|
|
|
|
Baseball Primer Newsblog— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
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
|
Bookmarks
You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.
Hot Topics
Newsblog: Sports on Earth: Super-Royal (49 - 6:11am, Jun 20)Last: Greg (U)KNewsblog: Primer Dugout (and link of the day) 6-20-2013 (2 - 6:01am, Jun 20)Last: Matt Chico's Bail Bonds (Dan Lee)Newsblog: Mark Appel signs under slot deal with Astros (104 - 5:52am, Jun 20)Last: Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered CastleNewsblog: OT: NBA Finals and June thread (1029 - 5:47am, Jun 20)Last: RollingWaveNewsblog: [OTP-June] Economic Times: Hope politics, sports don’t get mixed up: Manmohan Singh (2288 - 5:44am, Jun 20)Last: Greg (U)KNewsblog: Matt Harvey challenged Jon Rauch to a fight (83 - 5:10am, Jun 20)Last: Swedish ChefNewsblog: OT: The Soccer Thread June, 2013 (645 - 4:36am, Jun 20)Last: Swedish ChefNewsblog: ESPN.com: Yankees Acquire Fartinez (28 - 4:09am, Jun 20)Last: Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered CastleNewsblog: Former New Orleans baseball player Gene Freese dies at age 79 (5 - 3:55am, Jun 20)Last: esseffNewsblog: Neyer: Computing Manny Machado's shot at the record (48 - 3:02am, Jun 20)Last: OCFNewsblog: Perry: Josh Hamilton and the terrible, horrible, no good, very bad night (52 - 3:01am, Jun 20)Last: Walt DavisNewsblog: OT: NHL is finally back thread (1131 - 2:45am, Jun 20)Last: zackNewsblog: LATimes: Microsoft unveils new Xbox One console (237 - 2:11am, Jun 20)Last: CrosbyBirdNewsblog: Deadspin: Manny Ramirez is Leaving Taiwan (9 - 1:17am, Jun 20)Last: RollingWaveNewsblog: Murphy: Ruben Amaro Jr. doesn't "do" five-year plans, but the Phillies need a good one (36 - 1:07am, Jun 20)Last: Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle
|
|
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.
2004: Bush wins, GOP picks up 3 seats
Joe K:
In 2000, Bush lost the popular vote, which is consistent with a slight loss of House seats, and 2004 was a very close election.
Bless your forgiving heart. It's totally understandable that Bush was a net-zero in those two tough, close years. But Obama, that guy needs to deliver, and deliver big.
If, as Nate is projecting, Obama wins by over 2 points and wins well over 300 Electoral College votes but the Dems make only token gains in the House, it will be a substantial under-performance and a major missed opportunity.
Saying so doesn't make it so. Two of the last four Presidential winners to surpass 300 electoral votes "lost" House seats. Clinton had 370 electoral votes in 1992, and the Democrats lost seats. Bush Sr. had 429 electoral votes and the Republicans lost seats. Each of them won by a lot more than 2 points, too.
The two biggest electoral college trouncings since World War 2 (Nixon, Reagan, both over 500 EV) came with gains of just 16 and 12 House seats. Those would be nice but unexceptional pickup numbers for the midterm elections of the same period.
Strictly speaking, the 1996 House elections were consistent with the voting in the presidential race.
Clinton won by 8.5% in 1996, and the Democrats gained 2 House seats. If Obama wins by only 2.8%, the Dems should presumably expect to pick up two-thirds of one seat. Strictly speaking.
Chaos and incompetence in Miami? Where's Capt. Renault when we need him?
House seats and Electoral College votes aren't allocated in proportion?
***
I guess you're deliberately ignoring the claim being made. The GOP already had a majority in the House in 2000 and 2004. The Dems, in 2012, do not.
Same problem. The Dems already had a House majority in 1992. Clinton also received just 43 percent of the vote.
Those were actually decent gains given the entrenched Dem majority in the House, which had existed since 1954.
