25% is not equal to 0%

jillian

Princess
Apr 4, 2006
85,728
18,111
2,220
The Other Side of Paradise
I love Nate Silver

1.18.2010
25% ≠ 0%
by Nate Silver @ 7:00 PM
Share This Content
Right now, our trusty little model of Massachusetts gives Martha Coakley just a 25 percent chance of prevailing tomorrow. Intrade also puts her odds at about 1 in 4. My subjective assessment might be a little better than that, but not much.

People are acting, however, as though 25 percent is the same as zero percent. And -- as disappointing as it might be to be in this position -- obviously it is not. This is not some basketball game where the score suddenly became Brown 75, Coakley 25; a 25 percent chance of winning means, quite literally, 25 percent.

Of the 86 elections that we made calls on the morning of November 4th, 2008, only 6 (the Senate election in Minnesota, and the Presidential elections in Florida, Indiana, Missouri, North Carolina and North Dakota) featured contests in which the trailing candidate had a 25 percent or better chance of prevailing. The outcome of this election remains more uncertain than that of at least 90 percent of other elections, even if it's less uncertain than it was 24 hours ago.

And yes: this is directed mostly toward my friends on the left. I would say the same to my friends on the right, but I don't think that they need the reminder; the energy, focus and enthusiasm of those in the online right has been something to behold, and will be a force to be reckoned with even if their candidate should lose this race.

FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right

now...where are all the people who like posting this:

dewey_defeats_truman.jpg
 
I dont know a single person who does readily admit that Coakley has a chance of winning. Just because a candidate is horrid doesnt mean they cant get elected by some crazy chance.
 
Gee jillian, I wouldn't have pegged you as an optimist..

Even if Coakley were to win, it would be by a narrow margin in the hot bed of liberal thought and a Democrat stronghold..
 
Gee jillian, I wouldn't have pegged you as an optimist..

Even if Coakley were to win, it would be by a narrow margin in the hot bed of liberal thought and a Democrat stronghold..

a democratic stronghold that's had more than its share of republicans in it's state house and in its legislature.

people think massachusetts is this bastion of liberal thought because it has cambridge and it had the kennedy's. but it also has a huge catholic population.

i'm neither optimistic nor pessimistic about it. i posted nate silver's article because he's the smartest person out there on this type of thing.

and do you really think anyone on either side cares if they win it in a close race... as long as they win it?

some pollsters have it as close as 48% to 48%. that sounds optimistic to me. but no question no one is going to sleep a lot on either side tonight.
 
Last edited:
the Rs are funny, once again supporting someone who voted for romneycare and who fought for a state level cap and trade bill
 
++and do you really think anyone on either side cares if they win it in a close race... as long as they win it?++

I suppose when the dust settles, excuses are made and the pundents finish blabbing, it makes little difference at all.
 
++and do you really think anyone on either side cares if they win it in a close race... as long as they win it?++

I suppose when the dust settles, excuses are made and the pundents finish blabbing, it makes little difference at all.

it makes little difference regardless of the pundits. because neither would cast a single vote any differently whether they win by 1000 votes or 10,000 or 1,000,000
 
Been watching the intrade numbers. She really isn't doing very well. Down 14 on the day.

I think about half of it is her, and a large portion is generalized disgust with DC, and it might just be that the R's have a good convincing candidate.

But tomorrow will be another day.
 
I dont know a single person who does readily admit that Coakley has a chance of winning. Just because a candidate is horrid doesnt mean they cant get elected by some crazy chance.

neither one is a stellar candidate. but will be interestig tomorrow.

Brown is a stellar candidate. "It isn't the Kennedy seat. It isn't the Democrats' seat. It is the people's seat." That's a winner in anyone's book.

By the same token, libertarians were claiming that Ron Paul could be the next president right up until the Nov 08 election.
Hope dies hard.
And MA is the bluest of the blue states. In addition to the Kennedys, they have elected the faygola Barney Frank numerous times. And Kerry. And then there's Dukakis.
Looking at their firearms laws, they are more stringent than CA. They went for universal care, i.e. Romneycare, early. They are high tax, high regulation. So what if some Republicans, probably like Romney, get elected from more rural areas. The state is lousy with the stench of academia.
 
Gee jillian, I wouldn't have pegged you as an optimist..

Even if Coakley were to win, it would be by a narrow margin in the hot bed of liberal thought and a Democrat stronghold..

a democratic stronghold that's had more than its share of republicans in it's state house and in its legislature.

people think massachusetts is this bastion of liberal thought because it has cambridge and it had the kennedy's. but it also has a huge catholic population.

i'm neither optimistic nor pessimistic about it. i posted nate silver's article because he's the smartest person out there on this type of thing.

and do you really think anyone on either side cares if they win it in a close race... as long as they win it?

some pollsters have it as close as 48% to 48%. that sounds optimistic to me. but no question no one is going to sleep a lot on either side tonight.

I guess Nate Silver wasn't as smart as you thought.
Zero is Zero.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top