If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   Lots of kudos for Nate Silver, but where's the love for Drew Linzer, who called the Electoral College vote exactly right?   (votamatic.org) divider line 48
    More: Cool, electoral vote, confidence intervals, Sam Wang  
•       •       •

2265 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Nov 2012 at 9:13 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



48 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-11-07 09:14:03 AM
Nate Silver gave the same map.

So....yeah.
 
2012-11-07 09:16:08 AM
So did half of the Farkers in the threads. The big winners are the media that raked in billions by pushing the close race.
 
2012-11-07 09:16:54 AM

DeathBySmiley: Nate Silver gave the same map.

So....yeah.


So did other places.

It's really not that hard to get 49-50 states right in most elections by doing some very basic research.
 
2012-11-07 09:17:33 AM
He clearly needs a better publicist.
 
2012-11-07 09:18:13 AM

MugzyBrown: DeathBySmiley: Nate Silver gave the same map.

So....yeah.

So did other places.

It's really not that hard to get 49-50 states right in most elections by doing some very basic research.


sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2012-11-07 09:19:30 AM
Great XKCD today.

imgs.xkcd.com
 
2012-11-07 09:20:01 AM

MugzyBrown: DeathBySmiley: Nate Silver gave the same map.

So....yeah.

So did other places.

It's really not that hard to get 49-50 states right in most elections by doing some very basic research.


Assuming FLA eventually goes to Obama, you could get 48 out of 50 right by using the 2008 map.
 
2012-11-07 09:20:44 AM
Sorry, libs. But when the vote is counted after tomorrow's election, you'll see that Dean Chambers got it right.
 
2012-11-07 09:21:02 AM

MugzyBrown: DeathBySmiley: Nate Silver gave the same map.

So....yeah.

So did other places.

It's really not that hard to get 49-50 states right in most elections by doing some very basic research.


Really? FL, OH, VA - these were easy to call, despite the margins being so close?

// what I really want to know is - is the unskewed guy going to issue any kind of statement, or will this just be butthurt, butthurt forever?
 
2012-11-07 09:21:02 AM

MugzyBrown: It's really not that hard to get 49-50 states right in most elections by doing some very basic research.


You wouldn't know it from all the pundits (to say nothing of Fark Independents) who kept insisting that the polls were wrong and that the race was a tossup, if not an outright Romney landslide.
 
2012-11-07 09:22:00 AM

Dr Dreidel: MugzyBrown: DeathBySmiley: Nate Silver gave the same map.

So....yeah.

So did other places.

It's really not that hard to get 49-50 states right in most elections by doing some very basic research.

Really? FL, OH, VA - these were easy to call, despite the margins being so close?

// what I really want to know is - is the unskewed guy going to issue any kind of statement, or will this just be butthurt, butthurt forever?


Ohio was easy to call.

Virginia was kind of hard to call, but not after the last several polls.

FL was basically a coin flip. Nate Silver had it at 50.3% odds. So that one is just luck.
 
2012-11-07 09:24:15 AM
Because Nate Silver deals in probabilities and means instead of using mode or median. Silver's mode was also 332. As was Sam Wang's (technically, he had two modes with nearly the same probabilities at 303 and 332). Andrew Tanenbaum called Florida wrong, but was otherwise the same.

Consider: Nate Silver's final model suggested a win for Obama by 0.02%. Every aggregator saw Florida as a toss-up.
 
2012-11-07 09:26:13 AM

Some 'Splainin' To Do: MugzyBrown: It's really not that hard to get 49-50 states right in most elections by doing some very basic research.

You wouldn't know it from all the pundits (to say nothing of Fark Independents) who kept insisting that the polls were wrong and that the race was a tossup, if not an outright Romney landslide.


Pundits make their money convincing you that their relevant. 24 Networks don't sell news, they sell viewers to advertisers. The numerical analysis that was the race was pretty much Obama's the entire time except for a week or so in October where it was a precarious lead and not a decisive lead does not lend to people watching their advertisers' work.

