http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/why-conservatives-and-pundits-are-petrified-math-wiz-nate-silver
Nate Silver has his election model that was right in 2008, very wrong in 2010 congressional elections. These guys have a model, too. http://www.colorado.edu/news/releas...ting-model-still-points-romney-win-university
I can't get your link to open. Nate's an okay guy. Like many of us, he's trying to project certainty to an uncertain world. Methodologically, he's following reasonably sound mathematics. However, I think his data is suspect. And as they say in statistical projections, "garbage in, garbage out." I guess we'll see on November 7th.
Um, 34 out of 36 senate elections correct, and being 8 off of the congressional seats is "very wrong"?
8 off in the congressional seats is very wrong. Note that Silver suggests Rasmussen was highly inaccurate in 2010. Yet Rasmussen predicted gains of more than 60 seats (Silver predicted 54) in the House.
link doesn't work for me either. I'm a bit confused on why a conservative would be "petrified" of Silver. So he projects Obama winning by 60+ in the Electoral College...? I guess I don't get it.
Why democrats are afraid of Michael Barone. Barone is the principle author of "The Almanac of American Politics" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Almanac_of_American_Politics Why this matters is he knows the nitty gritty details of every nook and cranny in every state when it comes to politics and elections. http://washingtonexaminer.com/baron...ney-wins-handily/article/2512470#.UJRuo2l245Q Fundamentals usually prevail in American elections. That's bad news for Barack Obama. True, Americans want to think well of their presidents and many think it would be bad if Americans were perceived as rejecting the first black president. But it's also true that most voters oppose Obama's major policies and consider unsatisfactory the very sluggish economic recovery -- Friday's jobs report showed an unemployment uptick. Also, both national and target state polls show that independents, voters who don't identify themselves as Democrats or Republicans, break for Romney. That might not matter if Democrats outnumbered Republicans by 39 to 32 percent, as they did in the 2008 exit poll. But just about every indicator suggests that Republicans are more enthusiastic about voting -- and about their candidate -- than they were in 2008, and Democrats are less so. That's been apparent in early or absentee voting, in which Democrats trail their 2008 numbers in target states Virginia, Ohio, Iowa and Nevada. ... Bottom line: Romney 315, Obama 223. That sounds high for Romney. But he could drop Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and still win the election. Fundamentals.
Pennsylvania (20). Everyone would have picked Obama two weeks ago. I think higher turnout in pro-coal Western Pennsylvania and higher Republican percentages in the Philadelphia suburbs could produce a surprise. The Romney team evidently thinks so too. Their investment in TV time is too expensive to be a mere feint, and, as this is written, Romney is planning a Sunday event in Bucks County outside Philly. Wobbling on my limb, Romney.
The fundamentals clearly favor Romney. The polls look like they're slightly in Obama's favor, particularly in the swing states. Yet... http://voices.yahoo.com/general-election-polls-history-inaccuracy-869171.html It really SHOULD be a Reagan/Carter type of election this year. It may well be, and it would be equally as surprising as the 1980 results.
That # is such a crock of shit, it's not even funny. As things stand right now, safe Obama is 232 (re: cnn). You're telling me he wins NO other states AND loses 9?? 78 for the west coast (OR, CAL, WA, HI). 108 for NY, CT, MASS, NJ, DE, RI, Maine, Vermont, WDC, Illinois and Maryland. That's 186 right there that is all but certain to be Obama. 26 for Minnesota and Michigan (more than likely Obama). That makes it 212. You're telling me he can't get 58 points from Ohio (20), Pennsylvania (20) and 36 (Nevada leaning, Wisconsin likely, Colorado leaning, New Mexico leaning, Iowa leaning)? Everything would have to fall in line, perfectly, for Romney to win, let alone win 315 EV's. Obama would have to lose Ohio, Pennsylvania, Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, New Hamsphire and Virginia. and that would be a perfect storm (no pun intended) for Romney.
So this will be a Republican landslide just like you said it would be a Republican landslide for McCain back in 2008. Last time your confidence was based on Zogby. This time Barone. Have you started planning for your 2016 pollster/statistician to confirm your right wing bias for that election yet? In that thread you said, "I'm not sold on Nate Silver or sabermetrics applied to polling at this point." He, by all accounts, nailed that election, and the "landslide" thing you were pushing looks pretty ridiculous in hindsight for 2008. I'm guessing it'll look ridiculous again in 2012. I was pretty wishy washy in that thread. This time I'm going with the dude who called it right. I guess we'll see who is right in a few days.
The thread you linked was Zogby predicting the landslide. In this thread, I posted what Barone predicts. Liberals won't like it. Thanks for proving me right ;-) You won't have to dig hard in the OT forum to find several recent posts by me that are MY opinion and prediction. I'll give you a hint: it is nothing like Barone's. Tho Barone may have some insight that I don't.
