The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > Elections

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #201  
Old 08-27-2012, 11:52 AM
squeegee squeegee is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Gilroy CA
Posts: 8,319
How can Romney win? Isaac makes landfall in New Orleans or close and if the emergency response is anything but perfect (or can be spun that way), it's all Obama's fault, Obama's Katrina, and the GOP has a perfect podium this week for pounding on that.
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #202  
Old 08-27-2012, 11:54 AM
Kolak of Twilo Kolak of Twilo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Paris on the Prairie
Posts: 2,416
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenm View Post
The OP asked how Romney could win. I posted a link answering it.
And my response was based on the fact the article you linked doesn't say what you want it to say. The theoretical bankruptcy it talks about isn't suggested to happen until some time AFTER the election or by the end of a possible Obama second term. How would that get Romney elected in 2012?

As I suggested, it would be helpful to actually read what you link to before posting.

Last edited by Kolak of Twilo; 08-27-2012 at 11:54 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #203  
Old 08-27-2012, 12:14 PM
Kenm Kenm is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolak of Twilo View Post
And my response was based on the fact the article you linked doesn't say what you want it to say.
It don't want it to say anything.
Quote:
As I suggested, it would be helpful to actually read what you link to before posting.
Take it to the pit or shut up.
Reply With Quote
  #204  
Old 08-27-2012, 12:30 PM
Kolak of Twilo Kolak of Twilo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Paris on the Prairie
Posts: 2,416
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenm View Post
It don't want it to say anything.Take it to the pit or shut up.
Really? That sounds far more like language suitable for the pit than anything I've said.

What you seem to be missing is this - the article you linked talks about GM declaring bankruptcy at some point AFTER the 2012 election, at some point during a hypothetical Obama second term. The first two sentences of the article say:
Quote:
President Obama is proud of his bailout of General Motors. Thatís good, because, if he wins a second term, he is probably going to have to bail GM out again.
It never suggests this is something that will happen between now and November.

If this is an event that might happen after election day, how will that help Romney get elected? I think that is fair question.
Reply With Quote
  #205  
Old 08-27-2012, 12:34 PM
Jas09 Jas09 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Maybe Kenm thinks it will help him get elected in 2016...
Reply With Quote
  #206  
Old 08-27-2012, 12:48 PM
Fear Itself Fear Itself is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: 847 mi. from Cecil
Posts: 29,073
Quote:
Originally Posted by squeegee View Post
How can Romney win? Isaac makes landfall in New Orleans or close and if the emergency response is anything but perfect (or can be spun that way), it's all Obama's fault, Obama's Katrina, and the GOP has a perfect podium this week for pounding on that.
The perfect Republican response to a disaster in New Orleans is to ignore it, so yeah, they will see any response as a waste of taxpayer money. Now if it had been Omaha, Nebraska they would pull out all the stops to rescue right-thinking Republican babies.
Reply With Quote
  #207  
Old 08-27-2012, 01:15 PM
Kenm Kenm is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jas09 View Post
Maybe Kenm thinks it will help him get elected in 2016...
Not only would I not want to, I can't; I'm Canadian. Anyway, I would be pilloried as a *gasp* socialist.
Reply With Quote
  #208  
Old 08-27-2012, 01:21 PM
Jas09 Jas09 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
The "him" in my post was Mr. Romney, not you.

And yes, I'm pretty sure all Canadians are, by definition, socialists on the American political spectrum.
Reply With Quote
  #209  
Old 08-27-2012, 02:05 PM
That Don Guy That Don Guy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Der Trihs View Post
Voter suppression, getting the Supreme Court to declare him the winner Bush style. Obama being assassinated and Biden fumbling the campaign after suddenly becoming the Presidential candidate.
You left one out, and IIRC, it "worked" once before; if the Republicans can get 218 House members and 51 Senators in the new Congress, which starts its session three days before Congress counts the electoral votes, all the Republicans have to do is to find enough "close" races won by Obama that would give the election to Romney if the results changed, and challenge all of them - both the House and Senate would then vote to accept the Romney votes as the "valid" ones.

