PDA

View Full Version : Post your 2012 Presidential Predictions



genglandoh
10-21-2012, 05:29 PM
Some have posted their predictions for the election on different threads.
I thought it would be interesting to put down the predictions in one place so we can all see them.

The rules


Only post you own predictions
Don’t speak for others
It is OK to add, change or adjust your prediction if you want.


My election predications are the following
1.Romney will win FL
2.Romney will win NC
3.Romney will win OH
4.Romney will win WI
5.On Election Night I will be watching NY
If Obama wins with more than 60% of the NY vote he will win the National election.
If Obama wins with 58%-60% of the NY vote is will be very close National election.
If Obama wins with 58% or less of the NY vote he will lose the National election.
6.Obama will get less than 72% of the Jewish vote that he got in 2008.
7.Obama will get about 90% of the African American Vote down from 95% in 2008
8.Obama will get less than 67% of the Latino vote that he got in 2008.

botebum
10-21-2012, 05:34 PM
My prediction is that your head will explode when Romney gets handed his hat.

Doug

skuthorp
10-21-2012, 05:42 PM
If it's as close as it seems from here you may need to poll the SC as well.

BrianW
10-21-2012, 05:49 PM
I think Obama will win, and the USA will continue on.

Rich Jones
10-21-2012, 06:48 PM
I think Obama will win, and the USA will continue on.

I believe that Obama will win also and the USA will continue on.
But, if Romney wins, corporate USA will continue on and the American people will continue to suffer.

B_B
10-21-2012, 07:00 PM
I predict there will be some unhappy people, some happy people, and a whole bunch of indifferent people.

BBSebens
10-21-2012, 07:05 PM
I predict there will be some unhappy people, some happy people, and a whole bunch of indifferent people.


And a bunch of people with something to holler about for the next 4 years.


Any preference aside, Obama will probably get it, unless something drastic happens in the next couple of weeks.

Cuyahoga Chuck
10-21-2012, 07:19 PM
If it's as close as it seems from here you may need to poll the SC as well.

With the electoral vote being the deciding issue one candidate can bury the other even if the popular vote is very close. You must think of our presidential elections as a contest to win states. If the winner wins by 10 votes in a state it's as good as winnining by 1,000,000

botebum
10-21-2012, 07:48 PM
Sort of but not really, Chuck.
It's my understanding, correct me if I'm wrong, that the EC is not bound by law to base their vote soley on the pop vote of the district they represent.

Doug

Mrleft8
10-21-2012, 08:16 PM
"Jewish vote"?
How about the Lutheran vote?.... Or don't you think that Lutherans vote in unison , or in a "bloc" like you seem to think that Jews do?

leikec
10-22-2012, 01:34 AM
I think Obama will win:

Michigan

Wisconsin

Ohio (it will be close)

Iowa

Nevada

Pennsylvania

Romney will win:

North Carolina

Virginia

Florida (it will be close)

Colorado

I think the overall popular vote totals will be down, with the winner getting around 63,000,000 votes. Higher turnout normally favors democratic candidates, but this year it would favor Mitt Romney. I think the total popular vote will max out around 124-125 million votes maximum (possibly less than that), which would be down considerably from 2008.

Mot pundits are predicting Ohio will be the pivotal state, and it seems to be absolutely critical for Romney's chances. Ralph Reed predicted (on This Week) that the republicans will get a huge voter turnout in the state.

I think they will get a decent turnout, but I wonder if it will rival 2004 numbers, when the republican ground game was able to link the presidential campaign to a same-sex marriage referendum and turn out massive numbers of evangelical voters.

I think 2.8 million is Romney's magic number in Ohio. If he gets that he will win the state.


Jeff C

TomF
10-22-2012, 06:33 AM
Dunno by states. I predict Obama returns, but with a stupidly thin margin of the popular vote.

For the life of me, I don't understand Romney's appeal - let alone his credibility. It's one helluva judgment on the electorate that this is a race at all. Which is NOT to say that a credible Conservative candidate and set of policies are in principle imaginary - just to observe that this cycle hasn't produced them.

John Smith
10-22-2012, 06:46 AM
A lot can happen in two weeks, and not all of it under anyone's control.

For those here who think Romney will win, which Romney will sit in the Oval Office?

As we sit here on the day of the final debate, we still have two weeks left. Women's groups are going to be very active. The ground game may make the difference. Some event may happen that will influence the outcome.

It's a little difficult not being in one of those "swing" states to know exactly what is going on in them, ad wise. I have to believe the auto parts company in Freeport Ill. owned by Bain and being shipped to China will help Obama in that state.

I would think that some money would be spent showing the old bikini chart, but who knows.

This is Obama's race to lose and sometimes I think he's trying to.

Basir
10-22-2012, 07:45 AM
I predict that, whoever wins, within a week the banks will be closed and soldiers will be marching in the streets.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
10-22-2012, 07:58 AM
November 11 is Veteran's Day.

Good one.

SMARTINSEN
10-22-2012, 08:08 AM
Romney will win:

Colorado

Jeff C

Switters or someone else from CO will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that there is a ballot initiative in CO regarding legalizing marijuana. This will be to the advantage of Obama rather than Romney.

Here is a squeaker scenario:http://www.270towin.com/2012_election_predictions.php?mapid=NtO

You can make and link to your own maps at http://www.270towin.com/
Though I do not know how to embed the graphic.

botebum
10-22-2012, 08:16 AM
:D

That's funny.+1
Too funny!

Doug

Mrleft8
10-22-2012, 08:20 AM
Switters or someone else from CO will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that there is a ballot initiative in CO regarding legalizing marijuana. This will be to the advantage of Obama rather than Romney.

Maybe yes..... Maybe no.
Consider that all the people who might vote for Obama because of this initiative might be too stoned to vote, or vote for the correct person.
Consider also that there might be a strong "Anti-hippy" contingent of ex-oilfield workers with pick ax handles and 12 ga. shotguns, driving around aimlessly in dusty green pickup trucks who suddenly decide to vote for the first time since 1980.......

walterc
10-22-2012, 09:00 AM
Americas First Communist President, Barack Hussein Obama will be defeated, freedom lives on.A message from Barack you did not build that boat yourself.

TomF
10-22-2012, 09:14 AM
Americas First Communist President, Barack Hussein Obama will be defeated, freedom lives on.A message from Barack you did not build that boat yourself.D'oh!

Muslim extremists aren't Communists - they believe in Allah! Keep your story straight, man!

Cuyahoga Chuck
10-22-2012, 09:43 AM
Sort of but not really, Chuck.
It's my understanding, correct me if I'm wrong, that the EC is not bound by law to base their vote soley on the pop vote of the district they represent.

Doug

True, but dissenters have historically been very rare. And as intense as elections have gotten an elector might be taking his life in his hands if he doesn't deliver what the election count determines.

Cuyahoga Chuck
10-22-2012, 09:47 AM
Americas First Communist President, Barack Hussein Obama will be defeated, freedom lives on.A message from Barack you did not build that boat yourself.

The breeze is between your ears, Walter. Thanks for spelling his name properly.

peb
10-22-2012, 06:34 PM
Prediction as of oct 22: Obama squeaks out a win in the EC, looses the popular vote by 2-3%.

elf
10-22-2012, 07:54 PM
the election will be decided by the Supreme Court, when ballot machine tampering occurs in Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Oregon.

Keith Wilson
10-22-2012, 10:17 PM
OK, I'll bite. The popular vote will be very close. Romney will win FL, NC, VA and NH; Obama will win PA, OH, MI, IA, CO, NV. Electoral Votes 285-252.

hokiefan
10-22-2012, 10:27 PM
It is somewhat depressing to vote in Georgia, where there is no doubt that Romney will carry the state. Although a vote here in Illinois would probably be similarly wasted, since it is a given the Obama carries Illinois. Wonder if its too late to move back to Virginia???

In any event, my absentee ballot goes in the mail tomorrow.

Cheers,

Bobby

botebum
10-22-2012, 10:33 PM
I think my vote still counts in NC.
I'm sure as hell gonna vote like it matters!

Doug

Durnik
10-22-2012, 10:42 PM
It is somewhat depressing to vote in Georgia, where there is no doubt that Romney will carry the state. Although a vote here in Illinois would probably be similarly wasted, since it is a given that Obama carries Illinois. Wonder if its too late to move back to Virginia???

In any event, my absentee ballot goes in the mail tomorrow.

