posted
It might be interesting if we start a thread now, predicting how the election will turn out. Then after the election, we can look back at it.
I don't have any real insight myself, but I expect Obama to pick up maybe 55% of the popular vote, states divided much the same way as they were in the last election.
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Romney wins, but if he looses it will be by just a few percentage points because the Paulites will stay home or vote a different party.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
lem, I just want you to know that I find your continued dogged belief in the relevance of Ron Paul to be disarmingly charming.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
55-45 would be a really high margin for the popular vote. There's no way Obama beats his '08 margin. Democrat turnout is just not going to reach those levels.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is there a point of engaging in amateur prediction when there are highly-competentprofessionals performing the same function*?
But I guess maybe it's just for fun. In that case, my guess is that Obama edges Romney by about 1.5% in the popular vote and maybe 284-254 in the Electoral College. That said, I do have significant uncertainty about that forecast, and wouldn't be very surprised by anything from a 40 EV/2% popular vote win for Romney to a 90 EV/4% popular vote win for Obama.
*Not that those highly-competent professionals' models actually agree with each other...
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
1. Something dramatic has to happen in favor of the Republican party in order for Romney to win. If things stay more or less how they've been for the whole election season so far, the only real question is whether or not Obama will again breach the 300 mark in Electoral Vote Distribution; it currently holds at 298 in the current reliable models.
2. Ryan has not yet shown himself to be very relevant to point no. (1). Romney has never been modeled as a likely winner and has trailed Obama from the onset of polling aggregate tabulations. Obama is experiencing a (further) upswing over Romney right now but it can't be shown conclusively to be about Ryan and is realistically more likely a result of the Akin brouhaha bolstering the Democratic line that Republicans are waging a "war on women."
3. The Paulites are mostly irrelevant again; they're essentially a republican bloc as usual and it will be funny to watch them vote for a person who instituted a universal health coverage as governor. (With Reservations™ of course)
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's going to be close, and there's a lot of campaign season left. Based on how the race stands right now - or rather, as it stood shortly before the start of the Republican National Convention, since that's basically where current polling gets us - I'd guess that Obama wins the popular vote a slim margin (say 50-48.5), and the electoral college by a less slim margin, earning roughly 290 electoral votes overall.
But again, we're just now entering the biggest phase of the campaign. A final projection will depend on the severity and longevity of convention bounces, debate performances, and of course any October Surprise(s) that may occur.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: 55-45 would be a really high margin for the popular vote. There's no way Obama beats his '08 margin. Democrat turnout is just not going to reach those levels.
And early-signs are independents are significantly more likely to vote GOP than they were in 2008. Plus third party candidates will likely capture 1-2% of the vote, so reaching 55% would mean a margin of victory of ~12%, which would be really surprising to me. For reference, in 2008, Obama scored 53% of the vote and had a 7.5% margin of victory.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: 1. Something dramatic has to happen in favor of the Republican party in order for Romney to win. If things stay more or less how they've been for the whole election season so far, the only real question is whether or not Obama will again breach the 300 mark in Electoral Vote Distribution; it currently holds at 298 in the current reliable models.
Maybe (and of course it depends on your definition of 'dramatic'), but I'm skeptical. There are about 10% truly undecided voters who won't make up their minds until next month. I think it would take something much less dramatic than, say, the 2008 financial meltdown for them to break 2:1 for Romney. And then there's ground game considerations and all that that may not be baked into our current view of the election. I would be unsurprised by a narrow Romney victory, even with the current events trajectory (but, of course, that could just be reflecting my partisan loyalties).
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It might make me look like one of those paranoid types but the only thing that isn't essentially wrapped up for me that I want to pay attention to is: electronic voting machines! We have some evidence now of their suspicious hinkiness and the 'redshift' phenomenon deserves special attention it won't get by election officials and, oh, probably it won't amount to much, but it's skeevy as all hell anyway.
