US election prediction thread

[bush_cheney2004]

The republicans created this mess and have worked for most of Obama's term to sabotage any progress without any regard for the people of the country....

Actually, the Obama Administration continued many of the Bush era policies, including TARP, income tax cuts, payroll tax holidays, massive deficit spending, and squandered political capital to push through so called health care reform. Did I mention another war in Libya ?

[Moonlight Graham]

I think this election is going to be darn close. I'll predict Obama, since he ran the better campaign, has a bit of momentum and he just has more ways to win in the electoral college. I think Mitt could have done so much better if he played it a bit more moderate and hammered Obama better on the economy (Paul Ryan's budget plan has been a burden to the campaign). But if Mitt nabs a win I certainly wouldn't be surprised.

edit: Just looking at polls and the electoral college makeup, it's more likely that Obama will win. Given the states widely held to be a toss up, Obama has a lot more ways to win than Romney.

Edited November 6, 2012 by Moonlight Graham

[cybercoma]

Mitt Romney would have won this campaign if he was more consistent and had a clear, workable vision for his presidency. He could still win, but I doubt it. If he would have ran his campaign as I'm saying, he would have crushed Obama.

Edited November 6, 2012 by cybercoma

[Guest Derek L]

As was said by Bill O'Reilly, Dick Morris has a set of brass ones:

http://www.dickmorri...-325-obama-213/

Prediction: Romney 325, Obama 213

Yup. That’s right. A landslide for Romney approaching the magnitude of Obama’s against McCain. That’s my prediction.

On Sunday, we changed our clocks. On Tuesday, we’ll change our president.

Romney will win the states McCain carried in 2008, plus: Florida, Indiana, Virginia, North Carolina, Colorado, Iowa, Ohio, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Minnesota.

In the popular vote, Romney will win by more than 5 points.

The Obama campaign made the following key mistakes:

• It bet the farm on negative ads in swing states. It didn’t realize that Mitt’s convention speech and the three debates would give him the chance to live down the charges and demonstrate — through facts and his demeanor — that they were baseless.

• Obama had no Plan B if the negatives didn’t work. He never really laid in a convincing defense of his record, except to recall the mess that he inherited and to try to make people believe things were better. He had no vision for his second term, except more of same. He never moved to the center — the shift that reelected Bill Clinton.

• Obama drew his list of swing states too narrowly. He did not contemplate that he would be forced to defend Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan or Minnesota and squandered his money contesting unwinnable states like North Carolina. When Romney bypassed Obama’s “firewall” states (like the Germans did the French Maginot Line in World War II), the president had not laid in the necessary prophylactic irradiation of negative ads, and three of the states embraced Romney.

• By focusing on the negative, Obama sacrificed first his personal popularity and then his dignity and presidentiality. No longer was he the hope and the change. He became nothing more than a nasty partisan, throwing epithets at his rival. A president does not let himself be quoted as saying that his opponent is a “bullsh–ter” or that voting is the best “revenge.” Even his dress was wrong. Instead of appearing in a dark suit, he dressed in an open-neck white shirt, trying to be everyman but succeeding only in not looking like a president.

• Since he offered nothing more than a negative campaign and a grab-bag of special-interest pleadings for single women, unions, college kids and minorities, Obama failed to inspire the turnout that he needed. Against Santorum and Gingrich, Obama could have made the case that their prospective presidencies were sufficiently dangerous that liberals and Democrats must rush to the polls to stop them. But against the congenial Romney, the warnings rang hollow.

• In the first debate, Obama was terrible. We’ll likely find out what his excuses are after the polls close. Did he have the flu? Was it the altitude? Had he, as Bob Woodward suggested, just received a dose of bad news? Why did he appear distracted?

• Obama should have gotten the facts out quickly about Benghazi rather than let them drip, drip, drip out over six weeks. He could then have handled the crisis and won points for determination and toughness. Instead, to the very end, he looked like he was covering up the fact of a terrorist attack. Because he was.

• After Sandy, Obama visited New Jersey and surveyed the damage with Gov. Chris Christie ®. He should have stayed on the storm, superintending relief efforts, urging FEMA on, absorbing the lessons of Bush’s failure to cope well with Katrina. Instead, he returned to the partisan wars and the strident speeches in swing states.

