September 17, 2012
Romney 47%, Obama 45%.
The Rasmussen daily presidential tracking poll for Monday. The swing state poll — looking at "11 key states won by President Obama in 2008 and thought to be competitive in 2012" — has identical numbers today.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
81 comments:
None of the polls make any sense. When polled about whether the country is on the right track-wrong track the polls indicate by two to one or more the country is heading down the wrong track so how does this square with the current polls? Both can't be right. Anyho we will know the real poll results on November 7th
The fate of our nation is apparently in the hands of the Honey Boo Boos, after all. Regressing to the historical mean of the human experience won't be pleasant.
polls indicate by two to one or more the country is heading down the wrong track so how does this square with the current polls?
That many people may not think that Obama is a good president, but they think Romney and Ryan (especially with a Republican Congress) would be even worse. See how well austerity and exclusive focus on debt reduction is working out in the UK.
Seems perfectly reasonable to me.
What this means is things are not going well for Obama. The left and the media - same thing I know - keep trying to play it like Romney is in trouble, but that just ain't the case.
The purpose of this discussion is to try and demoralize the other side.
Polls are the last arrows in the paleo-MSM's quiver. And they're using them to keep from being totally irrelevant--their last chance at being kingmakers. Obama is behind by at least 20 pts--maybe worse because a lot of Obama voters aren't motivated to leave the house on Nov. 6th. They aren't talking Romney--yet. But staying home is a good first step.
So Althouse seriously, do you think Willard is gonna win?
After the SC primary when Newt crushed your lover boy, you glumly uttered ...
I'm projecting 4 more years of Obama.
Knowing how idiotic that capitulation was at the time, a day being an eternity in politics, notwithstanding. Indeed, Althouse is as fickle as the wind!
English 'United' Against Mitt Romney, David Cameron Reported To Have Said
The Brits love Willard as well.
As always, keep hope alive and thank god you have Rasmussen to hang your hat on ...
Great summary of Rasmussen party preference polling since 2004 at Datechguy. It shows the strong correlation of the party preference and election results. Here are the last three elections
Aug 2008 D +5.7
Nov 2008 D +7.6
DEMs win big
Aug 2010 D +2.1
Nov 2010 R +1.3
GOP wins big
Aug 2012 R +4.3
Nov 2012 ??
"So Althouse seriously, do you think Willard is gonna win?"
I thought "Mittens" was the name you libs had for Romney.
Willard is fine, though. Barry is the way I see Obama.
"Great summary of Rasmussen party preference polling since 2004 at Datechguy. It shows the strong correlation of the party preference and election results. Here are the last three elections
Aug 2008 D +5.7
Nov 2008 D +7.6
DEMs win big
Aug 2010 D +2.1
Nov 2010 R +1.3
GOP wins big
Aug 2012 R +4.3
Nov 2012 ??"
I've been reading up on this as well. All the points showing Barry in the lead are way too heavily weighted towards Dems, including that recent CBS poll that had a D+13 advantage.
On what fricken planet?
Party Identification.
If you assume there are the same number of self-identified Democrats and Republicans as there was in 2008 and 2006, and completely ignore the shift of those numbers toward the GOP in 2010, then sure: you would have to conclude Obama is ahead.
If you assume that voter enthusiasm is the same as 2006 and 2008, when Dem enthusiasm was high and GOP enthusiasm was low, and completely ignore the shift of those numbers toward the GOP in 2010, then sure: you would have to conclude that Obama is ahead.
But if you factor for the shift of those items in 2010, and project them in line with polls of right path/wrong path, voter enthusiasm, and party identification (which currently aren't unreasonable in light of the 2010 GOP wave), then you would have to conclude that Obama is going to lose by as much as 10 percentage points in the popular vote.
From my own unscientific (anecdotal) observations, the preference cascade is poised, and the skewed polling is the only thing that is keeping that wave from hitting.
After thinking about it a little, I'm actually pleased the polling is keeping the wave from hitting. The longer the MSM holds it back, the more broad and thorough the cascade will be.
Anyho we will know the real poll results on November 7th
I remember the same thing being said in the fall of 2000.
Aug 2012 R +4.3
Nov 2012 ??