Past that: ~dramatic~ doesn't have to mean the 2008 meltdown. You just need a completely (so far) not precedented stretch of time where the GOP's position is not being toxified by its own inherent elements (again, see Akin as a recent example) and the Democrats or Obama make a huge misstep that gives them some way to close ground.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the popular vote is going to be close, but I think the electoral vote is going to clearly favor President Obama, especially with the "Let's cut Medicare" position losing them Florida and confirming that they won't take Pennsylvania.
I have a strong suspicion that the business wing of the Republican party (and Mitt Romney himself) have already realized that they are not going to win this election and have set their goals on other things.
edit: I think, barring any major upheavals, that Mitt Romney only has a chance if the voter suppression tactics the GOP are deploying are much more successful than expected. I do think that they will play a deciding factor in securing them more house seats though and we'll see a concerted legal challenge.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that the Democrats are going to barely hold onto a majority in the Senate, but are going to lose ground in the House.
I also expect that there will be at best a partial solution to the "fiscal cliff" and we don't quite reach a recession, but growth is going slow to a crawl for the first half of 2013.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Past that: ~dramatic~ doesn't have to mean the 2008 meltdown. You just need a completely (so far) not precedented stretch of time where the GOP's position is not being toxified by its own inherent elements (again, see Akin as a recent example) and the Democrats or Obama make a huge misstep that gives them some way to close ground.
See, I think all it would take would be for Aug and Sept to see significantly below expectation job growth, particularly negative job growth. Or for Romney to clearly win the debates. Or for there to be bad weather around the Great Lakes on election day. The current Pollster national polling average difference is less than a percentage point (even if you exclude obviously biased pollsters like Rasmussen); I would say this election is closer than either 2000 or 2004.
That said, Squicky's right; Obama's currently outperforming his national numbers in swing states, which gives him a slight Electoral College edge. But even so, current polling averages in Wisconsin, Nevada, Michigan, Colorado, Virginia, Ohio, Iowa, Florida, and North Carolina (122 EVs) are all within 3%; a nation-wide shift of just a couple percent would probably be enough for Romney to win both the popular vote and the Electoral College.
For reference, in 2008 there was a 5% swing toward Obama in the polls from Aug-Nov (not counting the Palin/RNC bump, which caused McCain's numbers to spike but then swiftly dissipated). 2000 and 2008 saw more modest polling shifts of about 3% away from the incumbent party. Given recent history, I would find a national swing of 2-3% unsurprising, and if that swing went toward Romney it would probably mean a narrow win for the GOP.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: 1. Something dramatic has to happen in favor of the Republican party in order for Romney to win. If things stay more or less how they've been for the whole election season so far, the only real question is whether or not Obama will again breach the 300 mark in Electoral Vote Distribution; it currently holds at 298 in the current reliable models.
Maybe (and of course it depends on your definition of 'dramatic'), but I'm skeptical. There are about 10% truly undecided voters who won't make up their minds until next month. I think it would take something much less dramatic than, say, the 2008 financial meltdown for them to break 2:1 for Romney. And then there's ground game considerations and all that that may not be baked into our current view of the election. I would be unsurprised by a narrow Romney victory, even with the current events trajectory (but, of course, that could just be reflecting my partisan loyalties).
The majority of truly undecided voters will make up their minds in October during the debates. I've only read a few op-eds that have put a ton of emphasis on the debates this far out, but I think they'll decide the election. I also think Obama will absolutely crush Romney in the debates.
He'll crush him because Romney has either no ideas or terrible ideas. He was running the anything-but-Obama campaign until a couple weeks ago, and now he's running a campaign against the fundamentals of arithmetic if he thinks the numbers on his plans actually add up. Obama will carve him up on stuff like that.
I think he'll also win because Obama is just plain likeable. He has the folksy charisma that's just killer in a presidential election. And Romney is an unlikeable, smug, superior robot, who comes across as rather condescending. Their favorability and likeability ratings are an ocean apart.
By no means does Obama have it in the bag, but if this thing is a stalemate for another month and it comes down to the debates, I think Obama takes it.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I think that the Democrats are going to barely hold onto a majority in the Senate, but are going to lose ground in the House.
