If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   Let's see what Nate Silver has to say as "most of the polls that we've seen over the past several days are the last ones that polling firms will be releasing into the field"   (fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com) divider line 254
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

6134 clicks; posted to Politics » on 03 Nov 2012 at 4:06 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



254 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-03 04:40:08 PM

Muta: Three numbers that aren't being talked about:

20% -- Teabag Patriots
20% -- Palin Supporters
15% -- Obama Disillusionists
======================
55% -- Romney Voters


I know this is a joke, but no one will fall for it. Everyone knows that the correspondence between the 20% who are Teabaggers and the 20% who are Palin supporters is 1:1.
 
2012-11-03 04:40:11 PM
 
2012-11-03 04:40:43 PM

Muta: Three numbers that aren't being talked about:

20% -- Teabag Patriots
20% -- Palin Supporters
15% -- Obama Disillusionists
======================
55% -- Romney Voters
[unskewedpolls.com image 600x515]

There will be a lot of crying libs this wednesday.


there's a fark screen cap from some similar predictions from last time. I wish I could find it.

// 1 in 6 undecided
// clinton supporters for palin, etc...
 
2012-11-03 04:41:07 PM

NeoCortex42: tolallorti: Dull Cow Eyes: "For Romney to Win, State Polls Must Be Statistically Biased"


See? Even Nate Silver admits the polls are biased.


/Willard will win eventually. If not in 2012, then in 2016, 2020, or 2024

Doubtful. If he gets thrashed in this election I don't think he'll really have the momentum within his party to make it past the primary again. His entire campaign is just giving opponents outside and within his party ammunition.

The entire GOP establishment (including Fox News) will throw Romney completely under the bus. I figure we'll have about a week or two of whining about stolen votes or conspiracies. Once it's obvious they can't get the results changed through some legal challenges and accept the results, they'll turn on Romney completely.


They will never accept the results. At this point in this election, where most people are sure their guy is gonna win, the losing side will not accept the legitimacy of the winner.
 
2012-11-03 04:42:06 PM
i45.tinypic.com

"The race is tightening!"
 
2012-11-03 04:42:10 PM

pacified: there's a fark screen cap from some similar predictions from last time. I wish I could find it.


www.madmann.com
 
2012-11-03 04:42:46 PM

PonceAlyosha: Irregardless: President just don't have thevability to have a huge effect on the economy.

How anyone can say that after the Bush administration is goddamn beyond me.


Do you really think that Bush single handedly caused the recession? A couple of bubbles burst that were a long time in the making. Do you think he planned it that way? He's not smart enough for that. Hell, he obviously didn't even see it coming. Presidents should receive neither credit or blame for how the economy does while they sit in the white house. If anything they may have one longer term effects that they can be held responsible for but most of those don't have a huge immediate effect. Think Obamacare - there are some good ideas but the devil will be in the details and in the execution. We will know if it's truly successful in about 15-20 years and the vast majority of the execution is completely out of president Obama's control.
 
2012-11-03 04:42:58 PM

wildcardjack: Does anyone study the butterfly effect of polling?

There might be some PhD grade stuff to research on the effects of polls on future poll results.


It's turtles all the way down.
 
2012-11-03 04:43:27 PM

12349876: pacified: there's a fark screen cap from some similar predictions from last time. I wish I could find it.

[www.madmann.com image 750x600]


a gentleman and a scholar! Thank you sir.
 
2012-11-03 04:44:26 PM

GAT_00: Elandriel: Nevertheless, these arguments are potentially more intellectually coherent than the ones that propose that the race is "too close to call." It isn't. If the state polls are right, then Mr. Obama will win the Electoral College. If you can't acknowledge that after a day when Mr. Obama leads 19 out of 20 swing-state polls, then you should abandon the pretense that your goal is to inform rather than entertain the public.

Couldn't have called Scarborough (AND his editor!) out more plainly.

Yeah, Nate has buckled a little under the pressure and attacks. Not really surprising though, given that a pretty big part of the GOP have personally come after him for single-handedly stopping the myth of Mitt-mentum.

But that's an extraordinarily definitive polling day. Even if you accept, as I do, that Ohio will be stolen by fraudulent machines, if Romney can't win Florida he has no chance, and he still needs other swing states too. To be down in all of them is a sign he's done.


Nate's model still has Romney slightly favored in Florida, but I think that might be wrong given the latest polls an the fact that the Democrats are leading the Republicans in early voting turnout.
 
