Romney vs. Obama

[cherdano]

Its important to note that Silver himself states that his estimates are likely to be biased towards Obama at this point in time.

That's not correct. He points out that his model assumes that polls are currently biased towards Obama by a point or two.

[wyman]

Trustin one source over the collective wisdom of people (as I am here, trusting 538/nate over intrade) is very dangerous, but nate has earned it. Dude is legit. Even with 1 election, he always simulates how the various states will go so you get a big sample and he is always very accurate. Dude is legit, and if you believe you can make a lot of money on intrade via him (for now, I assume he will eventually just set the market).

 

Fish.

 

Slander Nate, talk about how undervalued Romney is on intrade, and get that skrilla!

[phil_20686]

"When I was a young man about to go out into the world, my father says to me a very valuable thing. He says to me like this... "Son," the old guy says, "I am sorry that I am not able to bank roll you to a very large start, but not having any potatoes which to give you, I am now going to stake you to some very valuable advice. One of these days in your travels, a guy is going to come to you and show you a nice, brand new deck of cards on which the seal has not yet been broken. This man is going to offer to bet you that he can make the jack of spades jump out of that deck and squirt cider in your ear. Now son, you do not take this bet, for as sure as you stand there, you are going to wind up with an earful of cider."

 

The wisdom of Sky Masterton eh :P (1)

 

The reason intrade is closer to sixty, and that Nate is close to 85, is that nates methods are basically the answer to "What would the result be if the election were held tomorrow". In the real world a lot of stuff can happen between now and the election, and that can change the odds so much as to make that prediction irrelevant.

 

For example, suppose that the economy/stock market tanks in october again, like it did last year. If that happens that would move the odds a lot I would imagine. I don;t think this is a small possibility at all. I would say its at least 30% that we see another stock market crash like last october, and given the relation between stock markets and economies, that would be very bad for his election chances. There is still time for another debt ceiling stand off, that could hurt either side in a big way.

 

Anyway, my main point is that Nate is usually right, but the data he is using to come up with his prediction can change a lot between now and election day, in which case his % win will change a lot, because his % is what is the win chance for an election held tomorrow, rather than in november.

 

(1) This is a quote for guy's and dolls character Sky Masterton, in case anyone missed it.

[MickyB]

The wisdom of Sky Masterton eh :P (1)

 

The reason intrade is closer to sixty, and that Nate is close to 85, is that nates methods are basically the answer to "What would the result be if the election were held tomorrow".

 

He gives two sets of data - a forecast and a "now-cast". If the election was held tomorrow, he thinks it 88.2% that Obama would win. The 79.7% prediction is a forecast for Nov 6th.

[barmar]

It's amazing how relevant the book I just finished reading, "Thinking Fast and Slow" by Daniel Kahneman, seems to be to this discussion.

 

The chapter "Intuitions vs. Formulas" discusses the poor performance of professional forecasters (in almost all fields) versus simple algorithms. Forecasters are subject to biases, and often ignore salient facts. Formulas may be based on simple models, but they still tend to do better on average (this is the "Moneyball" philosophy -- it gave the Athletics a big advantage until other teams adopted it).

 

Much of the book is devoted to how people make decisions and judge probabilities. Humans are exceedingly poor at probability estimates, but posing the question in the form of a bet doesn't really make things much better. Bets are susceptible to framing effects -- the way you present the choices affects how you judge whether to take the bet. You can even present multiple forms of the bet, where they're mathematically equivalent, and most people will answer them differently -- it takes special effort to recognize that they're equivalent, and even when you do you still have to try hard to override the psychological illusion that affects your preferences (just as when you're shown an optical illusion, it's almost impossible to avoid being fooled, even when you know it's an illusion -- see here for one of the simplest and well known).

 

His chapter on regression to the mean explains why, when you find a forecaster who has done well in the past, he's likely not to live up to your expectations. Extreme results in any direction are most likely to be flukes, not representative.

[dwar0123]

Humans are exceedingly poor at probability estimates, but posing the question in the form of a bet doesn't really make things much better. Bets are susceptible to framing effects -- the way you present the choices affects how you judge whether to take the bet. You can even present multiple forms of the bet, where they're mathematically equivalent, and most people will answer them differently -- it takes special effort to recognize that they're equivalent, and even when you do you still have to try hard to override the psychological illusion that affects your preferences

 

Are you implying that the now-cast and the forecast for nov 6 are mathematically equivalent? If so, this could be interesting, I can see several reasons why I believe they are not.

[phil_20686]

Forecasts about the political landscape in two months, are about as reliable as weather forecasts. Lets be honest, the single biggest factor in this election will be the economy, if it continues to improve (albeit slowly) then it robs the republicans of ammuntion. If it should tank in the next few months, then obama will lose a huge number of votes.

