tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3401584991689197404.post588934797252940792..comments2020-04-06T11:12:28.051-07:00Comments on Donkeylicious - A Blog by Neil Sinhababu and Nicholas Beaudrot: Why Is Nate Silver So Pessimistic?Neil Sinhababuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03249327186653397250noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3401584991689197404.post-4835292152122446652012-10-31T12:22:04.839-07:002012-10-31T12:22:04.839-07:00Actually, it looks like Sam Wang doesn't use t...Actually, it looks like Sam Wang doesn't use the national polls at all. That's certainly wrong in theory (good Bayesians should try to integrate all the relevant information, not just the easiest information to integrate!) but may work well in practice (if it's too hard to figure out how to use national polls, a straight average of state polls may perform better). Nate also uses economic indicators, but the weight on those gets pretty close to zero as the election approaches, so they don't matter much at this point (and again, I agree with Nate's approach a bit more -- it would make his website look much smarter in an election like 1988). At any rate, I think there is non-zero probability that the Gallup poll is right and Romney is winning pretty substantially -- but it's pretty close to zero. So the question is whether your prediction will perform better if you fix that probability at zero or try to estimate it.nerdboundhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07804900533433216866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3401584991689197404.post-45216586824270347072012-10-31T11:54:20.072-07:002012-10-31T11:54:20.072-07:00My understanding is: state-level polls indicate an...My understanding is: state-level polls indicate an easy win for Obama, national-level polls indicate a tossup, variance between polls leads to increased estimates of uncertainty. So the critical question is how much you allow national-level polls to alter your estimate of uncertainty. I remembering being pretty comfortable with Nate's approach when I read the description months ago, but I have forgotten the details, and I don't know what his competitors do.nerdboundhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07804900533433216866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3401584991689197404.post-70703237322269707762012-10-31T10:16:11.283-07:002012-10-31T10:16:11.283-07:00Good point! The gap between the two is very small ...Good point! The gap between the two is very small -- 1.9%. So Nate thinks there is a ~1.9% chance that public opinion will shift enough to change the election, and a 20% chance that the polling is wrong.<br /><br />The second number seems way high.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02794690208464883973noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3401584991689197404.post-20881035165863027952012-10-31T09:37:17.518-07:002012-10-31T09:37:17.518-07:00Nate has a now-cast and a Nov6-cast, so maybe that...Nate has a now-cast and a Nov6-cast, so maybe that allows a way to see if the time hypothesis is the explanation. Neil Sinhababuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03249327186653397250noreply@blogger.com