Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-16-2018, 11:59 AM
adaher adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,471
538's House model has launched!

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...cid=538twitter

We start out with a 75% chance of Democrats taking the House. Average gain in their models is +35.
  #2  
Old 08-16-2018, 12:06 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 30,435
Awesome! God I love Nate and his team.
  #3  
Old 08-16-2018, 12:11 PM
adaher adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,471
This we agree on without reservation. I'm a little concerned about a 7.6 point popular vote advantage translating into only a 75% chance of taking the House. Fixing gerrymandering will help with that somewhat.

I mean, I don't want the Democrats to take the House, but if they win by 7 points they should have the House. If they win by 3 they should have the House. Under 3 I can chalk up to Republicans having a natural advantage due to concentration of Democratic voters.

But it's not good for democracy to have a wide difference between popular vote and apportionment.

Last edited by adaher; 08-16-2018 at 12:13 PM.
  #4  
Old 08-16-2018, 12:50 PM
Lance Turbo Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 2,916
adaher, I debated starting a thread for the 538 model when I posted about it in another thread. Thanks for starting this.
  #5  
Old 08-16-2018, 12:51 PM
Derleth Derleth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Missoula, Montana, USA
Posts: 20,673
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
But it's not good for democracy to have a wide difference between popular vote and apportionment.
Hey, there's a reason Republicans are so quick to stress that we have A Republic, Not A Democracy, and it isn't just the name of their party.

The less cautious ones go on to whine about how unfair it is that less-populated regions can't swing elections and don't have as much say in government as more-populated reasons, never quite grasping what exactly that sounds like to everyone else.
__________________
"Ridicule is the only weapon that can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them."
If you don't stop to analyze the snot spray, you are missing that which is best in life. - Miller
I'm not sure why this is, but I actually find this idea grosser than cannibalism. - Excalibre, after reading one of my surefire million-seller business plans.
  #6  
Old 08-16-2018, 01:13 PM
scr4 scr4 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Alabama
Posts: 14,766
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
I'm a little concerned about a 7.6 point popular vote advantage translating into only a 75% chance of taking the House. Fixing gerrymandering will help with that somewhat.

I mean, I don't want the Democrats to take the House, but if they win by 7 points they should have the House. If they win by 3 they should have the House. Under 3 I can chalk up to Republicans having a natural advantage due to concentration of Democratic voters.
I believe the 7.6% lead is a prediction that corresponds to the average predicted outcome (D winning ~208 seats). If Republicans win a majority, it will be because the D+ 7.6% prediction didn't come true.

The "75% chance of taking the house" includes the possibility of polls being inaccurate, of voters changing their minds between now and the election, etc.

Last edited by scr4; 08-16-2018 at 01:15 PM.
  #7  
Old 08-16-2018, 01:35 PM
Lance Turbo Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 2,916
Nate is Tweeting a thread of races to watch right now.

Link

Haha. Rouda slightly favored over Rohrabacher. I would LOVE that.
  #8  
Old 08-16-2018, 02:01 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 39,121
My local guy--Mark Meadows, Mr. "Impeach Rosenstein"--has a >99% chance of winning.

Man, fuck that guy.
  #9  
Old 08-16-2018, 02:35 PM
Silver lining Silver lining is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 738
By my count the republicans have a 43 seat lead in the house. 236-196, with six vacant seats

https://pressgallery.house.gov/membe...arty-breakdown

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...epresentatives

So 38 seats changed to Democrats will not win them the house.
  #10  
Old 08-16-2018, 02:48 PM
ShadowFacts ShadowFacts is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silver lining View Post
By my count the republicans have a 43 seat lead in the house. 236-196, with six vacant seats

https://pressgallery.house.gov/membe...arty-breakdown

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...epresentatives

So 38 seats changed to Democrats will not win them the house.
You're probably going to want to re-think your math on this one. I'll give you a formulaic hint: +1 = -1

I have confidence in you.
  #11  
Old 08-16-2018, 02:56 PM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 24,201
I remember the days long ago when Republicans were often viewed as the hard-nosed realists.

Now, we have to contend with a Republican idea that a House with 236 Republicans and 234 Democrats is even possible.

