Get yer polls, bets, numbers & pretty graphs! Elections 2008

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Come on George; let's call a spade a spade. Considering SC, Oregon and Montana are likely all Obama States; that 72% (accurate by my estimate) may as well be 90%. This essentially means Clinton can only win if the Supers overrule the people (in which case massive numbers of people would absolutely despise Clinton, and rioting would ensue) or if the DNC changes their rules via some super sleazy back-room dealing (in which case massive numbers of people would absolutely despise Clinton, and rioting would ensue).

I don't believe you can cheat the first viable black Presidential candidate out of the nomination after he wins the most delegates... let alone with his leads in number of states and the popular vote as well.

I further don't believe for one fleeting moment that you think Hillary and Obama have equal chances against McCain.

Our next President will be Barack Obama or John McCain, period. Why? Because Hillary supporters would have to cut off their nose to spite their face in order to protest Obama's fair and square victory to the point of abandoning their principles. Obama supporters, on the other hand, would have every legitimate reason to abandon Clinton for cheating Obama out of the nomination after he bested her in the Primary.

I'll grant you; Democrats have made some pretty hideous-stupid decisions in the past (John Kerry, (about the only guy out there who couldn't beat Bush)), but I really don't believe they're going to blow this one. Collectively; they simply cannot be that dumb. And, although I appreciate your desire for a Hillary/McCain race (and believe it's the reason you paint it the way you do), neither could you. :wink:

Believe what you like. However, you really don't know anything about my estimates of the relative strength of the two Democrat candidates in the race with McCain, or my motives for the posts above. Odd as it may seem to you, I was simply trying to explain what is otherwise inexplicable to you and some others here - namely why do the Clinton supporters persist in their efforts in this contest. If you would care to offer an alternative and plausible explanation for their persistence in an effort that has been labelled as "absurd" and "beyond understanding" by some here, I would be glad to read it. Until then, I believe you should question your own expressed certainty on the matter.

I don't believe that Obama has any special "rights" in the matter, merely because he is Black and appears to many as the first such viable candidate. I certainly don't propose to cheat him, but I find the special entitlement you appear to be suggesting without real merit. I agree that this situation presents some practical issues for the Democrats, given some of the possibilities that may arise if he doesn't win the nomination (or the election, if he is nominated). However that has little effect on my estimate of his political prospects, relative to Clinton's.

We are faced with a protracted campaign that has already defied many of the expectations of the recognized and some self-appointed experts in the matter. I see no reason to suppose that that dynamic, with all its attendent uncertainties, won't continue. The polling data on the relative merits of the Democrat contenders in a race with McCain are ambiguous enough, and I don't yet see any basis for certainty on the question.

Lastly, I find the notion that any expressed opinion of mine on these matters could significantly affect the primary result, to be absurd -- hardly a believable motive for a conspiracy on my part.

Again I would be very interested to read your alternative explanation for the otherwise inexplicable persistence of the Clinton camp.

0 Replies

Not meaning to interrupt, but I think the answer as to why Clinton is so persistant is the fact she has planned being president for a very very long time, and she is hellbent on it. This is her dream, and she will run until there is absolutely no option left at all, bar none. The Clintons are politicians, first and foremost, and nothing else matters. They have no interest in being like everyone else, such as minding their own business and getting a real job for a change.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Not meaning to interrupt, but I think the answer as to why Clinton is so persistant is the fact she has planned being president for a very very long time, and she is hellbent on it. This is her dream, and she will run until there is absolutely no option left at all, bar none. The Clintons are politicians, first and foremost, and nothing else matters.

Yep.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Not meaning to interrupt, but I think the answer as to why Clinton is so persistant is the fact she has planned being president for a very very long time, and she is hellbent on it. This is her dream, and she will run until there is absolutely no option left at all, bar none. The Clintons are politicians, first and foremost, and nothing else matters. They have no interest in being like everyone else, such as minding their own business and getting a real job for a change.

yep

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

okie wrote:
Not meaning to interrupt, but I think the answer as to why Clinton is so persistant is the fact she has planned being president for a very very long time, and she is hellbent on it. This is her dream, and she will run until there is absolutely no option left at all, bar none. The Clintons are politicians, first and foremost, and nothing else matters.

Yep.

Ambition. A sense of entitlement. But as explanation #3 I also think that the Clintons - well, they dominated the Democratic Party for a decade, towering over everyone else; and they arguably brought the party back into electability after a disastrous decade or two. So I think they might genuinely have come to instinctively equate what is good for them with what is good for the party. Especially Bill. Like, they just no longer recognize that these are two separate things. That happens.

