Weirdest election ever in trying to tip the winner. Even the idea that anyone with an ounce of sense could consider voting for Obama is beyond me so I don’t get it why not only is it supposed to be close, but Obama’s ahead. The 47% plus The Economist and The Financial Times, sure, but the other 53%? Anyway, for you fans of the American election out there, here’s your chance to clean up on Intrade:
1. Republicans Can’t Wait to Vote: First off, there’s no question Republicans are much more energized to vote than they were in 2008 — a year in which Republicans were demoralized and stayed home. The energy that saw Republicans make sweeping gains everywhere in the 2010 midterms hasn’t diminished. If anything, the energy to send Obama home with his ObamaCare has increased. But that’s instinct talking, not numbers. So here are some numbers…
2. Romney’s Winning Independents: Numbers pollsters can’t tweak or weight (without committing outright fraud) all that looks great for Republicans. Romney is winning Independents by close to double digits (Obama won Indies by 8 points in ’08), he’s winning more Democrats than Obama is Republicans; Romney’s also closed the gender gap to a place where Republicans have won national elections before.
3. Romney Beats Obama On Favorability: According to the Real Clear Politics poll of polls, Romney beats Obama in favorability.
4. Polls Show Republicans Will Turn Out In Record Numbers: Thanks to a mammoth 9,000 person likely voter poll, we can have confidence that the 2012 electorate will look even more Republican than it did in 2004:
In 2008, 54% of likely voters identified as Democrat or lean Democrat. 42% of likely voters identified as GOP or lean GOP. In other words, the electorate, including independents who lean towards a particular party, was D+12. This year, however, the Democrat advantage has disappeared. 49% of likely voters today identify as GOP or lean GOP. Just 46% of likely voters are or lean towards the Democrats. This is a 15-point swing towards the GOP from 2008 to an outright +3 advantage for the GOP. By comparison, in 2004, when Bush won reelection, the electorate was evenly split, with each party getting support from 48% of likely voters.
The difference between a D+3 and R+3 electorate is the difference between a Romney win and a Romney landslide.
5. Romney Is Doing Well With Early Voting: Early voting also shows gains for Romney. Contrary to CorruptMedia spin, where data is available, Romney’s over-performing with early voters in a number of crucial swings states. Two polls (Pew and Gallup) also show Romney beating Obama in early voting by a seven-point margin.
6. Polls Show Republicans Are More Enthusiastic: Finally, and this is what’s most ironic, some of the same polls (like yesterday’s from Quinnipiac) that predict Obama will enjoy a huge D+5 or better turnout advantage also show that Republicans beat Democrats on the question of intensity by double digits.
Riddle me that.
7. Romney Has a Fantastic Ground Game: As far as ground game, there’s no question Obama has a sophisticated operation, but even Chuck Todd admits Romney’s ground game is better than the one Karl Rove employed in 2004 that allowed Bush to win 2004 while losing Independents. Furthermore, polls that look objectively at ground game metrics show no advantage for Obama.
8. Motive: Let’s also look at the pollsters’ motivations. All Gallup and Rasmussen do is poll; that’s how they make their living. They have to get it right, and right now both show Romney up nationally and Rasmussen shows him up in enough states to win the electoral college. Many of the pollsters showing Obama in a stronger position are tied to universities and media outlets. They have an agenda above and beyond getting it right, and polling is merely a side business.
But what I liked most of all was his conclusion:
Regardless, we’ll know for certain on Election Day when Virginia closes at 7pm. If it’s close or Obama wins, we’re in for a long night.
But if Romney wins Virginia by 5 points or more, we all need to tune to
MSNBCthe ABC and enjoy the show.
Don’t lose heart. It definitely isn’t over and Romney is heading to Pennsylvania. Is it a feint or is Pennsylvania really in play and that close?
Karl Rove calls it 51%-48%, with Romney carrying at least 279 Electoral College votes, probably more.
see http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204846304578090820229096046.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_carousel_1
Jim Rose
2 Nov 12 at 12:09 pm
When Romney was down in the polls, lots of conservatives said the polls were methodologically broken if not biased.
When Romney was ahead in the polls we heard nothing. Indeed, conservative enthusiasm boomed with ‘mittmentum’.
