538

[whoman69]

The latest 538 simulations have Obama winning 90.9% of the time with an average of 313.0 EC. The popular vote is seen as 50.8-48.3 or a 2.5 point lead for Obama.

The closest state contests are:
Florida 50.3% Obama
North Carolina 74.4% Romney
Virginia 79.4% Obama
Colorado 79.7% Obama
Iowa 84.3% Obama
New Hampshire 84.6% Obama

The following battleground states are now considered safe Obama meaning more than a 90% probability:
Michigan
Pennsylvania
Wisconsin
Nevada
Ohio

Obama has 303 EC at least 79%
Obama has 332 EC at least 50%

[RINGLEADER]

Still believe Independents are key and how they influence the need for party turn-out. Romney is killing Obama among INDs in almost every poll. And, in almost every competitive general election, the party that loses the contest has also lost independent voters. This is because most people (although less so in gubernatorial elections) vote strictly along party lines: the Democrat might be all but guaranteed 80 to 90 percent of the Democratic vote, and the Republican 80 to 90 percent of the Republican vote. Except in certain regions of the country where one or another party encompasses a particularly wide range of ideologies (such as NY-23′s Republicans or vestigial “Solid South” Democrats), it’s independents who swing the vote, since they represent the overwhelming majority of the votes which are up-for-grabs. This must necessarily be the case.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by patteeu

I sense a monster inferiority complex at work here.

By all means, lay out the analysis you've used to come to your conclusion that Romney's going to win this election by four points.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

By all means, lay out the analysis you've used to come to your conclusion that Romney's going to win this election by four points.

I told you, that's proprietary. What does that have to do with this anyway? I've been more than forthcoming about the fact that my analysis is belief based on certain assumptions and opinions.

[J Diddy]

Originally Posted by patteeu

I told you, that's proprietary. What does that have to do with this anyway? I've been more than forthcoming about the fact that my analysis is belief based on certain assumptions and opinions.

In other words, pulling them out of your ass.

[RINGLEADER]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

By all means, lay out the analysis you've used to come to your conclusion that Romney's going to win this election by four points.

The only way you can come to that conclusion based on the current available data is:

1) GOP narrows or eliminates any party ID advantage that Obama enjoys in the current polls;
2) Romney maintains high single to double-digit advantage in Independents.

If Dems are +5 or greater there is no way Romney can win.
If Dems are +1 or less there is no way Obama can win.

Anywhere in between is a coin flip IMO.

ON EDIT: One caveat (which is what Obama and a lot of the polls are counting on BTW): if the sub-groups that Obama is leading by big numbers that have room to move (Latinos, and to a smaller extent, women) actually do move then it is conceivable that Obama can win outside of the party ID assumptions. The same holds true for Romney if he over-performs with these groups...

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

Obama is up 49% to Romney's 47% in Florida in the latest CBS news poll.

Romney was in Tampa today and 1/2 hour down the road Biden was in town.

From the local paper on Romney's visit.

Isabella Ferber, 10, waited in line for the Tampa rally with her parents from Bradenton to see Romney. She begged them to take her to the rally, she said, and decorated a sparkly poster that said "I skipped school to see the next president of the USA!"
When asked why supported Romney she replied, "He always tells the truth. His polices are reasonable and he always follows through and does what he says he will do."

tomorrow we have President Obama and Bill Clinton in town to campaign. Might take off to see them. See how Bill sounds in person these days.

[RINGLEADER]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

tomorrow we have President Obama and Bill Clinton in town to campaign. Might take off to see them. See how Bill sounds in person these days.

I've got a fun Bill Clinton story -- on the Monday night a week or so before the election in 1992 he was at a Chicago Bears game. Me and my girlfriend at the time worked our way down to where he was and it was a mob of people. He was doing the normal politician smiling and waving but then spotted my girlfriend and pointed. She passed him her ticket stub which he signed and put a semi-creepy winky face with it's tongue sticking out.

In hindsight, Clinton was one of the better president's we've had in recent memory, precisely because he worked with Congress from the center and cut taxes. Everything Obama refuses to do.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by RINGLEADER

I've got a fun Bill Clinton story -- on the Monday night a week or so before the election in 1992 he was at a Chicago Bears game. Me and my girlfriend at the time worked our way down to where he was and it was a mob of people. He was doing the normal politician smiling and waving but then spotted my girlfriend and pointed. She passed him her ticket stub which he signed and put a semi-creepy winky face with it's tongue sticking out.