Then again, there's a small problem with this; Obama would still be President until January 20, so the armed forces would probably just stand aside while the people rise up and make sure Romney never takes office - and probably rewrite chunks of the Constitution while they were at it.
Reply With Quote
  #210  
Old 08-27-2012, 02:53 PM
Happy Lendervedder Happy Lendervedder is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenm View Post
Don't get your knickers in a knot. The OP asked how Romney could win. I posted a link answering it. Romney also could win if Martians landed on the White House lawn and destroyed the place and the Capitol Building with a disintigrating ray.

The story exists. Read it or don't. Discuss its shortcomings and propaganda value or don't. Rip it apart or don't. I linked to it. I didn't write it.
Sounds like someone is doing just that-- they're saying the story is completely irrelevant to the 2012 election between Romney and Obama-- but you apparently don't like that someone is ripping it apart or discussing its shortcomings, etc.
Reply With Quote
  #211  
Old 08-27-2012, 03:40 PM
squeegee squeegee is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Gilroy CA
Posts: 8,319
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear Itself View Post
The perfect Republican response to a disaster in New Orleans is to ignore it, so yeah, they will see any response as a waste of taxpayer money. Now if it had been Omaha, Nebraska they would pull out all the stops to rescue right-thinking Republican babies.
The important thing isn't how they feel, but how it's spun. Some may feel how you describe, but that's at all not important. If they can spin the Fed's disaster response as inadequate and screwed up in any way, then they can pin that on Obama and call him and his administration incompetent. You don't think the GOP wants a do-over of Katrina? Of course they do, and all they have to do is recall the other side's derision of Bush from that time and push it, word for word, on the Obama administration, then scream about fairness if anyone disagrees. And if they're really really lucky, they get to do it during the GOP convention, when all the cameras are pointed at them and they can hammer and hammer these points.

Last edited by squeegee; 08-27-2012 at 03:41 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #212  
Old 08-27-2012, 04:07 PM
Damuri Ajashi Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
How about illegal aliens voting? How about felons voting where they are not permitted to?
How did those illegal aliens and felons get on the voter rolls?

Are they pretending to be someone they are not?

How many cases of this sort of thing have we seen in the last 50 years?

Quote:
Voter ID is a good tool against that, because while it does not stop the vote from being cast it provides a sufficient evidentiary trail to allow the person who illegally voted to be convicted.
If someone is actually voting as themselves, then ineligible voters shouldn't be on the voter rolls. If they are pretending to be someone else, then what evidentiary trail are you talking about? How do you find them? It seems like you are erecting some significant hurdles to voting in order to address corner cases that don't really happen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
Above all, baffled fury that Bush could win, because none of your friends voted for him.
I'll be honest, I was baffled and furious. How the hell did THAT happen.

Quote:
I think Romney's got a shot, based solely on the economy. But I might be wrong.

And if I am, and Obama wins a second term... well, he's a decent man and a decent President, and the country won't collapse.
To be fair, I think Romney is a decent man, I thought McCain was a decent man, I can't say the same about their right wing running mates or the new version of the Republican party generally.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
One thing to keep in mind: It's tempting to look at the list of states Romney must win and say, sure, he might win one or two of them, but what are the odds of him winning all of them? But the mistake in this thinking is that the vote totals in different states are not independent events. Sure, they're not lockstep: Romney speaking out against the corn industry, for instance, would hurt him in Iowa but probably not in Pennsylvania. But most of the things that will sway one state will sway all of them. If, for instance, he comes out with a detailed tax plan, the country is going to either like it or they won't. And Ohio will probably feel about the same way about it as Florida does. So, to a large extent, his performance in all of the swing states is going to be correlated.

In other words, Romney's task isn't to sway a whole bunch of separate races each his way; his task is to sway all of them at once, which is considerably easier. It's obviously hard, but it's doable.
+1

Too many democrats are breathing a sigh of relief because Obama is not trailing in the polls anymore (thank you 2009 tax returns and governor vaginal probe).

