Fivethirtyeight - Nate Silver - 73 to 27 chance for GOP

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 03, 2014 1:52 AM GMT
    http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/senate-update-polls-point-increasingly-to-republican-senate-win/

    Looks promising, but I ain't sayin' shit until late Tuesday night and it might be a bunch longer than that until we know if we get into a couple of run-offs.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 03, 2014 1:03 PM GMT
    freedomisntfree saidhttp://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/senate-update-polls-point-increasingly-to-republican-senate-win/

    Looks promising, but I ain't sayin' shit until late Tuesday night and it might be a bunch longer than that until we know if we get into a couple of run-offs.


    The funny thing is that there are liberals here thinking that republicans are "angry" (especially given how angry they come across complaining about those "angry" republicans haha). The ones I know are annoyed at how things have been going in the US but pretty optimistic that they'll get better.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 03, 2014 4:02 PM GMT
    I think the concern might be putting a party into power that still refuses to support basic human rights, like, I dunno, your right to have a legally recognized union with another male.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 03, 2014 4:13 PM GMT
    tiren saidI think the concern might be putting a party into power that still refuses to support basic human rights, like, I dunno, your right to have a legally recognized union with another male.




    Fortunately an issue that is being dealt with at the Supreme Court where it's even an issue. There are many other issues that are of concern however.
  • HndsmKansan

    Posts: 16311

    Nov 03, 2014 4:31 PM GMT
    Tragic if true. One bright spot, if the Senate does go to the republicans, it will be much easier for the democrats to take the day (so to speak) in 2016, with across the board gains (since the next 2 years will be a disaster).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 03, 2014 4:37 PM GMT
    HndsmKansan saidTragic if true. One bright spot, if the Senate does go to the republicans, it will be much easier for the democrats to take the day (so to speak) in 2016, with across the board gains (since the next 2 years will be a disaster).


    Probably the first time ever I've agreed with you. If you look at the party composition of the seats up in 2016, it's mostly GOP so even if WE win the senate this time I think it's likely that WE would lose it again in 2016. I'd much prefer to take a dive this time on the senate if it means increased odds of US (GOP) winning POTUS in 2016.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 03, 2014 4:42 PM GMT
    WaPo

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dre/politics/election-lab-2014

    says 96% chance on senate.

    I STILL say no more than 50 -50
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 03, 2014 5:16 PM GMT
    And here's a taste of what the Republicans plan to bring:

    GOP House Candidate: There's a Gay Plot to Recruit and Sodomize Your Kids

    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/05/jody-hice-georgia-sodomy

    His views on homosexuality are only a small part of his CRAZY:

    Future Congressman Jody Hice Thinks 'Blood Moons' Mean the World Is Ending
    http://flagpole.com/news/news-features/2014/09/03/future-congressman-jody-hice-thinks-blood-moons-mean-the-world-is-ending


    So Of Course, HE'S WINNING!

    You can't be too crazy to win in a solid Republican district.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 03, 2014 6:21 PM GMT
    HndsmKansan saidTragic if true. One bright spot, if the Senate does go to the republicans, it will be much easier for the democrats to take the day (so to speak) in 2016, with across the board gains (since the next 2 years will be a disaster).


    Quite - given that the last two years have been so peachy.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 03, 2014 6:22 PM GMT
    Determinate saidAnd here's a taste of what the Republicans plan to bring:

    GOP House Candidate: There's a Gay Plot to Recruit and Sodomize Your Kids

    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/05/jody-hice-georgia-sodomy

    His views on homosexuality are only a small part of his CRAZY:

    Future Congressman Jody Hice Thinks 'Blood Moons' Mean the World Is Ending
    http://flagpole.com/news/news-features/2014/09/03/future-congressman-jody-hice-thinks-blood-moons-mean-the-world-is-ending


    So Of Course, HE'S WINNING!

    You can't be too crazy to win in a solid Republican district.


    Why are you liberals so angry? ;)

    http://thehill.com/homenews/house/219754-boehner-rakes-in-cash-for-openly-gay-republican
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Nov 03, 2014 6:35 PM GMT
    Umm, no. What is the "model"? Crap in, crap out.

