View Single Post
11-06-2012, 12:28 PM
BenedictGomez's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: PRNJ
Country: United States
Posts: 26,891
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Feed Me A Stray Cat View Post
There are some interesting predictions about the election. If you look at current state by state polling numbers and model them using historical outcomes, Obama looks like he has a 99% chance of winning.

However, the turnout assumptions used in a lot of these polls might be off the mark, overstating the amount of democrats that will show based on the 2008 election turnout. The republican party has seen its strongest resurgence since the Reagan years and Mitt enjoys a comfortable lead among independents.

Guess we'll have to see.

The 99% thing is way overdone. This stems from Nate Silver's 92% analysis, he's become something of a liberal hero this cycle, but I consider him much a clown. I view him like that guy that claims he speaks to dead people.

On the turnout, that is everything.

Some of the biggest polls are sampling Democrats in a proportion ≥ that of the historic 2008 Dem wave election. Tough to believe.

But the bizarrest part (that NOBODY is talking about) of the state polls? Some of the polls that headline Obama winning, do so with internals that make it nearly impossible for Romney to lose. Specifically, if Romney were to win Independent, moderate voters in a proportion that these polls suggest, he'd literally be the first person in history to lose the presidential election. While that's not impossible, it conflicts will all prior history. It also suggests that Obama has to turn out a VERY high percentage of Dem voters in order to "true up" those polls results.

Short answer: I dont know who will win, but these predictions that Romney has virtually no chance are 100% wrong, and I dont need a New York Times blog (aka Nate Silver) to know that.

BenedictGomez is offline