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  
•       •       •

6136 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 05:08:48 PM  

WombatControl: 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.


Wa Huh? Dude, you are REALLY reaching.
 
2012-11-03 05:09:49 PM  
Erm...siphon votes from Dems in high-population blue states. Oops, FTFM.
 
2012-11-03 05:10:16 PM  

anfrind: 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.


not enough rage and drunken rambling.
 
2012-11-03 05:10:22 PM  

WombatControl: But we don't see that - all the signs point to less Democratic turnout than 2008, even if a little less.


Again, wa huh? The early voting numbers showed MORE Democrats voting, not less.
 
2012-11-03 05:10:30 PM  

WombatControl: 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


Why? What history suggests that a doubling of party ID leads to doubling of early-voting numbers?
 
2012-11-03 05:11:26 PM  

that bosnian sniper: 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.


That cuts both ways: Texas, Florida, and Georgia for example.
 
2012-11-03 05:11:40 PM  

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: 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.


Sorry Mr. Buckeye, I did forget that.
 
2012-11-03 05:11:45 PM  

mediablitz: WombatControl: But we don't see that - all the signs point to less Democratic turnout than 2008, even if a little less.

Again, wa huh? The early voting numbers showed MORE Democrats voting, not less.


Just saw this tweet:

Ari Berman @AriBerman
3,125 people voted early in Cuyahoga County OH today, compared to 2,923 early voters Sat before election in 2008. So much for enthusiasm gap

So...yep, basically.
 
2012-11-03 05:11:50 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.


Well with Ohio in particular the unemployment rate is well below the national average (mainly thanks to the bailout of the auto industry *coughObamacough*) and demographic trends in the midwest are that older Republican voters continue to leave and retire elsewhere. This is why sunbelt states gain more and more EV's. Not to mention the national polls include the South where Obama is losing by an average of about 12% if you don't include Florida.

Look when you say what's happening with the polls is "inexplicable" you've already conceded the point. You're arguing based on "feelings" and can't give actual numbers. I understand your larger point, really I do. I don't think you're right, but I can follow your point. But I'm gonna go with the people who do this professionally and focus on numbers and trends instead of pundits who have something to gain by saying one thing or another and people who follow their gut.
 
2012-11-03 05:12:00 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: WombatControl: 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

Why? What history suggests that a doubling of party ID leads to doubling of early-voting numbers?


Not history so much as a strong feeling in the statisticles.
 
2012-11-03 05:12:14 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.


Their 2012 platform specifically is against it. I don't disagree with you, but to try and get rid of it would require an overnight 180 degree flip that I'm not even sure the GOP is capable of.

Plus an amendment requires 3/4 of the states to ratify it, and that will never happen.
 
2012-11-03 05:12:31 PM  

WombatControl:

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.


My theory - The red states are getting redder faster than the blue states are getting bluer, throwing off the national average.
 
2012-11-03 05:12:55 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).... (etc)


Fair enough, but you're logic means Scarborough, Rasmussen and the right-wing echo chamber have the clear, unbiased view of what is going on in the electorate, something I highly doubt. I actually buy the horse-race narrative - not only nationally, but within most swing states, I think we are looking at a dead-heat and it will probably come down to a few thousand votes in Ohio to determine a winner, just like in 2004. If conventional wisdom holds, that scenario favors the incumbent 9 times out of 10.
 
2012-11-03 05:13:32 PM  

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


The only reason he won *this* time was from the ineptitude of the other candidates, none of the serious contenders bothered to start running in 2011 when it was obvious unseating a popular incumbent candidate in a (slowly) improving economy would be a very difficult battle to win. Mitt winning the nomination says less about Mitt and more about Santorum, Bachmann, and Gingrich. Hell, the conservative base was so desperate for someone other than Mitt that they had *Cain* ahead in the polls for a month.

2016 will lack an incumbent and I kinda suspect Biden will be willing to retire in 2016 at the age of 74, national campaigns are just too tiring. The big guns of the GOP will be looking to take the White House and Romney wouldn't survive the primaries to see St Patricks Day let alone earn the nom again. Romney is surely and rightly done in the world of politics.
 
2012-11-03 05:14:44 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: mediablitz: WombatControl: But we don't see that - all the signs point to less Democratic turnout than 2008, even if a little less.

Again, wa huh? The early voting numbers showed MORE Democrats voting, not less.

