Slate/Votecastr real time election projections

[bilaps]

I've read on Politico that Votecastr will start publishing some information starting at 8 ET.

[bilaps]

I'm confused as to where this is actually found. This thread links to an old article about the project but the article itself doesn't show a link that is obviously to a result page. What am I missing?

It should be on the first link on votecastr.us i think. Not the bottom slate link but the upper one.

[bilaps]

you might have to use a VPN if you're outside the USA. I am currently and I couldn't access it without one.

I can access http://votecastr.us/ , and the button link to "Slate" appears clickable, but it still links to nothing (javascript:void(0)) for me.

same for me

[bilaps]

So, nothing is published yet or we can't see it? I guess this happens when you work with Slate

[bilaps]

Let me be the first to put it out there. Not great providing editorial judgment to slate.

[bilaps]

VICE stream has started.

They will not have NC numbers. It's really strange decision. The guy said they regret it now but still..

[bilaps]

So, this is projection on 1,53m votes in Colorado. Anyone can tell me for who is this good? Who votes on election day more in CO, D or R?

[bilaps]

Yep Clinton 46.0 - Trump 44.0 - Johnson 7.4

Where are you seeing that?

VICE news stream

[bilaps]

Based on their model Clinton leads Trump by 2.7 points in Colorado with 54.4% expected votes in.

Where did you find the exact numbers?

[bilaps]

I think that this model is inaccurate. They know only turnout and project results based on pre-election polling. In real exit polls they ask voters after they vote, and here they don't aske anyone about anything. This makes no sense to me.

This is the model that big campaigns have used for years, and one of the consultants on this project is Obama's former director of microtargeting. That was a very successful electoral forecast model. It's also the model used by networks to make state calls. Exit polls are less accurate in general since their sample size is smaller than this method.

Exit polls cannot be less accurate because they interview people after voting, and only real voters, not likely one.

This model is also based on real voters. The CO Secretary of State identifies everyone who voted by name and location in their database, just not who they voted for. The statistics are huge. It's better than a small sample of exit voters where you know who they voted for.

I agree. But I have a question, is there some sort of margin of error like in the polls?

[bilaps]

Is CLinton +2 in Colorado now, good news or bad news for her?

The GOP had a 7 point lead in the early vote in 2014 and split the Senate/Gov races. Both were tight. So, this is a 9 point shift from 2014 to Clinton, all else being equal.

Also, the GOP had a slight edge in registered voters who voted early (less than 1%), so this would mean that NPA is leaning Dem a smidge, if their model is right, which is very much in doubt.

Did GOP had a 7 point lead in the early VOTE or PARTY ID? Huge difference.

[bilaps]

I think we'll get big updates in 5min from other states

[bilaps]

Nevada 69,1%

Clinton 46,7
Trump 45,2

Wisconsin 24,7%

Clinton 52,7%
Trump 40,3%

Ohio 29,7%

Clinton 47,9%
Trump 43,9%

Florida 49,2%

Clinton 48,3%
Trump 45,5%

Iowa around 40%

Clinton up 5%

[bilaps]

Well CNN poll had Trump ahead in Clark. I think it's bullsh**t but if this shows only 6% Clinton lead there then who knows.

[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?

[bilaps]

VoteCastr ‏@votecastr 9m9 minutes ago

Our Nevada results showed Jill Stein with ~1.7. She was in our survey: we messed up and we are correcting the Nevada results accordingly.

[bilaps]

Nate Cohn article on this: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/08/upshot/you-may-need-a-strong-stomach-for-the-pitfalls-of-real-time-election-projections.html?_r=0

"Don't throw up because of the Slate/Votecastr live projections"

yeah, like we didn't throw up when his model showed clinton +7 in NC

[bilaps]

They will have new numbers in about half an hour

[bilaps]

This thing is a sh**t show and completely useless.

so don't follow it. you can always follow dems are hitting 10523532% in miami dade or orange county, great news for hillary feeds

[bilaps]

Updated data. Looks great for Clinton. Lead everywhere.

[bilaps]

Eh... PA and NH aren't looking great, and NV still looks weird, but yes, OH, IA, FL and WI looking very good for Hillary.

88k in PA and 10k in NH is good for her

[bilaps]

If there weren't for Florida numbers, I could think this should be nice for Trump with NV,OH and IA numbers. But, with FL it's a ball game.

[bilaps]

I don't understand why they "estimate" who people are voting for instead of asking people...

They asked them before election in polls with huge sample sizes.

[bilaps]

Clinton now up almost 300k in Florida. I am starting to doubt this one.

[bilaps]

It appears the Slate site updated FL total votes now... with Clinton just under 90k votes away from Obama's total in 2012. Trump still 270k away from Romney total.

If this model is correct, the polls were very wrong in FL.

If it's correct looks like polls underestimated Clinton everywhere or overestimated Trump everywhere. Based on this model, Clinton will win FL by at least 3 or 4 and she could win both OH and IA in a very very close race.