If you believe in polls*, Romney has a good shot

[RichlandsAlum 678]

Crossing the 50% threshold in Gallup is huge in this election. The Electoral College math still might prove to be a little tight, but Obama seems to be heading toward a "one and done" footnote in history.

 

(* - Personally, I'm still pretty skeptical about all polls. But Gallup's methodology in this particular case seems to be statistically significant.)

[Deleted Account 5,203]

Crossing the 50% threshold in Gallup is huge in this election. The Electoral College math still might prove to be a little tight, but Obama seems to be heading toward a "one and done" footnote in history.

 

(* - Personally, I'm still pretty skeptical about all polls. But Gallup's methodology in this particular case seems to be statistically significant.)

 

Article: http://www.gallup.com/poll/158048/romney-obama-among-likely-voters.aspx

 

Gallup's methodology here is on the right step, polling "likely" voters over all "registered" voters. That's where the major media polls often get things wrong...and I think it's done with calculated intent. However, I am somewhat unimpressed with the vague demographic description they provide. I would like to see more detail as to where the calls were taken from.

 

I would also expect to see about a 1% tick back toward the middle for both candidates. I think next week's sample may be 49%-47%.

 

Obama's clinging to leads in many of the swing states. Colorado, Ohio, Nevada, and now New Hampshire, which surprises me. Romney needs Ohio plus any of the other three.

[Hacker 82]

Hey let's keep it simple, the only opinions that count right now are in a handful of states. National polling is just to gin up the new cycle and keep all of the News Yodelers employed.

[RichlandsAlum 678]

Hey let's keep it simple, the only opinions that count right now are in a handful of states. National polling is just to gin up the new cycle and keep all of the News Yodelers employed.

 

National polling does have a psychological effect. As more and more people view politics as a spectator sport akin to professional athletics, there is a strong desire to be affiliated with the winning team. Thus the significance of Romney's crossing of the 50% threshold.

 

Coupled that with the fact that there seems to be nothing that Obama can possibly do to post those kind of numbers himself, and the November surprise might end up being a larger margin of victory for Romney than the polls will suggest.

[RichlandsAlum 678]

http://realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map.html

 

Also for the very first time, the RealClearPolitics average (linked above) actually has Romney ahead in projected "secure" electoral votes. Among the "toss-up" states, Virginia and Florida are trending heavily toward Romney. If he picks up Colorado and Ohio along with those two, he's in.

[redtiger 1,742]

Im hearing alot of talk about this race being so close that the Electorial College may tie. Its that close. If that happens then who knows what will happen? One would think the House would vote for Romeny but if say Obama won the higher % of the popular vote that could have a big influence.

 

For the good of our country lets hope it doesent come to that. That imo would be a HUGE mess

[RichlandsAlum 678]

Im hearing alot of talk about this race being so close that the Electorial College may tie. Its that close. If that happens then who knows what will happen? One would think the House would vote for Romeny but if say Obama won the higher % of the popular vote that could have a big influence.

 

For the good of our country lets hope it doesent come to that. That imo would be a HUGE mess

 

This election is a referendum on Obama's performance. Not much more, and certainly no less than that.

 

I think that Romney will fare slightly better than Bush did back in 2004 in terms of electoral votes. And I wouldn't be shocked to see him top 300 by picking up a couple of states like Michigan and Wisconsin.

[Deleted Account 5,203]

Im hearing alot of talk about this race being so close that the Electorial College may tie. Its that close. If that happens then who knows what will happen? One would think the House would vote for Romeny but if say Obama won the higher % of the popular vote that could have a big influence.

 

For the good of our country lets hope it doesent come to that. That imo would be a HUGE mess

 

It won't happen. I've found no likely scenario that will create a 269-269 tie. If you name me one, I'll certainly reconsider. Now, there are 2-3 good 270-268 ones, which brings the "faithless elector" problem into play. Of course, the election's thrown to the House in case of a 269-269 tie...and the House is Republican-controlled.

 

A tie means Romney's in.

[Deleted Account 5,203]

This election is a referendum on Obama's performance. Not much more, and certainly no less than that.

 

I think that Romney will fare slightly better than Bush did back in 2004 in terms of electoral votes. And I wouldn't be shocked to see him top 300 by picking up a couple of states like Michigan and Wisconsin.

 

I'd love it, but it would shock me.

