|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
United States22883 Posts
On March 09 2016 13:16 ZeaL. wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2016 13:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 09 2016 13:05 ZeaL. wrote:Why is Gladwin County 780-74 for Sanders with 17/18 precincts reporting? Edit: Tweet from 538 earlier today: + Show Spoiler + 538 totally air-balled MI, no if ands or buts about it. They didn't even skim the net let alone touch the rim. I mean they were totally off but it's not completely their fault. Polling for MI has consistently had Sanders down by 10-20% within the last week even. They can't do anything without accurate polls. Even if Hillary pulls it back and somehow wins, this result still shows the polling was way off.
They can adjust based on the quality of polling data. Silver did it before, and it's why he ran counter to mainstream polls.
|
|
|
On March 09 2016 13:20 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2016 13:16 ZeaL. wrote:On March 09 2016 13:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 09 2016 13:05 ZeaL. wrote:Why is Gladwin County 780-74 for Sanders with 17/18 precincts reporting? Edit: Tweet from 538 earlier today: + Show Spoiler + 538 totally air-balled MI, no if ands or buts about it. They didn't even skim the net let alone touch the rim. I mean they were totally off but it's not completely their fault. Polling for MI has consistently had Sanders down by 10-20% within the last week even. They can't do anything without accurate polls. Even if Hillary pulls it back and somehow wins, this result still shows the polling was way off. They can adjust based on the quality of polling data. Silver did it before, and it's why he ran counter to mainstream polls.
They can, but if every single poll is saying Clinton by 10-20% then no matter how you weight the data you're not going to get an expected Sanders win.
Edit: I guess if they know the polling data is poor they should have broad confidence intervals. For some reason they neglect to include them in their model.
|
United States22883 Posts
On March 09 2016 13:23 ZeaL. wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2016 13:20 Jibba wrote:On March 09 2016 13:16 ZeaL. wrote:On March 09 2016 13:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 09 2016 13:05 ZeaL. wrote:Why is Gladwin County 780-74 for Sanders with 17/18 precincts reporting? Edit: Tweet from 538 earlier today: + Show Spoiler + 538 totally air-balled MI, no if ands or buts about it. They didn't even skim the net let alone touch the rim. I mean they were totally off but it's not completely their fault. Polling for MI has consistently had Sanders down by 10-20% within the last week even. They can't do anything without accurate polls. Even if Hillary pulls it back and somehow wins, this result still shows the polling was way off. They can adjust based on the quality of polling data. Silver did it before, and it's why he ran counter to mainstream polls. They can, but if every single poll is saying Clinton by 10-20% then no matter how you weight the data you're not going to get an expected Sanders win.
No, but you disclose it and build it into the margin. This is the exact problem Nate Silver worked around last election. It seems like he fell prey to it this time.
|
On March 09 2016 13:23 ZeaL. wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2016 13:20 Jibba wrote:On March 09 2016 13:16 ZeaL. wrote:On March 09 2016 13:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 09 2016 13:05 ZeaL. wrote:Why is Gladwin County 780-74 for Sanders with 17/18 precincts reporting? Edit: Tweet from 538 earlier today: + Show Spoiler + 538 totally air-balled MI, no if ands or buts about it. They didn't even skim the net let alone touch the rim. I mean they were totally off but it's not completely their fault. Polling for MI has consistently had Sanders down by 10-20% within the last week even. They can't do anything without accurate polls. Even if Hillary pulls it back and somehow wins, this result still shows the polling was way off. They can adjust based on the quality of polling data. Silver did it before, and it's why he ran counter to mainstream polls. They can, but if every single poll is saying Clinton by 10-20% then no matter how you weight the data you're not going to get an expected Sanders win.
The numbers weren't even in his ranges though, even if she wins (after campaign drops off a dump truck full of fresh absentee ballots + Show Spoiler +)
I mean if all one does is say the polls are right, it's not very impressive to predict anything.
|
nate's model is only good as the data that goes into it more or less. the data for michigan was bad, thus the output was bad.
|
On March 09 2016 13:23 ZeaL. wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2016 13:20 Jibba wrote:On March 09 2016 13:16 ZeaL. wrote:On March 09 2016 13:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 09 2016 13:05 ZeaL. wrote:Why is Gladwin County 780-74 for Sanders with 17/18 precincts reporting? Edit: Tweet from 538 earlier today: + Show Spoiler + 538 totally air-balled MI, no if ands or buts about it. They didn't even skim the net let alone touch the rim. I mean they were totally off but it's not completely their fault. Polling for MI has consistently had Sanders down by 10-20% within the last week even. They can't do anything without accurate polls. Even if Hillary pulls it back and somehow wins, this result still shows the polling was way off. They can adjust based on the quality of polling data. Silver did it before, and it's why he ran counter to mainstream polls. They can, but if every single poll is saying Clinton by 10-20% then no matter how you weight the data you're not going to get an expected Sanders win. Edit: I guess if they know the polling data is poor they should have broad confidence intervals. For some reason they neglect to include them in their model.
Their model already has confidence intervals. The uncertainty around the point estimate is reflected in the sizes of each candidate's "hump" and, in a two-person race, it's pretty trivial to use this to estimate probabilities.
There's virtually no quantitative data in the universe outside of possibly Sanders' campaign office that could predict this outcome. People shouldn't shit on people for not predicting it after the fact, it's as stupid as justifying invites or the lack thereof to tournaments based upon how people do at the tournament.
|
Good for Bernie to pull off the upset in Michigan. I still don't see a reason to pull the fork out of him yet, though.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
predictable stronger response to the antitrade bernie in michigan. throw in hate on wall street.
more thancollege kids it is just people in the small towns voting for sanders
|
On March 09 2016 13:29 xDaunt wrote:
Good for Bernie to pull off the upset in Michigan. I still don't see a reason to pull the fork out of him yet, though.
