Election predictions

[Loki]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/30/he...-along.html?hp

With the above in mind, let's remove any possibility of people claiming that their intuition/gut was perfectly correct after the fact. I know there's a bigger prediction thread, but there's been a lot of new information available since then, and it's only fair to give people the opportunity to process that information and make more accurate predictions.

So let's try to predict the following:

Obama's number of electoral votes
Obama's margin of victory/defeat in popular vote
Number of Democratic (including candidates caucusing with the Democrats) Senators
Number of Democrats in the House

My predictions:

281
+1%
52
194

[Lewkowski]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/30/he...-along.html?hp

With the above in mind, let's remove any possibility of people claiming that their intuition/gut was perfectly correct after the fact. I know there's a bigger prediction thread, but there's been a lot of new information available since then, and it's only fair to give people the opportunity to process that information and make more accurate predictions.

So let's try to predict the following:

Obama's number of electoral votes
Obama's margin of victory/defeat in popular vote
Number of Democratic (including candidates caucusing with the Democrats) Senators
Number of Democrats in the House

My predictions:

281
+1%
52
194

287 for Romney.

Popular vote goes 2% for Romney.

Senate/House I haven't been following as closely. In general Republicans keep house but don't win back the senate.

[Ominous Gamer]

http://election.princeton.edu/

Obama: 323
Romney: 215

[RandBlade]

Obama 287 (not even knowing if that's possible) + 0.5%
Republican House
Democrat Senate (52 Seats)

Though I think Obama may do even better than that, I can't see Romney winning either Ohio or the election as a result. I think it'd be immensely funny to see Romney win the popular vote and Obama re-elected (I can't see it being the other way around) and then how quickly GOPers like Lewk start pushing for popular vote Presidencies (after spending the last 12 years against the idea) and vice-versa.

[Lewkowski]

Obama 287 (not even knowing if that's possible) + 0.5%
Republican House
Democrat Senate (52 Seats)

Though I think Obama may do even better than that, I can't see Romney winning either Ohio or the election as a result. I think it'd be immensely funny to see Romney win the popular vote and Obama re-elected (I can't see it being the other way around) and then how quickly GOPers like Lewk start pushing for popular vote Presidencies (after spending the last 12 years against the idea) and vice-versa.

I guarantee you if Obama loses popular vote but wins the electoral college I will not be in favor of changing the rules.

[Ominous Gamer]

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/
"For Romney to Win, State Polls Must Be Statistically Biased"

Obama: 305.3
Romney: 232.7

[Steely Glint]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19794259

Here's a thing where you can play around with the electorial college outcome

[Flixy]

Obama 303
+1 Obama
52
195

[Loki]

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/
"For Romney to Win, State Polls Must Be Statistically Biased"

Obama: 305.3
Romney: 232.7

I'm asking for your prediction, not to cite every poll aggregator.

[Ominous Gamer]

Yeah Steely!

[Steely Glint]

My prediction is that Barack wins Ohio, New Hampshire and Wisconsin but Mittens wins the rest of the battle ground states, resulting both candidates getting 269 electoral votes.

This is immediately followed by an increasingly bitter series of recounts, legal challenges, protests, accusations by both sides of electoral fraud and voter suppression which drags on well into 2013, which ultimately lead to violence and finally outright civil war. The Second America Civil War lasts from late 2013 to early 2017.

The early years of the war are characterized by horrific atrocities carried out by both sides, the increasingly bitter social divisions between Americans, exasperated by the sheer number of guns in America, had been bubbling under the surface now express frenzy of violence and bloodshed. By 2015, though, battle lines, territory and formal militaries had been established by both sides and the war continues in a somewhat more restrained fashion until its conclusion.

A series of attempted interventions by China, Europe and Russia around mid 2014 to seize America's nuclear weapons before they fall into to the hands of the more apocalyptically minded militias result in a blood bath and limited success.

The Republican side has the best of it at first, the red states being in general more heavily armed but eventually the industrial might and population of the north and California begins to tell and a treaty is signed in February 2017 with terms generally favorable to what is now the New England Coalition/California alliance. The United states of America is official dissolved, in it's place the Confederacy, the Republic of California and New England Coalition. The Confederacy uses this opportunity to annex Mexico, before eventually deciding that they don't want it. The peace between New England and the Confederacy remains fragile, however, and the border heavily militarized.

In the wider world, China has moved with enthusiasm to fill the power vacuum left by America and now holds uncontested dominion over Asia. The EU is now a full blown Federation, and it and China are now involved in a frantic arms race and are giving every sign of being at the beginning a new Cold War.

So use your vote people!

[Lewkowski]

My prediction is that Barack wins Ohio, New Hampshire and Wisconsin but Mittens wins the rest of the battle ground states, resulting both candidates getting 269 electoral votes.

This is immediately followed by an increasingly bitter series of recounts, legal challenges, protests, accusations by both sides of electoral fraud and voter suppression which drags on well into 2013, which ultimately lead to violence and finally outright civil war. The Second America Civil War lasts from late 2013 to early 2017.

The early years of the war are characterized by horrific atrocities carried out by both sides, the increasingly bitter social divisions between Americans, exasperated by the sheer number of guns in America, had been bubbling under the surface now express frenzy of violence and bloodshed. By 2015, though, battle lines, territory and formal militaries had been established by both sides and the war continues in a somewhat more restrained fashion until its conclusion.

A series of attempted interventions by China, Europe and Russia around mid 2014 to seize America's nuclear weapons before they fall into to the hands of the more apocalyptically minded militias result in a blood bath and limited success.

The Republican side has the best of it at first, the red states being in general more heavily armed but eventually the industrial might and population of the north and California begins to tell and a treaty is signed in February 2017 with terms generally favorable to what is now the New England Coalition/California alliance. The United states of America is official dissolved, in it's place the Confederacy, the Republic of California and New England Coalition. The Confederacy uses this opportunity to annex Mexico, before eventually deciding that they don't want it. The peace between New England and the Confederacy remains fragile, however, and the border heavily militarized.

In the wider world, China has moved with enthusiasm to fill the power vacuum left by America and now holds uncontested dominion over Asia. The EU is now a full blown Federation, and it and China are now involved in a frantic arms race and are giving every sign of being at the beginning a new Cold War.

So use your vote people!

Reminds me of Turtledove.

[Lewkowski]

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/
"For Romney to Win, State Polls Must Be Statistically Biased"

Obama: 305.3
Romney: 232.7

That is the argument that conservatives are making. That the poll models are assuming the D/R turnout will be similar to that of 2008. Another argument is that undecideds break for the challenger instead of the incumbent.

[Loki]

That is the argument that conservatives are making. That the poll models are assuming the D/R turnout will be similar to that of 2008. Another argument is that undecideds break for the challenger instead of the incumbent.

On what basis are you making this claim? Because it's patently untrue. Do you think all polling agencies are some combination of irrational and stupid?

[RandBlade]

On what basis are you making this claim? Because it's patently untrue. Do you think all polling agencies are some combination of irrational and stupid?

It's possible.

Collation of all the polls and the actual result of a 7% lead.

[Loki]

Believe it or not, the quality of polling has greatly improved in the last 20 years. US polling also far superior to British polling (it's done far more frequently, there's more money in it, and therefore it attracts better methodologists).

[RandBlade]

Not convinced on the quality difference between British or US based on recent results.

Either way though, errors have happened and can happen. I don't believe that it's going to be the case, but its not out of the realms of possibility.

[Loki]

Based on recent results? Averages of US polls predicted the last few elections almost flawlessly...

Errors can happen, but there will not be systematic errors in an obvious direction. The reputations of polling agencies are based on the accuracy of their predictions. They have every incentive out there to avoid making bad assumptions. It's conceivable that a few would make stupid assumptions about turnout, but to assume that about a majority of them would be to assume that your average Republican hack is more knowledgeable about polling than veteran pollsters.

As for the accuracy of British polls, you don't even have constituency-level polling. Predictions of the seat distribution on the Commons are based on incredibly simplistic assumptions that are unlikely to be anywhere near correct.

[LittleFuzzy]

I really don't care for fiddling with electoral maps and have no interest in looking that intensively at the Congressional races. But I think Obama will take ~+3% on the popular vote.

[Lewkowski]

On what basis are you making this claim? Because it's patently untrue. Do you think all polling agencies are some combination of irrational and stupid?

I believe polling folks look at previous elections when making their samples. They don't just call 1500 people and record those answers. They fiddle with the numbers because the voting population != the phone answering population. I'm not an expert on polls by any means and neither are you. But as Rand points out its not like polls show a 100% prediction rate.

