I'm repeating my previous post, since it seems relevant to review the data again before the election. I accessed all these sites at about 9:00 PM CST. I
HuffPost Pollster
Obama 277 ECV
Romney 206 ECV
Toss Ups 55 ECV
Obama has enough certain electoral votes to win.
FiveThirtyEight: Last time I made the claim that Nate Silver's analysis is as close to neutral as can be found. Today though, I saw this: Nate Silver bets Joe Scarborough $1000 that Obama wins. It is not clear if this was intended as a partisan statement, or simply a good bet. It's not wrong to claim Obama is a good bet.
Should I update again tomorrow?
HuffPost Pollster
Obama 277 ECV
Romney 206 ECV
Toss Ups 55 ECV
Obama has enough certain electoral votes to win.
Obama 285 ECV
Romney 191 ECV
Toss Ups 62 ECV (but 44 of those lean strongly towards Romney)
Romney 191 ECV
Toss Ups 62 ECV (but 44 of those lean strongly towards Romney)
As before, I have arranged these in roughly increasing order of favor for Obama winning the 2012 election. The last three sites (HuffPost, TPM, EA) are making strong claims that Obama has the electoral votes to win already. 538 is not far behind that claim.
RCP seems to be sitting on the fence, not making strong claim about the toss-up States, and there is nothing wrong with that.
Other notes:
HuffPost Pollster has been added to the results. (but you saw that already.)
RCP seems to be sitting on the fence, not making strong claim about the toss-up States, and there is nothing wrong with that.
Other notes:
HuffPost Pollster has been added to the results. (but you saw that already.)
FiveThirtyEight: Last time I made the claim that Nate Silver's analysis is as close to neutral as can be found. Today though, I saw this: Nate Silver bets Joe Scarborough $1000 that Obama wins. It is not clear if this was intended as a partisan statement, or simply a good bet. It's not wrong to claim Obama is a good bet.
Should I update again tomorrow?
No comments:
Post a Comment