Predictions with 20 days to go

[pepper11]

Dems keep the Senate.
Repubs keep the House.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Dems keep the Senate.
Repubs keep the House.

Expecting a Romney knockout in the third debate? You are far more optimistic than I could ever be!

[BringinTheTruth]

Realclearpolitics lists all the polls

Look again.

The powers that be may well choose a new president, and with it American democracy and the basic notion of egalitarianism may well continue to slide downwards. By 2016, will we all be marching and heiling to Herr Romney, Frau Merkel, and Herr Netanyahu?

we won't be, but let's see how many people i can piss off

Dammit, Snowstalker.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html


Here you go, smart guy.

[BringinTheTruth]

The powers that be may well choose a new president, and with it American democracy and the basic notion of egalitarianism may well continue to slide downwards. By 2016, will we all be marching and heiling to Herr Romney, Frau Merkel, and Herr Netanyahu?

we won't be, but let's see how many people i can piss off

Yes....because it is IMPOSSIBLE to believe the American people would vote for a Republican, notwithstanding 1952, 1954, 1968, 1972, 1980, 1988, 2000, and 2004.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

Realclearpolitics lists all the polls

Look again.

The powers that be may well choose a new president, and with it American democracy and the basic notion of egalitarianism may well continue to slide downwards. By 2016, will we all be marching and heiling to Herr Romney, Frau Merkel, and Herr Netanyahu?

we won't be, but let's see how many people i can piss off

Dammit, Snowstalker.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html


Here you go, smart guy.

Oh, you don't get it, do you?

[Paul Kemp]

I'm really thinking Romney's going to pull this out by the thinnest of margins, unfortunately.

House and senate stay the same.

[BringinTheTruth]

All of the Gallup polls are there.  The only one at 50+ for Obama is the 9/5 sample where he hits 50.  Gallup has been a reliable predictor of every election.  The person I was directly responding to cited Obama as being consistently over 50 in the Gallup poll.  I get it perfectly - he's wrong, and there is your citation for it.

[BringinTheTruth]

I'm really thinking Romney's going to pull this out by the thinnest of margins, unfortunately.

House and senate stay the same.

Let's also be clear a 50 or 51 seat majority and a 30-50 member loss in favor of the House majority is not at all "staying the same."

[pepper11]

Dems keep the Senate.
Repubs keep the House.

Expecting a Romney knockout in the third debate? You are far more optimistic than I could ever be!

Momentum is king. Obama's momentum in June/July would have given him 340 EV. No reason to think the reverse can't be true.

[Skill and Chance]

Dems keep the Senate.
Repubs keep the House.

Expecting a Romney knockout in the third debate? You are far more optimistic than I could ever be!

Momentum is king. Obama's momentum in June/July would have given him 340 EV. No reason to think the reverse can't be true.

But this thing is stable now.  There is no momentum.  Romney peaked in RCP last week and we are back to a tie nationally.

[BringinTheTruth]

It's stable, and a tie, huh???  Because Gallup has had Romney leading by 6 for 3 straight days and Obama under 50, with all tightening in favor of Romney in the swing state polls and another round of Bhengazi to go after the President's "not optimal" comment last night.  Don't be so sure there is no mo.

[Skill and Chance]

And now for something completely different:

The PV is Kennedy/Nixon close in either direction.  A lot of polls are off.

[Skill and Chance]

It's stable, and a tie, huh???  Because Gallup has had Romney leading by 6 for 3 straight days and Obama under 50, with all tightening in favor of Romney in the swing state polls and another round of Bhengazi to go after the President's "not optimal" comment last night.  Don't be so sure there is no mo.

Yes, by all means Romney should spend the entire debate talking about Benghazi.  He would humiliate himself enough on national television that he would shortly be back to September numbers.  Obama has CIA documents backing him up this time.  Let's say Tom Daschle and John Kerry had blamed 9-11-2001 on Bush policies from day one?  How do you think they would have done in 2004?

[BringinTheTruth]

Well, to answer your questions, John Kerry et al specifically accused Bush of ignoring his NSA briefing that resulted in 9/11 and America responded by voting against him.  However, there was no post 9/11 coverup to go with it.  Bush never said, "This looks like failures of the Air Traffic Control System, but no acts of terror will affect us, but we are looking into it."  Inapposite comparison.

I hope he does talk about Benghazi.  The CIA documents hardly back up Obama.  They suggest that intel may have supported Ambassador Rice on her appearances on 9/14.  But as late as 9/20 (Univision) and 10/25 (President's UN Speech), the President was still calling this a spontaneous response to a movie, which then began to change the SAME day, when the Obamas went on The View.  Political cover up at its best. 

[Skill and Chance]

Well, to answer your questions, John Kerry et al specifically accused Bush of ignoring his NSA briefing that resulted in 9/11 and America responded by voting against him.  However, there was no post 9/11 coverup to go with it.  Bush never said, "This looks like failures of the Air Traffic Control System, but no acts of terror will affect us, but we are looking into it."  Inapposite comparison.

I hope he does talk about Benghazi.  The CIA documents hardly back up Obama.  They suggest that intel may have supported Ambassador Rice on her appearances on 9/14.  But as late as 9/20 (Univision) and 10/25 (President's UN Speech), the President was still calling this a spontaneous response to a movie, which then began to change the SAME day, when the Obamas went on The View.  Political cover up at its best. 

Okay, you want a fair comparison?  Those amazing, vanishing WMDs in Iraq in 2003-04.  That actually was a lie/intelligence cover-up and it totally sunk Bush as a candidate, didn't it?

[BringinTheTruth]

Another inapt comparison. 

First, the President's story never changed and wasn't contrary to what we know because the intel that was not even US intel told us there were WMD's, we went in, we learned there were not, we admitted there were none, and some, though not many, in the party even came to the conclusion that Iraq was a bad war.  We thought the intel was good until we knew it was not.  There is no indication of any lie or cover up. 

However, assume for a second that there was a coverup or lie that got us into a war in Iraq.  What was the Dems' response?  Bush lied us into war and his claim that it was "the best intel available" doesn't fly!!!  Fine....if that then is the measure, then it necessarily cannot pass in this case either, so the Dems tacitly must give Bush the benefit of the intel if they wish to claim it for this president.

Here, we have competing stories from the White House and the State Department arising from events that occurred within 60 days of an election, and we know that the intel, at various times, is inconsistent with what the President and his people have said, which has also changed.  Not at all a comparable event, and even if I concede it as a comparable event, this President may not get a pass where his own party was specifically screaming that no such pass existed for a president of the opposing party.

[Fritz]

The cover-up/conspiracy theories will be put to rest by the President on Monday night.

As for the election, I can't see Romney breaking through in Ohio, Wisconsin, or Nevada- giving Obama an effective floor of 271 at this point.

[BringinTheTruth]

The cover-up/conspiracy theories will be put to rest by the President on Monday night.

As for the election, I can't see Romney breaking through in Ohio, Wisconsin, or Nevada- giving Obama an effective floor of 271 at this point.

Will they?  Because which story is he going to tell? Is he going to acknowledge that Candy Crowley was wrong and back off what arguably won him the 2nd debate?  Or will he stick to the story that has no answers?  Or will he change again, tell the truthful story, which is necessarily inclusive of admissions as to the errors of the past 30 days on the story?  And regardless of what he does, how does he avoid that staying in the news cycle for the next 3 days, which is a loser for him?

Romney has a ceiling of 275-281, and a total range of 261-281.  It's a narrow window...but let's watch and see?

[opebo]

Romney has a ceiling of 275-281, and a total range of 261-281.  It's a narrow window...but let's watch and see?

No, his range is 206-295

[Frodo]

Am I the only Democrat willing to admit I think Obama will lose? Yeah he has Ohio right now, but this race is more national than anything and Romney has the momentum with states falling in to his corner one by one. A few  weeks ago Obama had almost all of his 2008 states supposedly locked up too, not the case anymore obviously. Some states are just slower to swing that quickly and/or will remain close no matter what by nature.

Meanwhile Obama is trying to see which small issues he can make in to big ones and none seem to be working. That's a telltale sign of a floundering campaign. Another example of this is Scott Brown.

Maybe I'm just pessimistic, but I have a bad feeling. I do hope the final debate can sink Romney once and for all.

You're not the only Democrat who is beginning to think this.

However much I hate to admit this, it is clear in retrospect that Mitt Romney did not get just a bounce from the first debate -he changed the narrative of the entire election. All this time voters were looking for an excuse to ditch the Obama/Biden administration, and it wasn't until Romney was able to present himself as an acceptable -even appealing- alternative that voters found what they were looking for, and bolted to his ticket.  President Obama should have destroyed Romney in Denver when he still had the chance.  

As it is, I don't think it matters by now how well Obama performed in the second debate, or how well he will perform in the third and last debate.  He can't change the narrative Romney set in the first debate -you can see this by how little of a 'bounce' (if it can be called that) that he got after the second debate.  He is bleeding support from women and young voters, either through defections or through simple apathy, and is steadily losing his grip on the key swing states.  I can see which way the winds are blowing.  If (and when) he loses re-election, Obama can thank the lackluster economic recovery for his eventual loss in November.    

