Is there much chance Obama won't be the next US president?

[hajario]

Originally Posted by Koxinga

Regarding the OP, what does the esteemed community think these days? Economy's not looking too good at home and even worse abroad, the Obama administration seems to have handled the whole gay marriage thing with singular ineptitude, and an incarcerated person gave the president a run for his money in the WV primary. Does "President Romney" now roll trippingly off your tongue?

You really seem out of touch. Even Karl Rove's web page indicates that if the election were held today, Obama would win in an electoral landslide.

[Gangster Octopus]

I just cannot see Mitt Romney coming off well once the campaign gets into full swing. He simply cannot shake his white privileged side. W was actually able to overcome his pampered upbringing and come through as a regular guy, whether you liked him or not. He had a certain hominess, some would say idiocy, that actually worked in his favor to dispel his actual elite upbringing. I just do not see that in Romney at all, from his talking about his wealthy friends as if it is nothing, to offering to bet $10,000, even to strapping a dog to the top of a car, all indicate that he just doesn't get it and will have trouble connecting with the independent voters that hew ould need to win.

[bup]

Originally Posted by Koxinga

the Obama administration seems to have handled the whole gay marriage thing with singular ineptitude

Not trying to be snarky, but could you elaborate? What's been inept in the administration's approach to gay marriage? What would an -ept president have done?

[Bricker]

From CBS News:

(CBS News) Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney has a slight edge over President Obama in the race for the White House in the latest CBS News/New York Times poll.



According to the survey, conducted May 11-13, 46 percent of registered voters say they would vote for Romney, while 43 percent say they would opt for Mr. Obama.

Small margin, and within the error rate of the poll, but certainly not a shellacking for either one.

[bup]

But, Bricker, everyone I know is voting for Obama!

[Ludovic]

Originally Posted by Procrustus

You don't have to know much about Romney to consider him a joke. He's going down hard.

But yet he's against gay marriage?

[Jack Batty]

Originally Posted by Bricker

From CBS News:



Small margin, and within the error rate of the poll, but certainly not a shellacking for either one.

I'm not sure how all the numbers play out, but I doubt a 50-50 split in polling would translate to a 50-50 split in electoral votes. Isn't Romney at a disadvantage in that regard going in?

[Gagundathar]

In my opinion (and whatever else would it be, after all), the economy is the key here.
If the reported unemployment figure goes up to, say, 9.5% and foreclosure rates remain high, then Mr. Obama could well be ousted. If the EU has a major dip into recession during the 2nd or 3rd quarters of this year, then the US could easily follow. That would certainly have a negative impact on the world economy (or might be considered a bellwether for other economies).
A recession and increasing unemployment in the US could definitely make 'President Romney' happen.
Some say that is the GOP's current policy: prevent changes that might benefit the economy and promote changes that damage the economy so that they might win back the executive. I would like to believe that these people are attributing malice when they should be attributing stupidity, but nevertheless, it appears that the strategy could lead to electoral victories in the fall. And that is, after all, what the whole system is built around, isn't it?

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Jack Batty

I'm not sure how all the numbers play out, but I doubt a 50-50 split in polling would translate to a 50-50 split in electoral votes. Isn't Romney at a disadvantage in that regard going in?

Good point, and I don't really know who to trust as a prognosticator, but I do tend to credit Nate Silver for accuracy and transparency (though he IS a Democratic-leaning voter, himself!)

His take is here: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes...ce/#more-30818

[Clothahump]

People are pissed and they are pissed at Obama. I sincerely hope he is not re-elected. I'd really hate to think that we, as a nation and a society, would be that stupid a second time.

But then again, no one ever lost money by underestimating the stupidity of the American voting public. After all, we did elect him the first time around.

[hajario]

Originally Posted by Clothahump

People are pissed and they are pissed at Obama. I sincerely hope he is not re-elected. I'd really hate to think that we, as a nation and a society, would be that stupid a second time.

But then again, no one ever lost money by underestimating the stupidity of the American voting public. After all, we did elect him the first time around.

Is this going to be another one of your potshots where you drop a turd and don't come back? Most of us are trying to have a non-partisan discussion where we handicap the election based on various factors that have and could happen. I would hate for this to be derailed by bullshit like your comment.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by hajario

Is this going to be another one of your potshots where you drop a turd and don't come back? Most of us are trying to have a non-partisan discussion where we handicap the election based on various factors that have and could happen. I would hate for this to be derailed by bullshit like your comment.

