538

[whoman69]

The latest 538 simulations have Obama winning 90.9% of the time with an average of 313.0 EC. The popular vote is seen as 50.8-48.3 or a 2.5 point lead for Obama.

The closest state contests are:
Florida 50.3% Obama
North Carolina 74.4% Romney
Virginia 79.4% Obama
Colorado 79.7% Obama
Iowa 84.3% Obama
New Hampshire 84.6% Obama

The following battleground states are now considered safe Obama meaning more than a 90% probability:
Michigan
Pennsylvania
Wisconsin
Nevada
Ohio

Obama has 303 EC at least 79%
Obama has 332 EC at least 50%

[cdcox]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

For me, there's just too much math going FOR Romney and against Obama right now... if it is accurate of course.

Romney winning by double digits among independents... Romney TIED among women. Those two are pretty damming.

Same polls have them tied among men. You can't believe one without believing the other. I don't believe either one.

[RINGLEADER]

Originally Posted by cdcox

Same polls have them tied among men. You can't believe one without believing the other. I don't believe either one.

If Romney was tied with women and up double-digits with indies he would be up at least 6-7 points unless the pollster greatly overweighted Dems in general.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by cdcox

When Nate Silver aggregates, all of these states are in Obama's column. His estimates include an estimate of uncertainty. Sure he could be off, but I doubt it is by so much that the true state of the race has all 4 of these states as most likely in Romeny's column.

I do not use 538 to look at recent polls and don't talk about BIAS, you are using some shitty polls (and outdated) there same as Silver. I simply don't trust PPP, never have, never will. So yes, I throw PPP out. I also am not looking at polls that I have never heard of.. even if they support Romney, it doesn't matter, I just don;t trust "no name" polls. They may be perfectly valid but I certainly would put more trust in Rasmussen or Gallup than Grove or Wenzel.

So yes, I can be accused of "brand name" bias and a bias against PPP. Guilty as charged there.

And once again, I have little to no faith in Silver's projections because I think a) his weighting is flawed and b) the polls themselves are skewed by an attempt to hold them to a 2008 model that I personally don;t think will apply this year.

I could be completely wrong, but I doubt it and we'll see in a 12 days.

Again this isn't a prediction of a Romney win, on the contrary, right now it is simply a prediction of a close loss.

[Hoover]

Originally Posted by cdcox

Any county level polls you can share from this year? All that is ancient history.

Sorry, can't share that polling data.

[cdcox]

Originally Posted by RINGLEADER

If Romney was tied with women and up double-digits with indies he would be up at least 6-7 points unless the pollster greatly overweighted Dems in general.

Self identified party affiliation is fluid. Someone who self identifies as a R one week might claim they are an indy the next. So I don't put any weight on that.

It's a little harder to change your mind on your sex. I don't see any way that the gender gap gets erased in both directions, that Romeny is picking up support among women at the same time he is losing it among men. Just seems incredibly unlikely.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by RINGLEADER

If Romney was tied with women and up double-digits with indies he would be up at least 6-7 points unless the pollster greatly overweighted Dems in general.

Actually not really. Dems should be weighted at 3% or so more than Republicans... so the upcoming polls should show Romney up 4-6 points and it's getting close to that on a national level. (2-3 points in most recent polls)

[cdcox]

Originally Posted by Hoover

Sorry, can't share that polling data.

Understood. I appreciate you sharing what you did. I'll be watching IA with interest on election night.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by cdcox

Self identified party affiliation is fluid. Someone who self identifies as a R one week might claim they are an indy the next. So I don't put any weight on that.

It's a little harder to change your mind on your sex. I don't see any way that the gender gap gets erased in both directions, that Romeny is picking up support among women at the same time he is losing it among men. Just seems incredibly unlikely.

I agree but I do think the gap has closed. I just can;t believe it closed THAT MUCH in that amount of times... UNLESS you are looking at a shift from polling all women, or registered voters to LIKELY voters. I'd have to go back and check, but that will make for a jump just like it did when Gallup switched.