Cheers,

Bobby

Same here in TN. Some here are encouraging liberal/progressive voters to vote for Jill Stein simply to help the Greens get more public recognition - that, & enough votes gets them federal campaign funds (IIUC).. Figure it can't hurt to let people know there are more than two (some would say one) alternatives. Swing stater's, tho, should vote Obama - even the conservatives.. ;-)

enjoy
bobby

mikefrommontana
10-22-2012, 10:56 PM
I was doing political calls here in Montana and one person suggested just that: vote Green (he didn't know it was Jill Stein) because there's no way on earth Barack Obama would carry the state.

Paul oughta be proud.

Waddie
10-22-2012, 11:57 PM
the election will be decided by the Supreme Court, when ballot machine tampering occurs in Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Oregon.

good post... I was recently pondering the same scenario. I read an article on how easy it is to tamper with the electronic voting machines. This election could be tied up for months.

regards,
Waddie

peb
10-23-2012, 09:28 AM
I think my vote still counts in NC.
I'm sure as hell gonna vote like it matters!

Doug

I would argue everyone's votes matters. Romney will carry Texas, but I will still vote. Everyone's vote matters because the popular vote matters. Yea, the EC determines the main prize, but to a varying extent the popular vote margin determines the next 6-12 months of politics (not to mention the coattail effect in the Senate and House).
2000 is a great example. Bush did not win the popular vote, did not have a mandate. So he had to work very closely with the democrats on his tax and education initiatives (the two main issues he ran on that year). Obama, on the other hand, had a clear mandate; and used it on his stimulus package. I would argue he let it waste away on other issues that were important to him, due to lack of experience in government.

Durnik
10-23-2012, 09:35 AM
...
you did not build that boat yourself.

Well, technically, that's true.. Someone else cut the lumber, someone else made the plywood, someone else made the epoxy/glue, someone else made the screws/staples, someone else made the table saw/band saw/circular saw/plane/clamps/drivers etc. In everything I do, I have help from untold hundreds of unseen hands.. maybe even your's..

We're all in this together.. 'cept some (hello Mitt & RW voters! ;-)) think they are 'entitled' to more of the pot..

Weird..

enjoy
bobby

Bob Adams
10-23-2012, 01:59 PM
I predict a short pause before the bullsh!te begins again leading up to the 2016 election.

leikec
10-23-2012, 02:03 PM
I predict a short pause before the bullsh!te begins again leading up to the 2016 election.

The 2014 midterm will be something else, because of the demographic shift in the electorate...

Jeff C

Waddie
10-23-2012, 02:07 PM
The 2014 midterm will be something else, because of the demographic shift in the electorate...

Jeff C

You're correct that it will be "something else", but not because of demographics. Because of re-districting.

regards,
Waddie

Bob Adams
10-23-2012, 02:16 PM
You're correct that it will be "something else", but not because of demographics. Because of re-districting.

regards,
Waddie

Yes. I posted this once before to little comment, look at the jewel Marylands majority party drew up to keep the other guys from getting a toehold:


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-EUUlCOrWHtk/TppI2Q3TMjI/AAAAAAAAAMQ/tL1gJfENu1g/s1600/md2012map.jpg

switters
10-23-2012, 02:24 PM
Maybe yes..... Maybe no.
Consider that all the people who might vote for Obama because of this initiative might be too stoned to vote, or vote for the correct person.
Consider also that there might be a strong "Anti-hippy" contingent of ex-oilfield workers with pick ax handles and 12 ga. shotguns, driving around aimlessly in dusty green pickup trucks who suddenly decide to vote for the first time since 1980.......


based on the voting for reps to congress two years ago, I think Colorado will go to Romney by a small margin, and the oilfield workers have all moved up to North Dakota, as strange as it sounds I can see both the pot and the Publican getting the vote. Polis will take the new 4th district despite redistricting. Obama will will with a margin greater than 4 percent of electoral votes, and the popular vote will be too close to call if statistical variation is considered.

I made this exact same prediction over a year ago and have a bar tab riding on it.

genglandoh
10-23-2012, 02:52 PM
You're correct that it will be "something else", but not because of demographics. Because of re-districting.

regards,
Waddie

The US only does re-districting once every 10 years after the national census.
The next national census will be in 2020.

skuthorp
10-23-2012, 03:34 PM
Refer #3 still.

johngsandusky
10-23-2012, 04:38 PM
Romney will win by 5%, and not spend the next four years blaming some one else.

genglandoh
10-26-2012, 12:46 PM
Some have posted their predictions for the election on different threads.
I thought it would be interesting to put down the predictions in one place so we can all see them.

The rules


Only post you own predictions
Don’t speak for others
It is OK to add, change or adjust your prediction if you want.


My election predications are the following
1.Romney will win FL
2.Romney will win NC
3.Romney will win OH
4.Romney will win WI
5.On Election Night I will be watching NY
If Obama wins with more than 60% of the NY vote he will win the National election.
If Obama wins with 58%-60% of the NY vote is will be very close National election.
If Obama wins with 58% or less of the NY vote he will lose the National election.
6.Obama will get less than 72% of the Jewish vote that he got in 2008.
7.Obama will get about 90% of the African American Vote down from 95% in 2008
8.Obama will get less than 67% of the Latino vote that he got in 2008.

Some additional predictions
9. Romney will win IN
10. Romney will win VA
11. Romney will get between 275 and 328 Electoral College votes

leikec
10-26-2012, 01:13 PM
Some additional predictions
9. Romney will win IN
10. Romney will win VA
11. Romney will get between 275 and 328 Electoral College votes


Could happen...Romney will certainly win Indiana. I have my doubts about your high end electoral vote prediction though.

Jeff C

genglandoh
10-26-2012, 01:24 PM
Could happen...Romney will certainly win Indiana. I have my doubts about your high end electoral vote prediction though.

Jeff C

To get to the 328 Romney would have to also win
MI, NH, PA, and MN.

leikec
10-26-2012, 01:50 PM
To get to the 328 Romney would have to also win
MI, NH, PA, and MN.


NewHampshire could happen, but I'd be extremely surprised if Romney won those other states...

Jeff C

genglandoh
10-26-2012, 01:54 PM
NewHampshire could happen, but I'd be extremely surprised if Romney won those other states...

Jeff C

I agree that is why I did not include them in my state predictions.

KMacDonald
10-26-2012, 02:02 PM
Romney by a landslide.

bob winter
10-26-2012, 03:14 PM
I personally find the prospect of Romney winning to be indicating that something is very much out of whack in the US. Obama certainly has not lived up to expectations but maybe the expectations were not realistic.

leikec
10-26-2012, 03:23 PM
Romney by a landslide.


That would quite a result, given that the polls don't reflect that sort of outcome...

Jeff C

skuthorp
10-26-2012, 03:27 PM
Romney by a landslide.
A very unpleasant and dangerous prospect for the rest of us satrap states.

Dave Wright
10-26-2012, 05:47 PM
Obama will win; the exact vote is immaterial. The economy is improving and will continue to improve. Obama will have no re-election concerns and will be willing to engage in more give and take with Republicans. I have no idea if Republicans will be willing to reciprocate.

KMacDonald
10-26-2012, 05:49 PM
I think Obamas base will not show up to vote in the numbers the polesters are using.

Vince Brennan
10-26-2012, 06:44 PM
My prediction is that your head will explode when Romney gets handed his hat.

Doug
+1! And the celebration will be quiet but completely heartfelt.

johnw
10-27-2012, 12:10 AM
Nah, it's even worse than that.

With the new "paperless" electronic machines, there's nothing to audit, so it's virtually impossible to challenge the results.

At least with the old-style, we could take a look at the paper and argue over hanging chads or stray pencil marks. The electronics destroy all that evidence.

It's a real mystery to me why anyone would think such a system was a good idea. I voted by mail (we all do in my state) using optical scanning sheets, which leave quite a good audit trail.

The tinfoil hat brigade is already claiming Ohio's voting machines are controlled by Romney's cronies and the outcome will be rigged. I don't buy it, but with a system that does not produce an audit trail, we can't prove it was a fair vote.

leikec
10-27-2012, 12:18 AM
It's a real mystery to me why anyone would think such a system was a good idea. I voted by mail (we all do in my state) using optical scanning sheets, which leave quite a good audit trail.

The tinfoil hat brigade is already claiming Ohio's voting machines are controlled by Romney's cronies and the outcome will be rigged. I don't buy it, but with a system that does not produce an audit trail, we can't prove it was a fair vote.

I did early voting today, and I selected the optical scanned ballot. I just feel better about doing it that way...