Last edited by Ravenman; 08-16-2018 at 02:56 PM.
  #12  
Old 08-16-2018, 02:59 PM
Lance Turbo Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 2,916
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silver lining View Post
By my count the republicans have a 43 seat lead in the house. 236-196, with six vacant seats

https://pressgallery.house.gov/membe...arty-breakdown

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...epresentatives

So 38 seats changed to Democrats will not win them the house.
This is a joke post right?
  #13  
Old 08-16-2018, 03:07 PM
Derleth Derleth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Missoula, Montana, USA
Posts: 20,673
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
I remember the days long ago when Republicans were often viewed as the hard-nosed realists.
That's been a dodge, a piece of marketing, for decades. It serves them well whenever they make Tough Decisions which are, somehow, only tough on poor and middle-class people, especially since it allows them to paint things like gay rights, single-payer healthcare, and raising the top marginal tax rate as "soft-headed nonsense" without having to come up with any real arguments against them which pass the laugh test.

They made themselves out to be The Party Of Adults, and adults never have to explain themselves to anyone else. So shut up, vote Republican, and never question what President Adult does.
  #14  
Old 08-16-2018, 03:08 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 30,435
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silver lining View Post
By my count the republicans have a 43 seat lead in the house. 236-196, with six vacant seats

https://pressgallery.house.gov/membe...arty-breakdown

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...epresentatives

So 38 seats changed to Democrats will not win them the house.
LOL. Arithmetic is hard.

This is your funniest post yet! Well done!
  #15  
Old 08-16-2018, 03:52 PM
RickG RickG is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Boulder CO USA
Posts: 777
A quick check of my state's 7 districts shows that Colorado could flip from 4R/3D to as many as 5D/2R, though it seems more likely to be 4D/3R. The three districts currently held by Democrats, including the 2nd, where I live and is the only open seat (Jared Polis is giving up the seat to run for governor), are rock solid.

Mike Coffman in the 6th is the most vulnerable Republican here, with 538 giving him only a 3-in-8 chance of holding the seat. I think he's not that bad, but I'm still rooting for him to lose.

I am cautiously optimistic for November, but a 1-in-4 chance of the Republicans holding the House is not a zero chance of holding the House. I'd be pretty scared if I got a medical diagnosis with a 25% probability of death in the next year, is all I'm saying.
__________________
Rick
  #16  
Old 08-16-2018, 04:00 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 9,356
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
LOL. Arithmetic is hard.

This is your funniest post yet! Well done!
Maybe this is like the 3 million illegal votes?
  #17  
Old 08-16-2018, 04:22 PM
Lance Turbo Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 2,916
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickG View Post
A quick check of my state's 7 districts shows that Colorado could flip from 4R/3D to as many as 5D/2R, though it seems more likely to be 4D/3R. The three districts currently held by Democrats, including the 2nd, where I live and is the only open seat (Jared Polis is giving up the seat to run for governor), are rock solid.

Mike Coffman in the 6th is the most vulnerable Republican here, with 538 giving him only a 3-in-8 chance of holding the seat. I think he's not that bad, but I'm still rooting for him to lose.

I am cautiously optimistic for November, but a 1-in-4 chance of the Republicans holding the House is not a zero chance of holding the House. I'd be pretty scared if I got a medical diagnosis with a 25% probability of death in the next year, is all I'm saying.
I work in Polis's district and live in Perlmutter's. Both are safe D even without Polis running.

I knew Coffman was going to have a tough time and Jason Crow is a pretty good candidate. Army Ranger, combat veteran, lawyer, family man.

I just learned today that Diane Mitsch Bush has a chance to unseat Scott Tipton, but I don't know much about either candidate.
  #18  
Old 08-16-2018, 04:40 PM
JKellyMap's Avatar
JKellyMap JKellyMap is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 8,954
Good new article here https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...=2018-forecast
on likely "tipping-point" districts. Wealthy Midwestern suburbs seem to be over-represented.

And, seeing those red and blue percentage-chance lines in that timeline graphic ("How the forecast has changed") evoked extremely unpleasant memories of late night nailbiting two years ago (and of course the disaster at the end of the ordeal).
  #19  
Old 08-16-2018, 04:49 PM
BeepKillBeep BeepKillBeep is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,272
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silver lining View Post
By my count the republicans have a 43 seat lead in the house. 236-196, with six vacant seats

https://pressgallery.house.gov/membe...arty-breakdown

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...epresentatives

So 38 seats changed to Democrats will not win them the house.
236-38=198 Rs
196+38=234 Ds

234>198

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk
  #20  
Old 08-16-2018, 06:48 PM
Locrian Locrian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Valley Village, CA
Posts: 3,891
The day before the presidential election, I remember seeing over 78% for a Hillary win. Just sayin'...

