Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Wednesday, October 31, 2012

OTP November 2012 - Moneypoll! The Pundits vs. The Election-Data Nerds

Come next Tuesday night, we’ll get a resolution (let’s hope) to a great ongoing battle of 2012: not just the Presidential election between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, but the one between the pundits trying to analyze that race with their guts and a new breed of statistics gurus trying to forecast it with data.

In Election 2012 as seen by the pundits–political journalists on the trail, commentators in cable-news studios–the campaign is a jump ball. There’s a slight lead for Mitt Romney in national polls and slight leads for Barack Obama in swing-state polls, and no good way of predicting next Tuesday’s outcome beyond flipping a coin. ...

Bonus link: Esquire - The Enemies of Nate Silver

Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 31, 2012 at 11:42 PM | 11298 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: mr president, off-topic, politics, sabermetrics, usa

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 17 of 114 pages ‹ First  < 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 >  Last ›
   1601. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: November 04, 2012 at 05:54 PM (#4292787)
flip
   1602. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: November 04, 2012 at 05:57 PM (#4292790)
Whoops. Mis-timed the flip. According to Pew more Obama voters are voting for him rather than against Romney rather than Romney's support which has a higher proportion of voters voting against Obama rather than for Romney.
   1603. Random Transaction Generator Posted: November 04, 2012 at 05:57 PM (#4292791)
"I was shocked to see it lined up exactly right, that whenever the Redskins won their last home game prior to the presidential election, the incumbent party retained the White House, and whenever the Redskins lost their last home game prior to the election, the out-of-power party won the White House."


Except, of course, when it doesn't happen.
   1604. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: November 04, 2012 at 05:58 PM (#4292792)
PPP in Iowa...

Obama up 50-48, which is not so good, but Obama up 61-39 with people who already voted. I'm assuming that's very good, no? The 50-48 excludes the early voters, right?
   1605. DA Baracus Posted: November 04, 2012 at 05:59 PM (#4292793)
Except, of course, when it doesn't happen.


In fairness that quote is from 2000.
   1606. Random Transaction Generator Posted: November 04, 2012 at 05:59 PM (#4292794)
BTW, Matthew Dowd's prediction (#1600) is the first one I've seen where a political strategist/pundit from either side has picked the "opposing team" to win.
   1607. spike Posted: November 04, 2012 at 06:02 PM (#4292795)
"Redskins Rule"

Countered by the Alabama-LSU rule going for Obama - it really is a dead heat!!!!
   1608. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: November 04, 2012 at 06:08 PM (#4292798)
ABC/WaPo 49-48 Obama
   1609. DA Baracus Posted: November 04, 2012 at 06:08 PM (#4292799)
The 50-48 excludes the early voters, right?


No, it is all voters.
   1610. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: November 04, 2012 at 06:09 PM (#4292800)
2006 midterms were ridiculously good for dems, but they only won tbe party ID exit poll by 37-35. 2010 republican wave election was not accompanied by a huge jump in people identifying themselves as republicans. Seems like there's a fair bit of evidence that party ID doesn't mean much.
   1611. McCoy Posted: November 04, 2012 at 06:10 PM (#4292802)
For Presidential Elections:

Year DEM GOP D-R
1972 35
61% -26
1976 43
54% -11
1980 30
55% -25
1984 36
63% -27
1988 43
55% -12
1992 38
326
1996 43
358
2000 45
47% -2
2004 49
48


For House Elections:
Year DEM GOP D-R
1976 54
4410
1980 43
54% -11
1982 49
472
1984 45
52% -7
1986 49
454
1988 51
438
1990 51
456
1992 51
447
1994 41
55% -14
1996 47
49% -2
1998 45
48% -3
2000 46
49% -3
2002 45
48% -3
2004 49
463
2006 57
3918 


Party ID
Year Dem Ind GOP
1972 46
1935%
1976 413425%
1980 452630%
1982 462430%
1984 382636%
1986 402634%
1988 382635%
1990 373034%
1992 382735%
1994 362935%
1996 392635%
1998 372835%
2000 392735%
2002 382339%
2004 372637%
2006 382735


Courtesy of the Washington Post.
   1612. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: November 04, 2012 at 06:10 PM (#4292803)
No, it is all voters.

Ah. Thanks.
   1613. spike Posted: November 04, 2012 at 06:11 PM (#4292804)
a political strategist/pundit from either side has picked the "opposing team" to win.

Newt Gingrich said Obama's going to win last Thursday.
   1614. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: November 04, 2012 at 06:15 PM (#4292806)
Newt Gingrich said Obama's going to win last Thursday.

I can't wait to vote for Obama again in 2016.
   1615. Danny Posted: November 04, 2012 at 06:15 PM (#4292807)
Newt Gingrich said Obama's going to win last Thursday.

More like the opinion of a fraudster Gingrich rented his email list to.
   1616. McCoy Posted: November 04, 2012 at 06:17 PM (#4292810)
Pew did some research into instability of party affiliation in 2008. Just days after the 2008 election they called back people they had talked to in October and found that 83% of the people who identified themselves as Republicans still identified themselves as Republicans. 2% now identified as Dems and 15% said something else. Dems kept 90% of their people while losing 2% to the GOP and 8% to something else. 82% Independents/Others remained that way while 9% went for the GOP and 9% went for the Dems.

