Political Roundtable Cosmic String of Cataclysm - Part V

[Induveca]

Also speaking of Silver's polls, while they are respected.....many analysts state there are some major Democrat leaning variables. That's my hope at least.

See this article, from an admitted sports stat-geek.

http://www.pointoflaw.com/archives/2012 ... thinks.php

Most interesting tidbit of above link....

Silver includes the "house effect" in his models in weighing polls; PPP tends to be overoptimistic about Democrats, Rasmussen about Republicans. But because of his treatment of 2000 as a typical election, Silver's model might be underestimating the house effect of polling in general and thus have its own house effect. A house effect of as little as 0.5% would be enough, even assuming Silver is right in every other way in his model, to turn Silver's 70-30 odds into Obama being barely favored; a house effect of the full 0.9% to 3% I suggest above would flip Silver's results to Romney being favored by at least as much as Obama is now. And there might be yet other judgment calls Silver is making similar to the decision to include 2000 polling in the model that favor Democrats that I haven't noticed.

We'll have a better sense in two weeks whether Silver's model has such a house effect. Silver was successful in 2008, but there were only five states with a spread of less than 2.5% in 2008, so correctly predicting the 45 states where results were pretty clear plus flipping a coin in the true swing states would give someone a 6-in-32 chance of getting at least 49 out of 50 states correct. (Still, give Silver credit for recognizing that Pennsylvania wasn't a swing state.) Silver provides much more analytical rigor than nearly all of the reporting on the subject; 538 is my go-to website for reporting on the polls. Silver could even be entirely right on the issues I discuss above; perhaps I'm guilty of unconscious data mining in favor of Republicans. But we can't yet exclude the null hypothesis that he's lucky, and that he's making mistakes that shade his results toward Democrats and/or toward incumbents.

[Nivek]

Gore - elite out of touch rich boy you wouldn't want to drink a beer with - Romney -check

Romney would be great to bring along on a drinking trip. Designated driver.

[Nivek]

Also speaking of Silver's polls, while they are respected.....there are some major Democrat leaning variables.

See this article, from an admitted sports stat-geek.

http://www.pointoflaw.com/archives/2012 ... thinks.php

They're not Silver's polls -- he aggregates them. And, Silver's methods were extremely accurate in 2008 and 2010.

[Induveca]

Also speaking of Silver's polls, while they are respected.....there are some major Democrat leaning variables.

See this article, from an admitted sports stat-geek.

http://www.pointoflaw.com/archives/2012 ... thinks.php

They're not Silver's polls -- he aggregates them. And, Silver's methods were extremely accurate in 2008 and 2010.

Read the article though, he aggregates, then massages the data based on some of his own variables (as much as 4% swing in some cases), and admits as much.....see the details in the article. It's the furthest thing from a partisan analysis. Makes me lean more towards straight averages for now.

End of the day it boils down to as an earlier poster stated, Ohio/Florida/Virginia. Whoever takes two of those three wins.

[Nivek]

I read Silver extensively, and I did read the article. Silver is very open about his methods. Way more open than I am about my basketball hoops analysis methods.

My point is that his results in previous elections would seem to suggest that his methods are sound even though he's an admitted Obama supporter. His previous accuracy should give him some benefit of the doubt when it comes to accusations of bias. If he's wrong this time, then he'll need to readjust to avoid bias. So far, his process has been trustworthy.

[Induveca]

I read Silver extensively, and I did read the article. Silver is very open about his methods. Way more open than I am about my basketball hoops analysis methods.

My point is that his results in previous elections would seem to suggest that his methods are sound even though he's an admitted Obama supporter. His previous accuracy should give him some benefit of the doubt when it comes to accusations of bias. If he's wrong this time, then he'll need to readjust to avoid bias. So far, his process has been trustworthy.

Agree completely, just don't think his body of work is sufficient as of yet to get the "golden stamp of approval" many are granting him......would lean more towards straight polling.

The amount of people actually polled compared to previous elections is literally miniscule. Not so sure that the +4 / -4 holds weight at this point. Some articles suggest pollsters get as little as 2% of calls back on their "must call" lists. The highest I've seen suggested is 9%. Which seems impossible.

Polls should be required to release the exact number, and specifics on the people polled (leaving out name for privacy reasons). Socioeconomic status/race/gender/county/state/race/number of kids. With so few actual people responding, and the stat geeks out there these days it would be interesting to "open source" poll results.

Has been babbled on about for a while, but from what i've read polls aren't reflecting past polling for specific counties/population density of those counties. In other words, if 20 people were polled in Ohio, and 60% favored Democrat it is applied as 60% of the populace of Ohio leans Democrat. Then that is applied towards the electoral college vote.

Ideally you'd get 5 results per county, and weigh them on population density to determine a more accurate number. This isn't rocket science, and is quite obvious.....the problem is this can't be accomplished with so few people actually being polled. You could SOMEWHAT rely upon Twitter type polling for this, if you figured out a logical curve for Republicans, who don't participate in Twitter as much.

