Romney/Ryan Lose 2012 Election Thread

[Wrong Direction]

The state that got him over the top? I moved Ohio into likely Obama today after polling over the past few weeks has showed widening leads for the President including a 7 point lead in last weeks Fox News Poll and a 10 point lead in today's Quinnipiac Poll.

Interesting endeavor. Aside from 538, you may also want to consider a few articles about polling in this cycle.

Re: the Democrat/Republican Mix in some of these polls:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...67.html?page=1

Re: registration in many swing states:
http://www.nationalreview.com/campai...ing-key-states

Re: why party ID in polls does matter
http://www.nationalreview.com/campai...ert-their-eyes

Re: problems with most recent polls
http://www.nationalreview.com/campai...ectorates-2008

My conclusion is that the current polling is misrepresenting the truth on the ground, and that a lot of states still must be placed into a toss-up category

[Skinz4Life12]

That's your opinion, and you are entitled to it. In my opinion Bush was not "better than he has been painted" at all. I saw the Iraq war as a horrible, cynical disaster of the worst kind, and I when I added in his politicization of the Justice Department and his horrible judicial appointments, and his short sighted tax policy that blew up the deficit, and everything else, and I became convinced that he had to go.

Kerry was not my choice, but he was not some feckless clown either. He understands foreign policy and he has some accomplishments (Edwards I cannot defend at all, but I always hated him).

Agree. Bush is as bad as everyone (Dems) paint him to be

[Mad Mike]

That's your opinion, and you are entitled to it. In my opinion Bush was not "better than he has been painted" at all. I saw the Iraq war as a horrible, cynical disaster of the worst kind, and I when I added in his politicization of the Justice Department and his horrible judicial appointments, and his short sighted tax policy that blew up the deficit, and everything else, and I became convinced that he had to go.

Kerry was not my choice, but he was not some feckless clown either. He understands foreign policy and he has some accomplishments (Edwards I cannot defend at all, but I always hated him).

And yet the surge worked leaving a reasonably stable Iraq, while Kerry would have pulled us out too early leaving a giant mess. Forget how we got there - the only important thing was to finish the job correctly. Kerry's plan sucked.

But hey, you are entitled to your opinion as well. :-)

[Predicto]

And yet the surge worked leaving a reasonably stable Iraq, while Kerry would have pulled us out too early leaving a giant mess. Forget how we got there - the only important thing was to finish the job correctly. Kerry's plan sucked.

But hey, you are entitled to your opinion as well. :-)

Yes, the surge worked. But we never, ever should have been in Iraq in the first place, and that's all on Bush. Well, on Cheney and Wolfowitz and Feith and the rest of those guys - not sure Bush himself had much to do with it. I can't just forget how we got there like it doesn't even matter.

And I also can't forget that Bush refused to pay for his wars either, doubling down on the fiscal insanity. He sucked.

But this is a derail. My original point stands: this presidential race is not over yet, even though I want it to be.

[SnyderShrugged]

Yes, the surge worked. But we never, ever should have been in Iraq in the first place, and that's all on Bush. Well, on Cheney and Wolfowitz and Feith and the rest of those guys - not sure Bush himself had much to do with it. I can't just forget how we got there like it doesn't even matter.

And I also can't forget that Bush refused to pay for his wars either, doubling down on the fiscal insanity. He sucked.

This is something that anyone who supported the Iraq invasion needs to have the courage to acknowledge now knowing what we know.

I'll be the very first to admit that I was dead wrong in my thoughts back then.

[The Evil Genius]

[HBnotBlades]

Interesting endeavor. Aside from 538, you may also want to consider a few articles about polling in this cycle.

My conclusion is that the current polling is misrepresenting the truth on the ground, and that a lot of states still must be placed into a toss-up category

I don't know, there are a lot of maybes in those links. If the info were more convincing, or simply not from the National Review or Weekly Standard I'd have an easier time buying it.

[Predicto]

This is something that anyone who supported the Iraq invasion needs to have the courage to acknowledge now knowing what we know.

I'll be the very first to admit that I was dead wrong in my thoughts back then.

Back then, I felt like I was the only person in the entire country who had heard of the Project for a New American Century and how every single person controlling, interpreting and filtering military intelligence in the Bush Administration was a part of that group.

Even now, if you try to discuss the subject, you will get tinfoil hat looks from many people.

[Prosperity]

Interesting endeavor. Aside from 538, you may also want to consider a few articles about polling in this cycle.

Re: the Democrat/Republican Mix in some of these polls:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...67.html?page=1

Re: registration in many swing states:
http://www.nationalreview.com/campai...ing-key-states

Re: why party ID in polls does matter
http://www.nationalreview.com/campai...ert-their-eyes

Re: problems with most recent polls
http://www.nationalreview.com/campai...ectorates-2008

My conclusion is that the current polling is misrepresenting the truth on the ground, and that a lot of states still must be placed into a toss-up category

Interesting read. Could you clear something up for me, are the polls calling people randomly and accept responses as people identify themselves (so they call 100 people and 35 say they are Dems, 27 say they are Republicans and the rest say they are independents) OR Do the polls call people to obtain their samples but weigh the responses of democrats to be worth 35% of the result, Republicans to be 27% of the result and independents the rest.

