|
|
LOL. <3 What an epic post.
|
"Avert your gaze, liberals: Nate Silver admits he's simply averaging public polls and there is no secret sauce."
I honestly don't know whether to laugh or cry at this. Guess I'll settle with a smile.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On November 04 2012 08:00 Defacer wrote:LOL. <3 What an epic post.
I'm surprised I missed the post the first time.
btw paralleluniverse, are you a native Australian living in Australia? An American living in Australia? An Australian living in America? Or what? =o Just curious because you like to use "we" in your posts a lot when discussing U.S. economic policy.
|
I feel kind of bad for the conservatives who are doing psychological jumping jacks trying to avoid what has been obvious for a while now, and I'm glad I'm not emotionally invested in this election at all. The first time Obama came center stage over 4 years ago I knew he'd be a 2 term president immediately. He did some things I really disagree with, but he's not the anti-Christ. I dare say he was better than W at least.
|
On November 04 2012 08:03 Souma wrote:I'm surprised I missed the post the first time. btw paralleluniverse, are you a native Australian living in Australia? An American living in Australia? An Australian living in America? Or what? =o Just curious because you like to use "we" in your posts a lot when discussing U.S. economic policy. Australian living in Australia. I use we all the time, it's a habit.
|
On November 04 2012 07:52 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 07:48 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 04 2012 07:42 Feartheguru wrote:On November 04 2012 07:40 sc2superfan101 wrote:I said earlier that I think RCP is inaccurate. I think Rasmussen is much closer to the truth. they've got Romney tied in OH, for example. SC2superfan: 538 cannot be trusted because it disagrees with RCP, oh wait, that's inaccurate too. is it really so painful to you that I happen to mistrust Nate Silver's polling data? most people agree with you, that Obama is likely to win. I happen to hold a different opinion, in part based on RCP and Rasmussen, and in part based on a gut feeling. I wonder why it is that you are SO positive that 538 is accurate? is it based on any real-time data that you posses, or is it largely the same as with me, which is mainly gut feeling and simple bias? it seems a bit hypocritical for you to cite 538 as absolute evidence, and I can't even cite RCP as a possible alternative. Because RCP uses an unweighted average that is statistically wrong. Weighting by sample size reduces the standard error of an estimator. Nate Silver weights by sample size and reliability. What you're doing is just denialism and anti-intellectualism. RCP is not very good, but neither very bad. Again it is a question of bullshit in bullshit out and how the best intentions with a correlation of the data based on groupings. The math is technically not a problem in itself, but if your sample is scewed by representation-biases it is less accurate than what you would hope for mathematically. Given that time also factors into the end-result, you end up with MoEs not being compatible because of changes over time. I see Nate Silvers numbers as very professionally handled and he seems to know a lot about the finer techniques of modelling, making his methodology far better than RCP. BUT when the polls themself are carrying +-4% MoEs you truely have to be cautious about how you use them and how much you base on other factors. In the end you cannot really say that states with a percentage chance of a candidate winning in the Nate Silver model is going to be a win for either candidate and that is where the predictability of the polls and aggregations stop and that is where the experience kicks in. A report, here, pointed out that the prediction of simply finding the median of the aggregation has been the best method to predict the winner of an election in the past. Nate Silvers model is very elaborate and if he gets the numbers calibrated enough it has a far better potential, but so far scepticism is warrented. The typical modellers dilemma is in play. Too many variables and your model suffers from their inaccuracies, too many constants and the model will be very hard or impossible to balance correctl
|
On November 04 2012 08:07 jdseemoreglass wrote: I feel kind of bad for the conservatives who are doing psychological jumping jacks trying to avoid what has been obvious for a while now, and I'm glad I'm not emotionally invested in this election at all. The first time Obama came center stage over 4 years ago I knew he'd be a 2 term president immediately. He did some things I really disagree with, but he's not the anti-Christ. I dare say he was better than W at least.
This. I'm a Republican and I disagree with a lot of Obama's policies, but I think he's the man who can at least somewhat restore the economic state of this country.
