The Huff calling out 538...

Quote:538 has been all over the map this election. Their model fluctuates, often irrationally, with each new poll that comes in. Underlying this is an overly complex and opaque set of assumptions that are probably too smart for their own good. If you go to the updates page on the 538 website,[3] you can see how each new poll or set of polls moves their probabilities. It first struck me when a poll on October 27th, showing Trump up by 19 points in Idaho,[4] somehow moved the prediction from Clinton with a 84.4% chance to win the presidency down to a 84.2% chance. I know that’s not a big movement, but why is a poll in Idaho that basically confirms the results moving the national race at all?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/what...4571e09e74

OH MUH NATE!

LOL, I predicted that exact map the other day in the "my map" thread. It was surreal to click the link and see it.

Edit: Never mind, I gave Oregon to Clinton. So, not *exactly* the same.

(11-07-2016 02:55 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  The Huff calling out 538...

Quote:538 has been all over the map this election. Their model fluctuates, often irrationally, with each new poll that comes in. Underlying this is an overly complex and opaque set of assumptions that are probably too smart for their own good. If you go to the updates page on the 538 website,[3] you can see how each new poll or set of polls moves their probabilities. It first struck me when a poll on October 27th, showing Trump up by 19 points in Idaho,[4] somehow moved the prediction from Clinton with a 84.4% chance to win the presidency down to a 84.2% chance. I know that’s not a big movement, but why is a poll in Idaho that basically confirms the results moving the national race at all?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/what...4571e09e74

OH MUH NATE!

Nothing is wrong. 538 has it's formula which is different than a couple other poll analyzers. While 538 was pretty on the nose the last two presidential elections by state it actually under projected President Obama in the popular vote. 538 believes there is more uncertainty this year than the overall popular vote margin suggests for a few reasons:
1. Trump's demographic advantages are strong in some key Swing states while Hillary's tend to be in states that are partisan one way or the other.
2. There are a relatively high number of undecideds and 538 says there is not really a way to vote how they will break.
3. Outlier polls showing Trump ahead could be the correct polls. Nate has never hid from the fact that there is always a chance the best data we have isn't correct and an outlier poll is actually measuring things better.

When the election was sitting at Hillary +6 to +9 this wasn't a big deal but if it's Hillary +2 to +4 than all of sudden these three things matter a ton. I have no problem with Nate's methodology. It's probably a bit more conservative than some of the others out there, but it acknowledges the uncertainty in this things as we don't have as much data over time as we think and aspects of the way polling is done is always changing.

I don't think anything is wrong with 538.

My guess is that someone at Huffington Post was upset that 538 didn't show a certain Clinton victory.

(11-07-2016 02:55 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  The Huff calling out 538...

Quote:538 has been all over the map this election. Their model fluctuates, often irrationally, with each new poll that comes in. Underlying this is an overly complex and opaque set of assumptions that are probably too smart for their own good. If you go to the updates page on the 538 website,[3] you can see how each new poll or set of polls moves their probabilities. It first struck me when a poll on October 27th, showing Trump up by 19 points in Idaho,[4] somehow moved the prediction from Clinton with a 84.4% chance to win the presidency down to a 84.2% chance. I know that’s not a big movement, but why is a poll in Idaho that basically confirms the results moving the national race at all?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/what...4571e09e74

OH MUH NATE!

Anyone who thinks Hillary Clinton has a 98% or better shot at winning the election can put their money where their mouth is. I'll put up $10 to win $500 all day long.

538 is an algorithm, that's it.

(11-07-2016 03:27 PM)fsquid Wrote:  538 is an algorithm, that's it.

This. It's always changing.