Election 2012 Presidential Predictions

Note: The Google advertisement links below may advocate political positions that this site does not endorse.

Date of Prediction: 2012-10-30 Version:3

Prediction Map

Confidence Map

Prediction States Won

		270 \|	538 \|
Dem	176
Rep	362
Ind	0

Confidence States Won

		270 \|	538 \|
Dem	146
Rep	312
Ind	0
Tos	80

State Pick-ups

	Gain			Loss			Hold			Net Gain
	ST	CD	EV	ST	CD	EV	ST	CD	EV
Dem	0	0	0	-16	-2	-183	13	1	176	-183
Rep	+16	+2	+183	0	0	0	22	2	179	+183
Ind	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

Prediction Score (max Score = 112)

Score	State Wins	State Percentages	CD Wins	CD Percentages
60	37	16	4	3

Analysis

The undertow....

Prediction History
Prediction Graph

Comments History - show

Version History

Member Comments

By: darthpi (D-PA) 2012-11-01 @ 02:21:17
I'm afraid you are probably in for a long, disappointing night on Tuesday. Even if Romney wins (still plausible, though growing more unlikely by the day, in my view), he isn't going to get anywhere close to this. In a best case scenario (or worst case, in my view) it would be difficult to see him getting to 300 electoral votes, and if things break badly for him he barely tops 200.

By: WhyteRain (I-TX) 2012-11-02 @ 14:17:00
I'm starting to wish I had the courage of my convictions and kept my 11/03/2011 map that had Obama losing by something like 191 to 347. (I didn't know at that time who his GOP opponent would be.) With the economy continuing to deteriorate and now with his disastrous handling of the disasters in Libya and New York ... I'm thinking Obama will be lucky to break 47% on Tuesday.

By: darthpi (D-PA) 2012-11-02 @ 17:45:57
"With the economy continuing to deteriorate" Right. Because several consecutive months of accelerating job growth is a sign that the economy is deteriorating. You know, I've always been curious, what's the weather like on Bizarro Earth? "disastrous handling of the disasters in...New York" 'Disastrous'? How completely divorced from reality are you? One part of New York City, Staten Island, has been handled poorly, but that failure is at least as much a failure of Bloomberg and Cuomo as President Obama. Heck, even the Red Cross is being criticized for the response there. Every other part of the city has been handled incredibly well, especially compared to the "Heck of a job" that the last Republican administration did responding to a hurricane. Not to mention the spectacular response in New Jersey that has even Chris Christie heaping praise upon President Obama. Thank you for giving me a look into your worldview. I don't think I'm ever going to take anything you say seriously again. Hack.

By: WhyteRain (I-TX) 2012-11-02 @ 22:25:15
darthpi, I learned a long time ago that the people whose worldviews you most want to take seriously are those who can make consistently accurate predictions about the future. I predicted a terrible economy under Obama, but not this bad. But I can't blame myself too much as I bet there isn't a single "expert" anywhere who predicted that it would be this bad -- for instance, that unemployment would be HIGHER after four years and that it would be even higher than the Obama experts said it would be WITHOUT his $838 billion(!!!) stimulus. Last Edit: 2012-11-02 @ 22:26:48

By: WhyteRain (I-TX) 2012-11-02 @ 22:32:47
darthpi, I see in your latest prediction -- dated today -- you have Obama getting 323 EVs. In MY final prediction, dated 10-3-2012 (made BEFORE Obama got spanked in the first debate), I predicted he'd get only 253. We should know by Wednesday to whose "worldview" that we should pay more attention. Last Edit: 2012-11-02 @ 22:33:16

By: darthpi (D-PA) 2012-11-02 @ 23:21:20
The Romer projection that has been so often cited was based on an assumption that in fall 2008 GDP had declined at a rate of 3.8%. That assumption was based on the data that was available at the time. The actual GDP decline had been nearly 9% in fall 2008. Now yes, you can say they were foolish for not making a projection for a worse GDP decline rate. I would have put out estimates for at least 6% and 8% decline rates. But the difference between the projected unemployment rate peak and the projected value now and the difference between the actual peak and the value now is essentially the same, with the estimate being a marginally better improvement (around half of a percent). That could either mean that the stimulus actually held down the peak more than would have been expected, or that the recovery has been weaker than predicted (I would bet on the later, for what its worth). You might notice that the difference between the no-stimulus projection and the stimulus projection at this point is only about one half of one percent, as all of the effect was expected to be felt in the first two or three years, mostly in 2010. The no-stimulus scenario actually projected a more substantial drop in the unemployment rate than the stimulus scenario, because it had a higher projected peak. Furthermore, the Romer projection estimated that the unemployment rate would peak in approximately August of 2009. The actual peak was around September or October of 2009. The projection for the no stimulus scenario predicted a peak in around April of 2010. I would suggest that the best way to judge whether or not the stimulus had a positive effect is if it stopped the bleeding as quickly as was projected. It did, it was within a month of the projection. Yes, it could have been better, obviously no one thinks unemployment where it is is acceptable for the long term. But to pretend that that Romer projection should be considered a binding statement of how the country would be, considering how badly its assumptions about the underlying state of the economy were off the mark, is to oversimplify reality. And yes, I do have President Obama winning re-election by that margin. All of the reliable polling analysis I have seen suggests that my prediction is entirely within the realm of possibility. I might change Florida back to Romney depending on what the polls do over the next few days, but if for some reason my computer died tomorrow and I couldn't update my map, I wouldn't panic about it. I'll be very curious to see what your final projection is. Taking the position that the polls are going to be badly wrong, as you seem to be implying you might, is an awfully risky proposition. Not saying that it will never turn out correct, but it's not a risk I'm willing to take. If you're going to go back to your 10-3 projection for your final prediction then that is at least more reasonable to me, though I would strongly disagree with your prediction in Iowa. Sorry for the wall of text. But I have a need to be extra thorough this time of year. Last Edit: 2012-11-03 @ 00:20:22

By: darthpi (D-PA) 2012-11-02 @ 23:37:10
@WhyteRain: I may have misread what you said there on your projections. By "final prediction" do you mean that you are definitely going back to the 10-3 prediction when you update? If you did then disregard what I had to say about your view of the polls. That was my error.

By: darthpi (D-PA) 2012-11-03 @ 00:15:11
"darthpi, I learned a long time ago that the people whose worldviews you most want to take seriously are those who can make consistently accurate predictions about the future." This is a political predictions website. Not only that, it is a competitive political predictions website, considering it ranks our predictions. Of course I'm going to talk up making accurate predictions on here. But that's because, relatively speaking, predicting the outcome of an election shortly before it takes place is actually not all that difficult. If it was that difficult, the prediction section of this very website wouldn't exist, it would just be old election results, polls, and the forum. Do you know of any popular websites for predicting GDP growth in every state? No. How about state revenue numbers. Nope, none of those either. Because it is much harder to do. Intrade and some of the other betting markets are some of the only places you can even do national GDP projections, and then only in the form of buying and selling prediction shares, and you have no reputation damage if you end up wildly wrong. Look, I'm not perfect at this. I have a terrible track record in predicting the primaries, particularly with predicting the percentages. But I am a fairly competitive person when it comes to all of this, and yes, I'm going to do my share of trash talk, particularly when I see a map that just seems flat out absurd to me. And yes, I'm going to hit Republicans more often then Democrats for their predictions, if only because politics has essentially become a team sport in this country. But I'm also not blind to reality. As the 2010 cycle unfolded, I was more than willing to amend my Senate prediction to account for the deteriorating state of the Democratic party's chances that year. Some view an willingness to change predictions the way I did to be in accordance with the polls as a sign of weakness. I see it as the sign of someone who has a reasonable view of the world. One of the individuals who I've gained respect for this cycle is conservrep. He got hit badly on his 2008 prediction. But he's learned from his mistakes, and his projections have been very reasonable this whole cycle. I might not necessarily agree with his view that Pennsylvania is a tossup, for example, but he hasn't made many, if any, predictions that have seemed totally off the mark this cycle. By the way, conservrep, if you read this, I don't mean to imply that I didn't respect you in 2008. You often had insights into some states over the course of the campaign that I didn't, despite the fact that you had a very different view of the polls than I did. I simply meant my respect for you has increased.

By: WhyteRain (I-TX) 2012-11-03 @ 09:26:47
darthpi, I think the polls are crazy this year. Maybe they've always been crazy and I just didn't pay attention. Look at this link with a comparison of four different Minnesota polls, for example: http://www.minnpost.com/braublog/2012/11/obama-romney-minnesota-gay-marriage-polls-crosstabs Look at the WIDE divergence in the samplings of the various demographics. Just too, too much. (One has Repub voters as 27% of the electorate; another at 33%. One has young voters at 15%, another at 26%) What I'm looking at are the House races. My long-time prediction is that neither party will gain double-digits in the House. The latest RCP list of the top 25 "Seats Most Likely to Flip" give the Dems a +5-seat margin -- right in my wheelhouse of a change between D+9 and R+9. And my point is, there's no way that Obama can win ANYTHING close to 330 EVs when his party is going to be held under (or near) 200 House seats. Make sense?

By: WhyteRain (I-TX) 2012-11-03 @ 09:33:20
A great counter-argument to mine is that Nixon in 1972 and Reagan in 1984 won LANDSLIDE re-election victories but their party remained far behind in the House. But there are two problems with this counter-argument. One, of course, is that in 1972 and even 1984 there were many, many Dixiecrats -- now there are almost none. Another is that -- and I did a paper on this in law school -- thanks to gerrymandering, the Democrats had a STARTING advantage of an average of +21 House seats in the 1970s and +35 in the 1980s. The Repubs dominated the redistricting that was done for this election. Last Edit: 2012-11-03 @ 09:35:05

By: darthpi (D-PA) 2012-11-03 @ 13:13:50
My view on the polls this year was strongly shaped by the outcome of the Wisconsin recall election back in the summer. If there were some sort of large-scale misunderstanding of the electorate by the pollsters, particularly in states like Ohio and Pennsylvania that are similar to Wisconsin, I would have expected that to show up by Walker significantly beating the polls there. As it turned out, he won the recall election by roughly the same as the poll average in that state. Now I suppose it is possible that the electorate could have shifted substantially between then and now, but I can't come up with any reason that would make me see that as particularly likely. The news cycle over the last two months, while people have been paying the most attention to the campaign, has been about equally unfavorable to Governor Romney and President Obama, so I imagine that the national electorate isn't dramatically different than it was back then. Indeed, when the returns weren't fully in on election night during the recall, and it looked like Walker was going to substantially beat his polls, I panicked, and made a map with Romney up 321-217. At that point, without the final returns in from some apparently very heavily Democratic districts, it looked like the polling companies had missed something about the electorate this year. An hour after I made that map, I was already realizing that I had overreacted. I will say this: if I'm wrong about the polls, I'll probably be very wrong. If Romney were to win Ohio, then the chances that he beats his polls in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania as well become much more substantial. If, however, the polls in Ohio are right, then the chances of Romney pulling off upsets in those states becomes vanishingly small. Any polling error in similar states like those is likely to be highly correlated. I'm not sure how to feel about the House races this year. There has been so much turnover in the House in the last three elections (2006, 2008, 2010) that I do think there could be some unusual dynamics this year. I would see a gain of around Dem +10 as the most likely outcome in the House right now, given the outcome I am projecting in the Presidential race, though I think Republicans do have more upside potential to beat my expectations; ie, I wouldn't be very surprised to see Republicans gain five or so seats, while I would be very surprised to see Democrats gain 25.

By: darthpi (D-PA) 2012-11-03 @ 13:58:41
@WhyteRain By the way, I probably shouldn't have called you a hack. Maybe you've been through the brunt of a hurricane, or maybe you know someone who lives on Staten Island, and so then your view of the response there is probably different from mine. Life experience can dramatically change someone's view of events. Last Edit: 2012-11-03 @ 14:00:48

By: WhyteRain (I-TX) 2012-11-03 @ 16:45:13
I've been through some bad storms -- including a Category 4 -- in Texas. In Texas we never have the civilizational meltdowns like we see in blue states.

By: WhyteRain (I-TX) 2012-11-03 @ 16:48:47
Does anyone else notice that the area getting the LEAST help -- Staten Island -- is also the ONLY county in the storm stricken region that didn't vote for Obama in 2008? He sure knows something about using politics for "revenge" and for "punishing your enemies and rewarding your friends", doesn't he? Just a year or so ago, he denied federal aid to Texas for record-setting wild fires (while giving federal aid to MEXICO for wildfires 1/100th in size). Last Edit: 2012-11-03 @ 16:49:29

By: WhyteRain (I-TX) 2012-11-03 @ 17:58:41
Btw, I've been polled several times in Florida, all but once by computer. So if you see that demographic of "Hispanic, female, age 30-39, in Florida, voting for Obama", you'll know one of them is mine. (I did tell the truth in the one live interview, but since I was given no choice of Pres'l candidates than "Obama, Romney, or Undecided", I went with Undecided.) Last Edit: 2012-11-03 @ 17:59:41

By: darthpi (D-PA) 2012-11-03 @ 18:01:19
Does it perhaps occur to you that the reason Texas is very prepared for hurricanes is that they still remember that the Galveston Hurricane back in 1900 killed over 6000 people (possibly as high as 12000) and that the residents of Texas take the risks more seriously? One of the biggest mistakes people make is to have the mentality that bad things can't happen to them; part of the reason that the individual insurance mandate is a good idea, if I may say so. If Fort Worth ever gets hit with a major earthquake a lot of the people there are going to be wondering how all of those liberals in California get by. By the way, do not even begin this nonsense that the response in Staten Island was politically motivated. Considering how the last Republican administration responded to a certain hurricane hitting a Democratic city, you really might want to think about that old advice about people in glass houses. For the record, I don't think the response to either Katrina or Sandy was politically motivated, but there are probably some other Democrats on here who would take a much less generous view of what happened in 2005. Last Edit: 2012-11-03 @ 18:04:08

By: WhyteRain (I-TX) 2012-11-03 @ 18:01:53
OBAMA REFUSES TO TAKE REPORTERS QUESTIONS ON STORM http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2012/11/03/obama-refuses-answer-storm-victims-frustrations/ Don't worry, the MSM will keep covering for him.

By: darthpi (D-PA) 2012-11-03 @ 18:11:32
So you're lying to the pollsters? Alright, that changes my opinion of on exactly one issue. Apparently you ARE a hack.

By: darthpi (D-PA) 2012-11-03 @ 18:15:05
Just to cover all of my bases here, I see no reason to think that some Democrats aren't doing the same thing and saying they'll vote for Romney, when they have no plans to. Its stupid and juvenile either way, but I can't imagine that it's so prevalent on either side to meaningfully impact the polls.

By: Snigglie (R-AL) 2012-11-05 @ 11:56:49
I would not be surprised if people on both sides mess with the pollsters, but I agree, darthpi, that it's probably something that washes out in the overall data. One thing that I do find interesting is that if you look at a lot of the polls, Republicans do seem to be under-represented. In the polls I've looked at for Ohio, the ones showing President Obama leading are typically anywhere from +5 to +11 for Democrats. I don't particularly fault the pollsters, though, because they only report the data that they get. However, based on the data I was able to find, Ohio's voter registration rolls show that both Republicans and Democrats are around 37%. This doesn't take into account any turnout advantages, though, but does anyone really expect one side or the other to not turn out for this election? Especially in Ohio? That all being said, I also see the same argument from Democrats that certain groups such as hispanics or young people are under-represented in the polls, so it may be that this just all washes out in the end. Although, I expect the results in Ohio to be closer to even as far as party affiliation goes, which would not be good for President Obama.

By: WhyteRain (I-TX) 2012-11-05 @ 12:11:09
darthpi, If I had thought about it, it was in my interest to tell pollsters I was for Romney in Florida. If I gave Obama false hope here, I only increased the number of irritating political ads I have to bear.

By: darthpi (D-PA) 2012-11-05 @ 12:35:32
"If I gave Obama false hope here, I only increased the number of irritating political ads I have to bear." Alright, that comment is funny enough that I take back the hack statement once again.

By: darthpi (D-PA) 2012-11-07 @ 23:55:30
@WhyteRain "darthpi, I see in your latest prediction -- dated today -- you have Obama getting 323 EVs. In MY final prediction, dated 10-3-2012 (made BEFORE Obama got spanked in the first debate), I predicted he'd get only 253." "We should know by Wednesday to whose "worldview" that we should pay more attention." So...any thoughts? Last Edit: 2012-11-07 @ 23:56:05

By: darthpi (D-PA) 2012-11-07 @ 23:59:45
@WhyteRain Oh, and President Obama won Staten Island this year. Seems like they think he's doing an okay job.

By: FiveSenses82 (D-MO) 2012-11-10 @ 20:00:41
Looks like I underestimated Obama again. And looks like the blow hard tools of the right, yet again, made a jerk of themselves. SirJOW.... WhiteRyan... Many others on here NEVER LEARN THEIR LESSON. What lese do expect from a bunch of people who don't believe in science and evolution? And, yet again... NATE SILVER WAS RIGHT These Republicans will NEVER learn to listen to facts, numbers and evidence and thus are making themselves more and more irrelevant by the HOUR. America is finally moving into the 21st century. Either grow up with it, or move to China, Republicans.

User's Predictions

Prediction Score	States	Percent	Total	Accuracy	Ver	#D	Rank		#Pred
2012 President	41/56	19/56	60/112	53.6%	3	7	749	T	760
Aggregate Predictions	41/56	19/56	60/112	53.6%

Links

	Presidential Predictions - Most Recent
	Presidential Predictions - Most Recent Comments
	Presidential Predictions Home

Back to 2012 Presidential Prediction Home - Predictions Home