Romney could too and either recovery will be insane, but Obama's got his plan more laid out.
|
On November 04 2012 08:20 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 08:07 jdseemoreglass wrote: I feel kind of bad for the conservatives who are doing psychological jumping jacks trying to avoid what has been obvious for a while now, and I'm glad I'm not emotionally invested in this election at all. The first time Obama came center stage over 4 years ago I knew he'd be a 2 term president immediately. He did some things I really disagree with, but he's not the anti-Christ. I dare say he was better than W at least. This. I'm a Republican and I disagree with a lot of Obama's policies, but I think he's the man who can at least somewhat restore the economic state of this country. Romney could too and either recovery will be insane, but Obama's got his plan more laid out.
I can't help but think you're black and are really voting based on race(like Colin Powell).
User was banned for this post.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
a hall of fame quality post.
|
On November 04 2012 08:27 Darknat wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 08:20 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:On November 04 2012 08:07 jdseemoreglass wrote: I feel kind of bad for the conservatives who are doing psychological jumping jacks trying to avoid what has been obvious for a while now, and I'm glad I'm not emotionally invested in this election at all. The first time Obama came center stage over 4 years ago I knew he'd be a 2 term president immediately. He did some things I really disagree with, but he's not the anti-Christ. I dare say he was better than W at least. This. I'm a Republican and I disagree with a lot of Obama's policies, but I think he's the man who can at least somewhat restore the economic state of this country. Romney could too and either recovery will be insane, but Obama's got his plan more laid out. I can't help but think you're black and are really voting based on race(like Colin Powell).
I'm as white as they get and supported McCain in 2008.
|
On November 04 2012 08:27 Darknat wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 08:20 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:On November 04 2012 08:07 jdseemoreglass wrote: I feel kind of bad for the conservatives who are doing psychological jumping jacks trying to avoid what has been obvious for a while now, and I'm glad I'm not emotionally invested in this election at all. The first time Obama came center stage over 4 years ago I knew he'd be a 2 term president immediately. He did some things I really disagree with, but he's not the anti-Christ. I dare say he was better than W at least. This. I'm a Republican and I disagree with a lot of Obama's policies, but I think he's the man who can at least somewhat restore the economic state of this country. Romney could too and either recovery will be insane, but Obama's got his plan more laid out. I can't help but think you're black and are really voting based on race(like Colin Powell).
Get this post in the hall of fame pronto.
|
Alas Darknat, we hardly knew him.
|
On November 04 2012 08:27 Darknat wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 08:20 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:On November 04 2012 08:07 jdseemoreglass wrote: I feel kind of bad for the conservatives who are doing psychological jumping jacks trying to avoid what has been obvious for a while now, and I'm glad I'm not emotionally invested in this election at all. The first time Obama came center stage over 4 years ago I knew he'd be a 2 term president immediately. He did some things I really disagree with, but he's not the anti-Christ. I dare say he was better than W at least. This. I'm a Republican and I disagree with a lot of Obama's policies, but I think he's the man who can at least somewhat restore the economic state of this country. Romney could too and either recovery will be insane, but Obama's got his plan more laid out. I can't help but think you're black and are really voting based on race(like Colin Powell). Are you actually being serious here, or are you sarcastically poking fun at the idiotic statements of some Republicans regarding Powell's endorsement?
|
On November 04 2012 08:34 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 08:27 Darknat wrote:On November 04 2012 08:20 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:On November 04 2012 08:07 jdseemoreglass wrote: I feel kind of bad for the conservatives who are doing psychological jumping jacks trying to avoid what has been obvious for a while now, and I'm glad I'm not emotionally invested in this election at all. The first time Obama came center stage over 4 years ago I knew he'd be a 2 term president immediately. He did some things I really disagree with, but he's not the anti-Christ. I dare say he was better than W at least. This. I'm a Republican and I disagree with a lot of Obama's policies, but I think he's the man who can at least somewhat restore the economic state of this country. Romney could too and either recovery will be insane, but Obama's got his plan more laid out. I can't help but think you're black and are really voting based on race(like Colin Powell). Are you actually being serious here, or are you sarcastically poking fun at the idiotic statements of some Republicans regarding Powell's endorsement? Normally I'd think it was a joke, but having seen some of his previous posts I'm not so sure.
|
On November 04 2012 08:32 ticklishmusic wrote: Alas Darknat, we hardly knew him.
