Mr. Burns Endorses Romney | The Simpsons

Nov. 1: The Simple Case for Saying Obama Is the Favorite

If you are following some of the same people that I do on Twitter, you may have noticed some pushback about our contention that Barack Obama is a favorite (and certainly not a lock) to be re-elected. I haven’t come across too many analyses suggesting that Mitt Romney is the favorite. (There are exceptions.) But there are plenty of people who say that the race is a “tossup.”

What I find confounding about this is that the argument we’re making is exceedingly simple. Here it is:

Obama’s ahead in Ohio.

A somewhat-more-complicated version:

Mr. Obama is leading in the polls of Ohio and other states that would suffice for him to win 270 electoral votes, and by a margin that has historically translated into victory a fairly high percentage of the time.

The argument that Mr. Obama isn’t the favorite is the one that requires more finesse. If you take the polls at face value, then the popular vote might be a tossup, but the Electoral College favors Mr. Obama.

So you have to make some case for why the polls shouldn’t be taken at face value.

Some argue that the polls are systematically biased against Republicans. This might qualify as a simple argument had it been true on a consistent basis historically, but it hasn’t been: instead, there have been some years when the polls overestimated how well the Democrat would do, and about as many where the same was true for the Republican. I’m sympathetic to the notion that the polls could be biased, statistically speaking, meaning that they will all miss in the same direction. The FiveThirtyEight forecast explicitly accounts for the possibility that the polls are biased toward Mr. Obama — but it also accounts for the chance that the polls could be systematically biased against him.

Others argue that undecided voters tend to break against the incumbent, in this case Mr. Obama. But this has also not really been true in recent elections. In some states, also, Mr. Obama is at 50 percent of the vote in the polling average, or close to it, meaning that he wouldn’t need very many undecided voters to win.

A third argument is that Mr. Romney has the momentum in the polls: whether or not he would win an election today, the argument goes, he is on a favorable trajectory that will allow him to win on Tuesday.

This may be the worst of the arguments, in my view. It is contradicted by the evidence, simply put.

In the table below, I’ve listed the polling averages in the most competitive states, and in the national polls, across several different periods.

First are all polls from June 1, the approximate start of the general-election campaign, until the start of the party conventions.

Next are the polls between the conventions and the first debate in Denver in early October.

Finally are the polls since that first debate in Denver. It’s been roughly 30 days since then. If Mr. Romney has the momentum in the polls, then this should imply that his polls are continuing to get better: that they were a little better this week than last week, and a bit better last week than the week before. So these polls are further broken down into three different periods of about 10 days each, based on when the poll was conducted.

What type of polling average is this, by the way? About the simplest possible one: I’ve just averaged together all the polls of likely voters in the FiveThirtyEight database, applying no other weighting or “secret sauce.”

If you evaluate the polls in this way, there is not much evidence of “momentum” toward Mr. Romney. Instead, the case that the polls have moved slightly toward Mr. Obama is stronger.

In 9 of the 11 battleground states, Mr. Obama’s polls have been better over the past 10 days than they were immediately after the Denver debate. The same is true for the national polls, whether or not tracking polls (which otherwise dominate the average) are included.

In the swing states, in fact, Mr. Obama’s polls now look very close to where they were before the conventions and the debates. Mr. Obama led by an average of 2.3 percentage points in Ohio in all likely voter polls conducted between June 1 and the debates; he’s led by an average of 2.4 points in Ohio polls conducted over the past 10 days. He trailed by an average of 0.5 percentage points in Florida before the conventions; he’s trailed by an average of 0.2 percentage point in the most recent Florida polls.

Mr. Obama’s polls are worse than they were in the period in between the conventions and the debates. But they’re better than they were immediately after Denver; he’s gained back one percentage point, or perhaps a point-and-a-half, of what he lost.

What about the national polls? Aren’t those still worse for Mr. Obama than they were before the conventions?

