It seems like everyone in the media is saying the election is going to be close. That appears to be the prevailing conventional wisdom, and I'd say it's shared by the majority of people on this site. It's a belief that I shared as well until a few short minutes ago.
I was reading this article by Five Thirty Eight's Nate Silver, in which he discusses how President Obama appears to have received a fairly substantial bounce from his convention. It's an interesting (and encouraging article) and you should read it for yourself.
In any case, I was reading the article with interest, but mostly I was just taking in the information without comment. It all seemed to make sense and, after all, I'm no expert on reading polls.
But then I got to this part:
Instead, the cases where one candidate led essentially from wire to wire have been associated with landslides: Bill Clinton in 1996, Ronald Reagan in 1984, Richard Nixon in 1972 and Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1952 and 1956.
There is almost no chance that Mr. Obama will win by those sort of margins.
When I read that, a light bulb went off in my head. "Really? Why not?" I couldn't help asking myself.
The polling trends are shaping up in such a way that they resemble past landslide victories, but it's still going to be a close election? Everyone keeps saying this is going to be a close election, and I believed that myself. But really, why are we all so certain of that? Because the economy's bad? Because the Republicans won big in 2010? Because of the hatred the right feels for President Obama?
The more I thought about it, the more I couldn't help wondering if this is one of those times where the statistics paint a very clear picture, but our own personal biases prevent us from seeing it. Maybe, just maybe, the conventional wisdom is wrong, and this isn't going to be a close election after all.
Read More
