Some polls now have Romney ahead.

[xBiffx]

http://www.colorado.edu/news/releas...ting-model-still-points-romney-win-university

http://www.suffolk.edu/research/49299.html

These two places have been right a vast majority of the time in predicting elections. The Colorado University model has been right 100% of time. The Suffolk Poll has been correct 96% of the time.

And here we have the director of Suffolk calling NC, VA and FL for Romney.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...fl_for_romney_will_no_longer_poll_states.html

I still think this is putting the cart before the horse. But this combined with other polls tells me this is far far from over as many on here would have you believe.

 

[xBiffx]

buckshot has nothing to gain or lose by making a bad prediction about the election.

He's got 300 something posts and I don't recall reading a single one until today when I decided to post in this thread. Actually, based on the last few pages, I wouldn't be surprised if most of those 300 were in this thread alone.

When people actually have something to gain/lose, they tend to make better predictions: http://www.intrade.com/v4/misc/scoreboard/

I recall some people here made some money back in 2008 taking advantage of those poor souls who ignored EC maps and went with McCain.

ROFL. Intrade. The same Intrade that had Obamacare being struck down at 77%. Good one.

 

[jackstar7]

I think Romney's got it all wrapped up. Republicans should start celebrating now.

 

[randomrogue]

http://www.colorado.edu/news/releas...ting-model-still-points-romney-win-university

http://www.suffolk.edu/research/49299.html

These two places have been right a vast majority of the time in predicting elections. The Colorado University model has been right 100% of time. The Suffolk Poll has been correct 96% of the time.

And here we have the director of Suffolk calling NC, VA and FL for Romney.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...fl_for_romney_will_no_longer_poll_states.html

I still think this is putting the cart before the horse. But this combined with other polls tells me this is far far from over as many on here would have you believe.

Even your own link shows

Obama 251
Toss Ups 106
Romney 181

What is interesting is the closing spread on battleground states so keep an eye on that.

 

[xBiffx]

Even your own link shows

Obama 251
Toss Ups 106
Romney 181

What is interesting is the closing spread on battleground states so keep an eye on that.

It does?

According to their updated analysis, Romney is projected to receive 330 of the total 538 Electoral College votes. President Barack Obama is expected to receive 208 votes -- down five votes from their initial prediction -- and short of the 270 needed to win.

 

[buckshot24]

It's funny but I can tell that Buckshot24 is not old enough to have watched the 2000 election unfold. Anyone that watched that one remembers Tim Russert and his whiteboard explaining how the election actually works.

What don't I understand? I was old enough to remember 2000, I remember refreshing Florida results way into the morning on my AOL account.

You have to win 270 EC. Really simple. You can take the given states for Romney and get a number that is less than 270. At that point you can figure out which and how many states he needs to win in order to surpass the 270 EC votes needed.

No Kidding.

Right now he's not close. Still a month left but right now he has zero chance of winning.

Yeah, exit polls had Kerry winning in 2004. How was the Kerry administration?

 

[buckshot24]

buckshot has nothing to gain or lose by making a bad prediction about the election.

He's got 300 something posts and I don't recall reading a single one until today when I decided to post in this thread. Actually, based on the last few pages, I wouldn't be surprised if most of those 300 were in this thread alone.

When people actually have something to gain/lose, they tend to make better predictions: http://www.intrade.com/v4/misc/scoreboard/

I recall some people here made some money back in 2008 taking advantage of those poor souls who ignored EC maps and went with McCain.

There hasn't even been 300 posts in this thread in total let alone by me.

McCain was behind in all of the national polls as well. Obama was an unknown last time, people know him this year. He's going out.

 

[piasabird]

This stink that is rising over the Libya pre-planned terrorist attack is piling up like a giant pile of dung. The president of the United States, the Commander-in-chief is guilty of giving aid and comfort to the enemy. He knew ahead of time that it was a terrorist attack and he purposely along with the State Department tried to cover up what exactly happened. This is giving Aid and Comfort to the enemy in a time of war and it is punishable by a death sentence. The President is a Traitor!

Why should the good people of the USA put up with this Muslim Traitor?

 

[jackstar7]

I should have known better. Lesson learned.

 

[kohler]

There just happens to be more national polling data which may or may not be more accurate than polling data in individual states. It's very very rare when the national vote winner doesn't win the electoral college vote. It would be highly unlikely in this election for Obama to win the electoral college and not the popular vote.

Because of the state-by-state winner-take-all electoral votes laws (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state) in 48 states, a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in 4 of the nation's 56 (1 in 14 = 7%) presidential elections. The precariousness of the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes is highlighted by the fact that a shift of a few thousand voters in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 13 presidential elections since World War II. Near misses are now frequently common. There have been 6 consecutive non-landslide presidential elections (1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, and 2008). 537 popular votes won Florida and the White House for Bush in 2000 despite Gore's lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide. A shift of 60,000 voters in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of over 3 million votes.

