Fivethirtyeight: election forecast: obama begins with tenuousadvantage - China Cosmetic Packaging B

Mr. Obama would be about 80 percentlikely to win an election held today, according to the model. However, the outlook for the Nov. 6 election is much less certain,with Mr. Obama having winning odds of just over 60 percent.

Theforecast currently calls for Mr. Obama to win roughly 290 electoralvotes, but outcomes ranging everywhere from about 160 to 390electoral votes are plausible, given the long lead time until theelection and the amount of news that could occur between now andthen. Both polls and economic indicators are a pretty rough guidefive months before an election. The forecast works by running simulations of the Electoral College,which are designed to consider the uncertainty in the outcome atthe national level and in individual states. It recognizes thatvoters in each state could be affected by universal factors likea rising or falling economic tide as well as by circumstancesparticular to each state.

Furthermore, it considers therelationships between the states and the ways they might move intandem with one another. Demographically similar states likeMinnesota and Wisconsin, for instance, are more likely to move inthe same direction than dissimilar ones like New Hampshire and NewMexico. Although the model which is distinct from the electoral map puttogether by The Times's political desk relies fairlyheavily on polling, it also considers an index of national economicconditions. Right now, the polls and the economy are broadly in agreement withone another both point toward an extremely tight race although the economic risks to Mr.

Obama are somewhat to thedownside. Still, while the economic indicators suggest that the economy isgrowing sluggishly at a below-average pace of about 2 percentgrowth per year it is not yet in recession and incumbentpresidents often receive the benefit of the doubt from voters. Afavorable precedent for Mr. Obama is George W.

Bush, who narrowlywon re-election in 2004 under similar circumstances. One of the confusing aspects of this presidential race so far isthat national polls have often shown a race that is nearly tied or Mr. Romney sometimes leading while Mr. Obama has more oftenhad the lead in polls of crucial battleground states. Sites thatproject the presidential outcome based on the state polls have thusseemed to show a tangible advantage for Mr.

Obama , while those that look at the trend in national polls seem toimply that the race is too close to call. Any evaluation of the presidential race needs to reconcile thisdiscrepancy. That America is highly divided along partisan linesdoes not negate the basic mathematical identity that the whole mustequal the sum of the parts. One hypothesis might be that Mr. Obama enjoys some sort ofintrinsic edge in the Electoral College and that, like Mr.

Bushin 2000, he could win the Electoral College while losing thenationwide popular vote. Our analysis suggests, however, that this is not necessarily thecase. The model's simulations estimate that there is onlyabout a 2 percent chance that Mr. Obama will win Electoral Collegewhile losing the popular vote. Meanwhile, there is only about a 3percent chance that Mr.

Romney will do so. Instead, the disparity between state and national polls probablystems from a more banal factor: it likely results from thedifferent types of polling firms that are active in each of thesedomains. The polling firms that have dominated the national polls are Gallupand Rasmussen Reports, each of which release national trackingnumbers on a daily basis. These firms have had Republican-leaning "house effects" so far, meaning that they show more favorable results for Mr.Romney than the consensus of polls. Meanwhile, some pollsters that are more active at the state level,like Public Policy Polling and Marist College, have hadDemocratic-leaning house effects, giving Mr.

Obama better resultsthan the consensus does. When such disparities have arisen in past elections, it has notnecessarily been the case that the national polls have provided fora superior prediction. Instead, a more accurate estimate of thenational popular vote could sometimes be arrived at by aggregatingstate polls together. Still, the model assumes that the truth issomewhere in between: the national polls probably underestimate Mr.Obama's standing slightly, while the state polls overestimateit some.

This is not to suggest, however, that Electoral College strategywill have no bearing on the race. If the national margin remainsclose, the campaigns will have some difficult decisions to make. The model suggests that the campaigns might do best to concentratetheir resources. As much as campaign operatives love to talk abouthow they are expanding the map, contemplating unusual parlays ofstates in which they reach 270 electoral votes, the election isvery likely to come down to a mere handful of states. In many ways,the relative ordering of the states is more predictable than howthe election as a whole will play out.

The term the model uses for these key states is tipping point states , meaning that they could tip the balance between winning andlosing in an election that came down to the final vote. Foremost among these tipping point states are Ohio and Virginia. In2008, both states had a very slight Republican lean relative to therest of the country. However, the economy is comparatively good ineach state, and Mr. Obama's polling has held up reasonablywell in them, putting them almost exactly in balance.