Actually, that isn’t so clear. The one “trick” I’ve played is to look only at polls of likely voters. Mr. Obama’s national polls looked superficially better before the conventions because many of them were polls of registered voters instead, which do tend to show more favorable results for Democrats. (You’re welcome to say that polls of registered voters have a Democratic bias.) We alerted you in August to the prospect that there was a “gap” between the state polls and the national polls, which was concealed by the fact that many of the national polls at that time were reporting registered-voter results, while most of the state polls were using likely voter numbers all along. However, our methodadjusted for the tendency of registered-voter polls to be biased toward Democrats by shifting them in Mr. Romney’s direction. Some of what is perceived as “momentum” toward Mr. Romney is in fact a fairly predictable consequence of the national polls having flipped over to applying likely voter screens at various points between August and October.

But now we’re getting into all these complications! All these details!

I am aware — and you should be too — of the possibility that adding complexity to a model can make it worse. The technical term for this is“overfitting”: that by adding different layers to a model, you may make it too rigid, molding it such that it perfectly “predicts” the past, but is incompetent at forecasting the future. I think there is a place for complexity — the universe is a complicated thing — but it needs to be applied with the knowledge that our ability to understand it is constrained by our human shortcomings.

This critique fails, however, since the simplest analysis of the polls would argue that Mr. Obama is winning. He’s been ahead in the vast majority of polls in Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, and all the other states where the Democrat normally wins. These states add up to more than 270 electoral votes. It isn’t complicated. To argue that Mr. Romney is ahead, or that the election is a “tossup,” requires that you disbelieve the polls, or that you engage in some complicated interpretation of them. The FiveThirtyEight model represents a complicated analysis of the polls, but simplicity is on its side, in this case.

Thursday’s Polls

The polls published on Thursday ought not to have done much to change your view of the race. The national polls showed little overall trend toward either Mr. Obama or Mr. Romney, but they also had Mr. Obama just slightly ahead, on average, in contrast to what we were seeing immediately after Denver.

The battleground state polls on Thursday were something of a mixed lot, in terms of results and quality. The most attractive number for Mr. Romney is the poll of Ohio by Wenzel Strategies, which had him three points ahead there. However, the polls from this particular firm have been four or five points Republican-leaning relative to the consensus, which the FiveThirtyEight model adjusts for.

Or just keep it simple and average the polls together, warts and all. You will find that Mr. Obama is the Electoral College favorite.

By NATE SILVER

Florida Voter Registration Groups Win Major Victory As Judge Prepares To Block Draconian Law

A federal judge on Wednesday said he was prepared to grant a permanent injunction that would block controversial restrictions on voter registration groups passed by Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R) last year.
Federal Judge Robert L. Hinkle had earlier put a temporary hold on the measure, declaring that it put "harsh and impractical" restrictions on civic groups focused on registering new voters. In his latest order, Hinkle stated that he intends to permanently block the law, pending the case's dismissal from a Court of Appeals. The plaintiffs and the state of Florida have reportedly agreed not to appeal Hinkle's ruling.
“This order is a decisive victory for Florida voters,” said Lee Rowland of the Brennan Center’s Democracy Program, one of the attorneys who argued the case for the plaintiffs, in a statement. “The Florida legislature has tried repeatedly to stifle access to voter registration opportunities, and once again a federal court has stopped them in their tracks. We are thrilled that voter registration groups can now get back to what they do best -- expanding our democracy.”
The Florida Times-Union reported earlier this week that voter registration groups had largely shut down their operations in the wake of the new strictures, a trend that has done serious damage to registration trends of Democratic voters.
According to the Times-Union's review of state records, in the lead-up to elections in 2004 and 2008, the 13-month period between July 1 and August 1 of election year showed an average increase in registered Democrats of 209,425 voters. Over the same time between 2011 to 2012, registered Democrats increased by only 11,365 voters. It's easily enough to swing the election.
“It has without a doubt hurt registration numbers,” said Deirdre Macnab, president of the nonpartisan League of Women Voters of Florida. “It really gummed up the works and made it harder for Floridians to get registered.”
The Department of Justice has also mounted a separate challenge against Florida's new voter laws, claiming that they violate the Voting Rights Act with their new limitations on early voting and third-party voter registration groups.

via huffingtonpost

Ohio Early Voting Ruling: Court Orders State To Restore 3 Days Of Voting Before Election Day

