predictwise last 30 days - election
Quote: Keyser
One thing is for sure, the next president is certain to inherit one hell of a mess!
Its that wascally Bush, he was so evil. Why,
even Bill Clinton said that he himself couldn't
have cleaned up the mess Bush left behind.
Quote: EvenBob
I know you think this pretty funny, Bob, but the mask prediction has been 100% accurate since they started tracking in in the early 90's, accurately predicting both democratic and republican presidential wins. More accurate than many of the polls that you have cited over that time. The official trackers, Spirit Halloween, currently has it 60-40 for Obama, ironically not far off from most of the other prediction markets. I am sure this is probably a big conspiracy as well. lol
Quote: kewljQuote: EvenBob
I know you think this pretty funny, Bob, but the mask prediction has been 100% accurate since they started tracking in in the early 90's, accurately predicting both democratic and republican presidential wins. More accurate than many of the polls that you have cited over that time. The official trackers, Spirit Halloween, currently has it 60-40 for Obama, ironically not far off from most of the other prediction markets. I am sure this is probably a big conspiracy as well. lol
So, in 2000 Bush out-sold Gore? This feels most like that election, where the popular vote will be very close and the popular vote winner may lose the EC.
Quote: kewlj100% accurate since they started tracking in in the early 90's,
All the way back to the early 90's, huh. Wow. They
had presidential masks in the 1968 election and
every election since. Going back a few elections
represents a streak, hardly a trend. Which is funnier,
Obama with his Dumbo ears, or Romney who has
no distinctive features.
Here's a video that basically sums up why people vote for Obama.
Obama Supporters Slam ‘Romney’ Policies…Then Find Out They’re Actually Obama’s http://www.theblaze.com/stories/obama-supporters-slam-romney-policies-then-find-out-theyre-actually-obamas/
Quote: Keyser
Obama Supporters Slam ‘Romney’ Policies…Then Find Out They’re Actually Obama’s http://www.theblaze.com/stories/obama-supporters-slam-romney-policies-then-find-out-theyre-actually-obamas/
Like one of the comments says, a Lib will never
let the facts get in the way of voting for his guy.
Quote: Keyser
Obama Supporters Slam ‘Romney’ Policies…Then Find Out They’re Actually Obama’s http://www.theblaze.com/stories/obama-supporters-slam-romney-policies-then-find-out-theyre-actually-obamas/
So, who wants to go read a certain 2006 bill to Romney supporters?
That link is broken, but my guess would be that if you read Romney's actual policies to those people in parallel, apples to apples, no names, they'd prefer Obama's. And it's no surprise they disagree with Obama - I remember a quote from a local pamphleteer, something like, "in 2004, the brain of the dying Ronald Reagan was removed and implanted into an Illinois state senator." This is an argument against those who call Obama a "radical," nothing more.
Also, remember, folks, the electoral college is the only game in town. Everything else is just a bellwether.
Quote: 24Bingo
Also, remember, folks, the electoral college is the only game in town. Everything else is just a bellwether.
Yeah, if its a close finish, like in 2000. If one of them wins
by just 51% the EC is out of play. Thats a huge assumption
that half the country is dumb enough to want 4 more years
of what we just had.
Quote: pacomartinThe Associated Press (Oct 28) has recently come as close as possible to calling Obama the winner. The claim is that he is strongly leading in Ohio, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and New Mexico.
Well not anybody. lol Huffington Post has already called the election for Obama. There electoral map has Obama 277, Romney 206, with 4 states (Virginia, Colorado, New Hampshire and Florida). Interestingly enough if you give those remaining 4 states to Romney, their map would look exactly as myself and wizard predicts the final outcome 277 to 261 Romney. But even I, backing the President, think calling several states, like Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa for the President is pre-mature, although all appear to be leaning towards him. Funny how they didn't call Florida, which is leaning towards Romney by about the same margins for him. lol
Quote: kewljWell not anybody. lol Huffington Post has already called the election for Obama.
The AP, owned by the ultra left Moonies, and
HuffPo, Arianna Huff and Puff's former rag, are
calling Obama the winner? I would be floored
if they didn't. Got any real news?
Quote: EvenBob
Yeah, if its a close finish, like in 2000. If one of them wins
by just 51% the EC is out of play.