 

The fate of the economy rests entirely with the FOMC, which, sadly, appears to consist almost entirely of lunatics. More than half of whom were appointed by Obama. If they vote against further QE this week, it will almost certainly kill off the US recovery, and possibly the global recovery aswell. I would not fancy Obama's chances then. :)

 

I think being more than 60% sure of the election, when I cannot be more than 60% sure of where the economy will be in November, is surely fairly irrational. I am sure that a serious republican candidate could be beating Obama easily.

 

Of course, "serious republican candidates" seem to be rarer than big foot, but that is a different story.

[phil_20686]

He gives two sets of data - a forecast and a "now-cast". If the election was held tomorrow, he thinks it 88.2% that Obama would win. The 79.7% prediction is a forecast for Nov 6th.

 

Any future prediction is just basically a guess. It is saying something like "historically it is rare for voting percentages to move more than x percent, so it is rare that Romney could pull it back.

 

But we live in strange times. If you had asked me five years ago I would have predicted with near 100% certainty that there would never be another great depression because central bankers had learned the lessons of history. Turned out to be 100% wrong. The economy rests on a knife edge. If the world's important central banks make the wrong moves we will have five more years of stagnation. If they make the right moves the economy could be booming by November. I have never lived through such economic uncertainty, and frankly, it is doing my head in.

[BunnyGo]

Fish.

 

Slander Nate, talk about how undervalued Romney is on intrade, and get that skrilla!

 

I like to think that I'm somewhat in touch with modern slang and trends....I have no idea what the content or intent of this post was.

[barmar]

Are you implying that the now-cast and the forecast for nov 6 are mathematically equivalent? If so, this could be interesting, I can see several reasons why I believe they are not.

No, I was talking about semeai's post above where he talks about the form of the bets you use to describe any particular forecast. 8,000 to 2,000 versus 2,000 to 500.

[dwar0123]

I like to think that I'm somewhat in touch with modern slang and trends....I have no idea what the content or intent of this post was.

He is implying that jlall is trying build demand on intrade for Obama so that jlall can profit by betting on Romney. This being a very common tactic on the internet when cash is involved.

 

Do not believe that is the case here at all, more likely just pointing out how jlall statements mirror's the statements of people who actually do such things.

 

Skrilla means money.

[wyman]

He is implying that jlall is trying build demand on intrade for Obama so that jlall can profit by betting on Romney. This being a very common tactic on the internet when cash is involved.

 

Do not believe that is the case here at all, more likely just pointing out how jlall statements mirror's the statements of people who actually do such things.

 

Skrilla means money.

 

Entirely the opposite.

 

I called JLall a fish (which is a poker term for a person who plays terribly and exploitably), since he is actually betting Obama heavy but he's on here telling people how underpriced Obama is and how awesome @fivethirtyeight is.

 

I was suggesting, jokingly, that he might be better off slandering Nate, touting (1. attempting to sell (something), typically by pestering people in an aggressive or bold manner: "Jim was touting his wares". 2. Attempting to persuade people of the merits of (someone or something).) Romney, but continuing to bet Obama, so that he might get that skrilla ($, €, ¥, 元, £, ฿).

[PassedOut]

Looking at specific polls can give a person pause. A strange question was asked of Ohio voters by Public Policy Polling:

 

Q15 Who do you think deserves more credit for the killing of Osama bin Laden: Barack Obama or Mitt Romney?

63%

.....

Barack Obama

06%

.....

Mitt Romney

31%

.....

Not sure

Down in the crosstabs you can find the responses of Ohio Republicans to this question:

 

Q15 Who do you think deserves more credit for the killing of Osama bin Laden: Barack Obama or Mitt Romney?

38%

.....

Barack Obama

15%

.....

Mitt Romney

47%

.....

Not sure

I'm guessing that the fact this question was asked at all convinced some folks that Mitt could have had something to do with it behind the scenes. But gawdalmighty!

:rolleyes:

[barmar]

I'm guessing that the fact this question was asked at all convinced some folks that Mitt could have had something to do with it behind the scenes. But gawdalmighty!

:rolleyes:

A combination of cognitive dissonance (Republicans don't like attributing something good to Obama) and the framing illusion.

[phil_20686]

Looking at specific polls can give a person pause. A strange question was asked of Ohio voters by Public Policy Polling:

 

 

Down in the crosstabs you can find the responses of Ohio Republicans to this question:

 

 

I'm guessing that the fact this question was asked at all convinced some folks that Mitt could have had something to do with it behind the scenes. But gawdalmighty!