Quote:
Originally Posted by aceplace57 View Post
It pains me to say it, but its a close tie between Carter and Obama for lack of leadership. We've seen it constantly. Remember how close we came to defaulting last summer? There was no leadership to break the deadlock. We got a single golf game between Boehner and Obama.
Are you saying that we nearly defaulted because OBAMA refused to do something? You have a different memory of those events than I do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
The GOP position on tax cuts is nonsense and politically damaging to boot, but it's not the whole story. It's also about who is trusted to regulate smarter and run fiscal policy better. Democrats were in a great position to lock down the fiscal responsibility brand. But instead of repeating the Clinton plan, they went back to their old tricks of jacking up spending and regulating everything to death. That doctrine was rejected in 1980 and it hasn't gained in public acceptance since then.
You don't remember that the first stimulus (and TARP for that matter) were passed under Bush and pressed by a former CEO of Goldman Sachs? Are you under the impression that the stimulus didn't prevent a larger deeper recession? There is virtual consensus among economists that the stimulus helped.

You don't think there is a broad mandate to regulate the financial industry after the financial crash?

You don't think there was a mandate to regulate offshore drilling after the Horizon oil spill?

Quote:
Now it's up to Republicans to show that they can govern, assuming they get the chance.
They've had their chance. Their behaviour during the last two years are predlude to their behaviour once they get into power. In what way have they helped get this country back on track?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Hyde View Post
However as I thought about it some I don't know that the black vote is especially important in any state, even battleground states. Namely because it has historically been so monolithic, the voters that matter are the ones who can actually be swayed to vote for a certain candidate. Because the black vote is so monolithic, basically every election since 1980 you can assume they're voting overwhelmingly for the Democrat candidate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Not really. Blacks haven't overwhelmingly voted for the Democratic candidate. They have overwhelmingly not voted for the Republican candidate, but they also have rather low turnout rates compared to other demographics. Blacks were a significant part of Obama's 2008 victory not because he appealed to a significantly higher proportion of them, but because he got a higher proportion of them to actually come to the polls.
I agree its turnout. Voter participation among blacks exceeded white for the first time in 2008. Especially among young black voters. You have a generation of empowered young black voters who stayed away in 2010 and we lost. If we win in 2012 because of them, we can't take them for granted anymore.

Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
Unlikely. Maybe if the election was decided by less than 1000 votes, but in those cases both sides tend to think they got cheated. For every voter kept away with voter ID laws, there will be a felon that did get to vote.
The ratio is probably closer to 100,000 :: 1 than 1 :: 1. If you count all the folks that will not vote because the lines get so frikking long that they give up or the folks who dont even bother showing up then I suspect the ratio gets a lot higher.

Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
If voter ID laws cause longer lines, that's going to hurt Republicans, since they expect to beat Democrats in turnout this year.
cite please?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Hyde View Post
I love how often liberals on these boards use the "trickle down" argument against me.
They just confuse you for the typical conservative. Its like assuming that a relatively liberal poster might believe in evolution, its not true for every last one of them but its true for almost all their fellow travellers. Its the company you keep.

Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
Plus a lot of the attacks on Ryan's plan aren't even his current plan, but the 2011 version. The 2012 version he did with Ron Wyden and which also passed the House is the current plan and it keeps traditional Medicare as an option.
Once you keep traditional medicare as an option, you have not really fixed anything. As far as I can tell, its a repackaging of medicare part C and some means testing of medicare benefits.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oakminster View Post
How can Romney win? This ABC/Washington Post Poll gives him a "solid chance", and a 1% lead among registered voters. Dems that think this is going to be a cakewalk are deluding themselves. It could go either way.
I think some people are getting giddy about a temporary marginal advantage that Obama seems to have over Romney right now because of his tax returns, the medicare thing with Paul Ryan, and the focus that the "legitimate rape" comment put on the Republican's stance on birth control and abortion. The only thing that could make this any worse for him is if he starts saying obviously racist things.

