You should now an additional graph along the right-hand side of the page, which I have dubbed the 'Swing State Analysis'. What this tells you is which states are likely to 'swing' the election. As I describe it here:
I'm now reporting another new parameter in my output, which is the state that "swings" the election in each of the simulation runs. The way that this works is as follows: I arrange the states from best to worst in order of Obama's (or Clinton's) vote share in each of the 5,000 simulations. I then count electoral votes upward until he equals or exceeds 269 EV. The state that puts him over the top is literally the swing state for that simulation run.This is one of those things sounds fancier than it really is, and produces what should be fairly intuitive results. Obviously, the key variables in this calculation are the number of electors in a state, and just how tight the state is expected to be. These figures might be thought of as a good proxy for how the campaigns should allocate their resources, among other things.
What's interesting is that we come up with relatively different lists in the Obama-McCain and Clinton-McCain scenarios. Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan are important to both candidates to a lesser extent so is Missouri. But New Jersey and Virginia are featured prominently on Obama's list, while they don't make Clinton's Top 15 (New Jersey because she won't lose it; Virginia because she won't win it). Florida, meanwhile, ranks much lower on Obama's list than on Clinton's, because the model thinks that he has a lot of alternative paths to 269 electoral votes that should provide a better return on his investment.

24 comments
Poblano,
I love the site, and your statistical methods. Only could you maybe replace the electoral proportion maps with normal maps with the EV written in. The geography is a little confusing with the electoral proportion maps.
Student Guy
What exactly does the % beside each number on the "swing state analysis" mean?
Thanks!
Mark "Hillry-is-inevitable" Penn floated another dull argument today. Truth is, Obama does better than Clinton in Pennsylvania matchups against McCain because, while Philly Dems prefer Hillary, they would vote for Obama if he's the nominee.
But this is what the idiot said last month:
“Winning Democratic primaries is not a qualification or a sign of who can win the general election. If it were, every nominee would win because every nominee wins Democratic primaries.”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8551.html
I guess the goal post has moved. But using this new STUPID argument suggests Hillary will lose the 30 States Obama has won and the ones he's still to win. How can Hillary win the general election?
Student Guy,
Yeah, I'm exploring a couple of alternatives for the cartograms. The thing is that I need something that can update automatically in EXCEL (basically the maps you see in the site now are just generated by some fancy conditional formatting), which limits the options a bit.
Faithfull,
The percentage next to the state is the percentage of the simulation runs in which that state swing the election from a win to a loss. There is exactly one swing state assigned for each simulation run.
I do need to figure out a slightly better way to explain exactly what it's doing, but in the meantime, you can see my discussion here.
"percentage of the simulation runs in which that state swing the election from a win to a loss."
All you need to do is find an economical way to put exactly this explanation into a legend or heading to your swing table. Even that statement works for me.
Perhaps:
"Figures represent the percent of the simulation runs in which a given state swings the electoral vote from a loss to a win." (or is it win to a loss?)
What's also confusing, BTW, is the colors. You might stick to the Dark blue, light blue colors for the two Dem candidates.
poblano,
Thank you for adding the geographical maps along with the electoral cartogram.
Student Guy
Poblano, or maybe the percentages are this?
"Percent of the simulations in which a minimum winning coalition of 270 electoral votes requires winning the given state."
That makes sense to me as a way of showing the odds that a given state will have to be won in order for the candidate to reach 270 electoral votes.
It's a way of showing, for example, how much less important winning FL is to an Obama EV win than to a Clinton EV win.
I thing it´s like this: He listed all states beginning with the state where the Democrat got the least percentage. Then he counted which state brought the Democrat over the magic number of 269.
For example:
Utah: 0
West Virginia: 0
Wyoming: 0
...
Ohio: 20
North Dakota: 23
...
New Hampshire: 107
New Jersey: 122
...
Delaware: 267
Hawaii: 271
...
Vermont: 319
Illinois: 340
Then he did that several thousand times and listed which state let the democrat win the election how often.
When I am right.
Might it not also be reasonable to have a "swing state" analysis for the simulated events in which McCain wins. McCain's "likely" swing state that could put him over the top will not necessarily be the same, will they?
For example, although the simulations tend to show Obama (or Clinton winning), there will be runs where McCain wins - in those circumstances what are the states that are most likely to put him over the top.
I suppose it is just as important for the candidate to win his likely swing states as it is for him win his opponents likely swing states, which are not going to be necessary the same thing. The comparison may be very instructive.
