Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
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..
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.
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.
the Rs are funny, once again supporting someone who voted for romneycare and who fought for a state level cap and trade bill
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.