[Larry]

Gotta tell you all.. there seems to be a lot of chicken counting in here these days. This election is not in the bag for Obama, not in the least. The polls may look good and there may not be many undecideds anymore, but that doesn't mean that Obama will win unless the Democratic base comes out to vote (something they are notoriously fickle about doing).

I remember how horribly butthurt I was when W got reelected in 2004. I really could not believe it. From my point of view he was a truly horrible and incompetent President, and there was absolutely no way he could possibly win reelection after everything he had done. But he did. I was astounded, but there it was.

I never want to go through that again.

Agree on both points.

The game's not over. And the guy who the media proclaims in September doesn't always win in November.

In particular, one would think that a bunch of Redskins fans would have learned the lesson of looking good, early. And of blowing leads.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Back then, I felt like I was the only person in the entire country who had heard of the Project for a New American Century and how every single person controlling, interpreting and filtering military intelligence in the Bush Administration was a part of that group.

Even now, if you try to discuss the subject, you will get tinfoil hat looks from many people.

I didn't hear about PNAC until I saw "Why We Fight", those people scare me to death.

[Larry]

Back then, I felt like I was the only person in the entire country who had heard of the Project for a New American Century and how every single person controlling, interpreting and filtering military intelligence in the Bush Administration was a part of that group.

Even now, if you try to discuss the subject, you will get tinfoil hat looks from many people.

1) I clearly remember saying, before we invaded, that it was obvious that the administration was selling us this war. That they'd made up their minds that invading Iraq was what we were going to do, and that they were simply trying to justify their decision.

2) I also clearly remember stating that, in my opinion, there was nothing necessarily immoral about that. (My analogy was that as far as I'm concerned, Lincoln "sold" the Civil War to a reluctant public.) That, to me, if the President has a good enough reason, then "selling" a war to the public is not only not wrong, it's his duty.

----------

I also recall observing that both sides of the debate seemed to have some consistency problems with the arguments they were using.

That the Republicans were simultaneously announcing that:

1) Even if Saddam doesn't have any WMDs, we still have to invade, anyway. Because we all know that the instant he gets any, he's going to give it to al Qaeda. And two weeks after that, it will be detonated in a US city. Al Qaeda will use WMDs, in the US, two weeks after Saddam gets one. Guaranteed.

2) And, Saddam has had WMDs for 12 years.

Meanwhile, a lot of Democrats seemed to be arguing, simultaneously, that . . .

1) Saddam doesn't have any WMDs.

2) And, if we invade, our troops will be wiped out by his WMDs.

[Wrong Direction]

I don't know, there are a lot of maybes in those links. If the info were more convincing, or simply not from the National Review or Weekly Standard I'd have an easier time buying it.

D's are going to vote for Obama. R's are going to vote for Romney. I's are going to be very close. The biggest maybes in this election are 1) what proporation of I's vote for either party and 2) who turns out (e.g., proporation of total voters that are R or D). Many of the polls showing huge Obama leads are projecting 2008-like turnout for Obama, some even more. For a ton of reasons, this is extremely unlikely. As the articles state many times, if there's a case saying that the electorate will look like 2008, I'd like to consider that case. I just don't see it.

Interesting read. Could you clear something up for me, are the polls calling people randomly and accept responses as people identify themselves (so they call 100 people and 35 say they are Dems, 27 say they are Republicans and the rest say they are independents) OR Do the polls call people to obtain their samples but weigh the responses of democrats to be worth 35% of the result, Republicans to be 27% of the result and independents the rest.

I don't know the mechanics, and that's where I'm limited in all of this. 538 differentiates between person-person analysis and robo calling as one example. Either way, history tells us what proportions look like over the last 8 years (or more). Current data shows changes in voter registration in key swing states almost universally in favor of Republicans. All of this adds up to actual current status being much closer than any poll showing Obama getting the same turnout he got in 08, and Romney getting an equal turnout to McCain (EXTREMELY unlikely).

[PeterMP]

Interesting read. Could you clear something up for me, are the polls calling people randomly and accept responses as people identify themselves (so they call 100 people and 35 say they are Dems, 27 say they are Republicans and the rest say they are independents) OR Do the polls call people to obtain their samples but weigh the responses of democrats to be worth 35% of the result, Republicans to be 27% of the result and independents the rest.

They do both. They call people, and they allow them to self-identify. Some polls will just report that. Others than will weight groups based on what they expect the actual electorate to look at because reasonably some people aren't likely to respond to polls.

[JimboDaMan]

Meanwhile, a lot of Democrats seemed to be arguing, simultaneously, that . . .

1) Saddam doesn't have any WMDs.

2) And, if we invade, our troops will be wiped out by his WMDs.

I was one of those Democrats. I see no inconsistency in arguing:

If the administration is wrong about WMDs we have no business invading.
If the administration is right about WMDs we are about to suffer hideous troop losses (recall we were being told the enemy could bring WMD into battle at 45 minutes notice).
Either way, with the level of Rummy's knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns, there was no compelling reason to proceed with the invasion at that time.