538.com map

[Ronnie]

From now until the Election I will post 538.com's EV map, starting with 9/9/08.

Sen. John McCain/Gov. Sarah Palin (R): 265
Sen. Barack Obama/Sen. Joe Biden (D): 260
Toss-up:13

That little mappie, is a dead even election, percentage wise, and EV wise. Fun, fun, fun.

I have this paranoia however, that Colorado will have a Dem bias in the end, and F me, and elect the trimmer.

As I said before, it will either be right at the national average (most likely) or be 1 point more Dem than the national average.  Nothing more than that. Period.

[Ronnie]

Hey lookie here, PA is back into the conceivable tipping point state column.  Woohoo!

[Ronnie]

538 doesn't give Michigan to McCain, at least I don't think so.

[Ronnie]

538 doesn't give Michigan to McCain, at least I don't think so.

Their regression model (weight 0.69) does.

What exactly is a regression model?

[Ronnie]

I hope that Rasmussen will give good news to McCain in VA, or else the model may be skewed toward Obama.

I don't think that Nate Silver really looks at the legitimacy of the internals much before posting it on his site.  He should work on that.

[Ronnie]

Obama has a 61% chance at winning?  Things look really bad.

[Ronnie]

Wow, the 538.com snapshot seems to be turning into my prediction map.  Just need them to switch Indiana.

Let me ask you a question.  How do you think it's possible that Indiana to swing 20 points in 4 years?

Indiana ain't flipping.

[Ronnie]

Wow, the 538.com snapshot seems to be turning into my prediction map.  Just need them to switch Indiana.

Let me ask you a question.  How do you think it's possible that Indiana to swing 20 points in 4 years?

Indiana ain't flipping.

It's Obama vs. McCain this year, not Kerry vs. Bush.  Such a large swing in a state from one election to the next is not completely unprecedented.  Look at 1980 vs. 1976 (Florida was a great example), and half of that 1980 lineup was exactly the same as the one in 1976.

You'll see.

[Ronnie]

Sigh, things look bleak for poor old McCain.

[Ronnie]

If Silver plans to weight the Quinnipiac polls released today high, I've basically lost my trust in him.

[Ronnie]

If Silver plans to weight the Quinnipiac polls released today high, I've basically lost my trust in him.

The weight goes by past history, if Quinnipiac polls are very good in the past that is how he put them in the database.

I get it, but it will probably put OH and FL at more Dem than the national average, which is simply not true.

[Ronnie]

This is terrible.  85% chance?

[Ronnie]

Things are getting Clinton-Dole ugly.

[Ronnie]

"Their [McCain Campaign's] electoral hand is so poor right now that it doesn't much matter in which states they're deciding to bide their time. Remember, any world in which McCain has a chance to win on Election Day is a world that looks very different from this one -- some significant event will have to have occurred to fundamentally change the momentum of the race. We don't know which states might be affected disproportionately by such an event, and so a lot of states are conceivably worth attacking or defending, which could become more important in the face of unknown unknowns."

You hear that, folks?  At least there will be no more talk about McCain winning this thing.

[Ronnie]

Quirky site and projections.  Heavily invested in trends and momentum.

the way it should be....

Disagree.  Projections are accurate if election is in the next 48 hours, but it isn't.

You are right because projections cannot account for the unpredictability of a campaign. But they do give a very good snapshot of where the election is currently.

That's what I was getting at.  Agree that NC is play today (more accurately, was 2-4 days ago), but given demographics and current electoral pressures, I think that barring a game changer, Obama is at his apogee in NC and is unlikely to win the state.

eh, you dont live down here.  i do.

there is a very good chance he can win the state.

I disagree.  He could win the state if the election was held today, but once Obama's lead nationally narrows a bit, NC should fall into the McCain column.  The GOP in general usually under-polls by at least a few points.

[Ronnie]

An Obama win is now at 94.1%.

Holy crap

[Ronnie]

Nate Silver is beginning to piss me off.  He weighted the Big Ten polls way too high, which resulted in Obama gaining a whole sh**tload of ground.

[Ronnie]

WHY THE HELL DID NATE SILVER WEIGHT THE LA TIMES POLL SO DAMN HIGH?!

I'm thinking of taking the site off of my bookmarks.  It's becoming freaking aggravating.

[Ronnie]

I just saw the new map on 538.  It seems reasonable, but if Nate Silver weighted the crappy polls properly, the race could be a lot closer.

For example, he weighted the LA Times OH poll (Obama + 9) at 0.91 and the Big Ten Indiana Poll (Obama +9.5) at 0.77.  Now, those weightings aren't that high, but they're enough to change his ratings a lot.

