538 Polls-Only Forecast
- Thread starter qazplm
- Start date
If the SE turns to blueish, wow.
With open races, Dems could take the Senate and house too right?
With open races, Dems could take the Senate and house too right?
Eh, House is almost no way. First, redistricting leaves very few competitive seats even in wave elections. Second, the DCCC didn't realize how much Trump would open things up for them so they didn't recruit as well as they should have to take advantage.
So I'd be shocked if the Dems took the House. I'd say the money is on the Dems taking the Senate probably 70-30 (odds, not seats).
GA was single digits last time, so this isn't a shift so much as an evolution as the minority and degreed White population is growing (in effect, GA is following NC demographically-speaking).
SC will take longer, if at all, and TX is slowly turning bluer and bluer too.
If the Reps want to ever win the Presidency again, they better get on-board with some form of immigration reform or else they aren't going to win it any time soon demographically-speaking.
I think Austin is blue and that's about it in Texas. Wouldn't hold my breath there if I were you.
Maybe the Republican party will be killed off by the Trump/Tea Party crowd, and we'll end up with Libertarians and some far-right party. Then we can all hold hands, fly rainbow flags, and sing kumbaya while forfeiting more and more of our paychecks to the Democrats.
;-)
Houston, Austin, El Paso, and Dallas. The ratio of Hispanics is growing as well. As that ratio climbs higher, and as the youth age, you will see Texas turn bluer and bluer. Probably not this election, and probably not the next one but within 3-4 elections it will become a battleground state a republican Presidential candidate will have to compete in.
And because of those and other demos, what you will see is a reshaped republican party that changes course in many social issues and on immigration and focus more on conservative economic policies and less on the other two...they will have to if they want to survive.
And that will be what brings them back to co-equal status with the Dem Party IMO. When that happens depends on when the republican party realizes they need to stop catering to the extreme right.
But the extreme right is the loudest, and they're holding their breath until they turn purple (ironically).
i don't know where you get this garbage. Ohio is polling within error. So how does it lean toward clinton? this is just stupid and a complete waste of time.
what is stupid and a complete waste of time is someone who doesn't bother to read the website or figure out what the f the map is about.
MO is within the MOE but it leans Trump, same with UT.
Do you see any tossups on the map? Now, so what does that tell your simple self?
Find someone smarter to explain it to you. This is why I don't waste my time responding to you.
This is the same guy who said trump had no chance to win the GOP nomination. You know nothing about stats. Z E R O. Georgia's going to Trump. Always has been. But it's blue? Right...this is tailor made for goofs like you to go give this moron click-throughs.
That's what you do when you get shown up! You just act like a bitch. You're a phony clinton media specialist making 15 bucks an hour to post tripe.
Not saying this map is perfect, but the guy behind 538 is Nate Silver, and his track record in projecting elections is quite impressive.
In 2008, his state projections went 49/50. In 2012, they went 50/50. Whatever else he is, he's not a moron. Interestingly, you mentioned that he screwed up the Trump nomination projection. He wrote an entire article explaining the mistakes he made. Again, an impressive owning-up to his shortcomings - something that the many, MANY other people who missed on that one never did. You can check it out here:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-i-acted-like-a-pundit-and-screwed-up-on-donald-trump/
but calling him a moron for posting the results of POLLS ONLY is...well, moron comes to mind. He isn't providing analysis, he's simply aggregating all the polls and assigning colors to one side or the other based on the margin they are ahead. About the only analysis he is doing is weighing later polls more than older ones.
So that map has ZERO to do with Nate Silver. His Polls PLUS IS Nate Silver's analysis.
Weight of polls is based upon more than recency:
We calculate a weighted average in each state, where poll weights are based on three factors:
- FiveThirtyEight’s pollster ratings, which are based on a firm’s track record and methodological standards.
- Sample size. A larger sample helps, but there are diminishing returns.
- Recency, which is less important early in the campaign and becomes more important later on.
- When a firm polls a state multiple times, the most recent poll gets more weight, but the older polls aren’t discarded entirely. The trend line adjustment (see Step 2) also helps to put more emphasis on recent data.
so none of those other weights are anything other than logical but that doesn't fundamentally alter the point that his polls only forecast is basically a poll aggregator. He's not performing any analysis, he's not adjusting for bounces, he's not adding an "economic index," he's leaving third party candidates with exactly what they get, and he's not trying to figure out "likely voters" or giving a preference to likely or registered voter polls. It's all mixed in.
Oh, I agree, I just wanted to point out the additional metrics for weight beyond recency.
To call Nate Silver and the team at FiveThirtyEight "morons" is both juvenile and ridiculous.
He has an agenda. Just like OP does. And it's most certainly NOT to be an unbiased statistical analyst.
Well, his agenda doesn't appear to be affecting his accuracy.
no he's another daily kos, nyt lwnj employed blogger like our wannabe OP. The bias is palpable, chewy even. You guys want to be sheep, that's fine. I'm not. I'll take any bets on how georgia goes, it didn't go for obama, you think it's going to go for hillary?! use your brain.
Why not click to the "polls plus forecast" to see where your favorite "nut-job blogger" has Georgia? Either you don't understand what 538 does or you're being willfully obstinate. Which is it, and what name will you call me for asking such a question?
He didn't just predict the outcome of 2008 and 2012, he predicted it by state and was right in 99 out of 100 chances. So, exactly what affect is his agenda having on the accuracy of his predictions? Or is it your contention that, but for his agenda, he would have gotten 100 out of 100 predictions correct?
BTW, you do understand that Nate Silver isn't calling Georgia for Hillary, right? He's just aggregating current data and showing it's leaning her way. So, by election day, it's still possible that Georgia will be showing up as red on 538.
Do you honestly think Trump would have any chance of winning this election if it were held today? Are you in that much denial?
Are you going to give me a dissertation on Bayesian inference? i know what they do. It's not magic, and there are people out there doing it better, and without the bias. I didn't call you a name? Are you begging for one?
We're only talking about Georgia as far as I can tell. If he's saying Trump's going to win the election ceteris paribus he's got bigger problems.
Just not sure why you're so butt-hurt about this map if you're not in denial. It seems to be pretty accurate based on the tenor of things right now. I think there's a great chance that this map is accurate come election time, specifically that every swing state goes to Hillary. I expect her to win more states than Obama did, even with Indiana going to Trump because of Pence.
omg...seriously. I work with stats everyday. I'm probably one of the few people with R stat windows up on my computer right this second. I know what it means, but thats not how it's being represented by the op.
because it's a purposeful misrepresentation of data by someone who purposely misrepresents data all the time.
I'm pretty sure no one represented anything other than this is what 538's election map looks like now.
I just looked at a few polls for the state, and head-to-head they showed Clinton edging out Trump. When you included third party candidates, Trump edged Clinton. Seems to mirror what that map is showing given the map only mentions two candidates.
So you do understand what they're doing and you do understand that 538 has Trump with a 72% chance of winning Georgia in their "polls-plus forecast" model? So what evidence are you using to conclude his "moronic, left-wing-nut-job" status? What statistics do you have that make you an enlightened thinker compared to us "sheep"?
