Super Tuesday Results thread

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by Measure for Measure

I noticed Ron Paul got 40.5% in the two-way Virginia contest. Romney got 59.5. That's interesting, because Paul has in the past faced a ceiling of 25%, while Romney has had trouble climbing above 50%. I think Paul's accomplishment is more noteworthy, as he beat the baseline by 15.5 points to Romney's 9.5 points.

Virginia was a fluke because Gingrich and Santorum weren't on the ballot. At least half of Paul's votes were probably Gingrich and Santorum supporters voting against Romney.

[BrainGlutton]

Please, Og, please let this all keep going and going and going until August . . .

[Bridget Burke]

Another Great White Hope heard from....

Meanwhile, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin has endorsed none of the four major contenders, except to say any would be better than Democrat President Obama.

Catching her at a voting precinct in Wasilla, Alaska, CNN asked her whether she would allow someone to put her name in nomination for the White House at the GOP's convention in Tampa, should none of the four current contenders be able to muster the delegates necessary to secure the nomination.

"I don't close any doors that perhaps would be open out there, so, no, I wouldn't close that door," said Palin. "And my plan is to be at that convention."

[Marley23]

So Romney wins 7 states, Santorum gets 3, and Gingrich gets one (and does not come close in any others). I don't know quite what the delegate breakdown looks like, but Romney is getting the lion's share and he didn't lose anything he desperately needed to win. I'm sure his campaign was hoping for a slightly bigger win in Ohio, but all things considered it's definitely a good night for Romney. There's no reason he shouldn't be able to gradually grind his way to a win from here. I don't know what the roadmap for Santorum would be in making up this gap.

[Onomatopoeia]

Originally Posted by Marley23

So Romney wins 7 states, Santorum gets 3, and Gingrich gets one (and does not come close in any others). I don't know quite what the delegate breakdown looks like, but Romney is getting the lion's share and he didn't lose anything he desperately needed to win. I'm sure his campaign was hoping for a slightly bigger win in Ohio, but all things considered it's definitely a good night for Romney. There's no reason he shouldn't be able to gradually grind his way to a win from here. I don't know what the roadmap for Santorum would be in making up this gap.

So, what does Gingrich do at this point, stay in and play spoiler to Santorum? He's certainly not hurting Romney, and there certainly is no path for him to the nomination.

[Marley23]

I said this a few weeks ago, I think, but it depends on Gingrich's ego and Sheldon Adelson's money. Since Gingrich's ego has almost no bounds, I guess that means it mostly depends on whether Adelson wants to continue funding his campaign.

[Barkis is Willin']

Gingrich will at least stay in for Alabama and Mississippi next week. If he comes in a distant 3rd in both those states, he's got to get out. I think even he can recognize that.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Barkis is Willin'

Gingrich will at least stay in for Alabama and Mississippi next week. If he comes in a distant 3rd in both those states, he's got to get out. I think even he can recognize that.

Don't listen, Newt! Hang in there by your fingers as long as you can! You can still get enough delegates to make some real dick moves in Tampa! Come, on, Newt, this is no time to be a gentleman! Be true to your nature! Be a stinker! You know you want to!

[Marley23]

NBC News explains why the lack of winner-take all primaries makes it very hard for Santorum or Gingrich or Paul to catch up to Romney. By NBC's counting, Romney has about three times as many delegates as Santorum and Gingrich.

[Barkis is Willin']

Last night on CNN, John King basically played out his prediction for the remaining states and yes, it is nearly impossible for anyone to catch Romney. However, it is very possible for Romney to fall short of the required amount of delegates to win the nomination outright.

[Little Nemo]

I think Gingrich and Paul have to concede at this point. Paul didn't carry Alaska, Idaho, or Vermont, which are as pro-libertarian as any states out there. Gingrich took Georgia but he came in third in Tennessee, so he can't even claim to have a regional base. Anything after this is just a spoiler campaign.

[This_Just_In...]

I think Newt & Paul will stay in it for the long run, even though they cannot win. I doubt they really care who wins (Santorum or Romney). Their remaining goal is to get as many delegates as they can and hope Romney cannot get a 50% majority by the convention.

At that point Romney will have to negotiate with at least one of the others. Probably by offering the vice-presidency in exchange for delegate votes. It is all a slimy game.

