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%

[Hoover]

I don't think Romney is as weak of a candidate that you think he is. I also tend to ignore those who believe that the Tea Party somehow controls the Republican Party. The Tea Party doesn't control shit, and to be honest doesn't really exist. Did some of the more conservative candidates win primaries? Sure, but I actually think the finger needs to be pointed at the more mainstream candidates that were beat, not the candidates that won.

I believe Romney is going to win on Tuesday, and there is a small part of me that thinks we wins big. That would mean he wins Ohio and other states like Colorado, Iowa, and Wisconsin. I have a hard time seeing that happen, but there is an opportunity.

As for the US Senate, I think Republicans make gains, but fail to get to total control. I actually see a 50/50 Senate split. Holing GOP Seats in Maine and Mass were always going to be difficult. Winning seats in Penn and Conn are never easy. Winning a Senate race in Florida and Ohio in a presidential year is never easy. There is so much money being spent in those states it makes it difficult to control your own race.

I actually expect to see a lot of split ticket results, where the one party carries the state for the presidential race, and the other party wins the senate seat. If this was a wave election that would be rare. I think we are going to see that a lot on Tuesday night.

[Ebolapox]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

I agree it's a stupid ass trigger reason to vote for someone. If this one person changed their vote because of the way sandy was handeled, surely there are more voters out there like this one.

And the feeling that this or that presidential candidate knows my struggles, knows what my life is like has decided many elections.

I've been saying it for a while, our electorate is completely retarded. it really is alarming sometimes.

[Direckshun]

Just to remind our Republican friends in this thread:

1. Obama is the overwhelming favorite to win at this point.

2. The Democrats will certainly make gains in the House.

3. The Democrats will certainly make gains in the Senate.

Serious introspection will be needed.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by Hoover

I don't think Romney is as weak of a candidate that you think he is.

Granted, I'm not in the weeds of why a candidate is viewed the way they are nationally but its not just my opinion but it would seem the vast majority of America's opinion.

Originally Posted by Hoover

I also tend to ignore those who believe that the Tea Party somehow controls the Republican Party. The Tea Party doesn't control shit, and to be honest doesn't really exist. Did some of the more conservative candidates win primaries? Sure, but I actually think the finger needs to be pointed at the more mainstream candidates that were beat, not the candidates that won.

You probably have forgotten more info about the Tea Party and Republicans in the last week than I know totally. So help me understand, when I see the extreme Tea Party candidates lose to beatable Democrats, how does that not matter? Effect the Senate control for Republicans? Off the top of my head these are races that were shoo-ins for the Republicans to win the Senate but lost because of the extreme views of the candidate.
Christin Odonnell
Sharon Angel
Ken Buck
Joe Miller

This year (tentatively)
Richard Mourdock
Todd Akin
Josh Mandel

Hoover, how is this not the deciding factor as to why the Republicans should have control of the Senate, but dont? Thats an 8 seat swing for sure and on Wednesday maybe a 14 seat swing from R to D.

[Hoover]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Just to remind our Republican friends in this thread:

1. Obama is the overwhelming favorite to win at this point.

2. The Democrats will certainly make gains in the House.

3. The Democrats will certainly make gains in the Senate.

Serious introspection will be needed.

BO is an overwhelming favorite in the polls, nothing else. For one reason or another most pollsters are skewing their polls to reflect a significant Democrat turnout. I think this is based off of 2008 turnout. Meaning the pollsters are unwilling to accept that Obama's brand has been tarnished. I'm not saying the Obama can't win, I'm saying that media pollsters are being to kind to Democrats in this cycle.

[Hoover]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

Granted, I'm not in the weeds of why a candidate is viewed the way they are nationally but its not just my opinion but it would seem the vast majority of America's opinion.
You probably have forgotten more info about the Tea Party and Republicans in the last week than I know totally. So help me understand, when I see the extreme Tea Party candidates lose to beatable Democrats, how does that not matter? Effect the Senate control for Republicans? Off the top of my head these are races that were shoo-ins for the Republicans to win the Senate but lost because of the extreme views of the candidate.
Christin Odonnell
Sharon Angel
Ken Buck
Joe Miller

This year (tentatively)
Richard Mourdock
Todd Akin
Josh Mandel

Hoover, how is this not the deciding factor as to why the Republicans should have control of the Senate, but dont? Thats an 8 seat swing for sure and on Wednesday maybe a 14 seat swing from R to D.

There is never a shoo-in for a US Senate race. ODonnell, Buck, Miller, and Angle were all longshot candidates. Others might not have been longshots, but they would not have been the favorites either as they were all flawed in one way or another.

[cdcox]

Originally Posted by Hoover

BO is an overwhelming favorite in the polls, nothing else. For one reason or another most pollsters are skewing their polls to reflect a significant Democrat turnout. I think this is based off of 2008 turnout. Meaning the pollsters are unwilling to accept that Obama's brand has been tarnished. I'm not saying the Obama can't win, I'm saying that media pollsters are being to kind to Democrats in this cycle.

Silver covers that in his column today. That's really Romeny's only chance. He estimates the odds of the polls being biased enough for Romeny to win at 16% based on historical comparisons of polling results and election outcomes dating back to 1968.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes...ed/#more-37099

[Fairplay]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Just to remind our Republican friends in this thread:

1. Obama is the overwhelming favorite to win at this point.

2. The Democrats will certainly make gains in the House.

3. The Democrats will certainly make gains in the Senate.

Serious introspection will be needed.

