Romney, Obama, Rasmussen

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by Brainster

Since you posted that, things have changed. Obama now needs to win 27 of the 125 toss-up votes, while Romney needs 100. Wisconsin moved into the toss-up category. I also note that there are 82 electoral college votes in states that lean Obama, while there are only 39 in states that lean Romney, and 36 of those latter (Indiana, South Carolina and Georgia) seem pretty safe GOP havens to me. Of course, some of the "lean Obama" states seem secure for the Democrats: NJ, Michigan and Oregon are unlikely to turn red.

Huffpo also has an electoral map, and in their projection Obama has 284 electoral votes to Romney's 170.

The main differences are that RCP has Iowa and NH as toss-ups while Huffpo has them as strong Obama, and Huffpo puts VA and OH in the leans Obama category while they are toss-ups according to RCP.

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Huffpo also has an electoral map, and in their projection Obama has 284 electoral votes to Romney's 170.

The main differences are that RCP has Iowa and NH as toss-ups while Huffpo has them as strong Obama, and Huffpo puts VA and OH in the leans Obama category while they are toss-ups according to RCP.

I'll lean towards RCP. I think Huffington may have a too-optimistic methodology.

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

I'll lean towards RCP. I think Huffington may have a too-optimistic methodology.

OK, but here's the RCP averages for the states in question:

VA: Obama +3.2%
OH: Obama +4.6%
Iowa: Obama +4.0%
NH: Obama +6.4%

Colorado and Wisconsin also seem to look pretty good for Obama.

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

OK, but here's the RCP averages for the states in question:

VA: Obama +3.2%
OH: Obama +4.6%
Iowa: Obama +4.0%
NH: Obama +6.4%

Colorado and Wisconsin also seem to look pretty good for Obama.

Agreed, it's Obama's to lose - I'd be moderately pleased with those numbers were I his campaign manager.

[Cleon]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

Agreed, it's Obama's to lose

Never underestimate the Democrats' ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by Cleon

Never underestimate the Democrats' ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

That's why I am worried!

[Biscuit]

Originally Posted by Chaos

So now is the time to buy stocks of ammo manufacturers?

Heck just set up a fireworks stand next to their houses. They will buy anything that explodes. (insert ford pinto joke here)

Originally Posted by RandFan

I think you are missing the logic of the argument. Take for instance the fact that Obama has not yet acted to outlaw capitalism. Doesn't that raise all kinds of red flags? You gotta know that this closet radical socialist wants to take away our god given rights to sell transformer action figures. His inaction speaks volumes. And let me point out that he has yet to take a position on drowning puppies. The guy makes me so sick.

While you made me laugh there is an actual flaw in your logic. President Obama has taken a position on guns by expanding gun owner rights. However your concern for puppies is noted and shared.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Biscuit

While you made me laugh there is an actual flaw in your logic. President Obama has taken a position on guns by expanding gun owner rights. However your concern for puppies is noted and shared.

Conceded.

[MattusMaximus]

Originally Posted by RandFan

It's part of Obama's strategy to get re-elected before he takes away everyone's guns.

Shut up, you fool! You're going to mess up The Plan!!!

[MattusMaximus]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

OK, but here's the RCP averages for the states in question:

VA: Obama +3.2%
OH: Obama +4.6%
Iowa: Obama +4.0%
NH: Obama +6.4%

Colorado and Wisconsin also seem to look pretty good for Obama.

And don't forget that Obama seems to have a pretty good shot at taking MI, FL, and possibly even NC. If Obama takes even one or two of these contested states, he's very likely going to win; whereas Romney would probably have to win most, if not all, of these contested states to win.

It's numbers like this that have likely caused various prediction markets to give President Obama about 60-65% at re-election, while Romney can only garner about 35-40%. At this stage, I would trust pretty much any major prediction market over nationwide polls.

Once you actually start breaking down the polling into state-by-state and comparing that to the potential Electoral College outcomes, it is no wonder the Republicans are getting desparate. They've done the math and see a long, uncomfortable uphill slog as well.

[RandFan]

Betting odds have tightened significantly.

Obama: +175
Romney: -145

[RandFan]

Intrade: Obama is up.

Obama: 58.7%
Romney: 38.5%

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by Cleon

Never underestimate the Democrats' ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

The Cory Booker fiasco seems like good case in point. Fortunately it's far enough from the election that nobody will remember it by then. I don't expect he will be used as a "surrogate" by the Obama campaign anymore.

