A 3.00% lead for Coakley gives her an 83% chance of victory, according to my numbers. To put it a different way, of the 143 closest elections from 2004-2009, in 48 cases the final polling margin differed from the final result by 3.00% or more. This means the candidate leading by 3.00% has an 83% chance of victory.
Does this conflict with other election forecasters right now? Of course! In fact, the main reason I rolled out my new election forecasting method today, along with the research backing it up, it precisely because it conflicts with other election forecasters. I had been excited about this new methodology for a while, but what better time to introduce it then when it conflicts with virtually all other election forecasters?
I could end up looking like an idiot. It wouldn't be the first time. However, I believe there is strong evidence that this is the most accurate method currently available. Right now, my numbers still put Coakley at a clear advantage, and I am kind excited that everyone disagrees with me (which, in my experience, usually means I will end up looking like an idiot).