[Marley23]

Paul sees himself as an issues candidate and he's not running for another term in Congress, so there's not much reason for him to drop out. McCain clinched victory in March 2008 and the last primaries were on June 3, and Paul didn't drop out until June 12. Unless his base just gives up and stops donating and he runs out of money, he'll be there until the end even though he won't be competitive.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by Marley23

Paul sees himself as an issues candidate and he's not running for another term in Congress, so there's not much reason for him to drop out. McCain clinched victory in March 2008 and the last primaries were on June 3, and Paul didn't drop out until June 12. Unless his base just gives up and stops donating and he runs out of money, he'll be there until the end even though he won't be competitive.

I think at this point he's doing his base more harm than good. The mainstream Republican party might decide that its libertarian faction is big enough to be disruptive but small enough to be jettisoned without costing them any elections.

[Ennui]

Originally Posted by This_Just_In...

I think Newt & Paul will stay in it for the long run, even though they cannot win. I doubt they really care who wins (Santorum or Romney). Their remaining goal is to get as many delegates as they can and hope Romney cannot get a 50% majority by the convention.

At that point Romney will have to negotiate with at least one of the others. Probably by offering the vice-presidency in exchange for delegate votes. It is all a slimy game.

Originally Posted by Marley23

Paul sees himself as an issues candidate and he's not running for another term in Congress, so there's not much reason for him to drop out. McCain clinched victory in March 2008 and the last primaries were on June 3, and Paul didn't drop out until June 12. Unless his base just gives up and stops donating and he runs out of money, he'll be there until the end even though he won't be competitive.

Ron Paul is an interesting case here, he never could have won but he markets himself very well on something like a retail level. He has a very diverse following ranging from some old line libertarians to a bunch of conspiracy fringe groups. But one central aspect of his appeal is that he isn't a "buisness as usual" politician. It isn't inconceivable that Paul's delegates could be of significance in a brokered convention but how does he explain to his "End the Fed" followers why he sold their support to Mit "Captain Capitalism" Romney?

It looks like Ron may be preparing to ride off into the sunset and any emolument he may barter from Romney would benefit his son Rand. But he still has long term "speakers fees" income potential on the lunatic fringe. Peymon Mottahedeh is a "sovereign citizen" who's "Freedom Law School" teaches you to defeat the evil IRS in court (for a stiff fee) only neither he nor any of his students has ever beat the IRS in court (and he doesn't give refunds). And Ron Paul is expected to be a keynote speaker at Freedom Law School's 2012 Freedom Rally. In fairness to Dr.Paul he is listed as a "pending" keynote speaker and let me assure you that Mr. Mottahedeh lies for a living so it's possible he never even invited Ron Paul to attend. But "Freedom Law School" is about as fringe as you can get without disconnecting from the grid and Ron Paul is evidently an attractive enough personage to help drum up sales for "freedom rally" tickets. I don't expect the Doctor to attend but wonder how much, if any he values future speaking fees from the anxious and the angry.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Ennui

It isn't inconceivable that Paul's delegates could be of significance in a brokered convention but how does he explain to his "End the Fed" followers why he sold their support to Mit "Captain Capitalism" Romney?

There won't be a brokered convention, and it's pretty unlikely that Paul could sell an endorsement like this to his supporters. Even if he tried, I don't know if they would listen. I'm also doubtful on the idea that a Ron Paul endorsement of any candidate would mean anything for Rand Paul's career.

I forgot about this, but Ron Paul didn't back John McCain in 2008. He endorsed Chuck Baldwin (Constitution Party) and could certainly do that again this year. I don't think any of the other Republican candidates are counting on his endorsement and aren't going to do much to court it if it means offending bigger groups of voters. They seem to think he's nuts, not that I really disagree.

[Ennui]

I agree that a brokered convention is a very remote possibility, but can't we dream?

If Newt drops out after the next round and all other things keep breaking the way they have been (unwarranted assumption) the combination of actual Santorum supporters and not-Romney votes might prove greater than the number of Romney supporters in the remaining primaries. There functionally isn't a democratic primary this year and while "mischievous cross over voting" has been minor so far, that might change. The byzantine superpac finance rules open strategic funding options that just might help campaigns keep their enemies enemy in a race longer than they otherwise may have been.