It's Clothahump. You know all that's gonna go like water off a duck's back.

[Lightnin']

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

It's Clothahump. You know all that's gonna go like water off a duck's back.

He wants you damn kids to get off his lawn, too.

Honestly, an Obama win is looking more and more likely. It's like the Republicans aren't even trying anymore- or, rather, all they're trying to do is make everyone else look worse than they do.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

It's Clothahump. You know all that's gonna go like water off a duck's back.

Believe me, I've tried.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Lightnin'

He wants you damn kids to get off his lawn, too.

Honestly, an Obama win is looking more and more likely. It's like the Republicans aren't even trying anymore- or, rather, all they're trying to do is make everyone else look worse than they do.

It's a bit more complicated than that -- they're operating under a mind-and-values-set where they actually seem to think they're making themselves look better.

[PandaBear77]

Originally Posted by Clothahump

People are pissed and they are pissed at Obama. I sincerely hope he is not re-elected. I'd really hate to think that we, as a nation and a society, would be that stupid a second time.

But then again, no one ever lost money by underestimating the stupidity of the American voting public. After all, we did elect him the first time around.

Hear, hear!

Obama, right or wrong, is going to take the blame for the economy. Unless he pulls a hell of an October Surprise, I can see Romney coming out on top. That said I think we're in for another Y2k style catfight.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by PandaBear77

That said I think we're in for another Y2k style catfight.

Worse, I should hope!

[Chronos]

Obama, right or wrong, is going to take the blame for the economy.

Or the credit, if it continues to recover as well as it's doing.

[Trinopus]

Originally Posted by Chronos

Or the credit, if it continues to recover as well as it's doing.

Just for instance, gasoline prices are coming down. Why aren't the people who demanded Obama do something about that giving him credit for it?

It's the asymmetry of the griping that I find disturbing. (As well as the outright hypocritical, such as condemning him for killing OBL.)

[Kozmik]

Originally Posted by Clothahump

People are pissed and they are pissed at Obama. I sincerely hope he is not re-elected. I'd really hate to think that we, as a nation and a society, would be that stupid a second time.

We were.

Remember?

[Measure for Measure]

Originally Posted by Clothahump

People are pissed and they are pissed at Obama. I sincerely hope he is not re-elected. I'd really hate to think that we, as a nation and a society, would be that stupid a second time.

You know, the above comment is unsubstantiated and wholly devoid of content. So I guess I'll just copy and paste: it would be amiss to let this hijack go unchallenged:

Not so Clothahump. The first 2 years of the Obama administration had the most productive Congress in Post War history. That's not hyperbole: it's simply hard to pick out an alternative (largely because Civil Rights legislation during the 1960s was passed in 2 consecutive congressional sessions).

The stimulus package and the Affordable Choice Act were 2 historical pieces of legislation passed during the same Congress. The stimulus package worked, as evidenced by every major economic forecaster in the US. The Affordable Choice Act cut the long run deficit and received plaudits from health care analysts as it ended insurance company abuses such as rescission -- if you pay your insurance bills, you can't have Blue Cross yank away coverage on a technicality just because you came down with an expensive illness. These are solid, responsible policies.

The troops are out of Iraq. Bin Laden is killed and his records are captured. Ending the War on Terror as a matter of rhetoric left Al Qaeda flummoxed: in the end Bin Laden was grasping at straws, hoping to rebrand his organization which had become poison during the Obama administration. When the Arab Spring appeared, their presence was trivial.

Student loans were overhauled: no longer could banks capture huge and pointless administrative fees. The Lily Ledbetter Act was passed. And the auto industry was saved in the teeth of libertarian whining.

All of those accomplishments were made without an ounce of Republican cooperation -- their sole contribution was economic sabotage. Subsequent to 2008's worst financial crisis in Post War history, Republicans wouldn't seat mid-level members to the US Treasury for longer than a year! And it wasn't due to any problems they had with the appointees. It was just because.

[Koxinga]

Hey, George HW Bush won the first Gulf War, and had one of the strongest resumes of any post-war president. But the economy dipped during his watch and he let himself be perceived as out of touch with the concerns of ordinary Americans. Even if most of the above points were not highly debatable (Obamacare being deeply unpopular and possibly unconstitutional, for one), why do you think Obama would be immune from the prosaic voter concerns that turned GHWB out on his ear?

