The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > Elections

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-17-2012, 02:56 AM
etv78 etv78 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Randolph, MA
Posts: 10,554
Yahoo declared Obama the winer!

They ran models, and they claim that Obama will beat Romney 303-235.
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 02-17-2012, 03:43 AM
Oakminster Oakminster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
So Obama is a drunk?
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-17-2012, 03:48 AM
appleciders appleciders is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oakminster View Post
So Obama is a drunk?
What?



Here's the link in question.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/signal/o...202543583.html
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-17-2012, 03:50 AM
Oakminster Oakminster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by appleciders View Post
What?
The thread title is missing a consonant, which prompted my joke.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-17-2012, 04:07 AM
etv78 etv78 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Randolph, MA
Posts: 10,554
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oakminster View Post
The thread title is missing a consonant, which prompted my joke.
Do you mean punctuation?

You're right! JUST saw it!

Last edited by etv78; 02-17-2012 at 04:08 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-17-2012, 04:12 AM
dorsk188 dorsk188 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oakminster View Post
The thread title is missing a consonant, which prompted my joke.
Missing a consonant, eh? Wouldn't that mean Obama is constantly complaining all the time?
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-17-2012, 04:14 AM
Oakminster Oakminster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Oops. Nevermind. I was going for another joke that just doesn't work. Not that my first offering was very good, but this one failed miserably, so I removed it.

Last edited by Oakminster; 02-17-2012 at 04:17 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 02-17-2012, 04:44 AM
Gyrate Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Wining!

I must say that I don't tend to associate Yahoo! with "robust and accurate statistical analysis". Mostly I associate it with "Internet idiots who shouldn't be allowed out in public without a minder" but that's just because I've seen Yahoo! Answers.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 02-17-2012, 09:28 AM
Onomatopoeia Onomatopoeia is online now
僕は女性の香りが大好きですよ。フア!
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: 小浜国
Posts: 5,264
The further I progressed through the article, the more I wondered why I should believe any of its assertions. It seemed to be more of a self-promotion piece than anything else, and annoyingly written to boot. I half-expected there to be a reveal at the end that it was submitted by someone at The Onion.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 02-17-2012, 11:26 AM
appleciders appleciders is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Yeah, they seem to assume that a tiny advantage in polled vote percentage meant a certainty that Obama would carry the state. Poorly done, I think.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 02-17-2012, 11:53 AM
Frank Frank is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Kettering, Ohio
Posts: 17,803
Quote:
Originally Posted by appleciders View Post
Yeah, they seem to assume that a tiny advantage in polled vote percentage meant a certainty that Obama would carry the state.
Nine months from now.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 02-17-2012, 11:58 AM
TimeWinder TimeWinder is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Redmond, WA
Posts: 3,405
Quote:
Originally Posted by Onomatopoeia View Post
I half-expected there to be a reveal at the end that it was submitted by someone at The Onion.
Actually, The Onion has already called the election for Romney: http://www.theonion.com/video/diebol...electio,14214/
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 02-17-2012, 01:17 PM
Exapno Mapcase Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 23,964
I have to like this article, because it says essentially what I've been saying here for months.

For some reason, people think that the 2008 election was very close, a repeat of 2000 minus the Supreme Court. It wasn't. Obama won by about 7 percentage points in votes and the electoral victory was enormous, 364-173. Romney will have to pick up 97 electoral votes to slid across with the barest margin of victory. That's an absolutely enormous hurdle.

As I've pointed out, Obama won every upper Midwestern state in 2008. If he lost them all - that's Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, and Minnesota - it wouldn't matter. He'd have to lose yet another state that he won. And that's true even if the Republicans keep every single state that they won in 2008.* How likely is that?

Forget the Midwest as a block, since there's no way Obama will lose them all unless a world-shaking event occurs. Where do the 97 electors come from? Give Romney Florida, North Carolina, and Indiana, as that Yahoo article does. That's 55. It would take the next 6 states on his chart - Virginia, Ohio, New Hampshire, Colorado, Iowa, and either Pennsylvania or Nevada - to bring the total over 97.

Can Romney really swing nine states? That's incredibly unlikely. I'm positive the math is the reason why so many Republicans refused to run or dropped out of the race very early. A nine state swing against an incumbent president is extremely difficult. It's true that both Clinton and Reagan did it, but both Bush and Carter were far more unpopular than Obama.

In addition, I also have to agree with this part of the article:
Quote:
A key finding of the model is that economic trends—whether things are getting better or worse than they were a month ago—are more meaningful than the level state of the economy. In other words, whether the unemployment rate is increasing or decreasing is more important than what the unemployment rate actually is.

Another lesson of this model is that, while campaigns and candidates matter, they don't matter all that much. Despite the varying quality and positions of the campaigns and candidates over the last 10 presidential elections, variables beyond their immediate control describe the outcome very well. A brilliant or lucky campaigner is at an advantage, but the net effect of politics and strategy, averaged over the past 40 years, is just the small variation that the Yahoo! model cannot predict.
The numbers for the economy have been getting better for months. That could change rapidly with a European collapse or a war in the Strait of Hormuz but the straightline extrapolation is currently favorable.

