Long live the king

Best of luck to Barack Obama as well. However, the truly momentous and inspirational aspect of yesterday’s result was my almost perfect prediction of it, as published in Crikey last Friday. Obama has carried the erstwhile red states of Iowa, New Mexico, Colorado, Virginia, Ohio, Nevada, Florida and Indiana, with two states coming down to the wire: Missouri, where McCain leads by 5868 votes (0.2 per cent), and North Carolina, where Obama leads by 14,053 (0.4 per cent). I tipped Obama to gain all of these states and no more. I gather late counting of declaration votes is unlikely to change any leads, so it appears those 0.2 per cent of voters in Missouri have stood between me and my moment of destiny. Better luck next time, I guess. To those who tipped McCain victories or record-breaking Obama blowouts and find themselves wondering what my secret is, one simple piece of advice: believe the polls (or Intrade if you prefer – it will usually tell much the same story). They may not be perfect, but they will outperform your own “informed conjecture” well over 50 per cent of the time, no matter how clever you think you are.

If the last two states play out as expected, the final result will be 364 electoral votes for Obama against 174 for McCain, pending one complication: Nebraska, which along with solidly Democratic Maine divides its college votes by congressional district. Two of the three districts have stayed Republican, but in a third Obama trails by just 569 votes, and thus stands a chance to make it 365-173. In any event, the joint winners of the informal Poll Bludger tipping contest (thanks to Juliem for conducting this) will be David Walsh and Ron, who I gather will win a tie-breaker ahead of fellow 364 Club members Grog and Peter Fuller.

Finally, our good friends at UMR Research have published qualitative polling on Australians’ attitudes to the President-elect. Those who harbour an unfashionable element of cynicism about the great man might want to keep a sick bag handy.

Author: William Bowe

William Bowe is a Perth-based election analyst and occasional teacher of political science. His blog, The Poll Bludger, has existed in one form or another since 2004, and is one of the most heavily trafficked websites on Australian politics.

780 comments on “Long live the king”

Comments Page 4 of 16
1 … 3 4 5 … 16

  2. I think I speak for all here when I say please God may we never have another religious debate on this blog that is meant to be about pseph stuff…

    I’m sure there’s lots of blogs out in the www to debate over souls.

    I pray this doesn’t become one of them. 🙂

  3. Oz

    Relativity has been proven, in that there is abundant evidence for it, but it took ages to find it (it was light bending during an eclipse if you must know).

    And you can provide compelling evidence that you are sitting on a couch but you cannot prove it. How do you know you aren’t dreaming all of this?

  4. oz
    The context was regarding sarah palins “communication skills”- which i compared to humphrey b bear
    the tag line for humphrey b bear ( a kids show with a mute bear) was – a funny old fellow
    (you had to grow up watching the show to get it.sigh)

    whats with the pants thing-its not like he was fraser in memphis

  5. [I must have missed it, but what does the “B” stand for?]

    According to his website, the “B” stands for Bear 🙂

    And I have posted this pic before, but to make it on topic for Pollbludger, though not this friend, but one of those pictured was GWB’s Bestest Buddy 🙂

  11. [What is a soul ShowsOn?]
    [OK, ShowsOn, let’s hear your scientific refutation of the existence of the human soul. I’m all ears.]
    There is no evidence for it. How humans behave is a complex interaction between our environment (including culture), our senses, and our brains. Our brains evolved to make sense of the world, and our senses evolved to feed accurate information about the world to our brains. There is no magical agent that controls our entire bodies, rather our perception and sense of consciousness is an extraordinarily complicated interplay of these functions that run across 100 billion or so neurons (the possible permutations of brain connections is more than all the atoms in the universe).

    If there was a soul driving these processes there would be evidence of it in the brains of living people that isn’t in dead people. But again, there is no evidence of a SINGLE thing in there controlling the ENTIRE body. I understand that intuitively the idea that there is a central agent seems to make sense, but there is just no evidence for it. Some people suffer strokes in some parts of the brain and only have slightly impaired brain function, whereas others have strokes in other parts that leave them completely paralysed. If there is central agent, why would there be these varied outcomes from incapacitation? Or if the soul is driving things – and not our brains – why do we need a brain at all?

