blueollie

President’s Day Poll: Have some fun!

Ok, here is a list of the Presidents of the United States. Just for the fun of it:

1. List YOUR top three favorite Presidents that YOU can personally remember (in your lifetime, after you became aware)

2. List YOUR top three favorite Presidents that were BEFORE your time.

3. List YOUR top three least favorite Presidents (your lifetime).

4. Vote in my poll (post WWII) for your favorite President.

5. IF you lean Democrat or Republican, who is your favorite President from “the other party”: all time AND “recently” (last, say, 30 years)

My picks:
1. Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter (that order)
2. Abraham Lincoln, F. D. Roosevelt, Harry Truman (I almost put Teddy Roosevelt here)
3. George W. Bush, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan (I am the only person in the USA who put Reagan on this list)
4. Barack Obama
5. Favorite Republican is Abraham Lincoln (liked Eisenhower and T. Roosevelt as well); favorite modern Republican was George H. W. Bush.

February 18, 2013 Posted by | politics, politics/social, poll | | Leave a comment

Election Wrap Up III: my demographics

Data from CNN
I’ll see how “typical” I am:

Geography
Illinois: 57-41 Obama.
Peoria (County): 51-47 Obama.
Peoria (City of): 56-42 Obama.

Personal
Males: 52-45 Romney
Age 50-64: 52-47 Romney
Latino: 71-27 Obama
Age/Latino: 68-31 Obama
College graduate: 50-48 Obama
Graduate Degree: 55-42 Obama
Income (none of your business :-) ) 54-44 Romney
Non-religious: 70-26 Obama
Married: 56-42 Romney
Married men: 60-38 Romney

Politics/Issues
Decided my vote early: 53-46 Obama
Raise Taxes on 250K and up: 70-29 Obama
Health care: should be expanded: 92-5 Obama
Repeal Obamacare: no: 87-11 Obama

So you can see that my demographics (Illinois, City of Peoria, Race, Education, non-religious) really pointed me toward Obama. But by far, it was the issues (duh).

November 9, 2012 Posted by | 2012 election, Peoria, Peoria/local, politics, poll | Leave a comment

Election Wrap Up II: a few stats from the General Election

First, a fun fact: (Via CNN Exit Polls)
About 7 percent of those voting for Barack Obama and 8 percent voting for Mitt Romney split their vote for the US House (e. g., 7 percent of Obama voters voted for a Republican for the US House, and 8 percent of Romney voters voted for a Democrat). I know quite a bit of that happened in IL-17, as Bustos won by 6 and Obama was up by about 15 points in that district.

I’ve decided to look at some national statistics from the previous 4 elections:

year %voting R-total D-total EV-R EV-D
2000 50.4 50.4M, 47.9% 51.0M, 48.4% 271 266
2004 56.2 62M, 50.7% 59M, 48.3% 286 251
2008 61.6 59.9M, 45.7% 69.5M, 52.9% 173 365
2012 54.7 58.1M, 48% 61.1M, 50% 206 332

Note: after the 2004 election, President Bush was listed at 59 million votes; the number grew to 62 million as more votes were tabulated. Hence I anticipate that President Obama’s eventual totals will reach this number. And of course, as of the time of this writing, Florida has not been called; however the Romney campaign admitted that he is down by 58K votes and the remaining votes are from Democratic leaning areas.
Also, Obama’s vote total is projected to reach 66 million.

Fun Fact In 5 of the last 6 Presidential elections, the Democrat has won the popular vote. That feels strange to me because the first election that I followed was Nixon-Humphrey; that saw the Republicans win (and sometimes win BIG) 5 of 6 elections (popular and electoral); so it is my knee-jerk response to view the Presidency as something a Republican holds. The fact is, during my lifetime, Democrats have won 7 elections (8 times the popular vote), and the Republicans have won 7 elections (6 times winning the popular vote). It doesn’t get more even than that.

