Tuesday, November 6, 2012

2012 Electoral College Projection

   First, thank you for reading this blog. It has been a very fun and fascinating last couple of months watching the political landscape and being able to offer a different kind of insight. Every page view is greatly appreciated. However, this exciting close of a cycle is not the end! Plato said, "Man is by nature a political animal" and The Edwards Analysis will continue to cover the grizzly scenery.

   Today is Tuesday November 6, 2012, THE BIG DAY! It's important to remember the popular vote will be important, but what will be more important will be the electoral college. 270 electoral votes is the magic number to become President of the United States of America. Here is a quick look at the Edwards Analysis projections.

Definite Obama States (electoral votes):
California (55), New York (29), Illinois (20), MICHIGAN (16), NEW JERSEY (14), Washington (12), Massachusetts (11), Maryland (10), MINNESOTA (10), Connecticut (7), Oregon (7), New Mexico(5), Hawaii (4), Maine (4), Rhode Island (4), Delaware (3), Vermont (3), Washington D.C. (3)... 

For a grand total of 217 electoral votes. Michigan, Minnesota, and New Jersey were all done in caps lock and bold because the majority of opinions out there see them as toss up states. All three of these will almost definitely go for Obama, if they do not, then this is going to be an ugly short night for the President. A special note on Minnesota: Michael Barone, Dick Morris, George Will, and Kevin Koffler all think that Minnesota will go Romney. These are very, very smart guys, and come tomorrow morning, they may be correct.

IF any of the states on the Obama list come in for Romney, you can go ahead and change the channel because it is a done deal. 

Definite Romney States (electoral votes):
Texas (38), Florida (29), OHIO (18), Georgia (16), North Carolina (15), Virginia (13), Arizona (11), Indiana (11), Tennessee (11), Missouri (10), Alabama (9), Colorado (9), South Carolina (9), Kentucky (8), Louisiana (8), Oklahoma (7), Arkansas (6), Iowa (6), Kansas (6), Mississippi (6), Utah (6), Nebraska (5), West Virginia (5), Idaho (4), New Hampshire (4), Alaska (3), Montana (3), North Dakota (3), South Dakota (3), Wyoming (3)...

Here are the surprise Romney States
Pennsylvania (20), Wisconsin (10), NEVADA (6)

For a grand total of 321 electoral votes. Ohio is in caps and bold because it is the state of states in the mind of many pundits, and it is being called as a toss up currently by the majority of opinions out there. Nevada is in caps and bold because only Kevin Koffler and the Edwards Analysis see it going Romney... And it will probably go Obama. 

In sum, the Edwards Analysis is projecting that Romney will take 51-54% of the popular vote, and will win the Presidency with 321 electoral votes. Worst case scenario? Romney slightly over 50% with 295 electoral votes. To say it another way, Romney will win by 295 electoral votes or more, and this blog sees it as being a likely 321 electoral votes.

Here are some other predictions:

Karl "The Architect" Rove - Romney 285 electoral votes

Dick Morris - Romney 325 electoral votes

George Will - Romney 321 electoral votes

Kevin Koffler - Romney 321 electoral votes

Nate Silver - Obama 313 electoral votes AND a 90%+ chance of winning (this links to a Slate article that cites his projections as of this morning)

Rush Limbaugh - Romney 300 plus electoral votes

Michael Barone - Romney 315 electoral votes

Larry Sabato - Obama 290 electoral votes

Jim Cramer - Obama 440 electoral votes

Here is a more complete list of predictions from Ezra Klein.

One last thing to mention, on August 18, 2012 The Edwards Analysis made an appraisal of 322 electoral votes for Romney, and has maintained a 320 stance ever since.

Now go out and vote!

Friday, November 2, 2012

Lockheed - Interesting To Know

   This is pretty low. According to The Hill, and other reputable outlets, The White House asked Lockheed to delay layoff notices until after the election. Since it is illegal to not give 60 days notice, they even offered to cover the legal fees for doing so. If this story is accurate, the letters should have gone out yesterday. It will be interesting to watch and see what happens, IF in fact it DOES happen. When Romney wins, will President Obama allow the sequestration to happen so that Romney has to immediately deal with ANOTHER leftover headache? Will President Obama allow it to happen just because? Will a then President Romney be blamed for something that happened before he took office, and that he challenged directly during the debates?

Check out the story here.... http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/industry/259517-graham-says-hell-block

Thursday, November 1, 2012

Nate Silver - An Example of Polluted Punditry

   Nate Silver, a baseball statistician, accurately predicted the 2008 election. He was correct in 49 out of 50 states. The one state where he was wrong was Indiana, which was the first time that state voted for a democratic President since 1964. So, it is fair to excuse him for that, but it is also important to remember that 2008 was the easiest election to project since 1984. This is a clear example of how polluted the analysis pool is in political punditry.

   Nate has made a prediction for 2012: Obama will take 300 electoral votes and that there is a 79% chance of him winning (NOTE: this measure on his site is active and may change). Nate is a very, very bright man, however, would you want Bobby Fischer to perform your bypass? The point here is that some skills do not apply across the board. Politico posted a good article about how Nate may be a one term celebrity, and even though Nate is going to be wrong in 2012, they probably will be too. The main stream media loves this guy, because he says what they want to hear. Thus, they will continue to promote him as the sage of their beliefs that he is.

   This is a premium example of an uninformed opinion. Has Nick ever ran a campaign? No. Has he ever conducted a poll? No. Does he understand statistical models, proper weighting, or trends? Probably not. So what does he bring to the table? He is well known in baseball for using Sabermetrics. Basically this is the practice of using "objective statistics" to measure the performance of baseball players, and now he is using similar methods in analyzing politics. Part of his system is feeding his database every poll possible. That system in and of itself is flawed. Bad numbers never help yield a more accurate number. Sabermetrics by its function assumes the law of averages over the season of a player. These principles are not applicable to an election that is essentially a one game season. Then there is the keyword "objective statistics." Objective is the rarest thing in politics. A batting average is objective, over a certain amount of attempts, a batter will hit the ball a certain number of times. In a game a batter may face a pitcher four or five times. In politics there is only one election day.

   The problem is not the tool being used (Nate Silver), it is the machine (main stream media) promoting the tool that is polluting what little scientific method there is in the field. Out of emotional self interest, the machine continues to promote the product validating its emotion, instead of producing the best product. This is something important and fun to watch, during the current election cycle, so that accurate assessments can be made in the next election cycle. Unless of course the goal is to be a one term accurate prognosticator in tandem with a one term President.