    People cling to the idea that we have souls because they want to believe there is an agent in us that makes us behave in a positive moral way. They seem to feel that without a soul or spirit there can’t be a positive moral force driving us to do good. But I think this ignores the fact there are also evolutionary reasons for why we are generally kind to others (so they don’t threaten to kill us), and that we have devised cultural processes to encourage good behavior, and discourage bad behavior (nation states, politics, laws).

    We could remain blissfully ignorant of these facts, but doing so implies an ignorance of our biological foundations, and the fact humans are the products of millions of years of evolution. I accept this doesn’t count as a complete proof, but I simply propose there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary. We should believe the explanation of human nature supported by evidence, rather than one based purely on speculation.

  12. Abortion was a sleeper in th election given Obama’s overpowerful views on it , tougher even than th NRAL , perhaps I’ll post his views one day Of course neither Party politcaly wanted to make it too big an issue

    Be that as may , Obama does needs to be careful his minority Abortion views that he’s been prepared to vote publicly for issue in past , don’t flare th whole Aborton debatee in US as there’s big chunks of Democrat demographics who do not support especialy within blackk church community base , th hispanics , jews and suspect strong increasing Asian groups

    Th passion against abortion is driven mainly by passion in beliefs in religion and that may weaken politcal party affiliation suport for some if it blew right up

    For mine left fields I hav no problem therefore at all in people opposing abortion believing a human is already created & tink its intollerant to dismiss such views I also undrerstand those who suport abortion for a woamns health , mentel situations and children especialy rape etc However what seems to occur is like politcal sprectrum diferense its so polorised one vs other , one 100% right and th other 100% wrong , and sometimes a Government reacts to politcal pressure groups wih a decision on this moral value jugement issue withot balance I tink

  13. Here’s ShowsOn pretending he doesn’t understand the argument.

    I believe all that but still allow other people to have their own beliefs.

  14. [If there was a soul driving these processes there would be evidence of it in the brains of living people that isn’t in dead people. ]

    Firstly, that is just a set of assertions, not a presentation of evidence. Do I need to give you a lecture on the scientific method?

    Secondly, you obviously have no idea what Christians actually say about the soul. They don’t say it’s a “controlling agent” or something that can be materially measured. This shows a level of ignorance of Christian doctrine which is just laughable.

    I said earlier you were a half-educated fool, and you have just proved it, as I fully expected you would. Now I can go to bed.

  16. [I’m waiting for your scientific evidence for the non-existence of the soul, as postulated by Christian belief.]
    I’m waiting for their evidence their is one, when there is so much evidence to the contrary!
    [Oz, exactly. ShowsOn maintains he can prove a negative proposition, and I’m waiting to see him do it.]
    Oh dear! How is saying a soul EXISTS a negative proposition!? You are saying “prove that something that can’t be proven exists exists”! That is just plain stupid.
    [There is no scientific evidence for the non-existence of the soul. There is also no evidence for the existence of the soul. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.]
    There is a very good alternative explanation for human behavior which is just a lot more likely.

    What you have written is effectively the same as “because no one has ever been able to observe evolution in action, that means creationism must be equally likely”.

    We see the EFFECTS of evolution, but not the processes itself actually occurring.
    [Your blogs by in large are good so please stick to the politics & leave the science & “God complex” alone.]
    Why thank you for your kind words.
    [I don’t think relativity has been proven, it remains a scientific “theory”.]
    Science only produces theories! Relatively has been supported over numerous experiments, most recently by sending radio signals back and forth between Mars.
    [But since Christians don’t claim that the soul is a material object which can be seen or measured, how exactly does ShowsOn intend to prove its non-existence? I’m agog with anticipation…]
    This is just idiocy that completely demonstrates your ignorance of science. Just because some dogmatic believers SAY something as certain properties doesn’t make that true. If something exists there should be evidence of it in some sort. If an alternate explanation is supported by more evidence, that is more likely to be true.
    [ShowsOn, I’m not sitting up all night waiting for you to demonstrate scientifically the non-existence of the soul. Either defaecate or get off the pot.]
    Classy stuff. Well done.
    [Here’s ShowsOn pretending he doesn’t understand the argument.

