Upcoming President Infinity – Version Ericson – 2.2.6

Hi everyone,

This post will keep track of changes to the upcoming version of President Infinity v. Ericson – 2.2.6.

Changes so far (this list will be updated as changes are implemented on this side, these changes will not be available until the version is released):

  • fixed bug where computer player would take block grant if own funds projection (current funds + party funds + fundraising estimate for days left) greater
  • fixed bug where Rally attendance could be < 0
  • Main Screen > Rally > now says, ex. “Est. 1,500 people”
0

New Hampshire Highscores

Congratulations to everyone who made a prediction!

The work for this is included in the spreadsheet New Hampshire Primaries Predictions. If I’ve made any errors or overlooked anything, please let me know!

Highscores, Reps (Actual results: Trump 35.3%, Kasich 15.8%, Cruz 11.7%)

Only one person got the correct top 3 in order. Kevin correctly called Trump-Kasich-Cruz (26-20-18).

6 people got Trump-Kasich correct. Dylan and Aaron tied for first in terms of ave. % point error, at 2.55.

  • Dylan (31-15)
  • Aaron (31-15)
  • Rophil (31-17)
  • Jeff (27-16)
  • William (25-23)
  • Jesse (22-20)

Eric correctly called the top 3, but not in the right order (Trump-Cruz-Kasich), at 28-16-14.

3 people also called the correct winner in addition to the people above.

  • Chris (Trump-Rubio, 30-17)
  • Luki (Trump-Rubio, 24-21)
  • Nick (Trump-Rubio, 24.5-22.3)

For contrast, Nick Silver (Trump-Rubio-Kasich, 26.8-15.7-15.2) of 538 fame didn’t get the top 3 in order (Kevin beat him), didn’t get the top 2 right (Dylan, Aaron, Rophil, Jeff, William, and Jesse beat him), and didn’t get the top 3 even out of order (Eric beat him). He did correctly call a Trump win though, so how did he do on the spread between 1st and 2nd (probably the most significant number of the night)? He would have come fifth here, after Dylan, Rophil, Aaron, Chris.

Highscores, Dems (Actual results: Sanders 60.4%, Clinton 38%)

Everyone who made a prediction accurately predicted the winner. Listed in order of ave. % point error.

  1. Eric (59-40, 1.7)
  2. Chris (59-41, 2.2)
  3. Jesse (58-41.8, 3.1)
  4. Kevin (57-42, 3.7)
  5. Jonathan (56.5-43, 4.45)
  6. Jeff (56-44, 5.2)
  7. Nick (55-45, 6.2)
  8. Aaron (54-45, 6.7)
  9. Luki (54-46, 7.2)
  10. Rophil (53.2-46.8, 8)
  11. Dylan (53-47, 8.2)
  12. William (52-48, 9.2)

For contrast, Nate Silver (57.2-39.9, 2.55) would have placed 3rd here.

 

5

New Hampshire Predictions!

Hi everyone,

Make your New Hampshire predictions here – Rep, Dem, or both. I’ll make a ‘highscores’ post on Feb. 10th.

For Republican predictions, the winner will be whoever gets the top 3 correct (Rep) and among those (if more than one person gets the order right) who has the closest match for %s.  For Dems, the winner will be whoever gets 1st correct and among those (if more than one person gets the order right) who has the closest match for %s between the top 2.

Honorable mentions for anyone who gets the top 3 (in order) for Reps or 1st for Dems.

Note: I will be locking the thread at 2PM PST, 5PM EST.

Note: thread locked. You can see the predictions by clicking on the post link.

President Infinity – Version Ericson – 2.2.5

President Infinity v. Ericson – 2.2.5 for Windows and Mac has been released!

If you are a President Infinity owner, you are eligible for this upgrade.

Highlights:

This update fixes a bug that occurred when playing a game with certain candidates turned to ‘off’ that by default were ‘on’ (the error message included the phrase ‘Code=49’), sets all 2016 Q4 cash-on-hand numbers according to the FEC, and updates the 2016 primaries debate schedules, in particular.

