The War Room Bet Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
waiguoren said:
The polls were not off by 5%.

The final RCP discrepancy was Clinton + 3.2%. The actual final is going to be around Clinton + 1.2%. The polls were very good.
Click to expand...
National. What about states?
 
UpaLoompa said:
National. What about states?
Click to expand...

Haven't seen a broad study on that, but Silver was pointing out Clinton's EC weakness before the election. I think if you assumed a two-point swing nationally, the EC result would be in line with expectations.
 
UpaLoompa said:
National. What about states?
Click to expand...

|RCP average - actual result|

PA: 3.1%
NC: 2.8%
FL: 1.1%
OH: 2.8%
MI: 3.7%
WI: 7.5%
NV: 3.2%
CO: 0%
NH: 0.4%

Taking the mean, you can say the polls were off by 2.73%. Only Wisconsin's polling error exceeded 5%.

Rustbelt polling was worse than other swing state polling, indicating that rustbelt LV models were worse.

Overall the polls were fine and your statement was inaccurate. The commentariat and "experts" like Sam Wang and Harry Enten gave Clinton a 99% chance of winning based on god knows what.
 
Last edited:
waiguoren said:
The polls were not off by 5%.

The final RCP discrepancy was Clinton + 3.2%. The actual final is going to be around Clinton + 1.2%. The polls were very good.
Click to expand...
Actual Clinton lead up to 1.63%. RCP average was off by less than 1.6%. National polling was good.
 
Actual Clinton lead up to 1.9%. RCP average was off by less than 1.3%. National polling was good.
 
I bet Donald Trump will be the greatest President of all time.
 
DynamicLoosener said:
I bet Donald Trump will be the greatest President of all time.
Click to expand...
I have already offered a bet to anyone on this forum: If Trump runs again, he will win. No one has been willing to take it.
 
waiguoren said:
|RCP average - actual result|

PA: 3.1%
NC: 2.8%
FL: 1.1%
OH: 2.8%
MI: 3.7%
WI: 7.5%
NV: 3.2%
CO: 0%
NH: 0.4%

Taking the mean, you can say the polls were off by 2.73%. Only Wisconsin's polling error exceeded 5%.

Rustbelt polling was worse than other swing state polling, indicating that rustbelt LV models were worse.

Overall the polls were fine and your statement was inaccurate. The commentariat and "experts" like Sam Wang and Harry Enten gave Clinton a 99% chance of winning based on god knows what.
Click to expand...

I will update this now since many states have since certified their results.

|RCP average - actual result|

PA: 3.0%
NC: 2.7%
FL: 0.9%
OH: 4.5%
MI: 3.6%
WI: 7.3%
NV: 3.2%
CO: 2.0%
NH: 0.3%


Mean state polling error: 3.06%
Mean state polling error excluding outlier Wisconsin: 2.525%


National polling error: 1.2% and shrinking.


Conclusions:

1. Bloomberg+IBD/TIPP+ ABC/WaPo national polls were very good.
2. Wisconsin state polling was horrible.
3. Other than Wisconsin, swing state polling was pretty good.
4. New Hampshire and Florida polling was excellent.
 
waiguoren said:
I will update this now since many states have since certified their results.

|RCP average - actual result|

PA: 3.0%
NC: 2.7%
FL: 0.9%
OH: 4.5%
MI: 3.6%
WI: 7.3%
NV: 3.2%
CO: 2.0%
NH: 0.3%


Mean state polling error: 3.06%
Mean state polling error excluding outlier Wisconsin: 2.525%


National polling error: 1.2% and shrinking.


Conclusions:

1. Bloomberg+IBD/TIPP+ ABC/WaPo national polls were very good.
2. Wisconsin state polling was horrible.
3. Other than Wisconsin, swing state polling was pretty good.
4. New Hampshire and Florida polling was excellent.
Click to expand...

Get more bets in. This thread is dying. Once we get to 15 bets or so, I'll do a rankings model. Was going to at 20 but it seems like that will take forever
 
waiguoren said:
I have already offered a bet to anyone on this forum: If Trump runs again, he will win. No one has been willing to take it.
Click to expand...

Well shit brah, with that timeline what did you expect?

How's this one? If Ivanka lives to be 65 she'll be elected President in her lifetime. Interested? :)
 
waiguoren said:
The commentariat and "experts" like Sam Wang and Harry Enten gave Clinton a 99% chance of winning based on god knows what.
Click to expand...
Wang's prediction was based off state level errors being less than about 2.5%. His model was off because the rust belt state polling was dramatically off (and in a biased manner).
 
UpaLoompa said:
Wang's prediction was based off state level errors being less than about 2.5%.
Click to expand...

Incorrect.

Under that criterion, the only states that would be required to flip back to Clinton would be Wisconsin (RCP average Clinton +6.5%, actual Trump +0.8%) and Michigan (RCP average Clinton +3.4, actual Trump +0.2%).

Even then, Trump still gets 280 to Clinton's 258.

2.5% error in RCP average could have flipped PA to Trump. FL, NC and OH were already Trump territory according to RCP average.

If you replace 2.5% with 1%, you could make that argument, but you'd have to be a moron to build a model which assumes <1% error in state polling. I would wager we've never had an election with such a low swing state error.

The results of this election were very much in line with expectations generated by polling data. The "experts" are too arrogant.
 
waiguoren said:
Incorrect.

Under that criterion, the only states that would be required to flip back to Clinton would be Wisconsin (RCP average Clinton +6.5%, actual Trump +0.8%) and Michigan (RCP average Clinton +3.4, actual Trump +0.2%).

Even then, Trump still gets 280 to Clinton's 258.

2.5% error in RCP average could have flipped PA to Trump. FL, NC and OH were already Trump territory according to RCP average.

If you replace 2.5% with 1%, you could make that argument, but you'd have to be a moron to build a model which assumes <1% error in state polling. I would wager we've never had an election with such a low swing state error.

The results of this election were very much in line with expectations generated by polling data. The "experts" are too arrogant.
Click to expand...
OH isn't really a swing state anymore. As for the rest, you asked how Wang's model got its 99%. It got that because it's meta-margin was 2.2%. I don't think Wang used RCP's averages so that's not the right comparison. Regardless, Wang was wrong so I'm not defending his methodology just mentioning why it seems to have been wrong (the polling data put in and the associate uncertainty).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

LMP
  • Locked
  • Poll
Social WAR ROOM 2023 AWARDS.
35 36 37
Replies
734
Views
31K
LMP
LMP

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,914
Messages
55,454,648
Members
174,787
Latest member
Gladiator47

Share this page

Back
Top