If the election is decided in the Supreme Court, the Justice with the first name closest to A decides the result.
I didn’t say anything about newspaper endorsements. The thinking is that people will be more interested in predictions as the election approaches. They’re certainly not going to be interested in predictions after the election. That’s it.
Are you rebuffing the Buffs?
Likewise, people will be more interested in newspaper endorsements as the election approaches. Excect that a newspaper endorsement is an opinion whereas a poll or survey ideally isn’t.
When I get finished with them they won’t know what buffed them!
I have no idea what you’re trying to say (or italicize). You asked why people were making so many predictions close to the election. I said it’s because the people who are creating and publishing these predictions believe interest in those predictions is rising as the election approaches.
You can’t predict the past.
You can postdict it. They postdict the hell out of it.
Bah! We can construct a model that predicts elections all the way back to 1788, at any point in American history!
Relevantxkcd cartoon
I’m sure that in the next four years they will modify the model so that it would have predicted a slight win for Obama and then apply this revised model to 2016.
I find particularly amusing those people who say that no president since FDR has won re-election with unemployment over 7.2%. Are they really claiming that if unemployment was just a little higher Reagan would have lost to Mondale?
Predictions are not opinions - they tell who voters will vote for. Newspaper endorsements are opinions - they tell voters who they should vote for.
Who or what are you arguing with?
In every election since (at least) 1980, the candidate with the more likeable personality has won (though you need an asterisk next to Bush/Gore). This implies that Obama will win.
[I actually believe in this, in that I think it’s worth several points in the polls, which is generally enough to tip the balance.]
This:
These models are faulty, almost meaningless. Other than predictions, voters are interested in newspaper endorsements. (Which is why both appear when Election Day approaches.) However, newspaper endorsements, as a rule, are not wrong while predictions, by their very nature, can be wrong.
That has nothing to do with what I was talking about or what you asked me about, but OK. That sure is something.
I… don’t understand. Do you agree or disagree with what I said?
Stop pressuring him!
I agree with you regarding predictions.
Very disappointing. Try “When I get finished with them they won’t know what buff-tucked them!” Crude but clever - a difficult combination.
ETA: I suddenly have inspiration for the signs I’ll take with me to the Washington-Colorado football and basketball games. I’m sure everyone in Boulder will get a kick out of them.
Much as I hope they’re right, I can hardly call 330 a landslide.
Buff Buffs buffs buff Buffs buffs buff buff buff Buffs buffs.
[Eyegore]
Well they were wrong then weren’t they!
[/E]