    If you look at the RAW numbers, as told by Nate Silver himself, the numbers are:

    1. Montana (99% chance of GOP win)
    2. South Dakota (99%)
    3. W Virginia (98%)
    4. Arkansas (90%)
    5. Louisiana (77&)
    6. Colorado (75%)
    7. Iowa (67%)
    8. Alaska (67%)
    9. N. Carolina (32%)
    10. New Hampshire (17%)

    Those are Nate's OWN admissions and numbers. Go, EXCLUDING some B.S. undisclosed algorithm/"model," looking to logic we see the six pick-ups necessary as being the six likeliest (i.e., numbers 1 through 6). Because the VEGAS FALLACY is why gamblers are poor and "the House" is rich, when we factor out the Vegas fallacy and we make all the events INTERDEPENENT, as logic dictates, we see a 99% x 99% x 98% x 90% x 77% x 75% = 49%.

    By Nate's own numbers the GOP is, statistically and logically, NOT likely to win the Senate. The math is clear. He's "modeling" this to create viewership, drama, and added page views (i.e., revenue). It's a close election, but don't drink the Kool-Aid. Crunch HIS own numbers yourself and you'll see his "model" is defying logic and math.

    The take away is "it's going to be close." If you want to get all "mathy" then the numbers are technically on the Democrats side. I can't with these crap-in, crap-out models. Just because you make a blog doesn't mean you're being true to math or logic. I can bake numbers too and hide it under a "model."
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3274

    Nov 03, 2014 6:58 PM GMT
    Sir you need a refresher on statistics. Not sure how you arrived at the numbers but its a bit of a stretch that they have it all wrong and only a 49%.

    Check the papers.

    WASH POST: 96% CHANCE
    CNN 95%
    NYT: 70%

  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Nov 03, 2014 7:31 PM GMT
    musclmed saidSir you need a refresher on statistics. Not sure how you arrived at the numbers but its a bit of a stretch that they have it all wrong and only a 49%.

    Check the papers.

    WASH POST: 96% CHANCE
    CNN 95%
    NYT: 70%



    What's confusing? I, literally, spelled out 99% x 99% x etc. If you do that, with your little calculator, you'll get .49, or 49%. Those percents were provided by NATE himself. So what's confusing you? Is it math in general, or my use of a calculator?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 03, 2014 7:35 PM GMT
    Svnw688 saidUmm, no. What is the "model"? Crap in, crap out.

    If you look at the RAW numbers, as told by Nate Silver himself, the numbers are:

    1. Montana (99% chance of GOP win)
    2. South Dakota (99%)
    3. W Virginia (98%)
    4. Arkansas (90%)
    5. Louisiana (77&)
    6. Colorado (75%)
    7. Iowa (67%)
    8. Alaska (67%)
    9. N. Carolina (32%)
    10. New Hampshire (17%)

    Those are Nate's OWN admissions and numbers. Go, EXCLUDING some B.S. undisclosed algorithm/"model," looking to logic we see the six pick-ups necessary as being the six likeliest (i.e., numbers 1 through 6). Because the VEGAS FALLACY is why gamblers are poor and "the House" is rich, when we factor out the Vegas fallacy and we make all the events INTERDEPENENT, as logic dictates, we see a 99% x 99% x 98% x 90% x 77% x 75% = 49%.

    By Nate's own numbers the GOP is, statistically and logically, NOT likely to win the Senate. The math is clear. He's "modeling" this to create viewership, drama, and added page views (i.e., revenue). It's a close election, but don't drink the Kool-Aid. Crunch HIS own numbers yourself and you'll see his "model" is defying logic and math.

    The take away is "it's going to be close." If you want to get all "mathy" then the numbers are technically on the Democrats side. I can't with these crap-in, crap-out models. Just because you make a blog doesn't mean you're being true to math or logic. I can bake numbers too and hide it under a "model."


    Lol you are a moron. Now calculate based on your same logic - the odds that the Democrats (1- % Republicans winning) will take the Senate.
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Nov 03, 2014 7:48 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Svnw688 saidUmm, no. What is the "model"? Crap in, crap out.

    If you look at the RAW numbers, as told by Nate Silver himself, the numbers are:

    1. Montana (99% chance of GOP win)
    2. South Dakota (99%)
    3. W Virginia (98%)
    4. Arkansas (90%)
    5. Louisiana (77&)
    6. Colorado (75%)
    7. Iowa (67%)
    8. Alaska (67%)
    9. N. Carolina (32%)
    10. New Hampshire (17%)

    Those are Nate's OWN admissions and numbers. Go, EXCLUDING some B.S. undisclosed algorithm/"model," looking to logic we see the six pick-ups necessary as being the six likeliest (i.e., numbers 1 through 6). Because the VEGAS FALLACY is why gamblers are poor and "the House" is rich, when we factor out the Vegas fallacy and we make all the events INTERDEPENENT, as logic dictates, we see a 99% x 99% x 98% x 90% x 77% x 75% = 49%.

