Results from Alabama and Mississippi

The polls were all wrong in the Deep South, so neither Nate Silver or I did very well, turning in our worst performances since Iowa, the other huge upset win for Sick Rantorum. That said, in this contest our algorithms are competing against each other, and I pulled off two low scoring wins.  Here are the results.

Mississippi
------------
Santorum 32.9% (I gain 0.6%)
Gingrich 31.3% (I gain 1.1%)
Romney 32.9% (I lose 0.8%)
Paul 4.4% (I gain 0.3%)
None of the Above 1.1% (break even)
Hubbard 85.0%, 83.8%

Alabama
------------
Santorum 34.5% (I gain 0.4%) 
Gingrich 29.3% (I gain 1%)
Romney 29.0% (I gain 1%)
Paul 5.0% (I lose 1.3%)
None of the Above 2.2% (I gain 0.3%)
Hubbard 85.6%, Silver 84.2%

Simply put, we overrated everybody in the field except Senator Rick.  We also underrated None Of The Above.

The news will be about these two victories and ignore the fact that R-Money picked up more delegates last night than the other candidates by winning big in Hawaii and American Samoa.

Delegates won on 3/13

R-Money 40

Rantorum 35

Old Cheerful 25

Dr. Ron 0

 

The boa constrictor continues to squeeze. Newt has said many times he won't quit, but even a guy as cheerful as he is has to be getting a little glum by now. This next week has a non-binding caucus in Missouri, a winner take all caucus in Puerto Rico and a direct election next Tuesday in Illinois.  I expect the polling companies to give a lot of data in Illinois and next to none in the other two contests. If that's the case, I'll be back to report on the prognostications a week from now.

Predictions for March 13:Primaries in Mississippi and Alabama

There are four contests today, primaries in Alabama and Mississippi and caucuses in Hawaii and American Samoa.  Polling companies only showed interest in the primaries and once again, my model for prediction goes head to head with Nate Silver's, this time in the two Southern states.  Here are the numbers, with my predicted percentage first and Silver's in parentheses second.

Mississippi
------------
Romney 34.5% (33.7%)
Gingrich 32.0% (33.2%)
Santorum 26.5% (25.9%)
Paul 7.0% (7.3%)
None of the Above 0.0% (-0.1%)

Alabama
------------
Gingrich 31.5% (32.2%)
Romney 31.0% (31.3%)
Santorum 28.5% (27.9%)
Paul 8.0% (7.3%)
None of the Above 1.0% (1.3%)

 

We agree on the basics, predicting victory for R-Money is Mississippi and Cheerful Old Newt in Alabama, Sick Rantorum in third in both races and Dr. Ron Paul a distant fourth in both.  As the numbers shake out, I'm bullish on Mitt and Rick in Ole Miss with the advantage that None of the Above can't be negative - it's like have a tiebreaker in pocket, while in Alabama, my model is bullish on Santorum and Paul.  Both of us are predicting close battles for first place based on the polling data, and it would not be truly startling if Gingrich or R-Money swept the South tonight.

 

I'll be back tomorrow with the results.  Currently, Silver and I are tied at 5-5 in the ten contests where we both made predictions. If we take the average of our ten predictions so far, Nate is ahead 89.6% to 89.3%.

So how is the election really going, Matty Boy?

Well, hypothetical question asker, here's the long and short of it. 

Mitt R-Money will be the Republican nominee on the first ballot, barring some stunning disaster.

After Super Tuesday, pundits were saying it wasn't impressive and he can't seal the deal because he didn't run the board.

That's just silly.

So far in essentially a four person race since things really started to matter, R-Money has garnered 40.5% of the popular vote and much more importantly, 55% of the delegates. He needs about 700 of 1500 remaining delegates to get the nomination, way less than half. Sick Rantorum would have to get on a massive hot streak and win 1,000 of the remaining delegates to pull out the upset, which means two out of every three from now on.

Ain't gonna happen.

And Cheerful Old Newt and Dr. Ron Paul have a combined chance of... wait, let me check the numbers... epsilon to win.

For non-mathematicians, epsilon means a number ridiculously close to zero that can't be said to be exactly zero.  All they need is toe tags, because both of them are dead meat.

Ron Paul doesn't quit because this is a crusade for him, not an election.

(photo by Vincent Yu/AP)

Newt doesn't quit beacuse of this odd looking grease weasel, billionaire casino owner Sheldon Adelson. Maybe it's just because I've grown up online reading Princess Sparkle Pony, but being a billionaire should mean getting better skin and hair care than this.

