i always go on and on and on about how the 2 parties really need to do something called LISTEN and COMPROMISE, but i don't really see it in real life. and i wish it would happen. even once. even though i have pretty much given up hope

Well, that's usually because lots of the differences have no real good compromise.

Example:
"Let's talk about abortion..."

R: "BABY KILLERS!"
D: "LEAVE WOMEN ALONE!"

"Okay, we're done here."

The graph under it shows that the result that came up most often in his simulations was 332 for Obama.
Next was probably 303 (Obama doesn't win Florida), and then 347 (Obama steals NC).

Then the next highest is a vote or 2 higher. What's that one, loses CO but gets AZ?

Vote is in from Dixville Notch:
Romney 5
Obama 5

Could be a squeaker. As Dixville Notch goes, so goes Hart's Location!

EDIT: The Internet says Obama carried Dixville Notch 15-6 in 2008, so it looks like the turnout is down, and the GOP vote is up more than 22%. Maybe Nate Silver should be adjusting his model.

#2480,

I live in New York. We don't have referandums. President and senate are 100% on 538. Congressperson is scandal-free 12-term incumbent who consistently gets 70% in general election. State assembly and senate seats are running unopposed. Governor isn't up but he won in a landslide in 2010.

sorry you feel that way. however, it would be nice to discover that people i know actually listen to what other people think and sometimes even re-evaluate their position and sometimes, even change their mind.

I've learned plenty of things and sharpened my opinions on some areas where I didn't change my mind. I wouldn't ask you to read the last 25 pages but I do think there's been periods of people reasoning together. To expect people to change their vote on something like this, where most people started out with a good deal of knowledge...well is a baseball thread a failure if at the end of it the Cardinals fans are still Cardinals fans?

i always go on and on and on about how the 2 parties really need to do something called LISTEN and COMPROMISE, but i don't really see it in real life. and i wish it would happen. even once. even though i have pretty much given up hope

By and large people get the parties they deserve. It's too easy to blame the parties. People are voting for a party that now--now 12 years ago--makes it a point of pride not to compromise. And voting out candidates who do compromise. So don't blame the party blame the people who pushed it to that point.

Then the next highest is a vote or 2 higher. What's that one, loses CO but gets AZ?

That's the only way I can work it, unless it's only a 1-vote difference and Obama hangs on to Nebraska-2 (1 vote).

Then the next highest is a vote or 2 higher. What's that one, loses CO but gets AZ?

By my reading, the next most common one is pretty clearly a no-Florida one (which is the one that my gut says is most likely, BTW). I think the other one you're seeing is a FL+NC scenario. Those are the only three that break 10%, as far as I can tell.

This is ########, by the way. I have never cast a vote that matters, though I have voted in pretty much every election I've been eligible to vote in. I never will cast a vote that matters.

Then you can complain all you want and not look like a hypocrite. I am saying that it's the people that don't bother to vote that complain about their elected officials who look dumb complaining.

I just think that's silly.

In the next 24-48 hours, there is going to be a lot of ######## posted at the partisan websites (FreeRepublic/DailyKos, etc).
It will talk about voter intimidation, voter fraud, electronic machines, Black Panthers, True the Vote, voter id, long lines...

I really hope this thread doesn't become a dumping ground for that kind of stuff.

By my reading, the next most common one is pretty clearly a no-Florida one (which is the one that my gut says is most likely, BTW). I think the other one you're seeing is a FL+NC scenario. Those are the only three that break 10%, as far as I can tell.

No, there's another bar a point or 2 higher than FL + NC. It's a scenario either I posited, or RTG.

edit: There's also a bar a point higher than FL but no NC, so I think RTG is correct.

hello boyz

just out of curiousity - after all these kazillion thousand posts, has even ONE guy changed his mind on any political issue or brought up anything that hadn't already been said by like june?

I hadn't followed the race at all, so I've learned tons.

any converts from obama to romney or romney to obama?

Unlikely. This is a pretty savvy bunch. I doubt there were more than a couple of undecideds, either. Conversion isn't the point, really. I go to a cocktail party to talk to the interesting people there, if any. There are a ton here. Changing someone's mind isn't the point. That's gravy.

Okay. Are you under some delusion that Al Gore was a dove?

He was probably under some delusion that Gore could figure out not to invade some random country just so he got to pad his crotch and get dumped on the flight deck of an a.c.

tshipman Posted: November 06, 2012 at 01:03 AM (#4294046)

sorry you feel that way. however, it would be nice to discover that people i know actually listen to what other people think and sometimes even re-evaluate their position and sometimes, even change their mind.


David convinced me that the McDonalds Coffee case was decided incorrectly.

- gotta say that i have learned more from DMN than from just about anyone else
and i look at a whole lot of things differently
not that i exactly always agree with him, but i think that i understand the issue/question better

2501. Random Transaction Generator Posted: November 06, 2012 at 01:03 AM (#429404

Well, that's usually because lots of the differences have no real good compromise.

Example:
"Let's talk about abortion..."

R: "BABY KILLERS!"
D: "LEAVE WOMEN ALONE!"

"Okay, we're done here."

- i feel sick

and yeah, i'm a fool

No, there's another bar a point or 2 higher than FL + NC. It's a scenario either I posited, or RTG.

I'm not seeing these bars you're talking about. I think you're misreading the scale of the graph or seeing a phantom. I just blew the picture up really big -- there are literally no scenarios over 10% other than the 332 (with FL), 347 (FL+NC), and 303 (-FL).

bbc - I've learned things, changed and tweaked my positions on a bunch of little stuff as a result of conversations in these threads in the past. Nothing recently, though - and nothing that would cause my voting habits to change.

I'm not seeing these bars you're talking about. I think you're misreading the scale of the graph or seeing a phantom. I just blew the picture up really big -- there are literally no scenarios over 10% other than the 332 (with FL), 347 (FL+NC), and 303 (-FL).

I didn't say it was over 10%. I said the next highest after FL + NC was a point or 2 higher than FL + NC. It looks to be 6%.

i always go on and on and on about how the 2 parties really need to do something called LISTEN and COMPROMISE, but i don't really see it in real life. and i wish it would happen. even once. even though i have pretty much given up hope

It might help if you understood that these days the intransigence is largely on the R side, and you get docked intellectual credit if you say, 'that's what they say, too'.

What do you want to compromise on, and why is it so valuable? Why shouldn't the majority on a given issue get to decide it, with certain caveats and protections? Presumably theirs is the preferred stance, or they've done a better job selling it. Compromise is fine, but there's nothing inherently wrong with majority rule. There has to be some way to decide an issue when compromise fails.

Voting is a dumb thing to do...

Maybe, but my son turned 18 yesterday. Tomorrow morning we will go to vote together, and I have a feeling that that's going to make me feel pretty cool. I might even get a little choked up.

What exactly do you think the parties need to listen and compromise on?

Infrastructure. Upgrading the electrical grid is a sound investment no matter what you want to use to generate the electricity that you transmit on it.

Black Panthers

I want more Black Panthers at this election, the two that showed up in Philadelphia were awesome. I want two scowling black dudes at every polling station in America. Call out the S1Ws.

I'm not seeing these bars you're talking about. I think you're misreading the scale of the graph or seeing a phantom. I just blew the picture up really big -- there are literally no scenarios over 10% other than the 332 (with FL), 347 (FL+NC), and 303 (-FL).

They're below 10% but I think there are secondary bumps one more than 332 and 347, which I assume are NE-2 (he's giving Obama a 14.1% chance of winning that, which is higher than any other states - Obama has ~2% chance in Montana and Arizona).

I didn't say it was over 10%. I said the next highest after FL + NC was a point or 2 higher than FL + NC. It looks to be 6%

Oh, I see what you're saying. Yeah, that's gotta be Omaha. It's been pinking up the last few weeks, and now appears to be the next-most-likely (after NC) to flip blue, at like 14%.

Infrastructure. Upgrading the electrical grid is a sound investment no matter what you want to use to generate the electricity that you transmit on it.

Absolutely.

Is anyone else not voting?

I'm not voting. If I were I'd vote for Johnson but since I'm in a blue state, meh, I'll just stay home and whine that my vote was suppressed.

What exactly do you think the parties need to listen and compromise on? Saying that people need to listen and compromise, even if you say so in all caps, doesn't mean anything unless you explain the policy that you want people to compromise on. If you just want people to randomly listen and compromise, then who gives a ####?

This. 1,000 times this. Policy matters. Empty paeans to manners don't. Steve Croft's tendentious banality on this point actually made me agree with Mitch McConnell on something.

I just think that's silly.

The idea that no vote you have ever cast is sillier. If you want to make some kind of value judgment on incremental events, no "thank you" you've ever spoken matters either. No dollar you ever gave anyone matters, no hug you ever bestowed means a crap, and no bite of food you ever took ever kept you alive.

The sentiment is perfect for a paper on Sartre; but nowhere else, I'd say.

Okay, I can't find any more online predictions, so at 43 entries on the spreadsheet, here's what I have:

Average:
Obama - 285.8 EV (50.2%)
Romney - 252.2 EV (48.7%)

Median:
Obama - 290 EV (50%)
Romney - 248 EV (49%)

Mode:
Obama - 290 EV (49%)
Romney - 248 EV (49%)

Biggest Obama Prediction:
Jim Cramer - Obama 440, Romney 98

Biggest Romney Prediciton:
University of Colorado-Boulder Professors - Obama 208, Romney 330

In the next 24-48 hours, there is going to be a lot of ######## posted at the partisan websites (FreeRepublic/DailyKos, etc).
It will talk about voter intimidation, voter fraud, electronic machines, Black Panthers, True the Vote, voter id, long lines...

I really hope this thread doesn't become a dumping ground for that kind of stuff.

Why isn't vote fraud and vote suppression a legitimate issue? It has occurred, it is occurring now, and it will continue to occur through tomorrow.

I don't know if this simply me spending too much time on the internet (which I clearly am), but it feels like people are choosing their reality more this election than usual - thinking that there guy is sure to win, either because they want him to or because they think the people immediately around them are representative of the rest of the nation.
It's bumming me out.

Maybe, but my son turned 18 yesterday. Tomorrow morning we will go to vote together, and I have a feeling that that's going to make me feel pretty cool. I might even get a little choked up.

You're lucky. My son just turned 17, so he won't get to vote in a presidential race for another four years, but he's itching to do so. He's pretty damn excited just to follow the coverage tomorrow (of course, in his case, any television program where the primary backdrop is a GIANT MAP would be enough to keep him glued to the set).

The idea that no vote you have ever cast is sillier. If you want to make some kind of value judgment on incremental events, no "thank you" you've ever spoken matters either. No dollar you ever gave anyone matters, no hug you ever bestowed means a crap, and no bite of food you ever took ever kept you alive.

Oh, horseshit. Saying "thank you" to people materially betters their day, if just for a few minutes. Giving a guy a dollar buys him a sandwich and he doesn't feel hungry. Hugs make people feel good.

Voting, on the other hand, does literally nothing. It has no effect, even ephemeral, on anything other than my own feelings about stuff. It's not about increments: it's about the fact that no election in this country can ever be decided by one vote. We're not capable of counting them that accurately. The analogy simply doesn't hold even a little bit.

A weather forecast on February 5 that predicts there's a 16.2 percent chance of rain on November 6 doesn't have much value

What if you're planning a vacation?

after all these kazillion thousand posts, has even ONE guy changed his mind on any political issue or brought up anything that hadn't already been said by like june?

personally, i came to this thread to get some info on how the polls are shaping up and i was curious about all the fooferaw and folderol about nate silver -- i haven't been paying much attention to the race for a variety of reasons, personal and work related. obviously, i've heard enough to have the impression that the race is close with obama holding a small lead. after wading through a couple hundred posts and checking out some of the links mentioned this weekend i feel pretty well informed. i find the debates that go on here to be a nice balance of bare knuckles and real thoughtful dialogue. ymmv.

i mean, really. here is a site devoted to the statistical scrutiny of baseball. it's not rocket science, but some of the thinking that goes into sabermetrics is pretty darn good statistics and critical thinking. its not a stretch to imagine that some of the same voices that want to study hitting and pitching to the degree that its studied here can also do justice to political science, campaigning, and the science of polling.

have i had my mind changed on anything? ida know, as you would say. but i do know that in the time i've been coming to BBTF i think i tend to look at things a little differently than i used to.

If they could find one, what percentage of the popular vote would the white equivalent of Obama bring the Dems?

The reason I ask is that while it seems like the white party is far from dead, some of their decline is surely masked by the fact that Obama is African-American. Would generic pleasant white Dem be up 55-44?

Come on. Putting aside the fact that Obama is bucking history by even making this a competitive race, this idea that millions of the same white people who voted for Obama in 2008 have turned into racists in 2012 is very strange, indeed.

Why isn't vote fraud and vote suppression a legitimate issue? It has occurred, it is occurring now, and it will continue to occur through tomorrow.

I'm sure it is a legit issue, but I'm betting 80% of the reports tomorrow will be single-person accounts of something that gets blown up out of proportion, and it will come with a large dose of partisan wording and opinion. Both sides are going to flood the web with examples of how this election was stolen. If I want to read them, I'll go to FR/DK.

Biggest Obama Prediction:
Jim Cramer - Obama 440, Romney 98

Wow. Using the CNN interactive EC thingy:

Start with Obama getting every swing state. That gets him to 347.

Give him AZ - 358

MO and MT - 371

IN - 382

Then what? Go back to 1996 where Clinton took WV, KY, AR, TN, and LA - 420

He's still at least 2 states or TX away.

2524. billyshears Posted: November 06, 2012 at 01:25 AM (#4294074)

What exactly do you think the parties need to listen and compromise on? Saying that people need to listen and compromise, even if you say so in all caps, doesn't mean anything unless you explain the policy that you want people to compromise on. If you just want people to randomly listen and compromise, then who gives a ####?


This. 1,000 times this. Policy matters. Empty paeans to manners don't.

outstanding succinct explanation of why there will always be endless violence and war. not sarcastic, just sad

outstanding succinct explanation of why there will always be endless violence and war. not sarcastic, just sad

I blame billyshears, too. The root of all evil, he is.

Do you realize he asked for clarification (one root of compromise) and you gave him the finger? Boo.

Then what? Go back to 1996 where Clinton took WV, KY, AR, TN, and LA - 420

He's still at least 2 states or TX away.

Isn't Cramer an 'analyst' of some sort, and shouldn't this be grounds for turning in his badge?

To get to 440 Obama probably does have to take Texas. That's one wild election day.

Biggest Obama Prediction:
Jim Cramer - Obama 440, Romney 98


Wow. Using the CNN interactive EC thingy:

Start with Obama getting every swing state. That gets him to 347.

Give him AZ - 358

MO and MT - 371

IN - 382

Then what? Go back to 1996 where Clinton took WV, KY, AR, TN, and LA - 420

He's still at least 2 states or TX away.

He said that he wanted to make a Black Swan prediction, so that if it really did happen, he'd look like a genius.
Of course, telling everyone that BEFORE it happens ruins the fun.

I'm thinking he had Texas in his insane prediction.

outstanding succinct explanation of why there will always be endless violence and war. not sarcastic, just sad

Yes, there will always be endless violence and war because people don't care to educate themselves, and instead prefer to approach politics from a superficial and hollow perspective.

Isn't Cramer an 'analyst' of some sort, and shouldn't this be grounds for turning in his badge?

If "not only is he sophisticated, [Lenny Dykstra] is one of the great ones in this business" wasn't then this isn't.

He said that he wanted to make a Black Swan prediction, so that if it really did happen, he'd look like a genius.

I did exactly that a few pages ago but stopped at "Give him AZ" figuring that was unlikely enough. If Obama somehow wins even 400 Electoral Votes, people will be so confused that I doubt anybody's really going to remember to call Jim Cramer a genius.

Oh, I haven't posted my prediction yet!

Hmmm.

I'm going with:

Obama 303 (49.3%)
Romney 235 (49.1%)

I don't think Obama wins Florida, but my total allows for two scenarios:
Obama wins Colorado and Iowa but not North Carolina, or Obama wins North Carolina but not Colorado and Iowa.

I also think we won't get an official declaration of a winner until 11:30pm when Ohio and Florida are worked out.

Oh, snap.

Isn't Cramer an 'analyst' of some sort, and shouldn't this be grounds for turning in his badge?

He lost all credibility with me when he upgraded the Bluth Company stock from "sell" to "don't buy".

BBC -

As someone who reads this thread off and on but doesn't really participate, I wouldn't really say I've changed any of my views on things, but I've definitely learned some things here and there.

OK. Now lets work on Romney 330:

Give Romney all the swing states. that gets him to 301.

Then PA and MN get him to 331

MI and MN get him to 327

PA and MI - NV get him to 331

PA, MN, and OR get him to 328

MI, MN, and NM get him to 332

OK, I give up. Time for bed. Have to rest up for tomorrow night.

If you don't vote you don't get to complain. Simple as that.

This is silly.

Okay, I can't find any more online predictions, so at 43 entries on the spreadsheet, here's what I have:

UnSkewed has backed their "final" projection down to Romney 275-263, RTG.

This will make the 11th Presidential election I've voted in in my life. So it's been 40 years. I think I've voted for President in 4 different states, although I've lived in more states than that. This time: for my current state, California, President and Senator are foregone conclusions. U.S. Congress is a brand-new open seat - probably D-leaning but definitely contested, and the source of the ugliest mailers we've gotten. State legislature is not competitive. 11 state ballot measures to decide on, one of which (prop 30, the tax measure) has an immediate effect on my workplace, as in its failure would be quite painful. (I hold out faint hope there, through my pessimism.) I'll vote to end the death penalty, but that probably won't pass. Some odd and entertaining county and city propositions. Meanwhile, my home phone has been ringing 20 times a day for the last month, and I haven't been picking it up. (A few of the robocallers leave messages.) Maybe now the ringing will slow down?

Then you can complain all you want and not look like a hypocrite. I am saying that it's the people that don't bother to vote that complain about their elected officials who look dumb complaining.

I'll make a deal with you: I won't pay taxes, and I won't complain about what government is doing.

UnSkewed has backed their "final" projection down to Romney 275-263, RTG.

That's it? That may be a better sign for an Obama victory than 538's 92%.

I have seen the libertarian light on citizens united

I'll make a deal with you: I won't pay taxes, and I won't complain about what government is doing.

########. Sovereign citizens always complain.

538 update at 1am: Nate has Obama at 106.9% to win. Romney is at -6.9%.

Romney at halftime tonight talked about PEDs being the biggest problem in sports. Yawn.

538 update at 1am: Nate has Obama at 106.9% to win. Romney is at -6.9%.

That's because Obama crushed Romney at Hart's Location (NH): 23-9 (and 2 for Johnson).

UnSkewed has backed their "final" projection down to Romney 275-263

I'm really disappointed. That's a downright reasonable, even arguably plausible map. I liked his crazy Romney wins Oregon, New Jersey is too close to call, whatever the heck went into that map from earlier this week that had Romney over 350 EVs. What's the point of his website if he's going to suddenly go all reasonable and predict some swing states to actually swing to Obama?

Although reading through the explanation of his boring new map, it really struck me: Obama doesn't have to win Ohio - this map flips to Obama if he wins any ONE of CO, VA, OH, or FL. President Obama really does seem to be in a very, very strong position electorally even if the race does end up as a tossup.

Okay, I can't find any more online predictions . . .

There is a compilation here.

I'll make a deal with you: I won't pay taxes, and I won't complain about what government is doing.

Go mooch somewhere else, moonbeam.

Silver's methods (ah! and Silver) are being featured on The Colbert Report tonight. Sounds a lot like a few folks here:

"Math has a liberal bias", says Colbert.

"I'm not very pro-pundit", says Nate. He nods, yes, he's just called Joe Scarborough a bullsh!!!er. The interview ended just before Nate explained why Obama has an 86.13 percent chance of winning.

just out of curiousity - after all these kazillion thousand posts, has even ONE guy changed his mind on any political issue or brought up anything that hadn't already been said by like june?

I've changed my mind on the drones policy. However, no solution presents itself in this election.

I'll make a deal with you: I won't pay taxes, and I won't complain about what government is doing.

That didn't work out for the Indians.

Well, here we are. Against all odds, we made it to Election Day with a minimum of face-shootings and neck-stabbings.

It's been fun debating politics and the 2012 election here at BBTF over the past year ... even though most of you are socialists who should be deported (or banned from the country; whichever applies).

I generally don't get to BBTF until the early afternoon, so voting will probably be well underway by the time I make my next appearance. I just wanted to wish everyone, on all sides, the best of luck. No matter who wins, hopefully Election Day will go off smoothly from coast to coast.

Catching up on hours and pages of posts.


Andy, #2428:
In Debs' five campaigns, both of the major party candidates were always full blown capitalists who were energetic supporters of the status quo. With Wallace, both major party candidates supported the civil rights laws and school integration. With Nader, the major party candidates had vast differences on the whole concept of government's role, and if Nader hadn't been such a ####### prima donna, he would have been the first one to acknowledge it. He's gone from being a serious gadfly and reformer to being little more than the Harold Stassen of the Left, whose tombstone should read: Ralph Nader. Florida 2000. RIP.