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...tion-forecast/

Last edited by Locrian; 08-16-2018 at 06:51 PM.
  #21  
Old 08-16-2018, 07:34 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 6,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by Locrian View Post
The day before the presidential election, I remember seeing over 78% for a Hillary win. Just sayin'...

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...tion-forecast/
This ^^^^^^

And this ^^^^ again.

I'll believe it when I see it.

I also suspect that Putin has some tricks up his sleeve.
  #22  
Old 08-16-2018, 07:58 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 30,435
Quote:
Originally Posted by Locrian View Post
The day before the presidential election, I remember seeing over 78% for a Hillary win. Just sayin'...

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...tion-forecast/
They note this themselves. But 22% things happen more than 1 in 5 times. It's still better to have a higher % chance of something than a lower one.
  #23  
Old 08-16-2018, 08:17 PM
BeepKillBeep BeepKillBeep is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,272
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
This ^^^^^^

And this ^^^^ again.

I'll believe it when I see it.

I also suspect that Putin has some tricks up his sleeve.
Putin is a much better spy than me, but if I were a spy who wanted to further destabilise the USA, I'd support the Democrats with my networks.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk
  #24  
Old 08-16-2018, 08:40 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 6,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeepKillBeep View Post
Putin is a much better spy than me, but if I were a spy who wanted to further destabilise the USA, I'd support the Democrats with my networks.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk
I don't disagree; this could be one of his 'tricks': take a foregone conclusion and throw some doubt in it.
  #25  
Old 08-16-2018, 08:49 PM
DigitalC DigitalC is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Obamatopia
Posts: 10,447
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeepKillBeep View Post
Putin is a much better spy than me, but if I were a spy who wanted to further destabilise the USA, I'd support the Democrats with my networks.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk
No, you'd pretend to support the Democrats, because the day the Democrats actually take over they are going to fuck Russia right up the ass.
  #26  
Old 08-16-2018, 10:49 PM
BeepKillBeep BeepKillBeep is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,272
Quote:
Originally Posted by DigitalC View Post
No, you'd pretend to support the Democrats, because the day the Democrats actually take over they are going to fuck Russia right up the ass.
I'd put my "support" where the Democrats are already likely to win. In fact, the more likely they are to win the better. Ultimately, they don't need to cause any seats to flip, they just need to sow the seeds of illegitimacy, continued division, and "libtard" hate among the less thoughtful Republicans supporters. That will cause the "Better Russian Than Democrat" types deeper into supporting American fascism, more division, the cycle goes round and round and deepens the problems for the USA.
  #27  
Old 08-17-2018, 04:26 AM
Locrian Locrian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Valley Village, CA
Posts: 3,891
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
This ^^^^^^

And this ^^^^ again.

I'll believe it when I see it.

I also suspect that Putin has some tricks up his sleeve.
I was a Nate 538 junkie in 2016, even signed up for updates. Maybe it was the graphs. Now I consider Nate less than accurate than Jimmy the Greek (rest his goofy-picking soul) and about as accurate as Elon Musk is genial.

Last edited by Locrian; 08-17-2018 at 04:28 AM.
  #28  
Old 08-17-2018, 05:06 AM
Lord Feldon's Avatar
Lord Feldon Lord Feldon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Central Ohio
Posts: 5,827
It's interesting, but I'm not sure the whole percentage-forecast concept really works to convey information to the general public about a binary outcome (the number of seats is a secondary concern to who gets the gavel). See all the comments (here and elsewhere) about 2016, where it's reduced to being either right or wrong.

I was going to ask if people saw a 20% chance of rain and got pissed at the weather forecast for being "wrong" when it rained, but then I realized...that actually is what people do. Maybe the idea just doesn't work.