[MaGZ]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Huffpo also has an electoral map, and in their projection Obama has 284 electoral votes to Romney's 170.

The main differences are that RCP has Iowa and NH as toss-ups while Huffpo has them as strong Obama, and Huffpo puts VA and OH in the leans Obama category while they are toss-ups according to RCP.

The huff and puff pollsters are huffing and puffing on something over there.

[MaGZ]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

OK, but here's the RCP averages for the states in question:

VA: Obama +3.2%
OH: Obama +4.6%
Iowa: Obama +4.0%
NH: Obama +6.4%

Colorado and Wisconsin also seem to look pretty good for Obama.

Obama will never carry Virginia this election. You can chisel that in stone.

[Brainster]

The RCP map now has Obama needing 43 out of 141 toss-up EVs with Romney needing 100.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Brainster

The RCP map now has Obama needing 43 out of 141 toss-up EVs with Romney needing 100.

It will get much, much tighter.

Betting odds unchanged to date:
Obama +175
Romney -145

[BenBurch]

Looks like Romney's "6% promise" isn't getting any traction at all;

Source http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...bama-1171.html fetched May 29.

[JoeTheJuggler]

One issue that hasn't been raised much is the question of the Supreme Court decision on the individual mandate (and the Affordable Care Act as a whole) which is expected within a month. I think this decision could have a major impact on the campaign and election.

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

One issue that hasn't been raised much is the question of the Supreme Court decision on the individual mandate (and the Affordable Care Act as a whole) which is expected within a month. I think this decision could have a major impact on the campaign and election.

Yeah, but I have no idea how the decision will be spun no matter what it is.

Thoughts?

[DavidJames]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

Yeah, but I have no idea how the decision will be spun no matter what it is.

Thoughts?

My thinking if upheld, Romney will push hard on two issues. First is he must be elected president to save the country from imminent financial and moral doom by pushing legislation to eliminate it. Second he will say he would use his presidency to ensure the Supreme Court is stocked with more right thinking judges.

If Obama loses, it will be proof of a failed presidency and how Obama is incompetent, unfit for president, pushing unconstitutional legislation.

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by DavidJames

My thinking if upheld, Romney will push hard on two issues. First is he must be elected president to save the country from imminent financial and moral doom by pushing legislation to eliminate it. Second he will say he would use his presidency to ensure the Supreme Court is stocked with more right thinking judges.

If Obama loses, it will be proof of a failed presidency and how Obama is incompetent, unfit for president, pushing unconstitutional legislation.

OK, and how about the other side of the spin?

[DavidJames]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

OK, and how about the other side of the spin?

From Obama? If upheld, proof he's on the right track and shows Republicans were wrong headed and out of touch with constitutional law and the American people.

If overturned, he needs to show America is ideologically in tune with his ideas and he needs to another 4 years to ensure the Supreme Court is "adjusted" to correctly interpret constitutional sound legislation.

For Obama, either result has much less "juicy" opportunity for campaign rhetoric then Romney. I think the timing of this case benefits Romney more then Obama.

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by DavidJames

From Obama? If upheld, proof he's on the right track and shows Republicans were wrong headed and out of touch with constitutional law and the American people.

If overturned, he needs to show America is ideologically in tune with his ideas and he needs to another 4 years to ensure the Supreme Court is "adjusted" to correctly interpret constitutional sound legislation.

For Obama, either result has much less "juicy" opportunity for campaign rhetoric then Romney. I think the timing of this case benefits Romney more then Obama.

The timing was intentional, of course.

If the SC overturns this law, it will immediately damage a lot of people of voting age; The adult children who have health insurance only because of this law. If that happens and the President's campaign does not come up with some emotional spots like "I can no longer afford my chemotherapy" they are idiots.

[Biscuit]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

The timing was intentional, of course.

If the SC overturns this law, it will immediately damage a lot of people of voting age; The adult children who have health insurance only because of this law. If that happens and the President's campaign does not come up with some emotional spots like "I can no longer afford my chemotherapy" they are idiots.

Spot on with that. I would add that if it is overturned because of the mandate to buy a private plan then its a perfect opportunity for the President to say, "Well we can't have reform within the private market alone so its time to do it through single payer universal healthcare for those who want it and a private market for those who don't or want extra coverage."

That would rally the base. I have always hoped that this was all part of the plan. Get the SC to overturn the mandate so he can actually get a NHS style system in place.

