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.
Just finished Silver's book (very good), and he himself says that individual predictors rarely beat the market.
Intrade is holding at about 66% Obama, 34% Romney.
I think Silver's model is designed to uptick as it gradually decouples from economic fundamentals and leans more and more toward polls. It must also recognize inertia. Namely, all things being equal, it is hard for things to majorly change with only a couple days than a couple months, as we have all seen. Not much can turn the ship now ( I was going to say cannot turn the Titanic, but that is not exactly flattering to Obama ....).
To elaborate on Ohio and state polls in general, only once in the history of Presidential state polling has a state which has been polled at least three times in the last 10 days of an election seen the candidate trailing overcome an aggregate poll deficit of greater than 1.3%.
The Ohio poll aggregate since 10/27 (ten days out from the election) is Obama +3.0%.
Yep. That's pretty hard to overcome. I think Silver has known it for a while, but he preaches the Bayesian gospel of keeping more than one outcome in mind. As more data come in, one tends to grow and the others shrink as we go from crude prediction to informed prediction to real event.
I am not voting Romney and I do not buy into this.
Me either. I keep hearing this is a close race - within the margin of error in Ohio - so I don't understnad how Obama can have an 85% chance of winning.
(Suffolk polled the race three times, under-polling Obama each time -- but in the ballpark once, at least)
Look at the Undecided and Compare, (2012) PPP (D) had a 15 point lead with 1% undecided, the rest of the polls where between 2-6% undecided.
Those polls in 08 generally had 10+% undecided.
Interesting to read this today. I don't like the title or tone.I don't think you would be stupid to be doubtful.
For the pundits who continually act like Romney is up, I would say the most likely adjective is dishonesty, not stupidity. He is right to be angry about them, but I am afraid that calling people stupid seems rather crass.
[***EDIT: The shot title of the link above make perfect sense (did not see it until after I saved the post). The reporting misinforms, not that the doubtful are stupid. The title of the article claimed anyone who considers the election close IS stupid. Krugman is simply saying the obvious, that all the political machinery needs it to seem close for their own purposed, so they create a phony horse race. As I say, that is not stupid, just deceitful. I get why Krugman is pissed and dismissive.]
Last edited by Fiddlehead; 11-04-2012 at 10:16 AM..
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.
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.