Last edited by Lord Feldon; 08-17-2018 at 05:10 AM.
  #29  
Old 08-17-2018, 05:22 AM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat Sage Rat is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 19,960
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Awesome! God I love Nate and his team.
Dunno, I worry that polls serve as a balancing mechanism. If the poll says that A will win, then everyone on side A stays home and everyone on side B goes to the voting booth. Large, rigorous, believable polls act to move the vote back to being 50/50 instead of whatever they would be naturally.
  #30  
Old 08-17-2018, 05:27 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 30,435
Quote:
Originally Posted by Locrian View Post
I was a Nate 538 junkie in 2016, even signed up for updates. Maybe it was the graphs. Now I consider Nate less than accurate than Jimmy the Greek (rest his goofy-picking soul) and about as accurate as Elon Musk is genial.
Nate's track record, including in 2016, is very good. He works in percentages, and it's pretty damn reasonable that things with about a 25% chance of happening actually happen pretty frequently (about a quarter of the time, in fact). He doesn't deserve any heat for not being perfect.
  #31  
Old 08-17-2018, 05:45 AM
Jragon's Avatar
Jragon Jragon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Miskatonic University
Posts: 10,387
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Feldon View Post
It's interesting, but I'm not sure the whole percentage-forecast concept really works to convey information to the general public about a binary outcome (the number of seats is a secondary concern to who gets the gavel). See all the comments (here and elsewhere) about 2016, where it's reduced to being either right or wrong.

I was going to ask if people saw a 20% chance of rain and got pissed at the weather forecast for being "wrong" when it rained, but then I realized...that actually is what people do. Maybe the idea just doesn't work.
Yeah, people (including me) are bad at probability when it comes to gut reaction and betting/planning/expectation. A 55% chance may as well be a surefire thing, a 45% chance is a sure loss.

Last edited by Jragon; 08-17-2018 at 05:45 AM.
  #32  
Old 08-17-2018, 05:57 AM
JKellyMap's Avatar
JKellyMap JKellyMap is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 8,954
Thank you, Lord Feldon and iiandyiiii. I’m sad to see that so many (including Locrian and, it seems, asahi) still don’t get it. Two years ago, in the run up to the 2016 election, I tried to explain this over and over. Here, for example, I likened a 75% chance to having four bottles of milk in the fridge. If you knew one contained brutally sour milk that would make you sick, would you just blindly reach in and grab one of the four bottles and start gulping, because it was a “foregone conclusion” (to quite asahi) the milk would be fine? Of course not!

In fact, as Nate Silver keeps saying over and over, he would be flat-out WRONG if, say, he predicted certain candidates to have a 75% chance of winning in each of 10 separate races, and all ten did end up winning. He’s MORE RIGHT — his prediction was MORE ACCURATE — if some of them LOSE. He was very clear about the many paths to a Trump victory, and Trump waltzed right down one of those paths.

My brain makes all kinds of mistakes — humans are humans — I’m as fallible as anyone, but it would be nice if this concept could penetrate more the consciousness of American voters who look at 538.

Last edited by JKellyMap; 08-17-2018 at 06:00 AM.
  #33  
Old 08-17-2018, 08:27 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 78,480
And consider that most of Silver's competitors were putting the chances at over 99% for a Clinton win. He certainly did better than all of those folks.

One source of confusion, I think, is that there are two different percentages that get talked about in an election. Usually, when people talk about percentages for an election outcome, they mean the percentage of the vote that each candidate will get. And in those terms, a 60-40 outcome is a huge blowout, and even 55-45 is quite decisive. I think that a lot of people see someone like Silver saying "60% chance" of a Whig victory", and interpret it as "the Whig is going to get 60% of the vote", instead of looking at is as, basically, a tossup that slightly favors the Whig but can very easily go either way.
  #34  
Old 08-17-2018, 09:11 AM
JKellyMap's Avatar
JKellyMap JKellyMap is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 8,954
Yes, that is definitely an important reason for the confusion; but even when someone does grasp the difference you mentioned, they're still vulnerable to the "wet effect" Lord Feldon linked to in post 28.
  #35  
Old 08-17-2018, 09:26 AM
Pleonast's Avatar
Pleonast Pleonast is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Los 'Kamala'ngeles
Posts: 6,743
I like that the vertical scale on "Chance of controlling the House" is odds rather than percentage.

I find it interesting that before the 2016 election some people criticized Nate Silver for being too pessimistic of Democratic chances, but afterwards is criticized for being too optimistic. Of course, since most people have little to no understanding of statistics, probabilities, precision, or accuracy, that is a likely outcome.

By the way, everyone is invited to join our own SDMB election predictions contest. Put your token down on your own best estimate.
  #36  
Old 08-17-2018, 09:54 AM
enalzi enalzi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 7,140
Quote:
Originally Posted by JKellyMap View Post
He was very clear about the many paths to a Trump victory, and Trump waltzed right down one of those paths.
And every time he put out an article about how Trump could win or the projection adjusted toward Trump, people thought he had lost it.