Clinton beat Dole and Perot by 0.1 percent, and did so by co-opting the GOP Congress' achievements. Obama is projected to get over 50 percent of the popular vote and win by over 2 points, with over 300 Electoral College votes. His party holds just 191 House seats, and should be poised to make major gains unless the Dems recruited a very weak crop of candidates.
These are all of the seat swings in the House since 1966, arranged in ascending order.
+5, +5, +8, +8, +12, +15, +27, +31, +47, +49, +54, +63
+1, +2, +2, +2, +2, +5, +9, +12, +16, +21, +35
Can you guess which list represents the midterm election years, and which list is from Presidential election years? Careful, though: the answer is incredibly not tricky.
Glad to see Florida has done such a great job fixing their election process. ####### idiots.
Meanwhile, George Will goes poll truther!
It'd be helpful to know what level of certainty they're applying to that one-seat gain, but if that's an "on-balance" probability, then the 25% chance the Dems'll net 25 seats seems...high.
If they mistyped "one in forty," it'd be more plausible.
Don't be silly; it'll be Jill Stein in a landslide.
Clinton got 53.4% of the votes that went either R or D. That is the only relevant number, as 100% of the House Reps elected were either R's or D's.
Unbelievable. You hand wave away Carter's under-performance in 1976 because the D's already had a huge majority, and then excuse Nixon and Reagan's under-performance because the Dems had a huge majority.
Added to the list.
Thanks.
Clinton beat Dole by nearly 10 points. Unless there were Perot reps getting elected that I missed, his presence is irrelevant. The Democratic candidate won the Dem or Rep vote by a whopping 54.7 to 45.3.
Headline in this morning's in-the-tank-lefty Utica Observer Dispatch.
I'd bet you're longing for the days when Republicans were like Bob Dole.
"Mister, we could use a man like Herbert Hoover again..."
I am actually.
Lawyers for rich people; who are then able to get the appropriate laws passed.
Which is why it is silly to argue that things like Christie talking well about Obama or a slight increase in the unemployment rate will have no effect on the election. When an election is extremely close (leek 2000 was and like 2012 is), it only takes a relatively few votes to make a difference. That is not to say it will change it, only that dismissing soemthing as inconsequentional ignores reality.
I am not one for counting chickens and such. After 2000, I believe nothing until the concession speech.
Coming in late, but ...
I think there's roughly no chance that there's no serious fighting over the territories -- regardless of Southern empire building elsewhere.
And it's reasonably likely that Southern efforts at empire building would bring it into conflict with the North.
And then there's the overall tension about escaped slaves.
No.
It would be a good thing for Christie - if we lived in a world in which a NJ Republican could win the GOP nomination. Thing is, in that world Christie would be waiting for President Giuliani's second term to expire in 2016.
Christie will have no chance unseating Cuomo in 2020.
National
Romney 49-48
Virginia
Romney 50-48
Agree with Lassus and Shooty here.
Don't see this as inevitable. Sherman got caught on the hop a few times during the Atlanta campaign. In at least one case he was very lucky that the general in charge of operations was Polk. Hood (before being appointed to army command) missed some opportunities too.
That's a fair point, but if Massachusetts Mitt can chameleon himself to the extent that he has and still manage to win the nomination, almost anything's possible. You can't get much bluer than Massachusetts.
Of course Christie would practically have to challenge the entire Democratic field to produce Trump-certified birth certificates in order to win over the Tea Party wackos, but if those folks can swallow Romney's past positions on mandates and abortion, who knows what else they might overlook? It really depends on just how much Christie would really want the nomination, and how much he's willing to talk the talk and walk the walk, and that much isn't known at this point. But if he ever does decide he wants to step up to a higher level, he couldn't have a better role model of shameless reinvention than Romney himself.
I really don't like being confident before an election where I know intellectually the chance of a loss is significant. (I wasn't scared in 2008 because there simply was no significant chance of a loss, and really there wasn't a significant chance of a loss from 2007 onward.) But this is not 2008, the economy is not determinative. The polls are good, but not great. I don't like being confident, but I'm a little confident.