Just saw this tweet:

Ari Berman @AriBerman
3,125 people voted early in Cuyahoga County OH today, compared to 2,923 early voters Sat before election in 2008. So much for enthusiasm gap

So...yep, basically.


It's similar in Florida--the last I saw, Romney has to win 55% of the vote on election day to break even given the early voting figures.
 
2012-11-03 05:18:55 PM  
He should throw $100k on InTrade.
 
2012-11-03 05:22:13 PM  

Richard Roma: [i.huffpost.com image 285x209]

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.



heh heh....I am holding off on the celebrating too, but am fully prepared to lose a few so-called friends on Wednesday morning. I have been listening to their falsehoods for a year now and cannot wait to drive the final spike into the coffin of these less than honest "friendships". I learned quite a few shocking things about certain people who I thought I knew before this election year. Now that i see their true colors, it is time to cut them loose.

I do not have time for bigoted morons who cannot spend even 15 seconds reading up on a candidate's position before spewing racial hatred.

I do not have time for bigoted morons period.
 
2012-11-03 05:22:40 PM  

ignatius_crumbcake: 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.

Their 2012 platform specifically is against it. I don't disagree with you, but to try and get rid of it would require an overnight 180 degree flip that I'm not even sure the GOP is capable of.

Plus an amendment requires 3/4 of the states to ratify it, and that will never happen.


FTFPlatform:
The Continuing Importance of Protecting the Electoral College (Top)

We oppose the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact or any other scheme to abolish or distort the procedures of the Electoral College. We recognize that an unconstitutional effort to impose "national popular vote" would be a mortal threat to our federal system and a guarantee of corruption as every ballot box in every state would become a chance to steal the presidency.

I know they flip-flop more than John Kerry, but I think they understand changing demographics, and that their only hope is with the Electoral College, if not now, then certainly in the near future.
 
2012-11-03 05:23:13 PM  

3_Butt_Cheeks: Popcorn Johnny: The electoral college is a ridiculously outdated concept and should be done away with.

And replaced with what?


Democracy!
 
2012-11-03 05:25:18 PM  

theknuckler_33: 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.



So one thing I've been wondering about is the "cell phone effect".

For the past 2 election cycles there's been talk about the supposed effect where young people are never polled because they have cell phones and no landlines. And since young people usually overwhelmingly vote Democratic, supposedly this means that polls are actually "skewed" towards Republicans.


Problem being? The last two elections have not shown this to be true, but I've never seen anyone explain why. Is the theory faulty to begin with? Do pollsters somehow take this into account?
 
2012-11-03 05:25:50 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.


According to Slate the runner-up from this primary will be the nominee in 2016.  So it looks like Santorum will be spilling out all over again in 2016.
 
2012-11-03 05:26:26 PM  
seriously look at the nation poll break down by region. The South is just farked up. But it don't matter how much AL and GA and MS hate obama.
 
2012-11-03 05:26:45 PM  

that bosnian sniper: 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.


if they don't remove the Electoral College entirely, I at least expect them to drop their defense of it from their official party platform if Obama wins the EV but not the popular vote.
 
2012-11-03 05:28:14 PM  
Hmmmmm Rasmussen no longer has Romney leading in Ohio. Wouldn't it be weird if Rasmussen started matching the other polls in the next couple of days and start having Obama in the lead?

/just like in 2008
 
2012-11-03 05:29:45 PM  

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: that bosnian sniper: 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.

That cuts both ways: Texas, Florida, and Georgia for example.


Not as much as you'd think.

Texas, with 34 electoral votes in 2008, under the system I'd propose if I were a Republican, would have awarded 20 EV's for McCain and 14 to Obama. Florida, which Obama won in 2008, would have awarded Obama 15, and McCain 12. Georgia would have awarded 9 to McCain and 6 to Obama.

New York, on the other hand, would have awarded 20 electoral votes to Obama, 10 to McCain, and 1 to Nader.

Under that system, the electoral vote pick-up from California alone would make up losses from the couple high-population red states, without eroding the electoral vote count from the low-population red states, while siphoning EV's from the other high-population blue states to boot.
 
2012-11-03 05:35:15 PM  
Rasmussen Reports 10/31 - 11/2 1500 LV 3.0 48 48 Tie

Rasmussen Reports for Ohio 11/1 - 11/1 750 LV 4.0 49 49 Tie

Rasmussen is finally seeing that if they don't "readjust" their polls they would be backing the wrong horse on Tuesday. This is exactly what everyone has been predicting they would do.
 
