# What if 538 is right, and Romney loses by 60+ electoral votes **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [August 31, 2012, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-538-is-right-and-romney-loses-by-60-electoral-votes/633316 "2012-08-31T23:22:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 18
**Author:** ![Fuzzy\_Dunlop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/848f3c/32.png) [@Fuzzy\_Dunlop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuzzy_Dunlop)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2012, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-538-is-right-and-romney-loses-by-60-electoral-votes/633316/341 "2012-09-13T15:58:37Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > They aren’t the same thing at all. The problem with them may be the same - I haven’t decided for sure about that - but comparing the correlation of multiple variables isn’t the same thing as simply trying to find a hypothetical curve that fits one set best. That’s just trying to see a trend, it’s not finding a cause and effect relationship between two trends. No matter how many times you say it, they are, in reality, the same. The reason the simple example is supposed to help you understand is because it doesn’t lead you to be confused about whether a parameter\*should \*or _should not_ have predictive power. In practical applications there will be parameters seem like they should, like unemployment, and parameters that seem like they should not, like average daily temperature. However, even the most logically obvious or absurd assumption is just that until you test it with actual training data. I believe you agree up to this point. The problem is if you indiscriminately toss in as many parameters as you like, even if they all seem like they \*should \*have predictive power, your model will be over fit. Exactly like my earlier example and **Jragon** ’s example. It’s not different because the parameters appear on their face like they should be predictive. You will find parameters that appear to fit your training data very well, and also logically explain people’s voting power. But because you have too many parameters you’re just mistaking noise for pattern - or you might be - you can’t tell because you have too many parameters. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2012, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-538-is-right-and-romney-loses-by-60-electoral-votes/633316/342 "2012-09-13T16:04:42Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > You had to dig pretty deep in those polls to find some good news for Romney. I couldn’t find how much of those polled called themselves “independent”… Thems are some interesting figures. “Independents” must be identifying as such at record low numbers (or filtered out as not likely to vote) for all likely voters to be coming out 52 to 46% in favor of Obama, with Democratic and Republican spreads being about the same (97 and 96%) in favor of their party’s candidate, and that big of a spread for Romney among those who call themselves “independent.” The alternate explanation is that many more Democratic voters are likely voters, which is never the case, and in fact has been estimated to be even less the case this cycle than in many others. Interesting in those cross tabs is not the 94 to 6% Obama lean among liberals, but that the lean is 59 to 37% among moderates and that Obama is even getting the nod from 23% of those who identify as conservative. When you lose the middle _and_ fail to excite your base you are pretty much in an underdog position. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2012, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-538-is-right-and-romney-loses-by-60-electoral-votes/633316/343 "2012-09-13T16:06:54Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > And? I’d be willing to bet that’s because they’re assuming a higher Democratic turnout relative to a low Republican/Independent turnout.. Read your own cites. Likely voters? Obama gets more votes. Registered voters? Obama gets more votes. YOUR OWN CITES say Obama’s winning. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2012, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-538-is-right-and-romney-loses-by-60-electoral-votes/633316/344 "2012-09-13T16:14:17Z")
> [@Fuzzy\_Dunlop](#): > > No matter how many times you say it, they are, in reality, the same. The reason the simple example is supposed to help you understand is because it doesn’t lead you to be confused about whether a parameter\*should \*or _should not_ have predictive power. > > In practical applications there will be parameters seem like they should, like unemployment, and parameters that seem like they should not, like average daily temperature. However, even the most logically obvious or absurd assumption is just that until you test it with actual training data. > > I believe you agree up to this point. Yes. > [@](#): > > The problem is if you indiscriminately toss in as many parameters as you like, even if they all seem like they \*should \*have predictive power, your model will be over fit. Of course. Which is why nobody actually DOES that. They test many that they think ought to have predictive power, and see which ones work well. > [@](#): > > Exactly like my earlier example and **Jragon** ’s example. It’s not different because the parameters appear on their face like they should be predictive. Which is why you don’t just stop there. > [@](#): > > You will find parameters that appear to fit your training data very well, and also logically explain people’s voting power. But because you have too many parameters you’re just mistaking noise for pattern - or you might be - you can’t tell because you have too many parameters. And that’s when you use multivariate analysis to discern the good stuff from the noise. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2012, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-538-is-right-and-romney-loses-by-60-electoral-votes/633316/345 "2012-09-13T16:18:59Z")
On the subject of the electoral college, [Mitt may have an extra dollop of embarassment](http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/3-republican-members-of-electoral-college-may-not-vote-for-gop-ticket/2012/09/13/896c71c4-fd70-11e1-98c6-ec0a0a93f8eb_story.html) to add to his defeat (if the OP premise proves correct): > [@](#): > > At least three Republican electors say they may not support their party’s presidential ticket when the Electoral College meets in December to formally elect the new president, escalating tensions within the GOP and adding a fresh layer of intrigue to the final weeks of the White House race. > > The electors – all are supporters of former GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul – told The Associated Press they are exploring options should Mitt Romney win their states. They expressed frustration at how Republican leaders have worked to suppress Paul’s conservative movement and his legion of loyal supporters… I expect these Ronulan delegates would hold their noses and vote for Mitt if it actually matters, but if he gets blown out anyway they’ll be more inclined to go ahead and raise the middle finger to the party establishment. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2012, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-538-is-right-and-romney-loses-by-60-electoral-votes/633316/346 "2012-09-13T16:22:41Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > aside from the Fox poll-- the polls have consistently shown Romney with sizeable lead among independents. Even the most recent polls-- outside of the Fox News poll-- show Romney with a pretty good lead among independents You realize that a lot of these “independents” are tea party whackos right? In any event. Its going to be a close race and anyone who thinks that Obama has got this in the bag this far out from the election is nucking futz. Right now, Obama is ahead in the horse race. > [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > And? I’d be willing to bet that’s because they’re assuming a higher Democratic turnout relative to a low Republican/Independent turnout a la 2008 I’m pretty sure that the assumed enthusiasm gap goes the other way. > [@](#): > > There’s no way to lose Independents by double digits and still win the election unless your base simply shows up in far greater numbers than does your opposition’s base. Not if your base is women, minorities, the elderly, the middle class and the young. > [@](#): > > Maybe, maybe not. But I strongly believe the polls are underestimating GOP/Independent turnout this election cycle, much the same way this board does (i.e., they consider 2010 an anomaly and believe that turnout will be closer to 2008, which itself was an anomaly). 2010 was a combination of very high turnout among the tea party and very low turnout among the Democrats. ---
**Author:** ![Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omg_a_Black_Conservative)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2012, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-538-is-right-and-romney-loses-by-60-electoral-votes/633316/347 "2012-09-13T16:24:53Z")
> [@Fuzzy\_Dunlop](#): > > Actually up until the convention all the polls showed a MUCH larger ‘enthusiasm gap’ for Democrats than in most past election. In other words, the gap between registered voter polls and likely voter polls was much bigger than usual. > > Unfortunately for Romney, even taking into account the missing enthusiasm, Obama has been leading Romney all along. > > Polls since the convention seem to suggest that enthusiasm among Obama supporters is on the rise, which explains his runaway in the polls. > > There’s actually a whole detailed post explaining why you’re wrong on 538 today. An enthusiasm gap is denoted as the difference in likelihood that persons of one party will vote versus persons of another party. It is not the difference between a party’s registered and likely voters. As it stands, not only am I pretty sure you didn’t understand my last post (because there’s nothing in 538’s newest post which explains why I’m wrong) but you haven’t read any of my prior posts, either. I don’t know what polls you’ve been looking at, but for the entire election season there has been a distinct enthusiasm gap between Republicans and Democrats in the Republicans favor. That’s, historically, how it turns out. Republicans tend to be more likely to vote than Democrats but there are simply more registered Democrats than Republicans, so Democrats could conceivably win by just having all of their base come out and vote (as I said on the _ **very first page** _). Obama could lose Independents and win the election while Romney really cannot. Now, if Romney wins Independents by 10+ points, he will win the election as-- by my totally non-expert calculations-- it would take a D+4/D+5 turnout to offset being trounced in the Independent category. 