The other background I see described time and again by people citing "insiders" with various degrees of credibility, is that it's not just ambition and entitlement; it's that they sincerely believe that Obama is a disater waiting to happen. That they genuinely believe that Obama will either be torn to shreds by the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy in the election campaign, or that he will be a terrible President once elected, as bad or worse than Carter.

How they would have come to this conviction is another subject -- bitterly fought campaigns do have a tendency to exponentially narrow the horizon of those involved, and seriously skew their perspectives of the opponent -- but if they sincerely hold this belief that Obama will waste a unique Democratic chance and lose a whole generation for the party, than it's not just a question of ambition to kneecap him any way they can, but a question of duty. An obligation they have to the party.

This would explain why they have no hesitation to over and again use the smear tactics that the Republicans will use in the generals already themselves. The argument that they are helping pernicious notions to take hold, even in the Democratic base itself, would be void to them if they sincerely believe that Obama is such a weak or risky candidate that oh - those tactics will take hold anyway, dont you have any doubt. They will bring him down - so now it's the duty of the Clintons to save the party from that prospect, by making it clear already now and bowling him out of the race by hook or by crook.

Are they that far gone, in terms of campaign- and ego-fuelled delusion? I dont know. I see bits and pieces of evidence that this might be what's going on. But on the other hand, I just cant quite believe it. And if this is really what they believe, wouldnt they have already switched from smear-and-attack mode to fully-blown nuclear mode? I guess what's holding them back could just be the fear that it would bring themselves down right along with him, but surely there must also be some sense of proportion still in the campaign. I read somewhere that Penn had wanted Hillary to go far more negative still before Texas (with a 3 AM ad that would have made the one that came out seem milquetoast), but that others in the campaign disagreed and Hillary decided against it, so that suggests there is still some (or at least was at that time).

I dunno. Somewhere in between the ambition, entitlement and equation of their own interests with the party's interests, and an outright conviction that Obama is such a bad candidate/potential president that it's their duty to stop them lies a lot of their drive to persist against overwhelming mathematical odds.

http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/364/nytfrontzm0.png

0 Replies

Daily tracking polls: Now with trendlines!

I've been playing around with the "trendline" function in Excel for my graphs of the daily tracking polls, and the results are interesting.

Now I think I've mentioned before that I lack any and all formal education in statistics. I didnt even take economy or math as high school graducation topics. So I really have no idea about the relative merits of different trendlines.

All I know is that there are 6 options - linear, logarithmic, polynomial, power and exponential trendlines, and there's the option of a moving average. A linear trendline just gives one straight line, and logarithmic, power and exponential trendlines all tend to give somewhat um, extravagant results. But the polynomial trendline seems to be pretty good in pegging a logical-looking and reliable overall trend!

Even the polynomial trendline comes in flavours, though - you can set the order anywhere between 2-6. Again, I have no idea about the relative merits of those settings. But it looks like the higher the interval, the more sensitive the trendline becomes to the up and down of the polls. Set it too low, and it ignores pretty much any temporary development. Set it too high, and it tends to become overly sensitive at the "ends" - the beginning and the end of the line - often interpolating a sharply upward or downward trend at the very end that's then corrected as time passes.

Below are what the trendlines look like now at the various orders. THE GRAPHS REFER TO THE DATA UP TILL YESTERDAY; ANY IMPACT OF THE RESULTS OF THE PENNSYLVANIA PRIMARY IS NOT YET REFLECTED IN THEM.

Two things really stand out to me:

Once you filter out the most immediately random of the day-to-day volatility of the polls, Voter preferences in the primaries have, at least since Super Tuesday, really been extremely stable. (I accidentally typed "stale"; that works too). Try as they might, even the most sensitive settings do not detect much beyond extremely incremental overall trends.
The Gallup and Rasmussen tracking polls really correspond very closely. Sure, some days one or the other is off and away from the other by anything up to 10 points, but such gaps are usually quickly closed again, and as these trendlines show, both polls have really charted very much the same overall development of preferences. I take that as a sign that these daily tracking polls really are on to something, in spite of the myriad warnings about their volatility and the way they vary, in turn, from the array of one-off polls that are done as well.