None of this should take away from Romney’s brilliant campaign. By staying on the economy and not being tempted into side issues like Libya, Mitt kept the focus where it needed to be and never let up. His campaign’s foray into Pennsylvania, Minnesota and Wisconsin was vital to his chances of victory. More about what Mitt did right in my post-election column on Thursday. But for now, let’s celebrate the new president we are about to elect.

[bush_cheney2004]

As was said by Bill O'Reilly, Dick Morris has a set of brass ones:

http://www.dickmorri...-325-obama-213/

That's a very bold prediction, but I do not see a Jimmy Carter like whipping at the polls a la 1980. Clearly even Obama's most ardent supporters have some disappointment with him for various reasons, so he does not have the kind of base seen in 2008. In many respects, Obama now has the incumbent burden of a George W. Bush. It was telling that Bill Clinton was recruited to explain to the American people why Obama "deserves" a second term, as he was not very effective doing it himself.

I am going to VCR/DVR all major cable news outlets tomorrow and enjoy the fun. No matter what happens, the euphoria and afterglow of a Bush victory in 2004 will sustain me to the very end (crematorium) !!

Edited November 6, 2012 by bush_cheney2004

[Guest Derek L]

That's a very bold prediction, but I do not see a Jimmy Carter like whipping at the polls a la 1980. Clearly even Obama's most ardent supporters have some disappointment with him for various reasons, so he does not have the kind of base seen in 2008. In many respects, Obama now has the incumbent burden of a George W. Bush. It was telling that Bill Clinton was recruited to explain to the American people why Obama "deserves" a second term, as he was not very effective doing it himself.

I am going to VCR/DVR all major cable news outlets tomorrow and enjoy the fun. No matter what happens, the euphoria and afterglow of a Bush victory in 2004 will sustain me to the very end (crematorium) !!

I agree, and he just reaffirmed his prediction on Hannity (Even Sean rolled his eyes) but when he explained his madness, in that Romney’s perceived 1 point lead, coupled with independents heavily favouring Romney and undecided’s typically voting against the incumbent 2:1, he feels this will translate into a Romney 5 point lead and electoral landslide (330+)……….I don’t see that………But when one looks at the polls from the last few weeks of our last federal election, the polls typically under polled Conservatives by 4% when contrasted with the actual results…………

People make a lot about pollsters not contacting younger cell phone users, but by the same token, though us curmudgeonly old conservatives may not be as tech savvy or trendy as the youngsters, you better believe it when we say our Children hooked up call displays on our landlines and we have memorized every person on the planet that we knows’ phone number………And phone calls during dinner really piss us off!!

[bush_cheney2004]

.... you better believe it when we say our Children hooked up call displays on our landlines and we have memorized every person on the planet that we knows’ phone number………And phone calls during dinner really piss us off!!

It got so bad that I installed an active call blocking device on our phone. The robo-calling was relentless.

[Guest Derek L]

And to add to my prediction, a President Romney will announce that his first Secretary of the Interior, a person that will have to apply all of her Mountainfolk like mannerisms and charm to break the EPA, as:

[cybercoma]

But when one looks at the polls from the last few weeks of our last federal election, the polls typically under polled Conservatives by 4% when contrasted with the actual results…………

What happened here is completely irrelevant. The national polls in the US show Obama consistently winning the popular vote by 2-3%. State-by-state polling shows him consistently ahead in many of the so-called tossup states. Unless there is bias in all of those polls, across different polling firms, and different polling techniques, all favouring Obama, rather than favouring Romney, it's highly unlikely that Romney will win. Nate Silver calculates the chance of that kind of bias at around 12%.

Edited November 6, 2012 by cybercoma

[Guest Derek L]

What happened here is completely irrelevant. The national polls in the US show Obama consistently winning the popular vote by 2-3%. State-by-state polling shows him consistently ahead in many of the so-called tossup states. Unless there is bias in all of those polls, across different polling firms, and different polling techniques, all favouring Obama, rather than favouring Romney, it's highly unlikely that Romney will win. Nate Silver calculates the chance of that kind of bias at around 12%.

And how did his Canadian contemporary at 308.com make out last year?

I seem to remember him predicting a Conservative minority, Liberal Opposition and the NDP & Bloc tied with about 40ish seats apiece…….

[Guest Derek L]

And I'll add this quote as my final contribution on this subject until after the election:

Too often we hold fast to the clichés of our forebears. We subject all facts to a prefabricated set of interpretations. We enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. Mythology distracts us everywhere. For the great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie: deliberate, contrived, and dishonest. But the myth: persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.

~JFK

Rather fitting when applied to political polls.

[cybercoma]

And how did his Canadian contemporary at 308.com make out last year?

I seem to remember him predicting a Conservative minority, Liberal Opposition and the NDP & Bloc tied with about 40ish seats apiece…….

I don't know if you're aware of this, but we have very different electoral systems. I'm really not sure why you're continuing to compare Canadian polling to US polling, but it's utterly meaningless. ThreeHundredEight is not affiliated with Nate Silver at all, as far as I know. Besides, the polling the do is by region or province. For it to be equivalent to what Nate Silver does, they would literally have to aggregate polling from every federal riding in the country for it to be meaningful in the same way as Silver's predictions. And as far as they go, FiveThirtyEight predicted every single state in 2008 except Indiana, which went to Obama by a margin of 1%.

[Smallc]

Did you notice that 538 now predicts that Obama will win Florida? hmmm....and that he has a 91.8% chance of Winning Ohio.

Obama now has a projected 92% chance of winning the election.

Edited November 6, 2012 by Smallc

[August1991]

Intrade and Iowa have Obama winning. If you disagree, go bet your money.

IOW and IMHO, on the basis of these markets (as well as my electoral vote counts), Obama has won this. I'll be very surprised if Obama is not President next week.

----

Predictions aside and unlike others, I think that the American republic is greater than Obama. (America survived a Civil War; surely it can survive four more years of Obama.)

====

I thought about this further. Canadians have never survived a Civil War, but we Quebecers have lived through, recently, two referenda. Unlike America or Quebec, English-Canada has never been truly tested in a civil war.

No matter what happens, the euphoria and afterglow of a Bush victory in 2004 will sustain me to the very end (crematorium) !!

Giggle. Edited November 6, 2012 by August1991

[sharkman]

Intrade and Iowa have Obama winning. If you disagree, go bet your money.

IOW and IMHO, Obama has won this.

----

Unlike others, I think that the American republic is greater than Obama. (America survived a Civil War; surely it can survive Obama.)

====

I thought about this further. Canadians have never survived a Civil War, but we Quebecers have lived through, recently, two referenda. Unlike America or Quebec, English-Canada has never been truly tested in a civil war.

If Obama were to win and then keep on spending like a drunken sailor, I'm not so sure. Every country has a limit of fiscal abuse. And to hear his campaigning, he sees no problem with the 'print money' approach.

[August1991]

If Obama were to win and then keep on spending like a drunken sailor, I'm not so sure. Every country has a limit of fiscal abuse. And to hear his campaigning, he sees no problem with the 'print money' approach.

Japan has a government debt to GDP ratio well over 200%, and America in the late 1940s had a similar ratio.

The US federal government under Obama can borrow/print alot more before it turns into a ponzi scheme.

Edited November 6, 2012 by August1991

[kimmy]

(America survived a Civil War; surely it can survive four more years of Obama.)

That really puts it in perspective.

I also expect an Obama victory, though I think that we could be up pretty late tomorrow night waiting for results from a few states.

I am not sure that Obama will win the popular vote, as the storm aftermath may reduce turnout in the northeast where the largest concentration of Democrat voters are.

-k

[betsy]

As was said by Bill O'Reilly, Dick Morris has a set of brass ones:

http://www.dickmorri...-325-obama-213/

Also, an interesting opinion was given by a fox news strategist yesterday saying that even though all polls show a very tight race, her prediction is that in reality, it is not a close race.

The issue is all about the economy - which Obama failed. And as indicated by the latest Gallup poll - on economy, Obama's approval rating is only 14%.

Have you noticed how a lot of white people (men and women) being interviewed all have nice things to say about Obama before they say, "BUT.....he did not deliver his promise," or "BUT.....we need change," or "BUT.....he's had his chance," etc..?

It seems they try to tread carefully before they say they wouldn't vote for him. Perhaps, they don't want to be thought of as racists.

According to the same strategist, there was a black politician in the past which all the polls showed was going to win the election. He didn't. The assumption was that people lied to pollsters because they don't want to be thought of as racists.

[CPCFTW]

Finally we can stop talking about polls and start talking about results.