...GOP PROFIT!!
Let me be the first to say:
I don't have a clue who's going to win!
See how well austerity and exclusive focus on debt reduction is working out in the UK.
How much debt should we be shooting for then? Or is it not just a big deal because we can print money?
We are spending well over a trillion dollars more each year than in 2008 and don't have a whole lot to show for it.
Oh, Oh. Cue the stories about Romney disarray, leading to desperate claims and poorly timed criticisms.
We MUST maintain the narrative at all costs.
We are spending well over a trillion dollars more each year than in 2008 and don't have a whole lot to show for it.
Michelle O has some AWESOME vacay memories, so there's that.
Yes, the unrealistic over weighting of D voters is necessary to promulgate the illusion that Hussein's reelection is likely, if not inevitable.
It's done solely to manipulate the enthusiasm of the respective parties and the Rs are falling for it.
I don't think it will actually discourage and Rs from voting...they are too fired up to fire our current travesty of a president..but it gives the Ds a temporary sugar high, which is all the 2008 election was, and really all the left ever has before the inevitable disastrous reality of their policies become manifest.
If you imagine children oscillating between the exuberance of a sugar high and the crankiness and tantrums of the subsequent crash you have the behavior the left in a nutshell.
Romney is WINNING!
The Dems were trying to get rid of the Electoral College a couple of weeks ago. If they had the Electoral College votes they say they have "locked up", do you think they would do this?
Freder belives that somehow national insolvency and the subsequent real austerity measures will never happen if Obama and the democrats get reelected. Magical thinking indeed.
@Nathan Alexander
I tend to agree with you, polling is the last way to hold the re-election narrative together. There is just a lot of things going wrong. As a last resort, actual vote totals that contradict the polls will be used to create suspiscion on the legitimacy of the result.
I am reminded of the image after the 2004 vote of the massive head of Keith Olbermann filling the TV screen, completely astonished that voters in the FLA panhandle would actually vote for a republican. It had to be rigged.
Freder belives that somehow national insolvency and the subsequent real austerity measures will never happen if Obama and the democrats get reelected. Magical thinking indeed.
I think many believe there is just an endless supply of money that can pay for and endless litany of government spending. I suppose our ability to print money lends to this magical thinking but it certainly tells me that they are oblivious to the consequences.
How much debt should we be shooting for then? Or is it not just a big deal because we can print money?
Currently, it is not a big deal because we can borrow money for free (interest rates for the government are currently effectively negative). The last thing we should be doing in a weak economy is focusing on debt reduction. It is a sure recipe for a double dip recession.
Freder Frederson said...
Currently, it is not a big deal because we can borrow money for free
Right, because having a debt exceeding GDP is like "no problem"!
The last thing we should be doing in a weak economy is focusing on debt reduction. It is a sure recipe for a double dip recession.
Bullshit.
There is no evidence, anywhere at all, showing that reducing government spending slows economic growth.
From my own unscientific (anecdotal) observations, the preference cascade is poised, and the skewed polling is the only thing that is keeping that wave from hitting.
And, the other part of that is that the closer we get to the election, the closer those polls have to get to reality, because that is how their reputation is made or lost. If they go into the actual election predicting a 5% win by Obama, and Romney wins, they will probably be out of business before the next election cycle.
So, I fully expect the D+ weighting to disappear over the next month or so from the more reputable polls, but when it does, that preference cascade is just another way of saying that there will be a lot of apparent momentum in Romney's favor, which may build on itself.
Should be interesting to see who is right here.
There is no evidence, anywhere at all, showing that reducing government spending slows economic growth.
You might like to stick your head in the sand, but the evidence is abundant (And note the link is to the Wall Street Journal, not some commie-pinko rag).
Interesting Rasmussen currently has Obama job approval rating at 49/50, yet has Obama losing to Willard 47/45.
Again, incumbent Bush43 had 48% job approval Oct. 2004 and he defeated Kerry by 2.4 pts. and by 3 million votes.
I'll leave it to others to decide whether Willard or Kerry was more futile/inept in their quest.
Gallup currently has Obama at 50/44 job approval. Whereas Bush43 won by (3) million votes w/48% job approval.
Bush43 had 48% Gallup job approval Oct. 30, 2004.
Hey, Shiloh, what's the deal with your Atronaut on the moon deal saying "Yes we can?" I mean, we could back then. But now what with Barry's cuts to NASA we pretty much can't.
Now if you man the private sector space effort, maybe we can, but even that is iffy what with the economy sucking so badly now.
On Good Morning America this morning they did a hit piece premised on Romney being behind in the polls, and Republicans criticizing Romney's performance at the GOP Convention (isn't that old news?), and the revelation (stop the presses!) that there were several drafts of Romney's acceptance speech that were rejected in the writing process. This is a few days after the big news regarding Cairo and Benghazi was Romney's comment about it, rather than the failure of the State Department to protect their people.
The MSM will do whatever they can to undermine the Romney campaign. It may work.
Free money?
I don't have to pay it back?
Where can I get me some?
Freder - monetary policy isn't that clear cut and easy. One thing is that the more money we borrow, the lower our credit rating, and the more expensive the borrowing will be.
Secondly, inflation is low when it comes to borrowing money right now (but not to buying gas, food, etc.), but mostly I would suspect because monetary velocity is at an extremely low point, and the low interest rates are not helping things. But, the money supply has been massively increased over the last couple of years. It is the product of those two things that result in price levels (and, thus, inflation or deflation).
One big looming problem though is what happens when interest rates start to rise as we (hopefully eventually) exit the Obama Recession? They start to rise, and now it is increasingly advantageous to loan out the money everyone has in their mattresses. This, of course, also includes banks, which haven't been lending as much because they won't make anything on lending. So, as people start to lend, monetary velocity picks up, and, whammo, all that extra money the Fed printed is multiplied (literally and figuratively) by the higher velocity, and price levels take off even faster. Of course, the major factor in interest rates with a stable money supply is inflation expectations, which means interest rates respond, and velocity increases some more, and the cycle continues.
Of course, the Fed could be fast enough on its feet that it sucks all the newly printed money out of the system fast enough that this doesn't happen...
But, that brings up the second problem - that the borrowed money has to be paid back, and financing the debt with higher interest rates (which is probably inevitable if we get out of the recession) is going to get increasingly expensive. Prohibitively so.
Finally, why not cut the borrowing? After all, it hasn't helped with the recession, and, indeed, may very well have deepened and lengthened the recession. Essentially no jobs were created with the $5 Trillion that was borrowed during the Obama Presidency. It was, essentially, money flushed down the toilet, and, yes, continuing the analogy, clogging it.
. Currently, it is not a big deal because we can borrow money for free (interest rates for the government are currently effectively negative).
Well that's a relief.
"what's the deal with your Atronaut"
"We" just landed on Mars ~ keep the faith! :)
>
"premised on Romney being behind in the polls"
Perception is reality, whereas reality is reality also!
Fox News Scotty Ras notwithstanding ...
Still WINNING!
Sorry if my monetary screed got a bit confusing. There are really two things going on that are somewhat related. One is that the Fed has been pumping up the money supply - the latest splurge is the recently announced QE3. The second is the borrowing by the federal government. They are somewhat related, through both interest rates and that the Fed buys up some of that debt. But, maybe not as much so as previously, with the Fed now buying up mortgage backed securities along with government debt when it effectively "prints" money (by crediting banks with the money it spends buying debt).
"We" just landed on Mars ~ keep the faith! :)"
And it was very cool. But there is gonna have to be a whole lot more cool to make up for the mistake that was the space shuttle program.
Essentially no jobs were created with the $5 Trillion that was borrowed during the Obama Presidency.
I suppose I could get behind borrowing an extra trillion and change per year if we had something to show for it but as you said, 4 years and five trillion dollars later and we are still wallowing in an anemic recovery.
Paul said:
"I don't think it will actually discourage and Rs from voting...they are too fired up to fire our current travesty of a president..but it gives the Ds a temporary sugar high, which is all the 2008 election was..."
If Obama wins this year (which seems likely) the Republicans will have lost 5 out of the last six national popular votes (of course winning the EC in 2000). Bush's margin of victory in 2004 was also rather small--I'm guessing smaller than Obama's will be this year. The deck is stacked agaisnt the Republicans. If they don't win this year (and they still might) each subsequent election will just get harder and harder.