You keep saying this Bob, but it's not 2000 any longer. Their is a strong possibility that Romney wins the popular vote, by an even larger margin than Gore won, but still loses the electoral college. The reason is that Obama is not winning nearly as big, in strong Obama states, like California and Mass (especially with Romney on ticket and close senate race), as he did in 2008 or Gore did in 2000. Oh he is going to win comfortably in those states. They are not in play or anything, but he could rack up 10 million fewer total votes in his strong states, where as Romney is going to win his strong states by a bigger margins. Same with some of the lean Obama states, like Pennsylvania, New jersey and a few others. Obama is going to win Pa and New Jersey, but not by the margins he did in 2008 or gore did in 2000. End result: Romney wins fewer states by bigger margins, Obama wins more states by smaller margins.
Quote: kewljTheir is a strong possibility that Romney wins the popular vote, by an even larger margin than Gore won, but still loses the electoral college. .
That possibility is only in the Left's desperate
mind. You'll see how popular the last 4 years
has been with America in about 8 days..
Quote: EvenBobThat possibility is only in the Left's desperate
mind. You'll see how popular the last 4 years
has been with America in about 8 days..
Yes, we will see. :) But I have a feeling even that won't shut you up. You and Mr Keyser will then be screaming about fraud, and stealing elections, and blah blah blah.
Fair enough. But which Romney policy would you read to them? He's had so many! I can't think of one serious position on which he hasn't taken both sides. Heck, he's been caught saying that his first name isn't Willard.Quote: 24Bingo.. but my guess would be that if you read Romney's actual policies to those people in parallel, apples to apples, no names, they'd prefer Obama's.
Quote: kewljYes, we will see. :) You and Mr Keyser will then be screaming about fraud, and stealing elections, and blah blah blah.
Yeah, no... You have confused with cry baby Libs,
we don't do stuff like that. But its a moot point
anyway.
Quote: EvenBobYeah, no... You have confused with cry baby Libs,
we don't do stuff like that. But its a moot point
anyway.
No, you guys never do stuff like that.Quote: AZDuffmanI know it is not remotely scientiffic but there are far fewer signs of Obama support here in PA than in 2008. Yard signs favored Obama then, about even at best now. Unions still pushing him, that is about it. Could easily flip to Romney if not enough dead people vote in inner-Philly.
It's these hardliners that need to adapt. The fact is their base is white men, an ever shrinking demographic. They have completely alienated the largest growing segment of the population and rather than take more moderate positions that might be inclusive to hispanics, they tried to shut them out and suppress the vote with tougher voter laws. This wasn't just isolated incidents, but rather a national strategy orchestrated in almost every state that had a republican governor. They are fighting an uphill battle and the hill is going to grow bigger and bigger every year and every election cycle. Their piece of the pie will get smaller and smaller until they decide to be more inclusive.
Quote: KeyserThe well educated voters tend to favor Romney for obvious reasons.
This would be the first presidential election in about 200 years where education of the electorate and votes for a conservative candidate are positively correlated. Are you sure about this?
Quote: kewljHere's another example: gay marriage. Why on earth does the republican party continue to get bogged down with the gay marriage issue? They should be concentrating on financial differences and issues that they can win like smaller government, debt reduction. Gay Marriage is a forgone conclusion. 10 years ago 40 some percent of the population supported gay marriage. It's now about even. But polls show those under 50 support gay marriage at a rate of over 60% and those under 35 at a 2-1 rate. And So you tell me, where is the country going to be in 10 years or 20 years when the older population dies off? It's clearly a losing battle. It will be the law of the land. A forgone conclusion. And the truth is people don't support gay marriage. They just don't care anymore. What does anyone care what 2 people do and what they call themselves? Continuing to fight this battle is like standing in the battle field and fighting a battle you are losing right down to the last man. I would get the hell out of that battle and live to fight another day. Fight a more favorable battle under more favorable conditions like debt reduction and smaller government. I guess that's my AP side thinking. lol
...is it Republicans who are fighting that battle, though? Romney definitely seems to be focused on the economy - I can only think of gay marriage being brought up in pro-Obama material, or responses to the same. It seems like a pitched battle.
Quote: EvenBobQuote: 24Bingo
Also, remember, folks, the electoral college is the only game in town. Everything else is just a bellwether.
