Contributors

Thursday, November 01, 2012

The State of the Race

The last couple of days have not been good for Mitt Romney. First we had the pants on fire car ad that has now been denounced by Chrysler CEO Sergio Marchionne. How anyone can think that this guy has a handle on business is beyond me. He looks like he knows what he is doing but then he says things are patently false.

Then Hurricane Sandy hit and Romney pretended to hand out canned goods, as Nikto noted yesterday. Worse, the Right looked like complete morons when the president demonstrated (yet again) that he is a capable leader in a crisis. Fictional Obama is just that.

And then there are all those new polls.

The president is now up by an average (according to the right leaning RCP) of over two points in Ohio, Iowa, and Nevada. The latter has been more or less ceded to the president by the Romney campaign. The president has made gains in Virginia, Florida and even North Carolina in the latest polls so that's where Romney has to go now if he wants to hold those states. For the most part, one can always tell where the polls really are by where the candidates go and Romney is in Virginia this morning.

If the president wins all the states that Democrats have won in the last five elections plus New Mexico (where he is way ahead now), Nevada, Iowa, and Ohio he has 277 electoral votes and he wins the election.  All of the polls out of Ohio have the president ahead by 2-5 points except Rasmussen who doesn't poll cel phone users.

Nate Silver had an interesting piece up the other day about past elections and candidates that have been up (on average) by more than two percentage points. In short, they win. The only time that hasn't happened in the last 30 years is when George HW Bush beat Bill Clinton in 1992 in Texas. Even though the polls showed Clinton up by 3.5 points, Bush won. But we didn't a poll to tell us that Bush would win Texas.

Silver has another piece which shows all the state by state polls which all basically say the same thing: the president is going to win on Tuesday. What I found most interesting about this piece is the admission that if Silver and all the other pollsters are wrong, it's going to be a monumentally bizarre occurrence and they should all, perhaps, find a new line of work!

All these polls of likely voters are the basis for my prediction next week. The president will win 290 electoral votes and Mitt Romney will win 235 with Virginia being a giant WTF, although it has been trending the president's way in the last couple of days. Even Florida has been moving back towards the president and is essentially tied. I still think Romney will win North Carolina.

Five days until the election and things are looking great for the president!

15 comments:

Anonymous said...

Clinton DID win in 1992, or were speaking only about in Texas?

last in line said...

Demonstrated that he is a capable leader? He did what people expect him to do in a situation like that. It's nothing special, it's what is expected of him.

Now you're going to start talking about polls again that the ones you read show Obama up? As long as the sample size they use mirror 2008 turnout models, I wouldn't put much stock in them.

Rasmussen was the most accurate in the last presidential election.

Obama is not near his 2008 levels in terms of early voting.

Romney is winning independents at the moment and is expanding the map into states like MN, WI, MI and PA.

Obama pulled 50% of his ads from NC last month, and it wasn't because he was ahead by comfortable margin.

Like I said on September 27, before the first debate even happened...Romney 52, Obama 47 (mainly cause I like irony...putting Obama at 47).

Mark Ward said...

As long as the sample size they use mirror 2008 turnout models, I wouldn't put much stock in them.

I know Dick Morris is stuck in your brain on this one, last, but I suggest you take a look at the polling from Ohio. Heck, look at the people that already voted. The president leads by double digits. And Silver used the 2004 model just for kicks and turned out the same way-a victory for the president.

Rasmussen was the most accurate in the last presidential election.

Actually, the most accurate was the average of all the polls. Obama's actual margin was 7.2%, and a complete analysis published in 2009 by the same author, Costas Panagopoulos, revealed Rasmussen to be tied for 9th most accurate. Democracy Corps, Foxnews/Opinion Dynamic, CNN/Opinion Research, and Ipsos/McClatchy all predicted an accurate seven point spread.

Romney is winning independents at the moment and is expanding the map into states like MN, WI, MI and PA.

You seriously don't believe that line of drivel, do you? He's up by 3-5 points in all those states. Again, I know where you are getting this from:)

Like I said on September 27, before the first debate even happened...Romney 52, Obama 47 (mainly cause I like irony...putting Obama at 47).

Actually, you said 51-47. And you still haven't explained which swing states Romney is going to win. How many electoral votes is he going to get, last? It's all well and good to throw out national polls but if an extra million people Republicans in Alabama, Mississippi, and Texas it won't matter much, will it?

Time to nut up and tell us all the states Romney is going to win and what his EV total will be. Because if your prediction is going to be true, he's going to win around 350 electoral votes. Even Karl Rove says it's going to be 277.

Mark Ward said...

Here is a map you can fill in and then share with us.

http://www.270towin.com/

Anonymous said...

Worse, the Right looked like complete morons when the president demonstrated (yet again) that he is a capable leader in a crisis.

Uh, he only looked capable because he led from behind. Not capable and definitely in trouble for the complete failure on Benghazi. It is look worse every day as more details come out. PURE Incompetence. That says a lot that you endorse that sort of leadership.

last in line said...

I said 52-47. It's on your blog in the comment section of this entry.

http://markadelphia.blogspot.com/2012/09/just-pretend.html

Dick Morris is mistaken when he says Romney is literally going to win nearly every battleground state.

OK then, independents are flocking to Obama. Got it.

When I say expanding the map, I meant he's campaigning there, not leading in the polls.

Mark Ward said...

You told me personally 51-47 but if you want to increase that to 52, no problem:)

Glad to hear you think Dick Morris is mistaken but you still haven't said which states Romney will win and which ones he won't. To get to your number, Romney will have to win nearly all of the wing state and take blue stats away from the president, having well over 300 EVs. Take a look at Ohio

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/oh/ohio_romney_vs_obama-1860.html

Now, are you saying that all these polls are wrong? Remember, not all of them assume the same Democratic turnout as 2008. Is Romney going to win Ohio? It's a simple yes or no question.

Getting back to this statement...

Romney is winning independents at the moment and is expanding the map into states like MN, WI, MI and PA.

What's happening here is the same mistake I made in 2010 with the House...you are letting your emotions get the better of you. Romney is not going to win MN, MI or PA. He likely will not win WI. His trip there today is a head fake to make it look like he is surging. The opposite is true. Since you like national polls, Rasmussen has the race at 48-48 today. Remember, they don't poll cel phones so the president is slightly ahead now nationally as well and that's why Romney is going to PA.

I have no problem with you predicting a Romney win. 50-49 is a possibility (1 in 4) with an electoral count of, say, 279-259 and that's being generous. Even that is looking very unlikely now. But when you start talking 52-47, it's just silly and makes me wonder if you are being serious or just screwing around with me.

Anonymous said...

The President just called. He says to let up a bit, you're getting too much slobber on his balls.

last in line said...

That 270 to win site is pretty cool. Here's how I think it will shake out...Romney will win Kansas!

Anyhoo, in terms of battleground states - Romney wins Colorado, Florida, Virginia, NC, and Ohio.

Obama wins Michigan, Iowa, Nevada, MN, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and NH.

That puts Romney at 275 and Obama at 263.

Democrat turnout will not match their 2008 numbers in Ohio. Republican intensity, evangelicals and Romney polling better with independents gives the state to Romney. Yes - Romney will win Ohio.

I think Romney will do better than some think in PA, that's coal country and suburban turnout will be good for Romney, but Obama will win.

Romney wins Virginia, Obama saying that no more Navy ships need to be built didn't go over well.

Colorado - crowds and intensity for Romney are large.

Iowa - all 4 papers endorsed Romney, even though endorsements don't mean crap these days. Obama wins Iowa as Marks in laws will push Obama over the top.

MN - Obama wins.

Wisconsin - Wisconsin can be weird, GOP already had their ground game in tact from Walkers recent election. Obama will win, but not by much. Obama was just there and he was in Milwaukee, which means he's trying to get his base to turn out.

Nevada - Obama.

NH - Republicans and independents are motivated but it's the northeast - Obama wins that state.

MI - Obama

An incumbent at 48% the weekend before the election isn't a good thing.

Michelle Obama was in Virginia today - she spoke at Hampton University and Virginia state university - 2 black colleges. Again - that's turning out the base, not reaching out to new voters.

13% defection rate?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/11/02/the-obama-defectors/

Senator Robert Menendez has his own War on Women going on. Pay your hookers the going rate dammit!

last in line said...

Why Obama is even in WI is puzzling - he's spending time the last weekend of campaigning in a state hasn't gone Republican in a presidential race since 1984.

Mark Ward said...

Well, with those EVs, you're looking at 50-49, not 52-47. It's just not possible. I think you're also stuck on the lower Dem turnout thing being the deciding factor here and you have to remember that some of these polls account for this. These polls are likely voters as well.

The latest NBC-Marist has Obama up by six in Ohio. Combine those all the others and you're basically saying they are all wrong. I just don't think that's likely. North Carolina is Romney. Florida was looking like pretty much a lock for him as well but the last few days things have shifted back to a tie with a slight Romney edge. Colorado and Virginia are complete WTFs at this point.

We'll see come Election Day but I say the president has at least 281 pretty handily.

last in line said...

Regarding that poll - D/R/I split is 38/29/32. D+9? In 2008, the exit polls in Ohio showed a split of 39/31/30, and in 2010 36/37/28.

I'd spend more than 4 seconds thinking about that poll if I believed that 2012 Republican turnout in Ohio is going to be lower than it was in 2008. You don't really think THAT do you?

I just don't think that's likely. - Markadelphia

Mark Ward said...

Regarding that poll

Right. That's why you don't look at just that poll...you look at all of them and an average is usually the best way to go. If Romney were leading in all of them, I'd say he'd win Ohio, not whine about polling bias.

That being said, I think there is a 16 percent chance that all the polls are biased and wrong:)

Mark Ward said...

Rasmussen has it tied again today at 48-48. Now, we know that poll isn't "biased" (ahem) and that they don't poll cel phones so...how is Mitt going to net 5 five points to get to 52-47 in three days?

last in line said...

An incumbent at 48% the weekend before the election isn't ideal for the incumbent.