Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 10-22-2012, 12:41 PM
 
Location: Maryland
18,630 posts, read 19,332,730 times
Reputation: 6460

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
Here is the new Suffolk poll:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/doc...lk_OH_1022.pdf

Tied

This sample voted for Obama over McCain by 6 in 2008. Obama won the state by 4.6.
Seems pretty solid, the race is tied folks.

 
Old 10-22-2012, 12:41 PM
 
Location: Waltham, MA
235 posts, read 274,800 times
Reputation: 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trace21230 View Post
Obama's chances of winning Ohio have dropped to 55.1% on Intrade, a drop of 8.2%:

Intrade - Democratic nominee to win Ohio

I'd much rather be in Romney's position than Obama's right now.

I dont understand the premise of your statement.

Intrade has Ohio to be blue at 55.6% but to be red at 46%.

And still you think it is good for Romney??

46 is less than 55 and the spread is 9 points.. I will love it to be so on Nov 7th.
 
Old 10-22-2012, 12:42 PM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
31,882 posts, read 34,379,372 times
Reputation: 14966
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
Because he does not. He uses the polling averages and ignores the undecideds. TPM, Huff Post, and RCP are simply polling averages, they are not projections or models.
No he doesn't.

Quote:
Instead of relying on any sort of theoretical calculation of the margin of error, therefore, we instead model it directly based on the past performance of our forecasting model in Senatorial elections since 1998. Our analysis has found that certain factors are predictably associated with a greater degree of uncertainty. For instance:
  • The error is higher in races with fewer polls
  • The error is higher in races where the polls disagree with one another.
  • The error is higher when there are a larger number of undecided voters.
  • The error is higher when the margin between the two candidates is lopsided.
  • The error is higher the further one is from Election Day.
Depending on the mixture of these circumstances, a lead that is quite safe under certain conditions may be quite vulnerable in others. Our goal is simply to model the error explicitly, rather than to take a one-size-fits-all approach.
This is clearly a variable in his methodology. I think someone with a Math/Econ degree from the University of Chicago would include undecided voters in his model.

Methodology - NYTimes.com
 
Old 10-22-2012, 12:43 PM
 
Location: Raleigh, NC
20,054 posts, read 18,210,832 times
Reputation: 3826
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
Here is the new Suffolk poll:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/doc...lk_OH_1022.pdf

Tied

This sample voted for Obama over McCain by almost 7 in 2008. Obama won the state by 4.6.
This is very interesting. I wonder if anyone has some stats on how off the polls are from the actual final results and if that "RCP average" can be determined. If the remaining polls show this 1-2% difference between D/R...

No one has taken into account the Johnson factor and how it hurts Obama in NV and possibly Oregon. "Free the Weed" is not something Obama is fond of doing, and NV and Portland LOOOOOOOVE their weed.
 
Old 10-22-2012, 12:44 PM
 
Location: Texas
14,975 posts, read 16,390,481 times
Reputation: 4586
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
No he doesn't.



This is clearly a variable in his methodology. I think someone with a Math/Econ degree from the University of Chicago would include undecided voters in his model.

Methodology - NYTimes.com
He simply said the margin of error is higher when there are more undecideds. He did not say he splits them any specific way in his model. It seems that he is splitting them fairly evenly.
 
Old 10-22-2012, 12:45 PM
 
3,620 posts, read 3,813,727 times
Reputation: 1512
I need more then one poll showing a tie to convince me Ohio is goomg Romney.
 
Old 10-22-2012, 12:46 PM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
31,882 posts, read 34,379,372 times
Reputation: 14966
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
He simply said the margin of error is higher when there are more undecideds. He did not say he splits them any specific way in his model. It seems that he is splitting them fairly evenly.
What do you mean "it seems he is splitting them fairly evenly?" I'd like to see you prove this (along with Jack Welch proving the BLS "manipulated" data).
 
Old 10-22-2012, 12:47 PM
 
Location: Raleigh, NC
20,054 posts, read 18,210,832 times
Reputation: 3826
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
What do you mean "it seems he is splitting them fairly evenly?" I'd like to see you prove this (along with Jack Welch proving the BLS "manipulated" data).
What does Jack Welch have to do with polling?
 
Old 10-22-2012, 12:48 PM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
31,882 posts, read 34,379,372 times
Reputation: 14966
Quote:
Originally Posted by summers73 View Post
What does Jack Welch have to do with polling?
He also has a penchant for making baseless assertions.
 
Old 10-22-2012, 12:50 PM
 
Location: Texas
14,975 posts, read 16,390,481 times
Reputation: 4586
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
What do you mean "it seems he is splitting them fairly evenly?" I'd like to see you prove this (along with Jack Welch proving the BLS "manipulated" data).
There was no manipulated BLS data, but it was likely a statistical fluke given that the (more reliable) establishment survey showed just 114,000 new jobs and the household survey showed 873,000 more people working. Obama just got very lucky.

Look at his averages.

Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com

The averages seem to be very similar to the projected vote shares (though the adjusted averages, which he also uses, do look better for Romney, so perhaps he is adjusting for undecideds there, though I think he is simply adjusting for biases in the polls and for trends in the national and other state polls since polls were conducted).

As far as the probabilities, he seems to say that a candidate has a ~70% chance of winning a state if he thinks they are up in the state by ~2. When you look at RCP averages from past elections, there are A LOT of cases where a candidate was up by 2 or even more in a state and the other one. So, I also think he overstates that probability of something happening.

I believe he only has a Bachelor's degree in economics. He's not a PhD or anything. And I believe he has no math degree.

Last edited by afoigrokerkok; 10-22-2012 at 01:19 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top