I think Silver’s model is going to show him over 80% after he updates tonight. Perhaps well over 80%. Ohio is looking just way too solid for Obama, and now that FL is in the toss-up category, there just isn’t much chance of Romney changing the tide without some kind of major surprise.
Reminiscent of a scene in The Candidate…earnest, liberal senatorial candidate Robert Redford is at the site of a forest fire, which he uses to give a boring lecture on how poor environmental policy leads to natural disasters, blah blah. His opponent, the incumbent senator, interrupts by descending from a helicopter, announces that he just got off the phone with the president, and that federal help is on the way.
Romney used Sandy to give lectures on how local response to disaster works best. Obama looked Presidential. Advantage to the incumbent.
I think the differences were even more pointed than that. Romney tried to set up a fake charity event, had his campaign go out to buy $5,000 worth of prop donations, and had people grab stuff off the table to hand to Romney for a photo op. All while knowing that the Red Cross specifically does not want that kind of donation. He made them take it anyway. Ryan staffers apparently put a halt to packing up donations so that there was something left for Ryan to do for a photo op.
Meanwhile, Obama had Chris Christie singing his praises and talking about how personally engaged he was. And Brownie criticizing him for acting too quickly, just to remind everyone about Republicans approach to disaster relief.
Yeah, I’ll chime in here as well. Romney’s all but done.
Let the forking begin!
I still think it’s too soon… if the polling looks like this on Monday morning then maybe I’ll be willing to fork Romney.
Gee, why not wait until the polling results next Wednesday?
Obama shouldn’t relax but…if I were a betting man, I’d bet the farm on Obama to win this pretty easily. I’ll be shocked if Romney is even close.
Because, as far as I can, there is still one important remaining question - are the state polls right or are the national polls right? Because the state polls imply something like a 2% lead for the President. But the national polls, at best, are between tied and +1% for the President.
If the two sets of numbers reconcile, then I’ll call it for Obama. But until then I think 75% sounds about right - that’s the odds that there is some systemic bias towards Romney in the national polls (particularly the big trackers). I certainly wouldn’t call 75% a sure thing.
But I’ll amend: if the national polls move to where the state polls currently are (say, O+1.5) then I’ll be willing to fork Mr. Romney.
I want to expand the discussion about Party ID. OMG and others who dispute the poll results say that the internals of the polls can’t possibly be right, because they show a similar partisan advantage for the Democrats to 2008. They also say that because Romney is winning independents, he can’t possibly be losing by as much as the polls show.
But Party ID can be tracked (here). And it’s a fact that the polls show that while self ID for Democratic voters has gone down slightly since 08, it’s also gone down for Republicans. And the downturn in Republican party ID mirrors the rise in Independent party ID, giving credence to the hypothesis that many of these new “independents” are former Republicans, and thus it doesn’t really mean much that Romney is winning independents. After all, if ALL the Republicans became independents, Romney would suddenly be utterly dominating the independent identifiers- but he’d still be losing.
So the data shows us that the Democrats continue to have a significant Party ID advantage, if not quite as large as in 2008. It’s likely that demographic changes as well as voter registration and turnout efforts have helped to mitigate any possible reduction in Democratic voter enthusiasm.
Bottom line- the data says Obama’s ahead in most of the swing states. The internals of the polls might not be exactly what you expect- but they almost never are. It’s always possible to find something in the internals of polls that looks funny- and the losing campaigns always, without fail, try to point this stuff out in the days leading up to an election to give their supporters hope. But historically, it’s not been a good idea to assume the polls are wrong by any significant amount.
To continue this- I’m not saying the internals of polls are useless. They can tell you something- if a NC polls internals’ show percentage of respondents that are white at 90%, then you know that it’s probably not a very representative sample. Same with things like gender and age- these can be compared to census data. But Party ID is not tracked by the census- and it’s not immutable (by any means). It ebbs and flows with the political fortunes of the parties and candidates. Party ID breakdowns just don’t tell you much.
For more proof of Dick Morris’ accuracy: Colorado has nine electoral votes. Nevada has six.
yeah, yeah, and Indiana has 11 and Minnesota has 10 and Michigan has 16, so what? Dick Morris has no time for facts.
You have to admit, Morris is doing a heckuva job catching up to Bill Kristol in the Marathon of Wrong…
Well, “heckofajob” Brownie did try to walk that statement back today. Trouble is, he make an even dumber one:
He said that Obama should have delayed the response not because it was the right thing to do, but because he “would have been better served politically”, and “he would have gotten more mileage out of it” if Obama had delayed.
In other words, his criticism of Obama amounts to - Obama is bad because he did not put his own political advantage above the wellbeing and safety of people in the path of a hurricane.
Does this just not sum up the mindset of people like him or what?
Well, according to his blog Nate Silver is sweating out whether or not the state or national polls better describe reality as well. He does, however, say this, and I think it cuts to the heart of the issue:
[Quote=Nate Silver]
Mr. Obama’s lead in the Electoral College is modest, but also quite consistent across the different methods. The states in which every site has Mr. Obama leading make up 271 electoral votes — one more than the president needs to clinch victory. The states in which everyone has Mr. Romney ahead represent 206 electoral votes. That leaves five states, and 61 electoral votes, unaccounted for — but Mr. Obama would not need them if he prevails in the states where he is leading in the polls.
[/Quote]
So, it seems that Romney must take all five uncertain states, plus at least one more. In that context, assigning a fairly high percentage chace of winning to Obama seems reasonable.
It’s impossible to know how well a storm has been handled before federal help arrives, which takes 72 hours under the best of circumstances.
As for Romney’s chances, he’s leading independents by double digits. THAT lead is also consistent. Obama cannot win an election by winning Democrats alone. Never happen.
Leaked memo from FL GOP: we are getting our ass kicked.
I assume we’re talking about perceptions, which are what’s important for politics. It looks like the perception is that Obama is working very well with state and local governments to help as much as possible.
The double-digit lead is NOT consistent, though a smaller lead for Romney among independents is somewhat consistent. But the polls show a significant party ID advantage for Democrats- enough that he’s winning the swing states despite worse performance among Independents than in 2008 (discussed above). It’s been a bad bet, historically, to bet against the state polls (in aggregate).
From Nate Silver’s twitter feed:
Sure, it’s possible that all these polls are wrong. But it’s not very likely.