So Sam Wang said on Sep 9 that the Republicans had 5% odds of a 9 seat gain. Currently they have an 8 seat gain and are favored to win Louisiana in December. So yeah, I think there’s something wrong with his model.
Hey, we learn from our mistakes and Wang does this stuff on the side anyway. Plus his model is open source, so any modeler with the skills and time can debug it.
The Monkey Cage (I think they call themselves the Election Lab here) scored the various models with Brier scores. Lowest are best.
“Brier scores take into account both whether races were called correctly and the underlying confidence of the forecast. The best outcome is to be 100 percent certain and correct (a Brier score of 0). The worst outcome is to be 100 percent certain and incorrect (a Brier score of 1). Lower scores are better.”[/INDENT] That’s a fine starting place, but it throws away some information. Another method might work off of the probability distributions of the point spreads. forecasting models
Bar chart (shorter are better):
Daily Kos
Election Lab
538
PredictWise
Pollster
Upshot
Sam Wang
Interesting that the partisan Daily Kos had the best model by that metric.
One thing that i wonder will be taken into account in future election is the conventional wisdom that undecideds tend to break for the challenger. I realize that hasn’t always been the case, but it seems to be a marker of wave elections. Might be something to build into the fundamentals when the condition seem to be breaking that way. It happened in 2006 and it happened again in 2014. Strangely it did not happen in 2010, but it seems to be a phenomenon that can’t be ignored, even if it can’t be predicted reliably.
Interesting but not terribly surprising. Markos was a Republican originally who got disgusted with the GOP when they started denying reality. Daily Kos is a partisan website, but the opinions expressed by the people who post and comment there are incredibly diverse…there are Wall Street Dems, Main Street Dems, Purity Dems, Special Interest Dems and a bunch of other types. When DK’s old pollster turned out to be a bit of a fraud, Markos went looking for a new pollster who was scrupulously neutral.
Any new polls out on the LA runoff? Conventional wisdom seems to be that Republicans are heavily favored, but I’ve not seen any updated polls since the election.
Meanwhile the Democrats are going to pass the Keystone Pipeline in an effort to shore Landrieu up. Don’t know what the impact will be, though.
THat’s silly. It’s a mode of transportation. If we hadn’t built Amtrak, it would just mean more people taking Greyhound. If we don’t push oil through a pipeline, we do it through trains and trucks instead.
Maybe. Or if they can’t figure out what triggers it they can ignore it and put the effect into the error term. Coattails are another related concept that is trickier than the conventional wisdom holds.
Another way of handling it is to present your model, state that it doesn’t cover Factor X or Factor Y, then run through what the studies say. That way your model stays simple/parsimonious but the analyst can report whether he thinks it underestimates or overestimates the challenger’s odds. 538 does this to some extent. The data can take you to a certain point, but no farther. Though again, if you ignore the baseline your pontifications are worthless.
It won’t save Louisiana, Landrieu’s likely deficit is too much in all likelihood. But if Democrats want to start reaching white working class voters again, one way to do that is to stop putting environmental concerns above jobs and cheaper energy.
i do see where liberals are coming from on environmental issues, but the country is only for “easy” environmentalism. Recycle! Voluntarily! Better fuel efficiency as long as it doesn’t cost too much! In order to push a real environmental agenda, Democrats have to make the case that this stuff is actually more important than short-term economic concerns. Instead, they are doing what they usually do: making Keystone a negotiation between the party and the environmental lobby and basically regarding the average American voter as irrelevant to the discussion. Republicans have made the case for Keystone directly to the public. Democrats haven’t engaged on the issue at all.
Nice Republican Racket, do nothing to help the people that would be affected with legislation to help them in a transition economy. (And deny the science too) Then when only regulations are left to deal with the issue (and regulations indeed not do anything about the jobs that are affected) the Republicans scream bloody murder when the situation we are reaching is their fault indeed.
However, as usual you are mistaken, as Republican scientist Richard Alley reported:
As I said before, many Republicans of today do not care that some people like Joe The Plumber got his original livelihood thanks to humans deciding it was worth it to clean the cities and rivers.
And so to remark on how wrong you are: Why do you hate Joe the Solar panel worker? Or all the other jobs that will appear in the more concerted efforts to control emissions.