The changeability of party affiliation is one key reason why Pew Research and most other public pollsters do not attempt to adjust their samples to match some independent estimate of the “true” balance of party affiliation in the country.
   1617. Shredder Posted: November 04, 2012 at 06:22 PM (#4292812)
New low for Elias Sports Bureau
This sort of thing, irrational as it is, worries me more than any of the polls.
   1618. Kiko Sakata Posted: November 04, 2012 at 06:25 PM (#4292813)
This sort of thing, irrational as it is, worries me more than any of the polls.


If it makes you feel any better, it's actually only worked for 1 of the last 2 Presidential elections.
   1619. spike Posted: November 04, 2012 at 06:25 PM (#4292814)
More like the opinion of a fraudster Gingrich rented his email list to.

Perhaps, but Newt's speechwriter is convinced.
   1620. Danny Posted: November 04, 2012 at 06:32 PM (#4292816)
Today's national polls:

Zogby: tie
Rasmussen: tie
Battleground: tie
UPI: O+1
Reuters: O+1
NBC/WSJ: O+1
ABC/WaPo: O+1
YouGov: O+2
Pew: O+3
RAND: O+3
   1621. McCoy Posted: November 04, 2012 at 06:33 PM (#4292818)
Obama at .5 at RCP.
   1622. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 04, 2012 at 06:35 PM (#4292819)
There are no exit polls for 2012, and everyone (including you) knows the electorate looks very different in midterm elections than it does in presidential elections.

Yes, but there are party affiliation surveys with far more respondents than any of the political polls that are currently being watched so closely, and they don't show any defection from the GOP to the "indy" column in the years since the Tea Party.
   1623. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 04, 2012 at 06:38 PM (#4292820)
This sort of thing, irrational as it is, worries me more than any of the polls.

If so, here's another one that should make you even more nervous:

REPUBLICANS HAVE WON EVERY NOVEMBER 6TH PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION SINCE 1860

Here's one more historical curiosity to observe this election cycle. Since election day was standardized in 1845 there have been 6 presidential elections held on November 6th and Republicans have won all six. That means next Tuesday, the 7th Presidential election held on this date, will either break or uphold a streak that began in 1860 with the election of Abraham Lincoln.
   1624. McCoy Posted: November 04, 2012 at 06:42 PM (#4292823)
According to Gallup just days after the 2010 election it was 47-44 Dems in their party affiliation polls. The last poll they did at the end of September of this year has it at 50-43 Dems.
   1625. Random Transaction Generator Posted: November 04, 2012 at 06:43 PM (#4292824)
From the comments at #1623:

If WE are LUCKY, the vast LEFT-WING conspiracy that even the "Progressives" don't bother to deny will FAIL to STEAL the Election.


Hey! Those guys can't rip-off the "vast conspiracy" and "steal election" crap! That's the left's go-to mantra!

No fair!
   1626. spike Posted: November 04, 2012 at 06:44 PM (#4292825)
45 swing state polls on Fri/Sat from a dozen or so firms - 38 Obama, 4 ties, 3 Romnney. Hope springs eternal for some, I guess. No Romney leads in OH (1 tie) or VA, WI, PA (1 tie), IA, NH (1 tie), ME or MI
   1627. Monty Predicts a Padres-Mariners WS in 2016 Posted: November 04, 2012 at 06:46 PM (#4292827)
Did you know that if Republicans are odd numbers and Democrats are even numbers, the first five digits of pi show the last five election results?

I mean, I haven't checked. But they might! And if they don't, there's probably a very similar string in there. Or in a similar constant, like e or something.

It's possible that my laziness is keeping me from my rightful position as America's Preeminent Numerologist.
   1628. spike Posted: November 04, 2012 at 06:49 PM (#4292829)
Hey! Those guys can't rip-off the "vast conspiracy" and "steal election" crap!

They own the RANDOM capitalized WORD thing though.
   1629. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 04, 2012 at 06:52 PM (#4292830)
According to Gallup just days after the 2010 election it was 47-44 Dems in their party affiliation polls. The last poll they did at the end of September of this year has it at 50-43 Dems.

In other words, no more than a one-point decline in GOP party ID, which is hardly enough to explain Romney's lead among independents.
   1630. The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott) Posted: November 04, 2012 at 06:53 PM (#4292831)
Obama is dooooomed.

Does it work as a reverse jinx if I'm admitting it's a reverse jinx?
   1631. Tilden Katz Posted: November 04, 2012 at 06:55 PM (#4292832)
From the comments at #1623:


Most relevant to this site:

"Grover Cleveland Alexander and Franklin Delano Roosevelt were anomalies, and yet both adhere to the pattern.