I also expect that there will be at best a partial solution to the "fiscal cliff" and we don't quite reach a recession, but growth is going slow to a crawl for the first half of 2013.
I think Democrats hang on to the Senate, and maybe lose a seat or two. They have a real chance at picking up at least three seats from the GOP; Indiana (which is laughably in play after Luger lost to a TP candidate and there's also a Libertarian polling at 5% to draw votes away), Maine and Massachusetts. They also have a real chance of hanging on to seats once considered out of reach, like Missouri. Especially of Obama wins, I think the downticket balloting saves the Senate.
And I wouldn't be so sure on the House. Remember the TP wave of 2010 ushered a lot of conservatives into blue and light blue districts. That'll correct over the next two elections. I think if Obama wins, they probably pick up a few seats, but either way it doesn't much matter.
I think after the election, if Obama wins, he finally plays hardball. He has the GOP over a barrel for the first real time. If he says to let the tax cuts for the wealthy expire and the GOP balks, I think he lets it go, lets them expire, and then comes back in January and says, how about now? Every time he floats a bill in the House, he can portray the GOP as voting against all manner of things, and their already dismal poll numbers drop even more. But it all depends on how steely his spine is. I think after being burned for so long, he's probably not in a negotiating mood anymore.
I know everyone says that we're in for four more years of gridlock, but I think the second theoretical term for Obama would be different. He's played defense for the last two years by and large, and I think a lot of that was trying to protect reelection. With nothing left to lose, I think he goes on the warpath to try and get some of his plans actually passed in Congress. If he can get a jobs bill and tax reform through, I think the economy bounces back. The GOP plan to keep the economy on idle until a Republican finally wins has to fail eventually. I hope.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I think that the Democrats are going to barely hold onto a majority in the Senate, but are going to lose ground in the House.
I also expect that there will be at best a partial solution to the "fiscal cliff" and we don't quite reach a recession, but growth is going slow to a crawl for the first half of 2013.
Agree (depending on how you count Angus King), disagree (even with redistricting, I think Dems pick up a handful of seats) and partially agree (I think any solution, partial or otherwise, to the 'fiscal cliff' is quite unlikely, and think the economy will contract in the first half of 2013).
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:He'll crush him because Romney has either no ideas or terrible ideas.
This is not really much of a hindrance at all in the format of today's debates. both sides have pretty much figured out that the only important thing to do is put on appearances and give out platitudes, answering the question poised to you as superficially as possible while working ultimately only on hitting as many talking-point soundbites and attack points as possible and composing yourself in a way as to avoid even deliberate mistranslation as often as possible.
You don't have to have ideas. You just have to be coached to provide well-spoken platitudes.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's not how it worked when he debated McCain in 2008, especially not during the town hall when they directly went after each other with direct questions and answers.
The format this year looks identical. They'll be able to mix it up.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I've personally haven't ever noticed 538 ever missing a prediction and right now its 70% chance Obama wins.
What I find interesting is the analysis people are putting out is that Texas will within a decade or so become solidly blue thanks to demographics.
IP: Logged |
posted
I think that's overrated...but who knows. Just in the last couple elections we've seen a few states dramatically change course in their political alignment. Texas has a large and growing youth and Latino population. They need to actually vote to matter though.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
On the contrary, 538 misses predictions all the time - this far out from the election. Nate Silver himself would emphatically argue that basing your expectations on his system's projections two months before the election is folly. He's a statistician, which means he understands that the exact electoral projection at any given moment isn't nearly so important as the probabilities his system outputs. As election day draws nearer, polling density will increase (reducing the margin of error for each projection). In addition, the probabilities associated with each individual state projection will become more extreme, as it's significantly more difficult to overcome a 2-point deficit with one week left to campaign than with a full two months. But right now, it's critical to consider the limitations of the statistical methods being employed rather than accept any projection prima facie.
