2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumNew numbers from Nate Silver: 313 EV, 77.3% chance to win.
I believe that's a new forecast set of numbers, no explanation from Nate.. I believe both numbers are new highs. My guess is that more than anything else, the new, better numbers reflect continuing lousy bounce for the amateurish rethug convention. Too soon for any info re, the Democratic convention.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/
flamingdem
(39,303 posts)cilla4progress
(24,585 posts)PURE CLASS!
regnaD kciN
(26,035 posts)...but, as I keep pointing out, that figure is based on the special temporary model Nate developed, which built in correctives for any convention bounces. Much of Obama's jump in the odds is based on the lack of a significant bounce for the Republicans in the week following their convention. However, if you look at his regular model without those corrections -- what he calls the "Now-Cast" -- not only are Obama's odds for victory quite a bit lower than the figure you cite, but they have been dropping for the past few days, from 71.3% a few days ago to 69% yesterday to 67.7% today. Granted, a two-to-one advantage in the odds is something I think every candidate would love to have, but we all should keep in mind that the 77.3% is predicated on a decent convention bounce for us in the next few days and, if that's not forthcoming, those odds will rapidly drop toward the mid-to-high 60s. Not to be doom-and-gloomy, but just don't decide the sky is falling if the gaudy numbers we've been quoting don't hold up for long.
modrepub
(3,467 posts)The perception of the economy will shape the final weeks of the election. If things go well then Obama is almost assured of victory. If unemployment goes up, there are more announced large layoffs, the market tanks in October or the Europeans or Chinese zones implode (and drag us down) then it will be close. All this talk and such is just a lot of hot air.
WeekendWarrior
(1,437 posts)I, frankly, don't give a damn what the numbers show. Obama will win this election in spite of anyone's cold water. In a landslide.
Feel free to revisit this comment on November 7.
speedoo
(11,229 posts)I usually do, myself, but no one seems to pay attention when I do, so I left it out this time.
But I do agree with Nate's methodology on this. Obama needs a good bump just to keep the forecast numbers where they are right now.
Doctor Jack
(3,072 posts)He was only able to get to about 46% in the polls, which means he aint going higher than that. That tells us a lot about how well he is going to perform come election day, which is piss poor. That is a major reason why Obama is surging now.
Ghost of Tom Joad
(1,352 posts)is he kidding?
jimlup
(7,968 posts)central scrutinizer
(11,616 posts)and here is another site that is pretty accurate - he missed by 1 EV in 2008 (Omaha) although he did have both Indiana and Missouri wrong and those cancelled each other.
http://election.princeton.edu/
abumbyanyothername
(2,711 posts)Speculators playing a "sell the news" strategy on the dem convention.
And beyond that I would call any +/- 5% moves on Intrade noise. The market is quite thin and it is difficult to build up a meaningful position.
MjolnirTime
(1,800 posts)Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)Too many people get credit for predicting the '08 outcome like it was some uncertain thing. We knew Obama would win. We knew there was a good chance he was going to carry Ohio, Florida, Virginia and North Carolina. Yes, Indiana was a bit of a surprise, but on the whole, if you weren't close to the ultimate outcome, you probably were an idiot - because, frankly, it was obvious which way that direction was going to go.
TroyD
(4,551 posts)Tonight's update should factor in the poll bounces (eg. Gallup), but might also have to factor in the slow jobs growth from the report today.
Nate says that Bill Clinton has been a positive for Obama this week .
His most recent Tweet:
https://twitter.com/fivethirtyeight
Rowdyboy
(22,057 posts)Doctor Jack
(3,072 posts)Nice dark blue.