Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2012/11/01 20:57:17
Subject: This will be an election you tell your kids about
matphat wrote: When was the last time a presidential race WASN'T neck in neck?
I'm starting to think this is a fabrication of the news industry to keep viewership up.
Your closer to the truth than you think.
I was watching Nate Silver, a statistician, the other day, and he gave Obama a 77.4% to get re-elected. This guy seems to be pretty hard nerd core and is an much of an expert as I think we can expect.
It makes for crap news, however, to say that Obama has a 77.4% chance to get re-elected. That's why news companies are going to spin it as a 'neck in neck' race to get more viewers. More viewers = more money.
Well, it isn't just that the media likes to show a closer race (though that is certainly a thing), but national level polls are showing a neck and neck race right now. It's just that moving down to state level analysis shows a much stronger picture for Obama. The media reports almost entirely on day by day national polls, while 538 is at it's core a state by state electoral college predictor.
Which wouldn't normally mean much, but as 538 wrote today, but at some fundamental level there is a disconnect between state and national polls in this election cycle. As in, it isn't just an electoral advantage for Obama, but if you weight all the state polls by their voting turnouts and gross them up, the picture quite different to what the national polls are showing. The article he posted today on the issue is really interesting. It's a pretty odd statistical quirk.
eh... Nate Silver said in 2009 that any candidate losing the independents "must necessarily" lost the race.
Romney is leading the Independents by 8 (48 - 40)... but, Nate just increased Obama's lead by 1.21 gigawatts... what ever that means...
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2012/11/02 03:00:04
Subject: This will be an election you tell your kids about
whembly wrote: eh... Nate Silver said in 2009 that any candidate losing the independents "must necessarily" lost the race.
Romney is leading the Independents by 8 (48 - 40)... but, Nate just increased Obama's lead by 1.21 gigawatts... what ever that means...
I just spent the time to try and explain myself fully and completely, and you respond with some cut and paste bs from a half brained conservative blog called Ace of Spades. That's just lazy, man.
Meanwhile, if there's any point arguing with a copy and paste from some blog, the problem with "Romney is leading the independants" is that if you look at those polls giving Romney a huge lead among independants, you see a really big lead in party identification favouring the Democrats. As in, where there's an 8 or 10 point advantage to Romney among independants, you a party identification lead to Democrats of about the same. In surveys where the the split among independants is small, the party identification drops away to just a couple of points (which is about the traditional difference between the two parties).
When you see that trend followed closely over a dozen or more polls, it becomes clear that "Romney is winning independants" thing is actually misleading. What we're actually seeing is "conservative people who prefer Romney don't want to call themselves Republicans".
At which point, the 'ha ha we trapped you Nate Silver" thing spreading out across the blogosphere is actually shown as the obnoxious prattle it is. Meanwhile, Silver just keeps tracking the state polls, plugging those numbers into his model and coming to the common sense conclusion that only one out of about 20 state polls has given Romney a lead in Ohio, the Obama has to be the favourite.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/11/02 03:01:43
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2012/11/02 03:21:45
Subject: This will be an election you tell your kids about
whembly wrote: eh... Nate Silver said in 2009 that any candidate losing the independents "must necessarily" lost the race.
Romney is leading the Independents by 8 (48 - 40)... but, Nate just increased Obama's lead by 1.21 gigawatts... what ever that means...
I just spent the time to try and explain myself fully and completely, and you respond with some cut and paste bs from a half brained conservative blog called Ace of Spades. That's just lazy, man.
Meanwhile, if there's any point arguing with a copy and paste from some blog, the problem with "Romney is leading the independants" is that if you look at those polls giving Romney a huge lead among independants, you see a really big lead in party identification favouring the Democrats. As in, where there's an 8 or 10 point advantage to Romney among independants, you a party identification lead to Democrats of about the same. In surveys where the the split among independants is small, the party identification drops away to just a couple of points (which is about the traditional difference between the two parties).
When you see that trend followed closely over a dozen or more polls, it becomes clear that "Romney is winning independants" thing is actually misleading. What we're actually seeing is "conservative people who prefer Romney don't want to call themselves Republicans".
At which point, the 'ha ha we trapped you Nate Silver" thing spreading out across the blogosphere is actually shown as the obnoxious prattle it is. Meanwhile, Silver just keeps tracking the state polls, plugging those numbers into his model and coming to the common sense conclusion that only one out of about 20 state polls has given Romney a lead in Ohio, the Obama has to be the favourite.
Yeah, I was lazy... (warning... sorta halfway drunk now... if I'm incoherent, much apologies)
Okay... let's engage shall we?
