. . . it still seems to me that Obama has the slight advantage. I just left this comment on Nate Silver's NY Times' blog.
"I'm not being critical of this blog but one thing that strikes me funny is that it has this sophisticated statistical system yet comes to the same conclusions you can by just counting electoral votes - "Mr. Obama was roughly a 70 percent Electoral College favorite in the FiveThirtyEight forecast in advance of the debate, largely because he has remained slightly ahead in polls of the most important swing states." It seems fairly straightforward that Romney probably has to win all the states in which he has even a little lead or is tied in the polls and then still win either Wisconsin, Ohio, Pa or Michigan, or both Nevada/New Hampshire, to win. He probably needs one more boost and I don't know where he gets it from.
I want Romney to win, but I did not think he "won" the debate, whatever that means. I get his strategy - seem presidential and avoid big mistakes - but he missed opportunities to highlight Obama's perceived problems. He spent a lot of time on the defensive and never backed Obama up. It is a lot like in boxing - you have to take it from the champion. He also harangues too much for me and sometimes makes me cringe a little. He was right to keep bringing it back to the economy, but I don't think it was enough to "win." Actually, it was a bit tedious.
Also, watch the MSNBC and Fox focus groups on video. Those undecided voters on MSNBC sure seemed more liberal and those on Fox sure seemed more conservative, to me. Wonder how they choose them."
It is may be impossible to say what winning a debate means, but, what I know it doesn't mean is that I happen to agree with someone's points more than the other(s).
I really enjoy Mr. Silver's blog, which is all about statistics. Some, who aren't happy with his conclusions, don't understand what he is doing or just get upset when someone says their guy won't win. I check it out, along with realclearpolitics.com, almost every day.
This is what I'm doing election night - watching to see if Romney wins Va. and Florida. If he doesn't win either, he is cooked. If he wins them, then I'll watch to see if he also wins one of those I mentioned above (or both NH and Nev.). Ohio is, of course, the big enchilada. Their could be other combos but that would probably involve a surprise or so. But, if he wins those states and the polls are right, he wins. If not, not. We will survive four more years of Obama, even if we continue to decline. We've survived worse. But, I'd rather not.
"I'm not being critical of this blog but one thing that strikes me funny is that it has this sophisticated statistical system yet comes to the same conclusions you can by just counting electoral votes - "Mr. Obama was roughly a 70 percent Electoral College favorite in the FiveThirtyEight forecast in advance of the debate, largely because he has remained slightly ahead in polls of the most important swing states." It seems fairly straightforward that Romney probably has to win all the states in which he has even a little lead or is tied in the polls and then still win either Wisconsin, Ohio, Pa or Michigan, or both Nevada/New Hampshire, to win. He probably needs one more boost and I don't know where he gets it from.
I want Romney to win, but I did not think he "won" the debate, whatever that means. I get his strategy - seem presidential and avoid big mistakes - but he missed opportunities to highlight Obama's perceived problems. He spent a lot of time on the defensive and never backed Obama up. It is a lot like in boxing - you have to take it from the champion. He also harangues too much for me and sometimes makes me cringe a little. He was right to keep bringing it back to the economy, but I don't think it was enough to "win." Actually, it was a bit tedious.
Also, watch the MSNBC and Fox focus groups on video. Those undecided voters on MSNBC sure seemed more liberal and those on Fox sure seemed more conservative, to me. Wonder how they choose them."
It is may be impossible to say what winning a debate means, but, what I know it doesn't mean is that I happen to agree with someone's points more than the other(s).
I really enjoy Mr. Silver's blog, which is all about statistics. Some, who aren't happy with his conclusions, don't understand what he is doing or just get upset when someone says their guy won't win. I check it out, along with realclearpolitics.com, almost every day.
This is what I'm doing election night - watching to see if Romney wins Va. and Florida. If he doesn't win either, he is cooked. If he wins them, then I'll watch to see if he also wins one of those I mentioned above (or both NH and Nev.). Ohio is, of course, the big enchilada. Their could be other combos but that would probably involve a surprise or so. But, if he wins those states and the polls are right, he wins. If not, not. We will survive four more years of Obama, even if we continue to decline. We've survived worse. But, I'd rather not.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Your comments are welcome.