4 ms·

Thank you, that's what I came here to say. All it takes is one gaffe from Obama to flip all the swing states in one shot. I'm not sure the 90% number means any

Thank you, that's what I came here to say. All it takes is one gaffe from Obama to flip all the swing states in one shot. I'm not sure the 90% number means anything at all. Perhaps it is an estimate of Obama's chances if the election were to be held NOW?

jrockway 18y ago
I'm not sure the 90% number means anything at all. Perhaps it is an estimate of Obama's chances if the election were to be held NOW? This is exactly what the text at the bottom of the page says.
mattmaroon 18y ago
No. It means he's ahead in so many states, that he'd pretty much have to do something big (and it's going to take more than a little faux pas) to fuck it up, and there's about a 10% chance of that.
- neilc 18y ago
  "This snapshot approach doesn't really predict upcoming regional or national shifts" So I don't think your interpretation is correct.
  - mattmaroon 18y ago
    Well, I'm certainly not arguing that these odds are correct overall. I figure there's a 10% chance we'll find out that either candidate once murdered a hooker at a party of Ted Kennedy's. I see now what is meant though by Eliezer's comment, I think I missed it at first. I'll have to think about the effect on the outcome though. Luckily I have lots of friends with math PhDs.
robg 18y ago
But it's not quite that dependent either. There are stages of dependencies. Some states hang together more tightly (Northeast, West Coast, and Deep South) than others (Midwest and Southeast). And gradual shifts can be detected through polling and pinned to real world events (conventions, crises, etc). The campaigns use game theory to move resources accordingly (see McCain now in Minnesota versus pulling out of Michigan). Obama has a very strong firewall. That's where, I guess, 538.com has taught me so much. The polls are a constant flow of changing opinions. But if your models are sensitive and well-designed you can see the slow wave shifts developing. It's not predictive, but history helps too. For instance, no candidate has ever been this far up, with this little time left, and lost.

jrockway 18y ago

I'm not sure the 90% number means anything at all. Perhaps it is an estimate of Obama's chances if the election were to be held NOW? This is exactly what the text at the bottom of the page says.

mattmaroon 18y ago

No. It means he's ahead in so many states, that he'd pretty much have to do something big (and it's going to take more than a little faux pas) to fuck it up, and there's about a 10% chance of that.

neilc 18y ago
"This snapshot approach doesn't really predict upcoming regional or national shifts" So I don't think your interpretation is correct.
- mattmaroon 18y ago
  Well, I'm certainly not arguing that these odds are correct overall. I figure there's a 10% chance we'll find out that either candidate once murdered a hooker at a party of Ted Kennedy's. I see now what is meant though by Eliezer's comment, I think I missed it at first. I'll have to think about the effect on the outcome though. Luckily I have lots of friends with math PhDs.

robg 18y ago

But it's not quite that dependent either. There are stages of dependencies. Some states hang together more tightly (Northeast, West Coast, and Deep South) than others (Midwest and Southeast). And gradual shifts can be detected through polling and pinned to real world events (conventions, crises, etc). The campaigns use game theory to move resources accordingly (see McCain now in Minnesota versus pulling out of Michigan). Obama has a very strong firewall. That's where, I guess, 538.com has taught me so much. The polls are a constant flow of changing opinions. But if your models are sensitive and well-designed you can see the slow wave shifts developing. It's not predictive, but history helps too. For instance, no candidate has ever been this far up, with this little time left, and lost.