I agree. People seem just as fired up as 2008, if not more-so.
That would be a surprise, given that a) Obama hasn’t lived up to the hype, and b) Mitt Romney isn’t exactly a threatening figure that must be stopped at all costs.
I think Democratic turnout will be closer to 2004 levels than 2008.
-
Nobody would live up to the hype. No one President can undo the severity of the damage caused. I think many people rightfully understand this. Many also understand that Obama has been met with a huge degree of obstructionism and yet has been able to get quite a bit done, even if not to ideal satisfaction.
-
The President is a position of great power, and I’d rather not have that power in the hands of someone who is able to lie so pathologically, obscure details, rewrite history, mince words, and push for economic policies that have been debunked time and time again. It’s willful ignorance at the expense of others, and that is always threatening.
Mitt Romney is about as uninspiring as John Kerry was. My guess is that you have this backwards. But I guess we’ll see.
I mentioned this in another thread, but this is pretty much what I think. My personal consideration is that Ohio, Iowa, Colorado and New Hampshire are really the only tossups (at least, the only ones that matter for Romney).
Michigan, Pennsylvania, and I think Wisconsin and Nevada will go for Obama. North Carolina, Florida, and quite possibly Virginia will go for Romney. That gives Obama 253 EVs (17 to win) and Romney 248 (22 to win).
Ohio has 18 EVs. If Obama takes Ohio, he’s over 270. Romney needs to take Ohio, plus one of the other three to get past 270. So even if Romney can win Ohio, Obama can still win the Electoral College if he can take New Hampshire, Iowa and Colorado. I think that’s within the realm of possibility.
So watch New Hampshire on Election Night. If it goes Obama, Romney’s calculus narrows quite a bit. If Romney takes it, then it all boils down to Ohio.
Unless I’m wrong, and Wisconsin flips. Or Nevada. Or Obama takes Virginia. Basically, to answer the OP: Yes, it is too early to say Romney has lost.
We shall see. I think you’re wrong, but time will tell.
Others have responded to a) above, so I’ll leave that for now for the most part, other than that I still think Obama will prove to have been, and will be a judged, a positive and transformative president by history, despite some of the most heinous, obstreperous opposition any president has ever faced.
As for b), I have one thing to say: Supreme Court Nominees.
But I’ll add, I firmly believe that gay marriage is the civil rights issue of our time, and Romney is flatly on the wrong side.
The bulk of Ohio’s population resides outside of that corner of the state. See the county bubbles from 2008. The people may be similar, but in electoral terms it’s really only a factor for WV and PA; I don’t think you can extend the results of that paper to the entire state as a whole.
I think the map will look similar to 2008. It’s the ballot shenanigans I’m worried about.
Actually, I find the prospect of a bunch of soulless Randians and neo-cons gaining control of the country to be quite terrifying.
The Republicans have gotten me super fired up–to vote against them. This is the first year I voted straight ticket Democrat. I want the right to fail so spectacularly that they re-evaluate their positions to be more moderate. I don’t like how they want to put god into everything. I don’t like how they sideline any belief which they don’t agree with. I don’t like how they have no concern for anyone down on their luck.
The Dems aren’t perfect by any means, but at least they seem to be willing to evaluate multiple solutions and come up with something which benefits all Americans. That doesn’t mean everyone will like the solution, but the solution will try to address the problems of the entire population. The Republicans seem to focus on solutions that benefit them and everyone else can suck it.
If this was back in the 80’s and I was choosing between Romney and Obama–eh, what’s the difference? The president is really just a figurehead for the party and there didn’t used to be such a radical influence in the Republicans. But now it’s very different. Voting Romney is not just voting Romney. It’s validating everything on the right and will embolden them to become even more conservative. I’m voting against that outcome.
I am surprised you think Virginia is clearly Romney, when most reports have it as a dead heat, same thing with Colorado for Obama. IN fact, those are the two states that 538 call toss-ups.
I’m not hoping for that much. I think that even if Romney loses (possibly especially if Romney loses), the Republicans have at least one more quadrennial of doubling down on the “conservatism cannot fail, it can only be failed” strategy. Romney’s the perfect scapegoat for the Tea Party wing to hang a loss on…was a moderate, then a lukewarm conservative, then etch-a-sketched into a moderate again in the general. They’re going farther down the rabbit hole before this is all over.
Romney’s mot a threatening figure, but the people he’s surrounded himself with are. He’s much like McCain in that regard, though we actually respected McCain and couldn’t give a toss about Romney.
But are they ready to go?
Quite a few of them have already gone…early voting in the battleground states that have it seems to be definite Dem-advantage.
Not as much as in 2008.
Yeah-huh.
Not much has moved today in the polls. Some decent numbers for Obama: +4 in Iowa and +3 in NH balanced by some weaker ones: a tied poll in Wisconsin and +1 in Nevada. Wouldn’t be surprised if 538 stays flat.
Boston Bob, ladies and gentlemen…
Based on the polling, I agree that 538 will likely remain flat - but will the 2% increase in GDP (higher than projected) bump things up a bit, or is the economic data completely baked in by now w/ Silver’s model? Regardless, the GDP news is a good indicator that next Friday’s unemployment number is going to be more good news for Obama right before the election.
Nate Silver is not a pollster. He merely analyzes them. There is only one poll I can find which gives Obama 50% of the vote. Therefore, for Obama to be getting 50% of the popular vote in Nate’s model when Obama doesn’t reach that threshold in virtually any poll you look at, means Nate has to be factoring in his own biases into his predictions instead of merely analyzing polling data. It’s really that simple.
I’m tired of hearing how accurate he was in 2008. It has no bearing on this year.
As it is, adaher is right. You guys are focusing too much on Dems early voting advantage. The real story is the drop off from 2008 and the fact that early voting turnout is modeling the 2004 election. And we all know how that election went.
That is factually incorrect.
The model maps undecided voters to Obama and Romney according to what the data say.