Maybe in a few more elections media will be at a point to solve this problem, interactive television would be ideal. Taking sample pollings during specific television shows would make things very interesting.

[Nivek]

So, to follow the logic here, Silver's method has been more accurate the past two election cycles than "straight polling," therefore we should pay more attention to straight polling? What?

We'll see on election day whether his methodology holds up. Looks pretty good to me so far.

[Induveca]

I will *somewhat* discount Silver's poll until it's been proven in [i]more[/] than one presidential election. My issue is with his modifiers in presidential elections, and the source of the data he's applying.

Silver's major modifiers come from last minute swings in the election, he believes democrats get a much bigger uptick than Republicans in the past few weeks in the "modern era". His current numbers REFLECT that modifier. That number is largely disputed because he is basing it on the near 4% uptick for democrats in the 2000 election in the past few weeks. That swing was caused by a nasty story about the idiot GW Bush being caught in a drunk driving scandal. Hardly par for the course. That 4% swings it to a dead heat if he leaves it out, or puts Romney in the White House.

My point was, I'll take the pure sum of all polls, without his modifiers. That one major modification to the data is enough not to trust it in such a tight race, in a PRESIDENTIAL election. Obama vs McCain wasn't this down to the wire/heated.

None of this **** is difficult, I actually manage similar datasets outside of the country. Hence my suggestion of the county by county / population density algorithms to get a better sense of an outcome. It's not being done right now due to the lack of sufficient pollsters.

[Nivek]

You'd probably like RealClearPolitics better then. Straight averaging. They show Romney "ahead" 47.9% to 47.0%. However, if you look at their state polls, it would suggest an Obama electoral college win -- 281-257. Silver's latest prediction is for Obama to get 290 electoral votes.

[hands11]

Romney now winning in all 4 major polls.....pretty crazy. Obviously I am biased, but it's a fact as of today at least.

R 50% O 46%... Rasmussen
R 50% O 47%... Gallup
R 49% O 48%... ABC/WaPo
R 47% O 46%... Reuters

Your a republican. You don't believe in polls. remember. That was established when Obama was kicking Mitt ass.

So how do the early voting numbers look ?

[hands11]

Silver still has O at 70% of winning (~290 electoral votes)

thinking back to previous elections

GOP objections to:

Clinton - draft dodger - Romney - check
Gore - elite out of touch rich boy you wouldn't want to drink a beer with - Romney -check
Kerry - flip flopper - Romney - check
Obama - too inexperienced 1 term senator - Romney check (one term gov)

gotta admire their consistency

Add that the base thinks Mormonism is a cult.

OMG. Have people looked into his record in MA. What a disaster he was. Mr bipartisan did 700 vetos in 4 years.

47 out of 50 in job growth.
People actually moved out of the state in droves. lol
Cut taxes but the state needed funding so property taxes went up 20%

[dobrojim]

Have people looked into his record in MA. What a disaster he was. Mr bipartisan did 700 vetos in 4 years.

And those same MASS folks now favor re-electing O over Mittens by a huge margin.

Now Colin Powell, quite possibly the last reasonable Republican in America, comes out again
for Barack. Of course he's only doing because they're both black

http://cbsn.ws/QHOMeF

[hands11]

Silver still has O at 70% of winning (~290 electoral votes)

thinking back to previous elections

GOP objections to:

Clinton - draft dodger - Romney - check
Gore - elite out of touch rich boy you wouldn't want to drink a beer with - Romney -check
Kerry - flip flopper - Romney - check
Obama - too inexperienced 1 term senator - Romney check (one term gov)

gotta admire their consistency

Meh.

He's a draft dodger? True.

The rich boy issue isn't a huge strike. Bush Jr. was a rich boy too. And Mitt just doesn't come across as stuffy or out of touch like both Gore and Kerry.

Flip flopper? Yeah.

Too inexperienced? Nah. He was a one term governor, but he also has extensive private sector experience in leadership positions. If anything, Romney's experience is much better than any president of the last several terms because he has both public and private sector experience in something other than being a lawyer.

LMAOROTF

He was a failure as a governor so that is no advantage for his case.
As for his private experience. Yeah. He made himself a **** load of money shipping jobs over seas, taking government bailouts and stripping down companies for their assets with leverage buy outs. Same crap that started during Reagan's presidency when we had junk bond disasters.

Running a country is very different from maximizing profits for your share holders at any expense.

A little something Mitt did to help the auto bailout.
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/10/18/ ... ut_bonanza

Show us your taxes Mitt. You scumbag.

[hands11]

Kerry - flip flopper - Romney - check

I think Romney is the "Republican Kerry". He might be a little more charismatic, but it seems like he was picked because he was "electable" rather than having appealing ideas or strong convictions.

when compared to the GOP field of absolute buffoons, yup.