Polling is crapshoot... well, that's too harsh, but polling data is being emphasized waaaay too much. I'm mean, there's a scientific methodology used on polling, but at the end of the day, it doesn't capture the most important thing... and that is, which lever they pull on the election day.
A lot of these polls anticipate the same turnout in 2008, for the 2012 elections. It simply won't happen that way. The 2008 model is an exteme end, as well as the midterm 2010. It'll probably be between the '08 model and '10 model this year.
On top of that, my issue with Nate Silver's methodology is the SAME issue I have with those who attempt to predict who will win the World Series in spring training. Yes, I'm talking about sabermetric... (trust me, the debate on this can get epic) it's inherently flawed because it can't ever predict the nuances on the way the game is actually played.
He's often accused of “weighting” some state polls to give an edge to Obama, and the distribution of that weighting is highly subjective and there's merits to these accusations. He may be right... we'll see in a few days eh?
EDIT 1;
Here's some EV ruminations... Romney leads in all the states McCain carried in 2008 for 179 electoral votes.
He's also convincingly ahead in Indiana , N. Carolina, Florida, Colorado [whoa, what happened here?], and Virginia... if my fuzzy math is right, then he's at 255 of the needed 270 EV.
There's serious optimism that Romney would win Ohio, NH and IA...
Penn is in play... WTH! Romney is outspending Obama 6 to 1 in this state... that'd be the true shocker if he gets this...
Obama is playing catchup in WI and MN! You'd think these blue states are his safe states, but he's spending some Advertising money there... that's less money for Ohio / Penn...
Plus... this Bengahzi thing is picking up steam... Obama is looking bad from this.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/11/02 03:31:31
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2012/11/02 03:24:48
Subject: This will be an election you tell your kids about
d-usa wrote: Just incredibly hard for any third party to become registered in this state and place a candidate on the ballot.
Here is a map of all the states where you can vote for Gary Johnson, notice how many states have zero options for voting for the Libertarian Party:
Now repeat that map for every other third party. We have not had a third party or indepentend candidate for President on our ballot since 2000.
Yeah... that's sucks.
Both the Dems and Reps want to keep the ballot monoply...
I'd be in favor for opening up all parties... like "The GW-fanboi" party... cuz, we need a national tournament and subsidized cheetos/moutain dews for everyone.
Automatically Appended Next Post: heck hem... Seb... here's something interesting.
According to their updated analysis, Romney is projected to receive 330 of the total 538 Electoral College votes. President Barack Obama is expected to receive 208 votes -- down five votes from their initial prediction
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/11/02 04:16:53
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2012/11/02 05:26:35
Subject: Re:This will be an election you tell your kids about
whembly wrote: Yeah, I was lazy... (warning... sorta halfway drunk now... if I'm incoherent, much apologies)
Nah, your post was pretty clear. But that website you quoted from will do way worse things for your brain than any amount of alcohol
Polling is crapshoot... well, that's too harsh, but polling data is being emphasized waaaay too much. I'm mean, there's a scientific methodology used on polling, but at the end of the day, it doesn't capture the most important thing... and that is, which lever they pull on the election day.
A lot of these polls anticipate the same turnout in 2008, for the 2012 elections. It simply won't happen that way. The 2008 model is an exteme end, as well as the midterm 2010. It'll probably be between the '08 model and '10 model this year.
And you'll find most every polling group uses a likely voter methodology that factors in a range of elements... and ends up with turnout somewhere between 2008 and 2010.
On top of that, my issue with Nate Silver's methodology is the SAME issue I have with those who attempt to predict who will win the World Series in spring training. Yes, I'm talking about sabermetric... (trust me, the debate on this can get epic) it's inherently flawed because it can't ever predict the nuances on the way the game is actually played.
Yeah, I know the epic mess that is the sabremetrics debate. Like a lot of the folk in that debate, your argument reminds me of a lot of the people in that debate. Too often folk would argue for their own little stat observation, and when it is pointed out them why that observation doesn't really work, they quickly retreat into 'stats are bad'. Here you argued that Romney is polling well among independants, and when I pointed out that stat didn't really work, you retreated quickly to saying stats don't really work.
And yeah, analysis of polling data has inherent limits. It doesn't dictate the future, merely predict it, and within that there's only so much of the situation that can be read into the data, and only so much that can be predicted from it. That doesn't make such analysis useless, and Silver will be the first one to point out where his analysis begins and ends in terms of usefulness.
