Yes, we can.

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by Cadaverous Pallor

Reagan and Carter were running neck and neck until the end, when Reagan won in a landslide. One pundit's mention of this:


Yes, just punditry, no claims to prescience from me. We'll see how it goes...

Well, isn't that my point? I am not saying Obama's going to lose I am saying there is no way, judging by current polls, Obama has this locked up....far from it in my opinioin.

Edit to add:

I find it interesting that this pundit uses the Reagan Carter contest as a device to prove his point but needs to assign Obama the spot of the Republican in order to carry this off.......when the fact is, Democrats tend to peak in July polls then slide downwards from there(Obama is a Democrat, not a Republican).

~Kerry; ahead by 7% in July lost by 3% in November

~Gore; ahead by 2% in July lost by 0% in November

~Clinton; behind by 7% in July but did win in November by 5%(guess he's the exception to the rule)

~Dukakis; ahead by 6% in July lost by 8% in November

~Carter; down only by 3% in July but lost by 10% in November

~Carter; up by 33% in July and only won by 3% in November

~Humphrey; up by 5% in JUly and lost by 1% in November

~Kennedy; up by 6% in July but only won by 1/5 of 1% in November

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Originally Posted by sleepyjeff

I find it interesting that this pundit uses the Reagan Carter contest as a device to prove his point but needs to assign Obama the spot of the Republican in order to carry this off.......when the fact is, Democrats tend to peak in July polls then slide downwards from there(Obama is a Democrat, not a Republican).

Really? A Democrat? Thank goodness for your parenthetical.

You did read the quote, right? I'm not sure because your statement isn't addressing it. Should I restate it in parenthesis?

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by Cadaverous Pallor

Really? A Democrat? Thank goodness for your parenthetical.

You did read the quote, right? I'm not sure because your statement isn't addressing it. Should I restate it in parenthesis?

I read the quote...but will admit that I have a new word to look up now

[Alex]

Keep in mind it is parenthetical, not parentethical. The latter usually involves whether it is ok to spank.

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by Alex

Keep in mind it is parenthetical, not parentethical. The latter usually involves whether it is ok to spank.

I am surrounded by wordsmiths.

[Alex]

Was that a fat joke?

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by Alex

Was that a fat joke?

No. Did it come off as one?

[Alex]

Originally Posted by sleepyjeff

~Kerry; ahead by 7% in July lost by 3% in November
~Gore; ahead by 2% in July lost by 0% in November
.....

How's that using historical trends working for you in predicting the course of the current election?

As for your earlier question to me, I really don't want to end up typing a 10-page analysis that just gets tossed with a "phhht" so I'll just say to look at the key difference between the current polling and the Kerry polling from 4 years ago.

Back in 2004 Kerry did have a big lead if you assumed every state polling in his favor would be won by him. However, almost 60% of those electoral votes were in the "weakly Dem" category meaning they were within the margin of error and that a very small general shift could move them over to Bush. Which, for the most part did happen. Comparatively Bush had only 26% in a similar at risk position.

This year the situation is reversed. Of Obama's 264 electoral votes on that map, only 5% are in the extremely at risk camp. There are really only two states currently polling for Obama that could shift to McCain with just a small change. Conversely, more than 30% of McCain's votes are extremely at risk. McCain really only has one easy significant easy state to take from Obama (Minnesota, plus another small one) while Obama has four available (plus another three small ones): Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Colorado.

McCain has to hold everything he has, even the stuff currently in his camp only because of statistical noise plus win Minnesota (which I really don't see giong to him).

So, despite the apparent closeness, I really don't think it is all that close at the moment. Yes, it might change. There just isn't reason beyond the gambler's fallacy to assume it will.


Damn, ended up blathering on anyway. I have no brake.

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by Alex

McCain has to hold everything he has, even the stuff currently in his camp only because of statistical noise plus win Minnesota (which I really don't see giong to him).

So, despite the apparent closeness, I really don't think it is all that close at the moment. Yes, it might change. There just isn't reason beyond the gambler's fallacy to assume it will.

Fair enough, and speaking of gambler's the current line does have Obama with a 60% chance of winning to McCains 38%....so your point is well taken.

[sleepyjeff]

^Correction, as of this morning Obama is listed at 58% chance of winning...oddly enough though, McCains chances did not increase with Obamas decrease.