Considering the source, I wouldn’t have been surprised if the OP contained a link to this.
What I wonder about is what would make him quit relying on sources of evidence like this? I know I’m repeating myself, but when I rely on someone and I end up looking like an ass, I stop relying on them.
If that were true for conservatives, there would be no Fox News. So what explains it? Post hoc justifications (liberal media bias and sheeple)?
There isn’t anyone they can listen to that won’t sound like an ass predicting a Romney win. Just a few minutes of playing with any electoral map will show what a monumental accomplishment that would take.
“I reject your reality and substitute my own!”
That’s because if they call attention to that, they risk people scrutinizing their product closer, and coming to the realization that ALL television news is essentially a content-free attempt to grab attention, usually with promises of titillation and/or terror, for the purpose of selling eyeballs to high-paying advertisers.
Which is why NOBODY should watch news programming on television.
I have a current thread showing voter turnout in my “swing state” of Nevada.
At this moment, at the end of week one, a whopping 25% of ALL registered voters in Nevada have already voted!
46% Democrats, 37% Republicans and 17% other.
It looks like the Dems ain’t doing badly getting out the vote here so far.
Sure, this could change - but after 7 days of voting, there does seem to be a trend going on.
I read the article. I’m not sure to make of it since I tend to put most weight in the EC. In Nevada, many of the Indys are going for Johnson. Clearly, OMG, Black, your author likes nifty charts and graphs, & filling them with what sparse historical data he can find to validate his very strong wishes for a Romney win.
For 2016, he gets a flashlight!
OMG, Party identification is not an independent variable. As far as I know, only one individual, nationwide has tatooed his face with party preference so that his vote is sure as say,eye color or gender (which can also be changed these days). Don’t the pollsters randomly sample and then adjust for census demos such as ethnicity, age, etc.? If people randomly sampled are saying they are dem, how is that flawed methodology?
Because they’re saying they’re dem! The answer is in the question!!
How much impact will the voter suppression stuff have? And how would we ever know? The mystery of the Kerry exit polls still hangs in the air like a stench.
Obama not only has to win, he has to cover the cheat spread. Add to that the sheer impact of disinformation: public outlets spreading lies about when and where to vote. You’ll never guess which party is most likely to be impacted. OK, lucky guess, got it in one.
Obama not only needs to win,he needs to win by so much the bullshit games will be moot, he has to win by so much the Pubbies don’t even try. They got millions of bucks to pay lawyers, and they hate his guts.
If the polls were saying Obama was behind in the swing states, I (an Obama supporter) would be freaking out right now. Luckily for me, they’re not saying that, so instead I get to be cautiously optimistic.
But Omg, for you and some of the other conservatives on here, it seems your reaction to the polls saying Obama is still ahead is to insist the polls must be wrong. I doubt that you’d be saying that if the polls favored Romney. To me, that’s a telltale sign that you’re deceiving yourselves.
But maybe you’ll get lucky and Romney will win anyway. Even Nate Silver still gives him a 1 in 4 chance.
You know how Republicans play Russian Roulette? With an automatic.
Would Romney be as corrupt as Bush, and fire the Justice Department Lawyers who would investigate claims of incidents of voter suppression? I don’t know, but I have the vaguest sense he’s a little more honest than that, and might just let the investigations drag on, hoping to ride them out.
Nixon famously showed that the cover-up is much worse than the crime. If Romney won on the basis of voter suppression, he won’t be thrown out of office for it. But if he fires the investigators, he just might. (Or…like Bush…he might not.)
(Yes, I know it’s a mixed metaphor; Bush fired lawyers who were investigating corrupt Republican Congressmen.)
Republicans just keep digging in the giant pile they’ve got and repeating “There’s SURE to be a pony in here!” over and over and over…
Aw, come on, and admit it–you just saying the words “Obama is toast,” don’t you?
BTW, I’ve got a bet waiting for you in the Pit if you REALLY think Obama is toast.