[Quartz]

Originally Posted by Koxinga

Hey, George HW Bush won the first Gulf War, and had one of the strongest resumes of any post-war president. But the economy dipped during his watch and he let himself be perceived as out of touch with the concerns of ordinary Americans.

Ross Perot split the anti-Democrat vote in 1992. If those who voted for Perot had voted for Bush, Bush would have won handily.

[42fish]

Originally Posted by Quartz

Ross Perot split the anti-Democrat vote in 1992. If those who voted for Perot had voted for Bush, Bush would have won handily.

If you actually bothered to read through the article you cite, you might have noticed the following: "...further examination of the Perot vote in the Election Night exit polls not only showed that Perot siphoned votes nearly equally among Bush and Clinton,[25]..."

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by 42fish

If you actually bothered to read through the article you cite, you might have noticed the following: "...further examination of the Perot vote in the Election Night exit polls not only showed that Perot siphoned votes nearly equally among Bush and Clinton,[25]..."

Ralph Nader in 2000, now . . .

[Try2B Comprehensive]

Originally Posted by Measure for Measure

You know, the above comment is unsubstantiated and wholly devoid of content. So I guess I'll just copy and paste: it would be amiss to let this hijack go unchallenged:

Not so Clothahump. The first 2 years of the Obama administration had the most productive Congress in Post War history. That's not hyperbole: it's simply hard to pick out an alternative (largely because Civil Rights legislation during the 1960s was passed in 2 consecutive congressional sessions).

The stimulus package and the Affordable Choice Act were 2 historical pieces of legislation passed during the same Congress. The stimulus package worked, as evidenced by every major economic forecaster in the US. The Affordable Choice Act cut the long run deficit and received plaudits from health care analysts as it ended insurance company abuses such as rescission -- if you pay your insurance bills, you can't have Blue Cross yank away coverage on a technicality just because you came down with an expensive illness. These are solid, responsible policies.

The troops are out of Iraq. Bin Laden is killed and his records are captured. Ending the War on Terror as a matter of rhetoric left Al Qaeda flummoxed: in the end Bin Laden was grasping at straws, hoping to rebrand his organization which had become poison during the Obama administration. When the Arab Spring appeared, their presence was trivial.

Student loans were overhauled: no longer could banks capture huge and pointless administrative fees. The Lily Ledbetter Act was passed. And the auto industry was saved in the teeth of libertarian whining.

All of those accomplishments were made without an ounce of Republican cooperation -- their sole contribution was economic sabotage. Subsequent to 2008's worst financial crisis in Post War history, Republicans wouldn't seat mid-level members to the US Treasury for longer than a year! And it wasn't due to any problems they had with the appointees. It was just because.

Let's not forget the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Though its exact functioning is somewhat difficult to pinpoint, it does present as the kind of government-helping-the-little-guy service that people used to expect from their government.



The campaign really hasn't gotten underway at this point, and the Obama administration has not been one that trumpets its activity far and wide. I think once the public has really reviewed Obama's record in context and compared it to the nonsense the GOP intend to do, Obama will win handily. Probably not a landslide though since so many people truly are angry and/or hurting.

[Measure for Measure]

Originally Posted by Measure for Measure

Anyway, I'm currently giving Obama a 57% chance of re-election, due to the strengthening economy and the possibility of a upward blip in income growth.

Originally Posted by Measure for Measure

A three variable model of the economy, approval ratings and incumbancy puts Obama's odds at 85%, assuming 2% GDP growth during the first 3 quarters and a 47% approval rating in June. Play with the model here. I give Obama a 75% chance. Intrade puts him at 60%.

I move the model's odds down towards 50-50 for the following reasons...

