Why do you go to 538?

[LAS14]

Last edited Thu Nov 3, 2016, 10:58 AM - Edit history (1)

The only thing I've found that 538 has that the Upshot doesn't is a list of new polls as they come in over the course of the day, all gathered in one place.

Anything else I should be looking at?

P.S.
I don't mean to imply a negative opinion about 538's predictions and analyses. I recognize that it's a worst case, with a complex algorithm. I was looking at the layout of the websites and the ease of finding good info.

[Joe941]

1. I'd recommend staying away completely.

[Hortensis]

14. That's what trumpsters and other hard-cores on the right do--

reject all information that doesn't please--and, as we see, it allows them to face life with complete conviction that they are right. So, if that's what anyone wants, just follow the recipe: Throw in anything that tastes sweet.

[Red State Prisoner]

22. Thank You!

We all had a ball making fun of the right's complete dismay when polling data proved to be correct on election day 2012. People here on DU hailed Nate Silver as the reassuring hero who kept us calm during the expected media circus. Now, it would appear, he's simply a Debbie Downer hack because his non-partisan, albeit bullish, computer model isn't coming up all roses. Look, I've cast my vote for Hillary, I'm a hardcore Democrat through and through, and I want to win this election as much as anyone else. However, I don't want to end up looking like the republicans in 2012. I don't want to see the shock and disbelief of an unfavorable outcome if (at that time) all the signs and trends point toward that unfortunate conclusion. We're better (and smarter) than that.

P.S. Yes. My comment count is low, but I've been a member here for over a decade. You can call me a troll if it'll make you feel better, but you'll be wrong. Peace.

[Hortensis]

27. Yes. Our nation needs us to be better and smarter.

Many, most just HAVE to be better than that.

[old guy]

15. Yes.

I trash all polls.

[geek tragedy]

2. Look at early votes. That's where the election is won and lost nt

[Ace Rothstein]

16. You seemed to be fairly plugged into the early polling data.

Do you like what you're seeing?

[geek tragedy]

43. it's hard to say because laws change cycle to cycle, but in general:

Nevada is looking good

Very cautiously optimistic in North Carolina

Colorado appears to be in fairly good shape

The data from Florida is noisy

Ohio not great but looking better

Iowa not encouraged but still a shot to win

More worried about non-early voting states NH and PA.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

3. I go for the recipes and healthy living articles. nt

[LAS14]

6. LOL!

Do people "say" that anymore? Am I betraying my out-of-it-ness???
I thought I saw a comment somewhere that it's past its prime.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

23. Well originally i was gonna type "for the porn" but didn't wanna piss

anyone off.

[BlueCollar]

18. I go for the letters to the editor

And the centerfold...

[NCTraveler]

4. Information. nt

[redstateblues]

5. Nate always hedges his bets. The last paragraph in his column is always

the exact opposite of what he wrote before.

[Dem2]

7. "Updates"

Oh, and to chuckle in a bitter way when polls in line with expectations lowering Hillary's chances, and polls with her ahead, but below expectations really lowering her chances. /s

[aaaaaa5a]

8. Use Sam Wang. The PEC is never wrong and his

models do not waiver with statistical noise.
It's solid, reliable and consistent.

[LAS14]

9. The reason I go to the Upshot is that it compares all aggregators at state level.

And at presidential level, of course.

[aaaaaa5a]

10. +1 Good advice. NT

[OhZone]

30. A link is good!

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/presidential-polls-forecast.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fupshot&action=click&contentCollection=upshot&region=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=sectionfront&_r=0

[Yonnie3]

11. As one of several valuable sources of polling analysis.

It's strange how well liked 538 was at DU when it was showing a much higher chance for Secretary Clinton and at the moment it is not so much liked. Confirmation bias?

There have been posts about a certain poll analysis from another website which shows Ms. Clinton at 100%. 100% is a statistical impossibility. I mistrust that much more than anything on 538.

Poll aggregation and modeling is very important to understand what might happen. Where to spend (contribute) money and where to apply more effort (GOTV).

People seem to be looking for a model to "call" an election, that is not what models do.

[still_one]

37. There is nothing wrong with the 538 site, and it is no mystery what nate silver does

He includes all polls in his tabulation, including the less accurate ones. During the primaries he was pretty much correct, but also made some major prediction errors in one of the early primary states.

Nate Silver isn't doing his own polling, it is data from other pollsters. This election is unlike any we have had in the country, and a fair number of the polls are a contradicting themselves. One day a pollster reports us up in Nevada, another day a different pollster reports us down, and this pattern is applying to most of the swing states polls.

I believe Nate Silver's polls are demonstrating that this election, is very difficult to predict with the current polling methodologies and samplings being used. Some pollsters are using likely models based on 2012, or other criteria, and I question if those models are valid. This election is unlike any election we have had.