Now that Romney is back down in the (state) polls, lots of conservatives are saying the polls methodologies are wrong.
Spot the pattern here.
Andrew Carr
2 Nov 12 at 12:29 pm
Andrew – the power of wishful thinking. As Steve suggests they will be able to clean up on Intrade.
Sinclair Davidson
2 Nov 12 at 12:36 pm
If the US voters are as compliant as the media we will have to wait and see.
stackja
2 Nov 12 at 12:39 pm
No actually they said it translated to a huge lead. Stop lying.
.
2 Nov 12 at 12:56 pm
Andrew, the national polls, aside from Gallup and Rasmussen, that have had Romney behind and continue to have presumed a similar Democratic turnout advantage as that achieved in 2008. That is not going to happen, and this is why conservatives have been scathing about those polls. If anything the Republicans will beat the Democrats in getting out the vote.
dover_beach
2 Nov 12 at 12:59 pm
More importantly, Bain owns the electronic voting machines.
Driftforge
2 Nov 12 at 1:00 pm
Romney will romp it in. There are voters out there who will crawl over broken glass to get rid of the SCOAMF.
Romney will win states no one is even talking about like New Mexico and Oregon.
Unskewed Polls
rich
2 Nov 12 at 1:01 pm
rich, if that happens, I will have grin on my face for a year. What will happen to Portlandia if Oregon becomes a red-state? oh my!
dover_beach
2 Nov 12 at 1:06 pm
The ALPBC is running a head line story:- “New York mayor Michael Bloomberg has endorsed the re-election of Barack Obama, citing the president’s leadership on climate change.”
Is Bloomberg for real.? If this is the caliber of people running Cities the size of New York then the USA is stuffed.
NT Oldie
2 Nov 12 at 1:53 pm
Who is taller? In the past, the taller candidate usually won, so that could be a hidden factor coming into play.
As for New York, I have heard that the current Mayor is trying to ban trans-fats, just for votes. When the Mises site was up, they mentioned this. So it is no surprise that he loves government in action.
Nuke Gray
2 Nov 12 at 2:53 pm
good to see climate change finally got a mention in the election
Jim Rose
2 Nov 12 at 2:55 pm
I’m concerned about the voting machines in use. There are reports that people are voting Romney but their votes are being registered for Obama. I don’t know how true these reports are, but it is disturbing.
old bloke
2 Nov 12 at 2:56 pm
Bloomberg is a disgrace.
He endorsed Obama because Hurricane Sandy convinced him of climate change.
Someone should shove a 2 litre bottle of Diet Coke and a pack of Mentos up his arse and shake him.
Infidel Tiger
2 Nov 12 at 2:56 pm
Bloomberg is despicable. He created a rule that only cars pooling 3 people at a time could enter the city. This evening I saw a bus queue that was two blocks long.
The fucker is posttively fucking evil.
If he spent his time as mayor flood proofing the city there would have been fewer problems.
JC
2 Nov 12 at 2:58 pm
“I don’t know how true these reports are, but it is disturbing.”
It’s profoundly disturbing. The machines have been repeatedly shown to be extremely vulnerable to hacking. Due to their electronic nature, discerning when this has happened is extremely difficult. I can’t believe a democracy allows its votes to be counted in opaque ways.
Jarrah
2 Nov 12 at 3:00 pm
Paper and pencil for voting. Nothing else.
Infidel Tiger
2 Nov 12 at 3:03 pm
IT
He’s passing the buck on climate change because the fucking prick is attempting to deflect potential criticism of his lack of foresight.
This wasnt a rain storm. It was a tidal surge as a result of high tide and winds. katrina should have been instructive in terms of the potential dangers NYC faced. What has he done? Ban cigs and extra sized drinks.
He ought to be stoned ought office.
He’s as despicably dishonest as the lying slapper and the Kenyan, so no wonder he’s supporting that other piece of shit.
JC
2 Nov 12 at 3:03 pm
I’d rater live under socialism than nannysim.
Bloomberg sickens me.
Infidel Tiger
2 Nov 12 at 3:06 pm
This just isn’t true. The only major polling firm that weights for party ID is Rasmussen. The others may or may not have an unrepresentative number of democrats in there sample, but they are not presuming anything.