But my “set in stone” gloominess comes from my 4-5 record: I had losses with Carter, Mondale and Dukakis, and then with Gore and Kerry. Clinton and Obama gave me my 4 wins. I lost in my first 3 presidential elections. Obama was the sweetest win; Kerry was my most bitter loss, though I felt pretty alone when Reagan won his second term and I was stuck on a Navy base. :-)

My state and county

Obama won Illinois 57-41 with a margin of 2.91 million to 2.09 million. The biggest margin came in Cook County (Chicago); Peoria is part of the blue counties on the western border moving inward. There is a blue splotch in East Saint Louis; the one toward the East (by itself) is Champaign county (where the University of Illinois is). Obama won Peoria 51-47 (40 K to 36.6 K).

Some history:
The 2000 Election (red and blue are swapped from their traditional roles)

The 2004 Election

The 2008 Election

The unusual “red is Democrat, blue is Republican” maps are from US Election Atlas. The traditional maps are from CNN.

Data for Peoria County (city and countryside):
2000 Gore over Bush 50.2-47.4 percent, 38.6-36.4 (thousands)
2004 Kerry “over” Bush 49.7-49.6 percent, 41,121 to 41,051 votes (70 vote margin!)
2008 Obama over McCain 56-42 percent, 45.9-34.6 thousand
2012 Obama over Romney 51-47 percent, 40-36.6 thousand

Note: the population of Peoria County is 183.4 K, and rose 1.7 percent from 2000 to 2010. Hence the “best” turnout was for the 2004 election! Note also that traditionally the Democrat wins the City of Peoria whereas the Republican wins (except for 2008) the county minus the city.

Texas

2000 Election

2004 Election

2008 Election

2012 Election

As far as my old country (Travis county, home of the University of Texas)

2000: Bush won 46.9 to 41.7 percent
2004: Kerry won 56-42 percent
2008: Obama won 64-35 percent (254K to 137 K votes)
2012: Obama won 60-36 percent (231.5 to 139.5 K votes)

Note that in the last two elections, Obama won Austin, Houston, Dallas, San Antonio and El Paso; he lost Fort Worth. The blue stuff in the south part of the state (almost every year) is the heavily Hispanic rural area, and of course, El Paso.

My guess is that Jill Stein did well in Austin in 2012, especially given that Texas was a lock for Mr. Romney.

November 9, 2012 Posted by | 2012 election, Peoria, Peoria/local, politics, politics/social, poll | Leave a comment

The Real Winner Tonight…..

Well, of course I am happy that President Obama won tonight.

I am happy that Dave Koehler won: (IL-46 State Senate)

I am happy that Cheri Bustos won (IL-17 US House)

But the real winner are The Math Nerds:

One is the battle of the nerds versus the traditional pundits. The outpouring of Hate for Nate has been awesome to watch; much of it is coming from the right, but a fair bit also from mainstream pundits who rely on their ineffable sense of “momentum” or whatever rather than polls.

Obviously I side, professionally and temperamentally, with the nerds here — not just Nate Silver, but Sam Wang, Drew Linzer, Pollster, and more. I’d like to think I’d be on their side even if the numbers were pointing the other way.

The point is that relying on data rather than hunches is my style; I’d hate, professionally, to see the voices in the air people get this right, simply because the polls were wrong.

As Krugman says “Math is Hard”:

First of all, from what I can see a lot of people have trouble with the distinction between probabilities and vote margins. They think that when I say, “state level polls overwhelmingly suggest an Obama victory”, I’m also saying “state level polls suggest an overwhelming Obama victory”, which isn’t at all the same thing. We have a lot of polls, almost all of which say that Obama will win Ohio; but they don’t by any means say that he’ll win it in a landslide.

Second, people clearly have a problem with randomness — with the fact that any poll, no matter how carefully conducted, has a margin of error. (And the true margins of error are surely larger than the statistical measure always reported, since sampling error isn’t the only way a poll can go wrong). Specifically, what I think people don’t get is the fact that when there are many polls of a state, some of them are bound to be outliers — not, or not necessarily, because the pollsters have done a bad job, but because there’s always noise in any sampling procedure.

