2012 Electoral Math -- The Race Tightens
Well, we're a day late, but hopefully not a dollar short. We return to our view of the electoral math two weeks out from election day, and remind everyone that there will only be two more of these columns appearing after today.
Today will be a somewhat-abbreviated column, due to staying up late with debate night (and baseball) excitement last night. Let's quickly whip through the charts and get on to the prognostifying, shall we?
[Click on any of theses graphs to see larger-scale versions.]
As you can see, the race has tightened considerably since the first debate. There were more states tied during this last week than we've seen in a while, which shows up in white on the above chart. Virginia, Colorado, and New Hampshire were all tied at one point during the period, although at the end Virginia was the only one left even.
There was less movement of states between categories as last time, although plenty of polling has been taking place. This could mean states getting "locked in" to where they're going to vote in November, although there are enough states teetering on one edge or another to still make this a very volatile and close race.
Mitt Romney got good news in two states, as Missouri firmed up for him considerably and just today he has managed to flip Colorado from Obama's column. Obama managed to flip New Hampshire back from Romney, which softened the blow to a net of only 5 Electoral Votes (EV) for Romney's side. Obama locked up two states this time around, strengthening his support in Michigan and Connecticut. New Jersey looked like it was weakening, but then firmed back up for Obama. The state which is truly teetering on the edge right now is Virginia, where Romney barely got an edge only to see it disappear the next day.
By percentages, Obama is down to only 52.2 percent of the total EV, while Romney has improved slightly to 45.4 percent.
Let's take a close look at each candidate, beginning with Romney:
[Definition of terms: "Strong" means 10% or better in the polls,
"Weak" means 5% or better, and "Barely" is under five percent.]
[Aside: OK, you just can't make this stuff up, before I started writing this section I was interrupted by the phone, and it was a presidential political poll calling me up! Truth is stranger than fiction, folks -- I mean, what are the odds?]
Where was I? Romney...
Mitt's overall number fluctuated a bit this time around, but didn't end up all that different from where he started. From 239 EV overall, Romney rose briefly to 248, fell to 235, then climbed back to 244 at the end by snagging Colorado (while losing New Hampshire, a net gain of 5 EV). Within his numbers, Missouri briefly moved to "Strong" before falling back to "Weak," but this is still an improvement since it started as only "Barely Romney." This did help Romney bolster his all-important "Strong Plus Weak," up to 180 EV from last week's all-time low of 170 EV, while his Strong stayed at 134 EV. For the week, there was a bit of shuffling around, but Romney's numbers stayed pretty steady, with a slight improvement.
Moving on to Obama's chart:
Obama's overall picture didn't change much, but he did show improvement in strengthening up states in his column. At the very start of the week, Obama lost Virginia from Barely to Tied, which put him 13 EV down, from 290 EV overall down to 277 EV. Obama briefly moved Colorado into his column, which improved his overall total to 286 EV, but lost it at the end (while picking up New Hampshire), to finish at 281 EV. This is down 9 EV from last week, and marks the lowest week in overall numbers for him since June.
The good news for Obama is that he seems to have stopped, and partially reversed, the damage he did to himself in the first televised presidential debate. Obama's Strong number started the week at 187 EV, fell to 173 EV with the momentary loss of New Jersey, but then climbed back to finish the week with 210 EV -- which almost matches the 214/215 EV level he was at, pre-debate. Obama managed this by firming back up in New Jersey, Connecticut, and Michigan.
The sobering news for Obama fans, however, is that while Obama was gaining in the Strong category, he didn't budge in Strong Plus Weak. To put this a slightly different way, Obama swapped states between Strong and Weak, but didn't manage to add any states even to Weak. Obama's Strong Plus Weak stayed exactly the same this week, at 237 EV. While this is an improvement from the crater of 201 EV he hit right after the debate, it still is nowhere near the highs he was setting in Strong Plus Weak before debate season started. And in his overall numbers, Obama has definitely stopped the dramatic slide, but done very little to regain ground. Since he had such an overwhelming lead before this point, he is still above the 270 EV needed to win, but he's uncomfortably close to it now, instead of miles above it.
