An easy way to predict the election

[WhyteRain]

Just use the "Presidential approval/disapproval" numbers.

For example, the current RCP average is 47.2% approve, 48.4% disapprove.  If the election were held today, Obama won't get a single one of those 48.4%.  The latest of the polls -- by Gallup (all voters -- scratch that, it includes even unregistered people) and Rasmussen (likely voters) are 47-46 and 46-52, respectively.  http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html?utm_source=rcpwidget&utm_medium=widget&utm_campaign=chart_1044

Then you can take the "undecideds" which normally break 2:1 against the incumbent.  If the 47.2% to 48.4% are accurate, that leaves 4.4% undecided.  If you break it 2:1 for the challenger, that would give Obama 48.7% (47.2% plus 1.5%) and the challenger 51.3% (48.4% plus 2.9%).

[Penelope]

Elections are more complicated than that..

5% of the 48.4% disapproving could easily just choose to stay home in disgust or apathy.

[WhyteRain]

Elections are more complicated than that..

5% of the 48.4% disapproving could easily just choose to stay home in disgust or apathy.

That's true -- or vote for an independent or a minor party candidate.

But I think history shows that the "Presidential approval/disapproval" numbers are the most accurate predictor.

[President von Cat]

Just use the "Presidential approval/disapproval" numbers.

For example, the current RCP average is 47.2% approve, 48.4% disapprove.  If the election were held today, Obama won't get a single one of those 48.4%.

Not true. There are times when I disagreed with the president's performance, but still intended to vote for him.

The latest of the polls -- by Gallup (all voters -- scratch that, it includes even unregistered people) and Rasmussen (likely voters) are 47-46 and 46-52, respectively.  http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html?utm_source=rcpwidget&utm_medium=widget&utm_campaign=chart_1044

Then you can take the "undecideds" which normally break 2:1 against the incumbent.  If the 47.2% to 48.4% are accurate, that leaves 4.4% undecided.  If you break it 2:1 for the challenger, that would give Obama 48.7% (47.2% plus 1.5%) and the challenger 51.3% (48.4% plus 2.9%).

This is wrong for the point I listed above, and where did you get that little factoid about how undecideds break? Dick Morris? Sounds suspiciously crackpot to me, so I'm gonna go with Dick Morris..

[anvi]

Obama's approvals are sitting almost exactly at where Bush '43's were when the latter won reelection.  On top of that, the eventual break of undecided voters in elections has historically been very uneven (in 2004 they broke 25-18 for Bush) and large blocks of them end up staying home on election day.

http://books.google.ca/books?id=hZ2lHGSqAIoC&pg=PA81&lpg=PA81&dq=how+did+undecided+voters+break+on+election+day+2004?&source=bl&ots=rG3AbRL4g_&sig=nL8kiSIRKCl7KWk0SykCZa2PMDM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=zdMGUJX2HYTx0gGr7eDPCA&ved=0CFYQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=how%20did%20undecided%20voters%20break%20on%20election%20day%202004%3F&f=false

In other words, relating approval ratings with speculation about how undecides will break is an unreliable barometer for forecasting an election.

What Romney does have going for him is that American voters put the economy number 1 on their list of voting priorities, and Romney's favorables are higher, I think, than Kerry's were in '04.  These two factors explain why the Obama camp is going negative this early, to divert attention from the economy and drive up Romney's unfavorables.  It's also why Rove is calling the Obama strategy "gutter politics"--he would know, it's right out of his playbook.

[WhyteRain]

Just use the "Presidential approval/disapproval" numbers.

For example, the current RCP average is 47.2% approve, 48.4% disapprove.  If the election were held today, Obama won't get a single one of those 48.4%.

Not true. There are times when I disagreed with the president's performance, but still intended to vote for him.

The latest of the polls -- by Gallup (all voters -- scratch that, it includes even unregistered people) and Rasmussen (likely voters) are 47-46 and 46-52, respectively.  http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html?utm_source=rcpwidget&utm_medium=widget&utm_campaign=chart_1044

Then you can take the "undecideds" which normally break 2:1 against the incumbent.  If the 47.2% to 48.4% are accurate, that leaves 4.4% undecided.  If you break it 2:1 for the challenger, that would give Obama 48.7% (47.2% plus 1.5%) and the challenger 51.3% (48.4% plus 2.9%).

This is wrong for the point I listed above, and where did you get that little factoid about how undecideds break? Dick Morris? Sounds suspiciously crackpot to me, so I'm gonna go with Dick Morris..

Yeah, I did get that little factoid about undecideds from Dick Morris.  So now I've googled for "who do undecideds vote for in elections".  Here's the very first returned site:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Does that make you feel better?

[WhyteRain]

It's also why Rove is calling the Obama strategy "gutter politics"--he would know, it's right out of his playbook.

