Nate Silver 538

Lerxst1992 said:

Jearlpam0925 said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

I’ll say although I hate to admit it trafalgar was right last time, and hear back about a broken clock, perhaps a tune instead.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxlYSV2dMY8

Are you trying to convince people the election will be close? Because i don't think that's an argument anyone is challenging.  I'm not really sure what other point you're trying to get across at this point. 

It’s about the harm handicappers could be doing to our elections.

This is a topic about 538 and I recall the debate started with a few trump supporters meandering on here stating  how these forecasts are absurd given what actually happened in 2016. Then the talk turned to WI, and how it was “solid.” So I joined in, because I think the long departed trump supporters were making an accurate point. I put up side by side images of 538s site 2016 vs now for WI, which looked nearly identical (factoring in 2 former GOP govs running a legit 3rd party campaign). I wouldn’t call that solid at that time.

As a Biden supporter, I’ve been very critical of 538s forecasts and believe I even got Nates attention on social media a week ago about his 87% Biden in PA. That just seems outright absurd given the polling then. And even the polling itself shouldn’t be fully trusted. But, looking at the huge increase in covid cases the last 2 days, it would be catastrophic for the forecasts to be wrong. If they create a few thousand “lazy blue non voters” in key states, does Silver and the others take any accountability if their processes are wrong again? I am hoping for a Biden landslide, but seeing many key states within MoE given how absurdly bad trump is doing...

I think it's absurd to blame 538 for anything related to the election.  The people who read his blog aren't infrequent voters first off. Second,  showing up to vote or not is the "fault"of the voter, not a handicapper or statistician. 

I said 538 did a poor job. They deserve the blame for the job that they did. And it does not matter how often their readers vote. It is literally their job is to figure out who is showing up to vote, and which polls captured that the best. And it’s concerning they are taking the current election where many of the swing states are MoE and forecasting it at 87%. It’s just an opinion. You are welcome to have a different one.

It isn't literally their job to figure out who is showing up to the polls and voting.  Their objective (not their job) is to weight the polls by using their demographic analysis,  which is not the same a figuring out who is going to to vote.  They're statisticians not sorcerers.  By definition they will be wrong a percentage of the time,  when they make predictions. 

Well said.

Did either of you bother to review their process?

Of course 538 tries to figure out turnout. One party wins when turnout is high, he other wins when it isn’t. Their forecast would have zero chance of being close to accurate without being able to predict the approximate makeup and size of the electorate

Of course they will be wrong a percentage of the time. It’s the 12% next to trumps name that is absurd.

538 has about ten references to turnout in their process, here are a few:

“The national snapshot accounts for projected voter turnout in each state based on population growth since 2016, changes in how easy it is to vote since 2016, and how close the race is in that state currently — closer-polling states tend to have higher turnout. National polls are not used in the national snapshot; it’s simply a summation of the snapshots in the 50 states and Washington, D.C.“

There could also be some challenges related to polling during COVID-19. In primary elections conducted during the pandemic, for instance, turnout was hard to  predict. In some ways, the pandemic makes voting easier (expanded options to vote by mail in many states), but it also makes it harder in other ways (it’s difficult to socially distance if you must vote in person).

benjs said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Jearlpam0925 said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

I’ll say although I hate to admit it trafalgar was right last time, and hear back about a broken clock, perhaps a tune instead.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxlYSV2dMY8

Are you trying to convince people the election will be close? Because i don't think that's an argument anyone is challenging.  I'm not really sure what other point you're trying to get across at this point. 

It’s about the harm handicappers could be doing to our elections.

This is a topic about 538 and I recall the debate started with a few trump supporters meandering on here stating  how these forecasts are absurd given what actually happened in 2016. Then the talk turned to WI, and how it was “solid.” So I joined in, because I think the long departed trump supporters were making an accurate point. I put up side by side images of 538s site 2016 vs now for WI, which looked nearly identical (factoring in 2 former GOP govs running a legit 3rd party campaign). I wouldn’t call that solid at that time.

As a Biden supporter, I’ve been very critical of 538s forecasts and believe I even got Nates attention on social media a week ago about his 87% Biden in PA. That just seems outright absurd given the polling then. And even the polling itself shouldn’t be fully trusted. But, looking at the huge increase in covid cases the last 2 days, it would be catastrophic for the forecasts to be wrong. If they create a few thousand “lazy blue non voters” in key states, does Silver and the others take any accountability if their processes are wrong again? I am hoping for a Biden landslide, but seeing many key states within MoE given how absurdly bad trump is doing...