Alexander lost his First re-election bid in 1888 DESPITE getting more popular votes than his opponent and more than he got in 1884- losing the electoral vote to Benjamin Harrison. Cleveland then comes back to win a second non-consecutive term in 1892, defeating Harrison's re-election bid by a larger margin than he first won in 1884."
   1632. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: November 04, 2012 at 06:58 PM (#4292833)
In my district, the Dem House nominee (a current state senator) apparently called stay-at-home moms "leeches" - no idea the context or when this happened. The campaign ads for the Republican (former mayor of the state's wealthiest town) are unrelentingly hammering away.
   1633. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 04, 2012 at 07:04 PM (#4292834)
   1634. tshipman Posted: November 04, 2012 at 07:10 PM (#4292835)
Massive Decrease in Early and Absentee Voting—in Chicago


Oh man. Now, from the links that Yankee Clapper and Kehoskie have posted, I am completely convinced that Obama will lose his reelect bid. Polls mean nothing, all that matters is this thinly sourced evidence from partisan sources.

Clearly he will go down in flames.
   1635. Shredder Posted: November 04, 2012 at 07:10 PM (#4292836)
Hilarious. Joek posts a link to wing nut website quoting the Republican Party who are claiming that the Illinois Board of Elections is lying, and he seems to think it's a credible source. I think this may finally put him beyond parody.
   1636. Monty Predicts a Padres-Mariners WS in 2016 Posted: November 04, 2012 at 07:13 PM (#4292837)
Massive Decrease in Early and Absentee Voting—in Chicago


From that article:

"We believe the Chicago Board of Elections is misrepresenting their numbers in making comparisons to 2008," a spokesman for the Illinois Republican party explains. "According to the numbers we see in the State Board of Elections database, there is a significant fall off in reported absentee voting in city of Chicago. The Chicago Board of Elections is reporting 240k in early voting and claiming it's on track to surpass 2008 - but they're actually combining 2012 Early Voting and absentee voting, and then comparing that sum to 2008's early voting numbers (excluding absentee). There is a significant 57% drop in voter participation in the City of Chicago from 2008 - in the President's hometown. I'd also point out that despite the Chicago Board's point that early voting is four days shorter this year than in 2008, Illinois recently instituted "vote-by-mail" without an excuse needed, i.e. early voting by mail. This did not exist in 2008 and should have vastly expanded the numbers."


I'd mostly like to question the phrase "a spokesman for the Illinois Republican Party" -- why is this not attributed? It's a spokesman! It seems weird for both the Illinois Republican Party and for the Weekly Standard not to say who it was.
   1637. spike Posted: November 04, 2012 at 07:18 PM (#4292839)
I heard there are busloads of Somalis being driven to the polls and instructed on how to vote inside the polling place by democratic operatives. True story!
   1638. DA Baracus Posted: November 04, 2012 at 07:18 PM (#4292840)
From the link within Joe's link:

Elsewhere, at the Early Voting sites, Chicago voters were on pace to cast well over 28,000 ballots in Saturday Early Voting, after casting about 25,300 in Early Voting on Friday, Allen said in a release. The city was on pace to see a total of more than 240,000 ballots cast in Early Voting by the close of the program Saturday.

That’s nearly as many Early Voting ballots as were cast in 2008, even though this year’s Early Voting program runs 14 days, compared to 18 days of Early Voting in 2008, according to Allen.
   1639. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 04, 2012 at 07:26 PM (#4292841)
From the link within Joe's link:

Yes, they seem to be comparing 2012 early and absentee to 2008 early, just as alleged.

***
Hilarious. Joek posts a link to wing nut website quoting the Republican Party who are claiming that the Illinois Board of Elections is lying, and he seems to think it's a credible source. I think this may finally put him beyond parody.

Still waiting for those links showing a huge defection from the GOP to the "independent" column since 2008.
   1640. Jack Keefe Posted: November 04, 2012 at 07:32 PM (#4292842)
Well Al they are all up set because if the Red Skins loose in a year when the vote is on Nov. 6 then Barack Obrella is doomeded. Well Al this may be so. We do not have a large enough Sandal Size. But here is a curious Fact. You know I was borned in Terre Haute in 1982 Al. It seems fruitloops to deny it. Well the Week End before Election Day in 1984 my Ma says I ate too much Butter Scotch Sirup and got a terrible case of the Runs Al you can just Imagine. And then Ronald Raygun won the Electoin he was a Publican.

Well guess what in 1988 my Mam says that Week End I ate a whole bowl of Buttered Pease and got the Squirts again Al and who should win but George Hubert Walker Busch.

In 1992 I recall my Bowel Habuts were normal the weak end before the Election and in 1996 I was regular as can be with nicely formed Fibrous Floaters and both times it was Dem. win even though my Mam voted for Ralph Nadir.

I really hopt Al Gore would win in Y2K Al and I voted for him my first time ever in the Booth but the weekend before I could not resist getting a big bag of Loaded Fat Free Lays with Olestra Al and once again results were not good for my Colon or for the Nation.

Then in 2004 I was on Tainterhooks hoping I could excel in the Alberta Fall League and be called up the the Chi. Sox and I must of sat on the can all the live Long weekend and who should win but Busch again he must have been Pres. about six times. But in 2008 I was watching my diet you betcha and Mr. Obrella was a Land Slide.

