Election Prediction


I have spent way too much time looking at polls over the past month.  I have looked at many possibilities, but here is where my final prediction is for the election.

 

The Inconvenient Skeptic

Where I expect the final results to be for the 2012 Presidential Election

 

I promise you that I am just as surprised to see Michigan as a Romney state this election, but that is where the numbers look to be going.  There are going to be 5-6 states within a single percentage point so I will not be surprised if I am off on a couple.

For the popular vote here is my prediction:

Romney   52.5 +/- 0.5%

Obama     45.5 +/- 0.5%

other         1.5 +/- 0.5%

 

I will put out a state by state projection by Sunday.  This will be an interesting week.

 

——————————————-

 

A little late, but here is my prediction for the final state by state results.

 

Please note that I have 5 states as less than 1% difference and Oregon which has a 1.1% gap.  Pennsylvania I have as a zero percent gap.  Of course if Pennsylvania has recounts like Florida did 12 years ago, the results will only matter for the historians.

I guess we will find out if my first foray into political predictions will go well tomorrow night.  :-)

Posted in General by inconvenientskeptic on October 30th, 2012 at 10:40 am.

12 comments

This post has 12 comments

  1. Gary Johnson for president! LOL

  2. Richard111 Oct 31st 2012

    Hmm… was this prediction before or after Sandy?

  3. inconvenientskeptic Nov 5th 2012

    Updated on Monday morning.

    Sandy will not make a significant difference to the results.

  4. This is why expertise is required in making predictions. Nate Silver at 538 got it spot on. You were far off. Now imagine if you had the same rapid feedback concerning your theories about climate change.

    If you indeed want to be a climate scientist, try publishing your ideas in a peer journal. That would provide confirmation or disconfirmation of your ideas and speed your learning. Doing so could prevent future embarrassment.

  5. Hate to say it, but I think Sandy did make a difference – Romney was off the radar for 5 days while Obama got to look “presidential”… and once again modelling gets it wrong :)

  6. inconvenientskeptic Nov 12th 2012

    I remain unconvinced that Sandy made a difference. Most people made up their minds long before.

    What no one can predict is how many people will show up to vote. In this election both candidates got fewer votes than the same party last time.

    Obama got ~7million fewer votes this election that last time. What normally happens is that the swing voters switch, this time they didn’t vote.

    Romney also got ~1M fewer votes than McCain.

    So the total number of people that voted was ~8M less than in 2008. This time it made a significant difference.

    I was correct in the number of total votes that Obama got, but I expected the total votes to increase over 2008, that simply didn’t happen so I was wrong on the results of swing states.

  7. Again, unbiased analysis as wielded by an expert – Nate Silver – was spot on. So the election was possible to predict. Also, the prediction markets were close. You were far off. What can you learn from that?

    I don’t understand how your explanation above provides solace. You couldn’t project turnout correctly so got the total vote wrong, but you take comfort in somehow getting Obama’s vote right? Didn’t turnout influence Obama’s vote too?

    My plea to you remains. If you are serious, then get serious. Gain some expertise. Write for people who can review your ideas.

  8. inconvenientskeptic Nov 13th 2012

    ARW,

    I would like to point out that I don’t claim to good at polling data or election predictions. That was all fun and games.

    I do enjoy looking at numbers and this is the first time I have really looked at polls and the like. Mostly I did this for fun and curiosity.

    However, the climate stuff I do take seriously and I have had my work reviewed by scientists. While they might not agree with me on certain points, they do agree that I know what I am talking about.

    So your point really has no validity.

  9. Please provide the name of any scholar actively working in climate scientist who has reviewed and approved your work.

  10. inconvenientskeptic Nov 19th 2012

    Please read this:

    http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2012/10/my-presentation-to-the-right-climate-stuff-group/

    In this group there are climate scientists actively working in the field. It is not for me to name them. One of them is an active professor at a university in the field of climate science.

  11. I am intrigued by your response. I take it as “none”, because presenting to someone is quite different from being reviewed (and passed) by them.

    But it seems that you don’t agree. So I will ask directly:

    Why don’t you try to get your work reviewed — even by a second tier journal?

  12. inconvenientskeptic Nov 26th 2012

    Al,

    There is a certain level of smarminess in your comment that shows a total lack of understanding of the real world.

    None of my professional work is in a journal, but it is in the semiconductors that you have in your computer, smartphone, etc…

    Does it being in a journal matter? Journals have more in common with high school cliches that they do anything else. Or does the name Dan Shechtman not mean anything to you? Fortunately my R&D career is not dependent on such silly things like publishing. I simply have to make things that work.

Web Design & Dev by

Mazal Simantov Digital Creativity