    I believe all that but still allow other people to have their own beliefs.]
    I believe other people can have their own beliefs too. It just doesn’t make them true, or even remotely likely to be true.
    [Firstly, that is just a set of assertions, not a presentation of evidence. Do I need to give you a lecture on the scientific method?]
    No thank you, you’ve demonstrated you have no idea what the scientific method is.
    [Secondly, you obviously have no idea what Christians actually say about the soul. ]
    They suggest it is a ghost in the machine. The fact you don’t realise that demonstrates you don’t actually know the ramifications of what they are proposing.
    [I said earlier you were a half-educated fool, and you have just proved it, as I fully expected you would. Now I can go to bed.]
    The fact you simply reverted to this attack demonstrates you have absolutely no idea of the significance of what I wrote.
    [Showson genuinely does not understand the argument. He’s the PB equivalent of a hologram. No soul. no essence, no class.]
    There’s no such thing as souls. There’s no evidence to support that they exist.

  18. Can we please avoid going into the religion/science/souls/abortion etc debate? That’s the point when I stop reading comments on here, and I’m sure others do too.

    To get the abortion debate back onto psephological issue, I would argue that most Catholics (we’re not talking about churchgoing Catholics here, who may have a different political breakdown) are pro-choice or very weak pro-lifers who don’t vote on that basis. It’s not the issue that decides the election. After all, every election you have some Catholic bishop say awful things about the Democrat and they still get half the Catholic vote. John Kerry was threatened by some bishops with excommunication and still got 47% of the vote.

    Ever since Paul VI banned the use of contraceptives, the Church lost control over the sex lives of a significant majority of Catholics, at least in the Western world. And the two countries where the Church has lost the most control of Catholics are Australia and the US.

  20. [Can we please avoid going into the religion/science/souls/abortion etc debate? That’s the point when I stop reading comments on here, and I’m sure others do too.]

    +1000

  22. you’re=your

    Ben
    Did religion really factor in this election?
    As Castle ,i think,said earlier they are the noisy minority-personally I call them the nosey minority

  25. [And you can provide compelling evidence that you are sitting on a couch but you cannot prove it. How do you know you aren’t dreaming all of this?]

    What did I say about absurdism?

    [I thought all the central banks were going to take combined action against the strength of the Yen a couple of weeks ago, what are they waiting for?]

    Currency market is stuff. Time for a currency pegged to the inverse value of coal. How’s that for a market based incentive to stop climate change.

    Breaking news – Bank of England cuts rates 1.5%.

  30. 170

    My #162 suggested psephological angles on Abortion for Abama in this own Democrat vote blocks

    Same applies to gay marriage , VP Biden who oposes it but would vote against a State ballot on it These issues ar fraught with politcal pot holes aside from actual issue debate itself

  34. China says if Taiwan ever officially declares independence they’ll invade. The US says if China invades they’ll retaliate.

    Neither China nor the US are going to war over Tawain.

    [ps do you know the helena rubenstein one?]

    ??

  38. Dario it was looking like the economy in England was going to contract 1% in the next year as against the US .5% contraction. It has turned the European sharemarkets around by at least two percent in the past half hour or so and they may well finish up in positive territory. The banks over there have threatened not to pass on the full cut but I think they might get lent on very heavily.

  40. [The banks over there have threatened not to pass on the full cut but I think they might get lent on very heavily.]
    By Gordon Brown? Does he have that much authority left?

  42. Ron
    That is quite an imperialistic statement “mexican standoff”

    rates up there with french letter and dutch treat as an example of both superiority and propaganda in one neat package.

    When in fact the mehicanos kicked the french’s arse

    alamo anyone?

  45. Sure , but Tibet is an insignificant economic etc power Some Obama suporters may find Bush was a mumbler and Obama a brilliant orator but some World reality situations may not change just how its described that nothing is going to change , & with Tibet vs Tailwan reletivities

  47. [Sure , but Tibet is an insignificant economic etc]

    Sorry I meant Taiwan.

    Regardless of it’s economy, the two biggest powers on the planet aren’t going to war over it.

  48. “Ron That is quite an imperialistic statement “mexican standoff”

    but you left out my last 2 words “Its called a mexican standoff reverse checkmate”
    So I spread th flavour of chess playing cultures in with our Mexican alamo friends

  50. And what ar th “but if when maybe” brigade of econamists going to do if there objectives ar not met with rate decreases and interest rates get to 0% , whats there trick then (but from amigo FINNS “ploy”: th Banks pay you to borrow from then

Comments Page 4 of 16
1 … 3 4 5 … 16

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *