Comments on FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: A New Map

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, ...

2009-10-09T03:45:29.136-04:00

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、...

2009-09-09T02:58:13.529-04:00

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~!!

酒店喝酒,禮服店,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,制服店,便服店,鋼琴酒吧,兼差,酒店兼差,酒店打工,伴唱小姐,...

2009-03-30T10:51:00.000-04:00

a片,成人網站,美女交友,美女視訊,a片,成人網站,美女交友,美女視訊,a片,成人網站,美女交友,美...

2009-03-23T05:43:00.000-04:00

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

2009-03-11T04:30:00.000-04:00

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

2009-03-11T04:29:00.000-04:00

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,...

2009-02-12T00:05:00.000-05:00

You aren't considering the hidden racist vote. Lo...

2008-06-18T20:08:00.000-04:00

You aren't considering the hidden racist vote. Look at the internals of the polls. Obama rarely breaks 50% and there's at least 10% undecided, and most of the undecided are white people.

If you think these undecided people are going to break for Barack Obama after the 527's have their way with him, you got another think coming. The white undecideds will break for McCain just as they did for Hillary.

Nate,having trouble understanding the color-coding...

2008-06-06T15:55:00.000-04:00

Nate,

having trouble understanding the color-coding here...hopefully there'll be a key eventually?

Also, if you could restrict your color spectrum & avoid the palest pinks & blues, you'd really help yourself with the all-important moderately-color-blind demo! :-)

Lastly, am I off in thinking a similar comparison to Bush/Gore 2000 would be of equal or greater value?

Nate,Look at your Highlands! I'd say this map conf...

2008-06-06T13:21:00.000-04:00

Nate,

Look at your Highlands! I'd say this map confirms your early decision to define the region that way, including Oklahoma. It really is a distinctive fraction of the country: one I love and one that can make me nuts at the same time

I'm guessing that it is in comparison with June, 2...

2008-06-06T12:51:00.000-04:00

I'm guessing that it is in comparison with June, 2004. For examnple, the map has Mississippi tied between the two years, but Bush won Miss. by 19 points, while McCain is only ahead by 13 right now. Same thing with Delaware. The map has it tied, but the gap is 11 between Obama and McCain, while Kerry only won Del by 8.

Please clarify.Is this how Obama/McCain are doing,...

2008-06-06T11:54:00.000-04:00

Please clarify.

Is this how Obama/McCain are doing, relative to the Kerry/Bush polling in June 2004? or is this how Obama/McCain are doing, relative to the final results in November 2004?

One more 2004 effect to note: Obama is doing bette...

2008-06-06T11:45:00.000-04:00

One more 2004 effect to note: Obama is doing better in George W. Bush's home state of Texas.

This map is misleading. Obama is doing better in ...

2008-06-06T10:44:00.000-04:00

This map is misleading. Obama is doing better in states like Idaho, but he isn't likely to win there unless it is a landslide. Can you drop the ones that are not competitive?

Nate!In your list of characterizations, didn't pro...

2008-06-06T10:30:00.000-04:00

Nate!

In your list of characterizations, didn't provide an explanation for one of the pink/red states: Oklahoma. Other than Arkansas it's the only pink island in the sea of heartland blue.

Why?? I mean, granted Sooners like the color red, but still. I don't buy a "next door to Clinton" argument, because 1) the Clinton name is much maligned in Oklahoma, and 2) the other states next-door to Arkansas are not pink.

So what is it? Is there really that much racism in the state? I've been stunned at how strong the anti-Obama rhetoric is here. Projections are like a 65/35 split in November, maybe even more lopsided than that.

So what do you guys think?

The point about the "10 unlikely States" is that e...

2008-06-06T10:03:00.000-04:00

The point about the "10 unlikely States" is that each of them will generate scary polls for McCain, forcing him to spend resources there, reducing his chances in Michigan.

loftus,That´s right, his Win Percentage for Alaska...

2008-06-06T08:38:00.000-04:00

loftus,
That´s right, his Win Percentage for Alaska moves up to about 92,5% in that case.

What this means for the election is that there wil...

2008-06-06T08:21:00.000-04:00

What this means for the election is that there will be around ten states that the republicans assumed they were going to win, in each of which Obama has a 15% chance of winning. This may seem unimportant at first glance, but if you do the math this works out to an 80% chance of Obama winning at least one of them.

This is wrong.

You're assuming that the factors driving outcome in each state are independent to one another. Bad assumption. They are all linked. The factors that cause North Dakota to vote for McCain are the same factors that cause Mississippi to vote for McCain.

Put it another way: if McCain wins West Virginia and South Dakota and Montana then the chances of McCain also winning Alaska are significantly increased. Much higher than the 82% it was without this information.

In 2006, the Democrats won nearly every Senate contest that was "in play". If we think of each contest as an independent event, then this is statistically unlikely. But in actual fact it was unsurprising. The same factors driving voters in Missouri to vote Democratic were the same factors driving voters in Virginia to vote Democratic.

What made Obamas Win% drop by 0.7% or so right now...

2008-06-06T07:00:00.000-04:00

What made Obamas Win% drop by 0.7% or so right now?
DId you add new polls or change something in the regression?
(National Polls? But that would actually be GOOD for Obama)

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the state-by-state brea...

2008-06-06T06:49:00.000-04:00

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the state-by-state breakdown, but McCain wins Ohio only 50% of the time on the left and yet he wins it over 51% of the time on the right. What the dealie, yo?

Also, it wasn't clear from my wording above, but the Must-Win percentage works both ways. That is, the winner of Ohio wins the whole thing 84.4% of the time and the winner of the whole thing wins Ohio 84.4% of the time, and similarly for each of the other states (this is easy to see because each state is won in each simulation and the whole thing is won in each simulation so you're really only comparing where the two match to where they don't).

great redesign! -obsessed

2008-06-06T06:05:00.000-04:00

great redesign!

-obsessed

Anon at 4:41 AMYes, I understand it the same way.A...

2008-06-06T06:01:00.000-04:00

Anon at 4:41 AM
Yes, I understand it the same way.
And I´d think the horizontal line represents 20 elections.

I wonder about some results of your "scenario list...

2008-06-06T05:57:00.000-04:00

I wonder about some results of your "scenario list", or to be exact: Almost all of them.
You know, I tried to rebuild your spreadsheet (for some reason I have a Obama Win% of 54,6% in the moment, but it´s close to yours otherwise. 273,7 EV for Obama, Popular Vote 50,1-49,9 Obama. And it´s without the most recent MO and KS poll.)

I tested all scenarios with my last 10000 trial heats and got some really different results out. Some of that is because is certainly because of some slight differences in the methodology, but probably not everything.

Obama loses PV, wins EC:
You got a chance of 4,65% for that, I got 8,03%. But that´s probably just random noise and different range of random numbers.

McCain loses PV, wins EC:
The same.
You got 2,89% out, I 5,89%.
At least we both agree that McCains chances to do that are smaller than Obamas, and at about the same ratio.

Electoral Tie:
I found 63 scenarios where that happened, you 50. Random noise, when I consider your post one or two weeks ago, where you found 65 of 10000 or something like that.

Obama Landslide:
You:9,71
Me: 5,32
McCain Landslide:
You 8,53%
Me: 4,07%

I think I know why this is: Your range of random numbers is bigger than mine, so theres a greater chance of a landslide (and some other scenarios as losing PV while winning the EC) for both sides.

Now it gets interesting:
Obama lost Ohio while winning the Election in 939 of 5145 runs in your sheet.
In mine he did that in 1711 of 5056 runs.
That means, he wins 1 of 3 elections where he loses Ohio. That´s a lot more than you have. What do you think is more realistic looking at the numbers and not running them?
For McCain, thats 1199 of 4944 elections, or
24,25%.
Also a lot higher, almost 2:1.

For OH/PA:
Obama: You say that there is a 1.62% chance of winning the election while losing OH/PA.
I found 2390 simulations where he lost OH/PA and he won 396 of them, that is still 16,6%.

McCain loses both states in 4252 trial heats, and wins the election in 817 of them: That´s a 19,21% chance.

For OH/PA/MI:
Obama loses all of them in 2049 elections, but wins 293 of them:
14,29%.
This is maybe a bit high, but only 5 of 2583 elections in your Scenario Analysis?
I can think of many winning coalitions excluding PA, OH and MI.

For McCain thats 315 out of 2907 elections, or a 10,83% chance.

Now Obama wins all Kerry states.
You assume that he has a 25,22% chance to do that, my sheet says it´s about 10%.

But the striking difference is in the next scenario:
McCain wins all Bush States.
You say he has a chance of 9,03% to do that, I DID NOT FIND A SINGLE SCENARIO WHERE HE WAS ABLE TO DO THAT.
Remember, he has to hold Iowa.
And you give him only a 17% chance to do that.
That means, he has to win ALL Bush states in more than 50% of the scenarios where he wins Iowa.
He must win Colorado, where Obama is the favorite, he must win New Mexico, Nevada, Ohio, Indiana, Missouri, West Virginia, Virginia- and in all these states Obama has a realistic chance to win.

I don´t think your number is realistic here, and then the other results could be wrong, too.
I also did not find any map identical to either the 2004 or the 2000 map.

I believe the electoral vote distribution is the s...

2008-06-06T05:41:00.000-04:00

I believe the electoral vote distribution is the same as before, just more accurately represented now. That is, it's a plot of the number of times Obama got each electoral vote total in the 10,000 simulations. The vertical axis isn't that important because the point is the relative values (because theoretically the distribution would look similar were one to do 100,000 runs instead) but it looks like each horizontal line represents 10 results.

The tipping point states are the states which, when ordered from highest to lowest percent of the vote for Obama, contain the 269th electoral vote the most often, with the percentage of the time it occurs for each state. Equivalently, these are the states which, when ordered from highest to lowest percent of the vote for McCain, contain the 270th electoral vote the most often, with the percentage of the time it occurs for each state.

Comparing with the scenarios chart, the Must-Wins are the states which are most frequently won by the victor of the election, with the percentage of the time the state goes to the winner. So, for instance, if you are the candidate who won Ohio then you have an 84.4% chance of winning the whole thing currently.

I am confused about some of these diagrams. What d...

2008-06-06T05:20:00.000-04:00

I am confused about some of these diagrams. What does the electoral vote distribution and must win states mean?