Romney vs. Obama

[Enki]

http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics ... h-20121030

How Hurricane Sandy could give Romney the popular vote.

[Mr. Perfect]

Bams is going to win.

Keep in mind doofus you thought Kerry was going to win on election day and were blubbering like a baby.

It always amuses me that you comment about what we think about John Kerry when we didn't even know you in 2004. I actually thought Bush was going to win in 2004 myself.

I was quoting myself. I thought Kerry would win.

[Mr. Perfect]

I need to get better at the electoral math. I think that this is going to come down to Virginia, North Carolina and Florida.

Pretty much everyone who crunches the numbers seriously has Obama winning.

Every number cruncher who has Obama winning refuses to address how the 2012 turnout is going to be the same as 2008. The ATL and Politico articles give NC and FL to Romney based on early voting.

[anderson]

I need to get better at the electoral math. I think that this is going to come down to Virginia, North Carolina and Florida.

Pretty much everyone who crunches the numbers seriously has Obama winning.

Well, should Obama keep Virginia and Florida, that would seal it up handily. Unfortunately, though it appears he has a good chance in both, it seems unlikely it will be definitive enough in those states for it to be called early enough to matter. Ohio looks like enough of a margin according to polls that it won't take long.

[Mr. Perfect]

The fact that you taught a community college course in economics. You keep bringing it up as if it confers some sort of legitimacy on your economic opinions.

It is certainly not my intention, it's merely to point out that I am/was brushed up and sharpened up on the particulars, as taught in a Krugman textbook, that's all. Micro/Macro teaching varies little from a Krugman text to a more conservative author. A lot of people are not aware of that.

But both of the lines you mockingly use in your signature were, or are, repeated endlessly by people who teach courses in economics.

Not exactly. People considered economists in the mainstream (who may not actually be), that's another matter.

[Mr. Perfect]

Well, should Obama keep Virginia and Florida, that would seal it up handily. Unfortunately, though it appears he has a good chance in both, it seems unlikely it will be definitive enough in those states for it to be called early enough to matter. Ohio looks like enough of a margin according to polls that it won't take long.

Anderson, you seem pretty confident in these swing state polls that show a 2008 style Democrats +8 lead, just a curiosity can you tell me why you believe that? I can't find any independent verification of that kind anywhere, and early voting in FL, CO and NC are showing 2004 type partisan turnouts.

Would be interested in your thoughts.

[Juggernaut Nihilism]

Tinker has said repeatedly that he cannot, in good conscience, vote for Obama. I can't see Obama winning without votes from the Tinkers of the world. Then again, I don't see Mitt getting some of the core evangelicals the Republicans now rely on.

[anderson]

Well, should Obama keep Virginia and Florida, that would seal it up handily. Unfortunately, though it appears he has a good chance in both, it seems unlikely it will be definitive enough in those states for it to be called early enough to matter. Ohio looks like enough of a margin according to polls that it won't take long.

Anderson, you seem pretty confident in these swing state polls that show a 2008 style Democrats +8 lead, just a curiosity can you tell me why you believe that? I can't find any independent verification of that kind anywhere, and early voting in FL, CO and NC are showing 2004 type partisan turnouts.

Would be interested in your thoughts.

CO I don't think there have been any polls in some time that show Romney winning.
NC looks like it will probably go to Romney, though Obama GOTV might make it closer than it looks from polling.
Florida is hard to say. It looks about even in terms of polls that show Obama up by ~ 1 and Romney up by ~1, with a few tie polls. I think 538 gives Obama a bit more than 50% chance, RCP a bit over 50% chance for Romney. Either way, close to 50% chance, which is what I mean that he has a good chance, especially given how Florida seemed out of reach a couple of weeks ago.

This is what the big aggregators with credibility are saying. We'll all see on Tuesday night; I'm not much interested in second guessing the professional pollsters, especially for measures that average across a bunch of results.

[Mr. Perfect]

Tinker has said repeatedly that he cannot, in good conscience, vote for Obama. I can't see Obama winning without votes from the Tinkers of the world. Then again, I don't see Mitt getting some of the core evangelicals the Republicans now rely on.

That is true, however voter enthusiasm between GOP and Dem has favored the GOP for a few years now and shows up in current polling, and has surged after the debates.

A bunch of polls this morning nationally put Obama up by 1 but none of them gave him 50%.