Adelson is Newt's Super PAC sugar daddy, so getting ads on the air is no problem. But R-Money has a Super PAC, too, and those ads effectively killed Cheerful Old Newt's chances of bouncing back. (Some observers say the moon base was Newt's true undoing, and that is certainly a major contributing factor.) For whatever reason, Adelson has taken a disliking to Sick Rantorum and promises to throw his support behind R-Money once Cheerful Old is out of the picture. In other words, instead of a knockout punch, the R-Money campaign is more like a boa constrictor, slowly squeezing the air out of its victims.

When it comes to the general election, this primary season hasn't been much help to R-Money's chances, but without a third party right wing candidate I think Mitt has a chance, though not even money at present. For exact numerical stuff, this is way too far away from November to give numbers that have any meaning at all.  Heck, I'm not confident about the predicting the primaries next Tuesday yet. But checking all the background information, from Gallup tracking down to Rush Limbaugh's woes - he has been a serious foe of Mitt's candidacy - R-Money is the Republican standard bearer whether they like him or not. Right now, he has to prove he's a better candidate than Michael Dukakis, let alone President Obama.

It's going to be a long year and I don't just mean 366 days.

Results of Super Tuesday: Predictions in Ohio, Georgia and Tennessee.

The final numbers are in for all ten races from last night, but there were only three states where there was enough data for both my model and Nate Silver's to predict the results candidate by candidate.  Without further ado, here are the numbers.

Ohio
------------
Romney 38.0% (both low, Silver gains 1.1%)
Santorum 37.1% (both low, I gain 0.2%)
Paul 9.2% (both high, Silver gains 1.2%)
Gingrich 14.6% (both high, Silver gains 0.4%)
NOTA 1.1% (I'm low, Nate's high, he gains 0.5%)
Final: Silver 91.6%, Hubbard 88.6%

Tennessee
------------Romney 28.1% (both high, I gain 1.1%)
Santorum 37.2% (both low, I gain 2.4%)
Paul 9.0% (I'm low, Silver's high, Silver 0.4% closer)
Gingrich 23.9% (I'm low, Silver's high, I'm 0.5% closer)
NOTA 1.7% (I'm high, Silver's low, I gain 0.5%)
Final: Hubbard 91.8%, Silver 87.4%

Georgia
------------Romney 25.9% (both low, Silver gains 1.0%)
Santorum 19.6% (both low, I gain 0.3%)
Paul 6.6% (both high, I gain 0.7%)
Gingrich 47.2% (both low, I gain 0.6%)
NOTA 0.7% (both high, Silver gains 0.8%) 

Final: Silver 94.8%, Hubbard 94.6%

Long story short: His model whipped mine but good in Ohio, mine whipped his in Tennessee and he beats me by the narrowest possible margin in Georgia.  (The tenths place is always even, because any tenth of a percent a prediction is too high for one candidate must be balanced by a tenth of a percent low someplace else.)  This brings the overall prediction battle record to five wins and five losses for each, a flat-footed tie.

No day from now on is going to have ten contests again and I don't know how avid the polling companies will be about covering the next contests. There are four contests this Saturday and four more next Tuesday and so far I have seen zero polls concerning any of them.  There might be some polling in Mississippi and Alabama, possibly in Kansas - though it's a Saturday caucus, which is kind of a double whammy - but I don't expect much data from the far-flung contests in Guam, Northern Marianas, Virgin Islands, American Samoa or even in Hawaii.

I will let you know the next time both Nate and I put up predictions head to head.

Predictions on Super Tuesday: Georgia, Ohio and Tennessee

The crystal ball is back and we have three key races where lots of polling companies gave us lots of data, much of it on this last weekend before the primaries.  There is enough data in Georgia, Ohio and Tennessee for my prediction model to go head to head with Nate Silver's in those states. The seven other races - Alaska, Oklahoma, Virginia, Vermont, Massachusetts, North Dakota and Idaho - either had no polling or too little for my tastes.

Here are the predictions in the three states, my number given first and Nate Silver's in parentheses.

Ohio
------------
Romney 35.5% (36.6%)
Santorum 34.5% (34.3%)Gingrich 17.0% (16.6%)
Paul 12.5% (11.3%)
NOTA 0.5% (1.2%) 

Silver and I do not disagree on position of the four candidates in any state. We also agree that Ohio is relatively close, but late polling makes R-Money a slim favorite over Sick Rantorum. Nate's position makes him bullish on Mitt and None of the Above, and there are large gaps in our predictions of Mitt and Ron Paul.

Tennessee
------------ 

Santorum 35.0% (32.6%)
Romney 30.0% (31.1%)  
Gingrich 22.0% (26.5%)
Paul 10.0% (9.7%)
NOTA 3.0% (0.1%) 

Another close race, but Silver's model makes it even closer than mine does. We have large disagreements on everybody but Ron Paul, so the result of this one is likely to be a landslide one way or the other in terms of prediction numbers.