He's often accused of “weighting” some state polls to give an edge to Obama, and the distribution of that weighting is highly subjective and there's merits to these accusations. He may be right... we'll see in a few days eh?
He's accused of all sorts of things. That's the state of the modern blogosphere, whenever anyone says something you don't want to hear you reflexively claim bias and pretend it never happened. It makes some kind of sense when people do it on issues because that allows people to continue believing whatever they want to believe, but it makes no sense when it comes to something apolitical like 'by studying state polls who is most likely to win the election'.
There its just bloggers doing what they've always done, maintaining their fine tradition of preaching bs to the converted.
According to their updated analysis, Romney is projected to receive 330 of the total 538 Electoral College votes. President Barack Obama is expected to receive 208 votes -- down five votes from their initial prediction
You want to talk about problems with predicting elections based on polling data, but then talk about purely economic models? Those things are woeful.
Not that economic issues don't matter, but looking at them exclusively, and then building a model just on that is so limited it can't ever be more than a general guide. Political campaigns matter, politicians matter. There is, ultimately, a reason that parties don't run a campaign of 'the economy is poor so we're know we're going to win and here's our candidate a 36 year old head of lettuce'.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/11/02 05:31:22
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2012/11/02 05:36:10
Subject: This will be an election you tell your kids about
According to their updated analysis, Romney is projected to receive 330 of the total 538 Electoral College votes. President Barack Obama is expected to receive 208 votes -- down five votes from their initial prediction
That's apparently from a month ago, and I really don't see it happening. Even the best polls for Romney would only see him squeak by a win.
While I'm not silly enough to say that it's all wrapped up, especially as the effects of Hurricane Sandy are hard to gauge (but seem to be favouring Obama, especially after Chris Christie praised his leadership over it), but Obama has a significant advantage in the election at the moment. Don't believe individual poll, they can vary widely and house effects caused by different methodology can lead to misleading numbers, rather look at polls of polls, especially amalgamations of state polls which are more accurate. At the moment:
FiveThirtyEight's nate Silver has the following predictions up: 80% chance of Obama winning reelection, and he's on the upswing.
Princeton Electoral Consortium, which only looks at state polls: So they're giving over a 90% chance of victory for Obama.
Real Clear Politics, a right leaning poll accumulator:
The AP's map even rates Ohio as "leans Obama", and puts 270 Electoral votes as Strong or Leans Obama, so he won't even need any of the states they classify as Tossups. Meanwhlie, Romney has to win pretty much all the Tossups and Ohio to win, a very difficult proposition.:
Even the far right/Christian site Election-Projection is projecting an Obama win - and he HATES obama.
Finally, Huffington Post's Pollster has an interesting interactive chart which anyone interested in such things should check out. While their National Polls show Romney just in front (0.2%), taking away a single outlier pollster (Gallup, which shows Romeny as +5, which is pretty out there) out of the 60+ pollsters they track brings Obama in front by a similar margin, so we'll have to see if their methodology for picking likely voters is somewhat off, or if everyone else has it wrong.
However, Ohio is lining up to be the most important swing state, and it's currently going to Obama pretty solidly:
So yeah, odds are well on Obama, especially as he has stronger early voting and a stronger ground game/GOTV effort (double or triple the number of GOTV offices in major swing states).
Betting odds as well, most betting markets are putting Obama as about a 70-75% favorite. Certainly not a forgone conclusion, as I said, but he's odds on favorite.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2012/11/02 06:13:12
Looking for a club in Brisbane, Australia? Come and enjoy a game and a beer at Pubhammer, our friendly club in a pub at the Junction pub in Annerley (opposite Ace Comics), Sunday nights from 6:30. All brisbanites welcome, don't wait, check out our Club Page on Facebook group for details or to organize a game. We play all sorts of board and war games, so hit us up if you're interested.
Pubhammer is Moving! Starting from the 25th of May we'll be gaming at The Junction pub (AKA The Muddy Farmer), opposite Ace Comics & Games in Annerley! Still Sunday nights from 6:30 in the Function room Come along and play Warmachine, 40k, boardgames or anything else!
2012/11/02 05:52:28
Subject: Re:This will be an election you tell your kids about
Seaward wrote: I continue to believe that the D/R/I splits are optimistic in favor of Democrats this cycle, but we'll see in four days.
Statements like that just seem to imply that the polling firms are deciding what the D/R/I splits are going to be and calling people to get that ration...
2012/11/02 05:59:35
Subject: This will be an election you tell your kids about
whembly wrote: Here's some EV ruminations... Romney leads in all the states McCain carried in 2008 for 179 electoral votes.