lol I was totally gonna post those exact words.
|
On November 04 2012 08:27 Darknat wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 08:20 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:On November 04 2012 08:07 jdseemoreglass wrote: I feel kind of bad for the conservatives who are doing psychological jumping jacks trying to avoid what has been obvious for a while now, and I'm glad I'm not emotionally invested in this election at all. The first time Obama came center stage over 4 years ago I knew he'd be a 2 term president immediately. He did some things I really disagree with, but he's not the anti-Christ. I dare say he was better than W at least. This. I'm a Republican and I disagree with a lot of Obama's policies, but I think he's the man who can at least somewhat restore the economic state of this country. Romney could too and either recovery will be insane, but Obama's got his plan more laid out. I can't help but think you're black and are really voting based on race(like Colin Powell). Best post in the thread right there. Just because someone supports Obama does not mean they are black or are voting based on race if they are. I didn't want to vote for Obama at first, but Romney appeases his opponents and allies far more than I like. Compromise is one thing, changing your opinion depending on who your talking to is something else entirely.
|
On November 04 2012 08:01 Feartheguru wrote:"Avert your gaze, liberals: Nate Silver admits he's simply averaging public polls and there is no secret sauce." I honestly don't know whether to laugh or cry at this. Guess I'll settle with a smile.
Someday the Bayesians will be in charge. Someday...
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
|
On November 04 2012 08:20 radiatoren wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 07:52 paralleluniverse wrote:On November 04 2012 07:48 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 04 2012 07:42 Feartheguru wrote:On November 04 2012 07:40 sc2superfan101 wrote:I said earlier that I think RCP is inaccurate. I think Rasmussen is much closer to the truth. they've got Romney tied in OH, for example. SC2superfan: 538 cannot be trusted because it disagrees with RCP, oh wait, that's inaccurate too. is it really so painful to you that I happen to mistrust Nate Silver's polling data? most people agree with you, that Obama is likely to win. I happen to hold a different opinion, in part based on RCP and Rasmussen, and in part based on a gut feeling. I wonder why it is that you are SO positive that 538 is accurate? is it based on any real-time data that you posses, or is it largely the same as with me, which is mainly gut feeling and simple bias? it seems a bit hypocritical for you to cite 538 as absolute evidence, and I can't even cite RCP as a possible alternative. Because RCP uses an unweighted average that is statistically wrong. Weighting by sample size reduces the standard error of an estimator. Nate Silver weights by sample size and reliability. What you're doing is just denialism and anti-intellectualism. RCP is not very good, but neither very bad. Again it is a question of bullshit in bullshit out and how the best intentions with a correlation of the data based on groupings. The math is technically not a problem in itself, but if your sample is scewed by representation-biases it is less accurate than what you would hope for mathematically. Given that time also factors into the end-result, you end up with MoEs not being compatible because of changes over time. I see Nate Silvers numbers as very professionally handled and he seems to know a lot about the finer techniques of modelling, making his methodology far better than RCP. BUT when the polls themself are carrying +-4% MoEs you truely have to be cautious about how you use them and how much you base on other factors. In the end you cannot really say that states with a percentage chance of a candidate winning in the Nate Silver model is going to be a win for either candidate and that is where the predictability of the polls and aggregations stop and that is where the experience kicks in. A report, here, pointed out that the prediction of simply finding the median of the aggregation has been the best method to predict the winner of an election in the past. Nate Silvers model is very elaborate and if he gets the numbers calibrated enough it has a far better potential, but so far scepticism is warrented. The typical modellers dilemma is in play. Too many variables and your model suffers from their inaccuracies, too many constants and the model will be very hard or impossible to balance correctl
Ah, but as Silver pointed out in his newest blog post his model incorporates the possibilities that the polls are systematically in error. Plus he has poll data since 1968 to boost his numbers.
I mean, as he points out in the post-let's ignore all the models. The day after a candidate leads in 19/22 polls of swing states, you shouldn't say the race is a toss-up unless you have a cogent argument the polls are systematically biased (which the media sure as hell doesn't have, yet they constantly call it a toss-up).
|
Eh, they're not the only Bayesians in town. Personally I'd put more credence in 538.
|
|
|
|