Arguing about it for the next few days is rather moot. We'll find out on Tuesday if the polls were accurate or if there were some systemic problems.

[Loki]

I believe polling folks look at previous elections when making their samples. They don't just call 1500 people and record those answers. They fiddle with the numbers because the voting population != the phone answering population. I'm not an expert on polls by any means and neither are you. But as Rand points out its not like polls show a 100% prediction rate.

Arguing about it for the next few days is rather moot. We'll find out on Tuesday if the polls were accurate or if there were some systemic problems.

They look at previous elections, sure. They also look at the current situation. Again, they're neither stupid nor irrational. Do you really think people whose careers are contingent on making accurate predictions are less likely to take reality into account than partisan Republicans?

It's entirely conceivable that the polls could be off. The reason they're off will not be something as straightforward as what you're claiming though. It would have to be something unpredictable (at this point of time).

[Lewkowski]

They look at previous elections, sure. They also look at the current situation. Again, they're neither stupid nor irrational. Do you really think people whose careers are contingent on making accurate predictions are less likely to take reality into account than partisan Republicans?

It's entirely conceivable that the polls could be off. The reason they're off will not be something as straightforward as what you're claiming though. It would have to be something unpredictable (at this point of time).

So what you're saying is that your position is not falsifiable? If Romney loses the polls were right. If Romney wins then it was for some other reason. Hmmm...

[RandBlade]

I believe polling folks look at previous elections when making their samples. They don't just call 1500 people and record those answers. They fiddle with the numbers because the voting population != the phone answering population. I'm not an expert on polls by any means and neither are you. But as Rand points out its not like polls show a 100% prediction rate.

Arguing about it for the next few days is rather moot. We'll find out on Tuesday if the polls were accurate or if there were some systemic problems.

Pinning your hopes on a polling error is pretty desperate going though. The problem is if there is an error it is equally likely to be one underestimating Obama's support as it is one overestimating it.

The other problem is that Romney could easily win the popular vote, but that doesn't matter. He's simply not going to win Ohio - and without Ohio I don't see any plausible way to 270

[Lewkowski]

Pinning your hopes on a polling error is pretty desperate going though. The problem is if there is an error it is equally likely to be one underestimating Obama's support as it is one overestimating it.

Not if there is systemic oversampling of Democrats...

Like I said we'll see on Tuesday. I'm not 100% confident Romney is going to win - like I said I'm not an expert but I am an optimist.

[Loki]

So what you're saying is that your position is not falsifiable? If Romney loses the polls were right. If Romney wins then it was for some other reason. Hmmm...

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

I'll be falsified if the number there the day of the election is more than 2% off from the election result (in either direction).

[RandBlade]

Not if there is systemic oversampling of Democrats...

It's equally plausible that there's a systemic oversampling of Republicans...

And see my edit (not marked as one): "The other problem is that Romney could easily win the popular vote, but that doesn't matter. He's simply not going to win Ohio - and without Ohio I don't see any plausible way to 270"

[Lewkowski]

It's equally plausible that there's a systemic oversampling of Republicans...

And see my edit (not marked as one): "The other problem is that Romney could easily win the popular vote, but that doesn't matter. He's simply not going to win Ohio - and without Ohio I don't see any plausible way to 270"

Ohio is pretty critical, my guess was 287 which includes Ohio. Without Ohio its 267 and Romney loses.

And while anything is possible - the theory that Democrats are being over sampled stems from the idea that the 2008 turnout model is what pollsters are using. It was a record year for several groups (including the youth vote) that I doubt will be replicated.

[Loki]

Again, why are you assuming pollsters are stupid? Please give me a reason why they'd be so dense.

[RandBlade]

And while anything is possible - the theory that Democrats are being over sampled stems from the idea that the 2008 turnout model is what pollsters are using. It was a record year for several groups (including the youth vote) that I doubt will be replicated.

2008's turnout was considerably higher than any for decades - nearly half a century. The last time it was that high was 1964 and only time it was even close to that since was 1968.

Is it true Loki that turnout is simply mirrored on what was an exceptional year? It was my understanding that this was not the case?

[Loki]

The polling companies are basing their turnout expectations on the answers they get from the people they call (they ask questions that are proxies for "will you vote this November"). They have a better idea than any of us as to what portion of Democrats and Republicans are likely to turn out this year.