Mr. Obama isgiven just slightly over 50 percent odds of winning each one, justas he is given a very slight overall lead in our nationalprojection. But if Mr. Obama's national standing slips, hewould probably lose his lead in those states as well.

In the next tier of states are Colorado, Iowa, Nevada andPennsylvania. The first three of these states project to be almostas close as Ohio and Virginia, but they are somewhat less importantthan it because they contain fewer electoral votes. Pennsylvania is the reverse case: it is more of a reach for Mr.Romney, but has 20 electoral votes and therefore offers him a hugereward. Even if Mr. Obama were to win states like Virginia andColorado, it would be nearly impossible for him to win theElectoral College if he lost both Ohio and Pennsylvania along withFlorida.

Taken by itself, however, Florida may be a less valuable prize thanusual. Right now, the polls there show almost an exact tie. But themodel views Florida as leaning toward Mr. Romney, for severalreasons.

First, the polls showing a tie there were mostly conducted amongregistered voters rather than likely voters. Republicans typicallyimprove their standing by a point or two when polling firms switchfrom registered voter to likely voter polls, probably becauseRepublican voters are older, wealthier, and otherwise havedemographic characteristics that make them more reliable bets toturn out. The model anticipates this pattern and adjusts for it,bolstering Mr. Romney's standing by a point or two wheneverit evaluates a registered-voter poll. In addition, the fundamentals somewhat favor Mr.

Romney in Florida.The state has been somewhat Republican-leaning in the past, and itseconomy is quite poor. Mr. Romney has raised more money than Mr.Obama there, and its demographics are not especially strong for Mr.Obama. The model considers these factors in addition to the pollsin each state.

In the case of Florida, they equate to Mr. Romneyhaving about a 60 or 65 percent chance of winning it, and Mr. Obamaprobably has easier paths to 270 electoral votes. Other states that are sometimes considered battlegrounds are evenless likely to swing the national outcome. Mr.

Obama has only abouta 30 percent chance of carrying North Carolina again, according tothe model. In the instances where he does, it will most likely comealong for the ride only after Mr. Obama has already accumulatedenough electoral votes elsewhere to win another term. Likewise, although Republicans might be tempted to make a play forWisconsin after winning the gubernatorial recall election there onTuesday. The model suggests that it is over-hyped as a swing state.Mr.

Obama has had a fairly consistent lead in the polls there,including in the exit poll among voters who turned out on Tuesday.Although Mr. Obama is unlikely to win Wisconsin by 14 points, as hedid in 2008, all indications from the polls are that the stateremains somewhat more favorable to him than the country as a whole,meaning that is not quite at the electoral tipping point and ismore like Mr. Romney's equivalent of North Carolina. If there is an unheralded state that could be in play this year, itmight be Oregon. Oregon has been sparsely polled, but the mostrecent survey found a tight race there , and the state has been extremely competitive in the past likein 2000 when Al Gore won it by less than a full percentage point.

Still, all of this could be outweighed by a shift in economiccircumstances. The model creates an economic index by combining seven frequentlyupdated economic indicators. These factors include the four majoreconomic components that economists often use to date recessions : job growth (as measured by nonfarm payrolls ), personal income , industrial production , and consumption . The fifth factor is inflation, as measured by changes in the Consumer Price Index . The sixth and seventh factors are more forward looking: thechange in the S&P 500 stock market index, and the consensusforecast of gross domestic product growth over the next twoeconomic quarters, as taken from the median of The Wall StreetJournal's monthly forecasting panel.

These variables were chosen because they provide for a broadconsensus view of economic conditions, and because they are updatedfrequently, as opposed to other series, like gross domesticproduct, that are reported with long lag times. It is essential to take a consensus of economic indicators becausethey often diverge picking the wrong one could give you a misleading impression about the overall state of the economy andthe election . For instance, industrial production has been quite strong, whilepersonal income has been especially weak, and jobs growth has beenall over the board in recent months. The consensus of indicators,however, points toward a decidedly below-average but not quiterecessionary economy. This economic index, which is scaled on a similar basis to grossdomestic product and now reads at 2.2 percent, exerts agravitational pull on the forecast.

