Andrew S. Tanenbaum and his electoral-vote.com

pjp · Posted: Tue Sep 18, 2012 7:15 pm Post subject:

Mid-October will probably be more accurate, but if these are even within a few points, he won't riding a white horse to the inauguration.
_________________
lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.

In Loving Memory
1787 - 2008

sugar · Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2012 1:09 am Post subject:

democrats now with a commanding lead in the senate (53 to 46, 1 tie), but it seems Obama is losing a little ground (319 to 206, critically 13 ties, which have all come from Obama).
_________________
I call for full employment is a call for war!

pjp · Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2012 10:31 pm Post subject:

I think most of the ties are what has been fluctuating all along. I still think it is too early to say one way or another -- ignoring the obvious part that it is too early until election day :D.
_________________
lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.

In Loving Memory
1787 - 2008

notageek · Posted: Wed Oct 03, 2012 10:23 am Post subject:

BBC's own map. Fair and accurate.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19794259
_________________
vivos brunneis vulpes salit super piger canis

runningwithscissors · Posted: Wed Oct 03, 2012 11:31 am Post subject:

I'm pretty sure the media and these election "watchers" in america actually cook the numbers to make the contest seem very even. They have to keep milking the issue. It wouldn't be interesting if one guy had a lead on the other all the time and the former winning a foregone conclusion.
_________________
At some stage, the Hindus locked on to the nation destroying concepts like ahimsa (non-violence), shanti (peace), satya (truth) — the ‘ass’ syndrome.

notageek · Posted: Wed Oct 03, 2012 11:43 am Post subject:

For BBC, it is not so much cooking but reporting banal fact. All the toss-up states are indeed in dead-heat and doesn't serve the purpose of news reporting to show them as leaning on one or the other.

American and electoral-vote.com are opinion pieces, which are a bit more relevant for people who want to know the future and may not be interested in the actual fact.
_________________
vivos brunneis vulpes salit super piger canis

pjp · Posted: Wed Oct 03, 2012 10:49 pm Post subject:

BBC doesn't seem any more accurate. Everyone knows the battleground states. It seems the BBC is simply not willing to make predictions.

Many of the battleground states historically vote for the Democrat. There are only a few elections where the country overwhelmingly chose one candidate, despite partisan trends. So the only question really becomes, is this one of those times. If not, then there are fewer genuine battleground states.
_________________
lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.

In Loving Memory
1787 - 2008

pjp · Posted: Wed Oct 03, 2012 10:51 pm Post subject:

Also...

notageek · Posted: Thu Oct 04, 2012 2:05 am Post subject:

pjp · Posted: Thu Oct 04, 2012 2:34 am Post subject:

You.

notageek · Posted: Thu Oct 04, 2012 2:41 am Post subject:

Not contradictory. Votes are opinions too.
_________________
vivos brunneis vulpes salit super piger canis

sugar · Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2012 5:12 pm Post subject:

http://electoral-vote.com/evp2012/Pres/ec_graph-2012.html

I'm not sure what the length of the polls are that are being taken, but even with Willard 'winning' the debate, it seems as if Obama has seen a jump in electoral college votes compared to a drop in support for Romney.
_________________
I call for full employment is a call for war!

notageek · Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2012 4:41 am Post subject:

I see what this page is doing. It is giving the battleground states to Obama, while the BBC is showing the battleground states as up for grabs.
_________________
vivos brunneis vulpes salit super piger canis

pjp · Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 2:13 am Post subject:

Not all of them, but yes. Generally speaking, I don't disagree with "giving" them to Obama. The BBC site shows by what percentage the state went R or D on the last 2 elections. Unfortunately, that isn't entirely useful. Some of Obama's percentage from last time was an over reaction (IMO) to Bush. BUT, many of those states are close, so it is reasonable to not "give" them to either candidate.

New Mexico is polling 10 points in Obama's favor, and it tends to vote Democrat. So I don't really consider that one in play. It could be but seems unlikely. Two more examples are Wisconsin & Michigan. Obama won them pretty strongly (14%, 16.5%). But previously (Bush reelection) , Wisconsin went D by 0.4%, and Michigan 3.4%. Michigan seems pretty unlikely, and Wisconsin a maybe, but pretty unlikely.

Ohio is definitely in play. Virginia & S. Carolina seem likely to go R.

So, I don't think the BBC is as reasonable in their sitting on the fence. Though they may not be actively polling and don't want to be wrong as a result. The point of electoral-vote is to change with polling data.
_________________
lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.

In Loving Memory
1787 - 2008

pjp · Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2012 4:44 am Post subject:

For comparison, 2000 (271 - 266). Notice the similarities. NV, CO, OH, VA, FL, NH.

RCP is going more the route of the BBC with more tossups.

Supposedly around now is when pollsters start claiming accuracy.
_________________
lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.

In Loving Memory
1787 - 2008

notageek · Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2012 2:00 pm Post subject:

If the states that voted for Obama last time are likely to vote for Obama this time, why call them tossups?
_________________
vivos brunneis vulpes salit super piger canis

Bones McCracker · Veteran Joined: 14 Mar 2006 Posts: 1579 Location: U.S.A.

notageek · Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2012 4:13 am Post subject:

The numbers changed.
_________________
vivos brunneis vulpes salit super piger canis

Muso · Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2012 5:55 am Post subject:

ichbinsisyphos · Guru Joined: 08 Dec 2006 Posts: 547

Dem 55% : 45% Rep, nice. Compare this to the numbers the Republican-controlled media has released recently :lol:

Bones McCracker · Veteran Joined: 14 Mar 2006 Posts: 1579 Location: U.S.A.

Republican-controlled media :roll:

What would that be? If they had any, would anybody but the far right pay any attention to it? The problem is that the left controls what are widely perceived to be the "mainstream media" (e.g., NBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, etc., etc.).

Here is the best unbiased assessment: Real Clear Politics, which computes a weighted average of the major polls. They currently have:

National popular vote:
47.1% Obama
47.7% Romney
(Romney +0.6%)

Electoral Ballots:
Obama: 201
Romney: 206
Too close to call: 131
(Romney +5)

That's a statistical tie.

petrjanda · Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2012 12:30 am Post subject:

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2012/Pres/Maps/Oct31-noras.html

Rasmussen-free data (they are known to poll inaccurately, more often than not to the advantage of republicans)

Senate looks like dems are gaining so even if Romney was elected, Obama care couldn't be repealed.
_________________
There is, a not-born, a not-become, a not-made, a not-compounded. If that unborn, not-become, not-made, not-compounded were not, there would be no escape from this here that is born, become, made and compounded. - Gautama Siddharta

Bones McCracker · Veteran Joined: 14 Mar 2006 Posts: 1579 Location: U.S.A.

Don't deceive yourself; Rasmussen isn't the only poll with bias (for example, the CBS/NYT/Quinnapac poll is just a biased in the other direction). That's why I look at an average.

Romney has lost some of his post-debate bump, and Obama has made modest but key gains in battleground states.

National popular vote:
47.4% Obama
47.4% Romney
(Tie)

Electoral Ballots:
Obama: 201
Romney: 191
Too close to call: 146
(Obama +10)

I look at the battleground states and see margins that are so close I think it's all going to depend on voter turnout (or, more precisely, I am skeptical as to whether these surveys accurately capture the intent of "likely voters").

I don't see anything earth-shaking happening in terms of Congress. Democrats will retain the majority in the Senate, and Republicans will retain the majority in the House (which is the opposite of the way it should be, if these parties were true to their ideals).

pjp · Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2012 2:48 am Post subject:

Removing the mandate is the primary necessity at this point. That won't kill it, but it will help. Supposedly any executive orders he can create won't allow for change until 2017, so we'll just have to see.

Seems very strange that Obama is slipping, but Democrats in congress are gaining ground. We'll know soon enough. OK, not soon enough, but soon.
_________________
lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.

In Loving Memory
1787 - 2008

petrjanda · Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2012 10:24 am Post subject: