Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Nate Silver's Numbers Indicate Probable Obama Win, World Agrees

samzenpus posted about 2 years ago | from the popularity-contest dept.

Stats 881

An anonymous reader writes "The state-by-state election outcome probabilities today on Nate Silver's 538 imply a 97.7% probability for Obama to win 270 or more electoral college votes this coming Tuesday. A site that allows anyone but U.S. citizens vote seems to indicate that the rest of the world hopes these numbers are accurate. "

cancel ×

881 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Everyone loves a winner. (1, Insightful)

Ostracus (1354233) | about 2 years ago | (#41880949)

What's in it for the rest of the world if Obama wins?

Re:Everyone loves a winner. (5, Insightful)

Reverand Dave (1959652) | about 2 years ago | (#41880967)

4 years of not having to deal with Mitt Romney.

Re:Everyone loves a winner. (5, Insightful)

siddesu (698447) | about 2 years ago | (#41880979)

we get the devil we know. Romney's stance on anything is shifting way too rapidly. but i think the US deserved better than what is on offer.

Re:Everyone loves a winner. (5, Insightful)

evil_aaronm (671521) | about 2 years ago | (#41881295)

Agreed - "on offer" - but I wonder if Obama was all like, "I'm gonna come to Washington and kick. some. ass!" and then he found out that reality is different from idealism. Maybe it'll be different the second time around, and he'll actually deliver on the "change" promise, now that he doesn't have to worry about re-election. One can hope.

Re:Everyone loves a winner. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41881427)

He was a Senator from Illinois. He knew exactly how Washington works. The fact he sold the US population on smoke and mirrors and they were dumb enough to believe it is what is laughable.

US voters get exactly the government they deserve.

Re:Everyone loves a winner. (3, Insightful)

wvmarle (1070040) | about 2 years ago | (#41881435)

I've heard that sentiment before: hope he can deliver now, as he doesn't have to be re-elected.

The sad thing of this statement is that apparently if a politician fulfils his actual campaign promises, that his re-election is in jeopardy. That's a direct contradiction. A politician is elected on a certain platform, and fulfilling those promises should actually help a re-election - it means the politician is a man of his word, and that he does what he promises to do.

Re:Everyone loves a winner. (1)

pjabardo (977600) | about 2 years ago | (#41881451)

Do you think anyone this naive would get to be the Democratic candidate? He knew what he was getting into and probably let every one that mattered (wall street...) know it as well.

And by the way, everyone that voted for him should have known this. He didn't even try to hide it very well! Just saying "hope" and "change" while having Lawrence Summers as an advisor doesn't look like actual hope and change.

Re:Everyone loves a winner. (4, Insightful)

CreatureComfort (741652) | about 2 years ago | (#41881331)

I think the US is getting exactly what it deserves.

It's just my misfortune to be part of the apparent minority that would prefer a fact-based, non-dramatic, non-populist intelligent choice between two similarly valid, well reasoned world views with well articulated plans for future goals and methods.

The majority of mouth-breathing, drooling, sycophants with no knowledge or interest beyond their personal prejudices, greed, and entertainment... are getting exactly what they deserve.

Re:Everyone loves a winner. (3, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 2 years ago | (#41881399)

There are lot of factors that lead to this. The Media being a big deal. So is first past the poll and our unlimited campaign money.

If the debates were proper formal debates that would go a long way. I don't think enough americans care about that sort of thing though.

Re:Everyone loves a winner. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41880981)

A weaker America with a flaccid military.

Re:Everyone loves a winner. (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 2 years ago | (#41881227)

Flaccid of course being a completely relative term. "Hard as a rock? Uh... you should probably see a doctor. That's not natural."

Re:Everyone loves a winner. (3, Insightful)

brian0918 (638904) | about 2 years ago | (#41880993)

More central bank bailouts and foreign aid, at least in theory. In practice, I don't think Romney will do anything differently in that regard.

Slightly less dysfunction (5, Insightful)

Kupfernigk (1190345) | about 2 years ago | (#41881041)

Compared to Romney, Obama is likely to be somewhat less friendly to hedge funds and private equity companies, since they drive up prices and reduce jobs and wages for the profit of individuals. Full employment in the US, more middle class spending power, and lower commodity prices are better for everybody. More money in the hands of the very few is bad for everybody else. Romney is a representative of exactly those very few.

