Comments on the election

[OLD1953]

The most reliable poll of all is polling the complaints about the polls being inaccurate. Whoever complains the most is certainly losing.

[psCargile]

All I know is that the Democrats want me to be dependent on them, and the Republicans want me to be able to generate my own wealth.

[OLD1953]

The "miracle" is happening now, the polls are starting to converge as the pollsters start building the case that their "model" is the best and they should be hired again next year. This is hardly a shock to anyone who's watched polls over a few elections, but the new services are all a flutter like it's the first time that's ever happened.

[OLD1953]

As the most money is made by an election "down to the wire" it was totally predictable that Romney would "win" this debate. He'll be given a "win" on the second debate too, then the pundits will start talking about Obama's "amazing" performance in the third debate, unless Romney is really looking terrible at that point, in which case they'll declare Obama a complete idiot.

This is not about the debates (horrible word that, these are not even remotely debates, they are just televised speeches on short subjects) this is about maximizing the money coming into media centers. The "debates" aren't going to have much if any effect on the election, this is not 1960, there are hundreds of other TV channels and the Internet plus Hulu and NetFlix and Amazon to occupy your time rather than watch politicians. But they make good talking points for pundits and whipping boys for losers.

Always keep an eye on where the money goes and you'll find motivations. Yes that is cynical, but it's also true.

[John]

I interpreted Obama's sullen attitude to his Gen-X contempt of
Boomers. "These Boomers are jackasses, so why should I have to debate
this lying, arrogant crook who's a danger to the world?"

[OLD1953]

Don't know if that was his problem or he was just out of practice. Or he may be trying to run out the clock and look more presidental, which to him seems to be acting aloof from all others - not the best idea but it seems to be the classic Obama. Anyhow, he didn't shine, for sure. Romney effectively disavowed any connection to the Ryan budget, and apparently he's determined to drop that particular millstone as fast as possible given his speeches since the debate. He certainly waited a long time to turn left. Maybe he's figured out that most of the far right isn't voting for him, they are going to walk over fire to vote against Obama. Given the actual past policy difference between the two is nil, this just shows how polarized the country has become. (Go by what they've DONE, not what they PROMISE, you won't go far wrong. Pretty much the same thing as trailing earnings for companies.)

For what it's worth, Gallup averages data over seven days. They report that for three days after the debate numbers shifted to put Romney and Obama even up, then they shifted back. While this doesn't mean much, I mention it because it does support my hypothesis that debates don't really change anything, there is too much distraction possible in the modern world. Not that these are debates in any real sense.

Waited a few days to see if this was actually changing electoral votes, so far it hasn't. Red states got redder, blue states got slightly less blue, but the states where all the advertising is going on didn't shift much at all. North Carolina has swapped back and forth like a pendulum, but it's still all uphill for Romney. His odds are a little better than before, he's probably back up to about one in seven by my figuring, but that's not a lot better. There should be some new polls out from Iowa and North Carolina in a few days, this may show some changes.

I've thought of making a chart of when polling takes place and where. I think this could be used to show how the media manipulates the numbers to encourage the maximum spend from the PAC's. It's been hard trying to figure out how to get it to clearly display the information in the manner I want it displayed, polls/dates/locations and how that affects their ballyhooed percentages for the voters.

Some of the polls will switch methodology this week, to "likely" voters. How you determine a likely voter before the fact is beyond me.

** Rasmussen just released his polls of Iowa and Colorado, which shows Obama in the lead. With Rasmussen, if he says a Republican is ahead, it's a maybe. If he says a Democrat is ahead, he's probably right. Rasmussen tends to weight things towards Republicans. Just a guess on my part, but I think Romney's remarks about getting rid of support for wind power pretty much ruined him in Iowa.

[Reality Check]

A picture is worth a thousand words.

[Trevor]

A picture is worth a thousand words.