Yeah, if its a close finish, like in 2000. If one of them wins
by just 51% the EC is out of play. Thats a huge assumption
that half the country is dumb enough to want 4 more years
of what we just had.
...do you not know what the word "bellwether" means? Or do you honestly think that a large enough gap in the popular vote legally overrides the EC?
Quote: 24Bingo...is it Republicans who are fighting that battle, though? Romney definitely seems to be focused on the economy - I can only think of gay marriage being brought up in pro-Obama material, or responses to the same. It seems like a pitched battle.
Personally, I think you're right in terms of the presidential election only. In terms of the larger state of the party, it's a problem for Republicans. letting it be an issue at all gains them no votes and potentially costs them the support of conservative gays. They'd do better to just get out of the way & have a bigger tent as a result.
Quote: kewljHere is the fact about the republican party. They are in big trouble...
Starting to cover your ass early, smart move. Crow
tatses like crap..
Quote: rdw4potusPersonally, I think you're right in terms of the presidential election only. In terms of the larger state of the party, it's a problem for Republicans. letting it be an issue at all gains them no votes and potentially costs them the support of conservative gays. They'd do better to just get out of the way & have a bigger tent as a result.
It gains them no votes from the Democrats, but a pro-gay-marriage stance would create a lot of non-voters and third-party voters. And with the DOMA in place, there's no middle ground. Hell, even without the DOMA in place, a lot of the left will insist on a federal mandate, and sooner or later they'll get a candidate in.
Quote: EvenBobStarting to cover your ass early, smart move. Crow
tatses like crap..
Hardly, Bob. I don't see it as about bragging rights or eating crow. It isn't even that big a deal to me. I have a preference yes, rather obvious I am sure. But it's not life or death to me. If Mr Romney wins, I will congratulate you and Mr Keyser and my repub friends on this board and hope that Mr Romney governs with a more moderate tone than he ran, much like he did as governor. I will hope that he can find some common ground with what I suspect will still be a democratic senate and together they can move forward for the betterment of the country and us all.
If Mr Obama wins a second term pretty much the same things. I suspect the House will still be in Repub hands and hope they can find common ground on many of the important issues that need to be addressed.
Quote: kewljIf Mr Romney wins, I will congratulate you and Mr Keyser and my repub friends on this board and hope that Mr Romney governs with a more moderate tone than he ran,
I know this. Romney, like Clinton, can reach across
the aisle and work with the other side. This is something
Obama is absolutely incapable of doing. According to
everybody, Obama gives lectures, he doesn't discuss
anything. He doesn't ask questions, he doesn't ask
opinions, he lectures and dismisses. And he considers
this bipartisanship. He's a king, a dictator.
Quote: EvenBobI know this. Romney, like Clinton, can reach across
the aisle and work with the other side. This is something
Obama is absolutely incapable of doing. According to
everybody, Obama gives lectures, he doesn't discuss
anything. He doesn't ask questions, he doesn't ask
opinions, he lectures and dismisses. And he considers
this bipartisanship. He's a king, a dictator.
It becomes kind of hard to reach across the aisle when the leader of the republicans in the senate proclaims his top priority is to make Obama a one term president. Not to create jobs in a bad economy, not to lower the deficit, not find common ground on any issues, but to fight you tooth and nail on every proposal and issue. If you were paying attention, it appeared Mr Obama and Mr Boehner were both willing to reach across the aisle and find common ground as of Clinton did and Romney as governor did. Unfortunately when it looked like they may reach a deal, Mr Boehner was reeled in by the party leaders who wanted him to be less co-operative.
Quote: kewljIt becomes kind of hard to reach across the aisle .
No its not. Its easy. You keep making friends on the
other side, you cut deals, I scratch your back and you
scratch mine. Bill Clinton was the good ol boy master
of this. Obama has no idea how its done. He's never
had to cut deals and give some ground to gain some
ground is in his life. He sits in his own cabinet meetings
and stares out the window. He doesn't attend even half
of his security meetings. He makes no move toward even
faking bipartisanship. He's voting 'present', its all he's good
at. They had to drag him kicking and screaming to the
practice sessions for the first debate because he hates homework.
He fought them, was distant and uncooperative. After the
debate was over, he came away saying he thought he hit
a homerun. He's probably the most disengaged president
we've ever had.
Posts such as these are the barking of a dog, as easily ignored as they do ignore. Whatever you're fighting for, they are nothing but self-gratification to a lifeless image of the argument you address.
2008, Dems had requested 108,000 more early
ballots than they've requested so far this year. And
Repubs have requested 30,000 more that they
requested in 2008 so far this year. I'm sure it means
nothing, forget I brought it up.
Quote: 24Bingo...you really do have the most interesting way of truncating a post
Oops, oops, and you have an interesting way of
complaining whenever a post isn't answered in
exactly the way you think it should be answered.
And what happened to the debate between you
and Mission? Have you both thrown in the towel
already?
Do you mean where we were arguing over whether a particular system taken to a +EV game would lose over the long run? Because I'll admit I dropped that, when I realized that although the system would be +EV, increasing the length of one's session wouldn't actually increase the win rate, but rather the positive edge would only be reflected in separate sessions.
It's irrelevant to the fact that I do indeed think an attempt to rebut the thesis of a post or paragraph should at least passingly address the supporting points presented, and that it should not take what is unclear without context to mean something other than what the context demonstrates, and that to write a response that does not meet these criteria, much less to make a pattern of such, is destructive and should be called out.
Quote: 24Bingo...I'm sorry, but I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about.
I thought you were having a debate on economics.
What happened to that?
Oh jeez, never mind, it wasn't you.
Oh well.
Quote: EvenBobIts the little things in this election. At this time in
2008, Dems had requested 108,000 more early
ballots than they've requested so far this year. And
Repubs have requested 30,000 more that they
requested in 2008 so far this year. I'm sure it means
nothing, forget I brought it up.
where are you talking about? Ohio?
Quote: kewljwhere are you talking about? Ohio?
LOL, yes, Ohio. Small but important point.
Quote: EvenBobLOL, yes, Ohio. Small but important point.
Your are misinterpreting these numbers. In Ohio is it very easy to switch party affiliation. Many voters switch back and forth. In the primary season this is done right at the polls just by asking for a R or D ballot. So this year with a contested republican primary, and no contested democratic primary, many previously registered democrats requested the R ballot so as to participate in the more competitive election. This does not mean that they have really changed parties or how they vote. They are still the same people. People thinking that this is a big pickup for the republicans will be disappointed on election night. A more accurate way of tracking the vote is to track where those early ballot requests are coming from, and they are coming from counties and areas that are traditionally democratic and won by Obama last cycle at a much higher clip than counties or areas that are traditionally republican.
Quote: EvenBobIts the little things in this election. At this time in
2008, Dems had requested 108,000 more early
ballots than they've requested so far this year. And
Repubs have requested 30,000 more that they
requested in 2008 so far this year. I'm sure it means
nothing, forget I brought it up.
That sounds so impressive without the totals included! (Dems have still requested more early ballots than GOPers have, and totals are in the tens of millions)
Quote: KeyserRomney is now winning by two in Ohio. Source is Rasmussen.
That certainly makes things more interesting. If Romney actually wins Ohio, then the EC really is pretty much a tossup.
http://www.270towin.com/2012_election_predictions.php?mapid=WxI
http://www.270towin.com/2012_election_predictions.php?mapid=WxQ
The third question in that poll is interesting:
3* I’m going to read you a short list of issues in the news. For each, please let me know which presidential candidate you trust more to handle that issue.
Economy
Job Creation
National Security
Housing
Energy Policy
So, the economy, the economy, defense, the economy, and energy policy. Why not list education and/or healthcare instead of asking about the economy 3 times?
model has R 52% O 47%. They blame the Obama loss
on a poor Dem turnout compared to 08. The enthusiasm is
all for Romney this time. Its being reported Romney's crowds
are consistently bigger than Obama had in 08.
Quote: EvenBobA non partison George Washington U battleground election
model has R 52% O 47%. They blame the Obama loss
on a poor Dem turnout compared to 08. The enthusiasm is
all for Romney this time. Its being reported Romney's crowds
are consistently bigger than Obama had in 08.