I don't see how things could get any worse for him. This might be the low point in his campaign. I mean, what else can go wrong?
Reply With Quote
  #213  
Old 08-27-2012, 05:51 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambivalid View Post
Right but my question was specifically in regards to such voter obstacles; as in how can Romney possibly win without 'rigging the game' somehow.
You do realize that Republicans regularly win elections while getting creamed among blacks and losing women and Hispanics by anywhere from a little bit to horribly, right?
Reply With Quote
  #214  
Old 08-27-2012, 07:23 PM
adaher adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear Itself View Post
The perfect Republican response to a disaster in New Orleans is to ignore it, so yeah, they will see any response as a waste of taxpayer money. Now if it had been Omaha, Nebraska they would pull out all the stops to rescue right-thinking Republican babies.
If a very similar catastrophe happens and the response is just as slow, then I predict that the new Democratic talking points will be that responding to disasters of that scale is impossible and that Bush wasn't so bad after all, at least compared to those Tea Partiers.

of course, Obama will cover any slow response with a lot of jawboning about what the government is supposedly doing, and his supporters will label that "decisive action."
Reply With Quote
  #215  
Old 08-27-2012, 07:29 PM
Fear Itself Fear Itself is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: 847 mi. from Cecil
Posts: 29,073
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
If a very similar catastrophe happens and the response is just as slow, then I predict that the new Democratic talking points will be that responding to disasters of that scale is impossible and that Bush wasn't so bad after all, at least compared to those Tea Partiers.

of course, Obama will cover any slow response with a lot of jawboning about what the government is supposedly doing, and his supporters will label that "decisive action."
Why would there be a slow response? It's not like they don't realize they are under a microscope; they will move heaven and earth, damn the expense, to get it right this time.
Reply With Quote
  #216  
Old 08-28-2012, 10:38 PM
Rampant Coypu Rampant Coypu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2012
Obama understands economics. We had the deduction cut for lower income workers followed by the "making work pay" worksheet on the back of the 1040EZ and 1040A tax forms. We had the payroll tax holiday program. During these last four years I was responsible for saving my previous employer money by making sure every new hire had filled out the payroll tax holiday form. This is the most badass form of supply side economics ever. Businesses wanna hire people, give them a year long break from paying a share of the payroll tax. This is the demand support side of supply side economics and I am in favor of it. Hell, I lost my job and got a new job thanks to the fact that my new employer wanted the payroll tax exemption.

Obama understands that the problem is weak demand and has shifted tax policy to prop up demand and employment. Romney wants to end all of that and make almost everyone pay more taxes so the richest can pay less.

Romney will raise your taxes. Don't you understand that? I am sure that at least some reader of SDMB is a business owner who got at least a little break from the payroll tax holiday.
Reply With Quote
  #217  
Old 08-28-2012, 11:03 PM
Leaper Leaper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: In my own little world...
Posts: 9,436
One prominent conservative blogger seems to think it's very possible, even probable (note that the title is about the campaign in general, not of the Obama administration in particular):

Quote:
Originally Posted by Erick Erickson
Both sides think they can win, but privately, in real and honest assessments, even the base is capable of a reality check. The reality check in Tampa is that momentum is with the GOP. The Democrats, unable to run against the economy, intend to make the election about the female uterus, not an economic recovery. At 8.3% unemployment, people are much more interested in putting food on their tables than over killing kids.

The mood in Tampa is upbeat and not just in public.
Reply With Quote
  #218  
Old 08-28-2012, 11:06 PM
adaher adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear Itself View Post
Why would there be a slow response? It's not like they don't realize they are under a microscope; they will move heaven and earth, damn the expense, to get it right this time.
That doesn't mean they will. Determination is not competence.
Reply With Quote
  #219  
Old 08-29-2012, 05:29 AM
gamerunknown gamerunknown is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blogger
The mood in Tampa is upbeat and not just in public.
I thought people were more worried about putting food on the table than killing babies? Why should they be excited for the Republican National Convention?

Hell, even with Norwegian levels of unemployment I'd be more worried about a coming hurricane.
Reply With Quote
  #220  
Old 08-29-2012, 09:29 AM
Evil Captor Evil Captor is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
You do realize that Republicans regularly win elections while getting creamed among blacks and losing women and Hispanics by anywhere from a little bit to horribly, right?
Yes, we also realize that Republicans are doing their damnedest to rig the game via voter suppression measures and that some damn dicey things have happened WRT vote counts in the last couple of elections in places like Ohio and Florida.
Reply With Quote
  #221  
Old 08-29-2012, 12:34 PM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: New England
Posts: 33,269
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
That doesn't mean they will. Determination is not competence.
What makes you think competence is an issue now, like it was for Brownie?
Reply With Quote
  #222  
Old 08-29-2012, 01:34 PM
Fuzzy Dunlop Fuzzy Dunlop is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leaper View Post
One prominent conservative blogger seems to think it's very possible, even probable (note that the title is about the campaign in general, not of the Obama administration in particular):
It's sort of interestingly self-referential that an extreme partisan blogger is talking publicly about how politicians sometimes privately doubt their chances - but not this time! How lucky for him.

