Some polls now have Romney ahead.

[Farang]

This election is essentially white America's fight to retain absolute dominance over national politics. Romney is white America's candidate and if he goes down in flames with the economy where it's at today, it sends a pretty damning message to the GOP and their chances of ever winning another national election with the same playbook that has been wildly successful for them over the last 50-60 years.

If the Democrats can beat them with a coalition of minority voters and women it essentially means the GOP must radically shift their messaging, which could very well alienate a large portion of their base and cause a major schism in the party. I'm very intrigued to see what the after effects of a GOP loss Tuesday will look like, if it happens.

Agreed. The last candidate to (barely) win nationally was George W. Bush, who the first time around ran a "compassionate conservative" agenda that ceded the liberal social pacts (New Deal, Great Society). His second term was a different time when national security was an outsized issue.

At the same time it's huge for liberals because with the Supreme Court, they are facing the prospect of taking a 100-year step back in terms of their agenda.

The litmus-test mindset in the party makes it tough for them to grow their coalition, and pushes out moderates. I think it is possible the tea party controls the Republican Party while moderates maybe begin to run in general elections against their far-right primary opponents, and some sort of undefined independent party forms from these moderate Republicans. You can see it in some degree with people like Huntsman not being afraid to buck the new tea party establishment. There has been an undercurrent of this for some time, with Republicans in many part of the country (northeast and West) not wanting the baggage of the social conservatives that has dogged them for so long.

 

[Jhhnn]

This election is essentially white America's fight to retain absolute dominance over national politics. Romney is white America's candidate and if he goes down in flames with the economy where it's at today, it sends a pretty damning message to the GOP and their chances of ever winning another national election with the same playbook that has been wildly successful for them over the last 50-60 years.

If the Democrats can beat them with a coalition of minority voters and women it essentially means the GOP must radically shift their messaging, which could very well alienate a large portion of their base and cause a major schism in the party. I'm very intrigued to see what the after effects of a GOP loss Tuesday will look like, if it happens.

They doubled down after 2008, and I doubt they're capable of doing any different. Radicalizing their base over the last 30 years has been great for turnout, helped them win elections. That's now a liability, because you can't undo the effects of 30 years of successful propaganda easily, at all. It's even crippled their leadership, winnowed out all but True Believers & ruthless exploiters.

They have a tiger by the tail...

 

[GMC12]

Rasmussen 10/3 - 10/5 Obama 47 Romney 49
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...ministration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

CLARUS POLL: BEFORE vs. AFTER DEBATE
BEFORE (conducted Tuesday): Obama over Romney +4
AFTER (conducted Thursday): Romney over Obama +1
http://clarusrg.com/content/october-5-2012

Gallup still has Obama by 5 and the rest of the polls have yet to update since the debates.

Polls don'keep me from voting so I don't go by polls I don't let it tell me who to vote fore .

 

[buckshot24]

Of, course in your mind you think he doesn't understand, but in reality, the rest of us (and Nate himself) do.

SO your gut instincts outweigh 8 solid years of reporting and predicting elections by Nate Silver? LOL!

Behold the modern GOP supporter....anything that disagrees with your fantasy world is simply labeled wrong without no reason or evidence. Good job buckshot, Karl Rove would be proud of you!

You certainly convinced me, I mean Nate only has done this for 8 years with high accuracy, and is totally open with his methodology, while you simply state he is wrong without any facts. Bravo!

I think its pretty obvious he's wrong about Romney needing to "flip" votes. He has a zero sum game mindset like most liberals.

I wasn't saying that his whole model is wrong if that is what you got out of it. I couldn't care less if I convince you of anything.

 

[DrPizza]

No, it's not all that overwhelmingly important. 2008 was a big deal, but despite the silly rhetoric of conservative True Believers, Obama is a champion of the very slightly reformed status quo, not some kind of Maoist revolutionary. Romney is basically the same thing, except his 'reform' is slanted even more towards the oligarchy.

I mean, could you even begin to compare this election's importance to Lincoln's election, or Washington's, or FDR's, or even Andrew Jackson's?

A couple of Supreme Court nominees; that's one reason it's important.

 

[Moonbeam]

They doubled down after 2008, and I doubt they're capable of doing any different. Radicalizing their base over the last 30 years has been great for turnout, helped them win elections. That's now a liability, because you can't undo the effects of 30 years of successful propaganda easily, at all. It's even crippled their leadership, winnowed out all but True Believers & ruthless exploiters.

They have a tiger by the tail...