AJ
2 Nov 12 at 3:11 pm
Lot of talk about a Romney win. I’m offering fours on Romney and twelves on a Romney/Abbott double (if either one fails to be the next POTUS or PM respectively, you do your dough). Minimum stake $500.
Mad Punter
2 Nov 12 at 3:13 pm
bullshit.
JC
2 Nov 12 at 3:15 pm
So you consider Abbott a $3 chance to be PM?
I wouldn’t mind some of that action you crazy bastard.
Infidel Tiger
2 Nov 12 at 3:16 pm
Punter,
will you escrow?
JC
2 Nov 12 at 3:21 pm
Come on down Tiger the store’s open for business.
Mad Punter
2 Nov 12 at 3:21 pm
JC, you do you have in mind?
Mad Punter
2 Nov 12 at 3:23 pm
They’re one and the same.
Gab
2 Nov 12 at 3:23 pm
Who, sorry.
Mad Punter
2 Nov 12 at 3:23 pm
The owner of the blog.
JC
2 Nov 12 at 3:31 pm
Not saying Silver’s reading of the polls is wrong but I don’t get the chances he gives O and R, not in a 2 horse race. Currently his “Now cast” gives R a 17.1% chance of winning. Yet national polls are tight as Abbott’s butt in an Oxford Street bathhouse and every electoral college calculation has R more than 200 locked in and more than enough up for grabs. I know Silver is saying “at this point in the game, people in R’s position only win 17% of the time”, but still that looks overly harsh on Mitt’s chances with only two nags going round.
Mad Punter
2 Nov 12 at 3:42 pm
This just isn’t true. The only major polling firm that weights for party ID is Rasmussen.
Where in “have presumed a similar Democratic turnout advantage as that achieved in 2008″ do I say the above?
According to a NYmag article:
Considering the above, it would be nice for them to actually clearly state what they assumed the turnout was going to be given the result they’re providing.
dover_beach
2 Nov 12 at 3:44 pm
If the gaffer is Sinclair Davidson, I notice he is claiming a little of the juice for himself. You know what his take is and are you jiggy with that? And how much are you investing?
Mad Punter
2 Nov 12 at 3:47 pm
Nannyism treats you as infants rather than children.
ar
2 Nov 12 at 3:47 pm
Well , you’re offering the odds so I suggest you ask Sinc what his skim is. Then come back post it.
I’ll decide if I’m betting once I know the skim.
On your bike.
I’m in NY and about to go to bed.
JC
2 Nov 12 at 3:52 pm
Let’s cut out the middle man. I always take a man of the punt to be a man of his word until proven otherwise. No need for escrow on my count. You know the bets, the odds and minimum outlay. Name your stake, nominate if it is on R or the R/A double and let the winner take all.
Mad Punter
2 Nov 12 at 4:03 pm
worth a look on the past 4 years see http://johnhcochrane.blogspot.co.nz/2012/11/debate-with-goolsbee.html
Jim Rose
2 Nov 12 at 4:16 pm
As I noted on the earlier thread, there’s an article by Sean Trende at RealClearPolitics:
Either the national polls are wrong, or the state polls are wrong. The state and national polls can’t both be right.
In short, if you add up all the state polls, weighting them by the population of each state, then it turns out Obama’s ahead by two overall. But the nationwide polls of Gallup, Rasmussen etc showed – until Sandy, which threw polling into disarray – that Romney is ahead, on average, by 1.
There are arguments both ways. The intangibles all point to the national polls being right and the state polls being wrong. When you’ve got all the Dem supporters running around going “We don’t know who will win,” and the Republican supporters all full of energy and confidence, that’s an intangible. When Obama suddenly starts running massive ads in a supposedly safe state of Pennsylvania, that’s an intangible.
Also, the Obama team are acting like a team that think they are going to lose.
Also, Romney will win Wisconsin. The polls for that state can’t factor in the polling day ground game, and the GOP Wisconsin ground game is a juggernaut, whereas the Dems are low on cash from their Walker route, and demoralised.
dd
2 Nov 12 at 4:44 pm
Thanks IT, made my afternoon imagining Bloomberg flying around NY like a deflating fart cushion.
Back to work!
