 |
 |
   Read the story and see the video discussion by the authors about why creeping consolidation is crushing American livelihoods.
 Career colleges and the paper of record face off.
 A forensic tool renowned for exonerating the innocent may actually be putting them in prison.
|
   |
|
|
August 15, 2008
By:
David Moore, author of The Opinion Makers: An Insider Reveals the Truth Behind the Polls, is a former Vice President of the Gallup Organization and Managing Editor of the Gallup Poll. He has been guest blogging here all week. PREDICTING THE ELECTORAL VOTE....As we all know, the national polls don't predict the presidential winner. George W. Bush lost the popular vote in 2000 but won the electoral vote. So, while the national polls are interesting, in a close race we know that it's the electoral vote predictions that give us the better insight. I've looked over the web, going to places I know, but also googling "electoral map 2008 president" to find sites I wasn't so familiar with. I've chosen a few for comparison, mostly the media sites, though two others that appear to be quite popular. As one who regularly blogs on pollster.com, naturally I looked there first, but I found many others I do not regularly visit with very useful information. Here are the ones whose data are included in the table below (they are listed in order of the "overall Obama lead" — with Pollster showing the largest overall lead and NPR showing the smallest):
Here is a comparison of the projections of Barack Obama's and John McCain's electoral vote: The other four media sites showing the smaller overall leads apparently base their projections on their in-house experts. NPR is explicit about that, while the NYT, CNN and NBC sites imply it (unless, of course, I've missed some important detail). It would appear that the media experts are especially cautious, suggesting a closer race than the more empirically-oriented sites. Some of the most interesting differences and similarities among Pollster.com, the Los Angeles Times, and RealClearPolitics.com: Minnesota — Pollster and LAT say this is a solid Obama state, while RCP says it's a toss-up. Ohio and Michigan — seen as toss-ups by RCP, while Pollster has both leaning toward Obama, and LAT has Michigan for Obama, with Ohio as a toss-up. New Mexico — leaning Obama say LAT and Pollster; a toss-up says RCP Florida, Missouri, Virginia and Colorado — all three sites say these states are toss-ups. There are, of course, other differences worth examining. It's worthwhile to visit the sites. One of the most interesting charts I've seen is provided by LAT, which shows the electoral vote calculations over time. Through most of the primary season, while Obama and Hillary Clinton were still contesting the nomination, McCain was consistently ahead in the electoral vote total. Toward the end of May, Obama caught up, and in mid-July surged to his highest LAT lead, before falling back somewhat. The fluctuation in the electoral vote totals — from a 65 vote lead by McCain up to a 108 vote lead by Obama, down to the current Obama lead of 77 votes — should warn us that many voters have yet to make up their minds. Let's not take these results too seriously at this point in the campaign. (Two other sites that seem to provide empirically-based projections are 270towin.com, and electoral-vote.com, showing Obama with overall leads of 54 and 85 votes respectively.) —David Moore 1:15 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (27)Comments
I think omitting the Diebold Poll is a gross oversight. Their surveyors seem to have the most inside knowledge of coming results. Posted by: steve duncan on August 15, 2008 at 1:20 PM | PERMALINKYou ignored two interesting sources: the Princeton Meta-Analysis and FiveThirtyEight.com. Posted by: Chris Conway on August 15, 2008 at 1:27 PM | PERMALINKNo link to fivethrityeight.com? Nate was among the most accurate in projecting the primary results, using a heavy dose of demographic analysis. Posted by: SP on August 15, 2008 at 1:32 PM | PERMALINKExcluding 538 makes this exercise nearly pointless. Posted by: Ben V-L on August 15, 2008 at 1:33 PM | PERMALINKfivethirtyeight.com has Obama leading in the Electoral College by 38, 288 to 250. Posted by: wheresthebeef on August 15, 2008 at 1:35 PM | PERMALINKI'm also suprised at the exclusion of 538. With the possible exception of Pollster, no organization has ever gone to such lengths to explain the details of its models. Posted by: tom veil on August 15, 2008 at 1:37 PM | PERMALINKKevin himself touted the Princeton Meta-analysis. Also, it should be noted that Nate of 538 honed his methodology and blogging skills at The Baseball Prospectus, an excellent site for baseball analysis. Posted by: DJ on August 15, 2008 at 1:40 PM | PERMALINKAlthough FiveThirtyEight is an excellent resource, it is not a snapshot, but an assumption-dependent prediction of the November outcome. Therefore it's not in the same category as the other news organizations, which appear to be snapshots in time. My site, the Princeton Meta-Analysis mentioned by Chris Conway, uses all available state polls to come up with an accurate, statistically-based estimate of current Electoral College standings. Tracking the Meta-Analysis over time does capture both of the trends described by David Moore. It also captures a recent shift in the standings since August 1, when the McCain campaign launched the Celebrity ad. Look for the Meta-Analysis to reflect changes even more accurately in September, as state