Stats man fi deal wid Stats man ! You & Nate talk to Wang !

[Sir X]

Blow out im say ,dis man nate a try follow.A suh me see it but put on 11 more electorial votes , We will see !

http://election.princeton.edu/

[Sir X]

We will see ....Stats man ...it will be close..hehe

With the debates complete, and just two weeks left in the campaign, there’s enough state-level polling to know pretty clearly where the candidates currently stand. If the polls are right, Obama is solidly ahead in 18 states (and DC), totaling 237 electoral votes. Romney is ahead in 23 states, worth 191 electoral votes. Among the remaining battleground states, Romney leads in North Carolina (15 EV); Obama leads in Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, and Wisconsin (44 EV); and Florida, Virginia, and Colorado (51 EV) are essentially tied. Even if Romney takes all of these tossups, Obama would still win the election, 281-257.
The reality in the states – regardless of how close the national polls may make the election seem – is that Obama is in the lead. At the Huffington Post, Simon Jackman notes “Obama’s Electoral College count lies almost entirely to the right of 270.” Sam Wang of the Princeton Election Consortium recently put the election odds “at about nine to one for Obama.” The DeSart and Holbrook election forecast, which also looks at the current polls, places Obama’s re-election probability at over 85%. Romney would need to move opinion by another 1%-2% to win – but voter preferences have been very stable for the past two weeks. And if 1%-2% doesn’t seem like much, consider that Romney’s huge surge following the first debate was 2%, at most.
From this perspective, it’s a bit odd to see commentary out there suggesting that Romney should be favored, or that quantitative, poll-based analyses showing Obama ahead are somehow flawed, or biased, or not to be believed. It’s especially amusing to see the target of this criticism be the New York Times’ Nate Silver, whose FiveThirtyEight blog has been, if anything, unusually generous to Romney’s chances all along. Right now, his model gives Romney as much as a 30% probability of winning, even if the election were held today. Nevertheless, The Daily Caller, Commentary Magazine, and especially the National Review Online have all run articles lately accusing Silver of being in the tank for the president. Of all the possible objections to Silver’s modeling approach, this certainly isn’t one that comes to my mind. I can only hope those guys don’t stumble across my little corner of the Internet.

[Sir X]

Which bredda on di site mek reference to this ? Or which crackhead , keep in mind this man Wang is a neuro scientist , but he could still be on crack given certain probabilities !..hehe

But many pundits (and comedians) don't understand what it means to be "undecided." Most undecideds probably have a preference, but are unable or unwilling to state it. But they are starting to do so.

[Sir X]

The knock out punch , to di stats man dem ,from di stats man..hehe

Perverse media incentive watch: Chris Cillizza

by Sam Wang, November 2, 2012, 1:00am comment thread
Today, the Washington Post's Chris Cillizza has moved Ohio from "lean Obama" to "tossup." Yet the current margin in Ohio is Obama +3.0+/-0.5% (n=14 polls, Oct. 13-Nov. 1) and probably insuperable. What could be Cillizza's reason?

He writes: "...the absolute necessity for Romney to win the state if he wants to be president - leads us to move it back to the 'tossup' category." Now here is some problematic reasoning. Romney needs Ohio, so therefore it's a toss-up. Ah yes, the "let's not bicker about who killed who" argument.

Cillizza is hardly alone. A few days ago, Wolf Blitzer at CNN cited a single Ohio poll, done by his own organization, showing Obama up by 4%. He then proceeded to call this a "tie," revealing an amazing inability to interpret a simple number. Compounding this is the fact that dozens of polls have been conducted in Ohio. The odds of an Obama lead are extremely high. So why does he persist?

The news media have an incentive to fuzz up the picture: ratings and profit. A message that the cake is fully baked does not automatically bring back the viewers. Without the artificial suspense, Cillizza and Blitzer are put in a position of having to say something substantive or interesting that gets beyond a horserace number. Think how much work that would be.

The same problem extends to the aggregation of polling data, which many sites do (FiveThirtyEight, Oct. 31). But think of all the headlines you have seen about "Romney ahead nationally," "Obama pulls ahead in Wisconsin," "it's a dead heat," and other permutations. Each of these headlines was based on a single poll. But aggregation would lead to fewer news stories - and less of the breathless horserace coverage we are used to.

When I started doing the Meta-Analysis of State Polls in 2004, I thought it would be a useful tool to get rid of media noise about individual polls. If we had a sharper picture of the race from day to day, a "polling thermometer," would tell a simpler story of the race that looks like this.



This story in hand could provide a common set of facts. Space would be opened up for discussion of what really mattered in the campaign - or even discussion of policies. To my disappointment, this has not happened. Maybe it just takes time. Or perhaps polling nerds need to get a few more races right. Let's see if we move the ball forward for Team Geek on Tuesday.

If you like what we do, visit ActBlue. The closest races are where your donations are most effective. Among President/Senate/House, the closest question is who will control the House. Although Senate control is no longer in question, some individual Senate races are in play, including Heitkamp, Carmona, and Tester. If you like what we do, but oppose who ActBlue supports, then go to CrossroadsGPS, which does just as good a job of targeting knife-edge races, but for Republicans.

[Sir X]

Good night and sleep tight.

[Islandman]

I see your blowout definition has come down from 350 to 330 and now it has reached 323. So what is the next stop 310? LOL.

Anyway, good to see you slowly facing reality. You have come a long way in 9 months my friend.

Well except that you still saying 11 more which I guess is IN and that is crazy talk, better you did say 15 from NC even though that is not happening either.

However you have progressed so much I won't give you a hard time. I will review your report card later this weekend. It will not be very pretty but at least you have admitted to your youthful exuberance, that is a good step.

Concession is good for the soul. LOL.

[Exile]

Lol...you two are hilarious!

[Islandman]

Haffe tek serious ting mek joke!

What a ting if we both wrong Tuesday night and Romney win, LOL.

[Exile]

Would not be nice....lol...for both of you!!!

[Willi]

My number rounded up to 310. LoL

[Willi]

Him cyaaan win. Bugger him.

[Sir X]

9 to 1 odds is good money,but stats man thats it ? no questioning about a) the hype alluded to by wang about the media hype b) Wangs questioning of the medias' polling methodolgy c) the statement he raised that Romney so called momentum never had him in a lead d) The momentum is with Obama e)It will likely increase d) the range he gave you is a blow out that sits at the lower end of Xs range 330 f)Wang doesnt see it close as anywhere in a 50 EV range...

You didnt know about wang did you ? well this is Xs october surprise ..hehe ,you have been dismissed by so many academics ,it isnt funny ,all you can grasp for is the 330 to correction 360 range.....my poor friend,I am with you I hope Romney wins for your sake,so we are both wrong...sic.

Love di likle debate though...lata..out gas hunting.

[Islandman]

Me never hear bout Wang before and me nuh have enough time to read through his writings at this late stage.

No point debating who was ahead 2 weeks ago because nobody can prove that either way. All we will have is who wins what on Tuesday night.

Now that you have accepted that there will be no new red states for Obama and 350 is off the table what is your new range?

Let us post your prior range for reference purposes:

330 to 360 looks feasible, I dont see him going above 360 or below 330

Granted that was before the first debate, but you said it made no difference and I believe you still are saying that, no?

[Sir X]

The results await us ,well now you have time to enlighten yourself about wang.

Talk to me after the election.I stick with my range,50 EV range to me is ridiculous.

[Exile]

Maybe you should re-phrase....a Jamaican forum and all that...