The Official 2008 Electoral College Prediction Thread

[Guynemer]

Librul media!

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I never said he's dominated PA, just that he has lead in PA at some point during the election, and for the most part it's been very tight in PA, except for some outliers which we are seeing now.

You clearly don't know what "outliers" means, Ben. One poll differentiating from other contemporary polls is an "outlier." When ALL the polls show similar results, it's a "trend."



Tell me how the last few months of PA polling could remotely be called "close."

Yes, that's true. McCain was leading by 5 points in September, while everyone said Bush's goose was cooked. Oddly enough the results were different from even the exit polling which proclaimed a Kerry win.

Huh?

The issue was PA here, Ben. And Kerry won PA. Up until then, it was a neck-and-neck race between him and Bush...never was Bush counted out of PA. Ever.

And nationally, at no point did anyone declare "Bush's goose cooked" in 2004. He had a consistent lead from the summer until the election.

These same pollsters that predicted a Kerry win based on Exit Polls? We'll be seeing less wet dreams as the election approaches.

Ben, exit polls and pre-election polls aren't the same thing. Of the pre-election polls, only ONE predicted a Kerry win. Which one? Zogby, the poll you cling to desperately.

What exit polls are you talking about? Back up your wild claims with data, dammit.

Electoral vote is declaring it for Obama, which is why they've got the blue outline saying Weak Obama! Based on one poll, which is a massive outlier along with everythign else.

They aren't "declaring it" for anyone--you have no idea how composite sites operate. They are citing the state of the race based on the best and most recent information currently available. Since ND is rarely polled, a single poll is going to have inordinate weight. This is exactly why you need to look at a better composite site:

You are telling me that Obama is more popular then any Democrat since FDR?

No, I'm saying that he is more popular than Gore and Kerry, and therefore it's patently stupid to give him fewer electoral votes than either of them.

I don't believe it. Saying that Obama is gonna win the general by 10 is ridiculous.

I didn't say he's going to win the general by 10. I said 4-5. Strawman.

As you said, it's a very recent event, and we all see how Obama is going to fix the economy by blaming Bush. I wouldn't be surprised if Obama is one of those shorters he's so mad about just because it's in his favour to encourage financial havoc.

Because a single person short-selling on the stock market can wreak havoc on the economy. Wow, you really are an idiot. And a tin-foil-hat-wearing conspiracy theorist to boot!

What's Obama's magical fairy plan to end the crisis?

Irrelevant. The point is that it's patently obvious to anyone who isn't a clueless moron that the economic crisis has given Obama a decisive advantage in the Presidential race, as it's focused the race on the economy instead of the only issue McCain can win on, national security. Even McCain's campaign said he can't win on the economy!

It was won in the Reagan years in 1988, along with the rest of the landslide, and yes, Bush very nearly defeated Kerry there. Florida is trending away from the Democrats, and Obama is weaker there then Kerry was.

Wrong, 1984 was the last time, which was 24 years ago and a landslide in which Reagan won all but 1 state and DC. In 1988, another GOP landslide, the Democrats still won Wisconsin. You really don't have any idea what you're talking about?

Please justify how Obama is weaker than Kerry was in FL. Obama's average:

The real question for Wisconsin is whether Obama is stronger there then McCain, since McCain is proportionally stronger then Bush was in the rust belt. I don't see anything to indicate a landslide for Obama there on par with Illinois. It's up for grabs.

So unless it's going to be a 60-40 landslide, the state is up for grabs? Then I guess you need to add TX to the "Purple" column.

And please prove McCain is "proportionally" stronger than Bush was. Bush had a +8 lead at one point there in October 2004.

McCain is stronger there then Bush. Obama isn't running against Bush, as much as folks would like to believe that is so. McCain polls much better in Minnesota and areas like Washington and Oregon, then Obama does.

What? McCain polls better in MN, WA and OR than Obama? Then why is Obama ahead in all the polls in these states?

Ben... Bush almost won Oregon in 2000 (49-49). In 2004, he lost by 4%. Obama currently has a 13 pt lead average over McCain. In WA, Bush lost by 7%, and that's exactly how much Obama leads McCain by now. And MN? Kerry won by 3.5%, and Obama now leads McCain by 5%. So the notion that McCain is running ahead of Bush is simply false.

That might be close to what you think I said, but it's not what I said. I said there are elections in which the EC vote is not representative of the close win, of which Kennedy-Nixon is a prime example.