McCain ended with 173 votes, and I think it's safe to say Romney will collect all of those. Meaning he's got to pick up 97 votes from elsewhere.
He's also convincingly ahead in Indiana , N. Carolina, Florida, Colorado [whoa, what happened here?], and Virginia... if my fuzzy math is right, then he's at 255 of the needed 270 EV.
Sure, add in Indiana, N. Carolina as certain Romney pickups, and you go to 199 votes. Florida and Colorado are actually split even right now (state polls on both are falling for each candidate about evenly, and always with a small margin) but for argument's sake we'll give them both Romney. That puts him on 235 votes.
There's serious optimism that Romney would win Ohio, NH and IA...
I could be seriously optimistic that I could take a running leap and launch myself over the Pacific... but physics says I'll end up wet and really disappointed.
Right now the only poll calling Iowa for Romney is Rasmussen. That's not a good sign.
Right now Rasumussen and the ocassaional other poll is calling Ohio for Romney. Also not a good sign.
No-one is calling New Hampshire for Romney.
Now, the margin in each of those states is tight, and any of them could fall for Romney, but Romney's problem is that he needs not just one but all of them to drop his way, to just squeak his way to 271 votes.
Well, actually, you add in Virginia as well, and Romney could stretch out to 284 votes.
But what that means is that, with Indiana and North Carolina as sure pick ups, he absolutely needs Florida and Ohio, neither of which are sure things, and then needs to collect all but one or two of Colorado, Iowa, New Hampshire and Virgnia.
That isn't impossible, it isn't even improbable, but it is certainly the kind of thing the underdog is left staring at.
Penn is in play... WTH! Romney is outspending Obama 6 to 1 in this state... that'd be the true shocker if he gets this...
It would be. Obama is leading there in polls by like 6 points. If Penn goes then it'll be part of a bizarre mega-landslide that no-one on Earth saw happening.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/11/02 06:03:34
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2012/11/02 06:27:05
Subject: This will be an election you tell your kids about
According to their updated analysis, Romney is projected to receive 330 of the total 538 Electoral College votes. President Barack Obama is expected to receive 208 votes -- down five votes from their initial prediction
Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha!
Romney with 330 to 208? Are you kidding me? What, did those Colorado guys make their fortunes off of Buster Douglas or something?
2012/11/02 07:23:18
Subject: This will be an election you tell your kids about
He's often accused of “weighting” some state polls to give an edge to Obama, and the distribution of that weighting is highly subjective and there's merits to these accusations. He may be right... we'll see in a few days eh?
Whats funny is Nate Silver said the Republican blog-o-sphere loved him in 2009 when he predicted the republican sweep of the house. Now that he's not telling them what they want to hear, hes the enemy.
whembly wrote: Plus... this Bengahzi thing is picking up steam... Obama is looking bad from this.
Of course, there are things like Chris Christie praising Obama on Fox news.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: [I'd be in favor for opening up all parties... like "The GW-fanboi"
I agree. The problem is the american people are given the choice between vanilla and strawberry. What if we want "Chocolate chip cookie dough"
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/11/02 11:48:17
2012/11/02 14:19:04
Subject: This will be an election you tell your kids about
Just got done with casting my ballot with only the two state approved candidates on it. Hurray, goat herders in third world countries have more options than I do...
2012/11/02 14:29:07
Subject: This will be an election you tell your kids about
d-usa wrote: Just got done with casting my ballot with only the two state approved candidates on it. Hurray, goat herders in third world countries have more options than I do...
Taste the freedom!
I beg of you sarge let me lead the charge when the battle lines are drawn
Lemme at least leave a good hoof beat they'll remember loud and long
Powder Burns wrote:what they need to make is a fullsize leatherman, like 14" long folded, with a bone saw, notches for bowstring, signaling flare, electrical hand crank generator, bolt cutters..
2012/11/02 15:22:49
Subject: This will be an election you tell your kids about
d-usa wrote: Just got done with casting my ballot with only the two state approved candidates on it. Hurray, goat herders in third world countries have more options than I do...
When I early voted last week, my ballot had:
Democrat: Obama
Republican: Romney
Libertarian: Gary Johnson
Green: Jill Stein
DA:70S+G+M+B++I++Pw40k08+D++A++/fWD-R+T(M)DM+
2012/11/02 15:24:04
Subject: This will be an election you tell your kids about
Honestly, thinking back on it, I don't recall seeing that option.
Since I didn't want to, I didn't look for it. I just don't recall seeing that option. My electronic voting booth did not have a keyboard, but it did have one of those wheels that you could...turn. Perhaps you "write in" your candidate's name like you used to enter your name when you get the high score on an arcade machine...