Team spirit that demonizes the other team, when teams are what make the nation, is team spirit gone mad. The conservative mind is the very kind of mind that does this with team spirit, fantasize it to the point where the league of all teams is destroyed. They win by destroying the game. This is why the world can't move beyond the ruthless exploitation of the other for team gain in a world where the vector of evolution is the realization that we are all on one team. It is these sick fucking conservative defective brains that is slowing down human cultural evolution, and for no reason because it must happen anyway. Nothing can stand before the Will of God and since the evolution of empathy there has only been one God.

 

[First]

The data keeps getting slowly (but surely) worse for Romney; NBC/WSJ poll has Obama up 1 again after having it tied two weeks ago.

In total now, that's a 1.4 point shift toward Obama in the national polls in just the last 5 days in RCP's average, meaning the national polls are indeed lagging the state polls, as every (informed) person here has been saying they would given the much more diverse and rich nature of the state polling vs. national polling.

Gallup hasn't come out with any new polls, but it won't matter, they've been wrong and erratic for a while now. Looks like they're going to lose credibility this election unless they come out with a last second poll getting it right.

Also, looking at PA polls clearly shows some desperation on Romney's part, as the aggregate is still at 5 points+ and the notion that turnout can change that is mathematically improbable given the Dem registration advantage as well as the pure likelihood that huge new swaths of people would suddenly vote Romney while simultaneously seeing a huge drop in people voting Dem in that state. Hence the "turnout" notion in PA being pure bunk, and another claim we'll all laugh at post-election.

 

[Todd33]

I think its pretty obvious he's wrong about Romney needing to "flip" votes. He has a zero sum game mindset like most liberals.

Turnout for the core GOP is pretty loyal and predictable. He needs to flip those people who are on the border, who really don't like either guy but are leaning Obama for one reason or another. These are the guys that swayed over to Romney after the first debate and then he started losing after that. For the D's it is more of a turnout game, their base is very unreliable.

Your ability to construct a black/white scenario or world is very telling and very like the typical conservative mind.

 

[Balt]

A couple of Supreme Court nominees; that's one reason it's important.

Ah, I forgot about that. That may be (oddly enough) the most important aspect of the coming election, since the justices typically sit for so long.

I'm a bit surprised Ginsburg didn't retire in 2010 or 2011 since circumstances seemed unfavorable for Obama to be re-elected.

I think in the next 4 years we may see her and possibly Kennedy and/or Breyer retire. Scalia is getting up there in years too, but I think he'd rather die in his chair than let Obama pick his successor.

 

[Doppel]

Most news sites still talking about this "super close" election. I suppose I must conclude most people just don't understand that the EC chooses this election. A lot of Romney supporters who don't peel off the first layer of the onion will be in for a rude awakening when their "dead heat" doesn't come close to winning the presidency.

 

[Doppel]

This election is essentially white America's fight to retain absolute dominance over national politics. Romney is white America's candidate and if he goes down in flames with the economy where it's at today, it sends a pretty damning message to the GOP and their chances of ever winning another national election with the same playbook that has been wildly successful for them over the last 50-60 years.

If the Democrats can beat them with a coalition of minority voters and women it essentially means the GOP must radically shift their messaging, which could very well alienate a large portion of their base and cause a major schism in the party. I'm very intrigued to see what the after effects of a GOP loss Tuesday will look like, if it happens.

Exactly. With the minorities growing in proportion the republicans are going to have to change their playbook or lose even harder next election.

 

[First]

A couple more lulz-worthy right-wing predictions:

Michael Barone predicts 315 electoral votes for Romney on the strength of wins in WI, OH and Iowa.

George Will predicts 321 electoral votes for Romney on the funniest prediction I've seen all election; carrying Minnesota, apparently because evangelicals will come out in force to vote against the gay marriage issue on their ballot, and thereby get them to vote Romney. What's sad is that Will still thinks this is 2004 when gay marriage actually did handicap you as an issue. Fact is, a plurality of Americans support it now.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Michael Barone predicts 315 electoral votes for Romney on the strength of wins in WI, OH and Iowa.

Andrew Sullivan takes this surprisingly seriously.

George Will predicts 321 electoral votes for Romney on the funniest prediction I've seen all election; carrying Minnesota, apparently because evangelicals will come out in force to vote against the gay marriage issue on their ballot, and thereby get them to vote Romney. What's sad is that Will still thinks this is 2004 when gay marriage actually did handicap you as an issue. Fact is, a plurality of Americans support it now.

I agree that it's not 2004. But anything that brings more knuckledraggers to the poll is a bad thing.

 

[buckshot24]

What do lefties think of Barone? Is he a hack? I know Rove and Morris get low marks but I don't know about Barone.

 

[First]

Andrew Sullivan takes this surprisingly seriously.