Helen Armstrong
2 Nov 12 at 5:26 pm
According to the PBS News Hour; Sandy has blown away Romney’s momentum and chance of winning, because the Sun King now appears non-partisan and helpful.
Brett
2 Nov 12 at 5:31 pm
All tapped out M Punter…
I foolishly got him real early at $2.40 thinking he must shorten and again for more at $3.10. 4k total.
Much Alaskan fishing is riding on Mitt’s Alinsky free back.
Alfonso
2 Nov 12 at 5:38 pm
A pity you didn’t make your offer earlier, Mad Punter, as I’ve already put my stake on Romney (only getting odds between 3.2 and 3.75 to 1). My only interest now is putting some petty cash on Romney winning Pennsylvania- I think I’ll be able to get 8′s or better, so its worth a pony.
Cold-Hands
2 Nov 12 at 5:45 pm
Actually Punter…..some offers will suck money off Mars.
You have a website?
Alfonso
2 Nov 12 at 5:48 pm
The markets have the Dems favourites to win Virginia. Give me a fucking break? Even hardcore Dems have given up on Virginia.
Infidel Tiger
2 Nov 12 at 5:49 pm
Maybe I’m reading too many conservative blogs – where Romney is all but a shoe-in – but by now the betting odds on the various betting sites – intrade et al – seem ridiculously skewed towards Obama. Can anyone comment on the following theories :
1. I AM reading too many conservative blogs.
2. Punters are reading too many Leftie blogs.
3. Somehow the Obama campaign artificially pumps money to all the betting sites to fool the electorate.
roger
2 Nov 12 at 6:04 pm
roger, JC suggested that Democrat backers such as George Soros are gaming sites like Intrade. Non US wagering sites like Betfair (UK) and those in Australia (TAB, Sportsbet, Centrebet etc) are not open to American punters so the markets are relatively uninformed, and also misinformed by the MSM. Even papers like The Australian report from a pro-Obama stance, and the luv meeja fawn on Obama. So either we’re right and the election is a toss up (or as I think, Romney is ahead), and the odds on offer are a gift, or Obama and the Democrat machine will win enough of the swing states (despite losing the overall popular vote) and will be re-elected. Either way, I reckon it’s worth risking some hard earned on Romney -in a two horse contest that is so open, you’ll never see such good prices.
Cold-Hands
2 Nov 12 at 6:38 pm
Yeah, Cold-Hands, I also reckon what we are seeing here is potentially the bargain of a lifetime for anyone with a bit of handy cash.
roger
2 Nov 12 at 6:53 pm
Through the looking glass….Sportingbet believes Mitt has the same chance as Julia. Identical odds. Mitt is therefore the bet of the year.
i can only think Gen XY bookies.
Alfonso
2 Nov 12 at 6:59 pm
The Real Clear Politics average now has Obama leading by 0.1%
This is on the back of some questionable poll results. Of the larger tracking polls, Gallup, Pew are not polling because of the storm, Fox has been and shows a tie. Rasmussen, has done three days only and still has Romney in front.
Note that RCP includes polls back to 22 October in its average, but more concerning are the sample size and related errors for the polls favouring Obama, that get him ahead in the average (albeit by an insignificant nose).
The recent results are:
CBS News/NY Times +1% (sample 563, 4% error);
National Journal +5% (yeah – right!) (sample 713, error 4.4%);
ABC News/Wash Post +1 (sample 1293, error 3%)
Dick Morris says the CBS/NYT have been spuriously weighting their respondents to reflect 2008 turnout, and that biases heavily to Obama if you take a mean of 2004. 2006, 2008, 2010 turnout. But the sample is hopelessly small and the error correspondingly large with this and the Nat J poll.
The only half-decent sample size is the ABC/WaPo poll, but if you dig into that, it’s simply not credible. They base it on ‘likely voters’ – which they take as those who responded that they are ‘certain to vote’. But this strains credibility. Over the five days:
73-79% responded that they are certain to vote, around 6% will probably vote, 3% 50/50, 2% less than that, 1% don’t think will vote; 16% already voted.
So if you add those who have voted to the lowest figure for those who are certain to vote (16+73), turnout is going to be 89%. Right!
This figure has never been achieved.
This poll is therefore just not credible, and is including many who are unlikely to vote.