2012-11-03 04:46:07 PM

Blue_Blazer: NeoCortex42: tolallorti: Dull Cow Eyes: "For Romney to Win, State Polls Must Be Statistically Biased"


See? Even Nate Silver admits the polls are biased.


/Willard will win eventually. If not in 2012, then in 2016, 2020, or 2024

Doubtful. If he gets thrashed in this election I don't think he'll really have the momentum within his party to make it past the primary again. His entire campaign is just giving opponents outside and within his party ammunition.

The entire GOP establishment (including Fox News) will throw Romney completely under the bus. I figure we'll have about a week or two of whining about stolen votes or conspiracies. Once it's obvious they can't get the results changed through some legal challenges and accept the results, they'll turn on Romney completely.

They will never accept the results. At this point in this election, where most people are sure their guy is gonna win, the losing side will not accept the legitimacy of the winner.


I have no doubt there will be conspiracy crap for a long time. Just look at how the birth certificate thing is still around. But I do think that it won't be headline news on Fox for more than a couple weeks. They'll need to move on to something else to get viewers. That something else will probably be analyzing how badly Romney screwed up and how Ryan should have been at the top of the ticket from the beginning.
 
2012-11-03 04:46:48 PM
Of course, Obama is leading in most of the swing-state polls. Because most of the last round of polls were done by pollsters that have been biased towards Obama this entire cycle (Marist, and to a lesser extent PPP).

Now, Silver is right on one thing: if Romney wins the polls will have proven to have been so flawed that there's something fundamentally broken about them. But that may very well be the case. Marist shows the Democrats with a bigger advantage in Ohio than they had in 2008 - but that seems highly unlikely. Mitt Romney had a rally with over 20,000 people last night. Obama was also in Ohio and had fewer people attend than McCain did in 2008! If the Ohio electorate is overwhelmingly Democratic - more so than it was in 2008, why don't we see other evidence of that. Why are the early voting totals in strongly Democratic counties like Cuyahoga less than the 2008 numbers? Why isn't Obama getting bigger-than-2008 crowds? Why are polls of voter enthusiasm not showing a bunch of highly motivated Democrats and dispirited Republicans?

What Nate Silver is doing is looking just at the toplines of the polls - but that doesn't tell the whole story.

So yes, in order for this race to be truly competitive, the polls have to be wrong. But I can say that Mitt Romney has his own internal polling, and it's showing a result dramatically different than what the public polls say. And I can also say that Barack Obama also has his internal polling, and that's showing a very different picture than the public polls (although much closer).

Silver's model will work perfectly assuming that the polls are working perfectly. But the problem isn't Silver's model, it's that the current system of public polling we have in this country is breaking down for reasons that are not yet clear.

I still think Romney will win, and there are indications that it might not even be as close as we think. Now, maybe the polls really are dead on and all the inexplicable things going on with the numbers are not that inexplicable. We will know in four days...
 
2012-11-03 04:47:20 PM

Uchiha_Cycliste: Should we really call him a media person? He's a math geek who's good enough at what he does that the NYTimes gave him a blog.


He HAD a blog. He was so successful in calling the 2008 election that the Times co-opted him by giving him a place on their website, to add legitimacy to their fading brand.
 
2012-11-03 04:47:26 PM

Blue_Blazer: the losing side will not accept the legitimacy of the winner.


I think they'll accept by rewriting history...Rmoney wasn't conservative enough. like the financial collapse wasn't caused by deregulation, it was caused by not enough deregulation.

You'll hear a lot of "gossh, if only a real conservative like Ryan had been nominated"
 
2012-11-03 04:48:49 PM

NeoCortex42: tolallorti: Dull Cow Eyes: "For Romney to Win, State Polls Must Be Statistically Biased"


See? Even Nate Silver admits the polls are biased.


/Willard will win eventually. If not in 2012, then in 2016, 2020, or 2024

Doubtful. If he gets thrashed in this election I don't think he'll really have the momentum within his party to make it past the primary again. His entire campaign is just giving opponents outside and within his party ammunition.

The entire GOP establishment (including Fox News) will throw Romney completely under the bus. I figure we'll have about a week or two of whining about stolen votes or conspiracies. Once it's obvious they can't get the results changed through some legal challenges and accept the results, they'll turn on Romney completely.


Oh ya. Unless Romney loses by 2 EV's he's getting strapped to the ramp of a bus factory until 2016.
 
2012-11-03 04:48:54 PM
LOL @ WombatControl

There's one in every crowd.
 
