Slate/Votecastr real time election projections

[win win]

does anyone know the breakdown for FL in 2012 at this point?

[Erich Maria Remarque]

They are missing votes both there and in Florida.  

I know they are. But they are using voter file for EV in all states, right?

[Devout Centrist]

does anyone know the breakdown for FL in 2012 at this point?

I don't think it was lean D at this point. Duval is no longer a tossup too.

[JerryArkansas]

They are missing votes both there and in Florida. 

I know they are. But they are using voter file for EV in all states, right?

If it was a good model it should.  Considering how bad it is so far I doubt it.

[Dereich]

If the Duval numbers hold up, Trump doesn't win the state. Duval going D would mean good things for black turnout and bad things for Trump's ability to get suburban whites to the polls for him. It should be an area where he'd gain on Romney if he was going to win the state.

[The Free North]

They are missing votes both there and in Florida. 

I know they are. But they are using voter file for EV in all states, right?

If it was a good model it should.  Considering how bad it is so far I doubt it.

What, specifically, has been so awful about it so far? Do we know there are systematic issues in the algorithms they are running or the data they are pulling? We know some of the data is a bit off perhaps, but do you have tonights results to compare the current projections too? Because if you don't I really don't think its wise to label it as a 'good' or 'bad' model at this point.

[Devout Centrist]

If the Duval numbers hold up, Trump doesn't win the state. Duval going D would mean good things for black turnout and bad things for Trump's ability to get suburban whites to the polls for him. It should be an area where he'd gain on Romney if he was going to win the state.

If Duval is even remotely close to lean D, Florida is gone completely for Trump.

[Sigh144]

How realistic should we be taking this Slate thing?

You cant even see the numbers for counties in the southern portion of a given state because the site isnt made properly.

Stein in Nevada?

I like that it has Clinton winning everywhere really but still seems like a joke.

[win win]

hey guys, none of the states besides CO is actually using real voting data

[Sigh144]

Also, Ive noticed that in this model its showing Trump over performing romney in Orange, Osceola, yet under performing him in Duval?

How likely is that to be true?

[Eraserhead]

I just think this whole thing looks like trash. It's a failed experiment.

Or its the greatest thing ever and we'll be making fun of people who thought it was garbage for weeks after this is all over.

Good luck with that.

[JerryArkansas]

They are missing votes both there and in Florida. 

I know they are. But they are using voter file for EV in all states, right?

If it was a good model it should.  Considering how bad it is so far I doubt it.

What, specifically, has been so awful about it so far? Do we know there are systematic issues in the algorithms they are running or the data they are pulling? We know some of the data is a bit off perhaps, but do you have tonights results to compare the current projections too? Because if you don't I really don't think its wise to label it as a 'good' or 'bad' model at this point.

It is missing three million votes in Florida, about one hundred thousand in Nevada.  Has people as options that aren't on the ballot, and options that are are not mention.  Any person who makes a model should know these things and have them in it.

[The Free North]

Also, Ive noticed that in this model its showing Trump over performing romney in Orange, Osceola, yet under performing him in Duval?

How likely is that to be true?

No one has any idea since what you're seeing is early votes and a lot of noise.

[The Free North]

They are missing votes both there and in Florida. 

I know they are. But they are using voter file for EV in all states, right?

If it was a good model it should.  Considering how bad it is so far I doubt it.

What, specifically, has been so awful about it so far? Do we know there are systematic issues in the algorithms they are running or the data they are pulling? We know some of the data is a bit off perhaps, but do you have tonights results to compare the current projections too? Because if you don't I really don't think its wise to label it as a 'good' or 'bad' model at this point.

It is missing three million votes in Florida, about one hundred thousand in Nevada.  Has people as options that aren't on the ballot, and options that are are not mention.  Any person who makes a model should know these things and have them in it.

By 'missing' I assume you are referring to the voter registration numbers they have?

[Erich Maria Remarque]

So far they ONLY used EV data and they are using voter fill.

They are still processing Florida EV data and maybe other states as well. Nevada?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[bilaps]

They are missing votes both there and in Florida. 

I know they are. But they are using voter file for EV in all states, right?

If it was a good model it should.  Considering how bad it is so far I doubt it.

What, specifically, has been so awful about it so far? Do we know there are systematic issues in the algorithms they are running or the data they are pulling? We know some of the data is a bit off perhaps, but do you have tonights results to compare the current projections too? Because if you don't I really don't think its wise to label it as a 'good' or 'bad' model at this point.

It is missing three million votes in Florida, about one hundred thousand in Nevada.  Has people as options that aren't on the ballot, and options that are are not mention.  Any person who makes a model should know these things and have them in it.

it will update those numbers, are you an idiot?

[muon2]

They are missing votes both there and in Florida. 

I know they are. But they are using voter file for EV in all states, right?

If it was a good model it should.  Considering how bad it is so far I doubt it.

What, specifically, has been so awful about it so far? Do we know there are systematic issues in the algorithms they are running or the data they are pulling? We know some of the data is a bit off perhaps, but do you have tonights results to compare the current projections too? Because if you don't I really don't think its wise to label it as a 'good' or 'bad' model at this point.

It's almost impossible to talk about how good the model is until the polls close in a specific state. At that point the "game" is over and the model should forecast the result well before the networks do. The exception is CO where the votes are cast by mail so they should be coming in as an unbiased sample so that is the best test of the model before polls close.

[The Free North]

They are missing votes both there and in Florida. 

I know they are. But they are using voter file for EV in all states, right?

If it was a good model it should.  Considering how bad it is so far I doubt it.

What, specifically, has been so awful about it so far? Do we know there are systematic issues in the algorithms they are running or the data they are pulling? We know some of the data is a bit off perhaps, but do you have tonights results to compare the current projections too? Because if you don't I really don't think its wise to label it as a 'good' or 'bad' model at this point.

It's almost impossible to talk about how good the model is until the polls close in a specific state. At that point the "game" is over and the model should forecast the result well before the networks do. The exception is CO where the votes are cast by mail so they should be coming in as an unbiased sample so that is the best test of the model before polls close.

Well that was my point. It seems a bit unwise to talk about the strength or weakness of a model before we have any substantive results to compare it to and while we can nitpick things about its process and data input, there is nothing beyond that we can sink our teeth into. I have no idea how good this data is, but I don't think we can throw it out the window right now.

[JerryArkansas]

They are missing votes both there and in Florida. 

I know they are. But they are using voter file for EV in all states, right?

If it was a good model it should.  Considering how bad it is so far I doubt it.

What, specifically, has been so awful about it so far? Do we know there are systematic issues in the algorithms they are running or the data they are pulling? We know some of the data is a bit off perhaps, but do you have tonights results to compare the current projections too? Because if you don't I really don't think its wise to label it as a 'good' or 'bad' model at this point.

It is missing three million votes in Florida, about one hundred thousand in Nevada.  Has people as options that aren't on the ballot, and options that are are not mention.  Any person who makes a model should know these things and have them in it.

it will update those numbers, are you an idiot?

It has been 3 hours and those early votes are still not there.

[Angrie]

Haha, Dems were OK with CO projection, where Hillary did much better than Obama, but now it a trash because of Nevada

CO is not a projection, it is the modeled vote of individual people matched against the voter file who have already actually voted.

This is apparently different from other states where they do not have voter file individual level data on who has voted, but only know the total # of people who have voted in particular precincts (but not necessarily which individuals have voted in those precincts).

And including Stein in Nevada is of course obviously a dumb screw up.

And there is a difference in what early vote means in different states.

So basically there are large differences in what they are reporting for different states.

But those with large EV, as Nevada? Does they not use voter file for EV there?

As I undrstand they use voter file for all EV?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So it is projection. By using voter file. Other only by their model of turnout and polls

Well, it is not a projection of who is going to win the state. It is a projection of how the particular individuals that they know already voted have voted. That projection is extrapolated from a large phone poll (much larger sample size than normal polls) they did before the election, calling people in the voter file. Unlike in a regular poll, they record who each individual says they are going to support. They can then cross reference this with all the demographic information they have about each voter who answered the poll in the voter file - things they have hard data for like age, gender, vote history, and other things that are not filled out by the voter on their voter registration form in most states and so are usually modeled (like race and ethnicity), and possibly other commercial data on each person. Then basically they run more sophisticated versions of a regression of which candidate people support against their demographic characteristics. This then gives them estimated probabilities that each individual in the voter file supports each candidate.

But they can only do this when they have individual level data on which particular people have voted (like they apparently do for CO, but not other states).

So for other states where they only have a raw total count of how many people voted in each precinct, they basically just take the average support score of registered voters in that precinct multiplied by their turnout score, and then that gives them an estimate of what the vote is in that precinct. Since this is not individual level data of who has actually voted, this can be biased, since it relies on people accurately self-reporting their likelihood to vote (and self-reported voting intention is not accurate).