Not saying it's good or bad, just how it is. Media bias has more to do with viewership and making money than left-right. But hey, it looks like we're about to get a 51st state as an eventual result of going to war over yellow journalism, so that's cool.
 
2012-11-07 09:26:23 AM
When do the "oops, Nate was right" articles start getting written?

I won't hold my breath.
 
2012-11-07 09:27:26 AM
www.bostonglobe.com

"Bite my thin, effeminate ass, you ignorant troglodytes."
- Nate Silver (probably)
 
2012-11-07 09:28:11 AM

GarySZ: When do the "oops, Nate was right" articles start getting written?

I won't hold my breath.


Has anyone braved Free Republic since last night?
 
2012-11-07 09:28:39 AM
Anecdotal evidence and gut feeling = 0

Math = ∞
 
2012-11-07 09:32:09 AM
Yes, people seem confused that just because the statistical average of likely outcomes was 313 EVs or so, that wasn't the most likely single outcome. The most likely out come - his prediction if you will, was exactly right.

Sam Wang of the Princeton Electoral College also got very accurate results, only off on Florida, which was essentially a dead tossup to his system (Nate Silvers as well, just a couple of hundredths of a percent in favour of Barack Obama), and he had to use a tie breaker. It really could have gone either way based on the statistics of the race.

At any rate, all the *legitimate* polling aggregators did particularly well in the electoral college map, so it's probably going to come down to finer analysis of the margins, nationally and by state, to determine which systems worked better.
 
2012-11-07 09:34:31 AM

Rapmaster2000: Sorry, libs. But when the vote is counted after tomorrow's election, you'll see that Dean Chambers got it right.


You mean when the results at *unskewed*, because obviously the election over sampled democrats.
 
2012-11-07 09:36:02 AM

maddermaxx: At any rate, all the *legitimate* polling aggregators did particularly well in the electoral college map, so it's probably going to come down to finer analysis of the margins, nationally and by state, to determine which systems worked better.


So after predicting almost everything right, they're going to analyze their results, and tune their models for even greater accuracy in the next election.

Let that sink in for a minute.
 
2012-11-07 09:38:01 AM
As an actual, employed money maker, let me assure you that these preliminary electoral vote totals will not stand. And this isn't coming from a "It's just got to be" blank denial, but from true facts. You'll see about 10 AM. Automatic vote machine counts will come in and you libs will be howling. For you just discount the heart with your obsession with numbers. And the 0bama campaign is going to regret the expense putting gold on the ceiling of their "victory" rally. I think too many people had told 0bama "you're The One", too many times, so he simply jumped at the first glimmers of hope (i.e. the "data") and has now, by presumptively claiming reelection has put America into some strange times. When we get through this constitutional crisis, he's going to be a lonely boy with few political allies. Sure, laugh at me now, but keep your eye on Fox News. You'll see the race tighten up as the Diebold results come in. And then finally we will have a President (not a resident) who will break your tax chains and set you free.
 
2012-11-07 09:39:27 AM
Not to add to the Nate Silver defense brigade, but he wasn't wrong. Unless I missed him making a written final prediction, he never actually made one. There was only his final model results, which only gave each state a probability. His electoral vote forecast was not a prediction, but an average. If you wanted to force his model into a final prediction, you would have to give each candidate the states where they had the better chance of winning. According to Silver, Obama had a 50.3% chance of winning Florida.

It's hard to call any of the statistical models wrong regarding Florida. Pretty much all of them had Florida at almost exactly a 50-50 tossup. The fact that Florida is still too close to call makes those models even more correct, regardless of who they had to guess would win the state.
 
2012-11-07 09:40:08 AM

maddermaxx: Yes, people seem confused that just because the statistical average of likely outcomes was 313 EVs or so, that wasn't the most likely single outcome. The most likely out come - his prediction if you will, was exactly right.

Sam Wang of the Princeton Electoral College also got very accurate results, only off on Florida, which was essentially a dead tossup to his system (Nate Silvers as well, just a couple of hundredths of a percent in favour of Barack Obama), and he had to use a tie breaker. It really could have gone either way based on the statistics of the race.

At any rate, all the *legitimate* polling aggregators did particularly well in the electoral college map, so it's probably going to come down to finer analysis of the margins, nationally and by state, to determine which systems worked better.


The whole idea that you need to use complex statistical formulas for this nonsense. The vote isn't a series for random events to gather non-biased data on.

The only thing that matters is people's feelings the day of the election. To look at polls, crunch them through some computer model based on passed elections and say in September that Obama has a 73.4% chance of winning is complete waste of time.

If Obama on November 5th held a press conference where he too a dump on the American flag and said: I quit motherfarkers, then what would past elections, polling trends, margin of error, what-have-you matter? Would Obama still have a 79.15 chance of winning?
 
2012-11-07 09:40:36 AM
I would have bet money on Florida going to Romney... I was surprised to see Nate having it slightly leaning towards Obama at the last minute.
 
2012-11-07 09:42:45 AM

MugzyBrown: DeathBySmiley: Nate Silver gave the same map.

So....yeah.

So did other places.

It's really not that hard to get 49-50 states right in most elections by doing some very basic research.


Oh so now Republicans are respecting these predictions?

You guys have been morons for weeks trying to understand voter models and why D+6 and making your own up.

SUCK IT REPUBS
 
2012-11-07 09:43:32 AM

Skleenar: As an actual, employed money maker, let me assure you that these preliminary electoral vote totals will not stand. And this isn't coming from a "It's just got to be" blank denial, but from true facts. You'll see about 10 AM. Automatic vote machine counts will come in and you libs will be howling. For you just discount the heart with your obsession with numbers. And the 0bama campaign is going to regret the expense putting gold on the ceiling of their "victory" rally. I think too many people had told 0bama "you're The One", too many times, so he simply jumped at the first glimmers of hope (i.e. the "data") and has now, by presumptively claiming reelection has put America into some strange times. When we get through this constitutional crisis, he's going to be a lonely boy with few political allies. Sure, laugh at me now, but keep your eye on Fox News. You'll see the race tighten up as the Diebold results come in. And then finally we will have a President (not a resident) who will break your tax chains and set you free.


You realize that for that to be true, Virginia, Ohio, Florida, Iowa/New Hampshire/Colorado, Nevada, and either Pennsylvania or Wisconsin have to flip, right? That every major news org, even Fox, had to call all of those states wrongly?

I mean, I know numbers are Satanic and make Jesus weep bald eagles, but damn.
 
2012-11-07 09:43:34 AM

lemurs: maddermaxx: At any rate, all the *legitimate* polling aggregators did particularly well in the electoral college map, so it's probably going to come down to finer analysis of the margins, nationally and by state, to determine which systems worked better.

So after predicting almost everything right, they're going to analyze their results, and tune their models for even greater accuracy in the next election.

Let that sink in for a minute.


That's just proof that the models are insufficient. If Messiah Nate Silver really was so smart, libs, he wouldn't need to reinvent the wheel after every election.

You do know that Nate just publishes the numbers Team Obama (or as NS calls it, "The Mothership") gives him, right? The same numbers they give their cronies in SecState offices nationwide. If they want their Federal bux, they'll make sure the vote total matches Zero's.

// I didn't even have to strain to get there
// even when you hand the GOP a clear rolled-up newspaper smack, they get the wrong message
 
2012-11-07 09:43:51 AM
I always expected an Obama win but I never would have placed money on Romney not winning one swing state.
 
2012-11-07 09:45:58 AM

guilt by association: I would have bet money on Florida going to Romney... I was surprised to see Nate having it slightly leaning towards Obama at the last minute.


It just hit me- Joe Scarborough has to grow a mustache now. Florida was one of his states in the bet with Axelrod.
 
2012-11-07 09:46:46 AM

guilt by association: I would have bet money on Florida going to Romney... I was surprised to see Nate having it slightly leaning towards Obama at the last minute.


He had it "leaning" by .3%. That's really a tossup, but he doesn't call tossups, he just goes with the math and shades it light blue or light red.
 
