US Politics / Biden thread

What if he changed some of the parameters within the model?

You ever hear the saying, "often wrong but never in doubt?"

To be fair he hasn’t in this case. He’s taken the first few words as verbatim and then ignored the rest as they don’t support that it is identical.

Theseus's Broom.

"Unchanged" (RC)

However, this prior is revised as polls directly comparing registered and likely voters enters the database. I’ve also lowered the weight on the prior to make the adjustment more strictly empirical. As of this writing, in fact — in late June, 2024 — the prior has been almost entirely phased out, and it will be fully phased out soon.

I’ve also removed a component of the model that we introduced in 2020 based on the Cost of Voting Index, which assumed that Democrats benefited from changes that liberalized voting rights rules and Republicans benefited from changes that tightened them.

There are also a few more detailed changes to handling third-party candidates that I’ve implemented since 2016

I’ve slightly tweaked the formula that the model uses to account for incumbency

These two variables remain, although there is now an additional “tier” of incumbency to account for presidential rematches like the one this year — the assumption baked into the model is that the results are likely to be more persistent in an election where the exact same two candidates are on the ballot. In addition, the model now includes a third variable indicating how much the incumbent party won (or lost) the popular vote by in the previous election, and a constant term. We now also weigh recent elections more heavily in running the regression associated with incumbency, which is derived from elections since 1880.

The model also now includes a ninth component in its uncertainty index, indicating whether one or both parties have nominated the same candidate as in the previous election. 

The model now simulates the results of ranked choice voting in Maine, using a two-step process. The model uses data on voters’ religious affiliation, along with other demographic, geographic and political variables, as part of its process in calculating the correlation in the vote between different states. It now uses more detailed religious categories, with separate breakouts for African-American evangelical voters (as opposed to congregants in predominantly white evangelical Christian churches) — as well as categories for Jewish voters and Muslim voters, who had been lumped with other groups previously.

In calculating the weight assigned to various polls, the model now puts less emphasis on a poll’s sample size

Finally, we have further re-examined the convention bounce adjustment described above. The convention bounce has been modest in recent elections, likely as a result of higher polarization and the 24/7 nature of political coverage. The model now assumes that the candidate who just had his convention will benefit by a net of only about 2-and-a-half percentage points even at the very peak of his bounce.

Ah, OK, you're an expert on exactly how Silver's model works and how minor all these changes are. I didn't realise how comprehensive history degrees were in what they cover in technical detail of opinion polling.

I'm not an expert, which is why when he himself details all the changes he's made to his model I take him at his word that things have changed.

At this point I'm more interested in why you insist nothing has changed, when he details a whole pile of things, none of which neither you nor I can assess to what extent it changes the output. You're ignoring the fact that it is obviously in his interest to sell his own product (whoever is funding him) and give the impression that he has this shiny better-than-everyone-else model that he doesn't have to change (much) because it's so brilliant.

I'd suggest that his 'It's the same model' headline bit falls into that category. It's a bit like calling new Flora Original 'Flora Original' when, actually, the recipe has changed: they want you to think it's the same, even though it does make the toast go soggy now.

There's a commonly used phrase in SE Asia: "Same same, but different"

Might be of use here

It’s not the same bike. One might stop better than the other.

Have a friend who is now in Boston MA for 6 weeks to look after 2yo grandchild while GC #2 makes an appearance. She is booked to depart USania on 5th November. Not a day too late 😳

Where did I say that? Actuaries will advise on the rate but they do not decide the final rate offered to the market. Do you not understand how businesses work and make a margin?

It is you, the one with no financial services qualifications who spouts a load of bile and shite.

Even when everyone else points out you are wrong you are too arrogant to accept it.

🍿🍿🍿

You, leave this forum? I'll believe that when I see it.

At the risk of provoking further, I work in a pretty technical area and also deal with recruiters. Unless they were previously in 'the (tax) profession' and moved into recruiting in that sector, then just talking to people like me does not make them experts or anywhere near that. There is just too much to know/understand and even with 30+ years of experience, people like myself are still learning. That, and typically I don't talk tech with them beyond the areas of expertise that we need in a candidate - which is pretty high level.