mozartpc27 wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

laf837 wrote:Pretty surprised by the economist endorsement. Not surprised it was grumpy though.

BOB DOLE and George W. in 2000 are the only Republicans endorsed by the Economist since 1980.

They endorsed Mondale? Really?

No endorsements in 1984 and 1988. - Past Economist Endorsements

jerseyhoya wrote:

mozartpc27 wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

laf837 wrote:Pretty surprised by the economist endorsement. Not surprised it was grumpy though.

BOB DOLE and George W. in 2000 are the only Republicans endorsed by the Economist since 1980.

They endorsed Mondale? Really?

No endorsements in 1984 and 1988. - Past Economist Endorsements

Wow, I wonder if they actually printed this in 2000:

It would be unfair to disqualify Mr Gore because of his boss's peckerdilloes

So almost half, your quote makes it sound a lot diff

The Dude wrote:So almost half, your quote makes it sound a lot diff

To some extent spinning/cherry picking, but the bigger point is a magazine that endorsed Kerry in 2004 and Obama (enthusiastically) in 2008 endorsing Obama in 2012 should come as a surprise to pretty much no one.

mozartpc27 wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Parties Wonder Which Side's Polls Reflect Reality

My take away from this is that conservatives are the sort of folks who don't like it when things change, and think things ought to be more like they were... and they now believe that time is marching backward, in lockstep with their ideology.

The electorate may be doing a lot of things, but getting whiter ain't one of them.

It is to comments like this where it's worth pointing out the Republican Party won one of the largest landslide victories of the post War era two years ago.

jerseyhoya wrote:

mozartpc27 wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Parties Wonder Which Side's Polls Reflect Reality

My take away from this is that conservatives are the sort of folks who don't like it when things change, and think things ought to be more like they were... and they now believe that time is marching backward, in lockstep with their ideology.

The electorate may be doing a lot of things, but getting whiter ain't one of them.

It is to comments like this where it's worth pointing out the Republican Party won one of the largest landslide victories of the post War era two years ago.

And how much whiter is the electorate in an off-year election relative to the two Presidential years on either side of it (so, 06 vs. 04 and 08, etc.)? (I don't know, but I am guessing significantly)

jerseyhoya wrote:

The Dude wrote:So almost half, your quote makes it sound a lot diff

To some extent spinning/cherry picking, but the bigger point is a magazine that endorsed Kerry in 2004 and Obama (enthusiastically) in 2008 endorsing Obama in 2012 should come as a surprise to pretty much no one.

I feel like Kerry and Obama were no brainers in those elections for a serious medium like The Economist. But they could have concluded he destroyed/bungled the economy, as half the country thinks.

i'm no politics guy so don't yell at me but are any people thinking that christie was loving up on obama because he'd rather wait four years to run than eight?

jerseyhoya wrote:

The Dude wrote:So almost half, your quote makes it sound a lot diff

To some extent spinning/cherry picking, but the bigger point is a magazine that endorsed Kerry in 2004 and Obama (enthusiastically) in 2008 endorsing Obama in 2012 should come as a surprise to pretty much no one.

or reagan in 80 (don't let werthless read why)

uncle milt wrote:i'm no politics guy so don't yell at me but are any people thinking that christie was loving up on obama because he'd rather wait four years to run than eight?

Then why was he spending a lot of time campaigning for Romney?

uncle milt wrote:i'm no politics guy so don't yell at me but are any people thinking that christie was loving up on obama because he'd rather wait four years to run than eight?

i'm an idiot but why would he have to wait 8 if he wasn't lovin on obama

because he might be dead of coronary disease!

mozartpc27 wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

mozartpc27 wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Parties Wonder Which Side's Polls Reflect Reality

My take away from this is that conservatives are the sort of folks who don't like it when things change, and think things ought to be more like they were... and they now believe that time is marching backward, in lockstep with their ideology.

The electorate may be doing a lot of things, but getting whiter ain't one of them.

It is to comments like this where it's worth pointing out the Republican Party won one of the largest landslide victories of the post War era two years ago.

And how much whiter is the electorate in an off-year election relative to the two Presidential years on either side of it (so, 06 vs. 04 and 08, etc.)? (I don't know, but I am guessing significantly)

2006 was 79% White, 10% Black, 8% Hispanic, 2% Asian, 2% other (adds up to 101% for rounding).
2010 was 78% White, 10% Black, 8% Hispanic, 1% Asian, 2% other (adds up to 99% for rounding).