Jeff C

johnw
10-27-2012, 01:33 AM
Much better system. It's a wonder, isn't it, with all the talk about protecting the integrity of the ballot, that this has been overlooked.

peb
10-31-2012, 09:57 AM
Bump to update my prediction. Obama 271 vs Romney 267 in the EC. Romney 51% of popular vote, Obama 49%. I hope I have cause to change this by Monday or Tuesday, but I don't expect to; the race seems to be rather static right now.

Cuyahoga Chuck
10-31-2012, 12:41 PM
According to Nate "He Knows Everything" Silver and Chuck Todd of NBC, even with the equal percentages Obama has a SHORTER route to the 270 Electorals. Silver's electoral prognostication has Obama getting around 295 electorals.
Of course, that was done before Mother Nature made her preferences known. With the president's exposure increasing as he manages Sandy's emergency programs he may get one or more RED leaning states.

Concordia 33
10-31-2012, 04:00 PM
My Prediction

Romney 279 Electoral Votes
Obama 254 Electoral Votes

Obama wins the following swing states:
Iowa
Wisconsin
Michigan

Romney wins the following swing states:
Florida
Virginia
Ohio
New Hampshire
Colorado

Romney wins the popular vote by 1-2%

There will be accusations of voter fraud on both sides - in fact it has already begun with complaints that the early voting machines are not registering the candidate that was chosen by the voter. Ultimately neither side wil have a strong argument for fraud and the final tally will stand as is.

PeterSibley
10-31-2012, 04:49 PM
Obama by a nose.

George Jung
10-31-2012, 06:13 PM
Read the latest poll has Obama 'just ahead' in both EC and popular vote. But the evening news also said the ads are going over the top, trying to garner a few more percentage points for Romney - but these false claims are being rebutted fast and furious.

I don't recall an election where there was this degree of manipulation/lying as what I've seen from the Republicans. I know the last election, to date, has been a burr in their undies, but honestly, they seem besides themselves.

Cuyahoga Chuck
10-31-2012, 06:37 PM
My Prediction

Romney 279 Electoral Votes
Obama 254 Electoral Votes

Obama wins the following swing states:
Iowa
Wisconsin
Michigan

Romney wins the following swing states:
Florida
Virginia
Ohio
New Hampshire
Colorado

Romney wins the popular vote by 1-2%

There will be accusations of voter fraud on both sides - in fact it has already begun with complaints that the early voting machines are not registering the candidate that was chosen by the voter. Ultimately neither side wil have a strong argument for fraud and the final tally will stand as is.

Sorry, but I think you are betting against an inside straight. Giving Ohio to Romney is an insult to Ohioans' intelligence. This is autoworker country. One in every eight jobs is related to auto manufacturing. We will come thru' for both Pres. Obama and for Sen. Sherrod Brown for what they have done for us.
Even if Romney wins the popular vote he has a way to go to get to 270 electorals.
While the president was seen in the hurricane zone today, Romney was seen in Florida taking his pitch to the geriatric crowd. I've got a feeling they don't want to see anyone as unpredictable as Romney playing around with their SS and Medicare.
BTW, thanks for contibuting. The Bilge seems to be running out of right-wingers of any stripe.

Keith Wilson
10-31-2012, 08:34 PM
My first prediction was that Romney will win FL, NC, VA and NH; Obama will win PA, OH, MI, IA, CO, NV; 285-252.

Given how things are going, I think it's at least as likely that Obama will take VA and NH too, for a total of 303-235.

George, I agree completely, The amount of utter bare-faced lying in the latest Romney ads is truly astounding, and I didn't think much in politics could surprise me anymore. I suppose they calculate dthat it won't catch up with them in time, but I think they're misjudging the speed of communications today. OTOH, maybe they realized that if something doesn't change they're probably going to lose, and figured "Oh, what the hell, it might help". And ideas of honor or honesty or anything like that are sooo 19th century.

Concordia 33
11-01-2012, 08:24 AM
Sorry, but I think you are betting against an inside straight. Giving Ohio to Romney is an insult to Ohioans' intelligence. This is autoworker country. One in every eight jobs is related to auto manufacturing. We will come thru' for both Pres. Obama and for Sen. Sherrod Brown for what they have done for us.
Even if Romney wins the popular vote he has a way to go to get to 270 electorals.
While the president was seen in the hurricane zone today, Romney was seen in Florida taking his pitch to the geriatric crowd. I've got a feeling they don't want to see anyone as unpredictable as Romney playing around with their SS and Medicare.
BTW, thanks for contibuting. The Bilge seems to be running out of right-wingers of any stripe.

Was this a thread about people predicting the outcome of the election or was it a thread where others can carp about the predictions? We will all see who is right in 5 days, and no one, not even the pollsters themselves, can be certain of the final vote tallies. there are too many intangibles such as weather, voter turn-out, voter enthusiasm, and how those last few undecideds will break. So make a prediction, and hold your criticism for later. I'm not betting for or against an inside straight here. I believe that Ohio will break for Romney and he will carry the state with a 1-2% margin. I'm not trying to figure out how he can get to 270 here - I looked at the states, the polling data and applied my own common sense. Obviously you see Ohio differently, and you are from the state and may have a better feel for this, but if that is the case then start a thread on it, because this is not the place for it.

You are welcome for my contribution, but I am not nearly as right wing as you think. I do have a fiscal conservative side but am otherwise fairly liberal. I have voted in every presidential election since 1972 and McCain was the first Republican candidate for which I voted. Even in Senate and congressional elections I tend to vote for the Democrat. I don't really support either party, but try to pick the person who is best for the job. Even though I see President Obama as a poor leader and would pick Romney over him any day (despite his shortcomings), I would have predicted the election for President Obama if I saw it that way. I don't need to predict my choice as the winner - I knew well before the election that McCain would lose, and had no problem predicting it so despite voting for him. Anyone that can vote for George McGovern is not afraid to vote on the losing side.

Mrleft8
11-01-2012, 08:31 AM
There are no "Undecideds", only people unwilling to state for whom they intend to vote.

Kevin T
11-02-2012, 07:49 AM
I can't resist.
EC: Obama 307 Romney 231, maybe 303/235, but I'll go with the former, 307/231
Pop Vote: Obama on the fat side of 50% by 4 points.

leikec
11-02-2012, 10:52 AM
I have no desire to quibble with your opinion, but I'm simply curious about what the basis is, for this particular opinion. Is it 'fact' based, or a hunch? Backed by evidence, or just intuition?


Perhaps it's based on Ralph Reed's prediction that evangelical voters will turn out in huge numbers for Romney in that state...

Jeff C

Cuyahoga Chuck
11-02-2012, 12:55 PM
Was this a thread about people predicting the outcome of the election or was it a thread where others can carp about the predictions? We will all see who is right in 5 days, and no one, not even the pollsters themselves, can be certain of the final vote tallies. there are too many intangibles such as weather, voter turn-out, voter enthusiasm, and how those last few undecideds will break. So make a prediction, and hold your criticism for later. I'm not betting for or against an inside straight here. I believe that Ohio will break for Romney and he will carry the state with a 1-2% margin. I'm not trying to figure out how he can get to 270 here - I looked at the states, the polling data and applied my own common sense. Obviously you see Ohio differently, and you are from the state and may have a better feel for this, but if that is the case then start a thread on it, because this is not the place for it.

You are welcome for my contribution, but I am not nearly as right wing as you think. I do have a fiscal conservative side but am otherwise fairly liberal. I have voted in every presidential election since 1972 and McCain was the first Republican candidate for which I voted. Even in Senate and congressional elections I tend to vote for the Democrat. I don't really support either party, but try to pick the person who is best for the job. Even though I see President Obama as a poor leader and would pick Romney over him any day (despite his shortcomings), I would have predicted the election for President Obama if I saw it that way. I don't need to predict my choice as the winner - I knew well before the election that McCain would lose, and had no problem predicting it so despite voting for him. Anyone that can vote for George McGovern is not afraid to vote on the losing side.

