Forecasting the race for the House

[Wingslaught]

That's exactly what they did. They were roundly attacked by a number of those on the left for scaremongering with Trumps odds being a lot better than other publications were showing.
https://www.vox.com/2016/11/3/13147678/nate-silver-fivethirtyeight-trump-forecast
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/whats-wrong-with-538_us_581ffe18e4b0334571e09e74

You're right, I take it back. They were out of sync with the other major polling places on the left once it got closer to the election.

While I love following the prediction markets for this year’s election, the most popular and widely quoted website out there, fivethirtyeight.com, has something tragically wrong with its presidential prediction model. With the same information, 538 is currently predicting a 65 percent chance of a Clinton victory, while HuffPost’s Natalie Jackson and Adam Hooper are projecting a 98 percent chance,[1] and Sam Wang at Princeton Electoral Consortium is predicting a >99 percent chance.[2] What gives?

 

[bobgeese]

538 had her at about 65% right before election night.

“538”

 

[b-hop]

“538”

 

[Prefect]

Are we back to 2 genders yet Dems? No? Then I'm afraid the red wave will continue.

How's trickle down economics working out?

 

[kpt018]

“538”

Yeah but this ignores that odds change over time. He had it 71 - 29 right before the election.

 

[Fawlty]

I might go head-to-head vs. Silver again in November 2018. I think I can call the House more accurately than he can.

The only thing holding you back is fear of a loss of reputation on a karate forum.

 

[MusterX]

We’ll see. In a world where, unfortunately, so many people are so easily swayed by the very last thing they hear before voting, polls this far out are not very useful.

To be clear, I like five thirty eight and think they are very accurate... but a lot can change in three months.

I lost faith in polling when every pollster in the country said Trump had no chance of winning and some of them placed Clinton's chances of winning at 98%. I have a hard time believing they were that far off which pretty much means those fuckers are corrupt and were just trying to convince people to stay home and not vote because the election was a slam dunk for Hillary.

 

[Quequeg]

I lost faith in polling when every pollster in the country said Trump had no chance of winning and some of them placed Clinton's chances of winning at 98%. I have a hard time believing they were that far off which pretty much means those fuckers are corrupt and were just trying to convince people to stay home and not vote because the election was a slam dunk for Hillary.

Did you check the polls right before the election? Polls are only a prediction and newsflash, sometimes predictions are wrong.

 

[MusterX]

Did you check the polls right before the election? Polls are only a prediction and newsflash, sometimes predictions are wrong.

Most polls have a +/- of 5% or less. Every media outlet and poll in the country was off by far more than that. Hard to trust a word they say after the last election.

 

[BangersAndSmash]

It was a blanket statement, and was part satire.

It represents how Democrats care about feelings over shit that actually matters.

If one party votes on feelings rather than facts it isn't the democrats.

Most democratic platforms are backed up by facts and evidence. The only facts that ever back-up right-wing positions are studies conducted by conservative think-tanks that are paid for by right-wing interests like climate scientist who deny climate change and are paid by oil companies.

Trickle-down economics has never worked and there's a mountain of evidence proving that it doesn't. In fact, I'll go farther and ask which party's economic policies precede an economic disaster with a "great" in-front of it, and which party was responsible for shoveling us out of the shit?

Which party votes for a candidate who promises coal mine jobs despite the fact that coal CEOs have said that coal mine employment levels aren't going to return to their heyday?

And who is on this forum declaring the most important issue of the day whether more than two genders are recognized?

Hint: it's not the Democrats.

 

[Fawlty]

Most polls have a +/- of 5% or less. Every media outlet and poll in the country was off by far more than that. Hard to trust a word they say after the last election.

Final Results -- -- -- 48.2 46.1 Clinton +2.1
RCP Average 11/1 - 11/7 -- -- 46.8 43.6 Clinton +3.2
Bloomberg 11/4 - 11/6 799 LV 3.5 46 43 Clinton +3
IBD/TIPP Tracking 11/4 - 11/7 1107 LV 3.1 43 42 Clinton +1
Economist/YouGov 11/4 - 11/7 3669 LV -- 49 45 Clinton +4
LA Times/USC Tracking 11/1 - 11/7 2935 LV 4.5 44 47 Trump +3
ABC/Wash Post Tracking 11/3 - 11/6 2220 LV 2.5 49 46 Clinton +3
FOX News 11/3 - 11/6 1295 LV 2.5 48 44 Clinton +4
Monmouth 11/3 - 11/6 748 LV 3.6 50 44 Clinton +6
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 11/3 - 11/5 1282 LV 2.7 48 43 Clinton +5
CBS News 11/2 - 11/6 1426 LV 3.0 47 43 Clinton +4
Reuters/Ipsos 11/2 - 11/6 2196 LV 2.3 44 39 Clinton +5

Zero of these polls were off by 5%.


