2012 US Presidential Election Superthread

[digitize]

Have at it. This thread can replace the myriad others floating around all about the same topic.

I suppose I'll post some of Nate Silver's current data here, for lack of anything better to post. Here are his current swing state probabilities:

Nevada: 77.6% Obama
Colorado: 56.8% Obama
Iowa: 68.3% Obama
Wisconsin: 85.7% Obama
Ohio: 74.8% Obama
Virginia: 54.3% Obama
North Carolina: 81.4% Romney
Florida: 64.7% Romney
New Hampshire: 68.8% Obama

If each candidate wins the states which they have a 50% probability or higher of winning, then the EC map would look like this:



Virginia and Colorado are the closest. They've both done a good bit of flipping back and forth, although there's been somewhat of a trend towards Obama lately. I think that those states could easily go either way. But this does paint a scary picture for Romney. The fact that Romney has never managed to flip Ohio in a majority of polls, or even really come close, even after the first debate, is fairly bad news for him.

The popular vote is a somewhat different story. RealClearPolitics has a +0.9% spread for Romney, but Nate Silver's model still projects a marginal win for Obama. I'm not sure why they diverge; probably because Silver's model is discounting some Romney-leaning polls somewhat. Whether this is bias or the discounted polls are legitimate, I'm not totally sure.

Anyway... have fun. The election is in eleven days. I early voted yesterday! Everyone... get out to the polls when you can.

[cobl04]

Do you guys actually get to pick specifically between Obama and Romney? Cos we don't get to pick our preferred PM here, we have to vote for the seat we live in, based on those candidates, if I'm not mistaken.

[Pearl]

Originally Posted by cobl04

Do you guys actually get to pick specifically between Obama and Romney? Cos we don't get to pick our preferred PM here, we have to vote for the seat we live in, based on those candidates, if I'm not mistaken.

We actually pick between Obama and Romney.

I don't know what you mean by seat, but if Australia is anything like it is in the UK where people vote for the party and not the candidates, we Americans don't do it that way.

[trojanchick99]

We vote directly for President. We vote separately for our representative to the House of Representatives and a Senator. The difference between the House and the Senate is the House's delegates are allocated proportionally to population, so states like California get more than Wyoming. The Senate has two senators per state, to make sure the smaller states have a voice.

I actually prefer the Parlimentary system you guys have.

[cobl04]

Originally Posted by Pearl

I don't know what you mean by seat, but if Australia is anything like it is in the UK where people vote for the party and not the candidates, we Americans don't do it that way.

I think it's a mix between British & American, that's why it's nicknamed "Washminster", but Ax will know for sure.

[Kieran McConville]

Originally Posted by cobl04

Do you guys actually get to pick specifically between Obama and Romney? Cos we don't get to pick our preferred PM here, we have to vote for the seat we live in, based on those candidates, if I'm not mistaken.

That would be because the Prime Minister is no more and no less than the leader of the party able to command a majority in the house. We do not vote for the head of state, but for the party of government. And actually that's fair enough. A parliamentary party decides who its leader will be, and people in the general public who think they have a say in that matter (because the party in question happens to be a viable governing proposition) are woefully misinformed about the state of play.




The 'mix' of Westminster and American systems finds its greatest expression in the matter of a Senate.

[cobl04]

Which is why we always have leadership spills right? Could the Rudd/Gillard fiasco happen in the States (ie Biden "knifes" Obama)?

[Kieran McConville]

Well Biden knifing Obama would be a bona fide constitutional crisis to be sure.


Of course, we don't always have leadership spills. In government, I can think of exactly three in the last fifty years: Gorton/McMahon, Hawke/Keating and Rudd/Gillard.

Conversely, could Bush/Gore 2000 happen in Australia? Not on your nelly. Because we have an actual independent commission that runs elections.

[Pearl]

Originally Posted by Kieran McConville

That would be because the Prime Minister is no more and no less than the leader of the party able to command a majority in the house. We do not vote for the head of state, but for the party of government. And actually that's fair enough. A parliamentary party decides who its leader will be, and people in the general public who think they have a say in that matter (because the party in question happens to be a viable governing proposition) are woefully misinformed about the state of play.

This makes more sense than the US system. When we pick a president, we're under the impression that we are voting for an individual. But we're actually voting for someone who will be heavily influenced by his party, and by his cabinet and advisors who are also members of his party. In that sense, I'm with trojanchick99 by saying the parliamentary system is better.

[Kieran McConville]

Think of the Australian system as the Congress and Senate, where the majority leader in Congress runs the government, and the President is a powerless figurehead who opens flower shows. And you've about got the picture.

[digitize]

Originally Posted by cobl04

Do you guys actually get to pick specifically between Obama and Romney? Cos we don't get to pick our preferred PM here, we have to vote for the seat we live in, based on those candidates, if I'm not mistaken.

What we are technically voting on are slates of electors chosen at state party conventions. However, the ballots the names of the candidates, for obvious reasons.

[trojanchick99]

Ahhh, the Electoral College. As a resident of the great state of California, don't even get me started on that.

[digitize]

Originally Posted by trojanchick99

Ahhh, the Electoral College. As a resident of the great state of California, don't even get me started on that.

As a resident of the great state of Texas, I'm in the same boat.

[LuckyNumber7]

I get the feeling that Florida will be red, much like the data you've presented displays.

General impression I've gotten so far from everyone who I know that voted Obama last election seems to be voting Romney, for the swing voters, that is.

[trojanchick99]

Originally Posted by digitize

As a resident of the great state of Texas, I'm in the same boat.

It must be even more frustrating to be a Democrat voting in Texas because the winner take all Electoral College just nullifies your vote.

[digitize]

Originally Posted by trojanchick99

It must be even more frustrating to be a Democrat voting in Texas because the winner take all Electoral College just nullifies your vote.

Yeah, it's very annoying. I would happily support a constitutional amendment to do away with the Electoral College.

[LuckyNumber7]

I'm not sure if direct popular vote is the right way to go but yeah, the electoral college is shit.

[mikal]

I'm fine with doing away with the Electoral College, even though I a feeling that there's a good chance that Obama loses the popular vote but still wins the election.

[anitram]

Just about the only advantage of Obama winning the EC and losing the popular vote would be that the Republicans would start yelling about abolishing the EC. Which of course will never happen because if it did they wouldn't win an election ever again except if they completely changed their platform.

[trojanchick99]

Frankenstorm Sandy could actually have an impact on the popular vote. If the Eastern seaboard is hit hard enough, voter turnout could be impacted which could lead to Obama losing the popular vote, but winning the Electoral College.