[Official Thread] OBAMA WINS RE-ELECTION

[Flagg]

Since all that matters is the electoral votes I'm not concerned.

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

And here is something that works as a counterargument from someone who actually does in-depth analysis and prediction instead of parroting each day's polling in a vacuum.

(If you're worried that that article is from a day before yours, Romney's odds have actually lowered since the 24th)

[Dalton]

http://www.examiner.com/article/polls-o ... mney-leads

Sadly, while Obama still holds a consistent lead in the electoral college as of now, I think we have to seriously consider the possibility of a Romney presidency.

I would not trust any blog that uses Unskewed Polls as a legitimate source. Aside from that, Rasmussen has been notably tacking to the right given their poll collection methods (landlines only, no cellphones) and Gallup has been a weird outlier. The AP/GfK poll cited is within the margin of error, enough to be considered a "dead heat", WaPo/ABC and Reuters/IPSOS both have Romney up only 1%, and I wouldn't trust a Fox News poll if you paid me. Given that the author of this blog is billionaire who's probably a Romney surrogate, I'll take Nate Silver's analysis anyday.

[Dalton]

538 just bumped up Obama to 295/74.4%. His lead in Ohio is 2-3 points across the board with 10 days to go, which 538 claims is historically very advantageous.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Dressed Link ~D
Sadly, while Obama still holds a consistent lead in the electoral college as of now, I think we have to seriously consider the possibility of a Romney presidency.

Again with Dalton, 538 is the only "polls" I trust or put any stock in. The right will shriek that polling all Liberally biased and unfair, but the truth is most polling does tend to track right, which is one of the reasons Mittens got such a MASSIVE boost after the first election. People weren't changing their minds their votes, but the Right became far more enthusiastic, so instead of ignoring a lot of answering pollsters they started speaking up and the polls swung dramatically over the corse of a couple of days.

I will say that it is a bit ironic, in a way I feel a bit hypocritical, saying the polls don't matter, or the popular vote isn't what isn't important.. Since those were the arguments trotted out by the right in 2004.

But the "real" truth is that, far the most part, despite what the polls say, America as a whole is becoming more Progressive during the Presidential races.

Look back at some of my previous posts regarding the demographic changes in America right now. The far right may get more power state to state, but during the Presidential election, sicne the Whole country votes, the races will more and more tilt toward democrats.

[General Zod]

Dressed Link ~D
Sadly, while Obama still holds a consistent lead in the electoral college as of now, I think we have to seriously consider the possibility of a Romney presidency.

Again with Dalton, 538 is the only "polls" I trust or put any stock in. The right will shriek that polling all Liberally biased and unfair, but the truth is most polling does tend to track right, which is one of the reasons Mittens got such a MASSIVE boost after the first election. People weren't changing their minds their votes, but the Right became far more enthusiastic, so instead of ignoring a lot of answering pollsters they started speaking up and the polls swung dramatically over the corse of a couple of days.

I will say that it is a bit ironic, in a way I feel a bit hypocritical, saying the polls don't matter, or the popular vote isn't what isn't important.. Since those were the arguments trotted out by the right in 2004.

But the "real" truth is that, far the most part, despite what the polls say, America as a whole is becoming more Progressive during the Presidential races.

Look back at some of my previous posts regarding the demographic changes in America right now. The far right may get more power state to state, but during the Presidential election, sicne the Whole country votes, the races will more and more tilt toward democrats.

That reasoning seems a bit specious to me. I'm not saying America hasn't become more progressive, but saying it's because the whole country is involved doesn't really seem right.

[Eframepilot]

I'm rooting for an Obama electoral vote victory but a Romney popular vote victory. It would be payback for 2000 and would provoke maximum furious rage on the right. Also, it would probably motivate the effective end of the electoral college (or at least permanently tying it to the national popular vote), which isn't actually a good system in my opinion.

[The Vortex Empire]

I'm rooting for an Obama electoral vote victory but a Romney popular vote victory. It would be payback for 2000 and would provoke maximum furious rage on the right. Also, it would probably motivate the effective end of the electoral college (or at least permanently tying it to the national popular vote), which isn't actually a good system in my opinion.

It didn't cause the end of electoral college when it happened in 1824, or 1876, or 1888, or 2000. It wouldn't do it this time either.

[Jim Raynor]

If you think the Republicans are bitching hard now, then brace yourself if they win the popular vote but lose the electoral vote. They already perceive Obama as a fascist commie dictator. That idea would be greatly reinforced if they could actually say with certainty that the majority of the American people had voted against him. We'd have cries for a recount, because ACORN or the Black Panthers or whoever they want to associate with Obama "must" have fixed it. The conspiracies would run rampant, and make all the Birther crap look like nothing. And forget about getting any silly "payback" for 2000; their memory doesn't go back that far. They've already chosen to forget just how bad George W. was.

[Lord MJ]

So Romney now has a $45 million cash advantage over Obama.

Now I'm not sure if things are as doom and gloom as the emails I keep getting pleading for money, or if Obama's fundraisers are simply trying to be dramatic.

What effect a $45 million advantage will have on the race, I have no idea.

[Dalton]

Not much, I'd bet. Things are solidifying.

[Blayne]

Election forecast model may predict romney victory

From what I can see it has only ever "simulated" the accurate victories of past elections, and is unproven for current elections, and what it calls objective data, wrt the economy I'm not entirely sure is as objective as they think. The trouble is that well if this has worked for every past election, will it really be valid for the next one even though its never predicted an ongoing on, just simulated?

I'm not disputing it's managed to do what they claim to do for the past ones but I am skeptical.

[Dalton]

Yeah 320 EVs for Romney is a huge stretch. Considering the 538 model predicted a Romney victory 25% of the time it's not surprising. It's a tight race.

[Mr Bean]

Yeah 320 EVs for Romney is a huge stretch. Considering the 538 model predicted a Romney victory 25% of the time it's not surprising. It's a tight race.

With the massive leads in North Carolina early voting and the incoming storm I'm starting to bet on a historically low turnout on the east coast. After all if all the Obama supporters have already all voted, and people are without power for a week... might not have voting on their minds.

[Skywalker_T-65]

Even Mother Nature wants Obama to win!

In all seriousness, that is highly ironic. It should also show just how many people want Mittens to win, and not just 'someone other than Obama'. Since only the people who really want Mittens in office will still go vote with how the weather is going.

[Wing Commander MAD]

Yeah 320 EVs for Romney is a huge stretch. Considering the 538 model predicted a Romney victory 25% of the time it's not surprising. It's a tight race.

With the massive leads in North Carolina early voting and the incoming storm I'm starting to bet on a historically low turnout on the east coast. After all if all the Obama supporters have already all voted, and people are without power for a week... might not have voting on their minds.

That seems terribly optimistic. What are the statistics on the percentage of people voting early vs total voting in recent years? Such a scenario could easily bite Obama's ass if not enough people get out to vote for him on Nov. 6th. Hasn't low voter turn out due to weather tended to affect Republicans less than democrats in the recent past? The conservative base certainy seems to be more motivated in the recent years compared to their opponents, which could be a major factor in voter turnout in inclement weather. Likewise, more liberal voters are likely to be saured on Obama, and reliance on the "Not X" votes seems to be doomed to failure. Considering that Liberals seem to be more likely to use early voting compared to conservatives, if all the hardcore Obama supporters have already voted early, then there might not be much change in Obama's numbers, while Romney's can only grow.

[Mr Bean]

That seems terribly optimistic. What are the statistics on the percentage of people voting early vs total voting in recent years?

Here you go
The average is 54% Obama 39% Romney with a 3.5% margin of error, in personal anecdotes as I mentioned before it's closer to 80% 20% advantage Obama in two North Carolina districts and generally speaking over all Obama has a a solid 15% lead in all early voting in general with some areas being much higher.

Considering that Liberals seem to be more likely to use early voting compared to conservatives, if all the hardcore Obama supporters have already voted early, then there might not be much change in Obama's numbers, while Romney's can only grow.

Wait what? So somehow lots of Obama voters already voting is bad because that means they won't... vote later?
If you mean increment weather will keep away the day of voters your still talking about people who are choosing between someone they don't like or they don't trust. That's likely to supress both sides election day numbers meaning that 15% lead comes back into play.

[Gil Hamilton]

Wouldn't the GOP sue God and try to have him brought up on voter suppression charges if that way the case?

[Wing Commander MAD]

Hmm, the early voting numbers were higher than I expected. Fair enough regarding voter turnout, I just think people here are getting a bit too optimistic for an Obama win. My main concern was that main body of hardcore Republicans haven't voted yet, while the main body of hardcore Obama supporters may have. Best not to count your eggs before they hatch and all.

[Crossroads Inc.]

That reasoning seems a bit specious to me. I'm not saying America hasn't become more progressive, but saying it's because the whole country is involved doesn't really seem right.

For me it is changing demographics that keep me optimistic. Most kids in high school or college are growing up to be much more socially progressive then their parents. They don't care about gays as much, they don't care about church as much, they have a much larger "Live and let live" approach to the world. Many of them may register as Republican, and many may vote Republican on local and state levels, but during the Presidential election, I see many of them voting for the person who is NOT Going "RAR! Gays evil! Abortion Evil! Support Family Values!"

Add to that the shift in population with Latino and other groups. As Latino's become the majority of American voters, were going to see a larger and larger shift from their numbers. Shoot at some point Texas, yes TEXAS could "go blue" purely from latino voters.

Hmm, the early voting numbers were higher than I expected. Fair enough regarding voter turnout, I just think people here are getting a bit too optimistic for an Obama win. My main concern was that main body of hardcore Republicans haven't voted yet, while the main body of hardcore Obama supporters may have. Best not to count your eggs before they hatch and all.

I would say people are being much more "cautiously optimistic" then going around saying "Ho ho we have this in the bag"
As many others have said, the "Math" is very very much in Obamas' favor right now.

Mittens will have to get BOTH Florida and Ohio AND one of the swing states, right now only Colorado looks to be really in play. NC and VA are likely to goto Romney, but even with those, Obama still has a good lead. Really there would have to be a huge upset in the trends right now for all the current models and predictions to be turned on end.

I mentioned this earlier in the thread, but for much of Aug and Sept, there was a large group of voters who were upset or dissatisfied with Obama, but had not yet had any reason to vote FOR Romney. After the first debate, suddenly they thought they had a reason to vote for Romney and his numbers soared in days. Now three weeks and two debates later, they are once more drifting back to voting for Obama.

[Wing Commander MAD]

I'm a pessimist, so even "cautiously optimistic" is probably too optimistic for me. Remember, the glass is always half-empty.

[Block]

I'm a pessimist, so even "cautiously optimistic" is probably too optimistic for me. Remember, the glass is always half-empty.

Then, and I mean this in a non-backseat mod kinda way, please stop posting in this thread. It's just obnoxious to hear nothing but doom and gloom from someone who has nothing to back it up.

[General Mung Beans]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/opini ... wanted=all

EDITORIAL
Barack Obama for Re-Election
Published: October 27, 2012 40 Comments

The economy is slowly recovering from the 2008 meltdown, and the country could suffer another recession if the wrong policies take hold. The United States is embroiled in unstable regions that could easily explode into full-blown disaster. An ideological assault from the right has started to undermine the vital health reform law passed in 2010. Those forces are eroding women’s access to health care, and their right to control their lives. Nearly 50 years after passage of the Civil Rights Act, all Americans’ rights are cheapened by the right wing’s determination to deny marriage benefits to a selected group of us. Astonishingly, even the very right to vote is being challenged.
Multimedia

President Obama has shown a firm commitment to using government to help foster growth. He has formed sensible budget policies that are not dedicated to protecting the powerful, and has worked to save the social safety net to protect the powerless. Mr. Obama has impressive achievements despite the implacable wall of refusal erected by Congressional Republicans so intent on stopping him that they risked pushing the nation into depression, held its credit rating hostage, and hobbled economic recovery.

Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, has gotten this far with a guile that allows him to say whatever he thinks an audience wants to hear. But he has tied himself to the ultraconservative forces that control the Republican Party and embraced their policies, including reckless budget cuts and 30-year-old, discredited trickle-down ideas. Voters may still be confused about Mr. Romney’s true identity, but they know the Republican Party, and a Romney administration would reflect its agenda. Mr. Romney’s choice of Representative Paul Ryan as his running mate says volumes about that.

We have criticized individual policy choices that Mr. Obama has made over the last four years, and have been impatient with his unwillingness to throw himself into the political fight. But he has shaken off the hesitancy that cost him the first debate, and he approaches the election clearly ready for the partisan battles that would follow his victory.

We are confident he would challenge the Republicans in the “fiscal cliff” battle even if it meant calling their bluff, letting the Bush tax cuts expire and forcing them to confront the budget sequester they created. Electing Mr. Romney would eliminate any hope of deficit reduction that included increased revenues.

In the poisonous atmosphere of this campaign, it may be easy to overlook Mr. Obama’s many important achievements, including carrying out the economic stimulus, saving the auto industry, improving fuel efficiency standards, and making two very fine Supreme Court appointments.

Health Care

Mr. Obama has achieved the most sweeping health care reforms since the passage of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965. The reform law takes a big step toward universal health coverage, a final piece in the social contract.

It was astonishing that Mr. Obama and the Democrats in Congress were able to get a bill past the Republican opposition. But the Republicans’ propagandistic distortions of the new law helped them wrest back control of the House, and they are determined now to repeal the law.

That would eliminate the many benefits the reform has already brought: allowing children under 26 to stay on their parents’ policies; lower drug costs for people on Medicare who are heavy users of prescription drugs; free immunizations, mammograms and contraceptives; a ban on lifetime limits on insurance payments. Insurance companies cannot deny coverage to children with pre-existing conditions. Starting in 2014, insurers must accept all applicants. Once fully in effect, the new law would start to control health care costs.

Mr. Romney has no plan for covering the uninsured beyond his callous assumption that they will use emergency rooms. He wants to use voucher programs to shift more Medicare costs to beneficiaries and block grants to shift more Medicaid costs to the states.

The Economy

Mr. Obama prevented another Great Depression. The economy was cratering when he took office in January 2009. By that June it was growing, and it has been ever since (although at a rate that disappoints everyone), thanks in large part to interventions Mr. Obama championed, like the $840 billion stimulus bill. Republicans say it failed, but it created and preserved 2.5 million jobs and prevented unemployment from reaching 12 percent. Poverty would have been much worse without the billions spent on Medicaid, food stamps and jobless benefits.

Last year, Mr. Obama introduced a jobs plan that included spending on school renovations, repair projects for roads and bridges, aid to states, and more. It was stymied by Republicans. Contrary to Mr. Romney’s claims, Mr. Obama has done good things for small businesses — like pushing through more tax write-offs for new equipment and temporary tax cuts for hiring the unemployed.

The Dodd-Frank financial regulation was an important milestone. It is still a work in progress, but it established the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, initiated reform of the derivatives market, and imposed higher capital requirements for banks. Mr. Romney wants to repeal it.

If re-elected, Mr. Obama would be in position to shape the “grand bargain” that could finally combine stimulus like the jobs bill with long-term deficit reduction that includes letting the high-end Bush-era tax cuts expire. Stimulus should come first, and deficit reduction as the economy strengthens. Mr. Obama has not been as aggressive as we would have liked in addressing the housing crisis, but he has increased efforts in refinancing and loan modifications.

Mr. Romney’s economic plan, as much as we know about it, is regressive, relying on big tax cuts and deregulation. That kind of plan was not the answer after the financial crisis, and it will not create broad prosperity.

Foreign Affairs

Mr. Obama and his administration have been resolute in attacking Al Qaeda’s leadership, including the killing of Osama bin Laden. He has ended the war in Iraq. Mr. Romney, however, has said he would have insisted on leaving thousands of American soldiers there. He has surrounded himself with Bush administration neocons who helped to engineer the Iraq war, and adopted their militaristic talk in a way that makes a Romney administration’s foreign policies a frightening prospect.

Mr. Obama negotiated a much tougher regime of multilateral economic sanctions on Iran. Mr. Romney likes to say the president was ineffective on Iran, but at the final debate he agreed with Mr. Obama’s policies. Mr. Obama deserves credit for his handling of the Arab Spring. The killing goes on in Syria, but the administration is working to identify and support moderate insurgent forces there. At the last debate, Mr. Romney talked about funneling arms through Saudi Arabia and Qatar, which are funneling arms to jihadist groups.