polls become more frequent. For now it is a slightly lagging indicator, though still quite sensitive. Posted by: Sam Wang on August 15, 2008 at 1:42 PM | PERMALINKFiveThirtyEight's documentation is fairly good, though many mathematical details are described only verbally. The predictive part is over 2 months into the future, which adds uncertainty. Election.princeton.edu's methods are completely transparent. Documentation is verbal, data come in a direct feed from Pollster.com, and the code is available for download. Posted by: Sam Wang on August 15, 2008 at 1:54 PM | PERMALINKSpeaking as a resident of one of the most Republican areas of Michigan, I can't see how anyone sees this state as anything other than a clear win for Obama Posted by: rea on August 15, 2008 at 2:02 PM | PERMALINKI'll parrot the 538 outcry. Is the exclusions of Nate Silver an intentional snub? If not, please find your way to his site and let us know what you think. Posted by: Pete Martin on August 15, 2008 at 2:10 PM | PERMALINKelectoral-vote.com as of Aug 15th has Obama 275 McCain 250 Ties 13 Posted by: david s on August 15, 2008 at 2:56 PM | PERMALINKOdd chart. Why not go to 538 to simplify? Posted by: Hedley Lamarr on August 15, 2008 at 2:58 PM | PERMALINKCan't believe you left out 538 http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/ Some of the best analysis out there. Jeez, Kevin. Posted by: on August 15, 2008 at 3:20 PM | PERMALINKExcluding 538 was indeed a gross oversight! My bad, as they say. It's definitely a site worth visiting regularly. Posted by: David Moore on August 15, 2008 at 5:33 PM | PERMALINKFor those not familiar with fivethirtyeight.com, here's how they say (in their own words) they differ from the other sites: There are several principal ways that the FiveThityEight methodology differs from other poll compilations: Firstly, we assign each poll a weighting based on that pollster's historical track record, the poll's sample size, and the recentness of the poll. More reliable polls are weighted more heavily in our averages. Secondly, we include a regression estimate based on the demographics in each state among our 'polls', which helps to account for outlier polls and to keep the polling in its proper context. Thirdly, we use an inferential process to compute a rolling trendline that allows us to adjust results in states that have not been polled recently and make them ‘current’. Fourthly, we simulate the election 10,000 times for each site update in order to provide a probabilistic assessment of electoral outcomes based on a historical analysis of polling data since 1952. The simulation further accounts for the fact that similar states are likely to move together, e.g. future polling movement in states like Michigan and Ohio, or North and South Carolina, is likely to be in the same direction. Posted by: DevilDog on August 15, 2008 at 11:44 PM | PERMALINK538 is a notable oversight, but I like Electoral Vote Predictor, www.electoral-vote.com, the best. Posted by: Jesse on August 16, 2008 at 11:53 AM | PERMALINKHow is it at all possible to be undecided between Obama and McCain? Seriously. Anyone who really doesn't know which man he prefers, right now today, is a person who shouldn't be allowed to vote, because they clearly don't know enough about current events and politics to have an opinion worth anything. So there. Posted by: craigie on August 16, 2008 at 2:45 PM | PERMALINKThe real issue is not how well Obama or McCain might do in the closely divided battleground states, but that we shouldn't have battleground states and spectator states in the first place. Every vote in every state should be politically relevant in a presidential election. And, every vote should be equal. We should have a national popular vote for President in which the White House goes to the candidate who gets the most popular votes in all 50 states. The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral vote -- that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). Because of state-by-state enacted rules for winner-take-all awarding of their electoral votes, recent candidates with limited funds have concentrated their attention on a handful of closely divided "battleground" states. In 2004 two-thirds of the visits and money were focused in just six states; 88% on 9 states, and 99% of the money went to just 16 states. Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential election. Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. The National Popular Vote bill has passed 21 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, North Carolina, and Washington, and both houses in California, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These four states possess 50 electoral votes 19% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect. See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive! Posted by: xanax and sleep aids on July 4, 2009 at 5:47 AM | PERMALINKGreat work, webmaster, nice design! Posted by: adipex from canada on July 4, 2009 at 8:08 AM | PERMALINKGreat site. Good info. Posted by: tramadol as an antidepressant on July 10, 2009 at 3:30 AM | PERMALINKGreat work, webmaster, nice design! Posted by: international adipex on July 10, 2009 at 6:10 AM | PERMALINKVery interesting site. Hope it will always be alive! Posted by: adipex cheap online ordering on July 10, 2009 at 8:21 AM | PERMALINK
March 2010
February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 |
|
|
    |
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
