Just like who will make it to the Super Bowl or World Series, the question of who will win the election on November 4th can be pretty accurately predicted if you study the data correctly....
This is a very interesting analysis, but I have to comment on a few things. First, the fivethirtyeight statistics are more like a projection of "chance", like when someone bets on a horse in a horse race, that is why the numbers are so high, and they are also very volatile, especially in this election and shouldn't be an indication of anything, really.
Second, any of the polls that are shown, indicating how voters would vote, are based on estimates that have 10 percentage points or more variance. That means, if Obama is showing a lead in the polls of 8%, he could still lose if the election were held that day.
As for turnout, Democrats almost always win if turnout in an election is very high. The reason: there are more registered Democrats than registered Republicans, so they are more likely to vote Democrat. So Obama's surge has nothing to do with his "firing up the base".. but has everything to do with the economy. Those who would have stayed home otherwise (lack of interest, etc.) are now feeling to urge to vote Obama because of the economic scare. Palin's idiocy hurts McCain a little, but in itselfs would do little to help push Obama over the top for a win.
The debate tonight can only keep things the same, or tip the scale downward for either candidate (I don't believe either will hit any home runs) but however they do, most people are still voting for the "main dude", hence it won't change much as far as outcome is concerned.
At least these are my own humble thoughts on the issues you've raised but you did a marvelous job at pulling out issues that have not had a lot of coverage!
Thank you for your comment, I really appreciate hearing other people's points, it's part of the reason I'm writing these pieces.
As to the fivethirtyeight statistics, when you read their explanation of the process behind their numbers, you'll see they are much more than just "odds" like you would find at a horse track or in Vegas. It's true the numbers can change, but they are not as volotile or quick moving as the kind of odds you're thinking of.
I agree that the VP debate won't (and didn't seem to) have much of an effect on independent voters or the democratic base, it was all about the republican base, and Palin's performance did seem to steady her base numbers from their downward slide, so I'm sure she accomplished what she wanted.
Loading comments...
SMS and MMS Your Voice to allvoices
If you want to add your voice and contribute to this existing news event, use the event code (Event Code: @1434721), that you will find on each news event page, as the first word of the SMS or MMS message followed by a space then add your contribution (text, image or video). For example: @1434721 This is an amazing video of Greg Norman hitting a hole-in-one in Sydney, Australia. The first word of the message should be @1434721 (event code), to make sure the system attaches your voice to the right news event.
This beta report credibility rating is intended to help our community sort through uncensored citizen media reports. For more information, see the Report Credibility section in our FAQ
Loading activation form...
Loading login form...
Loading sign up form...
Loading activation form...
Loading password form...
Loading new incentive enroll form...
Loading invite contacts form...
Invite your friends
Please enter an optional message below, check the friends you want to invite, hit "Send Invitation," and you're done!
This is a very interesting analysis, but I have to comment on a few things. First, the fivethirtyeight statistics are more like a projection of "chance", like when someone bets on a horse in a horse race, that is why the numbers are so high, and they are also very volatile, especially in this election and shouldn't be an indication of anything, really.
Second, any of the polls that are shown, indicating how voters would vote, are based on estimates that have 10 percentage points or more variance. That means, if Obama is showing a lead in the polls of 8%, he could still lose if the election were held that day.
As for turnout, Democrats almost always win if turnout in an election is very high. The reason: there are more registered Democrats than registered Republicans, so they are more likely to vote Democrat. So Obama's surge has nothing to do with his "firing up the base".. but has everything to do with the economy. Those who would have stayed home otherwise (lack of interest, etc.) are now feeling to urge to vote Obama because of the economic scare. Palin's idiocy hurts McCain a little, but in itselfs would do little to help push Obama over the top for a win.
The debate tonight can only keep things the same, or tip the scale downward for either candidate (I don't believe either will hit any home runs) but however they do, most people are still voting for the "main dude", hence it won't change much as far as outcome is concerned.
At least these are my own humble thoughts on the issues you've raised but you did a marvelous job at pulling out issues that have not had a lot of coverage!
Thank you for your comment, I really appreciate hearing other people's points, it's part of the reason I'm writing these pieces.
As to the fivethirtyeight statistics, when you read their explanation of the process behind their numbers, you'll see they are much more than just "odds" like you would find at a horse track or in Vegas. It's true the numbers can change, but they are not as volotile or quick moving as the kind of odds you're thinking of.
I agree that the VP debate won't (and didn't seem to) have much of an effect on independent voters or the democratic base, it was all about the republican base, and Palin's performance did seem to steady her base numbers from their downward slide, so I'm sure she accomplished what she wanted.