Re:Slightly less dysfunction (-1, Troll)

XxtraLarGe (551297) | about 2 years ago | (#41881251)

Full employment in the US, more middle class spending power, and lower commodity prices are better for everybody.

Sounds like things are going to be so awesome when Obama is president! I can hardly wait! Oh, wait...

I'm not that optimistic (5, Insightful)

Kupfernigk (1190345) | about 2 years ago | (#41881395)

I identified the things that, if they happened to the US economy, would be a net benefit to the rest of the world. I do not expect that they will necessarily happen if Obama returns. But I can be fairly sure that under Romney the corporate rape of the American middle class would get worse, not better.

Re:Everyone loves a winner. (5, Insightful)

TBedsaul (95979) | about 2 years ago | (#41881061)

A smaller chance of being "liberated".

Re:Everyone loves a winner. (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#41881103)

Obama or Romney, doesn't matter. Drones and indefinite detentions for all suspects.. and the banks get all your money.

Re:Everyone loves a winner. (5, Funny)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 2 years ago | (#41881273)

Obama or Romney, doesn't matter. Drones and indefinite detentions for all suspects.. and the banks get all your money.

In other news - aluminum foil manufacturers see bright future.

Re:Everyone loves a winner. (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#41881383)

It's happening now. What makes you think anything is going to change?

Re:Everyone loves a winner. (5, Insightful)

Alkonaut (604183) | about 2 years ago | (#41881121)

Quite a few things, for example less sword rattling in the Iran/Israel region (A war would reduce US purchasing power and affect global economy just like Iraq did). Less of a "trade war" with China (calling them a "currency manipulator on day one" certainly doesn't help trade & relations.

Apart from these things that actually may affect me, I'd enjoy seeing that the greatest power in the world can hold an election that can't be bought or stolen by special interests. Would also be refreshing to see that the greatest democracy in the world have policies on reproduction/abortion/education/science that can't be mistaken for Taliban policies. That, and watching Fox News pundits heads explode for a week.

Re:Everyone loves a winner. (5, Insightful)

AdamHaun (43173) | about 2 years ago | (#41881127)

What's in it for the rest of the world if Obama wins?

An American President who isn't xenophobic and war-crazy. It's not that complicated.

Re:Everyone loves a winner. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41881271)

The World wants Obama because the World hates America. They know that Obama is bad for America.

Look at the last 4 years of "Hope and Change" for the worse...

Re:Everyone loves a winner. (5, Insightful)

sribe (304414) | about 2 years ago | (#41881141)

What's in it for the rest of the world if Obama wins?

A president that engages with leaders around the world, actively involves them in decisions, generally works with them as partners rather than unilaterally starting wars. Compare Libya to Iraq...

Re:Everyone loves a winner. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41881333)

Also a President that will "detain" anyone "suspected" of terrorism. If the rest of the world cant' be free, why should America?

Of course the world wants Obama. They've seen what's happened to America the last 4 years, and they are rooting for more of the same.

Re:Everyone loves a winner. (5, Insightful)

dkleinsc (563838) | about 2 years ago | (#41881159)

- Small-scale and covert actions in the Middle East rather than massive invasions with hundreds of thousands killed.
- The US remaining a viable trading partner.
- A president that knows basic geography ("Syria is Iran's route to the sea")

I mean, I think a lot of it boils down to this: Mitt Romney isn't all that smart. He got to where he was by being born rich and being very good at lying. Obama, for all his many faults, is at least not a complete moron.

Re:Everyone loves a winner. (4, Insightful)

clickclickdrone (964164) | about 2 years ago | (#41881185)

A country that's not ruled by someone who believes in a crazy religion? Alas, it really is a case of not so much wanting Obama as *really* not wanting more religious-right wing nut jobs in the White House.

Re:Everyone loves a winner. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41881307)

to be fair Obama still believes in a crazy religion (Christian religion, not Islam, not that i would care either way), its just a matter of degrees, but i agree, i would rather not have someone who thinks god is informing his policy therefore it is without fault. Obama may or may not think this way privately but at least he doesn't show it publicly.

Re:Everyone loves a winner. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41881437)

Nah, he doesn't really, neither does Romney. But Obama's supporters tend to be less religious so he can pay them less lip-service than Romney must.

Re:Everyone loves a winner. (3, Insightful)

evil_aaronm (671521) | about 2 years ago | (#41881327)

Re: "religious right wing nut jobs," I'm really puzzled by how so many people don't get this. Like it was such fun the other times round?

Re:Everyone loves a winner. (4, Insightful)

joaosantos (1519241) | about 2 years ago | (#41881289)

Obama is slightly less likely to do things like starting a WW3. Besides that in most of the world Obama would be seen as a right wing politician, so do your math to find where that would put Romney.

Re:Everyone loves a winner. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41881301)

A US president that is both fair and competent in foreign policy. That is great for the US, and that is great for the world (at least the parts of the world that don't want death to the US). Maybe Romney will be as competent and fair, but given his lack of experience and his neo-conservative allies, I very much doubt it.

Why am I interested in this? Besides general interest in politics and the world, my country has fought alongside the US several times since the ending of the cold war. And the change in competence from Bush to Obama is much appreciated.

Re:Everyone loves a winner. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41881407)

Sane leadership

Re:Everyone loves a winner. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41881415)

What's in it for the rest of the world if Obama wins?

we keep Romney's cadre of neoconservative foreign policy whack jobs out power preventing them from reinstating the Bush doctrine and starting wars with false rationales saving hundreds of thousands of lives, 100s of billions of dollars and avoiding regional mayhem and impacts that would take a generation from which to recover

Don't Count on it... (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41880961)

FBHO

Figures don't lie... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41880965)

But liars figure.

boo (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41880973)

boo

What happened? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41880975)

God, I miss Slashdot. I read it for so many years and now it's gone. Just another political propaganda site and day old news.

It IS geek news (4, Informative)

Tony (765) | about 2 years ago | (#41881057)

Nate Silver's use of statistics is geeky. Really. That's about all he talks about -- not politics, but statistics. (Well, and sports, but even there, he's all about the statistics.)

Re:It IS geek news (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41881213)

No, you've got it all wrong. He's not a math geek, he's a propagandist engaging in a liberal conspiracy [slashdot.org] to get Obama re-elected. Obviously.

Re:It IS geek news (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41881231)

Ya know what's geek news? The slain CIA agent in Benghazi who reported his fears for being killed on Eve. Which was one of the first snippets of info to come out that showed they knew something was up while the Obama administration ignored them.

Funny I didn't see that article on slashdot...

Re:It IS geek news (2)

Alkonaut (604183) | about 2 years ago | (#41881317)

Funny the article/link/source didn't show up now that you mentioned it, either.

Re:It IS geek news (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41881349)

Nobody is paying attention to Eve Online anymore. Just get over it.

Re:It IS geek news (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 2 years ago | (#41881439)

You think the president is deeply involved in every CIA operation?

Would that not destroy plausible deniability?

Re:What happened? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41881153)

careful you will get modded down because you speak against the group think...

Re:What happened? (1)

El Puerco Loco (31491) | about 2 years ago | (#41881197)

I'm pretty sure the second post on /. was something like this.

F the world (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41880989)

If the US were Europe, the world will be a far worse place.

Re:F the world (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 2 years ago | (#41881319)

If the US were Europe, the world will be a far worse place.

Certainly. Then you'd have Texas instead of Spain. Then YOU ALL would have had to deal with George Bush.

You know, you folks really owe us a debt of gratitude.....

I flunked out of electoral college (5, Interesting)

paiute (550198) | about 2 years ago | (#41881005)

Now does anyone have data on whether the forecasting of a win discourages the supporters or opponents of the projected winner from actually voting?

uhh (5, Interesting)

nomadic (141991) | about 2 years ago | (#41881009)

The link to FiveThirtyEight says Silver predicts an 86.3% chance of an Obama victory. The "97%" link is to an anonymous python script and output at a different site. Could we get some context here?

Re:uhh (1)

cplusplus (782679) | about 2 years ago | (#41881387)

Click on the "President Now Cast" link right next to it. That's the chances if the election were held today.

Re:uhh (1)

cplusplus (782679) | about 2 years ago | (#41881411)

Holy cached copy, batman! I refreshed and now see only 88%, similar to what you described. Doh!

Re:uhh (3, Informative)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | about 2 years ago | (#41881393)

Princeton Election consortium is projecting 99.9% win for obama. Dr Sam Wang is a very well respected professor of statistics. His methods are public. Votamatic has been projecting Obama win for a long time. Obama was leading in Nate's estimate for a long time. The high water mark for Romney was about 40% chance immediately after the first debate.

For the love of God All-mighty (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41881011)

Vote for the Mormon or you'll get the Muslim. Communism is NOT THE ANSWER.

Re:For the love of God All-mighty (5, Funny)

slim (1652) | about 2 years ago | (#41881063)

Vote for the Mormon or you'll get the Muslim. Communism is NOT THE ANSWER.

As a Brit, I honestly have no idea whether this is parody or not.

Re:For the love of God All-mighty (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41881249)

Vote for the Mormon or you'll get the Muslim. Communism is NOT THE ANSWER.

As a Brit, I honestly have no idea whether this is parody or not.

As a foreigner having been living legally in a Southern American State for quiet a few years, I can inform you that it is sadly not a parody. It is frankly a very scary belief by many.

Re:For the love of God All-mighty (4, Interesting)

AdamHaun (43173) | about 2 years ago | (#41881285)

As a Brit, I honestly have no idea whether this is parody or not.

It's a reference to a church sign seen in rural Texas:

http://gawker.com/5953608/quaint-texas-church-tells-people-to-vote-for-the-mormon-not-the-muslimyou-should-stop-by-and-pray-sometime [gawker.com]

Whether the commenter was taking it seriously, I have no idea.

Re:For the love of God All-mighty (3, Funny)

Alkonaut (604183) | about 2 years ago | (#41881287)

For a long while I thought Mitt's official twitter account was a parody account.

Re:For the love of God All-mighty (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 2 years ago | (#41881361)

Not funny enough to be sarcasm. Not insightful enough to be irony. Logically inconsistent.

87.83% chance this represents somebody's reality.

Re:For the love of God All-mighty (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41881431)

Some people lack half a brain and claim Obama is a muslim and a socialist/nationalist.

Unfortunately that half a brain is replaced by some 'holy' book, which they will rant and rave about; believing that their book of fairy tales is correct and the other 100 are not.

Obama's a muslim, HAARP controls the weather, 9-11 was pre placed explosives... dot dot dot

Re:For the love of God All-mighty (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41881171)

Niether is crack, put down the pipe!

Re:For the love of God All-mighty (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41881195)

Seriously, the Teaparty Nutjob arguments were old four years ago. I'm pretty sure that four years of empirical evidence shows that Obama is neither a communist nor a Muslim. Whatever you think of his policies, both of these assertions are false.

Only need 270 to win. (4, Informative)

Guano_Jim (157555) | about 2 years ago | (#41881021)

The combination of the headline and TFS might be construed as "Nate Silver says that Obama's got a 97.7% chance of winning the election," which isn't quite true.

I think it's more accurate to say that Nate Silver predicts an 86.3% chance of Obama winning 270 electoral votes.

Because the NYT Track Record... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41881023)

...is a shining example of nonpartisan analysis, sound statistics, and rational thought.

Re:Because the NYT Track Record... (4, Informative)

Kozar_The_Malignant (738483) | about 2 years ago | (#41881187)

...is a shining example of nonpartisan analysis, sound statistics, and rational thought.

That's a pretty good description of Nate Silver and why people pay attention to him.

97.7% (2)

Tony (765) | about 2 years ago | (#41881027)

Bwah? 97.7%? I'm only seeing an 86.3% chance.

Or is the "Chance of winning" sidebar item incorrect?

Taking a hint from the last election (1, Interesting)

tompaulco (629533) | about 2 years ago | (#41881029)

Taking a hint from the last election, if the news outlets all say that Obama will win, then everybody will vote for Obama because everybody loves to vote for the winner. They got him in last time and they are doing their best to get him in this time. Not that I think Romney is great either, but Obama has just been awful for our country, for international relations, and for me personally.

Re:Taking a hint from the last election (5, Funny)

Gunnut1124 (961311) | about 2 years ago | (#41881089)

Please, share your anecdote about how bad President Obama has been for you personally. Did he kick your dog?

No (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41881133)

He ate his dog.

Re:Taking a hint from the last election (5, Funny)

spiritplumber (1944222) | about 2 years ago | (#41881217)

No, the dog was securely strapped to the car's roof.

Re:Taking a hint from the last election (2)

Revotron (1115029) | about 2 years ago | (#41881107)

On the one hand though, if somebody votes for a candidate solely on the basis that they think the candidate is more likely to win, then that person is an impressionable idiot, and was probably going to vote for that candidate anyway.

Just sayin'.

Re:Taking a hint from the last election (5, Insightful)

AdamHaun (43173) | about 2 years ago | (#41881239)

Taking a hint from the last election, if the news outlets all say that Obama will win, then everybody will vote for Obama because everybody loves to vote for the winner.

I know conspiracy theories are fun, but it is possible to measure this stuff. The aggregate polling data has pretty consistently shown Obama ahead for the entire election. The news media are currently overstating Romney's chances by calling it a toss-up (and indeed, they are still doing so). They had no qualms about reporting Romney's huge gains after the first convention. Poll aggregators have actually been drawing flack from mainstream pundits who like to pretend there's a neck-and-neck horse race when there isn't. The media's interest is in a close race where they have something to talk about.

Re:Taking a hint from the last election (4, Insightful)

clickclickdrone (964164) | about 2 years ago | (#41881261)

but Obama has just been awful for our country, for international relations,

No, that was the last one. Obama repaired a *lot* of the damage Bush did. His 'kill list' is less than smart though and on paper, his domestic policies haven't been great but then he's been hamstrung by the Republican's trying to block him at every turn, effectively paralysing his ability to function. Whilst the US system is pretty good, it can be really misused and this last 4 years is a textbook example of how to do that.

Re:Taking a hint from the last election (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41881323)

Obama has done a damn sight better for your International Relations, after the Bush years when you burnt just about every bridge you had and pissed off the entire world, even your closest allies, it's taken a lot of work to win even some of that trust back again. Basically Bush sold America's leadership of the free world in return for the invasion of Iraq and it was a bum deal. Romney would destroy those small gains and you would lose the world forever.

97.7% is not Silver's number (4, Informative)

AdamHaun (43173) | about 2 years ago | (#41881043)

Nate Silver puts the odds at around 87%, largely based on the chance of there being a systematic offset in the polling data. Still looks pretty good for Obama, though. Fingers crossed.

Re:97.7% is not Silver's number (0)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 2 years ago | (#41881429)

Fingers crossed.

Leather straps tightened.
Whips wetted.
Tumbscrews lubricated.

Yep, ready for more fun!

votevotevote.net's Sample Size (5, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | about 2 years ago | (#41881053)

A site that allows anyone but U.S. citizens vote seems to indicate that the rest of the world hopes these numbers are accurate.

Okay so you're talking about roughly six and a half billion people. As of the writing of this post, votevotevote.net's page says:

1050 VOTES have been received

Furthermore can someone point me to, say, a Chinese version of votevotevote.net's page? I mean, surely you'd want to represent the largest population of the world or are you simply relying on the rest of the world to speak English? And you're going to then utilize that as evidence that the rest of the world hopes that Obama wins? Surely this site isn't even worth mentioning in a news context.

Re:votevotevote.net's Sample Size (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41881265)

It is rubbish, far better is the BBC's world wide poll http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20008687

In short, the world prefers Obama / any Democrat over Republicans as the Democrats tend to sit and talk with us to where-as Republicans tend to just bomb the shit out of us... OK, over-simplification for comedic effect but not far off.

Re:votevotevote.net's Sample Size (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41881315)

Population size has nothing to do with the sample size required for statistical significance. Effect size does, and with the votes currently standing at about 85% in favour of Obama, 1000 or so is more than enough, by a very long way. There are going to be strong biases in the sample, but that's a problem of sampling method, not sample size.

But then, most Slashdotters know bugger all about statistics and will mod you up anyway. Complaining about sample sizes is pretty much a guarantee of +5.

panthers say NOBAMA! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41881073)

the panthers whooped the Redskins this weekend..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redskins_Rule

-dirtbag

Um, Nate Silver's own Nov. 4 estimate is 86.3% (4, Informative)

TwobyTwo (588727) | about 2 years ago | (#41881085)

According to today's actual posting from Nate Silver, the same data leads him to conclude an 86.3% chance of an Obama win in the electoral college. Still high, but your "Nate Silver's Numbers Project..." headline is true if parsed carefully, but very misleading. If you want to say "I conclude from Nate Silver's numbers...", well fine.

Silver's Nov. 4 post is at: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/05/nov-4-did-hurricane-sandy-blow-romney-off-course/ [nytimes.com] (paywall :-( )

Linked Article is Inaccurate (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41881087)

The linked article does not show the actual histogram from Nate Silver's site. The author errs in his script for producing the histogram by assuming that state-by-state probabilities are independent. Nate Silver's actual blog shows that Obama has an 86.3% chance of winning. (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/)

But... The Redskins... (1)

broginator (1955750) | about 2 years ago | (#41881123)

But the Redskins lost, doesn't he know about the Redskins Rule [wikipedia.org] ?

anyone but U.S. citizens (0)

Errol backfiring (1280012) | about 2 years ago | (#41881131)

This "anyone but U.S. citizen" hopes the US ditch their two-party system and become a real democracy.