Last edited by enalzi; 08-17-2018 at 09:54 AM.
  #37  
Old 08-17-2018, 10:23 AM
Bijou Drains Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 7,692
my guy is 99% re-election because they packed a lot of NC Dems into his district to make other districts more red. He's been there since 86 and shows no signs of quitting at age 77.
  #38  
Old 08-17-2018, 10:48 AM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 4,990
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
Dunno, I worry that polls serve as a balancing mechanism. If the poll says that A will win, then everyone on side A stays home and everyone on side B goes to the voting booth. Large, rigorous, believable polls act to move the vote back to being 50/50 instead of whatever they would be naturally.
In general I don't think this would be true, as both A and B supporters would be likely to not bother voting. The case where it likely makes a difference is when, like in 2016, there are a significant protest vote component, where people aren't voting so much to elect person A or B but to "send a message to Washington".

Then you have person A voters that they can safely send a message to the establishment by staying home, voting third party, or even voting for B because they know A will win anyway. Meanwhile person B's supporters continue to come out because it wasn't really about electing person B but instead simply voicing their opposition.

After the 2016 debacle I don't think that voters are going to be so careless for some time to come.
  #39  
Old 08-17-2018, 11:27 AM
Lance Turbo Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 2,916
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pleonast View Post
I like that the vertical scale on "Chance of controlling the House" is odds rather than percentage.
This, in my opinion, is a weird thing to like.
  #40  
Old 08-17-2018, 12:46 PM
SantaMan SantaMan is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 286
I believe that 538 had a discussion after the last election on how they should describe chances of winning. IIRC, the thought was that people ar a gut level conflated 70% chance of winning with 70% of the vote, or some such.
When they put the (Aug 2016) notes about "Hold on, this election is NOT a lock."
At that point, I started personally framing it as two coin flips away from a Trump presidency. So I was surprised but not shocked.
  #41  
Old 08-17-2018, 01:24 PM
JKellyMap's Avatar
JKellyMap JKellyMap is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 8,954
Quote:
Originally Posted by SantaMan View Post
At that point, I started personally framing it as two coin flips away from a Trump presidency.
I love this! I'll start using it, instead of my sour-milk analogy.
  #42  
Old 08-17-2018, 01:57 PM
pulykamell pulykamell is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: SW Side, Chicago
Posts: 44,862
Quote:
Originally Posted by SantaMan View Post
I believe that 538 had a discussion after the last election on how they should describe chances of winning. IIRC, the thought was that people ar a gut level conflated 70% chance of winning with 70% of the vote, or some such.
When they put the (Aug 2016) notes about "Hold on, this election is NOT a lock."
At that point, I started personally framing it as two coin flips away from a Trump presidency. So I was surprised but not shocked.
Yep. I was the nervous towards the end, especially when I saw Nate's numbers and, well, it looked like I had good reason to. A 70% chance of winning isn't that comforting when we saw what we ended up with.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Locrian
I was a Nate 538 junkie in 2016, even signed up for updates. Maybe it was the graphs. Now I consider Nate less than accurate than Jimmy the Greek
I sure wouldn't say that. Here's the thing: let's pretend for a moment there are 100 state-level races, and, for simplicity, let's say every single race has a front runner that the model reports has a 70% chance of winning. If the model is correct, then somewhere around 30 of those races should be losses for the model to be correct and accurate. If the model correctly predicts all 100 races, then the model is severely underestimating the probability of the frontrunner's win (or is extremely, extremely, extremely, extremely lucky. It would be like rolling a 10-sided die a hundred times and never having 1, 2, or 3 show up.) I wouldn't consider that a very accurate model that describes the state of the election, but one that severely underestimates the chances of winning.

I'm sure's he's done it somewhere, but I would judge the accuracy of Nate's model or any model not based on whether it predicted the winner in a single race, but rather whether overall the "winning percentage" of the model matches up with the predicted winning percentage of the candidates.

Last edited by pulykamell; 08-17-2018 at 01:59 PM.
  #43  
Old 08-17-2018, 03:15 PM
Lance Turbo Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 2,916
The idea that the 2016 election was some kind of epic failure on Nate Silver's part is bizarre. Here's what he posted on election morning...

Final Election Update: There’s A Wide Range Of Outcomes, And Most Of Them Come Up Clinton

Here's one quote, but there are several where he make's the case for how Trump could win.

Quote:
First, Clinton’s overall lead over Trump — while her gains over the past day or two have helped — is still within the range where a fairly ordinary polling error could eliminate it.
  #44  
Old 08-17-2018, 03:50 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat Sage Rat is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 19,960
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
The idea that the 2016 election was some kind of epic failure on Nate Silver's part is bizarre. Here's what he posted on election morning...