For example, for Obama VA and IN are up "relatively" high in the of potential swingers. But I really doubt that IN and VA come up high as possibly swingers necessary for McCain. Which means that McCain may likely not campaign hard there because for him there may not be a lot of incentive, but for Obama he will campaign a bit harder in IN (a neighbor) and VA because they are potential swingers. The inequality of incentives should create a tightening in some unlikely places.
I thought of another way to sort wheat from chafe.
Consider "pbar", the average % chance of being a swinger for all.
Then just look at those states with a p (% chance of being a swinger) that is greater than Upper Control Limit,i.e.
p-bar + 3 * square root of ((pbar)*(1-pbar)/N)
where N is 5000 because that is number of simulations.
This would show the honestly likely swingers, as opposed to the top 15 which is might be good for Letterman but really isn't statistically very meaningful.
What's the definition of the percentages in the new "Must-Win States" analysis?
From the FAQ:
"The notion of the 'Must-Win States' is somewhat more intuitive. Simply put, it the percentage of the time that the candidate who won the election won that state in our simulation runs."
Right now (I think because of the red) you have "must- win" states for McCain and "tipping point" states (aka "likely swing states") for Obama (I presume because of blue).
I think it might make more sense to have Must-Win States for each AND Tipping Point states for each.
Per prior post, I'd like to see the wheat separated from the chafe by seeing which "must-wins" or "tippers" if any are statistically meaningful, i.e. fall outside 3 SD +/- average % for all states. (Basically, a p-chart that Deming would have used).
The true battle ground states would seem to be where meaningfully likely Obama tippers coincide with meaningfully likely McCain must-wins OR where meaningfully likely McCain tippers coincide with meaningfully likely Obama must-wins.
Yeah I don't get the coloring on this analysis either. Why does Obama have tipping point states, and McCain have must-win states? If that isn't the case, then the coloring on the graph is definitely confusing. It seems like there should be four columns, not two.
In order to try to do the wheat from chaffe analysis, I previously suggested, I looked at your raw data from March, which is posted here:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/6/212016/8597/980/470910
Obviously, things have changed (noteably, IN going from 0.4% of being a tipper to 4.3% chance!?? How?) but as that is the only complete raw data to which I have access, I used it.
The average % tipper is 0.019568627
Using the following,
=(E52)+3*SQRT(E52*(1-E52)/5000)
where E52=AVERAGE(E1:E51)
So basically, the honest to goodness tippers with that data have a % above ~2.5%, yielding:
CO,OR, WI,MI,NV,OH,NJ,PA,VA,MO,NC, FL
Using the same March data, the average Obama win % was 0.501941176, from =AVERAGE(B1:B51).
So, the honest to goodness really truly likely Obama winners, using =(B52)+3*SQRT(B52*(1-B52)/5000)
suggests looking at those above about 52.3%. The really truly Obama losers would have a win% less than ~48%.
So if you exclude from the honestly likely tippers those which have a win% less than 48%, you'd exclude MO,NC,FL, as really unlikely tippers%. And by those March numbers, all of the rest but VA were "really truly likely" Obama winners. So by this kind of analysis of the March numbers, the really truly likely battle ground state was VA.
Of course this was only using the March data available.
To me this kind of analysis makes more sense that a list of the top ten tippers or must wins.
I think what Kromkowski and Cullen said about the confusion regarding colors etc. above is still valid. I'm not sure as well: why are there Obama Tipping Point States and McCain Must-Win-States displayed, but not vice versa?
I am posting here because not sure where else to post. Also not sure where Poblano is actually most likely to look but I continue:
Doesn't the Electoral Vote Distribution chart look "funky"?
I know that because we are adding up discrete states which are neither uniformly nor randomly distributed our histogram of simulation should not look "normal".
But that "red" tail near zero (presumably representing a McCain blowout a la Nixon vs. McGovern or Reagan v Mondale) really shouldn't be there while at the same time there is such a skew for Obama.
It might help, pedagogically, if we knew what the electoral vote distribution looked like if we assume that every state is a 50/50 toss up - i.e. what would the histogram look like? I suppose everybody is busy, but I just don't have the time to do it.
A 50/50 toss up is like saying we have no information. If in the circumstance of no information, the chances of Obama get routed (<20 EV) are q and the simulation's projected chances of Obama get routed (<20 EV)are statistically meaningfully higher than q, then something is either wrong with the simulator or we should stand up a take notice, of such a curious situation.