Georgia
------------ 
Gingrich 46.5% (45.9%)
Romney 24.5% (25.5%)
Santorum 19.0% (18.7%)
Paul 8.0% (8.7%)
NOTA 2.0% (1.2%)

Again, my prediction model and Nate Silver's agree on the basic order of things and there are big gaps between the candidates, so any change to Newt > Mitt > Rick > Ron will be a big surprise.  I'm bullish on Cheerful Old Newt, Sick Rantorum and None of the Above.  The gaps in our predictions are relatively small, so this could be a close race between Nate and me, though it should be a landslide for Gingrich in the state he used to call home.

I'll be back tomorrow to report on results.  After seven matches, I lead 4-3.

No prediction based on a single poll.

Quick update: I didn't publish a prediction in Washington state and neither did Nate Silver. Had I used my model with only the PPP poll, I would have been about 77.1% correct, a grade of C instead of the B+ to A- grades I expect when more data is available.  The PPP poll had Sick Rantorum beating Dr. Ron Paul - the only candidate with a key to the TARDIS - handily. Instead, it was Paul barely out-polling Sen. Rick and Gingrich completely out of the running, his usual outcome.

There will be enough data for some predictions before Super Tuesday.

Results for Prognostications #8 and #9: The Michigan and Arizona primaries

While Mitt R-Money won both races last night, Nate Silver and I split in terms of closeness of prognostication.  I lost in Michigan by over-rating Ron Paul by a bunch, while Nate lost Arizona by predicting the None of the Above vote would be non-existent.  Here are the numbers.

Michigan

Romney 41.1%(Both of us low, Silver gains by 1.0%)

 Santorum 37.9%(I'm low by 0.4%, Silver is 0.2% high. Silver picks up 0.2%) 

Paul 11.6%(Both of us too high. Silver picks up a whopping 1.8%)

Gingrich 6.5%(Again, both of us high. I beat Silver by 0.4%)

None of the above 2.9%(Both of us low. I'm 0.2% closer)

 

Final prognostication score: Silver 91.6%, Hubbard 89.2%

 

Arizona 

Romney 47.3%(Both of us low, Silver gains by 0.4%)

  Santorum 26.6%(Both of us high. Silver picks up 0.2%)

Gingrich 16.2%(Again, both of us high. I beat Silver by 0.7%)  

Paul 8.4%(Both of us too high. I gain 0.2%)

None of the above 1.5%(Both of us low. I'm 1.1% closer)

 

Final prognostication score: Silver 89.0%, Hubbard 90.4%

 

If I made a mistake, it was discounting the polls with a lot of undecided in Michigan too much, which made my Ron Paul prediction there stand out like a sore thumb.  After seven match-ups, I'm ahead of Nate Silver 4-3.

So next week is Super Tuesday, with primaries in seven states (Georgia, Massachusetts, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia) and caucuses in four (Alaska, Idaho, North Dakota, Wyoming).  There is also a caucus in Washington state on Saturday.  I am going to make an arbitrary cut-off point of at least three polls in a state reporting after Friday and not all three polls by the same company for me to put up a prediction.  I don't know Silver's threshold for enough data. I expect some of the caucus states are not going to have many polling companies interested in hunting down those tiny numbers of caucus goers, but there's a good chance Silver and I will be going head to head in at least six contests next week.  The only change to my model will be to up the standard None of the Above vote to 1.5%.

Mmmm... fresh data!  So very fresh. Mmmmmm.

Prognostications #8 and #9: The primaries in Michigan and Arizona

After three weeks of waiting, the crystal ball is back.  The voters in Michigan and Arizona go to the polls and there have been plenty of polls to give us an idea of an idea of how things are going, so I'm making a prediction of the final numbers and so is Nate Silver of fivethirtyeight.com and The New York Times. There has been more data published about Michigan than Arizona, including two polls in the last twelve hours, but both have been well covered, so here are the numbers, with my prediction first and Silver's in parentheses.

Michigan
------------
Romney 38.0% (39.0%)
Santorum 37.5% (38.1%)
Paul 14.0% (12.2%)
Gingrich 9.5% (9.9%)
None of the Above 1.0% (0.8%)

Arizona
------------
Romney 43.0% (43.4%)
Santorum 27.5% (27.3%)
Paul 10.0% (10.2%)
Gingrich 18.5% (19.2%)
None of the Above 1.0% (-0.1%)

We have no disagreements about the order. Both of our models say Michigan will be very close and Arizona will not. 

In Michigan, our big difference is about Ron Paul.  There were some polls that had Paul comfortably in third place and others that said he and Gingrich were neck and neck.  Most of the latter had much larger Undecided votes than made sense this late in the game, so I did not favor those polls, regardless of freshness.