I freely admit to being somewhat fanciful here, odds are Romney grinds out the nomination leaving the Republicans with a "hold your nose and get out the vote" campaign for the general. But I've never witnessed a brokered convention and while it isn't really a "bucket list" item for me it would keep me bouncing between 24 hour news stations for the duration.

[That Don Guy]

I think there are two things people who think there is a chance of a "brokered convention" aren't considering.

First, there are still some large states - Pennsylvania, New York, Texas, and California come to mind - remaining, and with the possible exception of Texas, none of them seem to have the "Christian support" that tends to support Santorum or Gingrich; also, California is district-level winner take all (being a "solid blue" state, it has only 10 pledged statewide delegates available).

Second, nobody seems to know how the superdelegates will vote - and yes, the Republicans have superdelegates, albeit only about 100 (each state gets 3, except for the states that lost half of their delegates for being early, and some states force them to vote for the statewide winner).

[CJJ*]

Originally Posted by Onomatopoeia

So, what does Gingrich do at this point, stay in and play spoiler to Santorum? He's certainly not hurting Romney, and there certainly is no path for him to the nomination.

Gingrich's categorical imperative is to do what benefits Gingrich personally. Sure he'd like to stick it to Romney, and I'm sure he realizes that he's essentially splitting the base with Santorum, which makes it easier for Romney to win. But quitting for him would mean a personal sacrifice of prestige and celebrity (not to mention more mundane matters like campaign money and book sales), and that is something he will not abide.

It doesn't matter to him that a protracted primary is damaging his party. It doesn't matter to him that he's only helping Romney (a man he truly can't stand) by staying in at this point. The only thing that matters is that he keep his bulbous head on the teevee and that the media continue to pay attention to him (y'know, he was on three of the four Sunday political shows this past week; quite a coup for an also-ran).

[Kozmik]

Originally Posted by Ennui

If Newt drops out after the next round and all other things keep breaking the way they have been (unwarranted assumption) the combination of actual Santorum supporters and not-Romney votes might prove greater than the number of Romney supporters in the remaining primaries.

That's what Wolf Blitzer said on CNN just now. That if Gingrich drops out then Santorum can present himself as the "alternative" to Romney. I agree. Nothing changes here on out with Romney, Santorum, Gingrich, and Paul. Everything changes going forward with Romney, Santorum, and Paul.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by CJJ*

Gingrich's categorical imperative is to do what benefits Gingrich personally. Sure he'd like to stick it to Romney, and I'm sure he realizes that he's essentially splitting the base with Santorum, which makes it easier for Romney to win. But quitting for him would mean a personal sacrifice of prestige and celebrity (not to mention more mundane matters like campaign money and book sales), and that is something he will not abide.

It doesn't matter to him that a protracted primary is damaging his party. It doesn't matter to him that he's only helping Romney (a man he truly can't stand) by staying in at this point. The only thing that matters is that he keep his bulbous head on the teevee and that the media continue to pay attention to him (y'know, he was on three of the four Sunday political shows this past week; quite a coup for an also-ran).

But Gingrich has to know that if he doesn't get elected President (and he has to be realistic enough to realize how unlikely that is at this point) he needs to have a fall-back position as part of the conservative establishment. He doesn't want to burn that bridge by being seen as the guy that split the party and got Obama re-elected.

[Little Nemo]

I figure at this point Santorum is looking at 2016. He knows Romney will get the nomination this time but he figures he'll be the second place winner. This is what Romney was in 2008.

So Santorum is figuring he'll only be 57 in 2016 and it'll be "his turn".

[Lantern]

I don't think it's inconceivable that Newt could bow out if he is defeated heavily in the next set of primaries. He is an egotistical blowhard but you can't come this far in politics without having some grip of political reality. It doesn't serve his interest dragging on in the race, frequently coming fourth and being lambasted by hardcore conservatives for helping Romney. A nicely timed exit, an endorsement for Santorum, and sustained attacks on Romney serve his future in the conservative movement a lot better. Plus I get the impression he has genuinely come to loathe Romney.

[Measure for Measure]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

Virginia was a fluke because Gingrich and Santorum weren't on the ballot. At least half of Paul's votes were probably Gingrich and Santorum supporters voting against Romney.

Originally Posted by Martin Hyde

Each State is different, so variation from baseline isn't terribly interesting. There were different realities at play in Virginia than anywhere else. For one, of the major candidates only Romney was on the ballot there.

I thought of it as a natural experiment: it was a 1:1 matchup. If you considered Romney to be the only major candidate on the ballot, then 60% is pathetic. If you think that Ron Paul's support necessarily has a 25% ceiling, then your hypothesis is falsified. And I thought that Virginia wasn't an especially unusual state, insofar as it was near the border of the Mason Dixon line.

The "fix is in place" is ludicrous, the rules were adopted long before...

Yes, agreed: consider that a wisecrack.

Martin: I'm afraid I don't follow your overall argument, so I'm going to have to resort to tit for tat:

Originally Posted by Martin Hyde

There's been a few threads now where you cite things like intrade as though you have some sort of absolute factual basis for making election analysis. That just isn't how it works, and I'm not terribly interested in arguments along those lines.

I find this puzzling. If somebody believes that Obama has a 98% chance of re-election then it's reasonable to point out that he can make big money at intrade. I opine that intrade thereby encourages a degree of humility. I intend to keep alluding to intrade... though I should note that Ravenman has made some excellent criticisms of this approach. Intrade is in the end an aggregator of the opinions of mostly nonprofessional observers. One can think of it as an average subjective probability: the objective probability is something else (and may or may not even exist in a coherent way).

I think your structural analysis is deeply flawed. The GOP electorate isn't dramatically different than it was in 2000, 2004, 2008. In 2000/2004 we nominated a candidate who won, and in 2008 we nominated a candidate who did the expected right ward shift he had to do in order to get nominated but he wasn't a dreg of a candidate. McCain was leading in the polls and then the economy turned sour and people blamed the Republicans.

Given the state of the economy, Obama did about 1.5 points better than average in the popular vote, according to the Fair model. He won by 3.4 points, so if his performance was average, yes, he still probably would have won.

My argument doesn't depend upon demographics (though there is an interesting demographic argument by Judis and Teixeira). My argument is based upon shifts in attitudes and ideology among the Republican base. That's reasonable right? After all, it is not difficult to point to changes in the electronic media over the past 35 years or so. More substantively, I can compare fiscally responsible Republicans of the 1970s who favored tax increases, to today's conservatives who feel unbound by grade school budgetary arithmetic. And I can point to the decline in serious scientific policy analysis along the timeline, step by step.

You can't deterministically ascribe absolute causes to election outcomes based on studies of trends that follow the election results.

I don't see why not. You posit a reasonable hypothesis that passes logical consistency checks. Then you test it. Then you keep the same model and test it every four years. Repeat that for 25+ years (with one mild revision) and it becomes difficult to explain alternate hypotheses on a fundamental level. There are critiques that can be made of the Fair model, but I don't think this is one of them.


I confess that I may be misunderstanding some things in Martin Hyde's discussion: please accept my sincere apologies.

[Lantern]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

I figure at this point Santorum is looking at 2016. He knows Romney will get the nomination this time but he figures he'll be the second place winner. This is what Romney was in 2008.

So Santorum is figuring he'll only be 57 in 2016 and it'll be "his turn".

I was thinking of this as well. Santorum is well-placed to be a serious contender in 2016. He has four years to raise money and build an organization and he will have credibility right from the beginning whereas this time that he was taken seriously only after Iowa. He will have some formidable contenders like Rubio and Christie and I don't think he will win but I think he has earned himself a ticket straight to the top tier of candidates next time round.

And I wonder whether Pawlenty is regretting his early exit. He clearly underestimated how volatile the race was and how multiple non-Romney's would get their chance. When he left, he was going nowhere but neither were Santorum, Gingrich or Cain. I think Pawlenty could have made a serious run for the social conservatives in Iowa and done what Santorum did. I think he would have been a steadier, more polished candidate than Santorum and a bigger threat to Romney.

[elucidator]

Maybe you're just dazzled by Pawlenty's raw charisma.

[DSeid]

Originally Posted by That Don Guy

I think there are two things people who think there is a chance of a "brokered convention" aren't considering.