Nate Silver's 538 model, released in the past couple of weeks, gives Obama a 61.6% chance, much lower than that given by the simple 3 variable model. I trust Nate. Furthermore, I'd set lower odds than his algorithm, as I don't think it sufficiently reflects downside economic risks. So we're back near 50-50 land. Intrade gives Obama 53% odds, which sounds about right. They give Romney 43% odds, which seems low to me. While surprises can certainly occur, Intrade's prices imply that the odds of neither Romney nor Obama being elected is 4.8%. I say there is only one wild card in the deck, not two.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Measure for Measure

Nate Silver's 538 model, released in the past couple of weeks, gives Obama a 61.6% chance, much lower than that given by the simple 3 variable model. I trust Nate. Furthermore, I'd set lower odds than his algorithm, as I don't think it sufficiently reflects downside economic risks. So we're back near 50-50 land. Intrade gives Obama 53% odds, which sounds about right. They give Romney 43% odds, which seems low to me. While surprises can certainly occur, Intrade's prices imply that the odds of neither Romney nor Obama being elected is 4.8%. I say there is only one wild card in the deck, not two.

What wild card is that?

[Measure for Measure]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

What wild card is that?

I figure there's a Robert Kennedy event once every hundred years. That includes sudden illness, Ron Paul sleeper cells, and all manner of unknown unknowns. But... five and a half months of the election year have already passed. And even if something odd occurs in July, Romney or Obama will still probably win the election. So the odds are probably well under 2%... but over 0.01%.

Heh. Intrade says that the odds of Ron Paul winning are 1.4%... and Hillary gets 2.7%. That sounds high. Poor Joe Biden only gets 0.1%. That at least sounds defensible.

[Koxinga]

Originally Posted by Measure for Measure

I figure there's a Robert Kennedy event once every hundred years . . . Heh. Intrade says that the odds of Ron Paul winning are 1.4%... and Hillary gets 2.7%. That sounds high.

Heh indeed -- it brings back some memories of 2008 . . .

ETA: not that I suggest that's what you're implying. I just thought it was a slightly amusing coincidence.

[Quartz]

Originally Posted by 42fish

If you actually bothered to read through the article you cite, you might have noticed the following: "...further examination of the Perot vote in the Election Night exit polls not only showed that Perot siphoned votes nearly equally among Bush and Clinton,[25]..."

I missed this earlier, but his statement does not contradict mine.

[Bricker]

My prediction: Romney wins.

So far on this board I have correctly predicted Bush over Gore, Bush over Kerry (despite the cadre of Board commentators loudly insisting that there was no way Bush could win, and then loudly lamenting "Jesusland" when he did), and Obama over McCain (shockingly, most of the Board's commentators agreed with this one).

Try2B Comprehensive - you say it's going to be Obama winning handily. Feel like a wager?
Gangster Octopus, you say Romney simply cannot shake his white privileged side. Want to make it interesting?

Anyone else?

[Tristan]

Man, tempting, but this race is going to be so tight I can't even begin to pick a side.

As I have said before, I really wish that it wasn't going to be that way, but republican's will hold their noses and vote for ANYONE with an R rather than vote for a Democrat. Which is sad, but it is also exactly how they want it.

My bet: To close to call, and likely settled in court.

[Richard Parker]

Sheldon Adelson has announced his willingness to contribute nine figures to the Romney campaign.

When asked by Forbes whether he feels guilty about one American potentially steering the fate of the presidential election, Adelson responded: “I’m against very wealthy people attempting to or influencing elections . . . But as long as it’s doable I’m going to do it."

Money isn't everything. But it's not nothing. If Adelson is prepared to give Romney a hundred, or hundreds of millions, as he says he is, then I'd say that gives Romney at least a 3% bump in the odds.

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Anyone else?

I'll take it, for $100 Alex. My batting record with you is pretty good, so I'm feeling confident. Romney will not win the electoral vote.

[Chronos]

Wait, how would Hillary Clinton end up as the winner? Biden, there's a plausible path, if something catastrophic happened to Obama (God forbid). That's what the VP is there for, after all. But I don't see any path for Clinton.

And Bricker, is that an even-odds bet, or are you just taking the Romney side of the Intrade odds?

[hajario]

Originally Posted by Chronos

Wait, how would Hillary Clinton end up as the winner? Biden, there's a plausible path, if something catastrophic happened to Obama (God forbid). That's what the VP is there for, after all. But I don't see any path for Clinton.

Obama dies before the convention and Clinton gets the nomination.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Tristan

As I have said before, I really wish that it wasn't going to be that way, but republican's will hold their noses and vote for ANYONE with an R rather than vote for a Democrat.

Well, most will. Some would rather stay home than vote for a Mormon.

[bahia hombre]

At this point it's really hard not to see Obama becoming a "victim" of the economy, rightly or wrongly.

[Measure for Measure]

Originally Posted by Bricker

My prediction: Romney wins.

So far on this board I have correctly predicted Bush over Gore, Bush over Kerry (despite the cadre of Board commentators loudly insisting that there was no way Bush could win, and then loudly lamenting "Jesusland" when he did), and Obama over McCain (shockingly, most of the Board's commentators agreed with this one).
...
Anyone else?

You sound confident, Bricker. Very confident. Will you extend me odds? I get 2 units if Obama wins, you get 1 unit if Romney does.

Originally Posted by Chronos

And Bricker, is that an even-odds bet, or are you just taking the Romney side of the Intrade odds?

Heh.

...I suppose I'd be taking on some counterparty risk.


ETA: Nitpick: Actually Gore won the election in 2000: Bush was appointed by the Supreme Court. Double nitpick: well, I suppose it depends upon the terms of the original prediction. Triple: Not gonna win this fork with Bricker...

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

I'll take it, for $100 Alex. My batting record with you is pretty good, so I'm feeling confident. Romney will not win the electoral vote.

Actually, that's not quite the bet I want. I am betting that by whatever method, Romney is inaugurated on or about January 20th, 2013. If the election should go to the House, he could not be said to have won the electoral vote, but he'd still be Prez.

You still in?

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Chronos

And Bricker, is that an even-odds bet, or are you just taking the Romney side of the Intrade odds?

Even odds.

Originally Posted by Measure for Measure

You sound confident, Bricker. Very confident. Will you extend me odds? I get 2 units if Obama wins, you get 1 unit if Romney does.

Nope. Not 2:1 confident. Just even money confident.

And as you see, the specific terms I'm discussing remove any quibbling about who won what vote. If Romney is carried to the steps of the Capitol by the five-member majority of the Supreme Court that appointed him President even after his devastating loss to Obama, I win.

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Actually, that's not quite the bet I want. I am betting that by whatever method, Romney is inaugurated on or about January 20th, 2013. If the election should go to the House, he could not be said to have won the electoral vote, but he'd still be Prez.

You still in?

Nope. If the electoral vote is a tie, it's a push. I will not let the Tea Party award you $100.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

Nope. If the electoral vote is a tie, it's a push. I will not let the Tea Party award you $100.

OK, fair enough. Done

[davidm]

Intrade's currently showing Obama as having a 52.9% chance of winning.

ETA: It shows Romney's chances as 42.6%.

[dngnb8]

Originally Posted by An Gadaí

I keep hearing about the Republican candidates but I haven't a clue of Romney or any of them has a real chance of becoming POTUS this year. Is there any real chance Obama will be beaten (and Elendil's Heir will owe me some money )?

I think there is a chance.

This election will be more about fear. The fear of 4 more years of the same, vs, the fear of what Romney can do.

The way I see it, we have Robamney

[Measure for Measure]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Nope. Not 2:1 confident. Just even money confident.

And as you see, the specific terms I'm discussing remove any quibbling about who won what vote. If Romney is carried to the steps of the Capitol by the five-member majority of the Supreme Court that appointed him President even after his devastating loss to Obama, I win.

Oh, well if you put it that way....

Originally Posted by davidm

Intrade's currently showing Obama as having a 52.9% chance of winning.

ETA: It shows Romney's chances as 42.6%.

Let the record show that Bricker is edging slightly against the consensus. Though if he's like me, he won't bet if he doesn't see a profit opportunity, so his subjective odds for Romney are probably north of 60%. It's a meaningful prediction.

Let's see. I could buy Romney at Intrade for .426 and sell him to Bricker for .50. Hmmmmmmm.

[Fear Itself]

Any body else getting money from Bricker?

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Even odds.



Nope. Not 2:1 confident. Just even money confident.

And as you see, the specific terms I'm discussing remove any quibbling about who won what vote. If Romney is carried to the steps of the Capitol by the five-member majority of the Supreme Court that appointed him President even after his devastating loss to Obama, I win.

Yeah, if that happens you win.

[Measure for Measure]

Just to clarify, I never came to terms with Bricker, nor did I communicate with him via PM. He owes me nothing. Also, I give him props for stating his position clearly, without smoke blowing.