2012 US Election -- Round 2

[Coito ergo sum]

Analysis of election factors points to Romney win, University of Colorado study says

August 22, 2012 • Social Sciences • Discovery & Innovation, Discoveries & Achievements, Research Collaborations


A University of Colorado analysis of state-by-state factors leading to the Electoral College selection of every U.S. president since 1980 forecasts that the 2012 winner will be Mitt Romney.

The key is the economy, say political science professors Kenneth Bickers of CU-Boulder and Michael Berry of CU Denver. Their prediction model stresses economic data from the 50 states and the District of Columbia, including both state and national unemployment figures as well as changes in real per capita income, among other factors.

“Based on our forecasting model, it becomes clear that the president is in electoral trouble,” said Bickers, also director of the CU in DC Internship Program.

According to their analysis, President Barack Obama will win 218 votes in the Electoral College, short of the 270 he needs. And though they chiefly focus on the Electoral College, the political scientists predict Romney will win 52.9 percent of the popular vote to Obama’s 47.1 percent, when considering only the two major political parties.

http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2 ... study-says

[Gerald McGrew]

As it stands now, the state polling numbers indicate that the election is Obama's to lose (not by much however).

I've never put too much faith in any model that attempts to predict election results based primarily on variables not associated with actual voting. In this case, trying to predict the 2012 election based on economic numbers eliminates several other factors, e.g. strength of candidates, and most of all, state-by-state polling.

[Rum]

I always guess wrong. I was astonished when Bush got in and could not believe a country I actually admire so much could be so damned stupid.

So I am not going to jinx it this time! (ever the rationalist, me..)

[Gerald McGrew]

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/electoral-map

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

Romney's going to have to pull an inside straight of the type that is very, very rarely seen. The Paul Ryan pick didn't do it, and the polls show that there are very few actual undecided voters left, especially in the key states of Florida and Ohio.

[Coito ergo sum]

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/electoral-map

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

Romney's going to have to pull an inside straight of the type that is very, very rarely seen. The Paul Ryan pick didn't do it, and the polls show that there are very few actual undecided voters left, especially in the key states of Florida and Ohio.

If you turn Wisconsin, Ohio and Florida from tossups to Romney, he wins. Florida and Ohio are both tossups in the 538 analysis.

[Gerald McGrew]

That's the "inside straight" I was talking about. The latest polls show Obama up by 3-6 points in Ohio and trending towards a larger lead. Even the right-wing Rasmussen Poll can only muster a tie. The Ryan pick moved Wisconsin from a blue state to a tossup, but Obama still leads in the most recent polls.

So unless something big happens, and given the weakness of the Romney campaign and the unpopularity of the Ryan budget, I tend to agree with 538. Obama wins, but not by much.

[Ian]

What one has to remember about US Presidential Elections is that there isn't one election for President. There are fifty-one seperate elections, each leading to a total number of Electoral Votes all going towards the total number of 538, with 270 EV's needed to win.
(Note: A couple sates, most notably Nebraska can split its EV's, such as in 2008 when McCain won 4 and Obama won 1 there. But for argument's sake below, we'll assume all five of Nebraska's EVs go the way the overall state goes.)

What Coito posted above looks like a case of grasping for hope - either a biased study or else a flawed one sought out because Coito liked the result. Obama only getting 218 Electoral Votes? For that to happen he'd have to lose several blue states that aren't even considered battlegrounds right now, such as Michigan and Minnesota.

Here's how I'd say it breaks down:

Safe Obama states: WA, CA, NM, IL, NY, VT, ME, MA, RI, CT, NJ, MD, DE, HI, DC. Total EV's: 184
Likely Obama states: OR, MN, MI, PA, NH. Total EV's: 57
Battleground states leaning towards Obama: NV, CO, WI, OH, VA. Total EV's: 56
Battleground states leaning towads Romney: FL, IA, NC. Total EV's: 50
Likely Romney states: MO. Total EV's: 10
Safe Romney states: AK, ID, MT, WY, UT, AZ, TX, ND, SD, NE, KS, OK, AR, LA, IN, KY, WV, MS, AL, TN, SC, GA. Total EV's: 181

Safe + Likely Obama EV's: 241
Safe + Likely Romney EV's: 191
EV's up-for-grabs: 106, with 56 leaning towards Obama and 50 leaning towards Romney
270 needed to win.

