[Archived] US Presidential Election 2012

[broadsword]

You have to be careful extrapolating opinion polls into election results. I seem to remember 1992 I think it was, Kinnock was ahead in all the polls, and he took a whupping. Who knows, maybe polling methodology has come on since then. I'm not totally au fait with American politics, but I would probably be a natural democrat, and I think it's looking promising for an Obama win.

I wonder how he would've reacted to 9/11? Would he have gone into Iraq and Afghanistan?

[Steve Moss]

Michael Barone is predicting a significant Romney victory: http://washingtonexaminer.com/barone-going-out-on-a-limb-romney-wins-handily/article/2512470#.UJVqIoZL1Ra

And here is an article which discusses most pollsters failure to take into account current party support, as opposed to using 2004 and 2008 numbers which are outdated: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/332386/parsing-polls-michael-g-franc

End result, Romney will crush Obama this Tuesday.

[Steve Moss]

Obama will EASILY win Philadelphia for one.

. . .

You are using Karl Rove as a supposedly unbiased resource!

1. Exactly what was said which indicates I believe Rove to be as an "unbiased" source? You should re-read which a more objective mind-set as opposed to an apparent preconceived world view. Rove is a self-interested canny political operator. This close to the election he dare not be wrong. His motive is to maintain his "evil" genius status which means he has to be right far more often than not. And this time in 2008 he was predicting an Obama win: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/02/election-predictions-pund_n_140149.html

2. PA > Philadelphia.

[Steve Moss]

Steve, how strong would you say tribal politics is in the USA? Historically, statistics seem to show that there is an extremely fine line between the two big parties' voting shares.

I'm sorry, I missed this one.

In my view American politics is far more complicated than Republican vs. Democrat. Each of those parties house various ideologies which are sometimes only very thinly held together. I also think liberal and conservative are inadequate labels. If one wants to look at a true breakdown of the voting groups I think you have to take in on an issues basis first, then general philosophies second.

For example, there is not an insignificant percentage of voters who are single issue voters. If you support gun control, for example, you will automatically lose roughly 20% of the electorate regardless of the candidate's position on any other issues. The Democrats have recently figured this out which is why there has been no significant gun legislation even after the so-called assault weapon ban expired.

Ditto pro-life, pro-choice. What helps Republicans is that there are significantly more single issue pro-life voters as opposed to pro-choice, even if the over-all support for one or the other is the same. Remember, single issue. If you get it wrong, you lose the vote.

As to general philosophy, I think roughly a 1/3 are generally conservative, another 1/3 are generally liberal with the 1/3 other. 1/3 other is not necessarily independent or don't pay attention. Some may be inattentive blue color types and others may be dedicated libertarians or communist, etc. (though in small percentages).

Race plays a role to, but I'm running out of time.

Bottom line, if the Republicans nominate an attractive, articulate, energetic, pro-life, pro-Second amendment, fiscal conservative, that candidate will almost always win a presidential election in America as opposed to a attractive, articulate, energetic, pro-choice, pro-gun control, liberal Democrat. The problem is that Republicans stumble frequently on the energetic, attractive and articulate part of the job description.

[SydneyRover]

1. Exactly what was said which indicates I believe Rove to be as an "unbiased" source? You should re-read which a more objective mind-set as opposed to an apparent preconceived world view. Rove is a self-interested canny political operator. This close to the election he dare not be wrong. His motive is to maintain his "evil" genius status which means he has to be right far more often than not. And this time in 2008 he was predicting an Obama win: http://www.huffingto...d_n_140149.html

2. PA > Philadelphia.

I meant Pennsylvania, my mistake. He's five ahead in the polls in a state which has been Dem the last five elections.

Barone is also a Conservative commentator. Rove predicting an Obama win in 2008 means nothing - that election was a foregone conclusion!

Whatever happens, Romney will not crush Obama. Obama has over 240 electoral college votes pretty much in the bag. I'm not going as far as to say its a definite Obama win like you are doing with Romney, but I would say it's likely.

[Steve Moss]

Addressing the problems in Silver's prediction: http://www.redstate.com/2012/10/31/on-polling-models-skewed-unskewed/

Simply put what was true in 2008 is not true in 2012, and relying on 2008 data sets will result in picking the wrong winner.