What this means is that if you look at all the polls, you’re very likely to find one or two that tell you what you want to hear: Rasmussen has Ohio tied! Susquehanna has Pennsylvania tied! And it’s very tempting to select those polls and trumpet them — a temptation you really want to resist. The point isn’t necessarily that these are bad polling firms (as it happens, they are, but that’s beside the point); it is that even good pollsters will produce an occasional off result, and you really, really don’t want to start picking and choosing those off results to make yourself feel good.

So in a many-poll world, you really have to adopt some kind of averaging procedure and stick to it. Different poll aggregators have chosen slightly different methods, and it would be worrisome if they were telling different stories. But they aren’t: they’re all saying Obama advantage[...]

But people seem to have a trouble with math IF it goes against what they want to be true, or what “their gut” says is true.

November 7, 2012 Posted by | 2012 election, Barack Obama, Cheri Bustos, politics, politics/social, poll, statistics | 4 Comments

Final Comment about aggregators and modelers: via Sam Wang

If you like all of the modeling and aggregating of data stuff, read this article by Sam Wang. Notice that Wang gives President Obama about a 98 percent chance of winning the electoral college.

I’ve been using Electoral Vote, Election Projection (poll aggregators), Nate Silver (modeler), the bookies and the various futures.

Oh yes, Karl Rove says Romney will win with 285 EV. His map is my “worst case” map, minus Ohio.

Oh yes, he predicted that Obama would get 338 Electoral votes in 2008; he ended up with 365. Nate Silver had predicted 353.

Back to now: read the pundits predictions here.

Note: mostly the Republicans are saying: “hey, the polls are wrong”. :-)

A reminder: my “expected value” call is 303-235 Obama, with a low end of 271-267 and a high end of 347-191. All of my maps give Obama Ohio.

November 6, 2012 Posted by | 2012 election, politics, politics/social, poll, statistics | Leave a comment

5 November 2012: calm before the storm?

Workout notes
Heavy legs from yesterday, but I had enough in the tank to do a weight workout followed by 2 easy miles on the treadmill (10:10/9:00); I last .5 mile was 8:30.

Weights: shortened a bit:
pull ups: 5 sets of 10; last set was broken 7/3 (change grip to rotated)
rotator cuff
bench: 10 x 135, 3 sets of 5 x 170.

military: 2 sets of 15 x 45; curls: 2 sets of 10 x 30 dumbbell, 2 sets of 10 x EZ curl (one set with 10/5 on each side, one set with 2 10′s on each side)
pull downs: 3 sets of 10; 1 with 162.5, 2 with 150
rows: 3 sets of 10 x 60 lb. Also crunches.

Politics
My favorite Obama ad of this election season:

This is a good Dave Koehler ad:

Cheri Bustos

The bookies
Election odds:

3 bookies have it 1/4 or 4/17 Obama
5 have it 2/9 Obama
1 has it 21/100 Obama
7 bookies have it 1/5 Obama
2 have it 2/11 Obama
1 has it 1/6 Obama

November 5, 2012 Posted by | 2012 election, Barack Obama, Cheri Bustos, Political Ad, politics, poll, running, weight training | Leave a comment

More Election Stuff: the state at 2 November (Friday Prior)

No workout this morning though I might stretch this afternoon.

Politics
Some people are making the case for Romney because if Obama wins, the Republicans in the House will do nothing but obstruct. Don’t give into political blackmail!

Jobs numbers are due out later this morning. My prediction: if they are good, the Republicans will cry “foul, the books are cooked”. If they are bad, they’ll go after Obama.

The race: First the Presidential Race, Next: IL-17
Prediction Maps
Electoral Vote

Election Projection

Intrade

Nate Silver

Odds/Percentages
Nate Silver: 80 percent.

