tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12623101.post4413908150206331537..comments2023-06-25T09:40:13.649-05:00Comments on Russell Glasser's blog: Election thoughts 2: Momentum and winning with intangiblesAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05324968314168283095noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12623101.post-18010745535365725902012-09-27T14:56:58.253-05:002012-09-27T14:56:58.253-05:00If you haven't already checked out today's...If you haven't already checked out today's 538, you should do so.<br /><br />It will make you giggle.<br /><br />http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/27/sept-26-could-2012-be-like-2008/Gregory Lynnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11469505900506304292noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12623101.post-55620160622674137162012-09-22T08:17:04.426-05:002012-09-22T08:17:04.426-05:00Russell,
You're basically saying that it'...Russell, <br /><br />You're basically saying that it's hard to turn things around in a campaign if you have such a disadvantage, and I agree with you. In a game, however, the rules are more strictly defined and determine the options in a precisely quantifiable way (unless indeed you somehow pull a Kobayashi:). <br /><br />A political campaign is different in this aspect. It's much more difficult to predict with certainty which narratives will stick, for how long are they going to be around, how influential will they turn out to be and, most importantly, whether something else might come along that will overshadow them. <br /><br />That's pretty much what I meant when I said that this principle is less valid in elections. I didn't say it was completely invalid, because I agree it does describe a certain general trend. I just wanted to point out that there are limitations to that analogy, especially when we're talking about predictions.midori.witchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13753268847040398906noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12623101.post-6035068775772860202012-09-22T05:50:47.085-05:002012-09-22T05:50:47.085-05:00Midori,
Rereading it, I think maybe I didn't ...Midori,<br /><br />Rereading it, I think maybe I didn't bring back the analogy back to the point in the way I intended to. I mentioned at first that Mitt is being perceived as a loser. I think voters love to jump on bandwagons. When a candidate is perceived a winning, he gets treated more favorably in the press. When he's perceived as vulnerable, a narrative condenses around him that is hard to shake off.<br /><br />For instance, Al Gore in 2000 was the unfortunate recipient of the narrative that he made up fake stories to make himself look good. He correctly took create for his role in the legislation which created the internet, and some key technological leaders (i.e. Vinton Cerf) supported that claim; yet this false phrasing that he "invented" the internet stuck. At one point, an obvious joke about being raised on a song about unions was pulled out without the crowd reaction and played as if he seriously meant that his mom sang him a song which (a) is not really for kids, and (b) didn't exist when he was a kid. The more he got saddled with this meme, the more the press went out of their way to look for examples.<br /><br />A similar thing happened with John Kerry and "flip-flopping" once it became clear that he couldn't effectively clarify his stance on the war. He really took the high road when confronted with opposition like Swift Boaters, refusing to respond directly to the attacks, and I think it cost him what could have been an easy win. His storyline was that he was kind of a European sounding wuss, and the fact that he wouldn't fight back against direct political attacks fed into that story.<br /><br />In Romney's case, the fact that people see him as losing is translating into other Republicans bad mouthing him publicly, quitting the campaign or trying to distance themselves from him. With friends like that, who needs official Obama attack ads?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05324968314168283095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12623101.post-10208712434903258762012-09-22T04:12:42.917-05:002012-09-22T04:12:42.917-05:00I do enjoy reading your views on this, but I don&#...I do enjoy reading your views on this, but I don't think the game analogy works quite that well. While, say, in chess every little step counts and influences next options, in the case of election you're dealing with people who might be deciding much less logically and more emotionally. Therefore, something that should be one of those small advantages that ultimately prove crucial to the result may well diminish in people's minds in comparison to more recent or prominent things and lose its decisive power. Simply put, the game never forgets, while people do. Of course it will probably never happen across the board, but it's enough to make this "small advantages law" less valid in election than in a game.midori.witchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13753268847040398906noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12623101.post-91173548387385680012012-09-21T16:59:59.154-05:002012-09-21T16:59:59.154-05:00I'm not bashing 538 -- they're a great res...I'm not bashing 538 -- they're a great resource that provides valuable information. I'm just saying that the fact that 538 forecasts a 75% chance to win based on pure poll data, doesn't directly translate into a genuine 75% chance that that's how it will shake out in the end.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05324968314168283095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12623101.post-25371100909780194162012-09-21T16:54:55.346-05:002012-09-21T16:54:55.346-05:00I tend to agree with your overall conclusion, but ...I tend to agree with your overall conclusion, but it seems like you're bashing 538 little for not behaving in a certain way when it isn't supposed to be working that way.<br /><br />It's like asking why we don't have a crockoduck.<br /><br />More to the point, 75% is freaking huge. Consider that there is a good 45-48% of the population that is going to vote Republican regardless, and a shift of 1% of the voting population is huge, and build in some uncertainty based on polling methodologies and the fact that we're weeks away and well, if it isn't impossible to get into the mid to high 90s, it's really hard.<br /><br />Also, if you look at the now cast, which tries to reflect the probabilities if the election were held right now, Obama stands at 94.8% which I think reflects your thinking.<br /><br />Also, I used to live in Massachusetts and it was equally clear to me that should Romney be the nominee, Obama was going to win fairly easily, and if not, Obama was going to win even more easily.<br /><br />The fact that the Republicans are trying to lose just amuses me.Gregory Lynnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11469505900506304292noreply@blogger.com