You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #89: Channel TIA: THE TIA-NAYSAYER DEBATE: FROM START TO FINISH [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-07-05 12:51 AM
Response to Original message
89. Channel TIA: THE TIA-NAYSAYER DEBATE: FROM START TO FINISH
Edited on Wed Dec-07-05 12:58 AM by autorank
(This link has it all!!!)
http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/DUDebate.htm

TruthIsAll...

I never responded FULLY TO THIS POST until now.
I'll make sure to add this to the DEBATE RECORD

OnTheOtherHand (889 posts) 
 Fri Dec-02-05 06:51 PM
Response to Reply #58

63. ah, TIA seems to be channeling himself elsewhere on the
Net
 Edited on Fri Dec-02-05 07:12 PM by OnTheOtherHand

but I have no idea what the DU protocol is for responding to
someone who Isn't There. 

(EDIT: "but I have idea" could've been some weird
meta pun, but wasn't)
Anyway, the line seems to be: pay no attention to what anyone
else -- including the pollsters themselves -- say their polls
indicate. Sure, those darn MSM analysts at Pew said
"Slight Bush Margin in Final Days of Campaign", but
the illuminati know that it shoulda been Kerry +1. 
pollingreport.com, shmollingreport.com -- WeGo YouGov. 

All those poli sci models that called the election for Bush --
best not to mention those, much less refute them. 

The goofuses over at "Polly's Page", well, who wants
to listen to parrots, anyway? Might as well argue with a
stone.
...................................................

OTOH, since you are too lazy (or embarrassed) to show the poli
sci 
model projections, I'll do it for you.

http://www.apsanet.org/content_13000.cfm

All the models presented here were not even close to the 
corrupted recorded vote, much less the TRUE vote.
Except for Beck/Thien, that is.

Author          Pick 2-pty  Date   Win Probability
Abramowitz      Bush 53.7%  7/31/04 -
Campbell        Bush 53.8%  9/06/04 97%
Wlezien/Ericson Bush 52.9%  7/27/04 75%
Holbrook        Bush 54.5%  8/30/04 92%
Beck/Tien       Kerry 50.1% 8/27/04 50%
Lockabie        Bush 57.6%  5/21/04 92%
Norpoth         Bush 54.7%  1/29/04 95%


First of all, look at the model dates.
The latest was 9/6.
These guys should know that things change every day in a race.
The electorate is a dynamic organism.
Couldn't they have run the models on Nov.1, like I did?
As I did every day for four months leading up to the election?

Maybe next time they'll get it right, but I doubt it.
They are by nature too conservative to change their approach.

Their combined Bush 2-party average forecast of 54% isn't even
close
to the recorded vote, much less the true vote. The average is 
off by more than 5%, since Bush got about 48.5% of the
two-party vote.

The only one which was even close was Beck/Tien.
They had it 49.9% for Bush, and were off by 2%.
Not bad. The rest? Fuggedabout it.

One other thing.

There is no way Lockabie's 57.6% Bush popular vote equates 
to anything less than a 100% EV and/or popular vote win
probability.
His 92% Bush win probability doesn't say too much for his
model.
At a 97.5% one-tail level of confidence, it implies an
equivalent 
MoE of +/-7.6% based on the 57.6% projection. 

Not good, especially when winning 52% of the popular vote 
means a virtual 100% probability of winning the electoral
vote. 

The same goes for the rest of the models. 
Only Beck-Tien's 50% probability made sense, 
since they projected a virtual dead heat.

Gee, OTOH, I sure teach you a lot, don't I?
And you're the political science professor. 
Yet you say I'm irrelevant to your colleagues.

Does MP also consider me irrelevant?
He learned a little math from my postings also.
What about Ruy Texeira?
At least he questioned the Hispanic vote.

Now, with all due respect to the poly scientists above:
Have these guys ever used Monte Carlo simulation?
Did they ever consider projecting individual states to,
you know, calculate the Bush probability of winning the
electoral vote?

From what I could tell in my admittedly cursory review of the
PDFs, 
they essentially all used the same factor analysis regression
method, 
based on macro-economic/financial data. Polling was mentioned,
but
not much. They should check out the Election Model for the
next election (assuming it's relatively clean) and consider a
Monte Carlo
 simulation.

IN MY OPINION, REGRESSION-BASED ELECTION FORECASTING MODELS
ARE AN EXERCISE IN ACADEMIC ONE-UPSMANSHIP: "MY MODEL IS
BETTER THAN YOURS" SORT OF A MASTURBATORY CIRCLE-JERK
APPROACH.

REGRESSION FACTOR-ANALYSIS IS NOT THE BEST WAY TO FORECAST
ELECTIONS!
JUST LOOK AT THE (IN)FAMOUS FAIR MODEL.

ANALYZING SELECTED STATE AND NATIONAL POLLING RESULTS IS FAR
SUPERIOR.
IT MAY BE MUNDANE AND NOT AS SEXY AS FACTOR ANALYSIS, BUT IT'S
MORE ACCURATE. AND THAT'S THE NAME OF THE GAME, ISN'T IT?

BUT... ALL FORECASTS ASSUMED AN HONEST ELECTION.
I DID NOT SEE ANY FRAUD VARIABLES, OR SPOILED VOTE FACTORS, 
OR DISENFRANCHISEMENT PARAMETERS, OR VOTER INTIMIDATION 
FACTORED INTO THE MODELS. NOT A WORD ABOUT POTENTIAL FRAUD.
JUST ECONOMIC AND/OR FINANCIAL FACTORS.

WITHOUT A PAPER TRAIL, LOUSY FORECAST MODELS MAY CORRECTLY
PROJECT THE "WINNER" IF HE STEALS THE ELECTION.
SOMETHING LIKE THE FINAL 1:25PM NATIONAL EXIT POLL.

So what does it all prove?
Which model was right?
Well, if you believe the election was stolen, mine was.
OTOH, do you believe the election was stolen?

ONLY MY PRE-ELECTION STATE AND NATIONAL ELECTION MODEL 
MATCHED THE EXITS.

BY THE WAY, OTOH.
WHERE IS YOUR MODEL?

Ah, what's the use?
Talking to you is like talking to a stone.
________________________________________


[b]www/truthisall.net[/b]

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC