2016 Postmortem

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts) Tue Nov 6, 2012, 02:56 PM Nov 2012

The official "talk me down" resource thread

http://thepage.time.com/2012/11/06/the-confidence-gap/

ANDREA MITCHELL: You’ve been talking to the campaigns. You were out so recently in Ohio and in Virginia with former President Clinton and President Obama. You’ve seen the emotion on both sides. What are you hearing today from the campaigns?

MARK HALPERIN: I’ve talked to people who have talked to the pollsters for both campaigns today. These are not people who work directly for the campaign but close associates, obviously, with access to pollsters. There’s a fundamental difference and it reflects what we’ve seen for the last couple weeks.The President’s team, given that they acknowledge they’re in a close race, they’re certain they’re going to win. They show no weakness, no doubt that they are going to win. The most confident I’ve seen a presidential campaign in my career, with the exception of President Clinton’s campaign in 1996 and they were not in a close race.

People on the Republican side say, “we can win.” “We might win.” Some of them go so far as to say, “I think we’re going to win.” But the degree of confidence, with few exceptions, is not nearly as high in the Romney camp as it is across the board in the Obama camp. Remember, we’re dealing with people like Joel Benenson, David Axelrod, David Plouffe. They are worriers. They are not people who easily say, “We’ve got this in the bag.” They’re people who sweat every detail and they’re supremely confident.

The bullshitters have stopped bullshitting. Get your ass out to vote, and then get ready to celebrate.

11 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The official "talk me down" resource thread (Original Post) geek tragedy Nov 2012 OP

Thank you. PsychProfessor Nov 2012 #1

It's hard to calm down, tho. I think of everything that COULD go wrong for us in addition to CTyankee Nov 2012 #2

Obama's team is all over that stuff--all over it. geek tragedy Nov 2012 #3

Oh, I'm sure they are, but a lot of my fears are quite of my own imagination! I think of all the CTyankee Nov 2012 #10

I'm so with you, CTYank. I do not trust these republican terrorists. loudsue Nov 2012 #7

I'm reading the same type of threads on DU Seedersandleechers Nov 2012 #4

Each issue of potential disenfranchisement is important. HOWEVER geek tragedy Nov 2012 #5

Independence of variables 1848minifesto Nov 2012 #6

Nate Silver is fully aware of correlations. geek tragedy Nov 2012 #9

You're right and my first step in recovery is.... qanda Nov 2012 #8

Love this thread and keep going back to it throughout the day budkin Nov 2012 #11

PsychProfessor

(204 posts)

1. Thank you.

Reply to geek tragedy (Original post)

Tue Nov 6, 2012, 03:00 PM

Nov 2012

Seriously, it seems like all Americans may need to just give up on Ohio for the next month while they decide WTF they are doing. The state has no business running an election there and hopefully the voters of the Buckeye State will do what they can to replace the incompetents they have in place there. Obama's people are confident because they do not need Ohio. If they win NH, VA, NV, and IA this election is over. We will not know if it is a blow out but we will know who the president will be.

CTyankee

(63,912 posts)

2. It's hard to calm down, tho. I think of everything that COULD go wrong for us in addition to

Reply to geek tragedy (Original post)

Tue Nov 6, 2012, 03:04 PM

Nov 2012

worries about vote suppression and rigged machines. It drives me a little nuts...

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)

3. Obama's team is all over that stuff--all over it.

Reply to CTyankee (Reply #2)

Tue Nov 6, 2012, 03:05 PM

Nov 2012

If you hear about it here, they heard about already.

CTyankee

(63,912 posts)

10. Oh, I'm sure they are, but a lot of my fears are quite of my own imagination! I think of all the

Reply to geek tragedy (Reply #3)

Tue Nov 6, 2012, 04:22 PM

Nov 2012

things that "could" happen, not that I know for sure or have even heard rumors of, happening.

loudsue

(14,087 posts)

7. I'm so with you, CTYank. I do not trust these republican terrorists.

Reply to CTyankee (Reply #2)

Tue Nov 6, 2012, 03:36 PM

Nov 2012

I can't handle any more of this being allowed in the USA. It's wrong. Everyone knows it's wrong. And it is being allowed.

Seedersandleechers

(3,044 posts)

4. I'm reading the same type of threads on DU

Reply to geek tragedy (Original post)

Tue Nov 6, 2012, 03:16 PM

Nov 2012

four years ago as I am today. Same threads about long lines, provisional ballots, intimidation, etc., and look how it turned out. I'm not saying the same shit isn't still going on - just that I'm trying to stay positive.

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)

5. Each issue of potential disenfranchisement is important. HOWEVER

Reply to Seedersandleechers (Reply #4)

Tue Nov 6, 2012, 03:19 PM

Nov 2012

There are tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of polling places out there.

It would be a miracle if there were no issues.

1848minifesto

(3 posts)

6. Independence of variables

Reply to geek tragedy (Original post)

Tue Nov 6, 2012, 03:31 PM

Nov 2012

As far as I can see, a basic assumption of some of the statistical models I see is independence. In other words, the polling in each state can be regarded as independent of other states. So, for example, if on the off chance that Obama loses Ohio, he'll make it up with Virginia... and of course there is next to no chance of him losing Pennsylvania or Wisconsin.

However a potential flaw in the model is that the data from each state is not independent - in other words that a factor that overestimates Obama's support in Ohio also overestimates it in Virginia.

For example, if the Bradley Effect is a factor in Ohio, it could well be a factor in neighboring states.

I still think Obama will win!

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)

9. Nate Silver is fully aware of correlations.

Reply to 1848minifesto (Reply #6)

Tue Nov 6, 2012, 03:39 PM

Nov 2012

He would have Obama at a 99% or so rating to win the WH if he didn't.

Because then it would be Romney having to win a certain number of states where he only has a 10% chance of winning.

So, if he needs Ohio and New Hampshire and only has a 10% chance at each, he only has a 1/100 chance.

qanda

(10,422 posts)

8. You're right and my first step in recovery is....

Reply to geek tragedy (Original post)

Tue Nov 6, 2012, 03:38 PM

Nov 2012

Logging out of DU for a while. See you guys later.

budkin

(6,703 posts)

11. Love this thread and keep going back to it throughout the day

Reply to geek tragedy (Original post)

Tue Nov 6, 2012, 04:26 PM

Nov 2012

Thanks

Reply to this discussion