2012 Presidential Debates

[toscano]

The irony of mittens winning the popular vote and losing the election will be spectacularly off the charts

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Originally Posted by toscano

The irony of mittens winning the popular vote and losing the election will be spectacularly off the charts

And if that does happen, any Republicans who cry about Romney getting the election "stolen" from him would be just as douchey as the democrats who still bring up 2000.

[anitram]

There is pretty much zero chance of that happening. The states that have the population numbers are Democratic so while they are not as influential in the electoral college, they allow the D candidate to run up the popular vote numbers and that's why Mitt's odds of winning the popular vote are about zero.

[digitize]

Originally Posted by anitram

There is pretty much zero chance of that happening. The states that have the population numbers are Democratic so while they are not as influential in the electoral college, they allow the D candidate to run up the popular vote numbers and that's why Mitt's odds of winning the popular vote are about zero.

I wouldn't be so sure. Popular vote polling seems a lot more close than EC polling right now.

[digitize]

For what it's worth, these are Nate Silver's probabilities right now. I tend to trust him more than anyone:

Nevada: 72.8% Obama
Colorado: 50.5% Romney (this one keeps flipping back and forth)
Iowa: 64.4% Obama
Wisconsin: 81% Obama
Ohio: 70.4% Obama
Virginia: 51% Obama (also keeps flipping back and forth)
Florida: 69.4% Romney (keeps going more and more to Romney's pile)
New Hampshire: 66.6% (hehe) Obama
North Carolina: 85.8% Obama (is this still considered a swing state?)

If I give EVs out based on these probabilities:


That's still a fairly comfortable lead for Obama if this is to believed. Going off of Nate Silver's recent trends alone, I would say that this map will stay pretty much the same to election day, with Colorado and Virginia going either way (and Obama winning regardless). But I am curious about his high Obama-win chances in Wisconsin and New Hampshire, places that are usually fairly reliable Dem pickups but have close polling right now. He's probably weighing some of the GOP-leaning polls less because of perceived inaccuracy (which would probably be fairly historically accurate), but it's hard to say.

Also, it's interesting how far to the right Gallup has been polling compared to all the other polls lately. Silver thinks that they are oversampling the South, but it's curious.

[toscano]

Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase

And if that does happen, any Republicans who cry about Romney getting the election "stolen" from him would be just as douchey as the democrats who still bring up 2000.

Was it only about the popular vote back then ? no. So no they will be MORE douchey. As if they aren't already.

[anitram]

Originally Posted by digitize

I wouldn't be so sure. Popular vote polling seems a lot more close than EC polling right now.

Nate Silver's own model has that possibility at 6.5%. I agree with him, for a number of reasons.

[digitize]

Originally Posted by anitram

Nate Silver's own model has that possibility at 6.5%. I agree with him, for a number of reasons.

I didn't say that it's likely, but I also think there's a somewhat realistic chance of it happening.

[phanan]

With the exception of Virginia, which I think will go to Romney, I would agree with those projections (I'm assuming you meant Romney for NC).

[digitize]

Originally Posted by phanan

With the exception of Virginia, which I think will go to Romney, I would agree with those projections (I'm assuming you meant Romney for NC).

Yeah, the NC thing was a mistake.

[mikal]

I'm telling you. The difference in this election is on the ground. Obama's ground teams in the battleground states more than doubles Romney's. They're going to get people to vote who aren't being polled twice per week.

[Irvine511]

perhaps being optimistic, i think O will hold VA. the state gets ever more urban and diverse with each passing year, and the economy is actually comparatively gangbusters compared to the rest of the country. what happens in VA is that a lot of people who live and work in NoVA have moved there from somewhere else, or identify much more closely with DC and MD. they are the engine that has led VA to such prosperity, and they are culturally blue voters. the rest of VA is southern, Richmond was the capitol of the Confederacy. VA trends blue in a national election because of the northern populations, whereas in a down year, like 2010, when the politics are much more local, the northernites aren't as engaged and tend to stay home, whereas the true blue (or true red) Virginians head out and vote.

my guess is turnout in the north plus the predominantly black counties south of Norfolk will keep the state blue, and Tim Kaine will win with the small lead he already has.

btw, Kaine is impressive. to my ear, he easily outdebated George Allen.

[deep]

Originally Posted by mikal

I'm telling you. The difference in this election is on the ground.

wrong, the difference is in the vote counting, who controls it, and what votes get counted,

and with the huge 2010 blow out, the GOP has a firm grip on the process

[mikal]

Originally Posted by deep

wrong, the difference is in the vote counting, who controls it, and what votes get counted,

and with the huge 2010 blow out, the GOP has a firm grip on the process

Umm....the ground force leads to votes. That's where I was going with that. Didn't think it was too difficult to decipher that in my post.

[deep]

you are missing my point, it does not matter if 1 in 20 votes from Democratic districts get lost or set aside because a signature does not match exactally

[Popmartijn]

Originally Posted by deep

wrong, the difference is in the vote counting, who controls it, and what votes get counted,

and with the huge 2010 blow out, the GOP has a firm grip on the process

Though Texas will not be a closely contested state, this is very telling in that respect:
Texas official threatens to arrest election monitors observing US polls | World news | guardian.co.uk


I have to say, with all the shenanigans going on in all these states, that the democratic voting process is a joke in the USA. So many parties and partisans trying to influence the outcome of the election by disenfranchising voters, preventing registrations, preventing persons to vote, etc. Why is it even necessary to register to vote? It should be easy for an (independent) organisation organizing the elections to send everyone who is legally allowed to vote a voting card a few weeks before the election. On election day that person can use the voting card to cast his/her ballot.
In the end, I think the election result will be fairly democratic, but that also depends on the lawsuits that will be started up after the elections. The process, however, is a joke.

[BVS]

There is actually a big fear here in Texas that it will become a swing state in the future.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by BVS

There is actually a big fear here in Texas that it will become a swing state in the future.

If the GOP keeps shitting on Latinos it will be, no matter how many of the Romney forces to self-deport.

They are utterly gutting themselves as a party by pandering to the racial, sexual fears of older white Americans.

[mikal]

Originally Posted by BVS

There is actually a big fear here in Texas that it will become a swing state in the future.

Same with Arizona.

[digitize]

Originally Posted by BVS

There is actually a big fear here in Texas that it will become a swing state in the future.

God, I wish that would be the case, more for the sake of state politics than anything. Unfortunately, the GOP is so hopelessly entrenched in state politics that it will probably artificially drag out how long it takes for Texas to become a swing state. The GOP here is pretty nutty.