Actually, I take that back. One of them is. It's the LA Times/USC, who were off by 5.1% in favor of Trump.

 

[BangersAndSmash]

I lost faith in polling when every pollster in the country said Trump had no chance of winning and some of them placed Clinton's chances of winning at 98%. I have a hard time believing they were that far off which pretty much means those fuckers are corrupt and were just trying to convince people to stay home and not vote because the election was a slam dunk for Hillary.

The thing was, they weren't that far off. The deciding votes in some swing states was 10-20,000. In the grand scheme of things that's hardly any votes (it's much less than 1% of the total vote).

 

[MusterX]

Final Results -- -- -- 48.2 46.1 Clinton +2.1
RCP Average 11/1 - 11/7 -- -- 46.8 43.6 Clinton +3.2
Bloomberg 11/4 - 11/6 799 LV 3.5 46 43 Clinton +3
IBD/TIPP Tracking 11/4 - 11/7 1107 LV 3.1 43 42 Clinton +1
Economist/YouGov 11/4 - 11/7 3669 LV -- 49 45 Clinton +4
LA Times/USC Tracking 11/1 - 11/7 2935 LV 4.5 44 47 Trump +3
ABC/Wash Post Tracking 11/3 - 11/6 2220 LV 2.5 49 46 Clinton +3
FOX News 11/3 - 11/6 1295 LV 2.5 48 44 Clinton +4
Monmouth 11/3 - 11/6 748 LV 3.6 50 44 Clinton +6
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 11/3 - 11/5 1282 LV 2.7 48 43 Clinton +5
CBS News 11/2 - 11/6 1426 LV 3.0 47 43 Clinton +4
Reuters/Ipsos 11/2 - 11/6 2196 LV 2.3 44 39 Clinton +5

Zero of these polls were off by 5%.


Actually, I take that back. One of them is. It's the LA Times/USC, who were off by 5.1% in favor of Trump.

I'm referring more to articles like this by Pew research.

The results of Tuesday’s presidential election came as a surprise to nearly everyone who had been following the national and state election polling, which consistently projected Hillary Clinton as defeating Donald Trump. Relying largely on opinion polls, election forecasters put Clinton’s chance of winning at anywhere from 70% to as high as 99%, and pegged her as the heavy favorite to win a number of states such as Pennsylvania and Wisconsin that in the end were taken by Trump.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/why-2016-election-polls-missed-their-mark/

The problem with the polling was that almost nobody could predict a Trump victory. I could post for you clip after clip after clip of mainstream media actually laughing and slapping their knees at the thought of Trump winning. Why is that? And believe me, I'm not the only one that feels the pollsters took a hit on thier credibility, there are dozens of stories saying just that.

Donald Trump's victory dealt a devastating blow to the credibility of the nation's leading pollsters, calling into question their mathematical models, assumptions and survey methods.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...-clinton-2016-presidential-election/93523012/

538 had Hillary's chances of winning at 72%

Headed into Election Day, polling evangelist Nate Silver’s 538 website put Clinton’s odds at winning the White House at about 72 percent.
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/how-did-everyone-get-2016-wrong-presidential-election-231036

My point being not the percentages necessarily but the fact they all had mud on their faces afterwards and lost credibility, loads of credibility. You gotta love Huff Post, they gave Hillary a 98.2% chance of winning.

 

[Fawlty]

I'm referring more to articles like this by Pew research.