 

For Romney to win the election as convincingly as you're telling me, Romney would have to:

 

(1) Trounce Obama in the 3rd debate (foreign policy-centered);

(2) Ramp up his advertising exponentially in the final weeks;

(3) Carry virtually every swing state; and

(4) Carry states I see as Obama locks, like PA, CT, and MI.

 

http://realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map.html

 

Also for the very first time, the RealClearPolitics average (linked above) actually has Romney ahead in projected "secure" electoral votes. Among the "toss-up" states, Virginia and Florida are trending heavily toward Romney. If he picks up Colorado and Ohio along with those two, he's in.

 

Not a fan of RealClearPolitics for two reasons. One, they're straddling so much fence with that map that they're going to have to pick barbed wire out of their crotch. Two, I find they do not do a solid job of impartially linking editorials and articles.

Edited October 18, 2012 by UVAObserver

[bsfoy 10]

Check out Scenario 8:

 

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/electoral-map

[Deleted Account 5,203]

Check out Scenario 8:

 

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/electoral-map

 

I stand corrected. That's plausible. But I don't see Obama losing WI or NV, and I don't see Romney losing VA.

Thanks for posting that.

 

And Map #3 is the reason I keep imploring Romney to get 1 more state. FL + OH + VA isn't enough...

[RichlandsAlum 678]

I'd love it, but it would shock me.

 

For Romney to win the election as convincingly as you're telling me, Romney would have to:

 

(1) Trounce Obama in the 3rd debate (foreign policy-centered);

(2) Ramp up his advertising exponentially in the final weeks;

(3) Carry virtually every swing state; and

(4) Carry states I see as Obama locks, like PA, CT, and MI.

 

 

 

Not a fan of RealClearPolitics for two reasons. One, they're straddling so much fence with that map that they're going to have to pick barbed wire out of their crotch. Two, I find they do not do a solid job of impartially linking editorials and articles.

 

 

(1) Don't underestimate the weight of the Libya albatross.

(2) Romney's regained his footing in terms of fundraising in recent weeks.

(3) Romney's within the margin of error or within striking range of it in every swing state.

(4) Of PA, CT, and MI, I think he's got a chance in Michigan.

 

Going back to the psychological effect of the national polls, I'm giving a lot of bias toward the theory that a rising tide will lift all boats. There seems to be no way that Obama's numbers can get anywhere close to 50%, yet Romney's already crossed that line.

 

I agree with UVAO about the editorial links on RealClearPolitics, but I've always found the composite polling data there to be pretty instructive. And the fact that the mainstream media is reporting a significant nationwide Romney lead after his less than excellent performance in Debate #2 has to be significant.

 

I also concur with other posters about the plausibility of Scenario 8. But I actually think that a realignment of state voting interests under the 2004 model seems reasonable. Maybe wishful thinking on my part, but I think the possibility of Scenario 5 is taking on some shape.

[RichlandsAlum 678]

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/10/17/Karl-Rove-No-Candidate-Has-Ever-Lost-With-Numbers-Like-Mitt-Romney-Has-Today

 

DISCLAIMER: I don't like Karl Rove, and I hold him almost singularly responsible for destroying the Republican Party majority of Bush's first term. But this is a very significant observation.

 

The first Obama-Romney debate seems destined to replace Kennedy-Nixon as fodder for scrutiny by future political scientists.

[redtiger 1,742]

It won't happen. I've found no likely scenario that will create a 269-269 tie. If you name me one, I'll certainly reconsider. Now, there are 2-3 good 270-268 ones, which brings the "faithless elector" problem into play. Of course, the election's thrown to the House in case of a 269-269 tie...and the House is Republican-controlled.

 

A tie means Romney's in.

 

It probably wont happen, but it is very likley to be close. As I said before I hope its not.

 

I think the 2010 elections speak volumes to American feelings on Obamas policies.

 

Does a tie really mean Romney is in? But if Obama wins a higher % of the popular vote then arent the members of the House of Represenatives in a way bound to vote on behalf of the people and not their Party?

[RichlandsAlum 678]

It probably wont happen, but it is very likley to be close. As I said before I hope its not.

 

I think the 2010 elections speak volumes to American feelings on Obamas policies.

 

Does a tie really mean Romney is in? But if Obama wins a higher % of the popular vote then arent the members of the House of Represenatives in a way bound to vote on behalf of the people and not their Party?

 

In the (very unlikely) event of a tie in the Electoral College, here's how it works....

 

Pursuant to the Twelfth Amendment, the House of Representatives is required to go into session immediately to vote for President if no candidate for President receives a majority of the electoral votes.

