Bipartisan Poll projects Romney to win decisively

[Kaylore]

http://weeklystandard.com/blogs/new-...47_658066.html

The bipartisan Battleground Poll, in its “vote election model,” is projecting that Mitt Romney will defeat President Obama 52 percent to 47 percent. The poll also found that Romney has an even greater advantage among middle class voters, 52 percent to 45 percent.

While Obama can close the gap with a strong voter turnout effort, “reports from the field would indicate that not to be the case, and Mitt Romney may well be heading to a decisive victory,” says pollster Ed Goeas.

Should Romney win by 5 percentage points, it would increase Republican chances of gaining control of the Senate. His coattails would help elect GOP Senate candidates in Virginia, Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida. “Republicans are now certain to hold the House,” Goeas said, “regardless of how the presidential race turns out.”

The poll’s election model takes into account variables including voter intensity, age, and education, and voters who are certain in their vote. The race “remains very close in the surface,” Goeas said, “but the political environment and the composition of the likely electorate favor Governor Romney.”

I know the electoral math is where the rubber meets the road, but we've all seen the polls miss even outside the margin of error.

I was wondering if we'd see Romney win the popular vote but lose the electoral vote, like Gore did in 2000. The problem with that is Gore and Bush were less than a percentage point in seperation at the end of the 2000 election. The day before polls and exit polls had Gore up by a percentage point or more going in. Republicans have historically done a percentage point better than the polls indicate going back multiple decades. This also jives with the Gallup poll's results from a week ago. The thing about polls is no one poll is right. You have to look at trends and see if more agree than disagree.

I think the biggest red flag for the Obama campaign is only 37% think the country is on the right path. Do you really think "forward" is the right message when that is the consensus?

This next week will be telling, but I'm beginning to thik more and more those last few percentage points that are undecided and make a choice on election day will break for Romney.

[W*GS]

A right-wing rag predicts a Romney win. Shocking.

538 shows Obama's numbers improving, with a 74.6% chance of an Obama win.

[BroncoInferno]

Originally Posted by W*GS

A right-wing rag predicts a Romney win. Shocking.

538 shows Obama's numbers improving, with a 74.6% chance of an Obama win.

Additionally, Real Clear Politics shows a steady Obama lead in six of the toss up states of 2% or greater (Ohio, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan) that total 76 electoral votes, which put Obama over 270. Contrary to what right-wingers like Khan are trying to say, there's been no "surge" for Romney since the first debate. The numbers have normalized the last two weeks or so, and Obama still looks good in the electoral college.

[Rohirrim]

I don't think Bill Kristol publishes anything that isn't heavily biased.

[Kaylore]

Originally Posted by W*GS

A right-wing rag predicts a Romney win. Shocking.

538 shows Obama's numbers improving, with a 74.6% chance of an Obama win.

The Weekly Standard didn't run the poll.

Is that how you guys roll? Ad Hominem when you don't like it?

Ok.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 03:56 AM PDT

Nate Silver singlehandedly dismantling the myth of Mitt-mentum

The Telegraph, one of the UK's better, if editorially right-of-centre, newspapers, has an interesting article about Nate Silver this morning:

Nate Silver, the geeky statistician who is singlehandedly dismantling the myth of Mitt-mentum

It's by Dan Hodges, a "Blairite cuckoo in the Miliband nest":

Where most political commentators output is the product of briefings, gossip and personal perception, Silver deals in cold, hard facts. And at the moment, Silver’s facts are being fired like bullets into the heart of the Romney campaign. Over the past week Romney has had a clear strategy; give the impression of momentum. Demonstrate the post-debate surge is continuing. Get people talking about how the race is his to lose.

Nate Silver is Mitt Romney’s nemesis. Not intentionally; although he admits to being an Obama supporter, his whole career is predicated on getting his predictions right. Like he did in 2008, when "Poblano" accurately predicted the result of 49 of the 50 states, and all 35 senate races. And it is that reputation for accuracy that is so damaging to the Romney campaign’s attempt to sustain their precious “momentum” narrative. People listen to Silver. And over the past 48 hours, the narrative is starting to shift. “Mitt-mentum? Not so fast” – US News & World report. “Romney’s Momentum Seems To Have Stopped. “The momentum myth” – Washington Post.

