2012 Presidential Election Thread

[Seth]

A lot of Christians I know would never vote for the right because of exactly what you just outlined Vampyr.
Social issues take precedent over domestic observances. Maybe it's a Canadian thing and binaries don't rule the day quite as much?

Here, people vote for Harper because we are a resource economy and on a provincial level, the feds have vowed not to mess with regional profit holdings. Mercer makes it funny.

[Professor S]

Back to the Hurricane Sandy vs Nate Silver argument: Hurricane Sandy hit on the 29th and 30th. Looking at the chart below, it correlates almost to the day that political fortunes switched. Switch the chart to 30 or 14 days to see the trend.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...bama-1171.html

[The Germanator]

Originally Posted by Professor S

Back to the Hurricane Sandy vs Nate Silver argument: Hurricane Sandy hit on the 29th and 30th. Looking at the chart below, it correlates almost to the day that political fortunes switched. Switch the chart to 30 or 14 days to see the trend.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...bama-1171.html

Yeah, but you're using RCP's averaging numbers, which obviously weren't as correct as Silver's...and I mean that they don't necessarily explain all of it...538 actually has a few more words that go into the details of the polls. I can't take time to find it right now, but if you go to the 538 archives, you can see Silver talking about Romney's momentum ending weeks ago. I'm not sure why you'd keep citing RCP when they weren't as accurate as The Princeton Election Consortium, 538, or this blog http://votamatic.org/election-day-fo...32-romney-206/



I guess here's an example from Sam Wang's site. Basically after the 2nd debate, all the momentum is in Obama's favor. That's well before Sandy.

EDIT: Here is Silver's post regarding Mitt Romney's momentum, dated 10/24.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes...-have-stopped/

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by The Germanator

Yeah, but you're using RCP's averaging numbers, which obviously weren't as correct as Silver's...

Obviously incorrect? How so? Did RCP's aggregate polling estimate that Romney would be the winner? No, if you look at the trends you would guess Pres. Obama would have won re-election. All of these models, if you can call RCP a model since it doesn't make predictions, are based on whether or not they were correct. Both 538, and RCP's polling aggregates, showed strong signs Pres. Obama would win. They both proved correct.

If you look at the trends, and at the movement of undecided voters to Pres. Obama after Sandy, it's very difficult for me to understand how people can say the storm had no effect on voting. Also, please keep in mind I don't think Sandy was the only reason. Youth turnout was huge, and Silver had that nailed, along with single females and minority voting. But Sandy made it an easier victory for Pres. Obama, IMO.

[The Germanator]

Originally Posted by Professor S

Obviously incorrect? How so? Did RCP's aggregate polling estimate that Romney would be the winner? No, if you look at the trends you would guess Pres. Obama would have won re-election. All of these models, if you can call RCP a model since it doesn't make predictions, are based on whether or not they were correct. Both 538, and RCP's polling aggregates, showed strong signs Pres. Obama would win. They both proved correct.

If you look at the trends, and at the movement of undecided voters to Pres. Obama after Sandy, it's very difficult for me to understand how people can say the storm had no effect on voting. Also, please keep in mind I don't think Sandy was the only reason. Youth turnout was huge, and Silver had that nailed, along with single females and minority voting. But Sandy made it an easier victory for Pres. Obama, IMO.

I never said the storm had no effect on voting. Your original argument was that "Sandy ended Romney's momentum." My argument is that isn't true, when any positive polling towards Romney basically ended 10 days after the Denver debate and started regressing to Obama. Sandy increased Obama's momentum back to his pre-Denver debate levels.

Maybe the problem is definition of momentum...I would think momentum means at least a gradual climb since Denver until Sandy. If Romney's momentum had increased until Sandy hit, he should have been ahead in the Electoral College by then, but he wasn't. Romney's best numbers were the week after Denver, maybe except for that errant Gallup poll that had Romney up 7 points or something.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by The Germanator

I never said the storm had no effect on voting. Your original argument was that "Sandy ended Romney's momentum." My argument is that isn't true...

It DID end Romney's momentum. I said it had slowed before Sandy, but Sandy ENDED it, and the aggregate polling data SHOWS THIS. Not only did it end Romney's momentum, but it gave Pres. Obama a last minute boost.

My argument is that if Sandy never happened the election would have been far from predetermined, not that Romney would have necessarily won. Many of these states were incredibly tight. To say that Sandy was not a significant contributor in such tight margins is foolish, especially considering how undecided voters, a.k.a. morons, flocked to Pres. Obama during that time, impressed with the optics of a bi-partisan Obama hugging a Republican governor during a time of crisis.

There is really no point in arguing this further because we both have data to back up our arguments, and both of them proved correct.

[Vampyr]