[Ian]

Personally, I'd say Romney's cooked unless something truly significant happens between now and November. Obama's leads in Ohio, Colorado, Wisconsin, Nevada have been consistent. Polls show Florida, Iowa and even North Carolina looking like true battlegrounds; I was being generous when I said they're leaning towards Romney.

Out of the eight battleground states listed in my post above, Romney could win seven of them and still lose; Obama need only hold onto Florida to reach 270.

If Obama only takes Wisconsin and Virginia, he'll reach 272. - Romney could take the remaining six and still lose.

If Obama only hangs onto the four battleground states where his polling leads have been consistent (OH, CO, WI, NV), he'll reach 284. Heck, drop Wisconsin from that list and he's still got 274.

[Coito ergo sum]

That's the "inside straight" I was talking about. The latest polls show Obama up by 3-6 points in Ohio and trending towards a larger lead. Even the right-wing Rasmussen Poll can only muster a tie.

Those states are "toss ups" in the 538 estimates, as are bunch others. They aren't considered Obama gets at this point...

What are the left wing polls?

The Ryan pick moved Wisconsin from a blue state to a tossup, but Obama still leads in the most recent polls.

So unless something big happens, and given the weakness of the Romney campaign and the unpopularity of the Ryan budget, I tend to agree with 538. Obama wins, but not by much.

Carter was ahead of Reagan at this point in 1980, too.

The fact that it's as close as it is -- that's what the bad sign is for Obama. If he was trailing now, he would be considered toast. Any incumbent that is nearly a "toss up" with the challenger in August is in a bad situation.

Looking here -- among likely voters, looks like a toss up. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... -1171.html

In 1980, some polling indicated Carter would win up until a few days before the election. He was trounced.

[Coito ergo sum]

That's the "inside straight" I was talking about. The latest polls show Obama up by 3-6 points in Ohio and trending towards a larger lead. Even the right-wing Rasmussen Poll can only muster a tie.

Those states are "toss ups" in the 538 estimates, as are bunch others. They aren't considered Obama gets at this point...

What are the left wing polls?

The Ryan pick moved Wisconsin from a blue state to a tossup, but Obama still leads in the most recent polls.

So unless something big happens, and given the weakness of the Romney campaign and the unpopularity of the Ryan budget, I tend to agree with 538. Obama wins, but not by much.

Carter was ahead of Reagan at this point in 1980, too.

The fact that it's as close as it is -- that's what the bad sign is for Obama. If he was trailing now, he would be considered toast. Any incumbent that is nearly a "toss up" with the challenger in August is in a bad situation.

Looking here -- among likely voters, looks like a toss up. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... -1171.html

In 1980, some polling indicated Carter would win up until a few days before the election. He was trounced.

[Gerald McGrew]

Those states are "toss ups" in the 538 estimates, as are bunch others. They aren't considered Obama gets at this point...

But Obama leads in the key ones (as was pointed out earlier). So for Romney to pull off the inside straight, either all the polling in those states has to be wrong, and all the error favoring Obama, or Romney has to overcome those leads in each of those states. If he loses even one of them it's over.

What are the left wing polls?

Probably the Public Policy Poll (PPP), but I haven't seen them be as consistently biased like Rasmussen.

Carter was ahead of Reagan at this point in 1980, too.

*shrug* Different time, different candidates...pretty irrelevant.

The fact that it's as close as it is -- that's what the bad sign is for Obama. If he was trailing now, he would be considered toast. Any incumbent that is nearly a "toss up" with the challenger in August is in a bad situation.

I agree that it's this close is an indication of the slow economic recovery under Obama, which makes him more vulnerable than he would be otherwise.

Looking here -- among likely voters, looks like a toss up. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... -1171.html

Except we don't elect presidents by a national vote. Anything that doesn't examine the state-by-state data isn't very informative.

In 1980, some polling indicated Carter would win up until a few days before the election. He was trounced.

Again...*shrug*.