In hindsight, Clinton was one of the better president's we've had in recent memory, precisely because he worked with Congress from the center and cut taxes. Everything Obama refuses to do.

cool

Originally Posted by RINGLEADER

In hindsight, Clinton was one of the better president's we've had in recent memory, precisely because he worked with Congress from the center and cut taxes. Everything Obama refuses to do.

Quick quiz, how many times did Obama cut taxes in his first term?

[tiptap]

Originally Posted by RINGLEADER

In hindsight, Clinton was one of the better president's we've had in recent memory, precisely because he worked with Congress from the center and cut taxes. Everything Obama refuses to do.

Why did I have to pay that damn Clinton surtax then.

[BigRedChief]

Nate silver is doubling down on his formula. He is betting his reputation.

Story in US News and World Report on the Republican war on Nate silver.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/...on-nate-silver

Political polling guru Nate Silver is so confident in his statistical models that he just offered to bet MSNBC's Joe Scarborough $1,000 that Barack Obama will win re-election. Scarborough, you may recall, criticized Silver's math earlier this week, saying that "Anybody that thinks that this race is anything but a tossup right now is such an ideologue ... they're jokes." He was specifically talking about Silver's FiveThirtyEight website, which shows Mitt Romney with just a 1-in-4 chance of becoming president.

Silver has spent the week firing back, criticizing political pundits for not understanding how odds and probability work and aggressively defending his method against critics. As the week has progressed, his model has only shown Obama's chances of winning increasing, which has not coincidentally increased Silver's confidence in the outcome. (As of this morning, Five Thirty Eight gives Obama a 79 percent chance of winning, with a final Electoral College total over 300.)



RELATED: People Who Can't Do Math Are So Mad At Nate Silver


The back-and-forth swipes all came to head today with this tweet, with Silver offering a friendly $1,000 wager on Tuesday's result, with the winnings going to charity.

.@joenbc: If you think it's a toss-up, let's bet. If Obama wins, you donate $1,000 to the American Red Cross. If Romney wins, I do. Deal?
— Nate Silver (@fivethirtyeight) November 1, 2012

After that Politico story claiming Silver was putting his reputation on the line with this election, he's making it clear that he's willing to put more on the line than that. And he's also clearly fed up with pundits who aren't willing to put anything on the line to back up their numerous predictions.

Scarborough was not on the set of his MSNBC show this morning and has yet to respond, but he already has one wager riding on Tuesday's vote. Just yesterday, he agreed to a bet with Obama campaign adviser David Axelrod over their facial hair. (Axelrod will shave his mustache if Obama loses Michigan, Minnesota, or Pennsylvania. Scarborough will grow one if Romney loses Florida or North Carolina.) Will Joe put his money where his mouth—and mustache—is?

[VAChief]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

Nate silver is doubling down on his formula. He is betting his reputation.

Story in US News and World Report on the Republican war on Nate silver.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/...on-nate-silver

Political polling guru Nate Silver is so confident in his statistical models that he just offered to bet MSNBC's Joe Scarborough $1,000 that Barack Obama will win re-election. Scarborough, you may recall, criticized Silver's math earlier this week, saying that "Anybody that thinks that this race is anything but a tossup right now is such an ideologue ... they're jokes." He was specifically talking about Silver's FiveThirtyEight website, which shows Mitt Romney with just a 1-in-4 chance of becoming president.

Silver has spent the week firing back, criticizing political pundits for not understanding how odds and probability work and aggressively defending his method against critics. As the week has progressed, his model has only shown Obama's chances of winning increasing, which has not coincidentally increased Silver's confidence in the outcome. (As of this morning, Five Thirty Eight gives Obama a 79 percent chance of winning, with a final Electoral College total over 300.)



RELATED: People Who Can't Do Math Are So Mad At Nate Silver


The back-and-forth swipes all came to head today with this tweet, with Silver offering a friendly $1,000 wager on Tuesday's result, with the winnings going to charity.

.@joenbc: If you think it's a toss-up, let's bet. If Obama wins, you donate $1,000 to the American Red Cross. If Romney wins, I do. Deal?
— Nate Silver (@fivethirtyeight) November 1, 2012

After that Politico story claiming Silver was putting his reputation on the line with this election, he's making it clear that he's willing to put more on the line than that. And he's also clearly fed up with pundits who aren't willing to put anything on the line to back up their numerous predictions.