Overall, Obama holds the lead with 281 EV to Romney's 244 EV -- a margin of only 37 EV (down from last week's 51 EV edge). In Strong Plus Weak, Obama stays at 237 EV to Romney's 180 EV, for a lead of 57 EV (down from last week's 67 EV lead). Which all, as I said, means we've got an incredibly tight race to look forward to for the next two weeks.
My Picks
Onward to my picks, more from the gut than from the polling numbers (as always). Full lists of states in each category can be found at the bottom, as well as our source data link.
Likely States -- Obama
Safe Obama (18 states, 217 EV)
I'm feeling optimistic as all get out about Obama's chances in Michigan and Connecticut right now, so both of these states move up from "Probable Obama" this week.
Probable Obama (3 states, 36 EV)
Pennsylvania stays put here this week. Michigan and Connecticut move out of this category, but I'm moving Nevada and Wisconsin in to take their places. Now, this may be overly optimistic in both states, but Obama's got a solid (if small) edge in both states that has stood up to repeated polling, so at this point I'm moving both of them out of the "tossup" category. For now, at least.
Likely States -- Romney
Safe Romney (20 states, 154 EV)
No movement at all in this category. Romney's Safe states stay stable (say that three times fast!).
Probable Romney (2 states, 26 EV)
Missouri seems to be firming back up for Romney, so I'm moving it up from "tossup" status. I'm also leaving Georgia here, although a case could be made for moving it up to Safe Romney at this point.
Tossup States
Lean Obama (3 states, 28 EV)
I'm feeling feisty today, so I'm going to move some states around for both candidates which may or may not prove to be an intelligent thing to do. Just to warn you, up front. Iowa and Ohio stay as Lean Obama this week, with no change. Nevada and Wisconsin move up from this category to Probable Obama this week, and I'm just going to go ahead and move New Hampshire in here as well. The polling has been weak for Obama here, but I think the state is going to be in Obama's column on election night. This could be just a gut feeling, and it could be wrong, but there it is.
Lean Romney (3 states, 55 EV)
Arizona and Florida stay put in this category this time around. Romney loses Missouri up to Probable this week, and to take its place I'm moving North Carolina upwards for him as well. Obama may still have a slim chance in North Carolina, but at this point I think Romney's the clear favorite to take it in November.
Too Close To Call (2 states, 22 EV)
We're down to only two states being Too Close To Call this week, as North Carolina and New Hampshire move up for each respective candidate. Which leaves only Colorado and Virginia here in the twilight zone of "could go either way."
Final Tally
Obama has stopped his dramatic post-first-debate downward slide, and has regained some of the ground he lost, while Mitt Romney slowly has been improving. Having said all of that, Obama still retains an edge in electoral voting -- albeit a smaller edge than before.
By my picks, Barack Obama has 21 states with 253 EV comfortably in his column. Mitt Romney has 22 states for 180 EV. This is an improvement for both men over last week. Obama actually opened up his lead slightly over last week, to 73 EV over Romney (up from a 67 EV lead last week).
This leaves Obama only 17 EV shy of the magic winning number of 270 EV. This doesn't count any of the eight tossup states, which represent 105 EV. Romney, on the other hand, needs 90 EV to cross the finish line. If Obama wins only Ohio (or Florida, for argument's sake) out of all eight tossups, he wins the whole race. Obama could also win with just Virginia and New Hampshire, losing all other tossups. Mitt Romney, on the other hand, will have to win six of the eight tossups to win, no matter which states you add up for him. And Romney pretty much has to win all the large states in this category, as losing even Ohio would deny him the White House.
So the race is indeed tightening, but the advantage still remains heavily in Obama's favor... at least until we meet again next week.
[Electoral Vote Data:]
(State electoral votes are in parenthesis following each state's name. Washington D.C. is counted as a state. This column series relies on Electoral-Vote.com for state polling data, as we did four years ago.)
