Replies

When I think of dependent events, I assume dependency in the uncertain events. In this case, the uncertain event is which way a state's electoral vote will go, not how voters in one state feel about the economy or the war, versus voters in another state. I haven't bought into the idea that the individual state results are not independent events.

Let me put it to you this way: what would have to happen for Bush to lose, e.g. Texas?

If such an event were to occur, would you still expect Bush to have a 59% chance of winning Ohio?

The only way Bush is going to lose a state like Texas is if something happens that is very bad for him. Alnmost anything that would be bad enough to erase his lead in Texas would be bad enough to sink him in anything even remotely resembling swing states.

Let me put it to you this way: what would have to happen for Bush to lose, e.g. Texas? If such an event were to occur, would you still expect Bush to have a 59% chance of winning Ohio?

I understand what you're trying to say, however, that is not what is being modeled here.

If events were to cause Bush to lose Texas, I would not expect Ohio to remain at 59% probability, because the same event would cause voters in Ohio to reassess their positions, too. But, given the set of events as we see them today, the perception of those events distills into a 98.8% chance of winning Texas and a 59.1% chance of winning Ohio. The outcome in Ohio is not based on the outcome in Texas (no "So goes Maine, so goes the nation?"), which is my understanding of how dependent events works. Can you say something like, "If Massachusetts votes Kerry, then Connecticut will vote Kerry, too?"

-PJ