But he is only electable because he is far and away the best liar from the primaries group. Newt was second. Cain was third. Michelle was fourth. The rest actually believed the crap they were saying.

Honestly, I can't recall someone running for president that is as scary dangerous as Mitt. He will say anything and he has zero loyalty to this country. He just wants to milk the government coffers and business for every penny he can get out of it.

Come on people. We are still crawling out of the ditch the last rich boy corporate profiteer sell out put us in.

[barelyawake]

"I believe the governor has some very, very strong neocon views that I have real problems with..." -- Colin Powell

Translation: This guy will put Bolton in charge and steer us into oncoming traffic against Iran. Powell's top guy (a Republican) said tonight that he has no doubt that the goal of neocons is to make war with Iran impossible to avoid.

How putting neocons back in control can in any way be considered "fiscally responsible" is beyond me. You want to talk about horror stories? Ask the generals what a war with Iran means in terms of tripling gas prices, insurmountable debt, Russian response (also known as World War 3) and a generation-long depression.

[hands11]

"I believe the governor has some very, very strong neocon views that I have real problems with..." -- Colin Powell

Translation: This guy will put Bolton in charge and steer us into oncoming traffic against Iran. Powell's top guy (a Republican) said tonight that he has no doubt that the goal of neocons is to make war with Iran impossible to avoid.

How putting neocons back in control can in any way be considered "fiscally responsible" is beyond me. You want to talk about horror stories? Ask the generals what a war with Iran means in terms of tripling gas prices, insurmountable debt, Russian response (also known as World War 3) and a generation-long depression.

Which is why Mitt wants to fund defense 2 trillion more then they are asking for. He has a war in mind that they don't have on the books yet.

What a disastrous combination this would be.

Junk bond multinational corporate raiders who will bleed this country dry
Taliban Religious Right who thinks that its Gods will that curtain women are rapped and impregnated.
And Neocons that want to invade Iran and start WWIII

[nate33]

Romney now winning in all 4 major polls.....pretty crazy. Obviously I am biased, but it's a fact as of today at least.

R 50% O 46%... Rasmussen
R 50% O 47%... Gallup
R 49% O 48%... ABC/WaPo
R 47% O 46%... Reuters

Your a republican. You don't believe in polls. remember. That was established when Obama was kicking Mitt ass.

So how do the early voting numbers look ?

We don't believe the polls early on when they are trying to generate faux momentum for the Democrat.

In the final weeks before the election, the pollsters need to recapture their credibility in time for the election. The late polls are much more believable.

[nate33]

Have people looked into his record in MA. What a disaster he was. Mr bipartisan did 700 vetos in 4 years.

And those same MASS folks now favor re-electing O over Mittens by a huge margin.

Now Colin Powell, quite possibly the last reasonable Republican in America, comes out again
for Barack. Of course he's only doing because they're both black

http://cbsn.ws/QHOMeF

Please. Powell hasn't been a real Republican for at least a decade. He's the "Republican" the media go to when they want to interview a Republican who endorses Democrats.

[nate33]

"I believe the governor has some very, very strong neocon views that I have real problems with..." -- Colin Powell

Translation: This guy will put Bolton in charge and steer us into oncoming traffic against Iran. Powell's top guy (a Republican) said tonight that he has no doubt that the goal of neocons is to make war with Iran impossible to avoid.

How putting neocons back in control can in any way be considered "fiscally responsible" is beyond me. You want to talk about horror stories? Ask the generals what a war with Iran means in terms of tripling gas prices, insurmountable debt, Russian response (also known as World War 3) and a generation-long depression.

Gotta agree with you here. Mitt's neocon tendencies are what bother me the most. I'm torn between voting for Mitt as the lesser of two evils, or maintaining my integrity and writing in Ron Paul, which would be a waste of a vote. If I didn't live in Ohio, it would be a no-brainer. I'd vote for Paul. But since I live in the only state that matters in this election, I really need to think this through.

Of course, Obama's foreign policy has been almost indistinguishable from neocon policy anyhow. That makes the decision a bit easier for me.

[fishercob]

Have people looked into his record in MA. What a disaster he was. Mr bipartisan did 700 vetos in 4 years.

And those same MASS folks now favor re-electing O over Mittens by a huge margin.

Now Colin Powell, quite possibly the last reasonable Republican in America, comes out again
for Barack. Of course he's only doing because they're both black

http://cbsn.ws/QHOMeF

Please. Powell hasn't been a real Republican for at least a decade. He's the "Republican" the media go to when they want to interview a Republican who endorses Democrats.

Powell's a RINO. Joe Scarborough is a RINO. Everyone who doesn't like Mitt Romney or the campaign he's running is a RINO. Maybe Republicans should be listening to these people -- smart, politically savvy, experienced people -- rather than dismissing them.