Well, in fairness, you or I could probably get 90 of 100 right. Forty states are basically the same every year (either Republican or Democrat) and have been unchanged for at least four election cycles. So, 80 states are virtual giveaways...the equivalent of Joe Lunardi getting to write in all the automatic teams into his projected NCAA tourney bracket before inevitably claiming he got "66 of 68 teams right!"
The remaining 10 states are the proverbial coin flips, but even those aren't true coin flips. In the last four election cycles, only five states (Nevada, Denver, Ohio, Virginia, Florida) have been split evenly between Republicans/Democrats at 2-2.
I actually think that Joe Lunardi or Jerry Palm is a great example to use here. I always read year after year on forums how 'Joe Lunardi is biased towards the ACC" or something like that. This year, I keep reading about how both Joe and Jerry are biased towards the Big 12 and PAC 12 since they've got a crapload of teams in there from both conferences. When in reality, they've got a bunch of teams from those conference in because there are going to be a bunch of teams from those conferences in.
I agree with you that you or I could get 90/100 states right (and probably much better than that even). But if Silver is so biased towards the left, wouldn't his misses be in that direction? It's like saying that Lunardi is biased towards the Big 10 because he's saying that 6 Big 10 teams will make the dance, and then 7 end up making it. And repeating again the following year that he's biased towards the Big 10.
Basically, what I'm saying is that if Nate Silver was biased towards the left, wouldn't he at some point in the past 2 election cycles have picked a state to go blue that actually went red?
Sunday March 6, 2016.
Golden State @ LA Lakers
The Lakers have about a .0125% chance of winning tonight. However, my gut feeling tells me Kerr and Company might go easy 'cause of Kobe's farewell tour.
I actually think that Joe Lunardi or Jerry Palm is a great example to use here. I always read year after year on forums how 'Joe Lunardi is biased towards the ACC" or something like that. This year, I keep reading about how both Joe and Jerry are biased towards the Big 12 and PAC 12 since they've got a crapload of teams in there from both conferences. When in reality, they've got a bunch of teams from those conference in because there are going to be a bunch of teams from those conferences in.
I agree with you that you or I could get 90/100 states right (and probably much better than that even). But if Silver is so biased towards the left, wouldn't his misses be in that direction? It's like saying that Lunardi is biased towards the Big 10 because he's saying that 6 Big 10 teams will make the dance, and then 7 end up making it. And repeating again the following year that he's biased towards the Big 10.
Basically, what I'm saying is that if Nate Silver was biased towards the left, wouldn't he at some point in the past 2 election cycles have picked a state to go blue that actually went red?
The assertion that Silver is biased is ridiculous. You are right on that. Silver has built his brand largely on his ability to predict the outcomes of elections, and aside from his one-time gut feel, he uses objective data to arrive at his conclusions. Being wrong doesn't serve him.
The assertion that Silver is biased is ridiculous. You are right on that. Silver has built his brand largely on his ability to predict the outcomes of elections, and aside from his one-time gut feel, he uses objective data to arrive at his conclusions. Being wrong doesn't serve him.
I agree of course. As far as a "bias" against Trump, that's a whole different animal. Part of his methodology seems to use endorsements, historical trends, etc. I'm not sure how it works when you've got a candidate that all of the establishment in the party hates, is unlike any candidate that's ever been successful, etc. Heck, when I started this thread, I pretty much did so because I was trying to figure out when to make my plays against Trump. I figured that even though he was polling well at the time, there was very little chance that he'd ever actually win the Republican nomination since he seems so "un-electable" and so many people hate him. (none of that Trump stuff was in reference to what I quoted in your post WW, I'm just rambling)
Concerning Florida, the polling consensus is around Trump by 15 over Rubio, but I think there may be a betting opportunity at +500 on the Field, i.e. Rubio.
1. The poll ignores the fact that Rubio has a strong ground game in the state. He has won a statewide election and has 1000s of volunteers, he is spending every last dime he has while Trump is spread across many states. A Rubio supporter in Florida is more motivated than a Rubio supporter in Ohio. A Trump supporter in Florida may be equally motivated as one in Ohio.
2. Most importantly the poll ignores that Trump has been outperforming in open primary states where you can register last minute. In Louisiana, also closed, Cruz outdid Trump on primary day and only lost because of early voters. This despite trailing by 16 points in the RCP concensus polling. The only ones eligible in Florida's closed primary are those that were registered as Republicans by February 15th.
3. The polling probably is biased against Rubio in that people become more strategic on election day. When they realize that Kasich actually wants 0 votes in Florida (the better to stop Trump in the winner take all state), we should expect his people will move to Cruz and Rubio. Further you may even have Cruz giving up on this state for the same reason. This means no appearances, no ads, etc. Leaders and talk radio will call for 'strategic' voting to stop trump. Kasich in Ohio, Rubio in FL, Cruz elsewhere.