Barack Obama Likely Easy Wins -- 21 States -- 253 Electoral Votes:
Safe States -- 18 States -- 217 Electoral Votes
California (55), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), Hawaii (4), Illinois (20), Maine (4), Maryland (10), Massachusetts (11), Michigan (16), Minnesota (10), New Jersey (14), New Mexico (5), New York (29), Oregon (7), Rhode Island (4), Vermont (3), Washington D.C. (3), Washington (12)
Probable States -- 3 States -- 36 Electoral Votes
Nevada (6), Pennsylvania (20), Wisconsin (10)
Mitt Romney Likely Easy Wins -- 22 States -- 180 Electoral Votes:
Safe States -- 20 States -- 154 Electoral Votes
Alabama (9), Alaska (3), Arkansas (6), Idaho (4), Indiana (11), Kansas (6), Kentucky (8), Louisiana (8), Mississippi (6), Montana (3), Nebraska (5), North Dakota (3), Oklahoma (7), South Carolina (9), South Dakota (3), Tennessee (11), Texas (38), Utah (6), West Virginia (5), Wyoming (3)
Probable States -- 2 States -- 26 Electoral Votes
Georgia (16), Missouri (10)
Tossup States -- 8 States -- 105 Electoral Votes:
Tossup States Leaning Obama -- 3 States -- 28 Electoral Votes
Iowa (6), New Hampshire (4), Ohio (18)
Tossup States Leaning Romney -- 3 States -- 55 Electoral Votes
Arizona (11), Florida (29), North Carolina (15)
Too Close To Call -- 2 States -- 22 Electoral Votes
Colorado (9), Virginia (13)
No polling data since August:
(States which have not been polled since the beginning of September, with the dates of their last poll)
South Carolina (1/13), Tennessee (5/9), Utah (6/21), Oklahoma (8/14), Alabama (8/16), Vermont (8/21), West Virginia (8/25)
No polling data at all, yet:
(States which have not been polled so far this year)
Alaska, Delaware, Kansas, Mississippi, Wyoming
Electoral Math Column Series Archive:
[Oct 15] [Oct 08] [Sep 26] [Sep 17] [Aug 22] [Aug 8] [Jul 18] [Jun 25]
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Chris,
Today will be a somewhat-abbreviated column, due to staying up late with debate night (and baseball) excitement last night.
What!? Don't tell me you were in the Eastern time zone again! :)
[Aside: OK, you just can't make this stuff up, before I started writing this section I was interrupted by the phone, and it was a presidential political poll calling me up! Truth is stranger than fiction, folks -- I mean, what are the odds?]
Now, THAT's what I call a case of classic serendipity!
Did you play with the pollsters like I think many Americans are doing which is the only way I can explain what's been happening with the polls ...?
I fully expect to be pleasantly surprised by the lopsided outcome of this election. Still a cockeyed optimist, despite everything.
So the race is indeed tightening, but the advantage still remains heavily in Obama's favor... at least until we meet again next week.
I really like your bottom line!
S U R P R I S E
This is a follow-up to CB's story in the previous commentary...
Emails detail unfolding Benghazi attack on Sept. 11
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57538689/emails-detail-unfolding-benghazi-attack-on-sept-11/?tag=AverageMixRelated
This is going to sink Obama.. His re-election chances just fell to ZERO...
Zilch.... Nada..... None.....
Liz,
I fully expect to be pleasantly surprised by the lopsided outcome of this election.
You will be, I guarantee.. :D Romney's gonna win by a landslide...
"YOU DID IT KID!!! YOU WON BY A LANDSLIDE!!!"
-Phil, HERCULES
:D
Michale......
Debates boost Romney favorables - Washington Times
“The debates — especially the first one — destroyed the Obama crew’s strategy of disqualification,” said Republican pollster Mike McKenna. “Six months of work and $400 million of ad buys went up in smoke in about 10 days. With less than 340 hours to go, they are having real trouble with their footing.”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/23/debates-deliver-favorability-edge-romney/#ixzz2AD2mxpsE
Almost a half a BILLION dollars worth of negative ads by Team Obama...
And Romney rendered them moot in less than two hours...
Now THAT'S what I call 'leadership'... :D
Michale.....
This is a follow-up to CB's story in the previous commentary...
Emails detail unfolding Benghazi attack on Sept. 11
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57538689/emails-detail-unfolding-benghazi-attack-on-sept-11/?tag=AverageMixRelated
I have to admit to more than a little surprise that CBS would air this story..
Maybe Obama's press honeymoon is FINALLY over....
Michale.....
