Comments on FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: Quibble

酒店經紀人, 菲梵酒店經紀, 酒店經紀, 禮服酒店上班, 酒店小姐兼職, 便服酒店經紀, ...

2009-10-08T07:59:50.715-04:00

酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,

艾葳酒店經紀公司提供專業的酒店經紀, 酒店上班小姐,八大行業,酒店兼職,傳播妹,或者想要到打工兼差、...

2009-09-11T02:00:50.835-04:00

艾葳酒店經紀公司提供專業的酒店經紀, 酒店上班小姐,八大行業,酒店兼職,傳播妹,或者想要到打工兼差、打工,兼差,或者八大行業,酒店兼職,想去酒店上班, 日式酒店,制服酒店,ktv酒店,禮服店,整天穿得水水漂漂的,還是想去制服店當上班小姐,水水們如果想要擁有打工工作、晚上兼差工作、兼差打工、假日兼職、兼職工作、酒店兼差、兼差、打工兼差、日領工作、晚上兼差工作、酒店工作、酒店上班、酒店打工、兼職、兼差、兼差工作、酒店上班等,想了解酒店相關工作和特種行業內容,想兼職工作日領、假日兼職、兼差打工、或晚班兼職想擁有快速賺錢又有保障的工作嗎???又可以現領請找專業又有保障的艾葳酒店經紀公司!

艾葳酒店經紀是合法的公司工作環境高雅時尚，無業績壓力，無脫秀無喝酒壓力，高層次會員制客源，工作輕鬆，可日領、現領。
一般的酒店經紀只會在水水們第一次上班和領薪水時出現而已，對水水們的上班安全一點保障都沒有！艾葳酒店經紀公司的水水們上班時全程媽咪作陪，不需擔心！只提供最優質的酒店上班,酒店上班,酒店打工環境、上班條件給水水們。心動嗎!? 趕快來填寫你的酒店上班履歷表

水水們妳有缺現領、有兼職、缺錢卡奴的煩腦嗎?想到日本留學缺錢嗎?妳是傳播妹??想要擁有高時薪又輕鬆的夜間兼職工作,打工機會和,假日打工,假日兼職賺錢的機會嗎??想實現夢想卻又缺錢沒錢嗎!??
艾葳酒店台北酒店經紀招兵買馬!!徵專業的酒店打工,想要去酒店的水水,想要短期日領,酒店日領,禮服酒店,制服店,酒店經紀,ktv酒店,便服店,酒店工作,禮服店,酒店小姐,酒店經紀人,
等相關服務幫您快速的實現您的夢想~!!

艾葳酒店經紀公司提供專業的酒店經紀, 酒店上班小姐,八大行業,酒店兼職,傳播妹,或者想要到打工兼差、...

2009-09-11T02:00:31.583-04:00

租車公司,行易花蓮租車旅遊網,花蓮,租車,花蓮,花蓮旅遊景點,花蓮,一日遊,一日遊,溯溪,賞鯨,泛舟...

2009-05-17T12:37:00.000-04:00

^^ nice blog!! thanks a lot! ^^徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社, 徵信...

2009-03-11T06:12:00.000-04:00

^^ nice blog!! ^@^徵信, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社...

2009-03-11T06:11:00.000-04:00

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,...

2009-02-14T01:46:00.000-05:00

徵信社, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, ...

2009-02-09T06:39:00.000-05:00

So how would you explain the Reagan wipe-out of ca...

2008-07-10T10:51:00.000-04:00

So how would you explain the Reagan wipe-out of carter despite the polls being pretty close to the last couple of weeks?

The interesting thing is how the McCain = Bush mem...

2008-07-10T10:21:00.000-04:00

The interesting thing is how the McCain = Bush meme will affect this.

Would tying Bush so tightly to McCain have an incumebncy effect on McCain making him stronger?

I'm not sure past elections are going to be that u...

2008-07-10T06:25:00.000-04:00

I'm not sure past elections are going to be that useful as a diagnostic framework. It would seem to me that spikes in approval rating towards the end of terms is due to nostalgia, and also due to the president fading from the scene.

I don't see that happening this time. The Bush aedifice is crumbling fast and he's going to be trying to spend much of the rest of his presidency trying to stack the deck against Obama, which one would expect the Dems will be watching for and publicising.

There will be far too much politics for the bounce to kick in.

