2012 Electoral College Predictions

[Baylor]

Would you leave because you would be quitting politics altogether?

Or because the conservatives' full-on gloat mode would drive you crazy?

I would leave because that's what I promised.

I'm saying Obama is going to win because that's what the science says, not because of any loyalties.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

That would be the absolute best case, dream scenario for him [Romney], and probably would require some catastrophic economic news, or a major Obama screwup.

And I'm not sure why it's certain that bad economic news cuts against Obama given what has gone on in Congress the last 2 years.

 

[mikedenk]

I would leave because that's what I promised.

Okay then... why did you promise to leave?

Because you are completely confident in an Obama victory?
Because you are going to live off the grid like a hermit?
...?

 

[Baylor]

Okay then... why did you promise to leave?

Because you are completely confident in an Obama victory?
Because you are going to live off the grid like a hermit?
...?

To make it interesting. Some think Romney still has a chance.

Not sure what you mean by "to live off the grid like a hermit." I hope it's not a personal attack because I will have to report it.

 

[mikedenk]

To make it interesting.

Ah, making things interesting. Putting a bit of a personal stake on the line. I like it.

Not sure what you mean by "to live off the grid like a hermit." I hope it's not a personal attack because I will have to report it.

Meaning: you will move off the grid in preparation for the disaster that will befall America under Romney; being off the grid means you won't have internet; no internet = no JREF forums.

 

[Baylor]

Ah, making things interesting. Putting a bit of a personal stake on the line. I like it.

Thanks

Meaning: you will move off the grid in preparation for the disaster that will befall America under Romney; being off the grid means you won't have internet; no internet = no JREF forums.

Oh, ok.

Nope, that won't be happening. I've kept my own political opinions out of this thread. I'm confident in a Obama victory because I'm confident and amazed in Nate Silver's mathematical abilities. It's amazing how he can predict the future so accurately. Whom I think will win has no bearing on whom I want to win.

 

[NotJesus]

And I'm not sure why it's certain that bad economic news cuts against Obama given what has gone on in Congress the last 2 years.

The President usually gets blamed for a bad economy. The big problem for Romney is that, as bad as things have been, he's not ahead. How does he win over people who haven't already bought the "Obama's done a bad job and should be fired," argument?

 

[Sticky Fingers]

This time four years ago I was posting on an alternative health site riddled with conspiracy theories
and there were a number of people who were convinced that the U.S. Government was going to
declare martial law 2 weeks before the election and Bush would be kept in office indefinitely
and people would either need to go off the grid and head to the Montana hills or battle it out on the streets.........

So in honor of them..................

I am predicting a major natural disaster to hit three days before the election -
either an asteroid that hits a nuclear facility near New York that causes a meltdown
or a as yet undetected volcanoe in L.A. that errupts in the middle of the night and buries the whole city.

Either the way the election will be cancelled (so zero ev's for each) and I will be in a
tent and sleeping bag somewhere in northern Canada on Nov.6 and definitely off the grid.
So I will not be answering private e-mails in November.

 

[NotJesus]

I am predicting a major natural disaster to hit three days before the election -
either an asteroid that hits a nuclear facility near New York that causes a meltdown
or a as yet undetected volcanoe in L.A. that errupts in the middle of the night and buries the whole city.

Gee, thanks.




<----

 

[Cain]

When you use the term 'far right' just what do you mean? I'm just curious how you define that.

After he won the election in 2004, he immediately proposed "reforms" begin privatizing part of Social Security. He hardly campaigned on this at all, but it was part of his "mandate."

When he first began forming the government, he hardly reached out to the other side of the aisle. I think his only holdover from the previous administration was George Tenet (a superb human being, by the way).

 

[MattusMaximus]

I think the odds that Romney will win Ohio just got even worse for him, because it seems that - despite the best efforts of the GOP - the federal courts have reinstated early voting rules.

If Romney cannot win Ohio, I don't see how it will be possible for him to win in the EC.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Incidentally, Nate Silver now has the chances of Florida going to President Obama at 66% (up ~2% from a day ago) - bad news for Romney and the GOP.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The President usually gets blamed for a bad economy. The big problem for Romney is that, as bad as things have been, he's not ahead. How does he win over people who haven't already bought the "Obama's done a bad job and should be fired," argument?

Yep. I understand presidential elections are often a "referendum" on the incumbent--or at least they're presented that way.

There was a recent CNN article that had as its headline something like, "To Win Obama Must Make History", and had as its premise the false claim that no incumbent has won re-election with unemployment this high before. [ETA: Shortly after I pointed out the false statement, the author changed it to read something like, "Only one other president has been re-elected with unemployment this high" but they left the false statement in the headline.]

It's a small data set, but FDR won re-election two times with even higher unemployment. Carter lost.

I hope people realize that Obama wasn't able to implement much of what he wanted to do by way of job creation owing to Republican obstructionism.

