2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumClinton has a 99% chance of winning Michigan.....
UPDATED 3:43 PM EST | MAR 8, 2016
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/michigan-democratic/
OOPS!
AgerolanAmerican
(1,000 posts)taking future 538 predictions for the WAGs they appear to be
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)No matter how many numbers you have to crunch there is the unpredictability of human behavior.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)Wild Ass Guess?
AgerolanAmerican
(1,000 posts)good guess!
nxylas
(6,440 posts)In Britain, WAG is a slightly sexist and classist, derogatory term for the Wives And Girlfriends of top professional soccer players. It conjures up images of horrible orange spray tans and ostentatiously expensive clothes. To.me, it has connotations of wanting to keep young working class women in "their place", so please don't mistake my explanation for approval.
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)I don't blame them for being wrong or even being so wrong it is comical. I am just glad they were wrong.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)I don't mean more educated or even IQ increases. I mean I think they are onto the 1% and finally get that they have been getting hosed.
Cassiopeia
(2,603 posts)The majority still carry water for those that keep us enslaved to the 1% and do so with glee and pride.
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)who your worst enemies are.
Cassiopeia
(2,603 posts)It's really not very hard if you have that skill. Most do not and it has been intentionally removed from our education system for that very reason.
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)And like you said it's not taught in schools, the reason is because people are supposed to work not think.
pat_k
(9,313 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)Don't accept a wooden Hillary.
ozone_man
(4,825 posts)Or is it wood?
leveymg
(36,418 posts)bunnies
(15,859 posts)That ends that!
MelissaB
(16,420 posts)hatrack
(59,584 posts)Oh, fuck it!
Land of Enchantment
(1,217 posts)too funny! Thanks!
John Poet
(2,510 posts)before they've done it.
I was also personally offended by Hillary's obvious pandering over the Flint water crisis. I guess other folks here didn't care so much for that either.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)onecaliberal
(32,826 posts)TSIAS
(14,689 posts)Both of his forecasts, polls and polls plus, gave him a less than 1 % chance of victory.
For Nate, this is a colossal embarrassment. It's one thing to get a close race wrong, but he completely screwed up this projection.
Cal Carpenter
(4,959 posts)It's worse than ever this time around.
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,868 posts)P R E S S R E L E A S E
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: March 6, 2016 Contact:
Steve Mitchell
248-891-2414
Clinton Opens Up Huge Lead in Michigan
(Clinton 66% - Sanders 29%)
http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/Mitchell-FOX2DetroitMIPollDEM3616.pdf
OOPS?
Separation
(1,975 posts)An open primary?
longship
(40,416 posts)One selects the ballot when goes to the polls. It is not binding. So yes, it is an open primary. But it is not likely that many GOP opted to vote a Democratic ballot. The GOP are truly mad as hatters here.
cannabis_flower
(3,764 posts)independents swayed it. It's also possible that the debate swayed it.
Trajan
(19,089 posts)Greater than 99% .... HAH!
litlbilly
(2,227 posts)TSIAS
(14,689 posts)I'm not anti-Nate, but this shows that the math isn't always so simple. He's much smarter than I, but somehow he screwed up.
mhatrw
(10,786 posts)Zorra
(27,670 posts)TalkingDog
(9,001 posts)n/t
Attorney in Texas
(3,373 posts)Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)Attorney in Texas
(3,373 posts)use a bunch of number to pick the conventional wisdom favorite and call it a prediction.
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)His model would work better if he actually talked to people in addition to crunching numbers.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)Just like "mediums" after they miss the mark time after time. People forget the negative predictions in favor of the ones that were right.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)were totally and tragically wrong.
He's built a reputation and he'll keep it no matter how many times he is wrong.
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)OMG the Iraqi war pundits it's really not so bad they were wrong, people make mistakes and huge ones. But they were wrong for a decade, now that is a special kind of wrong.
Land of Enchantment
(1,217 posts)how he almost immediately takes down his data as soon as possible.
LonePirate
(13,417 posts)His number crunching is rather straightforward. His problem is that the numbers he is given to crunch are flawed, through no fault of his own.
The root of his mistakes is tied to the horrible polling being conducted this election season. As long as the polls are wrong, 538 will be wrong as well.
Jarqui
(10,123 posts)http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-michigan-presidential-democratic-primary
This is the one poll that got roughly close:
http://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2016/trump-leads-gop-field-in-michigan-democratic-race-close/?utm_campaign=media-pitch&utm_medium=email
Robbins
(5,066 posts)but it was only one in realm of reality.
winning by 2% with 97% In is huge victory for bernie.