2012-11-03 04:49:12 PM

WombatControl: Of course, Obama is leading in most of the swing-state polls. Because most of the last round of polls were done by pollsters that have been biased towards Obama this entire cycle (Marist, and to a lesser extent PPP).

Now, Silver is right on one thing: if Romney wins the polls will have proven to have been so flawed that there's something fundamentally broken about them. But that may very well be the case. Marist shows the Democrats with a bigger advantage in Ohio than they had in 2008 - but that seems highly unlikely. Mitt Romney had a rally with over 20,000 people last night. Obama was also in Ohio and had fewer people attend than McCain did in 2008! If the Ohio electorate is overwhelmingly Democratic - more so than it was in 2008, why don't we see other evidence of that. Why are the early voting totals in strongly Democratic counties like Cuyahoga less than the 2008 numbers? Why isn't Obama getting bigger-than-2008 crowds? Why are polls of voter enthusiasm not showing a bunch of highly motivated Democrats and dispirited Republicans?

What Nate Silver is doing is looking just at the toplines of the polls - but that doesn't tell the whole story.

So yes, in order for this race to be truly competitive, the polls have to be wrong. But I can say that Mitt Romney has his own internal polling, and it's showing a result dramatically different than what the public polls say. And I can also say that Barack Obama also has his internal polling, and that's showing a very different picture than the public polls (although much closer).

Silver's model will work perfectly assuming that the polls are working perfectly. But the problem isn't Silver's model, it's that the current system of public polling we have in this country is breaking down for reasons that are not yet clear.

I still think Romney will win, and there are indications that it might not even be as close as we think. Now, maybe the polls really are dead on and all the inexplicable things going on with the numbers a ...


is this one of those "identify the songs by a band" post?
 
2012-11-03 04:49:27 PM

WombatControl: and there are indications that it might not even be as close as we think


someones been hangin out at unskewed polls again.
 
2012-11-03 04:49:40 PM

Irregardless: It's all over but the shout. Romney can try again in 2016


Just the same, i will reserve shouting until the votes are in. With my luck I would jinx if for Obama if I shouted now.

Dull Cow Eyes: "For Romney to Win, State Polls Must Be Statistically Biased"

See? Even Nate Silver admits the polls are biased.

/Willard will win eventually. If not in 2012, then in 2016, 2020, or 2024



Win or lose, this is it for Romney.

Either he just throws in the towel on running again by his own choice or he will be bounced away in future elections by republicans who never really liked him but found him to be less obnoxious than the other 10 or so GOP candidates this year. Mitt got the nod this year not because of his political ideology, but from the experience he gained as a losing candidate before. He knew when to shut up and let the rest of the field implode while he maintained a steady flight under the radar until there was nobody else left. He is a candidate via attrition, not popularity.

So either he wins this year and resigns in disgrace in a couple of years when all the hidden crap of his life comes out or he just fades away after his concession speech Tuesday night. 

Good riddance.
 
2012-11-03 04:50:59 PM

WombatControl: Of course, Obama is leading in most of the swing-state polls. Because most of the last round of polls were done by pollsters that have been biased towards Obama this entire cycle (Marist, and to a lesser extent PPP).

Now, Silver is right on one thing: if Romney wins the polls will have proven to have been so flawed that there's something fundamentally broken about them. But that may very well be the case. Marist shows the Democrats with a bigger advantage in Ohio than they had in 2008 - but that seems highly unlikely. Mitt Romney had a rally with over 20,000 people last night. Obama was also in Ohio and had fewer people attend than McCain did in 2008! If the Ohio electorate is overwhelmingly Democratic - more so than it was in 2008, why don't we see other evidence of that. Why are the early voting totals in strongly Democratic counties like Cuyahoga less than the 2008 numbers? Why isn't Obama getting bigger-than-2008 crowds? Why are polls of voter enthusiasm not showing a bunch of highly motivated Democrats and dispirited Republicans?

What Nate Silver is doing is looking just at the toplines of the polls - but that doesn't tell the whole story.

So yes, in order for this race to be truly competitive, the polls have to be wrong. But I can say that Mitt Romney has his own internal polling, and it's showing a result dramatically different than what the public polls say. And I can also say that Barack Obama also has his internal polling, and that's showing a very different picture than the public polls (although much closer).

Silver's model will work perfectly assuming that the polls are working perfectly. But the problem isn't Silver's model, it's that the current system of public polling we have in this country is breaking down for reasons that are not yet clear.