Where else can he win over the next fortnight?
|
Just FYI this is also funny because Michigan state schools are on spring break this week, which may have even depressed some Sanders support tonight lol
|
On March 09 2016 13:28 ticklishmusic wrote:
nate's model is only good as the data that goes into it more or less. the data for michigan was bad, thus the output was bad.
Shit in, shit out.
|
On March 09 2016 13:28 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2016 13:23 ZeaL. wrote:On March 09 2016 13:20 Jibba wrote:On March 09 2016 13:16 ZeaL. wrote:On March 09 2016 13:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 09 2016 13:05 ZeaL. wrote:Why is Gladwin County 780-74 for Sanders with 17/18 precincts reporting? Edit: Tweet from 538 earlier today: + Show Spoiler + 538 totally air-balled MI, no if ands or buts about it. They didn't even skim the net let alone touch the rim. I mean they were totally off but it's not completely their fault. Polling for MI has consistently had Sanders down by 10-20% within the last week even. They can't do anything without accurate polls. Even if Hillary pulls it back and somehow wins, this result still shows the polling was way off. They can adjust based on the quality of polling data. Silver did it before, and it's why he ran counter to mainstream polls. They can, but if every single poll is saying Clinton by 10-20% then no matter how you weight the data you're not going to get an expected Sanders win. Edit: I guess if they know the polling data is poor they should have broad confidence intervals. For some reason they neglect to include them in their model. Their model already has confidence intervals. The uncertainty around the point estimate is reflected in the sizes of each candidate's "hump" and, in a two-person race, it's pretty trivial to use this to estimate probabilities. There's virtually no quantitative data in the universe outside of possibly Sanders' campaign office that could predict this outcome. Don't shit on people for not predicting it after the fact.
The performances of the campaigns of both sanders and trump suggest that folks like silver need revisit the degree to which their models provide for whatever falls outside the realm of quantitative data, which sort of flies in the face of what 538 is all about. This ain't 2012;)
Edit: and yep, on spring break this week, though I vote in Ohio 😊
|
The result page I am looking at just called it for Sanders.
Cruz also edging out the Ohio Gov it looks like.
|
The A.P. calls Michigan for Sanders! Kudos to his campaign and their volunteers for grabbing that one and making the polls lie.
|
|
|
On March 09 2016 13:29 oneofthem wrote:
predictable stronger response to the antitrade bernie in michigan. throw in hate on wall street.
more thancollege kids it is just people in the small towns voting for sanders
Doesn't really matter how you slice it, he's getting close to 50% of every category but non-white people. Can't put Bernie getting support just on some part of society you don't like or respect (unless it's just generic white people).
|
On March 09 2016 13:28 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2016 13:23 ZeaL. wrote:On March 09 2016 13:20 Jibba wrote:On March 09 2016 13:16 ZeaL. wrote:On March 09 2016 13:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 09 2016 13:05 ZeaL. wrote:Why is Gladwin County 780-74 for Sanders with 17/18 precincts reporting? Edit: Tweet from 538 earlier today: + Show Spoiler + 538 totally air-balled MI, no if ands or buts about it. They didn't even skim the net let alone touch the rim. I mean they were totally off but it's not completely their fault. Polling for MI has consistently had Sanders down by 10-20% within the last week even. They can't do anything without accurate polls. Even if Hillary pulls it back and somehow wins, this result still shows the polling was way off. They can adjust based on the quality of polling data. Silver did it before, and it's why he ran counter to mainstream polls. They can, but if every single poll is saying Clinton by 10-20% then no matter how you weight the data you're not going to get an expected Sanders win. Edit: I guess if they know the polling data is poor they should have broad confidence intervals. For some reason they neglect to include them in their model. Their model already has confidence intervals. The uncertainty around the point estimate is reflected in the sizes of each candidate's "hump" and, in a two-person race, it's pretty trivial to use this to estimate probabilities. There's virtually no quantitative data in the universe outside of possibly Sanders' campaign office that could predict this outcome. People shouldn't shit on people for not predicting it after the fact.
Yeah thinking about it a bit more I understand why the output is presented the way it is.
And just for reference this is the data they were working with:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/3VNWwh0.png)
If anything this is an indication of the poor quality of polling companies.
|
On March 09 2016 13:26 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2016 13:23 ZeaL. wrote:On March 09 2016 13:20 Jibba wrote:On March 09 2016 13:16 ZeaL. wrote:On March 09 2016 13:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 09 2016 13:05 ZeaL. wrote:Why is Gladwin County 780-74 for Sanders with 17/18 precincts reporting? Edit: Tweet from 538 earlier today: + Show Spoiler + 538 totally air-balled MI, no if ands or buts about it. They didn't even skim the net let alone touch the rim. I mean they were totally off but it's not completely their fault. Polling for MI has consistently had Sanders down by 10-20% within the last week even. They can't do anything without accurate polls. Even if Hillary pulls it back and somehow wins, this result still shows the polling was way off. They can adjust based on the quality of polling data. Silver did it before, and it's why he ran counter to mainstream polls. They can, but if every single poll is saying Clinton by 10-20% then no matter how you weight the data you're not going to get an expected Sanders win. I mean if all one does is say the polls are right, it's not very impressive to predict anything.
The trickiness comes when polling outfits disagree.
|
United States22883 Posts
Hillary would need to win like 70% of the remaining Wayne County votes to win this. Seems pretty unlikely.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