Your post was completely plausible, except for the part that I highlighted. That's just not true. Demonstrably false. Why say it? It hurts your point.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/10/soledad-obrien-obama-up-in-va-138861.html
Anyone want to take a guess who Ms. O'Brien is going to be voting for? Now that would be a "sure bet"...
People are citing this poll and that poll, but the trajectory of the race is now set. What do we have left, the "Jobs Report" which may not even be released because of the hurricane?
Here are some basics:
1. 2008 was an historic election. The Democratic enthusiasm in 2008 will NOT be present in 2012.
2. People were fed up with George Bush and the Republicans in 2008. They got over being fed up with Republicans in 2010 having handed Democratic members of Congress the biggest losses, in what, like 70 years? People were unhappy in 2010, they're still unhappy in 2012 and want a change.
3. Spending 100s of millions in negative ads on Romney was effective, until the 1st debate showed the American people that Romney was an acceptable choice and not who he was made out to be. Debates 2 and 3 further re-enforced his acceptability.
4. I live in a very liberal city. In 2008, you could go 10 feet without seeing an Obama yard sign or bumper sticker. Not this year.
5. Having been a governor of a Democratic state, people are willing to give someone else a chance who can reach across the aisle.
6. Obamacare is unpopular and a net-negative for the President.
7. In both Ohio and Pennsylvania, people don't appreciate the war on coal.
8. I know many people who voted for Obama who are now voting for Romney. I don't know a single person who voted for McCain that's now going to vote for Obama.
Just some basic observations relating to the Independents out there...
Quote: TheBigPaybakI think the post-election analysis of the results is going to be very interesting this year. It wouldn't surprise me if we end up seeing countless articles of how "people got it so wrong" - but when you have CNN just saying Obama's "Up 15" in Virginia, it's hard not to laugh:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/10/soledad-obrien-obama-up-in-va-138861.html
Anyone want to take a guess who Ms. O'Brien is going to be voting for? Now that would be a "sure bet"...
People are citing this poll and that poll, but the trajectory of the race is now set. What do we have left, the "Jobs Report" which may not even be released because of the hurricane?
Here are some basics:
1. 2008 was an historic election. The Democratic enthusiasm in 2008 will NOT be present in 2012.
2. People were fed up with George Bush and the Republicans in 2008. They got over being fed up with Republicans in 2010 having handed Democratic members of Congress the biggest losses, in what, like 70 years? People were unhappy in 2010, they're still unhappy in 2012 and want a change.
3. Spending 100s of millions in negative ads on Romney was effective, until the 1st debate showed the American people that Romney was an acceptable choice and not who he was made out to be. Debates 2 and 3 further re-enforced his acceptability.
4. I live in a very liberal city. In 2008, you could go 10 feet without seeing an Obama yard sign or bumper sticker. Not this year.
5. Having been a governor of a Democratic state, people are willing to give someone else a chance who can reach across the aisle.
6. Obamacare is unpopular and a net-negative for the President.
7. In both Ohio and Pennsylvania, people don't appreciate the war on coal.
8. I know many people who voted for Obama who are now voting for Romney. I don't know a single person who voted for McCain that's now going to vote for Obama.
Just some basic observations relating to the Independents out there...
2. But part of the change in 2012 is going to be a tightening of the House. Many GOPers - most from the 2010 class - are underdogs in their races. The house won't flip back, but the majority will be reduced. And the balance of power in the senate will barely be changed. It's not correct to suggest that Romney is presiding over a wave election like 2008 or 2010.
4. Twitter and Facebook have largely replaced yard signs in general. Much to the chagrin of most users of twitter and facebook...
Quote: rdw4potus2. But part of the change in 2012 is going to be a tightening of the House. Many GOPers - most from the 2010 class - are underdogs in their races. The house won't flip back, but the majority will be reduced. And the balance of power in the senate will barely be changed. It's not correct to suggest that Romney is presiding over a wave election like 2008 or 2010.
4. Twitter and Facebook have largely replaced yard signs in general. Much to the chagrin of most users of twitter and facebook...
I agree 2012 won't be a wave like 2010, but people were ticked in 2010- and it showed with the results. There's still some of that, imho, and I think it will show in 2012- especially with independents.
Really about Twitter/Facebook? I wouldn't have thought that, and especially for older people, that wouldn't seem to be a smart replacement, I would think...