Ralph Nader didn’t contribute to Al Gore losing his home state, a state that had previously elected him or his father 19 out of 19 times, and whose electoral votes would have given him the White House. Ralph Nader didn’t advise Al Gore to pull the Cone of Silence down over the successful Clinton-Gore record because some voter somewhere might be reminded of a penis. And you could take the knife Bill James used on Rickey Henderson and cut Ralph Nader into small cubes, and each of those cubes would have a more sterling record of public service than most 20th century citizens.

People want to find an outside force that explains why their losing candidate was actually a winner who tragically became, to quote the great philosopher Jerome Howard, “a victim of soi-cumstance.” (Perot killed Bush and then Dole, Nader killed Gore, the economic crash killed McCain, the hurricane will have killed Romney.) It's harder to believe that the less liked guy ran a bum campaign, or was never in it to begin with.

Larry M, #2443:
Actually, Christie said he'd met Bruce on Friday at the Hurricane Telethon, and they hugged.

I never knew Bruce Springsteen’s arms were seven feet long.

Joe K, #1971:
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.

Yes, you win the argument if we change the parameters into a completely different argument. Well done.

My mistake; I foolishly dealt directly with your premise that if Obama wins the election by a couple of points but doesn't spark a wave of House wins for the Democrats, "it will be a substantial under-performance." Please forgive me for citing four decades of actual performances, which show that your “reverse coattails” criticism is the norm, not the exception. And that the “major” House swings you’re talking about are far more common when a President is not being elected. How could I have wandered so far from the point?

[On 538.com’s problems:] So we need huge sample sizes in baseball, but in politics, a single election plus some post-election analysis is dispositive?

But, for the “coattails” argument, you were taking a small collection of data points and then discarding most of them before... oh, okay, now I get it, you’re doing an Andy Kaufman bit.

If there’s poetic justice, Romney will get 47% of the vote.

hopefully Election Day will go off smoothly from coast to coast.

Ditto.

Well, here we are. Against all odds, we made it to Election Day with a minimum of face-shootings and neck-stabbings.

Let's wait until all precincts report in before we make that call.

Silver's analysis of Florida looks strange to me. I can't figure out how his system ends up spitting out Obama as a very slight favorite given the polling and fundamentals that apparently favor Romney.

Of course, it may not "matter"... but wondering if anyone has any insight.

hopefully Election Day will go off smoothly from coast to coast.


Ditto.

I'm not suggesting it won't be smooth, but if this was a horse race, and I'm looking for a longish shot, I'm betting on 2-4 states that take several days to decide the winner (may or may not impact final outcome).

I'm so upset about the UnSkewed Polls tucking tail. Let your crazy flag fly! #### respectability, it's not like you had any in the first place!

If Mitt Romney was just another voter and, say, Paul Ryan was the Republican nominee......anyone else think that Romney might vote for Obama? I'm guessing that the difference in taxes on the rich would be too big of a deal for him to cross the party line but it's a funny thought.

Silver's analysis of Florida looks strange to me. I can't figure out how his system ends up spitting out Obama as a very slight favorite given the polling and fundamentals that apparently favor Romney.

Of course, it may not "matter"... but wondering if anyone has any insight.

I assume he's heavily discounting the two local polls, the ones RCP lists as having Romney up by 6 and 5. It's easy to imagine their methods are terrible. (One has 437 respondents, btw. That's one small poll.) Remove those and you've got a tossup. However he's tweaking what's left and however he's accounting for both early voting and tomorrow's turnout could easily account for Obama being a slight favorite.

If there’s poetic justice, Romney will get 47% of the vote.

Ha!

Jim Cramer - Obama 440, Romney 98

Well if there's any cause for concern of Obama losing, this is it.

If Mitt Romney was just another voter and, say, Paul Ryan was the Republican nominee......anyone else think that Romney might vote for Obama? I'm guessing that the difference in taxes on the rich would be too big of a deal for him to cross the party line but it's a funny thought.

I'm guessing that his cousin and generally politically / background similar clone Jon Huntsmen is going to secretly vote Obama today, not like it matters in Utah though.

In the Say What? Dept., did anyone catch this set of Zogby polls Monday evening:

Obama up 52-44 in Virginia
Obama up 50-44 in Ohio
Obama up 50-45 in Florida

Romney up 48-46 nationally

Ah, politics. Even more toxic than sabermetrics.

We're glad that time has at last run out on Joe's audition for party hack. He certainly can do just as well (if not better) than many of the pundits to whom he's been alluding over the past couple days.

A few isolated comments:

Come on. Putting aside the fact that Obama is bucking history by even making this a competitive race, this idea that millions of the same white people who voted for Obama in 2008 have turned into racists in 2012 is very strange, indeed.

Racism is much more complex than any topic dealt with in this thread. Studies have indicated that a sizeable number of folks (maybe as many as 15% of the electorate) cast votes for Obama with some amount of trepidation, and that the "birther' phenomenon, which was just a displaced racism, has had its own subliminal effect. The ongoing lack of comfort that a sizable number of white people have with folks of other ethnicities has not necessarily eased as a result of Obama's election; in fact, there are signs of backlash with heels being dug in ("Don't re-nig"...). Framing such an issue with a cartoon-like extremity is exactly why an entire mass of people will never trust the motives of folk such as you.

