Posted on 07/24/2010 8:54:50 AM PDT by InterceptPoint
We're going to do a review of our list in the next couple of weeks. There are a few races where our "Experts" have moved their assessment from SAFE D or LIKELY D to LEANS D. If we see that LEANS D rating from more than one "Expert" the race is likely to make it to the Master List. But really good poll numbers might do it also if the polls are legit. We're starting to put some energy into tracking the polls and good polling tends to wake our "Experts" from their normal slumber. I think that's what happened this week to Rothenberg.
But...
”GOP Gain” – The difference between the GOP EV and the current number of seats (179), rounded down.
Why round down? Why not just round off. I'd be glad to take a 30.51 and call it a 32. ;)
Next week, I'll resize the chart to not be so big when posted.
-PJ
No blood, no foul.
Have a nice weekend.
As a point....
There are Cumulative Distribution Functions (CDF’s) and Probability Distribution Functions (PDF’s). There are no Cumulative Probability Distributions. What you showed was a graph of the CDF (sort of).
It has been in my tagline for two years. 2010 will be a 100 seat TSUNAMI! Forget the 30 seat nonsense. No one is saying 50 seats.... I say 100 Seats!
The single greatest realignment of power away from the Democrats since the Southern Delegation walked out to form their own nation in 1861!
The cumulative probability distribution shows the probability of the outcome being that result or less.
Perhaps you're thinking of something else?
-PJ
-PJ
Thanks for the ping.
Brown carried MA 10 by 20 points and it leans democrat?
Seems to me this whole chart leans from a baseline favorable to the Democrats and being a normal election cycle I could understand it. THIS IS NOT A NORMAL CYCLE and the probabilities of it being anything remotely so are really unfounded and unmeasurable.
What I measure is the despiration displayed by the Dem base in calling up the racist crap this early and in all reality as early as the Obamacare vote. The race card is always an issue that is kept in dry storage until October as the final jab. This is waayyyy to early for them to bring out their last cannonball.
Bookmarked. Good info and thanks for the ping!
No they are not used interchangeably by people who know what they are doing.
The CDF must integrate to 1 over the range of the CDF. It is a precise mathematical definition used in probability theory.
There is no such thing as a Cumulative Probability Function.
-PJ
Again, there is no such thing as a “Cumulative Probability Distribution”. It’s right up there with Pink Unicorns.
What you showed was something that starts at zero and increases monotonically to 1. THAT is a Cumulative Distribution Function (as I remember those are the only two requirements for both continuous and discrete CDFs). Just wiki the darn thing and learn.
Here, I’ll even do it for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumulative_distribution_function#Properties
Question: Working from the Master List, are you counting the GOP Holds into the GOP Gain column?
I’m not sure if you mentioned that or not. There are 9 seats on the list that are now GOP. We need to hold them, plus flip 39 currently DEM seats to achieve 218.
But, since you asked to be off this ping list, I guess it doesn't really matter what I call it.
A rose by any other name would still smell as sweet.
-PJ
-PJ
The circles that you frequent must be full of people that produce power point graphs for those who don’t understand what they are seeing.
I pointed out one small thing that you could have, all by yourself, googled and learned from. Instead you refused to take personal responsibility for what you wrote (”In the circles that I frequent”) and tried to protect your original conception of your credibility.
Sorry guy but blaming others doesn’t make up for a mistake in judgment.
The fact that you talk about things you don’t really understand is one reason why I think this ping list is dumb, D U M B, dumb. Another is that using ensemble averages of data based on different sampling techniques is the oldest dumb mistake of sophomoric self proclaimed statisticians. Since you’re giving me the brush off, I can only assume you don’t want to know about your errors in trying to make do without a formal understanding of the Logistics Regression Function.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.