HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Chichiri » Journal
Page: 1

Chichiri

Profile Information

Member since: Sat Aug 21, 2004, 05:17 PM
Number of posts: 3,022

Journal Archives

State of the Primary - February 13, 2016

Delegate Count
Total Delegates (AP): Clinton 394, Sanders 44.
Pledged Delegates: Sanders 36, Clinton 32.
Delegate Targets (Cook): Clinton +7, Sanders -7.

Next Primary
Nevada, February 20 (35 pledged delegates).

Latest Polls
Nevada (TargetPoint): Clinton 45, Sanders 45.

Current Polls-Plus Projections (538)
Nevada: Clinton/Sanders 50%.
South Carolina: Clinton 95%.
Michigan: Clinton 97%.
North Carolina: Clinton 96%.

Current Endorsement Score (538)
Clinton 467, Sanders 2.


Quick Glance at the GOP
Pledged Delegates: Trump 17, Cruz 11, Rubio 10.
Delegate Targets: Trump -4, Cruz -5, Rubio -10.
538 South Carolina Projection: Trump 64%, Rubio 15%.
Endorsement Score: Rubio 65, Bush 51, Kasich 20.


Comments
That TargetPoint poll is a pro-Sanders push poll conducted by the far-right Washington Free Beacon. 538's projection is based on it, however, because it's the only recent poll.

This is a daily sheet I started to compile a few days ago, just for my own reference. My qualifications for objectivity are a similar project I ran in the 2012 general election, as well as the fact that I relied on subjective information in 2004 and was completely blindsided when Kerry lost. I intended to post this in the Hillary Clinton group, but I'll give it a pilot test in GD-P, and we'll see if both sides deem it useful (and can keep it civil and stuff). If you have a suggestion for a scorecard or model not covered above, let me know.

Pun of the Day
I don't know why the calendar maker fired me. All I did was take a day off!

Pop quiz, hotshots.

You're the President. The leaders of Congress, which has a recent history of insane obstruction and of opposing everything you do simply because they hate you personally, a history which is becoming increasingly reflected in the public perception of Congress and of the opposition party in general, comes to you in public dialogue and says the following:

We would like you to give us demands X, Y and Z. We hope you will, because wouldn't it be a shame if we failed to raise the debt ceiling, thus destroying the global economy?

What is your best response?

Election Forecast Summaries: 11/2 (morning)

If this series is helpful to you, please K&R!

From now until the election I'll post once or twice a day with these summaries. "p(RE)" means "probability of re-election," although I've now gone to a standard percentage-based unit. "unch" means unchanged from last report.


Election Projection: O 290 (unch)

University of Illinois U-C: O 296.7 (+2.3); p(RE)=99.4% (+1.5%)

Electoral-vote.com: O 281, R 215, T 42 (O-18, R+9, T+9)

Huffington Post: O 259, R 191, T 88 (O-18, R-15, T+33)

TPM/PollTracker: O 285, R 191, T 62 (unch)

FiveThirtyEight: O 303.4 (unch); p(RE)=80.9% (unch)

Princeton: O 318 (O+3); p(RE)=97%, 99.3% (+1, +0.3%)

DeSart/Holbrook: O 281 (unch); p(RE)=87.05% (+0.21%)


...And Just For Laughs, UnSkewedPolls: O 179, R 359 (unch from 10/25)
which means my bet with Dean Chambers is presently worth $2,488!

Election Forecast Summaries: 11/1 (afternoon)

I've added a new tracker to this list, TPM's which is powered by PollTracker. Tx4Obama gave me a huge list of electoral maps last night, but except for TPM, most of the ones I didn't have were more interested in keeping it a horse race than in presenting an up to date snapshot.

From now until the election I'll post once or twice a day with these summaries. "p(RE)" means "probability of re-election," although I've now gone to a standard percentage-based unit. "unch" means unchanged from last report.


