When I told my dad, who watches CBS news about Benghazi he said, “If this comes out before the election, Obama will lose.” He’s the town barber and gossip… think Floyd on the Andy Griffith show.
Nate reminds me of my kid brother, at the dog track he would find eight guys and give them all a tip. Each on a different dog. After the race he knew who to talk to to get a money tip. The others would forget and be happy to hear his next tip.
Huh? Silver publishes his predictions, and writes at length about the model he uses. He isn’t giving different stories to different listeners.
I didn’t say the analogy fit. I just said he reminded me of my huckster brother, but thanks for playing.
The comments over there are entertaining. Especially where several people go on about how none of the Electoral College models show Romney winning. These are most likely the same people who supported, until recently, the whole National Popular Vote gimmick. Until it started to look like they would lose if it was actually implemented.
Yes, Obama is leading in Electoral College polling, and yes, NPV is a good idea. If NPV were law, the campaign would be very different, with efforts spread all over the country rather than just in the swing states.
If Obama does win the Electoral College while Romney wins the popular vote, expect to see “strange new respect” for NPV from pundits on the right.
If NPV were law, the campaign would be very different, with efforts spread all over the country rather than just in the swing states.
What BS. If NPV was law, there would be no reason to campaign outside any major city. Hell, you could damn near win by just campaigning in NYC, Boston, Chicago, LA, SF, Dallas, DC, and Miami. Iowa, Oklahoma, Alabama, Mississippi; forget about ever having a say in an election, but keep planting those crops, NYC needs to eat!
If NPV was law, there would be no reason to campaign outside any major city.
Take a look at statewide races in large states (Texas, California, Florida) — do candidates only visit big cities? Of course not. As Sam Walton noticed, there’s a lot of shopping in small towns. There’s a lot of voting, too.
Oklahoma, Alabama, Mississippi; forget about ever having a say in an election
When’s the last time a nominee campaigned in any of those places?
Why does it make sense to fight over New Hampshire, and not Texas? Iowa, and not California?
If Obama does win the Electoral College while Romney wins the popular vote, expect to see “strange new respect” for NPV from pundits on the right.
LOL! Sorry, blue pill, “the right” is not as stupid as the Matrix makes you believe.
If Obama does win the Electoral College while Romney wins the popular vote, expect to see “strange new respect” for NPV from pundits on the right.
Keep on believing that. Conservatives know that the Electoral College prevents the Progressive Left from stealing the election by running up the graveyard vote in places like Philadelphia and Chicago. Conservatives also have a greater tendency to accept when a vote goes against them, even when the election is stolen. Just as Senator Franken, Governor Gregoire and President Kennedy. (Then again, when the Democrats had an election go against them, they tried to set up their own country and ended up starting a war that killed a million Americans.)
And if conservatives did want to go through the trouble of instituting a “National Popular Vote”, they’d use one of the methods described in Article V of the Constitution of 1787 to make that change.
Conservatives also have a greater tendency to accept when a vote goes against them, even when the election is stolen.
I think you mean a greater tendency to assume that a vote that goes against them was stolen. A poll in 2009 showed 52% of Republicans believing that Obama stole the 2008 election, which wasn’t even close.
Are you trying to criticize Nate Silver, or the people interviewing him? Silver was trying to explain that if there is a less than 100% chance of something happening, it might not happen. If the people interviewing him (or putting their faith in him) refuse to understand, despite his repeated and patient explanations, I see no reason to fault Nate Silver.
His predictions are like reading your horoscope, vague enough to twist them into being right at some level. Saying either candidate might win is worthless, you have to be able to quantify the result. Give us a number that Obama will get nationally, and we’ll compare that to others in the business.
Give us a number that Obama will get nationally, and we’ll compare that to others in the business.
It’s right there on Silver’s FiveThirtyEight site: 50.3-48.8 Obama, as of 10/29. You can compare to RCP (48.0-47.1 Romney, at the moment), PollTracker (47.9-47.3 Romney), Pollster (when it comes back from the storm), etc. Silver (and the others) also project state winners and electoral vote totals.
So the answer is …?
Latest news is Romney is ahead in early voting and will be ahead in turnout. Blacks hurt the worst during Obama’s first term and disillusioned with him. The press reports this means Obama is way ahead.
Any guesses about how the storm chaos is going to affect the election? With several states being declared disaster areas…
I don’t think the storm will have much impact on the election. The election is a week from now. That should be sufficient time to restore electicity to most places and have cleanup underway. If so, then the storm effects shouldn’t interfere with the polling places opening. They may have to move some polling places if they were flooded.
As far as guessing whether the storm will motivate people to go vote or stay home, your guess is as good as mine.
The election day is mandated by the Constitution. Through wars and natural disasters, I know of no federal election that has ever been delayed in US history. There was a local election on 9/11/2001 in New York City that was postponed but I know of no other examples.
Not much, I expect. Very few of the affected States are battlegrounds, and even in Pennsylvania it’s hard to see how the storm would have a significant partisan effect. It might lower turnout in NY, NJ, and CT, but the percentages would stay the same I think.
Fewer coastal voters, more rural voters? The states might trend a bit more republican than usual, but I wouldn’t expect a lot of difference.