CW,
And Romney pretty much has to win all the large states in this category, as losing even Ohio would deny him the White House
There-in lies the problem for Romney in the Electoral College. With Obama's safe + likely at 237 with PA and MI (neither campaign is spending a penny there, which tells you all you need to know about how 'close' they are) Obama can win with Wisconsin, Nevada and Ohio - all of which he currently has around a 2-3 point lead. And this 2-3 point lead is down from 6+ point leads he had before the 1st debate. So even with his abnormal 1st debate bounce Romney could not turn these into his column. This it is still Obama's election to lose.
This election will almost certainly be about Ohio. And post debate 1, of the 19 Ohio polls Romney has led in only 3 (all 3 right leaning pollsters of course) and even then only by 1 point. Obama has led in 16/19 polls which indicates a very clear lead there.
I found the full third party debate video if anyone is interested. So many good issues that the big 2 parties completely ignored:
http://rt.com/usa/news/third-party-debate-us-election-094/
CW can you change my Indiana Senate prediction from Republican to Democrat? K, thanks.
Now that everyone has had a chance to mull over the stark differences in foreign policy (and see Daily Show's wonderful video splice for that), it's time to wait for the Trump bombshell. No, I mean, it's time to watch the polls.
But, since, e.g., the latest NBC/WSJ poll yesterday had the presidential race deadlocked 47-47 among likely voters, but gave Obama a comfortable 49-44 lead among registered voters., it's really time to start focusing on the ground games on both side: early voting, suppression / anti-suppression, canvassing. For that, for both side, the closer the media keep the race, the better.
Re: the European Union, michty6, I sense we can have a decent (if tedious to others) debate on the EU. For me, it is a major US economic security issue. But now's not the time; maybe in a couple weeks.
Grammatical off-topic. Originally, I wrote "the media keeps the race..." Media, like data, is a ninja plural; nobody would write "the mediums keeps the race..." Nobody should write the "the data is wrong," and nobody would write "the datums is wrong."
But we're close to making media and data both de facto singulars. And, know what? I'm not sure we shouldn't, given the context in which they is both used.
RE: CW can you change my Indiana Senate prediction from Republican to Democrat? K, thanks.
What, you think they don't know they have a Taliban candidate? You think they care?
I have to admit to more than a little surprise that CBS would air this story..
I've noticed that CBS is usually the first of the Big Three to be shamed (by Fox) into covering an Obama-unflattering story. So the other two will have to start falling into line soon.
What, you think they don't know they have a Taliban candidate? You think they care?
Yeh but the race was close (and under-polled) so this is likely (as in Missouri) to tip it Democrat. Especially when the Republican Presidential candidate has to release a nation-wide statement distancing them from your comments. At the rate tea-party-nut-jobs are throwing away Senate seats Democrats might actually expand their Senate majority...
At the rate tea-party-nut-jobs are throwing away Senate seats Democrats might actually expand their Senate majority...
If that happens, it's the Peter Principle (rise to the level of one's incompetency) at work in electoral politics. The TP was successful in 2010 getting wingnuts elected to the House, so they flexed their muscles, and thought, "next: the Senate."
For the sake of the Republic, we have to hope "not so much."
Obama can win with Wisconsin, Nevada and Ohio - all of which he currently has around a 2-3 point lead.
ohio goes without saying. but i disagree with CW on Wisconsin and Nevada - although the obama polling lead has withstood romney's post-debate bounce, they're notoriously unpredictable, so in my view romney still has a solid chance in both.
~joshua
by the way CW, still waiting for your feedback about what to do with the school choice article/cartoon
but i disagree with CW on Wisconsin and Nevada - although the obama polling lead has withstood romney's post-debate bounce, they're notoriously unpredictable, so in my view romney still has a solid chance in both.
This is true but consider the following:
- Romney has not held a lead in a single poll from Nevada since April... of 2011. No, I am not exaggerating, check out RCP!
- Of the 50-100 or so Wisconsin polls performed, only 3 have shown Romney leading at all. 2 of these were right after the Ryan announcement; 2 of these were also Rasmussen.
The nature of polling margins of error are such that if a race truly is close you will see polls on either side, even as high as +3 for each. This is why averaging polls, like the RCP average works. If a race is really at 0% it would not be surprising to see +3%, +2% or +1% polls; but if every single poll is leaning one way, even if marginally, then the real standing for that race is towards this candidate.