I think it's absurd to blame 538 for anything related to the election.  The people who read his blog aren't infrequent voters first off. Second,  showing up to vote or not is the "fault"of the voter, not a handicapper or statistician. 

I said 538 did a poor job. They deserve the blame for the job that they did. And it does not matter how often their readers vote. It is literally their job is to figure out who is showing up to vote, and which polls captured that the best. And it’s concerning they are taking the current election where many of the swing states are MoE and forecasting it at 87%. It’s just an opinion. You are welcome to have a different one.

It isn't literally their job to figure out who is showing up to the polls and voting.  Their objective (not their job) is to weight the polls by using their demographic analysis,  which is not the same a figuring out who is going to to vote.  They're statisticians not sorcerers.  By definition they will be wrong a percentage of the time,  when they make predictions. 

Well said.

Did either of you bother to review their process?

Of course 538 tries to figure out turnout. One party wins when turnout is high, he other wins when it isn’t. Their forecast would have zero chance of being close to accurate without being able to predict the approximate makeup and size of the electorate

Of course they will be wrong a percentage of the time. It’s the 12% next to trumps name that is absurd.

538 has about ten references to turnout in their process, here are a few:

“The national snapshot accounts for projected voter turnout in each state based on population growth since 2016, changes in how easy it is to vote since 2016, and how close the race is in that state currently — closer-polling states tend to have higher turnout. National polls are not used in the national snapshot; it’s simply a summation of the snapshots in the 50 states and Washington, D.C.“

There could also be some challenges related to polling during COVID-19. In primary elections conducted during the pandemic, for instance, turnout was hard to  predict. In some ways, the pandemic makes voting easier (expanded options to vote by mail in many states), but it also makes it harder in other ways (it’s difficult to socially distance if you must vote in person).

The 12% you find 'absurd' is simply the percentage of the roughly 40,000 simulations run to predict the outcome of the election where Trump wins. It's also not buried - it's literally right above the chart indicating the 12%, and the histograms indicating the average distribution across the simulations explain it even more.

Next, I'm not sure what your point is about turnout. Given that the EC works off of winner-takes-all in the vast majority of states, it seems wholly inconsequential whether a state wins by ten points or two - it only matters which combinations of states are won and lost. As you wrote, closer-polling states tend to have higher turnout - but that doesn't favour one party over the other, it just heightens the sense of urgency and draws both sides out to the voting booth, meaning it remains competitive. Fear about the other side winning is and will continue to be exploited by both Biden and Trump, which has up and down-side potential for both depending on whose messaging resonates louder.

Finally, in terms of 'grading' 538, it's absurd to grade statisticians based on who wins the election, as that isn't something anyone can estimate because it's a probability (it's like if I told you there's a 1 in 2 million chance of you dying in your shower last night, and you saying "that can't be true, because I didn't die last night"). A far more reasonable way to grade them would be to look at the final vote results, to evaluate whether they were close to the central tendency of the polls' expected corrected results, and if not to assure they were within the proposed margins of error. 

The Juggler said:

Confidence levels are high.

OnWis97 said:

I don't know how anyone looks at that graphic and feels good. New Hampshire, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Florida, North Carolina.  All light blue.  I don's see Trump losing any outside of maybe Minnesota and Nevada.  And the light pink ones?  Color them dark red right now.

benjs said:

The Juggler said:

OnWis97 said:

I don't know how anyone looks at that graphic and feels good. New Hampshire, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Florida, North Carolina.  All light blue.  I don's see Trump losing any outside of maybe Minnesota and Nevada.  And the light pink ones?  Color them dark red right now.

lol

Are you not going to allow yourself any level of confidence until 12:00pm on 1/20/21?

To be honest, until he’s gone, I’m not.

The Juggler said:

Put it this way, folks. Here's the deal. Biden has a better chance at winning Texas than Trump has of winning Pennsylvania. There are a million different scenarios for Biden to become president without winning Texas and there are hardly any for Trump without PA. That's number one. 

Number two. Get those confidence levels up.