2012 US Election -- Round 2

[Coito ergo sum]

You'd be in favor of whichever one picks Obama the winner.

Not at all. I favor the one that's based on actual relevant data rather than a correlation that ignores things like the above.

I don't "favor" either one.

We've already seen the 538 polling on this thread. The Colorado one was from a result that just came out today. Both are interesting predictors.

The 538 was also updated, so by your own standard it is just as relevant.

I never said it wasn't. I just know that you posted the 538 link (which we've already discussed on this thread) as a retort or rebuttal to the Colorado study (even though they are both based on different methodologies). You didn't bother to look at the Colorado study or engage in discussion about it, you needed to prove that there was other -- in your view better - evidence that your guy would win.

I merely happened to see the Colorado study in an article I read this morning, and it seemed appropriate as an addition to the discussion we were having regarding possible electoral outcomes. The response from you was to re-post the 538 prediction as a rebuttal, and then Ian said "boy are you going to look foolish...." because he knows Obama is going to win.

[Ian]

I was making a point about objectivity. I think the Colorado model is very flawed, hence even mentioning it is a bit foolish.

Like I said - we'll see who is right about it in two months.

[Coito ergo sum]

I was making a point about objectivity. I think the Colorado model is very flawed, hence even mentioning it is a bit foolish.

You identified nothing wrong with its "objectivity." Since both Democrats and Republicans have been predicted winners over the last 8 elections, and they haven't been wrong, I don't see where this would be skewed toward Romney.

On what basis is it not objective?

And, what is "flawed" about it? It seems difficult to suggest a flaw in a study that is correct all the time, at least not without examining the methodology and data relied upon, which you didn't do. You just declared it flawed.

Like I said - we'll see who is right about it in two months.

Yes, of course. But, the fun of the lead up to the election involves looking at the different predictions. There is nothing wrong with citing different studies, and to suggest that you've established that "even mentioning" this study is foolish is really ridiculous. It shows that for some reason you want to keep the conversation one-sided.

[Ian]

It has to be considered pretty impressive to get it right 8 elections in a row. Based purely on a coin toss, the odds of getting it right 8 times in a row would be .003906 chance. Whatever their methodology is, it can't be complete bollocks.

Not necessarily. A few of those elections were blowouts. Hell, by the time election day rolled around, I've accurately predicted the winner in every Presidential contest since I was old enough to notice them, meaning since 1984. And I'd like to think I could've seen Reagan winning big in 1980 also. The exception for me was 2000, when I admittedly didn't even pay attention to the race because I was neck-deep busy with other things.

As for this year... call me a wimp, but it's too early for me to say that Obama is going to win. There haven't even been any debates yet, so I'm just talking about what is likely, not making a formal prediction. But you're certainly right that Romney has an uphill battle.

[Gerald McGrew]

I never said it wasn't. I just know that you posted the 538 link (which we've already discussed on this thread) as a retort or rebuttal to the Colorado study (even though they are both based on different methodologies).

LOL! When I posted 538 today, you responded, "We've already seen the 538 polling on this thread. The Colorado one was from a result that just came out today." Well, we'd already seen the Colorado study on this thread too, but you posted it today anyways, citing the fact that it had been updated. By that same standard, my posting the 538 predictions was equally justified (it had been updated as well).

You didn't bother to look at the Colorado study or engage in discussion about it, you needed to prove that there was other -- in your view better - evidence that your guy would win.

You shouldn't say things that are proven false simply by clicking back into the thread. The first thing I posted in this thread was, "I've never put too much faith in any model that attempts to predict election results based primarily on variables not associated with actual voting. In this case, trying to predict the 2012 election based on economic numbers eliminates several other factors, e.g. strength of candidates, and most of all, state-by-state polling."

[Ian]

I was making a point about objectivity. I think the Colorado model is very flawed, hence even mentioning it is a bit foolish.

You identified nothing wrong with its "objectivity." Since both Democrats and Republicans have been predicted winners over the last 8 elections, and they haven't been wrong, I don't see where this would be skewed toward Romney.

On what basis is it not objective?

And, what is "flawed" about it? It seems difficult to suggest a flaw in a study that is correct all the time, at least not without examining the methodology and data relied upon, which you didn't do. You just declared it flawed.

Like I said - we'll see who is right about it in two months.

Yes, of course. But, the fun of the lead up to the election involves looking at the different predictions. There is nothing wrong with citing different studies, and to suggest that you've established that "even mentioning" this study is foolish is really ridiculous. It shows that for some reason you want to keep the conversation one-sided.

My basis for calling it unobjective was looking at the map for three seconds and realizing that not only does it have Romney winning nearly every battleground state, but that some like Minnesota were colored red too. Not very scientific I know, but when I see a dog I don't need to hear it actually bark to verify that I'm looking at a dog.

When I'm able to do so I'm going to have to take a closer look at their methodology and figure out how on earth they got that. Right now it looks like they're smoking some funny stuff. If you care to have a close look at their methodology instead of just trumpeting their track record, have at it as well.

[Coito ergo sum]

As for this year... call me a wimp, but it's too early for me to say that Obama is going to win. There haven't even been any debates yet, so I'm just talking about what is likely, not making a formal prediction. But you're certainly right that Romney has an uphill battle.

I think the debates are going to make or break this election. If one or the other comes away a winner in the debates, that will seal the election.

I think Ryan is going to wipe his ass with Biden, but I am not at all confident that Romney can beat Obama. I can certainly see Obama rope-a-doping Romney, and Romney gunning for a "there you go again" line like Reagan. But, Romney is no Reagan, and Obama is a quality speaker, and not easily tricked.

[Coito ergo sum]

I never said it wasn't. I just know that you posted the 538 link (which we've already discussed on this thread) as a retort or rebuttal to the Colorado study (even though they are both based on different methodologies).

LOL! When I posted 538 today, you responded, "We've already seen the 538 polling on this thread. The Colorado one was from a result that just came out today." Well, we'd already seen the Colorado study on this thread too, but you posted it today anyways, citing the fact that it had been updated. By that same standard, my posting the 538 predictions was equally justified (it had been updated as well).

Huh.. I don't recall seeing it before. The Colorado study was referenced in an article -- dated today -- that I read today. That's why I posted it.

You didn't bother to look at the Colorado study or engage in discussion about it, you needed to prove that there was other -- in your view better - evidence that your guy would win.

You shouldn't say things that are proven false simply by clicking back into the thread. The first thing I posted in this thread was, "I've never put too much faith in any model that attempts to predict election results based primarily on variables not associated with actual voting. In this case, trying to predict the 2012 election based on economic numbers eliminates several other factors, e.g. strength of candidates, and most of all, state-by-state polling."

Except that apparently those factors have been pretty good at predicting who would be getting the actual votes. 8 in a row correct is not bad.

[Coito ergo sum]

It has to be considered pretty impressive to get it right 8 elections in a row. Based purely on a coin toss, the odds of getting it right 8 times in a row would be .003906 chance. Whatever their methodology is, it can't be complete bollocks.

Not necessarily. A few of those elections were blowouts. Hell, by the time election day rolled around, I've accurately predicted the winner in every Presidential contest since I was old enough to notice them, meaning since 1984. And I'd like to think I could've seen Reagan winning big in 1980 also. The exception for me was 2000, when I admittedly didn't even pay attention to the race because I was neck-deep busy with other things.
.

The thing is, they aren't just waiting to the end and picking a winner. When they have a methodology, it means they are pre-setting the data that will be entered in, and those values aren't known before hand. They are variable. So, whether it's a blowout doesn't matter so much, because they had this methodology set a year ago.

[Ian]

As for this year... call me a wimp, but it's too early for me to say that Obama is going to win. There haven't even been any debates yet, so I'm just talking about what is likely, not making a formal prediction. But you're certainly right that Romney has an uphill battle.

I think the debates are going to make or break this election. If one or the other comes away a winner in the debates, that will seal the election.

I think Ryan is going to wipe his ass with Biden, but I am not at all confident that Romney can beat Obama. I can certainly see Obama rope-a-doping Romney, and Romney gunning for a "there you go again" line like Reagan. But, Romney is no Reagan, and Obama is a quality speaker, and not easily tricked.

I think you're completely right about the Obama-Romney debates. Obama's good. Romney's going to be well prepared too, but he'll take hits on things like lack of specificity (re-read Bill Clinton's speech for a better-articulated example of what this means) and body-language: Romney puts a very weird look on his face while he's listening to his opponent talk.

The Ryan-Biden debate will be fun since I'm sure these to are just waiting to be unleashed on each other. But I disagree that Ryan's going to be a clear-cut winner unless Biden has a particularly bad one of his famous verbal gaffes - a distinct possibility. Biden's going to throw some very uncomfortable facts about Ryan's congressional record in his face. And if the debate is at all about what Ryan stands for rather than what the Romney ticket stands for, he's going to keep turning people off.

[Coito ergo sum]

Romney is not nearly as polished as Obama. But, he is, at least, a lot more polished than Bush II (or, Bush I, for that matter). The thing that Romney has against him is that he really doesn't like or feel at home in this process. But, this is Obama's wheelhouse...Romney is on Obama's turf.

The thing that Ryan has in his favor over Biden, is that Ryan has a good gift for numbers and for remembering facts. Just as Biden might be able to call out uncomfortable facts, be prepared for Ryan to be ready. And, Biden debated Palin to a draw, so that should tell you something there....

[Gerald McGrew]

Huh.. I don't recall seeing it before. The Colorado study was referenced in an article -- dated today -- that I read today. That's why I posted it.

It's the exact same one you started this thread with. The links you posted in both the OP and today's take you to the same article.

Except that apparently those factors have been pretty good at predicting who would be getting the actual votes. 8 in a row correct is not bad.

I'm sure there are other correlations that have held true for multiple consecutive elections. That doesn't make them predictive.

[Tero]

Some Asian woman is at Romney talk today. She came to America with 200 dollars in her pocket and some Engrish. Now she'd an enterpreneur! She might make 50 000 a year some day. And Obama is gonna ruin her American dream! With taxes. Which he gives to lazy bums.

[Tero]

/sarcasm

She is better off with Obama. Small business loans etc. No tax benefit.

[Coito ergo sum]

Some Asian woman is at Romney talk today. She came to America with 200 dollars in her pocket and some Engrish. Now she'd an enterpreneur! She might make 50 000 a year some day. And Obama is gonna ruin her American dream! With taxes. Which he gives to lazy bums.

While he's doing that, Romney is giving women cancer.