 

[kohler]

The national popular vote is a pointless metric; the EC vote is the only thing that matters in a presidential election.

Presidential elections don't have to be this way.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. There would no longer be a handful of 'battleground' states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 80% of the states that now are just 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.

When the bill is enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes– enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538), all the electoral votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC.

The presidential election system that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers but, instead, is the product of decades of evolutionary change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.


The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.

In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: AZ – 67%, CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%. Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.

The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 states. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions possessing 132 electoral votes - 49% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

​

NationalPopularVote
Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc

 

[jackstar7]

Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc

Democratic presidents forever!

Because watch as California and NY (and other highest population markets) get all the attention, and they already lean liberal... so this would lock it up.

On the bright side, we could finally end corn subsidies and ethanol horseshit.

 

[kohler]

Democratic presidents forever!

Because watch as California and NY (and other highest population markets) get all the attention, and they already lean liberal... so this would lock it up.

On the bright side, we could finally end corn subsidies and ethanol horseshit.

[FONT=&quot]With the current state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes, winning a bare plurality of the popular vote in the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population, could win the Presidency with a mere 26% of the nation's votes![/FONT]

But the political reality is that the 11 largest states rarely agree on any political question. In terms of recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states include five "red states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six "blue" states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey). The fact is that the big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. For example, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.

Among the 11 most populous states in 2004, the highest levels of popular support, hardly overwhelming, were found in the following seven non-battleground states:
* Texas (62% Republican),
* New York (59% Democratic),
* Georgia (58% Republican),
* North Carolina (56% Republican),
* Illinois (55% Democratic),
* California (55% Democratic), and
* New Jersey (53% Democratic).

​

In addition, the margins generated by the nation's largest states are hardly overwhelming in relation to the 122,000,000 votes cast nationally. Among the 11 most populous states, the highest margins were the following seven non-battleground states:
* Texas -- 1,691,267 Republican [FONT=&quot][/FONT]
* New York -- 1,192,436 Democratic
* Georgia -- 544,634 Republican
* North Carolina -- 426,778 Republican
* Illinois -- 513,342 Democratic
* California -- 1,023,560 Democratic
* New Jersey -- 211,826 Democratic

​

To put these numbers in perspective, Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004 -- larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes). Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004. 8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).

 

[buckshot24]

I like it Kohler.

I'm sick of Florida and Ohio deciding elections.

 

[jackstar7]

[FONT=&quot]With the current state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes, winning a bare plurality of the popular vote in the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population, could win the Presidency with a mere 26% of the nation's votes![/FONT]

But the political reality is that the 11 largest states rarely agree on any political question. In terms of recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states include five "red states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six "blue" states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey). The fact is that the big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. For example, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.

Among the 11 most populous states in 2004, the highest levels of popular support, hardly overwhelming, were found in the following seven non-battleground states:
* Texas (62% Republican),
* New York (59% Democratic),
* Georgia (58% Republican),
* North Carolina (56% Republican),
* Illinois (55% Democratic),
* California (55% Democratic), and
* New Jersey (53% Democratic).

​

In addition, the margins generated by the nation's largest states are hardly overwhelming in relation to the 122,000,000 votes cast nationally. Among the 11 most populous states, the highest margins were the following seven non-battleground states:
* Texas -- 1,691,267 Republican [FONT=&quot][/FONT]
* New York -- 1,192,436 Democratic
* Georgia -- 544,634 Republican
* North Carolina -- 426,778 Republican
* Illinois -- 513,342 Democratic
* California -- 1,023,560 Democratic
* New Jersey -- 211,826 Democratic

​

To put these numbers in perspective, Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004 -- larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes). Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004. 8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).

Yeah, you're talking states and I'm talking about markets. Specifically media markets.

 

[jpeyton]

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

Obama's lead is essentially back to where it was back at the beginning of September.

 

[mshan]

That Colorado study (http://www.colorado.edu/news/releas...ting-model-still-points-romney-win-university) seems rather disingenuous in that it uses two sets of economic data where it looked, at least temporarily, like economy was starting to tank.

Plus that model hasn't predicted anything, in advance.

"The most significant change to our presidential forecast model this year is that it contains an economic index, which is used to guide forecasts along with the polls.

In fact, as you may have seen since we began our short daily summaries of the model’s output, new economic data often has just as much influence over the forecast as the latest poll from Ohio or Florida.

I have some fairly strong views about the right way to use economic data in a forecasting model like this one. This is fundamentally a very challenging problem because there have been only 16 presidential elections since World War II, and yet there are dozens and dozens of plausible economic variables to pick from. (The Federal Reserve’s Web site, in fact, now publishes about 45,000 economic statistics.)

