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%

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by HMc

What would republicans like to have seen Obama do regarding the economy during his first term (that he de didn't do)? I don't really know much about it, being an outsider.

If his stimulus had really focused on infrastructure and job creation (as promised) instead of constituency support and political payback, it wouldn't have been nearly as unpopular. Perhaps more importantly, if he had spent the next year trying to improve the economy instead of getting sidetracked on his highly partisan, wildly unpopular health care reform, he might not have lost so much of his independent support.

Those were probably his two biggest offenses, but along the way he's also been using questionable executive powers to bypass Congress on controversial issues like amnesty for certain illegal immigrants and suppression of the fossil fuels segment of our energy mosaic.

Personally, I'm also offended by what I consider his disastrous foreign policy (minimizing the chances of Iraq being a long term win, making just about every wrong move imaginable during the Arab spring, distancing our country from Israel, withdrawing US support for anti-missile defense in eastern Europe, and signing on to a bad arms control deal with Russia, among other things), but I suspect that some Republicans don't mind these things as much as I do.

[HMc]

Kotter: Wow. Americans already get a pretty good deal on their tax, relative to other developed countries.

[jjjayb]

Originally Posted by Mr. Kotter

Slash all spending (except military,) and lower taxes (especially for the uber-wealthy.) That's their answer for, literally, all problems.

Or, not cram a health care bill down our throats that scared businesses out fo hiring. He had 2 years of control of the house and senate. He could have done whatever he needed to fix the economy. He chose to tackle health care. It doesn't matter if Employers must provide health care if you are unemployed.

[HMc]

Originally Posted by patteeu

If his stimulus had really focused on infrastructure and job creation (as promised) instead of constituency support and political payback, it wouldn't have been nearly as unpopular. Perhaps more importantly, if he had spent the next year trying to improve the economy instead of getting sidetracked on his highly partisan, wildly unpopular health care reform, he might not have lost so much of his independent support.

Those were probably his two biggest offenses, but along the way he's also been using questionable executive powers to bypass Congress on controversial issues like amnesty for certain illegal immigrants and suppression of the fossil fuels segment of our energy mosaic.

Bold 1:fair criticism.

Bold 2: how would you like to have seen him do that?

Did you think healthcare needed a reform of some kind, just not his? Or not at all?

I'm slightly skeptical about the influence he could have had over the economy. Hasn't the GOP had a majority in congress for at least some of that time?

[HMc]

Originally Posted by jjjayb

Or, not cram a health care bill down our throats that scared businesses out fo hiring. He had 2 years of control of the house and senate. He could have done whatever he needed to fix the economy. He chose to tackle health care. It doesn't matter if Employers must provide health care if you are unemployed.

What would you have done to fix the economy during that period?

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by RINGLEADER

Depends on how many GOP show up and how many DEM show up. Though in most of the competitive senate races they don't enjoy the advantage with INDs that Romney has held.

Of course turnout but at some point the GOP will need to wake up and quit nominating people who are extreme or far right. I am not talking about Romney but some of these senate seats the Republicans could have won in 2010 and now 2012.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by patteeu

Senate: 52 R and 48 D+I (87.6% probability)

??? Are you trying to be more ridiculous than Dick Morris or something?

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by RINGLEADER

How can there be a conspiracy when all they do is average polls? LOL

They are all in on it! All of them I tells ya!

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by HMc

Bold 1:fair criticism.

Bold 2: how would you like to have seen him do that?

I'd start with revenue-neutral tax reform reducing marginal tax rates while eliminating deductions, particularly on corporations and small business. Put an emphasis on reform that creates an attractive business climate rather than on the left's idea of fairness, ie social redistribution (this refers to a famous Obama statement about raising capital gains taxes even if it means lower revenue based on his conception of fairness). That would have been a better project to spend a year on than Obamacare.

Originally Posted by HMc

Did you think healthcare needed a reform of some kind, just not his? Or not at all?

Yes, it definitely needs to be reformed (and still does). There were two big problems in US healthcare. The biggest problem is the faster-than-inflation growth of health care costs. The other one was that several million Americans were not covered by health care insurance (mostly by choice) and when they encountered serious health issues they tended to require expensive care that was cost-shifted to insured people. Obamacare took on the latter issue but left the more difficult problem of rising costs for another day. I think costs should have been addressed first because those are also driving our future fiscal problems due to the impact on our medicare and medicaid entitlements.