DA:70S+G+M+B++I++Pw40k08+D++A++/fWD-R+T(M)DM+
2012/11/02 15:55:25
Subject: This will be an election you tell your kids about
According to their updated analysis, Romney is projected to receive 330 of the total 538 Electoral College votes. President Barack Obama is expected to receive 208 votes -- down five votes from their initial prediction
Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha!
Romney with 330 to 208? Are you kidding me? What, did those Colorado guys make their fortunes off of Buster Douglas or something?
Well... everyone is harping on Nate Silver's model 'cuz it kicked so much ass in the '08 and '10 election... I wanted to show a different methodology using economic data since 1980 that predicted the election accurately...
What did we learn from statistics? "There are Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics".
Which mean, you can take an aggregate of data collection, and make it work for your perspective.
He's often accused of “weighting” some state polls to give an edge to Obama, and the distribution of that weighting is highly subjective and there's merits to these accusations. He may be right... we'll see in a few days eh?
Whats funny is Nate Silver said the Republican blog-o-sphere loved him in 2009 when he predicted the republican sweep of the house. Now that he's not telling them what they want to hear, hes the enemy.
I beg to differ... most Republican blog-o-sphere has always treated Nate carefully... it's the other side of the fence who's continually pushing that HE'S. THE. MAN! (from a statistical modeling perspective... his methodology is interesting).
whembly wrote: Plus... this Bengahzi thing is picking up steam... Obama is looking bad from this.
Of course, there are things like Chris Christie praising Obama on Fox news.
Erm... what else is Chris Christie is going to say? He's not compaigning... he's the GOV. of NJ is fulfilling that role admirably.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: [I'd be in favor for opening up all parties... like "The GW-fanboi"
I agree. The problem is the american people are given the choice between vanilla and strawberry. What if we want "Chocolate chip cookie dough"
What flavor would GW inspired ice cream would be? Quick... someone call Ben&Jerry!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/11/02 15:59:33
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2012/11/02 16:29:39
Subject: This will be an election you tell your kids about
JSF wrote:... this is really quite an audacious move by GW, throwing out any pretext that this is a game and that its customers exist to do anything other than buy their overpriced products for the sake of it. The naked arrogance, greed and contempt for their audience is shocking.
= Epic First Post.
2012/11/02 16:35:11
Subject: This will be an election you tell your kids about
SickSix wrote: Wow, a lot of cool aide has been consumed by some in this thread.
Anyone who believes the current President and administration is good for this country is delusional.
It's spelled Kool-aid. By using a paraphrase of Drinking the Kool-aid, I think you're referring to the Jones-town incident, where a bunch of followers took poison.
It is believed that they used Flavor Aid, not Kool-aid.
DA:70S+G+M+B++I++Pw40k08+D++A++/fWD-R+T(M)DM+
2012/11/02 16:37:07
Subject: This will be an election you tell your kids about
Honestly, thinking back on it, I don't recall seeing that option.
Since I didn't want to, I didn't look for it. I just don't recall seeing that option. My electronic voting booth did not have a keyboard, but it did have one of those wheels that you could...turn. Perhaps you "write in" your candidate's name like you used to enter your name when you get the high score on an arcade machine...
Why do you guys use electronic machines anyway? Seems like its more things that can go wrong, higher chance of votes being lost due to malfunctions, more opportunities for election fraud, no paper trail or ability for a recount.... Just seems silly. Apparently they're rushing out an experimental patch to a bunch of Ohio electronic machines this week too - sounds like just what everyone wants, rushed software on a system with no backups or paper trail in the state most likely to decide the election.
/Plus, I find it stranger still that they are apparently privately owned, but I suppose that's just a management arrangement of sorts.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/11/02 16:38:53
Looking for a club in Brisbane, Australia? Come and enjoy a game and a beer at Pubhammer, our friendly club in a pub at the Junction pub in Annerley (opposite Ace Comics), Sunday nights from 6:30. All brisbanites welcome, don't wait, check out our Club Page on Facebook group for details or to organize a game. We play all sorts of board and war games, so hit us up if you're interested.
Pubhammer is Moving! Starting from the 25th of May we'll be gaming at The Junction pub (AKA The Muddy Farmer), opposite Ace Comics & Games in Annerley! Still Sunday nights from 6:30 in the Function room Come along and play Warmachine, 40k, boardgames or anything else!
2012/11/02 17:36:10
Subject: Re:This will be an election you tell your kids about