In Arizona, the big disagreement is about None of the Above.  If it's anywhere near 1%, this will give my model a big advantage. If it is under 0.5%, Silver will be in better shape.

In the real world, this is really about delegates, though there is also value in getting good press by winning or making a good showing. Michigan's race is multiple contests, two delegates per each congressional district and two more for the overall winner in the state. Silver has some polling information that one district might be won by Dr. Ron Paul - the candidate the Daleks hate most - while the rest are battles between the front runners. Arizona is winner take all and R-Money's lead looks insurmountable there. Expect the news coverage to focus on the closeness of Michigan and ignore that Mitt's lead in delegates will increase.

I'll have a new post tomorrow giving the results. So far in the five races where each of us has predicted an outcome, I'm ahead 3-2.

This is how it always starts...

Gallup National Tracking numbers Feb. 1 through Feb. 23

 

The early weeks of February were great for Sick Rantorum as he climbed from third to first in national tracking numbers as well as winning caucuses in Colorado and Minnesota. But as has been the case in for several months now, getting to 35% support and staying there just isn't in the cards.  Gingrich started December above 35% but plummeted, only to make a comeback in January that saw him over 30% but under 35%.  R-Money was the only candidate to break the magical 35% barrier in January, and both he and Rantorum have been above that level in February, but neither could maintain it for more than a few days.

National numbers are little more than background noise in terms of delegates.  Sadly for Senator Rick, his numbers are also slipping in Arizona and Michigan, the two states holding primaries this Tuesday.  R-Money has had the lead in every Arizona poll so far, but Rantorum looked to be gaining until this last debate.  We will see if the trend continues in the polls over the weekend.  If it does, expect Nate Silver and me to project Mitt as the victor in both.  In a normal election year I'd be a lot more confident of the general trend on a Friday before a Tuesday polling date, but this primary season is still as insanely volatile as this February has been insanely warm here in Northern California.

Eventually, Newt or Senator Rick will throw in the towel.  In a two and a half person race, someone will have to climb over the 40% support level.  My guess is the Last NonRomney Standing will take the lead and then be pulled back earthward both by his weaknesses and by attacks from R-Money and the super PACs that back him.

As for the talk about a brokered convention, right now that is just silliness, like trying to predict the Oscars that will be handed out a year from now.  The fundamentals of this race still favor R-Money to get the nomination and face an uphill battle to unseat Obama.  In some ways I'd like to see the Tea Party get who they want for a candidate and have that candidate drubbed soundly. If Mitt loses in November, I expect the crazier voices in the Republican echo chamber will just get louder and more strident. In any case, it's not going to be pretty.

I'll be back with my predictions for Tuesday races on Tuesday morning.

The official Lotsa 'Splainin' titles for the GOP front runners

 Regular readers will already know that I call Mitt Romney R-Money, a simple transposition of his last name with the hyphen thrown in to make him look more like a gangsta rapper.

Because like gangsta rappers, nothing is more important to R-Money than the Benjamins and morality is not allowed to get in the way.

I have been reluctant to use Senator Rick's last name, but a commenter on Talking Points Memo just did a simple spoonerism and called him Sick Rantorum.

Sick Rantorum is now his official name on this blog.  I would tell you who I saw first write this on the other website, but I told him I was going to steal it and not give him credit, and I am true to my word.

So now it's a two-man race.

R-Money: Core beliefs are for poor people

Sick Rantorum: Officially crazier that the Catholic Church

(Things can change, but the polls for the next races and the most recent results say Newt Gingrich is a dead man walking.)

Results from Prognostications #6 and #7: The non-binding caucuses in Colorado and Minnesota

There was only one company who tried to poll in Colorado and Minnesota prior to yesterday's caucuses, and given that lack of data Nate Silver declined to make a prediction.  While I consider myself a better mathematician than Silver is, I am not so foolish as to think there is nothing I can learn from him.  My prediction accuracy was stunningly bad, worse by far than anything I had done before.  There are several factors at play, but having so little data is certainly a major factor.  Without more fresh polling data, I will not make a prediction in future contests.

Let us first see the gory results. My updated predictions are better than my earlier stuff with less data, but none of them are even close to good. The actual numbers are first, my guess is second, the difference between them is in parentheses.

Colorado caucuses

Santorum 40.2% 28% (off by 12.2%)

Romney 34.9% 36% (off by 1.1%)

Gingrich 12.8% 22.5% (off by 9.7%)

Paul11.7% 13.5% (off 1.8%)
75.2% accurate, a C on the standard grading scale

===========

Minnesota caucuses

Santorum 45.0% 34% (off by 11%)

Romney 16.9% 23.5% (off by 6.6%)

Gingrich 10.8% 22%(off by 11.2%)

Paul 27.1% 20.5%(off by 6.6%)
64.6% accurate, a D on the standard grading scale

As Charles Barkley might say, I was turrrribull last night.  Let me list some of the reasons I sucked so bad.