[Ronnie]

I just saw the new map on 538.  It seems reasonable, but if Nate Silver weighted the crappy polls properly, the race could be a lot closer.

For example, he weighted the LA Times OH poll (Obama + 9) at 0.91 and the Big Ten Indiana Poll (Obama +9.5) at 0.77.  Now, those weightings aren't that high, but they're enough to change his ratings a lot.

His ratings are objective, not subjective. There's not that much data for most polls, which is unfortunate, but you can't just say, "This poll looks bad," and dismiss it if you're going to do a scientific analysis. Nate Silver's formula is designed to be a mathematical modeling of the election, not a personal forecast. In a forecast, you can be as arbitrary as you want; in science, you have to be objective in weightings.

If Nate wants to have accurate results, he needs to looks at the internals.  I mean in some SUSA polls, the internals were just plain wrong, and he weighted the polls above average.  I imagine that the internals in the Indiana Big Ten Poll, for example, was off.  

I mean, I understand Nate Silver wanting to give pollsters a chance until they are proven wrong, but that theory pretty much lacks common sense.  

[Ronnie]

I just saw the new map on 538.  It seems reasonable, but if Nate Silver weighted the crappy polls properly, the race could be a lot closer.

For example, he weighted the LA Times OH poll (Obama + 9) at 0.91 and the Big Ten Indiana Poll (Obama +9.5) at 0.77.  Now, those weightings aren't that high, but they're enough to change his ratings a lot.

His ratings are objective, not subjective. There's not that much data for most polls, which is unfortunate, but you can't just say, "This poll looks bad," and dismiss it if you're going to do a scientific analysis. Nate Silver's formula is designed to be a mathematical modeling of the election, not a personal forecast. In a forecast, you can be as arbitrary as you want; in science, you have to be objective in weightings.

If Nate wants to have accurate results, he needs to looks at the internals.  I mean in some SUSA polls, the internals were just plain wrong, and he weighted the polls above average.  I imagine that the internals in the Indiana Big Ten Poll, for example, was off.  

I mean, I understand Nate Silver wanting to give pollsters a chance until they are proven wrong, but that theory pretty much lacks common sense.  

Mathematics lacks common sense. You're missing the point entirely.

Fine, if Nate Silver wants to play around with his mathematical formulas, let him go ahead.  But if he weights the polls wrong, what's the point?

[Ronnie]

I just saw the new map on 538.  It seems reasonable, but if Nate Silver weighted the crappy polls properly, the race could be a lot closer.

For example, he weighted the LA Times OH poll (Obama + 9) at 0.91 and the Big Ten Indiana Poll (Obama +9.5) at 0.77.  Now, those weightings aren't that high, but they're enough to change his ratings a lot.

His ratings are objective, not subjective. There's not that much data for most polls, which is unfortunate, but you can't just say, "This poll looks bad," and dismiss it if you're going to do a scientific analysis. Nate Silver's formula is designed to be a mathematical modeling of the election, not a personal forecast. In a forecast, you can be as arbitrary as you want; in science, you have to be objective in weightings.

If Nate wants to have accurate results, he needs to looks at the internals.  I mean in some SUSA polls, the internals were just plain wrong, and he weighted the polls above average.  I imagine that the internals in the Indiana Big Ten Poll, for example, was off.  

I mean, I understand Nate Silver wanting to give pollsters a chance until they are proven wrong, but that theory pretty much lacks common sense.  

Mathematics lacks common sense. You're missing the point entirely.

Fine, if Nate Silver wants to play around with his mathematical formulas, let him go ahead.  But if he weights the polls wrong, what's the point?

Your definition of "wrong" is a non-mathematical one. To weight them any way other than 538 is weighting them would be wrong. You can't weight polls differently based on your gut. Unless there is data to support weighting them weakly (which there isn't, just a sense that they have something wrong), you can't justify weighting them weakly in a mathematical sense.

I guess it's not mathematical, but, uhm, I thought Nate Silver's primary intention was accuracy?  Pollsters develop different strategies over time, which makes their accuracy vary.  I think it's inappropriate for him to base a lot of his weightings over previous elections, which include the primaries.  Plus, he seems to give very arbitrary weightings to newer pollsters.

If you're advocating that it's okay to be completely wrong based on "mathematics", I really don't understand. 

[Ronnie]

Yes, but the election won't be held today, .538 is a partisan Dem site, et al.

That's going a bit too far, but Nate's weightings sometimes skew the model toward Obama.

[Ronnie]

Why is Alaska Obama + 1.1 on the new 538 regression?

[Ronnie]

If only the election was held in a week or two.