Sam's projection of 298 electoral votes for Obama from "reliable models" (which I'm assuming means 538, since that's pretty much the exact value it currently projects) is the "most likely" outcome given current polling. But Sam's post, rather dangerously, frames the figure almost as if it represents a floor for Obama, when it instead represents a mean. It is absolutely untrue that the "the only real question is whether or not Obama will again breach the 300 mark in Electoral Vote Distribution." 538's current projection, in fact, indicates that there's a roughly 50% probability that Obama will win FEWER than 298 electoral votes.
This is going to be a very close election, and Democrats who kid themselves into thinking they've already won it unless the Republicans do "something dramatic" will quite likely come to rue their overconfidence in November.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I'm not a democrat, so my confidence means nothing as I do not vote in American elections.
Not sure what predictions you've said Nate Silver has missed, but as far as I am aware he's accurately predicting the outcome of every Presidential election since 2000, the Wisconsin recall, and roughly the result of each senate race.
Point is registered Democrat voters even if they look online and think Obama's going to win aren't going to be less likely to vote for him on some basis of complacency. Arguably they should be MORE likely because now they're joining onto the bandwagon of the winning race.
And besides all that there's still the issue of the Republicans being dangerous to the country with their rhetoric that they'll scare enough Dems' into voting anyways to "just to make sure".
Now 308, the Canadian version with a dude who isn't actually a statistician, now *thats* a site I know that never has an accurate prediction.
IP: Logged |
quote:It is absolutely untrue that the "the only real question is whether or not Obama will again breach the 300 mark in Electoral Vote Distribution."
Ahem. The thread asked for our own take on the issue, and I have provided my opinion truthfully. that's pretty much my only question left so far, barring some noteworthy shakeup.
You'll note I'm not saying that (1) this is the only question people are allowed to have, or that (2) I trust in a guaranteed outcome.
I only trust the election outcome enough to have bet on it.
posted
The one thing that really counts against Obama in this election is fundraising. Romney is bringing in a lot. Which, to me, is pretty weird. It's not like Obama is anti-business or anything.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sam's projection of 298 electoral votes for Obama from "reliable models" (which I'm assuming means 538, since that's pretty much the exact value it currently projects)
No, just circumstantial .. and not something I knew. But definitely in line with my 538 fanboyishness.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: The one thing that really counts against Obama in this election is fundraising. Romney is bringing in a lot. Which, to me, is pretty weird. It's not like Obama is anti-business or anything.
He isn't, but Romney is openly more pro-big business. It's why we know exactly what tax cuts he will implement and increased defense spending he will shoot for, but nothing regarding how he will actually pay for it.*
*Many analysts assume it's mostly going to come out of the only discretionary spending he will have control of, government programs that help the non-wealthy.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: The majority of truly undecided voters will make up their minds in October during the debates. I've only read a few op-eds that have put a ton of emphasis on the debates this far out, but I think they'll decide the election. I also think Obama will absolutely crush Romney in the debates.
...
I think he'll also win because Obama is just plain likeable. He has the folksy charisma that's just killer in a presidential election. And Romney is an unlikeable, smug, superior robot, who comes across as rather condescending. Their favorability and likeability ratings are an ocean apart.
By no means does Obama have it in the bag, but if this thing is a stalemate for another month and it comes down to the debates, I think Obama takes it.
Maybe Romney will off-handedly challenge Obama to a $10K wager during one of the debates. THAT would be fun to see.
Posts: 382 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do think it'll be pretty interesting to see what Romney does in the debates. I think you already know exactly what sort of performance you'll get out of Obama.
Romney was normally calm and cool during the GOP debates, but toward the end when he was seriously challenged and came out of his box, things got a lot more interesting, and that's when you saw the bet comment. Even if they don't break away from the joint press conference format of the last 20 years, and I think they will, Obama will still poke Romney enough to get him to go off message. History suggests Romney won't be able to stop himself from saying something bizarre and off the cuff.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:It is absolutely untrue that the "the only real question is whether or not Obama will again breach the 300 mark in Electoral Vote Distribution."
