- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Bill Mitchell discusses early voting results
Posted on 10/30/18 at 11:24 pm to FightnBobLafollette
Posted on 10/30/18 at 11:24 pm to FightnBobLafollette
quote:
His reasons weren’t exposed
WTH. How else were his predictions made without reason? It's been a good night without you. Don't go fricking it up now.
1
Posted on 10/30/18 at 11:29 pm to Homesick Tiger
quote:
WTH. How else were his predictions made without reason? It's been a good night without you. Don't go fricking it up now.
He has formulas. There is no reasons.
If a bookie gives you odds and loses that doesn’t mean the bookies methods have been exposed.
He doesn’t make predictions. He isn’t Carnac. He posts the results of his formulas.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 11:31 pm to Tiger985
Silver does solid mathematical analysis of the polls and puts them into numbers that people can readily understand.
But there's one major potential flaw. The polls themselves.
Silver doesn't do any actual polling himself, he takes other people's polls and then does proper math on them, assuming those polls have no major flaws.
If the polls he's using are inherently flawed, his analysis is moot.
But there's one major potential flaw. The polls themselves.
Silver doesn't do any actual polling himself, he takes other people's polls and then does proper math on them, assuming those polls have no major flaws.
If the polls he's using are inherently flawed, his analysis is moot.
This post was edited on 10/30/18 at 11:45 pm
Posted on 10/30/18 at 11:39 pm to FightnBobLafollette
quote:
He isn’t Carnac
That's for damn sure.
quote:
If a bookie gives you odds and loses that doesn’t mean the bookies methods have been exposed.
His formula is his reason. It just means they're not good at their job. How long do you think they stay in business doing that? Knowing what I know about Silver and his formulas after 2016, I wouldn't bet a plug nickel on him and his "formula".
Posted on 10/30/18 at 11:48 pm to PEPE
quote:
The only way Democrats win any of the competitive races is if:
A. The Early Vote stat analysis is just completely f'ed up and wrong.
or
B. Independents are voting overwhelmingly Democrats (which historically never happens, Independents tend to break Republican slightly to majorly)
Or
C. Russian Interference in the election to support democrats
Posted on 10/31/18 at 12:29 am to SirWinston
quote:He was using Halloween costume sales as evidence that Trump would win in 2016. Trump won, but the fact that he made for a much better Halloween costume and personality than Hillary was not the reason.
Dude is legit
Posted on 10/31/18 at 12:55 am to Homesick Tiger
quote:Well maybe using polling data to predict elections is no longer a good way to predict elections.
Knowing what I know about Silver and his formulas after 2016, I wouldn't bet a plug nickel on him and his "formula".
However, based in the polling data, his model was able to give Trump are far better chance than any other model using the same data, AND it even notes the relatively high possibility that if he won, he would also lose the popular vote.
In fact, there is this ridiculous HuffPo article that attacked his model because he was given Trump such better odds than anyone else, and they accused him of deliberately changing the model based on his own beliefs.
I get why people like to make fun of him, but some of the criticisms are just flat out asinine since the odds of Trump winning we’re far higher than anyone else and high enough that a win would not be shocking at all, more likely than a solid MLB player getting a hit.
Furthermore, people ignore just how close the election was, so slim in just a few states (PA, WI, and MI), that 77,744 (out of 13,940,000 in those states) which was less than 0.56% of their vote totals less than 0.057% of the total popular vote, was the difference between Hillary winning and Trump losing.
His model wouldn’t have somehow been superior if the really slim margin flipped and aligned with their recent vote history and Hillary won. And those that gave her a ridiculous 99% chance wouldn’t have been any less ridiculous because she won.
This post was edited on 10/31/18 at 12:56 am
Posted on 10/31/18 at 1:01 am to buckeye_vol
A lot of pollsters are going to be wayyyy off this cycle imo. Just no way to model the likely electorate demographics. It will be high, but R’s are outpacing Ds so far... and I expect a low minority turnout which will screw up dem demographic modeling
Posted on 10/31/18 at 1:35 am to PEPE
quote:
Silver doesn't do any actual polling himself, he takes other people's polls and then does proper math on them, assuming those polls have no major flaws.
