Oct25
Every day from now until the election, I’m going to post Nate Silver’s updates so we can all watch the inevitable slide of the Romney campaign into total failure. Bring popcorn!
See that slow but steady upward trend? That’s not going to stop anytime soon. And here’s the swing states:
Colorado: 56.1% chance of Obama winning
Florida: 65.3% for Romney (and dropping)
Iowa: 67.9% for Obama
N.H.: 67.7% for Obama
Virginia: 50.7 % for Romney (and dropping)
Nevada: 77% for Obama
Ohio: 74% for Obama (and making Mittens lose sleep)
North Carolina and Wisconsin are both over 80% and pretty much locked in at this point so i won’t be listing them even though they’re technically swing states.
I always wonder, right around this time every four years, how it can POSSIBLY be that EVERY election is neck-and-neck. At the same time, though, I’m too afraid (realistic?) to be confident….
I hear you. The 2000 and 2004 were brutal.
It’s media nonsense. People don’t follow a landslide victory unless it comes from behind, and noone watches a foregone conclusion. So the media takes each candidate in turn to make them look awful or terrible, even if the actual events or positions are trivial.
It’s all about the ratings, it’s all about the money.
I like this one. I’ve been using ining the HuffPo one. Ohio changes by the minute, unfortunately. And another 2000 is waiting to happen in FL.
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2012/romney-vs-obama-electoral-map
Exactly…since when is polling a quantum event…my candidate is loosing/winning at any given point in time. Its craziness. Polls can most certainly be inaccurate since they are statistical cross-sections that yearn to be random, meaning that all kinds of anomalies SHOULD exist. People usually think of random as 5,2,8,3,6,9,1,7 or something like that, where it is more like 3,7,5,5,2,8,9,3, and if it never contains such “magical” coincidence its not a random possibility that its not truly random. Unfortunately, along with “balanced” based news, rather than truth-based news, this creates what it projects to a degree that’s scary. Our strengths as social animals are also our weaknesses. Prejudice has a root in our desire to “make sense” of vastly complex systems, and has lead to all kinds of beautifully positive discoveries in science and such, there are also horrible applications. I’m not saying polls don’t say something real, but the context is limited, and the smaller the sample size, the greater effect an anomaly has…that’s why I’m surprised that so many polls tend to follow trends, rather than be riddled with hiccups and such.
No republican has won without Ohio….
People object to the Electoral College but it’s about the only reason the candidates pay any attention to some states.
Incorrect. The Electoral College is the precise reason they only care about a few. The top 100 largest cities, down to about 200k people, only makes up about 20% of the US population, so it would make very little sense for them to pass up very many states, and certainly not any less than they currently do. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k
It’s supposed to protect the least-populated and small states, right? But candidates never visit those states – they visit states that are close to giving them all their votes. Ohio, for example, is a heavily visited state, despite each individual person being worth much less than, say, a Rhode Islander or an Alaskan.
So it’s not doing it’s job at all.
woops double post