So what polestars want to know is Whats in Keefes Toilet this weekend but it is a Trade Secret Al. Lets just say I have sat here & composted this whole E Mail without getting up once to run for the Facilities. Ha ha but who knoes al.
   1641. 'Spos Posted: November 04, 2012 at 07:38 PM (#4292844)
Close the thread. We're done.
   1642. Danny Posted: November 04, 2012 at 07:39 PM (#4292845)
In the two November MA-SEN polls, Scott Brown has 52/36 and 57/31 job approval ratings (barely worse than John Kerry)--yet he's still losing by 6 points and 4 points. Goes to show how bad of a candidate Coakley was and how different the electorate is in a presidential election.
   1643. Tilden Katz Posted: November 04, 2012 at 07:42 PM (#4292846)
Brown is easily elected governor in 2014, right?
   1644. Shredder Posted: November 04, 2012 at 07:49 PM (#4292848)
Still waiting for those links showing a huge defection from the GOP to the "independent" column since 2008.
No you aren't. You're too busy scouring the Internet looking for ridiculously partisan stories which tell you that the numbers you're seeing aren't really the numbers you're seeing. I don't want to get in your way. You're going to need all the moral support and falsely positive hope you can find in the next two days.
   1645. BurlyBuehrle Posted: November 04, 2012 at 07:50 PM (#4292849)
Joe in 1534:

On a related topic, it seems like a lot of the Nate defenders haven't posted their election predictions yet. Maybe they're just too spread out in this thread and there have been more than it seems (?).


Honest question: Have you posted your prediction? I've followed the thread pretty closely, and I haven't seen it. If not, do you plan on posting one?

Also, just in case mine was one of the predictions you missed, it was in #1426. I stand by it, reserving the right to revise it up to about 3 pm (eastern) Tuesday.

As a "Nate defender," (meaning, I guess, defender of poll aggregation and data analysis?) if Romney wins, I would expect a very detailed and cogent blog post on "what went wrong," and I would expect it to be much more than "the data were wrong/biased." That begs the question "why didn't you discover that bias and incorporate it into your model?" Maybe it would have been impossible to do so. But Nate would, IMHO, have to acknowledge that a Romney win would beg that question.
   1646. Adam M Posted: November 04, 2012 at 07:52 PM (#4292850)
Jack Keefe in 2012. And 2014, 2016, 2018, etc...
   1647. Lassus Posted: November 04, 2012 at 07:52 PM (#4292851)
Honest question: Have you posted your prediction? I've followed the thread pretty closely, and I haven't seen it. If not, do you plan on posting one?

He did, it's not to far back in the last two or three pages, you should be able to find it.
   1648. spike Posted: November 04, 2012 at 07:55 PM (#4292852)
You're too busy scouring the Internet looking for ridiculously partisan stories

That Chicago one went up on Free Republic 10 minutes before Joe's post. Interesting, as Yankee Claaper would say.
   1649. Shredder Posted: November 04, 2012 at 07:56 PM (#4292853)
I love that Jack Keefe knows what Olestra is, and spells it properly.
   1650. Monty Predicts a Padres-Mariners WS in 2016 Posted: November 04, 2012 at 08:01 PM (#4292856)
Honest question: Have you posted your prediction? I've followed the thread pretty closely, and I haven't seen it. If not, do you plan on posting one?

He did, it's not to far back in the last two or three pages, you should be able to find it.


Joe's prediction is is in post 1002, on this page
   1651. BurlyBuehrle Posted: November 04, 2012 at 08:04 PM (#4292857)
Thanks, Lassus and Monty.

EDIT: And thanks, Joe. It won't surprise you to learn that I think your prediction is in Romney absolute beyond my wildest dreams best case scenario territory. But I imagine you have similar feelings about my prediction (to the extent you've even thought about my prediction; I don't pretend to be important enough that people would think about such things.)

Cheers.
   1652. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 04, 2012 at 08:04 PM (#4292858)
Honest question: Have you posted your prediction? I've followed the thread pretty closely, and I haven't seen it. If not, do you plan on posting one?

Yes, yesterday. It was the second comment on the page, about three or four pages back. (EDIT: Or six pages back; thanks Lassus and Monty.)

***
That Chicago one went up on Free Republic 10 minutes before Joe's post. Interesting, as Yankee Claaper would say.

Clicking that link was the first time I've been to Free Republic in at least a month.
   1653. Lassus Posted: November 04, 2012 at 08:09 PM (#4292860)
Joe's prediction is is in post 1002, on this page.

Boy, time flies.
   1654. The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott) Posted: November 04, 2012 at 08:12 PM (#4292861)
Predictions!

http://www.270towin.com/2012_election_predictions.php?mapid=baiy

Obama PV win 50-48
   1655. The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott) Posted: November 04, 2012 at 08:14 PM (#4292862)
That map in 1002 is just flat funny.
   1656. spike Posted: November 04, 2012 at 08:14 PM (#4292863)
Even Brit Hume working through the five stages now.