1.  Not enough data.  I brought this up already.
2. Caucuses! We hates 'em!  There are so few voters at caucuses, they are hard to find by the methods pollsters use and all other things being equal, polls do a better job of estimating the votes in a primary, where the percentage of people casting votes is dramatically greater.
3. The elusive Santorum caucus voter.  In the caucuses in Iowa, where there was a ree-donkulous amount of fresh data, no poll told us Santorum was a front runner. Even the polls that put him in second put him a distant second. When all the votes were counted, he beat Romney in a photo finish. In two caucuses last night, again Santorum over-achieved spectacularly over the polls' guesses.  Maybe people who vote for Santorum don't answer phones.  They must be at prayer meetings or something.

And so we have a caucus in Maine that ends this weekend, but so far nobody has any poll data. I won't make a prediction without three different companies giving their best guesses by this Friday.  if that doesn't come to pass, the next contests that count are February 28 in Arizona and Michigan.  I'm certain there will be boatloads of polls in those two states, so my next prognostication against Nate Silver will probably have to wait until then. I can boldly predict that I have no clue right now what will happen then.  Former British P.M. Harold Wilson said a week is a long time in politics, and he was not subjected to the 24 hour cable news cycle.  Three weeks might as well be an eternity now.

Prognostications #6 and #7: The caucuses in Colorado and Minnesota - UPDATED WITH NEW DATA

February is slim pickings for primaries and caucuses that actually count.  Today, there are contests in Colorado and Minnesota, both caucus style, but no delegates go directly to the nomination.  Instead, a candidate who does well gets delegate to the state convention and the state convention makes decisions in the old-fashioned smoke-filled rooms. This differs from a place like Missouri, where the primary is strictly a beauty contest, not unlike the Iowa Straw Poll held in the fall, the one Michele Bachmann won.

My predictions are using three days of polling in both Colorado and Minnesota conducted by PPP. I give the more recent polling more weight than the older polling.  I remove the "None of the Above" votes from the sample and distribute the votes so that the sum of all the candidates is 100%.  In Nevada, I assumed the None Of The Above would be 0.5% and it was actually 0.3% of caucus goers opted not to vote. Since I don't know the in and outs of the caucus rules in these states, I'm going to assume it's difficult to vote for anyone but the four remaining guys.

Here are my numbers.  Nate Silver hasn't posted a prediction about either. Most of his tweets since the Super Bowl have been sports related.  No matter.  If he puts up predictions today, I'll update this post. If not, this was me keeping in practice.

Colorado caucuses

Romney 36% (was 41.5%)

Santorum 28% (was 27%)

Gingrich 22.5% (was 19%)

Paul 13.5% (was 12.5%)
(New data says Romney is being dragged closer to the pack, but still leads comfortably.)

===========

Minnesota caucuses

Santorum 34% (was 30%)

Romney 23.5% (was 28%)

Gingrich 22%(was 22.5%)

Paul 20.5%(was 19.5%)

(Santorum steals from Romney and Paul steals from Gingrich, more or less.)

If the polling data is even close, this should be a big news cycle win for Santorum.  The race for second place in Minnesota could produce yet another narrative.

When the final results are posted, I'll come back with a recap of how I did.

The results for Prognostication #5: The Nevada Caucuses

The Republicans finally finished tallying the results of the caucus they had on Saturday.  They tweeted the final results at 2:00 am Monday morning, about 27 hours after the last precinct closed up. (Most precincts had everything done by 7:00 pm Saturday, but some in Las Vegas finished at 11:00.)

27 hours to count about 33,000 votes.  This does not scream "competence" or "honest elections". Just to make matters worse, only about 1.3% of Nevadans were involved in this democratic process. By comparison, Sharron Angle, the ridiculous Tea Party candidate for Senate in 2010, got over 70,000 votes in the Republican primary.

As a person who has worked at a polling station and usually votes by absentee ballot, I can say without fear of contradiction that caucuses suck.

In any case, the final numbers are in and there are no big surprises. Mitt Romney won handily, Newt Gingrich was a distant second, Dr. Ron Paul (the only candidate who can save us from the Daleks) finished third and Rick Santorum was a distant fourth. The only drama was what the margins would be. Here are the final results.

Romney 50.0%(Both of us high, but I beat Silver by 0.8%)

 Gingrich 21.1%(Again, both of us high. Silver beats me by 0.4%)

Paul 18.7%(Both of us too low. Silver picks up 1.5%)

Santorum 9.9%(Both of us too low. I pick up 1.4%)

No vote 0.3%(Silver said 0%, I said 0.5%, I'm 0.1% closer)

Once again, my simpler method wins the prediction contest, 88.8% to 88.4%. This brings my record to 3-2.