That's the trouble with being a liberal. Old Father Time makes you crochity and more a more inclined to adhere to right-wing ideals as the decades roll by. Gotta' watch that. I noticed I was doing that back in my 60s.
You may not see yourself as overly right-wing but my my judgement is somewhat different I was born during Franklin Roosevelt's first term and I'm thoroughly infected with liberalism of that stripe. And I think I have a duty to carry on with those ideals.
Roosevelt was rich but he abhored the plutocrats and was, in turn, abhored by them. He had no business experience and didn't seem to need any. What he was was a man finely tuned to the needs of the common people. He went thru' an entire term where his main legilative initiatives were knocked down by the supreme court but in the end he won and became one of our greatest presidents.
Obama is not of that level but he has the chance to be a well remebered president. Romney has the opportunity to be another Herbert Hoover.

peb
11-02-2012, 04:49 PM
At this point, I cannot see how Obama can get above 49% of popular vote, and I think 47 or 48 is more likely.
And yet I cannot see how Romney is going to get the 270 EC votes needed for a win.
A combination that would be a historical anomaly to say the least. Yet i am sticking with that prediction, Obama wins despite 2% loss in popular vote. But I reserve the right to change on Monday.

Keith Wilson
11-02-2012, 05:42 PM
A combination that would be a historical anomaly to say the least.Not at all. It's quite possible to win the presidency while losing the popular vote; that's how the electoral college is designed. Bush did it in 2000, losing the popular vote by over half a million. Also Harrison in 1888, Hayes in 1876 (although that one was a total mess in lots of ways), and John Quincy Adams in 1824; that election was decided by the House of Representatives, and Adams lost the popular vote.

I think we should get rid of the Electoral College.

peb
11-02-2012, 06:09 PM
Keith, the popular vote for bush-gore was only .5%, I am predicting at least a 2% "win" for Romney. Harrison "lost" the popular vote by .8% BTW

I think it would be an extremely stupid thing to get rid of the electoral college. Libs are always wanting to fix something that is not broken.

The EC serves several purposes:
1) states matter
2) in a very close election (eg 2000, 1960)it narrows down the places where results can be contested

I suppose you want to get rid of the US Senate also?

johnw
11-02-2012, 07:31 PM
Keith, the popular vote for bush-gore was only .5%, I am predicting at least a 2% "win" for Romney. Harrison "lost" the popular vote by .8% BTW

I think it would be an extremely stupid thing to get rid of the electoral college. Libs are always wanting to fix something that is not broken.

The EC serves several purposes:
1) states matter
2) in a very close election (eg 2000, 1960)it narrows down the places where results can be contested

I suppose you want to get rid of the US Senate also?

I suppose you are not aware of this, but we didn't have direct election of senators until the 17th amendment passed in 1913. Since Keith is not advocating getting rid of the president, his suggestion is more like the 17th amendment than it is like getting rid of the senate.

One of the effects of the electoral college is that only a few states are really contested, which probably suppresses turnout in the rest of the country. I don't like that aspect of it. The way it works, however, it also means that if one region of the country votes overwhelmingly for one candidate, and the rest of the country prefers another by a smaller margin, that region cannot in effect overrule the rest of the country. I'm ambivalent about that. It's one possible reason for Romney doing so much better in the national polls than in the swing states -- the South has become more and more Republican, and Romney will probably take that region by a bigger percentage than Obama gets anywhere else. But is it fair that the deep feelings of one region can be overruled by less deep feelings by the other regions?

On balance, I'd rather see the president directly elected, like senators are now. No system is perfect, but I think there are fewer defects to direct election than to the electoral college. It was conceived by the founders as a group of wise men elected to exercise their judgement about who should be president, and I don't think anyone sees them that way.

peb
11-02-2012, 09:28 PM
Johnw, I know my history and can do without your condescending posts.

As to the 17th amendment, good example of folks fixing something that ain't broken. It could be repealed as far as I concerned.

peb
11-02-2012, 09:32 PM
As to predictions, I think it is very significant to note that the GOP has won every nov 6th election since 1860.

George Jung
11-02-2012, 10:33 PM
Interesting statistic; any idea on the 'why'?

johnw
11-02-2012, 11:23 PM
Johnw, I know my history and can do without your condescending posts.

As to the 17th amendment, good example of folks fixing something that ain't broken. It could be repealed as far as I concerned.

Apparently you don't know your history. The 17th amendment passed because the system was broken. Or do you contend that it was not a problem when William Clark bought a seat in the senate?


From wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_A._Clark
Clark's long-standing dream of becoming a United States Senator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate) resulted in scandal in 1899 when it was revealed that he bribed members of the Montana State Legislature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montana_State_Legislature) in return for their votes. At the time, U.S. Senators were chosen by their respective state legislators; the corruption of his election contributed to the passage of the 17th Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/17th_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution). The U.S. Senate refused to seat Clark because of the 1899 bribery scheme, but a later senate campaign was successful, and he served a single term from 1901 until 1907. In responding to criticism of his bribery of the Montana legislature, Clark is reported to have said, "I never bought a man who wasn't for sale."[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_A._Clark#cite_note-3)

Of course, the problem may have been that he was insufficiently surreptitious. I'm sure others were seated after playing the same game more quietly.

I'd say that either you don't know your history or you approve of corruption. Those are the only choices if you don't think the 17th amendment fixed something that was broken. If in fact you don't know your history, my post was accurate rather than condescending. If you approve of the corruption that allowed a man to buy a senate seat, there's a lot more wrong with you than not knowing your history.

johnw
11-02-2012, 11:25 PM
As to predictions, I think it is very significant to note that the GOP has won every nov 6th election since 1860.

And why would that be significant, rather than a statistical anomaly?

Gerarddm
11-02-2012, 11:35 PM
I suppose Obama.

peb
11-03-2012, 07:52 AM
And why would that be significant, rather than a statistical anomaly?

It was a joke

Keith Wilson
11-03-2012, 06:27 PM
The EC serves several purposes:
1) states matter
2) in a very close election (eg 2000, 1960)it narrows down the places where results can be contested My argument against the electoral college is that people matter, and their individual votes should count more or less equally.

Three major points:
1. Winner-take-all by states is not a good way to apportion votes, since it devalues both the minority votes in closely-contested states, and the majority votes in states that aren't close.
2. The way electoral votes are assigned devalues the votes of those in more populous states.
3. The fact that electoral votes are independent of turnout, which varies widely by state, devalues the votes of people in states where a higher percentage of people vote.

One example: in the 2008 election the voting rate in MN was 78%, about 2.9 million votes, 10 electoral votes. In West Virginia it was 50%, 730,000 votes, 5 electoral votes. (Rough numbers)
Each MN electoral vote represented about 290,000 votes. Each WV electoral vote represented 146,000 votes. My vote for president should not count half as much as someone else's.

Boater14
11-03-2012, 08:57 PM
Obama will win. Mitt will Carry those western states whose aggregate population doesn't equal Brooklyn.

peb
11-03-2012, 08:58 PM
My argument against the electoral college is that people matter, and their individual votes should count more or less equally.

Three major points:
1. Winner-take-all by states is not a good way to apportion votes, since it devalues both the minority votes in closely-contested states, and the majority votes in states that aren't close.
2. The way electoral votes are assigned devalues the votes of those in more populous states.
3. The fact that electoral votes are independent of turnout, which varies widely by state, devalues the votes of people in states where a higher percentage of people vote.

One example: in the 2008 election the voting rate in MN was 78%, about 2.9 million votes, 10 electoral votes. In West Virginia it was 50%, 730,000 votes, 5 electoral votes. (Rough numbers)
Each MN electoral vote represented about 290,000 votes. Each WV electoral vote represented 146,000 votes. My vote for president should not count half as much as someone else's.

So you do want to eliminate the US Senate?

Keith Wilson
11-03-2012, 09:30 PM
So you do want to eliminate the US Senate?No. One can make an argument for making it more representative of people than states, for states are way, way less important than they were in 1789, but I don't think I'd be in favor of doing that, partly because I haven't thought about it enough to have a valid opinion. OTOH, the Electoral College is a total kludge, and makes very little sense anymore.

Why should my vote for president count half of that of someone in West Virginia? Or yours count only 28% of someone from Washington DC? (Note that this chart doesn't consider the effects of varying turnout.)


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/14/State_population_per_electoral_vote.png/800px-State_population_per_electoral_vote.png

Waddie
11-04-2012, 12:06 AM
Apparently Joe Biden won't be voting for Obama...... Freudian Slip?


http://youtu.be/OPdTSnmzdb4

regards,
Waddie

Keith Wilson
11-04-2012, 09:15 AM
Nate Silver's odds (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/) are now at 85.1-14.9, two points from the highest they've ever been this election cycle.

The interesting thing is that the electoral map is almost the same as it was in '08. NC will probably go Republican this time, and possibly Florida, CO and Virginia are close, but it's remarkable how little change there is.