[Dunstan]

Originally Posted by Biscuit

Spot on with that. I would add that if it is overturned because of the mandate to buy a private plan then its a perfect opportunity for the President to say, "Well we can't have reform within the private market alone so its time to do it through single payer universal healthcare for those who want it and a private market for those who don't or want extra coverage."

That would rally the base. I have always hoped that this was all part of the plan. Get the SC to overturn the mandate so he can actually get a NHS style system in place.

I can't see that happening in 2012. The conditions simply aren't right. At best the Democrats hope to hold the White House and a slim majority in the Senate; they have no hope of taking back the House, let alone getting a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. And politically it just won't be possible to convince voters that in a political climate that still sees the deficit as a major priority in the middle of recession, the government should create an even more ambitious ("radical socialist" if you're a Republican) plan to replace one that was found unconstitutional. (Yes, legally speaking that doesn't follow, as even virtually all of the law professors championing the anti-Obamacare cause acknowledge that single-payer would be constitutional, but voters won't see it that way.) Nor could you get a Democratic caucus to unite solidly behind any such proposal anyway -- one of the reasons they got such good party discipline on Obamacare is that the insurance companies were on board rather than fighting it tooth and nail.

Long term, yes, the Democratic Party will conclude that the only path the Court has left open is a more government-based system. My guess is that in 2016, the Democratic primary race will involve various of "Medicare for all," and that the eventual consensus will be an incremental approach of gradually lowering the eligibility age for Medicare, possibly with an opt-out to preserve "choice."

[Biscuit]

Originally Posted by Dunstan

I can't see that happening in 2012. The conditions simply aren't right. At best the Democrats hope to hold the White House and a slim majority in the Senate; they have no hope of taking back the House, let alone getting a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. And politically it just won't be possible to convince voters that in a political climate that still sees the deficit as a major priority in the middle of recession, the government should create an even more ambitious ("radical socialist" if you're a Republican) plan to replace one that was found unconstitutional. (Yes, legally speaking that doesn't follow, as even virtually all of the law professors championing the anti-Obamacare cause acknowledge that single-payer would be constitutional, but voters won't see it that way.) Nor could you get a Democratic caucus to unite solidly behind any such proposal anyway -- one of the reasons they got such good party discipline on Obamacare is that the insurance companies were on board rather than fighting it tooth and nail.

Long term, yes, the Democratic Party will conclude that the only path the Court has left open is a more government-based system. My guess is that in 2016, the Democratic primary race will involve various of "Medicare for all," and that the eventual consensus will be an incremental approach of gradually lowering the eligibility age for Medicare, possibly with an opt-out to preserve "choice."

But what if sometime between now and the election the american populace suddenly comes to their senses and realizes that an NHS style system would be best for everyone and elect a solid blue majority to the legislative with a clear mandate to git er dun!

I can dream can't I?

I hope we get there some how or my retirement will be spent in another country.

[BenBurch]

From http://realclearpolitics.com/epolls/...bama-1171.html

[stevea]

Tho ' the SCOTUS decision will impact the campaigns, I suspect the apparent trajectory of the economy will be far more important. I don't think the Europeans are making good progress at resolving their problems, and Greece is chump-change compared to Spain.

I think that saga will drag into 2013 and will generally be negative for Obama. The deflationary power of a flight of dollars is one aspect, but Euro and Chinese slowdowns and the severely negative policies of India will likely send our economy downward.

[easycruise]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

Rasmussen - Obama by 3. Ten point swing since the start of this thread...

The great thing that is common throughout all your posts showing this RCP polling data is that Romney does a lot better with "likely voters" than with "registered voters". A good sign for Romney. The trendy fad that had people vote for Obama in 2008 is over.

[easycruise]

Originally Posted by Unabogie

You're funny. Taxes are down, not up.

But they should go up. The Bush tax cuts are almost exclusively to blame for the the large deficits. This is not controversial.

But if taxes DO go up, then won't the debt go down? Isn't that the simplest math to figure out?

ETA: Evidence about taxes and debt.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_864812.html

This chart isn't new, but I realized that people will demand evidence! Evidence that 10 years of tax cuts for wealthy people will decrease revenue, since everyone know cutting rich people's taxes pays for itself.

That evidence is not true and it is from a biased source. Calling the CBBP a non-partisan organization is laughable. What actually is causing the skyrocketing debt is Obama & Co. wild spending as he continues the high spending from TARP levels when it should have gone back down. Democrats love "continuing resolutions" because it keeps the spending way up.

