Post your personal 2012 election predictions here!

[gevorg]

Obama will win 100%. Romney is just an illusion of choice, like Kerry. Easy money here.

 

[nextJin]

Obama wins b/c of this guy^^

 

[woolfe9999]

More predictions? I'm sticking with mine in spite of a few more days of polling coming in. I'd consider maybe moving Obama up from .5% victory on the popular to a full point, but for now I'm staying as is.

I'd especially like to hear from some of those who have stated in other threads that Romney will win this by a wide margin.

 

[jstern01]

Obama 303 - 235 Romney
Dems +1 in senate
Dems +15 in house, still controlled by Republicans

 

[woolfe9999]

I'm going to call the Senate as a no shift for either party and the dems at +9 in the House just for fun. However, Congressional polling isn't as reliable because there are fewer polls.

 

[dank69]

I am not sure about the other swing states but I think obama will take NH by more than +1. Probably closer to +4 or more depending on turnout.

 

[woolfe9999]

I am not sure about the other swing states but I think obama will take NH by more than +1. Probably closer to +4 or more depending on turnout.

Why do you have an opinion on NH but not the others? Is that your home state?

 

[dank69]

Why do you have an opinion on NH but not the others? Is that your home state?

CT is but New Englanders are my people. They may be a bunch of rednecks up in NH but they aren't stupid rednecks.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
I'd especially like to hear from some of those who have stated in other threads that Romney will win this by a wide margin.

Well, I'm not one of those who is prediciting a big Romney. Heck, I've not predicted anything but a close election (which, given my poor track record at predictions is a good indication it won't be.)

But I've seen several explain why they believe Romney will win easily and it always seems to come down to the polling. And mostly the weighting of the polls.

I've seen charts comparing the votes, and the Repub vs Dem breakout, for the 2000, 2004, 2008 elections. Obviously, turnout in the 2008 election heavily favored the Dems. (The opposite occurred in 2010.)

The 2012 polls they showed had weighting very similar to 2008 elections, in some cases even more favorable to Dems than in ''08. If you adjust the weighting back to more 'normal' elections Romney comes out ahead.

Also, the "enthusiasm" factor is much higher for Repubs. Adjusting for that further favors Romney. You'll hear talk of how energized the Repubs are, how many more volunteers, calls, and door-to-door visits they've been able achieve in this election campaign.

And then they adjust for the remaining independents, which apparently have historically broken for the challenger.

I also hear some discussion of the early voter numbers, which are far better for Romney than in previous years, not at all for Obama this time around.

But mostly it has to with the polls' weighting. I know most polls claim to not weight, but they are doing it. Weighting for demographics is just a 'roundabout' method of getting at it. We'll know fairly soon who is correct.

Fern

 

[woolfe9999]

Well, I'm not one of those who is prediciting a big Romney. Heck, I've not predicted anything but a close election (which, given my poor track record at predictions is a good indication it won't be.)

But I've seen several explain why they believe Romney will win easily and it always seems to come down to the polling. And mostly the weighting of the polls.

I've seen charts comparing the votes, and the Repub vs Dem breakout, for the 2000, 2004, 2008 elections. Obviously, turnout in the 2008 election heavily favored the Dems. (The opposite occurred in 2010.)

The 2012 polls they showed had weighting very similar to 2008 elections, in some cases even more favorable to Dems than in ''08. If you adjust the weighting back to more 'normal' elections Romney comes out ahead.

Also, the "enthusiasm" factor is much higher for Repubs. Adjusting for that further favors Romney. You'll hear talk of how energized the Repubs are, how many more volunteers, calls, and door-to-door visits they've been able achieve in this election campaign.

And then they adjust for the remaining independents, which apparently have historically broken for the challenger.

I also hear some discussion of the early voter numbers, which are far better for Romney than in previous years, not at all for Obama this time around.

But mostly it has to with the polls' weighting. I know most polls claim to not weight, but they are doing it. Weighting for demographics is just a 'roundabout' method of getting at it. We'll know fairly soon who is correct.

Fern

I see what you did here. You just repeated a bunch of conservative talking points about why we should think the polls are skewed toward Obama, but without technically predicting that Romney will win, so if all these arguments are wrong and the polls are right, you still weren't wrong. Nicely played.

 

[zinfamous]

I'm gonna go out on a limb and predict 263-263.

Congress votes in Romney
Senate votes in Biden.

Fight!

 

[buckshot24]

I've seen charts comparing the votes, and the Repub vs Dem breakout, for the 2000, 2004, 2008 elections. Obviously, turnout in the 2008 election heavily favored the Dems. (The opposite occurred in 2010.)

The bolded part is just not correct. Independents broke heavily towards Republicans there were even R vs D turnout in 2010.

 

[woolfe9999]

I'm gonna go out on a limb and predict 263-263.

Congress votes in Romney
Senate votes in Biden.

Fight!

I think you mean 269-269.

