SayHeyDeac's Thread For Serious Political Discourse Only--Trolls Need Not Apply
- Thread starter marquee moon
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
I don't know exactly how Silver's simulation works, but these models are pretty easy to construct and simulate. Something like this is going on: Each candidate starts out with 0 EC votes and each state would be treated as a simple, independent Bernoulli trial, a coin flip with a weighted probability of outcomes. If the Bernoulli trial in state i returns a 1, add the number of EC votes in state i to Clinton's previous EC total, if it returns a 0 add the EC votes to trump. So with something like that, you can run the Bernoulli trials thousands of times and sum thousands of "independent" EC vote totals. Adding 2 additional candidates (Johnson and Stein) has similar model mechanics except your Bernoulli trial is no longer a binary outcome, I'd model it as a 0,1,2, or 3 outcome with differing probabilities of returning each outcome and use if statements to add the EC votes to correct candidate. This type of simulation approach incorporates all sorts of uncertainty into the predictions. The tough part, and where Silver offers the most transparency of any site out there, is figuring out what the probability of getting a 1 or a 0 in each state. Silver offers extensive explanation of what polls he uses, and how he accounts for the quality of each poll. Anyway, the probability of winning is simply the proportion of the thousands of replicates where each candidate had >= to 270 EC votes.
What is really the craziest thing about those output distributions is that both candidates have a non-zero probability of getting nearly 0 EC votes. It is highly unlikely, so don't count on it, but what it does say to me is that Silver's model is having a really hard time converging on a likely outcome.
What is really the craziest thing about those output distributions is that both candidates have a non-zero probability of getting nearly 0 EC votes. It is highly unlikely, so don't count on it, but what it does say to me is that Silver's model is having a really hard time converging on a likely outcome.
ThinkingWithMyDeac
Well-known member
I think silvers model is having trouble because of the uncertainty of third party voters and late stage "undecided", it's roughly 20% of likely voters giving a huge variable to any simulation run. The other elections where he based his model had pretty easy binary 0 or 1. It would be interesting and maybe he has done it but go back and use historical polls with his model for when Perot ran.
Wakeforest22890
Snowpom
Having issues with an outsider non-establishment candidate as a major party nominee more than anything IMO
Correct. Trump isn't a reheated version of the McCain base (Romney). He was counting on the old math to fail, and he's been right and old math has been wrong.
Yes, but this would be a factor for accurately estimating the probabilities that the simulation is based on. Once those are estimated then you'd expect the simulation model to converge a little more effectively than it currently is. I guess my vision on the simulation did not include parametric uncertainty components. Perhaps, with each replicate of the simulation, the binomial probabilities are drawn anew and the distributions for drawing each probability could be quite diffuse because our pollsters are using outdated methods to survey the people. It is definitely true that Trump is not your typical Republican and I think he has drawn a lot of people into the political arena that were not here in 2012 or before.
That could definitely be it, up until now it is not exactly been a binary function. I still find it odd that his model would estimate a non-zero probability of Clinton getting 20 EC votes even with the third party candidates.
FuckmouthedRube
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2011
- Messages
- 4,216
- Reaction score
- 233
The Princeton model's probability distribution looks much more reasonable. Should be minimal probability that HRC's much below 240 or above 360 EVs.
PhDeac
PM a mod to cement your internet status forever
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 155,060
- Reaction score
- 22,068
I'm guessing the unfavorables for each candidate are high enough to yield a non-zero chance of 0 EVs. It's hard for his model to account for two unpopular candidates especially with a third party candidate without traction.
CantStandYa
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2014
- Messages
- 4,495
- Reaction score
- 241
Based on previous debate results, Silver is predicting a 2-4 point bump for Clinton after last night.
Deacfreak07
Ain't played nobody, PAWL!
Which means Trump actually goes up 7 points, because why not?
FuckmouthedRube
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2011
- Messages
- 4,216
- Reaction score
- 233
That would make it a 4.5 point race going into early voting. 2012 race was a 4 point/332 EV race. Will be a bloody GOP Civil War if a deeply flawed HRC gets close or exceeds Obama 2012. Lots of reluctant 'Pubs will vote against HRC in a general election, but 14M 'Pubs enthusiastically voted for Trump in the primaries. Those two blocs can no longer exist in the same party and will sever an alliance that's been shaky since 1992.
Say Hey Deac
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2011
- Messages
- 17,779
- Reaction score
- 2,127
The reverse jinx thing you've been doing re: Trump/McCrory is interesting given your optimism on Wake bball recruiting. You need to choose a lane.
I didn't watch the debate (cooked dinner, went for a run, etc.) but all of the post debate commentary and analysis indicates that Trump was amateur hour and that Clinton did a good job of making him look unprepared and ... What's a good synonym for stupid?... because I don't want to be mean or condescending, but stupid is the only word I can come up with.
Last edited:
avalon
Antwan Scott
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2011
- Messages
- 18,713
- Reaction score
- 1,341
This is my favorite auto correct / typo.
I believe this is correct. I further think which ever party looses this election has some big internal changes coming. If the coronated candidate of the Democratic establishment can't beat the orange buffoon, I expect the Bernie camp with abandon the party and the Dem establishment will continue to move right. I think that the left are tired of being pandered too, this is at least the 4th presidential election in a row that we have been implored to embrace the lesser of two evils and vote for a candidate we did not really believe in (maybe 2008 is an exception, but for many of us, Obama was never liberal enough). The left however will not be able to form any sort of effective, organized movement because the leaders will get consumed by the shiny new injustice issue on any given day and constantly lurch from one moral imperative to another, looking foolish and inept in the process (see Jill Stein getting arrested in South Dakota for vandalism as an example).
If the republicans lose to crooked Hillary I think the party is headed toward dissolution. Their core philosophy since the post Civil War era has been to reduce the size of government, and support business and the wealthy so that the rising tide lifts all boats...but to get enough people voting for that governance philosophy they pandered to the religious right and to the angry poor rural populations. That is a shaky coalition to start with, but now it has led them to a candidate that opposes 100 of years of Pub philosophy, and is not even remotely a religious scholar. Pence and Cruz are going to lead the religious right off in one direction and Ryan and Romney are going to lead the prob-business faction off in another, and who knows what will happen with the white supremacists. There is a strong possibility of a great schism in the GOP.
Ha! I'll fix it, it's probably a combo of my giant thumbs and my dyslexia rearing its ugly head.
Deacfreak07
Ain't played nobody, PAWL!
I'm just trying to figure out which way is up. Actually both stem from a pretty pessimistic place.