36 hours

[davidn]

This election's absolutely killing me. I thought it was tense in September, and have watched the poll numbers daily since then, but nothing can describe what it's like here in the thick of it - there's absolutely no escaping it. Obama's been on television telling people not to get cocky even though he's miles ahead, McCain's been on television telling people how pleased he is he's going to win even though he's miles behind, and the conflicting numbers from all over the place put me in real doubt that anyone can guess what's going to happen tomorrow.

I'm surprised, in fact, that some sources say it's so close - a gap of a few percent is significant, of course, but in Britain we just don't let anyone as stupid as the current runners-up anywhere near leadership of the country (unless they're really entertaining). Though I know that Obama is virtually certain to win all the states that Kerry did and then just has to win one or two of the eight states that he has slightly more than a 50% chance in, that a computer simulation of all the possible outcomes put Obama's victory at a chance of 99.8%, that the Democrats are overwhelmingly ahead in early voting, and that even McCain's home state of Arizona is looking a bit weak at the moment... there's still a tiny, tiny doubt there. Especially as the numbers seem to be narrowing very slightly towards the end. And it's pretty painful - sometimes you just want to hibernate for a while and wake up when it's finally all over.

There are two large difficulties with the polls this year - the idea that people might say that they've voting for Obama in an overcompensation for their subconscious fear of racism and then not really go for him on Tuesday, and the thought that with so many new voters this year on Obama's side but not being polled, his lead might actually be larger than thought at the moment. Ideally these two effects would just cancel each other out, but they really could mean anything for the numbers. Another problem is that so many places seem so spectacularly unprepared for the election taking place - you would think it would have been pretty difficult to miss for the last couple of months - and queues about eight hours long have already been reported in some states where early voting was open. And this is projected to put people off a bit. It seems that this year, rather than the actual number of voters, the election will be entirely decided on which side has the most weather resilience and bladder control.

So I can only say to everyone what I said a week ago as well - if you're in America, and you can, just vote. For whoever you believe in - one of the two main parties or independents - because like I've said before I can guarantee you that you'll miss that right once you don't have it. I can only wait for the result, and leave you with this song that was being bandied about like the Hymn of the Fayth as a ray of hope all over the nations a couple of months ago. His progress so far has been amazing, for someone who I had hardly heard of a year ago - now he just needs to finish the race. It has to happen this time. Please.

Just 36 more hours. I hope that you get the result that you want. (Unless you're voting for the Republicans, in which case I wouldn't be telling the truth if I said anything other than I hope it goes positively disastrously for you.)

Comments

[diarytypething.livejournal.com]

Opinion polls are not an exact science, and they're often used as a case study for teaching Social Science students (a) how stats work, and (b) why they sometimes don't.

In the UK you need at least 1000 respondents from different backgrounds before you can get a result with any hope of being representative, but there's probably no reliable way of assessing this in the American system without polling a representative sample of every state. Then there's the margin of error: anything within 5% is considered to be accurate enough, but that doesn't mean that it's correct. According to the opinion polls, Labour should have won the 1992 General Election, but they were tripped up by that 5% margin of error (although victory speech Neil Kinnock gave the night before probably didn't help). Since it takes a lot less than 5% to swing an American election either way, and it's probably more difficult to get that degree of accuracy, there really aren't any certainties unless every single poll predicts and landslide for the same party - even then it's only a probability. And yes, people lie. Plenty of studies have shown that when forced to take part in anonymous surveys, people will try to make themselves look good by predicting the answers that the interviewer (or any family members) wants to hear from them. In Europe, people tend to fib towards the political left, but at least you can take comfort in the fact that there are probably places in the States where it works the other way - if I haven't just managed to convince you that the polls are all rubbish anyway.

If you want to be really depressed about it, try watching the film "Recount". Channel 4 showed it on Saturday night, and although the satirical bits are quite watchable, it's a soul-destroying recap of what happened 8 years ago. Incidentally, tomorrow night's viewing on Channel 4 includes a drama about the (totally fictional) assassination of George W. Bush.

[davidn]

Oh, thanks very much. Although that is pretty much as I thought - the polls might not mean much, but that also means the tightening over the last week also doesn't mean anything either. And we do still at least have the hard fact that early voting has definitely favoured the Democrats (by over 10% most of the time and over 20% in rare cases).

I'm surprised that Channel 4 (well, it's Channel 4) are showing anything like that this early, but I was pleasantly reminded of how much more you can get away with on British TV last night when we watched Have I Got News For You.

[diarytypething.livejournal.com]

Yeah, these American commentators complaining about the "librul media" don't know they're born. We could teach them a thing or two about free speech over here in heathen Europe.

[lordrosemount.livejournal.com]

You really think so? I've always found the level of satire present in the Us to be fairly equivalent to ours - SNL is good because it even gets the satirees in on the act, but you also have the likes of John Roberts and Jay Leno, who aren't known for pulling their punches.

[e-to-the-ipi.livejournal.com]

Have I got News for You is a comedy panel show which broke their network's ban on saying that a certain politician was gay, and has as regular panellist the most sued man in UK history.

I don't think there's a US equivalent of Private Eye, more shame.

[davidn]

I think that the closest thing is probably The Daily Show with The Biggest Smeghead Ever (tell me you haven't seen that exact expression on Chris Barrie), which is sort of news commentary and pointing out hypocrisy sometimes along the same lines as Ian Hislop's magazine - smug though Stewart is, he's often very funny.

[stubbleupdate.livejournal.com]

Is Ian Hislop the most sued man in UK History?

[e-to-the-ipi.livejournal.com]

He definitely was at some stage. Mostly libel, obviously.

[davidn]

Allegedly!

[davidn]

That's true... I was actually surprised at how... likable McCain appeared on SNL, after the image I've had of him for the rest of the campaign, and the late night programmes are sometimes quite daring especially with the Republicans. It never seems quite as vicious, though - like Jonny just said, I haven't heard of them being sued anywhere near as much as Ian Hislop!

Specifically, it was the comment about the Sarah Palin/Tomb Raider doll, and how that's what she'll be if she visits McCain next year, that really stood out to me. :)