Maybe we should just elect Trump president
hutch wrote:Nate Silver is aggregating polls and weighting certain ones more. I doing the same with a different blend. If we come out close, it's because we are using the same (publicly available) data in. If you want to get into a statistical fight with "guesses" against people who are actually spending some time doing research and looking at numbers, that's not on me. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
listen Julian, you got zero cred as its pretty plain you are just rehashing nate silver's polls plus numbers…
i may revisit my numbers as i'm disheartened by how close to yours and sidehatch they are….
EDIT: ftr, I credit Rasmussen much higher than 538.
Julian, wrote:hutch wrote:Nate Silver is aggregating polls and weighting certain ones more. I doing the same with a different blend. If we come out close, it's because we are using the same (publicly available) data in. If you want to get into a statistical fight with "guesses" against people who are actually spending some time doing research and looking at numbers, that's not on me. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
listen Julian, you got zero cred as its pretty plain you are just rehashing nate silver's polls plus numbers…
i may revisit my numbers as i'm disheartened by how close to yours and sidehatch they are….
EDIT: ftr, I credit Rasmussen much higher than 538.
well its awfully convenient that you're coming out with exact the same numbers.. same thing you did in SC…even Nevada you just copied his prediction to the decimal!
if your guesses are just going to be Nate Silver regurgitated then there isn't any point…anybody can do that..
hutch wrote:I mean, he's average polls with some weight. An averaging of polls with no weighting is like 98% similar to Silver. Am I just not supposed to look at polls at all? Seriously asking. Are we just supposed to guess? Is reading coverage poisoning the well?Julian, wrote:hutch wrote:Nate Silver is aggregating polls and weighting certain ones more. I doing the same with a different blend. If we come out close, it's because we are using the same (publicly available) data in. If you want to get into a statistical fight with "guesses" against people who are actually spending some time doing research and looking at numbers, that's not on me. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
listen Julian, you got zero cred as its pretty plain you are just rehashing nate silver's polls plus numbers…
i may revisit my numbers as i'm disheartened by how close to yours and sidehatch they are….
EDIT: ftr, I credit Rasmussen much higher than 538.
well its awfully convenient that you're coming out with exact the same numbers.. same thing you did in SC…even Nevada you just copied his prediction to the decimal!
if your guesses are just going to be Nate Silver regurgitated then there isn't any point…anybody can do that..
I'm picking the Chargers to go all the way.
Let me explain my process. I take the 538 and realpol polls lists. Find the mean. Average that with the Rasmussen poll. Then I make micro-adjustments based on my own reading of the race. (For example if 2 people are within a percentage but I feel the order is wrong like in SC, I'll re order. Or if someone is several points off ill arbitrarily soften the difference and attach the extra percentage to the top candidates - why my % were so far off on bottom three in SC). Then I make sure my numbers add up to 100% and arbitrarily add the tenths of percentages needed to make it do so. It's not scientific but it has the veneer thereof. In other words, it's somewhat proprietary to me.
come on relaxer, your going to sit this one out again!
Hope she went down on you!
Hope she went down on you!
Well done, Hutch. Other than the bottom two (which we all got wrong), you were pretty spot on.
Julian, wrote:In other words, it's somewhat proprietary to me.
Until now. Mwahahaha. Mwahahaha! MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA!
jaded wrote:I'M RUINED!!!Julian, wrote:In other words, it's somewhat proprietary to me.
Until now. Mwahahaha. Mwahahaha! MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA!
well I agree with using polls to a point but when there are so few as seemed to be the case in Nevada.. and they seemed a bit old.. and it was a caucus situation… I thought gut/common sense had a bigger part to play
its so much fun to see Trump come in and destroy the Republican Party as previously constituted…
its so much fun to see Trump come in and destroy the Republican Party as previously constituted…
hutch wrote:A caucus (with more than 2 candidates) is notoriously difficult to poll for.
well I agree with using polls to a point but when there are so few as seemed to be the case in Nevada.. and they seemed a bit old.. and it was a caucus situation… I thought gut/common sense had a bigger part to play
Sidehatch wrote:
come on relaxer, your going to sit this one out again!
Hope she went down on you!
Sorry guys, I joined Tinder the other day and my plate is just full. It is crazy being single again in the age of the internet.
Relaxer wrote:I used to find Tinder so weird as a concept, then one day I really thought about it and realized women can be terrible to me without me even having to speak to them. What a time to be alive!Sidehatch wrote:
come on relaxer, your going to sit this one out again!
Hope she went down on you!
Sorry guys, I joined Tinder the other day and my plate is just full. It is crazy being single again in the age of the internet.
I like it because instead of blowing all my comedy gold at this sausage factory, I can lay down smooth quips to the ladies and they invite me out for drinks and shenanigans.
Relaxer wrote:WILL YOU AND WALKIE JUST KISS ALREADY?
blowing … my … sausage … lay … smooth … shenanigans.
Relaxer wrote:
I like it because instead of blowing all my comedy gold at this sausage factory, I can lay down smooth quips to the ladies and they invite me out for drinks and shenanigans.
save a little for us…bordies before ho-ies
if anything, a running thread with your comic failures and great comebacks would be legendary
ok…I concede defeat here
but I did get the closest on Kasich!
also what is up with these 338 Nevadans?
R. Paul 0.2% 170
J. Bush 0.1% 64
C. Christie 0.1% 50
C. Fiorina 0.0% 22
M. Huckabee0.0% 21
R. Santorum0.0% 11
but I did get the closest on Kasich!
also what is up with these 338 Nevadans?
R. Paul 0.2% 170
J. Bush 0.1% 64
C. Christie 0.1% 50
C. Fiorina 0.0% 22
M. Huckabee0.0% 21
R. Santorum0.0% 11
Sidehatch wrote:
but I did get the closest on Kasich!
You were also the furthest off on Deez Nuts.
Julian, wrote:Sidehatch wrote:
but I did get the closest on Kasich!
You were also the furthest off on Deez Nuts.
that's what happens when you are a MAVERICK !