    By Nate's own numbers the GOP is, statistically and logically, NOT likely to win the Senate. The math is clear. He's "modeling" this to create viewership, drama, and added page views (i.e., revenue). It's a close election, but don't drink the Kool-Aid. Crunch HIS own numbers yourself and you'll see his "model" is defying logic and math.

    The take away is "it's going to be close." If you want to get all "mathy" then the numbers are technically on the Democrats side. I can't with these crap-in, crap-out models. Just because you make a blog doesn't mean you're being true to math or logic. I can bake numbers too and hide it under a "model."


    Lol you are a moron. Now calculate based on your same logic - the odds that the Democrats (1- % Republicans winning) will take the Senate.


    You are so stupid I can't even respond. The Republicans NEED ALL 6 SEATS to pick up the Senate. The Dems win under ANY scenario where the GOP does not get ALL 6. As such, the "converse" of the math isn't true, you're a raging idiot, and you don't understand logic or math.
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3274

    Nov 03, 2014 8:16 PM GMT
    So with the 49% chance , I am interested to here which publication agrees to this analysis.

    The problem here is more hubris and narcissism than math.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 03, 2014 8:24 PM GMT
    Svnw688 said
    riddler78 said
    Svnw688 saidUmm, no. What is the "model"? Crap in, crap out.

    If you look at the RAW numbers, as told by Nate Silver himself, the numbers are:

    1. Montana (99% chance of GOP win)
    2. South Dakota (99%)
    3. W Virginia (98%)
    4. Arkansas (90%)
    5. Louisiana (77&)
    6. Colorado (75%)
    7. Iowa (67%)
    8. Alaska (67%)
    9. N. Carolina (32%)
    10. New Hampshire (17%)

    Those are Nate's OWN admissions and numbers. Go, EXCLUDING some B.S. undisclosed algorithm/"model," looking to logic we see the six pick-ups necessary as being the six likeliest (i.e., numbers 1 through 6). Because the VEGAS FALLACY is why gamblers are poor and "the House" is rich, when we factor out the Vegas fallacy and we make all the events INTERDEPENENT, as logic dictates, we see a 99% x 99% x 98% x 90% x 77% x 75% = 49%.

    By Nate's own numbers the GOP is, statistically and logically, NOT likely to win the Senate. The math is clear. He's "modeling" this to create viewership, drama, and added page views (i.e., revenue). It's a close election, but don't drink the Kool-Aid. Crunch HIS own numbers yourself and you'll see his "model" is defying logic and math.

    The take away is "it's going to be close." If you want to get all "mathy" then the numbers are technically on the Democrats side. I can't with these crap-in, crap-out models. Just because you make a blog doesn't mean you're being true to math or logic. I can bake numbers too and hide it under a "model."


    Lol you are a moron. Now calculate based on your same logic - the odds that the Democrats (1- % Republicans winning) will take the Senate.


    You are so stupid I can't even respond. The Republicans NEED ALL 6 SEATS to pick up the Senate. The Dems win under ANY scenario where the GOP does not get ALL 6. As such, the "converse" of the math isn't true, you're a raging idiot, and you don't understand logic or math.


    Yes - and calculate those odds you idiot ;)
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Nov 03, 2014 8:27 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Svnw688 said
    riddler78 said
    Svnw688 saidUmm, no. What is the "model"? Crap in, crap out.

    If you look at the RAW numbers, as told by Nate Silver himself, the numbers are:

    1. Montana (99% chance of GOP win)
    2. South Dakota (99%)
    3. W Virginia (98%)
    4. Arkansas (90%)
    5. Louisiana (77&)
    6. Colorado (75%)
    7. Iowa (67%)
    8. Alaska (67%)
    9. N. Carolina (32%)
    10. New Hampshire (17%)

    Those are Nate's OWN admissions and numbers. Go, EXCLUDING some B.S. undisclosed algorithm/"model," looking to logic we see the six pick-ups necessary as being the six likeliest (i.e., numbers 1 through 6). Because the VEGAS FALLACY is why gamblers are poor and "the House" is rich, when we factor out the Vegas fallacy and we make all the events INTERDEPENENT, as logic dictates, we see a 99% x 99% x 98% x 90% x 77% x 75% = 49%.

    By Nate's own numbers the GOP is, statistically and logically, NOT likely to win the Senate. The math is clear. He's "modeling" this to create viewership, drama, and added page views (i.e., revenue). It's a close election, but don't drink the Kool-Aid. Crunch HIS own numbers yourself and you'll see his "model" is defying logic and math.