I have no problem accepting the polls if someone can explain how swing states are going to go +8 Democrats.

[Mr. Perfect]

CO I don't think there have been any polls in some time that show Romney winning.
NC looks like it will probably go to Romney, though Obama GOTV might make it closer than it looks from polling.
Florida is hard to say. It looks about even in terms of polls that show Obama up by ~ 1 and Romney up by ~1, with a few tie polls. I think 538 gives Obama a bit more than 50% chance, RCP a bit over 50% chance for Romney. Either way, close to 50% chance, which is what I mean that he has a good chance, especially given how Florida seemed out of reach a couple of weeks ago.

This is what the big aggregators with credibility are saying. We'll all see on Tuesday night; I'm not much interested in second guessing the professional pollsters, especially for measures that average across a bunch of results.

No offense, but you didn't answer my question. Aggregators are GIGO and therefore can have no credibility, the underlying credibility is the raw data, and poll after poll shows results of Democrats +7, +8 and so forth in swing states. There is no independent data that I can find that backs that up, and early voting shows 2004 type turnout.

The election will be decided by votes and not opinion polls and early vote totals are giving Co, FL, and NC to Romney, and OH is too close to call which runs counter to your polling aggregates. But in all cases Obama's returns are lower than the 2008 election that the polls you believe are based on.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... ng/264436/

[anderson]

CO I don't think there have been any polls in some time that show Romney winning.
NC looks like it will probably go to Romney, though Obama GOTV might make it closer than it looks from polling.
Florida is hard to say. It looks about even in terms of polls that show Obama up by ~ 1 and Romney up by ~1, with a few tie polls. I think 538 gives Obama a bit more than 50% chance, RCP a bit over 50% chance for Romney. Either way, close to 50% chance, which is what I mean that he has a good chance, especially given how Florida seemed out of reach a couple of weeks ago.

This is what the big aggregators with credibility are saying. We'll all see on Tuesday night; I'm not much interested in second guessing the professional pollsters, especially for measures that average across a bunch of results.

No offense, but you didn't answer my question. Aggregators are GIGO and therefore can have no credibility, the underlying credibility is the raw data, and poll after poll shows results of Democrats +7, +8 and so forth in swing states. There is no independent data that I can find that backs that up, and early voting shows 2004 type turnout.

The election will be decided by votes and not opinion polls and early vote totals are giving Co, FL, and NC to Romney, and OH is too close to call which runs counter to your polling aggregates. But in all cases Obama's returns are lower than the 2008 election that the polls you believe are based on.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... ng/264436/

I don't know what you're on about about +7 or +8, but, frankly, these folks have way more credibility than you do, to be honest.
They have a record, they have professional experience in this; this is their day job. We'll see how things turn out on Tuesday, but I don't see any reason at the moment to believe that they don't know what they're doing.

Fact of the matter is the numbers looked bad for Romney a week ago, and things have gotten noticeably worse since then.
Doesn't look good.

[Mr. Perfect]

I don't know what you're on about about +7 or +8,

Are you serious?

but, frankly, these folks have way more credibility than you do, to be honest.
They have a record, they have professional experience in this; this is their day job. We'll see how things turn out on Tuesday, but I don't see any reason at the moment to believe that they don't know what they're doing.

Fact of the matter is the numbers looked bad for Romney a week ago, and things have gotten noticeably worse since then.
Doesn't look good.

But why are you discounting early voting data? It favors Romney and is going against the polls. I've provided multiple links to all this stuff.

[anderson]

I don't know what you're on about about +7 or +8,

Are you serious?

Yes. +7 what?

but, frankly, these folks have way more credibility than you do, to be honest.
They have a record, they have professional experience in this; this is their day job. We'll see how things turn out on Tuesday, but I don't see any reason at the moment to believe that they don't know what they're doing.

Fact of the matter is the numbers looked bad for Romney a week ago, and things have gotten noticeably worse since then.
Doesn't look good.

But why are you discounting early voting data? It favors Romney and is going against the polls. I've provided multiple links to all this stuff.

OK, took a look at the Atlantic link. Not much to see, to be honest. Only 3 states with hard relevant data. NC was already largely assumed for Romney. Colorado and Florida show a couple of % advantage, that's it, with 20, 30% unspecified.
I know you have to put on a strong front, but I honestly don't see much to definitively get excited about.

The article itself indicates there's nothing "conclusive" to read from it.