So we need huge sample sizes in baseball, but in politics, a single election plus some post-election analysis is dispositive?

A single election, as any perusal of these data sites will reveal, is made up of thousands of data points--we are literally inundated with poll information. The trick--as Nate and others have been doing (and we shouldn't forget the guy at electoral-vote.com who started doing this stuff around the same time as Sam Wang)--is to come up with a credible method for aggregating the data.

But just to illustrate the point about how many data points there are, let's just use a very crude example for a sample of states, most of which are in the battleground:

COL 20-12, 10-5
FLA 16-23, 8-7
NC 5-16, 1-5
VA 25-12, 14-1
IA 16-4, 9-2
NH 16-4, 10-0
OH 49-7, 24-2
WI 27-0, 12-0
PA 24-1, 6-0
TOT 198-79, 94-22

The left total is the number of polls with Obama ahead, Romney ahead since October 1st. The second column is the same data for the last week of polling.

Now OF COURSE this is crude because we are not factoring in the actual gap in each of these polls, or any of the various possible distortions in the polling itself. What it shows, however, is that we have close to 300 data points for these states over the past five weeks and that they are the building blocks for aggregating and interpreting data. The pattern in this data--even at this crude level--would suggest that Obama should win PA, WI, OH, NH and IA, have a fighting chance for VA and CO, and lose FLA and NC. That brings him in between 281 and 303 EV.

It's this amount of raw data that probably drives Nate to conclude that the only way this could be off is if there really was a systematic bias across all of the polling in all of these states. Might be--he seems to be giving that a likelihood in the teens.

Now everyone knows that I don't think Nate is a genius, but he himself admits that there are vagaries in the process that could quite possibly overtake and undo his models. The question is still whether polling, kind of like the Pythag Win Percentage, aggregates into something truly solid. We aren't going to know that for at least another twenty election cycles. I'm not sure Nate's in it for that long a haul, but I would suspect Sam Wang is. This type of research will continue whether or not Nate is turned into a genius or further tarred and feathered based on these election results.

Now, of course, the imp in me would like to see a scenario where Nate gets the pants scared off him while Obama squeaks through. That way, those people heavily invested in a shape-shifting, cash-grabbing scumbag will be so-near-yet-so-far, forced to take "solace" in the fact that Nate's models are not nearly what they were thought to be by all those hateful socialists. To get to that little perverse outcome, we need the projections to go south in a very bizarre way...

Going against poll indications, Romney will not only win FLA, but also WI, OH and PA. OMG!! He's got to be a winner, right?

To use BP 97's fave phrase--uh, no. Obama wins IA, CO, VA--and upsets everyone's expectations by pulling NC out of his "loins" (but Axelrod still has to shave off his freakin' moustache...) and holds NH.

Final EV tally: Obama 270, Romney 268.

And then the fun will begin, when Sheldon effin' Adelson tries to buy a couple of electors.

Also, I find it highly amusing that Unskew Poll's final prediction was that Mitt wins with a final tally of 274 EC, (it was predicting at least over 310 a few weeks ago). what's the over and under of that site's domain disappearing within a week?

Unskewed Poll's was predicting Romney with 359 EVs as of October 25th. What an epic collapse of support for Romney! Why is no one talking about this?!

I mean, geez. You're clearly lying your ass off. You gotta stick to your guns and then say Obama stole the election!

I'm disappointed that I missed the discussion today and tonight. It would have been quite enjoyable, and speaking as a liberal, I saw quite a bit of shoddy reasoning in this thread from both the left and the right. Never mind now, though.

Nate reminded us in his post late tonight of the reason Florida has flipped from slightly red to slightly blue on his map even though the polling average is still slightly on Romney's side: the trendline adjustment. As I understand it, it effectively weights recent polls more heavily when they diverge more strongly from the seven-day rolling average. This seems like one of the main value-added components in his model as compared to a straight weighted average of the polls. Luckily for us, it's being put to a rather direct test - while we won't "know" if it was right or wrong based on the outcome in Florida tomorrow, a two- or three-point gap in Romney's favor, especially one that isn't reflected in the national popular vote, would give us a pretty good inkling that this trendline adjustment might be too aggressive.

Something I want to emphasize is that being a sabermetrics nerd long before the election put me in a rather unique position. Ordinarily, you'd expect someone like me to seek out some of the more left-leaning predictions, and I suppose this happened to be where FiveThirtyEight ended up. But because I already knew about Nate and was a fan of his, I was probably going to go along with his model no matter what lean it ended up adopting. In other words, I don't believe that my trust in the model's results is partisan in nature. I think this applies to quite a few BBTF members, despite the accusations from the right-wingers on the board that we liberals are clinging onto Nate's model because its headline numbers are telling us what we want to hear.

I'm definitely looking forward to seeing what model performs best. I won't place much blame on Nate if all the polls were biased substantially and Romney makes the election very close, or even wins. However, as much as I've trusted the methodology he's laid out in his blog posts, I will be quite doubtful about the construction of his model if it's outperformed by straight-up aggregators like RCP or Pollster.

On a related note, does anyone know if there's an archive for Nate's state-by-state projections and probabilities going all the way back to June? This is the data we would need if we wanted to evaluate the winning percentages and vote margins that he publishes long before the election. And, of course, this is where his model should shine if he's done a good job with the "state fundamentals" portion (the state's partisan lean, the candidate's ideology, the fundraising numbers, and some other, unspecified components).