"If Obama wins this year (which seems likely)"
Why, exactly does that seem likely? Past the MSM telling us so. I mean his economic policy is failed. His foreign policy has failed. He's betrayed his own base on several issues. The polls that use legit polling data have him behind or at best even.
Why is he likely to win?
Scott M said...
Anyho we will know the real poll results on November 7th
I remember the same thing being said in the fall of 2000.
9/17/12 9:58 AM
Yes it was amazing when all of the legitimately
cast ballots were counted.
One thing is that the more money we borrow, the lower our credit rating, and the more expensive the borrowing will be.
You do realize that the interest on U.S. bonds has dropped since our credit rating was lowered? (and it was lowered not because of the amount of debt but the political inability to resolve the issue)
TWM said: "Why, exactly does that seem likely? Past the MSM telling us so. I mean his economic policy is failed. His foreign policy has failed. He's betrayed his own base on several issues. The polls that use legit polling data have him behind or at best even.
Why is he likely to win? "
Oh for lots of reasons. Incumbents usually win. Your points are all valid, but generally in cases where incumbents have lost they were behind at this point (like Carter). If you look at any poll other than Ras nobody has a tie or Obama behind, so I don't know who you are referring to when you say those pollsters who use "legit data". You all can rely on Rasmussen solely if you like and I'm sure he'll get the numbers right in the last week, but given his past of history of showing a +R swing up until that last week (please, go look it up, it's well-documented) that seems unwise. There's plenty of Republican pollsters showing Obama in the lead, using Likely Voter screens.
It's certainly a close election, but Romney is behind. Obama has tons of baggage, but Romney isn't that great of a candidate. That's where we are. Let's see the polls (ALL the polls) next week and barring a major world event (which is also not totally unlikely), that's who I'd put money on the winner being. Based on the markets (which conservatives love, right?) that's Obama.
Colonel Angus said...
Essentially no jobs were created with the $5 Trillion that was borrowed during the Obama Presidency.
I suppose I could get behind borrowing an extra trillion and change per year if we had something to show for it but as you said, 4 years and five trillion dollars later and we are still wallowing in an anemic recovery.
-------------
Lets add there were zero net private sector jobs created during the 5 trillion in the hole Bush II Administration as well.
12 years of tax cuts for the wealthy (The Jobs Creators (TM)!!!)from the Clinton era rates have not created jobs.
3 trillion spent on Nation-Building Noble Muslim Freedom Lovers and spent on The Heroes Who Keep Us All Safe (military, Homeland Security, on Our Bestest Ally Friends...
Hasn't done much in the last 12 years.
The fact that John Corzine and each and any crook financier, banker from the 2008 debacle and the politicians they bought will not spend a day in jail..is also illustrative.
shiloh said...
Bush43 had 48% Gallup job approval Oct. 30, 2004.
9/17/12 11:08 AM
True but you can't beat something with nothing. You didn't actually believe that a gigolo who spent Christmas in Cambodia was actually going to win?
By the way now that its been eight years, has Lurched ever released his discharge form, the one he promised to release?
Freder here is a question that you using your Magical Cargo Cult thinking can answer for us; if money is so cheap that more borrowing isn't harmful why cant the government just roll over the debt in to 50 year bonds?
btw, what really has Willard's campaign in a panic?
Their ((( own internal polling ))) has him behind in OH/VA/FL. Indeed, as even Romney's not ready for prime time campaign "advisers" are not payin' any attention to Rasmussen.
Freder Frederson said...
You might like to stick your head in the sand, but the evidence is abundant (And note the link is to the Wall Street Journal, not some commie-pinko rag).
Um, the UK isn't America and a "analysis" isn't a fact.
Again, you're an abject imbecile.
and it was lowered not because of the amount of debt but the political inability to resolve the issue)
To resolve what "issue" exactly?
Did you wake up today and say to yourself "Gee, I'll go comment on economic policy, something I know nothing about, to demonstrate how stupid I actually am"?
The shift in the polls shows 2 things.