"“I think the conventional wisdom is trending now towards a Obama win, something along the lines of what Karl Rove and his team pulled off for President Bush in 2004, but I’m by no means certain,” Hume told Fox News host Chris Wallace. “And there’s this striking discrepancy between national polls — which tend to be done, by and large, by older, more-seasoned polling firms — and state polls — a number of which are done by less-established firms. The national polls have this a tie. The state polls, as you just suggested — the battleground state polls suggest and indicate that President Obama is ahead in all of them.”

“It seems striking that there would be this difference,” he added. “And it is sobering, if you’re a Romney supporter, to think that he is trailing or just tied in so many of those states.” “I think it’s unlikely — it’s hard to imagine as a political journalist that all these many polls are off. But the discrepancy is unmistakable and puzzling.”


   1657. Ray (RDP) Posted: November 04, 2012 at 08:17 PM (#4292865)
My official prediction is that Obama will carry every state.

He has a 100.0% chance to win. Every state.
   1658. RB in NYC (Now Semi-Retired from BBTF) Posted: November 04, 2012 at 08:24 PM (#4292866)
My official prediction is that Obama will carry every state.
And I thought Jim Cramer was high on Obama's chances!
   1659. Danny Posted: November 04, 2012 at 08:31 PM (#4292869)
Latest 538

Romney wins popular vote: 21%
Romney wins popular vote but loses electoral college: 7%
   1660. villageidiom Posted: November 04, 2012 at 08:33 PM (#4292870)
“I think it’s unlikely — it’s hard to imagine as a political journalist that all these many polls are off. But the discrepancy is unmistakable and puzzling.”
Well, it's indicative of something
   1661. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 04, 2012 at 08:34 PM (#4292871)
Final Gallup/USA Today poll of swing states has it tied, 48-48, among likely voters.
   1662. Monty Predicts a Padres-Mariners WS in 2016 Posted: November 04, 2012 at 08:36 PM (#4292872)
Boy, time flies.


It does! I kept thinking, "Well, that was really recent. Surely it's just one more page back..."
   1663. Best Regards, President of Comfort, Esq. Posted: November 04, 2012 at 08:44 PM (#4292875)
My prediction: Romney wins all the swing states that he wins by close margins, while Obama wins Ohio, Wisconsin and Nevada by 3-5 percent. Obama 271-267, but it's called for him relatively early because most of Romney's swing state wins aren't called until very late.

Obama wins the popular vote 49.8%-49.0%

51+2 Democratic seats in the Senate.
   1664. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: November 04, 2012 at 08:48 PM (#4292877)
Romney wins popular vote: 21%
Romney wins popular vote but loses electoral college: 7%
Yeah, as Silver noted, a bunch of safe state polls came in big for Romney in the last couple days. It's interesting, maybe the state / national split is pretty much real.
   1665. Monty Predicts a Padres-Mariners WS in 2016 Posted: November 04, 2012 at 08:51 PM (#4292878)
   1666. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: November 04, 2012 at 09:00 PM (#4292879)
   1667. Howie Menckel Posted: November 04, 2012 at 09:00 PM (#4292880)
moving on to 2016, some media pool notes from Christie's visit to Sandy-ravaged Hoboken today (not an endorsement by any means; it is interesting how he "makes the game look so easy" though....)

"People lined up on the sidewalk to greet Christie, who was wearing grey suit trousers and the same blue fleece jacket with his name and title monogrammed on the left breast that he’s been sporting since the storm hit. Christie’s home in Mendham is still without power.

The crowd was enthusiastic and boisterous. Virginia Einstein of Hoboken was one of many who wanted a photo with the governor. Why? “What Christie has done ... he’s a f---g rock star,” she said.

Inside the shelter, it was more of the same. People flocking to meet Christie, some to shake his hand or get a hug, others to tell their troubles to.

He patted a lot of shoulders, and hugged anyone who appeared to need one.

When one little girl asked whether he was going to dress up for Halloween on Monday, Christie said, “I’m going to be governor for Halloween _ scare everybody.”

Asked if he had seen a Saturday Night Live skit that spoofed his and Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s storm response, Christie said he’d fallen asleep but got the synopsis from his older kids who had watched the show.

“The only time I’m cool with my kids is when I’m on Saturday Night Live or when Oprah came to the house,” he said.

   1668. DA Baracus Posted: November 04, 2012 at 09:01 PM (#4292881)
For fellow West Wing fans:

CAIRO -- The screening room of the public library in the U.S. Embassy is dim and quiet. Around 20 pairs of eyes are locked on the flat screen Sony TV at the front as the theme song to The West Wing rises to a crescendo. On the right wall hangs a map of America with U.S. Electoral College votes divvied up by state; on the left side stands a table stacked with booklets called "U.S.A. Elections in Brief" in English and Arabic, sandwiched between cardboard cut-outs of president Barack Obama and Mitt Romney.

The Embassy's Public Affairs office is screening Episode 17, Season 7, of Aaron Sorkin's signature creation.


I liked this part:

"I was disappointed because Obama is moving the United States toward socialism," says Amira, a self-declared supporter of the Republican Party announces (possibly the first I have met in Egypt -- though the country is socially conservative, Republicans earned a bad reputation over years of military incursions in the region). She mentions that Obama grew up on the "dole" and now that he's in office, he's continuing to push the "dole." When I ask her later where she gets her news, she tells me unabashedly, "The right wing media websites."


