|           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 05, 2020, 03:26:55 am
News:
If you are having trouble logging in due to invalid user name / pass:

Consider resetting your account password, as you may have forgotten it over time if using a password manager.

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2008 Elections
  2008 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls
  WI: Other Source: Obama up 15 in WI
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: WI: Other Source: Obama up 15 in WI  (Read 1532 times)
Wiz in Wis
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,529


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: October 18, 2008, 07:50:20 pm »
« edited: October 18, 2008, 07:53:08 pm by Wiz in Wis »

New Poll: Wisconsin President by Other Source on 2008-10-17

Summary: D: 51%, R: 36%, I: 0%, U: 12%

Poll Source URL: Full Poll Details

This poll was conducted under the supervision of Dr. Thomas Holbrook at UW-Milwaukee. Dr Holbrook also has a election projection here
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,909
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: October 18, 2008, 08:35:03 pm »

Ah, the DeSart-Holbrook model

Still not good.
Logged
Eraserhead
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 43,422
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: October 18, 2008, 11:31:23 pm »

Probably not all that far off anyway though.
Logged
TheGlobalizer
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,286
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.84, S: -7.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: October 19, 2008, 12:42:49 am »

I don't buy more than +10.
Logged
Gern Blandsten
Newbie
*
Posts: 3
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: October 19, 2008, 09:29:33 pm »

Ah, the DeSart-Holbrook model

Still not good.

Not good?  It doesn't look much different than everyone else's.     Huh

The only thing in their prediction that might be suspect is wv, and possibly mo.  Everything else looks pretty solid.
Logged
giving birth to thunder
BRTD
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 88,961
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: October 19, 2008, 09:31:54 pm »

Ah, the DeSart-Holbrook model

Still not good.

Not good?  It doesn't look much different than everyone else's.     Huh

The only thing in their prediction that might be suspect is wv, and possibly mo.  Everything else looks pretty solid.

Holy sh!t. FANTASTIC name!
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,909
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: October 19, 2008, 09:34:19 pm »

Ah, the DeSart-Holbrook model

Still not good.

Not good?  It doesn't look much different than everyone else's.     Huh

The only thing in their prediction that might be suspect is wv, and possibly mo.  Everything else looks pretty solid.

Their model is flawed, whether or not it gets good results.
Logged
Gern Blandsten
Newbie
*
Posts: 3
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: October 20, 2008, 01:57:40 am »

Ah, the DeSart-Holbrook model

Still not good.

Not good?  It doesn't look much different than everyone else's.     Huh

The only thing in their prediction that might be suspect is wv, and possibly mo.  Everything else looks pretty solid.

Their model is flawed, whether or not it gets good results.

Well, that's a pretty empty statement.  By your logic, even if it generates perfect predictions it's still flawed? 

Logged
TheGlobalizer
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,286
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.84, S: -7.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: October 20, 2008, 01:20:12 pm »

Ah, the DeSart-Holbrook model

Still not good.

Not good?  It doesn't look much different than everyone else's.     Huh

The only thing in their prediction that might be suspect is wv, and possibly mo.  Everything else looks pretty solid.

Their model is flawed, whether or not it gets good results.

Well, that's a pretty empty statement.  By your logic, even if it generates perfect predictions it's still flawed? 



A random number generator is accurate predicting the current time once in a while.

Doesn't make it comparable to a clock.
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,909
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: October 20, 2008, 01:21:31 pm »

Well, that's a pretty empty statement.  By your logic, even if it generates perfect predictions it's still flawed? 

Yes; see TheGlobalizer's analogy.  If the foundation of a model doesn't make sense and can't be reasonably explained, getting lucky does not make it a good model.

And every model is flawed, this one moreso than others.  It is, IIRC, primarily based on unchecked but time-weighted polling information (hence WV), which is cool but not an especially good model.
Logged
Gern Blandsten
Newbie
*
Posts: 3
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: October 21, 2008, 02:12:42 am »

Well, that's a pretty empty statement.  By your logic, even if it generates perfect predictions it's still flawed? 

Yes; see TheGlobalizer's analogy.  If the foundation of a model doesn't make sense and can't be reasonably explained, getting lucky does not make it a good model.

And every model is flawed, this one moreso than others.  It is, IIRC, primarily based on unchecked but time-weighted polling information (hence WV), which is cool but not an especially good model.

So, by your standard, how many times does a model have to be accurate (and how accurate must it be) to pass the "randomizer test"? 

It seems to me that the logic underlying the model makes perfect sense.  Candidates tend to win states in which they hold the lead in September, while controlling for the historical leaning of the state.  I'm not sure if they weight the poll data, I don't think so.   Not sure what you meanby "unchecked."

I saw them present it at a conference a couple years ago. It was a real simple model, and I think they were real close to the actual result in 2004.  R-Squares over .9
 
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,909
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: October 21, 2008, 02:15:09 am »

In other words, it's just a polling average with no regard for the passage of time, pollster quality, etc.?

I'm sorry, but those things are essential in a model to me, or you get some zany results (see: WV currently, or almost in '04.)  They shouldn't just coast on the availability of polls like that.  And what were they within that margin on?
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines