ffs
David Rothschild: The uncertainty in election forecasts is not about what would happen if the election were held today. It is about what could happen between now and Election Day that could shake things up. And so when a state is 55 percent, or 60 percent, or 75 percent for a given candidate, what we're saying is that there is a 45 percent, or 40 percent, or 25 percent chance the other candidate could win if something happens that shifts that balance, not what would happen if the election were held that day.
...
PS: As between prediction markets and polls, which do you trust?
DR: I'm going to take prediction markets because prediction markets have all of this polling information available to them as well as additional information. They understand some things that will definitely happen that polls have not picked up yet. And I'm going to give you a good example: job numbers. We know that they're going to affect the trajectory of the election. They're going to be involved in the debates, they're going to be in commercials, they're going to help change donations. But unlike you and me, most people are not refreshing the Bureau of Labor Statistics website at 8:30 in the morning on the first Friday of every month. It's the prediction markets who know about these numbers before the polls do, and so that's what makes a difference.
PS: So prediction markets reflect more information because they are played by people with an incentive to stay on top of the information as opposed to react naturally to it over time.
DR: That's correct. Putting your money where your mouth is incentivizes you to go out there and gather as much information as possible and more importantly in some ways, to then reveal that information correctly. And so those kinds of things combine to provide a very high level of information in these prediction markets that you don't necessarily have in a poll that's a snapshot of today, versus a prediction market which is looking at what's going to happen on Election Day.
if tomorrow polls come out and, say, gallup is pointed even further downward (worse approval rating, worse rv, worse lv), i'm going to prepare for an obama loss.
i know i'm not joseph-gordon levitt, but i sorta see the future, where the numbers worsen through the weekend, lead to a debate that does nothing to shift the narrative or substantially improve numbers for obama, and a final debate that continues the trend, leading to a loss nationally and across swing states.
i see romney laying low and letting this play out, aside from the debates, where he'll give it his all.
the only counterpoint to this all is that the senate races still pretty much haven't wavered for the democrats, so people are mostly not-enthused for obama in particular. it might mean that these people could be persuaded to come back. at this point, since it doesn't appear this was a 'bump', i think it means romney would have to fuck up again, or obama would have to land a decisive knockout blow somehow.
The forecast model is being very aggressive about pricing in Mr. Romneys gains. In our now-cast, hes added a net of 4.8 percentage points since the debate. He will need to have more strong polling days like Friday to maintain his current standing in the model.
The forecast model adjusts Mr. Obamas numbers up slightly based on its economic index and his incumbency status, but only by about 0.4 percentage points.
Yet some of the plausible arguments that Democrats were making earlier in the week about Mr. Obamas standing like that his position would be more robust in the swing states are looking weaker now.
Although we prefer to describe the race in quantitative rather than qualitative terms, the nomenclature that we use in our Senate forecasts is to describe a race as a tossup if each candidate has at least a 40 percent chance of winning. Mr. Romney is on the verge of that threshold.
So Ann Coulter said Obama's even more liberal than FDR, and SS is LESS liberal than Obamacare.
Well, then.
This is all fine and dandy, but you can't fake the ground game.
People gotta chill. You do realize that Obama can lose Florida, Colorado, and Virginia and still win easily.just watch me
seriously though, i hope it's as good as people are saying, because they really fucking need it in ohio, virginia, florida, and colorado.
i remember reading a while ago that an overwhelming amount of people voted for mccain in one of the swing states on election day, and that obama was basically saved by early voting. if people are less enthusiastic about obama now than they were 4 years ago, things are going to get hairy, at best.
in 2008, it was obama in
ohio by 250k (5.6m votes)
florida by 240k (8.3m votes)
virginia by 230k (3.7m votes)
colorado by 210k (2.3m votes)
he has to really do his best to outnumber them early this time. i don't know if it's possible.
This thread is amazing. I can't keep track of who's actually freaking out having meltdowns or joking.
Don't become dispirited, Anihawk. I ordered an Ohioans for Obama shirt and I'm going to wear it all around the state. It'll shore things up a bit.
People gotta chill. You do realize that Obama can lose Florida, Colorado, and Virginia and still win easily.
Everyone was freaking out until Biden started spittin' dat hot fiyah.
what i'm about to say is one of the dumbest things ever, but this actually makes me feel a little better.
just watch me
seriously though, i hope it's as good as people are saying, because they really fucking need it in ohio, virginia, florida, and colorado.
i remember reading a while ago that an overwhelming amount of people voted for mccain in one of the swing states on election day, and that obama was basically saved by early voting. if people are less enthusiastic about obama now than they were 4 years ago, things are going to get hairy, at best.
in 2008, it was obama in
ohio by 250k (5.6m votes)
florida by 240k (8.3m votes)
virginia by 230k (3.7m votes)
colorado by 210k (2.3m votes)
he has to really do his best to outnumber them early this time. i don't know if it's possible.