Tom Montgomery
11-04-2012, 01:38 PM
Arguments made FOR an electoral College rather than a popular vote:


Prevents an urban-centric victory
Proponents of the Electoral College claim the Electoral College prevents a candidate from winning the Presidency by simply winning in heavily populated urban areas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_area). This means that candidates must make a wider geographic appeal than they would if they simply had to win the national popular vote.
A wash. The Electoral College system also weights the vote toward the most populated states.


Maintains the federal character of the nation
The United States of America is a federal coalition which consists of component states. Proponents of the current system argue that the collective opinion of even a small state merits attention at the federal level greater than that given to a small, though numerically-equivalent, portion of a very populous state. The system also allows each state the freedom, within constitutional bounds, to design its own laws on voting and enfranchisement without an undue incentive to maximize the number of votes cast.

For many years early in the nation's history, up until the Jacksonian Era (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacksonian_Era), many states appointed their electors by a vote of the state legislature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_legislature_(United_States)), and proponents argue that, in the end, the election of the President must still come down to the decisions of each state, or the federal nature of the United States will give way to a single massive, centralized government.

In his book A More Perfect Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_More_Perfect_Constitution), Professor Larry Sabato (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Sabato) elaborated on this advantage of the Electoral College, arguing to "mend it, don't end it," in part because of its usefulness in forcing candidates to pay attention to lightly populated states and reinforcing the role of the state in federalism.An anachronistic concern. Modern mass communication/media erases the problem of candidates ignoring lightly populated states.



Enhances status of minority groups
Far from decreasing the power of minority groups (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minority_group) by depressing voter turnout, proponents argue that, by making the votes of a given state an all-or-nothing affair, minority groups can provide the critical edge that allows a candidate to win. This encourages candidates to court a wide variety of such minorities and advocacy groups (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advocacy_group).Elections should be about the will of the majority. Constitutions protect the rights of minorities.


Encourages stability through the two-party system
Many proponents of the Electoral College see its negative effect on third parties (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_party_(politics)) as a good thing. They argue that the two party system has provided stability through its ability to change during times of rapid political and cultural change. They believe it protects the most powerful office in the country from control by what these proponents view as regional minorities until they can moderate their views to win broad, long-term support from across the entire nation. Advocates of a national popular vote for president suggest that this effect would also be true in popular vote elections. Of 918 elections for governor between 1948 and 2009, for example, more than 90% were won by candidates securing more than 50% of the vote, and none have been won with less than 35% of the vote.The inhibition of third parties inherent in the Electoral College system harms a modern society. The two-party system has led to ever increasing polarization and gridlock. The middle would be served by a third-party.

And now we encounter inconsistent arguments: Is the Electoral System good because it increases the power of minority interests or because it decreases the power of minority interests? Which is it?


Death or legally defined disability of a presidential candidate
The Constitution grants each state the right to appoint electors in a manner chosen by that state. While it is common to think of the electoral votes impersonally, as mere numbers, the Electoral College is in fact made up of real people (usually party regulars of the party whose candidate wins each state) with the capacity to adapt to unusual situations. That capacity might be particularly important if, for example, a candidate were to die or become in some other way legally disabled or disqualified to serve as President or Vice President. Advocates of the current system argue that these electors could then choose a suitable replacement (who would most likely come from the same party of the candidate who won the election) more competently than could the general voting public. Furthermore, the time period during which such a death or the onset of such a legal disability or disqualification might call for such an adaptation extends, under the Electoral College system, from before Election Day (many states cannot change ballots at a late stage) until the day the electors vote (the first Monday after the second Wednesday of December).

In the election of 1872 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1872), Democratic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)) candidate Horace Greeley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horace_Greeley) did in fact die before the meeting of the Electoral College, resulting in Democratic disarray; the electors who were to have voted for Greeley split their votes across several candidates, including three votes cast for the deceased Greeley. However, President Ulysses S. Grant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulysses_S._Grant), the Republican (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States)) incumbent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incumbent), had already won an absolute majority of electors. Because it was the death of a losing candidate, there was no pressure to agree on a replacement candidate. There has never been a case of a candidate of the winning party dying.

In the election of 1912 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1912), Vice President (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice_President_of_the_United_States) Sherman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_S._Sherman) died shortly before the election, too late for any state to remove his name from its ballot, thus causing Sherman to be listed posthumously. The 8 electoral votes that Sherman would have received were cast for Nicholas Murray Butler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Murray_Butler).

Another anachronistic argument. This is a simple problem easily solved: the vice-presidential candidate should assume the place of the deceased presidential candidate. This might also have the added benefit of presidential candidates being more careful about their choice of running-mate.

Tom Montgomery
11-04-2012, 01:39 PM
Isolation of election problems
Some supporters of the Electoral College note that it isolates the impact of any election fraud, or other such problems, to the state where it occurs. It prevents instances where a party dominant in one state may dishonestly inflate the votes for a candidate and thereby affect the election outcome. For instance, recounts occur only on a state-by-state basis, not nationwide.Critics of the current system suggest that the results in a single state -- such as Florida in 2000 -- can decide the national election and thus not keep any problems in such a state isolated from the rest of the nation.I simply do not understand this argument. Why would Florida voting issues affect a vote cast in California? The issue in the 2000 election was the winning of the Florida electoral vote. There was never any question but that Al Gore had won the popular vote.


State election systems
The Electoral College allows each state to conduct elections using its choice of voting system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_system), within certain restrictions in federal law, without those decisions affecting votes cast for president in other states. A national popular vote, by definition, requires all states to use plurality voting and could lead to stronger arguments for national election rules and standards.A good thing IMHO.


Neutralizes turnout disparities between states
Weather can vary greatly across a large area such as when rain or winter storms impact voter participation in affected states. In addition, when a state has another high profile contest, such as a hotly contested Senate, gubernatorial race or ballot proposition, turnout in that state can be affected. Because the allocation of electoral votes is independent of each state's turnout, the Electoral College neutralizes the effect of all such turnout disparities between states. At the same time, turnout can vary within states for similar reasons -- hotly contested local races and weather affecting only one part of a state, for example -- and have an impact on who wins that state and, potentially, who wins the presidency.A motivated citizen will find reasons to make it to the polls rather than find reasons to avoid voting. And why are voting hours so restricted? Why not a 36-hour voting period?


Maintains separation of powers
The Constitution separated government into three branches (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Const itution) that check each other to minimize threats to liberty and encourage deliberation of governmental acts. Under the original framework, only members of the House of Representatives were directly elected by the people, with members of the Senate chosen by state legislatures, the President by the Electoral College, and the judiciary by the President and the Senate. Critics of the current system suggest that popular vote elections already tie the hands of electors in states and that adoption of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact) would not affect any separation of powers or state powers over how to choose their electors.Another anachronistic argument. U.S. Senators are no longer chosen by state legislators. The office POTUS is a Federal position that should be determined by a national election where every vote counts equally.

johnw
11-04-2012, 02:21 PM
Nate Silver's odds (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/) are now at 85.1-14.9, two points from the highest they've ever been this election cycle.

The interesting thing is that the electoral map is almost the same as it was in '08. NC will probably go Republican this time, and possibly Florida, CO and Virginia are close, but it's remarkable how little change there is.

It's worse than you think. The map is not only close to the 2008 map, it's close to the pre-civil-war map.

http://sensoryoverload.typepad.com/sensory_overload/images/then_map_2.jpg


http://sensoryoverload.typepad.com/sensory_overload/images/now_map_2.jpg

I read an editorial today that claims we're re-litigating the 1960s. We're actually re-litigating the 1860s.

Tom Montgomery
11-04-2012, 02:39 PM
I read an editorial today that claims we're re-litigating the 1960s. We're actually re-litigating the 1860s.WOW! That is interesting, John.

Pre-Civil War Free vs. Slave States

http://www.learner.org/biographyofamerica/prog10/maps/images/map_10_a.gif


Nate Silver's latest Electoral College map as of 11/3/12:

http://underthelobsterscope.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/zpuyv.png

Maryland, Delaware and the Hoosiers are the odd men out. I interact with Hoosiers every day (my part of the country is called "Kentuckiana"). It is no surprise to me.

Having said that I must give Hoosiers credit: it appears they are going to strongly reject Richard Mourdock (R) for the U.S. Senate.
M

leikec
11-04-2012, 02:45 PM
I think it will be 294 for in the EC for Obama, 244 for Romney. Obama will win the popular vote, but not by much. The democrats will keep the Senate by a seat or two, and the republicans will barely keep the House.

