538, or Why The Experts Know More Than You Do

[Core]

For a nation full of people in which the vast bulk cannot even explain what a standard deviation is, I've seen an alarming number of people who think they know statistics better than professional statisticians; who argue the polls by these experts are all wrong.

My favorite predictions of elections are by Nate Silver, who runs the 538 site. Why is he my favorite? Why do I listen to him, and why should you? Track history. 

Let's take a look at 538's track history: what they've predicted, and how accurate they were.

2008 Presidential Election

Prediction: Obama to win popular vote by 6.1% (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FiveThirtyEight#Final_projections_of_2008_elections)
Actual: Obama won popular by 7.2% (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2008)

Prediction: Obama to get 349-353 electoral votes
Actual: Obama got 365 electoral votes

2012 presidential Election

Prediction: Obama to win popular vote by 2.5% (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/fivethirtyeights-2012-forecast/)
Actual: Obama won popular by 3.9% (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012)

Prediction: Obama to get 313 electoral votes
Actual: Obama got 332 electoral votes

In two elections Nate Silver was off in popular vote by 1.1% and 1.4%, respectively, and in electoral he was off by 4% and 6%, respectively.

Nate had a mea culpa back in May over underestimating Trump's success, but overall during the 2016 primaries he predicted the winner more than 90% of the time. If you find this degree of accuracy compelling, you can get a regularly-updated 2016 prediction of the election here: http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo or, you can do what I've seen some do: eschew all expert opinion, go off the cuff with what you want the numbers to say, and search far and wide for somebody who will whisper sweet nothings into your ear.

[chas0218]

The problem I am seeing with his forecast is he is using polls from more liberal sources. There is no way for someone to predict uncertainty because it is just that. There are too many variables to say who will win at this point. There is no way to do an accurate poll without bias. I know of too many people that are registered dem that refuse to vote for her but will not vote for trump. That tells me she will be loosing a an amount of votes how many no one knows until that ballet is punched or the lack of.

The idea that we the people are in actually electing one of these candidates is a complete joke, the government already has this election won we just don't find out until the 8th.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

From what I read on their site they weight heavily for the "likely voters" polls. I think that in this specific election it may be underestimation Trumps underground support. I think it will be a nail biter unless either totally blows the next two debates or some major October surprise comes out. (I'm betting either side will hold until late October or early November so the other side has limited time to react/counter.)

[Core]

Yeah it is a harder election to call relatively speaking and 538 has I believe acknowledged that.

[The_Real_TCIII]

In 2012 when all the republican pundits had Romney in a landslide I wasn't a bit surprised when he lost, because Nate Silver said he would. Even Krauthammer was dead wrong and he's usually briliant

[philoshop]

Polling and prognostication is generally based on history. There is no history that is relevant to this election. For strong borders vs no borders, for energy independence vs being forever beholden to the ME, for strong vetting of migrants vs no scrutiny whatsoever, maintaining U.S. sovereignty vs ceding it, free-market healthcare vs socialist healthcare, free-market jobs vs government jobs... I'd like to go on but I think I might throw up given the reality of the situation.

[The_Real_TCIII]

It does not escape me that I spelled brilliant wrong


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[The_Real_TCIII]

Polling and prognostication is generally based on history. There is no history that is relevant to this election. For strong borders vs no borders, for energy independence vs being forever beholden to the ME, for strong vetting of migrants vs no scrutiny whatsoever, maintaining U.S. sovereignty vs ceding it, free-market healthcare vs socialist healthcare, free-market jobs vs government jobs... I'd like to go on but I think I might throw up given the reality of the situation.

That doesn't sound exactly like 2012 to you?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[philoshop]

2 hours ago, The_Real_TCIII said:

That doesn't sound exactly like 2012 to you?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The difference is that Romney and Ryan were/are RINOS (Republicans In Name Only), or at least Democrat sympathizers willing to sell their souls for Democrat approval. Neither Trump nor Pence are like that in any way.

Sarah Palin was the only true liberty-loving Republican to stick her neck out in complete opposition to Obama's agenda, and she was quickly shut down or reigned in by both the McCain campaign leaders and the Republican elites in the 2008 election.

Here's an excellent analysis of that situation:

 

[The_Real_TCIII]

The difference is that Romney and Ryan were/are RINOS (Republicans In Name Only), or at least Democrat sympathizers willing to sell their souls for Democrat approval. Neither Trump nor Pence are like that in any way.
Sarah Palin was the only true liberty-loving Republican to stick her neck out in complete opposition to Obama's agenda, and she was quickly shut down or reigned in by both the McCain campaign leaders and the Republican elites in the 2008 election.
Here's an excellent analysis of that situation:
 

I meant the issues are darned near identical but you're right, there's never been a candidate like Trump


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[philoshop]

The issues never change for the Democrats. They want to rule rather than govern within the boundaries put forth by the Constitution. What's unique about Trump is that he has no fear regarding poking the democrats in the eye to get his point across. I admire that.

[Core]

18 hours ago, philoshop said:

Polling and prognostication is generally based on history. There is no history that is relevant to this election. For strong borders vs no borders, for energy independence vs being forever beholden to the ME, for strong vetting of migrants vs no scrutiny whatsoever, maintaining U.S. sovereignty vs ceding it, free-market healthcare vs socialist healthcare, free-market jobs vs government jobs... I'd like to go on but I think I might throw up given the reality of the situation.

There is no history relevant to one of the candidates' support (Hillary is as generic a politician as we can possibly imagine, text-book, boiler-plate candidate). And the lack of precedent applicable to Trump as a candidate means it's difficult to guess at his support. But, that's where polls come in. Absent polls one could guess Trump has 90% support or 10%. But, unless something about Trump is encouraging anonymous people to lie, we can take the polls quite seriously. There are 8% (I think) undecideds at this point, which can move the election in either direction, but professional pollsters are the best we have right now and they are saying hillary is ahead. I'm inclined to believe it.

[bugsNbows]

Love Bill Whittle. He always says it correctly! 

[Core]

Yesterday, as you're no doubt aware now because it's plastered on all the sites, trump said some things that are really not that shocking in a locker room, but unfortunately for trump they got out. And they play to the public very, very badly. Remember Romney's 47% comment? Nothing compared to this.

The fallout from his debate has already been spectacularly bad for him. RCP point deficit was 1% on Sept 19, 2% on Sept 26, and is now 5%. 538 has his running odds of a win now at 18.2%. He's even behind in iowa, is barely ahead in arizona. His campaign is completely off the rails.

Some top republicans now are distancing themselves, yet again, and asking for him to step aside. If he did, I can think of little better, though I fear too many of his supporters would not vote.

Hillary is now more a shoe-in than she ever has been. Just a month out and trump is imploding.

2016 campaign is done. You can stick a fork in it. I really don't think the republican party is capable of correcting what happened this election, though. They may very well nominate a trained monkey next time. What hope is there? I feel the legitimate conservative critical thinkers in the party (I know we all like to think ourselves as such, but the facts tell otherwise) have been infected by the clowns and we cannot separate ourselves properly.

Edited October 8, 2016 by Core