2012-11-03 05:36:49 PM  
Where'd Wombat go? I thought we were having a polite conversation

that bosnian sniper: Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: that bosnian sniper: 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.

That cuts both ways: Texas, Florida, and Georgia for example.

Not as much as you'd think.

Texas, with 34 electoral votes in 2008, under the system I'd propose if I were a Republican, would have awarded 20 EV's for McCain and 14 to Obama. Florida, which Obama won in 2008, would have awarded Obama 15, and McCain 12. Georgia would have awarded 9 to McCain and 6 to Obama.

New York, on the other hand, would have awarded 20 electoral votes to Obama, 10 to McCain, and 1 to Nader.

Under that system, the electoral vote pick-up from California alone would make up losses from the couple high-population red states, without eroding the electoral vote count from the low-population red states, while siphoning EV's from the other high-population blue states to boot.


Yo Dawg, I heard you like proportional voting, so I put proportional voting in your proportional voting so you can not be represented while you're not being represented.

/or something
//I support the EC
///but not this shiat
 
2012-11-03 05:37:03 PM  

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


He is done if he loses this. The GOP have a group of reasonably popular, with one side or overall, politicians (Rubio, Christie, Ryan, etc) getting ready to run in 2016. Mittens only got his shot this year because the field was disgustingly bad.

Kurmudgeon: quatchi: Dammit, Nate. they are trying to sell a horse race narrative and your facts are not helping in that regard!

Interesting point. Usually when there is a large voter turnout, it helps the Dems, not the GOP.
Are the right wingers shooting themselves in the foot pushing this narrative or are they actually ham stringing Romney because his name doesn't end in Bush or something else more preferred?
However, if it's anywhere close to a tie like they say, you better get out and vote.
/has already voted early


The tight race narrative encourages people to give them more money to fight the campaign. If they said there was no chance or that they had an easy win, there would be no need to give them money,
 
2012-11-03 05:37:29 PM  

MithrandirBooga: theknuckler_33: 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.


So one thing I've been wondering about is the "cell phone effect".

For the past 2 election cycles there's been talk about the supposed effect where young people are never polled because they have cell phones and no landlines. And since young people usually overwhelmingly vote Democratic, supposedly this means that polls are actually "skewed" towards Republicans.


Problem being? The last two elections have not shown this to be true, but I've never seen anyone explain why. Is the theory faulty to begin with? Do pollsters somehow take this into account?


It was my understanding that many polls do call cell phones. I read somewhere (I think on Silver's blog as a matter of fact) that robo-polls cannot legally call cell phones and I think some states outlaw polls from calling cell phones, but other than that, I think cell phones are now generally well represented in many polls. It would be interesting to see a detailed analysis of your question though, but I imagine the effect would be on the order of tenths of a percent. Just an 'out of my ass' guess, though.
 
2012-11-03 05:38:45 PM  

Aldon: Hmmmmm Rasmussen no longer has Romney leading in Ohio. Wouldn't it be weird if Rasmussen started matching the other polls in the next couple of days and start having Obama in the lead?

/just like in 2008


Keep there site's traffic/revenue up for the entire election and at the lest minute adjust their predictions to protect their credibility in advance of the next election? It would be pretty depraved and it only work if the people standing behind the Rasmussen poll numbers were complete idiots.
 
2012-11-03 05:40:12 PM  

Blue_Blazer: ignatius_crumbcake: 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.

Their 2012 platform specifically is against it. I don't disagree with you, but to try and get rid of it would require an overnight 180 degree flip that I'm not even sure the GOP is capable of.

Plus an amendment requires 3/4 of the states to ratify it, and that will never happen.

FTFPlatform:
The Continuing Importance of Protecting the Electoral College (Top)

We oppose the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact or any other scheme to abolish or distort the procedures of the Electoral College. We recognize that an unconstitutional effort to impose "national popular vote" would be a mortal threat to our federal system and a guarantee of corruption as every ballot box in every state would become a chance to steal the presidency.

I know they flip-flop more than John Kerry, but I think they understand changing demographics, and that their only hope is with the Electoral College, if not now, then certainly in the near future.



They'll never support disposing of the Electoral College. If there's no Electoral College, then campaigns will focus almost entirely on the largest cities in the country, due to the cost-benefit of targeting high population density areas.

This will make it infinitely more difficult for Republicans to campaign for president since they almost never win urban areas, and it would immediately remove the Republican party from ever being a presidential contender ever again.