4. The early voting will be >20% of the expected turnout. Only two polls give us info on how these people have come in so far: Monmouth and Washington Post. Among early voters in Florida, one has Rubio leading 48-23 over Trump. The other has Rubio trailing 31-38. All the polls equally weight people who say they voted and those who say they are likely to vote. But obviously this is more favorable and not recognized in the polling averages.
5. The only counterindication I can find is that most of the polling in the average is prior to the fallout from Rubio's poor showing on Tuesday and backtracking of his pottymouth comments. So the polls may be out of date and overly favorable.
So overall at +500 on Bookmaker and elsewhere I think the FIELD against Trump is playable.
I have been wrong on every single one of predictions with regards to Trump. With that being said, Rubio was elected during the tea party wave of 2010. Since then, he has really done nothing for the Tea Party. In fact, his voting and attendance records indicate he really hasn't done anything at all. The only thing he is known for is the Gang of 8, which is a horrible thing to be associated with this election cycle. Trump is a runaway freight train bulldozing any and everything in his way. It is entertaining to watch but scary if he actually becomes POTUS.
I have been wrong on every single one of predictions with regards to Trump. With that being said, Rubio was elected during the tea party wave of 2010. Since then, he has really done nothing for the Tea Party. In fact, his voting and attendance records indicate he really hasn't done anything at all. The only thing he is known for is the Gang of 8, which is a horrible thing to be associated with this election cycle. Trump is a runaway freight train bulldozing any and everything in his way. It is entertaining to watch but scary if he actually becomes POTUS.
Yeah I agree, but the points above should be contained in the polling data, while my points are add-ons to the polling data. And then there's this:
Well, in fairness, you or I could probably get 90 of 100 right. Forty states are basically the same every year (either Republican or Democrat) and have been unchanged for at least four election cycles. So, 80 states are virtual giveaways...the equivalent of Joe Lunardi getting to write in all the automatic teams into his projected NCAA tourney bracket before inevitably claiming he got "66 of 68 teams right!"
The remaining 10 states are the proverbial coin flips, but even those aren't true coin flips. In the last four election cycles, only five states (Nevada, Denver, Ohio, Virginia, Florida) have been split evenly between Republicans/Democrats at 2-2.
Trump +375 to win presidential election is a steal. Hillary is not getting any enthusiasm from gen X. low overall turnout and does not inspire people. Donald reminds me of Obama 08 in his off the charts enthusiasim. I like DT in a landslide.
Trump +375 to win presidential election is a steal. Hillary is not getting any enthusiasm from gen X. low overall turnout and does not inspire people. Donald reminds me of Obama 08 in his off the charts enthusiasim. I like DT in a landslide.
To be clear, you are now adding to your +260 bet you "touted" in post #91 ? Have to hold you to the same standard you hold Silver
And he should be doing what?
The GOP position? they are too busy trying to stop the Donald to care about issues.
Maybe getting his ass back to DC and organizing NATO leaders on some unity to combat the JV Team. Or better yet learning some fuken Presidential etiquette. Skipping Scalia's funeral was not good.
Maybe getting his ass back to DC and organizing NATO leaders on some unity to combat the JV Team. Or better yet learning some fuken Presidential etiquette. Skipping Scalia's funeral was not good.
Good Idea. . Did you know that he and his Muslim friends killed Scalia.
Just thinking some of the early voters may help me out..but you are probably correct..plus a good size Mormon pop which listens to Beck rail on Trump daily..
Just thinking some of the early voters may help me out..but you are probably correct..plus a good size Mormon pop which listens to Beck rail on Trump daily..
Az's "Sheriff Joe",ex-Gov JBrewer have busted their butts campaigning for Trump. Beck's negative urging won't help. Most of the Mormons are in UT and ID and they already made up their minds without Beck's help.
I always thought that once a person baptized a Catholic, always a Catholic unless ex-cummunicated by the Church. Not in Becks case.
Maybe getting his ass back to DC and organizing NATO leaders on some unity to combat the JV Team. Or better yet learning some fuken Presidential etiquette. Skipping Scalia's funeral was not good.
Interesting theory. Care to elaborate in more than 1 sentence?
Who has more foreign policy experience? Clinton, Sanders, Cruz, or Trump. Not even close. Republicans are all a bunch of scared pussies who have blinders on to what the US has done all over the world.
Comments
I actually think that Joe Lunardi or Jerry Palm is a great example to use here. I always read year after year on forums how 'Joe Lunardi is biased towards the ACC" or something like that. This year, I keep reading about how both Joe and Jerry are biased towards the Big 12 and PAC 12 since they've got a crapload of teams in there from both conferences. When in reality, they've got a bunch of teams from those conference in because there are going to be a bunch of teams from those conferences in.
I agree with you that you or I could get 90/100 states right (and probably much better than that even). But if Silver is so biased towards the left, wouldn't his misses be in that direction? It's like saying that Lunardi is biased towards the Big 10 because he's saying that 6 Big 10 teams will make the dance, and then 7 end up making it. And repeating again the following year that he's biased towards the Big 10.
