Carl…seems OK to score election models, which I imagine in this instance Nate would welcome assuming all assumptions correct - but why you think your model is more accurate would be just as worthwhile. Also noting weaknesses in analysis - e.g. small sample size of election cycles for yours. My gut take, which may be totally off given difficulty in understanding context, is this seems personal to you. If rightly or wrongly I am feeling this, does that feeling take away from what you are trying to point out?
Carl…seems OK to score election models, which I imagine in this instance Nate would welcome assuming all assumptions correct - but why you think your model is more accurate would be just as worthwhile. Also noting weaknesses in analysis - e.g. small sample size of election cycles for yours. My gut take, which may be totally off given difficulty in understanding context, is this seems personal to you. If rightly or wrongly I am feeling this, does that feeling take away from what you are trying to point out?
I don't know Nate, it's not personal. I'm not friendly towards unaccountable quants who blame their own mistakes or failures on someone else.
The whole "polls were wrong" debate starts with not understanding how polls work and is a convenient attempt to blame someone else for a bad forecast
Interesting post. Which way do you think Nate's forecast is biased this year? Is his more pro R than your forecast?