Scarborough was not on the set of his MSNBC show this morning and has yet to respond, but he already has one wager riding on Tuesday's vote. Just yesterday, he agreed to a bet with Obama campaign adviser David Axelrod over their facial hair. (Axelrod will shave his mustache if Obama loses Michigan, Minnesota, or Pennsylvania. Scarborough will grow one if Romney loses Florida or North Carolina.) Will Joe put his money where his mouth—and mustache—is?

Joe with a porn stache? Axlerod will look like a dick either way.

[RINGLEADER]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

cool
Quick quiz, how many times did Obama cut taxes in his first term?

Obama's tax cuts pretty clearly were ineffective.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by RINGLEADER

Obama's tax cuts pretty clearly were ineffective.

was the question on how effective obamas tax cuts were?

Please answer the orginal question.

[RINGLEADER]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

Nate silver is doubling down on his formula. He is betting his reputation.

Story in US News and World Report on the Republican war on Nate silver.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/...on-nate-silver

Political polling guru Nate Silver is so confident in his statistical models that he just offered to bet MSNBC's Joe Scarborough $1,000 that Barack Obama will win re-election. Scarborough, you may recall, criticized Silver's math earlier this week, saying that "Anybody that thinks that this race is anything but a tossup right now is such an ideologue ... they're jokes." He was specifically talking about Silver's FiveThirtyEight website, which shows Mitt Romney with just a 1-in-4 chance of becoming president.

Silver has spent the week firing back, criticizing political pundits for not understanding how odds and probability work and aggressively defending his method against critics. As the week has progressed, his model has only shown Obama's chances of winning increasing, which has not coincidentally increased Silver's confidence in the outcome. (As of this morning, Five Thirty Eight gives Obama a 79 percent chance of winning, with a final Electoral College total over 300.)



RELATED: People Who Can't Do Math Are So Mad At Nate Silver


The back-and-forth swipes all came to head today with this tweet, with Silver offering a friendly $1,000 wager on Tuesday's result, with the winnings going to charity.

.@joenbc: If you think it's a toss-up, let's bet. If Obama wins, you donate $1,000 to the American Red Cross. If Romney wins, I do. Deal?
— Nate Silver (@fivethirtyeight) November 1, 2012

After that Politico story claiming Silver was putting his reputation on the line with this election, he's making it clear that he's willing to put more on the line than that. And he's also clearly fed up with pundits who aren't willing to put anything on the line to back up their numerous predictions.

Scarborough was not on the set of his MSNBC show this morning and has yet to respond, but he already has one wager riding on Tuesday's vote. Just yesterday, he agreed to a bet with Obama campaign adviser David Axelrod over their facial hair. (Axelrod will shave his mustache if Obama loses Michigan, Minnesota, or Pennsylvania. Scarborough will grow one if Romney loses Florida or North Carolina.) Will Joe put his money where his mouth—and mustache—is?

Meh.

Nate Silver is a liberal, and that may cloud his estimates a little bit, but c'mon. It's not like Romney is showing up in the lead in a bunch of polls (which is one of the metrics I believe Silver uses). I keep going back to turn-out. If you apply an even GOP/DEM turnout to nearly every poll that has been released in the last month you end up with moderate to large Romney wins. The underlying information in these polls show greater GOP enthusiasm pretty much everywhere but OH. The pathway to victory without OH is meandering and clumsy and difficult for Romney (and probably unlikely, though not impossible).

But Silver's estimates could disappear the same way conventional wisdom collapsed on the night of 2004's election when the exit poll models got destroyed by greater than expected GOP turnout.

There just is no way for Obama to win if the GOP achieves parity - Romney is too far ahead with INDs. But we'll all know in about five days!

[RINGLEADER]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

was the question on how effective obamas tax cuts were?

Please answer the orginal question.

Just coming out with a tax cut doesn't mean it will be effective (in the way that Clinton's tax cuts were). Cash for clunkers spurred a lot of people to buy cars, but ultimately all it did was rob future sales and cost the government a lot of money to try to artificially create the illusion of growth in the auto industry.

My point was that Obama refuses to do those things that good presidents do. His tax cuts were created to be a talking point during the 2012 election instead of a way to create sustained growth.