Skip to main content

View Diary: Nate Silver is too kind to Romney! (54 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  asdf (13+ / 0-)

    Nate Silver and Sam Wang were the two most accurate predictors in 2008.

    And their current models agree almost perfectly.

    Obama with 290+ EVs and about a 2-1 chance of victory.

    Sadly, everything Communism said about itself was a lie. Even more sadly,, everything Communism said about Capitalism was the truth.

    by GayIthacan on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 05:20:46 PM PDT

    •  Both (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      highacidity

      of their projects match oddmakers.  And the models were developed separately.  

      Over time the math will add up or it won't.

      "There are four boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order." Ed Howdershelt

      by Lava20 on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 05:23:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Wang has Obama at 90% (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Iseeurfuture, elwior

        Nate is the outlier of the objective statistical aggregators.

        •  asdf (3+ / 0-)

          Nate:

          OBAMA - 289  ROMNEY - 249

          Sam:

          OBAMA - 293  ROMNEY - 245

          Sorry - I see little differece.

          Sadly, everything Communism said about itself was a lie. Even more sadly,, everything Communism said about Capitalism was the truth.

          by GayIthacan on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 05:37:31 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  But Wang projects 90% odds for Obama (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            elwior

            Though they both predict the same mean, the probability they project are different. Nate 68-70% for Obama. Wang 85-90% for Obama.

            •  I believe Wang is like Nate's "Now-Cast" (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              highacidity

              That is, he is trying to predict "if the election were held today."

              Not that he and Nate will always agree on that basis, but we should compare apples-to-apples.

              Numbers are like people . . . Torture them enough and they'll tell you anything.

              by Actuary4Change on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 06:00:53 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  If (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Demi Moaned

            you use more numbers then you increase certainty.

            Promise you Wang would not place any money on a 90 percent win with the stunts and stupidity of the people we are dealing with.

            "There are four boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order." Ed Howdershelt

            by Lava20 on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 05:41:42 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Wang has stated his belief that Obama has 90% odds (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            elwior

            He doesn't have a break-out probability like Nate does, but Wang believes, based on his model, that Obama should be seen as about a 90% favorite to win.

            The pleasure of hating...eats into the heart of religion...[and] makes patriotism an excuse for carrying fire, pestilence, and famine into other lands. - W. Hazlitt

            by rfahey22 on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 05:42:52 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  i (0+ / 0-)

              Also think there is a warren effect that needs to be consider with both.

              Birthers have been working at it for four years.

              Popular vote odds seem a factor here.

              "There are four boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order." Ed Howdershelt

              by Lava20 on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 05:57:02 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  When (0+ / 0-)

          money is on the line, markets and models may vary.  I believe in markets and look for the subtle trends etc. for each one.

          One must factor in stunts and the campaign itself.  You have to consider that everything will have to go according to plan the entire time for that 90 percent to happen.

          No one would risk the loss Wang projects.  You have to factor in the stupidity of people and the shenanigans they will try.

          "There are four boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order." Ed Howdershelt

          by Lava20 on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 05:40:07 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  True. But that was BEFORE Nate sold (0+ / 0-)

      538 to the NYT.

      I know you believe you understood what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant. -- S.I. Hayakawa

      by tapu dali on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 05:59:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Odds... (0+ / 0-)

      Sam Wang has the odds of an Obama win much higher -- he said 9:1 on NPR, but that seems high from his graphs.

      The real question is whether the errors are going to be dominated by random errors related to the statistics of polling, or by systematic errors (voter suppression etc).  Nate attempts to correct for systematics he can identify, Sam doesn't, but tries to incorporate it into his "confidence" windows.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site