Comments on: Election returns thread

By: Nicholas J. Alcock

Nicholas J. Alcock — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 09:34:30 +0000

Dear PEC,
My comments have awaited moderation several times. Interestingly, they usually address Prof Sam. Wang’s methodology.

Now, since Communist China holds most of the US Treasury’s debts i.e. trillions of dollars.
Can you imagine Eisenhower or JFK/LBJ letting the
Soviet Union hold in those days millions of dollars of US debt? Seriously, you are in hock to Commies? Haven’t you woken up to this fact?

By: Nicholas J. Alcock

Nicholas J. Alcock — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 09:21:17 +0000

Dear Prof Sam Wang,
You said you would use a t-dist not a n-dist in 2012. You have since stated using a t-dist doesn’t alter swing states. No surprise there?

I remember, you arguing that single polls were powerful:you stated this on your web-site.
If they are so powetful why did you get NC wrong?

By: Walter

Walter — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 17:12:08 +0000

Dr. Wang,

Thank you, from all those of us who prefer science and reasoned analysis to spin and ideological drum-beating but don’t have time to compute it all at home. I think that sentence sums up the election result, too. :)

By: Vicki Vance

Vicki Vance — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 10:29:47 +0000

Thank YOU, Sam. Great work and a great site – it kept me sane the last couple of months (well, mostly sane, most of the time :)).

By: Sam Wang

Sam Wang — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 09:58:41 +0000

Jon – Totally right about the irony. This time around I was rather confident about the Obama +1% assumption, especially since it gave a small change, and was also in line with the trend up until the last few days anyway. But after being burned in 2004, I thought: don’t even go there.

Thank you, everyone, for reading tonight – and all season.

By: Jon

Jon — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 09:36:50 +0000

Pretty ironic good chap.

You implemented your “personal prediction” bias and it throws-off the meta-margin in 2004 and skews the results.

You choose not to implement your “personal prediction” bias into 2008….and it turns out it would have made the margin dead-accurate.

Either way, between here, 538 and electoral-vote.com… gone are the days where B.S. and biased polls rule the roost. I seriously doubt we will have another election that isn’t accurately predicted before hand using the science you guys are throwing at the problem.

By: Lorem

Lorem — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 09:35:04 +0000

So, Senate elections are still interesting!

Georgia: early votes seem to have been counted now and with 99% reporting, Chambliss has 50.4%, so barring the remaining percent breaking 9:1 against him, he’s got it.

Minnesota: with 99% reporting it’s still too close to call, although it looks to be leaning towards Franken.

Oregon and Alaska: what in the world is happening here? These races aren’t even supposed to be competitive, yet the Republicans are posting slight leads in both right now with 70% and 81% precincts reporting respectively. The leads seem to have also held constant or expanded ever so slightly over the last two reporting jumps (which, like as not, means almost nothing).

By: Mike L

Mike L — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 07:59:27 +0000

Congrats Sam!
You nailed the Electoral Vote and margin of victory which should be 6% + when west coast is counted.

By: Peter

Peter — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 06:50:18 +0000

Thank you for all of your hard work, Sam.

I’m asking for and recommending your book for Christmas and birthday presents. Thank you from someone who may not comment all that often, but checks the site daily.

By: Observer

Observer — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 06:45:42 +0000

How important is GOTV:
CNN is showing Obama ahead in NC with 100% of the precincts reporting by — 12,000 votes out of 4,000,000 cast!