A federal judge sided with the Obama campaign and ruled Friday to order Ohio to restore three days of early voting before Election Day, a decision that could affect the outcome of the 2012 election in a key battleground state.
Judge Peter C. Economus of the Southern District Court of Ohio granted an injunction in favor of Obama For America, the Democratic National Committee and the Ohio Democratic Party, which sued Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted to restore in-person voting in the last weekend before the election.
"On balance, the right of Ohio voters to vote in person during the last three days prior to Election Day -- a right previously conferred to all voters by the State -- outweighs the State's interest in setting the 6 p.m. Friday deadline," ruled the court. "The burden on Ohio voters' right to participate in the national and statewide election is great, as evidenced by the statistical analysis offered by Plaintiffs and not disputed by Defendants. Moreover, the State fails to articulate a precise, compelling interest in establishing the 6 p.m. Friday deadline as applied to non-UOCAVA [Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act] voters and has failed to evidence any commitment to the 'exception' it rhetorically extended to UOCAVA voters."
The dispute over military voting spilled into the presidential campaign earlier this month, when the Mitt Romney campaign falsely accused the Obama campaign of trying to curtail rights for military voters, characterizing the lawsuit as an "outrage" and an effort to deprive military voters of extra days to vote.
The Obama campaign lawsuit seeks to expand the voting period for all voters, not to deprive military voters of that opportunity. The judge sided with the Obama camp, calling the early voting restrictions "arbitrary."
The Romney campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
After a chaotic 2004 election, Ohio passed a law allowing early in-person voting on the weekend before the election. In 2008, some 93,000 Ohioans cast votes in that period. Those who did so were more likely to be African-American. A study by Northeast Ohio Voter Advocates found blacks accounted for 56 percent of all in-person early votes in Cuyahoga County, which includes Cleveland, while they accounted for 26 percent of votes overall. In Franklin County, which includes Columbus, African Americans cast 31 percent of early votes and 21 percent of votes overall.
The court ruled that the plaintiffs would suffer "irreparable injury" if early voting was not restored in the three days before election day. The judge also noted the plaintiffs' statistical evidence that low-income and minority voters would be disproportionately affected, which the defense did not counter.
Early voting was curtailed in 2011, when Ohio passed H.B. 194, cutting the number of early voting days and disallowing weekend voting except for military voters. (Subsequent legislative actions have left the weekend voting restrictions in place.) Husted ordered all Ohio counties to allow early voting during weekdays until 7 p.m. in the last two days before the election, but not over the preceding weekend. All voters were given the option of sending in an absentee ballot.
The Ohio Secretary of State's office said it was still reviewing the decision, and the Obama campaign has said that it intends to issue a statement.

via huffingtonpost

Federal Court Rejects Texas Voter ID Law

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A law in Texas that would allow would-be voters to cast ballots with only certain forms of photographic identification has been knocked down by a U.S. court in Washington.

 

Voter ID laws have become a hot-button issue leading up to the November presidential election, pitting state legislatures proposing and sometimes passing such laws against civil rights advocacy organizations who argue the laws are designed to keep minorities from the ballots.

In issuing their 56-page opinion Thursday, the judges wrote that the Texas law likely would have a "retrogressive effect" on the ability of minority voters to cast ballots and said the "implicit costs" of obtaining necessary ID "will fall most heavily on the poor." The three-judge panel also noted that a disproportionately high percentage of African Americans and Hispanics in Texas live in poverty.

Texas and other proponents of voter ID laws say the measures are necessary to prevent voter impersonation or fraud. Last year, Kansas, Mississippi, Rhode Island and Wisconsin passed new voter ID laws while Texas, South Carolina, Alabama and Tennessee tightened existing laws.

Governors in Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire and North Carolina vetoed strict new voter ID laws. This week, South Carolina's law is on trial in front of a three-judge panel in the same federal courthouse where the Texas law was struck down.

Civil rights organizations have argued that minority voters are less likely to have picture IDs, less likely to be able to afford new photo IDs and, in some cases, older minority voters might not have been granted the birth certificates required to obtain some forms of photographic identification.

