This post is the second in a three-part series analyzing likely outcomes of Tuesday's Presidential Election. It is not an endorsement of any candidate or party.
I know, I know. I might be ruining some weekends by dumping this on Friday afternoon. But I figured you'd prefer me to drop this now and close Monday with Why Romney will win on Tuesday.
I've been telling anybody who will listen that I think you can make a pretty strong case that either candidate will win on Tuesday. We'll see if that dynamic holds up through Tuesday afternoon, but at this moment, here are the reasons why I think the president will get another four years:
Home Field Advantage
One of the difficulties facing a challenger is that you've got to win states your opponent carried the previous election. And coming off a landslide in 2008, that means Romney needs to win a LOT of blue states. Indiana and North Carolina appear to be locks. And Virginia and Florida are heading in that direction. But that still leaves him needing 13 electoral votes (read: Ohio or Wisconsin + New Hampshire or Iowa). Can it be done? Sure. But it's on Obama's turf.
Polls, Polls, Polls
It's easy to rip on polls. After all, look at what happened in 2000 when the networks--relying on polls--called Florida for Gore, then for Bush, and then for nobody before the nation was led to the brink of a constitutional crisis. But the polling meltdown of 2000 is kind of like a political science version of those who insist the Church opposes science because "Just look what they did to Galileo!" We remember 2000 precisely because it was an outlier.
At the moment, the polls don't look great for Romney. The race is neck-and-neck nationally, but Obama has maintained a slim, but consistent lead in key battleground states like Ohio, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. "But the polls are biased!" you say. It's not an unreasonable argument--and one we'll delve into next week. But it's also a loser's lament--the politics version of "The Giants didn't beat us; we beat ourselves."
Prediction Markets
Prediction markets offer would-be prognosticators the opportunity to put their money where their mouths are by more-or-less gambling on the outcome of various events. You might have heard of InTrade, which is the most popular. There are some nuances that make participation in prediction markets not quite gambling, but the essence is the same.
In any case, these prediction markets tend to be accurate, such to the extent that after September 11, the federal government sought to use them as an intelligence source for learning when terrorist attacks would take place. That plan was ultimately scrapped when the public reacted negatively to a concept that would allow individuals to profit on a successful terrorist attack, but it's indicative of the predictive power of the markets.
InTrade currently has Obama as a 67 percent favorite to win.
Academic Models
A number of well-credentialed statisticians have developed various models relying on public opinion polls to make predictions. Most of them have Obama winning with a fairly high degree of certainty. Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight.com and the New York Times is, perhaps, the most famous. Silver currently estimates Obama's chances of victory at greater than 80 percent.
To anybody I've depressed, I apologize. But remember, Christ wins in the end. And I'll have a much happier article for your enjoyment on Monday.
3 comments:
Don't forget massive, systemic fraud.
Interestingly, InTrade is based in Ireland. It is actually not particularly easy to make a trade with InTrade from the United States because you need to send checking account information (maybe even a check) to Ireland. Europeans, which can more easily participate in InTrade, are overwhelmingly in favor of President Obama.
And in Milwaukee one man can vote 80 times...and get away with it!
Post a Comment