[cdcox]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

I do not use 538 to look at recent polls and don't talk about BIAS, you are using some shitty polls (and outdated) there same as Silver. I simply don't trust PPP, never have, never will. So yes, I throw PPP out. I also am not looking at polls that I have never heard of.. even if they support Romney, it doesn't matter, I just don;t trust "no name" polls. They may be perfectly valid but I certainly would put more trust in Rasmussen or Gallup than Grove or Wenzel.

So yes, I can be accused of "brand name" bias and a bias against PPP. Guilty as charged there.

And once again, I have little to no faith in Silver's projections because I think a) his weighting is flawed and b) the polls themselves are skewed by an attempt to hold them to a 2008 model that I personally don;t think will apply this year.

I could be completely wrong, but I doubt it and we'll see in a 12 days.

Again this isn't a prediction of a Romney win, on the contrary, right now it is simply a prediction of a close loss.

You know Rasmussen doesn't include households that don't have a home phone? You think households without landlines might be biased toward younger people?

You know that Gallup has a rightward bias?

[Direckshun]

What I'm reading:

Florida may be out of Obama's reach.

Wisconsin and Ohio are still out of Romney's and haven't ever really been this election cycle.

Nevada remains in Obama's corner, Romney has taken over in North Carolina and New Hampshire.

The one unpredictable, at least for me, is Virginia. Most polls I've scanned lean Obama, but there's only like a 60/40 lean right now.

[Comrade Crapski]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

What I'm reading:

Florida may be out of Obama's reach.

Wisconsin and Ohio are still out of Romney's and haven't ever really been this election cycle.

Nevada remains in Obama's corner, Romney has taken over in North Carolina and New Hampshire.

The one unpredictable, at least for me, is Virginia. Most polls I've scanned lean Obama, but there's only like a 60/40 lean right now.

yeah you keep telling yourself that.

Nobody believes all your daily kos nate silver BS, but if it makes you feel better about things, go for it.

It's not going to change reality and Obama is going to get a good jolly rogering on November 6.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by cdcox

Self identified party affiliation is fluid. Someone who self identifies as a R one week might claim they are an indy the next. So I don't put any weight on that.

It's a little harder to change your mind on your sex. I don't see any way that the gender gap gets erased in both directions, that Romeny is picking up support among women at the same time he is losing it among men. Just seems incredibly unlikely.

Sure it is. How often does your self-identified party affiliation change?

With all the challenges of collecting a good random sample (land line vs cell phone vs social media, hangups etc.) I'm not sure it's a winning assumption to assume randomness and discount the meaning of party affiliation as opposed to assuming party affiliation accuracy and discounting the randomness.

I agree with you about the gender gap part though. It might narrow, but it's not going away.

[whoman69]

Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy

Here is one:

http://www.270towin.com/2012_electio....php?mapid=SUo


and that map was on the front page of the 270towin site. I did not change it, merely clicked share it and copied the link.

Originally Posted by Donger

New Hampshire, Colorado, Iowa and Nevada.

That may be even further out there than Ohio. Colorado is certainly close. Iowa and New Hampshire less so. The odds of Romney winning Nevada are less than those to win Ohio.

[whoman69]

Originally Posted by Hoover

I love 538 but remember, its only as good as the polls it includes. If the polls are messed up, Nate's going to be wrong. And its worthless to look at national polls .

That's why Nate doesn't take the polls at face value. Each poll is graded on its historical accuracy and methods. There are different polls given different weights. 538 realizes most polls are messed up and tries to correct for each.

[KC Dan]

Originally Posted by whoman69

That's why Nate doesn't take the polls at face value. Each poll is graded on its historical accuracy and methods. There are different polls given different weights. 538 realizes most polls are messed up and tries to correct for each.

Might as well predict earthquakes.....