The judges in Washington reviewed the Texas measure after the state appealed a rejection from the Justice Department, which is required to review proposed voting laws in Texas and other states and jurisdictions that have a history of voter discrimination.

The office of Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said the state would appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"Today's decision is wrong on the law and improperly prevents Texas from implementing the same type of ballot integrity safeguards that are employed by Georgia and Indiana and were upheld by the Supreme Court," the statement said, referring to voter ID measures in those two states that passed Supreme Court challenges.

The office of Gov. Rick Perry issued a bristling statement that read, "Chalk up another victory for fraud. Federal judges subverted the will of the people of Texas."

The Department of Justice opposed the Texas law because, the agency said, it would have required many people without the proper voter identification to travel long distances in order to get one and, in some cases, pay for the documents they might need to secure that ID.

"When a jurisdiction meets its burden of proving that a proposed voting change would not have a racially discriminatory purpose or effect, the Department will not oppose that change," Attorney General Eric Holder said in a statement. "When a jurisdiction fails to meet that burden, we will object."

The head of the Texas State Conference of the NAACP, which presented evidence before the judges against the proposed law, said the decision proves the need for Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which requires preclearance.

"The (Texas) law was so broad and unreasonable that clearly its goal was to suppress minority votes," Gary Bledsoe, conference president, said.

A representative for the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law said no one is saying they are in favor of voter fraud, but added that the state's current law, which allows some non-photo identification for voters, already prevents fraud.

"That's sort of a solution in search of a problem," Bob Kengle, co-director of the committee's Voting Rights Project, said of Texas' position.

The Texas secretary of State issued a statement Thursday saying the election would proceed under current state law.

 

via usatoday

Nike LeBron X+ “USA” Sport Pack

The Nike LeBron X has been a huge topic of discussion since first viewed. The “USA” themed colorway will release on September 29. After much debate over the alleged price tag, the price is set at $290 for the enhanced Sport Pack.
Nike LeBron X+ “USA Sport” Pack
White/Metallic Gold-Obsidian
542244-100
$290

via nicekicks

Mississippi Museum Reverse Course, Opens Facility To Same-Sex Commitment Ceremony

Last month, the taxpayer-funded Mississippi Agriculture and Forestry Museum denied a request by Ceara Sturgis and Emily Key to rent the museum’s Masonic Hall for their commitment ceremony. Citing legal advice from state Attorney General Jim Hood from 2009, the museum argued that because same-sex marriage isn’t recognized in Mississippi, it could deny the couple use of its facilities since it wouldn’t be “legal.” Now, after intervention from the Southern Poverty Law Center, Hood has dispensed new legal guidance.
Mississippi Commissioner of Agriculture and Commerce Cindy Hyde-Smith announced the change, but made it clear she isn’t happy about it:

HYDE-SMITH: In late July, my office received a letter from Attorney General Hood advising that under Mississippi law, the application could not be refused. Based on my personal and religious beliefs, I strongly object to this, but I have no alternative, due to this advice, but to allow the processing of this permit to move forward. This process contains multiple steps and is currently not finalized.[...]
While this same-sex couple’s request for a permit to utilize one of our state’s facilities for a “commitment ceremony” is not being defined as a marriage ceremony, it is personally troubling for me. Furthermore, based on the legal advice from the Attorney General and the lack of clarity of state law regarding usage of state facilities for these kinds of activities, the legal grounds to deny this request were not found by the Attorney General because the ceremony is, not on its face a violate of state law.

Hyde-Smith called on the legislature to remedy the perceived lack of clarity, essentially requesting that the state enshrine public accommodations discrimination against same-sex couples into law. Lt. Gov Tate Reeves (R) also released a statement objecting to the change:

REEVES: I am disappointed in the decision to allow a permit for same-sex marriage at a taxpayer-subsidized facility to be considered. Attorney General Hood’s legal advice goes against the wishes of an overwhelming majority of Mississippians.

Just last week, Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant (R) says he doesn’t even believe same-sex couples are “couples.” Regardless of what Bryant, Reeves, Hyde-Smith or many Mississippians believe, at least two Mississippians will be able to celebrate a special day in a special way and it won’t affect anybody else’s lives whatsoever.

via thinkprogress.org