First, there are still some large states - Pennsylvania, New York, Texas, and California come to mind - remaining, and with the possible exception of Texas, none of them seem to have the "Christian support" that tends to support Santorum or Gingrich ...

While the possibility of a brokered or contested convention, always a longshot, has become even less likely lately, do remember that Pennsylvania was represented by Santorum for many years. And what's that you say about Texas?? Which many of the pundits actually think could go Gingrich if he was viable at that point. So of those New York and California are likely dependable for Romney, the other two not so much so.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

I figure at this point Santorum is looking at 2016. He knows Romney will get the nomination this time but he figures he'll be the second place winner. This is what Romney was in 2008.

Romney didn't come in second place in 2008. He had significantly fewer delegates than Mike Huckabee.

[Simplicio]

Originally Posted by Marley23

Romney didn't come in second place in 2008. He had significantly fewer delegates than Mike Huckabee.

Well, seven fewer. But Romney won more states and had a larger fraction of the vote despite withdrawing much earlier in the process. "The runner up" in a primary is always open to interpretation because candidates end their campaigns at different points in the process, but I think it was pretty clear Romney was in second place in '08.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Simplicio

Well, seven fewer.

I guess it depends on whether you're going by the actual number of pledged delegates or a broader estimate.

But Romney won more states and had a larger fraction of the vote despite withdrawing much earlier in the process.

It's not a universal rule, but withdrawing earlier in the process is usually not a sign that you are doing better than a guy who stays in for longer. I agree there are different ways to interpret these results and it's true that Huckabee was always going to have an ability to appeal to non-evangelical voters. That wasn't Romney's problem, although his appeal also has some significant limitations. My point here is that I think people who have bought into the "the Republicans always give it to the last runner-up" theory try too hard to make the facts fit the story, which means they pretty much ignore Huckabee, and the fact that his campaign did better than expected while Romney's did worse.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Ennui

I freely admit to being somewhat fanciful here, odds are Romney grinds out the nomination leaving the Republicans with a "hold your nose and get out the vote" campaign for the general. But I've never witnessed a brokered convention and while it isn't really a "bucket list" item for me it would keep me bouncing between 24 hour news stations for the duration.

Riots. Political street riots in Tampa. Like Chicago in 1968 only sillier. Please, Og.

[elucidator]

"The whole world is watching! God, how embarrassing! The whole world is watching! God, how embarrassing!"

[etv78]

The upcoming map seems tailor made for Santorum. Gingrich is toast.

[Do Not Taunt]

Originally Posted by Martin Hyde

McCain was leading in the polls and then the economy turned sour and people blamed the Republicans.

What now? Obama led the polls from the moment he became the Democratic nominee until the election, with the exception of a short bounce around the RNC when Palin was chosen as the VP nominee, but before she opened her mouth too much: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...obama-225.html.

[Martin Hyde]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Don't listen, Newt! Hang in there by your fingers as long as you can! You can still get enough delegates to make some real dick moves in Tampa! Come, on, Newt, this is no time to be a gentleman! Be true to your nature! Be a stinker! You know you want to!

Newt is saying he's going all the way to Tampa, and I have no reason to doubt him.

I question the logic in you rooting for this, though. Newt staying in actually means Romney's nomination will reach the tipping point faster because every contest he loses, his opponents will barely be gaining on his delegate count (for example because of Kansas apportionment method Romney can lose there and Santorum may barely gain relative to Romney.) If Gingrich dropped out it would actually make the real fight for the nomination last a lot longer.

Once Romney reaches some tipping point it's actually irrelevant if Gingrich stays in, no one will care. Do you remember in 2008 when Huckabee stayed in until McCain had mathematically won more than 50% of the delegates? People were complaining that would hurt the McCain campaign, but the reality as I remember it was no one much cared after McCain broke 600-700 delegates because Huckabee had no chance whatsoever of changing the ultimate outcome.

For pro-Obama people I also question this glee in the lengthy nomination. If Obama wins it'll be because people want him to be President more than they want Romney to be President, not because Romney will be "weakened" by a lengthy nomination. I actually question the idea that lengthy nomination fights really necessarily hurt you all that badly in the general. If you recall Obama had a very lengthy fight to win the nomination, far longer than McCain.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Martin Hyde

For pro-Obama people I also question this glee in the lengthy nomination. If Obama wins . . .