    The take away is "it's going to be close." If you want to get all "mathy" then the numbers are technically on the Democrats side. I can't with these crap-in, crap-out models. Just because you make a blog doesn't mean you're being true to math or logic. I can bake numbers too and hide it under a "model."


    Lol you are a moron. Now calculate based on your same logic - the odds that the Democrats (1- % Republicans winning) will take the Senate.


    You are so stupid I can't even respond. The Republicans NEED ALL 6 SEATS to pick up the Senate. The Dems win under ANY scenario where the GOP does not get ALL 6. As such, the "converse" of the math isn't true, you're a raging idiot, and you don't understand logic or math.


    Yes - and calculate those odds you idiot ;)


    According to Nate Silver's OWN numbers, and the rules of logic and math, that would be 51% chance the Dems retain the Senate.
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Nov 03, 2014 8:32 PM GMT
    musclmed saidSo with the 49% chance , I am interested to here which publication agrees to this analysis.

    The problem here is more hubris and narcissism than math.



    I'm not narcissistic. I'm simply not a simpleton like you and I question undisclosed "models" when the raw data released by that SAME person contraverts that person's "prediction." I used Nate's raw numbers of percent chance of winning. I then applied math and logic. I then told you the answer. You and everyone else can repeat the math, on your own, again and again and you will come up with the same conclusion. This is not confusing. The problem is that people don't understand the Vegas Fallacy and don't understand basic probabilities and statistics.

    Again, crap in, crap out. And the "publications" that would agree with me are likely every math and economics department of every college and university in the world. You can debate the raw numbers or percent chances, but I'm using his own. You can't debate my application of math. It's universal. The only difference is that the University of Pennsylvania, Emory, Harvard, Stanford, etc. don't have a tabloid rag/blog to sell via pageviews to generate ad revenue. This isn't rocket science.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 03, 2014 8:32 PM GMT
    Svnw688 said
    riddler78 said
    Svnw688 said
    riddler78 said
    Svnw688 saidUmm, no. What is the "model"? Crap in, crap out.

    If you look at the RAW numbers, as told by Nate Silver himself, the numbers are:

    1. Montana (99% chance of GOP win)
    2. South Dakota (99%)
    3. W Virginia (98%)
    4. Arkansas (90%)
    5. Louisiana (77&)
    6. Colorado (75%)
    7. Iowa (67%)
    8. Alaska (67%)
    9. N. Carolina (32%)
    10. New Hampshire (17%)

    Those are Nate's OWN admissions and numbers. Go, EXCLUDING some B.S. undisclosed algorithm/"model," looking to logic we see the six pick-ups necessary as being the six likeliest (i.e., numbers 1 through 6). Because the VEGAS FALLACY is why gamblers are poor and "the House" is rich, when we factor out the Vegas fallacy and we make all the events INTERDEPENENT, as logic dictates, we see a 99% x 99% x 98% x 90% x 77% x 75% = 49%.

    By Nate's own numbers the GOP is, statistically and logically, NOT likely to win the Senate. The math is clear. He's "modeling" this to create viewership, drama, and added page views (i.e., revenue). It's a close election, but don't drink the Kool-Aid. Crunch HIS own numbers yourself and you'll see his "model" is defying logic and math.

    The take away is "it's going to be close." If you want to get all "mathy" then the numbers are technically on the Democrats side. I can't with these crap-in, crap-out models. Just because you make a blog doesn't mean you're being true to math or logic. I can bake numbers too and hide it under a "model."


    Lol you are a moron. Now calculate based on your same logic - the odds that the Democrats (1- % Republicans winning) will take the Senate.


    You are so stupid I can't even respond. The Republicans NEED ALL 6 SEATS to pick up the Senate. The Dems win under ANY scenario where the GOP does not get ALL 6. As such, the "converse" of the math isn't true, you're a raging idiot, and you don't understand logic or math.


    Yes - and calculate those odds you idiot ;)


    According to Nate Silver's OWN numbers, and the rules of logic and math, that would be 51% chance the Dems retain the Senate.


    Lol - except that's not how he calculated the odds. You might want to go back to learn some stats and math buddy ;)

    But hey, whatever helps you sleep at night apparently.
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Nov 03, 2014 8:36 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Svnw688 said
    riddler78 said
    Svnw688 said
    riddler78 said

    Yes - and calculate those odds you idiot ;)


    According to Nate Silver's OWN numbers, and the rules of logic and math, that would be 51% chance the Dems retain the Senate.


    Lol - except that's not how he calculated the odds. You might want to go back to learn some stats and math buddy ;)

    But hey, whatever helps you sleep at night apparently.