From what I remember of Sullivan he's a pretty moderate gay conservative (rarely hear those 3 words in the same sentence), so it would surprise me if he honestly thought Romney had a shot in hell of 300+ electoral votes. Even a partisan like Rove is only saying 279, and even he has backtracked slightly on that in recent days, apparently because of Sandy.

I agree that it's not 2004. But anything that brings more knuckledraggers to the poll is a bad thing.

Very much agreed. But MN just has a ton more registered Dems. They have more of a shot there given the hugely white population, but they have very liberal urban centers there that are as reliable as any you'll find in NY and CA, in smaller numbers of course.

 

[randomrogue]

So here's something I hadn't seen before:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/11/02/us/politics/paths-to-the-white-house.html?hp

Obama: 431 ways to win
Romney: 76 ways to win

Hover over them too. Pretty snazzy.

 

[Jhhnn]

What do lefties think of Barone? Is he a hack? I know Rove and Morris get low marks but I don't know about Barone.

He's a regular contributor to Faux News... which speaks for itself.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

From what I remember of Sullivan he's a pretty moderate gay conservative (rarely hear those 3 words in the same sentence), so it would surprise me if he honestly thought Romney had a shot in hell of 300+ electoral votes. Even a partisan like Rove is only saying 279, and even he has backtracked slightly on that in recent days, apparently because of Sandy.

Sullivan is strongly pro-Obama. I don't think he agrees with Barone, but he does respect his knowledge.

 

[Rainsford]

What do lefties think of Barone? Is he a hack? I know Rove and Morris get low marks but I don't know about Barone.

I haven't heard much about him to be honest, but his prediction so outside the bounds of likely outcomes isn't a good sign. Romney definitely still has a chance of winning, that's for sure, but Romney getting north of 300 electoral votes is a very unlikely outcome. Not only does it require the polls to be somewhat wrong, it requires them to be so wrong that Romney wins pretty much all the swing states plus several states that are very strongly leaning towards Obama.

With 538 total electoral votes, Obama has 237 more or less guaranteed. That counts Minnesota, Michigan and Pennsylvania, a few of which MAY be less than ironclad, but very unlikely to flip. That only leaves 301 electoral votes left. Mitt Romney could barely clear the 300 electoral vote mark at that point, but he'd need to win Nevada, Colorado, Iowa, Wisconsin, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, Florida and New Hampshire. He has a less than 50% chance of winning 7 of those 9 states (according to 538). The 300+ predictions require that he win ALL of them, or winning states the polls suggest he basically has no chance of winning.

Basically it seems like a prediction that Romney will win is a bad bet, but certainly possible given the available data...a prediction that Romney will win with 300+ electoral votes has to be taken on faith alone. That's pretty stupid political analysis if you ask me.

 

[buckshot24]

Very much agreed. But MN just has a ton more registered Dems. They have more of a shot there given the hugely white population, but they have very liberal urban centers there that are as reliable as any you'll find in NY and CA, in smaller numbers of course.

Based upon exit polls from 2008 there was less of a partisan gap in Minnesota than nationally. +5 D in Minnesota vs +7 D nationally.

 

[Jhhnn]

So here's something I hadn't seen before:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/11/02/us/politics/paths-to-the-white-house.html?hp

Obama: 431 ways to win
Romney: 76 ways to win

Hover over them too. Pretty snazzy.

Party time will start early for Dems if Obama can take Florida, and he might...

 

[randomrogue]

Florida is on the east coast though and they're always so damn slow. Knowing them they'll find another way to fuck up voting.

 

[monovillage]

Andrew Sullivan takes this surprisingly seriously.
I agree that it's not 2004. But anything that brings more knuckledraggers to the poll is a bad thing.

I agree, is there any legal way to keep union thugs out of the polls?

 

[Rainsford]

So here's something I hadn't seen before:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/11/02/us/politics/paths-to-the-white-house.html?hp

Obama: 431 ways to win
Romney: 76 ways to win

Hover over them too. Pretty snazzy.

I saw that a few days ago, very interesting. While it doesn't give probabilities of each scenario occurring, the fact that Romney's path to victory is much narrower is an interesting statistical point.

And Obama's share of the possible ways to win is actually VERY close to the 538 projected chance of Obama winning (84.17% vs 85.5%). Assuming you have each candidate an independent 50% chance of winning all the states considered up for grabs, Obama would win 84% of the time. With the 538 weighting, which only gives Romney the lead in 2 of the 9 states, the percentage chance of Obama winning only goes up 1.5% or so. It's interesting that the braindead approach of flipping a coin for each state is that close to the intelligent analysis 538 does.

 

[randomrogue]

If you click on a state at the top and pick a winner it will further narrow it down.

So if Obama wins Ohio then Romney only has 11 ways to win and Obama 244. It gives percentages too.