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%).

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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?

[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.