He will; not worried about that at all. The value in all this is in the damage it is doing to the Republican brand.

[Martin Hyde]

Originally Posted by Measure for Measure

Martin: I'm afraid I don't follow your overall argument, so I'm going to have to resort to tit for tat: I find this puzzling. If somebody believes that Obama has a 98% chance of re-election then it's reasonable to point out that he can make big money at intrade. I opine that intrade thereby encourages a degree of humility. I intend to keep alluding to intrade... though I should note that Ravenman has made some excellent criticisms of this approach. Intrade is in the end an aggregator of the opinions of mostly nonprofessional observers. One can think of it as an average subjective probability: the objective probability is something else (and may or may not even exist in a coherent way).

What I object to is your analysis that because of some number from intrade you have factual support for the claim that 2012 was a fine year to run for President as a Republican and there was no reason for any prominent Republicans not to throw their hat into the ring. I'm not against talking about intrade, but you cannot use it that way. There is more to being a professional politician than looking at polls 18 months out and deciding if the President is vulnerable or not. A lot of people won't even consider a run against a sitting President, regardless of the polling numbers or how weak he might seem. Incumbency is incredibly powerful in our system, and your reliance on intrade makes you blind to the fact that some politicians will simply choose not to participate in a fight against an incumbent when they have the option to marshal their resources and wait four years and get another run at it.

Given the state of the economy, Obama did about 1.5 points better than average in the popular vote, according to the Fair model. He won by 3.4 points, so if his performance was average, yes, he still probably would have won.

I have absolutely no idea how you are addressing the actual part of my post you quoted when you driveled off with these numbers. You need to do a better job of linking numbers you pull from election forecaster's models and the actual things you are saying. I didn't make any claims about Obama's performance, for one. You were quoting me saying McCain wasn't a dreg of a candidate and respond with something that doesn't really address that at all.

I don't see why not. You posit a reasonable hypothesis that passes logical consistency checks. Then you test it. Then you keep the same model and test it every four years. Repeat that for 25+ years (with one mild revision) and it becomes difficult to explain alternate hypotheses on a fundamental level. There are critiques that can be made of the Fair model, but I don't think this is one of them.

From what I've seen election forecasting is mostly a sham, and it's obvious you think it is really cool and interesting but actually looking at the history of it, it is simply weak and uninteresting to me.

For one, Ray Fair has been working on his model since 1976. With any of these models, the people making it have an immediate advantage on all of their retrocasts because they develop a model that can predict the very outcomes they use to develop their model in the first place. (That's perhaps strange to parse linguistically, but essentially the retrocasting isn't impressive at all.)

You would expect anyone with time on their hands and an ability to do stat work would be able to create a model that can mostly successfully retrocast an election. However even some of the prominent models miss on a few elections they retrocast when the model was developed.

To get back to Fair, when he isn't retrocasting his model actually failed to accurately predict the outcome of both the 1992 and 1996 elections.

By and large though a lot of the election forecasters get to maintain legitimacy because of the following reasons:

1. The models are tail loaded to place more importance on data later in the election cycle. This makes sense, but it also means it's a much less impressive feat to say they successfully projected an election based on October data than on June data. Since they can revise their predictions throughout the cycle and their models place more important on tail end data this decreases substantially my interest in these models anytime prior to September or October.

2. Most of them actually produce a series of results out of a few different versions of their models. Some of the forecasters of the 1996 election then significantly publicized the results that very closely mirrored the results, and basically de-emphasized all the other iterations of their model that missed the mark.

3. Most of the models have "special exceptions" or "special factors" added in to elections that they can't really explain. It's been a long time since I've paid attention to election forecasting, but the last time I read about Fair he had a special variable for elections where he felt war "improperly affected the results" (1920, 1944, 1948.) However he doesn't use this variable in many other war elections, so it almost feels like these econometric forecasters simply throw special variables and such in whenever it fixes the predictive power of their model. That's fine, but it also makes me trust them far less when it comes to being able to provide meaningful basis for discussing an election months before the fact. In one of his models Thomas Holbrook added a special variable for "extremism" to explain why Barry Goldwater and George McGovern lost in landslides that his model failed to accurately explain.

So what it really comes down to is you have a bunch of college professors that release a bunch of predictions over and over, most of them placing increased weight to more recent data (which means the models tend to be more accurate in September and October because the professors know studies have shown late polling data is more meaningful than early polling data.) The predictive ability isn't impressive much in such a scenario because it is like me predicting who will win the AL East after 145 games have been played and the team in first place is up 5 games. That's a much easier prediction to make than one made in June, and the value of a model that could predict the outcome of the AL East race in June would be immensely higher than one that only really gets very accurate around August.

Additionally, the college professors follow the practice of cold readers, in that they actually release tons of predictions and then highlight the successful ones. That's precisely what happened in 1996 (the first election I really knew about election forecasters), guys like Holbrook and Wlezien released tons of predictions some which showed Clinton winning close and some showing him winning big, then they emphasized their prediction that showed him winning big and basically ignored the slight variations in their model that showed other things.

As I think I've mentioned in another thread, even if we take the models at face value all they do is use econometrics to get "kinda close." In a Presidential election things are often decided by very small overall percentage differences in the popular vote, so the value in being able to predict the vote within a few percentage points isn't that exciting to me at all because depending on how things shift in certain states that wobble room can be the all the difference between who is President or not and whether the election is considered a landslide or not in the EC.

[Martin Hyde]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

He will; not worried about that at all. The value in all this is in the damage it is doing to the Republican brand.

There isn't a lasting brand in politics. You probably remember the "irreparable harm" the latter years of the Bush Presidency did to the Republican brand. After the 2006 elections we have never recovered.

Oh wait, we actually recaptured the House since then in a damning condemnation of the Democrats by the electorate. I think Obama is going to win the election too, but I view political parties as a lot more fluid than you do. I don't know how old you are but I'm old enough that I've seen both parties change dramatically multiple times in my lifetime, and it has dramatically impacted how strong they are in one election to the next.

I think I've mentioned it before, but if the majority of America moves in a direction that isn't hospitable to the Republicans getting elected, then you'll see the Republicans shifting in their politics. You can observe this having happened to both parties many, many times in my life time (since the 1950s.) So this concept of "damaging the brand" is just simply irrelevant. Our system is always going to have two viable parties.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by Martin Hyde

For pro-Obama people I also question this glee in the lengthy nomination. If Obama wins it'll be because people want him to be President more than they want Romney to be President, not because Romney will be "weakened" by a lengthy nomination. I actually question the idea that lengthy nomination fights really necessarily hurt you all that badly in the general. If you recall Obama had a very lengthy fight to win the nomination, far longer than McCain.

No, it's a real factor. Look at Obama's campaign. Most people barely even notice that Obama is participating in the primaries but he has to as a technicality to be renominated. But he's just coasting along with no serious competition (Obama currently has 527 delegates to Randall Terry's one).

So while Romney is spending his campaign money in the primaries, Obama's is sitting in the bank. Who'll be in a better position for the general election?

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Martin Hyde

There isn't a lasting brand in politics. You probably remember the "irreparable harm" the latter years of the Bush Presidency did to the Republican brand. After the 2006 elections we have never recovered.

The 1972 campaign and the visibile takeover of the more-or-lefty New Politics Movement did, in fact, do the Democratic brand electoral damage from which it took decades to recover. The GOP now faces an internal crisis on that scale.

[Martin Hyde]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

The 1972 campaign and the visibile takeover of the more-or-lefty New Politics Movement did, in fact, do the Democratic brand electoral damage from which it took decades to recover. The GOP now faces an internal crisis on that scale.

They won the Presidency in '76 and controlled Congress aside from some periods in the Senate up until '94 and then won the White House in '92. I disagree with your analysis.

The Democrats definitely weren't great at winning elections for the White House from 1968-1992, but I think I disagree with how you characterize their overall situation.

[Frank]

Originally Posted by Martin Hyde

If you recall Obama had a very lengthy fight to win the nomination, far longer than McCain.

I'll agree that a lengthy primary fight doesn't necessarily mean anything in the general election. I do see a difference between 2008 and 2012, though.

In 2008, it was fairly certain that we would have either our first woman President or our first black one. It was a nail-biter throughout, and whichever of them had won the nomination would have gone into the general with a united party and with a campaign and a team that was already battle-tested and blooded against the best competition the party had to offer.

This year, Romney is generally accepted as the default Republican nominee, and it's a certainty that he will win the nomination. He's going to go into the general election with a campaign and a team that couldn't put away The Three Stooges by Super Tuesday. His party won't be united, and his campaign and his team have demonstrated an astonishing level of incompetence.

[gamerunknown]

But oil prices could spike following military action in Iran this Spring.

If Obama's administration initiates military action against Iran, wouldn't that pretty much guarantee him a second term?

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

If Obama's administration initiates military action against Iran, wouldn't that pretty much guarantee him a second term?

How? Are you assuming it would be popular?

[Frank]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

How? Are you assuming it would be popular?

Why wouldn't it be? Libya was.

[gamerunknown]

I remember reading that no president has been ousted during a war that they initiated. Google didn't offer any support for that claim though, so I'll have to rely on someone else's historical knowledge on that...

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

I remember reading that no president has been ousted during a war that they initiated. Google didn't offer any support for that claim though, so I'll have to rely on someone else's historical knowledge on that...

War of 1812 - Madison - war declared in June; re-elected in November
Mexican War - Polk - war was over by the end of his term
Civil War - Lincoln - didn't initiate war; war started in 1861; re-elected in 1864
Spanish-American War - McKinley - opposed war; war was over before he was re-elected
World War I - Wilson - initiated war during his second term; war was over before end of that term
World War II - Roosevelt - didn't initiate war; war started in 1941; re-elected in 1944
Korean War - Truman - didn't initiate war; didn't run for re-election in 1952, partly due to ongoing Korean War
Vietnam War - Eisenhower/Kennedy/Johnson? - hard to say who was the President who initiated American involvement the war; all three enlarged the war; Eisenhower was re-elected; Kennedy died in office; Johnson was re-elected in 1964 but didn't run for re-election in 1968, mostly due to the ongoing war
Gulf War - Bush - war was over by the end of his term
Panama War - Bush - war was over by the end of his term
Afghanistan War - Bush - didn't initiate war; war started in 2001; re-elected in 2004
Iraq War - Bush - initiated war in 2003; re-elected in 2004

I left out minor wars (although some would argue Panama was a minor war).

I'd say the main counter-argument to the idea was Johnson. He turned what was a minor war in Vietnam into a major war for the United States. And he left office mainly due to that war.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Frank

Why wouldn't it be? Libya was.

Libya was an easy one; Iran would be a quagmire, like Iraq only worse (bigger country).

[Kolak of Twilo]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Libya was an easy one; Iran would be a quagmire, like Iraq only worse (bigger country).

This times 10. There is no appetite for another ground war among the general population. Military action to permanently destroy Iran's nuclear capability would certainly require a greater commitment of personal and materiel than Libya did.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

No, the reason why the dregs are running is structural: to garner Republican support in a primary you either have to be crazy or simulate a crazy. Romney is a simulator. Huntsman tried without success to run as a neurotypical and never received even the smallest bump in national polling.

[/quote]

He was steadily gaining traction after New Hampshire. If New Hampshire had been held slightly later, Huntsman might have gotten second and give Romney only a narrow win.

Originally Posted by Barkis is Willin'

Gingrich will at least stay in for Alabama and Mississippi next week. If he comes in a distant 3rd in both those states, he's got to get out. I think even he can recognize that.

Or second. Alabama and Mississippi are the closest states to Georgia and South Carolina currently in play and if he can't win there, Gingrich cannot win anywhere.

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Riots. Political street riots in Tampa. Like Chicago in 1968 only sillier. Please, Og.

Not happening. Conservatives (even extremnists) generally do not engage in riots-right-wing extremnist violence have been by lone-wolfs.

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Libya was an easy one; Iran would be a quagmire, like Iraq only worse (bigger country).

OTOH, any Republican candidate (except Ron Paul who will not be the nominee) is going to be even more aggressive on Iran (ie if Obama supports airstrikes, Romney or Santorum is going to be pushing for a massive invasion). Actually if Iran becomes the major issue I might even move from grudging Romney supporter to tolerating Obama as the least worst choice (depending on how I think Romney will really act as opposed to the rhetoric) although I'd tell people to write-in somebody else...