Details of Model:
To reiterate, the the model is based on the relationship between Charles Franklin's final, pre-election estimates of poll standing (in states where there were enough polls to generate estimates, and excluding Florida) and actual votes cast. I also include a control variable for whether the final poll figure included an estimate for John Edwards' share of the vote.
I've updated the model to include data from the Pennsylvania primary, which has since occurred, as was well as from Wisconsin, which was inexplicably and inadvertently excluded from the earlier estimates.
The new estimates, which are very similar to those originally reported, are presented below.
| | b | s.e. | sig.(one-tailed) |
| Hillary% | .964 | .099 | .000 |
| Edwards (0,1) | -2.85 | 1.94 | .078 |
| Constant | 2.329 | 4.589 | .309 |
| N=24 R-squared =.85 | | | |
Franklin's estimates of Clinton's percent of the two-party vote (as of 11:45 a.m. CST in this case) are 52.26 % in Indiana and 46.03% in North Carolina. Plugging those numbers into the model produces the forecasts of 52.7% and 46.7% of the vote for Clinton in Indiana and North Carolina, respectively.
2 comments:
why do people keep thinking they can model this kind of thing. Just give it up. You were way off.
Good readinng your post
Post a Comment