Final Election Update: There’s A Wide Range Of Outcomes, And Most Of Them Come Up Clinton

Here's one quote, but there are several where he make's the case for how Trump could win.
Yep, I for one was freaking out that 538 was giving Trump a 1 in 3 or 1 in 4 chance of winning. I've done a fair amount of work with and within random number generators to have a good sense for how bad those odds actually were for the sanity of the world.
  #45  
Old 08-17-2018, 03:56 PM
DigitalC DigitalC is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Obamatopia
Posts: 10,447
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck Godot View Post
In general I don't think this would be true, as both A and B supporters would be likely to not bother voting. The case where it likely makes a difference is when, like in 2016, there are a significant protest vote component, where people aren't voting so much to elect person A or B but to "send a message to Washington".

Then you have person A voters that they can safely send a message to the establishment by staying home, voting third party, or even voting for B because they know A will win anyway. Meanwhile person B's supporters continue to come out because it wasn't really about electing person B but instead simply voicing their opposition.

After the 2016 debacle I don't think that voters are going to be so careless for some time to come.
I think people are more likely to go out and vote for someone they think is going to win than for someone predicted to lose.
  #46  
Old 08-17-2018, 03:56 PM
BigT's Avatar
BigT BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 34,671
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
Yep, I for one was freaking out that 538 was giving Trump a 1 in 3 or 1 in 4 chance of winning. I've done a fair amount of work with and within random number generators to have a good sense for how bad those odds actually were for the sanity of the world.
I was, too, but I was trying to tell myself it couldn't happen, and hoping that Nate's numbers were off, since there were others out there.

What really bugs me is that I don't know if he was off. We can't go back and run the election multiple times to see if his percentages are right. Even the 95% chance I was hoping for meant that Trump could win 1 in 20 times.

Last edited by BigT; 08-17-2018 at 03:58 PM.
  #47  
Old 08-17-2018, 05:15 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 7,227
Quote:
Originally Posted by DigitalC View Post
No, you'd pretend to support the Democrats, because the day the Democrats actually take over they are going to fuck Russia right up the ass.
With a reset button and would they have enough room to maneuver?
  #48  
Old 08-17-2018, 05:19 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 7,227
Quote:
Originally Posted by JKellyMap View Post
Thank you, Lord Feldon and iiandyiiii. I’m sad to see that so many (including Locrian and, it seems, asahi) still don’t get it. Two years ago, in the run up to the 2016 election, I tried to explain this over and over. Here, for example, I likened a 75% chance to having four bottles of milk in the fridge. If you knew one contained brutally sour milk that would make you sick, would you just blindly reach in and grab one of the four bottles and start gulping, because it was a “foregone conclusion” (to quite asahi) the milk would be fine? Of course not!

In fact, as Nate Silver keeps saying over and over, he would be flat-out WRONG if, say, he predicted certain candidates to have a 75% chance of winning in each of 10 separate races, and all ten did end up winning. He’s MORE RIGHT — his prediction was MORE ACCURATE — if some of them LOSE. He was very clear about the many paths to a Trump victory, and Trump waltzed right down one of those paths.

My brain makes all kinds of mistakes — humans are humans — I’m as fallible as anyone, but it would be nice if this concept could penetrate more the consciousness of American voters who look at 538.
It’s like how that 3 doors with 2 goats and a car puzzle still stumps even the educated. And that’s not even a hard problem.
  #49  
Old 08-17-2018, 06:16 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller Miller is online now
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 43,179
Quote:
Originally Posted by JKellyMap View Post
Thank you, Lord Feldon and iiandyiiii. I’m sad to see that so many (including Locrian and, it seems, asahi) still don’t get it. Two years ago, in the run up to the 2016 election, I tried to explain this over and over. Here, for example, I likened a 75% chance to having four bottles of milk in the fridge. If you knew one contained brutally sour milk that would make you sick, would you just blindly reach in and grab one of the four bottles and start gulping, because it was a “foregone conclusion” (to quite asahi) the milk would be fine? Of course not!
Anyone who's ever played X-Com should understand this.
  #50  
Old 08-18-2018, 03:38 PM
DigitalC DigitalC is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Obamatopia
Posts: 10,447
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
Freaking X-Com taught me anything under 70% is a miss.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:38 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017