You're not a person until you say goo-goo
Nov. 5th, 2008 11:14 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
koganbotHow my predictions went:
National (overestimated Obama by about 1 point, underestimated McCain by 2, overestimated Barr-Nader by 1), state by state (missed North Dakota by a mile, Indiana by a hair, seem to have everything else, though North Carolina and Missouri may still be too close to call; underestimated Obama's electoral win by 8; was wrong that Arizona would be tighter than predicted, right that Montana would be tighter than predicted), general analysis (overestimated the return to McCain in the Midwest [hence blew Indiana], overestimated the black swell in the south [didn't get any states wrong, but Virginia was closer than anyone predicted and Georgia wasn't as close as I'd hoped (though not all votes there have been counted)], was right that McCain's negativity hurt him disproportionately in the Wild West,* though was wrong about where this would manifest itself (thought Obama'd take North Dakota but he lost solidly, whereas he contested Montana and romped in Nevada), Senate (my only prediction was Republican Chambliss getting forced into a runoff in Georgia; this vote is still in the air).
*Wild West - which I'm distinguishing from the Coast - tends to vary from state to state, with Wyoming, Utah, and Idaho voting as red as they can, whereas New Mexico, Colorado, Montana, and Nevada are getting bluer. This rising blueness can be explained by an increase in Latinos in three of those four states and an increase in the propensity of the Republicans to alienate them, also an increase in cosmopolitan technocratic whites in Nevada and Colorado, also clusters of people sharing attributes and attracting others with similar cultural leanings: New Mexico and Colorado and maybe even Montana attract post-hippie types, though often with libertarian leanings, so there's a new-age tinge, with guns; Nevada attracts WTF types, with guns; whereas Mormons/LDS still tend to align themselves conservatively, which has an impact on Utah and Idaho.
Opinion polls seemed reasonably accurate in their predictions, overstated Obama a bit in Virginia, understated him a bit in the Midwest, were wrong about North Dakota being in play but right about Montana, and greatly underestimated the Obama support in Nevada. In the Senate contests they botched Alaska (after Stevens' conviction the polls showed him losing by about 8 points) and Oregon (even if it turns out that Smith loses, he wasn't supposed to make it so close) but were OTM elsewhere (Minnesota being a tossup and North Carolina a definite win for the Dems and New Hampshire a strong win). I think they probably overstated Democratic pickups in the House by a little, but not all returns are in.
Also, not only did Obama take Nevada by a greater percentage than he took North Carolina, Indiana, Florida, Virginia, Ohio, and Colorado, he'd have won the election if he'd taken Nevada and lost all the rest of those. (Well, he'd have tied in the electoral college, but he'd have won the tie-breaker in the House of Representatives.)
In local referenda, some anti-union initiatives were beaten back; being a fertilized egg isn't enough to make you a man, or a person, even; you can gamble more places than you could previously; and it seems as if government can still act affirmatively, though this is still too close to be called for sure. Also, Denver voted to go into debt some more.
National (overestimated Obama by about 1 point, underestimated McCain by 2, overestimated Barr-Nader by 1), state by state (missed North Dakota by a mile, Indiana by a hair, seem to have everything else, though North Carolina and Missouri may still be too close to call; underestimated Obama's electoral win by 8; was wrong that Arizona would be tighter than predicted, right that Montana would be tighter than predicted), general analysis (overestimated the return to McCain in the Midwest [hence blew Indiana], overestimated the black swell in the south [didn't get any states wrong, but Virginia was closer than anyone predicted and Georgia wasn't as close as I'd hoped (though not all votes there have been counted)], was right that McCain's negativity hurt him disproportionately in the Wild West,* though was wrong about where this would manifest itself (thought Obama'd take North Dakota but he lost solidly, whereas he contested Montana and romped in Nevada), Senate (my only prediction was Republican Chambliss getting forced into a runoff in Georgia; this vote is still in the air).
*Wild West - which I'm distinguishing from the Coast - tends to vary from state to state, with Wyoming, Utah, and Idaho voting as red as they can, whereas New Mexico, Colorado, Montana, and Nevada are getting bluer. This rising blueness can be explained by an increase in Latinos in three of those four states and an increase in the propensity of the Republicans to alienate them, also an increase in cosmopolitan technocratic whites in Nevada and Colorado, also clusters of people sharing attributes and attracting others with similar cultural leanings: New Mexico and Colorado and maybe even Montana attract post-hippie types, though often with libertarian leanings, so there's a new-age tinge, with guns; Nevada attracts WTF types, with guns; whereas Mormons/LDS still tend to align themselves conservatively, which has an impact on Utah and Idaho.
Opinion polls seemed reasonably accurate in their predictions, overstated Obama a bit in Virginia, understated him a bit in the Midwest, were wrong about North Dakota being in play but right about Montana, and greatly underestimated the Obama support in Nevada. In the Senate contests they botched Alaska (after Stevens' conviction the polls showed him losing by about 8 points) and Oregon (even if it turns out that Smith loses, he wasn't supposed to make it so close) but were OTM elsewhere (Minnesota being a tossup and North Carolina a definite win for the Dems and New Hampshire a strong win). I think they probably overstated Democratic pickups in the House by a little, but not all returns are in.
Also, not only did Obama take Nevada by a greater percentage than he took North Carolina, Indiana, Florida, Virginia, Ohio, and Colorado, he'd have won the election if he'd taken Nevada and lost all the rest of those. (Well, he'd have tied in the electoral college, but he'd have won the tie-breaker in the House of Representatives.)
In local referenda, some anti-union initiatives were beaten back; being a fertilized egg isn't enough to make you a man, or a person, even; you can gamble more places than you could previously; and it seems as if government can still act affirmatively, though this is still too close to be called for sure. Also, Denver voted to go into debt some more.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-11-05 09:08 pm (UTC)I think the problem is that there are far fewer straight people who actually care about it than we like to think -- there were enough people with enough confidence in the left to tip Florida and California for Obama, but not to tip them for gay marriage, which I guess is not surprising when you consider that Obama has enough confidence in the left to be Obama, but not to be for gay marriage.
no subject
Date: 2008-11-05 09:22 pm (UTC)