FiveThirtyEight.com became a must-read during the 2008 presidential race for its insightful, truly reality-based analysis of otherwise very confusing numbers that were constantly being tossed around. Nate Silver, the blog’s proprietor, is left-leaning, but knows what he’s doing and doesn’t let his ideological views cloud his assessments.
To its credit, the New York Times has given him space on its blog pages, so he now resides on the NYT’s website. He’s located at http://bmg.ma/d0Br5J
A couple of days ago, 538 released comprehensive analyses of the state of the Governor’s races across the country. His take on Massachusetts, based on the numbers available so far, is this:
Likely results: Patrick 46.9%; Baker 42.4%; Cahill 8.3%
Likelihood of win: Patrick 73.4%; Baker 26.6%; Cahill 0.0%
For what little its worth, those numbers are in line with my “seat of the pants,” “gut instinct” assessment. There are others whose gut instinct “likelihood of win” numbers are different, but 538’s is the one to watch, since it’s the one based on data. Obviously, these numbers will change as time goes on. But keep your eye on 538’s analysis.
Could be true but since these numbers are time-slice dependent we’ll never know if they are accurate since they are only accurate the day they are taken.
<
p>But I will keep watching and if 538.com shows Patrick’s lead diminishing then we can all believe it. Thanks!
Yeah, polls take a snap shot, but one 1) multiple polls analyzed together show a little bit more, especially looking at the trends, and 2) if the snap-shot doesn’t change before the election, the picture will look just the same. There’s many ways that picture could change, but the two likeliest scenarios is the economy tanks fast in the Bay State (and the trends aren’t heading in that direction), or more and more people realize just how much of a not-so-compelling candidate Charlie Baker is before election day. I could tell you which one I think is the far likelier to happen, but then again I’m biased.
<
p>Nate Silver, by the way, has consistently provided the most accurate analysis of polling data at a national level. If you don’t buy his ‘spread,’ I think you’ve got your head in the sand. Note he doesn’t say Patrick’s going to win, only that Baker is the clear long shot.
Primarily because of Cahill. I think there are a number of scenarios which could occur. I don’t think your #1 likeliest is likely and I think your #2 is also unlikely. My 2 likeliest guesses are 1) Baker continues to gain slowly while more stories are published about Democrats which further causes generic support for “any” Republican or 2) Voters wake up to realize their 3rd candidate vote is a huge waste and Baker picks up 3-5 points overnight… but then again I’m biased.
During prosperous periods, one can study poll trends and more confidently project them into the future than in times like now when the economy is in terrible shape. It can remain in terrible shape in the face of the best state policy and even a number of pronounced improvements.
<
p>It’s so bad its badness can absorb a lot of good and remain bad.
<
p>Don’t such conditions historically tend to kill off incumbents’ re-election chances?
<
p>I haven’t checked Nate Silver’s models here, but that has to be factored in.
…what will 538’s number crunching show when Jill Stein is included in polls…?
than the 0% he gave “Tim for Governor.”
<
p>If Jill Stein gets 2% of the vote, that’s probably 2% of the electorate that wouldn’t have otherwise shown up.
affect? Were 2000 Nader voters, voters who otherwise wouldn’t have shown up?
(and even in 2000, his effect was overblown IMO.)
My point is that good voters are good voters and show up to voter–no matter who is on the ballot (how many primaries have you voted in that had no real contests, yet you voted, because we’re part of a group–consisting of conservatives and liberals–who vote. Folks on left–voters in Stein’s Lexington, Cambridge, ect–may very well step in the voting booth and vote for Stein over Patrick…whether it swings the race…time will tell.
<
p>So Nader’s effect was “over blown” Gore lost Florida by 400 votes and Nader got 97,000 votes, Gore lost NH by 7,000 votes and Nader got 22,000 votes…I’d be interested in hearing Nader’s name on the ballot did not impact the election.
The GOP and courts stole it from him, but let’s not rehash that.
<
p>I guess it comes down to this: I don’t think Greens, by and large, are “good voters.” They’re disinterested ones, including in Cambridge and Somerville. You’re free to disagree with me, of course, but Deval Patrick will not lose this election because of the ever-irrelevant Jill Stein.