But if you read articles by actual journalists there's pretty widespread anxiety from Republican politicians and campaign staffers, etc. as long as they're being quoted anonymously or on deep background.

For instance, shortly after Ryan was announced Politico ran a story citing a half dozen GOP insiders as being extremely worried or doubtful about the choice. They said the private mood was between worried and dread.

So of course some blogger is going to say that the GOP is privately optimistic, but actual GOP candidates and operatives privately tell actual journalists a different story.
Reply With Quote
  #223  
Old 08-29-2012, 03:16 PM
Damuri Ajashi Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
That doesn't mean they will. Determination is not competence.
It doesn't take a very high level of competence to avoid a repeat of a preventable disaster that we have seen before, it takes acknowledgement and determination.
Reply With Quote
  #224  
Old 09-12-2012, 03:50 PM
Happy Lendervedder Happy Lendervedder is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
I punched in a scenario at 270towin.com today. A scenario where I give Romney a "best-case scenario."

This was my formula: If Nate Silver's Nov. 6 forecast gives Obama a 75% chance or better of taking the state (rounding to the nearest percentage point), I give it to Obama. Anything less than a 75% chance of victory for Obama, then I give the state to Romney. Plus, despite the fact Silver gives Obama a 77% chance of winning Ohio, I give that state to Romney, too. Just because.

Basically, I give every state to Romney that he has at least a 25% chance of winning PLUS I give him Ohio (where Silver doesn't even give him a 23% chance).

After all of that, Romney still only comes up with 266 EVs to Obama's 272.



With less than eight weeks to go, I really do not see a path for Romney to win this. There just isn't that much movement in the polls these days. Even if the GOP has better GOTV on election day, plus successful voter suppression in certain states targeting Democratic voters-- even if you give Romney two out of three debates-- even if you give Romney all of the margins of error in the polls-- I still don't see how he can win the presidency if he has to be given states that are currently leaning fairly strongly toward Obama, just to make it to 266 EVs.

Last edited by Happy Lendervedder; 09-12-2012 at 03:51 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #225  
Old 09-12-2012, 04:03 PM
DigitalC DigitalC is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Obviously the path for Romney to win is by doing better than he is now, and as unlikely as it seems it could still happen.
Reply With Quote
  #226  
Old 09-12-2012, 04:24 PM
Happy Lendervedder Happy Lendervedder is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Quote:
Obviously the path for Romney to win is by doing better than he is now,
A more obvious statement I can not imagine.

Quote:
and as unlikely as it seems it could still happen.
If the previous four years are any indication of Mitt's ability to successfully run for president, I'm not convinced he'll be able to actually turn anything around in the next eight weeks. Game, set match Obama.
Reply With Quote
  #227  
Old 09-12-2012, 04:38 PM
Kolak of Twilo Kolak of Twilo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Paris on the Prairie
Posts: 2,416
Happy, I've been using basically the same parameters you have for several weeks and I agree it doesn't look good at all for Romney. Having said that, I have also been resisting the urge to get overly optimistic or cocky like some other folks on here have. However, given how regularly Romney keeps stepping on his own dick, like he did concerning the tragedy in Libya, I am finally starting to relax and think this is wrapping up.

Barring some major disaster in the debates I have to say Romney looks to be nearly ready to have a fork stuck in him.
Reply With Quote
  #228  
Old 09-12-2012, 05:55 PM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: New England
Posts: 33,269
Even Haley Barbour pointed out "You can step on your own dick. You just can't jump and down on it."
Reply With Quote
  #229  
Old 09-12-2012, 06:32 PM
Measure for Measure Measure for Measure is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 10,015
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Lendervedder View Post
I punched in a scenario at 270towin.com today. A scenario where I give Romney a "best-case scenario."

