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

Blaukraut

(5,693 posts)
Fri Oct 19, 2012, 08:31 PM Oct 2012

Princeton Election Consortium 8pm update: Obama 299 EV Romney 239. Meta Margin Obama 2.28%

Notice the red zone. Highest Obama EV probability. Sam Wang has Obama's Meta Margin climbing every update. Sam has said that he won't "get out of bed" for a MM over 1%. I really urge you guys to check out the site and see his method. He said in an NPR interview today that Obama has a 9 to 1 chance to win.




http://election.princeton.edu/

On edit: PEC predicted 08 within 1 electoral vote, btw

5 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Princeton Election Consortium 8pm update: Obama 299 EV Romney 239. Meta Margin Obama 2.28% (Original Post) Blaukraut Oct 2012 OP
Interesting that, in the final daily update... regnaD kciN Oct 2012 #1
I think the FOX Ohio poll pushed up Obama's lead percentage for that sate, which would raise the MM Blaukraut Oct 2012 #3
Sam Wang is better than Nate Silver, IMO. RedSpartan Oct 2012 #2
Why? falcon97 Oct 2012 #4
Because he was more accurate than Nate in 2008. RedSpartan Oct 2012 #5

regnaD kciN

(26,044 posts)
1. Interesting that, in the final daily update...
Fri Oct 19, 2012, 08:51 PM
Oct 2012

...the EV total for both candidates stayed the same, but Obama's meta-margin had a decent uptick.

Blaukraut

(5,693 posts)
3. I think the FOX Ohio poll pushed up Obama's lead percentage for that sate, which would raise the MM
Fri Oct 19, 2012, 08:56 PM
Oct 2012

I think Sam had OH at around 1.5 % before the update or something to that effect.

falcon97

(354 posts)
4. Why?
Fri Oct 19, 2012, 09:00 PM
Oct 2012

Just curious. I think Nate attempts to get it right by including factors outside of polling. Plus, he's worked for Baseball Prospectus!

RedSpartan

(1,693 posts)
5. Because he was more accurate than Nate in 2008.
Fri Oct 19, 2012, 09:13 PM
Oct 2012

I also like Nate including factors outide of polling, though. I think they are both top-notch, but historical accuracy so far, I think, favors
Wang.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Princeton Election Consor...