Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:I don't care as much about his sports predictions (proper sports should not be that predictable anyway). I can see how he got the UK elections wrong, although he wasn't much further out than our usual uniform swing models (which are known to be flawed, it's just we haven't found a better way). His collation of the polls was pretty good. The polls were wrong, however, because they did not pick the downturn in the Lib Dem vote following the late April surge. In the end, the prediction for the Tory result was very close - and that was the most important part, because it was too low to be a majority but too high for a Labour led coalition to be viable.

NS also, as I posted, weights polls by his discretion. So, if a poll he likes is inaccurate, how much worse does that make his result?

His model didn't work in the UK because we have a different situation here, and he was trying out something that hadn't been done here before (in recent times).

His polling choices were pretty standard - and the polls were out due to an unwind in a surge that was very late. I can't speak for his weighting, but here's your problem - other modellers who weight polls differently (such as RCP which gives all polls over the past week equal weight) are also predicting an Obama win.

Again, here's the heart of the farce for me: he rates Ohio as 86.8% likely to go for Obama. Nearly all of the polls are within a point or two, some are tied, and all are within the margin of error.

The RCP average for Ohio (all polls reported since last Thursday), is Obama+2.9. One poll is tied. Three more are within 20 points. Three others are at +5 or +6. Yes, all are within the margin of error, but if it were that close, you'd expect to see at least one poll with a Romney lead. Seems that you are just as good at twisting the polling figures and their significance as you accuse NS of being.

If he were an oddsmaker in Vegas, he'd be going broke.

Oddsmakers don't vary odds based on the likelihood of something happening. They do it by the volume of bets. So, the opening odds should be in the right area, but the money always dictates the final odds. Anyone with a decent enough computer will make a profit as a bookie in most circumstances, because the whole point is to balance the money on all sides of the bet, and let the house margin do the rest.

Doctor Fate wrote:What happened to leaving invective aside?

Invective? I'm just noting how you are quick to jump on the certainty of others (even if they aren't actually expressing it) and blithely doing it yourself.

The election is close. No-one on either side should assume victory (and 90% is not assurance, by the way).

I'm not sanguine. I'm sifting through the numbers.

And rather than couching your conclusions with caveats, or allowing doubts, you are expressing your hopes as if they are facts.

The difference in early vote turnout, enthusiasm, etc., is palpable. Read all of that column, then tell me it is going to be a walk for Obama. IF he wins, we won't know it until early Wednesday morning. Obama will lose FL, VA, and NC. Then the nail-biting begins. However, with CO trending well, and OH, WI as toss-ups (Obama was there today), and MI, MN and PA as possible upsets, I have every reason to be optimistic.

At what point did I say it was going to be a walk for Obama? I didn't. I think it will be close, and my prediction on the other thread indicates that. I would not, for example, say definitively who would win those three coastal states - Obama has a chance in each of them.

danivon wrote: I would not, for example, say definitively who would win those three coastal states - Obama has a chance in each of them.

Here's where I am confident: NC is a lock. That was sealed with the gay marriage vote a few months ago and by the subsequent support for gay marriage by the DNC. It is a State trending toward blue, but it's not anything less than reddish-purple on social issues. Furthermore, their unemployment rate is high and they have had a very unpopular Democratic governor. All in all, I don't see this one being close. Florida will be within about 5 points, but Romney wins. Virgina will (again) be close, but the difference will be motivation.

As for the OH RCP average, you're right. I'm weighting them differently than Silver. I actually look at the internals. When I see polls with D+9 samples, I discount them. Silver loves them.

All three of those states are indeed very close, and as type, only NC has been called quite late on. Obama is ahead in the counting in Florida, and in Virginia, so clearly has a chance in each.

Seeing as the race has been called by every major media source. it's time for sleep. Tomorrow we'll see what the final shakedown is, but Nate Silver looks to have been quite a good judge, and the polls look like they were pretty good.

Anyone know any good jokes about economists and/or pollsters?

Romney has won solidly in North Carolina. But with 100% of the precincts reporting in Florida it looks like Obama will win there, meaning he will sweep all the other swing states. He is also showing a popular vote lead of roughly two million. It would appear that Gallup (and Dr. Fate) were wrong.

I would not describe a 2% margin as solid, especially not in a state that was reliably Republican for a long time and was only won by a tiny margin last time.

If Florida is accurate, Nate Silver has scored 50/50 for state predictions and got the EC correct. If not, he got the one state with his lowest percentage likelihood wrong (it was a shade over 50).

I though Silver was a little too generous, and so I tip my hat to the guy. All the hatred he attracted must be just adding to the warm glow in 538 towers today.

Rudewalrus wrote:Romney has won solidly in North Carolina. But with 100% of the precincts reporting in Florida it looks like Obama will win there, meaning he will sweep all the other swing states. He is also showing a popular vote lead of roughly two million. It would appear that Gallup (and Dr. Fate) were wrong.

No doubt.

Hey, Obama won. I did find it amusing that after an Obama strategist said nearly a year ago that their strategy was "Kill Romney," and after they ran hundreds of millions of dollars in false attack ads, and after they used surrogates to besmirch his character in almost every conceivable way (although they did not suggest Mitt was an adulterer, so kudos for that), the President noted his public work last night and pledged bipartisanship.

Sure.

I'll contact freeman2.

There was a load of mud on both sides. For the good of your nation it really has to stop at some point, and that means someone making the first move. Does it matter who it is?

About the bet, DF, if you don't mind just send the $40 to Brad for site up-keep.

danivon wrote:There was a load of mud on both sides. For the good of your nation it really has to stop at some point, and that means someone making the first move. Does it matter who it is?

I think it is an opportunity for the President. (both because he's the winner, and he's the top dog). I hope he rises to the challenge.

freeman2 wrote:About the bet, DF, if you don't mind just send the $40 to Brad for site up-keep.

2 thumbs up.

freeman2 wrote:About the bet, DF, if you don't mind just send the $40 to Brad for site up-keep.

Ah, I just emailed you (I think).

Will do.

danivon wrote:There was a load of mud on both sides. For the good of your nation it really has to stop at some point, and that means someone making the first move. Does it matter who it is?

Right. Except for one thing: beyond all of the nastiness (Romney killed a woman; he never paid any taxes; he hates people; he will outlaw abortion--these were all attacks by Obama's surrogates), the President ran a micro-targeted campaign. It was never designed to unite the country. In fact, he is the first President to be reelected with smaller numbers than he was elected by.

He wanted to win. While that's understandable, it doesn't lend itself toward governance.

After telling the American people that Republicans want to leave autistic children on their own, old people to pay for tax cuts for the rich, and women to live in the 1950's, President Obama is going to have to do a lot of work to convince the Republicans that they should cooperate with him.

How many checks is Doctor Fate writing today?