Romney appears to have the edge in Independents and undecided voters traditionally break in favour of the challenger.
Turnout will decide this, and it is highly likely that that will favour Romney. The more credible polls with more credible ‘likely voter’ assumptions – Gallup, Rasmussen, Pew point this way. Pew, of course, is hardly known for its conservative biases, but read their latest poll report in 50-odd page detail, where they discuss the turnout issue, and you’ll see why Obama is in trouble.
I think there’s a bit of wishful thinking with the likes of Nate Silver and the NYT – both Obama supporters, and maybe a touch of my notion of ‘virtuous corruption’: they want to energise Obama supporters in order to encourage them to turn out.
While I’m a political scientist, I’m not a psephologist, but I think Obama is in serious trouble and probably knows it. Too early to call it, but (were I a betting man) I’d be having a bit of Nate Silver’s odds.
I just wish journalists would do some research and thinking before they parrotted the press releases. David Speirs actually reported the ABC/WaPo poll alone as if it was a new significant development. A bit like Leigh Scales on the 7.30 Report referring to new polls showing the Coalition and ALP 50-50 2PP, when there was one poll: Newspoll. Essential Media and Nielsen still show the ALP well behind, and the smaller sample size used by Newspoll these days calls into question their accuracy. Essential is using a larger sample.
Aynsley Kellow
2 Nov 12 at 7:05 pm
Virginia would have gone red after Bambi’s condescension about aircraft carriers, etc. The place is full of Navy and ship building, and Bambi wants to cut Defence.
Keith
2 Nov 12 at 7:15 pm
Thanks AK; I hadn’t realised that Newspoll had changed its methodology and decreased its sample sizes. That explains its recent volatility.
Cold-Hands
2 Nov 12 at 7:15 pm
… why?
Anyway the answer to the rest is simple: motivated reasoning. People are really good of grabbing hold of facts that support a pre-held view and even better at countering, nitpicking or just ignoring facts that contradict one.
AJ
2 Nov 12 at 7:24 pm
Aynsley
Very interesting. Would you happen to know the sample sizes for the Australian polls ?
Keith
2 Nov 12 at 7:25 pm
Oh, and for those having a bet, check the conditions carefully. I see that Centrebet for example, pays out when the next President is inaugurated. That’s January 2013! I know that Betfair, for one, states:
So unless you don’t mind having your money tied up for a over a month, pick your bookie wisely.
Cold-Hands
2 Nov 12 at 7:27 pm
It’s somewhat less than ‘virtuous’.
Just look at Benghazi.
The only good news after this will be that Nate Silver reputation will be a joke and Rasmussen will have been found to underestimate the Romney victory.
Silvers nasty attack on Rasmussen some time ago and repeated denigration of Rasmussen polling since showed him to be a lowlife like so many other leftists.
JamesK
2 Nov 12 at 7:28 pm
Nuke,
I saw something about that on CNN.
Romney and Obama are pretty much the same height, to the millimeter.
Alex Pundit
2 Nov 12 at 7:37 pm
It doesn’t matter.
As long as it’s not an Obama second term.
Winston Smith
2 Nov 12 at 8:07 pm
Why? You have to imagine the workings of the zombie mind — even the rich zombie mind like Soros’s. Obama’s losing, so let’s fix the market (JC reckons it would take only $5 million or so) so it looks like he’s winning and maybe all those evil conservatives will lose heart and stay at home.
In 2008, electing Obama was a feelgood first-time thing to do. This year, after four years of virtual recession, it is about Americans’ money — jobs, wealth and financial security. The Chocolate Jesus is an economic dunce (as well as a socialist in the home of capitalism). Polling by the full-time pollsters that risk destroying their businesses if they get it wrong (Gallup and Rasmussen) put Romney tied or ahead, with undecideds likely to break for Romney, which is psephology 101.
Tom
2 Nov 12 at 8:29 pm
for some time now, the election has been in the margin of error.
Jim Rose
2 Nov 12 at 8:31 pm
Keith:
Without checking for the exact figure, I think Newspoll now runs at about 1200, whereas it was previously about 2200. Essential runs about 1700 I think.
