Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSam Wang's gift for understatement: "I am developing doubts about their analytical neutrality."
As always, we got great election analysis from Sam Wang (at Princeton Election Consortium: http://election.princeton.edu/2012/11/12/the-final-unskewing/#more-8904).
His big three takeaway points:
* President Obama led national opinion on every single day of the final two months of the campaign.
* During this period, the only event to meaningfully move national opinion was Debate #1, which led Mitt Romney to close two-thirds of a 6-point gap between him and President Obama overnight. Some of this gain was reversed in the closing two weeks of the campaign.
* Sandys measurable effect on opinion was no more than 1.0%, and even this might have reversed by Election Day.
Flexing his considerable muscles of understatement, Wang crushes Colorado researchers Bickers and Berry, who erroneously thought that Romney would get 330 electoral votes, and who now erroneously offer "a persistent false idea ... culminating in something about Hurricane Sandy":
Bickers and Berrys claim that the president clearly benefited from the October surprise of Superstorm Sandy is unsupported by data. I am developing doubts about their analytical neutrality. A second piece of evidence is that most econometric models pointed in the opposite direction to theirs. A prominent example is the prior that informed Drew Linzers analysis at Votamatic.com.
Thanks to Sam (as well as Nate and Drew) for consistently offering a fact based alternative the the MSM's "gut feeling" that this presidential election was a "dead heat" right up until the end.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
2 replies, 1020 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (9)
ReplyReply to this post
2 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Sam Wang's gift for understatement: "I am developing doubts about their analytical neutrality." (Original Post)
Texas Lawyer
Nov 2012
OP
A persistent falsehood on the right is that the Colorado model successfully predicted past elections
Mayberry Machiavelli
Nov 2012
#1
The "Colorado model" was never based on anything more than wishful thinking (basing everything on
Texas Lawyer
Nov 2012
#2
Mayberry Machiavelli
(21,096 posts)1. A persistent falsehood on the right is that the Colorado model successfully predicted past elections
As far as I'm aware, this was the FIRST election the model was used to try and predict anything. The model was generated from data from past elections, and made so that it would "predict" those results if it was presented that data again, but that is retrospectively and a far cry from saying that it actually predicted those elections. It did not.
Colorado model is 0/1, batting 0%.
Texas Lawyer
(350 posts)2. The "Colorado model" was never based on anything more than wishful thinking (basing everything on
state-level economic data was a model built to give a result they chose before they built the model).