When I told my dad, who watches CBS news about Benghazi he said, “If this comes out before the election, Obama will lose.” He’s the town barber and gossip… think Floyd on the Andy Griffith show.
Nate reminds me of my kid brother, at the dog track he would find eight guys and give them all a tip. Each on a different dog. After the race he knew who to talk to to get a money tip. The others would forget and be happy to hear his next tip.
Huh? Silver publishes his predictions, and writes at length about the model he uses. He isn’t giving different stories to different listeners.
I didn’t say the analogy fit. I just said he reminded me of my huckster brother, but thanks for playing.
The comments over there are entertaining. Especially where several people go on about how none of the Electoral College models show Romney winning. These are most likely the same people who supported, until recently, the whole National Popular Vote gimmick. Until it started to look like they would lose if it was actually implemented.
Yes, Obama is leading in Electoral College polling, and yes, NPV is a good idea. If NPV were law, the campaign would be very different, with efforts spread all over the country rather than just in the swing states.
If Obama does win the Electoral College while Romney wins the popular vote, expect to see “strange new respect” for NPV from pundits on the right.
If NPV were law, the campaign would be very different, with efforts spread all over the country rather than just in the swing states.
What BS. If NPV was law, there would be no reason to campaign outside any major city. Hell, you could damn near win by just campaigning in NYC, Boston, Chicago, LA, SF, Dallas, DC, and Miami. Iowa, Oklahoma, Alabama, Mississippi; forget about ever having a say in an election, but keep planting those crops, NYC needs to eat!
If NPV was law, there would be no reason to campaign outside any major city.
Take a look at statewide races in large states (Texas, California, Florida) — do candidates only visit big cities? Of course not. As Sam Walton noticed, there’s a lot of shopping in small towns. There’s a lot of voting, too.
Oklahoma, Alabama, Mississippi; forget about ever having a say in an election
When’s the last time a nominee campaigned in any of those places?
Why does it make sense to fight over New Hampshire, and not Texas? Iowa, and not California?
If Obama does win the Electoral College while Romney wins the popular vote, expect to see “strange new respect” for NPV from pundits on the right.
LOL! Sorry, blue pill, “the right” is not as stupid as the Matrix makes you believe.
If Obama does win the Electoral College while Romney wins the popular vote, expect to see “strange new respect” for NPV from pundits on the right.
Keep on believing that. Conservatives know that the Electoral College prevents the Progressive Left from stealing the election by running up the graveyard vote in places like Philadelphia and Chicago. Conservatives also have a greater tendency to accept when a vote goes against them, even when the election is stolen. Just as Senator Franken, Governor Gregoire and President Kennedy. (Then again, when the Democrats had an election go against them, they tried to set up their own country and ended up starting a war that killed a million Americans.)
And if conservatives did want to go through the trouble of instituting a “National Popular Vote”, they’d use one of the methods described in Article V of the Constitution of 1787 to make that change.
Conservatives also have a greater tendency to accept when a vote goes against them, even when the election is stolen.
I think you mean a greater tendency to assume that a vote that goes against them was stolen. A poll in 2009 showed 52% of Republicans believing that Obama stole the 2008 election, which wasn’t even close.
Are you trying to criticize Nate Silver, or the people interviewing him? Silver was trying to explain that if there is a less than 100% chance of something happening, it might not happen. If the people interviewing him (or putting their faith in him) refuse to understand, despite his repeated and patient explanations, I see no reason to fault Nate Silver.
His predictions are like reading your horoscope, vague enough to twist them into being right at some level. Saying either candidate might win is worthless, you have to be able to quantify the result. Give us a number that Obama will get nationally, and we’ll compare that to others in the business.
Give us a number that Obama will get nationally, and we’ll compare that to others in the business.
It’s right there on Silver’s FiveThirtyEight site: 50.3-48.8 Obama, as of 10/29. You can compare to RCP (48.0-47.1 Romney, at the moment), PollTracker (47.9-47.3 Romney), Pollster (when it comes back from the storm), etc. Silver (and the others) also project state winners and electoral vote totals.
So the answer is …?
Latest news is Romney is ahead in early voting and will be ahead in turnout. Blacks hurt the worst during Obama’s first term and disillusioned with him. The press reports this means Obama is way ahead.
Any guesses about how the storm chaos is going to affect the election? With several states being declared disaster areas…
I don’t think the storm will have much impact on the election. The election is a week from now. That should be sufficient time to restore electicity to most places and have cleanup underway. If so, then the storm effects shouldn’t interfere with the polling places opening. They may have to move some polling places if they were flooded.
As far as guessing whether the storm will motivate people to go vote or stay home, your guess is as good as mine.
The election day is mandated by the Constitution. Through wars and natural disasters, I know of no federal election that has ever been delayed in US history. There was a local election on 9/11/2001 in New York City that was postponed but I know of no other examples.
Not much, I expect. Very few of the affected States are battlegrounds, and even in Pennsylvania it’s hard to see how the storm would have a significant partisan effect. It might lower turnout in NY, NJ, and CT, but the percentages would stay the same I think.
Fewer coastal voters, more rural voters? The states might trend a bit more republican than usual, but I wouldn’t expect a lot of difference.