What I am describing is basically what Obama's campaign did. I am presuming that they are in fact doing the same thing, since that is what they say they are doing, and since Sasha Issenberg is apparently a founder of Votecastr.

So the bottom line is it is (presuming it is done properly, like Obama's campaign did) very accurate for the voters/states you have individual level turnout data for, but less so for the voters/states that you only have aggregated turnout data for.

[Speed of Sound]

They are missing votes both there and in Florida. 

I know they are. But they are using voter file for EV in all states, right?

If it was a good model it should.  Considering how bad it is so far I doubt it.

What, specifically, has been so awful about it so far? Do we know there are systematic issues in the algorithms they are running or the data they are pulling? We know some of the data is a bit off perhaps, but do you have tonights results to compare the current projections too? Because if you don't I really don't think its wise to label it as a 'good' or 'bad' model at this point.

It is missing three million votes in Florida, about one hundred thousand in Nevada.  Has people as options that aren't on the ballot, and options that are are not mention.  Any person who makes a model should know these things and have them in it.

it will update those numbers, are you an idiot?

It has been 3 hours and those early votes are still not there.

And given that's its whole shtick is to be, you know, LIVE coverage, not terribly impressive.

[The Free North]

Haha, Dems were OK with CO projection, where Hillary did much better than Obama, but now it a trash because of Nevada

CO is not a projection, it is the modeled vote of individual people matched against the voter file who have already actually voted.

This is apparently different from other states where they do not have voter file individual level data on who has voted, but only know the total # of people who have voted in particular precincts (but not necessarily which individuals have voted in those precincts).

And including Stein in Nevada is of course obviously a dumb screw up.

And there is a difference in what early vote means in different states.

So basically there are large differences in what they are reporting for different states.

But those with large EV, as Nevada? Does they not use voter file for EV there?

As I undrstand they use voter file for all EV?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So it is projection. By using voter file. Other only by their model of turnout and polls

Well, it is not a projection of who is going to win the state. It is a projection of how the particular individuals that they know already voted have voted. That projection is extrapolated from a large phone poll (much larger sample size than normal polls) they did before the election, calling people in the voter file. Unlike in a regular poll, they record who each individual says they are going to support. They can then cross reference this with all the demographic information they have about each voter who answered the poll in the voter file - things they have hard data for like age, gender, vote history, and other things that are not filled out by the voter on their voter registration form in most states and so are usually modeled (like race and ethnicity), and possibly other commercial data on each person. Then basically they run more sophisticated versions of a regression of which candidate people support against their demographic characteristics. This then gives them estimated probabilities that each individual in the voter file supports each candidate.

But they can only do this when they have individual level data on which particular people have voted (like they apparently do for CO, but not other states).

So for other states where they only have a raw total count of how many people voted in each precinct, they basically just take the average support score of registered voters in that precinct multiplied by their turnout score, and then that gives them an estimate of what the vote is in that precinct. Since this is not individual level data of who has actually voted, this can be biased, since it relies on people accurately self-reporting their likelihood to vote (and self-reported voting intention is not accurate).

What I am describing is basically what Obama's campaign did. I am presuming that they are in fact doing the same thing, since that is what they say they are doing, and since Sasha Issenberg is apparently a founder of Votecastr.

So the bottom line is it is (presuming it is done properly, like Obama's campaign did) very accurate for the voters/states you have individual level turnout data for, but less so for the voters/states that you only have aggregated turnout data for.

Spot on, great post.

[SirMuxALot]

Just read their "How It Works" article again.

Only now do I see that this has ZERO exit poll component. This is just yet another pre-election day poll masquerading as actual voting data.

So much for all their hype about breaking the exit poll embargo.

[Angrie]

Local officials collect and report information about who voted early in each state, and VoteCastr then compares that public info with its own private early voter files.

The key point that is somewhat glossed over is that the "information" that the "local officials" report can be different in different states. In some states, that information may be a list of the voter ID numbers of which specific individuals have already voted. For other states, that "information" may just be a report that 578 voters have voted early in precinct 42, without specifying which particular voters it is who have voted.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

But they can only do this when they have individual level data on which particular people have voted (like they apparently do for CO, but not other states).

Are you sure, as I understand, they project early voting in other stated as well.

Projection of early voters. I didn't say anything about projection of who win the state. It is pretty meaningless.

But we can compare their projection of early voting with polls. Some polls ask voters who already voted. For instance if their projections is much Trump-friendly = polls probably underestimate him. And vice versa.