• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Ed FiveThirtyEight GE Forecast

Tony Stark said:
It currently gives Hillary an 80.6% chance at winning. For comparison, they gave Obama a 61.8% chance at reelection in June 2012, and that got up to over 90% by election day.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
Click to expand...

Remember though, professional odds-makers who wager large sums on these sorts of things, thought Remain was an 80% lock too.

"The odds have shortened on the UK voting to remain in the European Union on Thursday, as one bookie suggested a Remain victory was now 80 per cent certain.

The Remain campaign has been given a 77 per cent chance of winning by betting exchange firm Betfair, with odds of 2/7 at the time of writing."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...main-leave-brexit-winning-ahead-a7093296.html

The parallels between Brexit and Trump are obvious.
 
Fudbucker said:
Remember though, professional odds-makers who wager large sums on these sorts of things, thought Remain was an 80% lock too.

"The odds have shortened on the UK voting to remain in the European Union on Thursday, as one bookie suggested a Remain victory was now 80 per cent certain.

The Remain campaign has been given a 77 per cent chance of winning by betting exchange firm Betfair, with odds of 2/7 at the time of writing."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...main-leave-brexit-winning-ahead-a7093296.html

The parallels between Brexit and Trump are obvious.
Click to expand...
Why are you conflating polls with betting odds? The betting odds were a reflection of how people were betting not any kind of objective measure of the odds. The polls showed that it would be close. Lots of them even showed that leave would win.

And unfortunately for Trump, there are significantly fewer white people in the US than there are in the UK. If the demographics of the US was similar to that of the UK, I would be worried. But they are not.
 
Tony Stark said:
Why are you conflating polls with betting odds? The betting odds were a reflection of how people were betting not any kind of objective measure of the odds.
Click to expand...

How people bet is totally based on an objective measure of odds. What else would it be based on? You gave me 100-1 odds Clinton would be indicted, so I took the bet.

The polls showed that it would be close. Lots of them even showed that leave would win.
Click to expand...

True.

And unfortunately for Trump, there are significantly fewer white people in the US than there are in the UK. If the demographics of the US was similar to that of the UK, I would be worried. But they are not.
Click to expand...

Also true. I don't think Trump will win, but I worry about the Bradley effect.
 
Fudbucker said:
How people bet is totally based on an objective measure of odds. What else would it be based on? You gave me 100-1 odds Clinton would be indicted, so I took the bet.
Click to expand...

No, it based on what people think the odds are. People make horrible bets all the time. It is possible that the one I made with you was a bad bet, though I highly doubt it

Also true. I don't think Trump will win, but I worry about the Bradley effect.
Click to expand...

Trump also believes that some of his supporters are afraid to tell pollsters on the phone that they will vote for him. Of course, there is no reason to believe this. He actually does a little worse on online polls than phone polls.
 
7 Times Nate Silver Was Hilariously Wrong About Donald Trump

It’s been a rough election cycle for forecasting guru Nate Silver and his website FiveThirtyEight.

Nate Silver and his colleagues at FiveThirtyEight were extremely dismissive of Trump’s chances even after he rose to the top of the polls in the summer of 2015, and they repeatedly said as much. But ultimately, Trump proved to be a “black swan” event that was devastating to the retrospective models Silver relies upon to make predictions. Silver himself has been forthright about his failure, issuing a mea culpa.

Read more:
http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/04/7-times-nate-silver-was-hilariously-wrong-about-donald-trump/ (May 4, 2016)
Click to expand...


"If you’d told me a year ago that Trump would be the nominee, I’d have thought you were nuts." -- Nate Silver (May 4, 2016)
 
I was most relieved by the way the rust belt looked. If trump has an electoral path, it depends on winning the rust belt. Florida isn't going his way and he isn't going to flip enough New Hampshires or Colorados to matter.
 
Slings and Arrows said:
"If you’d told me a year ago that Trump would be the nominee, I’d have thought you were nuts." -- Nate Silver (May 4, 2016)
Click to expand...
Nate Silver (and lots of other people) didn't believe that GOP primary voters would actually be stupid enough to pick Trump. Turns out that GOP primary voters are that stupid. I for one am not surprised. I knew they are stupid.

Silver's election forecast on the other hand is based on numbers and a proven model. His model correctly predicted the outcome of all 50 states in 2012.

Trump is the heavy underdog. And his odds will only get smaller the closer we get to the election. It would not be surprising at all if they fall to less than 1% by election day.

Sucks for you people.
 
Last edited:
Tony Stark said:
Fudbucker said:
Also true. I don't think Trump will win, but I worry about the Bradley effect.
Click to expand...

Trump also believes that some of his supporters are afraid to tell pollsters on the phone that they will vote for him. Of course, there is no reason to believe this. He actually does a little worse on online polls than phone polls.
Click to expand...

The whole Republican primary was basically a vindication for polling as Donald performed as expected which nobody believed would happen because pundits thought more of the Republican base than they should have. There's no silent majority of rabid racists waiting for the orange cheeto to awaken them. As long as people get out and vote, Donald will be humiliated especially if he can't change his message of promoting recession and racism.
 
So Trump's chances of winning are slightly better than the chances of me throwing a one on a 6-sided die.
 
Stacko said:
As long as people get out and vote, Donald will be humiliated
Click to expand...

And that, my friend, is the thought that keeps me up at night. Low turnout was the primary problem with Brexit, if I understand correctly.
 
Varanid said:
And that, my friend, is the thought that keeps me up at night. Low turnout was the primary problem with Brexit, if I understand correctly.
Click to expand...

72.2% is good turnout for a country without mandatory voting laws.
 
Those odds are pretty much what my gut has said.

As soon as Hillary announced her candidacy, to me the election was over. Everything else is just entertainment.

I'm at least 80% sure anyways.
 
Varanid said:
Lol, wut? Have you ever met a gambler?
Click to expand...

I've met all kinds. Some believe in the Gambler's Fallacy and think that if red shows up a lot in roulette, black is "due". I don't think those kinds of idiots bet on political outcomes. I don't. But I may be wrong, and gamblers, as a group, may be a bunch of idiots.

That hasn't been my experience. Do you have evidence to support that gamblers don't care about odds when they bet?
 
Varanid said:
Lol, wut? Have you ever met a gambler?
Click to expand...

The gamblers may not be objective, but the bookmakers are at least somewhat. And prediction markets have a pretty good track record as well. But even Nate Silver is not completely objective. There is no way to objectively predict any particular event, especially in politics. Even the most objective observers will disagree on uncertain outcomes.
 
Ladewig said:
So Trump's chances of winning are slightly better than the chances of me throwing a one on a 6-sided die.
Click to expand...
That's what they estimate now because polls are less predictive the further out the election is. If the election was held tomorrow, the model would have Trump's odds at a few percent or less.
 
xjx388 said:
The gamblers may not be objective, but the bookmakers are at least somewhat. And prediction markets have a pretty good track record as well. But even Nate Silver is not completely objective. There is no way to objectively predict any particular event, especially in politics. Even the most objective observers will disagree on uncertain outcomes.
Click to expand...
His model is based on polls not his gut feeling and it has a proven track record.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom