The Song Fight Bulletin Board

This is a little silly with only ten days out, but here we go. I've been playing with these maps for months.

I've been skeptical about Indiana flipping, just as I was about West Virginia flipping, and while I was proven right by WV's pendulum swing-return to red, the Indiana numbers have been a steady trend toward Barack Obama, this time with four polls showing even or (way) better. I'm hesitant but willing to call it blue on Nov. 4th.



WV does remain an interesting prospect, and voter turnout could make all the difference. It was once considered a safe democrat holding - WV voted for Jimmy Carter both times and for Michael god-damned Dukakis. Clinton carried it both times, but it's been red ever since.

My friend and I had a discussion about Obama's absolute ceiling, should McCain seriously screw up/turnout destroy expectations, and I call it 387. WV is the first to flip, then ND and MT for 386, plus one for Omaha, since Nebraska splits its electoral votes. I don't see Georgia flipping, so I call the ceiling at 387.

Now it's your turn. Go to Real Clear Politics and play with the map.

I hate those maps. Anyone else hate those maps? How about when some CNN wonk stands in front of a 8000 foot touch screen and slides around, zooming in to each county and switching it from red to blue? Or cars at the toll booth "what if this Honda Accord was driven by Obama when he car pooled with Ayers?" or "what if the bumper sticker on this '97 Cutlass was a McCain sticker instead?"

Yeah, I understand the point of graphically playing out scenarios and what-ifs. I just hate those maps.

This, from a solid blue state where my vote will have little true bearing on the outcome, of course.

roymond wrote:I hate those maps. Anyone else hate those maps?

I am definitely over this whole "election" thing. How on earth can you put up with that crap for almost 2 years? Worse still - there is a Kiwi election coming up too (but I guess you all knew that). True, the whole "campaign period" here has only been about six weeks - but it is terminally boring.

There was one funny bit the other day when some National Party redneck made a comment about how Asians are better fruit pickers than Pacific Islanders because they have small, nimble hands and Islanders do not know how to use a toilet properly. But that was about the only high point.

But seriously - is it not natural that Sober can get so excited about this. It's not healthy. Hasn't he discovered alcohol or masturbation?

I guess I just like it because it shows how pitifully hopeless it is for McCain. To win, he must:

• Win every tossup - meaning NV, MO, FL, NC, and IN
• Hold his ground in MT, ND, WV, and GA
• Recoup his 6 point deficit in OH
• Accomplish one of the following:
  • Win PA
  • Win VA and CO
  • Win VA and NM

Note that every tossup listed above has a democratic lean. Flipping 7-8 states with an average deficit of 4 points is, well, unlikely. A single loss by McCain in any state listed will result in an Obama win.

And Ray, I jack off drunk to polls daily.

roymond wrote:Yeah, I understand the point of graphically playing out scenarios and what-ifs. I just hate those maps.

Why?

erik wrote:

roymond wrote:Yeah, I understand the point of graphically playing out scenarios and what-ifs. I just hate those maps.

Why?

OK, maybe I really just hate how they are the focus of the coverage at times, rather than the issues. That pundits are obsessed with the hue of the electoral collage rather than the candidate's character. And this turns into a horse race rather than a national election. As I said, I understand analysis and tracking polls. But just as tracking your stock portfolio on a daily basis isn't productive, flipping Virginia from red to blue interactively while regurgitating the same stats and dozens of "possible" scenarios doesn't educate viewers, it just shows off the technology. It's the real-time thinking-out-loud that bothers me. You know what? Prepare your analysis, then come back and tell me a story. Election day is the high wire act, not every single one of the preceding 365 days.

roymond wrote:OK, maybe I really just hate how they are the focus of the coverage at times, rather than the issues....
It's the real-time thinking-out-loud that bothers me. You know what? Prepare your analysis, then come back and tell me a story.
Election day is the high wire act, not every single one of the preceding 365 days.

Absolutely true, but you understand, I'm sure, the reason why things are the way they are. (sigh)
I think these days it's up to everyone to find their own source of information on issues if they want to. It's easy to do, at least nowadays with the internets.

As for horse race coverage, let me add my two cents about my frustrations with the way polls are covered. It's absolute crap, especially when you're only talking about a single poll. This bullhockey about +/- 3.7% or whatever is meaningless. Websites like pollster.com and realclearpolitics do better because they look at polling aggregates, but they still lack any real rigor.

A website like FiveThirtyEight is a *much* better way of judging the current state of the horse race. The guy is a former physicist who worked on baseball statistics and developed a method of predicting baseball scores using the huge amount of statistics available. Now he's turned his attention to politics and devloped a pretty sophisticated model using hundreds of simulated elections based on national and statewide polls and what those polling numbers have meant in the past given a certain distance from the election. He's been pretty much spot-on regarding who is going to win, except for he predicted Gore to win in 2000 (some would argue that he did).

edit:
Current predictions: Al Franken becomes a US Senator. Obama wins 96.3% of simulations with an average electoral vote of 354.4, and 52.2% of the polular vote. Democrats hold on average 58 senate seats, with a 30% chance of holding a supermajority (60 seats) including independents Lieberman and Sanders.

mico saudad wrote:
A website like FiveThirtyEight is a *much* better way of judging the current state of the horse race. The guy is a former physicist who worked on baseball statistics and developed a method of predicting baseball scores using the huge amount of statistics available.

Wat

He's a statistician who still works with the Baseball Prospectus.

538 has been my homepage for a couple months, now. I like his commentary, and his methods are much more interesting to a statistics nut like me than Pollster (who just takes every single poll and weighs them equally) or Real Clear Politics (who selects polls willy-nilly and gives no weight).

In my opinion, his models overcompensate for certain factors and are slow to represent real trends, but overall he's as solid as they come.

roymond wrote: OK, maybe I really just hate how they are the focus of the coverage at times, rather than the issues. That pundits are obsessed with the hue of the electoral collage rather than the candidate's character. And this turns into a horse race rather than a national election. As I said, I understand analysis and tracking polls. But just as tracking your stock portfolio on a daily basis isn't productive, flipping Virginia from red to blue interactively while regurgitating the same stats and dozens of "possible" scenarios doesn't educate viewers, it just shows off the technology. It's the real-time thinking-out-loud that bothers me. You know what? Prepare your analysis, then come back and tell me a story. Election day is the high wire act, not every single one of the preceding 365 days.

I guess the endless scenario discussion is just for a different kind of person, the analytical type. I pore over registration numbers, age/race breakdowns, etc. for hours. I play poker for a living, the only human I see most days is my girlfriend. Basically, people don't interest me much.

I know each candidate's stance on every issue, so I don't care to hear surrogates endlessly regurgitate talking points, unless a new point is being made or someone makes a huge ass of themselves (i.e. Michele Bachmann).

Another thing is that the election is pretty much in the bag, but it will still be very interesting to see what historical voting tendencies are bucked with this election. I'm interested in the margins around New Orleans, and how the drastically changed racial makeup will effect things. I'm interested in what the Texas county-by-county will look like.

I guess my point is that the numbers are the only thing that change day-to-day, as Obama is playing defense and McCain is completely clueless.

Sober wrote:
My friend and I had a discussion about Obama's absolute ceiling, should McCain seriously screw up/turnout destroy expectations, and I call it 387. WV is the first to flip, then ND and MT for 386, plus one for Omaha, since Nebraska splits its electoral votes. I don't see Georgia flipping, so I call the ceiling at 387.

Now it's your turn. Go to Real Clear Politics and play with the map.

According to Karl Rove, ND is already a swing state, and leaning Obama.

And according to Pollster, MT is a swing state, even though still leaning McCain.

Look at Indiana, though! dead heat in most polls, though fivethirtyeight is considering a blue state now. How did that happen?

I am with Roymond, but on mostly aesthetic grounds. I just find them garishly ugly. Especially the one that Sober posted. Can't we get some decent graphic designers on these things? Who picked red and blue, anyway? Sheesh.

I don't mean to put words in Roy's mouth, but I think I feel similarly about the way we analyze elections geographically. These last several months consist of the candidates ignoring places they either have locked up or have no chance of winning and pandering to places where people are "divided evenly." Then, even worse, they pander to the so-called "undecided voter" in these states--people I have to assume are the most uninformed or just plain stupid people in America. If you can't decide between these two candidates, who have absolutely nothing in common, then you are an idiot. It's not like there are five (serious) candidates to choose from with fine subtle differences in policy.

And yeah, Sober, you are going to need a new obsession in a few weeks. How about.....SONGWRITING?!

frankie big face wrote:And yeah, Sober, you are going to need a new obsession in a few weeks. How about.....SONGWRITING?!

...about swinging from Obama's nut sack.
I'm serial, I want to hear it.

Spud wrote: Who picked red and blue, anyway? Sheesh.

I only just worked out what which one is red and which was blue. WTF?!?!

Why do you have it the wrong way around? I thought it was pretty much an international convention that red=socialist/labour/left, blue=conservative/right. I guess that is all we can expect from people that can't even spell "colour", and can't tell their left from right when driving. Perverse bastards.

Caravan Ray wrote:

Spud wrote: Who picked red and blue, anyway? Sheesh.

I only just worked out what which one is red and which was blue. WTF?!?!

Why do you have it the wrong way around? I thought it was pretty much an international convention that red=socialist/labour/left, blue=conservative/right. I guess that is all we can expect from people that can't even spell "colour", and can't tell their left from right when driving. Perverse bastards.

yeah, because the rest of the world is wrong, of course. Pedia attributes " red state/ blue state" to Tim Russert. I don't know about the actual color associations themselves.

In the interest of inernational harmony I will stipulate on behalf of Americans that:
a., yes, words like colour, behaviour, and labour should be spelled properly, and
b. that our political colour schemes should be reversed

In return you must stipulate that:
a. you drive on the wrong side of the road, and
b. aluminum it is *not* spelled nor pronounced aluminium

world peace, see?!

frankie big face wrote: And yeah, Sober, you are going to need a new obsession in a few weeks. How about.....SONGWRITING?!

Music is for queers.

mico saudad wrote:In the interest of inernational harmony I will stipulate on behalf of Americans that:
a., yes, words like colour, behaviour, and labour should be spelled properly, and
b. that our political colour schemes should be reversed

In return you must stipulate that:
a. you drive on the wrong side of the road, and
b. aluminum it is *not* spelled nor pronounced aluminium

world peace, see?!

Actually - I would give you the "colour, behaviour, and labour" thing - since the American spelling makes far more sense. But I absolutely draw the line on "aluminium". Have a look at a Periodic Table. You don't see any Sodum, Potassum, Magnesum, Radum, Polonum, Caesum etc on there. And Uranum I believe, is what your President thinks is used to make Nookyular weapons.

As for the side of the road thing - well, although the Indians are on our side, the Chinese are on yours. So I guess you do have the numbers

Caravan Ray wrote: As for the side of the road thing - well, although the Indians are on our side, the Chinese are on yours. So I guess you do have the numbers

Oh come on. You know there's no "side of the road" in India. It's just a mad dash to get where you want to go with no boundaries, rules or insurance claims!

Well, since most people are right eye-dominant, there are statistically less accidents in countries where they drive on the left.

BUT WHO SAYS LESS ACCIDENTS IS A GOOD THING?

Lord of Oats wrote:Well, since most people are right eye-dominant, there are statistically less accidents in countries where they drive on the left.

BUT WHO SAYS LESS ACCIDENTS IS A GOOD THING?

Less accidents has nothing to do with right eye dominance. It is just that people that drive on the left tend to be calm, sensible people who understand things like cricket - whereas those on the right are usually either bible-bashing gun nuts, substance-abusing Canadians or French. And what side were Hitler's Panzer Divisions driving on when they invaded Poland? Not the left.

Caravan Ray wrote:Actually - I would give you the "colour, behaviour, and labour" thing - since the American spelling makes far more sense. But I absolutely draw the line on "aluminium". Have a look at a Periodic Table. You don't see any Sodum, Potassum, Magnesum, Radum, Polonum, Caesum etc on there. And Uranum I believe, is what your President thinks is used to make Nookyular weapons.

Do you say platinium?

I think we're using the classical Latin (i.e. no diphthongs). Aurum and Ferrum, the Latin words for Gold and Iron and thus the source of their elemental symbols, are other examples. Modernly used elemental -ums include platinum, molybdenum, and tantalum.

I personally don't find this to be a source of linguistic tension as much as I do the pronunciation of vitamin with a short i.