The Democrat and liberal/progressive Jewish media tactic of demonizing Romney has been somewhat effective..with Latinos and with young single women that vote what is in their heart about Their Fantasy Boyfriend rather than what if anything is in their brains.
(Otherwise, Jimmy Carter the Second would be way behind)
Polls showing a new race-tightening basically show the Bill Clinton bounce is over for now, until they deploy him, if he is willing, in the closing days...
(If I was was in the inner circle of the Romney camp, I would be feeding Bill all sorts of signals that he would be considered the defacto Head of the Democrats. The man that Romney would gladly work with and compromise with if Obama goes down, on budget and other issues..And Grover Norquist and the Neocons had no veto on compromises).
Freder Frederson said...
You might like to stick your head in the sand, but the evidence is abundant (And note the link is to the Wall Street Journal, not some commie-pinko rag).
federal spending rose from 19.6% of GDP in fiscal 2007 to 25.5% of GDP last year
Yet, millions fewer are working, there is no growth, and you're waving your arms about "free" money.
Federal spending fell from just over 23% of GDP in 1990 to 18% in 2000. GDP growth over that time averaged over 3%
"Evidence" doesn't mean what you think it means.
Uh oh...losing Red State too...
"Like it or not, spin it or not, put your head in the sand or not, attack me as the messenger or not, the very simple truth is that Mitt Romney has failed to close any deal with the voters and his message is so muddled no voter really knows what they are getting."
...maybe 'cause they REFUSE to put out specifics...
That it stayed that way over the weekend means the usual Choomie surge among the slackers no longer applies.
shiloh said...
btw, what really has Willard's campaign in a panic?
Their ((( own internal polling ))) has him behind in OH/VA/FL.
Link, or just more, oh, what's that word?
Oh, yeah,
DEFLECTION!
PS The little animal outs himself, much as Mr Corsi is outing Zero the Gay Blade, with the line, "Perception is reality, whereas reality is reality also!".
Translation:
If we lie enough, the lie becomes reality.
Dr Goebbels smiles.
XXXXXXXCallin' me a Nazi?XXXXXX
mittens cheney Althouse fetish mama grizzly
lol lol lol
%N
Um, the UK isn't America and a "analysis" isn't a fact.
True, but the statement of yours I disputed was this: "There is no evidence, anywhere at all, showing that reducing government spending slows economic growth."
the UK is somewhere and analysis is evidence.
The fact that government spending went down as a percentage of GDP during a period of prosperity (which is completely expected) is irrelevant to the analysis.
Freder Frederson said...
the UK is somewhere and analysis is evidence.
Hysterical.
The link you provided didn't say that. Which makes you posting it even funnier.
The fact that government spending went down as a percentage of GDP during a period of prosperity (which is completely expected) is irrelevant to the analysis.
If 1990 was "prosperity" then I guess that explains all the Clinton campaign statements about the recession and rising unemployment.
Further, the idea that you'll simply wave away inconvenient facts by saying "as expected" demonstrates a stupidity that can't be mocked.
Look, you are a fucking imbecile about this stuff.
So please just stop.
Its embarrassing.
the statement of yours I disputed was this: "There is no evidence, anywhere at all, showing that reducing government spending slows economic growth."
There isn't any evidence, your link doesn't say there is evidence and it is pathetic you can't find any example of this in the US economy.
Additionally, if cutting government spending would lead to a recession, one would realize the argument becomes that increasing government spending leads to growth. It does not.
You can't even comment on that.
Imbecile.
Jay, why are you in such a nasty mood? Romney is WINNING!
Gallup has Obama up by 3. Of course, Althouse doesn't like to acknowledge other polls (especially the more accurate ones--see the last prez election), so no surprise there.
Obama is up in all the swing states. Those are the polls that actually matter. Womp womp.
Jay--it's tough to take anything you say seriously. After all, you still [stupidly] believe Bush never used 9/11 for political gain.
That's hilarious, though. Your thinking, I mean.
"Obama is up in all the swing states. Those are the polls that actually matter. Womp womp."
Matter to who? The people who want to believe Obama isn't in trouble? Or the people who actually believe that D+ pretty much anything is the way things are going this election year?
Ever notice that, when asked for documentation of his lies, the little animal disappears like a short beer?
Bill said...