2008 was an anomaly; Democrats won’t see record high turnout and deflated Republican turnout like they did then. [QUOTE=iiandyiiii] You had to dig pretty deep in those polls to find some good news for Romney. [/quote] No, I didn’t. All you have to do is click on the demographic breakdown. It takes, literally, twenty seconds to do and I’ve been doing it for quite a long time now. > [@](#): > > I couldn’t find how much of those polled called themselves “independent”, but considering that the “independents” (in the CNN poll at least) significantly favored the Republican Party over the Democratic Party (when asked about the parties’ favorability), I’m not sure how actually “independent” they were. It’s unlikely that these independents are actually the same independents as in 2008 (Obama won 52% of independents) or 2004 (Kerry won 49%) as seen here. An independent is only an independent if they have no lean/opinions on each political party? Hmmm, what? Surely you can see what’s wrong with your above statement, correct? It would cut both ways. I’m not so sure how many times I need to point this out, but voting characteristics are not immutable. Solely because some person votes one way today, does not mean that person will vote the same way tomorrow or that because a group votes differently than they did yesterday that the group must be comprised on different individuals. It’s an inference fallacy to assume so. > [@](#): > > Obama’s way ahead in self-described “moderates”. That’s great. Now what do most moderates identify themselves as? ---
**Author:** ![Fuzzy\_Dunlop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/848f3c/32.png) [@Fuzzy\_Dunlop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuzzy_Dunlop)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2012, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-538-is-right-and-romney-loses-by-60-electoral-votes/633316/348 "2012-09-13T16:37:28Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > An enthusiasm gap is denoted as the difference in likelihood that persons of one party will vote versus persons of another party. It is not the difference between a party’s registered and likely voters. As it stands, not only am I pretty sure you didn’t understand my last post (because there’s nothing in 538’s newest post which explains why I’m wrong) but you haven’t read any of my prior posts, either. No. I’m referring to the difference between the support for a candidate in a poll of registered voters and a poll of likely voters. It has nothing to do with party affiliation. The one thing you are correct about is I almost always skip your posts. > [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > I don’t know what polls you’ve been looking at, but for the entire election season there has been a distinct enthusiasm gap between Republicans and Democrats in the Republicans favor. That’s, historically, how it turns out. As I said in my last post, for this entire election season the enthusiasm gap has been unusually large. Finally, since the convention, the enthusiasm gap has close to what it typically is. You’re right that it favors the Republicans. The point is it has finally start to close to a normal gap while it had previously been extra large. The problem for republicans though is that even with the extra large enthusiasm gap, they were still losing. ---
**Author:** ![Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omg_a_Black_Conservative)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2012, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-538-is-right-and-romney-loses-by-60-electoral-votes/633316/349 "2012-09-13T17:00:43Z")
> [@Fuzzy\_Dunlop](#): > > No. I’m referring to the difference between the support for a candidate in a poll of registered voters and a poll of likely voters. That’s not an enthusiasm gap, as you tried to claim it was. > [@](#): > > It has nothing to do with party affiliation. No, it has to do with voting patterns between two (or more) parties. More specifically, the likelihood of each to vote. > [@](#): > > The one thing you are correct about is I almost always skip your posts. Sucks for you. > [@](#): > > As I said in my last post, for this entire election season the enthusiasm gap has been unusually large. Finally, since the convention, the enthusiasm gap has close to what it typically is. You’re right that it favors the Republicans. The point is it has finally start to close to a normal gap while it had previously been extra large. The problem for republicans though is that even with the extra large enthusiasm gap, they were still losing. Why did you repeat the same thing I just responded to? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2012, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-538-is-right-and-romney-loses-by-60-electoral-votes/633316/350 "2012-09-13T17:02:43Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > An independent is only an independent if they have no lean/opinions on each political party? Hmmm, what? Surely you can see what’s wrong with your above statement, correct? It would cut both ways. I’m not so sure how many times I need to point this out, but voting characteristics are not immutable. Solely because some person votes one way today, does not mean that person will vote the same way tomorrow or that because a group votes differently than they did yesterday that the group must be comprised on different individuals. It’s an inference fallacy to assume so. The math doesn’t add up for that poll, which has roughly the same margin overall for Obama as he had in 2008, if the same independents who leaned Obama in 2008 are now breaking for Romney by 14 points. The best explanation for it is some combination of these two possibilities: 1. Some of the Independents from 2008 who were for Obama now call themselves Democrats 2. Some of the Republicans from 2008 who were against Obama now call themselves Independents. Without looking out how many of those polled were independents (and I couldn’t find this), it’s hard to tell exactly. But this is the most logical explanation. Do you have an explanation for why the poll shows an overall result similar to 2008, but wildly different results for independents? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2012, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-538-is-right-and-romney-loses-by-60-electoral-votes/633316/351 "2012-09-13T17:12:59Z")
Omg- you won’t bet money, but how about this, if you’re so confident? If Romney wins, then on the day after the election I will post (in this forum or the MPSIMS forum, whichever would be more appropriate) something to the effect of “Omg a Black Conservative has superior political knowledge to me. I weep in the presence of his wisdom. That is all.” (you can modify this if you want) And if Obama wins, then you post something I want- something like “iiandyiiii’s political knowledge is superior to mine. I acknowledge that the country is changing politically and leaving me behind, and my political beliefs are as obsolete as a cassette recorder”. And I’ll bet you could get plenty of takers to this bet- plenty of people that would be willing to risk their humiliation against yours (to avoid cluttering up the forum we could have one Omnibus Presidential Election Schadenfreude ). What do you say? ---
**Author:** ![Fuzzy\_Dunlop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/848f3c/32.png) [@Fuzzy\_Dunlop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuzzy_Dunlop)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2012, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-538-is-right-and-romney-loses-by-60-electoral-votes/633316/352 "2012-09-13T17:24:08Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > That’s not an enthusiasm gap, as you tried to claim it was. Yes it is. > [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > Why did you repeat the same thing I just responded to? It eluded you the first time. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2012, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-538-is-right-and-romney-loses-by-60-electoral-votes/633316/353 "2012-09-13T22:14:05Z")
In polling terms “enthusiasm gap” has always meant the difference between registered and likely voters. ---
**Author:** ![Jragon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e19b73/32.png) [@Jragon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jragon)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2012, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-538-is-right-and-romney-loses-by-60-electoral-votes/633316/354 "2012-09-13T22:39:11Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > I’m not expert, but I don’t think your example applies at all. It’s simply about finding a function that fits a trend. > > The issue in this thread is about more than one variable, and a cause and effect relationship. It involves finding which variables correlate the closest to the outcome variable, and how close they correlate, and inferring a causal relationship from that. It has nothing to do with finding a line or curve that fits data. It’s finding how different data fit with other data. > > It’s done using [multivariate analysis.