But I never would have made that prediction in October. And I overestimated Trump a little bit, as I predicted he would win EVERY primary. I also thought Dems crossing the aisle and voting Trump out of strategy, sabotage or spite would be a talking point and that was a non-issue.
But I kind of predicted the tone of Republican reaction although I misjudged the intensity.
Are we out of adaher predictions (other than that the winner of the general election will come from a certain group [that happens to look less and less likely])? adaher, do you care to make any for the remainder of the primary season and into the general election?
There’s this, but the only thing in there that seems a little off is Rubio winning Virginia. Sanders winning Massachusetts is also contraindicated by polling.
If I only went with what the polls said it wouldn’t be predicting, would it? Upsets happen. It is practically a guarantee that at least one or two races won’t end up as polled, and any prognosticator with a pair is going to make an educated guess as to which races are most likely to be surprises.
Well no, actually. A prognosticator could reasonably say the polls will hold and even say there won’t be any surprises. I mean it might not help his ratings or garner him massive acculades when ridiculous predictions come true. But I guess that’s the question you have to ask: do you want to be a ballsy prognosticator or an accurate one?
Well, if you want to be 80% accurate, you just cite the polls. If you want to be 100% accurate, you have to read the trends and figure out who has momentum and how things might be changing.
Of course, no one is 100% accurate, predicting upsets is a very difficult thing to do. But if you never try then you aren’t really prognosticating, you’re just picking the favorites.
Well if you have real insight and knowledge that belies the polls that’s one thing but istm some defy the polls because of their own prejudices and wishful thinking. Not naming names or nothin’.
And since you are shooting less than 80%, maybe you should stick with the polls.
I’m guilty of that, but I also rely on historical trends and data. I predicted a Kasich win in NH because I thought Trump was wounded, and Kasich as the 2nd place candidate was likely to take 1st since the actual winner(Cruz) wasn’t going to win NH under any circumstances. And in a normal election year, Kasich may very well have beaten Trump. Mitt Romney getting beaten in IA by Huck was a catalyst that helped JOhn McCain win NH. So it wasn’t just me wishing for the stars, although I’ll admit I was influenced by my Kasich fanboyism.
My predictions of Rubio gaining an upset in a couple of states is based on a) his strong last debate performance, b) the recognition by mainstream GOP voters that they MUST stop Trump and in most states Rubio is the guy best suited to do that(In TX that would be Cruz of course), and c) yes, a dose of wishful thinking.
As for Sanders and MA, RCP average is 6.7 Clinton, so not a crazy prediction, plus the makeup of the Dem voter base there gives him some natural advantages. I’m a little worried post-SC, because in the previous three races Sanders outperformed early expectations and in SC he laid an egg. But I still think he’ll outperform outside the South.
If you had gone with his odds, you’ll be doing much, much better than you currrently are.
There have been so few contests that it’s hard to tell – I think it was better for the Dems in SC and NV, and not as good in IA and NH, and for the Republicans I don’t recall. Further, he continually tweaks it, taking into account the most recent election results. We’ll know more after the today’s results.
True, but that takes no particular insight to bet on the favorites. I don’t claim to be better than the polls, I just claim to be better than most people at figuring out where things are headed. Of course, I had a spectacular faceplant in 2012 and I’ve completely missed the boat on Donald Trump. Although I’m not alone on that latter one. I did correctly call that Jeb Bush would gain no traction when quite a few SDMB posters were confident that he was going to be the guy.
I’d also note that when Sam Wang was claiming that all the Democrats were leading in their Senate races that I pointed out that Senate races don’t often turn on the fundamentals until late and that the Democratic incumbents were skating on name recognition at that point. That was me going WAY against the polls and getting it pretty close. I whiffed on Scott Brown but got most of the rest of them.
That’s an ultra safe prediction. Impress me by picking one race where the polling is off. You don’t even have to predict an upset. Tell ya what just do this:
Pick the one candidate who will do better than expected today, in either party. They don’t have to win, they just have to exceed their polling averages by more than anyone else. SOMEONE is going to exceed expectations by at least a little bit, so just tell me who you think that will be. And if you’re sure it’s no one, that the polling is almost completely accurate, go with that.
Well my prediction is based on polling and the actual set up of delegate allocation. That’s what makes it a smart prediction. But actually, on CNN I was looking at projections of under 300. Like 280 maybe.
Eta: I think Rubio might do better in a couple of states than polling suggests, like Georgia, but I don’t think it will affect his delegate count by anything noticeable.
I actually think Sanders is going to surprise more than Rubio, but I’m hoping he pulls of a couple of wins. Trouble is, ANY win is Rubio’s first. Cruz is the only other guy with a win and he’ll almost certainly get at least a second one today.
But actually, on CNN I was looking at projections of under 300. Like 280 maybe.