HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Politics 2014 (Forum) » Sam Wang called the elect...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 06:47 PM

Sam Wang called the election almost exactly back in ... July.

This is a post I did back in early July where Sam Wang's model predicted Obama would win with 332 electoral votes and a popular vote share of 51.5%.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/125152003

Pretty remarkable how, when it was all said and done, the race didn't change much between July and November.

10 replies, 1307 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 10 replies Author Time Post
Reply Sam Wang called the election almost exactly back in ... July. (Original post)
Drunken Irishman Nov 2012 OP
RedSpartan Nov 2012 #1
Kablooie Nov 2012 #5
alcibiades_mystery Nov 2012 #6
DemocratSinceBirth Nov 2012 #10
Cha Nov 2012 #2
elleng Nov 2012 #3
Texas Lawyer Nov 2012 #4
deurbano Nov 2012 #7
DemocratSinceBirth Nov 2012 #9
DemocratSinceBirth Nov 2012 #8

Response to Drunken Irishman (Original post)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 06:50 PM

1. I followed him more than I followed Nate.

I think he has been more accurate historically.

Plus, I'm from NJ, so let's hear it for Princeton!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RedSpartan (Reply #1)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 08:21 PM

5. Yeah. Nate predicted 313 - 225.

He so blew it!

Well, of course not really.
But he was a little conservative in his results it seems.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kablooie (Reply #5)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 08:25 PM

6. That wasn't a prediction: no state combination would lead to 313

That was an average of the probable electoral counts.

Yes, still incorrect, but not as incorrect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RedSpartan (Reply #1)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 08:33 PM

10. His Model Is Also Much More Transparent

All he does is take the median of every poll and aggregates them. He doesn't weight them, He doesn't include other variables such as economic conditions and past voting history.


But all the serious aggregators ended up in the same place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Original post)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 06:52 PM

2. Good to Know..thanks DI! Props to

Sam Wang of Princeton!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Original post)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 06:53 PM

3. QUITE something!

Further: 'Rove gave every appearance of genuinely believing that Romney would win. Similarly, Team Romney (and many pundits) thought that professional pollsters as a group were off base. This is a case of motivated reasoning: selective questioning of polls that they found disagreeable. It afflicted the whole right-wing media structure.

Do such biases ever help? What about analytical improvements, like the layers added at FiveThirtyEight? Today I report that by a quantitative measure of prediction error, we did as well in Presidential races as Nate Silver, and on close Senate races, we did substantially better Ė 10 out of 10, compared with his 8 out of 10. Letís drill into that a little. '

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Original post)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 08:16 PM

4. Love Sam Wang (like Nate Silver but with partisan glee)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Original post)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 08:28 PM

7. I had him on speed dial...

... so to speak. He definitely kept me sane (in this one area), especially after the 1st debate. (Which I followed through the very UN-reassuring threads on DU, since I was too nervous to actually watch it.) I was surprisingly (for me) not-entirely-bat shit-crazy-with-anxiety on the 6th. (All courtesy of Sam and Nate.) I'm so accustomed to checking his site a million times a day (to walk myself back from the edge) that I still do it automatically.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to deurbano (Reply #7)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 08:30 PM

9. I Liked Him Better Than Nate Because He Actually Participated In His Forums

But his site didn't have nearly as much traffic as Nate's site so it was easier.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Reply to this thread