Ahem. The thread asked for our own take on the issue, and I have provided my opinion truthfully. that's pretty much my only question left so far, barring some noteworthy shakeup.
You'll note I'm not saying that (1) this is the only question people are allowed to have, or that (2) I trust in a guaranteed outcome.
I only trust the election outcome enough to have bet on it.
Again.
Fair enough - I shouldn't have said it was "untrue." Just that it's not actually supported by the models you cited.
quote: Not sure what predictions you've said Nate Silver has missed, but as far as I am aware he's accurately predicting the outcome of every Presidential election since 2000, the Wisconsin recall, and roughly the result of each senate race.
You're missing the point. Nate Silver is incredibly accurate in his projections made shortly before Election Day. You're effectively comparing his November 3, 2008 projection to the actual November 4, 2008 results. Right now, however, his projections for the 2012 election are based on polling data two months prior to Election Day, and Silver himself has stated on numerous occasions that things could swing dramatically either way in the time remaining. Citing the model's current projection of 70% likelihood of an Obama victory as if it's Silver's final projection is severely misunderstanding how projection models actually work.
I'm a huge fan of 538 as well. But I'm a fan because Silver's a ridiculously bright statistician who understands better than perhaps anyone out there that his model is only as good as the numbers it receives, and that polling only provides information on the state of the race up to the moment the poll is taken.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Time for a little flight of quantitative analysis. I took the state-by-state Obama-McCain margins and compared them to the current adjusted polling averages* from 538.
On average, Romney's outperforming McCain by about 6 points, which is consistent with national level polling which shows him down about 1.5 points to Obama (McCain lost the popular vote by 7.5). I thought it would be interesting to see in which states Romney's seeing abnormally large or small 'swings' in his numbers. As a data note, about ten highly partisan states didn't have adjusted polling averages, so I've left them out of the analysis.
Abnormally small: Alabama (-5.7), South Carolina (-5.58), Tennessee (-5.37), Oklahoma (-0.59), South Dakota (-0.11), Nebraska (1.07), Arizona (1.98), North Carolina (2.23).
Analysis: a lot of the deviation is exactly what you would expect; Romney/Ryan get bumps in 'home' states like Utah, Wisconsin, Massachusetts, and Michigan, and underperform swing expectations in Arizona where McCain had a home-state advantage last election. More broadly, current polling averages have Romney generally underperforming generic expectations in the South and Midwest (the Indiana number may be an outlier) and overperforming in the North and Mountain West.
In general, there's a weak but noticeable correlation between a state's median income and the degree to which Romney is outperforming generic expectations: he's doing better than expected in richer (bluer) states and worse than expected in poorer (redder) states, with an increase of $10,000 in median income correlating with about a 2-point increase over expectation for Romney.
*I could have used the NowCast numbers or the Projected Vote Share, but I wanted to be as close to the data as possible. Maybe I'll redo the analysis with the those later.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: I've personally haven't ever noticed 538 ever missing a prediction and right now its 70% chance Obama wins.
What I find interesting is the analysis people are putting out is that Texas will within a decade or so become solidly blue thanks to demographics.
I've been surprised just to see that Texas has been booted out of RCP's "solid" category on the electoral maps this year. Likely is still a strong predictor for RCP, but still- that never happened in the last few elections.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The debates will be interesting. Up until now neither side has really given any specifics on how they are going to govern differently. Obama is just going after Romney's Bain years and tax returns, and Romney is going after Obama on Medicare, the ACA, and welfare. Nobody has come out and said, "Here is exactly what I am going to do." I think it is too soon to say who will do better in the debates because we don't know what kind of debates we are going to get. Are we going to have debates based on substance and plans to fix the mess we are in, or are we going to have a debate that consists of nothing but pointing fingers and blaming each other?
