Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

BlueMTexpat

(15,366 posts)
Fri Jul 1, 2016, 07:50 PM Jul 2016

The Presidential Meta-Analysis for 2016

http://election.princeton.edu/2016/06/30/the-2016-presidential-meta-analysis/

Excellent news from the PEC's Sam Wang, but it is no time to rest on our laurels:

As we have done since 2004, we are taking a polls-only approach to give a daily snapshot of the race – as well as a November prediction. This approach has an effective precision of a few tenths of a percentage point of public opinion, and performs very well as both a tracker and a forecast. Currently, the probability of a Hillary Clinton victory in November is 85 percent, based on polls alone.

Today, I give a brief tour of the computational approach.

The Meta-Analysis starts with a Python script that downloads recent state polls from the Huffington Post’s Pollster operation. Thanks to Natalie Jackson, the HuffPollster team, and dozens of pollsters for this stream of information, which forms the foundation of the calculation.

Where polls are not available, we use the election result from 2012. As I have written, this year’s Clinton-versus-Trump state polls are strongly correlated with 2012?s Obama-versus-Romney polls. Because no realignment is evident, past results are a good predictor of the likely outcome this year. At the moment, no more than fourteen states are genuinely in play.


-white



13 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The Presidential Meta-Analysis for 2016 (Original Post) BlueMTexpat Jul 2016 OP
So the short take is that neither would win right now? floriduck Jul 2016 #1
I don't think that tally is right. RandySF Jul 2016 #2
lol. no. La Lioness Priyanka Jul 2016 #4
and he is really doing a meta-analysis, not even using that term weirdly. La Lioness Priyanka Jul 2016 #3
LOL, Sam is a bit too BlueMTexpat Jul 2016 #9
I've never done a meta myself but am trained to do it La Lioness Priyanka Jul 2016 #11
Sounds good but we got work to do! Her Sister Jul 2016 #5
I agree absolutely. BlueMTexpat Jul 2016 #7
Ahead but she'll work like she's 20 points behind.. thank you, BlueMT~ Cha Jul 2016 #6
Thanks, Cha! BlueMTexpat Jul 2016 #8
Thank you! Cha Jul 2016 #12
K&R! DemonGoddess Jul 2016 #10
KnR Her Sister Jul 2016 #13

BlueMTexpat

(15,366 posts)
9. LOL, Sam is a bit too
Sat Jul 2, 2016, 07:48 AM
Jul 2016

cerebral for some.

The comments following his article are such a pleasant departure from comments at similar sites.

BlueMTexpat

(15,366 posts)
7. I agree absolutely.
Sat Jul 2, 2016, 07:46 AM
Jul 2016

One reason that the Brexit vote succeeded was because the advance polls were showing that "Remain" would win and too many eedjits either sat at home and didn't vote or stupidly voted to "Leave" as a protest vote against their party leaders rotten policies. They obviously did not make the connection that however POed they are/were with their party leaders, forfeiting EU membership is a dreadful consequence.

We must ensure that NO complacency exists in Nov so that our own best interests are not sabotaged. We must also ensure that everyone who wants to vote is properly registered and GOTV everywhere.

Don the Con would be a dreadful and unthinkable consequence of our complacency or personal snits.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»The Presidential Meta-Ana...