What’s new in this upgrade

  • fixed bug where if scripted event occurred that specified a certain leader, and that leader wasn’t in game, would crash game (Code=49 error)
  • 2016 > set all leaders’ Q4 (Dec. 31st, 2015) cash-on-hand values according to FEC, except Donald Trump (self-funding)
  • 2016 > Primaries > Dems, Reps > updated debate schedules
  • 2016 > Endorsers > added Glenn Beck
  • 2016 > fixed general election regional % bonuses for certain leaders

This is a comprehensive update.

You can download this release by requesting a download e-mail at the link below.

Important: when you receive the e-mail, you will want to download the file from the “windows president infinity” or “mac president infinity” link.

If for some reason there is no “windows president infinity” or “mac president infinity” link in your e-mail and you are a President Infinity owner, please notify us and we will fix that for you.

To update:

http://270soft.com/updates-redownloads/

Version information:

http://270soft.com/updates-redownloads/president-infinity-version-information/

28

New Hampshire funds spent on advertising per percentage point

This column contains data for ad expenditures in New Hampshire so far this election cycle.

  1. Team Bush: $33.9 million ($4.5M from campaign, $29.5M from Super PAC)
  2. Team Rubio: $16.5 million ($5.2M from campaign, $11.5M from outside groups)
  3. Team Christie: $14.6 million ($462K from campaign, $14.1M from Super PAC)
  4. Team Kasich: 12.3 million ($474K from PAC, $11.8M from Super PAC)
  5. Team Sanders: $9.1 million (all from campaign)
  6. Team Clinton: $5 million (4.9M from campaign, $45K from Super PAC)
  7. Team Trump: $3.1 million (all from campaign)
  8. Team Fiorina: $1.8 million (all from Super PAC)
  9. Team Paul: $914K ($54K from campaign, $862K from Super PACs)
  10. Team Carson: $593K (all from campaign)
  11. Team Cruz: $363K ($20K from campaign, $343 from outside groups)

Jeb can finally claim first place in New Hampshire!

(Paul spent almost a million dollars on advertising in N.H., only to drop out 5 days before the primary!)

The latest Pollster averages for New Hampshire for Republicans are

  • Trump 34%
  • Cruz 12.5%
  • Kasich 11.5%
  • Rubio 10.2%
  • Bush 8.9%
  • Christie 5.7%
  • Fiorina 3.3%
  • Carson 2.9%
  • Paul 2.9%
  • Santorum 0.2%

and for Democrats they are

  • Sanders 55.6
  • Clinton 37.2%

So, on the Republican side, dollars per percentage point in New Hampshire are

  1. Bush $3.81 M
  2. Christie $2.56 M
  3. Rubio $1.62 M
  4. Kasich $1.07 M
  5. Fiorina $0.55 M
  6. Paul $0.32 M
  7. Carson $0.20 M
  8. Trump $0.09 M
  9. Cruz $0.03 M

Put another way, Trump and Cruz have effectively spent almost nothing per percentage point on ads in return for a 1st and 2nd place showing at this point there.

On the Democratic side, dollars per percentage point in New Hampshire are

  1. Sanders $0.16 M
  2. Clinton $0.13 M

The spreadsheet for this is here NH Dollars per Percentage Point. Feedback welcome if there are any errors.

2

President Infinity Map Pack

Hi everyone,

As you can now import maps into the President Infinity Editor and modify region coordinates, there is now a map pack available for President Infinity, here.

It contains over 30 maps, mostly of states, but a few countries as well.

Thanks to Patine for putting this together, and Luki for making it available.

0

Models don’t matter

Models don’t matter. What matters are predictions. If someone has a model of something, but it doesn’t make any concrete predictions, it can’t be tested. It is therefore worthless.

It doesn’t matter if it’s a fancy model made by a bunch of smart people. It doesn’t matter if you run the model 10,000 times. It doesn’t matter if the output of the model makes nice graphs. It doesn’t matter if the person making the model made previous predictions correctly.

