According to Nate Silver, there is approximately a one seventh chance of Romney getting the presidency. The statistical equivalent of being down by a field goal with three minutes to play. Maybe being down by a run with two outs and no one on base. Or in six on five hockey mode with a minute plus left. Barring something totally unconventional, Obama wins. Back to golf and drone air strikes. What Silver does not say is three minutes left but who has the football. The answer seems to be Obama trying to play ball control, pick up a first down and run out the clock by taking the knee. It seems to be the case as he presses all the micro electorates to get out and vote, even resorting to having his chef claim that Obama loves Hummus! and by extension is so Jewish! The whole exercise is totally ridiculous; to take Churchill’s phrase of never has so much been owed to so few regarding the aviators in the Battle of Britain, we can say never has so much be spent over so little.
We know Obama will open the floodgates to taxation and be unable to resist going into the pockets of those he is ostensibly saying he will protect. But very little of substance has been posited or invoked here as election issue. Its Hope and Change 2.0 and there doesn’t seem to be much impetus for civil disobedience because of it. If the rich and the lobbyists and the profiteers have learned how to game the system, Obama and Axelrod have learned how to game the electoral college. We really are a society of social gamers….
What is truly amazing in America is that country of its size and talent cannot make a watch, a shirt, an electric razor or most any electric appliance of a small scale, a motorcycle, an iron, dishes, and the list is endless. One thing America does seem to manufacture in copious amounts are thousands of talking head pundits who diss and piss all over the country, a kind of self-hatred, inferiority complex invective that is outside the purview of productive criticism of government policy. If America could find a way of exporting this other than dumping them back to their ancestral origins, the poisonous fifth column….
Barring a Nixon 1968 style “silent majority” the Obama machine gets into the end zone standing up:
(see link at end)…Our political Quote of the Day comes from the New York Times’ Nate Silver, who has come under attack recently from conservatives and Republicans for his forecast formula which puts President Barack Obama ahead. Silver — whose latest forecast gives Obama a 83% chance of winning and predicts Obama will get 305 electoral votes to Republican candidate Mitt Romney’s 232 — is adamant that while there is a chance many state polls could be wrong, all evidence points to the race NOT being too close to call:
This introduces the possibility that most of the pollsters could err on one or another side — whether in Mr. Obama’s direction, or Mr. Romney’s. In a statistical sense, we would call this bias: that the polls are not taking an accurate sample of the voter population. If there is such a bias, furthermore, it is likely to be correlated across different states, especially if they are demographically similar. If either of the candidates beats his polls in Wisconsin, he is also likely to do so in Minnesota.
The FiveThirtyEight forecast accounts for this possibility. Its estimates of the uncertainty in the race are based on how accurate the polls have been under real-world conditions since 1968, and not the idealized assumption that random sampling error alone accounts for entire reason for doubt.
To be exceptionally clear: I do not mean to imply that the polls are biased in Mr. Obama’s favor. But there is the chance that they could be biased in either direction. If they are biased in Mr. Obama’s favor, then Mr. Romney could still win; the race is close enough. If they are biased in Mr. Romney’s favor, then Mr. Obama will win by a wider-than-expected margin, but since Mr. Obama is the favorite anyway, this will not change who sleeps in the White House on Jan. 20.
His bottom line:
My argument, rather, is this: we’ve about reached the point where if Mr. Romney wins, it can only be because the polls have been biased against him. Almost all of the chance that Mr. Romney has in the FiveThirtyEight forecast, about 16 percent to win the Electoral College, reflects this possibility.
Yes, of course: most of the arguments that the polls are necessarily biased against Mr. Romney reflect little more than wishful thinking.
Nevertheless, these arguments are potentially more intellectually coherent than the ones that propose that the race is “too close to call.” It isn’t.