The results of Tuesday’s presidential election came as a surprise to nearly everyone who had been following the national and state election polling, which consistently projected Hillary Clinton as defeating Donald Trump. Relying largely on opinion polls, election forecasters put Clinton’s chance of winning at anywhere from 70% to as high as 99%, and pegged her as the heavy favorite to win a number of states such as Pennsylvania and Wisconsin that in the end were taken by Trump.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/why-2016-election-polls-missed-their-mark/

The problem with the polling was that almost nobody could predict a Trump victory. I could post for you clip after clip after clip of mainstream media actually laughing and slapping their knees at the thought of Trump winning. Why is that? And believe me, I'm not the only one that feels the pollsters took a hit on thier credibility, there are dozens of stories saying just that.

Donald Trump's victory dealt a devastating blow to the credibility of the nation's leading pollsters, calling into question their mathematical models, assumptions and survey methods.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...-clinton-2016-presidential-election/93523012/

538 had Hillary's chances of winning at 72%

Headed into Election Day, polling evangelist Nate Silver’s 538 website put Clinton’s odds at winning the White House at about 72 percent.
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/how-did-everyone-get-2016-wrong-presidential-election-231036

My point being not the percentages necessarily but the fact they all had mud on their faces afterwards and lost credibility, loads of credibility. You gotta love Huff Post, they gave Hillary a 98.2% chance of winning.

The 70-80% predictions were completely justified by the polling data.

I agree that a number of mainstream news outlets and pundits were way overconfident.

 

[bobgeese]

Yeah but

^^^ you

 

[HockeyBjj]

Will literally anyone put any stock or pay any heed to polls and projections this election after the utter fiasco last go round?

 

[Lead]

At the moment you pronounce the probability of the die landing on 4 as 1/6, the outcome of the die roll is indeterminate.

On election day morning, when Nate Silver decided Clinton had a 71.4% chance of winning, the cake was baked. The election result was better modeled as a deterministic and not a probabilistic process at that point. How do we know this? The electoral victory for Trump was large enough that random variation (e.g., unpredictable weather patterns) could not have tipped the scales to Clinton. People like to talk about "77,000 votes in three states", but those three states were correlated for reasons totally unrelated to random variation. So random variation that would give Clinton a boost in PA would (on average) be balanced by random variation that gave Trump an equal boost in WI.

Silver's election-day forecast is properly interpreted as an estimate of his confidence in his Clinton pick. In this regard, he was just wrong. His state-level predictions were also wrong. I beat Silver's 2016 state-level predictions in my bet with @m52nickerson.

I might go head-to-head vs. Silver again in November 2018. I think I can call the House more accurately than he can.

I think it is clear that some of the state polling was off but you are chiming into someone who clearily isn't stating the same view of you. They see 30% chance and it not happening as a problem. I was pointing out to them they didn't understand probability, not that the details to bring us to 30% was right or not. His premise is wrong.

 

[My Spot]

Oh yea, I forgot. We're not supposed to care about the fact that more people voted for the party that didn't win. My bad.

 

[JamesRussler]

That's your prerogative. Imo the organizational administration is bedrock.

Listen to the guy in this video, or at least for the first few minutes (Brad Parscale - look him up if you don’t know who he is). Basically he explains why you need the message first, because you need to build your strategy and logistics around it. No amount of money or organizational brilliance can cure a bad message.

Of course you need logistics / organization / strategy / data / money, but the message comes first. And that’s one of the reasons Dems aren’t going to win in November or beyond. The substance just isn’t there.

 

[Limbo Pete]

Listen to the guy in this video, or at least for the first few minutes (Brad Parscale - look him up if you don’t know who he is). Basically he explains why you need the message first, because you need to build your strategy and logistics around it. No amount of money or organizational brilliance can cure a bad message.

Of course you need logistics / organization / strategy / data / money, but the message comes first. And that’s one of the reasons Dems aren’t going to win in November or beyond. The substance just isn’t there.

I get what you're saying, but can't agree with that. It essentially post-hoc. You can credit whatever you want after winning, but the brilliance and effectiveness of the GOP redistricting campaign demonstrates very clearly imo that message is secondary to who can vote and when. If there is a large enough disparity in the respective voting demographics, politicians can essentially phone it in. Not always, as we have clearly seen, but the effects go beyond a single election and the changing political ethos. 2010 set the stage for the entire last decade and logistically facilitated the viability of candidates in places that they would have otherwise been at a numbers disadvantage. We're just gonna have to disagree on this, though, or we'll probably end up talking past each other.