[GostHacked]

Finally we can stop talking about polls and start talking about results.

AGREED !!!!!!

[Rue]

Obama. He does not need popular vote. He needs to retain electoral votes in key high electoral vote regions. I believe he will do that.

[Rue]

If Obama were to win and then keep on spending like a drunken sailor, I'm not so sure. Every country has a limit of fiscal abuse. And to hear his campaigning, he sees no problem with the 'print money' approach.

Interesting. Obama funds government programs to employ people critics like you call it spending like a drunken sailor.Bit when Bush spent billions on meaningless war and bankrupting the nation to padd the pockegs of Haliburton where were critics like you? You call Obama a drunken sailor but Romney proposing they spend a fortune on outmoded military hardware means nothing? Why the double standard?

Obama has been clear what he will spend his money on. Romney? He refuses to say what he will cut. In fact he has deliberately refused to say what he will cut telling certain audiences he will cut huge amounts and others he will not. He has lied and flip flopped his way through this campaign portraying himself as a fiscal hatchet man and a moderate at the same time.

Drunken sailor? Where do you think Omabama's spending went. What because he did not send it all to Haliburton you are upset> If he spent it on a useless war it would have been ok? His spendi is to keep Americans afloat. What has Romney done while paying his 14% taxto contribute to the economy ? He has put people out of work, stripped their compnies and sold their carcasses to the Chinese. This is what you want? A corporate raider? A man who feeds on sick animals? Th

is is a man who says he would cut FEMA and criticized Obama for reigning in BP Oil.

Have fun if Romney is elected.

You really think he will be able to write off the masses and say they can survive on the bread crumbs thrown to them by 2% of the population allowed a cut on their taxes?

Right.

You think he will simply be able to put up fences..oh wait lets use the coded words...take back the nation from those masses?

Tell that to the average American. I think they know when a guy refuses to disclose his true platform he's hiding some unpopular cuts.

If Americans are stupid enough to vote in a guy who hides his true agenda they deserve what they get. Romney will do to the US what he did to corporations-butcher them, and sell what's left of them to the Chinese. Good luck on that.

Edited November 6, 2012 by Rue

[sharkman]

Interesting. Obama funds government programs to employ people you call it spending like a drunken sailor.Bush spends billions on meaningless war you of course do not call it that. You call Obama a drunken sailor but Romney proposing they spend a fortune on outmoded military hardware means nothing?

Obama has been clear what he will spend his money on. Romney? He refuses to say what he will cut. In fact he has deliberately refused to say what he will cut telling certain audiences he will cut huge amounts and others he will not. He has lied and flip flopped his way through this campaign portraying himself as a fiscal hatchet man and a moderate at the same time.

Drunken sailor? Where do you think his spending went. It went to keep Americans a float. What has Romney done while paying his 14% tax. He put people out of work, stripped their compnies and sold their carcasses to the Chinese. This is a man who says he would cut FEMA and criticized Obama for reigning in BP Oil.

Have fun if Romneyt is elected. You really think he will be able to write off the masses and say they can survive on the bread crumbs thrown to them by 2% of the population allowed a cut on their taxes?

Right.

Tell that to the average American. I think they know when I guy refuses to disclose his true platform he's hiding some unpopular cuts. You think people out of work want to hear that?

Well you may be right but to portray Obama as a drunken sailir? Come on. Its Romneyt not him proposing spending on outmoded military equipment the military does not want and claiming he will get that money from cutting medicare. You add it up.

The only drunken sailor will be Romney selling out the US to private businesses who could give 2 shits about the average person.

I think people out of work want jobs, not 4 more years of empty promises from a president that has spent trillions every year and yet couldn't get the economy going after 4 long years of trying. You are a major Obama booster and that's fine, but at least try using an argument that is more than the simplistic talking points of the Obama campaign.

[Topaz]

I heard on the news, that who ever win Virginia and Ohio will win the election. Now, the US has 23 million unemployed, and we all know voters always want change but I think with Romney, he put the US back into another war. I'm also hearing the voters of Michigan may vote against the new bridge and then that will give problems for the Canadian government who want to own it.

[wyly]

why would michigan vote against a new bridge that canada is paying for and will provide jobs.... as well the potential damage to local economy should the existing bridge need to be shut down for repair...it's hard to imagine people being that stupid...