Jeff C

peb
11-04-2012, 02:49 PM
I think it will be 294 for in the EC for Obama, 244 for Romney. Obama will win the popular vote, but not by much. The democrats will keep the Senate by a seat or two, and the republicans will barely keep the House.

Jeff C

A very good prediction , IMO. Sure hope your wrong, but an objective analysis certainly leads one to this conclusion.

Put me on record as changing my previous prediction to match Jeff's.

leikec
11-04-2012, 03:53 PM
A very good prediction , IMO. Sure hope your wrong, but an objective analysis certainly leads one to this conclusion.

Put me on record as changing my previous prediction to match Jeff's.


In all fairness, I should point out that I had Detroit winning the World Series in five games...just so you have full disclosure of my recent track record as a prognosticator. :D

Jeff C

SMARTINSEN
11-04-2012, 04:16 PM
I think it will be 294 for in the EC for Obama, 244 for Romney.

Jeff C

You are saying that of the toss-up states, Romney gets FL and NC, and Obama the rest. Plausible. It is also that plausible that Obama wins either one or both of them, too. I think that you are right when you say that Obama gets VA, though that could go either way as well. As for the rest of the toss-up states, I would venture that they are likely Obama


Obama will win the popular vote, but not by much. By 1.5%


The democrats will keep the Senate by a seat or two, and the republicans will barely keep the House.54 or 55 in the Senate for the Dems, hinging upon Tester/Rehberg. And finally a net gain of 10 in the House for the Dems, just to pick a nice round number.

I think that the far right rhetoric of the GOP has peaked, though I will admit to having said that once before, too.

Kevin T
11-04-2012, 05:25 PM
EC
Obama 307
Romney 231

Concordia 33
11-05-2012, 09:55 AM
I have no desire to quibble with your opinion, but I'm simply curious about what the basis is, for this particular opinion. Is it 'fact' based, or a hunch? Backed by evidence, or just intuition?

Based at looking at the existing polls and factoring in their oversampling of Democrats tempered with some of the early voting results which are less favorable to Obama than what was previously predicted. Since I don't do any polling, I am trying to interpret the existing polls more than using intuition - I have bad intuition.

LeeG
11-05-2012, 10:22 AM
A very unpleasant and dangerous prospect for the rest of us satrap states.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/10/31/blue_planet

So what would the election look like if the world really could vote? The short answer: nothing like the razor-thin race unfolding at home. Obama is preferred over Mitt Romney in 31 out of 32 countries in the UPI poll and 20 out of 21 countries in another BBC World Service/GlobeScan/PIPA survey. Fifty-one percent of respondents in the UPI poll said they would cast a ballot for Obama, with more people saying they wouldn't vote for either candidate (18 percent) than would vote for the Republican nominee (12 percent). In the BBC survey, 50 percent of respondents chose Obama and only 9 percent selected Romney.

Durnik
11-05-2012, 12:07 PM
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/10/31/blue_planet

So what would the election look like if the world really could vote? The short answer: nothing like the razor-thin race unfolding at home. Obama is preferred over Mitt Romney in 31 out of 32 countries in the UPI poll and 20 out of 21 countries in another BBC World Service/GlobeScan/PIPA survey. Fifty-one percent of respondents in the UPI poll said they would cast a ballot for Obama, with more people saying they wouldn't vote for either candidate (18 percent) than would vote for the Republican nominee (12 percent). In the BBC survey, 50 percent of respondents chose Obama and only 9 percent selected Romney.

And _that_, my friends, would be Democracy! ;-)

To (mis)quote Mitt*, "Let the Flames begin"!

enjoy
bobby

* a game to eclipse the Olympics!

johnw
11-05-2012, 01:53 PM
I'm predicting Obama will win a narrow victory, with a coalition consisting mostly of white voters, with substantial numbers of Hispanics, blacks, various Asian ethnic groups, pacific islanders, etc. Romney's vote total will be about 90 percent white. Glen Beck will say that Obama is a racist.

The Democrats will keep a narrow majority in the Senate, the Republicans will keep a reduced majority in the House. The Republican 4-year temper tantrum will continue.

TomF
11-05-2012, 02:01 PM
I'm predicting Obama will win a narrow victory, with a coalition consisting mostly of white voters, with substantial numbers of Hispanics, blacks, various Asian ethnic groups, pacific islanders, etc. Romney's vote total will be about 90 percent white. Glen Beck will say that Obama is a racist.

The Democrats will keep a narrow majority in the Senate, the Republicans will keep a reduced majority in the House. The Republican 4-year temper tantrum will continue.I'm with everything but the last sentence. I'm hoping that comments by a few prominent Reps recently will prompt enough head-shaking within the GOP to prompt a bit of a return towards the middle. Because pragmatically, the middle is where the voters are ... and going further out on a wing won't bring a different result in 2014 or 16.

But maybe I'm too idealistic. :D

johnw
11-05-2012, 02:15 PM
Republicans in Texas and Florida already seem aware of this problem:


http://www.nationaljournal.com/thenextamerica/politics/obama-needs-80-of-minority-vote-to-win-2012-presidential-election-20120824
Republican strategists clearly feel the weight of trying to assemble a national majority with so little support among minorities that they must win three in five whites. “This is the last time anyone will try to do this,” one said. A GOP coalition that relies almost entirely on whites could squeeze out one more narrow victory in November. But if Republicans can’t find more effective ways to bridge the priorities of their conservative core and the diversifying Next America, that weight will grow more daunting every year.

The flip side of this is that Obama will win about 80 percent of the votes of minorities. "Minority" is not an ethnic group, it's a large number of ethnic groups the Republicans have snubbed, who have essentially become Democrats by default. The problem goes back to Nixon, whose Southern strategy was based on capturing the whites who objected to the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. It is no accident that we are seeing the rebirth of voter turnout suppression in the current version of the GOP. It will certainly be a relief to me when we can stop re-litigating the 1960s.

MiddleAgesMan
11-05-2012, 03:16 PM
I just caught a snippet of the story out of the UK. If I heard it correctly, bookies over there have started paying winners who put money on Obama to win another term.

peb
11-05-2012, 03:41 PM
I just caught a snippet of the story out of the UK. If I heard it correctly, bookies over there have started paying winners who put money on Obama to win another term.


I was skeptical, to say the least, that you heard it correctly. I have known a couple of bookies in my time, and they are very astute businessmen, I could not imagine them being that dumb. But I googled it and apparently one of them (England's biggest bookie company as a matter of fact) is doing just this.
I imagine it is for publicity sakes on their part. They have to have hedged against being wrong.

I am sticking with my prediction of Obama winning, but with the polls this close (and I can remember the surprise of Reagan's size of victory in 1980 ), I do not discount the possibility of a Romney win. It could certainly happen. (ha, maybe I should be like that wimp Nate Silver and claim I don't make predictions, since I state my prediction could be wrong).

johnw
11-05-2012, 03:47 PM
Hard to imagine a bookie paying out before the contest, especially with the polls as close as they are. Did they do this in the Dewy/Truman race?

MiddleAgesMan
11-05-2012, 05:36 PM
Here's Gawker's story about the bookie paying early: http://gawker.com/5957867/irish-betting-company-so-sure-obama-will-win-its-paying-out-a-day-early?utm_campaign=socialflow_gawker_facebook&utm_source=gawker_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

johnw
11-05-2012, 05:48 PM
I suppose even if they're wrong, they've got their value in publicity.


Known for its headline-grabbing gimmicks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paddy_Power#Criticism), Paddy Power announced the move in a half-page ad that ran in today's Irish Times and the Times of London. Not very surprising coming from the bookie that temporarily changed its name to "O'Bama Power" (http://www.worldirish.com/attach/8235) last year, but the early payout and the provocative ad still bothered a few people (http://www.worldirish.com/story/15199-has-paddy-powers-latest-obama-ad-gone-too-far#.UJgaCMW4B0y).

A spokesperson for the company defended the decision (http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2012/11/04/Bookie-ends-bet-on-presidential-election/UPI-49581352048642/), saying "Romney gave it a good shot and is doing well in the popular vote, but we suspect he's had his moment in the sun and is likely to be remembered more for his legendary gaffes than presidential potential."
He continued: "The overall betting trend has shown one way traffic for Obama and punters seemed to have called it 100 percent correct. Despite Romney appealing to the large evangelical and senior vote, America's sticking with black and cool."

Keith Wilson
11-05-2012, 07:56 PM
I'm hoping that comments by a few prominent Reps recently will prompt enough head-shaking within the GOP to prompt a bit of a return towards the middle.I hope you're right, but I wouldn't bet on it. IMHO, it will take at least two more electoral cycles for the fever to break, because the erosion of support for the ever-harder right hasn't been calamitous, but gradual enough to be wished away. (This is barring unlikely disasters like a failed ultra-right insurrection, or something similarly awful.) Demographic changes are working slowly but inexorably, and soon there won't be enough angry old white men to ever win national elections, but it will take the angry old white men a few more years to catch on that they're a smaller and smaller minority. We'll know the turning point has come when the Republicans disavow nativism, do a screaming 180 on immigration, and start to seriously woo Hispanic voters.

Repeat after me: "We should never have nominated a liberal from Massachusetts!"

Tom Montgomery
11-05-2012, 08:23 PM
Repeat after me: "We should never have nominated a liberal from Massachusetts!"

Yep. The right-wingnuts will end up making Lindsey Graham cry.

Vince Brennan
11-05-2012, 08:38 PM
According to a long-standing NFL tradition, when the Washington Redskins win their at-home ball game closest to an election, the incumbent remains in office: if they lose, of course, the challenger wins and - GUESS WHAT??? - They LOST!!!

So that means that Mittens and his Kittens will be inhabiting the White (and really making it one!) House fr the next four y....

OH!

Waitaminnit!!




The NFL acknowledged Monday that officials erroneously awarded the Carolina Panthers a first-quarter touchdown during their win Sunday over the Washington Redskins when one of them inadvertently blew his whistle.
The play should have been ruled dead at the Redskins 17-yard line, according to a written statement by the league. The Panthers would have had the option of replaying that down or taking the play as it stood at the 17-yard line.
“By rule, Carolina should have been given a choice of putting the ball in play where [running back DeAngelo] Williams was ruled to have stepped out of bounds–1st-and-10 from the Washington 17 yard-line–or replaying the down–1st-and-10 from the Washington 30,” the league’s written statement said.
The NFL’s statement said “the Panthers were incorrectly awarded a touchdown following an inadvertent whistle.”
The inadvertent whistle—and the spot where the ball should have been placed afterward—was not subject to instant replay review under the NFL’s replay rules, according to the league’s statement.
The inadvertent whistle came on a 30-yard touchdown run by Williams.
Williams was near the sideline but never stepped out of bounds. Line judge Thomas Symonette blew his whistle inadvertently and signaled for the clock to stop, but Williams continued to the end zone. Redskins linebacker Perry Riley said after the game that he could have pushed Williams out of bounds if he hadn’t heard the whistle.
The officials spoke on the field but awarded Williams a touchdown. Referee Carl Cheffers said after the game that officials decided that Williams already was in the end zone when Symonette inadvertently blew his whistle.

Ah. False alarm. That means that (while the official record will go against them) the Redskins REALLY DIDN'T LOSE after all!

Or does it?

Silly?

No sillier than the horse manure Glen and the rest of his cohort have been spreading the last few months...

Well, I predict that Obama will get four more years of abuse and non-co-operation from the Tea Party while Mitt retires to (wherever) and clips coupons.

Damn, Barry... what's wrong with that picture?

Tom Montgomery
11-05-2012, 09:39 PM
According to a long-standing NFL tradition, when the Washington Redskins win their at-home ball game closest to an election, the incumbent remains in office: if they lose, of course, the challenger wins and - GUESS WHAT??? - They LOST!!!

So that means that Mittens and his Kittens will be inhabiting the White (and really making it one!) House fr the next four y....

OH!

Waitaminnit!!

Ah. False alarm. That means that (while the official record will go against them) the Redskins REALLY DIDN'T LOSE after all!

Or does it?

Silly?

No sillier than the horse manure Glen and the rest of his cohort have been spreading the last few months...

Well, I predict that Obama will get four more years of abuse and non-co-operation from the Tea Party while Mitt retires to (wherever) and clips coupons.

Damn, Barry... what's wrong with that picture?Rush Limbaugh actually claimed today that the liberal main stream media was deliberately burying the story of the "Redskins Rule":


There's also something that, I guarantee you if a football game had a different outcome yesterday, you would be hearing nothing but this today. But since the Washington Redskins lost at home on a game before the election, it means, what is it, 18 of the last 19 elections, that the out-of-power party wins. Honest, it's called the Redskins Rule, and it's so well known you can look it up on Wikipedia. In the 18 presidential elections that have taken place since the Redskins moved to Washington in 1937, 17 have been predicted by the team's performance at its final home game prior to the election.

If the Redskins win at home, the incumbent party wins the presidential race, 17 out of 18 times going back to 1940. If the Redskins lose at home, the challenger prevails. Well, the Redskins lost to the Carolina Panthers. That means Romney wins. I guarantee you, if the Redskins had won the game, that's all you would be seeing on the media today. I guarantee you. You can't find it anywhere. It's only because I know the Redskins Rule that I was looking this up, and I did see a little blurb in one of the pre game shows before the football game started yesterday. I just saw a tail end of the blurb and I wasn't sure so I went and looked it up, and that is what it is.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/11/05/everything_except_the_polls_points_to_a_romney_lan dslide

Glen Longino
11-05-2012, 10:14 PM
According to a long-standing NFL tradition, when the Washington Redskins win their at-home ball game closest to an election, the incumbent remains in office: if they lose, of course, the challenger wins and - GUESS WHAT??? - They LOST!!!

So that means that Mittens and his Kittens will be inhabiting the White (and really making it one!) House fr the next four y....

OH!

Waitaminnit!!




Ah. False alarm. That means that (while the official record will go against them) the Redskins REALLY DIDN'T LOSE after all!

Or does it?

Silly?

No sillier than the horse manure Glen and the rest of his cohort have been spreading the last few months...

Well, I predict that Obama will get four more years of abuse and non-co-operation from the Tea Party while Mitt retires to (wherever) and clips coupons.

Damn, Barry... what's wrong with that picture?

..."the horse manure Glen and the rest of his cohort have been spreading"...

Ha! What the hell is this attack about?
Oh, I get it...I'm a so-called "liberal" while you and your cohorts are so-called "Troglodytes"!:D
Rave on, knothead!

David G
11-05-2012, 10:33 PM
How about if I post Nate Silver's latest. He now has Obama's chances of winning at 91%. Electoral count: 314 - 224

Real Clear Politics has it with Obama: 303 - 235.

And the gap is steadily widening in both.

Unless the various polling quirks that Silver has talked about over the last few months all come together in favor of Romney... I think he's toast. Of course... there's always the possibility that the Tagg Romney-owned voting machines in Ohio will manage to spit out a happy ending for Mitt. That'd open things up considerably.

hanleyclifford
11-05-2012, 11:49 PM
I think what cooked Romney's goose was his choice for VP, a man who is perceived as being against Medicare; it was an easy sell for the Democrats. Romney's gaffe about the "47%" was another contributor to his defeat. The lefties have rightly shown on this site that the "angry white guys" alone can no longer elect a president. The demographics of this country are now such that the successful candidate must promise more free stuff than his opponent, and Romney was portrayed (with some justification) as the candidate of the wealthy, however you may define that term. Remember, it's the perception. There are simply not enough Tea Party (stop or reduce the free stuff) votes to win, whereas the supply of voters who will vote themselves free stuff is steadily rising. Only economic reality can oppose this trend, and it will, beginning around the end of the year.

David G
11-06-2012, 12:08 AM
hc - you have a very odd picture of the structure of our economy and of our politics.

Here's how I view it - based upon a WB response back in early '08:


Quote:


Originally Posted by Ian McColgin file:///C:\DOCUME~1\Colin\LOCALS~1\Temp\msohtml1\01\clip_i mage001.gif (http://www.woodenboat.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1771779#post1771779)
At its best, conservatism as shown by a line of American conservatives from George Washington through Senator Taft embody the wonderous if boring virtue of rectitude. Unfortunatly, this is a tough virtue to maintain, quickly becoming the judgemental hipocracy we see in the hateful talking heads who so devalue meaning that they demonize the word "liberal" and don't live up to any of the virtues found in the dictionary definition of conservative. They are not conservative in the positive sense but rather are only defenders of power and wealth.


Mr. McColgin,

I've come late to this thread, but I have to say I think you have touched on the core phenomenon. One of the long term patterns inherent in our system of market capitalism (combined with democratic elections) is an ongoing pendulum swing between the extremes of laissez-faire capitalism on one hand, and Scandinavian-style "market socialism" on the other.