The scientific method, in large, is about figuring out how to test predictions that follow from models of reality. Developing a model is a preliminary step. Testing the model is much more important.

So, if a political pundit makes a mathematically explicit, complex-sounding model, but there are no concrete predictions it makes or ways it can be tested, that model is worthless.

Ever hear a political pundit who will make what sounds like a pretty straightforward prediction, but then hedges it with all sorts of qualifications that render it a non-prediction? These people are – let’s use a technical term – blowing smoke. As entertainment, I suppose, it’s fine. But anyone who actually wants to know what the outcome is going to be should stop listening to these people.

Similarly with data-based punditry. I think many people hear ‘data’ or ‘mathematical’ or ‘model’ and think there must be something important or right about what the pundit is saying. This is nonsense – it is a variation of ‘b.s. baffles brains’. The truth is, political punditry is filled with charlatans who don’t know what they’re talking about, but pretend they do (typically because they’re getting paid to pretend).

There are some things that are very difficult to predict – instead of pretending they have some kind of crystal ball (including giving very official sounding percentages to various outcomes, all of which are basically untestable), the people in question who are blowing smoke should just say ‘we don’t know’.

0

Iowa Highscores

Congratulations to everyone who made a prediction!

The work for this is included in the spreadsheet Iowa Caucuses Predictions. If I’ve made any errors or overlooked anything, please let me know!

To make the highscores, someone had to get the winner correct for Dems, or the top three in order for Reps.

Without further ado …

Highscores, Dems (using latest Des Moines Register tally, which could change if there is a recount)

Winner, prediction, absolute %s was … Nick. (50-48, for an average percentage point error of 0.86)

(Note: Dylan K. gave a prediction or 45-44-1, which is obviously a mistake. I am guessing he meant to say 50-49-1, in which case he would have had an average percentage point error of 0.36. If he has a political consultancy firm, you might want to invest. If he has an accounting firm, perhaps not.)

Winner, prediction, relative %s was … Rophil. (48-48, which was 0.29 from the actual spread of 0.29%) (average absolute percentage point error 1.72)

All the people who called the correct winner on the Dems side, ordered by ave. absolute percentage point error

  • Nick (0.86)
  • John Doe (1.72)
  • Rophil (1.72)
  • Dominic Bay (2.22)
  • Toby (2.22)
  • Robert (2.72)
  • William (2.72)
  • Jonathan (3.22)
  • Jesse (3.22)
  • Lukie (3.22)
  • Mitchell (3.36)
  • Aaron (3.36)
  • Dylan (4.36)
  • Dylan K. (5.22, but see note above)

(For comparison, the much lauded Nate Silver would have made this list (48.3-45.1), and had an ave. absolute percentage point error of 3.02, which would have gotten him in 8th here.)

Highscores, Reps

Winner, prediction, absolute %s was … Jesse. (27-25-17, for an average percentage point error of 2.48)

Winner, prediction, relative %s was … John Doe. (25-23-18, a spread of 7 which was 2.45 from the actual spread of 4.55 from 27.65-24.31-23.1) (average absolute percentage point error 3.02)

All the people who called the correct winner on the Reps side, ordered by ave. absolute percentage point error

  • Jesse (2.48)
  • Jacob (2.71)
  • John Doe (3.02)
  • Jonathan (4.24)

(For comparison, the much lauded Nate Silver didn’t get the right ordering (24.3-25.6-18.1, so wouldn’t have made the list), and had an ave. absolute percentage point error of 3.02, which would have gotten him tied for 3rd here.)

3

Silver makes another wrong call

Nate Silver, whose claim to fame is accurately forecasting the 2012 Presidential general election outcome (50/50 states) and the 2008 outcome (49/50 states), had already made two major errors in the last year – the 2015 U.K. election, and the durability of Trump (who is first place in national polls for now over 6 months). You can now add to that a third one – the 538 forecast of the Iowa caucuses, where they predicted Trump would win.

19

Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes