Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A lot of people made a big-to-do about predictwise saying that Obama has a 303 to 235 Electoral Vote Edge.
Let's just assume that their state by state odds are accurate (in example, that Obama only has a 24.08% chance of beating the Republican in North Carolina) Then it is important to point out that the Republican is in fact neck and neck with Obama in the electoral college.
The states awarded to the Republicans are all have strong odds to vote Republican. On the other hand, Obama has many states where his odds of winning are narrow.
If PredictWise is correct with their odds than mathematically speaking, Obama isn't likely to win in a landslide as they show. For instance...Obama has a 52% chance to win in Virginia and a 52.95% chance to win in Ohio. Statistically speaking...there is a good chance that Romney would win one of those...all of a sudden it is no longer a landslide. They also give Obama between a 57% and 68% chance to win each of the following states...New Hampshire, Colorado, Iowa, and Pennsylvania... Likewise...mathematically speaking Romney should win at least 1 of those given their odds.
I'm guessing that this site just wanted to generate some buzz, which they got with their skewed numbers posted all over the web. But they will look silly in November if said numbers are shoved up you-know-where.
This graph I think gives a little easier to understand explanation of what predictwise is showing. There are 140 electoral votes up for grabs in the swing states, but as for solidly locked R and D states, the power is strongly in Obama's favor.
I don't expect it to be an Obama landslide win unless Santorum or Newt are the nomination, but the GOP certainly has their work cut out of them, that's for sure.
A lot of people made a big-to-do about predictwise saying that Obama has a 303 to 235 Electoral Vote Edge.
Let's just assume that their state by state odds are accurate (in example, that Obama only has a 24.08% chance of beating the Republican in North Carolina) Then it is important to point out that the Republican is in fact neck and neck with Obama in the electoral college.
The states awarded to the Republicans are all have strong odds to vote Republican. On the other hand, Obama has many states where his odds of winning are narrow.
If PredictWise is correct with their odds than mathematically speaking, Obama isn't likely to win in a landslide as they show. For instance...Obama has a 52% chance to win in Virginia and a 52.95% chance to win in Ohio. Statistically speaking...there is a good chance that Romney would win one of those...all of a sudden it is no longer a landslide. They also give Obama between a 57% and 68% chance to win each of the following states...New Hampshire, Colorado, Iowa, and Pennsylvania... Likewise...mathematically speaking Romney should win at least 1 of those given their odds.
It is closer than they say.
Only in your not-so-objective opinion.
But keep telling yourself that to get through the night. If Romney wins half of the toss-up electoral vote, Obama gets his 2nd term. November 7th will dawn a new day.
But keep telling yourself that to get through the night. If Romney wins half of the toss-up electoral vote, Obama gets his 2nd term. November 7th will dawn a new day.
I am guessing that math is not your strong suit?
If you had to roll a 3, 4, 5, or 6 to score with 9 dice......you have a 67% chance to score with each individual die....What are the odds that you get all 9 dice in your favor....here is a hint....you are far more likely to score on 6 of the 9, than 9 of the 9.
Likewise....if Obama is favored with slim leads in many states...the odds that he gets them all is mathematically not likely.
I tend to agree it is a crappy model, but for different reasons. The largest being North Carolina and Arizona. Nothing in the real world save for 1 poll done by Art Pope has shown anything like the numbers they have in NC. It has been consistently even.
Furthermore I have to believe that there is almost no way Georgia would be under any circumstances more favorable to Obama then North Carolina, nothing in the real world has remotely suggested this. Another interesting note is that the predictor proclaims Montana will be substantially more democratic then Arizona. Again nothing in the real world has suggested this to be the case.
My guess is they are using the 2008 results, making them more GOP friendly and tweaking them without taking into consideration how population and candidates will change in 2012. That is the only way you could get Arizona to be substantially more GOP then Montana.
I also find it interesting that the specifically don't take candidates into consideration, claim that a lot of models are good at predicting the past, but not the future and then proceed to talk about how this model would have done in the past, and do not mention population growth and demographic changes at all.