I still think Romney will win, and there are indications that it might not even be as close as we think. Now, maybe the polls really are dead on and all the inexplicable things going on with the numbers a ...


I am frying up some crow pre-emptively for you.

What's really crazy is that you might be the only person who's right on all of FARK. Now, that's incredibly unlikely, but if you are I shall eat this crow myself.

In all likelihood though you are going to be proven hilariously incorrect.
 
2012-11-03 04:52:08 PM

Britney Spear's Speculum: [i566.photobucket.com image 465x640]


I should not have laughed so hard at that image.

pacified: Muta: Three numbers that aren't being talked about:

20% -- Teabag Patriots
20% -- Palin Supporters
15% -- Obama Disillusionists
======================
55% -- Romney Voters
[unskewedpolls.com image 600x515]

There will be a lot of crying libs this wednesday.

there's a fark screen cap from some similar predictions from last time. I wish I could find it.


[thatsthejoke.jpg]
 
2012-11-03 04:53:18 PM
I hope you guys are right. Maybe the Rapepublicans will start a website, Shoveoff.org or something. At least my dad will have something different to talk about, because I'm sure he and my boss will talk about the "rigged election" at least thru Jan. 20, they may even openly state they hope somebody takes a shot at the phoney.
 
2012-11-03 04:55:06 PM

Spanky_McFarksalot: WombatControl: and there are indications that it might not even be as close as we think

someones been hangin out at unskewed polls again.


Um, no. The Unskewed Polls people are nuts - they're have the right idea (there's a skew in the polls than benefits Obama), but they take that idea too far.

Although it would tickle the hell out of me if they turned out to be right... but the chances of that are about as slim as Anne Hathaway parachuting into my front yard and demanding I ravage her right then and there. Not going to happen...
 
2012-11-03 04:55:46 PM

Modguy: wildcardjack: Does anyone study the butterfly effect of polling?

There might be some PhD grade stuff to research on the effects of polls on future poll results.

It's turtles all the way down.


Eh, the bandwagon and underdog effects have already been very well studied. What's going to be interesting this election around is that after the first debate, the media created a bandwagon effect for Romney despite Romney actually being thoroughly behind in the election. That can't be portrayed legitimately as an underdog effect, given the media was portraying Romney as a "winner", and that support for Romney was not being generated out of sympathy.

That a bandwagon effect can be, and was, created for the loser is very interesting.
 
2012-11-03 04:56:01 PM

WombatControl: all the inexplicable things going on with the numbers


Care to elaborate?
 
2012-11-03 04:56:42 PM

Popcorn Johnny: The electoral college is a ridiculously outdated concept and should be done away with.


If the electoral college cost Romeny the election you know the right will be calling for the constitutional amendment to get rid of it.
 
2012-11-03 04:56:45 PM

Lunchlady: I am frying up some crow pre-emptively for you.


Frying? Crow is a delicate meat! It should be roasted with salt and pepper!

What's really crazy is that you might be the only person who's right on all of FARK. Now, that's incredibly unlikely, but if you are I shall eat this crow myself.

In all likelihood though you are going to be proven hilariously incorrect.


Being the only person to be right on FARK is about like being the very best hockey player in Burbank...
 
2012-11-03 04:56:50 PM

Uchiha_Cycliste: GAT_00: Uchiha_Cycliste: cameroncrazy1984: GAT_00: Yeah, Nate has buckled a little under the pressure and attacks

I don't call that "buckling," I call that "having a spine" which is not something that media people are generally known for.

Should we really call him a media person? He's a math geek who's good enough at what he does that the NYTimes gave him a blog. I don't think he would consider himself a media personality.

He is one of the most important people to this election cycle. And just because you don't want to be a media person doesn't mean you aren't.

I'm not sure I agree, his *results* are a crucial factor in this election cycle. He could or could not be there and it would all be the same.


He's the one who developed the model, runs the simulations, and writes about the results. I suppose somebody else could have done the same, but to say he "could or could not be there" is kind of silly. Sure, he's not a reporter, he's a statistician, but he is also a writer and thus, a media figure.
 
2012-11-03 04:57:29 PM

Blue_Blazer: WombatControl: all the inexplicable things going on with the numbers

Care to elaborate?


They keep changing!
 
2012-11-03 04:57:45 PM
I read that piece earlier today. It's very poignant that Romney's chances of winning are basically equal to the likelihood that all the state polls are indeed 'skewed' in Obama's favor.

If I were a conservatives, I would not find that comforting.
 
2012-11-03 04:58:03 PM

Muta: Obama Disillusionists


Worst D&D class ever.
 
2012-11-03 04:59:07 PM

WombatControl: they're have the right idea (there's a skew in the polls than benefits Obama


Prove it.
 
2012-11-03 04:59:11 PM

Blue_Blazer: WombatControl: all the inexplicable things going on with the numbers

Care to elaborate?


Wombat still can't comprehend the new Democratic lean to Ohio.

images2.dailykos.com

Its not too hard to figure out. Unless you're Wombat.
 
2012-11-03 05:00:19 PM

homelessdude: Irregardless: It's all over but the shout. Romney can try again in 2016

Just the same, i will reserve shouting until the votes are in. With my luck I would jinx if for Obama if I shouted now.Dull Cow Eyes: "For Romney to Win, State Polls Must Be Statistically Biased"

See? Even Nate Silver admits the polls are biased.

/Willard will win eventually. If not in 2012, then in 2016, 2020, or 2024

Win or lose, this is it for Romney.

Either he just throws in the towel on running again by his own choice or he will be bounced away in future elections by republicans who never really liked him but found him to be less obnoxious than the other 10 or so GOP candidates this year. Mitt got the nod this year not because of his political ideology, but from the experience he gained as a losing candidate before. He knew when to shut up and let the rest of the field implode while he maintained a steady flight under the radar until there was nobody else left. He is a candidate via attrition, not popularity.

So either he wins this year and resigns in disgrace in a couple of years when all the hidden crap of his life comes out or he just fades away after his concession speech Tuesday night. 

Good riddance.


I concur especially about this "He is a candidate via attrition, not popularity." He was the lesser of 10 evils or maybe more appropriately the best funded of 10 evils.
 
2012-11-03 05:00:20 PM

Blue_Blazer: WombatControl: all the inexplicable things going on with the numbers

Care to elaborate?


The Ohio polls are showing a non-normal distribution, for one. I believe Jay Cost is the one who first noticed that.

We're also seeing a real disparity between the state polls and the national polls. Obama should not be winning in a swing state like Ohio by a bigger margin than he did in 2008 but somehow not winning nationally by as large a margin. Either Ohio has completely reversed its partisan orientation (which is possible, to be sure), or the numbers aren't adding up.

It doesn't make sense for Obama to be either slightly behind or only slightly ahead nationally, doing roughly the same in the safe red/blue states as he did in 2008, but dramatically ahead in the swing states. The demographics of the swing states aren't enough to move the numbers like that.

In short, either the national polls are hugely wrong or the swing state one are. They can't both be right at the same time.
 
2012-11-03 05:00:41 PM

Peki: I carpool with my coworker. The ride after the results are announced is going to be entertaining, because he's absolutely convinced himself of two things: 1) that the economy is the most important issue regarding election in this campaign, and 2) Romney's gonna win.

I told him that the critical issue is women's reproductive rights. The look on his face was priceless when he looked up the polling in swing states and found out I was right.


Wait...he actually looked up something that had the potential to change his views on things?

There may be hope for your coworker yet.
 
2012-11-03 05:00:49 PM

Biological Ali: Muta: Obama Disillusionists

Worst D&D class ever.


I don't know, they get a nifty bonus to casting Social Justice spells that can be useful in the right circumstances. The Trolljuration bonus is nice too.
 
2012-11-03 05:02:05 PM
I think it's very interesting that we've reached the point where everything is "locked in" for the election. That is, no major political event, speech, disaster, etc., will alter the dynamics of the election any further.

This is reflected by that fact that Nate has essentially changed the prediction from "84% chance Obama wins" to "100% chance Obama wins, unless there is a systematic bias in ALL the polls -- and the chance this bias not only exists but is so prominent that Romney will win the election is 16%."
 
2012-11-03 05:02:55 PM
The Everett Golson Era
The Tommy Rees Era
 
2012-11-03 05:03:37 PM
Oops, wrong tab.
 
2012-11-03 05:04:24 PM

WombatControl: Blue_Blazer: WombatControl: all the inexplicable things going on with the numbers

Care to elaborate?

The Ohio polls are showing a non-normal distribution, for one. I believe Jay Cost is the one who first noticed that.

We're also seeing a real disparity between the state polls and the national polls. Obama should not be winning in a swing state like Ohio by a bigger margin than he did in 2008 but somehow not winning nationally by as large a margin. Either Ohio has completely reversed its partisan orientation (which is possible, to be sure), or the numbers aren't adding up.

