right?

Well if TWO models say so...

Joe Six-Keg: Didn't Nate Silver already say this was a load of crap?

And isn't this a repeat?

And didn't Nate Silver already say this was a load of crap?

And isn't this a repeat?


Yep.
Yep.
Yep.
and finally, Yep.

I think Nate Silver already said this was a load of crap. I think this is a repeat.

Their forecast suggests that President Obama will lose in almost all of the swing states, including North Carolina, Virginia, New Hampshire, Colorado, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida.

Minnesota? Seems legit.

/Comment is a repeat from 5 threads down

Obama has a time machine. Game. Blouses.

Assuming this is the same model author that on the radio this AM... he said it's not a great model (compared to more recent ones) as it doesn't take the candidates into account.

Quick write a story about this being green light on fark twice as proof as it being true so that can be green lit!

The model assumes that the state of economy drives people to vote for or against the incumbent.

The model does not account for "The new guy is so bad even his own party sort of hates him"

Joe Six-Keg: Didn't Nate Silver already say this was a load of crap?

And isn't this a repeat?

And didn't Nate Silver already say this was a load of crap?

And isn't this a repeat?

Nate silver is our prophet, let us bow our heads and pray.

NateGrey: Their forecast suggests that President Obama will lose in almost all of the swing states, including North Carolina, Virginia, New Hampshire, Colorado, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida.

Minnesota? Seems legit.

/Comment is a repeat from 5 threads down

This comment is a repeat of my comment from 5 threads down

/Minnesota will not go red - not in this century

Nate Silver @fivethirtyeight
A Denver Post reporter asked me (http://bit.ly/MNOF1C ) about this U. of Colorado election model (http://bit.ly/O7pN4I ). (1/5)


Nate Silver @fivethirtyeight
It's late, so I'll be blunt: I saw their paper and I think there are glaring problems with their methodology. (2/5)

Nate Silver @fivethirtyeight
The U. of Colo. model fits the equivalent of 7 unknowns to 8 elections. That's not a good idea. (3/5)

Nate Silver @fivethirtyeight
The Colo. model also assumes huge effects from unemployment if incumbent is a Dem., but none if he's GOP. Hard claim to defend. (4/5)

Nate Silver @fivethirtyeight
If you want a "fundamentals" model that shows Romney winning, the Hibbs model is a lot more sensible. http://bit.ly/SqgfnH (5/5)

Nate Silver @fivethirtyeight
Also, it's false advertising to claim CU model has predicted the last 8 elections right. It's a new model. Hasn't predicted anything yet.

Good luck with that.

Two of these on same day, looks like memos went out on time

MyRandomName: Nate silver is our prophet, let us bow our heads and pray.

Do Republicans believe in statistics and projection models?

digistil: Assuming this is the same model author that on the radio this AM... he said it's not a great model (compared to more recent ones) as it doesn't take the candidates into account.

I haven't read the paper yet, but knowing my profession, the two guys at CU most likely mapped out a complex model based on econometrics with their eight variables but forgot to include such things as "the candidate" or "social issues". That's the problem with modern American Political Science: it's all quantitative and that rarely is able to absorb factors that cannot be quantified. It's a major problem across the board, frankly.

Wait you can just retroactively select data that aligns with past winners then say it predicted them? Statistics is closer to time travel than physic has ever been!

Pretty sure that Nate Silver is a repeat.
And hasn't this been said already?

theknuckler_33: I can't find the Nate Silver piece about this, anyone got a link?

MisterLoki: Nate Silver @fivethirtyeight
A Denver Post reporter asked me (http://bit.ly/MNOF1C ) about this U. of Colorado election model (http://bit.ly/O7pN4I ). (1/5)


Nate Silver @fivethirtyeight
It's late, so I'll be blunt: I saw their paper and I think there are glaring problems with their methodology. (2/5)

Nate Silver @fivethirtyeight
The U. of Colo. model fits the equivalent of 7 unknowns to 8 elections. That's not a good idea. (3/5)

Nate Silver @fivethirtyeight
The Colo. model also assumes huge effects from unemployment if incumbent is a Dem., but none if he's GOP. Hard claim to defend. (4/5)

Nate Silver @fivethirtyeight
If you want a "fundamentals" model that shows Romney winning, the Hibbs model is a lot more sensible. http://bit.ly/SqgfnH (5/5)

Nate Silver @fivethirtyeight
Also, it's false advertising to claim CU model has predicted the last 8 elections right. It's a new model. Hasn't predicted anything yet.

Good luck with that.

He hasn't done a piece on it yet. I imagine it is forthcoming.

Shut up about repeats already. This isn't a repeat.

The earlier thread was retroactively posted after this one. THAT ONE is the repeat.

If Rapeublicans don't continue to tell themselves it will be a Romney landslide, how else can they have a massive temper-tantrum when he loses to Obama?

The model may have predicted the last 8 elections - the question is, when was it run - at what inflection point prior to the election - and are we at that inflection point?

I work in fundamental models all day, and also pure trend/math/neural network models. The problem with the latter ones is you can't put in known things that are true, but not captured in the trends/equations/history - so basically these latter models ignore everything that has happened since the last election.
(A few wall street events, europe events, other social trends.)

So with todays data but taking place in 2008, yes Romney would win. In 2012 - "Thats why you have to play the game" - we will see.

I guess it's possible that Romney can score 320 EV.

There is probably nothing that can happen that can drastically improve Obama's chances from here on until November (economy is slowly improving and takes time, but probably nothing that's going to jump up and go "hey we're awesome now").

But there are a lot of things that can really hurt Obama (some kind of terror attack, Israel going all attack happy). And if the Akins thing has proved anything, the people who are going to vote republican are going to do it no matter what, so I doubt that even if Romney's tax returns show him cheating 8 ways to Sunday and getting an effective tax rate of -11 billionity percent, they still will vote Romney.

But given that the model doesn't take into account random October surprises....

Predict me up some lottery numbers, son.

MyRandomName: Nate silver is our prophet, let us bow our heads and pray.

Math isn't going to stop reflecting reality just because you get all biatchy about it.

snowshovel: I guess it's possible that Romney can score 320 EV.

There is probably nothing that can happen that can drastically improve Obama's chances from here on until November (economy is slowly improving and takes time, but probably nothing that's going to jump up and go "hey we're awesome now").

But there are a lot of things that can really hurt Obama (some kind of terror attack, Israel going all attack happy). And if the Akins thing has proved anything, the people who are going to vote republican are going to do it no matter what, so I doubt that even if Romney's tax returns show him cheating 8 ways to Sunday and getting an effective tax rate of -11 billionity percent, they still will vote Romney.

But given that the model doesn't take into account random October surprises....

all kinds of scandals could bury Romney or Obama in the coming months. You don't have to do anything to improve your chances to win you just have to lower your opponent's

theknuckler_33: Vegan Meat Popsicle: Subby doesn't buy Obama losing PA, but that's 20 votes right there
Voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done.
-- Republican PA House Majority Leader Mike Turzai

FWIW, it looks as if there is a very concerted effort to get everyone the IDs they need. Link

I'm certainly not saying that this makes the law OK or anything, just that I am hopeful the law won't have the effect the GOP intended.

The real question is why we still need to go to a physical polling location in 2012. I can pay my taxes, apply for a mortgage and buy a car online but I can't vote for president yet.

The FoxNews headline will be the thing

"2 INDEPENDENT ELECTION INDICATORS SHOW MITT ROMNEY WINNING"

Now let's all step in echo chamber