There are two non-binding state caucuses held tomorrow in Colorado and Minnesota. Right now, the only fresh data is from PPP in both cases, so unless another company releases a poll between now and tomorrow morning, both Silver and I will be dealing with a single set of data in each case. If you follow this link, you'll see that Rick Santorum appears to be Romney's main challenger in both cases.  I'll publish my predictions and Silver's Tuesday morning and give the results on Wednesday, assuming people in Colorado and Minnesota are more competent at running elections than people in Nevada.

Prognostication #5: The Nevada Caucuses

Tomorrow, the Republicans of Nevada will have their caucuses. Compared to earlier contests, the amount of polling is woefully small. There are some other primaries and caucuses on Saturday and Tuesday, but this is the only one will any fresh polling data at all, so this is the only one where my system will make a prediction so far.

Nate Silver is happy to use data I do not use in most cases, polls I consider too old to be useful.  He tries to predict into the future using this stale data, a method I do not use or endorse.  But this time, we are using the exact same data, one poll from the Las Vegas Journal-Review taken in the last few days of January and another from PPP taken yesterday and the day before.  In some ways, this is the cleanest test of our different methodologies.  May the best algorithm win.

Here are the two prediction set. As always, my numbers come first and Silver's are second in parentheses.

Romney 50.5%(51.3%)

Gingrich 26.0%(25.6%)

Paul 13.5%(15.0%)

Santorum 9.5%(8.1%)

Other 0.5% (0%) 

I made my prediction without seeing Silver's. I expect he barely knows I exist.  This time, Silver is bullish on Romney and Paul, while my system expects better results from Gingrich, Santorum and Other. I decided to give Other half a percent instead of none because even in the Iowa caucuses with several more choices, the number of people expressing a preference not in the main group was closer to half a percent than to zero.

Because Nevada is farther west than any other contest so far, the polls will close later and the results may not be complete until Sunday morning.  In any case, when 100% of precincts report, I will publish the results and pick over the bones.

For me, this is a lot more fun than reading the tabloids and trying to figure out if some female celebrity really is pregnant or not.  It's a hobby that better suits my talents.

A look back at another strange month in politics.

Gallup tracking poll for January 2012

(click for larger version)

Nearly everyone agrees that national polls have little meaning, but Gallup - bless their very traditional hearts - does tracking polls every damn day, which give us the chance to see a cool jagged line graph like the one above.  The red and orange squiggles that have now flat-lined are Rick Perry and Jon Huntsman, respectively.  Perry had a big bump when he got in, but when he showed himself time and again not to be George W. Bush's intellectual equal - and possibly not even Sarah Palin's peer - the bloom was off the rose and he limped back to Texas.  Huntsman didn't even have a time in the sun.  Besides not having much name recognition, Huntsman is way too moderate for today's GOP.  The fact he took a job in the Obama administration is tantamount in Republicans' eyes today to selling nuclear secrets to Iran.

The big stories of the month were the alleged inevitability of Mitt Romney after New Hampshire, the voters giving Gingrich a second surge to take South Carolina and Romney's return to front runner status after a big win in Florida.  While the numbers are interesting, it's the characters that make this reality show such a riveting train wreck.  Even Republicans are astonished at tone deaf Mitt's latest number one smash on The Gaffe Parade "I'm not concerned about the very poor." When your best candidate is so damn clueless, no wonder None Of The Above is almost never lower than third place and refuses to dip below 15%. Some network should let None Of The Above show up at a debate, just an empty podium with a slideshow of Republicans who either declared they wouldn't run or dropped out before we got to this Not So Fab Four.

I'll put up a similar graph at the end of each month until someone sews up enough delegates to win the nomination.  That means at least through February and I wouldn't be surprised if there is still some action in March and possibly beyond. November is a very long way, but I have a hard time seeing one of these guys actually beating Obama. Obama is going to have to beat himself, and so far in his career, that isn't his style.

Results for prognostication #4: The Florida primary

It was a good night to do things simply. My methods predicted the final numbers more accurately than did Nate Silver's.  There were no surprises, as the basic order of Romney winning big over Gingrich, with Santorum and Paul trailing was what all polls said in the last few days.  The nearest thing to drama arose from polls that said the race between Santorum and Paul be close. It wasn't.  Both Silver and I overstated what Ron Paul would get, which brought our overall grade down. If this was a strict grading policy, we'd both get A-, since I was 91.0% accurate he was at 90.0%.  

Here are the results, candidate by candidate.