Eyeballing is a very very bad thing to do) but with 5000 simulations, that red tail just doesn't seem right.
"Make or Break State" Probability
The goal is to find an intuitive metric, that isolates out the Florida/Ohio/Michigans (big and competitive) but not the Californias (bigger but uncompetitive) or Nevadas (competitive but very small).
The effect a state can have on a selected election is broken into three:
* EV Margin outside range = P(No Effect)
* State causes candidate favored to win in that state to win national Election = P(Fav_Win)
* State causes candidate not favored to win in that state to win national Election = P(NotFav_win)
P(No Effect)+P(Fav_Win)+P(NotFav_Win)=1.0
I propose that the most interesting metric is P("Make or Break") for state = 2 * P(NotFav_Win). Times 2 since it both makes and breaks and gives interesting properties:
* In a fictional election, in which only one state is perfectly 50/50 competitive (and the other states are evenly split) P("Make or Break") will equal 1.0.
* If the state is 100% uncompetitive, or the national election is 100% uncompetitive, then P("Make or Break") equals zero.
* If you sum up the P("Make or Break") for all states you get a value equal or less than 1.0 (I believe).
Implementation:
- For each Monte Carlo run (out of 10000), if underdog win's state, and the state EV was within the margin of victory, increase P(NotFav_Win) for that state by 0.0001.
Please fix your typo!
"You should now ____ an additional graph along the right-hand side of the page"
情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,美國aneros,rudeboy,英國rudeboy,英國Rocksoff,德國Fun Factory,Fun Factory,英國甜筒造型按摩座,甜筒造型按摩座,英國Rock Chic ,瑞典 Lelo ,英國Emotional Bliss,英國 E.B,荷蘭 Natural Contours,荷蘭 N C,美國 OhMiBod,美國 OMB,Naughti Nano ,音樂按摩棒,ipod按摩棒,美國 The Screaming O,美國TSO,美國TOPCO,美國Doc Johnson,美國CA Exotic,美國CEN,美國Nasstoy,美國Tonguejoy,英國Je Joue,美國Pipe Dream,美國California Exotic,美國NassToys,美國Vibropod,美國Penthouse,仿真按摩棒,矽膠按摩棒,猛男倒模,真人倒模,仿真倒模,PJUR,Zestra,適趣液,穿戴套具,日本NPG,雙頭龍,FANCARNAL,日本NIPPORI,日本GEL,日本Aqua Style,美國WET,費洛蒙,費洛蒙香水,仿真名器,av女優,打炮,做愛,性愛,口交,吹喇叭,肛交,魔女訓練大師,無線跳蛋,有線跳蛋,震動棒,震動保險套,震動套,TOY-情趣用品,情趣用品網,情趣購物網,成人用品網,情趣用品討論,成人購物網,鎖精套,鎖精環,持久環,持久套,拉珠,逼真按摩棒,名器,超名器,逼真老二,電動自慰,自慰,打手槍,仿真女郎,SM道具,SM,性感內褲,仿真按摩棒,pornograph,hunter系列,h動畫,成人動畫,成人卡通,情色動畫,情色卡通,色情動畫,色情卡通,無修正,禁斷,人妻,極悪調教,姦淫,近親相姦,顏射,盜攝,偷拍,本土自拍,素人自拍,公園露出,街道露出,野外露出,誘姦,迷姦,輪姦,凌辱,痴漢,痴女,素人娘,中出,巨乳,調教,潮吹,av,a片,成人影片,成人影音,線上影片,成人光碟,成人無碼,成人dvd,情色影音,情色影片,情色dvd,情色光碟,航空版,薄碼,色情dvd,色情影音,色情光碟,線上A片,免費A片,A片下載,成人電影,色情電影,TOKYO