I do believe though that the VP debate will be won by Paul Ryan, unless Obama pulls a fast one next week and dumps Biden for Clinton. Honestly, if Obama did that I'd bet my life savings he wins the election by a pretty large margin.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Heh. Obama has governed for 4 years. The onus is on Romney to suggest how he might govern differently- he has not done so. This is the essence of the incumbent advantage: if the incumbent has acted in keeping (to some degree) with his original agenda, then people are sure of what they're getting. Obama doesn't *have* to hammer policy when his entire first term has been a demonstration of policy. Romney's problem, and the incumbent's advantage, is in that Obama has made most of the right key decisions, and Romney knows it. He can lie and obfuscate and hem and haw to some extent, but he can't change that. He can't say he'd have done things differently, when the way things have been done actually satisfies a good number of people. Not everyone, not all the time, but enough to make it clear that a vote for Obama is less of a danger or an unknown than 4 years ago. That's why Romney shoots himself and his party in the foot (as they all do) over medicare and Obamacare. Most people like these programs, and even when they say they don't like them, they actually like what's in them. How do you fight against that? How do you rail against improvement? You can't say it isn't good *enough*, because that indicates that it's good. And good is kind of the enemy of Mitt Romney right now.
I am flabbergasted at the notion that Obama has not been clear on his plans. He has followed an agenda he laid out 4 years ago- one that is far from being complete. You make note of it right there in your next sentence: Romney is going after all the policy that Obama has pursued in 4 years. What could be more clear? What do you think he should do? Lay out a whole new agenda that contradicts the original one? The goals are all the same.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Romney just has to keep lying and as long as Fox News repeats it as truth that's enough for a lot of people.
IP: Logged |
posted
I guess I didn't realize how cynical I was.
I'm shocked that Ryan's speech is causing this much of a firestorm. I figured it'd get a ho-hum slap on the wrist at worst. It remains to be seen how it will actually affect him though.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: Time for a little flight of quantitative analysis. I took the state-by-state Obama-McCain margins and compared them to the current adjusted polling averages* from 538.
On average, Romney's outperforming McCain by about 6 points, which is consistent with national level polling which shows him down about 1.5 points to Obama (McCain lost the popular vote by 7.5). I thought it would be interesting to see in which states Romney's seeing abnormally large or small 'swings' in his numbers. As a data note, about ten highly partisan states didn't have adjusted polling averages, so I've left them out of the analysis.
Abnormally small: Alabama (-5.7), South Carolina (-5.58), Tennessee (-5.37), Oklahoma (-0.59), South Dakota (-0.11), Nebraska (1.07), Arizona (1.98), North Carolina (2.23).
Analysis: a lot of the deviation is exactly what you would expect; Romney/Ryan get bumps in 'home' states like Utah, Wisconsin, Massachusetts, and Michigan, and underperform swing expectations in Arizona where McCain had a home-state advantage last election. More broadly, current polling averages have Romney generally underperforming generic expectations in the South and Midwest (the Indiana number may be an outlier) and overperforming in the North and Mountain West.
In general, there's a weak but noticeable correlation between a state's median income and the degree to which Romney is outperforming generic expectations: he's doing better than expected in richer (bluer) states and worse than expected in poorer (redder) states, with an increase of $10,000 in median income correlating with about a 2-point increase over expectation for Romney.
*I could have used the NowCast numbers or the Projected Vote Share, but I wanted to be as close to the data as possible. Maybe I'll redo the analysis with the those later.
Turns out that Simon Jackson did the same thing as me yesterday, and packaged it in a nice graphic to boot. I imagine the discrepancies in our numbers are due to the differences in the 538 adjusted poll average vs. whatever Jackson is using. The graphic makes very clear that Romney's running well ahead of McCain, that if the election were held today he would likely lose, but that there are lots of EVs that could move into Romney's column if we see a national shift on the order of 2 pts.
<edit>To make 'lots of EVs' more quantitative, if all states experienced a uniform 2pt swing toward Romney (using Jackson's numbers) he wins 324-214. If Obama sees a uniform 2pt swing his direction, he wins 350-188. In each of the last three Presidential elections (the only elections I could easily find reliable polling data for), the swing from Labor Day to election day was between three and seven points, discounting (as best I can) the convention bumps.</edit>
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Obama wins, thanks to Paul Ryan.