 Romney 46.4%(Both of us low, but I beat Silver by 0.5%)

 Gingrich 31.9%(Again, both low. I beat Silver by 1.7%)

Santorum 13.4%(I gain 0.1%, he was high and I was low)

Paul 7.0%(I lose 0.3% to Silver, both of us too high)

Other 1.3%(I lose 1.0% to Silver, he was high and I was low)

This battle was close due to the Other prediction.  My numbers just happened to dole out all the votes to the four candidates, while Silver's method said Other would get 1.6% of the vote. Reality was 1.3% for the stragglers, so Silver was 1.0% closer.

In the prediction contest, Silver and I are tied 2-2. I eked a win in Iowa and won last night. Silver's numbers were much better in South Carolina and he won in New Hampshire because I got silly and caught Buddy Roemer fever based on a single poll.

There are four caucuses in the next week, Nevada and Maine this Saturday, Minnesota and Colorado next Tuesday. As of right now, fresh data is scarce in all these places, but I expect that to change in the next few days. I reserve the right to make no prediction without at least one poll that is taken within a week of the actual vote. Barring that, I will be ready to toe the line twice early Saturday morning and the same on Tuesday.  After that, February has only two primaries, Arizona and Michigan, both on February 28, so the crystal ball will have a few weeks off.

While I'm interested in politics, this is really an excuse to fiddle with numbers, and longtime readers will know how much I enjoy that.  So gimme some data and let's get back in the ring!

Prognostication #4:The Florida primary

Once again, all the debates and ads and opinion polls are over and it's time for some Republican voters to actually make their voice heard. There has been no shortage of polling and there is strong consensus on the order (Romney, Gingrich, Santorum and Paul). That said, the distance between the numbers is all over the place.  Of the websites I use to gather polling information, RealClearPolitics puts the data in the nicest format. If you follow the link, you'll see two of the most recent polls say Romney will either will by 7 or by 20. Who should we trust?

My method is to take the recent polls and look at the ones that have the least None Of The Above.  Then I look at the median and average values for all the candidates with the None Of The Above removed and give a weighted average. With the huge number of polls taken, I have seven that I'm using, none older than this weekend.  I round my data to the nearest half a percent.  Here are my predictions, as well as the latest from Nate Silver, founder of the website fivethirtyeight.com and now the poll expert for The New York Times.  Silver's numbers are in parentheses.

Romney 44.5%(44.0%)

Gingrich 31.0%(29.3%)

Santorum 13.0%(13.9%)

Paul 11.5%(11.2%)

Other 0% (1.6%)

As the numbers happen to shake out, I'm bullish on Romney, Gingrich and Paul, while Silver is expecting big performances from Santorum and Other. Our big disagreement is on Newt and for me to do well, he has to pull in at least 30%.

I follow the news but I don't let that influence my reading of the data.  I can't be sure how much effect Santorum's decision to leave Florida because of his daughter's hospitalization this weekend will move his final numbers. I'm a little surprised Paul's numbers stayed as high as they are given that he did not campaign in Florida. Rick Perry ignored New Hampshire and New Hampshire returned the favor.  But if my experience online has any meaning, I can say that Rick Perry's followers are not at loyal as Ron Paul's.

More to the point, I can say that most breeds of dogs are not as loyal as Ron Paul's followers.

By tomorrow morning the numbers will be in and I'll post again, reporting how close we got to right.

By the way, I'm now on Twitter under the name ConfidenceOfVic, short for Confidence Of Victory, my name for the method I use to assign odds to candidates in races with two or three people running.  I could use my method in a race like this one with four people, but I'm not as confident the numbers have meaning when more variables are added. 

I kind of like the shortened name on Twitter.  I've known some men named Victor who were shy, but any guy who shortens his name to Vic, that's a confident guy.

Results for Prognostication #3:The South Carolina primary

A bad week for my way of predicting the future. The loss of Huntsman as a candidate didn't hurt much, but losing Perry so close to the election date made a lot of polls fairly useless. Nate Silver's numbers were closer to the truth of Gingrich's big win over Romney, but both of us had Ron Paul in third place when Rick Santorum was actually five percentage points better.  Here are the final numbers.

Gingrich 40.4%(Silver beats me by 1.7%)

Romney 27.8%(Silver beats by by 2.2%)

Santorum 17%(I gain 0.1%)

Paul 13%(I lose 0.4%)

Other 1.8%(I gain 0.4%)

 

Final score: Silver 90.4%, Matty Boy 86.6%.  This is the first time either of us has climbed over the 90% mark.

The next test is Florida, a week from Tuesday.  Current polls have Romney ahead by double digits, but that means nothing.  Romney had a comfortable lead in South Carolina a week ago before the debates and the Bain Capital attacks.