The personality factor is a wild card. Clinton and Reagan were brilliant and charisma-laden campaigners. Romney ... isn't. That extra bit of oomph that could swing an uncertain state is totally missing. Obama, by contrast, is more likeable when he gets out of the White House.

Obama has the power of incumbency, he will have the money, and he has a comfortable margin of states to lose. That's the trifecta.

*This is going by the electoral votes in 2008. I haven't adjusted for the redistricting in this election, but the principal stands.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 02-17-2012, 01:31 PM
kaylasdad99 kaylasdad99 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 21,728
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
Wining!

I must say that I don't tend to associate Yahoo! with "robust and accurate statistical analysis". Mostly I associate it with "Internet idiots who shouldn't be allowed out in public without a minder" but that's just because I've seen Yahoo! Answers.
This.

My first reaction to the thread title was: "Is this the same Yahoo! that Yahoo! Answers comes from?"

OP, please hurry up and check Google on the same question so we can find out how the YouTube commenters see the race playing out...
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 02-17-2012, 01:38 PM
BrainGlutton BrainGlutton is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oakminster View Post
So Obama is a drunk?
No, he's a grape-stomper. Yahoo clocked him at 303 gulpiliters of juice in one hour to Romney's 235, based on past performance at the Dijon Trials in 2009 and 2006 respectively. They face off in November at a location in the Napa Valley somewhere.

Last edited by BrainGlutton; 02-17-2012 at 01:39 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 02-17-2012, 01:56 PM
Chronos Chronos is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 55,524
The map that Yahoo paints probably is the single most likely electoral map, given current information. But just because it's the most likely one doesn't mean it's going to be exactly right. There are a combinatorically large number of possible electoral maps, and even a very large number that are nearly as likely as that one. You have to find the total probability of all of the maps that win for one candidate or the other, which is a very daunting proposition. This is what Nate Silver will be doing in a few months, but he's not now, because he recognizes that the data are not yet robust enough to support such an elaborate model.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 02-17-2012, 03:15 PM
BigT BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaylasdad99 View Post
This.

My first reaction to the thread title was: "Is this the same Yahoo! that Yahoo! Answers comes from?"

OP, please hurry up and check Google on the same question so we can find out how the YouTube commenters see the race playing out...
Yes, because answers that come from any Yahoo out there (pun intended) is the same as answers determined by rigorous political analysis.

Oh, and YouTubers vote: so I'd guess their opinion in aggregate would actually be worth something.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 02-17-2012, 03:25 PM
Ludovic Ludovic is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: America's Wing
Posts: 23,303
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaylasdad99 View Post
My first reaction to the thread title was: "Is this the same Yahoo! that Yahoo! Answers comes from?"
Babby stole the extra letter from Winer.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 02-17-2012, 10:39 PM
Qin Shi Huangdi Qin Shi Huangdi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
It is laughable to think Obama will do any better than in 2008 if Romney is the nominee. And there have been a similar shift of large amounts of states before: 1928-32, 76-80, 88-92, 96-00, 04-08. In particular many traditional Republican states like Indiana, Virginia, and North Carolina went Democrat and Democrats maximized their turnout. I doubt Obama can get as lucky this time around.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 02-17-2012, 11:00 PM
Typo Knig Typo Knig is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
IMO, it's too early for any useful predictions yet. Even of Romney had the nom sewed up it would be too early. Obama has the advantage *for now*, but it may not last.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Qin Shi Huangdi View Post
It is laughable to think Obama will do any better than in 2008 if Romney is the nominee. And there have been a similar shift of large amounts of states before: 1928-32, 76-80, 88-92, 96-00, 04-08. In particular many traditional Republican states like Indiana, Virginia, and North Carolina went Democrat and Democrats maximized their turnout. I doubt Obama can get as lucky this time around.
It wasn't just luck, it was the best "ground game" campaign organization I have ever seen or heard of. The Obama campaign itself had 2 offices just in southern Fairfax County, VA. They had offices all over Virginia. Whatever else goes on this autumn, you will see Obama '12 offices spring up everywhere. That's how you flip states like IN, NC, and VA. Even if Obama doesn't win them, he forces Romney (or not-Romney) to put effort into a state that should be easy.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 02-17-2012, 11:38 PM
Exapno Mapcase Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 23,964
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qin Shi Huangdi View Post
It is laughable to think Obama will do any better than in 2008 if Romney is the nominee. And there have been a similar shift of large amounts of states before: 1928-32, 76-80, 88-92, 96-00, 04-08. In particular many traditional Republican states like Indiana, Virginia, and North Carolina went Democrat and Democrats maximized their turnout. I doubt Obama can get as lucky this time around.
Who is saying that Obama will do better? The argument is that he could do significantly worse and still win.

Indiana and North Carolina are expected to swing. Add in Virginia. Add in Florida as the article does. That still leaves Romney five short. Can Romney get all five? That's really the issue of this race. Can Romney win Ohio, New Hampshire, Colorado, Iowa, and either Pennsylvania or Nevada as well?

BTW, the last two shifts you name were races without incumbents, and in 1932 the loser was Hoover. I would argue that none of the three are relevant.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:57 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.