Nate Silver is the pollster who most accurately predicted the last election. He
missed only one state, Indiana, a reliably Republican state that went for Obama
by the tiniest of margins. His prediction for this election is Obama 296
electoral votes, 26 over the magic number. He also says there is a 7% chance
that Romney will win the popular vote while losing the electoral college.
Re: "Nate Silver is the pollster who most accurately predicted the last
election"Actually, Nate Silver is not even a pollster. The
former Daily Kos commentator only averages and massages other people's
polls. He rarely uses or heavily weights Rasmussen or Pew.Interestingly, Fordham University's rating of pollsters after the 2008
elections found Rasmussen and Pew to be the closest to accurate.Today's reputable poll results?Rasmussen -- Romney 49%, Obama
47% [50% Romney to 48 Obama in Ohio].Pew -- Romney 47%, Obama 47%Hmmmmm.
procuradorfiscalTooele, UTRasmussen...to be the closest to
accurate.========== Says the Ditto-head.Rush
Limbaugh is the only one who quotes and repeats that about Rasmussen on a daily
basis.I'm sure there's some $ involved there to say that.
Re: "I'm sure there's some $ involved there to say that."Is that an intentional, or unintentional slander of Fordham University
To procuradorfiscal: You are correct, Nate Silver is a statistician, not a
pollster. Still, the fact remains that he called the last election better than
anyone. We'll see this time.
To profiscador: Take a look at Nate Silver's site and tell me again that he
doesn't use Rasmussen. It is listed there in all the swing state analyses,
along with the weights. He has explicitly said that he doesn't exclude any
polls. If you wish to discredit his methods, you can't do this with untrue
statements. He certainly includes Rasmussen in his analyses. If you think he
doesn't assign Rasmussen enough weight, then explain why you think so. If
you think his analysis is invalid, explain why the betting markets are generally
in agreement.It is easy to dismiss someone's work when it
doesn't agree with your preconceived ideas. That just demonstrates how
tightly you hang on to your preconceived ideas, nothing more.
To "Roland Kayser" and how many other elections has Nate Silver been
correct at predicting? All you have established is that he guessed right 1
time. Like the old saying goes, even a broken clock is right twice a day.If he was right once, that proves nothing. Can his methods be used to
model previous elections. Tell us more.You might as well use the
myth surrounding the Redskins, and if their correlation to who wins the
Re: "It is easy to dismiss someone's work when it doesn't agree
with your preconceived ideas."I guess I'll just have to
take the word of one who has WAY more experience than I, on how easy it may or
may not be to dismiss someone who doesn't agree with preconceived
notions.But, anyone looking at Nate Silver's Daily Kos work, as
well as what he's done since then, can attest that it's absolutely
true that he "rarely uses or heavily weights Rasmussen or Pew."
All polls should be suspect in light of the fact political leaders, waist deep
in money, use biased polls to attempt to influence elections.
Re: LDS Liberal Farmington, UTFor a while you were giving us updates
on the presidential electoral college vote count. I don't suppose the
death of our ambassador to Libya has effected the number. Who knows, perhaps
the undecided voters will give him another chance. Then again, perhaps not.
Re: LDS Liberal Farmington, UTCome Nov. 7th there are going to be
some unhappy people wondering why the pollsters got it so wrong. The Obama
re-election committee would like us to think the race is neck to neck but it
isn't.Obama is toast and you can see it in his behavior.
Polls are one aspect. But, if you want to know the real odds, look at those
with money at stake.Look at the betting odds.As of right
now, bet $1000 on Obama, win $384 bet $1000 on Romney, win
$2000It is all about 1 or 2 swing states. Nothing else matters.
To procurafiscador:Time will tell whether or not Nate Silver's
model is accurate. Perhaps we should talk again after Tuesday.
Re: ". . . we should talk again after Tuesday."Yeah,