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.
You seem to be mistaking odds with predicted vote counts or something.
Or something.
As I mentioned before, I liquidated most of my positions in the market mid-September, except for certain long-term growth positions as well as a few short-term short positions. That should tell you what I thought.
Quote:
Originally Posted by brooklynborndad
The state polls that Silver (and other poll aggregators) relied on indicated BOTH that Obama was ahead in the swing states AND that it was close in the swing states. 5 polls showing a 2% Obama lead confirm a 2% Obama lead, they do not suggest a 10% Obama lead. The polls turn and Silver et al turned out to be right about likely turn out, and right about the party ID (per the exit polls).
as for being backward looking the track record over several elections, IIUC, is that the last polls before the election ARE pretty good for forecasting.
Yes and no. The very last polls can be good, yes, but that's not exactly very helpful, is it in terms of mid- to long-term predictions? Again, aggregation is much, much better.
Silver was right, but for the wrong reasons. I don't want to go into a long-winded statistical conversation here, but he was rather lucky. Anyone can get lucky once or even twice. It's hard to get lucky consistently. Let's see how well he does in the future.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVA1990
Other than FL it didn't seem like there were any real surprises.
Actually, big surprises everywhere. Obama lost about 9 million voters compared to 2008. Had Romney held McCain numbers, he'd have won. He didn't -- Romney lost about 2 million or so from McCain's 2008 numbers.
President Obama set all kinds of "first time" records, including the first to be re-elected with an unemployment rate above 7.2% since the last mid-century and, more saliently, the first president to be re-elected without expanding his earlier number (in fact, he lost a lot of voters), something even GW Bush was able to do.
Another surprise was the outstanding GOTV machine the Obama campaign built despite the lack of enthusiasm and other very strong headwinds. Whatever his lack of governing skills, the president is certainly an exceptional campaigner. In that regard, he quite reminds me of the last president.
Yes and no. The very last polls can be good, yes, but that's not exactly very helpful, is it in terms of mid- to long-term predictions? Again, aggregation is much, much better..
Silvers model actually included both polls and other factors, including macro econ variables, etc. With the polls increasing in weight as the election got closer.
Quote:
Silver was right, but for the wrong reasons. I don't want to go into a long-winded statistical conversation here, but he was rather lucky. Anyone can get lucky once or even twice. It's hard to get lucky consistently. Let's see how well he does in the future. .
Again, it wasn't just Silver. IIUC it was every modeler using mathematical techniques and publishing the results. Silver got more visibility cause his blog is in the NYT, and cause as a result certain right wing pundits made it a point of attacking him personally, including for his appearance.
And he has been right before. But certainly it will be interesting to see how well he and others using similar techniques, will do in the future.
I would of course love to know what techniques George Will used that enable him to forecast Romney winning Minnesota. Did he use vibrations, like Anne Coulter did?
The point being not that Silvers or anyone else's techniques are perfect. Its that A. there was a lot of misunderstanding of what the partisan ID numbers in the polls meant - there was the implication in many critques that the pollsters had estimated them, rather than that they were the result of observation (and properly so, since they vary in ways that demographic variables do not) B. Many GOP pundits who either were guilty of that misunderstanding, or were not even aware of the issue, dissed a serious mathematical modeler, and accused him of partisan bias, when as far as anyone can tell, he was simply applying his model.
No few of those pundits, regularly call climate scientists "politically biased". There is no evidence that people like Mr Will, Mr Krauthammer, et al have any greater understanding of climate models than they do of election models, or that they have any stronger evidence of bias in that case.
"President Obama set all kinds of "first time" records, including the first to be re-elected with an unemployment rate above 7.2% since the last mid-century and, more saliently, the first president to be re-elected without expanding his earlier number (in fact, he lost a lot of voters), something even GW Bush was able to do."
but that that happened was not a surprise to folks doing the modeling. Since the summer. With regard to the UE rate, apparently the public was more able to understand the shape of a curve, and the nature of the financial crisis, than they were given credit for.
"Another surprise was the outstanding GOTV machine the Obama campaign built despite the lack of enthusiasm and other very strong headwinds."
The lack of enthusiasm seems to have been overblown - or else dissipated by certain aspects of the GOP campaign (that Axelrod et al were good at getting out the vote has been known for a while)
Quote:
" Whatever his lack of governing skills,".
I see what you did there.
Quote:
the president is certainly an exceptional campaigner..
on the contrary. Look again at the bill clinton speech from the DNC. That was the case FOR Obama, that BHO himself REPEATEDLY failed to make. he was a mediocre campaigner THIS time around, because the case he had to make - a wonky explanation of how the case against him was deeply dishonest - was one he was uncomfortable making - he wanted to be Lincoln, and he needed to be Truman. Bill Clinton, who relishes that stuff, was a better campaigner in general, and particularly in this kind of election. Had it been Bill Clinton running, he would have gotten a much higher vote than BHO did.
Silvers model actually included both polls and other factors, including macro econ variables, etc. With the polls increasing in weight as the election got closer.
Actually Silvers model did not take into account a number of factors that, in my view, weighed somewhat heavily in the last week of the election.
Quote:
I would of course love to know what techniques George Will used that enable him to forecast Romney winning Minnesota. Did he use vibrations, like Anne Coulter did?
We could have a serious discussion or we could just start calling people names and make silly remarks. Your choice.
Since I did not support Romney I am not privy to his internal numbers, but I would guess from what the conservative pundits wrote that some of his internal polling numbers were quite good (and the rightward shift of voters since 2008 vindicates that "optimism" to some extent). What they seemingly forgot was that their numbers are only half of the election equation, the very same mistake Democrats made with GW Bush.