2012-11-07 09:47:52 AM

MugzyBrown: It's really not that hard to get 49-50 states right in most elections by doing some very basic research.


Not hard for normal people, maybe. Conservatives, on the other hand...

lh6.googleusercontent.com
 
2012-11-07 09:52:02 AM

Saiga410: I always expected an Obama win but I never would have placed money on Romney not winning one swing state.


North Carolina?
 
2012-11-07 09:52:11 AM

Skleenar: As an actual, employed money maker, let me assure you that these preliminary electoral vote totals will not stand. And this isn't coming from a "It's just got to be" blank denial, but from true facts. You'll see about 10 AM. Automatic vote machine counts will come in and you libs will be howling. For you just discount the heart with your obsession with numbers. And the 0bama campaign is going to regret the expense putting gold on the ceiling of their "victory" rally. I think too many people had told 0bama "you're The One", too many times, so he simply jumped at the first glimmers of hope (i.e. the "data") and has now, by presumptively claiming reelection has put America into some strange times. When we get through this constitutional crisis, he's going to be a lonely boy with few political allies. Sure, laugh at me now, but keep your eye on Fox News. You'll see the race tighten up as the Diebold results come in. And then finally we will have a President (not a resident) who will break your tax chains and set you free.


0/10

Oh come on, you're not even trying...
 
2012-11-07 10:01:35 AM

Saiga410: I always expected an Obama win but I never would have placed money on Romney not winning one swing state.


Technically NC was a swing state, but only because Obama turned it blue in 2008, for the first time in like 40 years.
 
2012-11-07 10:01:51 AM

mongbiohazard: Skleenar: As an actual, employed money maker, let me assure you that these preliminary electoral vote totals will not stand. And this isn't coming from a "It's just got to be" blank denial, but from true facts. You'll see about 10 AM. Automatic vote machine counts will come in and you libs will be howling. For you just discount the heart with your obsession with numbers. And the 0bama campaign is going to regret the expense putting gold on the ceiling of their "victory" rally. I think too many people had told 0bama "you're The One", too many times, so he simply jumped at the first glimmers of hope (i.e. the "data") and has now, by presumptively claiming reelection has put America into some strange times. When we get through this constitutional crisis, he's going to be a lonely boy with few political allies. Sure, laugh at me now, but keep your eye on Fox News. You'll see the race tighten up as the Diebold results come in. And then finally we will have a President (not a resident) who will break your tax chains and set you free.

0/10

Oh come on, you're not even trying...


He's just angry cuz his keyboard Keys are as Black as his heart...
 
2012-11-07 10:08:24 AM

MugzyBrown: DeathBySmiley: Nate Silver gave the same map.

So....yeah.

So did other places.

It's really not that hard to get 49-50 states right in most elections by doing some very basic research.


IMHO, Lizner's model basically had Obama around 330 for the entire cycle and did a better job of getting the signal and eliminating noise over the course of the election. As opposed to Silver, who had Obama around 285 EVs just a couple of weeks ago.
 
2012-11-07 10:08:56 AM
Pfft. Typical libs. Believing in science and numbers. Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to go ask Dean Chambers some advice on how to unskew my credit score.
 
2012-11-07 10:09:14 AM

TheCharmerUnderMe: He's just angry cuz his keyboard Keys are as Black as his heart...


Don't call me a pretender, I mean this. I'm you're average middle of the road independent with a little brass in pocket, calling it as I see it. Don't get me wrong, kid, I go to sleep last night, I'm a little worried. I'm human, like you. Even my city was gone to 0bama. But when hit with adversity, you've got to stop you sobbing and pick yourself up. And, with the revelation of the machine vote coming in, I'm on a spiritual high.
 
2012-11-07 10:10:52 AM
I also predicted 332 - 206. Where's my praise? Where's my cookie?
 
2012-11-07 10:17:53 AM
That Linzer's a tart!
 
2012-11-07 10:36:48 AM

MugzyBrown: DeathBySmiley: Nate Silver gave the same map.

So....yeah.

So did other places.

