Comments on: The Electoral Map: Clinton Vs. Trump

By: UPDATED: Was there a Clinton Surge or not? – Greg Laden's Blog

UPDATED: Was there a Clinton Surge or not? – Greg Laden's Blog — Tue, 25 Oct 2016 13:40:09 +0000

[…] may do another electoral projection to replace this one later […]

By: jim

jim — Tue, 18 Oct 2016 14:25:46 +0000

It is truly amazing how wrong this map is ?. I will make a personal wager with anyone that Trump will take Ohio , Georgia , Nevada and many more the crazy liberal who made this map gave to Hillary.

By: Christopher Winter

Christopher Winter — Thu, 13 Oct 2016 20:10:37 +0000

You’ve got the coal states (except Illinois) going red, which makes sense to me. Perhaps Illinois doesn’t mine that much coal any more.

By: Brainstorms

Brainstorms — Thu, 13 Oct 2016 00:47:55 +0000

Sure, I got there-here PID loop… Let’s compensate for a weak signal by just turning P “up to 11″…

What could possibly go wrong?

By: dean

dean — Thu, 13 Oct 2016 00:22:32 +0000

I would be very interested to hear how the people running that poll feel about this thing: they try to do everything right, and make all of their work transparent, and despite all of their good intentions…

By: Brainstorms

Brainstorms — Wed, 12 Oct 2016 23:48:09 +0000

Dean, if that (statistical improprieties) becomes “How one 19-year-old Illinois man is distorting national election results” (legal improprieties), I’m going to start worrying…

(You’re not clogging up the site, but I think we can posit a few notorious others who have been doing so.)

By: dean

dean — Wed, 12 Oct 2016 23:21:56 +0000

I shared this with a few of my classes for reading and discussion: I thought you might be interested in it as well (and if you’ve already seen it, my apologies for clogging up the site.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/13/upshot/how-one-19-year-old-illinois-man-is-distorting-national-polling-averages.html?_r=2&utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Wed, 12 Oct 2016 18:54:03 +0000

Note: Today’s polls, from a handful of states, are in close agreement with the predicted values from the model, so nothing changes yet.

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Wed, 12 Oct 2016 16:37:11 +0000

Since I’m calibrating to polls, but then using a deterministic model, one could guess that the error bar is about 5 points. However, using the behavior of this kind of analysis from the primaries, my range of accuracy was closer to one point, so a 2 SD error bar might be comfortable about plus or minus 2 points.

I wonder if Branstad will react to the latest Trump news in some wa or another.

By: Eric Lund

Eric Lund — Wed, 12 Oct 2016 15:46:18 +0000

include the list of the actual percentage data

That would be particularly useful. Especially if you can estimate what your error bars might be. What you predict to be a Clinton +2 state could well go to Trump, or a Trump +2 state to Clinton.

What seems to be happening in Iowa is that the state has a relatively large fraction of old white people without college degrees. That’s Trump’s core demographic. There are similar issues for Democrats with Ohio and ME-02, which have only turned blue on prognosticators’ maps as Hillary has opened up a national lead. But in Iowa there is a reasonably popular Republican governor (Branstad) who openly supports Trump. That’s not true of Ohio (Kasich is reasonably popular but is one of the few openly anti-Trump Republicans) or Maine (LePage openly supports Trump but is not very popular).