 

Former British Prime Minister Harold Wilson gets credit for the line "A week is a very long time in politics", and these ten days will certainly be tumultuous.  The hatred the Republican establishment has for Newt Gingrich will once again rain down, but I can't tell if it will counterbalance Romney's negatives with the rank and file, who don't like his regal manner, religion or record in office. Bill Clinton's aphorism "Democratic voters fall in love, Republican voters fall in line" doesn't sound quite as clever as it did after New Hampshire. 

 

Prognostication #3:The South Carolina primary - UPDATED

When it comes to predicting percentages based on recent polls, South Carolina is one of the toughest challenges yet.  I base my numbers on five polls taken in the past three days, but only two of them took Rick Perry out of the equation. His numbers were on the rise in Gallup tracking polls nationally, but he was well under 5% in South Carolina polls and faced the unpleasant possibility of being compared to the "Herman Cain" (actually Stephen Colbert) comedy campaign.

So now we are down to four.  Almost all the recent polls agree on the order: Gingrich, Romney, Paul, Santorum. (Only PPP switches Santorum over Paul.)  Based on a weighting of the median and the average of those five surveys, here's my prediction for South Carolina, rounded to the nearest half a percent. Nate Silver's numbers are given in parentheses.

Gingrich 37%(38.7%)

Romney 31.5%(29.3%)

Paul 16%(15.6%)

Santorum 14%(13.9%)

Other 1.5%(2.5%)

This means Silver is bullish on Gingrich and Other, while I am hoping for strong showings Romney, Paul and Santorum.

Colbert is a wild card, being both a South Carolina favorite son and a TV star, but I am betting the vast majority of conservatives realize his conservative persona is making fun of them. Also, there is the weird public appearance mojo of Friday. Gingrich had to cancel an event for low attendance, while the joint appearance of Colbert and Cain drew about 3,000.  Let's assume most of the those at the Colbert rally are not likely primary voters.

Also helping the Other votes is Perry dropping out so late. There could be a fair number of mail-in ballots with his name on them. Still, I'm not going to repeat my late fascination with Buddy Roemer in New Hampshire based on very little hard data.

As dissatisfied as the polls show the likely voters are with this field - the median count in the five polls for NoneOfTheAbove was 8% - I still think when South Carolina voters step inside those booths today, they will cast their votes for one of the four guys who showed up at the last debate.  Polls have shown voters are paying close attention to the debates.  As a person who believes in democracy, I find that encouraging and discouraging at the same time.

These are my final numbers.  I updated Silver's numbers from his noon Eastern time prediction on Saturday.  I will report back when 100% of precincts report in, which will likely be Sunday morning.

Results for prognostication #2: New Hampshire primary

There are three things about this week's guess that should be noted.

1. I got beat by Nate Silver's guess, 88.8% to 88.2%.
2. I did much better than I did last week.
3. I got Gingrich over Santorum and Nate Silver went the other way.

Here are the final numbers.

Mitt Romney: 39.3% (Silver beats me by 2.9%)
Ron Paul: 22.9% (I beat Silver by 2.7%)
Jon Huntsman: 16.9% (Silver was at 17.0%, I was at 16.7%, so he was 0.1% closer)
Newt Gingrich: 9.4% (We both overshot, I lose by 1.2%)
Rich Santorum: 9.4% (We both overshot, I win by 1.1%)
Rick Perry 0.7%: (Again, we both went high, I win by 0.1%)
Buddy Roemer: 0.4% (Silver was silent, I went high and lost 0.8%)


I learned several things this week, mainly about thinking like a mathematician instead of thinking like a statistician, which is my serious advantage over Silver in the long run.

1. Don't chase a single data point.  I was impressed by Buddy Roemer's results in one poll and changed my prediction because of it.  I should not do that and won't do it again.
2. There's no point in being precise when you don't know what you are talking about.  The data I collect is to the nearest percent.  I shouldn't work with numbers to the nearest tenth of a percent.  My predictions will be to the nearest percent.  It giveth and it taketh away, but for the most part, it will giveth to me.  I might decided to round to the nearest half a percent, but no closer.  The data doesn't deserve it.
3. Keep track of the recent, ignore ancient history.  Silver tweeted that every winner broke the 40% barrier since 1972.  This is because he's a statistician.  Completely meaningless number and somebody who isn't fooled by useless hard work could see through it in a fraction of a second.

There is no primary Tuesday.  The next test is a week from Saturday in South Carolina.  I will wait until I've checked the most recent polls on the day of the election but will post by blog call and my tweet long before the polls close. This is what Silver does, so it puts us on an even footing.

With no false modesty, I'm better than Nate Silver and I really do believe I will beat him at this in the long run.  I could use an old cliche and say I've forgotten more mathematics than he will ever know,  but once again with no false modesty, I haven't forgotten it.

He's a statistician. I'm a mathematician. I outrank him.