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)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 07-15-2016, 08:44 AM
 
Location: Old Mother Idaho
21,237 posts, read 14,265,296 times
Reputation: 15731

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by ~HecateWhisperCat~ View Post
Yes, but that's because he believed the polls showing him ahead were not accurate. Honestly, he was right to call it like that. Early poll leaders traditionally crash and burn. Dean, Edwards, Giuliani, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich were all early favorites polling wise.
Silver admitted his own bias, and studied it carefully, so that it would be cleaned away when he was preparing for the general campaign statistics.

Like just about everyone in the U.S., Sliver was unsure at first of how serious about running Trump was.

I think the guy's objectivity is remarkable. He not only recognized his own bias, something a lot of people simply cannot ever do, he used it as a study of confirmation bias to apply to his statistical studies.

Confirmation bias was what caused Karl Rove's rampage through the Fox News set on election night when Fox announced Romney loss early.
Rove's biased opinion that Romney could not lose was so strong he could not accept any facts to the contrary, so there must have been a statistical mistake. There was no mistake.

We all have a confirmation bias on something or someone. That's why some people swear Fords are superior and try to porve thier claim, while others say Chevrolets are superior and do exactly the same thing.
Biases abound in lots of things in our daily lives. Politics is only one of them.

In many instances, the bias is beyond the ability of facts to decide it either way. A choice of a Martin or a Gibson guitar is an example of this. 2 well built, quality, popular instruments that have different sound qualities.

2 guitar players will argue which sounds best all day long, but to a non-player, the differences in sound between them cannot even be distinguished.

 
Old 07-15-2016, 08:48 AM
 
4,084 posts, read 1,983,237 times
Reputation: 2358
i predict the election is unpredictable. too many variables and moving parts.
 
Old 07-15-2016, 09:08 AM
 
Location: Tennessee
34,602 posts, read 33,591,161 times
Reputation: 51713
If he's wrong again, he's through being the wonder boy.
 
Old 07-15-2016, 09:22 AM
 
16,705 posts, read 9,068,315 times
Reputation: 6751
Quote:
Originally Posted by theunbrainwashed View Post
Lol, you're using Silver's methodology on the primary elections with the general election? Intellectual laziness at best, the primary and general demographics are WAY WAY different. That being said, RCP average still has Hillary beating Trump. If Silver is so inaccurate, why was he the only pollster, if not one of the extremely few count-them-with-one-hand pollsters that accurately predicted Obama grandslamming Mittens?
#1 Silver is not a pollster he analyzes polls' data to adjust the polls to what he feels is the most likely outcome.

#2 The RCP simple average.....think about this a second.....the RCP simple average of recent polls, has beat out his statistical analysis. Simply average recent polls has beaten his statistical analysis in the 2008 election, 2012 primaries, and 2016 primaries - and the 2014 midterms. He has beaten the simple average in 2012. WOW.

You have to be brainwashed to think that his analysis of polls is so amazing since it hasn't beaten elementary math most of the time.

#3 I am not commenting on Hillary vs Trump, I am commenting on the wunderkind's analysis.

Seriously, for every race he has analyzed polls on and made predictions - the simple average of recent polls on RCP has a better head to head record on. Most of the time RCP slightly wins, Silver w slightly beat out RCP in simple average in 2012, but RCP has won BIG in 2016. How is that amazing analysis unless you are a fawning liberal?

Last edited by michiganmoon; 07-15-2016 at 09:34 AM..
 
Old 07-15-2016, 09:25 AM
 
25,059 posts, read 23,093,754 times
Reputation: 11618
Quote:
Originally Posted by LauraC View Post
If he's wrong again, he's through being the wonder boy.
He could be wrong "again" but when it comes to general elections he hasn't been wrong is the thing. People keep saying he got the primaries wrong, yeah those are primaries, they have vastly different demographics than a general election. The two do not compare.

The only way Trump is gonna win is if a major terrorist attack happens either here or in Europe right before the election, a so-called October Surprise. Trump is such a weak candidate that this is the only way he can win, and that's pathetic.

However if such an attack does happen, then it's clear the establishment wants Trump to win, that he was never this maverick outsider that his supporters think he is.
 
Old 07-15-2016, 09:46 AM
 
Location: Tennessee
34,602 posts, read 33,591,161 times
Reputation: 51713
Quote:
Originally Posted by banjomike View Post
Silver admitted his own bias, and studied it carefully, so that it would be cleaned away when he was preparing for the general campaign statistics.

Like just about everyone in the U.S., Sliver was unsure at first of how serious about running Trump was.

I think the guy's objectivity is remarkable. He not only recognized his own bias, something a lot of people simply cannot ever do, he used it as a study of confirmation bias to apply to his statistical studies.