[BroncoInferno]

Originally Posted by Kaylore

The Weekly Standard didn't run the poll.

Is that how you guys roll? Ad Hominem when you don't like it?

Ok.

Actually, that's what the right-wing does. Polls that are favorable for Obama must be part of his Muslim black-nationalist communist plot.

Anyway, like I said, look at the RCP poll averages in the toss up states. Romney got a bounce from the first debate, but there's been little movement in the last couple of weeks in most of those states. If anything, they've remained solid, if close, for the President. Consistent 2% or better leads in the six key states I mentioned above. You can also add New Hampshire to that list, which I just noticed this morning has reached a RCP average of 2% for Obama.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Obama at 49%, Romney 46% nine days before election: Reuters Poll

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 03:56 AM PDT

Nate Silver singlehandedly dismantling the myth of Mitt-mentum

The Telegraph, one of the UK's better, if editorially right-of-centre, newspapers, has an interesting article about Nate Silver this morning:

Nate Silver, the geeky statistician who is singlehandedly dismantling the myth of Mitt-mentum

It's by Dan Hodges, a "Blairite cuckoo in the Miliband nest":

Where most political commentators output is the product of briefings, gossip and personal perception, Silver deals in cold, hard facts. And at the moment, Silver’s facts are being fired like bullets into the heart of the Romney campaign. Over the past week Romney has had a clear strategy; give the impression of momentum. Demonstrate the post-debate surge is continuing. Get people talking about how the race is his to lose.

Nate Silver is Mitt Romney’s nemesis. Not intentionally; although he admits to being an Obama supporter, his whole career is predicated on getting his predictions right. Like he did in 2008, when "Poblano" accurately predicted the result of 49 of the 50 states, and all 35 senate races. And it is that reputation for accuracy that is so damaging to the Romney campaign’s attempt to sustain their precious “momentum” narrative. People listen to Silver. And over the past 48 hours, the narrative is starting to shift. “Mitt-mentum? Not so fast” – US News & World report. “Romney’s Momentum Seems To Have Stopped. “The momentum myth” – Washington Post.

Like I said before, we all know how the Right "feels" about science.

Like they say about climate change, why pay attention to a bunch of scientific "models" when I can just go outside and check the weather on my own. Hell, it just snowed. What's that do to your global warming, eh?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

AP Analysis: Obama is poised to win the election

AMES, Iowa (AP) — President Barack Obama is poised to eke out a victory in the race for the 270 electoral votes needed to win re-election, having beaten back Republican Mitt Romney's attempts to convert momentum from the debates into support in all-important Ohio, according to an Associated Press analysis a week before Election Day.

The analysis shows that Obama probably would win with at least 271 electoral votes from 21 states, including Ohio, Wisconsin and Iowa, and the District of Columbia. Romney seems on track for 206 from 23 states, including North Carolina.

http://news.yahoo.com/advantage-obam...-election.html

[Kaylore]

Originally Posted by BroncoInferno

Actually, that's what the right-wing does.

This thread is hilarious. You lefties are in here right now doing it, and then you turn around and say "no that's you guys!"

Has LA Bronco fan ever aknowledged anything posted in this forum that supports republican concerns if it wasn't linked from smirking chimp?

Usually it's just "Yeah Fox news, it's a lie." even when it comes out from Reuters or MSNBC as well.

RCP Shows romney with 2 percentage point lead nationally, BTW.

Rasmussen has Romney up 2% over Obama too.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...ohio_president

But please, link a statistician and make more jokes about how stupid Republicans are if it makes you feel better.

[Rohirrim]

I don't doubt that Romney will win. But that's not good news for this country. I believe Romney will be about as good for this country as Bush was.

[BroncoInferno]

Originally Posted by Kaylore

RCP Shows romney with 2 percentage point lead nationally, BTW.

The national polling isn't relevant. It's the electoral map that will decide the election. And Obama, as I've already shown, has a solid and consistent RCP poll average lead in the states I mentioned above.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by Kaylore

This thread is hilarious. You lefties are in here right now doing it, and then you turn around and say "no that's you guys!"