Right now, it suggests that theeconomy is in a state where the election "should" bevery close. If Mr. Obama develops a large lead in the polls without any underlying improvement in the economic fundamentals it will therefore adjust his numbers downward. Likewise, if Mr.Romney were to build a clear lead in the polls, it would shave someof that advantage off, unless that came because of a deteriorationin economic circumstances.

The model is designed such that this economic gravitational pullbecomes less as the election draws nearer until on Election Dayitself, the forecast is based solely on the polls and no longerlooks at economic factors. The track record of candidates who havepolled strongly in June in defiance of the economic fundamentals isnot so great, whereas if the same is true in September or October,it is much more plausible that the election will prove to be anexceptional case. But the economy will exerts a fair amount of influence on theforecast for the time being. For instance, the poor jobs numbersthat were released on Friday would have tangibly worsened Mr.Obama's forecast, while the nearly 300-point stock marketrally on Wednesday would have improved it. In addition to running a forecast of the Nov.

6 outcome, the modelalso reports a "now-cast," which looks at the sameinformation, and runs the same code, but assumes that the electionis held today instead of in November. There may be times at whichdifferent candidates lead the forecast and the now-cast. Forinstance, the model will adjust polls conducted just after theparty conventions, which typically produce short-lived "bounces" that soon fall back to earth. A candidate in the midst of aconvention bounce might lead the now-cast but trail in the Nov.

6forecast. Apart from adding the economic component of the model, andintroducing the now-cast, most of the other details of the modelare similar to the version we ran in 2008 . However, we have tightened the model's logic in someplaces, particularly in cases where ad hoc assumptions are replacedby more empirically driven guidance from our polling database. For instance, we found that "fundamentals" factors atthe state level particularly how it voted in the past twopresidential elections should be given more weight relative tothe polls there than we had been assigning them in 2008.

This meansthat in cases where polling in a state is sparse, the fundamentalsanalysis will tend to dominate. For instance, the model does notgive much credence to the idea that Tennessee is close, even though a poll or two have shown it that way , since the volume of polling is not very high and since thefundamentals break sharply against Mr. Obama there. However, once astate gets a number of recent and reliable polls, the model willmostly trust the polling and the fundamentals analysis will matterless.

As was the case in 2008, the model will adjust its forecast in eachstate even if there are no new polls there, based on the trend itdiscerns from polls in other states and at the national level. If,for instance, Mr. Obama goes through a period where his numbershave declined in Michigan and Pennsylvania, as well as in hisnational numbers, it would be na ve to conclude that thisstanding has not also deteriorated in Ohio, even if there are nofresh surveys there. That said, one should be careful not overreact to new polls orother new information, particularly if they are unrelated tochanges in fundamental circumstances of the race like economicconditions. One or two new polls are rarely the basis for a"trend," and often even three, four or five new pollscan be deceptive surprisingly often.

The model is fairly conservative about calculating the trend lineat first, requiring a lot of evidence before it shifts the numbersmuch, but will become much more aggressive in the closing stages ofthe race. It also considers the fact that some states are inherently more sensitive to the national trend than others. Any model is a simplification of the real world and requires makingchoices and assumptions. It therefore introduces the possibility ofhuman error if the choices are the wrong ones.

We would neversuggest that you should look at our model alone at the expense ofany other perspectives on the presidential race. At the same time, we have thought about each of these choices andassumptions very carefully, and hope to explain them to you in muchmore detail in a series of posts over the rest of June. They areguided by an empirical outlook on past presidential races,including what we believe may be the world's mostcomprehensive database of past presidential polls. The choices arealso guided by an overall philosophy toward model-building, some ofwhich comes from the investigations I have undertaken aboutforecasting as part of my upcoming book.

In general, our model is fairly simple in the way it projects thenational numbers, essentially just relying on two variables("polls" and "economy"). It gets moredetailed in the way it evaluates data at the state level, since thestates provide for 50 data points in each past election rather thanjust one, allowing for more robust analysis. The model will be updated several times a week at first, and thennearly every day once we reach the summer.

We are high quality suppliers, our products such as China Cosmetic Packaging Boxes , Catalogue Printing Services Manufacturer for oversee buyer. To know more, please visits Cosmetic Packaging Boxes.

Related Articles - China Cosmetic Packaging Boxes, Catalogue Printing Services Manufacturer,

Email this Article to a Friend! Receive Articles like this one direct to your email box! Subscribe for free today!