Intrade Odds (these change by the hour!)

Iowa Electronic

The bookies

(note: Romney “3″ means you risk one dollar to win 3, or he has a 1/(3+1) = 1/4 chance; Obama 1/4 means you risk 4 dollars to win 1; this means Obama has a 4/(4+1) = 4/5 chance. The chances add to more than 1 since the house is supposed to always win)

IL-17 Race
The polls don’t look so good for Bustos:
(election projection)

But the Election Projection model gives Bustos a tiny edge due to Obama doing so well in the district (about a 15 point lead)

It is going to come down to turn out. I’ll work some on Saturday so I can work on election day.

November 2, 2012 Posted by | 2012 election, economy, IL-17, politics, politics/social, poll, republicans | 2 Comments

Nate Silver’s Models and “expected value” versus “predicted value”, confidence intervals, p-values, etc.

Workout notes I ran in the morning (already recorded) and lifted over lunch:
rotator cuff
pullups: 15, 4 sets of 10
super sets of rows, curls and pull downs, 3 sets each: rows: 10 x 210 (Hammer machine, last one w/ rotated grip), pull downs: 10 x 165, last one with rotated grip, curls: 10 x 52.5 pulley
bench press: 10 x 135, 7 x 165, 6 x 170, 5 x 175 (did ab crunches to rest)
super sets: 2 sets of military presses, incline: incline: 8 x 135, 7 x 135, military: 15 x 45 dumbbells (supported)

I tire out too easily; I really thought I could do more sets of 15 of pull ups.

Mathematics and Physics
It looks as if the mathematics of bifurcating trajectories will enable physicists to make progress on unifying quantum mechanics and relativity theory.

I’ll have to take a look.

Statistics and the 2012 Presidential Election
Yes, I’ve been following the “horse race” very closely and think that I have some stuff that I can use to explain things to students.
For one: have studied “confidence intervals” and “hypothesis testing”. Nate Silver’s recent article has some examples of these:

First of all: what are these?

Each one of these is a so-called “90 percent confidence interval” that shows “Obama’s true support” in these states (or Congressional districts, in the case of NE-2 and ME-2).
What this means: we are 90 percent certain that Obama’s true support falls somewhere in this interval. Example: in New Mexico, it is 2.3 to 15.5. In Montana, Romney’s support is between 2.2 and 17.1.

Note: the widths of these intervals are a bit different; that is because the respective distributions have different “standard deviations” and the higher the number of people polled, the smaller the standard deviation. A 90 percent confidence interval is about plus/minus 1.645 standard deviations.

Now note that each interval is colored blue, red or mixed. An “all blue” band means that we are 90 percent sure that President Obama leads in that region. An “all red” means that we are 90 percent sure that Governor Romney leads. If a band is mixed color (Wisconsin to North Carolina (mostly)) that means that we do NOT have 90 percent confidence that Mr. Obama or Mr. Romney leads.

This is an example of “hypothesis testing”; if a band is all blue we reject the “null hypothesis” that the race is tied and conclude that one candidate is ahead with 90 percent confidence.

However, unless the dividing line of the colors is right in the middle of the band, we can make a probability estimate of who is ahead.
Let’s look at Wisconsin. We see just a tip of red there and a number that says 88 percent. What this means: if we were willing to settle for being 88 percent confident, we could concluded that Obama was ahead there. In North Carolina, if we wanted to settle for 81 percent confidence, we’d conclude that Romney was ahead.

Now write these percentages as decimals and subtract them from 1. That is called “the p-value”. For Wisconsin: we’d have 1-.88 = .12 and we’d say “P = .12″ for a “one-tailed test”.
For North Carolina: 1-.81 = .19 so we’d say P = .19.