:rolleyes:

 

Its not clear that this is an irrational poll at all. Suppose there are people who think that Obama was an impediment to the finding of Osama. That he was wishy washy on FP, and weak with Pakistan, and that OBL could have been found much quicker if only he had been a real man willing to invade pakistan much earlier. In that case, by merely having nothing to do with it, Romeny could, in some sense, be "more responsible" to it.

 

I am not endorsing this view :P.

 

Imo, presidents have almost nothing to do with these things. The intelligence does their thing and when they have solid Intel then the president gets told.

[PassedOut]

Imo, presidents have almost nothing to do with these things. The intelligence does their thing and when they have solid Intel then the president gets told.

-- Success has many parents. Failure is an orphan.

[cherdano]

I finally understand why Romney always sounds like he is a little bit fake when he is talking in public. Because when he isn't fake, he talks like this.

 

Seriously, I first read the transcripts, and it wasn't pretty. Then I watched the videos, and thought "boy, he sounds genuine for a change".

[PassedOut]

I finally understand why Romney always sounds like he is a little bit fake when he is talking in public. Because when he isn't fake, he talks like this.

 

Seriously, I first read the transcripts, and it wasn't pretty. Then I watched the videos, and thought "boy, he sounds genuine for a change".

Yes he does. And it's hard to believe that I'm the only one who voted for Obama who has paid a lot of taxes over the years...

:)

[kenberg]

Its not clear that this is an irrational poll at all. Suppose there are people who think that Obama was an impediment to the finding of Osama. That he was wishy washy on FP, and weak with Pakistan, and that OBL could have been found much quicker if only he had been a real man willing to invade pakistan much earlier. In that case, by merely having nothing to do with it, Romney could, in some sense, be "more responsible" to it.

 

I am not endorsing this view :P.

 

Imo, presidents have almost nothing to do with these things. The intelligence does their thing and when they have solid Intel then the president gets told.

 

Another possibility is that the question was designed to identify responders who are answering randomly. For example, 4% of the very liberal or somewhat liberal responders gave credit to Romney for the killing of OBL. Maybe they were drunk, maybe hard of hearing, but whatever the case I would take some care in trusting their responses to the other questions. Or perhaps they reason that killing is bad, Obama is good, therefore it must have been Romney who did it.

 

Maybe instead of all these voter id requirements we could instead require a brain scan that shows some indication of neural activity? No, Zombies have rights too.

[wyman]

I've heard varying (undocumented) accounts of the OBL situation, one being that Obama was against it and only approved it under serious pressure from military advisors. Given estimates of how likely such a mission was to work and the international fallout if it failed spectacularly, one might argue that this is extremely reasonable, but that's beside the point.

 

In this scenario, if one were to assign a number between -1 and 1 to the "how responsible is Obama for the death of OBL?" question, one might conceivably argue that we killed OBL in spite of Obama, rather than because of, in which case the number we'd assign to Obama's responsibility might well be negative.

 

Since the number we assign to Mitt is very likely 0 (or very near 0 -- butterfly effect and all), I can see a rational person honestly answering Mitt for this question.

 

Do I think that this is what those people were thinking? Of course not. But I try to give humanity the benefit of the doubt where possible.

[helene_t]

Polls always contain some noise. I once saw this one: "20% of Dutch computer users believe that the computers deliberately crash in order to tease the users". Some people just misunderstand the question, or think that ridicolous questions deserve ridicolous answers, or w/e.

[hrothgar]

I've heard varying (undocumented) accounts of the OBL situation, one being that Obama was against it and only approved it under serious pressure from military advisors. Given estimates of how likely such a mission was to work and the international fallout if it failed spectacularly, one might argue that this is extremely reasonable, but that's beside the point.

 

I seem to recall statements from Obama during the Democratic primary debates where he unequivocally stated that the US should track down bin Laden in Pakistan and then kill him. (There was significant debate around this because Obama stated that he would not inform the government of Pakistan in advance and many people disagreed with this)

[hrothgar]

The following is worth reading

 

http://ordinary-gentlemen.com/blog/2012/09/the-47-isnt-the-bit-that-should-bother-you/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ordinary-gentlemen+%28The+League+of+Ordinary+Gentlemen%29

[y66]

re: the Romney video, conservative columnist David Brooks wrote this today:

 

In 1980, about 30 percent of Americans received some form of government benefits. Today, as Nicholas Eberstadt of the American Enterprise Institute has pointed out, about 49 percent do.

 

In 1960, government transfers to individuals totaled $24 billion. By 2010, that total was 100 times as large. Even after adjusting for inflation, entitlement transfers to individuals have grown by more than 700 percent over the last 50 years. This spending surge, Eberstadt notes, has increased faster under Republican administrations than Democratic ones.

