Electoral college favors Obama

[strawman]

The AP reports that while the polls show the race is quite close, once you factor in the electoral college and swing states, Romney has very few, and very difficult, paths to win the presidency.

While it's always mere speculation at this point, Ohio seems to be the key to winning for Romney. As polls stand in other states, if he doesn't take Ohio he will have to take more than a few generally blue states to make the 270 minimum electoral college votes.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-10-28-12-37-06

Chances are good the polls and math will be completely different by next week, and again we'll see that the actual election will turn out significantly differently than the polls (after these last few elections everyone's left scratching their heads going, "But why were pre-election polls so different than the outcome?"), but while we keep getting reports of either candidate up or down by five points in the polls, it's important to keep in mind that even if that's the case, the electoral collage changes that math in important ways, and it's not enough to simply rely on the raw number.

 

[MindDetective]

FiveThirtyEight has basically been saying the same thing.

 

[Shakey]

I don't know. I have a feeling Romney is going to win this one. Maybe it's just that I'm pretty much surrounded by Republicans, but it feels like most people who don't have a solid tie to a party are leaning towards Romney right now. Either way, this will probably be even closer and more contested than any we've had since the Bush/Gore election.

 

[Charlie Don't Surf]

I have a feeling Romney is going to win this one. Maybe it's just that I'm pretty much surrounded by Republicans, but it feels like most people who don't have a solid tie to a party are leaning towards Romney right now.

let me take your gut feeling and anecdotal evidence and just saddle it up right next to polls and math and science and gosh, let's see which one is more accurate

 

[Gared]

That's right Shakey... how dare you have an opinion that isn't backed up by science. Don't you know that that's what's wrong with America?

 

[MindDetective]

Kind of on the nose, really, Gared.

 

[Shakey]

let me take your gut feeling and anecdotal evidence and just saddle it up right next to polls and math and science and gosh, let's see which one is more accurate

Settle down there chief. It was just an opinion. I'm not saying they're wrong, or that I'm 100% right, I'm saying it's the feeling I'm getting.[DOUBLEPOST=1351630614][/DOUBLEPOST]Wait, I shouldn't call you chief, that might be considered offensive to native americans by implying they're all hot headed and quick to fight. Ummm, shooter, lets go with shooter instead.

 

[Gared]

Kind of on the nose, really, Gared.

Ahh... but if no one ever had an opinion that wasn't backed by scientific fact, would we ever have any new discoveries? If, throughout history, we'd never opined (or theorized) about anything that we didn't already know the answer to, would we ever have discovered why lower air pressure below the wing of an aircraft causes lift, and therefore allows said aircraft to fly? Or been able to harness electricity? Or come to understand mental illness? Or anything else that we've ever discovered?

 

[strawman]

If we've learned anything from the last four presidential elections, it's that the pre-election polls are all so much rubbish. When they're this close there's only so much solid conclusion one can draw from the statistics, and at best it's usually, "Things are pretty darn close!"

What's stupid is that news outlets are publishing these numbers because they have nothing else to go on. "Candidate X has a 3 point lead, which is well within the margin of error, but we're going to pretend it's important. Now on to our political commentators about the impact of this drastic, nay, tectonic move towards Candidate X..."

Ah well. I guess that's what happens when you need a wedding dress but you've only got enough cloth for a swimsuit.

 

[MindDetective]

Well, the guy on the FiveThirtyEight blog knows statistics and not only that, he tells you his methodology and hedges his conclusions.

Ahh... but if no one ever had an opinion that wasn't backed by scientific fact, would we ever have any new discoveries? If, throughout history, we'd never opined (or theorized) about anything that we didn't already know the answer to, would we ever have discovered why lower air pressure below the wing of an aircraft causes lift, and therefore allows said aircraft to fly? Or been able to harness electricity? Or come to understand mental illness? Or anything else that we've ever discovered?

Sure, if that's what we were even discussing. This isn't about innovation, though. It is an opinion about a predicted outcome. Those are not in remotely the same neighborhood. It turns out, people actually have biases, and they often believe they are not biased, for that matter. I personally see nothing wrong with acknowledging that people have biases and that they are prone to act erroneously on them.