I don't have the stomach for this thread. I'm just going to vote early and get nice and drunk either way Nov. 6th.
Ground game helps but at best adds about 1% at most based on Silvers analysis post-2008. If Obama is down 2-3% ground game advantages won't save him.This is all fine and dandy, but you can't fake the ground game.
http://store.mittromney.com/collections/believe-in-america/believe-t-shirt-1.html
It's as if Romney is taunting GAF.
just watch me
seriously though, i hope it's as good as people are saying, because they really fucking need it in ohio, virginia, florida, and colorado.
i remember reading a while ago that an overwhelming amount of people voted for mccain in one of the swing states on election day, and that obama was basically saved by early voting. if people are less enthusiastic about obama now than they were 4 years ago, things are going to get hairy, at best.
in 2008, it was obama in
ohio by 250k (5.6m votes)
florida by 240k (8.3m votes)
virginia by 230k (3.7m votes)
colorado by 210k (2.3m votes)
he has to really do his best to outnumber them early this time. i don't know if it's possible.
http://store.mittromney.com/collections/believe-in-america/believe-t-shirt-1.html
It's as if Romney is taunting GAF.
He's trying to trick liberals into donating to his campaign.Granted, 3 of the 4 colors available are blue.
Romney dropped to 39% in Silver's model. REVERSAL!!!!
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytime...-power/?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=tw-thecaucus
Not that it's a positive article.
if tomorrow polls come out and, say, gallup is pointed even further downward (worse approval rating, worse rv, worse lv), i'm going to prepare for an obama loss.
i know i'm not joseph-gordon levitt, but i sorta see the future, where the numbers worsen through the weekend, lead to a debate that does nothing to shift the narrative or substantially improve numbers for obama, and a final debate that continues the trend, leading to a loss nationally and across swing states.
i see romney laying low and letting this play out, aside from the debates, where he'll give it his all.
the only counterpoint to this all is that the senate races still pretty much haven't wavered for the democrats, so people are mostly not-enthused for obama in particular. it might mean that these people could be persuaded to come back. at this point, since it doesn't appear this was a 'bump', i think it means romney would have to fuck up again, or obama would have to land a decisive knockout blow somehow.
The pressure for Obama to do well at the debates is huge right now. If "slow Joe" can beat Ryan, maybe Obama can score a convincing win at the debates.
That's not a drop, that's his highest rating yet.
Dont worry Silver's model is like Sex Panther by Odeon right now, 60% of the time it works every time.
In the current media atmosphere, the best Obama can hope for is a tie. Conservative media won't let him have a win, and mainstream media wants the horse race to continue.
You have to seriously ask yourself though; Why exactly would Obama lose the election?
The economy is rebounding (especially in Ohio and Virginia). The wars are winding down. U.S. auto industry is doing fantastic. The stock market is back up. Osama Bin Ladin is dead. Home sales are rebounding. Americans are also more respected on a global level. There hasn't been a terrorist attack on U.S. soil since he took office.
I'm just not seeing why Obama should lose this. People say he can't run on his record, but that is absolute nonsense. His record is pretty damn good all things considered.
Went to play Borderlands and look who shows up, I can't escape him. He claimed he uses a body double for public appearances.
If By Tuesday the polls show it tightened, then I agree. If it shows Romney much better off than that, then it's much more than just tightening.
As I said, this should be a 2-2.5% election. Obama was higher than that. But if this is tied before the debate, that is bad.
I would campaign, but phone banking, canvasing, or bothering strangers in unsolicited ways really makes me uncomfortable and as a result I'm horrible at it. I respect its importance and am glad that people do it, but I can't shake the feeling that I'm being rude when I do it.
Instead I've decided that I'm going to come out as an Obama supporter at work and talk to people around me about the election generally. Until recently it's a subject that I would avoid out of politeness, but this idea that one should be silent about his or her political beliefs is a mistake.
PublicPolicyPolling Twitter said:Ohio looks pretty darn close on the first night of our poll there.
PublicPolicyPolling Twitter said:VP debate looks like a draw in the swing states where we launched polls tonight.
No better way of making your coworkers hate you than talking politics at work! Especially if you're a bit smug about it, acting like a know-it-all!
Ouch.
Ouch.
Sorry guys, no game-changer here.
One of the problems as I see it is that all of Obama's Bain / tax attacks seem so passé now. They really blew their load early. These days whenever I see an article or an ad about how Mitt killed babies at Bain and has offshore accounts in the Caymans I tune out. I imagine the electorate is pretty becoming more and more immune to it all too.
It's going to be bad then.
While I do believe Obama will win (I'm not in a location where there are swing voters. I'm in a part of a country where Republicans can say they will kill 200 million people, and they will still win the election), no one ever lost money betting on the stupidity of the American people.
I believe Biden won the last debate, but it hasn't stopped the bleeding.
Seriously, it took the demise of the economy to vote in a Democratic president. What does that tell you about the proclivity of the public to vote Democrat?