Oh, and in a fist fight, I'm betting Ryan>Obama>Romney>Biden

 

[Fern]

I see what you did here. You just repeated a bunch of conservative talking points about why we should think the polls are skewed toward Obama, but without technically predicting that Romney will win, so if all these arguments are wrong and the polls are right, you still weren't wrong. Nicely played.

1. They are not "talking points", talking points are something different.

2. Yes, obviously they are saying the polls are skewed. While I cannot remember what the actual numbers were, I did my best to answer your question as to why some are confident Romney will win handily. So, the numbers aren't there but the concepts driving their confidence are.

3. As I've said many times, I do don't do predictions (or at least only rarely). And as I've just recently said, I've lost confidence in the polls as regards their predictive value. I have a real problem believing the '12 turnout will be like the '08 turnout.

Fern

 

[uclaLabrat]

I also hear some discussion of the early voter numbers, which are far better for Romney than in previous years, not at all for Obama this time around.

But mostly it has to with the polls' weighting. I know most polls claim to not weight, but they are doing it. Weighting for demographics is just a 'roundabout' method of getting at it. We'll know fairly soon who is correct.

Fern

I think you mean weighting for party ID. All polls weight for demographics, only rasmussen and I believe Gallup weight for party ID.

All the polls that DON'T weight for party ID are showing turnout to be more like D+6 versus republicans, with the understanding that a lot of the independents are republicans or tea party folks who don't really identify with the party as a whole, but usually vote that way.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

The only way we can realistically have a tie is if Romney takes Nevada, a state he hasn't come close to leading in all year.

 

[Fern]

The bolded part is just not correct. Independents broke heavily towards Republicans there were even R vs D turnout in 2010.

Possibly. (I'm not arguing your 'numbers', I assume you are are correct. I'm arguing the concept.)

Seems to me around '08 many registered as Repubs switched to independent. If so, I think you look at that independent number a little differently. Did we just see many of those Repubs who had switched come out to vote for Repubs? if so, in a way it was better Repub turnout, but was masked as a change in independents voting.

Fern

 

[zinfamous]

I think you mean 269-269.

Oh, and in a fist fight, I'm betting Ryan>Obama>Romney>Biden

right, 269.

seriously? I bet Biden could take them all. I think he fights dirty.

 

[woolfe9999]

1. They are not "talking points", talking points are something different.

2. Yes, obviously they are saying the polls are skewed. While I cannot remember what the actual numbers were, I did my best to answer your question as to why some are confident Romney will win handily. So, the numbers aren't there but the concepts driving their confidence are.

3. As I've said many times, I do don't do predictions (or at least only rarely). And as I've just recently said, I've lost confidence in the polls as regards their predictive value. I have a real problem believing the '12 turnout will be like the '08 turnout.

Fern

Fair enough, but you've just made something resembling a prediction by saying you don't trust the polls. If the polls turn out to be largely accurate like they generally have been in the past, you'll need to re-think that.

 

[buckshot24]

right, 269.

seriously? I bet Biden could take them all. I think he fights dirty.

I like 263-263 better.

Biden would slice your Achilles and thumb your eyes out.

 

[buckshot24]

Possibly. (I'm not arguing your 'numbers', I assume you are are correct. I'm arguing the concept.)

Seems to me around '08 many registered as Repubs switched to independent. If so, I think you look at that independent number a little differently. Did we just see many of those Repubs who had switched come out to vote for Repubs? if so, in a way it was better Repub turnout, but was masked as a change in independents voting.

Fern

Not really. There were only 28% Independents in 2010 while 36% a side for Dems and Republicans. In 2008 there were 39 D, 32 R, 29 I. These are according to CNN exit polls. These are self identified party affiliation not registered.

Although it could be that the independents that showed up were more conservative (tea party) and less liberal than normal as well. They voted with the Republicans by something like 15 points.

 

[buckshot24]

I think you mean weighting for party ID. All polls weight for demographics, only rasmussen and I believe Gallup weight for party ID.

Rasmussen yes, Gallup no.

All the polls that DON'T weight for party ID are showing turnout to be more like D+6 versus republicans, with the understanding that a lot of the independents are republicans or tea party folks who don't really identify with the party as a whole, but usually vote that way.

I have a hunch that the likely voter screen isn't strict enough. One of the national polls I looked at recently had 611 Registered voters and out of those 607 were "likely voters".

Also the weights being applied could be adding more minority voters to the sample than what will show up to vote which would indirectly affect the party affiliation numbers.

 

[bfdd]

You guys realize you can get help for your battered woman syndrome right? You don't have to keep subjecting yourself to such punishment, there are other options.

 

[a777pilot]

deleted

 

[jpiniero]

Did the EC out back during the summer; had Obama winning 272-268. Don't really feel any different. Basically he only wins Florida but that's enough. I also had the Popular Vote being very close; but now I think Romney will win. Either way the PV will be within a percent.

House stays R, Senate stays D.

269-269 would be hilarious but not gonna happen. Remember they don't have to vote Romney-Biden if that happened.