If the polls he's using are inherently flawed, his analysis is moot.
Very accurate assessment.
Gigo.
Posted on 10/31/18 at 1:38 am to Homesick Tiger
quote:
formula is his reason. It just means they're not good at their job. How long do you think they stay in business doing that? Knowing what I know about Silver and his formulas after 2016, I wouldn't bet a plug nickel on him and his "formula"
Not good. Lol you are using one presidential election.
In business. Still around. Not going anywhere.
You are embarrassing yourself. The worst part is you don’t know what you don’t know.
Posted on 10/31/18 at 1:38 am to buckeye_vol
Good post.
Posted on 10/31/18 at 4:01 am to Tiger985
quote:
by Tiger985
quote:
Tru Dat. Nate Aluminum is doueche
The guy is a major douche but he was not wrong in 2016.
His numbers said Trump had 1 chance in 3. That's an underdog but odds much longer than 1 in 3 hit every day in every facet of life.
In every simulation he ran Trump won 33 of every 100 elections. By his numbers Trump had a decent shot to win which of course he did.
Silver is unfairly lumped in with the morons saying Hillary was 98% to win. Silver never made any such claim.
...... you’re facts are lacking
At this point in ‘16 Nate had Hillary at 86% and that’s a long way from the 66.7% you’re saying
Get your facts straight
This post was edited on 10/31/18 at 4:09 am
Posted on 10/31/18 at 5:32 am to FightnBobLafollette
quote:
There is no reasons.
Are
Posted on 10/31/18 at 11:10 am to Little Trump
quote:
Get your facts straight
On election day Silver had Clinton 71.4, Trump 28.6.
Nowhere near your 86%. Get your facts straight. 2 days prior he had Clinton at 67.
Posted on 10/31/18 at 3:19 pm to FightnBobLafollette
Bill is the man
Posted on 10/31/18 at 3:27 pm to TigerMyth36
quote:Good thing most people think they are full of shite
a 24/7 negative news onslaught from the MSM like the last 2 years.
Posted on 10/31/18 at 3:41 pm to FightnBobLafollette
Fighting Bob, are you French ?? LOL
Posted on 10/31/18 at 7:21 pm to Tiger985
Wrooong
Bigly!!!
1 week from President Election ‘16 he had Hillary at 86% to win! Closer to election they all move their biased leftist polls closer to center, as you say, but long before elections they try to lean voters to left
Totally corrupt
Bigly!!!
1 week from President Election ‘16 he had Hillary at 86% to win! Closer to election they all move their biased leftist polls closer to center, as you say, but long before elections they try to lean voters to left
Totally corrupt
Posted on 10/31/18 at 7:41 pm to Little Trump
quote:This is false. The Comey announcement came at the end of the week before, and she had peaked a bit before that, and declined rapidly post-announcement.
1 week from President Election ‘16 he had Hillary at 86% to win! Closer to election they all move their biased leftist polls closer to center, as you say, but long before elections they try to lean voters to left
Here is a politico article from later that week discussing his deviation from the other models, giving Trump a far better chance.
Most polling models show Hillary Clinton winning easily. Why is 538 more cautious?
quote:
to HuffPost Pollster and the Princeton Election Consortium, which each show Clinton’s chances close to 100 percent, and Daily Kos Elections’ model gives Clinton a 91 percent chance of winning.
quote:So besides Nate Cohn at the NYT’s, who was new that year, but another objective and competent statistician who like Silver, is honest about the flaws in the data and potential systematic error, all other models had Clinton upwards of 100% while Silver had it as less than 70%.
In the middle are models from two high-profile data-journalism sites, FiveThirtyEight and The New York Times’ Upshot. But those two models aren’t in complete agreement, either. FiveThirtyEight’s “polls-only” model pegs Clinton’s chances at 67.8 percent as of late Friday morning, while the Upshot model is more bullish at 84 percent.
The same data, and yet the other models were illogically bullish and their models did not have any reaction to the real trends in the electorate’s response post-announcement.
So why would you make up a lie, when it’s verifiable due to this thing called the internet?
This post was edited on 10/31/18 at 7:41 pm
Posted on 10/31/18 at 7:46 pm to SirWinston
Good stuff, very encouraging
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News