Points for honesty.
   1669. Random Transaction Generator Posted: November 04, 2012 at 09:03 PM (#4292882)
If Christie's lucky, he'll be able to cash in on his Guiliani moment 4 years earlier than Rudy had to wait.
   1670. Monty Predicts a Padres-Mariners WS in 2016 Posted: November 04, 2012 at 09:04 PM (#4292883)
Christie’s home in Mendham is still without power.


Oh, man. That's such a good political move that I want to believe it's on purpose.
   1671. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: November 04, 2012 at 09:07 PM (#4292884)
I was shocked to see it lined up exactly right, that whenever the Redskins won their last home game prior to the presidential election, the incumbent party retained the White House, and whenever the Redskins lost their last home game prior to the election, the out-of-power party won the White House."



Except, of course, when it doesn't happen.


Reminds me of the law of zeroes. Since 1840, every president elected in a year ending in 0 was either shot, or died in office (or both), until Bush in 2000.
   1672. McCoy Posted: November 04, 2012 at 09:09 PM (#4292886)
After the 2008 election 17% of the people who identified themselves as Republican no longer indentified themselves as Republican. A small group of people changed to Dem while the vast majority of the 17% swithed Independent/Other according to Gallup.

A week before the 2008 election 33% of the people identified themselves as Republicans. A week before the 2010 election 29% of the people identified themselves as Republicans. In Gallups last poll this year 28% of the people identified themselves as Republicans.

Dems have stayed stable. They were at 34 in 2008, 32 in 2010, and 32 in 2012.

What has stayed relatively stable for the GOP is the % of people leaning Republican. Meaning you add up those who declare themselves Republicans and Ind/Others who when questioned lean Republican have stayed mostly unchanged though down a point or two.

So you take the two pieces of information and it seems obvious that the growing tea party movement and libertarians has taken points away from Republicans when talking about demographics.
   1673. Random Transaction Generator Posted: November 04, 2012 at 09:10 PM (#4292888)
Oh, man. That's such a good political move that I want to believe it's on purpose.

If it is, it's dicey. You can't really turn on the power to a block of houses and exclude one, can you?
(Or does he live in a governor's mansion?)

If he's decided that his governor's residence doesn't get power until everyone else in his state has power, then he's VERY smart.
Even though it's ripe for cynicism, if he did that I'd still applaud it.
   1674. DA Baracus Posted: November 04, 2012 at 09:11 PM (#4292889)
If it is, it's dicey. You can't really turn on the power to a block of houses and exclude one, can you?
(Or does he live in a governor's mansion?)


The governor's mansion is in Princeton so his house in Mendham is his actual house.
   1675. Random Transaction Generator Posted: November 04, 2012 at 09:13 PM (#4292892)
The governor's mansion is in Princeton so his house in Mendham is his actual house.


Then I have to assume he wouldn't deny anyone else on his block power.
   1676. greenback calls it soccer Posted: November 04, 2012 at 09:14 PM (#4292893)
The stuff in Kuwait is both amazing and invisible.
   1677. Best Regards, President of Comfort, Esq. Posted: November 04, 2012 at 09:15 PM (#4292894)
Reminds me of the law of zeroes. Since 1840, every president elected in a year ending in 0 was either shot, or died in office (or both), until Bush in 2000.
That's because he wasn't elected!

*Rimshot*
   1678. Monty Predicts a Padres-Mariners WS in 2016 Posted: November 04, 2012 at 09:17 PM (#4292895)
Then I have to assume he wouldn't deny anyone else on his block power.


That's loser talk! I go full Machiavelli on this: make sure your own block is the absolute last one on the list. Too bad, neighbors!
   1679. Austin Posted: November 04, 2012 at 09:18 PM (#4292896)
My actual prediction, which is completely conventional. No reason to try to be bold.

My "holy ####, this is turning out to be a real nailbiter" prediction. I consider this to be pretty close to the worst-case scenario for Obama. Ohio's polling has been very consistent, and there's no way in hell that he's losing Nevada, Pennsylvania, or Wisconsin unless every poll were drastically wrong.
   1680. Darren Posted: November 04, 2012 at 09:20 PM (#4292897)
Not sure how much this interests people here, but Linda McMahon is doing something rather bizarre in CT: she's giving out doorhangers that say to vote for her and Obama. Sounds pretty desperate.
   1681. Best Regards, President of Comfort, Esq. Posted: November 04, 2012 at 09:20 PM (#4292898)
My "holy ####, this is turning out to be a real nailbiter" prediction. I consider this to be pretty close to the worst-case scenario for Obama. Ohio's polling has been very consistent, and there's no way in hell that he's losing Nevada, Pennsylvania, or Wisconsin unless every poll were drastically wrong.
That's the same as my projection. I have him winning those states easily, and losing the other swing states closely, so they call the election for him relatively early, but they don't call the states for Romney until after midnight, or the next day.
   1682. Best Regards, President of Comfort, Esq. Posted: November 04, 2012 at 09:21 PM (#4292899)
Not sure how much this interests people here, but Linda McMahon is doing something rather bizarre in CT: she's giving out doorhangers that say to vote for her and Obama. Sounds pretty desperate.
Well, she needs some Obama voters.
   1683. Weekly Journalist_ Posted: November 04, 2012 at 09:28 PM (#4292900)
Anyone watching this godawful Seal Team Six movie?
   1684. Austin Posted: November 04, 2012 at 09:30 PM (#4292901)
That's the same as my projection. I have him winning those states easily, and losing the other swing states closely, so they call the election for him relatively early, but they don't call the states for Romney until after midnight, or the next day.