Example. Colorado.
COLORADO

Who's leading the early vote: Republicans, 38 percent to Democrats' 35 percent.

How significant is it: Very. Nearly 80 percent of voters voted early in 2008.

The spin: Democrats say they are leading among "non-midterm voters" who are voting early. But there's no getting around it: Republicans -- who lost the early vote in Colorado by 4 points in 2008 -- are winning it this time, and the early vote is a huge majority of the total vote in this state Obama won by 9 points in 2008.

Shift from -4 to +3, 7% movement. 7% of 80% would represent a swing of 6%. Obama won last time by 9%.
How does that greatly undermine the aggregate results showing Obama a couple of points ahead?

I mean, like I said, let's see on Tuesday, but for now, it looks like Obama is winning.

[Mr. Perfect]

Yes. +7 what?

Ok, sorry, it's not worth the time. It's being discussed all over the country and you apparently missed it. You could read back several pages where I've been covering it if it strikes you.

OK, took a look at the Atlantic link. Not much to see, to be honest. Only 3 states with hard relevant data.

3 big ones.

NC was already largely assumed for Romney. Colorado and Florida show a couple of % advantage, that's it, with 20, 30% unspecified.
I know you have to put on a strong front, but I honestly don't see much to definitively get excited about.

The article itself indicates there's nothing "conclusive" to read from it.

Polls say they are inconclusive also. But what you are missing is that the early voting is indicating the the polling is probably wrong in that Democrats were oversampled as many have been stating, and has been explained a number of times in this thread.

I don't have a strong front to put up, I've called the election for Bams out of masochism, but having taken statistics am just curious about a few of these wrinkles.

[Mr. Perfect]

Tinker has said repeatedly that he cannot, in good conscience, vote for Obama. I can't see Obama winning without votes from the Tinkers of the world. Then again, I don't see Mitt getting some of the core evangelicals the Republicans now rely on.

Tinker has been promoting Johnson to split the vote, and it might work, CNN says Johnson may get 5% in OH which would hand the election to Obama.

[Enki]

Tinker has said repeatedly that he cannot, in good conscience, vote for Obama. I can't see Obama winning without votes from the Tinkers of the world. Then again, I don't see Mitt getting some of the core evangelicals the Republicans now rely on.

Tinker has been promoting Johnson to split the vote, and it might work, CNN says Johnson may get 5% in OH which would hand the election to Obama.

I wish I had the power you think I do. But alas I know no one in Ohio.

[Ibrahim]

Now do the right thing and join me in voting for Johnson on Tuesday

.

In a non-swing state (70% of Americans) you may as well vote how you feel, it makes no difference. In tight contests whether Johnson takes more votes from Barry or from Mittens might make the difference e.g Colorado.

The only relevance of third party candidates is their role as potential spoilers, and in this election I think Johnson clearly hurts Romney more than Obama. Though they are so neglected by polling and the public conversation/media coverage that I have no idea if the impact will be enough to matter at all. Based on the majority of polling it doesn't seem like it will be an issue.

but of course their foreign policy powers as they've accrued more over the past few decades, are substantial and this is the main or only concern for non-Americans.

Correct, but foreign policy is of no interest to American voters.

Sadly you are absolutely correct.

[Ibrahim]

I need to get better at the electoral math. I think that this is going to come down to Virginia, North Carolina and Florida.

Pretty much everyone who crunches the numbers seriously has Obama winning.

It's like sabermetrics, if you get too into the numbers you miss the nostalgic beauty of the game. Except baseball is a lot more beautiful than politics.

The odds favor Obama because he needs fewer things to go right. E.g. he needs to win Florida or Ohio, Romney needs to win both. The raw polling data favors Obama, and weighted polling favors him even more, but to get a Romney win in the EC you need to weight polling and select certain outcomes.

[Mr. Perfect]

I thought this guy was a big lib.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/ ... nge-stupid

Adam Carolla's shift to the political right appears all but complete.

Yes, the podcast king still supports gay marriage, and he embraces other left-of-center social stances. On the big issues of the day, from the upcoming election to our collective increase in government dependence, Carolla might as well have his own show on Fox News.

Oh, wait. Carolla was recently christened as the channel's newest contributor.

Carolla's latest rant targeted President Barack Obama's moth-eaten 2008 campaign slogan.

I take it you’re not happy with President Obama’s last four years.