Agreed. I was sitting on the fence until I read up on Paul Ryan. I feel like republican candidates have to suck up to the radical conservatives much more than the democrat candidates have to suck up to the radical liberals.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wish Obama would even TRY to suck up to radical liberals.
We're not really feeling the love, especially not compared to the love sonnets Romney is writing for his base.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
No kidding. We single-payer, tax and spend liberals are getting shafted by this guy. He's too moderate by half.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have mentioned this in another thread, but it seems especially relevant here. A Network commentator recently compared this election to the one in 1980, when Governor Ronald Reagan ran against President Jimmy Carter (who like Obama presided over a dismal economy, and was running for a second term). Coming out of the Republican National Convention, Reagan trailed Carter by double digits in the polls. But he wound up winning the election by a large margin.
Some credit this to Reagan's performance in the debates. Romney most likely will best Obama in the debates because he is smarter and more experienced as a successful businessman (Obama has never so much as managed a lemonade stand), and Obama will not be able to use a teleprompter in a live debate. Romney may not have the oratorical skills of Reagan, who was an actor, but he is highly articulate and experienced selling his programs in corporate boardrooms. Plus Romney looks and sounds so presidential. As it has been pointed out by many commentators, if you called up central casting for a character to play the role of the president, Romney would be the first choice.
Obama does not enjoy any double-digit lead in the polls. Many polls have them even. A few even give the edge to Romney. If things continue to happen the way they did in 1980, then Romney will win in a landslide, and the coattails will certainly deliver control of the Senate to the Republicans.
Many people are still learning about Romney. As most of them are finally learning for themselves what kind of person he is and what kind of experience he has had, they see the contrast with the ridiculous misrepresentations about him made by the Obama campaign, and early polls indicate that the large majority of Independents are breaking to Romney.
Then of course there are all the people who voted for Obama in 2008, who are now very disillusioned.
Everyone in America knows our primary problems as a nation are the economy and jobs--and Romney, with his sterling business background saving companies and creating thousands of jobs, and with his successful executive experience as governor of Massachusetts, is the one with the obvious qualifications to deal with those problems for the nation.
The debates will be crucial, of course. But Romney has all the advantages. As I already mentioned, Obama will not be able to use a teleprompter.
[ September 01, 2012, 03:31 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I predict now that Ron will not be speaking at all about one of Romney's signature accomplishments as governor. Just a guess. I predict he'll behave as though the question were never raised, continuing a long tradition of pretending inconvenient questions simply weren't asked.
Incidentally, you had better hope Romney doesn't bring his boardroom skills to the debate, Ron. He did more of that early in the primaries, when he had, what was it, forty or fifty economic plans he was willing to talk about? Not unlike a corporate figure.
Contrast that with now when he is able to pander to the party that supposedly mistrusts government by saying 'I'll go into that later'.
Oh-and we all know what 'looks presidential' means to you, Ron.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Colin Powell looks presidential. Maybe it's that military bearing he has, that Obama could never master.
Romney even looks a little like Reagan. He's got the square, masculine jaw of a Western hero, the high forehead of intelligence, the tufts of white at his temples that bespeak wisdom to most of us raised in an English culture.
Hey, you remember the Greek columns Obama had at his nomination convention? Now for this convention he is having a statue of himself made. Never mind Mount Rushmore, this dude thinks he is destined for Mount Olympus.
I hope at some point Romney brings this up in a debate, and says, "No, Barack Obama, you are not a god. And I promise you, you are not going to be president for much longer."
[ September 01, 2012, 08:05 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If that's the material you're bringing, Ron, I think you'd do better leaving Clint Eastwood to handle your jokes.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is it embarrassing because it looks nothing like him? or makes him look like he is morbidly obese? or because it is just not pleasing to look at?
I mean it can't be embarrassing as a matter of ego or anything, after all, I doubt sitting president (with no background in design) is the head of the decorating committee for the party's prom. Still for aesthetic reasons, who ever made it should probably feel some slight embarrassment
Posts: 2332 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