Yep, I noticed that you had Obama winning 271-267. This would be quite an interesting outcome, although I don't consider it likely.

Also, just for fun: the map looks very weird when you flip every state. Seeing the coasts red and the middle of the country blue really messes with your head.
   1685. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: November 04, 2012 at 09:31 PM (#4292902)
Which one is that?

I saw the trailer for Zero Dark Thirty - looked pretty cool.
   1686. Howie Menckel Posted: November 04, 2012 at 09:40 PM (#4292904)

McGreevey lived in Drumthwacket, which is the Governor's Mansion in Princeton.

Corzine didn't live there because the doghouses for his pets probably have more square footage.

Christie lives in a very wealthy town - he's not nearly hand-to-mouth as McGreevey was by politician standards (U.S. Attorneys getting more coin than Woodbridge Mayors), but of course he doesn't have Corzine bucks, either. Christie's wife works for Cantor Fitzgerald, though, and she pulls in some good dough.

   1687. Kiko Sakata Posted: November 04, 2012 at 09:41 PM (#4292906)
Okay, if we're just making predictions for fun, I don't much see the point of just doing a boring, "yeah, this is what I think". Nate's model is as good as anything, so I'd be inclined to just adopt that as my own, and what's the fun of that?

In terms of the national (toss-up) vs. state (Obama lead) polling issue, I tend to think that one is going to be right and one is going to be wrong, moreso than the truth being somewhere in between. And I think the state results are more likely to be right. I also think that the toss-up states are most likely going to all break the same way. Now, that could be either way, and I do think there's some chance that there are systematic biases underlying the polls. What hasn't been talked about much, though, is that there's a chance that those systematic biases are actually working AGAINST President Obama. As I try to think about what could be causing problems for pollsters, it seems to me that the people they're liable to be having the most trouble reaching - cell phones, young people, maybe the poor, maybe Hispanics - are more likely to be Obama supporters than Romney supporters. Old white folks with land lines who'll answer the phone for anybody are much more likely to be Republicans. So, I decided to go ahead and predict a strong pro-Obama map. And then I threw in one extra WTF state win for Obama (AZ), because, hey, nobody's going to remember that I was the idiot who picked Obama to win Arizona, but if Obama actually DOES win Arizona, I'm damn sure going to refer back to this comment over and over again. Anyway, here's my map: Obama wins 358-180 (call it 51.5 - 47.0 in popular vote, just for the heck of it).
   1688. Ray (RDP) Posted: November 04, 2012 at 09:45 PM (#4292908)
Steve Hayes: "It's fair to say that this is a dead heat."

Michael Barone: projecting a Romney landslide.

Brit Hume: "If my theory held then Mitt Romney would not just be ahead - he'd be well ahead. But he's not. So we don't really know what is happening out there. It comes down to turnout."
   1689. Ray (RDP) Posted: November 04, 2012 at 09:46 PM (#4292910)
Ok, what are peoples' projections for when the first network calls the race?
   1690. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: November 04, 2012 at 09:50 PM (#4292912)
Reminds me of the law of zeroes. Since 1840, every president elected in a year ending in 0 was either shot, or died in office (or both), until Bush in 2000.

And until Reagan toughed it out, they all died.

--------------------------------------------------

My official prediction is that Obama will carry every state.

He has a 100.0% chance to win. Every state.


Unskewing that, it's Romney with 103% of the popular vote and a Mormon Tabernacle Choir in every state capitol.
   1691. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 04, 2012 at 09:50 PM (#4292913)
Ok, what are peoples' projections for when the first network calls the race?

MSNBC, for Obama, at 8:05 PM on May 12, 2011
   1692. The John Wetland Memorial Death (CoB) Posted: November 04, 2012 at 09:53 PM (#4292914)
Obama: 280
Romney: 258
   1693. Monty Predicts a Padres-Mariners WS in 2016 Posted: November 04, 2012 at 09:53 PM (#4292915)
MSNBC, for Obama, at 8:05 PM on May 12, 2011


Well played.
   1694. Kiko Sakata Posted: November 04, 2012 at 09:55 PM (#4292916)
Ok, what are peoples' projections for when the first network calls the race?


