Skip to main content

View Diary: Stochastic Democracy vs FiveThirtyEight (39 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  It can't hurt. (0+ / 0-)

    It just struck me because he had Begich at 98-100% for awhile and it was the only call he made wrong.

    The run off is really a wash here because he wasn't testing that hypothesis.

    The other thing I think is cool about this is the opportunities you can scope out on the fly.  For example, WV started trending towards Obama later in October.  I think that heralded an opportunity ripe for the picking.   I think they could have won that state with a frontal assault that played to the mine workers.  But I understand why they wanted to use all resources for VA.  In essence, I think they sacrificed an opportunity to break into Appalachia, but that is a small point against the big picture.

    •  Once again, Maybe (0+ / 0-)

      The Georgia thing: Nate did make a statement that if thinks a Chamblis victory was the most likely outcome(He assigned probabilities 50/40/10 for Chambliss/Runoff/Martin )

      He never formally tested it, but he put it in his final senate sheet, so I'd say including it is fair.

      As for West Virginia:

      You might be right. I've actually just started working with someone on studying the effect of campaign spending on polls. (We're using the surprisingly detailed campaign financial statements). The guy I'm working with is quite a bit smarter than me, so I'm sure we'll come up with something good.

      Fail that, I'm sure Nate will take a look at it too.

      With that sort of model, we'll be able to look at What-Ifs more effectively.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site