National
Romney 49-48
Virginia
Romney 50-48
Whether or not those two polls mean anything when measured against all the contrary ones, they'll definitely ensure that no Democratic poll worker will have a bite to eat until the polls close in any swing state. There's no motivator quite like fear.
If nothing else the North would find their position shaky as long as Virginia remained in the CSA, and thus able to control access to Chesapeake Bay and the Potomac. In the Turtledove series (which was mentioned upthread) the USA is forced to move the de facto capital to Philadelphia because Washington, DC was essentially undefendable and was being constantly bombarded/attacked. I believe that Washington ended up getting captured in one of the wars, and was then occupied by the CSA until they were driven out in a subsequent conflict.
(*) Scientific and sampling errors, that is -- not the "bias" of rightist fantasy.
I'm way too superstitious to make predictions, but if it turned out that Latino voters put Obama over the top, that would be the sweetest possible result imaginable. It might even make the ####### Republicans realize that the likes of Joe Arpaio and Kris Kobach don't exactly represent our country's future.
Obama +2 in Florida
Obama +3 in Virginia
Agree. Unless we have four years of utopian economic growth led by Andrew Cuomo's replicator technology, I really don't think he can be considered any kind of shoe-in, or even a given as a candidate. I don't think it's likely either, and even if I did, it is way too early to say.
In a scenario where the US split into two countries, no way DC could stay the capital of the north. It just doesn't make sense to put you capital right on the border.
Albany, of course.
Mellman's had a pro-Obama lean this cycle.
I take an attitude towards most sporting events that I have a stake in that I term "cautious pessimism". I expect the worst, but until it's mathematically over victory is always imaginable. This sounds like the mirror image of that from the other side, whatever you might call it.
To be honest, this, moreso than the electoral outcome, may be the best thing that has a small chance of happening as a result of 2012: Nate Silver shows the general population indisputable* proof that the political pundit class is as stupid about politics as Murray Chass is as stupid about baseball.
*yeah; I know. Joe's already spinning up the "it was the media's fault" cognitive-dissonance machine as we speak.
(Random aside: anyone wants to know my politics from the ground up, go buy P.O.S. new album and listen without fear.)
Of course it's a little different - I think it's highly unlikely anything will happen in the next day to change the race, so no one is making a 9th inning comeback, but I think it's entirely possible that we're not actually winning right now. But it adds up to roughly the same feeling.
(2008 was different because sometimes elections, unlike baseball games, are over before they begin. 2012 was never going to be one of those elections, so it was always going to dredge up these sports fan feelings.)
Outside of the primaries and senate races, this is the real value of 538: Exposing hacks. We see people make predictions that have very little grounding in reality, like Will claiming that Minnesota might go red.
The incentives for hackery are clear.
I believe this is one of the reasons Ottawa is Canada's capital.
smart woman. get that. but the clintons time is past.
obviously not my call. but much obliged if y'all can make that happen.
one of the awesome things about a clinton nomination is that there isn't the racism buffer like with the president. you can get really ugly and not feel the pain of a the racist accusation.
Jim Leyritz 1996. I haven't felt good about anything since.
I mean, I continue to worry about the worst, but I also get confident. That's how I'm feeling now.
This is where I am in this election. I think it entirely possible the data is simply wrong. Not that it's been misinterpreted or skewed by bias, but just wrong.
Yep. Just ask Serbia
This is they key, though. I think Obama will win, but my feelings for thinking about that have to do with a process I'm completely divorced from. I live in Manhattan and my family is in the Bay Area. We're as Blue as Blue gets and I can't pretend to have a feel for what the rest of the country is up to right now. Also, on a real, tangible level, the tv here at work is on CNBC non-stop and they've been waging a campaign against Obama since he was elected. The constant negative feedback I listen to about him has probably colored the way I think the rest of the country thinks about Obama.
