Mathematically, Dems have 99.97% chance of winning the House

[Ardentfrost]

I could work out an ANOVA table if you wanted

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Why does Tradesports.com always seem contrary to what popular perception is?

During the Kerry debacle, the GOP was not gaining any ground, and in fact lost a little.

Now all I hear is that the GOP is making last minute progress, yet tradesports has the GOP the lowest I've ever seen it now, with GOP probability of winning the senate at around only 66%.

[RMNIXON]

They are not independent events because the total outcome is the political driving force of voter turn out. Will the chance for Dems to win get there vote out? Will the chance of Speaker Pelosi and Kerry 2008 get the Republicans out? Overall Congressional numbers are low, but many people polled still like their own House Rep. How honest are people being to pollsters and how are they being conducted? (Example: When Blacks are asked in person if they will vote for Black Republican Michael Steele his numbers go way down). Too many factors to call these races coin toss events.

[Dumpy Dooby]

I'll bet you $500 that your math is wrong.

[hammywill]

The math will not be wrong. By it's nature, math is never wrong or right. In essence it is a tool, similar to language, a ruler, car etc.

His application of the numbers and the summation of the formula may be incorrect, but then that would him the one in error, not the math.

In regards to the topic. Living in California and seeing Fienstein challenged by a SINGLE Republican it would be simpke for me to assert a 100% certainty of her reelection. However, there are an infinite number of variables. Even if (When!) she winds reelection, having that knowledge and inserting it into the equation in retrospect would not generate a static 100% certainty.

I understand the nature of statistics, as well, I know the nature of Politics, human fancy, whimsical apathy, false security, a small sampling in a poll in a district with a high percentage of one sided voting, people who are dishonest in a polling survey, people who are dishonest in ADMINISTERING a polling survey, a Black Hole opens and no election occurs at all, the Sun goes Supernova...Ad Infinitum. While seemingly small, and for all REAL world application, some of those scenarios are absurd, but in the clinically neutral eyes of mathematics, these things MUST be factored in.

A diatribe to be sure, but only to express the abusrdity of all this rangling. If it is a 99% surety that the Dems. will gain the house and/or Senate it is because we have made it so.

Incidentaly it IS possible to create a Poll Survey reflect a predetermined result. Thereby facilitating either the electrifying of your support for said issue/candidate, and at the same time adding to a malaise in the opposition. Polls only have credence when we allow them to.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

I'll bet you $500 that your math is wrong.

You're going to bet me $500 that I made a mistake? I'm pretty sure I didn't.. I checked it a couple times. There will be a little error since I'm using tables and not integration, but as for the math itself, given my assumptions which I outlined (which is the entire point of this thread), the math isn't wrong.

As pointed out by a few different people, there's a lot of more variables that can affect voter turnout (I like the one mentioned about how this sort of statistic can actually make more republicans go out and vote), but the math is just interpolating poll results, nothing more (as I've said at least twice before).

[Diamond Cross]

I think he was referring to Thorgrim's first post.

[Stylerod]

I hate math

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

I hate math

I can't read good.