    That is my point. Nate's OWN numbers (percent change of GOP winning per state vs. overall chance of winning Senate) are INCONSISTENT under indisputable principles of basic math and probabilities. Now, you can fudge and argue the raw data all day long and claim Nate got the percent chance of winning wrong. But you can't go against your own numbers and retain credibility. He is implicitly admitting his percent numbers are wrong, or his model is wrong. Math won't let you have it both ways. Math is a neutral arbiter. Nate is the inconsistent one. I'm simply pointing out his inconsistency and cooked "model."
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3274

    Nov 03, 2014 8:39 PM GMT
    Svnw688 said
    musclmed saidSo with the 49% chance , I am interested to here which publication agrees to this analysis.

    The problem here is more hubris and narcissism than math.



    I'm not narcissistic. I'm simply not a simpleton like you and I question undisclosed "models" when the raw data released by that SAME person contraverts that person's "prediction." I used Nate's raw numbers of percent chance of winning. I then applied math and logic. I then told you the answer. You and everyone else can repeat the math, on your own, again and again and you will come up with the same conclusion. This is not confusing. The problem is that people don't understand the Vegas Fallacy and don't understand basic probabilities and statistics.

    Again, crap in, crap out. And the "publications" that would agree with me are likely every math and economics department of every college and university in the world. You can debate the raw numbers or percent chances, but I'm using his own. You can't debate my application of math. It's universal. The only difference is that the University of Pennsylvania, Emory, Harvard, Stanford, etc. don't have a tabloid rag/blog to sell via pageviews to generate ad revenue. This isn't rocket science.



    A Stat model is necessary because they are not independent random events.

    Meaning N carolina is not its own 3 sided coin ( if possible) , if republicans won that , than it is very likely the other races would win.

    You may have had the math right but the concept is very wrong.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 03, 2014 8:46 PM GMT
    Svnw688 said
    riddler78 said
    Svnw688 said
    riddler78 said
    Svnw688 said
    riddler78 said

    Yes - and calculate those odds you idiot ;)


    According to Nate Silver's OWN numbers, and the rules of logic and math, that would be 51% chance the Dems retain the Senate.


    Lol - except that's not how he calculated the odds. You might want to go back to learn some stats and math buddy ;)

    But hey, whatever helps you sleep at night apparently.


    That is my point. Nate's OWN numbers (percent change of GOP winning per state vs. overall chance of winning Senate) are INCONSISTENT under indisputable principles of basic math and probabilities. Now, you can fudge and argue the raw data all day long and claim Nate got the percent chance of winning wrong. But you can't go against your own numbers and retain credibility. He is implicitly admitting his percent numbers are wrong, or his model is wrong. Math won't let you have it both ways. Math is a neutral arbiter. Nate is the inconsistent one. I'm simply pointing out his inconsistency and cooked "model."


    Math is a neutral arbiter - all you've proven is that you don't understand either math or stats. He lays out the modelling and projections all on his site. The fact you've only decided to include the 6 probabilities treating them as random events speaks volumes as to your understanding of the math and stats.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 03, 2014 9:10 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    tiren saidI think the concern might be putting a party into power that still refuses to support basic human rights, like, I dunno, your right to have a legally recognized union with another male.




    Fortunately an issue that is being dealt with at the Supreme Court where it's even an issue. There are many other issues that are of concern however.


    So your reason for supporting Republicans is that our system of government has thankfully prevented them from enacting their plans? That... seems like a terrible reason to vote for someone.

    "Hey, he'd murder you in your sleep, but he has handcuffs on. That means he's trustworthy!"
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 03, 2014 9:13 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Determinate saidAnd here's a taste of what the Republicans plan to bring:

    GOP House Candidate: There's a Gay Plot to Recruit and Sodomize Your Kids

    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/05/jody-hice-georgia-sodomy

    His views on homosexuality are only a small part of his CRAZY:

    Future Congressman Jody Hice Thinks 'Blood Moons' Mean the World Is Ending
    http://flagpole.com/news/news-features/2014/09/03/future-congressman-jody-hice-thinks-blood-moons-mean-the-world-is-ending


    So Of Course, HE'S WINNING!

    You can't be too crazy to win in a solid Republican district.


    Why are you liberals so angry? ;)

    http://thehill.com/homenews/house/219754-boehner-rakes-in-cash-for-openly-gay-republican


    Furthermore, since it's come out that Carl DeMaio--the 'openly gay candidate' in question, a guy who tacitly supported Prop 8 here in California--attempted to sexually molest two campaign staffers, it really doesn't do you many favors in boasting that he's got Boehner's support.