 

In this event, the House of Representatives is limited to choosing from among the three candidates who received the most electoral votes. Each state delegation votes en bloc - its members have a single vote collectively (and the District of Columbia does not receive a vote). A candidate must receive an absolute majority of state delegation votes (currently 26) in order for that candidate to become the President-elect. Theoretically, the 26 least populous states could vote in bloc and elect the President. Additionally, delegations from at least two-thirds of all the states must be present for voting to take place. The House continues balloting until it elects a President.

 

Given the current membership of the House, Romney is likely to gain the votes of 32 state delegations. Obama would likely receive the votes of 16. The delegations of two states (New Jersey and Minnesota) are evenly split in the current House.

[redtiger 1,742]

I know how it works.

 

You both are assuming the Members of the House will vote along Party lines(and they probably will) but if the Popular vote went to Obama that might sway some to vote for him. In years past I think this would be the case but with todays partisan politics im almost 100% sure that Romney would get the vote. But imo the popular vote could sway some of the members.

[RichlandsAlum 678]

I know how it works.

 

You both are assuming the Members of the House will vote along Party lines(and they probably will) but if the Popular vote went to Obama that might sway some to vote for him. In years past I think this would be the case but with todays partisan politics im almost 100% sure that Romney would get the vote. But imo the popular vote could sway some of the members.

 

Certainly didn't mean to offend. Your knowledge of the process wasn't obvious from your previous post. And I'd hazard a guess that there are casual readers of the board who are not familiar with the process.

 

The popular vote isn't likely to go to Obama. He could conceivably win a plurality at best, but there appears to be no scenario that suggests he'll garner more than 50% of the popular vote. More precisely to the point, I think you're absolutely correct about the partisanship of the members of Congress.

 

The quorum requirement for the vote is where things would be interesting. Along apparent party lines, Romney would be two bloc votes shy of what he would need to force a vote in the House if the split delegations and those led by Democrats simply refused to show up and vote. And if that were to occur, there is no clear guidance in the Constitution about who would be empowered to compel those delegations to report for such a vote.

 

But as interesting as this might be to some of us, I think this discussion is completely academic. Either Romney or Obama will obtain a majority of electors, and historic precedent (coupled with current polling) is pointing to Romney.

[redtiger 1,742]

no offense taken, that came across stronger than I meant. It is probably good to post how a tie in the EC works, as you said many dont know. really alot of people dont understand how the EC itself works.

 

I think Romney will win in a close race but the "what ifs" are intriguing

[bucfan64 309]

You read it here first. Romney comfortably wins and becomes our next President.

[Deleted Account 5,203]

I think people predicting a comfortable Romney win will be gravely mistaken.

I think it's as much of a toss-up as 2000 was.

[swvacsas2 15]

"I think people predicting a comfortable Romney win will be gravely mistaken.

I think it's as much of a toss-up as 2000 was."

 

You are correct. Have long been active in politics and believe that this will be as close or closer than 2000. This may be the first election where the Republican candidate wins the popular vote but loses in the electoral college. Romney must carry Ohio- and I am not optimistic about his chances there- depends on the blue-collar vote. Have relatives there and the vibes I'm getting aren't good.

[Deleted Account 5,203]

Have relatives there and the vibes I'm getting aren't good.

 

This concerns me. Without Ohio, Romney must take CO, NV, NH and steal WI or IA. I think Romney may get 2 of those 5.

[swvacsas2 15]

"This concerns me. Without Ohio, Romney must take CO, NV, NH and steal WI or IA. I think Romney may get 2 of those 5."

 

The only one of those I feel good about is CO. NH will be the closest of the lot- but at this point I don't see Romney breaking out in any of them.

[bucfan64 309]

I think people predicting a comfortable Romney win will be gravely mistaken.

I think it's as much of a toss-up as 2000 was.

 

Figured that would stir some folks up. LOL. ROMNEY in a close one! But I am expecting a couple of surprise wins for Mitt to make the margin of victory bigger than expected. In other words close but not 2000 close.

[wave316 64]

Figured that would stir some folks up. LOL. ROMNEY in a close one! But I am expecting a couple of surprise wins for Mitt to make the margin of victory bigger than expected. In other words close but not 2000 close.

 

Rasmussen polls has Romney with 235 Electoral votes ...he would need 35 more ...Ohio, Va and New Hampshire equals 35... Va I feel good about....Ohio and NH needs to turn more for Romney..