Since you like biased sources, here's mine..

http://blog.american.com/2012/05/act...ly-did-happen/

The money quote..

"Like a relief pitcher who comes into the game with the bases loaded, Obama came in with a budget in place that called for spending to increase by hundreds of billions of dollars in response to the worst economic and financial calamity in generations.” Let me complete the metaphor for Nutting: “Then as those runners scored, Obama kept putting more on base.”

[easycruise]

And more evidence of the spending (and lying) habits of Democrats..

excerpt..

""How do Bush and Obama compare on closer inspection? Just about like they do on an initial glance. According to the White House's Office of Management and Budget, during his eight fiscal years, Bush ran up a total of $3.283 trillion in deficit spending (p. 22). In his first two fiscal years, Obama will run up a total of $2.826 trillion in deficit spending ($1.294 trillion in 2010, an estimated $1.267 trillion in 2011 (p. 23), and the $265 billion in "stimulus" money that was spent in 2009). Thus, Bush ran up an average of $410 billion in deficit spending per year, while Obama is running up an average of $1.413 trillion in deficit spending per year — or $1.003 trillion a year more than Bush.

Obama, of course, has said the economy made him do it. But the average inflation-adjusted deficits through Obama's first two fiscal years will be more than ten times higher than the average inflation-adjusted deficit during the Great Depression. Even as a percentage of the gross domestic product, the average deficits in Obama's first two fiscal years will more than three times higher the average deficit during the Great Depression. The fact that Obama's deficits have, by any standard, more than tripled those of the Great Depression, cannot convincingly be blamed on the current recession.""

https://www.npr.org/2011/01/25/13321...s-bush-on-debt

[BenBurch]

The problem is how you screen for LV vs RV and also you need to factor in GOTV effectiveness.

I think Obama will have no problems winning both a popular and an electoral victory, with the popular vote being by 3-4% but the electoral margin being quite large.

[easycruise]

With todays just released lousy employment numbers for May, Obama's Intrade odds are down to 55%. It's interesting how the Intrade chart of his odds is very closely correlated with the chart of the US stock market.

The "real unemployment rate" is at 15%. Very hard to see how Obama will get reelected with those terrible numbers. His failed policies are a disgrace. Believing in Keynesian economics is like believing in a deity. There just ain't no evidence for it!

[BenBurch]

Enjoy it while you can, easycruise.

[AlBell]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

Enjoy it while you can, easycruise.

Is that your prediction that economy and GDP growth will improve over the next 5 months, and that unemployment % will fall?

Otherwise, you lefties better enjoy it while you can.

And for you recent and current college grads, good luck finding a job.

[BenBurch]

Obama is going to have no trouble winning re-election, AlBell. Not because Obama is great, but because the alternative is so very lame.

Unless we see a second major economic dip caused by a Eurozone meltdown, that is, and economists think that is unlikely.

[AlBell]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

Obama is going to have no trouble winning re-election, AlBell. Not because Obama is great, but because the alternative is so very lame.

Agreed on the lameness factor. We may also be able to agree that no matter which candidate wins, their party will undergo reorganization for 2014 and 2016.

For republicans I foresee a return of tea party values rather than eastern liberal establishment providing another MaCain-like person as is Romney.

For democrats I see a move towards the center ala Bill Clinton.

Quote:

Unless we see a second major economic dip caused by a Eurozone meltdown, that is, and economists think that is unlikely.

Other economists think it likely, as do I.

[stevea]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

Obama is going to have no trouble winning re-election, AlBell. Not because Obama is great, but because the alternative is so very lame.

Unless we see a second major economic dip caused by a Eurozone meltdown, that is, and economists think that is unlikely.

Hmm - the obvious retort is "lame compared to whom" ? It think it''s sort of tragic-comedic to watch Obama attacking Romney's biz/finance experience while Obama has zilch, or attacking any Rep econo-plan (or even Simpson Bowles) after his actions failed to produce positive results. Is "Hey the economy is no worse" gonna be the 2012 Dem slogan ?

Obama's attacks on "the 1%" are transparent populist pandering that can't impact any of the real and serious problems that need to be addressed. It smells like desperation and reinforces the ineffectual aspect of his previous plans.

I'm no Romney fan, and I may not vote for either of these bum-weasels, but even with the incumbent advantage I think Obama has a difficult path to a second term.


I'd like to know the names of these economists who think a major dip is not potentially in the cards. That sounds like January's optimist.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally Posted by easycruise

His failed policies are a disgrace.

No.