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.

(Talking Points Memo)   I see your Nate Silver guru and raise you one guy who predicted the 2012 election...10 years ago. BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAaaaa   (2012.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 21
    More: Interesting, elections in 2012, Michael Barone, demographic trends, party identification, red states, TPM  
•       •       •

4228 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 Nov 2012 at 8:46 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-11-13 08:49:18 AM
Nostradumbass?
 
2012-11-13 08:49:27 AM
In that time frame I really think it counts more as guessing.
 
2012-11-13 08:51:33 AM
They're burying the lede here. RCP has an analyst named Sean TRENDE?
 
2012-11-13 08:52:40 AM

Raharu: In that time frame I really think it counts more as guessing.


Yeah. There was some historian who's been correctly guessing the last few elections at several years' remove, though. That's less guessing and more actually knowing what historical trends show. I wish I had his name. All I can remember is that he was on NPR recently and that he predicted the 2012 outcome in 2010.

Anyone know what I'm talking about?
 
2012-11-13 08:53:56 AM
Broad population demograhic data showing a slow statistical trend do not equal the detail of Silver's model.

Good stuff though, good stuff.
 
2012-11-13 08:58:11 AM
1.bp.blogspot.com

Plate of shrimp
 
2012-11-13 08:59:26 AM
Did you read the article? Read the article. It's worth it.
 
2012-11-13 09:00:30 AM
GODDAMMIT. When did understanding How Statistics Work and How To Interpret Them= Guru... status...

Nm I just remembered the year I worked in the library w the intro Stats book on reserve.

Dammit.
 
2012-11-13 09:10:47 AM
meh this is taught in poli sci, no biggie
 
2012-11-13 09:19:15 AM

andrewagill: Raharu: In that time frame I really think it counts more as guessing.

Yeah. There was some historian who's been correctly guessing the last few elections at several years' remove, though. That's less guessing and more actually knowing what historical trends show. I wish I had his name. All I can remember is that he was on NPR recently and that he predicted the 2012 outcome in 2010.

Anyone know what I'm talking about?


Ooh! Me! Me! Pick me!

Allan Lichtman.
 
2012-11-13 09:26:07 AM
He predicted that without a change in the republican party it's anti-minority stances combined with the growing of minorities as a percent of the population could lead to the non-republican candidate winning an election in the future?

Amazing :P

/only skimmed the first half of the article
//could be vastly oversimplifying.


I further predict that Republicans will succeed in burying the racism under an additional level of code words, one that manages to include more minorities in the party, and that they will win sometime in the future. Save the post farkers, save it! :P
 
2012-11-13 09:30:23 AM
1) Find 32 enterprizing young pundits with an eye toward the long con.
2) Divide them up so that half will pick the republican candidate as the winner in the next election and half will pick the democrat.
3) Take the half that turned out to have the right answer and divide them up again for the next election.
4) Repeat until you have one pundit who has correctly called the last five elections and make money on him fast because he's only got a 50/50 chance of calling the next one right.
 
2012-11-13 09:34:29 AM

StreetlightInTheGhetto: GODDAMMIT. When did understanding How Statistics Work and How To Interpret Them= Guru... status...

Nm I just remembered the year I worked in the library w the intro Stats book on reserve.

Dammit.


I didn't have any classes in statistics until college, and that's only because I was in the engineering program. I assume things haven't improved since then (mid-late 80s).
 
2012-11-13 09:38:37 AM

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: Did you read the article? Read the article. It's worth it.


It was a very good article. I think the biggest reason non-whites flocked to the Dems is that the Reps were actively pushing non-whites there. Brewer in Arizona pushed Hispanics nationally to the Dems. Indians (dot, not feather) see bigotry toward non-Christians like that Florida minister and saw that they could easily be the targets as well.
 
2012-11-13 09:58:48 AM
Hari Seldon, one assumes?
 
2012-11-13 10:21:16 AM

tarnok: 1) Find 32 enterprizing young pundits with an eye toward the long con.
2) Divide them up so that half will pick the republican candidate as the winner in the next election and half will pick the democrat.
3) Take the half that turned out to have the right answer and divide them up again for the next election.
4) Repeat until you have one pundit who has correctly called the last five elections and make money on him fast because he's only got a 50/50 chance of calling the next one right.


Difficulty: A guy like sliver is calling much more than a 50/50 and is judging so many events at a time that it statistically all but rules out randomness. It isn't just saying "guy A will win" it is 'by how much, in which states, etc"
 
2012-11-13 10:47:37 AM

andrewagill: Raharu: In that time frame I really think it counts more as guessing.

Yeah. There was some historian who's been correctly guessing the last few elections at several years' remove, though. That's less guessing and more actually knowing what historical trends show. I wish I had his name. All I can remember is that he was on NPR recently and that he predicted the 2012 outcome in 2010.

Anyone know what I'm talking about?


Law of large numbers?

Given enough people guessing, one is bound to be right by mere chance.

Granted, that's a little different than generally saying the demographic trends are going this direction, and this benefits that party, but that such a vague statement it doesn't really count as "predicting an election."
 
2012-11-13 11:09:56 AM

impaler: Granted, that's a little different than generally saying the demographic trends are going this direction, and this benefits that party, but that such a vague statement it doesn't really count as "predicting an election."


He did call Iowa, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, and Virginia turning blue, and NC becoming a swing state, fwiw.
 
2012-11-13 11:49:39 AM
The article forgets that the Dems are basically what republicans were in the 1990s. the realignment rove saw really did happen. That book from way back in the day would have seen the "majority" as DINOs,
 
2012-11-13 11:54:49 AM

impaler: andrewagill: Raharu: In that time frame I really think it counts more as guessing.

Yeah. There was some historian who's been correctly guessing the last few elections at several years' remove, though. That's less guessing and more actually knowing what historical trends show. I wish I had his name. All I can remember is that he was on NPR recently and that he predicted the 2012 outcome in 2010.

Anyone know what I'm talking about?

Law of large numbers?

Given enough people guessing, one is bound to be right by mere chance.

Granted, that's a little different than generally saying the demographic trends are going this direction, and this benefits that party, but that such a vague statement it doesn't really count as "predicting an election."


Well, to be fair, this is a little more reliable than that. He's correctly called the popular vote in every election since (and including) 1988. If 5 or fewer of the Keys to the White House are false, the party in power will retain control. If 6 or more are false, the challenger will win.

Party Mandate: After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than after the previous midterm elections.
Contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination.
Incumbency: The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president.
Third party: There is no significant third party or independent campaign.
Short term economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign.
Long term economy: Real per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms.
Policy change: The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy.
Social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term.
Scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal.
Foreign/military failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs.
Foreign/military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs.
Incumbent charisma: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero.
Challenger charisma: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero.

You'd have to get 256 people predicting to get it right 8 times. Certainly possible, but starting to get less like chance and more like actual theories.
 
2012-11-13 07:26:11 PM

andrewagill: Raharu: In that time frame I really think it counts more as guessing.

Yeah. There was some historian who's been correctly guessing the last few elections at several years' remove, though. That's less guessing and more actually knowing what historical trends show. I wish I had his name. All I can remember is that he was on NPR recently and that he predicted the 2012 outcome in 2010.

Anyone know what I'm talking about?


Psychohistory?
 
Displayed 21 of 21 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report