Quote:
No few of those pundits, regularly call climate scientists "politically biased". There is no evidence that people like Mr Will, Mr Krauthammer, et al have any greater understanding of climate models than they do of election models, or that they have any stronger evidence of bias in that case.
Are we talking about "climate change" now? What happened to "global warming"? Why don't we stick to the issue at hand if we are serious.
Quote:
but that that happened was not a surprise to folks doing the modeling. Since the summer. With regard to the UE rate, apparently the public was more able to understand the shape of a curve, and the nature of the financial crisis, than they were given credit for.
The interesting part for me wasn't the unemployment number so much as the fact that he was re-elected while shrinking the aye number, for the first time in history. Typically when support for an incumbent evaporates, he loses as the undecided break for the alternative. When the numbers and methods become more transparent in the next several weeks, there may be some more interesting and intelligent things to say about the shifts in the last couple of weeks of the election.
Quote:
The lack of enthusiasm seems to have been overblown - or else dissipated by certain aspects of the GOP campaign (that Axelrod et al were good at getting out the vote has been known for a while)
Not overblown at all. Obama lost 9 million from 2008. You usually lose with down shifts like that. And crowds of 30,000 in Western PA were not a mirage. There was a lot of enthusiasm for Romney after the first debate. There were some other factors.
Quote:
on the contrary. Look again at the bill clinton speech from the DNC. That was the case FOR Obama, that BHO himself REPEATEDLY failed to make. he was a mediocre campaigner THIS time around, because the case he had to make - a wonky explanation of how the case against him was deeply dishonest - was one he was uncomfortable making - he wanted to be Lincoln, and he needed to be Truman. Bill Clinton, who relishes that stuff, was a better campaigner in general, and particularly in this kind of election. Had it been Bill Clinton running, he would have gotten a much higher vote than BHO did.
Had it been Bill Clinton running (and I loathe Clinton for his utter lack of dignity and morality), he'd have won easily because the economy would have recovered faster and better. He is considerably more business-friendly than Obama. His displeasure with Obama isn't simply over his wife's defeat -- it has a lot to do with the Obama folks dismantling the "centrist" Democratic infrastructure Clinton folks built.
Yes, the "I'm just a good old country boy with a huge heart for poor folks" style that Clinton employs does connect better with the public than Obama's "I'm the messiah and just do as I say and punish those who disobey me" routine (Mrs. Obama once said in an interview that "Even he has to be reminded sometimes that he is a mere mortal like the rest of us" -- think about that remark from his wife a little bit). But when I say the president is an excellent campaigner, I don't mean personal attitude, speaking style or affinity for politics (or indeed people), I mean the cold, calculating ability and discipline to see situations for what they are and selecting the right set of tools and people to get (by whatever margin) the result one desires. It's too bad the president is exceptional at that kind of management in the political campaigning context, but so horrible at it in the governing context.
As much as I happen to be a strident conservative and did fantastically well during his tenure in financial terms (I benefit from financial uncertainty and turmoil because I happen to be a highly opportunistic, if risk averse, investor), I was very proud to see America's first non-white president and I genuinely wanted the economy to recover quickly given how much many ordinary people have suffered for it. But he squandered this good will and desire for recovery even his ideological opponents held for him.
I had a similar thought about GW Bush, especially after the re-election.
Another surprise was the outstanding GOTV machine the Obama campaign built despite the lack of enthusiasm and other very strong headwinds. Whatever his lack of governing skills, the president is certainly an exceptional campaigner. In that regard, he quite reminds me of the last president.
Why was that a surprise? The Democrats had much of that back in 2008 and refined it some over the intervening four years. I remember seeing very targeted computer generated canvassing lists back then. A smart political operative on the other side should have recognized that. Perhaps they did but were deluded into thinking all the ad dollars following Citizens United would trump the Obama ground game.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IndiaLimaDelta
Actually, big surprises everywhere. Obama lost about 9 million voters compared to 2008. Had Romney held McCain numbers, he'd have won. He didn't -- Romney lost about 2 million or so from McCain's 2008 numbers.
That shouldn't have been a surprise when nearly all the political activity was focused on a small number of battleground states. I haven't looked at the numbers but I suspect the voter turnout numbers on both sides were comparable to 2008 in these states while most of the falloff occurred in states where little if any effort was expended by either side. Bringing this closer to home, I believe turnout was about the same here in VA.
Getting back to political signs, yesterday I had to drive down to Springfield and was pleasantly surprised to see almost no signs. People seem to have done a good job of removing them promptly this year. At least on the route I took. Bravo.
Getting back to political signs, yesterday I had to drive down to Springfield and was pleasantly surprised to see almost no signs. People seem to have done a good job of removing them promptly this year. At least on the route I took. Bravo.
Whatever the reason, I'm glad to see them gone. I really dislike political signs (can you tell? ) If the only reason to give them out and put them up is to "reward" the workers, I hope they switch to a better reward. Starbucks certificates cost about the same, why not hand those out?
Getting back to political signs, yesterday I had to drive down to Springfield and was pleasantly surprised to see almost no signs. People seem to have done a good job of removing them promptly this year. At least on the route I took. Bravo.
There are still plenty of signs up - both Obama and Romney.
I agree that it's past time to have taken them down....
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.
) If the only reason to give them out and put them up is to "reward" the workers, I hope they switch to a better reward. Starbucks certificates cost about the same, why not hand those out?