The funny thing is that you cannot prove anything written in that article is a spin. In fact, you haven’t even tried, mainly because you can’t as it would require having some real, hard, actual evidence. It doesn’t matter what someone predicted years ago. Being wrong in the past does not preclude you from being right today, anymore than being right in the past doesn’t preclude you from being wrong today. I mean, you guys still treat Nate Silver as the gospel, even though he predicted there was only a 30% chance of Republicans picking up 60+ seats in the House in 2010.
Buuut… Since you want to go this route, both Gallup and Rasmussen have the electorate more Republican than Democrat this year. Since they’ve both been pretty accurate in this regard in the past, the latter moreso than the former, then you accept that this will be true this year, correct?
It’s not suspect at all.
In 2008 there were total of 131,463,122 votes cast. Going by Pew, exit polls showed a split of 39D/32R/29I, meaning Republicans cast approximately 42,068,199 votes. In 2004 there were 122,293,908 total votes cast. Exit polls showed a split of 37D/37R/26I, meaning Republicans cast approximately 45,248,746 votes. As you can see, Republican turnout-- in absolute numbers-- was greater in 2004 than in 2008. How many people expect a repeat of that this year, when Republican enthusiasm is up and Democratic enthusiasm is down, and especially after the 2010 midterms?
(Election numbers come from there.)
Which brings us to another point. Historically, midterm elections provide a sort of “floor” in that whatever turnout the party that doesn’t control the White House gets in mid-terms is typically the minimum they get in the following presidential election. Here is party ID for the exit polls, both presidential and midterm, dating back to 1984.
1984: 39D/36R/25I (Reagan)
1986: 40D/34R/26I
1988: 38D/36R/26I (Bush I)
1990: 37D/34R/30I
1992: 39D/36R/25I (Clinton)
1994: 36D/36R/27I
1996: 40D/36R/25I (Clinton)
1998: 37D/36R/27I
2000: 39D/36R/26I (Bush II)
2002: 38D/40R/22I
2004: 38D/38R/25I (Bush II)
2006: 38D/36R/26I
2008: 40D/33R/28I (Obama)
2010: 35D/35R/30I
(Percentages do not always round up to 100 due to rounding.)
1986 is the odd year out, where Democrat turnout was lower in the primary than the following presidential election.
As you can see, in the 2010 elections we had a 35D/35R/30I split. Assuming history holds up, we can expect Republicans to be at least 35% of the electorate and more than likely 36%. Assuming Republicans comprise exactly 35% of the electorate and Independents are 27% of the electorate, Democrats will be 38% of the electorate. Or a D+3 split. Even assuming every last partisan votes for each respective base votes for their candidate (which would work in favor of Democrats, since Democrats tend to lose more “crossover” votes than Republicans), and assuming Romney is up by an average of 10.6% among Independents, then Romney would still win the popular vote by at least 2%.
That’s simple math. Obama would have to buck a great deal of historical trends to win, namely he’s going to need an astronomical base turnout to offset Republican voting and losing Independents by double digits, which he’s not likely to get considering he’s only retaining sub-90% of his vote from 2008. Without getting D+5 turnout, he would lose the popular vote and very likely the presidency.
All this work, just to try to ignore that the state polls show that Obama is leading in the electoral college. Yes, the popular vote is going to be a lot closer than it was in 08. Yes, Republican turnout will be greater. Democratic turnout might even be slightly reduced (though Obama’s turnout machine may be even better this year at getting the “sporadic voters” out). Taken in aggregate, the national polls show a very tight race. And taken as a whole, the state polling shows a solid but not huge lead for Obama in WI, OH, NV, and IA.
Why do you say so little about state polling?
The good thing is that we’ll only be having this argument for another 10 days or so, and one of us will be proven right. I’m really, really looking forward to it.
Here’s is Nate’s 2010 prediction. He was quite close- within 8 seats in the House, 1 in the Senate, and 1 governorship. Here is an analysis of his accuracy. It was very good.
If you’re trying to say he didn’t do very well in his 2010 prediction, then you’re just very, very wrong. He did very well.
Because state polling is more volatile, not to mention it’s unlikely that Romney would win the popular vote by 2 - 3 percent and lose the EC.