C’mon, “Hope and Change?” We’re not supposed to hope for anything, we’re supposed to go get stuff. This country is not about hope. Ethiopia is about hope. We’re about manufacturing jobs. Hope is retarded; change is semi-insulting considering we are already the best system in place. Of course, nothing’s perfect but the rest of the world has a lot of catching up to do before they get to us. So, hope stupid. Change stupid. But either way I don’t know how much hope and how much change folks have experienced over the last four years. Next to zero?

Carolla was just getting started.

He also railed against Hollywood, blasting what he called the no-talents in the industry and swatting celebrities who crave higher taxes and then flee California to shoot in states offering the best tax incentives.

And this whole thing about raising taxes to create a bigger base. Bullshit, I live in California. Every major production company is fleeing Hollywood to make their films and TV shows in towns where there are tax breaks. I drove Bryan Cranston [Breaking Bad] to the airport. I said, “Where are you going Bryan?” “New Mexico. We were supposed to shoot in Riverside, CA but we get a tax break in NM,” he said. And now they’re on, season five? This is my political belief? No, it’s knowledge.

[Enki]

LOL Adam Carolla is famous for being a douchebag. Most Liberals I know hate him for building a career on mysoginist humor.

[monster_gardener]

Since we are wondering off topic and into history:
- no-one gets it all right
- the POTUS and the Federal government don't have much power
- it is difficult to beat the zeitgeist, which ends up bipartisan anyway

The Great Inflation started under LBJ. You could build the Great Society, fight the Vietnam war, and not raise taxes - but not all three at once. Nothing much changed under Nixon except losing Vietnam. Carter was just an overpromoted dumbass who came when the brown stuff had hit the fan.

Reagan whatever his virtues (thank you for winning the Cold War) launched the FIRE economy with deregulation and the Laffer curve nonsense It was then enthusiastically pursued by the Dems including giving mortgages to people who would never have had a hope of repaying them.

Thank you VERY Much for your post, Torchwood.

Prayers for your wife continue....

Your post remind me of this song.......

- no-one gets it all right
- the POTUS and the Federal government don't have much power
- it is difficult to beat the zeitgeist, which ends up bipartisan anyway

aBaKmZY7GjI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBaKmZY7GjI

Carter was just an overpromoted dumbass

I have often thought similar and that Carter might have made a much better Secy. General of the UN than Present Dunce of UZ ... **

But I may be wrong........

IIRC Carter may have/probably saved lives in danger of 'Right Wing' violence in places like Argentina and Central America..... at the cost of making UZ look weak and enabling 'Left Wing' violence in places like Afghanistan........

Which at one time had a King in the Land so every Tallywacker could NOT do what was right in his own eyes......

Also remembering Skyhook77sfg who posted in a Predecessor State /Forum to this one...

IIRC he was highly annoyed with Carter and especially Zbigniew Brzezinski for putting the skids under the Soviet Union.....

Something that Reagan perfected and for which got the credit....

Remembering pointing out that given ZBigniew's family history and what the Soviets did in Poland...... this was just Zee Big Blowback *


*IIRC I did not try to be this humorous with Skyhook.

** Remembering a Larry Niven Timeline In which the ruler of Earth is the hereditary Secy. General of the UN who is a inbred moron with the mentality of a child who supports Space Exploration and Time Travel projects because of the funny animals they bring him for his zoo.........

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3786 ... _the_Horse

[Yukon Cornelius]

Hey you guys, if Romney got elected, dissent would become patriotic again!


Hmmmmmmm.....

[Juggernaut Nihilism]

Hey you guys, if Romney got elected, dissent would become patriotic again!


Hmmmmmmm.....

This is the best reason to hope for Romney over Obama, IMO. Nothing changes either way, but at least people protest when we aid and abet the assassination of a head of state to make sure Italy and France's oil price doesn't go up.

[Enki]

Hey you guys, if Romney got elected, dissent would become patriotic again!


Hmmmmmmm.....

Yep

[cincinnatus]

Hey you guys, if Romney got elected, dissent would become patriotic again!


Hmmmmmmm.....

This is the best reason to hope for Romney over Obama, IMO. Nothing changes either way, but at least people protest when we aid and abet the assassination of a head of state to make sure Italy and France's oil price doesn't go up.

Italy was against that war because they had already locked up deals with Qadaffi. France and England were pushing for the war so those contracts would be null and void and they could move in for their own.

And we fell for it...