2004 was 77% White, 11% Black, 8% Hispanic, 2% Asian, 2% other (100%)
2008 was 74% White, 13% Black, 9% Hispanic, 2% Asian, 3% other (101%)
2012 will be ?

2008 was historic for levels of minority and youth (at least recently) turnout. The GOP polls are pegging it to something similar to 2008 for the racial demographics, but predicting youth turnout to recede according to the article. The Dem polls think the minority segment of the electorate will grow as it did from 2004 to 2008, and aren't as bearish on youth turnout.

jerseyhoya wrote:

mozartpc27 wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

mozartpc27 wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Parties Wonder Which Side's Polls Reflect Reality

My take away from this is that conservatives are the sort of folks who don't like it when things change, and think things ought to be more like they were... and they now believe that time is marching backward, in lockstep with their ideology.

The electorate may be doing a lot of things, but getting whiter ain't one of them.

It is to comments like this where it's worth pointing out the Republican Party won one of the largest landslide victories of the post War era two years ago.

And how much whiter is the electorate in an off-year election relative to the two Presidential years on either side of it (so, 06 vs. 04 and 08, etc.)? (I don't know, but I am guessing significantly)

2008 was historic for levels of minority and youth (at least recently) turnout. The GOP polls are pegging it to something similar to 2008 for the racial demographics, but predicting youth turnout to recede according to the article. The Dem polls think the minority segment of the electorate will grow as it did from 2004 to 2008, and aren't as bearish on youth turnout.

As someone who was on a college campus in both 2004 and 2012, I'll note that I see significantly less enthusiasm for voting in 2012. Whether this is due to differences between Bowdoin and Penn State, enthusiasm for the candidates, or my personal involvement in campus life is hard to quantify, but let's put it this way, I've seen far fewer campaign signs in dorm windows here and far fewer campaign rallies.

The Dude wrote:

uncle milt wrote:i'm no politics guy so don't yell at me but are any people thinking that christie was loving up on obama because he'd rather wait four years to run than eight?

i'm an idiot but why would he have to wait 8 if he wasn't lovin on obama

if mitt wins then no republican runs in 2016?

Romney's apparently coming to the Philly burbs on Sunday

I'm very surprised but obviously pleased that the mayor has endorsed Obama. As I think I noted here months ago, I had a sense that he might endorse Romney right before Obama declared support for marriage equality, and was wondering if that announcement was timed to forestall Bloomberg going with his fellow rich guy--with whom he's obviously more personally comfortable; he does not like Obama.

IMO it's equally possible that Bloomberg had one of his impetuous moments and decided "fuck it, he's better on this one thing which is uppermost on my mind right now," or that Howard Wolfson back-channeled this whole thing with his fellow professional Democrats and the endorsement is quid-pro-quo for something big in the second term. Either way, I'm psyched.

jerseyhoya wrote:Romney's apparently coming to the Philly burbs on Sunday

seems like a strange new strategy, no? do they believe they have a better chance in PA than OH, a sort of desperate last stop? or is this out of confidence that all of these blue states are really there for his taking?

drsmooth wrote:

Werthless wrote: For example, if he were to list CO, NV, and VA all as 70% Obama, the states are probably going to break for Obama in the same 70% of scenarios.

if you're trying to say in your example that the coincidence that the model calculated each state at 70% would mean you could safely assume those states' underlying variables were proportionately identical...well, that would seem to underestimate the model.

No no no. I'm curious how Silver is making correlation assumptions about the movements in state polling. This would play huge into the results of any simulation.

Let's assume we had a 3 state country, and each state had 10 electoral votes. If Obama was favored to win each with probability 70%, then how likely would it be that he wins the election? If we assume 0 correlation, or independence in state performance, then his probability of winning is (.70)^3 + 3(.3)(.7)^2= 78.4%. Whereas if the states move hand in hand, with correlation equals 1, then the probability of an Obama win is 70%. Personally, I think the correlations are strong, and the commentary after the debates suggests so too. If Obama sees a huge jump in one state polling after a debate, then we would likely be expecting similar jumps in other states in the subsequent days (but maybe we'd see different magnitudes). If Silver is assuming that the correlation is 0, then he is making a strong assumption that will inflate the favorite's probability. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt, that his simulations are not doing this, but I could be wrong. He's pretty open about his methodology, which is why I'm asking if anyone remembers him talking about this.