EDIT how did I miss this gem, they say Obama will only receive 52% of the vote in Massachusetts and that Wisconsin will be more democratic then Massachusetts. This thing is totally disconnected with reality.
Last edited by Randomstudent; 02-19-2012 at 01:18 PM..
A lot of people made a big-to-do about predictwise saying that Obama has a 303 to 235 Electoral Vote Edge.
Let's just assume that their state by state odds are accurate (in example, that Obama only has a 24.08% chance of beating the Republican in North Carolina) Then it is important to point out that the Republican is in fact neck and neck with Obama in the electoral college.
The states awarded to the Republicans are all have strong odds to vote Republican. On the other hand, Obama has many states where his odds of winning are narrow.
If PredictWise is correct with their odds than mathematically speaking, Obama isn't likely to win in a landslide as they show. For instance...Obama has a 52% chance to win in Virginia and a 52.95% chance to win in Ohio. Statistically speaking...there is a good chance that Romney would win one of those...all of a sudden it is no longer a landslide. They also give Obama between a 57% and 68% chance to win each of the following states...New Hampshire, Colorado, Iowa, and Pennsylvania... Likewise...mathematically speaking Romney should win at least 1 of those given their odds.
It is closer than they say.
I haven't seen predictwise before. The lack of a real Republican nominee or a really good candidate means that Obama will likely win the election. That said, you're making a false assumption on your example. He migh tbe expected to get a 52% chunk of the vote in Virginia. That is not the same as saying he has a 52% chance of winning. There could be a 90% chance that he gets 50%+ of the vote. They aren't saying there is a 52% chance that he wins the state.
It's all premature at this point. It does show states that will be the big battlegrounds, but I wouldn't get too worked up over it. It's rather early.
I haven't seen predictwise before. The lack of a real Republican nominee or a really good candidate means that Obama will likely win the election. That said, you're making a false assumption on your example. He migh tbe expected to get a 52% chunk of the vote in Virginia. That is not the same as saying he has a 52% chance of winning. There could be a 90% chance that he gets 50%+ of the vote. They aren't saying there is a 52% chance that he wins the state.
It's all premature at this point. It does show states that will be the big battlegrounds, but I wouldn't get too worked up over it. It's rather early.
Noexcuseforignorance,
I don't think that you actually read the link. They are clearly stating the odds (in percentage format) for Obama to win each state. In example, they clearly state "Odds of Obama Victory" state by state....Virginia is a 52% chance for an Obama victory and therefore a 48% chance for a Republican victory.
EDIT how did I miss this gem, they say Obama will only receive 52% of the vote in Massachusetts and that Wisconsin will be more democratic then Massachusetts. This thing is totally disconnected with reality.
They still give Obama a 74.41% chance of winning Massachusetts. I think their poll assumes that Romney will be the Republican and realistically he easily could hold Obama to 52.8% of the vote in a state where he was a successful governor. Keep in mind that after the 3rd party candidates get their votes, Romney would only need to get about 45% of the vote to keep Obama at 52.8%...I think it is very possible.
Last edited by michiganmoon; 02-19-2012 at 03:08 PM..
Math is definitely not your strong suit, and that's not a guess.
Quote:
If you had to roll a 3, 4, 5, or 6 to score with 9 dice......you have a 67% chance to score with each individual die....What are the odds that you get all 9 dice in your favor....here is a hint....you are far more likely to score on 6 of the 9, than 9 of the 9.
Likewise....if Obama is favored with slim leads in many states...the odds that he gets them all is mathematically not likely.
But in your world, the GOP gets all of the states where they have a slim lead - like FL and MO. And pick up a few where they trail, too. Like I said, keep telling yourself that if it helps you to sleep better. But odds are odds and they don't all fall in favor of one side over the other; they work both ways.
Oh, and don't watch the news or turn on your radio on November 7th.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