 

[Cain]

All this pre-celebrating on the JREF. I remember back in 2004, when the liberal-wing was rather tiny here. Halfway into the disastrous Bush presidency and that began to change.

Don't forget that Romney has a mountain of cash. So far Obama has spent more, but that's changing. A huge number of ad buys in targeted states could change things. And just because Romney's pulled out of Michigan and Pennsylvania for now does not mean he's all out.

 

[MattusMaximus]

All this pre-celebrating on the JREF. I remember back in 2004, when the liberal-wing was rather tiny here. Halfway into the disastrous Bush presidency and that began to change.

Don't forget that Romney has a mountain of cash. So far Obama has spent more, but that's changing. A huge number of ad buys in targeted states could change things. And just because Romney's pulled out of Michigan and Pennsylvania for now does not mean he's all out.

A fair criticism and warning.

Which has just encouraged me to donate some more money to President Obama's campaign and the DNC

 

[Fitter]

This time four years ago I was posting on an alternative health site riddled with conspiracy theories
and there were a number of people who were convinced that the U.S. Government was going to
declare martial law 2 weeks before the election and Bush would be kept in office indefinitely
and people would either need to go off the grid and head to the Montana hills or battle it out on the streets.........

So in honor of them..................

I am predicting a major natural disaster to hit three days before the election -
either an asteroid that hits a nuclear facility near New York that causes a meltdown
or a as yet undetected volcanoe in L.A. that errupts in the middle of the night and buries the whole city.

Either the way the election will be cancelled (so zero ev's for each) and I will be in a
tent and sleeping bag somewhere in northern Canada on Nov.6 and definitely off the grid.
So I will not be answering private e-mails in November.

You might want to think about somewhere in Mexico. It gets a little cool for tenting up here in November.

 

[Baylor]

Out of the seven swing states

NV
OH
FL
CO
IA
VA
NC

Obama can lose the two biggest, FL and OH (he won't) plus IA CO (he won't) then add NC and he'll still win the election. Obama's favored to win 6 out of the 7 swing states (NC being the exception).

He can lose 5 of those 7, 2 of them being the most critical swing states, and still win the election (winning with just NV and VA)

I know I'm beating a dead horse (or a horse set to be put to sleep on November 6). I just don't see how any "skeptic" can say Romney will win.

 

[Travis]

Romney seems to be spending a lot of time Florida trying to make up ground.

Is he making any dent at all?

Should he promise moon bases?

 

[remirol]

I know I'm beating a dead horse (or a horse set to be put to sleep on November 6). I just don't see how any "skeptic" can say Romney will win.

Two things: Misplaced hope, and remembering that elections and politics are neither inherently skeptical nor does the process reward critical thinking.

Right now, the polls show Obama steamrolling Romney, and if the election were held today, 538 shows Obama having a 91% chance of victory. And I think _that_ is as accurate as it's possible to be right now. However, while we can predict the future to a certain degree of certainty, the actual election is seven weeks away and a lot of things can change between now and then.

The 'classic' quote goes something along the lines of "If Obama is found in bed with a dead goat or a live 14-year-old...", and it's not entirely inaccurate. There are still ways for Obama to put his foot in his mouth and lose -- the problem is that all of them are extremely unlikely to actually occur. If the economy was going to crash, it would have by now; the best narrative the Republicans have is "it's not recovering fast enough", and given that the Republican Congress has spent the last two years with its foot on the brake, the American people are clearly not buying it.

Another one is the hope that the polls are somehow horribly wrong -- that the people who show up and pull levers on Election Day will not represent the people who are being polled right now, and will be non-representative to a sufficient degree to completely swing the election towards Romney out of the blue. Such an occurrence is also extremely unlikely to occur, but the possibility can be left open.

So it's not inherently unskeptical to still think Romney will win. But I know where I'd put my money right now if I were going to bet. All the factors point to Obama winning handily in November, and unless something big happens in the next seven weeks, that's how it'll go down.

 

[The Don]

I know I'm beating a dead horse (or a horse set to be put to sleep on November 6). I just don't see how any "skeptic" can say Romney will win.

Part of it is that Obama has had a big bounce following the convention, that could evaporate pretty quickly.

Both campaigns sling a lot of mud. Some of the plethora of things the Romney campaign have said could get some traction. For example, his comments regarding Obama being more eager to apologise to Muslims than he is to criticise terrorists may not be factually true but it may permeate into the electorate's conciousness to the extent that it becomes true. Any attempt by Obama to deny this will only make it more true.

Alternatively there could be a major Eurozone crisis which has a significant knock-on effect to the U.S. economy. Despite the fact that Obama could do nothing about it (and neither could the other fellow), it may convince people that he is unfit to manage the single most important thing, the economy. This alone could send the electorate flooding to the alternative.

IMO Obama *should* win the election at a canter but there are so, so many things that could go wrong, many of them completely out of Obama's control, that there's reason for him to be concerned right up to the last minute.