HOT,SKY ANGEL,一本道,SOD,S1,ALICE JAPAN,皇冠系列,老虎系列,東京熱,亞熱,武士系列,新潮館,情趣用品,情趣,情趣商品,情趣網站,跳蛋,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,自慰套,G點,性感內衣,情趣內衣,角色扮演,生日禮物,生日精品,自慰,打手槍,潮吹,高潮,後庭,情色論譠,影片下載,遊戲下載,手機鈴聲,音樂下載,開獎號碼,統一發票號碼,夜市,統一發票對獎,保險套,做愛,減肥,美容,瘦身,當舖,軟體下載,汽車,機車,手機,來電答鈴,週年慶,美食,徵信社,網頁設計,網站設計,室內設計,靈異照片,同志,聊天室,運動彩券,大樂透,威力彩,搬家公司,除蟲,偷拍,自拍,無名破解,av女優,小說,民宿,大樂透開獎號碼,大樂透中獎號碼,威力彩開獎號碼,討論區,痴漢,懷孕,美女交友,交友,日本av,日本,機票,香水,股市,股市行情, 股市分析,租房子,成人影片,免費影片,醫學美容,免費算命,算命,姓名配對,姓名學,姓名學免費,遊戲,好玩遊戲,好玩遊戲區,線上遊戲,新遊戲,漫畫,線上漫畫,動畫,成人圖片,桌布,桌布下載,電視節目表,線上電視,線上a片,線上掃毒,線上翻譯,購物車,身分證製造機,身分證產生器,手機,二手車,中古車,法拍屋,歌詞,音樂,音樂網,火車,房屋,情趣用品,情趣,情趣商品,情趣網站,跳蛋,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,自慰套, G點,性感內衣,情趣內衣,角色扮演,生日禮物,精品,禮品,自慰,打手槍,潮吹,高潮,後庭,情色論譠,影片下載,遊戲下載,手機鈴聲,音樂下載,開獎號碼,統一發票,夜市,保險套,做愛,減肥,美容,瘦身,當舖,軟體下載,汽車,機車,手機,來電答鈴,週年慶,美食,徵信社,網頁設計,網站設計,室內設計,靈異照片,同志,聊天室,運動彩券,,大樂透,威力彩,搬家公司,除蟲,偷拍,自拍,無名破解, av女優,小說,民宿,大樂透開獎號碼,大樂透中獎號碼,威力彩開獎號碼,討論區,痴漢,懷孕,美女交友,交友,日本av ,日本,機票,香水,股市,股市行情,股市分析,租房子,成人影片,免費影片,醫學美容,免費算命,算命,姓名配對,姓名學,姓名學免費,遊戲,好玩遊戲,好玩遊戲區,線上遊戲,新遊戲,漫畫,線上漫畫,動畫,成人圖片,桌布,桌布下載,電視節目表,線上電視,線上a片,線上a片,線上翻譯,購物車,身分證製造機,身分證產生器,手機,二手車,中古車,法拍屋,歌詞,音樂,音樂網,借錢,房屋,街頭籃球,找工作,旅行社,六合彩,婚友,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,婚友,交友,交友,婚友社,婚友社,婚友社,大陸新娘,大陸新娘,越南新娘,越南新娘,外籍新娘,外籍新娘,台中坐月子中心,搬家公司,搬家公司,中和搬家,台北搬家,板橋搬家,新店搬家,線上客服,網頁設計,線上客服,網頁設計,植牙,關鍵字,關鍵字,seo,seo,網路排名,自然排序,網路排名軟體,交友,越南新娘,婚友社,外籍新娘,大陸新娘,越南新娘,交友,外籍新娘,視訊聊天,大陸新娘,婚友社,婚友,越南新娘,大陸新娘,越南新娘,視訊交友,外籍新娘,網路排名,網路排名軟體,網站排名優化大師,關鍵字排名大師,網站排名seo大師,關鍵字行銷專家,關鍵字,seo,關鍵字行銷,網頁排序,網頁排名,關鍵字大師,seo大,自然排名,網站排序,網路行銷創業,汽車借款,汽車借錢,汽車貸款,汽車貸款,拉皮,抽脂,近視雷射,隆乳,隆鼻,變性,雙眼皮,眼袋,牙齒,下巴,植牙,人工植牙,植髮,雷射美容,膠原蛋白,皮膚科,醫學美容,玻尿酸,肉毒桿菌,微晶瓷,電波拉皮,脈衝光,關鍵字,關鍵字,seo,seo,網路排名,自然排序,網路排名軟體,英語演講,托福,Toastmaster,
^^ nice blog!! ^@^
徵信, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 感情挽回, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 女子徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 外遇沖開, 抓姦, 女子徵信, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 女人徵信, 外遇
徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵信網, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 女人徵信, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,
^^ nice blog!! thanks a lot! ^^
徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 離婚, 外遇,離婚,
徵信, 外遇, 離婚, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信社, 征信, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,
當舖或專利或商標或存證信函都歡迎討論。專利或商標或存證信函或當舖都很重要。
關鍵字:當舖,當舖,專利,專利,商標,商標,存證信函,存證信函,商標設計,自創品牌,關鍵字。
Post a Comment