I just don't see where this is coming from.

If voters really wanted to ditch Obama, why are his national approvals so high on Gallup (and JJ, please piss off with your (R)asmussen poll)? He is averaging over 50% in the month before the election, making it hard to argue that voters have been looking to throw him out. If would read it as the opposite: voters are considering whether or not they want to keep him around, and are coming to the consensus that they do. If his ratings were dropping, that'd be a different story. But they aren't.

Looking at Gallup, you have a point if you only rely on registered voters -if you look at the percentages for likely voters, it is Rommey who has consistently held the advantage since Denver.  

And by the way, even among registered voters, he is averaging only at or slightly below 50%.  He hasn't been over 50% for years now.    

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No to the first question, in fact it is based on this USA Today/Gallup poll from earlier this week.

And as to the second question, yes.  I have underestimated how gullible people can be, and how easily they can be lulled into believing Romney is more moderate than he really is. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Obama has already effectively conceded in North Carolina and Florida -the only reason he hasn't pulled out now is that it is too late in the campaign to do so with little reward as a result.  And he is losing ground in other swing states where he formerly had a significant lead like Virginia, Colorado, New Hampshire, Ohio, Iowa, and Wisconsin.  The race is tightening in all these mentioned states, and I am not seeing how Obama can reverse the trend.  At this rate, he will be lucky if he retains even some of them by Election Day.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

People are not feeling better about the economy, at least not enough to affect the outcome of this election in his favor.  If this election were held next year, your argument would hold more water.  

[Frodo]

I desperately want Obama to win, don't get me wrong.  In fact, I haven't told my family, friends, or co-workers how I really feel this election will go down lest it turn out to be a self-fulfilling prophecy.  And I would much rather have a re-elected President Obama facing down congressional Republicans in deficit and debt reduction talks early next year, as opposed to this political chameleon called Mitt Romney who is in this race for the sake of his friends in the corporate elite, and is expected to deliver for them.  

But I cannot ignore or gloss over the numbers and the direction in which they are trending.

[Bull Moose Base]

On momentum:  Nate Silver's "nowcast" has Obama's advantage over Romney doubling from what it was a week ago.

Overall: His projection of Obama's chances of winning Nov 6 are double Romney's chances.

Before any debates we were headed for a repeat of 2008, after 3 looks a bit more like 2004.  Maybe it'll land somewhere in between those.

[anvi]

I appreciate your concerns, Frodo, but you might be a little too pessimistic at the moment.  I've spent the last two days looking at everything closely and trying to separate reliable polls from unreliable ones, and, to cut to the chase, I think Romney still has to gain a bit more ground in order to win, while Obama must not lose any more ground in order to win.  Obama's back is up against an electoral wall at the moment, but my read is that he is holding steady in Ohio and Nevada and making good enough consolidations in Wisconsin, and if he wins these three states plus his safe states, he is (barely) over the threshold.  But, even beyond this, I think his chances are still not terribly bad in Virginia, Colorado and Iowa (where strong turnout could still save him there), and he is only barely trailing in New Hampshire.  The aggregate of national tracking has shown he enjoyed a modest bounce from the Denver debate, and the Gallop tracking, on its own terms and when compared both with their own measures of Obama's favorables and other polls, I think can be disregarded at this point.  Being ahead in North Carolina and Florida is still not enough for Romney to win.  It's just a real horserace now.    

[J. J.]

If voters really wanted to ditch Obama, why are his national approvals so high on Gallup (and JJ, please piss off with your (R)asmussen poll)? He is averaging over 50% in the month before the election, making it hard to argue that voters have been looking to throw him out. If would read it as the opposite: voters are considering whether or not they want to keep him around, and are coming to the consensus that they do. If his ratings were dropping, that'd be a different story. But they aren't.

Actually, no.  Obama hit 50 in the two weeks after the election, then dropped on Gallup.  He then went up to 52 a fortnight ago, after the 47% remark, then dropped back to 50%.

I'll be happy to talk about Gallup, that is showing a 5 point lead in likely voters.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

His approval with women dropped 4 points in the last week on Gallup.  Turnout is more of an issue with younger voters. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

When you compare PPP to a college poll, you lose the argument.

[Kalimantan]

Romney 270
Obama 268

Could be. Some what intriguingly, that map would have been an Obama win 274-264 in 2008