Has LA Bronco fan ever aknowledged anything posted in this forum that supports republican concerns if it wasn't linked from smirking chimp?

Usually it's just "Yeah Fox news, it's a lie." even when it comes out from Reuters or MSNBC as well.

RCP Shows romney with 2 percentage point lead nationally, BTW.

Rasmussen has Romney up 2% over Obama too.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...ohio_president

But please, link a statistician and make more jokes about how stupid Republicans are if it makes you feel better.

So, since you couldn't slide a credit card between the differences in the policies of George Bush and Mitt Romney, why do you think it will work this time?

[BroncoInferno]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

I don't doubt that Romney will win. But that's not good news for this country. I believe Romney will be about as good for this country as Bush was.

You're right, Romney could well win. I'm encouraged that Obama is showing consistent leads in the key states I mentioned above and that Romney's momentum appears to have been blunted the last couple of weeks (in most of the toss up states, at any rate), but it's certainly all within the margin of error.

[BroncoInferno]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

So, since you couldn't slide a credit card between the differences in the policies of George Bush and Mitt Romney, why do you think it will work this time?

He'll just post a smiley and make some lame quip implying that the comparisons with Bush are unfounded. Nevermind the fact that Bush's economic and foreign policy teams are littered with former Bush advisors. They've all apparently radically changed their views in the last 4 years, so there's nothing to worry about.

[Kaylore]

Originally Posted by BroncoInferno

He'll just post a smiley and make some lame quip implying that the comparisons with Bush are unfounded. Nevermind the fact that Bush's economic and foreign policy teams are littered with former Bush advisors. They've all apparently radically changed their views in the last 4 years, so there's nothing to worry about.

When do I ever do that? I can point to multiple posts where I explain in detail my views.

Romney isn't Bush. He isn't. He was an East coast, blue state Republican Governor. He isn't a warhawk. At one point he was pro-choice for crying out loud. The policies he enacted in Massachusetts look nothing like what Bush did in Texas. I'm sorry, but he isn't Bush.

And let's be clear, if you were really worried about the economy, you wouldn't vote for Obama, who apparently thinks smaller classrooms and more clean energy is going to suddenly turn the country into the gilded age. I mean we all know the housing slowdown was caused by a lack of solar panels and 98% of the people out of work are all really elementary schoo teachers waiting to change careers, right?

I mean let's assume that Romeny isn't running and Obama is just laying out his vision for the next four years. Does anyone honestly buy that teachers and clean energy are what is going to solve the economic crisis?

Please.

[BroncoLifer]

Originally Posted by Kaylore

Is that how you guys roll? Ad Hominem when you don't like it?

Pretty much.

[TonyR]

Originally Posted by Kaylore

He isn't a warhawk. At one point he was pro-choice for crying out loud.

Your second sentence should help you understand why you should have doubts about your first. Romney will do and say just about anything to please the base and get elected. Romney's primary campaign, which you either didn't pay attention to, forgot about, or didn't understand, was far right wing. Romney doesn't have the stones go against the party, which is why he changed his abortion policy and why he adopted neocon foreign policy. It's also why he has Bush's foreign policy team, and why he named Paul Ryan his VP. How much more evidence do you need? You're a bright guy, don't let yourself get hoodwinked this way.

[BroncoInferno]

Originally Posted by Kaylore

He was an East coast, blue state Republican Governor.

Who issued over 800 vetos of bills passed by the Mass. legislature, which he bragged about during the primaries. Now he claims he has a bipartisan record. The only real evidence for that is Romneycare, which he incoherently claims was a great idea when he did it, but socialism when Obama does it. He brags about balancing their budget when he was required by state law to do so (both his Democratic predessor and successor had balanced budgets as well, as state law requires). He left office after one term with a 34% approval rating and is going to lose that state in this election by 20 points.

He isn't a warhawk.

At the very least he pretended to be one during the primaries, then pivoted in the debates and basically agree with everything Obama said. Perhaps you think the peace-loving Mitt is the real Mitt, but then why is 70% of his foreign policy team comprised of Bush advisors? You've yet to explain that away.

At one point he was pro-choice for crying out loud.

It's pretty clear the guy has no real convictions on that issue. He's tailored his rhetoric on abortion to fit the preferences of the given audience (as he's done on most issues).

The policies he enacted in Massachusetts look nothing like what Bush did in Texas. I'm sorry, but he isn't Bush.

Romney's a shape-shifter. He does whatever is politically expedient. I ask you again, if he isn't a fan of Bush's policies, why are so many of his advisors on Romney's team?

[Mecklomaniac]

Originally Posted by W*GS

A right-wing rag predicts a Romney win. Shocking.

538 shows Obama's numbers improving, with a 74.6% chance of an Obama win.

A left-wing blog predicts an Obama win. Shocking.

[Kaylore]

I think that's a legitimate concern of the left that I hadn't considered. That he's "turning into Bush" because of party pressure.

I don't. I think he worked up the red-meat for the primaries with every intention of gravitating back toward the middle just to get the nomination. Republican critics think that he's too lefists. You guys should be thrilled that Rush, Coulter and Savage were doing their best to keep this guy down.

I think Romney is a pragmatist. I think he takes what he's got and makes it work. I honestly don't think he really cares about the social issues in any Christian fundamentalist sense. If it came to him from congress, he of course would deal with it, but I think you're getting a Michigan-born, Massachusetts governor, former businessman. I don't believe he's someone who let's either party dictate.

[DenverBrit]

The Economist has a different view.

US election 2012
States of play

Oct 29th 2012, 12:00 by Economist.com

October 29th: With just over a week to go until Election Day (though early voting is well under way; Barack Obama has already cast his ballot) both candidates can glean some good news from the latest polls. In Ohio, for instance, Mitt Romney can point to surveys showing that the race there is tied, though the Obama camp will no doubt prefer to highlight other data showing their man still ahead (Mr Romney has not led in the Buckeye State since early October UPDATE: A poll out today from Rasmussen gives Mr Romney a two-point lead in Ohio). The Republican challenger has a solid grip on Missouri and, to a lesser extent, North Carolina. He will also take heart from a poll in Minnesota giving Mr Obama just a three-point lead in a state where he had held a solid position all year. Florida remains very close, with Mr Romney taking a narrow lead in most polls.

Mr Romney continues to hold a small advantage in the national polling average, but Mr Obama has the edge in the electoral college and would win 332 electoral-college votes if the election were held today to the Republican's 206, according to the state of play on our map (81 of those votes are still up for grabs), which raises the ante that the popular vote and the electoral college may not be in tandem after all the votes are counted for the first time since 2000.

[BroncoInferno]

Originally Posted by Mecklomaniac

A left-wing blog predicts an Obama win. Shocking.

538 isn't a "liberal blog," dope. The used a fixed methodolgy to make predictions. in 2008, they correctly called 49 of 50 states. They called the Republican landslide in 2010 months before it was clear that that would happen. Like I said, anything that's bad for Romney is part of some liberal conspiracy.

[BroncoInferno]

Originally Posted by Kaylore

I think that's a legitimate concern of the left that I hadn't considered. That he's "turning into Bush" because of party pressure.

I don't. I think he worked up the red-meat for the primaries with every intention of gravitating back toward the middle just to get the nomination. Republican critics think that he's too lefists. You guys should be thrilled that Rush, Coulter and Savage were doing their best to keep this guy down.

I think Romney is a pragmatist. I think he takes what he's got and makes it work. I honestly don't think he really cares about the social issues in any Christian fundamentalist sense. If it came to him from congress, he of course would deal with it, but I think you're getting a Michigan-born, Massachusetts governor, former businessman. I don't believe he's someone who let's either party dictate.

Thanks for acknowledging that.

I guess there is a fine line between a pragmatist and an opportunist. To me, Romney's entire political career reads like a classic opportunist. It's hard to pin down exactly what he believes on a whole host of issues. So, to me, the only thing to do is look at the folks he's selected to advise him. And the roster is largely comprised of former Bush people. Why select them if you don't fundamentally agree with them on the issues? Does he enjoy surrounding himself with contrarians? Have those guys shifted there views in the last 4 years? I think these are all fair and disconcerting questions.