[SydneyRover]

Nate Silver is far from the only person predicting an Obama win, the majority of correspondents are predicting an Obama win. There's flaws in every methodology going, but each methodology has its own separate set of strengths and weaknesses. Taken together though most bases would be covered, and most models are very much predicting a narrow Obama win.

No non-Republican model is suggesting a Romney landslide.

In other news:

Obama's approval rating gets a massive boost in multiple polls:

http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-approval-rating-polls-rasmussen-50-percent-gallup-2012-11

Obama 5 points ahead in Iowa:

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/polls/265741-poll-obama-leading-romney-47-42-in-iowa

Latest popular vote polls are now showing Obama back in front with a lead of between 1% and 3% - particularly relevant as post Sandy there seems to be a swing back towards Obama which should seal the election for him

Since the first debate (which people saw as Romneys turning point) Romney has only won 4 out of 33 polls in Ohio.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map.html

Obama ahead in all the "toss up" states except for FL, NC and NH.

[SydneyRover]

Using the BBC predictor map I would say it's an Obama win; 290-248. Romney takes NC, FL and VA. Obama takes OH, CO, IA, NH, PA, NV, WI and NM.

In reality though I think whoever takes Ohio takes the election. Just going on votes alone if Obama loses out to Romney in Ohio that model goes to 272-266, but it's enough of a bellwether that if Obama has lost Ohio, he's probably lost at least another of those states too.

[SydneyRover]

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/11/04/obama_gains_in_final_days.html

Big national polling gains to Obama means a significant swing to Obama compared to last week (possibly post Sandy) is likely.

After everything above, one can only conclude Romney is finished.

It will be tight, but I think we will be seeing four more years of Obama.

[thenodrog]

I'll just be bloody glad when it's all over.

[Steve Moss]

Democratic polling firm has Romney up by 1 in Michigan: http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/polls/265779-mich-poll-has-romney-up-1

CNN has a tie, though it heavily oversampled Democrats to get it: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/11/04/Romney-Gains-3-to-Tie-Obama-in-CNN-s-D-11-Poll

[thenodrog]

Settle down Steve or you'll blow a gasket. Remember whatever happens come Thursday the world will still be spinning on it's axis.

[SydneyRover]

Democratic polling firm has Romney up by 1 in Michigan: http://thehill.com/b...has-romney-up-1

CNN has a tie, though it heavily oversampled Democrats to get it: http://www.breitbart...CNN-s-D-11-Poll

Baydoun-Foster’s Michigan polling has leaned more toward Romney than other Michigan surveys by several points throughout the final months of the campaign, a review of RCP’s Michigan polling shows.

[BuckyRover]

Steve is the most biased non parliamentarian that I has ever encountered.

[SydneyRover]

Yeah, speaking as someone who wants an Obama win I think saying Romney is finished was a little premature given that it only needs a few Dems not to show up and vote for Romney to be back in it...but calling this as a Romney landslide is hilarious.

Obama is 3-2 up in stoppage time. And Steve Kean isn't managing.

[Steve Moss]

Steve is the most biased non parliamentarian that I has ever encountered.

Biased? Yes, I admit that I am. As a conservative-libertarian I abhor the thought of another 4 years of Obama in the White House.

But I acknowledge my biases and attempt to put aside the tinted shades when evaluating data. Whether my analysis of the data is wrong is another story entirely. We'll know late tomorrow evening.

And here is another not on point but vaguely suggestive indicator of where the momentum lies based on the reading population's interest: http://www.amazon.com/gp/election-heatmap/?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&linkCode=ur2&pf_rd_i=1286228011&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_p=1408874842&pf_rd_r=1A4XJN2ATAJBNZ23SJWN&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_t=101&tag=insta0c-20

Obama is 3-2 up in stoppage time. And Steve Kean isn't managing.

I wouldn't be too sure of that. He hasn't been seen the last 5-6 weeks and Obama has been losing momentum the entire time.

[dave birch]

Steve, I was going to wait until the "election" was over, however, a couple of things made me post.

1. "Conservative-Libertarian", what the hell is that? Someone who believes in the ideal that the individual is king?

If that's the case, then give me some brand of soft socialism any day.

Believing that the individual is the ultimate is the most futile suggestion in any society. It's the community that make a suburb, a county, a state, a country. Each in that entity has a duty to provide that entity with sufficient funds to create and build the infrastructure and create an environment that is fit to live in.

In short, you pay your taxes and things work well, don't pay and you have the scenario that is playing out over a few cities and counties in the US, where they can't afford basic facilities.