Confirmation bias was what caused Karl Rove's rampage through the Fox News set on election night when Fox announced Romney loss early.
Rove's biased opinion that Romney could not lose was so strong he could not accept any facts to the contrary, so there must have been a statistical mistake. There was no mistake.

We all have a confirmation bias on something or someone. That's why some people swear Fords are superior and try to porve thier claim, while others say Chevrolets are superior and do exactly the same thing.
Biases abound in lots of things in our daily lives. Politics is only one of them.

In many instances, the bias is beyond the ability of facts to decide it either way. A choice of a Martin or a Gibson guitar is an example of this. 2 well built, quality, popular instruments that have different sound qualities.

2 guitar players will argue which sounds best all day long, but to a non-player, the differences in sound between them cannot even be distinguished.
I think a big problem is media people and pollsters stuck in their ways. I think the polls aren't asking the right questions and pollsters (and some candidates) are too rigid to pivot from what worked for them in the past. I'll give you an example with the primaries. The big crowd drawers were Trump and Sanders. If the pollsters got out of their offices and attended rallies of the two men, saw what got rises out of the people, they might have asked a few trade/jobs questions. Instead, they typically asked overall economy questions.

Ted Cruz's Plan A was apparently that he was the only true conservative and that he was Religious Guy. Then, why did he lose every single state in the Southeast? If the pollsters were asking the right questions Cruz and his team should have known the top issue for evangelicals wasn't necessarily same sex marriage and abortion THIS ELECTION CYCLE. As one of the big name church leaders said, evangelicals are worried about jobs just like everyone else. Jeb Bush and his team were the worst. They had a game plan based on what always worked in the past and couldn't pivot at all, throwing a lot of money down the drain in the process. If anything it showed Bush wasn't the guy you wanted in the White House who could read what was really going on in a crisis and quickly adapt and I think the way he spent other people's money like a drunken sailor indicated he'd do the same thing in the White House with our tax dollars.

Now the pollsters may not be asking the right questions because they are biased. I noticed during the early primary season, the pollsters asked a "strong leadership" question on which Trump was overwhelmingly killing. Later in the primary season that question disappeared from polls. You have to wonder.
 
Old 07-15-2016, 10:12 AM
 
Location: Mountain Home, ID
1,955 posts, read 3,000,936 times
Reputation: 2411
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnywhereElse View Post
Unless you can provide links, you have several errors in your list of what Trump has said. Do you work for CNN?

Clinton doesn't need to declare bankruptcy because she runs a money laundering scheme, surely you have heard of the Clinton Foundation, that one where in most years less than 10% of the money directly reached the charities and who more than a couple of people are calling for its investigation? Rep. Marsha Blackburn seeks probe of Clinton Foundation
Which factually-challenged right winger blog or talk show did you pull this statement from? The Clinton Foundation's financial records are a matter of public record. Why don't you look into them before parroting lies? Here, I'll even make it easy for you:

https://www.clintonfoundation.org/si...financials.pdf

But I'm going to put on my fortune teller hat and predict your next argument to be "b-b-but you can't trust their financial statements" in which case your civic duty is to contact the IRS with your proof because I'm sure they'd be very interested that a large nonprofit is cheating on their taxes.
 
Old 07-15-2016, 11:56 AM
 
Location: Denver CO
21,016 posts, read 11,641,475 times
Reputation: 31892
Quote:
Originally Posted by ~HecateWhisperCat~ View Post
You should check out his podcasts then . He regularly points out that factors can and will change to alter the model. The fact that Trump won made him alter his model to include other levels of data. Other groups such as Benchmark politics did the same thing.
Nope.

Quote:
What’s new in the model since 2012?
  • Not that much! It’s mostly the same model as the one we used to successfully forecast the 2008 and 2012 elections.
  • There’s no special variable for Republican Donald Trump or Democrat Hillary Clinton. They’re treated the same as any other candidates would be with the same polling numbers.
  • We built procedures to handle Libertarian Gary Johnson and other third-party candidates.
  • We double-checked lots of assumptions and code.
  • We’re now showing different versions of the model: the polls-only and polls-plus forecasts, and the now-cast (what would happen in an election held today).
A User’s Guide To FiveThirtyEight’s 2016 General Election Forecast
 
Old 07-16-2016, 06:02 AM
 
Location: North America
14,210 posts, read 10,072,890 times
Reputation: 5546
Remain in ignorance then ~shrugs~.
 
Old 07-16-2016, 08:38 AM
 
17,027 posts, read 9,525,549 times
Reputation: 5701
66.2% chance of winning?


I doubt Chelsea even buys that.
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
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - 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 - Top