 

[Shakey]

Sure, if that's what we were even discussing. This isn't about innovation, though. It is an opinion about a predicted outcome. Those are not in remotely the same neighborhood. It turns out, people actually have biases, and they often believe they are not biased, for that matter. I personally see nothing wrong with acknowledging that people have biases and that they are prone to act erroneously on them.

I even say the reason it feels like Romney will win is because I'm mostly surrounded by Republicans. Hell, I don't even want Romney to win, but that's just the feeling I get. Does that make it wrong that we discuss the idea that the election might turn out different than what the polls are predicting? What's the point of having topics like this if we are just going to say "Yep, that's what the polls say."

 

[Charlie Don't Surf]

also, it is kind of pointless to look at.. what, maybe 100 people in Wisconsin? and be like "OH SHIT EVERYONE IS VOTING ROMNEY" when Wisconsin won't in any way influence who becomes President.

ALSO if you expand it to your facebook friends (let's give you 2,500 to be really generous), it's still not statistically relevant, even if they all live in Ohio

 

[MindDetective]

I even say the reason it feels like Romney will win is because I'm mostly surrounded by Republicans. Hell, I don't even want Romney to win, but that's just the feeling I get. Does that make it wrong that we discuss the idea that the election might turn out different than what the polls are predicting? What's the point of having topics like this if we are just going to say "Yep, that's what the polls say."

I'm not telling you to shut up at all. But 1.) Charlie is right. The statistics are stronger than gut instinct and 2.) People often rely on their biases to a fault, which I think is strongly reflected in the media and their depiction of polling data as well. That's why I think Gared's statement was on the nose.

 

[Dave]

You know, even though I like where this thread is at (with an Obama win) I would rather have a Romney win and a removal of the electoral college than an Obama win and the college remains in tact. I think it's lived past its viability.

 

[MindDetective]

I think dropping the electoral college means dropping "United States" from the country's name. The electoral college is meant to 1.) indicate a clear winner in a close race and 2.) to allow the states to have a clear voice. I am NOT saying it is the best approach by any means, but I do not, do not, do not agree that it should be a purely popular vote.

 

[Charlie Don't Surf]

You know, even though I like where this thread is at (with an Obama win) I would rather have a Romney win and a removal of the electoral college than an Obama win and the college remains in tact. I think it's lived past its viability.

How about Obama wins the EC and loses the popular vote and we kick out the Electoral College? That way we don't get like 70 years of a severely conservative Supreme Court that will do all kinds of heinous shit.

 

[Dave]

How about Obama wins the EC and loses the popular vote and we kick out the Electoral College? That way we don't get like 70 years of a severely conservative Supreme Court that will do all kinds of heinous shit.

I'll bet someone a few years ago said the same thing about the liberal Supreme Court when Gore won the popular vote.

So yes. We could have that same scenario with the roles reversed.

 

[Necronic]

ALSO if you expand it to your facebook friends (let's give you 2,500 to be really generous), it's still not statistically relevant, even if they all live in Ohio

I'm not sure that's true (assuming it's well randomized/representative.) The Law of large numbers should mean that n=2500 will give you a good estimate of the population mean. "Well randomized/representative" is key here, and arguably impossible due to the self selecting population of people who will actually talk to pollsters (I've hung up on 3 so far), but that's independent of the volume.

 

[GasBandit]

Too hard to say, now. What with the hurricane and the horrible track record of election polling (sorry, MD), I wouldn't put money on either candidate right now. But I do agree that once Ohio's been called, if it's blue, it's over.

 

[MindDetective]

Aggregated polling data is the way to go. And FiveThirtyEight's results are pretty similar to others taking a similar approach. He is also running simulations that incorporate state and national fluctuations in the data. I'd say it will take a genuine October (November?) surprise to swing things towards Romney at this point.

And Sandy is going to be ancient history when election day rolls around.

 

[Covar]

And Sandy is going to be ancient history when election day rolls around.

I wouldn't be so sure of that.

 

[Dave]

Hell, even Christie is praising Obama right now. I think the Dems will be the ones trying to keep this in the spotlight. Romney wants to get rid of FEMA, but this storm is showing a large swath of population what FEMA can be if run right. I hate politicizing something like this, but you know they are going to.

 

[MindDetective]

I wouldn't be so sure of that.

I'm not 100% sure of that, but things will certainly look different next week. A regular ol' rainstorm on election day is probably going to be more influential than Sandy next week.