Yeah, that's really slowed down the Republican party--their inability to go negative on Obama.
President Jackson: I want to conquer Canada!
Secretary of War: We can do that. But you'll have to take Ottawa.
President Jackson: Yuck. Let them be.
Exactly. It's like playing with house money. Every pundit in their generation grew up reading about the legend of Louis Bean, and what could be more of a rush than to be mentioned in the same breath with the only pollster who predicted Truman's victory in 1948?
My gut feel is she doesn't have the energy for another run. I have no idea who will emerge for the Dems in 4 years. I have more immediate worries!
So, Harvey, if I have your master plan down correctly, it's:
1. Spend all of the post-Nixon years so fundamentally alienating African American voters as to assure they vote Democrat every cycle.
2. Spend all of the post-Bush II years so fundamentally alienating Latino voters as to assure they vote Democrat every cycle.
3. Rub your hands gleefully at the prospect of sliming Hillary Clinton in 2016 such that you alienate women voters for every cycle into the future... (Prep the ground for this with a lot of patronizing white men telling women that it wasn't really *rape* rape if Jesus put a baby in the oven?)
I'm not sure this plan is as fool proof as you seem to think.
I think it's made a pretty big difference, actually.
there is negative and then there is ugly. with the clintons the restraints don't exist.
sorry. but true
Ha!
I do sometimes find myself feeling confident in those rare moments when I let down my carefully constructed wall of pessimism. But I make sure to berate myself afterwards.
I was more poking fun at myself there as I wrote out my natural state of "cautious pessimism" and felt myself quite clever. Then on re-reading your comment noticed that what you were expressing was the more standard "cautious optimism".
Both serve their purposes. Ideally you should be able to imagine defeat when you're in the throes of victory, and victory when defeat seems inevitable. Like you, I don't hold with absolute confidence, (or absolute pessimism).
This year, obviously, no TiVos are set.
with the clintons it isn't about gender.
sam:
president bush the second did reach out to latino voters to the annoyance of his party. just clarifying
and i was way out in front on this issue due to my ties to the latino community from my days working with the migrants at the canning company. if you dig up the main immigration thread i griped vociferously at the gop's approach
49-45 Obama in the national race.
1. Spend all of the post-Nixon years so fundamentally alienating African American voters as to assure they vote Democrat every cycle.
2. Spend all of the post-Bush II years so fundamentally alienating Latino voters as to assure they vote Democrat every cycle.
3. Rub your hands gleefully at the prospect of sliming Hillary Clinton in 2016 such that you alienate women voters for every cycle into the future... (Prep the ground for this with a lot of patronizing white men telling women that it wasn't really *rape* rape if Jesus put a baby in the oven?)
I'm not sure this plan is as fool proof as you seem to think.
But there are still the gays---the GOP will always have the gays.
and i was way out in front on this issue due to my ties to the latino community from my days working with the migrants at the canning company. if you dig up the main immigration thread i griped vociferously at the gop's approach
Both true. But the party itself is quite antagonistic. I think it will correct - and as Latinos prosperity increases, they'll move toward the Rs as well.
The Rs are split. They need someone who can unite the wings. I hope that someone comes from the middle but I can imagine a Tea Partier who is a skilled pol uniting the party and moving it solidly right (the Teapers who run now have that grassroots feel but then go out and start talking inelegantly about rape).
It sure was.
Fixed that.
president bush the second did reach out to latino voters to the annoyance of his party. just clarifying
The problem is that Bush's voice of sanity on this subject has long been drowned out by the nativists in his party, who mau-maued both McCain and Romney into something they never were previously in order to get the nomination.
and i was way out in front on this issue due to my ties to the latino community from my days working with the migrants at the canning company. if you dig up the main immigration thread i griped vociferously at the gop's approach
Well, I'm sure that if you were running, you'd have a better chance of winning Latino votes than Romney.
you are not following. you don't need sec clinton's gender to get ridiculously ugly
the president's race hindered those paths
i am surprised you don't think the gop can hurl a million times more mud at the secretary given that they have been pouring money into investigating the clintons nonstop since 1991. and i do mean nonstop.
i know of what i speak. if you want to say it won't be anything significant you can do that but you will be really, really wrong.