2. As an outsider, I see little diference between Obama and Romney. It's not like the Conservatives and Labour in England, or between Left and Right here.

As I've got older I've developed a healthy disrespect of all politicians. It's not that I think they are crooks or anything, it's just that they seem to be in it for themselves, their ego. There is little done for the common good (having said that, when there is some kind of tragedy ala Sandy, then they do get their act together).

To finish, I'll just say that the best thing a country can do is to vote in a government with the slimmest of majorities. That way a bit of sickness, a death, can focus the mind of the government like nothing else.

The Government should be for the people above all else.

As a PS, I'll add that the US form of Government has to be the most convoluted ever devised. It might have been good in 1776, but from where I sit, it seems to be strangling itself into inertia, an inability to get most things done.

Australia is probably worse, in that we have to be the most over governed place on earth.

[AndyC]

Not been onto this part of the forum before, but as my love for rovers is seriously waning with the venkys in charge, it's a good find!

so my tuppence... Does anyone actually think the romney and his party will reduce the deficit when it's Bush & the Republicans who ramped them up to record levels (at the same time as dismantling all banking regulations and directly leading to the global financial crisis). Especially as Romney said he will cut economic stimulus and massive decrease welfare spending, at the same time as increasing defence spending & cutting the rate of tax on those earning over $150,000 so overall the US deficit will increase.

I don't agree with all of Obama's policies, but his economic handling has successfully lead the US to have 2% annual growth at the same time as every other western country has stayed mired in recession!

But his focus on purely the individual and how he justifies denying equal rights to over half the US population is just madness!

[Baz]

Prediction over here say narrow Obama victory. Any different in the US?

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

Democratic polling firm has Romney up by 1 in Michigan: http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/polls/265779-mich-poll-has-romney-up-1

CNN has a tie, though it heavily oversampled Democrats to get it: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/11/04/Romney-Gains-3-to-Tie-Obama-in-CNN-s-D-11-Poll

You sound like the guy who wrote Steve Kean's press releases. Surely you'll be able to come up with some positives from an Obama win !

[dave birch]

Not been onto this part of the forum before, but as my love for rovers is seriously waning with the venkys in charge, it's a good find!

so my tuppence... Does anyone actually think the romney and his party will reduce the deficit when it's Bush & the Republicans who ramped them up to record levels (at the same time as dismantling all banking regulations and directly leading to the global financial crisis). Especially as Romney said he will cut economic stimulus and massive decrease welfare spending, at the same time as increasing defence spending & cutting the rate of tax on those earning over $150,000 so overall the US deficit will increase.

I don't agree with all of Obama's policies, but his economic handling has successfully lead the US to have 2% annual growth at the same time as every other western country has stayed mired in recession!

But his focus on purely the individual and how he justifies denying equal rights to over half the US population is just madness!

Whilst we are only a small country in terms of population, Australia has not been in recession during the current GFC.

We've had constant growth of 3-4% all along. This inspite of a surging AU$.

No Bank failures, in fact things just carried on as usual.

[Baz]

Whilst we are only a small country in terms of population, Australia has not been in recession during the current GFC.

We've had constant growth of 3-4% all along. This inspite of a surging AU$.

No Bank failures, in fact things just carried on as usual.

Similar to Brazil, your economy has been held up because of mining supplying the Chinese explosion.

[jim mk2]

Australia's just a big hole in the ground supplying China. There's nothing wonderful about its economy and it will catch a cold when China sneezes.

Glued to the TV watching the US election. An Obama victory is important for all those who believe in fairness and equality.

[RibbleValleyRover]

I think Obama is going to win but it's going to be far closer than he would like. With a slightly more credible and solid Republican candidate Obama would be just serving the one term imo.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

Australia's just a big hole in the ground supplying China. There's nothing wonderful about its economy and it will catch a cold when China sneezes.

Glued to the TV watching the US election. An Obama victory is important for all those who believe in fairness and equality.

Yeah I'm hoping for an Obama win as well Jim. Having said that any decent Republican candidate ( a contradiction in terms ? ) would have possibly won this one. Obama has disappointed most of his supporters on both sides of the pond. The failure to erase the stain on America's reputation that is Guantanamo reminds me of the Bernie Eccleston saga with Blair. The first thing they both did was to commit a massive public relations blunder from which neither Blair or Obama seems have recovered from.