One last thing: I remember reading a profile of Nate from a few months ago (January?) in which he obliquely hinted that he wasn't terribly happy with his arrangement with the Times. If I recall correctly, he was frustrated that the company's strict policies regarding partisanship in journalism made most of the non-Nate 538 writers ineligible to contribute to the blog. He also missed the freer rein he had to voice opinions back at his own site, and wasn't terribly happy about the Times' switch to paid online content. Furthermore, he implied that he wasn't interested in analyzing elections indefinitely and was more interested in pursuing some sort of entrepreneurial venture once his contract with the Times was up in 2013. Unfortunately, I can't remember where this profile appeared or what site linked to it, and I can't find it with Google searching, either. Does anyone else remember this piece and know where to find it?

at least 274 is within the realm of plausibility I guess. But yeah, that's an epic back track. well either way after the results are in we're going to be in for a shitstorm, either the death of the entire polling industry as we know it, or more likely, an extremely entertaining night at Fox News.

I think this applies to quite a few BBTF members, despite the accusations from the right-wingers on the board that we liberals are clinging onto Nate's model because its headline numbers are telling us what we want to hear.

I was concerned at the momentum Romney built after the first debate BECAUSE I trust Silver's model. That it showed Romney making up great scads of ground was worrying because I don't think he jukes the numbers.

If Obama wins, I'm concerned for the health of the proprietors of Hillaryis44.org. I mean, I already am, but Obama winning reelection will just drive them crazier.

this idea that millions of the same white people who voted for Obama in 2008 have turned into racists in 2012 is very strange, indeed.

I think the idea is that millions more white people would have voted for him in 2008, and not all of them would have changed their minds in the intervening four years.

It might help if you understood that these days the intransigence is largely on the R side, and you get docked intellectual credit if you say, 'that's what they say, too'.

Yeah, that's what they say, too.

More fundamentally, the whole promise of bipartisanship on Obama's part was a fraud -- he didn't actually mean he would work with Republicans, but rather that by the force of his charm, he would get Republicans to vote for his policies.

Why isn't vote fraud and vote suppression a legitimate issue? It has occurred, it is occurring now, and it will continue to occur through tomorrow.

Sure. If "vote suppression" is defined as "someone was too stupid to figure out where his polling place is, and they wouldn't let him vote in the local Dairy Queen" or the like. If it means a legitimate, registered voter actually been refused the right to cast a ballot, it hasn't occurred in a long time and won't occur today.

lisa

your reasoning is that of the tea party drips my party has to tolerate

compromise in politics is making a deal where you give and get something

compromise does not mean that your beliefs or even opinions changed

you made a deal to gain some incremental advance of value

the tea party has defined compromise as full agreement with a countervailing view

it's a dumb and irrational view

people here are conversing. not negotiating

if there were negotiations the language and substance would change

i would be conversing with the cool, smart member of the other side here and we would hammer out a deal

i nominated myself since i am all about the deal. leave the bomb throwing to others

jaw, jaw is better than war, war. so said winston churchill

Going by a very small sample size of one polling place (mine), there's going to be a heavy voter turnout this year. At a polling place where I've never had to wait (even in 2008), I was in line for over 30 minutes this morning. And, when I left, the line was just as long as it was when I got there.

Voting, on the other hand, does literally nothing. It has no effect, even ephemeral, on anything other than my own feelings about stuff. It's not about increments: it's about the fact that no election in this country can ever be decided by one vote. We're not capable of counting them that accurately.

This may be the dumbest thing ever posted on BBTF.

Of course it doesn't matter that any particular individual vote. Very, very, very few elections, even at the local level are decided by one vote. But you don't vote to be the deciding vote. You vote to have your tiny share of the say in the direction of the government. Saying you won't vote unless you're the deciding vote is saying that you're a selfish bastard who has to have everything about him. Maybe you just can't face up to the fact that, as society goes, you just aren't that important. None of us are.

Now consider what happens if lots of people don't think voting matters. If everyone who has far left views or libertarian views decided it didn't matter. What might government look like then?

Look, if you get separated from your polling place and can't vote in an election, it probably isn't a big deal. But if you just completely tune it out and never vote, then politicians have no reason to give a #### about what you think. Nor do I. Instead of having a very, very small say, you have no say and are best dealt with by forgetting you exist.

Going by a very small sample size of one polling place (mine), there's going to be a heavy voter turnout this year. At a polling place where I've never had to wait (even in 2008), I was in line for over 30 minutes this morning. And, when I left, the line was just as long as it was when I got there.

I can't report the same. I think early voting took care of most of the folks but for every presidential election since 2004 (okay, n = 3), I've arrived at my poll at 6:15 for a 6:30 open and never once voted before 7:30. I voted at 6:45 this morning. I think that is even faster than most midterms.

If it means a legitimate, registered voter actually been refused the right to cast a ballot, it hasn't occurred in a long time and won't occur today.

Right, someone who can't afford to wait 7 hours in line doesn't deserve to vote, and their leaving doesn't mean that they were denied the chance to vote! Lazy slacker poors.

Our 10 year old goddaughter is going to sport an "I voted" sticker in her sixth grade classes tomorrow.

As long as she doesn't wear two!

Despite protests otherwise, I had two poll workers give me stickers. So, I have two. I'm going to wear both.


sorry you feel that way. however, it would be nice to discover that people i know actually listen to what other people think and sometimes even re-evaluate their position and sometimes, even change their mind.

I think the most valuable thing political conversation does is remind us it isn't two rival football teams. That people you disagree strongly with are good, decent people who are only voicing what they believe is best.



Voting is a dumb thing to do, at least for the reasons most people do it. It is a waste of time if you think you're actually influencing anything.

I would agree, taht if you aren't influeincing anything, it is dumb. But it is foolish to think you aren't. They actually count the votes. Your vote, alone, does little. Matched up with others of like mind, it does a lot. It really does seem to me that you guys declaring the wisdom of not voting simply need your egos stroked. Your vote is just a small bit. Your non-vote is what is actually nothing.

No individual rivet holds a wing on a plane.

I can't report the same. I think early voting took care of most of the folks but for every presidential election since 2004 (okay, n = 3), I've arrived at my poll at 6:15 for a 6:30 open and never once voted before 7:30. I voted at 6:45 this morning. I think that is even faster than most midterms

Maybe Butler County, Ohio residents just don't vote early? Anyway, it was good to see such a large turnout that early. This is John Boehner's home county (he ran unopposed in this election), as Republican as it gets in local and state elections. There were lots of African-Americans, some younger voters.

david

c'mon. the states have some degree of obligation to minimize the barriers to vote in terms of convenience. if the polling places are going to be open from say 7-7 it should not require consuming half a person's day to vote. it shouldn't. i don't know what the cutoff is from going to inconvenient to unreasonable so if you want to yammer down that path feel free but don't expect a response.

but a willing citizen should not have to wait several hours to vote in an election. and if you want a gut reaction then i think anything over 2 hours is unfair to the citizen. and once it's over 3 the voting infrastructure has failed its clients, the voters.

my 2 cents

Silver's analysis of Florida looks strange to me. I can't figure out how his system ends up spitting out Obama as a very slight favorite given the polling and fundamentals that apparently favor Romney.

Of course, it may not "matter"... but wondering if anyone has any insight.

I'll be shocked (pleasantly) if Obama wins Florida. This isn't insight so much as a question but is it possible that Obama is riding Nelson's coattails rather than the other way around? I haven't followed that race especially closely but if Nelson is making gains is he going to swing voters in FL to Obama?

If it means a legitimate, registered voter actually been refused the right to cast a ballot, it hasn't occurred in a long time and won't occur today.

Right, someone who can't afford to wait 7 hours in line doesn't deserve to vote, and their leaving doesn't mean that they were denied the chance to vote! Lazy slacker poors.

"Nice car you got there. Be shame if something happened to it while you were inside voting" is not suppression either I guess.

"Lines in X district are longer/shorter than 2008; this means Romney/Obama will probably win/lose." --stupid anecdotal analysis to be made 1000000 times today.

I also question Nate's Florida call...or rather what the model is spitting out.

In general, I expect Nate to do significantly worse this year than 2008...and that makes sense, and is what you would expect. MANY more states are close than 2008, and the closer the state, the higher the probability the model will pick wrong. He would have to do abysmally for Obama to lose, but I would not be surprised by a fairly narrow EC win for Obama.

I'm nervous. Where's my whiskey.

on a personal level i have been hearing the 'it's a waste of time to vote' schtick from people for decades most vociferously by my ex-son in law, a professor at a serious college in a serious line of study.

i have concluded that at best these people are misguided and if you harvey unplugged they are just stupid. a journey starts with a single step. a country is influenced by a collection of individual votes

the economists line of reasoning on how votes don't matter is just a canard to make them feel cool

admit you are stupid. face up to your past stupidity. stop being stupid. and vote already.

that's cool. not voting is stupid

Right. Because voting for the guy that best represents your views is exactly like not voting at all.

If Al wanted those votes, he should have convinced the voters he was better than Nader. Shouldn't have been hard to do.



Although sympathetic to Jolly Old's umbrage, I agree with this substantially. Vote your mind and heart. And both the candidate who coveted the vote and the voter who didn't get his first or second choice should take the consequent regret as a learning experience. I voted for Nader, but Gore had no chance in my state, and if he had, I would have definitely voted for him.


...

Right. Because voting for the guy that best represents your views is exactly like not voting at all.


Right, you're abstaining from helping decide who will be president.

Two points: 1) yes, of course, if you feel a strong difference in the D and R candidate and you live in a swing state, you probably shouldn't vote for a 3rd party. It's been gone over but there are many issues that Gore and Bush just aren't that different on. Different group of corporate goons get money funneled to them, different set of lobbyists do well, different sets of programs get funded, but debt still accumulates, Iraq doesn't get invaded but does get bombed over and over, etc.

Andy's original point was that he knew people who voted for Nader and then gnashed their teeth that Bush won. That is a fair point. A 3rd party vote has to be done with the understanding the wrong lizard may win.

2) You're not abstaining. I am completely serious that I think Gary Johnson would be a better president than Romney or Obama. And if the number of people who have agreed with me but said they "MUST" vote for a D or an R so as not to waste their vote, Johnson likely wouldn't win, but the element fed up with the Ds and Rs would be shown to be significant.

If Johnson and Stein could get 10-15% of the vote, the Ds and Rs would take some notice and probably go after them. That is what a 3rd party does - it nudges the big 2 a little. Not voting or not voting for a non-big two candidate is just saying, 'okay, you're ###### up but I'm not going to do anything about it.'