Exactly what ugly attack is there that Republicans haven't tried against Obama? He's been described as unAmerican, a Kenyan anti-colonialist, a radical Muslim, an angry black man, a shiftless layabout, a dangerous socialist, someone who would have only gotten into Harvard due to affirmative action, a borderline idiot who requires a teleprompter, etc. etc. etc.
Are there a bunch of awesome fried chicken jokes that only get passed around at the GOP mixers or something?
you are not following. you don't need sec clinton's gender to get ridiculously ugly
the president's race hindered those paths
i am surprised you don't think the gop can hurl a million times more mud at the secretary given that they have been pouring money into investigating the clintons nonstop since 1991. and i do mean nonstop.
i know of what i speak. if you want to say it won't be anything significant you can do that but you will be really, really wrong.
Harvey, it's not that the GOP doesn't have the ability to get ridiculously ugly about a Clinton, either Hillary or Bill. The question is how well that strategy would fly among independents.
Suggestion: Look at the 1998 congressional elections for a hint of how successful Ken Starr's crusade turned out to be. And look at Bill and Hillary's current poll ratings compared to Newt Gingrich's. That "Clinton scandal" meme has a long gone expiration date outside the Limbaugh / Hannity circuit.
(1) I do not agree that the president's race hindered those paths.
(2) If I were to grant that point, I would argue that Clinton's gender will far more effectively hinder those paths than Obama's race did.
gov romney halted the effort around reverend wright round 2. as one example.
the gop mostly halted the dvd that did get shipped to ohio homes about the president being illegitimate son of a commie. that was proposed as a nationwide effort.
you have to believe me. it could have been much worse.
i know that nobody here is inclined to say 'thanks' to gov romney but he put the kibosh on a number of ugly proposals.
Romney's very clear on the 47% tape when he's talking about strategy - his pollsters and focus groups found that swing voters have formed an opinion of the President which does not allow them to accept that he's anti-American or whatever. That's why he talked about Obama as a good man who didn't have what it takes to get the job done, a president who, when you consider his record rationally, doesn't deserve another term. Romney constructed his anti-Obama argument in this way not because he was foolishly keeping his powder dry out of some misguided non-political morality, but because the extreme negative attacks don't work on people who have already formed an opinion of the president.
well, it won't. gender is not the barrier that race is/was.
don't know what else to tell you.
the high priests in my party salivate over a clinton nomination.
there is no concern, none, of alienating female voters beyond the usual party platform stuff
i gotta confess that given that i have been right about all the other gop/tea party stuff for folks who are outside my party looking in to tell me i don't know what what is going on is a different experience
the gop mostly halted the dvd that did get shipped to ohio homes about the president being illegitimate son of a commie. that was proposed as a nationwide effort.
you have to believe me. it could have been much worse.
i know that nobody here is inclined to say 'thanks' to gov romney but he put the kibosh on a number of ugly proposals.
I suppose Romney does deserve credit for that, but the idea that rehashing Rev. Wright or shipping out a wacko DVD was somehow going to help Romney convert a single undecided voter at this point is truly bizarre. If anything it would have backfired and energized the Democratic base even more.
It would have been a waste of money to ship it nationwide. What effect would it have had in California or Kentucky? Nothing is happening there that could be changed.
I know that my wife initially really didn't like Obama because of his behavior toward Clinton. Of course, she won't be voting R in 2016, so I wouldn't worry about her.
gov romney was getting hammered to go the low road.
it was his call. yes he had the data to support it but he had leading figures telling him he was throwing the election.
karl rove used up a lot of his personal credibility supporting the gov's position
He dog-whistled the birther nonsense once, and got mauled by the press.
He knew that going "stupid ugly" wasn't going to work.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main