[Gerald McGrew]

Here's how I'd say it breaks down:

Safe Obama states: WA, CA, NM, IL, NY, VT, ME, MA, RI, CT, NJ, MD, DE, HI, DC. Total EV's: 184
Likely Obama states: OR, MN, MI, PA, NH. Total EV's: 57
Battleground states leaning towards Obama: NV, CO, WI, OH, VA. Total EV's: 56
Battleground states leaning towads Romney: FL, IA, NC. Total EV's: 50
Likely Romney states: MO. Total EV's: 10
Safe Romney states: AK, ID, MT, WY, UT, AZ, TX, ND, SD, NE, KS, OK, AR, LA, IN, KY, WV, MS, AL, TN, SC, GA. Total EV's: 181

Safe + Likely Obama EV's: 241
Safe + Likely Romney EV's: 191
EV's up-for-grabs: 106, with 56 leaning towards Obama and 50 leaning towards Romney
270 needed to win.

Exactly. Obama starts off ahead, and in order for Romney to win he has to both hold on to all his leaning/battleground states, plus pick off Obama's big leaning/battleground states (e.g. Ohio and Colorado).

As I said earlier, two things make this unlikely at this point. 1) Obama leads in the polls in most of those and is trending upwards, and 2) there are very, very few undecided voters left. (http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/c ... voter.html)

Of course, between now and November anything could happen on either side. But in the absence of a real game-changer, an Obama win seems most likely.

[Coito ergo sum]

Those states are "toss ups" in the 538 estimates, as are bunch others. They aren't considered Obama gets at this point...

But Obama leads in the key ones (as was pointed out earlier). So for Romney to pull off the inside straight, either all the polling in those states has to be wrong, and all the error favoring Obama, or Romney has to overcome those leads in each of those states. If he loses even one of them it's over.

The fault in that logic is that the races are extraordinarily close, and for example in Wisconsin, a toss up means just that. The difference is less or near the margin of error.

Wisconsin, though, is very happy with their Republican governor, who withstood that recall measure. He's been extraordinarily successful at turning around the state budget deficit. Romney is on the upswing, Obama is on the downswing

It's also August, and typically the incumbent, if he is to win, ought to be further ahead than obama is at this point.

As noted, in 1980, Reagan was farther behind Carter than Romney is to Obama. And, Reagan wiped the floor with Carter. The big swing occurred when the debates occurred. We can be quite sure that Ryan will tear Biden a new one (after all, the idiot Palin was able to debate Biden to a draw), and so a big factor will be whether Romney comes away a winner against B.O. We'll see.

What are the left wing polls?

Probably the Public Policy Poll (PPP), but I haven't seen them be as consistently biased like Rasmussen.

I haven't even seen them really cited.

Carter was ahead of Reagan at this point in 1980, too.

*shrug* Different time, different candidates...pretty irrelevant.

Not when you realize that it is just one example, and if you look at incumbents and challengers at this time of year --

Here is a September 3, 2004, Time Magazine poll:

If the 2004 election for President were held today, 52% of likely voters surveyed would vote for President George W. Bush, 41% would vote for Democratic nominee John Kerry, and 3% would vote for Ralph Nader, according to a new TIME poll conducted from Aug. 31 to Sept. 2.

http://www.time.com/time/press_releases ... 62,00.html

Although Kerry received a bump after the Democrat convention in August, 2004, that disappeared almost immediately, and Bush was way ahead of Kerry.

The fact that it's as close as it is -- that's what the bad sign is for Obama. If he was trailing now, he would be considered toast. Any incumbent that is nearly a "toss up" with the challenger in August is in a bad situation.

I agree that it's this close is an indication of the slow economic recovery under Obama, which makes him more vulnerable than he would be otherwise.

Looking here -- among likely voters, looks like a toss up. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... -1171.html

Except we don't elect presidents by a national vote. Anything that doesn't examine the state-by-state data isn't very informative.

In 1980, some polling indicated Carter would win up until a few days before the election. He was trounced.

Again...*shrug*.

Your inside straight theory relies on taking any toss-up that shows (in some polls) +1 Obama and calling them for Obama. Categorizing them as toss-ups mean that the +1 is really meaningless.

The bottom line for Romney is that he MUST win Florida, and if he wins Florida, and also wins Ohio and Wisconsin, he is almost certain to win the election. All three of those states are within reach, and all three are in Obama's reach. We'll see.

[Gerald McGrew]

CES,

I agree. We'll see.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Romney plays the religion card.