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multivariate_analysis) Yes, I know, it’s the same(-ish) thing. Multivariate fitting is more or less normal trend-fitting for single-dimensional cases WITH MATRICES AND VECTORS! Dependence relationships complicate things, and while the answer may turn out much different and you have to use a couple more methods than normal, it’s still effectively the same. In prediction and trend-fitting model creation is much more difficult than the math. The math is pretty uniform between models, it’s making a good model that counts, and it’s all potentially subject to the same problems like overfitting. I haven’t read **precisely** what they did, but my guess is that they did normal multivariate fitting and analysis as you’d do for a case with a continuous output, and then they said that if the predicted output value is bigger than \ it maps to either Dem or Pub, and if it’s less than it maps to the other (this is called thresholding, and is a relatively common way to map a continuous – single or multi-variate – input to a discrete or finite output). All the problem I linked said was “If I know X, I want you to tell me Y”. In this case all it’s saying is “If I know X,Y,Z,A,B,C,D – some of which are interdependent, I want you to tell me E” (and I’ll map E to Dem or Pub). It’s susceptible to the same problems – more problems, actually, since it’s more complex, they’re just harder to see in more dimensions than 3. ---
**Author:** ![Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omg_a_Black_Conservative)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2012, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-538-is-right-and-romney-loses-by-60-electoral-votes/633316/355 "2012-09-14T02:14:53Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > Read your own cites. Likely voters? Obama gets more votes. Registered voters? Obama gets more votes. YOUR OWN CITES say Obama’s winning. Evidently, you did not read what it was you responded to. As a general rule, I tend to not like having to go in detail because it’ll be ignored anyway, but I have some free time. So here goes. Just to reiterate, here is what I said: > [@Me](#): > > I’d be willing to bet that’s because they’re assuming a higher Democratic turnout relative to a low Republican/Independent turnout. Registered voters do not matter; likely voters do. Guaging political affiliation split of likely voters is a bit of a gamble. Most polling firms simply look at past election turnout to measure how likely voter turnout. 1.) For the ABC/WaPo poll, the split is D+6 at 33/27/36. That’s not realistic for a presidential election. [Again, check out the historical voter splits since 1984](http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1023/exit-poll-analysis-2008). Outside of the 2008 election, Democrats haven’t had more than a four point edge in percentage of votes cast. Republicans casting only 27% of the vote would be the worst in the shown 24 years while Independents casting 36% of the vote would be the highest recorded. Even the Democratic sample is a bit underweighted as they’ve cast at least 37% of the votes in every election since 1984. I say a split of 37/35/28 would be more in-line with historical voting trends, which would put both Obama and Romney around 48% each. Either way, if Romney continues to lead among Independents then the election comes out to turnout, in which case I believe Romney will win. 2.) CNN doesn’t post their splits, but it has to have severely undersampled Independents in order for Obama to come out at +6 among likely voters while losing among Independents by 14%. Either that, or they filtered a lot of Independents into the Democratic column. Again, I’m no Nate Silver, but I’m apt to think that the actual likely voter split is a lot closer than what was posted by CNN. > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > The math doesn’t add up for that poll, which has roughly the same margin overall for Obama as he had in 2008, if the same independents who leaned Obama in 2008 are now breaking for Romney by 14 points. The best explanation for it is some combination of these two possibilities: > > 1. Some of the Independents from 2008 who were for Obama now call themselves Democrats > > 2. Some of the Republicans from 2008 who were against Obama now call themselves Independents. > > Without looking out how many of those polled were independents (and I couldn’t find this), it’s hard to tell exactly. But this is the most logical explanation. > > Do you have an explanation for why the poll shows an overall result similar to 2008, but wildly different results for independents? I have a simple explanation; Independents aren’t party line voters like Democrats and Republicans are. (By the way, [even though this only deals with some swing states](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-10/independent-voter-surge-cuts-democrats-swing-state-edge.html) it cuts at both of your points.) > [@Fuzzy\_Dunlop](#): > > Yes it is. No, it’s not. > [@](#): > > Enthusiasm gap: Any difference in how motivated registered voters of a certain party are to vote in the next election compared to registered voters of the other party. The more enthusiastic they are, the likelier they are to vote. [Right-wing cite](http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/05/04/972944/-DKE-SSP-Living-Glossary) > [@](#): > > Any difference in how motivated registered voters of a certain party are to vote in the next election compared to registered voters of the other party. The more enthusiastic they are, the likelier they are to vote. Hell, [even the revered Nate Silver says](http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/06/understanding-and-misunderstanding-the-enthusiasm-gap/): > [@](#): > > When you hear the phrase “enthusiasm gap,” what you should really be thinking of is the turnout gap. And just to restate what I said: > [@Me](#): > > An enthusiasm gap is denoted as the difference in likelihood that persons of one party will vote versus persons of another party. It is not the difference between a party’s registered and likely voters. You’re welcome. > [@](#): > > It eluded you the first time. And oddly enough, it still eludes me. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2012, 9:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-538-is-right-and-romney-loses-by-60-electoral-votes/633316/356 "2012-09-14T09:10:12Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > I have a simple explanation; Independents aren’t party line voters like Democrats and Republicans are. That doesn’t explain that poll’s results- again, the overall results match the 2008 election- roughly 52 to 46 for Obama. Obama won independents in 2008. So for Obama to be losing independents by 14, and _still_ be ahead overall by 52-46, then the number of independents is probably smaller, which means that some of those who were independent in 08 likely now consider themselves Democrats. So do you have an explanation for how the _overall_ result matches 2008, but the preference of independent voters is so different from 2008? ---
**Author:** ![Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omg_a_Black_Conservative)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2012, 11:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-538-is-right-and-romney-loses-by-60-electoral-votes/633316/357 "2012-09-14T11:45:01Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > That doesn’t explain that poll’s results- again, the overall results match the 2008 election- roughly 52 to 46 for Obama. Obama won independents in 2008. So for Obama to be losing independents by 14, and _still_ be ahead overall by 52-46, then the number of independents is probably smaller, which means that some of those who were independent in 08 likely now consider themselves Democrats. No. That means just what I said in the post above. > [@Me](#): > > CNN doesn’t post their splits, but it has to have severely undersampled Independents in order for Obama to come out at +6 among likely voters while losing among Independents by 14%. Either that, or they filtered a lot of Independents into the Democratic column. > [@](#): > > So do you have an explanation for how the _overall_ result matches 2008, but the preference of independent voters is so different from 2008? [see above] ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2012, 12:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-538-is-right-and-romney-loses-by-60-electoral-votes/633316/358 "2012-09-14T12:03:05Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > No. That means just what I said in the post above.[see above] Ok, so you agree with me- some of the independents from 08 may now be Democrats. ---
**Author:** ![Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omg_a_Black_Conservative)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2012, 12:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-538-is-right-and-romney-loses-by-60-electoral-votes/633316/359 "2012-09-14T12:20:54Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Ok, so you agree with me- some of the independents from 08 may now be Democrats. Some may be, but not only is that not what you said the first time, that shift would be very minimal, at best. Go back and click on the link I gave you. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2012, 12:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-538-is-right-and-romney-loses-by-60-electoral-votes/633316/360 "2012-09-14T12:26:57Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > Some may be, but not only is that not what you said the first time, that shift would be very minimal, at best. Go back and click on the link I gave you. I did. For one thing, it’s from different polls. For another, the two together just don’t make sense mathematically, unless one of them is wrong. I guess your view is that the overall result of the CNN poll is inaccurate, but the independents’ results inside the CNN poll is accurate, and the state polls you cited are accurate. Considering the many polls that show Obama with a decent margin ahead of Romney, I think the CNN poll overall results are pretty accurate. If his overall margin is similar to 08 (and I think the polls show it is, though perhaps a couple of points closer), and the margin for independents is wildly different than 08, then the composition of the electorate must be somewhat different. The logical explanation that fits the data would be that there are more Democrats and/or fewer independents and/or fewer Republicans as compared to 08. Unless you don’t see most of the overall results of the polls as accurate, then I don’t see another explanation. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-538-is-right-and-romney-loses-by-60-electoral-votes/633316.md?page=17) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-538-is-right-and-romney-loses-by-60-electoral-votes/633316.md?page=19)