As a Canadian (3, Insightful)

bravecanadian (638315) | about 2 years ago | (#41881147)

I can only hope that Nate is correct.

I'm not saying that Obama has done a great job. I think he squandered a lot of the extreme level of public goodwill that he had coming into office. However, he did drag the US kicking and screaming into the first world by passing healthcare reform (even if it didn't end up single payer thanks to campaign contributions to even his own party) and he did manage to blunt some of the economic disaster he was left with.. on the other hand he definitely should have thrown a ton of the wall streeters into jail instead of inviting them right back into the White House, but that is how the game is played now. It is the golden rule. Those with the gold make the rules.

Romney on the other hand is hard to pin down. He has taken every stance available on every issue. For the slashdot crowd, the fact that his numbers just don't add up should be a big red flag as well. In his desperation to get elected he just tells whatever crowd he is in front of exactly what they want to hear.. facts be damned.

The polarization, name calling, and divisiveness in politics is at an obscene level in the USA right now and unfortunately Canada isn't far behind. Truth seems to have gone right out the window.

The spending on elections is disgusting.

I'm so glad it will be over either way..

Assuming everyone can vote? (2)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 2 years ago | (#41881155)

Is this based on polling data where everyone assumes
-they will not be told they lack sufficient ID to exercise their right to vote
-they will not be told they failed to register through the proper procedure
-the polling location was open during normal business hours
-their eligibility to vote has not been challenged by "Americans for Happy Fun Love" funded by conservative activists to accuse voters of being felons and therefore unable to vote
-they have not been notified via a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard' that they weren't able to vote for some other reason
-the electronic voting machine will register their vote for someone who is not closely associated with the owner of the machine and software
-other reasonable-sounding assumptions that may not be safe assumptions?

Re:Assuming everyone can vote? (4, Informative)

dkleinsc (563838) | about 2 years ago | (#41881339)

-the electronic voting machine will register their vote for someone who is not closely associated with the owner of the machine and software

At least in Ohio, which everyone thinks is the only state that counts, that fear is probably unfounded. The reasons for this:
1. The vast majority of votes will be cast using optical scan machines that were put in place in 2005 (by a Democrat), leave a paper trail, and have been used for several elections already without anything untoward showing up. That means that in order for Romney to win (based on recent polling), he'd need to make 100% of the electronic-only votes go for Romney, which would look a wee bit suspicious.
2. Tagg Romney doesn't have much control [snopes.com] .

He's probably right. (5, Interesting)

yog (19073) | about 2 years ago | (#41881165)

But winning the battle won't win the war. Mr. Obama will be weakened by the divisive campaign; the electorate is bitterly split, and he will find Congress harder to work with. The members of Congress will be acutely aware that 48 or 49% of the popular vote went to his opponent (and he may even lose the popular vote). They will be less willing to go out on a limb to support his policies unless they are from strongly pro-Obama districts, and the average district will be closer to a 49-51 split.

This year's elections reflect a very divided country that is uncertain how to proceed. As the wars wind down, the economy will be the foremost topic on most people's minds, and Mr. Obama has only a minority of the people's support on economic issues. Probably, we will have four years of deadlock and uncertainty followed by the 2016 presidential elections which will either vindicate Mr. Obama's big government approach, or relegate him to the history books.

Just my humble opinions :)

I hope that everyone votes tomorrow, regardless of your choice. The best possible outcome is that everyone votes; that way, the elections more fully reflect the will of the people, so that we can put this nastiness behind us, let bygones be bygones, and move on. Democracy -- gotta love it! The worst possible form of government, except for all the other forms of government (Winston Churchill).

Re:He's probably right. (3, Interesting)

vlm (69642) | about 2 years ago | (#41881459)

This year's elections reflect a very divided country that is uncertain how to proceed.

Sure its not the opposite? A nearly 50/50 means both sides played well and almost perfectly figured the exact lies to tell to get 51% of the electoral vote.

Using made up numbers, its like the stereotypical Right Left value to get 50% of the vote is exactly 7.1, so the right guy played at 7.095 and the left guy played at 7.105 and its all down to who looks nicer on the camera or whatever. I guess its extremely clear the winner will only be 0.05 off the R/L scale compared to what the electorate wants. I claim this is today's situation.

No idea what to do is when its a blowout. Lets say one side has a professional politician and the other side has the village idiot and the same 7.100 R/L gameplay position will win half the votes. So the pro aims at a 7.105 score and the moron goes for 3.995. Well its probably going to be a blow out win for the pro, but all we know "for certain" about what the population wants, is the aggregate will of the electorate is somewhere between 4.000 and 7.100, who really know for sure. I claim this is like Reagan's second term.

Nearly 50/50 means both sides know what lies the population likes to hear. Its only a blowout when one side has absolutely no idea what lies the population likes to hear.

There is also a temporal anomaly in that at least on the R side you need to go hard core neo to get the nomination and then intense middle ground to have a hope of election... so which lies were true? Is he a complete loon or merely slightly right of center? In other words the challenger is always less predictable than the incumbent because of the nomination process.

Did you ever wonder why (2, Insightful)

Lucas123 (935744) | about 2 years ago | (#41881201)

Why is it we need to be told over and over who will win the election before the voting even takes place?

Re:Did you ever wonder why (4, Funny)

Joehonkie (665142) | about 2 years ago | (#41881309)

So we can vote the right way! How will I know who to vote for if I don't know who everyone else is voting for?

The 97.7% is an interpretation (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41881209)

It is worth noting (as the summary currently does not) that the 97.7% is an interpretation of the results found in the 538 blog(*). The 538 blog itself only mentions a 86 overall predicted chance according to its author's models in the latest entry.

As I have read Nate Silver's 538 blog over the past few months, he seems to be going out of his way to state that he only predicting the statistical likelyhood of who may win, and the election may go to the other candidate regardless of the odds (or if his model is wrong). Meanwhile many other news sources seem to shove definite answers down his throat.

Let's not try to make the same mistake here.

(*) 538 = number of votes in the Electoral College [wikipedia.org]

Better... (2, Interesting)

WGFCrafty (1062506) | about 2 years ago | (#41881215)

better the devil you know than the devil who won't tell you anything substantial about his devious plans, if they even exist.

Re:Better... (3, Informative)

yog (19073) | about 2 years ago | (#41881299)

http://www.mittromney.com/ [mittromney.com]

Lots of information there on Romney's policies and ideas.

Why not simply inform yourself, rather than repeat these tiresome and slanted charges planted in your mind by partisan news sources?

What about vote tampering? (3, Informative)

mrquagmire (2326560) | about 2 years ago | (#41881221)

Does this model account for any direct or indirect vote tampering?

Of course they do --- he can't take their guns (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41881263)

or interfere in their ability to purchase them, or limit what is available for them to purchase (South Korea wanted to return several hundred thousand M1 rifles and carbines, but Obama's State Department only allowed the rifles and the Civilian Marksmanship Program is pretty much out of carbines).

is the election over yet? [*] (4, Insightful)

Thud457 (234763) | about 2 years ago | (#41881305)

This shit is ridiculous. In this age of modern speed-of-light communications, it takes TWO YEARS to choose a president. In George Washington's time, it took less time to visit every town on horseback and make his case.


Oh, and thanks to Florida's genius governor, Rick Scott, cutting early voting short, you've got a good chance of another six weeks of court battles an recounts.

Dissonance (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41881375)

The real question is why Nate Silver only gives Obama 85% odds when his state-by-state numbers indicate 97%. According to this Princeton professor, it's because Nate has a bad model:

"My point is that his measure is (a) not actually a probability, (b) it is statistically poorly constructed, and (c) it does not give us a clean read on today or Election Day. I believe what it gives us is conventional-wisdom betting odds. This is fine for entertainment purposes, it’s about like relying on InTrade for hurricane forecasting!"
http://election.princeton.edu/2012/08/02/a-flaw-in-the-nyt-now-meter/

All the more reason to VOTE! (0)

na1led (1030470) | about 2 years ago | (#41881381)

And kick Obama out of office!

Regardless of what the polls say (2, Insightful)

stox (131684) | about 2 years ago | (#41881389)

PLEASE VOTE!!!!!!

Does it really matter who wins? (0)

Scutter (18425) | about 2 years ago | (#41881405)

Our choice this year is either John Jackson or Jack Johnson. Two moderates who won't do anything substantial except work to erode more of our freedom, privacy, and wallets.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?