 

[Gared]

Well, the guy on the FiveThirtyEight blog knows statistics and not only that, he tells you his methodology and hedges his conclusions.



Sure, if that's what we were even discussing. This isn't about innovation, though. It is an opinion about a predicted outcome. Those are not in remotely the same neighborhood. It turns out, people actually have biases, and they often believe they are not biased, for that matter. I personally see nothing wrong with acknowledging that people have biases and that they are prone to act erroneously on them.

Sure, but there's a difference between pointing out - in a calm, even-keeled manner - that people have biases and that they are prone to act erroneously on them, and making a snide comment about holding someone's personal feelings (based on their observations) up to scientific fact and seeing which one is more accurate, like Charlie did. Especially since political polling is so fluid. Sure, these polls and stats predict that Obama will win, based on the electoral college; but what if Obama had really, really screwed up the response to hurricane Sandy? Would that have stayed the same, or would Romney have been able to pull ahead. Political statistics are all well and good, but in this realm of probability, you really can't afford to toss out the human element.

 

[MindDetective]

Sure, but there's a difference between pointing out - in a calm, even-keeled manner - that people have biases and that they are prone to act erroneously on them, and making a snide comment about holding someone's personal feelings (based on their observations) up to scientific fact and seeing which one is more accurate, like Charlie did. Especially since political polling is so fluid. Sure, these polls and stats predict that Obama will win, based on the electoral college; but what if Obama had really, really screwed up the response to hurricane Sandy? Would that have stayed the same, or would Romney have been able to pull ahead. Political statistics are all well and good, but in this realm of probability, you really can't afford to toss out the human element.

Hey, I don't condone his tone at all, but his statement wasn't inaccurate.[DOUBLEPOST=1351634608][/DOUBLEPOST]

Sure, these polls and stats predict that Obama will win, based on the electoral college; but what if Obama had really, really screwed up the response to hurricane Sandy? Would that have stayed the same, or would Romney have been able to pull ahead. Political statistics are all well and good, but in this realm of probability, you really can't afford to toss out the human element.

Oh, and specifically in response to this part: FiveThirtyEight has discussed natural disasters, but has no precedence for this close to the election. Still, he gives Romney a 31% chance of winning the election. The analyses don't claim to be ironclad and so they always hedge their conclusions. Yes, Romney could win. Most likely, it will take some big news to swing things in his favor for that to happen.

 

[Hailey Knight]

(sorry, MD)

No biggie smalls, it's cool.

 

[bhamv3]

Ah well. I guess that's what happens when you need a wedding dress but you've only got enough cloth for a swimsuit.

Good thread, but right now this is the only mental image I care about...

 

[Necronic]

I'm not 100% sure of that, but things will certainly look different next week. A regular ol' rainstorm on election day is probably going to be more influential than Sandy next week.

I wouldn't write off the long term affects of Sandy. Problem wasn't the storm so much as the storm surge/flooding. Same thing happened here and it took a looooooong time to rebuild

 

[Gilgamesh]

Got to love how Romney canceled his Political Rally to host a Relief Rally.... at the same place... and same time that his Political Rally was supposed to be.

 

[Zappit]

Got to love how Romney canceled his Political Rally to host a Relief Rally.... at the same place... and same time that his Political Rally was supposed to be.

Probably raising money for the 47% of Americans affected by the storm, too.

 

[sixpackshaker]

The only thing I'll drop on Romney right now... Etch-a-Sketch moment.

 

[Dei]

Neither president getting elected is going to make a damn bit of difference on whether or not we keep the electoral college. It would require an amendment, and Congress does not get along well enough for that to happen I'm sure.

 

[AshburnerX]

We're probably going to see a lot of seats vacated come 2014 if Obama wins... or the Republicans are going to start turning on each other to keep their seats.

 

[Covar]

Got to love how Romney canceled his Political Rally to host a Relief Rally.... at the same place... and same time that his Political Rally was supposed to be.

If I wasn't wearing a tinfoil hat I might wager it was because of the large space already rented out and scheduled, and the minimal change to the travel schedule required.

 

[sixpackshaker]

With the devastation to the North East, the vote there will likely be suppressed as people are busy getting their lives and property back together. i.e. too busy to vote. There could be millions that don't get out and vote because of the storm. So now it will be more likely that Obama will lose the popular vote, but still carry the electoral college.