It's really not that hard to get 49-50 states right in most elections by doing some very basic research.


Silver said as much on Colbert. He's says his approach is quite straight forward and not rocket science.
 
2012-11-07 10:38:58 AM

Dog Welder: I also predicted 332 - 206. Where's my praise? Where's my cookie?


There, I just put one in your cache. Happy? Now the next time you go to E-bay they are going to try and sell you penis enlarging equipment.
 
2012-11-07 10:42:03 AM

Dr Dreidel: Really? FL, OH, VA - these were easy to call, despite the margins being so close?


For the 3 states there are only two outcomes per state. Here's all of the options represented as R-republican and D-democrat

RRR
RRD
RDR
DRR
RDD
DRR
DRD
DDD

Let's assume you had a 50:50 shot for each state. If you flipped a coin for each race you'd have a 1 in 8 chance of getting all of them right. So 1 in 8 people who guessed randomly should have gotten it correct. That would be the *worst* case scenario. Now consider actually educated people using real statistics and poll data and you should average better than 1 in 8.
 
2012-11-07 10:51:00 AM
Here ya go.... Freeper Tears for Breakfast::::::
To: SJackson


I don't disagree, I think we all have evaluted "the Buckley rule" in our own way and made a determination as to whether or not Romney was the "most conservative candidate who could win".

Obviously, being more conservative doesn't do anything unless the candidate can get elected. Sarah Palin realized early-on that her belief were too conservative for her to win, and she wasn't about to compromise her beliefs. Gingrich and Santorum could not win. So here we are.

The electorate has changed, in part because of the economic collapse that has left many who would prefer otherwise with no choice but the government.

Whether we are at a tipping point or whether we will see another four years much like the last is beyond human ability to predict. But it is incorrect to blame conservatism because conservatism was not running in this election.


19 posted on Wednesday, November 07, 2012 7:52:51 AM by bigbob

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

--------------------------------------------------------------------- - ----------

To: AppyPappy


I don't think people looked at Obama and Romney and said "Romney is too liberal, I will vote for Obama instead".


--------------------------------------------------------------------- - ----------
Most people I talked to said " there's not much difference between them" The article is correct


20 posted on Wednesday, November 07, 2012 7:53:31 AM by Joshua

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

--------------------------------------------------------------------- - ----------

To: SJackson


Now it's time to get behind Sarah. Mitt declared so early, then a mess of people joined in, to boot. It was a messy primary.

Romney should have spoken up in support for Mourdock and Akin, told the public that we are all free to hold differing opinions, but those opinions don't necessarily carry over into law. Instead, they disenfranchised them. It gave many a reason to pass, who might've supported them, otherwise. That probably hurt Romney, as well. Sent a message that real conservatives would not be welcome at the table.

I think the republican party shot itself in the foot. By not getting behind true conservatives, it left the door open for its demise. It's time to start a real conservative party...call it the Tea Party or the Reagan Conservatives (would probably pick off conservative democrats this way). We need to start right now.
 
2012-11-07 12:08:10 PM
Wang and Silver had the same map, too, but I don't remember seeing them with a single, bold EV prediction on Tuesday morning that was exactly right.

Yes, the EV of their maps works out to the same, but unless I missed it, neither had a bold 332 -206 on the front page.
 
2012-11-07 01:25:40 PM
 
2012-11-07 01:49:09 PM

Rapmaster2000: Sorry, libs. But when the vote is counted after tomorrow's election, you'll see that Dean Chambers got it right.


Three Statisticals:

1) 30% of LaRouche supporters for RON PAUL

2) 1 in 7 Schizophrenics account for 6 in 7 personalities

3) Penguin Majority

You libs are gonna be sooooo unskewed
 
2012-11-07 01:52:47 PM

MugzyBrown: If Obama on November 5th held a press conference where he too a dump on the American flag and said: I quit motherfarkers, then what would past elections, polling trends, margin of error, what-have-you matter? Would Obama still have a 79.15 chance of winning?


I expect that might have had an effect on the national tracking polls
 
Displayed 48 of 48 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report