FreedomRain
(413 posts)and damn if I can find the thread, I didnt throw in my guess, but most predictions were right around the actual outcome
AzDar
(14,023 posts)mhatrw
(10,786 posts)Cobalt Violet
(9,905 posts)Go Bernie Go.
Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)Response to ForgoTheConsequence (Original post)
DUbeornot2be This message was self-deleted by its author.
CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)I hope others share my feeling about Real Clear Politics and how they are totally unreliable in primary predictions.
First off, when you have a state that has an impending primary--it is not helpful to factor in polls that are 2 or 3 weeks old. We have very little time between primaries. It is not helpful to rely on RCP averages that aggregate polls from weeks ago. When you've got a week between state votes--so much happens to the numbers in that week.
Look what happened to Michigan! Yesterday, RCP said that Hillary was ahead by 21 points. This was based on past polls and a couple of recent polls that did show the race tightening. However, they included two AWFUL polls that should have been relegated to the trash heap. One robo poll had Hillary ahead in Michigan by 30+ points. It was ridiculous.
When you have states in which there is only one or two weeks to convince people--the dynamics are constantly shifting. The campaigns hold rallies, events, their ground games get geared up and ads are running. The numbers can shift drastically day to day.
Going forward, I think it would be wise to just trash any outfit that aggregates these polls. What we really need is a very recent, reliable poll. Anything else, is shit. And a waste of time.
moondust
(19,972 posts)Maybe Nate has parlayed his past successes into becoming a highly respected, highly paid "driver" for the oligarchy.
elljay
(1,178 posts)I think Nate genuinely tries to do a good job. It is just that the assumptions that always worked in the past do not work in this crazy election. Both parties are in revolt against the establishment and it just may not be possible to accurately predict this election. Think about it- who honestly would have predicted last year that an old Jewish socialist from Vermont would be taking it to Clinton and the favorite Jeb! would be forced out early in the season?
moondust
(19,972 posts)I'm wary of polls anyway knowing that with a little sleight of hand polls can be made to return the results somebody wants--or pays for.
99 percent? Wow.
TM99
(8,352 posts)also failed so miserably in his UK voting predictions last year, that maybe, just maybe, he would take a deep and long look at these 'assumptions'. As a scientist and professional he should, but I suspect his support for Clinton biases his 'assumptions'.
I love when human psychology trumps math.
elljay
(1,178 posts)deserves its own thread.
zazen
(2,978 posts)If they define likely voters by a metric that includes a yes or frequency count re voting in past elections, or to whether they show up on a phone list because they in fact did vote in some of the past elections, then perhaps that's why every single one of those polls was skewed.
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)Will they stop at nothing?!
John Poet
(2,510 posts)I wasn't in the best of moods today.... until tonight!
So the polling average was only off by 23 points!
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)The Traveler
(5,632 posts)Rather, it analyzes polls and uses statistical modelling methods (like "Monte Carlo" to make predictions of outcomes.
If the polls that provide the input to the models are based on faulty samples then 538 is going to produce incorrect predictions. Garbage in, garbage out. So ... what's wrong (and right) with the polls?
Polls in late 2015 tended to under estimate millennial voter turnout. (The CNN/ORC poll in December literally included no one in the sample under the age of 50! This is basically expressing an assumption that younger voters won't turn out.) In those states where younger voters have outperformed the predictions of the sample, Sanders has either won or out performed expectations and made it close.
Michigan is the most striking example of this. Polls had Ms Clinton way out in front. I could have SWORN I saw a Google alert earlier in the evening announcing a Clinton victory. Imagine my surprise (and delight) when one came up with the news that Sanders had won!
He lost big in Mississippi ... and I haven't looked at the demographics of that vote yet. But I bet young voter turnout was small. Why does Clinton do so well in the South? I think a lot of it has to do with the influence of the black church down here. It is impossible to over estimate the importance of the black church in the role of the black community in the South, or indeed across the nation. But especially in the South. The influence is justified by its history. And the black church leans heavily Clinton. The Sanders movement simply did not successfully make its case to the leadership of that vital element of the Southern community.
But the South has pretty much voted. Michigan has shown what can be done. Let's do it!
Trav
rpannier
(24,329 posts)Kudos and an A++
Matariki
(18,775 posts)'it's the math stupid'
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)rpannier
(24,329 posts)Gephardt will be Kerry's Running Mate
tomm2thumbs
(13,297 posts)they actually said "GREATER THAN 99%" chance
C Moon
(12,212 posts)From what I recall, in the 2012 election, most of the other polls were predicting a Romney win, but Nate Silvers called it for Obama.
Response to ForgoTheConsequence (Original post)
Corruption Inc This message was self-deleted by its author.