Development of support for Barack Obama, with trendlines:

http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/6/obamalinearrq9.png

http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/2280/obamapolynomial2kn5.png

http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/6007/obamapolynomial3qf4.png

http://img176.imageshack.us/img176/3416/obamapolynomial4mu6.png

http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/4471/obamapolynomial5ip8.png

http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/9381/obamapolynomial6jx4.png

0 Replies

Development of support for Hillary Clinton, with trendlines:

http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/2316/clintonlinearho5.png

http://img186.imageshack.us/img186/4590/clintonpolynomial2yi5.png

http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/6855/clintonpolynomial3oj8.png

http://img167.imageshack.us/img167/5389/clintonpolynomial4ul6.png

http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/9901/clintonpolynomial5dr0.png

http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/5231/clintonpolynomial6ys6.png

0 Replies

okie wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:

I'll grant you; Democrats have made some pretty hideous-stupid decisions in the past (John Kerry, (about the only guy out there who couldn't beat Bush)), but I really don't believe they're going to blow this one. Collectively; they simply cannot be that dumb. And, although I appreciate your desire for a Hillary/McCain race (and believe it's the reason you paint it the way you do), neither could you. :wink:

Collectively, they are that dumb, Bill, or they would be running somebody besides a couple of losers, Clinton and Obama. Obama is another big loss in November waiting to happen. They have made a number of mistakes, one big one being the super delegates. What a dumb idea, period. They have also created the train wreck with Obama by trumping him up as the great messiah after he did what, he gave a speech, thats all, and now when he is coming under increased scrutiny, I don't think he has what it takes.

Not just me with this opinion. Alot of people are starting to see the handwriting on the wall. It is simply too late to change horses now, but all they have is a couple of lame ones in the running now.

Yeah... you keep repeating this nonsense... as if you truly believe it. But where's your conviction? Tell you what; I'll give you 2 to 1 Obama beats Hillary... and if you'd like, contingent on that occurring; I'll offer 2 to 1 that he beats McCain as well.

So, say you wager $100. You get $200 if Hillary wins the primary (regardless of the General Result) or $100 if McCain beats him in the General. Only if Obama is elected President do you lose your $100. Should be a no-brainer if you believe any of the nonsense you're peddling.

George: Clinton persists because she's personally invested and will at the very least pay herself back before quitting, among other things. Virtually every avenue for winning left to her equates to dirty pool (Supers overruling the popular vote or disqualified States being counted). I haven't used terms like absurd or beyond understanding, because like Okie pointed out in his more coherent post; the Clintons are politicians. It surprises me not at all that they would willingly subvert the system to win and I can't even say I'd be shocked if they succeeded though I would find it disturbing.

No, Obama doesn't have a special right because he's black. However; politics is perception and I don't think the Democratic Party can afford to ignore the imminently predictable backlash they would receive if it "appears" they screwed Obama, whether they actually violate any formal rule or not. People would be angry, and rightly so.

Neither you nor I believe your expressed opinions will significantly affect the Primary results. I wouldn't believe that of Nancy Pelosi or even George Bush's expressed opinions. The fatal word in the statement is "significantly". Affect by itself? Hell yes. I believe you are respected on both sides of the aisle, and I know that I, myself, take care to understand what you write out of respect and a desire for further understanding of my own. When your well written opinions find their mark; they most certainly influence the way others perceive the subject matter to some degree. Now you can laugh that off if you wish; but if the big picture is really all that matters to you; why would you bother to vote at all? Let alone follow politics? No one man's vote swings any election I've ever heard of, yet millions of people take time out of their lives to do it anyway. Why? Because every vote does count and it follows then that every opinion that may help to influence one of those votes does as well. Even Okie's tiresome parroting of Rush Limbaugh's twisted logic counts. Think of it like this George; if you can provide that last little insight that makes up the mind of an undecided; you will have DOUBLED your impact in the voting booth.

0 Replies

OK, nimh, you must have a really big and really boring project due at work, because you are coming up with some amazing stuff here!

Any analysis of the trendline thingies?

0 Replies

Development of Hillary Clinton lead over Barack Obama, with trendlines:

http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/5023/leadlineardc4.png

http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/9673/leadpolynomial2uc7.png

http://img167.imageshack.us/img167/2666/leadpolynomial3qp6.png

http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/5818/leadpolynomial4re3.png

http://img241.imageshack.us/img241/1866/leadpolynomial5bp9.png

http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/2236/leadpolynomial6dv7.png

0 Replies

Sorry, there was analysis up here:

nimh wrote:

Two things really stand out to me:

Once you filter out the most immediately random of the day-to-day volatility of the polls, Voter preferences in the primaries have, at least since Super Tuesday, really been extremely stable. (I accidentally typed "stale"; that works too). Try as they might, even the most sensitive settings do not detect much beyond extremely incremental overall trends.

The Gallup and Rasmussen tracking polls really correspond very closely. Sure, some days one or the other is off and away from the other by anything up to 10 points, but such gaps are usually quickly closed again, and as these trendlines show, both polls have really charted very much the same overall development of preferences. I take that as a sign that these daily tracking polls really are on to something, in spite of the myriad warnings about their volatility and the way they vary, in turn, from the array of one-off polls that are done as well.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Any analysis of the trendline thingies?

Beyond those two general points above, I just look at them to get a sense of how things have been going...

I dont put too much stock in whether it goes up or down right at the very end, especially not with the polynimial trendlines with an order 5 or 6, because that's just always proven too sensitive - coupla days later and that trend's been corrected or reversed.

But if someone who actually knows what these polynimial trends are all about (JPB? Fbaezer? Thomas, maybe?) would like to weigh in, that would be terrific - cause me, I'd never even heard of them before now! Smile

0 Replies

Hey OCCOM Bill, your exchanges here remind me: did you see my Taxonomy of A2K Conservatives thread? All just in joshing spirit... Razz

0 Replies

nimh -- trendlines are typically used to anticipate or predict what's coming next based on the patterns of the historical data. By design the 'noise' or error is equally distributed above and below the lines and all of the data in the range is used to calculate the goodness of fit of the line/curve.

Obviously your data aren't linear and the noise around the early data points reflects much more variability than the later part. The 2nd order polynomial isn't the best fit (do you have r^2 values associated with your lines?) but anything higher than a 2nd order polynomial is almost worthless as a predictive tool.

One way to use the data, improve the fit, and provide valuable predictive information is to restrict the data range to that which is most linear and use a linear model. If you apply the linear model to the data from.... 2/19/08 forward, your model will have a much better fit.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

[George: Clinton persists because she's personally invested and will at the very least pay herself back before quitting, among other things. Virtually every avenue for winning left to her equates to dirty pool (Supers overruling the popular vote or disqualified States being counted). I haven't used terms like absurd or beyond understanding, because like Okie pointed out in his more coherent post; the Clintons are politicians. It surprises me not at all that they would willingly subvert the system to win and I can't even say I'd be shocked if they succeeded though I would find it disturbing.

No, Obama doesn't have a special right because he's black. However; politics is perception and I don't think the Democratic Party can afford to ignore the imminently predictable backlash they would receive if it "appears" they screwed Obama, whether they actually violate any formal rule or not. People would be angry, and rightly so.

Neither you nor I believe your expressed opinions will significantly affect the Primary results. I wouldn't believe that of Nancy Pelosi or even George Bush's expressed opinions. The fatal word in the statement is "significantly". Affect by itself? Hell yes. I believe you are respected on both sides of the aisle, and I know that I, myself, take care to understand what you write out of respect and a desire for further understanding of my own. When your well written opinions find their mark; they most certainly influence the way others perceive the subject matter to some degree. Now you can laugh that off if you wish; but if the big picture is really all that matters to you; why would you bother to vote at all? Let alone follow politics? No one man's vote swings any election I've ever heard of, yet millions of people take time out of their lives to do it anyway. Why? Because every vote does count and it follows then that every opinion that may help to influence one of those votes does as well. Even Okie's tiresome parroting of Rush Limbaugh's twisted logic counts. Think of it like this George; if you can provide that last little insight that makes up the mind of an undecided; you will have DOUBLED your impact in the voting booth.

I generally agree with all that, and appreciate your explanation.

In the first place, I was a bit frustrated at the suggestion that, what was to me truly an attempt to explain a rational basis for Clinton's persistence to Obama supporters, whom I think you will agree tend to view their candidate in exalted terms, labelling non-believers as mad, bad and beyond understanding, was instead merely a wishful projection of my own political prejudices. The fact is that Hillary does persist and very likely for reasons close to those I offered. That she is a political animal and habituated to what may be regarded as political necessity or "dirty pool", I take as a given. On close examination, I think you will find this is generally true of all the campaigns.

For my own political prejudices, I am preoccupied as much (or more) with fear of bad outcomes that may occur as I am with hope of good things that may evolve.

I do see great possibilities in Obama and am strongly attracted to the lofty quality of his rhetoric and his willingness to acknowledge the different points of view of some who disagree with him. Like many others, I am truly excited about the prospect of a strong, Black candidate who exhibits these qualities. At the same time, I am concerned that he may not be all that I hope he is, worried by his relatively short public record, the thin detail in the specific policy statements he has made, and the suggestion of a naive elitist complacency evident in some of the things he has said. I suspect some others will interpret this as evidence of my own prejudices, however it is the best I can do in honestly communicating my reactions to him.

The Clintons are relatively well-known and understood quantities. We can confidently predict the triangulations, political opportunism and basically centrist policies of the Clinton Administrations. Much less uncertainty with them about the ups and downs in our expectations.

I know John McCain and the background from which he comes. I believe I have a good sense of his character and the good & bad features (as I see them) of his political positions. I like his moderation on immigration issues; his interest in real Federal spending restraint; and his basic views on national security. I am put off by his pandering to the loonie/evangelical/Zionist backwater of the Republican party and also a bit for his fondness for using the military toys which have been excessively relied on by the current Administration (however I also believe he has a much more realistic view of what can really be accomplished (and what not) by military intervention than many in the Bush Administration).

Finally, I am a bit put off by the increasing class warfare rhetoric of the Democrats. My fear is that we will become saddled with excess government bureaucratic intervention in our economy, just as international competitive pressures for innovation and adaptability reach their peak. In a world in which China and India are rapidly developing modern economies, becoming increasingly significant consumers of resources and producers of competitive goods and services, and in which our traditional allies are increasingly looking for the world to take us down a peg or two, we can no longer entertain notions of going back to the "good old days" of whatever the various reformers may have in mind.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

nimh wrote:
okie wrote:
Not meaning to interrupt, but I think the answer as to why Clinton is so persistant is the fact she has planned being president for a very very long time, and she is hellbent on it. This is her dream, and she will run until there is absolutely no option left at all, bar none. The Clintons are politicians, first and foremost, and nothing else matters.

Yep.

Ambition. A sense of entitlement. But as explanation #3 I also think that the Clintons - well, they dominated the Democratic Party for a decade, towering over everyone else; and they arguably brought the party back into electability after a disastrous decade or two. So I think they might genuinely have come to instinctively equate what is good for them with what is good for the party. Especially Bill. Like, they just no longer recognize that these are two separate things. That happens.
...

Agree, but one comment, the Clintons are the Clintons, and they have always been arrogant with a sense of entitlement. This is not something that they have evolved into, although as they have gained success and power, their attitude only becomes more of a problem and a danger to the rest of us. Many of us have always recognized this couple as dangerous and out of control, so I am glad some people are recognizing it, but it bothers me that it takes so long for some people.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

okie wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:

I'll grant you; Democrats have made some pretty hideous-stupid decisions in the past (John Kerry, (about the only guy out there who couldn't beat Bush)), but I really don't believe they're going to blow this one. Collectively; they simply cannot be that dumb. And, although I appreciate your desire for a Hillary/McCain race (and believe it's the reason you paint it the way you do), neither could you. :wink:

Collectively, they are that dumb, Bill, or they would be running somebody besides a couple of losers, Clinton and Obama. Obama is another big loss in November waiting to happen. They have made a number of mistakes, one big one being the super delegates. What a dumb idea, period. They have also created the train wreck with Obama by trumping him up as the great messiah after he did what, he gave a speech, thats all, and now when he is coming under increased scrutiny, I don't think he has what it takes.

Not just me with this opinion. Alot of people are starting to see the handwriting on the wall. It is simply too late to change horses now, but all they have is a couple of lame ones in the running now.
Yeah... you keep repeating this nonsense... as if you truly believe it. But where's your conviction? Tell you what; I'll give you 2 to 1 Obama beats Hillary... and if you'd like, contingent on that occurring; I'll offer 2 to 1 that he beats McCain as well.

So, say you wager $100. You get $200 if Hillary wins the primary (regardless of the General Result) or $100 if McCain beats him in the General. Only if Obama is elected President do you lose your $100. Should be a no-brainer if you believe any of the nonsense you're peddling.

I keep repeating it, but it isn't nonsense. I admit it is my hope, but there is ample reason to believe I am not far off, and many people agree with me, probably including many in the Democratic Party but they may not be saying it in public.