The historical evidence is robust enough to say that economic performance almost certainly matters at least somewhat, and that poorer economic performance tends to hurt the incumbent party’s presidential candidate. Likewise, it seems clear that the trend in performance matters more than the absolute level — otherwise, Franklin D. Roosevelt would not have been re-elected easily with an unemployment rate well into the double digits (although rapidly declining) in 1936.

But we just do not have anywhere near enough to data to make confident claims about exactly which economic variables are important. For that matter, most of the more obvious choices for economic variables have performed about as well as one another on the historical data anyway. Each one gets some elections right and some wrong.

Let me explain some of the choices I made about the model in light of this problem."


http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytime...uring-the-effect-of-the-economy-on-elections/

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2266842

- Government Statistics suggest impending recession in May: http://www.cnbc.com/id/48197346/Cramer_Assesses_the_Reality_Behind_Retail (ended up being a statiscal fluke: http://news.morningstar.com/articlenet/article.aspx?id=566547)


- Dodgy August BLS Jobs Report: http://news.morningstar.com/articlenet/article.aspx?id=567188&SR=EVZ128

 

[buckshot24]

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

Obama's lead is essentially back to where it was back at the beginning of September.

We will have to see as fresher polling is done. Every poll that I have seen post debate has shown a fundamental shift towards Romney. I think that debate is going to turn out to be much more disastrous than you guys are thinking.

Obama was undressed in front of 70 million people, this was not a normal debate loss.

 

[Doppel]

538 is using current polls and Obama was undressed a week ago. That has settled through and it's been bad for him, but he's still 71% on that site.

 

[jpeyton]

We will have to see as fresher polling is done.

You can spout that line week after week, praying for fresher polls that will give you the outcome you want.

Until the ultimate poll is taken.

RCP's map is the same as 538s: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...ctions_electoral_college_map_no_toss_ups.html

Electoral-Vote.com has it even worse for Mitt: http://www.electoral-vote.com/

The biggest problem for Mitt now is that there is a 2nd debate (and a 3rd one). He can ride the success of the first debate in the polls for another week, and then it'll be forgotten.

 

[buckshot24]

538 is using current polls and Obama was undressed a week ago. That has settled through and it's been bad for him, but he's still 71% on that site.

Again, we'll have to wait and see but it isn't like all of the states in question have had fresh polling done.

"At the same time, there has been a paucity of these high-quality state surveys since the debate."

You can only make predictions on the data that you have.

 

[buckshot24]

You can spout that line week after week, praying for fresher polls that will give you the outcome you want.

Until the ultimate poll is taken.

I don't particularly care about the polls I'm only playing in the playground that you guys have set up. I don't need to pray for new polls. Just about every post debate poll has shown significant trend away from your guy. If you don't think that matters then that is your decision.

 

[buckshot24]

RCP's map is the same as 538s: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...ctions_electoral_college_map_no_toss_ups.html

Yet if that 0.8% lead in the polls doesn't hold up for Obama in Ohio, Romney is ahead. Obama has a RCP 0.3% lead in Virginia except Suffolk decided to stop polling there because they decided that Virginia was going to go Romney along with North Carolina and Florida.

http://www.boston.com/politicalinte...mney-column/hQzH5It1ANgkYxbFcA1NJL/story.html

The biggest problem for Mitt now is that there is a 2nd debate (and a 3rd one). He can ride the success of the first debate in the polls for another week, and then it'll be forgotten.

We'll see, although I see it as an opportunity. Is the second debate about foreign policy? If so that isn't good timing for the president.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Nate Silver is pretty much the only election forecaster I trust these days. His methodology is sound and laid bare for all the world to scrutinize. He's been the most accurate forecaster for quite a few years now.

He's still got Obama's chance of reelection in the 70% range and intuitively this makes sense. Obama has been leading in the polls the entire election up until now. Is it more likely that the race has fundamentally shifted, or that Romney is enjoying a nice bounce and we are seeing excess noise in the polling data? I'll go with the latter.

With two more debates to go expect the pendulum to swing back towards Obama as he certainly can't do any worse than he did.

 

[kohler]

Yeah, you're talking states and I'm talking about markets. Specifically media markets.

[FONT=&quot]The main media at the moment, TV, costs much more per impression in big cities than in smaller towns and rural area. Candidates get more bang for the buck in smaller towns and rural areas.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]In the 2012 campaign, so far, “Much of the heaviest spending has not been in big cities with large and expensive media markets, but in small and medium-size metropolitan areas in states with little individual weight in the Electoral College: Cedar Rapids and Des Moines in Iowa (6 votes); Colorado Springs and Grand Junction in Colorado (9 votes); Norfolk and Richmond in Virginia (13 votes). Since the beginning of April, four-fifths of the ads that favored or opposed a presidential candidate have been in television markets of modest size.”[/FONT]
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/08/u...in-focus-of-ad-blitz.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all[FONT=&quot][/FONT]