It should also be noted that he is still setting the probability for a Democratic victory for both the White House and the Senate as twice as likely the Democrats will win verses the republicans.

Whatever the "real" measure of the polls mean, on November 8th, we are going to find out exactly where the majority of the country stands on workers rights, women's rights, civil rights, and a multitude of issues, which will affect our very way of life.

I will be damned if I am going to sit and do nothing. This is the election of our lives, and that is why I have and will be doing call banking until election day.

[Yonnie3]

39. It appears we agree. nt

[still_one]

41. we do

[Dem2]

12. Just now a poll was posted showing Hillary +1 in AZ. This LOWERED her odds

His model is so weird, I can't comprehend it.

[Ace Rothstein]

17. It was actually a mixed bag.

It lowered her odds in polls-only and polls-plus but raised her odds in the now-cast.

[Dem2]

29. Thanks

I stick with the default for the most part, but that makes sense.

[Kber]

13. It's a worst case scenario

If 538 has her winning, even with a lower probability than other sites, then I figure all is well.

[Coventina]

19. This is one of those times I just shake my head.

Remember how when Romney was losing all the polls and 538 was predicting an Obama win?

The Republicans talked endlessly about how flawed the data was, and that there would be a "stunning upset" on election day.

We, on this website, mocked them endlessly for not believing the numbers.

I don't understand what all the panic is about, really.
538 still has HRC winning comfortably.

Why are we suddenly taking pages from the wrong side of the 2012 election?

(This is not directed at the OP, as much as it is my observations of DU as a whole, the last week or so).

[beachbum bob]

20. 538 is as good of a place for analytical information as you will find...NEVER ignore information

that seems to run counter to your beliefs....Hillary still is the odds on favorite and 538 shows us why

[LAS14]

21. I didn't mean to imply that I have a negative opinion...

... about 538's predictions and analyses. I recognize that it's a worst case, with a complex algorithm. I was looking at the layout of the websites and the ease of finding good info.

[nini]

24. This guy is better

http://election.princeton.edu/

They avoid the hand wringing and BS.

Nate has turned into a click bait machine since being absorbed by a corporation which is really sad.

[LAS14]

25. Typo? "has" instead of "hasn't"?

[nini]

31. thanks

I need more coffee

[jzodda]

26. Well even today 538 is at 68%

So trump would have a one in three shot. I would much rather be the side at 68 then 32. They put out an article with a 1 to 10 panic scale and nate said Republicans should be close to the top of that panic scale. I think 7 represents fear and 4 was worry.

That sounds right to me. I'm worried but not at a fear or panic mode.

Worry is good a few days a out. Complacency is the real enemy. We need everybody to vote.

[getagrip_already]

28. I'm a junkie....

sometimes, I even go to the dark web (no, not THAT dark web, the one owned by the deplorables) to see what they are consuming.

But nate is ok. Just have to use an internal filter to balance things out. I love his snake chart.....

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo#stateorder

Though it is a bit pessimistic right now. No accounting for the exit polling in FL or the early vote analytics in NC or NV.

[LAS14]

34. How do you get to the dark web? And...

..THANKS for pointing out the snake chart. I've scrolled by it, of course, but never paid it enough attention.

[getagrip_already]

36. brietbart.com, drudgereport.com, littlegreenfootbals, infowars, redstate......

it's a very dark web.

the other dark web isn't nearly as dangerous though.

[LAS14]

38. Oh. I thought it was something you couldn't find via your browser...

...Maybe that's true of "the other dark web?"

[getagrip_already]

40. yeah...

I went there once and I had to bleach my eyes. Not a fan of the content there at all.

[CajunBlazer]

32. Here is a whole article on it:

How to use Nate Silver’s FiveThirtyEignt website to gain current info on the election

[LAS14]

35. Thanks! Super useful.

[Yonnie3]

33. Responding to your edit.

I like the snake graphic titled "The winding path to 270 electoral votes". It is a good representation of the path.

I don't go for the commentary in particular, although some of the low odds "what ifs" are amusing.

I find the site very easy to get around (on my PC only) and drill down to polls, states or other areas of interest. Perhaps this perceived easiness is because I've been on it a lot.

I've been following it since it was created and I'm a creature of habit.

My brother spent many years building complex models for weather, climate, crop yields and "secret stuff" and I became interested in such things. Quite a few years (15? 20?) ago he told me "Global warming is not close to being proven scientifically" and added that we already knew with certainty acid rain was killing the forests and waters and should take action now and not argue about it. He also pointed out that a hurricane or tornado would be excluded as an outlier by statisticians when presented with just the weather data.

[musicblind]

42. Track record. n/t

[Dem2]

46. Useless polls in Utah and Texas

You guessed it - dropped her average by a whopping 1.1%!