@Frank from Germany: "1956 (Truman incumbent)"Som...

2008-07-09T21:04:00.000-04:00

@Frank from Germany: "1956 (Truman incumbent)"
Something wrong here, since Eisenhower was the incumbent in 1956. What did you mean?

The commonality of incumbent elections between 195...

2008-07-09T20:21:00.000-04:00

The commonality of incumbent elections between 1956 and 1992 in which the incumbent won was that the incumbent never lost the polling lead in the 200 days before the election. In that light, it does not appear that McCain has much incumbent effect. In all other elections save Ford’s loss to Carter the lead changed hands in the last 120 days. This leads me to still have concerns with the projection methodology. I have less concern as we get closer to the election.

Obama electability:I find it interesting that most...

2008-07-09T18:22:00.000-04:00

Obama electability:

I find it interesting that most major polls have Obama ahead by 3-5%--in a year where the democratic candidate should be ahead by 20%. The Bush administration and his republican cronies have so alienated the american electorate that there is no excuse why Obama shouldn't be outpolling McCain by considerably more than he is. Surely, the American electorate can't be duped again? Are there some other underlying reasons? Could his race be in issue? Unfortunately, racism is still alive and well in this country. Of course, very few voters will publicly admit that race will affect how they vote; but, once they are in the privacy of the polling booth, their deep rooted racial prejudices may indeed dictate how they ultimately vote. Case in point: I remember when Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley ran for Governor of California in 1982. On election day, he had a 7 percentage point lead which evaporate when all the votes were counted, and he lost the election....and that was even before the republicans learned how to steal elections. There may have been a number of variables in play, but race certainly was one. The Obama camp better hope he has at LEAST a 10% lead on election day. Otherwise he will be going in as a "president", and coming out as a "Senator."

Hmm.... I built a simple Bayesian model, in which ...

2008-07-09T17:40:00.000-04:00

Hmm....

I built a simple Bayesian model, in which the "Macro" variables (incumbency, economy, etc.) predict the winner of the election as a prior Gaussian distribution with mean M and variance vM.

I then consider a poll taken t days before the election, with result P and variance vP + t*vT.

I get the following expected election result:

Most likely election result =

M * (vP + t*vT) / (vM + vP + t*vT)
+
P * vM / (vM + vP + t*vT)

Looking at the data from their paper, we can estimate that

vP / vM = 1/4
vT / vM = 1/112
vT / vP = 1/28

This corresponds very well to the time-evolution of their regression coefficient, and gives us an idea of the rate at which polling information decays. The amazing thing is that it suggests that the weight of the poll should be cut in 1/2 after four weeks, which is almost exactly what Nate uses for this site. However, it suggests that after 8 weeks, the weight of the poll should be 1/3, not 1/4.

Another interesting result is that the total variance of the poll equals the total variance of the Macro model about 12 weeks before the election. Before this, the model is more accurate, and afterwards the polls are.

Determining the intercept is a little bit trickier, but I think the data actually suggest that M is best interpreted as the expected two-way vote share of the incumbent, minus 49. If this is the case, then M should be roughly 3, meaning that the prior expected vote share for the incumbent party is about 52%. This is a very rough estimate, as the intercept data in their paper is a little weird. I suspect that this variable is more susceptible to short-term news events, such as conventions and debates.

I think the real lesson is that although this "Macro" models may be useful initially, there is still a lot of variance in these models and polls quickly become more important. Remember that in 2000, the models predicted that Al Gore would win in a landslide.

Forgot to add that the 1984 (Reagan incumbent) ele...

2008-07-09T17:32:00.000-04:00

Forgot to add that the 1984 (Reagan incumbent) election was also of the "sustained and/or ever-widening lead" type. That makes it seven of that type, out of the last fourteen

@ counsellorben: What a great paper you have linke...

2008-07-09T17:29:00.000-04:00

@ counsellorben: What a great paper you have linked to! Great information content, great analysis (in particular for somebody who has not followed previous elections in detail). Thanks a lot.

Nate: When looking at the paper's diagrams on poll movements for previous presidential elections, it appears that the majority of past elections have indeed displayed the 'regression-to-mean' pattern that you are applying to your projection. However, at least five of the last fourteen elections show a different pattern, which may be either described as "ever-widening lead', or as 'permanent advantage', or somewhere in-between those two. These were the elections in 1956 (Truman incumbent), 1964 (LBJ, post JFK), 1972 (Nixon incumbent), 1984 (Reagan incumbent) and 1988 (W. Bush, quasi-incumbent). The respective Wikipedia article suggests that the 1996 election (B. Clinton incumbent) has as well been of the 'permanent advantage' type: "Throughout the run-up to the general election, Clinton maintained comfortable leads in the polls".

