| Latest revision |
Your text |
| Line 8: |
Line 8: |
| | | | |
| | ==Explanation== | | ==Explanation== |
| − | In another election-themed comic (this one posted the day after the {{w|United States presidential election, 2012|2012 U.S. presidential election}} November 7, 2012)—(see also [[1122: Electoral Precedent]], [[500: Election]], [[1127: Congress]], and [[1130: Poll Watching]])—this comic shows a bar graph representing expected (see note below) {{w|Electoral College (United States)|electoral college}} votes in the election, including a dotted line indicating the 270 electoral votes needed to win, a span of projections ("Forecast"), and the actual result. | + | In another election-themed comic (this one posted the day after the {{w|United States presidential election, 2012|2012 U.S. presidential election}} (see [[1122: Electoral Precedent]], [[1127: Congress]], and [[1130: Poll Watching]]), this comic shows a bar graph representing expected (see note below) electoral college votes in the election, including a dotted line indicating the 270 votes needed to win, a span of projections ("Forecast"), and the actual result. |
| | | | |
| − | The forecast range is to the right of the 270 line, showing that the ''blue candidate'' {{w|Barack Obama|Obama}} (the {{W|Democratic Party (United States)|Democratic candidate}} is the ''blue candidate'' and the {{W|Republican Party (United States)|Republican candidate}} is the ''red candidate'' according to a convention used since the 2000 election) was always projected to win by statisticians like [[Nate Silver]] and others. The only question among these people was by how much he was going to win. (The Electoral College votes are expectations until each state's voting results are announced early in November, and the electors actually vote in December and may change the situation somewhat.) Randall is attempting to use this particular election to imply that polling data accurately indicates the likely outcome of a presidential election. However, the close match between prediction and result in this one election could be a coincidence; the outcome of U.S. presidential elections frequently differs from projections. Notably, in 1948, the Chicago Tribune printed a headline which turned out to be false and in 2016, polling data indicated that Clinton would defeat Trump. | + | The forecast range is above the 270 line, showing that Obama (the 'Blue Candidate' according to convention since the 2000 election) was always projected to win by statisticians like Nate Silver and others. The only question among these people was how much he was going to win by. By contrast, most of the media was calling the election too close to call, and some news outlets actually projecting a Romney win. |
| | | | |
| − | By contrast, most of the media was calling the election too close to call, with some news outlets actually projecting a {{w|Mitt Romney}} win. Essentially the large number of Republican {{w|pundit}}s who helped increase the pressures of right wing self-referencing media denial, the tendency of media to give any issue at least two dramatically or fictionally equal voices (for supposed "fairness") regardless of the relative merits of the two sides, and the desire to present the election as a suspenseful "horse race" resulted in a lot of ''talking heads'' (i.e. pundits) disbelieving the polls. These factors shaped the "too close to call" narrative, leading to the punch line of this story:
| + | For those unfamiliar with the US Presidential electoral process: unlike other political offices, the election for president is not a direct election. Instead, each state is apportioned a certain number of "electoral college" votes based on population. For the most part (and there is perennial discussion on whether this should be changed) the candidate that receives the most votes in a given state receives all the electoral college votes for that state. With 538 electoral votes total, receiving 270 electoral college votes ((half of 538) + 1) is sufficient to be declared president-elect. For this reason, it is possible to have one candidate actually receive more "popular" votes (more people voted for the candidate,) but have fewer electoral college votes. |
| | | | |
| − | You don't need to believe in science or statistics for it to effectively describe or predict reality. The progressively more radicalized elements of this era are known for disregarding scientific or statistical consensus which reflects reality but does not conform to their world view. However, many of them were correct in their belief (in defiance of statistical data to the contrary) that Donald Trump would be elected in 2016.
| + | The electoral college votes are expectations until the official voting in early November. |
| − | | |
| − | For those unfamiliar with the {{w|United States presidential election|US Presidential electoral process}}: Unlike other political offices, the election for president is not a direct election. Instead, each state is apportioned a certain number of "Electoral College" votes based on the number of House of Representatives seats (which is based on population) and Senate seats. For the most part (and there is perennial discussion on whether this should be changed) the candidate that receives the most popular votes in a given state receives all the Electoral College votes for that state. With 538 electoral votes total, receiving 270 Electoral College votes ((half of 538) + 1) is sufficient to be declared president-elect. For this reason, sometimes one candidate actually receive more popular votes (more people voted for the candidate) but have fewer Electoral College votes. This happened three times in the nineteenth century with elections of {{w|United States presidential election, 1824|John Quincy Adams in 1824}}, {{w|United States presidential election, 1876|Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876}} and {{w|United States presidential election, 1888|Benjamin Harrison in 1888}}. Then it did not happen again until the election of {{w|United States presidential election, 2000|George W. Bush in 2000}} and {{w|United States presidential election, 2016|Donald Trump in 2016}}.
| |
| − | | |
| − | The title text is a subversion of what everyone else was saying at that time: that the election was unpredictable. Pundits often declare events to be "too close to call" when poll results are remarkably close; Randall is saying that the only thing that is "too close to call" is the difference between the results and the predicted results, as the outcome is all but certain.
| |
| | | | |
| | ==Transcript== | | ==Transcript== |
| − | :[A frame with a bar chart showing 58% blue and 42% red. A header shows a range between 53-63%] | + | :Heading: Math |
| − | :Forecast
| + | :[Bar chart showing 58% blue and 42% red. Header showing range between 53-63% with heading "Forecast". Arrow below pointing at meeting of blue and red sections of graph with heading "Result"] |
| − | :[An arrow below the chart is pointing at the line between the blue and the red sections of the chart with a heading]
| + | :Caption: '''Breaking:''' To surprise of pundits, numbers continue to be best system for determining which of two things is larger. |
| − | :Result | |
| − | :[Below the frame is a caption]
| |
| − | :'''''Breaking:''''' To surprise of pundits, numbers continue to be best system for determining which of two things is larger. | |
| | | | |
| | {{comic discussion}} | | {{comic discussion}} |
| − |
| |
| | [[Category:Comics with color]] | | [[Category:Comics with color]] |
| | [[Category:Politics]] | | [[Category:Politics]] |
| − | [[Category:Elections]]
| |
| | [[Category:Charts]] | | [[Category:Charts]] |
| | [[Category:Math]] | | [[Category:Math]] |
| − | [[Category:Statistics]]
| |