And I am not into wagering, Bill. I admit I would be more confident if we had a better candidate than McCain, but I do think he should beat either Clinton or Obama. Both are deeply flawed candidates. Beyond the platform, we have Clinton that is not liked very well, her negatives have always been high. Many people, including Democrats gag at the thought of voting for Hillary, and that is one reason why I think a large number of people in the party was looking for a replacement, and......so enters the rising star, Obama, with no experience, based on a speech, thats it. So, he takes on a celebrity status because of being a good talker, but as we begin to examine the man, it is becoming more apparent this guy has some very troublesome problems as well. And hello, he has no accomplishments in the Senate to speak of, and no experience, and is a virtual unknown in terms of his ability, beyond talking.

In terms of winning, neither one of them can finish off the other, each being weak.

Call it nonsense, but remember this in November, Bill.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Obama supporters, whom I think you will agree tend to view their candidate in exalted terms, labelling non-believers as mad, bad and beyond understanding

I think this characterisation says more about your perspective than about Obama supporters, to be honest. I mean, it's just not true. Look at this board for example. You'd be hard-fetched to find any Obama supporters who view "non-believers" in such terms beyond Roxxxanne, Teeny and, OK, Cyclo. That's three people, out of what?, three dozen Obama supporters? It makes me angry to see this stuff repeated time and again, it's just so lazy.

I realise that it's convenient to equate all of one's opponents supporters with the two or three most extreme examples at hand, and that it makes for generalisations with more bite and more flourish. And I realise that the "cult-like Obama believers" meme is hyped endlessly by the talking heads on TV, much like the one about how blue-collar Americans are just outraged, outraged by Obama's "bitter" remarks, so maybe youve just bought into the talking points again. But I mean, doublecheck yourself for a moment here. Look around: there are two or three Sozobes and FreeDucks for every Roxxxanne, and thats true IRL just like here on the board. And they never talk about "non-believers" like that. I mean, this is like saying Republicans are knee-jerk gun-nut haters because cjhsa and Gunga are.

It's really kind of insulting to be brushed off in earnest tones as all wingnuts time and again, when you know very well that the description only holds for extreme examples, and frankly it's just dishonest. (Like I said, it just pisses me off by now.)

I'm not naive though - I expect much more talk like that once the general elections campaign is on...

0 Replies

JPB wrote:

nimh -- trendlines are typically used to anticipate or predict what's coming next based on the patterns of the historical data. By design the 'noise' or error is equally distributed above and below the lines and all of the data in the range is used to calculate the goodness of fit of the line/curve.

Obviously your data aren't linear and the noise around the early data points reflects much more variability than the later part. The 2nd order polynomial isn't the best fit (do you have r^2 values associated with your lines?) but anything higher than a 2nd order polynomial is almost worthless as a predictive tool.

One way to use the data, improve the fit, and provide valuable predictive information is to restrict the data range to that which is most linear and use a linear model. If you apply the linear model to the data from.... 2/19/08 forward, your model will have a much better fit.

Hey JPB, thank you very much for your feedback. I will make new ones (linear and 2nd order polynomial) with the limited time scale you suggest.

(And, um, what are r^2 values? Embarrassed

)

0 Replies

Rasmussen analysis of its daily tracking poll data today: "absolutely no indication that Clinton's victory in Pennsylvania has changed the overall dynamic".

Quote:

In the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination, it's Obama 49%, Clinton 42% (see recent daily Democratic Nomination results). Those numbers are unchanged from the night before and, so far, there is absolutely no indication that Clinton's victory in Pennsylvania has changed the overall dynamic of the race. These results are based upon a four-day rolling average and include two full nights of polling following the Pennsylvania Primary.

These results and other data suggest that there is no "momentum" in this Primary Season. Typically, momentum results as voters learn more about a candidate who is doing well. This cycle, Hillary Clinton began the campaign as one of the best known people in the world. Democrats uneasy with her quickly settled on Obama as the chief challenger who has now become the frontrunner. As the candidates have become known, each has developed a solid core of supportive constituencies. For Obama, these included African-Americans, younger voters, more liberal Democrats, and upper-income voters. For Clinton, strength comes from White Women, older voters, more moderate Democrats, and lower-to-middle income workers.

Six weeks of campaigning in Pennsylvania, and still uncounted millions of dollars in campaign spending, was unable to significantly move any of the demographic support groups from one candidate to the other. At this point, it is hard to imagine anything that will cause the underlying patterns of support to change.

(emphasis as in original)

0 Replies

Get yer polls, bets, numbers & pretty graphs! Elections 2008

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know