Gallup has Obama up by 3. Of course, Althouse doesn't like to acknowledge other polls (especially the more accurate ones--see the last prez election), so no surprise there.
Registered voters, which favors the Demos. Also within the MOE, so it could also be dead even.
Also a 7 day average which will attenuate the "bounce".
Which is what Axelrod wanted when he sicced Holder on the Gallup organization.
edutcher said...
Ever notice that, when asked for documentation of his lies, the little animal disappears like a short beer?
He's just a kid in his moms basement.
Bill: You're overlooking the fact that Romney is WINNING!
bill said:
"Registered voters, which favors the Demos. Also within the MOE, so it could also be dead even.
Also a 7 day average which will attenuate the "bounce"."
Okay, so you don't like Gallup (I mean, it's not like they have track record or anything. How about Monmouth? Came out today. 3 days of polling (so most recent). Likely voters. Obama up by 3! MOE is 2.7. Ras is the only red on the whole RCP page.
Sorry, sweetheart, but I can't help it if RCP links to a lot of polls that are skewed to the Demos; like the CBS poll - D +13 or the ABC poll - D +6.
Last I heard, Gallup was D +8, but I could be wrong (may be CNN).
In any case, the whole Borg routine by the trolls (and the media) is to depress that all-important enthusiasm gap that's going to Romney.
AF said...
Bill: You're overlooking the fact that Romney is WINNING!
And, if he wasn't, would all the trolls be foaming at the mouth like this?
All the polls showing Obama up have a turnout advantage that significantly favors Obama. Moreover some polls are now adjusted for turnout of men vs. women.
Dems had the actual turnout advantage in 2006 and 2008, but Republicans had the actual turnout advantage in 2004 and 2008. Obama's turnout advantage in 2008 was +7.5%!
Rasmussen shows an advantage for Republicans, which is why Rasmussen has Obama up (Rasmussen actually polls party affiliation). Gallup uses a dem advantaged turnout, which is why Gallup has Obama up.
No one knows what the turn out will be. But, I think its ridiculous to think the turnout will be like 2006 or 2008. Back in 2008. then there was significant love for Dems and Obama. That has totally evaporated. The enthusiasm for Obama has collapsed and Republicans now have much higher enthusiasm. Based on that metric, republicans could get a turnout more like 2010 than 2004.
So when you see a poll showing Obama up in Florida +5, it is all due to the model used by the pollster and not the actual poll.
If turnout is more like 2004, Romney will win all of the swing states.
"And, if he wasn't, would all the trolls be foaming at the mouth like this?"
No! Exactly right. And by trolls, I assume you're referring to people such as Professor Althouse and mysel who studiously ignore every poll except for Rasmussen in order to prove our point that Romney is WINNING!
Not Ann.
Sloanasaurus said...
Rasmussen shows an advantage for Republicans, which is why Rasmussen has Obama up
Think you meant Romney there, compadre.
For all of you looking at the Rasmussen partisan trend polls, I've done a graphic to illustrate the trends:
http://oi47.tinypic.com/suvqfm.jpg
Best estimate three months out from November: Rep 36.0, Dem 32.7, Ind/Other, 31.3. If election night is anything like this, Romney wins 53/47. The only thing going against Romney, and for Obama, at this point, is "likeability." So what it all boils down to is whether voters are going to ignore the economy, party identity, Obamacare, the deficit, ad infinitum, and vote on who they "like" best. God help us if they do.
Yes, I meant Rasmussen has Obama up.
The other big difference here is the money factor. People often discuss the difference in money in terms of Television coverage. However, money is also spent in significant amounts on "turn-out" programs. IN this case, Obama has a huge advantage in money in 2008.
This election is different. Romney now has the advantage, and much of that is used to turn out Republican voters.
I think the Rasmussen turn-out model will be correct. It shows a slight republican advantage, which seems to fit conventional wisdom that republicans are more enthused about the election and obama supporters are less enthused. It also reflects that Romney-Ryan is a much better team than McCain-Palin.
If you were a first time voter who came out to support Obama and Change in 2008 and you did not vote in 2010. Why would you vote in 2012? Nothing has changed or things have gotten worse. Even if you think Romney is bad too.... Instead you just don't vote... just like you didn't vote in 2004 or 2000. This is Obama's big problem.