Predicted values versus expected values
Nate Silver also says this:

Mr. Obama is not a sure thing, by any means. It is a close race. His chances of holding onto his Electoral College lead and converting it into another term are equivalent to the chances of an N.F.L. team winning when it leads by a field goal with three minutes left to play in the fourth quarter. There are plenty of things that could go wrong, and sometimes they will.

But it turns out that an N.F.L. team that leads by a field goal with three minutes left to go winds up winning the game 79 percent of the time. Those were Mr. Obama’s chances in the FiveThirtyEight forecast as of Wednesday: 79 percent.

First about that NFL stat: if that sounds strange, let’s remember that the 79 percent is the probability that the team that is down by 3 with first and 10 at its own 20 with 3 minutes to go in the game loses the game. That doesn’t mean “never catches up”; they could catch up, and even go ahead and still lose the game. This is “total probability of losing the game.

Another way of seeing it: this is like an average NBA player taking a free throw; if they make it, Obama wins. If they miss, Romney wins.

That puts it into some perspective. The reason: we are trying to predict the outcome of THIS single election. That is a “predictive value” problem.

Now if we were having this election in, say, 1000 parallel universes with roughly the same conditions, Obama would win close to 80 percent of such elections. This would be an “expected value”: the percentage of Obama wins over a large number of cases with similar conditions.

So if the election were decided by a “majority of election outcomes over a large number of trials”, well, this election WOULD be over and THAT would be an “expected value” problem.
But this election is valid on this universe only, and that is a predictive value problem. Hence BOTH campaigns are sweating at the moment.

November 1, 2012 Posted by | 2012 election, mathematics, physics, politics, poll, statistics, weight training | Leave a comment

Deer in Bradley Park and the State of the Presidential Race

Workout notes 4.2 mile Cornstalk (classic) route; 59 minutes for the walk. I saw a deer near the old iron bridge. That was sort of cool. And yes, the weather was very cool; this is the beginning of the “tons of sweaty gear” season.

Politics
Bookie odds: mostly 75-80 percent for Obama (1/3, 2/7, 3/10, 1/4)
Intrade: 64.5 for Obama. Note: in terms of “electoral votes for Obama”, the 50 percent mark (as of last night) was 290 EV.
Nate Silver 77.4 percent.

So what does this all mean?
Nate Silver’s model: though it was painstakingly crafted and very competently designed, it is impossible to properly verify. We’d need to see the model in action over 100′s of times and, well, there aren’t 100′s of presidential elections with roughly the same circumstances.

And: it is probabilistic. Even if you say that Obama has an 83 percent chance of winning reelection (and the chances are NOT that high) this would mean that you could model the election results by the roll of a die: say, Obama wins if 1-5 comes up and Romney wins with a 6. And we know that 6′s do show up.

Betting lines an Intrade these are models of what the public thinks, period. Accurate? Possibly. Foolproof? Hardly.

So, both campaigns are sweating bullets right now, though Obama’s campaign is in better position than Romney’s. Not in commanding position, but in better position; the Romney team would gladly trade places. But Romney still has a bona-fide shot at winning.

October 31, 2012 Posted by | 2012 election, Peoria, Peoria/local, politics/social, poll, statistics, walking | Leave a comment

Republican Paranoid World View….

Nate Silver is getting slammed by the right wing for what his models are predicting.

Yes, it is perfectly acceptable to say “hey, your model formula is bad and here is why….”. But that isn’t what is happening:

Nate’s model continued to show an Obama edge even after Denver, and has shown that edge widening over the past couple of weeks.

This could be wrong, obviously. And we’ll find out on Election Day. But the methodology has been very clear, and all the election modelers have been faithful to their models, letting the numbers fall where they may.

Yet the right — and we’re not talking about the fringe here, we’re talking about mainstream commentators and publications — has been screaming “bias”! They know, just know, that Nate must be cooking the books. How do they know this? Well, his results look good for Obama, so it must be a cheat. Never mind the fact that Nate tells us all exactly how he does it, and that he hasn’t changed the formula at all.