Mr. Obama gathered international backing for airstrikes during the Libyan uprising, and kept American military forces in a background role. It was smart policy.

In the broadest terms, he introduced a measure of military restraint after the Bush years and helped repair America’s badly damaged reputation in many countries from the low levels to which it had sunk by 2008.

The Supreme Court

The future of the nation’s highest court hangs in the balance in this election — and along with it, reproductive freedom for American women and voting rights for all, to name just two issues. Whoever is president after the election will make at least one appointment to the court, and many more to federal appeals courts and district courts.

Mr. Obama, who appointed the impressive Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, understands how severely damaging conservative activism has been in areas like campaign spending. He would appoint justices and judges who understand that landmarks of equality like the Voting Rights Act must be defended against the steady attack from the right.

Mr. Romney’s campaign Web site says he will “nominate judges in the mold of Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito,” among the most conservative justices in the past 75 years. There is no doubt that he would appoint justices who would seek to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Civil Rights

The extraordinary fact of Mr. Obama’s 2008 election did not usher in a new post-racial era. In fact, the steady undercurrent of racism in national politics is truly disturbing. Mr. Obama, however, has reversed Bush administration policies that chipped away at minorities’ voting rights and has fought laws, like the ones in Arizona, that seek to turn undocumented immigrants into a class of criminals.

The military’s odious “don’t ask, don’t tell” rule was finally legislated out of existence, under the Obama administration’s leadership. There are still big hurdles to equality to be brought down, including the Defense of Marriage Act, the outrageous federal law that undermines the rights of gay men and lesbians, even in states that recognize those rights.

Though it took Mr. Obama some time to do it, he overcame his hesitation about same-sex marriage and declared his support. That support has helped spur marriage-equality movements around the country. His Justice Department has also stopped defending the Defense of Marriage Act against constitutional challenges.

Mr. Romney opposes same-sex marriage and supports the federal act, which not only denies federal benefits and recognition to same-sex couples but allows states to ignore marriages made in other states. His campaign declared that Mr. Romney would not object if states also banned adoption by same-sex couples and restricted their rights to hospital visitation and other privileges.

Mr. Romney has been careful to avoid the efforts of some Republicans to criminalize abortion even in the case of women who had been raped, including by family members. He says he is not opposed to contraception, but he has promised to deny federal money to Planned Parenthood, on which millions of women depend for family planning.

For these and many other reasons, we enthusiastically endorse President Barack Obama for a second term, and express the hope that his victory will be accompanied by a new Congress willing to work for policies that Americans need.

And NYT officially endorses Obama. Not surprised by the endorsement, nor do I significantly dissent from it. There's also an interesting feature on past endorsements by the paper-some of which in retrospect are quite amusing such as its endorsement of Alton B Parker (over Theodore Roosvelt), Woodrow Wilson, and George McGovern.

[CaptJodan]

Mittens will have to get BOTH Florida and Ohio AND one of the swing states, right now only Colorado looks to be really in play. NC and VA are likely to goto Romney, but even with those, Obama still has a good lead. Really there would have to be a huge upset in the trends right now for all the current models and predictions to be turned on end.

I'm reasonably certain Mittens has Florida in the bag. It may be close (as it usually is) but it seems he has the momentum down here. The push from the Romney camp seems stronger down here than it does from the Obama camp. In my area alone, there is a far higher proportion of Romney signs on people's lawns as opposed to Obama signs, and I was talking to a friend of mine in Pinellas County, which apparently also was a swing area last time around, and he says it's going Romney as well. Cars on the road also have disproportionally more Romney stickers.

All of that is anecdotal, of course, but it seems to support 528's "lean Romney" prediction. I remember that Orange and Seminole counties helped put Obama over the top last time, but I don't think they're going to swing that way this time. Seminole certainly isn't.

[Starglider]

And NYT officially endorses Obama.

The NYT has endorsed every democratic candidate since Kennedy in 1960 (even Mondale in 1984), and was overwhelming Democrat-supporting from 1884 onwards. As such this is not very meaningful.