It also my understanding that Gallup's approval rating is based on a poll of "all" adults and not Registered or Likely voters. This is why Obama only gets 48% support for registered voters and 50% support for approval for all adults. Thus, it is likely that the real approval rating for Obama among likely voters is closer to 46-47%, which is very bad for Obama. If Obama's approval rating is only 47% among likely voters, then that will be his share of the vote on election day.
OK, my bad.
This is why I don't make a living as a mentalist.
Mental case, maybe.
Basil, a very interesting graphic. I think the partisan vote will be closer to even end then because African Americans will come out in record numbers for Obama, but Romney will win independents by double digits. Thus, I predict a 51-49 Romney win.
But again, that is only my guess. That is why all these polls are skewed becasue most of the people guessing are liberals who have a twisted view of the world. Its better to at least follow real data like Rasmussen.
From Wikipedia: The Keys to the White House is a historically based prediction system for determining the next President. They retroactively account for all popular vote winners from 1860 to 1980 and correctly predicted the popular vote winners from 1984 to 2008 (while the book was published in 1996, apparently the method was established between 1980 and 1984).
There are 13 keys, expressed as true/false statements. If 8 or more are true, the incumbent wins (historically, the incumbent has an advantage).
1. Party Mandate (incumbent party holds more house seats after midterm): false
2. Contest (no contest for incumbent nomination): true
3. Incumbency (incumbent is currently President): true
4. Third party (no strong 3rd party): true
5. Short term economy (not in recession): true*
6. Long term economy (Real GDP greater now than previous two terms): false
7. Policy change (incumbent passed major change): true*
8. Social unrest (no sustained social unrest): false
9. Scandal (untainted by major scandal): false
10. Foreign/military failure (no major failure): false
11. Foreign/military success (major success): false
12. Incumbent charisma (incumbent is charismatic): true
13. Challenger charisma (challenger is not charismatic): false
I starred #5 because while we're technically not in recession right now (I think), everyone's still hurting. I starred #7 because while Obama passed major legislation, it's so unpopular that repealing it has become a very viable campaign plank.
Even if you count 5 and 7 for Obama, that's 7 true statements when 8 is supposed to be the passing grade. According to Keys, Obama would lose the popular vote.
In other news, apparently I counted the wrong number (the comment box was small and I got distracted!). The list shows six true statements, not seven; and possibly only four.
Also note that the book described the keys in stricter detail from what I understand; I might be wrong about a few of the truth values.
I would change a few things from your list.
1) Policy change implies that the change is popular. With Obama, the policy change (specifically Obamacare) is not popular. Therefore, this should be false.
2) A majority of People perceive that we are in a recession. Thus it should be false.
3) I would argue that people count the BIn Ladin killing as a foreign military success, even though it is small in comparison to things like the Iraq war. Obama has had both failures and success here.
Well, for the first two: that's why I starred them. :-)
For military success: OBL is a fair point. Both sides respect that. It's tempered by the Afghan war and the snub to Israel, however.
For all three, I would want to see exactly how the book describes them. Lichtman apparently went through enough effort to describe the tests that each one could be a definite true/false for each election.
There are articles scattered throughout the web talking about applying this in 2012. Most of the top ones I've seen, including one written by Lichtman himself in May 2012, favor Obama, but some things have changed since then.
Some things to note: PPACA still seems widely popular, and I think Lichtman counts not its appeal but rather having the clout to even pass the sucker; social unrest has to be like 1968-level rioting, not just the Occupy stuff; he counts OBL as locking Key 11; he counts BHO as losing Key 12 (charisma)(!). Like I said, he has the benefit of static, falsifiable tests, based on observation of past elections. It's a theory that can be tested.
Sloanasaurus,
If Black voter turnout is higher than 2008, then your outcome may be about right. But everything I've seen suggests that the Dems are worried about even matching 2008, let alone doing better. Some of Obama's policies have not played well in the Black community (Gay marriage, obviously, but unemployment has to hurt, too). And since Blacks are predominantly Democrat, you are probably seeing some loss of Black support in the downward trend in the percentage identifying as Dem.
Post a Comment