“This is some of the craziest stuff I’ve ever seen!”

Hmmm…7.5 years of a NeoCon-inspired Wingnut shit-fer-brains running the country and THIS is the craziest stuff you have ever seen??????

“Pick a swing state, Ohio, say. You simulate this as a guaranteed win on the basis that every voter randomly picks a candidate with 54.6% chance that it’s Clinton. Of course this gives you Clinton every time.”

Ummm…I’m not sure what you are getting at here. If I flip a coin that has a 54.6% probability of heads, then I will more often get heads than tails for each flip, but not every time. However, if I have 1,000 such coins and flip ‘em all, the probability of getting more tails than heads is something like 0.04%

The truth is that 54.6% is just a best guess at the moment.”

The 54.6% is a summary statistic. The read data are the number of people who said they would vote for McCain and the number of people who said they would vote for Clinton or Obama in the poll.

“There is a margin of error.”

Indeed. The distribution of electoral votes you see in my posts quantifies that error. That is why there is a distribution over a range of electoral votes. The probability just comes from adding up the area to the left or right of the winning number (269 for the Democrat and 270 for McCain).

“The correct way to do this is pick a number from the normal distribution centred on 54.6 and with the appropriate variance.”

My method is using a binomial distribution to find the variance of outcomes. What you have suggested is using the Normal approximation to the binomial distribution. My method is the correct way—your’s is an approximation that 20th century statisticians used before computers were readily available.

“Surely you can see that Clinton is not 99.9% certain to win the nomination.”

This work (1) has nothing whatsoever to do with “the nomination.” I am simulating hypothetical general election match-ups. (2) My analyses only pertain to right now, not November. I make that clear in my posts.

Your forecast basically adds up to just taking the poll results and assuming they’re perfect.

Um…no. My analyses were specifically designed to avoid simple pooling of polls and specifically designed to generate a distribution of election outcomes.

“Even if a good model was used, to use current polling data to predict what will happen in November is silly.”

Indeed! That is why I am not making such a prediction. All of my posts point out that the results only apply to a general election held today. The FAQ mentions that as well. Are you reading impaired or something?

“The notion that she or any candidate has a 99.9% chance of winning the White House is absurd.”

But, the numbers coming out of the polls don’t support your claim of absurdity.

A lot will happen between now and the election which will change the polls (both McCain and Obama will make mistakes. Events will happen that nobody can predict). And the actual results may be different from the polls.”

First…the results only apply to a hypothetical general election held right now. Secondly, my analyses give a distribution of outcomes, not a single outcome. The actual results of an election held right now would likely fall within the distribution of results generated from the polling data.

And while I don’t think Clinton is evil, there are independents and Republicans who do and won’t vote for her.”

But…of course, the pollsters try to capture this effect. So your point is irrelevant.

“I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that pro-Clinton blogs are picking this up without the least bit of skepticism.”

I wouldn’t be surprised either. When McCain was beating Clinton, the pro-McCain folks certainly picked it up “without the least bit of skepticism.”

“Okay, really. Did you *really* think your math was good when you showed Clinton with a 100% chance of winning Florida?”

There isn’t really any “math” behind the methods, but I’ll try to address your specific comments. In Florida, there are three current polls, a Rasmussen with 500 individuals giving Clinton a 47% to 41% edge, and two Quinnipiac polls, one with 1,419 individuasl giving Clinton a 48% to 41% edge, and another with 1,411 individuals giving Clinton a 49% to 41% edge. The statistical evidence is overwhelming…when the polls are polled, a McCain win is well outside the margin of error (if the election were held today).

“With a 75% chance of winning Missouri, even though she only had a 1 point advantage in the polls?”

In Missouri there are two current polls, a huge SurveyUSA poll (1,523 individuals) that gives Clinton a 48% to 46% lead, and a small (500 person) Rasmussen poll that gives McCain a 45% to 43% edge. When the polls are combined, the larger SurveyUSA poll dominates the results. Clinton wins about 75% of the simulated elections.

“Really?”

Yep!

“Did you really not notice that a completely absurd number of your predictions had probabilities of 90+? Really?”

Why is that absurd? I mean, look at it this way…when pollsters say a poll gives a result that is “within the margin of error” or “statistically tied” all they mean is that the probability that one candidate wins over the other is under 95%. When a poll is “outside of the margin of error” or “statistically significant” that just means that the probability the “winning” candidate being truly is ahead of the trailing candidate is greater than 95%.

This is all elementary statistical sampling theory. I am not sure where your disbelief arises.

A lot will happen between now and the election which will change the polls (both McCain and Obama will make mistakes. Events will happen that nobody can predict). And the actual results may be different from the polls.

And while I don’t think Clinton is evil, there are independents and Republicans who do and won’t vote for her.

I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that pro-Clinton blogs are picking this up without the least bit of skepticism.

For an example of someone who does, go here: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com

Surely you can see that Clinton is not 99.9% certain to win the nomination. Your forecast basically adds up to just taking the poll results and assuming they’re perfect.