Basically, what I'm saying is that if Nate Silver was biased towards the left, wouldn't he at some point in the past 2 election cycles have picked a state to go blue that actually went red?
Golden State @ LA Lakers
The Lakers have about a .0125% chance of winning tonight. However, my gut feeling tells me Kerr and Company might go easy 'cause of Kobe's farewell tour.
Final Lakers 112-95
Am I learning the freeroll tout hustle?
The assertion that Silver is biased is ridiculous. You are right on that. Silver has built his brand largely on his ability to predict the outcomes of elections, and aside from his one-time gut feel, he uses objective data to arrive at his conclusions. Being wrong doesn't serve him.
I agree of course. As far as a "bias" against Trump, that's a whole different animal. Part of his methodology seems to use endorsements, historical trends, etc. I'm not sure how it works when you've got a candidate that all of the establishment in the party hates, is unlike any candidate that's ever been successful, etc. Heck, when I started this thread, I pretty much did so because I was trying to figure out when to make my plays against Trump. I figured that even though he was polling well at the time, there was very little chance that he'd ever actually win the Republican nomination since he seems so "un-electable" and so many people hate him. (none of that Trump stuff was in reference to what I quoted in your post WW, I'm just rambling)
If I was a stuttering man, I'd probably say K-K-Kasper was too. :laugh:
1. The poll ignores the fact that Rubio has a strong ground game in the state. He has won a statewide election and has 1000s of volunteers, he is spending every last dime he has while Trump is spread across many states. A Rubio supporter in Florida is more motivated than a Rubio supporter in Ohio. A Trump supporter in Florida may be equally motivated as one in Ohio.
2. Most importantly the poll ignores that Trump has been outperforming in open primary states where you can register last minute. In Louisiana, also closed, Cruz outdid Trump on primary day and only lost because of early voters. This despite trailing by 16 points in the RCP concensus polling. The only ones eligible in Florida's closed primary are those that were registered as Republicans by February 15th.
3. The polling probably is biased against Rubio in that people become more strategic on election day. When they realize that Kasich actually wants 0 votes in Florida (the better to stop Trump in the winner take all state), we should expect his people will move to Cruz and Rubio. Further you may even have Cruz giving up on this state for the same reason. This means no appearances, no ads, etc. Leaders and talk radio will call for 'strategic' voting to stop trump. Kasich in Ohio, Rubio in FL, Cruz elsewhere.
4. The early voting will be >20% of the expected turnout. Only two polls give us info on how these people have come in so far: Monmouth and Washington Post. Among early voters in Florida, one has Rubio leading 48-23 over Trump. The other has Rubio trailing 31-38. All the polls equally weight people who say they voted and those who say they are likely to vote. But obviously this is more favorable and not recognized in the polling averages.
5. The only counterindication I can find is that most of the polling in the average is prior to the fallout from Rubio's poor showing on Tuesday and backtracking of his pottymouth comments. So the polls may be out of date and overly favorable.
So overall at +500 on Bookmaker and elsewhere I think the FIELD against Trump is playable.
Yeah I agree, but the points above should be contained in the polling data, while my points are add-ons to the polling data. And then there's this:
6. http://gawker.com/a-good-conspiracy-theory-about-the-republican-primary-1764318273
To be clear, you are now adding to your +260 bet you "touted" in post #91 ? Have to hold you to the same standard you hold Silver
yes, Im not one who roots for CLV, Id rather a line go against me so I can re pop
Chaos reigns in central Europe and our C-in-C is attending a baseball game in Communist Cuba.
And he should be doing what?
The GOP position? they are too busy trying to stop the Donald to care about issues.
Maybe getting his ass back to DC and organizing NATO leaders on some unity to combat the JV Team. Or better yet learning some fuken Presidential etiquette. Skipping Scalia's funeral was not good.
Good Idea. . Did you know that he and his Muslim friends killed Scalia.
I didn't know that. Tell me more.
You need divine intervention to win this bet.
btw, polls still open at time of post.
Just thinking some of the early voters may help me out..but you are probably correct..plus a good size Mormon pop which listens to Beck rail on Trump daily..
Az's "Sheriff Joe",ex-Gov JBrewer have busted their butts campaigning for Trump. Beck's negative urging won't help. Most of the Mormons are in UT and ID and they already made up their minds without Beck's help.
I always thought that once a person baptized a Catholic, always a Catholic unless ex-cummunicated by the Church. Not in Becks case.
If anything this has helped Clinton and hurt the rest of them.
It's called blowback.
Intelligent response that required heavy thought.
Interesting theory. Care to elaborate in more than 1 sentence?
I didn't think you would get it.
Who has more foreign policy experience? Clinton, Sanders, Cruz, or Trump. Not even close. Republicans are all a bunch of scared pussies who have blinders on to what the US has done all over the world.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem
The attack on the GOP is a bonus. Funny thing is the one guy that could win the genera has no shot. No way Trump or Cruz could ever win the General.