A response to Pres. Obama's swipe at Rand

[gringochileno]

@ Gringo. Agree more or less with your assessment.

Check out this article, though: "A page of history is worth a volume of logic"

I also read this yesterday: 538 is basically a Monte Carlo simulation

I would be betting on an Obama win simply because InTrades has him at +65%, but those two articles articulate the reason why I'm still uncertain of an Obama victory.

It's a somewhat interesting point but I don't find it all that persuasive because 538 actually does explicitly account for the possibility that the polls are systematically biased against Obama. In fact, most of Romney's ~20% chance of victory is probably coming from just this consideration, given that other models that don't make these adjustments to the raw polling data are predicting a much higher likelihood of an Obama win.

What this shows is that most of Romney's chances at this point rely on the assumption that the state-level polls are systematically biased against him by at least 2.5-3.5 points on average. While this is by no means impossible (there's a >15% difference in win probability between Silver's and Wang's models, after all), it does seem like a long shot given that basically the only reason to think it might be true is because the national polls show a tighter race, and historically national polls do a much worse job of predicting outcomes than state-level ones do. And if the state polls are accurate (or are biased against Obama--an easy to overlook possibility), then Obama is almost certain to win.

So in summary, even when you take into account the possibility of systematic poll bias I don't think 80% is an unreasonable estimate of Obama's chances of winning. If you disagree, since people have already gotten the gambling underway here I'll gladly bet you a book of your choice up to $20 off of Amazon that Obama wins--I'll even give you 2-1 odds (you buy me 1 book if Obama wins, I buy you 2 books if Romney wins).

 

[Excelsior]

I'm not saying Romney is going to win, but it's fool-hardy to think this is in the bag for Obama.

Even Silver himself is refusing to make that claim.

The articles I link to are pretty interesting, but if you know enough statistics (at the graduate level) and are familiar with Silver's model you can completely refute those arguments, I'd sure love to know why.

Silver addresses some of the points raised in those critiques (and the many, many others that have been coming from the right lately) here.
Like I said, I'll take Silver's reading with a grain of salt (he's doing the same himself), but that grain is going to be smaller than the one I apply with every other projection out there. I have yet to see a more credible and proven alternative model put forward by critics.

 

[ElJefe]

And I'm going to tell you to go back and look at Nate Silver's predictions in '06, '08, and '10, and then come back here and continue to disagree. I find it ironic that no conservative took issue with him in '10 because he accurately predicted numerous Republican victories. But now you all consider him to be a part of some great liberal conspiracy because he's making predictions you don't like. And what happens next Tuesday and Wednesday as the results come in and once again prove the accuracy of his predictions. What will you say then?

You can discredit the guy any way you want. But look at his past track record.

Well, I'm not personally invested in the polls - after all, they really don't matter that much, it all comes down to Tuesday.

But I will say this about Silver: he underestimated the Republican landslide in 2010 by +3% points.

"In 2010, the 538 model fared well - but no better than the poll averages at RCP. And that was only after Nate was much slower to pick up on the coming GOP wave than Scott Rasmussen, who called it a lot earlier in the cycle."

No model can or ever will be perfect, and if financial moguls with billions to spend make mistakes, what makes Silver so impervious to errors?

@ Gringo. Agree more or less with your assessment.

Check out this article, though: "A page of history is worth a volume of logic"

I also read this yesterday: 538 is basically a Monte Carlo simulation

I would be betting on an Obama win simply because InTrades has him at +65%, but those two articles articulate the reason why I'm still uncertain of an Obama victory.

What this shows is that most of Romney's chances at this point rely on the assumption that the state-level polls are systematically biased against him by at least 2.5-3.5 points on average.

Exactly! For instance the Quinnipac/NYT poll had Party ID for Democrats up by +5-8 over Republicans. Given that Obama might lose the white vote by as much +20 points (that number fluctuates), if Gallup research is correct in assessing the voter make-up will be identical to 2008, then a 7-point Obama win turns around into a 5-point Romney win.

So all of this hinges on whether the State polls are weighting the electorate realistically. I'm not so sure.

Thanks for offering the bet. The money isn't so important as my dignity, so I'm not going to bet on a Romney win, simply say I really don't think it's in the bag for BO.

Even Silver himself is refusing to make that claim.

I have yet to see a more credible and proven alternative model put forward by critics.

Yeah, but just about everyone else on the Left is, as if that's all anyone needed to know. Even you referred to it and assumed that basically settles the discussion. That's what I'm less sure about.