I know what the MSM narrative on Rove is, but can you quote some of "his playbook" as evidence?

[modify:]  Or give some examples that can compare with what Team Obama is doing to Romney?

[anvi]

It's also why Rove is calling the Obama strategy "gutter politics"--he would know, it's right out of his playbook.

I know what the MSM narrative on Rove is, but can you quote some of "his playbook" as evidence?

[modify:]  Or give some examples that can compare with what Team Obama is doing to Romney?

Sure.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3222-2004May30.html

"Three-quarters of the ads aired by Bush's campaign have been attacks on Kerry. Bush so far has aired 49,050 negative ads in the top 100 markets, or 75 percent of his advertising. Kerry has run 13,336 negative ads -- or 27 percent of his total. The figures were compiled by The Washington Post using data from the Campaign Media Analysis Group of the top 100 U.S. markets. Both campaigns said the figures are accurate."

"From the president and Cheney down to media aides stationed in every battleground state and volunteers who dress up like Flipper the flip-flopping dolphin at rallies, the Bush campaign relentlessly portrays Kerry as elitist, untrustworthy, liberal and a flip-flopper on major issues. This campaign is persistent and methodical, and it often revs up on Monday mornings with the strategically timed release of ads or damaging attacks on Kerry, including questioning medical and service records in Vietnam and his involvement in the peace movement afterward. Often, they knock Kerry off message and force him to deflect personal questions."

Remember all those clips and surrogate jokes about Kerry on waterskis, Kerry speaking French, Kerry's Botox treatments, ect. ect.  And note how many misleading characterizations were in those ads as reported by the article. 

Driving up an opponents negatives through misleading attacks is an old political tactic, and it's certainly older than Rove.  But he did use it.  And Obama's team is certainly using it now.

[Bull Moose Base]

What Romney does have going for him is that American voters put the economy number 1 on their list of voting priorities, and Romney's favorables are higher, I think, than Kerry's were in '04.  These two factors explain why the Obama camp is going negative this early, to divert attention from the economy and drive up Romney's unfavorables.  It's also why Rove is calling the Obama strategy "gutter politics"--he would know, it's right out of his playbook.

Except Obama Campaign has essentially leaked that the Bain attacks are strategically laying the groundwork for attacking Romney's policies so it's not diversion at all, it's set up for who a conversation about whose policies benefit whom.  Obama actually gave a long speech about the economy and had trouble getting the media to focus on anything besides how long it was.  Every time the talk turns to Mitt Romney the Romney Campaign cries that it's a distraction.  Who's diverting attention?  Pointing out that Mitt Romney is hiding something by failing to release his tax returns like everyone else who has run for president is not exactly the same tactic as lying about John McCain having an illegitimate black baby to a racist electorate.

On the OT: some people who disapprove of Obama will vote for him anyway.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Romney's major problem is that as bad as Obama's approvals are, his are even worse.  Unless he can get his up to at least parity (or Obama's down to his), it will be difficult for him to win.

[WhyteRain]

Romney's major problem is that as bad as Obama's approvals are, his are even worse.  Unless he can get his up to at least parity (or Obama's down to his), it will be difficult for him to win.

I refer you to "the Incumbent Rule" described above.

[© tweed]

my mom is a probable disapprove/Obama voter.  as I would be if I lived in Ohio, Virginia, Florida, etc.  only once deprived on consequence are we free.  and as such I am free to vote Socialist Equality or Rocky Anderson.

[© tweed]

also, Mod fix link and start handing out infraction points for page-distorting links

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Romney's major problem is that as bad as Obama's approvals are, his are even worse.  Unless he can get his up to at least parity (or Obama's down to his), it will be difficult for him to win.

I refer you to "the Incumbent Rule" described above.

That incumbent rule works because in most cases the challenger has equal or better favorable ratings than the incumbent.  Right now Romney's are worse.

[WhyteRain]

Romney's major problem is that as bad as Obama's approvals are, his are even worse.  Unless he can get his up to at least parity (or Obama's down to his), it will be difficult for him to win.

I refer you to "the Incumbent Rule" described above.

That incumbent rule works because in most cases the challenger has equal or better favorable ratings than the incumbent.  Right now Romney's are worse.

Do you have a citation for this?

[Brittain33]

How does this approach map onto the Harry Reid campaign in 2010?

[WhyteRain]

How does this approach map onto the Harry Reid campaign in 2010?

i
There are exceptions, aren't there?  The study I cited on the prior page showed that incumbents sometimes get most of the undecided votes -- but usually (82%?) not.

I don't live in Nevada, but I understand that Reid's opponent ran a foolishly aggressive ant-illegal immigrant TV ad shortly before election day and that cost her the close election.