This is similar to how they want to remove popular voting of senators as well. When faced with a popular vote situation where they cannot gerrymander districts to their favor, Republicans generally lose, which is why they are unable to take back the Senate, despite having an overwhelming majority in the House. In general, popular votes simply do not favor Republicans; or rather, they don't give them the advantage they want.


Here's an article about how the Republicans have used Gerrymandering to permanently conquer the House.

www.washingtonpost.com

Basically there's a nearly 50/50 split of Democrats and Republicans in the country, but because of redistricting tricks they've managed to make it so that they always have 195 safe seats vs Democrats 166 safe seats. That gives them a 20% advantage right off the bat.


Republicans know that the more people learn about them, the less they want to vote for them, so they must continually fight for ways to game the system.
 
2012-11-03 05:41:44 PM  
Why do polls exist in the first place? Elections are the only contest I know of where there's a 2 year tailgate party and everyone predicts who is going to win, and their predictions some how matter as to the actual contest.

Why don't we take polls for next year's Super Bowl winner? Because they don't matter. The contest itself, the election, is all that matters.

Help me see the rationale here for all this polling and prediction BS, is it all just for the lulz advertising revenue?
 
2012-11-03 05:44:22 PM  

joonyer: Why don't we take polls for next year's Super Bowl winner?


because the superbowl isn't an election?

high on analogy is no way to go thru life, son.
 
2012-11-03 05:46:09 PM  

joonyer: Why do polls exist in the first place? Elections are the only contest I know of where there's a 2 year tailgate party and everyone predicts who is going to win, and their predictions some how matter as to the actual contest.

Why don't we take polls for next year's Super Bowl winner? Because they don't matter. The contest itself, the election, is all that matters.

Help me see the rationale here for all this polling and prediction BS, is it all just for the lulz advertising revenue?


I'm sorry you're upset that Mitt Romney isn't going to win.
 
2012-11-03 05:46:10 PM  
everyone is forgetting about the reluctance of traditional republicans who when called by a pollster, will tell them to f**k off they are busy trying to fix supper etc. on the other hand, libs will gladly sit down and answer the pollsters questions because they feel that their answers might swing the election.

this happened to me when Gallup called me. i told them "sorry, don't have time." yeah, i was nice.
 
2012-11-03 05:46:25 PM  

that bosnian sniper: Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: that bosnian sniper: 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.

That cuts both ways: Texas, Florida, and Georgia for example.

Not as much as you'd think.

Texas, with 34 electoral votes in 2008, under the system I'd propose if I were a Republican, would have awarded 20 EV's for McCain and 14 to Obama. Florida, which Obama won in 2008, would have awarded Obama 15, and McCain 12. Georgia would have awarded 9 to McCain and 6 to Obama.

New York, on the other hand, would have awarded 20 electoral votes to Obama, 10 to McCain, and 1 to Nader.

Under that system, the electoral vote pick-up from California alone would make up losses from the couple high-population red states, without eroding the electoral vote count from the low-population red states, while siphoning EV's from the other high-population blue states to boot.


out of curiosity, if you're going to dole out EVs proportionately, why not just go straight popular vote as the deciding vote?
 
2012-11-03 05:47:43 PM  

pacified: seriously look at the nation poll break down by region. The South is just farked up. But it don't matter how much AL and GA and MS hate obama.


ehh....I have zero faith in 2016 predictions at this point. So much can happen in 4 years that it is highly unlikely that any predictions from this week will resemble reality in the next election cycle. I am sure we will see some of the same players next time around, but there is a whole corral of GOP potentials who will be in the mix. And this next group will have actual, real potential as opposed to the GOP Clown Car Passengers of the last year. I also think Ryan will not be part of the mix or a serious contender. While he has some chops, I just don't seem him as viable unless he undergoes a major ideology and image tune-up.

Besides, I tend to think these 2016 predictions are more about filling dead air time for less than knowledgeable pundits than actual intelligent predictions.
 
2012-11-03 05:48:19 PM  

FeedTheCollapse: that bosnian sniper: 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.

if they don't remove the Electoral College entirely, I at least expect them to drop their defense of it from their official party platform if Obama wins the EV but not the popular vote.