So, having said this, I think you have it backwards and that Wisconsin and Nevada are more in the bag than Ohio. These 2 would put Obama on 253 EV which means he can win with Ohio or any other combination of the remaining battlegrounds that gets him 17 EV (eg. IA + CO + NH, VA + another, OH). It obviously goes without saying that if Romney loses Florida the election is over...
michty6 [9] -
Substitutions are allowed right up until midnight, right before Election Day.
-CW
LeaningBlue [10] -
Since I watch one other polling question, check out RCP's average for Obama's approval rating. He got a significant bump out of the third debate, here.
As for media and data, my rule of thumb is to try to at least be consistent inside of the same article. I'm more partial to saying "data are" than "media are" but I try to use the correct terms when I have enough time for good editing.
-CW
Joshua [16] -
Tonight, I promise!
-CW
michty6 [17] -
I just asked, and that's precisely the reasoning my gut used.
:-)
-CW
To follow up my point in [17], the nature of polling is such that there are basically 3 types of poll:
1. Shows a peak poll result for R
2. Shows a peak poll result for D
3. Shows close to the 'real' result
A good pollster will produce all 3 types of polls. So when a Democratic leaning pollster (eg. PPP) shows a 'good' Romney poll then this is just a sign that they are a normal pollster with normal type 1-3 polls.
The point most people miss is that type 1 or 2 could be a 'tied' poll. So lets say you have O+2, O+5, Tied. Then this stretch of polls indicates that Tied is type (1), O+5 type (2) and O+2 type (3). This race is almost certainly not tied. There can be pretty big variances (deviations) due to the margins of error used. So you could see a Tied, R+4, O+2 type scenario which would indicate something close to a R+0-1 overall margin (where the national polls are today).
Where you should be really worried is where 1 pollster is extremely consistent in only showing 1 type of poll (cough Rasmussen) with very consistent results. This indicates that, since their polls do not show normal variance or deviation, they are highly skewed towards one candidate. Polls, by their very nature given their margin of error, should not be extremely consistent - this is the first indication of polls being fudged.
I'm a bit late in finding this latest addition to the EMath series.
Basically not much change since the 15th, Blue crosses the line to a victory, Red doesn't. Situation looks like early summer.
Ohio and Iowa still lean pretty strongly to Obama, roughly 70% chance of a win, or better, in each state. In many meta polls with Strong, Lean and Tossup bins, this is close enough to cause them to burble between categories, but this seems mostly noise to me. Noise that can be disconcerting when you check the news with your coffee.
Tracking my six offshore "prediction markets" has been interesting this week. Obama fell quite a bit off on average, but he positively tanked at Intrade. At one point I saw Obama briefly hit the low 50% range. There was one large trade that strongly affected the market, which was noted/speculated upon by Nate Silver, Sam Wang and others, as possible market manipulation.
I've hypothesized that spiking a prominent market, like Intrade, could be a cost effective form of persuasive advertising directed at a relatively sophisticated and influential market. Creating a sustained bump would be expensive, but a short spike, no. Think pundit manipulation...and close to the end of the campaign. It's hard for me to believe somebody out there in politico land hasn't tried this.
Anyhow, most of those actually willing to give odds are still giving Obama the advantage at roughly 2:1 to 3:1. Sam Wang is my high end outlier with 9:1 odds, Intrade is currently low end outlier trending 3:2.
Here's a wonkish little nugget. The prediction markets always run paired markets: one for Obama victory, one for Romney victory. In theory, the sum off of the two victory probabilities should equal 1.0, it's a zero sum game. Usually the sum is pretty close to one, but lately the sum is seem substantially higher, especially at Intrade. One or both sides is too optimistic. I haven't done a formal analysis to see if the trend is real, but could this be another sign of deliberate manipulation?
Looks like I stand to make a fortune with my Intrade investment...
Thanx for the advice, Michty...
Not only is Romney looking more and more assured, but I made a bundle.. :D
Michale.....
Stig,
Nate posted a very good article on why campaigns might consider manipulating Intrade. It is unlikely though, because smarter people see the manipulation and jump in to get very good prices. So the Romney manipulation only lasted a matter of hours as people jumped in to short-sell him at the insane prices being offered, leading him to fall rapidly again...
Michale,
Looks like I stand to make a fortune with my Intrade investment.
I hope you didn't invest too much!
Did you really make investments? I finally jumped into Intrade this week (after all 3 debates) and put in about $1.6k. I sold Romney shares at $4.10 (so 41%). Also bought shares in Demo Pres + Demo Senate + Repub House for $5.49 (so 54.9%). Both of those deals are now worth $64 in profit if I were to cash out today (both up around $3 per share)... I am certainly not as I think I got good prices (the latter trade being much closer).
Stig
Intrade is currently low end outlier trending 3:2.
Intrade is amazing, Romney was so over-priced for days although he is falling back down closer to more 'realistic' odds now... Because it is human priced, you can get some great prices. It would be like playing chess against a human (Intrade) as opposed to a computer (most other gambling sites)...
Usually the sum is pretty close to one, but lately the sum is seem substantially higher, especially at Intrade. One or both sides is too optimistic. I haven't done a formal analysis to see if the trend is real, but could this be another sign of deliberate manipulation?
Intrade has a market on 'anyone other than the two main party candidates to win'. It is currently at 0.1% which is pretty insane that anyone would bet anything on this! The problem is to short-sell it you have to put enough money aside to pay off your winnings. So to make $100 you'd have to hold up $100k of your money!! I think you'd probably get better interest just leaving your money in a bank account for 10 days!
Mighty6
"Nate posted a very good article on why campaigns might consider manipulating Intrade."
Yes, but he was focused on manipulation for momentary gain, that is, betting with an expectation of making more money, on average, than you lose.
If you trade on Intrade for the purposes of its value as a form advertising, then you can accept your losses as a cost of doing business. Other investors will make money from you, but you really don't care who cashes the checks if you believe you are getting the value you are paying for.
The market will chase you down, and your costs will probably rise, so the longer you play this gambit, the more expensive it becomes. Still, it seems cheap compared to TV time, and might focus well on a relatively sophisticated target audience with some powerful connections and clout.
Timing would be important, and frankly the Intrade bomb, coming just as the Romney momentum seems to have actually stalled, was noticed in Democratic circles and likely contributed to the general Dem panic of a few days back. It got my attention, believe you me.
Moral of the story, never focus too long on any one metric...it's like staring at the sun, it'll fry your vision.
Mighty6, I don't actually wager on the prediction markets. Riding my bicycle on public roads more than satisfies my need to feel risk!
From an analytical standpoint, the lack of viable state markets on Intrade and similar outfits seems mostly rational...but I have to do make some adjustments for analytical purposes. NY traded at .5 for quite a while, on the basis of a few shares plunked down by some poor soul. For modeling purposes, I just give the tiny markets a 1 or 0 based on conventional wisdom.
Moral of the story, never focus too long on any one metric...it's like staring at the sun, it'll fry your vision
This 1000%. I see people looking at 1 poll or 1 site and panicking/celebrating. The reality is that there is so much variance in polling and any methods of determining an election that 1 source is laughable.
This is why I think Intrade is (even today) still overpricing Romney. The people there, who don't understand polling, are putting far too much value on the national polls (or too much value on RCP and missing the polls that RCP ignores). 36.4% is still too high for Romney as things stand, 25% is probably more accurate...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204530504578079232194509700.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_opinion
Noonan is not always right...
But when she is, she is devastating....
Michale.....
As far as Benghazi goes, ya know, it's really not the lying..
I like to tweak the noses of the Hysterical Left/Bush Lied crowd... But it's obvious to anyone with more than 2 brain cells to rub together that Obama doesn't have a passing association with the facts...
But what is REALLY damning, what Obama (and ya'all) simply CANNOT defend is that Obama et al watched the attack in REAL time and did not send help...
THAT is simply unforgivable....
Michale......
WI: O 49% R 49%...
FL: R 51% O 46%...
R 51% O 46%...
R 50% O 47%...
R 49% O 48%...
No one worried yet??? :D
Bullshit...... :D
Michale.....
I'm pessimistic. As I've said countless times, I think elections are decided by turnout voters, not swing voters. Well, the Base seem to have forgotten their dislike of Romney, and found their partisan enthusiasm. I never thought he could get nominated, but now I think he's going to become president.
This era of unipolar politics and Zeno's compromise can't go on forever, can it? The Republican Party can't keep getting more and more extreme, more and more anti-intellectual, more and more dependent on a narrow demographic base, can it? Don't they eventually run out of farther-right to go? Won't the Democratic party eventually get tired of following them, and draw the line somewhere?