 

There are sensible conclusions to be drawn from these facts. You could say that the entitlement state is growing at an unsustainable rate and will bankrupt the country. You could also say that America is spending way too much on health care for the elderly and way too little on young families and investments in the future.

 

But these are not the sensible arguments that Mitt Romney made at a fund-raiser earlier this year. Romney, who criticizes President Obama for dividing the nation, divided the nation into two groups: the makers and the moochers. Forty-seven percent of the country, he said, are people “who are dependent upon government, who believe they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to take care of them, who believe they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it.”

 

This comment suggests a few things. First, it suggests that he really doesn’t know much about the country he inhabits. Who are these freeloaders? Is it the Iraq war veteran who goes to the V.A.? Is it the student getting a loan to go to college? Is it the retiree on Social Security or Medicare?

 

It suggests that Romney doesn’t know much about the culture of America. Yes, the entitlement state has expanded, but America remains one of the hardest-working nations on earth. Americans work longer hours than just about anyone else. Americans believe in work more than almost any other people. Ninety-two percent say that hard work is the key to success, according to a 2009 Pew Research Survey.

 

It says that Romney doesn’t know much about the political culture. Americans haven’t become childlike worshipers of big government. On the contrary, trust in government has declined. The number of people who think government spending promotes social mobility has fallen.

 

The people who receive the disproportionate share of government spending are not big-government lovers. They are Republicans. They are senior citizens. They are white men with high school degrees. As Bill Galston of the Brookings Institution has noted, the people who have benefited from the entitlements explosion are middle-class workers, more so than the dependent poor.

 

Romney’s comments also reveal that he has lost any sense of the social compact. In 1987, during Ronald Reagan’s second term, 62 percent of Republicans believed that the government has a responsibility to help those who can’t help themselves. Now, according to the Pew Research Center, only 40 percent of Republicans believe that.

 

The Republican Party, and apparently Mitt Romney, too, has shifted over toward a much more hyperindividualistic and atomistic social view — from the Reaganesque language of common citizenship to the libertarian language of makers and takers. There’s no way the country will trust the Republican Party to reform the welfare state if that party doesn’t have a basic commitment to provide a safety net for those who suffer for no fault of their own.

 

The final thing the comment suggests is that Romney knows nothing about ambition and motivation. The formula he sketches is this: People who are forced to make it on their own have drive. People who receive benefits have dependency.

 

But, of course, no middle-class parent acts as if this is true. Middle-class parents don’t deprive their children of benefits so they can learn to struggle on their own. They shower benefits on their children to give them more opportunities — so they can play sports, go on foreign trips and develop more skills.

 

People are motivated when they feel competent. They are motivated when they have more opportunities. Ambition is fired by possibility, not by deprivation, as a tour through the world’s poorest regions makes clear.

 

Sure, there are some government programs that cultivate patterns of dependency in some people. I’d put federal disability payments and unemployment insurance in this category. But, as a description of America today, Romney’s comment is a country-club fantasy. It’s what self-satisfied millionaires say to each other. It reinforces every negative view people have about Romney.

 

Personally, I think he’s a kind, decent man who says stupid things because he is pretending to be something he is not — some sort of cartoonish government-hater. But it scarcely matters. He’s running a depressingly inept presidential campaign. Mr. Romney, your entitlement reform ideas are essential, but when will the incompetence stop?

When will the incompetence stop? Not in this bro's lifetime, yo.

[PassedOut]

When will the incompetence stop? Not in this bro's lifetime, yo.

According to BusinessInsider, real soon: Mitt Romney's October Surprise Is Going To Be Legendary

 

Both Romney and Obama have been fundraising consistently for months. But Romney has kept his head down and his account flush, and didn't try to compete with the Olympics, the Conventions, or the recent mediocre press. He was competent enough to realize that the Obama campaign had to hemorrhage cash in order to maintain their numbers.

 

And now, he's got a massive upper hand, which very few people are talking about. Once he and his surrogates carpet bomb the swing states with adverts, by shear mathematics Obama will take a small but predictable dive in the polls. In the middle of October, Mitt starts looking like a contender again.

 

The past few weeks of Mediocre Mitt are about to end. He's got more resources than the Obama campaign, and his ability to find cheap media markets and flex his muscle are just coming to the fore. This, plus a few more bad economic months, and he's in the White House. Mitt is undervalued.

How much will Romney's money advantage help? It will be interesting to see what Nate's simulations show in the coming weeks.

 

In Upper Michigan, we haven't seen a Romney ad for quite awhile now, but nearly everyone has seen the latest Romney videos. On the other hand, we are swamped with ads and mailings for the republican tea-party candidate for the House.