Sam Wang at the Princeton Electoral Consortium presents the best argument for the Electoral College that I've heard to date:./a>

Basically, he argues that with the EC, any count or recount issues are compartmentalized. Without it, any close calls or errors in the popular vote mean Bush v Gore type lawsuits everywhere, and long-running-heavily-argued recounts like Minnesota's Senatorial race in 08 could be the norm rather than the exception.

There's a certain amount of logic there. If you get rid of the EC, what do you replace it with? A single vote for each state, weighted to population? That just duplicates the EC. A truly national Popular vote? How do you deal with discrepancies? 300,000,000 people producing 120,000,000 votes is a truly weighty system. Yes, the EC may be a problem, but I can't see how the alternative that most people propose would be any sort of improvement.
 
2012-11-03 05:48:29 PM  

FeedTheCollapse: that bosnian sniper: Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: that bosnian sniper: 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.

That cuts both ways: Texas, Florida, and Georgia for example.

Not as much as you'd think.

Texas, with 34 electoral votes in 2008, under the system I'd propose if I were a Republican, would have awarded 20 EV's for McCain and 14 to Obama. Florida, which Obama won in 2008, would have awarded Obama 15, and McCain 12. Georgia would have awarded 9 to McCain and 6 to Obama.

New York, on the other hand, would have awarded 20 electoral votes to Obama, 10 to McCain, and 1 to Nader.

Under that system, the electoral vote pick-up from California alone would make up losses from the couple high-population red states, without eroding the electoral vote count from the low-population red states, while siphoning EV's from the other high-population blue states to boot.

out of curiosity, if you're going to dole out EVs proportionately, why not just go straight popular vote as the deciding vote?


Because a compact like that between the states wouldn't require a constitutional amendment, and thus is slightly more feasible.
 
2012-11-03 05:50:13 PM  

pion: homelessdude: Irregardless: It's all over but the shout. Romney can try again in 2016
According to Slate the runner-up from this primary will be the nominee in 2016.  So it looks like Santorum will be spilling out all over again in 2016.


(weird...that last comment was supposed to be a response to pion)
 
2012-11-03 05:51:09 PM  

heap: joonyer: Why don't we take polls for next year's Super Bowl winner?

because the superbowl isn't an election?

high on analogy is no way to go thru life, son.


Yeah well fark you. It was a bad analogy, I know.

PonceAlyosha: joonyer: Why do polls exist in the first place? Elections are the only contest I know of where there's a 2 year tailgate party and everyone predicts who is going to win, and their predictions some how matter as to the actual contest.

Why don't we take polls for next year's Super Bowl winner? Because they don't matter. The contest itself, the election, is all that matters.

Help me see the rationale here for all this polling and prediction BS, is it all just for the lulz advertising revenue?

I'm sorry you're upset that Mitt Romney isn't going to win.


Had your big bowl of paint chips this morning I see?
 
2012-11-03 05:51:45 PM  

that bosnian sniper: Under that system, the electoral vote pick-up from California alone would make up losses from the couple high-population red states, without eroding the electoral vote count from the low-population red states, while siphoning EV's from the other high-population blue states to boot.


But you're using straight up comparisons to an election under our current system. A new system means campaigns and GOTV efforts get re-directed. The Obama campaign shows up in force in Dallas, Atlanta, and Phoenix. The Romney campaign starts showing up in Orange County and upstate New York. Its a whole new ballgame.
 
2012-11-03 05:52:20 PM  

theknuckler_33: MithrandirBooga: theknuckler_33: 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.


So one thing I've been wondering about is the "cell phone effect".

For the past 2 election cycles there's been talk about the supposed effect where young people are never polled because they have cell phones and no landlines. And since young people usually overwhelmingly vote Democratic, supposedly this means that polls are actually "skewed" towards Republicans.


Problem being? The last two elections have not shown this to be true, but I've never seen anyone explain why. Is the theory faulty to begin with? Do pollsters somehow take this into account?

It was my understanding that many polls do call cell phones. I read somewhere (I think on Silver's blog as a matter of fact) that robo-polls cannot legally call cell phones and I think some states outlaw polls from calling cell phones, but other than that, I think cell phones are now generally well represented in many polls. It would be interesting to see a detailed analysis of your question though, but I imagine the effect would be on the order of tenths of a percent. Just an 'out of my ass' guess, though.


I recall this as well. As for why it may not be bearing out: Young People. They just do not vote in large numbers (2008 excepted) to be a massive enough demographic. On the other hand, I seem to recall that Rasmussen does NOT poll cell phone users, so it's possible some of their slant comes from that oversight.
 