It doesn't make sense for Obama to be either slightly behind or only slightly ahead nationally, doing roughly the same in the safe red/blue states as he did in 2008, but dramatically ahead in the swing states. The demographics of the swing states aren't enough to move the numbers like that.

In short, either the national polls are hugely wrong or the swing state one are. They can't both be right at the same time.


What about the fact that Mr. "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt" (which would have also bankrupted many in Ohio, especially in the north, near Michigan) is in the race? And unemployment in Ohio is below the national average? Aren't those two relevant factors that would explain why Ohio may show a larger lead for Obama than, say, Iowa or New Hampshire?
 
2012-11-03 05:04:56 PM
Willard is done.
Read em and weep and let the butthurt flow through you, conservitards.
 
2012-11-03 05:05:24 PM

cameroncrazy1984: WombatControl: they're have the right idea (there's a skew in the polls than benefits Obama

Prove it.


Take the last Marist poll of Ohio. They have a partisan makeup of 38D/29R/32I (D+9). That's bigger than the D+5 advantage in 2008. If the Democrats are doing close to twice as well as they were in 2008, we should see early voting in strongly Democratic counties doubling. We should see a huge partisan advantage in early voting in Ohio. (And yes, I know how the early voting totals are calculated, but that should at least give us SOME idea of a Democratic wave forming). We should see Obama attracting huge crowds of motivated voters.

But we don't see that - all the signs point to less Democratic turnout than 2008, even if a little less. So those numbers don't match the reality of what we're seeing on the ground. The problem with someone like Nate Silver is that he's looking at the numbers only and not asking critical questions about how the numbers fit with the bigger picture.

That's the downside of statistical analysis - most of the time it works just fine, but sometimes it breaks horribly. The models that predicted that the housing market would never go down were highly advanced and done by people whose jobs depended on getting it right - and they were still horribly and tragically wrong.
 
2012-11-03 05:06:08 PM

Muta: Three numbers that aren't being talked about:

20% -- Teabag Patriots
20% -- Palin Supporters
15% -- Obama Disillusionists
======================
55% -- Romney Voters
[unskewedpolls.com image 600x515]

There will be a lot of crying libs this wednesday.


Gary, is that you?
 
2012-11-03 05:06:15 PM
And the MSM is banging away on the statistical dead heat drum.
 
2012-11-03 05:06:24 PM
i.huffpost.com

I'm not celebrating, not dismissing a 'false horserace', not feeling one iota of comfort, until I hear a Rmoney concession speech. The odds are against him winning, but far stranger things have happened.

But if and when he does lose... oh sweet FSM I'm going to enjoy rubbing it in the face of every indignant piece of Teabagger scum I can.
 
2012-11-03 05:07:12 PM

Blue_Blazer: What about the fact that Mr. "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt" (which would have also bankrupted many in Ohio, especially in the north, near Michigan) is in the race? And unemployment in Ohio is below the national average? Aren't those two relevant factors that would explain why Ohio may show a larger lead for Obama than, say, Iowa or New Hampshire?


Senate Bill 5, Senate Bill 5, Senate Bill 5. You want to piss off working-class white voters? Take away their union rights.
 
2012-11-03 05:07:45 PM

WombatControl: but that seems highly unlikely


Translation: "I don't like it and I'm going to base an entire argument on a premise I can't support".
 
2012-11-03 05:07:59 PM

12349876: pacified: there's a fark screen cap from some similar predictions from last time. I wish I could find it.

[www.madmann.com image 750x600]


You know, after the beating that Gary took for his "Nixon was tossed" remark, I wonder if he and WombatControl might be the same person.
 
2012-11-03 05:08:21 PM

LeftOfLiberal: Popcorn Johnny: The electoral college is a ridiculously outdated concept and should be done away with.

If the electoral college cost Romeny the election you know the right will be calling for the constitutional amendment to get rid of it.


I said it before, and I'll say it again: the right won't try to get rid of the electoral college. They have too much of an advantage in the form of disproportional representation among low-population red states to give up. I'd fully expect them to try to amend the electoral college thus:

- 102 electoral votes go to the states and District of Columbia, to be pledged as winner-take-all.
- 436 electoral votes are pledged proportionally on a state-by-state basis.

That way the Republicans lose very little if advantage from low-population red states, and siphon votes from the Democrats in high-population red states. For example, under this system in 2008 Obama would have only won 34 electoral votes in California, McCain would have won 20, and Nader would have won 1.
 
Displayed 50 of 254 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report