Lol Michale this is the perfect example of what I said above: This 1000%. I see people looking at 1 poll or 1 site and panicking/celebrating
How about:
OH: O 50% R 46%
CO: O 47% R 46%
IA: O 50% R 46%
NH: O 49% R 46%
Cherry picking polls is fun.
In all seriousness, it looks like the only 2 battlegrounds Romney is ahead in are NC and FL just now. That must be pretty worrying for him...
DSWS,
By all analysis this will be the last election involving the Republican party as we know it. The changing demographics mean that relying on white males to elect you will almost not be possible this year and certainly not possible in 2016. They will have to become less extreme and more reasonable or be consigned to the history books.
Intrade has a market on 'anyone other than the two main party candidates to win'. It is currently at 0.1% which is pretty insane that anyone would bet anything on this!
Let's see, the annual death rate for age 65 is 1.7%, and for age 51 is 0.5%. There are 52 days left until the electors meet. So, assuming electors can't vote for someone who's already dead, a rough estimate would be 52/365 * 0.005 * 0.017 = 1.2 * 10^(-5).
By all analysis this will be the last election involving the Republican party as we know it. The changing demographics mean that relying on white males to elect you will almost not be possible this year and certainly not possible in 2016.
It will almost certainly be possible in 2014, though, and probably several more off-year elections beyond.
I should have added that Republicans can't lose on their own. For someone to lose, someone else has to win. It should have been impossible to win on their lunatic-fringe positions for the past 30 years. But counting on that would be misunderestimating the Democrats
dsws [37] -
I think the first time I heard the phrase "snatching defeat from the jaws of victory" it was uttered in relation to a Democrat losing an election he should have won.
Misunderestimating, indeed. Sigh.
-CW
dsws,
The problem is Democrats see Republicans as inherently evil and that they (Democrats) are the saviors of the Republic...
In other words, DEMOCRATS think they are god's chosen ones...
Of course, Republicans see themselves the same way...
The fact is that BOTH Partys are corrupt and have only THEIR best interests at heart, instead of the best interest of the country...
The idea that one Party is "gooder" than the other is laughable and has absolutely NO SUPPORTING evidence whatsoever...
Michale......
Since no one responded to #30, let me ask again...
WHY did Obama decide not to send assistance into Benghazi that would have saved lives???
This is the question that Americans will be taking into the voting booth with them in 10 days...
Michale
Former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods was part of a small team who was at the CIA annex about a mile from the U.S. consulate where Ambassador Chris Stevens and his team came under attack. When he and others heard the shots fired, they informed their higher-ups at the annex to tell them what they were hearing and requested permission to go to the consulate and help out. They were told to "stand down," according to sources familiar with the exchange. Soon after, they were again told to "stand down."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/26/cia-operators-were-denied-request-for-help-during-benghazi-attack-sources-say/#ixzz2AV58j9Kp
Yep, it's not looking good for Team Obama....
Michale.....
Yep, it's not looking good for Team Obama....
Yes, shockingly, the Fox News headline does not look good for Obama lol.
Yes, shockingly, the Fox News headline does not look good for Obama lol.
Yea..... You said the same thing when Fox News reported that they had intelligence that there was NO protest..
Fox News was right then... They're right now...
No matter how you try to spin it, Obama scrooed the pooch by letting our fellow Americans die w/o lifting a finger...
Michale.....
I am also constrained to point out that you yourself have quoted FNC on many occasions..
So, apparently, you think Fox is correct some of the time..
Why are they wrong here???
Michale.....
Michale,
I read Fox for the same reason I read Rush Limbaugh: amusement. It is also interesting to see what is going on in right-wing-reality. And yes I have quoted them here saying 'look even Fox disagrees with you!' in response to your rants!
I read Fox for the same reason I read Rush Limbaugh: amusement.
Au Contraire... You have quoted FNC many times to make a point..
So, apparently, you agree with FNC at least SOME of the time..
I am just curious why you think FNC is wrong about Obama not sending aid to Benghazi..
Especially in light of the fact that you disputed FNC's contention that there was no protest going on.. You were wrong then..
Why do you think you are right now??
Michale