I think it'll be fairly late. They're not going to count states until their polls close, even if they're gimmes, and even in my "Obama's fondest dreams" map, he doesn't break 270 until he starts winning states in the Mountain region. I'd guess nobody officially calls the race until at least, say, 11:00 Eastern time. If it really does end up 271-267 (as a couple of people predicted), then time-wise, Obama doesn't win until they officially call Hawaii and as obvious as it is that Obama will win his strongly Democratic birth state, I just don't think any networks will officially do so until the polls close in Hawaii (even if they start doing a lot of talking about what is likely to happen in Obama's second term).
   1695. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: November 04, 2012 at 10:02 PM (#4292917)
Is there a good timeline of which states' polls close when?
   1696. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: November 04, 2012 at 10:03 PM (#4292918)
Ok, what are peoples' projections for when the first network calls the race?


11:01eastern time. I don't think it's a rout by any means but I think he gets enough of the swing states that California pushes him over the top.
   1697. Lassus Posted: November 04, 2012 at 10:03 PM (#4292919)
...it's Romney with 103% of the popular vote and a Mormon Tabernacle Choir in every state capitol.

If he had picked Newt Gingrich for VP and this all included one of these the moon colony, they could sign me up and Obama could go to hell. Sorry.
   1698. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: November 04, 2012 at 10:03 PM (#4292920)
Ok, what are peoples' projections for when the first network calls the race?


MSNBC, for Obama, at 8:05 PM on May 12, 2011

Fox News for Romney, at 7:00 AM on November 5, 2008, based on a hot tip from Mitch McConnell.
   1699. The Yankee Clapper Posted: November 04, 2012 at 10:06 PM (#4292921)
. . . hey, nobody's going to remember that I was the idiot who picked Obama to win Arizona

Make a note: KIKO SAKATA WAS THE IDIOT THAT SAID OBAMA WOULD WIN ARIZONA!
   1700. Best Regards, President of Comfort, Esq. Posted: November 04, 2012 at 10:06 PM (#4292922)
I think it'll be fairly late. They're not going to count states until their polls close, even if they're gimmes, and even in my "Obama's fondest dreams" map, he doesn't break 270 until he starts winning states in the Mountain region. I'd guess nobody officially calls the race until at least, say, 11:00 Eastern time. If it really does end up 271-267 (as a couple of people predicted), then time-wise, Obama doesn't win until they officially call Hawaii and as obvious as it is that Obama will win his strongly Democratic birth state, I just don't think any networks will officially do so until the polls close in Hawaii (even if they start doing a lot of talking about what is likely to happen in Obama's second term).
They didn't "call" 2008 until 11:00, when California was called for Obama as the polls closed. I remember Charles Gibson counting down the seconds until 11:00, it was very emotional for my father and I (my father said he remembered when there was a time when some black people weren't allowed to vote, in his lifetime).

Even if *every* swing state goes for Obama, he's still at 269 until 11:00. So yeah, they don't call it until 11:00, but when Nevada is called for Obama, in the "worst case", they'll talk about how Obama is going to be re-elected, without officially calling the race.

If Obama wins Virginia and Ohio, and they call those states early, they could be talking about how Obama won by 8:00.
Page 17 of 114 pages ‹ First  < 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
greenback calls it soccer
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogFan Returns Home Run Ball to Ishikawa; Receives World Series tickets
(10 - 5:28pm, Oct 20)
Last: Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip

NewsblogOT: Politics, October 2014: Sunshine, Baseball, and Etch A Sketch: How Politicians Use Analogies
(2744 - 5:28pm, Oct 20)
Last: Joe Kehoskie

NewsblogWhy Royals great Frank White no longer associates with the team whose stadium he built - Yahoo Sports
(16 - 5:23pm, Oct 20)
Last: Zach

NewsblogCalcaterra: So, if you’re not a fan of the Royals or Giants, who ya got?
(65 - 5:23pm, Oct 20)
Last: BDC

NewsblogPitch from Zito helped sell Hudson on Giants | MLB.com
(1 - 5:19pm, Oct 20)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogDealing or dueling – what’s a manager to do? | MGL on Baseball
(8 - 5:17pm, Oct 20)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogHitting coaches blamed for lack of offense - Sports - The Boston Globe
(12 - 5:17pm, Oct 20)
Last: RMc is a fine piece of cheese

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - October 2014
(269 - 5:13pm, Oct 20)
Last: Manny Coon

NewsblogCould the Yankees ever be Royals? Young and athletic K.C. is everything that Bombers are not - NY Daily News
(20 - 5:11pm, Oct 20)
Last: RoyalsRetro (AG#1F)

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread, September 2014
(832 - 4:46pm, Oct 20)
Last: ursus arctos

NewsblogBrisbee: The 5 worst commercials of the MLB postseason
(121 - 4:26pm, Oct 20)
Last: JJ1986

NewsblogMorosi: Could Cain’s story make baseball king of sports world again?
(96 - 4:22pm, Oct 20)
Last: Into the Void

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 10-20-2014
(37 - 4:22pm, Oct 20)
Last: SoSHially Unacceptable

NewsblogBernie Miklasz on Twitter: Matheny, when asked about not using closer T. Rosenthal in 9th
(133 - 3:55pm, Oct 20)
Last: Random Transaction Generator

NewsblogOT: NFL/NHL thread
(8360 - 3:19pm, Oct 20)
Last: zenbitz

Page rendered in 1.0955 seconds
52 querie(s) executed