Full disclosure: I'm non-doctrinaire, but tend to lean toward the progressive side. However, my undergraduate work was in economics w/graduate work in economic history & economic development.

To elaborate: market capitalism is a very efficient system for fostering innovation, accumulating capital, and developing economies. This powerful engine is driven by a particular side of human nature: the ceaseless dynamo of human need and human greed. Don't think I'm condemning. I'm not. For the most part market capitalism does a great job of channeling this drive into productive avenues.

However, it is also true that - left unchecked - market capitalism has some built-in destructive tendencies. Historically, the continued accrual of more & more capital & power into fewer & fewer hands has led to an inefficient funtioning of the economy. More speculative bubbles. More oscillations. Eventual instability. One example is the Great Depression. Hoover was an absolute True Believer in the notion the "The business of America is business". He thought the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer was good for the country. He was not the only one. The process began before him. He was just the Final Fool before the fall in that particular episode of the drama.

What followed the Great Depression was a rapid swing of the pendulum to the far end of the spectrum. Roosevelt instituted Social Security; Unemployment Insurance; WPA programs; and a bevy of other programs which were the antithesis of Hoover's approach. Socialism, all of it. Don't think I'm condemning. It worked, and it has a place in our society. We are a far more stable economy now - with these programs in place - than we were before.

I could go on and on with the variations, ramifications, and permutations of the pattern. Also about the dangers if the pendulum swings too far (we're close right now) toward laissez-faire (think Weimar Germany and Adolph Hitler). Instead, I'll sum up by saying it is not - as Keith so wisely notes - a case of "us vs. them". It is a case of recognizing where we are in the pendulum swing, and accepting whatever corrections are in order... even if that leads away from your particular ideological island.

Right now, as I mentioned, we've swung a good long way toward unchecked capitalism. It's time for a correction. Conservatives should not howl at the prospect. They should welcome it as a normal, desirable, adjustment (think "market correction" if it makes you feel better). Liberals should not think that the answer is to swing to the other end of the spectrum and stay there. That place has its own problems, dangers, and inefficiencies.

So - it's time for all of us (you too Milo<g>) to embrace a bit of "socialism" and step back a bit from the dog-eat-dog wing of capitalism. We will possibly over-correct (this system is a positive feedback loop, and they have that tendency). Then it will be time for all of us to embrace a little more market control. "To everything, Turn turn turn, There is a season, Turn turn turn..."

I hope this rant has been useful to someone, and not simply a bit of blather that only an economist could put up with.


"When there is an accumulation of money and power into fewer and fewer hands, people with the mentality of gangsters come to the fore. Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" -- Lord Acton <Keep in mind that he's British, and he said this in 1877. This is not the first time the pattern has played out>

Greediness has little to do with demographics. Cupidity is an ever-present part of human nature that ebbs and flows within the body politic. It has very little to do with the age/race/gender composition of the electorate.

I also question your characterization of the T-party. If fiscal constraint were the sum total of that movement... they'd all be dues-paying activists in the Concord Coalition - instead of staging rallies full of hate and vituperation, and printing bumper stickers that say things like, "Don't Re-nig in 2012". Of course, one can have a perfectly legitimate argument about the timing and amount of stimulus vs. spending cuts. But the T-party quickly became so much more... and so much uglier.

The economic reality - as I see it - is that several decades of the Small Government ethic have resulted in a reduction in oversight, an overheating of the economy, and a crash. As I said above... a classic pattern. It has very little to do with the unwashed masses voting themselves bread and circuses. It has more to do with an unproductive (perverse, actually) concentration of wealth and power.

As for the beginning of the year being a wake-up call... I don't buy it. Many respected voices are now saying that no matter who is elected, he'll ride an economy which will continue recovering - and look like a genius. My own sense is: as long as we don't derail the recovery with partisan gridlock, misguidedly premature austerity measures... or don't suffer some sort of external shock... we'll be in a recovery that is only likely to accelerate.

hanleyclifford
11-06-2012, 12:14 AM
David, You have the "pendulum" view of economic and social dynamics whereas I think it is more unidirectional (some fluctuations of course).

johnw
11-06-2012, 12:23 AM
I think what cooked Romney's goose was his choice for VP, a man who is perceived as being against Medicare; it was an easy sell for the Democrats. Romney's gaffe about the "47%" was another contributor to his defeat. The lefties have rightly shown on this site that the "angry white guys" alone can no longer elect a president. The demographics of this country are now such that the successful candidate must promise more free stuff than his opponent, and Romney was portrayed (with some justification) as the candidate of the wealthy, however you may define that term. Remember, it's the perception. There are simply not enough Tea Party (stop or reduce the free stuff) votes to win, whereas the supply of voters who will vote themselves free stuff is steadily rising. Only economic reality can oppose this trend, and it will, beginning around the end of the year.

Romney has promised more free stuff -- more jobs, more defense spending, lower taxes. He promised all the free stuff the Tea Party wants. Obama has offered to raise taxes on at least some people, and has shown a willingness to cut spending in return. It would appear reality is about 180 degrees off from your fever dream.

David G
11-06-2012, 12:29 AM
David, You have the "pendulum" view of economic and social dynamics whereas I think it is more unidirectional (some fluctuations of course).

What does your model look like? How does it work? How do you see it accurately reflecting our historical experience? Do you have any sense of what the theoretical underpinnings of your model might be?

Durnik
11-06-2012, 12:44 AM
There are simply not enough Tea Party (don't tax the mega rich dudes who finance our irrational party) votes to win, whereas the supply of voters who will vote to help & aid the unfortunate is steadily rising.

FTFY - & hope the implied prediction is true..

enjoy
bobby

hanleyclifford
11-06-2012, 12:43 PM
FTFY - & hope the implied prediction is true..

enjoy
bobby Sensitivity, vulgarity and egotism all wrapped up in one little post.

genglandoh
11-07-2012, 01:06 AM
I'm not making any predictions.

Why?

1) I'd be accused of letting partisanship cloud my judgment :)
2) It really IS a toss-up.

Well Norm I was wrong and you are right.

The election really was a toss-up.

Even if Romney had won by a small margin I would have said that I was wrong because I thought he would have won the states I listed by good size margin.

johnw
11-07-2012, 02:25 AM
I thought it would be a lot closer than it was.

TDSoren
11-07-2012, 02:40 AM
hc - you have a very odd picture of the structure of our economy and of our politics.

Here's how I view it - based upon a WB response back in early '08:



Greediness has little to do with demographics. Cupidity is an ever-present part of human nature that ebbs and flows within the body politic. It has very little to do with the age/race/gender composition of the electorate.

I also question your characterization of the T-party. If fiscal constraint were the sum total of that movement... they'd all be dues-paying activists in the Concord Coalition - instead of staging rallies full of hate and vituperation, and printing bumper stickers that say things like, "Don't Re-nig in 2012". Of course, one can have a perfectly legitimate argument about the timing and amount of stimulus vs. spending cuts. But the T-party quickly became so much more... and so much uglier.

The economic reality - as I see it - is that several decades of the Small Government ethic have resulted in a reduction in oversight, an overheating of the economy, and a crash. As I said above... a classic pattern. It has very little to do with the unwashed masses voting themselves bread and circuses. It has more to do with an unproductive (perverse, actually) concentration of wealth and power.

As for the beginning of the year being a wake-up call... I don't buy it. Many respected voices are now saying that no matter who is elected, he'll ride an economy which will continue recovering - and look like a genius. My own sense is: as long as we don't derail the recovery with partisan gridlock, misguidedly premature austerity measures... or don't suffer some sort of external shock... we'll be in a recovery that is only likely to accelerate.

Beautifully stated.

Keith Wilson
11-07-2012, 08:26 AM
(on 10-31) My first prediction was that Romney will win FL, NC, VA and NH; Obama will win PA, OH, MI, IA, CO, NV; 285-252.
Given how things are going, I think it's at least as likely that Obama will take VA and NH too, for a total of 303-235.It's now 303-206 with Florida still out. Not too bad! Maybe I should set up as a Pundit. :D

Kevin T
11-07-2012, 08:34 AM
I had it at 307 to 231
No matter which way Florida falls, it looks like I missed the mark. Oh well.

Concordia 33
11-07-2012, 09:32 AM
I missed my prediction by 100,000 votes in Virginia, Colorado and Ohio. I also missed my prediction of the popular vote by about 1.5 million people. I am totally OK with this as I am not a pollster or a political operative.