Most of these are really too small (both here and the US), so people like SImon Jackman like to pool them, but this seems to me to be a bit problematic, especially when voluntary voting in the US is so crucial, and the methodologies differ. Once you start modelling, as Silver and Jackman do, there are too many opportunites for subjective beliefs to contaminate the model – unless they are subjected to critical scrutiny. This is really the same problem we have with climate models.
Virtuous corruption is when the good cause helps this delusion, ad a free pass is given to bad analysis.
Aynsley Kellow
2 Nov 12 at 8:37 pm
Jobs report in three hours. I’m stoked.
If the numbers come in right, Chicago should have a lock on this.
Lord Tillman
2 Nov 12 at 8:39 pm
I’m calling 7.7… lucky sevens for Barry. Fingers crossed.
Lord Tillman
2 Nov 12 at 8:44 pm
FREE STUFF
Got to be a chocolate Jesus,
Make me feel so good inside.
Got to be a chocolate Jesus,
Keep me satisfied.
Tom
2 Nov 12 at 9:57 pm
Tillman looks at the numbers that mug punters look at.
http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-11-01/economy/34850826_1_unemployment-rate-jobless-rate-job-gains
Of course, what matters is the participation rate as well, along with the U6 and inflation measures. Think of the combination of the last two as a misery index.
.
2 Nov 12 at 10:04 pm
I’m getting sick of this commentary. I’ve made a small bet with monty, I reckon Romney will win by a little bit.
The journalism is becoming so biased that little truth is out there anymore.
However I wonder if Bill is gently smearing Obama for a Hilary run in 2016.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/11/01/bill_clinton_choice_is_between_a_talker_and_a_doer_116007.html
.
2 Nov 12 at 10:18 pm
What makes me think economic forces will see Romney win is the US participation rate. Lowest it has been since 1981, and dropped from around 65% to 63% under Obama.
That 2% of the working age population really create an unstable margin of error for Obama.
.
2 Nov 12 at 10:23 pm
Token
2 Nov 12 at 11:47 pm
It’s profoundly disturbing. The machines have been repeatedly shown to be extremely vulnerable to hacking. Due to their electronic nature, discerning when this has happened is extremely difficult. I can’t believe a democracy allows its votes to be counted in opaque ways.
Jarrah, I usually don’t agree with you but here we’re on exactly the same wavelength.
If anyone should be in charge of overseeing (indeed, running) the US election, it’s not the UN but the Australian Electoral Commission, supported by Aussie and Canadian troops. All three nations love a beer and a BBQ, so the soldiers would mix well with the locals (soft drinks only in Utah, of course), and the Yanks might learn a thing or two about how to run a trustworthy election (sure the AEC isn’t perfect, but IMO it does an excellent job in a very short time within its margins of error and on an organisation-wide basis it keeps things fair).
If Romney wins, he should bring in mandatory voter ID everywhere (as should Australia) and end the party-based voter registration system. Then if you want to vote in the Primaries, get off your arse and formally join the party of choice as a member.
perturbed
3 Nov 12 at 12:14 am
I just want Obama to lose New Kenya (aka Hawaii):)
Nanuestalker
3 Nov 12 at 5:31 am
Dik Morris, bed-wetter
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/11/02/dick_morris_sees_danger_signs.html
Lord Tillman
3 Nov 12 at 12:35 pm
LOL!
What a load of wishful thinking mixed with confirmation bias!
ShowsOn
7 Nov 12 at 6:19 pm
Decided to come here to enjoy the show.
Don’t you think it’s time you Randian fantasists took a good hard look at yourselves? You’re not Howard Roarks, you’re spotty adolescents who never got over being bullied at school. Socially inept Aspergeries with a chip on your shoulder.
The real world has passed you by. Time to stop stamping your feet because the world doesnt conform to your silly theories and time to grow up.
Amused
7 Nov 12 at 7:51 pm
Fuck off, idiot. We both know you’re an underachiever and this is your highlight for month. Go back to claiming government benefits and writing letters to the Canberra TImes begging the government to protect you from your own crap decisions.
John Mc
7 Nov 12 at 7:57 pm
Steve Kates was saying the whole time that Obama would win. Presumably this means he’s A-OK?
With a 2% majority?
wreckage
7 Nov 12 at 8:02 pm