No, Ben, I asked you to provide me an actual case in which a candidate lost every single state that was considered a toss-up in a close election. You made the assertion that this had happened, but you haven't provided any evidence it did. If you're going to claim there is actual precedence for something happen, at least be able to cite a precedent.

In 1960, Nixon won 5 battleground states by less than 1% of the vote, which means it does not work as an example of what you claim.

Yay. Glad you concede the point. I've noticed that whenever anyone cannot disagree they call the argument 'stupid'.

I just call stupid arguments stupid, and yours was indeed stupid. And I just showed why it was wrong.

As you've already stated, that was McCain's supposed convention bounce. I think this is Obama's disaster bounce, and it will drop too.

A convention bounce is not the same thing as a shift in numbers based on actual issues. Significant bounces don't happen in the fall general election--what happens is actual shifting of the electorate, and it's extremely difficult to reverse those shifts. When it's almost Oct. 15 and one candidate enjoys a significant lead over another that's sustained for 2+ weeks, it's not a bounce, it's a trend. Bounces don't last that long, which is why they're called "bounces."

Which is why the reliable pollsters 'got it right' in 2004. They are cheerleading for Obama, and anyone who hitches their ride to these polling numbers will go down with them.

Which pollsters didn't get it right in 2004, Ben?

Why would Fox/Rasmussen be cheerleading for Obama?

Do you have any proof they are somehow manipulating things to favor Obama, all together in some sort of vast conspiracy of pollsters? Do you realize how ridiculous and hysterical you sound?

All I'm saying is that the Zogby poll was immediately hushed up and replaced by other more 'proper' polls, immediately after it came out. That was my first indication that the real news was there.

Hushed up? How so? It's still on the composite scoring. And it's very old, anyway. When was the last time Zogby showed McCain with a lead?



Who has the advantage through most of the election here, Ben?

Don't you see everyone fawning over Obama? If I'm doing inventory for a store, it's not good if the person who is doing the inventory is not independent of the store. You need someone who is a disinterested observer in order to get at the truth.

So why is Zogby disinterested, but all the other pollsters aren't? You've yet to provide a shred of proof as to why these pollsters are all in the tank for Obama. Your flailing around wildly, making incoherent claims without a lick of evidence.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Avatars too?

I don't mind.

No, if Gepap has Avatar already, it's redundant.

Signature. And I mean exclusive--not just an addition, but control over the whole thing from Election Day until Inaugeration Day.

[Boris Godunov]

Fivethirtyeight.com (the only composite site that actually is also trying to predict the actual results rather than offering a current snapshot with trendlines), has this write-up on the most recent polling released today:

Both Rasmussen and SurveyUSA released a ton of polling today, and it is almost uniformly favorable for Barack Obama. All you really need to know about the Rasmussen polling is that the five state they now define as battlegrounds -- Ohio, Florida, Missouri, North Carolina, and Virginia -- went to George Bush by an average of 7 points in 2004. Today, Rasmussen has Obama ahead in four of the five (including his first lead ever in a Rasmussen poll of Ohio), and tied in the other (North Carolina).

SurveyUSA, meanwhile, shows Obama making big gains in Missouri, and (less interestingly) in Oregon, New Jersey and New York. Overall, our model looks at the polls that were in the field yesterday -- these include all of the Rasmussen and SurveyUSA polls that we just mentioned -- and thinks it was his second-strongest individual polling day of the year, trailing only one day in early February.

Yeah, McCain is outperforming Bush.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Sweet .

I hope GePap opens it up for a forum wide vote on your avatar .

Why should I give up the pleasure of having fun with Ben?

[Ben Kenobi]

Signature. And I mean exclusive--not just an addition, but control over the whole thing from Election Day until Inaugeration Day.

Only if I can keep the memorial to lafayette and the gits.

[Bosh]

Originally posted by Guynemer
Ben, relying on the electoral map on electoral-vote.com is a really bad idea. Their electoral map is based only on the most recent poll taken in the state, by anyone who has reported such a poll. It is totally and completely unreliable; you're much better off at fivethirtyeight.com.

Also, your EC prediction, 347-190, doesn't add up. You're missing one vote somewhere; fix it and report back so I can update the OP.

And for the record, the OP will reflect only the original prediction made by each participant.

Yes Electoral Vote is idiotic. They just average the few most recent polls and that's it. This means that when there aren't many polls being done for certain states (like all of them back in the spring/early summer and North Dakota now) one loopy poll can swing the state back and forth. Really crappy system in general. To claim that one or the other candidate is ahead in any given state based on Electoral Vote is just dumb, use a better site that does proper trend lines.

538 is probably the best, but if you want something Republican, Real Clear Politics is definately Republican and they're showing Obama with a strong lead, to say anything else is idiotic.

[Ben Kenobi]

Wrong, 1984 was the last time, which was 24 years ago and a landslide in which Reagan won all but 1 state and DC. In 1988, another GOP landslide, the Democrats still won Wisconsin. You really don't have any idea what you're talking about?

I beg your pardon.

I had forgotten that Dukakis actually won Wisconsin.

[Impaler[WrG]]

538 is defiantly one of the best if not THE best, the guy who runs it is a hard core statistics nerd first and foremost (he apparently started with baseball predictions), rather then being a partisan first and foremost.

I'm on record for pointing them out months ago when I made my prediction.

http://www.apolyton.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5333229#post5333229

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Only if I can keep the memorial to lafayette and the gits.

Done.

You are doomed.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Impaler[WrG]
538 is defiantly one of the best if not THE best, the guy who runs it is a hard core statistics nerd first and foremost (he apparently started with baseball predictions), rather then being a partisan first and foremost.

I'm on record for pointing them out months ago when I made my prediction.

http://www.apolyton.com/forums/showt...29#post5333229

Nate predicted the primaries with astonishing accuracy. He is by far the best at making election predictions based on incredibly detailed statistical information. He's been featured on major network news programs, and even better...the Colbert Report.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

The real question for Wisconsin is whether Obama is stronger there then McCain, since McCain is proportionally stronger then Bush was in the rust belt. I don't see anything to indicate a landslide for Obama there on par with Illinois. It's up for grabs.

Wisconsin is barely part of the Rust Belt anymore.

And here's something to show you



McCain is almost where he was back in February, while Obama just keeps creeping on up. And if I know my former home state (and I do), which has a large middle class, many union folk, and a large Latino population, there's no way McCain takes it. Its the state of Russ Feingold and Herb Kohl, for crissakes.

[Ben Kenobi]

Done.

You are doomed.

Thanks. It's hard to believe it's been 5 years already since Ivor passed away, but he was very kind to me here.

[Boris Godunov]

Let's look more at the "Rust Belt" as it now stands. Here's the definition given by Wikipedia:

Although manufacturing exists nationwide, the region is roughly defined as comprising the northern sections of Illinois (particularly the South Side of Chicago), Indiana, and Ohio; the Lower Peninsula of Michigan; New York, especially around Buffalo; New York City and Northern New Jersey; most of Pennsylvania; eastern and northern Minnesota; far western portion of the Maryland panhandle; and the northern part of West Virginia, particularly the Northern Panhandle. Other cities such as Baltimore, Maryland, and Wilmington, Delaware which share important economic characteristics are sometimes included. Saint Louis, Missouri may be considered a manufacturing center, although the surrounding parts of Missouri and Illinois are not part of the region.[1]

I don't think anyone would traditionally consider Maryland, New York, New Jersey, Delaware or Missouri as really part of the Rust Belt, so for our purposes it will be:

Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Pennsylvania
West Virginia
Wisconsin

How do the averages look in these states?



2004 result:

Bush: 60%
Kerry: 39%

McCain minus Bush = -12



2004 results:

Kerry: 51%
Bush: 48%

McCain minus Bush = -6%



2004 results:

Kerry: 51%
Bush: 48%

McCain minus Bush = -3



2004 results:

Bush: 51%
Kerry: 49%

McCain minus Bush = -6



2004 results:

Kerry: 51%
Bush: 48%

McCain minus Bush = -7



2004 results:

Bush: 56%
Kerry: 43%

McCain minus Bush = -10



2004 results:

Kerry: 50%
Bush: 49%

McCain minus Bush: -5

So in not a single one of these Rust Belt states is McCain outperforming Bush in 2004 by any means. And Obama is ahead in Ohio, which Bush won, while McCain is not ahead in a single state where Kerry won.

Nationally, that picture is even bleaker. Obama currently holds composite leads in the following 2004 Bush states:

Colorado
Florida
Iowa
Nevada
New Mexico
North Carolina
Ohio
Virginia

Kerry states where McCain is now leading in the composite polling:

-zilch-

McCain's average in his home state of Arizona is currently 51.4%. Bush won the state with 54%.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by GePap
Why should I give up the pleasure of having fun with Ben?

Well it can just for "suggestions". Final vote is still with you.

And I really want to see what suggestion Asher makes for it .