Votamatic: O 332 (unch)

Election Projection: O 290 (new)

University of Illinois U-C: O 294.4 (unch); p(RE)=97.9% (unch)

Electoral-vote.com: O 299, R 206, T 33 (O+19, T-19)

Huffington Post: O 277, R 206, T 55 (unch)

TPM/PollTracker: O 285, R 191, T 62 (new)

FiveThirtyEight: O 300.4 (+1.4); p(RE)=79.0% (+1.6%)

Princeton: O 316 (O+13); p(RE)=96%, 99.1% (+3%, +1%)

DeSart/Holbrook: O 281 (unch); p(RE)=86.84% (+0.15%)


...And Just For Laughs, UnSkewedPolls: O 179, R 359 (unch from 10/25)
which means my bet with Dean Chambers is presently worth $2,428!

Election Forecast Summaries: 10/31 (morning)

Happy Halloween. I generally don't update this in the morning, but PEC was down for an hour and came back up with some great numbers, and I felt like sharing.

From now until the election I'll post once or twice a day with these summaries. "p(RE)" means "probability of re-election," although I've now gone to a standard percentage-based unit. "unch" means unchanged from last report.


Votamatic: O 332 (unch)

University of Illinois U-C: O 291.6 (unch); p(RE)=94.9% (unch)

Electoral-vote.com: O 280, R 206, T 52 (R-29, T+29)

Huffington Post: O 253, R 206, T 79 (unch)

FiveThirtyEight: O 299 (unch); p(RE)=77.4% (unch)

Princeton: O 318 (+13); p(RE)=95%, 99% (+2%, +1%)

DeSart/Holbrook: O 281 (unch); p(RE)=86.66% (unch)


...And Just For Laughs, UnSkewedPolls: O 179, R 359 (unch from 10/25)
which means my bet with Dean Chambers is presently worth $2,400!

IT'S ON!! $20 per EV!! My bet with Dean Chambers of UnSkewedPolls

Sent this morning:


Subject: A Proposition re: Polls

At 11:59pm EST on November 5th, I will take screenshots of the projected EV total for Mitt Romney at FiveThirtyEight, and the projected EV total for Mitt Romney at UnSkewedPolls. (At present these numbers are 242.5 and 359, respectively.) I will invite you and any interested third party to do the same, so that everything is kept honest.

For every electoral vote by which Nate Silver's projection deviates from Romney's actual projected EV total following the election, I will owe you twenty dollars, For every electoral vote by which YOUR projection deviates from Romney's actual projected EV total following the election, you will owe me twenty dollars. The loser will pay the winner the difference.

Payment will be due at noon EST on November 7th, or when at least three major news outlets (ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, Fox News, PBS) have projected a final electoral vote tally, whichever comes last.

I will be posting this email on the internet; I will similarly post any response you send my way in a public forum unless you expressly refuse permission for me to do so. If I refuse to pay after the deadline, you may have grounds for a lawsuit. If I back out of the challenge, you can tell everyone that David John Wellman of Burnsville, MN, is a lying coward. (Naturally the same is true if you refuse to pay or back out, but I'm not worried about that -- you strike me as an honest guy.)

I await your response.

DJW



Received an hour later:


There is a valid problem with such a projection...can you cut a human being in half? Each electoral vote represents one elected elector who will cast one undivided vote for president. Any electoral vote projections that is in halves is by definition wrong already. One of the candidates could receive 242 or 243 electoral votes, but not 242.5.

As for the bet I can agree to that but have to stipulate, given how MANY different projections and analyses are on my site, that my OFFICIAL projection/prediction of the election will be the final revised version of this:

http://www.unskewedpolls.com/unskewed_projection_2012%20president_02.cfm

The actual one that will be my final projection/prediction of the presidential race will be at this address:

http://www.unskewedpolls.com/unskewed_projection_2012%20president_03.cfm

That isn't up yet but it will be. I expect Nate Silver to be off on 2-3 states where Romney will unexpectedly win. At $20.00 per electoral vote, the possible upset states could cost you some money:

New Hampshire: $80
Pennsylvania: $400
Ohio: $360
Michigan: $320
Wisconsin: $200
Minnesota: $200
Oregon: $140
Colorado: $180
New Mexico: $100
Nevada: $120

The very accurate projection by the two U. of Colorado professors has Obama winning Nevada but Romney winning New Mexico and Minnesota and Colorado. Nate Silver could cost you $480 for those three states.

But I wouldn't be surprised if Nate changes his predictions at the very last minute so they almost echo mine, assuming he wants to be accurate rather than try to predict Obama winning.

Dean





.

How do you predict this bet will turn out?
Go to Page: 1