This was my formula: If Nate Silver's Nov. 6 forecast gives Obama a 75% chance or better of taking the state (rounding to the nearest percentage point), I give it to Obama. Anything less than a 75% chance of victory for Obama, then I give the state to Romney. Plus, despite the fact Silver gives Obama a 77% chance of winning Ohio, I give that state to Romney, too. Just because.

Basically, I give every state to Romney that he has at least a 25% chance of winning PLUS I give him Ohio (where Silver doesn't even give him a 23% chance).

After all of that, Romney still only comes up with 266 EVs to Obama's 272.

With less than eight weeks to go, I really do not see a path for Romney to win this. There just isn't that much movement in the polls these days. Even if the GOP has better GOTV on election day, plus successful voter suppression in certain states targeting Democratic voters-- even if you give Romney two out of three debates-- even if you give Romney all of the margins of error in the polls-- I still don't see how he can win the presidency if he has to be given states that are currently leaning fairly strongly toward Obama, just to make it to 266 EVs.
There's a problem with your methodology. State probabilities are correlated with one another. So if there's a big national swing in the polls, those odds could collapse quickly.

That said, foreign policy crises tend to make the President look more Presidential. And Romney's team doesn't understand basic diplomacy, in a way that's even somewhat apparent on the television. Now Romney is an objectively strong debater. But he's not good at working outside of the box: he's best when he stays cocooned inside his script. [1] Still, we're talking about a 4 percentage point spread that has to be closed: it shouldn't be insurmountable.


[1] http://www.nationaljournal.com/2012-...bates-20120823
Reply With Quote
  #230  
Old 09-12-2012, 06:40 PM
a35362 a35362 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Northern Illinois
Posts: 3,656
It's gonna be close; the numbers are going to tighten up, they always do.

I'm scared that it's going to come down to Election Day shenanigans in swing states.
Reply With Quote
  #231  
Old 09-12-2012, 07:04 PM
Andiethewestie Andiethewestie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
This latest disaster from Romney could be a game changer. We'll see on October 3.
Reply With Quote
  #232  
Old 09-12-2012, 07:13 PM
Happy Lendervedder Happy Lendervedder is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Measure for Measure View Post
There's a problem with your methodology. State probabilities are correlated with one another. So if there's a big national swing in the polls, those odds could collapse quickly.
You're right, and that's why I gave everything south and east of Michigan to Romney. If things start to collapse, Ohio and Florida will most likely be the first to leave Obama's column. Followed by the delicate flowers that are Virginia and North Carolina. I don't see anything big enough (nationally) to cause the battlegrounds of Pennsylvania on north to ultimately benefit Romney. I also think the battlegrounds out west are isolated from any national swings, unless Obama really, really, really fouls something up.

National swings will hurt Obama in the ones Obama has to really scrap for-- Ohio, Florida, Virginia and North Carolina. I gave all of those to Romney anyway assuming something bad to happen.

Pennsylvania, removing the outliers, shows to be Obama's by more than 7 points in an average of polls right now. Skulduggery is probably the only chance Romney has there, and I don't think they could count on enough skulduggery to overcome the deficit they face in that state.

Colorado has (L) candidate Johnson polling between 10 and 12 percent. I think that's going to hurt Romney more than Obama, because I think people will would be more likely to defect from the (R) to the (L) at this point if something were to go wrong for Romney, whereas if Obama were to stumble nationally, those lost Obama supporters would probably just stay home.

Which leaves Iowa. Personally, if all of that "worst case scenario" for Obama pans out as I put it on that map, it would all come down to Iowa. Which right now Silver predicts Obama will take with 74.9% certainty. But I think that state would be affected with a big national swing, however. It's the delicate flower of the Midwest.

Still, I don't see Romney having much of a path to victory. That being said, I take nothing for granted and will be on the road for the final 3-4 weeks stumping for the O man.
Reply With Quote
  #233  
Old 09-12-2012, 08:02 PM
Chronos Chronos is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 55,555
Happy, if you trust Silver enough to base your figures on his odds for each state, then why don't you trust his entire model? If you're at 538 anyway, just take a look over at the right column to where he's done the work for you, and finds a 20% chance of a Romney victory.
Reply With Quote
  #234  
Old 09-12-2012, 08:28 PM
Fuzzy Dunlop Fuzzy Dunlop is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by a35362 View Post
It's gonna be close; the numbers are going to tighten up, they always do.
Actually Obama's lead over McCain grew without bounds right up to the election.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andiethewestie View Post
This latest disaster from Romney could be a game changer. We'll see on October 3.
I can't quite tell if you're making a joke or if we're on completely different pages, but I think this latest disaster does illustrate a key point to conservatives who are praying some some seismic event capable of shifting the race to Romney's favor.

Namely, that even if something major does happen that's capable of shifting the race it's not fair to conclude it'll be in Romney's favor or that he'll manage to not ruin it.

If Obama blew it or Romney managed to respond very Presidentially, these horrible embassy attacks could've been helpful - at least it was a chance to change the campaign - but instead he's just stomping up and down on his own dick.

Last edited by Fuzzy Dunlop; 09-12-2012 at 08:30 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #235  
Old 09-12-2012, 08:34 PM
a35362 a35362 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Northern Illinois
Posts: 3,656
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzzy Dunlop View Post
Actually Obama's lead over McCain grew without bounds right up to the election....
McCain had Sarah Palin helping him.
Reply With Quote
  #236  
Old 09-12-2012, 08:47 PM
Happy Lendervedder Happy Lendervedder is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Happy, if you trust Silver enough to base your figures on his odds for each state, then why don't you trust his entire model? If you're at 538 anyway, just take a look over at the right column to where he's done the work for you, and finds a 20% chance of a Romney victory.
Who says I don't. I was just looking at a worst-case scenario, state by state, for Obama based on Silver's numbers. I mean, this thread asked "How can Romney possibly win," right? I was looking to see how he possibly could. He can't, in my opinion.

Last edited by Happy Lendervedder; 09-12-2012 at 08:49 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #237  
Old 09-12-2012, 09:52 PM
RickJay RickJay is online now
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 32,202
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Lendervedder View Post
Basically, I give every state to Romney that he has at least a 25% chance of winning PLUS I give him Ohio (where Silver doesn't even give him a 23% chance).
As of today Silver has the odds in Colorado 75.7-24.3. But you gave that state to Obama. That would put Romney over the top.

As others have pointed out a Romney victory requires a broad national swing, not targeted efforts, so a Romney victory is hinged on a major national swing that could carry away Colorado, Nevada or New Mexico, all of which are possible Romney wins and all of which your scenario gives to Obama. Based on Romney's astounding stupidity in this embassy attack thing, it's hard to believe that could happen but weirder things have happened. Nobody thought Reagan would stomp Carter.

If we dig deeper in Silver's numbers, although he feels Obama has a 3-to-1 shot at winning Colorado, he currently projects a vote difference of 4%, which ain't much. It's a significant barrier, a hurdle to overcome, but it is not insurmountable by any means.

Let's suppose Romney can stop shooting his own feet and Obama screws up, or there's a really surprising debacle, or the debate goes well for Romney, and you see a 2+ percentage point swing in the polls (giving Romney 2 points at Obama's expense of 2 points.) According to Silver, that flips not only Colorado, but Florida, Ohio, Virginia, and Silver already has Romney winning North Carolina.

Romney wins that scenario 275-263.

Is it likely? Well, no. This week demonstrates that the conventions suggested, which is that Romney and his team are not political wizards. But funnier things have happened.
Reply With Quote
  #238  
Old 09-12-2012, 10:07 PM
Andiethewestie Andiethewestie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzzy Dunlop View Post
Actually Obama's lead over McCain grew without bounds right up to the election.



I can't quite tell if you're making a joke or if we're on completely different pages, but I think this latest disaster does illustrate a key point to conservatives who are praying some some seismic event capable of shifting the race to Romney's favor.
No joke. I mean Game Changer as in the sense of an erstwhile close election now suddenly past the tipping point and Romney is on the downside of losing and losing badly. It will all depend, I think on how the media reports this and if they think the story has legs for the next few days of news cycles.
Reply With Quote
  #239  
Old 09-12-2012, 10:46 PM
Steve MB Steve MB is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 9,490
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andiethewestie View Post
No joke. I mean Game Changer as in the sense of an erstwhile close election now suddenly past the tipping point and Romney is on the downside of losing and losing badly. It will all depend, I think on how the media reports this and if they think the story has legs for the next few days of news cycles.
The key term is "news cycles" -- even if this or that dick-stomp by Romney blows over, it uses up time he can't afford to lose if he hopes to turn the situation around.
__________________
The Internet: Nobody knows if you're a dog. Everybody knows if you're a jackass.

Last edited by Steve MB; 09-12-2012 at 10:47 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #240  
Old 09-12-2012, 10:57 PM
MacCat MacCat is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by a35362 View Post
McCain had Sarah Palin helping him.
She was on O'Reilly advising Romney
Reply With Quote
  #241  
Old 09-12-2012, 11:51 PM
RickJay RickJay is online now
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 32,202
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andiethewestie View Post
No joke. I mean Game Changer as in the sense of an erstwhile close election now suddenly past the tipping point and Romney is on the downside of losing and losing badly.
No he isn't. If by "losing badly" you mean "losing by a greater margin than is usual" that's virtually impossible. There's no realistic scenario, barring a live boy/dead girl revelation, that would gut Romney's support much lower than it is now. Realistically, the worst Romney could do without bring caught raping a hobo would be if he lost every swing state including North Carolina, which would be a margin of 347-191, actually BETTER than McCain did. That would also probably mean a popular vote margin of 5-6%, probably less than the 2008 margin. Romney will probably lose; he will almost certainly not suffer a bad defeat, though. He has a solid hold on a lot of states.

People think of these things as close because the Bush victories were so narrow, but in fact, historically, the EV margin is usually not that close; Obama's 2008 victory was not at all spectacular by modern standards. Clinton's 1996 election was more impressive and his 1992 election was about as good as Obama's; both Reagan victories and Bush 1.0's win were landslides. Going by the EVs won by the winner:

2008: Obama 365
2004: Bush 286
2000: Bush 271, plus 1 faithless elector
1996: Clinton 379
1992: Clinton 370
1988: Bush 426
1984: Reagan 525 (ouch)
1980: Reagan 489
1976: Carter 297
1972: Nixon 520
1968: Nixon 301 (Last election in which a third party received EVs)
1964: Johnson 486
1960: Kennedy 303
1956: Eisenhower 457
1952: Eisenhower 442
1948: Truman 303

So in 15 post-war elections before 2008, 9 saw the winner take home more EVs than Obama did in 2008. Realistically I don't see how he takes that many this year; putting together the map, I see a great night for Obama being a 347-191 victory. He won't hold Indiana.

Last edited by RickJay; 09-12-2012 at 11:52 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #242  
Old 09-13-2012, 12:25 AM
Measure for Measure Measure for Measure is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 10,015
Does character really matter?

What I'm wondering about is how much Obama beats the Fair model. That is, after controlling for incumbency and the state of the economy, who is the stronger candidate?

Obama beat an octogenarian with a wholly unqualified Vice President by 1.5 percentage points according to that metric which is respectable but not that amazing. In historical terms the true mismatch was Bush v. Dukkakis: the latter was truly an awful candidate. Two months ago I would have said that Obama would not perform that exceptionally. But after the Republican Convention, Romney's international gaffe tour, his disgraceful and pathetic deceptions about the State Department's official positions, I can't rule out a 3 percentage point victory. Which is large but not off the charts.

Still there are 3 debates and jillions of ad dollars to go. Will we see a shred of honor coming from the Romney campaign?
Reply With Quote
  #243  
Old 09-13-2012, 09:20 AM
Happy Lendervedder Happy Lendervedder is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
As of today Silver has the odds in Colorado 75.7-24.3. But you gave that state to Obama.
I gave that state to Obama because Romney didn't meet the 25% threshold I set. Do you think I incorrectly gave that to Obama? Your 'but' seems to suggest that.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:24 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.