And some of those efforts will come indeed from the fossil fuel industry, I do think they also do have the will to make the changes, they only need to see the light, and some pressure to do the right thing.
I don’t think you’re getting it. Your excuse for not engaging with the public on the issue is that it just won’t cost enough that they’ll notice? Not building Keystone is a cost Americans are seeing.
You should stop relying on an argument from ignorance.
Both on the general and the particular.
In the general you are ignoring that we should not continue like we are if there are no control of out emissions, and many Americans do notice that what ALEC and the Kochs and other fossil fuel barons are doing against solar power is bananas, yes even many on the right think so.
In the particular, I already told you before that if the bill supporting Keystone comes with the green power initiative added then I will accept it, again, to the atmosphere it does not matter where the CO2 is coming from, the problem is using the atmosphere as a sewer and connecting both Keystone with the mechanisms to reduce the overall emissions is then a good compromise considering the prevailing anti-science that as Tyson pointed out to Bill Moyers it will affect our economy, and not in a good way.
We’re not arguing the merits of the policy. As I said, I get the argument. But why aren’t Democrats taking your arguments to the public?
On Keystone, the Democrats have conceded public opinion to my side. There isn’t even an effort to push back. They’ve been totally playing the inside game on Keystone.
I already pointed out that I did agree with a lot of what you said on your thread about the democrats figuring out why they lost, do not act like if I did not do that and indeed one of the items was the Democrats not making a concerted effort, in this election this issue was brought to the public in many local races, but unlike AFP the ones warning the public about the “fake not crazy Republican candidates” did not concentrate on “get to vote” efforts, it was mostly on ads.
You act once again like if that is a surprise to me, that was also a factor why the democrats lost.
Anyhow, you are still wrong overall, there is a lot of jobs to be had when we finally do make concerted effort to change. And the complaints the Republican leaders made against the deal Obama made with China makes a mockery of the idea that they will act more moderate, in reality they continue to follow misleaders like George Will (And who elected him?) and the orders from the robber barons of the fossil fuel industry.
Those “robber barons” actually go directly to the public. Who is going to the public on the other side? Al Gore, that’s about it. It’s an unequal fight.
But there is some truth to the part about being an unequal fight. But as I also pointed on another thread, the spectacle of the Republican leadership acting like the Tea Party on this will mean that more rich people and companies will realize the mistake they made by thinking that a lot of the crazy Republicans were acting more reasonable, so far it looks like the efforts the Republican candidates made to sound reasonable just long enough to sound reasonable to enough independents (“I’m not a scientist”) did work. But listening to the comments about the China deal this and the future evisceration attempt at the EPA will show to a lot of the powerful (that do not work on the fossil fuel industry) in the US about the big mistake they did.
As Tyson said:
Tyson is an optimist, and I hope he is right, but what I see is that it is not just the classrooms where we are seeing the continuation of a mistake that even economical scientists are telling us it is. And this is not just in a school classroom, but it will be perpetrated in government itself; by the way, the fact that Inhofe will get the gavel in the commissions that will deal with this issue shows that regardless how much moderate they claimed to be, the Republicans will not do much of an effort to tell Inhofe to pipe down in his stupid accusations that the scientists are perpetrating a hoax.
You know, he may be on to something, If I understand his nuanced thinking, he’s saying that going up against money and power is a difficult proposition.
When you’ve actually tried to make the case, you can claim that you lost due to money and power.
The Democrats evidently think that the oil companies are more persuasive than they are. Because the oil companies run ads that appeal directly to the public. As a general rule, I find that the side that is more confident in their rightness aren’t afraid to go to the public. The side that is not confident seeks to do things out of the public eye. Like make deals with environmental groups to block Keystone.
As pointed before you are still wrong. And creationists also do not have trouble going to the public with their confusion that subjects like this can be legislated away.
I do love the populist spin you put on that, like Big Oil is a champion of the people! As if twisting arms in Congress to get their way would be effective, they would eschew such an effort if they felt that they did not totally have the support of the people. This good news, heartening to hear that they are steeped in idealistic fervor for democracy above all else! Profits be damned, its the people above all!
As the story develops, will there be unicorns and wizards? I’m fond of unicorns and wizards in my fairy tales.