I don't like everything about the way Obama's reforms work, but my big objections are really that they avoided the biggest reform issue and they distracted our government for an entire year from the immediate problem of our economy.

Originally Posted by HMc

I'm slightly skeptical about the influence he could have had over the economy. Hasn't the GOP had a majority in congress for at least some of that time?

The democrats had control of both branches of Congress through the first two years of Obama's term when both the Stimulus and Obamacare were passed. They even had a filibuster-proof majority (something that Republicans have never had) for a good part of the first year.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by HMc

What would republicans like to have seen Obama do regarding the economy during his first term (that he de didn't do)? I don't really know much about it, being an outsider.

Answer: Nothing. They would have liked him to do absolutely nothing.

Doing absolutely nothing would fit with their newfound religion of absolutely zero govt intervention, and it would have ensured complete economic collapse, which would have made it easier to defeat Obama in the election.

They did their best to block everything he wanted to do, and they had some success with that method (the economy did not improve as much as it could have), but they will fall short of their ultimate goal, which was simply to defeat Obama.

[dirk digler]

Even Gringrich sees the writing on the wall

http://news.yahoo.com/errant-gingric...174518235.html

An email message mistakenly sent to Newt Gingrich's list serve this morning told subscribers that President Obama would no doubt win in 2012 and that they should be more worried about Obama's winning in 2016.

That's right, despite the 22nd Amendment, which limits any one person to two presidential terms, the email that went out to Gingrich's supporters suggests President Obama would be running again in 2016, and possibly serve through 2020.

The email, titled "What's really at stake this Tuesday ..." came from Gingrich Marketplace and went out to people who'd given their contact information to the Gingrich campaign when the former speaker of the House was still in the presidential race. Bygone candidates, such as Gingrich and Herman Cain, regularly rent out their email address lists to advertisers.

"The truth is, the next election has already been decided. Obama is going to win. It's nearly impossible to beat an incumbent president," advertiser Porter Stansberry wrote in the email to Gingrich supporters. "What's actually at stake right now is whether or not he will have a third-term."

[Calcountry]

Hey Nate Silver fans, check this out.

Long, but very interesting.

http://www.redstate.com/2012/10/31/o...ewed-unskewed/

[RINGLEADER]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

Of course turnout but at some point the GOP will need to wake up and quit nominating people who are extreme or far right. I am not talking about Romney but some of these senate seats the Republicans could have won in 2010 and now 2012.

Oh sure, absolutely. The problem that the tea party types have is that their candidates haven't mastered the politically necessary art of not telling the full truth. The religious right types are creepy - even for those who may not believe in abortion as a means of birth control. If they had fielded proper candidates this election and last, the GOP would be 5-6 seats ahead in the Senate by Nov. 7.

[RINGLEADER]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

Even Gringrich sees the writing on the wall

What did Gingrinch say?

[RINGLEADER]

Originally Posted by Calcountry

Hey Nate Silver fans, check this out.

Long, but very interesting.

http://www.redstate.com/2012/10/31/o...ewed-unskewed/

Nate Silver is not "wrong" in how his models reach their conclusions, they're just built on assumptions that could be wrong. Just like this guy's conclusions.

What is consistent in almost all these polls:

Obama has a slim lead where party ID leans Dem;
Romney has a larger lead (sometimes drifting into the "huge" category) among Ind;
Obama scores slightly to dramatically higher than Romney on relatability issues;
Romney scores slightly to dramatically higher than Obama on the economic issues.

If Romney maintains his high-single to double digit advantage with Inds, and GOP turnout equals Dem turnout, Obama is toast. If Dem turnout exceeds GOP turnout by enough to "eat up" the advantage Romney has with Inds then Romney, also obviously, is toast.

The underlying dynamics (fewer early votes for Obama than four years ago, greater enthusiasm for GOP, etc.) would seem to favor a turnout model that is closer to parity (as Gallup has found). But even with the above facts in the data it remains a complete and total question mark whether Obama can blunt these perceived advantages that Romney carries into Tuesday and equal what the polls are presuming will be the case.

Everything until that answer is mostly noise, unless there is some new event that casts one of the candidates in a terrible light.