Things that made you smile today (Political Version)

[drauz]

[GS4Pirate]

This guy has never been wrong, predicting a 97% chance of Trump presidency. Ouch!

http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/24/po...een-97-and-99/

[Latrinsorm]

This guy has never been wrong, predicting a 97% chance of Trump presidency. Ouch!

http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/24/po...een-97-and-99/

I've tried finding this fellow's actual model and it's been pretty hard. I have found writing from 2008 which seems to contradict the 2016 version on a number of points:

1. "The forecast model is strictly a popular-vote model." This seems really strong language to me, and is glossed over quite quickly in the article. Given that the standard error is 2.5 Trump could lose the popular vote outright within two standard error, let alone having enough popular vote to dominate the electoral vote.

2. "Nearly every time primary support exceeds 50%, the candidate of the White House party goes on to victory in November." Sanders won 60% of the New Hampshire primary, yet somehow the model predicts Trump having a better chance against him than Hilary, and...

3. "The electoral prospects for the out-party in November are gloomy when the primary support of its candidate falls short of 50%." Trump won only 35% of the New Hampshire primary.

It's called the primary model, and it doesn't seem like it's following its primary rules at all. It also references a cyclical adjustment but there's even less detail on that, all I can find is "a positive sign of the coefficient for the vote in the preceding presidential election and a negative sign of the coefficient for vote in the presidential election two terms back." but they were both landslide Democrat wins so I would guess it cancels out...?

Anyway, as always: never trust what a newspaperman has to say about math. If you can't get the math, it's just words.

[drauz]

[GS4Pirate]

I've tried finding this fellow's actual model and it's been pretty hard. I have found writing from 2008 which seems to contradict the 2016 version on a number of points:

1. "The forecast model is strictly a popular-vote model." This seems really strong language to me, and is glossed over quite quickly in the article. Given that the standard error is 2.5 Trump could lose the popular vote outright within two standard error, let alone having enough popular vote to dominate the electoral vote.

2. "Nearly every time primary support exceeds 50%, the candidate of the White House party goes on to victory in November." Sanders won 60% of the New Hampshire primary, yet somehow the model predicts Trump having a better chance against him than Hilary, and...

3. "The electoral prospects for the out-party in November are gloomy when the primary support of its candidate falls short of 50%." Trump won only 35% of the New Hampshire primary.

It's called the primary model, and it doesn't seem like it's following its primary rules at all. It also references a cyclical adjustment but there's even less detail on that, all I can find is "a positive sign of the coefficient for the vote in the preceding presidential election and a negative sign of the coefficient for vote in the presidential election two terms back." but they were both landslide Democrat wins so I would guess it cancels out...?

Anyway, as always: never trust what a newspaperman has to say about math. If you can't get the math, it's just words.

I didn't even look at what he is using as a formula, heck I didn't even read the article. I just heard it mentioned and needed something to link for you hacks.

Evangelicals are having a fucking fit over trump, a local pundit (Steve Deice, you will hate this guy) who is in the Tank for Cruz, has self destructed....you know the whole "you're not a Christian if you are supporting Trump" bullshit. Which I don't think he (Steve Deice) has figured out (so much for political science) that his angst is only driving people away from Cruz to Trump.

Not being as involved in this game like I used to be has made it much more enjoyable to watch this time around.

[Latrinsorm]

I didn't even look at what he is using as a formula, heck I didn't even read the article.

Ah, okay. Good talk!

[drauz]

[drauz]

[GS4Pirate]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to drauz again. "We don't hate you.....fuck face!"

You Jewish bastard, I love you!

[elcidcannon]

I've tried finding this fellow's actual model and it's been pretty hard. I have found writing from 2008 which seems to contradict the 2016 version on a number of points:

1. "The forecast model is strictly a popular-vote model." This seems really strong language to me, and is glossed over quite quickly in the article. Given that the standard error is 2.5 Trump could lose the popular vote outright within two standard error, let alone having enough popular vote to dominate the electoral vote.

2. "Nearly every time primary support exceeds 50%, the candidate of the White House party goes on to victory in November." Sanders won 60% of the New Hampshire primary, yet somehow the model predicts Trump having a better chance against him than Hilary, and...

3. "The electoral prospects for the out-party in November are gloomy when the primary support of its candidate falls short of 50%." Trump won only 35% of the New Hampshire primary.

It's called the primary model, and it doesn't seem like it's following its primary rules at all. It also references a cyclical adjustment but there's even less detail on that, all I can find is "a positive sign of the coefficient for the vote in the preceding presidential election and a negative sign of the coefficient for vote in the presidential election two terms back." but they were both landslide Democrat wins so I would guess it cancels out...?

Anyway, as always: never trust what a newspaperman has to say about math. If you can't get the math, it's just words.

I don't think this guy is using the Primary Model. You link is dead, but I assume that's where your quotes are coming from?