It is totally over. If Trump wins more than 240 electoral votes, I will eat a bug. https://t.co/3eefhWzI3y
— Sam Wang (@SamWangPhD) October 19, 2016
We’re entering a period when all the math and data gets converted to short quotes. I have some interviews this weekend. I doubt that I will be asked about median-based probability estimation. With luck I will get to the question where there’s real suspense: who will control the Senate?
Here are the weekend’s planned TV hits. I’ll update this as things develop.
All times are Eastern:
Friday: 6:00pm, CNN Money. 10:00pm, CNN w/Don Lemon to talk about this. Also 10:00pm, MSNBC with Lawrence O’Donnell.
Saturday: 9:00am, CNN with Mike Smerconish (possible rebroadcast at 6:00pm).
Do polls get added in and then dropped? or is my mind at sea? I thought i saw 206 state polls earlier? Whatever. I’m sure i’m delusional at this point.
Count me in a among the large schizophrenic crowd that on one hand hears what you’re saying (98+% probability of victory), but goes nuts when _seeing_ the sustained dropping, and steep downward slope of the EV and MM over the past few weeks.
Rationality and Emotion don’t always align.
What kind of bug? Will you record and post it for our amusement? We’ll be in desperate need of a little levity if Trump pulls off a win. Can we count on you?
Of course, though you realize that I calibrate my biennial bug promises to avoid paying off more than once in my actuarial lifetime.
Aside from my personal interest in the election outcome, I’ve found it interesting to compare the various statistical tools used to make predictions of the outcome. Personally, I feel a simple probabilistic model that expresses our estimate of the outcome in terms of confidence intervals around a median is far better than some overly complex model whose underlying assumptions are can probably not be validated. One can fall in love with the complexity and spend too much time trying to understand small fluctuations, but simpler models generally work better.