IGX

dead man walking wrote:

Turdacious wrote:

There are dozens of presidential opinion polls these days, and even more interpretations what they mean. But predictions keep changing, which calls into question how useful they are. The closer you get to an election the easier it is to call it, at least in theory. But it is not really predicting when you change your take on the race with every new poll. For example Nate Silver at his New York Times blog has consistently “predicted” an Obama victory, yet has altered the odds on a daily basis. This is the equivalent of claiming you can predict the outcome of a baseball game, but then changing the odds inning by inning to reflect the evolving state of play. Yes your “prediction” will be very accurate once you reach the 9th inning, but it also doesn't take a stat wizard to make the call.

Traditional social science models do more than simply rehash and average out the latest daily surveys. They look at the influence of variables like age, education, income, sex, race, the economy, and other such factors to come up with more durable conclusions. For example University of Colorado Professors Ken Bickers and Michael Berry have developed a model based on state-level economic data that predicts Mitt Romney winning with 330 electoral votes. They have applied this model successfully to every presidential race since 1980. It does not shift around with the polls; in fact it does not use them at all.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/rob ... -cant-win/

turd: wrong

silver: right

is anyone surprised by that?

Turdacious wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_effect

IMO this will be used to explain the results.