2012-11-03 05:53:07 PM  

munko: everyone is forgetting about the reluctance of traditional republicans who when called by a pollster, will tell them to f**k off they are busy trying to fix supper etc. on the other hand, libs will gladly sit down and answer the pollsters questions because they feel that their answers might swing the election.

this happened to me when Gallup called me. i told them "sorry, don't have time." yeah, i was nice.


That's why polls are random or skewed to liberals the majority of the time, and we can never rely on them.

Except that they aren't and we do.


/I too told a pollster this year that I was busy, and I never answer my cell when it is a number I don't know. Voted for Obama (you would call me a Liberal)
//But don't let me get reality mixed up with what you think.... please proceed Poster.
 
2012-11-03 05:55:26 PM  

Blue_Blazer: ignatius_crumbcake: 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.

Their 2012 platform specifically is against it. I don't disagree with you, but to try and get rid of it would require an overnight 180 degree flip that I'm not even sure the GOP is capable of.

Plus an amendment requires 3/4 of the states to ratify it, and that will never happen.

FTFPlatform:
The Continuing Importance of Protecting the Electoral College (Top)

We oppose the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact or any other scheme to abolish or distort the procedures of the Electoral College. We recognize that an unconstitutional effort to impose "national popular vote" would be a mortal threat to our federal system and a guarantee of corruption as every ballot box in every state would become a chance to steal the presidency.

I know they flip-flop more than John Kerry, but I think they understand changing demographics, and that their only hope is with the Electoral College, if not now, then certainly in the near future.


I suggest someone reads the constitution. The State legislatures can decide to select electors in any manner they choose. National popular vote is a manner they can choose.
 
2012-11-03 05:56:42 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]


Haven't seen Gary around much lately.
 
2012-11-03 05:57:22 PM  

joonyer: Yeah well fark you.


well, you asked a silly question, what point is there in a serious answer.

people take polls on everything from favorite yogurt to amateur singers - why wouldn't there be polls on elections, policies, campaigns, or any of a litany of other political matters?
 
2012-11-03 06:00:49 PM  
Well, we've seen the build up for years now.

The hyping of Romney as the 'great hope'....

The in-fighting and feuding with the Tea Partiers..

The betrayal of The Paulites at the RNC..

Romney's anointing and then his subsequent slow-motion self-destruction over the course of six months of campaigning.

Do you wonder if he sits up at night, thinking to himself..."This is why I got thrashed and harassed and insulted by morons on my OWN SIDE for a year and a half? To be thrown under the bus by Chris Christie at the last minute? To be a sacrifice to a President that we couldn't beat?"

Has he come to terms with the hard numbers yet? Has he faced up to the reality that he's about to lose the race of his life, a race he had no real chance of winning, but convinced himself that he 'deserved'?

Does he realize yet that he was the chosen lamb to be slaughtered on the altar of necessity? That he was 'given' that shot knowing that he was meant to fail, to lose spectacularly so that his own party could purge the crazies and fringe idiots that they themselves courted in 2010?

Would his ego let him grasp that reality?

And does he realize yet that when he loses, as he was destined to lose, he's going to be viciously torn apart by that very party that chose him to fail...for daring to fail?

He'll be harassed and insulted by men and women like Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin. He'll be mocked by the movers and shakers in his party, ridiculed as a loser by a core group of people who would NEVER dare take the chance to run themselves, the shock jocks and talking heads...

It's like watching the last leg of a marathon, with one guy way out in front, just cruising, and the other guy is behind...Painfully behind...and you can 'see' it on his face, he knows he's going to lose, and he wants to quit so bad, he wants to stop, but you can't.

You can't stop and walk away. You 'have' to finish, even knowing that you've failed, you have to 'finish' failing before you can walk off the field.

It's almost enough to feel bad for him. And then you remember the comments about 'the 47%'. And then you just grin and set the DVR to record his concession speech.
 
2012-11-03 06:02:49 PM  

HeartBurnKid: 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.


Yeah, in retrospect I agree. Earlier I was linked to places where Nate speaks of himself that way, which I hadn't thought he had. So I was wrong.
 
2012-11-03 06:04:38 PM  

WombatControl: 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.


Actually Nate Silver as about a 16% chance that the polls are biased systematically towards Obama built in to his model. That is why he give Romney a 16% chance of winning. Otherwise he would be at 99.8% like Wang.
 
Displayed 50 of 254 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report