It all hinges on the accuracy of the state polls, and conservatives are hoping this time around they're off the mark (it's happened before), and Democrats are hoping they're right once again.

I haven't look at all the polls, but I've seen Gallup research believes the demographic make-up will be the same, and Obama will lose whites by a greater margin than in 2008 (where he lost by 12, but won nationally by 7). That means the break-even point, if Gallup is right, would be 7 divided by 2 divided by .75 + 12, ie. approx 16.8.

So MR needs to win the white vote by at least 17 to eke out a win. Is that so unlikely? Maybe... probably? We're sure going to find out.

 

[gringochileno]

And I'm going to tell you to go back and look at Nate Silver's predictions in '06, '08, and '10, and then come back here and continue to disagree. I find it ironic that no conservative took issue with him in '10 because he accurately predicted numerous Republican victories. But now you all consider him to be a part of some great liberal conspiracy because he's making predictions you don't like. And what happens next Tuesday and Wednesday as the results come in and once again prove the accuracy of his predictions. What will you say then?

You can discredit the guy any way you want. But look at his past track record.

Well, I'm not personally invested in the polls - after all, they really don't matter that much, it all comes down to Tuesday.

But I will say this about Silver: he underestimated the Republican landslide in 2010 by +3% points.

"In 2010, the 538 model fared well - but no better than the poll averages at RCP. And that was only after Nate was much slower to pick up on the coming GOP wave than Scott Rasmussen, who called it a lot earlier in the cycle."

No model can or ever will be perfect, and if financial moguls with billions to spend make mistakes, what makes Silver so impervious to errors?

@ Gringo. Agree more or less with your assessment.

Check out this article, though: "A page of history is worth a volume of logic"

I also read this yesterday: 538 is basically a Monte Carlo simulation

I would be betting on an Obama win simply because InTrades has him at +65%, but those two articles articulate the reason why I'm still uncertain of an Obama victory.

What this shows is that most of Romney's chances at this point rely on the assumption that the state-level polls are systematically biased against him by at least 2.5-3.5 points on average.

Exactly! For instance the Quinnipac/NYT poll had Party ID for Democrats up by +5-8 over Republicans. Given that Obama might lose the white vote by as much +20 points (that number fluctuates), if Gallup research is correct in assessing the voter make-up will be identical to 2008, then a 7-point Obama win turns around into a 5-point Romney win.

So all of this hinges on whether the State polls are weighting the electorate realistically. I'm not so sure.

Thanks for offering the bet. The money isn't so important as my dignity, so I'm not going to bet on a Romney win, simply say I really don't think it's in the bag for BO.

Well yeah, like I said, it's a possibility that the polls will be wrong. The question is how much, and in what direction. In order for Romney to win at this point, he needs the polls to have a systematic error of about 3 points or more in Obama's favor. In past elections, the state-level polls have historically been off by much less than this amount on average (more on the order of 1 percentage point). That's why 538, which takes the possibility of bias into account, is showing an 80% probability of an Obama win, while the Princeton Election Consortium, which takes the poll numbers a face value and doesn't consider the possibility of bias, is predicting a 97-99% chance of victory.

Basically, 538 is reflecting the same point that you're making, but it's doing it more quantitatively. It's conceivable that Obama's apparent lead in the polls is entirely due to systematic bias, but given that the amount of bias required in order to swing the election is several times the historical average, 538 calculates that the probability of that being the case is no more than 15-20%.

Again, the only glimmer of hope that Romney has at this point is if the polls are severely underestimating his position. If they are anywhere close to accurate he is virtually certain to lose.

 

[OkStudies]

Taken from the article:

Objectivism is a philosophy for winners, leaders, producers, creators, alpha males and females and those on their way.

Pretty much sums it up. Ayn Rand's novels are basically projections of her alpha male fantasies. When you look at heroic characters such as Howard Roark and John Galt, it doesn't get any more "alpha" than that.

Being a business man would be an disadvantage in the country I live in and also in most western and northern european countries.

Why is it seen as an advantage in USA?

Business and government are *organizations* and all organizations follow the same basic principles of operations (i.e. hiring talent, don't spend more than you take in etc). The only difference is how they get their income. Government is from taxes, business is from trade.

A man who amasses for himself a fortune of hundreds of millions of dollars in the competitive private sector vs a man who amassed his (smaller) fortune largely in politics and selling books based on politics is a *world* of difference.

Scorpion Wrote:

Lol, I'm not sure how anyone can take Ayn Rand seriously.

No one with any background in philosophy can, that's for sure.

Appeal to authority. Not an argument.