Does this dream world you live in have dish or cable?

[RINGLEADER]

Originally Posted by Hoover

I don't think Romney is as weak of a candidate that you think he is. I also tend to ignore those who believe that the Tea Party somehow controls the Republican Party. The Tea Party doesn't control shit, and to be honest doesn't really exist. Did some of the more conservative candidates win primaries? Sure, but I actually think the finger needs to be pointed at the more mainstream candidates that were beat, not the candidates that won.

I believe Romney is going to win on Tuesday, and there is a small part of me that thinks we wins big. That would mean he wins Ohio and other states like Colorado, Iowa, and Wisconsin. I have a hard time seeing that happen, but there is an opportunity.

As for the US Senate, I think Republicans make gains, but fail to get to total control. I actually see a 50/50 Senate split. Holing GOP Seats in Maine and Mass were always going to be difficult. Winning seats in Penn and Conn are never easy. Winning a Senate race in Florida and Ohio in a presidential year is never easy. There is so much money being spent in those states it makes it difficult to control your own race.

I actually expect to see a lot of split ticket results, where the one party carries the state for the presidential race, and the other party wins the senate seat. If this was a wave election that would be rare. I think we are going to see that a lot on Tuesday night.

I think the GOP at best gets one senate seat, due to losses that shouldn't have happened in MO and IN.

But, you do make a good point about the tea party. There wasn't some monolithic tea party that installed these morons (as well as the moron Senate candidates from NV and DE last time). It was the people of those states. If the GOP can't do a better job of fielding one alternative to the further right candidate then this is what happens. And good politics for the Dems for exploiting it.

[J Diddy]

Originally Posted by Fairplay

Does this dream world you live in have dish or cable?

Plagiarize much?

[RINGLEADER]

Originally Posted by cdcox

Silver covers that in his column today. That's really Romeny's only chance. He estimates the odds of the polls being biased enough for Romeny to win at 16% based on historical comparisons of polling results and election outcomes dating back to 1968.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes...ed/#more-37099

This is absolutely true (and gives NS a great out in the event his 80+% guess for Obama is wrong). If you look at it from a wholly dispassionate and non-partisan point of view there is just no way that Romney can be tied or trailing in 11 out of 11 polls and then win. Even with the party identification being skewed. It's just not statistically possible. And if it happens the whole "science" will be permanently called into question and Romney will become the Richard Jewell of political polling.

That said, if you apply the early voting to the advantage most polls show Romney enjoying with election day voters, then you end up with numbers that are very very close not only in OH, but also in NV and IA.

Again, if you look at it dispassionately.

[RINGLEADER]

Another trend from the Rasmussen national poll shows both the gap in enthusiasm and the lead Romney has with INDs contracting in Obama's favor. The whole "undecideds go for the challenger" argument is one of those things that makes sense, but there's little evidence of it occurring in reality. It happened for Reagan, but hasn't really occurred in a meaningful way since.

If the fence-sitters decide to stick with Obama and Romney's lead with INDs collapses then it requires - obviously - an even greater GOP turnout.

We'll know in three days!

[J Diddy]

Originally Posted by RINGLEADER

Another trend from the Rasmussen national poll shows both the gap in enthusiasm and the lead Romney has with INDs contracting in Obama's favor. The whole "undecideds go for the challenger" argument is one of those things that makes sense, but there's little evidence of it occurring in reality. It happened for Reagan, but hasn't really occurred in a meaningful way since.

If the fence-sitters decide to stick with Obama and Romney's lead with INDs collapses then it requires - obviously - an even greater GOP turnout.

We'll know in three days!

Thank God. I can't wait until we can just argue about policy and not about candidates.

[RINGLEADER]

Originally Posted by J Diddy

Thank God. I can't wait until we can just argue about policy and not about candidates.

It's going to be interesting to see how the politicians govern. Obama has done a swell job of poisoning the well and the GOP base is going to be white-hot if Romney loses. But I'm sure they'll sh!t the bed and reinstate the defense cuts and extend the tax cuts in some fashion and the deficit will keep growing...and growing...and growing...and growing...

Increasing the deficit is obviously the worst of all the choices the law-makers can lean on given where it leads us, but it also requires no near-term accountability (especially if Obama wins), ergo it's the easiest path for the politicians to take.

[whoman69]

Originally Posted by patteeu

You're the one putting me on a pedestal, not me. The psuedo-intellectuals are the ones puffing their chests out because they believe in math even though they don't really understand the math involved. Maybe you'd prefer the term intellectual boot-lickers or intellectual groupies.

Not true at all. Without knowing one thing about me you assume that I know nothing about the subject. This isn't the first time you have done that. The fact that you didn't even know Rasmussen had state polls leads me to believe you certainly don't know as much as you are leading on.

Your context is also off. I can guarantee that Billy Beane cannot draw up a sabermetric table, but he knows what to do with the information that is given to him. 538 is a tool that allows one to make sense of conflicting polls. When you have one poll say that a candidate lead by 5 and another that says the lead is only 1 or that the other candidate is ahead, who is right? 538 uses the history of those polls to make that call. They also include economic data, makeup of the electorate in individual states, and a myriad of other factors.

I know how to read an electoral map. I have studied the elections of the past and can talk about trends and contested elections in history. So let's stop pretending that only you are right about everything. You've been proven to be wrong many times, though you would never admit it.