I'm not especially math-geeky, but Silver's probabilities make great sense to me in that he's not really stating the probability of a win or a loss for each candidate so much as he is evaluating the probability that the state-by-state polls are exactly correct, or if the actual voting outcome will fall to one side or the other of the polls' margins of error, then he is synthesizing all these probabilities in terms of electoral college outcomes, and finally correlating these electoral college outcomes with the win for either candidate.
So long as the polling margins of error allow a way for Romney to amass 270+ electoral college votes, there is a non-zero chance for Romney to win. At this time, that non-zero chance is roughly 22.6%, according to Silver's models. iow, that would be the quantum state of the election, if the election were Schrodinger's Cat.
― Aimless, Wednesday, 31 October 2012 21:30 (eleven years ago) link
did the numbers move apart dramatically in '08 (or '10 I guess)? I would assume that the percentages snowball as you get closer without any movement towards the underdog.
― Matt Armstrong, Wednesday, 31 October 2012 21:32 (eleven years ago) link
Obama basically never lost a 4+ (at least) point lead after September.
― the ones that I'm near most: fellow outcasts and ilxors (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 31 October 2012 21:36 (eleven years ago) link
I mean in nate's model did it go from like 80 to 95% in the last week or so?
― Matt Armstrong, Wednesday, 31 October 2012 21:36 (eleven years ago) link
As I understand it, because the announced margins of error of the polls do not change as the election nears, if the polls theoretically kept producing unchanged results week after week, Nate's "win percentages" probably would stay static, too.
― Aimless, Wednesday, 31 October 2012 21:42 (eleven years ago) link
fwiw both votamatic and the princeton guy have obama at 90%+ to win, kinda curious where nates 25% is coming from, theres def not that much chance the polls will move to romney win in the next week, a lot of it has to be mistrusting the polls or some other mysterious thing
― lag∞n, Wednesday, 31 October 2012 21:52 (eleven years ago) link
he hides behind flowers
― beef richards (Mr. Que), Wednesday, 31 October 2012 21:53 (eleven years ago) link
nate's model includes non-poll economic measurements that 'predict the future' but that is slowly removed from the model as the election approaches. so even if the polls stay the same his numbers would be changing.
xp
― iatee, Wednesday, 31 October 2012 22:02 (eleven years ago) link
but that is = but that are
ya but theres a week to go so that stuff shouldnt factor anymore
― lag∞n, Wednesday, 31 October 2012 22:10 (eleven years ago) link
I mean the economy is not going to shift between now and the election
― lag∞n, Wednesday, 31 October 2012 22:11 (eleven years ago) link
is that last job report supposed to come out friday? will nate silver have time to cook those numbers too?
― johnathan lee riche$ (mayor jingleberries), Wednesday, 31 October 2012 22:12 (eleven years ago) link
just put the numbers in a pot nate
― lag∞n, Wednesday, 31 October 2012 22:13 (eleven years ago) link
btw we are on a first name basis w this guy now
Nate Silver @fivethirtyeight7 polls released in Ohio in past 48 hours: Obama +2, Obama +3, Obama +3, Obama +3, Obama +5, Obama +5, Obama +5. #notthatcomplicated
― Matt Armstrong, Wednesday, 31 October 2012 22:15 (eleven years ago) link
lol
― flopson, Wednesday, 31 October 2012 22:16 (eleven years ago) link
I know this will be shot down immediately by three or four of you, but I was wondering if that final jobs report could have a marginal effect if it were at one extreme or the other--say, +200,000 or in the red. If it's where it probably will be, in that +50,000 - +125,000 range, no effect. But would an extreme number be enough to affect a very close state?
― clemenza, Wednesday, 31 October 2012 22:21 (eleven years ago) link
its less the 'effect' and more that positive economic data suggests that people were gonna vote for the incumbent cause their lives were going better
― iatee, Wednesday, 31 October 2012 22:23 (eleven years ago) link
I think there's some disagreement about this, but imo job numbers are more of an index of what people are feeling in their personal lives than a number that actually sways people. I think the report is mostly priced into ppl's already existing opinions + poll responses before jobs report even comes out. ymmv etc
― Mordy, Wednesday, 31 October 2012 22:26 (eleven years ago) link
pretty sure our economy is going back into the shitter after the election since the eurozone has unemployment up to 11% due to their awesome deficit cut to prosperity plan.
dont tell anyone tho.
― johnathan lee riche$ (mayor jingleberries), Wednesday, 31 October 2012 22:27 (eleven years ago) link
I mean good news is good news and bad news is bad news but the type of people who can tell you what a job report means also are not undecided voters in Ohio. I mean maybe like 3 of them or something. but just think back to the town hall meeting and ask yourself if those people know what the last jobs report number was.xp
― iatee, Wednesday, 31 October 2012 22:29 (eleven years ago) link
***vizualizes***
― lag∞n, Wednesday, 31 October 2012 22:34 (eleven years ago) link
The guy who got together with his co-workers to come up with the question on Libya: he knew.
― clemenza, Wednesday, 31 October 2012 22:35 (eleven years ago) link
Yeah, the people that pay attention to job reports are unlikely to favor this one over the past 4 years' reports, and the people that don't pay attention will continue to not pay attention.
― nickn, Wednesday, 31 October 2012 22:52 (eleven years ago) link
― iatee, Wednesday, October 31, 2012 6:29 PM (25 minutes ago)
actually no news is good news
― all mods con (k3vin k.), Wednesday, 31 October 2012 22:56 (eleven years ago) link
i just voted-- maybe i shoulda waited for the jobs report.
― too soon (Hunt3r), Wednesday, 31 October 2012 22:58 (eleven years ago) link
This is great (via Salon):
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/10/31/Chris-Christie-Welcomes-President-to-the-Post-Obama-Era
― clemenza, Wednesday, 31 October 2012 23:44 (eleven years ago) link
it's been almost three weeks since Romney gave an interview and more than a month since he answered a single question from the reporters that travel with him. He can't, obviously. He can't answer questions about his auto industry claims and now he can't answer about FEMA either.is this getting traction in the MSM/ cable news? seems like a p big deal to me if Romney won't answer questions from the reporters traveling with him― it's smdh time in America (will), Wednesday, October 31, 2012 11:45 AM (4 hours ago)
is this getting traction in the MSM/ cable news? seems like a p big deal to me if Romney won't answer questions from the reporters traveling with him
― it's smdh time in America (will), Wednesday, October 31, 2012 11:45 AM (4 hours ago)
Watched some of the network news yesterday and it was mostly storm coverage, so no mention of the fact that he was asked 11 times if he would still de-fund FEMA and ignored it each time. I'm guessing the Biden challenge on the auto industry claims might make the news tonight.
― timellison, Wednesday, 31 October 2012 23:45 (eleven years ago) link
car companies themselves pushing back seems p noteworthy
― lag∞n, Wednesday, 31 October 2012 23:50 (eleven years ago) link
― clemenza, mercredi 31 octobre 2012 23:44 (4 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
someone please tell me this bullfeces
― Van Horn Street, Wednesday, 31 October 2012 23:51 (eleven years ago) link
Romney’s lead in the national polls may appear small, but it is likely much more significant, since the electorate that shows up on Tuesday will include proportionally fewer Democrats than most polls have assumed thus far.
Conservatives are beginning to understand that, though few will say so openly, for fear of encouraging complacency among voters, or tempting superstition.
― Mordy, Wednesday, 31 October 2012 23:52 (eleven years ago) link
xp you gotta be kidding me?
― One bad call from barely losing to (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 31 October 2012 23:52 (eleven years ago) link
polls dont assume a gop/dem split they just call people
― lag∞n, Wednesday, 31 October 2012 23:54 (eleven years ago) link
I love the "You shouldn't put too much stock in their predictions...because I HAVE A PREDICTION TOO!" rhetorical style that is so popular in election season
― push iatee (some dude), Wednesday, 31 October 2012 23:57 (eleven years ago) link
Here's the key paragraph from the Christie piece:
But the truth about Christie’s outreach to Obama is blindingly obvious: Mitt Romney is now running away with this election, freeing Christie to praise the president without fear that doing so will tip the scales. (Followed by Mordy's quote.)
― clemenza, Wednesday, 31 October 2012 23:59 (eleven years ago) link
will include proportionally fewer Democrats than most polls have assumed thus far.
Mitt Romney is now running away with this election
I read these sorts of pronouncement and I begin to fear that the invisible voters may steal this election, yet.
― Aimless, Thursday, 1 November 2012 00:00 (eleven years ago) link
"Christie... will tip the scales."
― Clay, Thursday, 1 November 2012 00:02 (eleven years ago) link
I think there's a chance Obama will drop Biden for Christie over the weekend.
― clemenza, Thursday, 1 November 2012 00:02 (eleven years ago) link
Conservatives are beginning to understand that, though few will say so openly
lolllllllllllll
― difficult listening hour, Thursday, 1 November 2012 00:03 (eleven years ago) link
aahahahahah "running away" is just pure candyland stuff, I would buy "race has tightened" and, much more plausibly "race has tightened but not enough to matter and the biggest tightening has been specifically in states where it doesn't matter" but "running away with the election," come on, dude needs to be a man and post some links or, etc
― Doctor Casino, Thursday, 1 November 2012 00:03 (eleven years ago) link
romney has literally been losing this election absolutely the entire time
― Doctor Casino, Thursday, 1 November 2012 00:04 (eleven years ago) link
obama to hire Christie as whitehouse bipartisan carer in chief and giver of worlds best hugs
― lag∞n, Thursday, 1 November 2012 00:06 (eleven years ago) link
how are these people going to feel if/when obama wins? are they just going to straight up have psychotic breaks?
― difficult listening hour, Thursday, 1 November 2012 00:06 (eleven years ago) link
conspiracyville
― iatee, Thursday, 1 November 2012 00:08 (eleven years ago) link
It's going to be really ugly. If you dig into conservativeland comment threads there's essentially nobody who believes the election is even competitive. They're not going to believe an Obama victory is remotely legitimate. It'll be a fun four years!
― Clay, Thursday, 1 November 2012 00:10 (eleven years ago) link
i'm probably one of the young one here and i'm wondering: was the level of anomosity between republicans and democrats that high before?
― Van Horn Street, Thursday, 1 November 2012 00:11 (eleven years ago) link
they thought bill clinton murdered dudes over small time land deals
― lag∞n, Thursday, 1 November 2012 00:14 (eleven years ago) link
to enter a conspiracyville of my own i wonder to what extent some of these punditsorwhatever actually believe that romney is "running away w the race" and to what extent if any they are consciously preparing to radicalize people.
― difficult listening hour, Thursday, 1 November 2012 00:15 (eleven years ago) link
The illegitimacy of Obama's presidency is manifest to far right reactionaries because how could a traitor who is destroying the republic be legitimate? They know he is a traitor who is destroying the republic because anyone who disagrees with them is a traitor who is destroying the republic. And he's black.
― Aimless, Thursday, 1 November 2012 00:15 (eleven years ago) link
Conspiracy aside, the Christie thing is, for at least a day, just one big distraction for Romney in terms of media coverage. They've been going on about it all night on CNN.
― clemenza, Thursday, 1 November 2012 00:21 (eleven years ago) link