"If the general election were held today, Obama would lose to McCain, McCain would lose to Clinton."

NYT: Op-Ed Contributor
Vote by Numbers
By NEIL DEGRASSE TYSON
Published: June 6, 2008

....(I)f the general election were held today, Barack Obama would lose to John McCain, while Mr. McCain would lose to Mrs. Clinton.

This conclusion comes not from wishful thinking but from a new method of analysis on the statistics of polls that has been accepted for publication in the journal Mathematical and Computer Modeling. The authors, J. Richard Gott III, a professor at Princeton, and Wes Colley, a researcher at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, are not political scientists. They are astrophysicists. And one of the tasks of scientists is to clarify the apparent complexity of the universe by using the language of mathematics.

Here’s what they discovered: in swing states, the median result of all the polls conducted in the weeks prior to an election is an especially effective predictor of which candidate will win that election — even in states where the polls consistently fall within the margin of error.

This method provides a far more accurate assessment of public opinion than most people’s politically informed commentary. In the 2004 presidential election between John Kerry and George W. Bush, many political analysts said the race was too close to call. But when Professor Gott and Dr. Colley applied the median method in 2004, they correctly predicted the winner in 49 states, missing only Hawaii. That remarkable success left me wondering what result this method would give if I applied it to the 2008 presidential race. So I examined the past six weeks of polls, taken in 19 important states, that separately pitted Mrs. Clinton against Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama against Mr. McCain. The polls were compiled by realclearpolitics.com and include states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida....

When you complete this exercise for each state, Mr. Obama picks up Colorado, Iowa and New Mexico, three states that went Republican in 2004, but he also loses Michigan and New Hampshire, two states that Mr. Kerry had won. Mrs. Clinton loses the previously Democratic states of New Hampshire and Wisconsin, but she would nab 57 electoral votes from the Republicans by winning Florida, New Mexico, Nevada and Ohio. If the general election were held today, Mr. Obama would win 252 electoral votes as the Democratic nominee, while Mrs. Clinton would win 295. In other words, Barack Obama is losing to John McCain, and Hillary Clinton is beating him.

This analysis does not predict what will happen in November. But it describes the present better than any other known method does.

Poll results can shift, as Mrs. Clinton learned over the past year. The conventions held by both parties usually give candidates a bounce in the polls. Heavy campaigning in close states can swing the sentiments of undecided people. And political gaffes can turn voters away from one candidate and toward another. But these effects would show up monthly in the polls and be duly tracked by this method....

(Neil deGrasse Tyson, an astrophysicist and the author of “Death by Black Hole and Other Cosmic Quandaries,” is the host of “Nova scienceNOW.”)

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/06/opinion/06tyson.html?bl&ex=1213070400&en=751c11f3322c497f&ei=5087%0A

:popcorn:

as a campaign goes on. I was mostly curious about the methodology, and wondered if anyone had a clue about it.

and just throw it out there for anyone with any knowledge of this kind of methodology, or any other thoughts.

Nothing in this nation is going to improve before November. The choice is more of the same or taking a risk that anything has to be better. Just the fact that they're still asking about Hillary proves that reality isn't being dealt with.

I'd like to know if they asked about Hillary or Obama first while polling, or if they alternated, in which case, what was the breakdown when Obama/McCain was asked first or Hillary/McCain was asked first. IOW, did it matter that they still had a choice in Democrats?

From here on out, the polls won't be giving that choice, there's no point. THEN reality will begin to be dealt with.

And no poll is worth spit till after the conventions when we see the Veeps. McCain may have an ancient Mom, but his daddy is dead. People will want to see if they can live with his Veep.

Get on the boat of get off the boat.

On edit: I believe most all information is valuable. This may be completely crazy-ass, but these guys got themselves a NYT op-ed, and I was wondering if anyone who knew about this kind of thing had some thoughts.

Her question is NOT a flamebait post.

On Edit:

Snark, you have barely 1,000 posts and have been here a year.
DeepModem Mom has 33,000 posts and has been here at least 5 years.

I have an entire list of names I'm willing to use--absolutely, without hesitation.

Not one shred of dissenting opinion allowed. All must be in perfect agreement.

Totalitarians for Obama.

based on the statements by a small minority who probably are vicious in victory.

if the method was applied retrosepctively to the 1960 election for example to see how accurately it predicts what was the outcome. The state by state results of that must still be on file somewhere or other.

How good are polls? Do they test at every precinct in the country? All day? Including the polling of absentee voters?

This election should be a landslide. There will be racists voting for the wrong reason and wrecking some states. But issue by issue, very few people will be able to line up behind McCain and his policies.

There may be millions of people not voting again, which is their right (even if it is dumb as hell), but I don't think that the voters who do show up at the polls can honestly believe that McCain has anything to offer them that will improve their life.

and unlike any that's gone before.

We could have the same overall percentage show up to the polls but win big since people stay home for McCain and new people come out for Obama.

We could have a spike in voting thanks to the outreach programs.

As long as Bush doesn't get us all killed before November, it's going to be wild.

If Obama picks the right VP, and McCain doesn't pick somebody too awesome, this should be cake.

A good reason why astrophysicists shouldn't do politics - or economists - see Paul Krugman.

Let's start with the election is in 5 months and polls are not always accurate and Barack just finished a bruising campaign with Hillary. How does he account for these variables?

Duh.

It was alsmost as bad as Luttwak's recent piece about Muslims hating Barack.

He's at 252 electoral votes. Considering that he just came out of a really rough primary while McCain had 4 months of free-riding, I see nothing wrong with that. The media keeps asking Obama's people why the race is close even though the country disapproves of Bush's job. They should but don't follow th at up by asking McCain why the race is close even though he's had 4 months of free-riding to build a lead.

and for your honest assessment of where we (and McCain) are electorally. I've worked on campaigns, and while I see the absolute need for cheerleading for our candidates and keeping up enthusiasm, I also am interested in honesty re. our Dem candidates and the problems they might experience getting elected. It's very difficult in this country, for some reason, to get a Democrat elected President. If any year should make it easier, of course, this one should. But it's going to take all of Obama's great political gifts -- and he has many -- and a smart, massive effort at turning out voters, which his campaign has shown the ability to do.

So I'm very hopeful, but also interested in the problems we face, and how best to go about overcoming them. And I hope if I post articles that deal with this area of politics, it's not seen as lack of support for our candidates, or a lack of belief that we should, and can, win in November.

if you think about it state by state.

Most of the map is the same. There are a few swing states that affect the overall numbers a lot.

Biggest one is Florida -- good chance Obama will lose while Clinton would have won.

Michigan is another -- there's a small percentage still upset over the delegate standoff. That is likely to change.

I think a lot of it will be decided in the midwest -- Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa, Michigan. It's close and could go either way.

Obama does have a handicap in the deep south and Applachian areas. He has to overcome that.

but only in the immediate sense.

Obama has much more upside. As voters get to know him, they will feel more comfortable with him and his support should increase. A lot of Obama supporters here (including me) originally preferred other candidates.

The regional map is key. Voting patterns are pretty deeply ingrained and usually change slowly. The race issue is a real one, at least in some important states.

I do not see how the election will be a landslide (although a reelection might be). Still, there are enough things in Obama's favor for him to pull it off, not least of which are his own political skills.

cautiously optimistic, at best. I think Clinton would have had a definite advantage in some areas, and with some voter groups, for sure. That said, I think Obama has unique political gifts, and his campaign was brilliantly run. I see us on a generational cusp -- and Obama might have had a landslide the next election or two. This time, it looks close. But surely, surely Americans will not elect in November to stay on the same road to disaster we've been on for eight years!