This is, of course, reminiscent of the attack on the Bureau of Labor Statistics — not to mention the attacks on climate science and much more. On the right, apparently, there is no such thing as an objective calculation. Everything must have a political motive.

Conservatives are notorious for this these-a-days. Witness how they view evolution:

Why does it matter that almost half the country rejects the overwhelming evidence of evolution, with or without the hand of God? After all, Americans are famously ignorant of many things—like where Iran is or when World War II took place—and we are still here. One reason is that rejecting evolution expresses more than an inability to think critically; it relies on a fundamentally paranoid worldview. Think what the world would have to be like for evolution to be false. Almost every scientist on earth would have to be engaged in a fraud so complex and extensive it involved every field from archaeology, paleontology, geology and genetics to biology, chemistry and physics. And yet this massive concatenation of lies and delusion is so full of obvious holes that a pastor with a Bible-college degree or a homeschooling parent with no degree at all can see right through it. A flute discovered in southern Germany is 43,000 years old? Not bloody likely. It’s probably some old bone left over from an ancient barbecue. To celebrate its fifth anniversary, the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky, has installed a holographic exhibit of Lucy, the famous proto-human fossil, showing how she was really just a few-thousand-year-old ape after all.

Patricia Princehouse, director of the evolutionary biology program at Case Western Reserve University, laughed when I suggested to her that the Gallup survey shows that education doesn’t work. “There isn’t much evolution education in the schools,” she told me. “Most have no more than a lesson or two, and it isn’t presented as connected with the rest of biology.” In fact, students may not even get that much exposure. Nationally, Princehouse said, at least 13 percent of biology teachers teach “young earth” creationism (not just humans but the earth itself is only 10,000 years old or thereabouts), despite laws forbidding it, and some 60 percent teach a watered-down version of evolution. They have to get along with their neighbors, after all. In Tennessee, home of the Scopes trial, a new law actually makes teaching creationism legal. “No one takes them to court,” Princehouse told me, “because creationism is so popular. Those who object are isolated and afraid of reprisals.” People tend to forget that Clarence Darrow lost the Scopes trial; until the Supreme Court ruled otherwise in 1968, it was illegal to teach evolution in public schools in about half a dozen states.

Kenneth Miller, a biology professor at Brown University and practicing Catholic who is a leading voice against creationism, agrees with Princehouse. “Science education has been remarkably ineffective,” he told me. “Those of us in the scientific community who are religious have a tremendous amount of work to do in the faith community.” Why bother? “There’s a potential for great harm when nearly half the population rejects the central organizing principle of the biological sciences. It’s useful for us as a species to understand that we are a recent appearance on this planet and that 99.9 percent of all species that have ever existed have gone extinct.” Evangelical parents may care less that their children learn science than that they avoid going to hell, but Miller points out that many of the major challenges facing the nation—and the world—are scientific in nature: climate change and energy policy, for instance. “To have a near majority essentially rejecting the scientific method is very troubling,” he says. And to have solidly grounded science waved away as political and theological propaganda could not come at a worse time. “Sea-level rise” is a “left-wing term,” said Virginia state legislator Chris Stolle, a Republican, successfully urging its replacement in a state-commissioned study by the expression “recurrent flooding.”

Today’s Republicans are basically a whiny, paranoid group that fully embraces the culture of victimhood. Remember when THEY were the steely eyed objective people who pointed to the data and statistics and were called “heartless” for doing so?

Now, intellectually, these people are a complete joke. I really don’t know what happened to them.

Yes, we do have our kooks; I remember the anger that came forth when new mammogram protocols were announced; many of my liberal friends didn’t understand the statistical risks of increased radiation exposure or of increased anxiety due to false positives, nor were they interested in statistical measures like “prediction power” of a test.

But mostly the Democratic political leadership runs away from our kooks.

October 29, 2012 Posted by | 2012 election, politics, politics/social, poll, republicans, statistics | Leave a comment

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 651 other followers