In other words: You either have the (quasi-)incumbent advantage, in which he keeps a sustained and/or expanding lead, or a 'change' election that displays a 'regression-to-means' pattern and becomes a nail-biter in the end. While I was a bit sceptical about your 'regression-to-means' initially, after having looked at the data I now believe it is adequate and justified for 2008. However, there is no justification at all to apply an additional 'incumbency' correction to the data, in particular since McCain does not display any of the characteristics of an incumbent (presidential experience/ track record, power to implement pre-election etc.).

[This also shows how extra-ordinary the 2004 election has been. It has been the only election in the USA since pre-election polling exists, which the incumbent only won narrowly. All other incumbents were either defeated or won convincingly.]

PPP is out with MO poll, showing McCain up!!!!!!!!...

2008-07-09T16:56:00.000-04:00

PPP is out with MO poll, showing McCain up!!!!!!!!!!!!

When the economy's crappy, the incumbent party los...

2008-07-09T16:25:00.000-04:00

When the economy's crappy, the incumbent party loses. It's pretty much that simple.

thanks anon at 2:30, I guess I just was not seeing...

2008-07-09T16:24:00.000-04:00

thanks anon at 2:30, I guess I just was not seeing the current trend as being either pro Obama or McCain, kind of stagnant lately, but that may just be a lack of polling. Can there be a trend absent polling?

If you're going to try to incorporate all sorts of...

2008-07-09T15:55:00.000-04:00

If you're going to try to incorporate all sorts of candidate-specific variables like party ID, incumbency, etc. and base your coefficients on historical elections data, you're likely to end up with something a lot like Ray Fair's presidential election predictor (at www.fairmodel.com). He's a Yale Economics prof who uses some pretty complex econometric modeling to isolate a set of variables -- some political, but mostly economic -- that he uses to predict the 2-party vote share for each candidate.

In my opinion, it's better to leave that kind of stuff to him and to devote this site instead toward detailed analysis of polls and the kind of predictive value they may have. Of course, there's some overlap if you're trying to determine whether some variables affect the predictive power of polling data, but as you said, the sample size problem makes it really difficult to say anything definitively about their impacts.

Higgly:trend adjustments work for individual polls...

2008-07-09T15:30:00.000-04:00

Higgly:

trend adjustments work for individual polls.

A poll was taken in February. The trend then favored Obama. The trend adjustment gets the Obama numbers down.

A poll was taken in April. The trend then favored McCain. The trend adjustment gets the McCain number down.

It works out that we are still in an environment where trend adjustment, on the whole, tends to help Obama. But this may well change in a few weeks.

I note you are still making trend adjustment numbe...

2008-07-09T15:27:00.000-04:00

I note you are still making trend adjustment numbers in all states. How does this work. It would seem the new polls in single states would be self adjusting to trends within the state and not blindly following the bump Obama got post primary. Or is the Trend adjusment something I just do not understand.

I guess the question really is why do trend adjustments still take place after new polls take place after the adjustment in trend was made? Or is this trend adjustment going to be a feature based only on new trends in National Polling? In other words now that Obama is down 1 to 2% this week in the trends will there be a negative trend adjustment to new polls to account for this?

the other really interesting thing in this MO poll...

2008-07-09T15:19:00.000-04:00

the other really interesting thing in this MO poll. 67% support drilling for oil, but only 54% believe this could improve the cost of gas. Interesting that 13-14% feel that drilling for oil is appropriate just to reduce dependancy by some margin, regardless of the price of gas.

I prefer Obama to Hillary but she was stronger ele...

2008-07-09T15:15:00.000-04:00

I prefer Obama to Hillary but she was stronger electorally. McCain was dead in Pennsylvania and Ohio, Hillary was winning Florida, she'd bring Arkansas and was very competitive in West Virginia. I know Barack is stronger in Colorado and Virginia but Hillary would have gotten a bump from winning the nomination too. She'd be up by 8-9 points right now. about 4 points better than Obama. Obama is a much riskier candidate. He can win, Hillary would win easily.