Not to mention that the labor force is at a thirty year low. I think something like 4 million have given up looking for work.

As for the election... I have no idea who's going to win. Each side thinks their guy has it in the bag, but then again, they always do. We'll find out in 4 weeks.

[OLD1953]

It's not over till the fat lady sings, that's certain, but maybe I'm not explaining myself well on why Romney's battle is totally uphill and hard. For Romney to win means he has to take every state where polls have shown Obama with less than a two point lead, plus every state where polls have shown him with only a small lead over Obama, plus at least two states where Obama has shown consistent leads of 2% or above.

Obama on the other hand merely has to remain in the lead in the states where he has polled consistently with a 2% lead over Romney all year. That is much easier, so Obama has spent most of his time fund raising while Romney has been campaigning. As as result of that, the Obama campaign has a lot of money that mostly came from small donations. This means he has a large and very motivated group that feel connected to him personally. That's a major thing in any election.

So Romney has the uphill fight. Moreover, with Obama's campaign actually having more money than Romney's, direct ads from the Obama campaign are going to be hitting hard and heavy between now and the election.

It was always going to be hard for any Republican to pull this off, much harder than the pundits were claiming (remember, they want more ad money) and it's certainly not going to be easy for Romney. Hats off to him if he does it, but if he does it will go down in history as one of the great come from behind wins.

Doesn't matter who wins, there's going to be a state of gridlock in Washington until the crisis finally forces cooperation. And I doubt unemployment or FED actions will be enough to push them as if it was a crisis.

There aren't going to be enough blue dog democrats left to manage anything. They all got targeted by the tea party and millions were spent to push them out. So that one one MOTR voice that went. Both moderate Republican senators have retired from the Senate. Who's left that is willing to compromise and get things done? Almost nobody. And no matter how ANY part of the election turns out, there are going to be plenty of senators willing to block everything. Romney isn't going to pass crap, neither will Obama. It's a wash, it flat out does not matter who gets elected, save perhaps a LITTLE bit to Israel, and that isn't much unless you think Romney is willing to go straight to war with Iran. And that would (IMHO) be the final nail in the Republican party coffin, three wars and the expense for three wars laid at the Republicans doors would simply poison their well for many years to come in national elections. It would have to become WWIII to prevent that, and even then you need to remember what happened to Churchill.

[Reality Check]

Obama on the other hand merely has to remain in the lead in the states where he has polled consistently with a 2% lead over Romney all year.

I have no idea who is going to win this election. But, in a two man U.S. Presidential race it has been the man who get's over 50% of the votes.

Except for a very brief period, only for a few days, and only in a couple of the critical swing states ( Florida, Virginia and Ohio ), has Obama achieved that.

Obama has, on the other hand, been polling 47%, or below, in virtually all the critical battle ground states, for the vast majority of 2012.

Until just the past few days, the vast majority of polls have been of registered voters, rather than "likely voters". Registered voter polls are historically inaccurate and skewed in favor of the candidate with poor enthusiasm.

Now polling is switching to "likely voters" versus "registered voters". Obama now has the same problem he has had all election cycle. Obama can not break the 50% mark in polling, in the critical battle ground states.

The big problem Obama has with that is that everybody who is going to vote for him, is already being counted. Everybody knows who the incumbent, Obama, is. Nobody is going to wake up and say "I never knew this guy existed, he looks pretty good, I think I will vote for him".

Obama's strategy has been pretty clear since the start. Kill Rooney's professional and personal reputation to the point even Obama looks good by comparison.

It has not happened yet. But it is still Obama's best hope. Problem is, running negative ads only works for so long until it starts hurting the guy who is running them as much, or more, than the guy being attack. Obama has been running such ads for months. The polls you are quoting, if they are correct, appear to show a major swing in momentum away from Obama. Again I have no idea who is going to win. But the incumbent having a 2 point lead, when the incumbent is polling well above 50%, is not a good sign for the incumbant.