CalvinBall wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Unless things really slide toward Romney, I think 296-242 is something of a ceiling in the Electoral College for Mitt. Feeling better than ever about him winning though.

Seriously?

Ceiling too low?

des moines register endorsed romney, first time they've endorsed a republican since nixon

what's vegas saying right now? As someone (TP?) pointed out, that's probably the most honest appraisal out there.

jerseyhoya wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Unless things really slide toward Romney, I think 296-242 is something of a ceiling in the Electoral College for Mitt. Feeling better than ever about him winning though.

Seriously?

Ceiling too low?

I'd like to actually know if you're serious.

td11 wrote:des moines register endorsed romney, first time they've endorsed a republican since nixon

which of the five romneys did they endorse?

I am serious, Calvin. Why wouldn't I be serious?

because it's fucking stupid, is what he's implying

It's fucking stupid to think Romney is going to win? He's winning in the national polls. He is doing increasingly well among independents. He's campaigning like he's winning, which tracks with what I've heard from former coworkers, while the Obama campaign has the flailing, increasingly negative tone of a campaign that sees it slipping away.

There's no upside to me lying here. Most of you are lost causes, and I'm gonna be here posting after the election regardless of who wins. I write what I think, and I think Mitt is the favorite right now. I'm also a biased hack, so you're right to take what I say with a grain of salt. But I think I'm right.

I admire the persistence of your delusions and your selective, subjective evidence to support them.

national polls. ok. they really matter now.


there are NOT independents at this point, only self-deluded people who want to be asked their opinion over and over again.

pacino wrote:only self-deluded people who want to be asked their opinion over and over again.

i think you just perfectly described our little subculture here

Bucky wrote:

pacino wrote:only self-deluded people who want to be asked their opinion over and over again.

i think you just perfectly described our little subculture here

you want my opinion on your post?

jerseyhoya wrote:It's fucking stupid to think Romney is going to win? He's winning in the national polls. He is doing increasingly well among independents. He's campaigning like he's winning, which tracks with what I've heard from former coworkers, while the Obama campaign has the flailing, increasingly negative tone of a campaign that sees it slipping away.

There's no upside to me lying here. Most of you are lost causes, and I'm gonna be here posting after the election regardless of who wins. I write what I think, and I think Mitt is the favorite right now. I'm also a biased hack, so you're right to take what I say with a grain of salt. But I think I'm right.

Helluva a response there

I just read something interesting about the storm which hadn't previously occurred to me--it might have a distorting effect on poll results in the impacted states, as response rates will be lower (and phone lines might go out).

In terms of actually changing votes, though, I'm kind of missing how it will make an impact. It'll be long gone by the 6th, and early voting in Ohio is ongoing.

Everybody knows how Bush and Brownie botched the Katrina recovery in the Gulf in 2005, but a year earlier a couple hurricanes hit Florida, and whether because Jeb was the governor or because they knew it would be a consequential state in the election, my recollection is that FEMA did a great job throughout. I've always wondered if/how much that helped Bush in Florida that year, as he overperformed polls and won the state fairly easily.

Also just saw a WaPo poll of VA that had Obama up four points. I think they only sampled gay composting vegans though.

jerseyhoya wrote:It's fucking stupid to think Romney is going to win?

No, not stupid. But it'd be interesting to hear on what evidence you believe this.

jerseyhoya wrote:He's winning in the national polls.

I won't go so far as to say this is irrelevant, but the national polls are not the most reliable indicator of the probable victor, as Nate's post today details quite nicely. Particularly when the polling average has the two separated by a single percentage point (RCP).

Obama is very clearly the favortie to win Ohio, Wisconsin, and Nevada, as the polling averages show. Even if he wins 2 out of those 3, what plausible path to victory does that leave Romney?

jerseyhoya wrote:He is doing increasingly well among independents.

I suppose.

jerseyhoya wrote:He's campaigning like he's winning, which tracks with what I've heard from former coworkers, while the Obama campaign has the flailing, increasingly negative tone of a campaign that sees it slipping away.

This is the political equivalent of "I watch the games."

Romney could still well win. The problem with political and weather forecasting by percentage is that the percentage system necessarily assumes an event will happen a certain number of times - if something is 75% likely, you're kind of saying if we tried this four times, then this outcome would happen 3 times. Of course, the problem is that an election, like a day's weather, happens once. If Mitt wins, was Nat wrong to say that Obama had a 75% chance of winning? Or was this just the fourth of four times? (1 in 4 is hardly what I would call impossible odds, btw). Likewise, if Obama wins, does it "prove" Nate was right to call him a 75% shot?

In any event, you're entitled to your opinion of course, but you seem to be hanging an awful lot on a shaky set of national polls, while totally ignoring consistent leads for Obama in states that, if the President carries, will make a Romney victory all but impossible.

if you poll real americans, romney wins 100 to 0

mozartpc27 wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:He's campaigning like he's winning, which tracks with what I've heard from former coworkers, while the Obama campaign has the flailing, increasingly negative tone of a campaign that sees it slipping away.

This is the political equivalent of "I watch the games."

I was told tonight Romney's up in internals in Ohio, tied in WI. I don't think he's up in Ohio by as much as the poll says, but the demographic makeup of a lot of these state polls that Romney is doing poorly are in my mind implausible. Am I buying some polls over other ones because of a logical reason or because I want them to be true? Both? I dunno. And I think the way both campaigns have been acting the past week or two back up what I've been hearing. And you make a very fair point about a 75% chance meaning it's wrong 1/4 of the time, but I think any model that thinks there's a 75% chance that Obama is going to win right now is flawed, and any model that thinks there's a 75% chance he wins the popular vote is deeply flawed.

To answer my own question about how Romney could win while losing 2/3 of OH, NV, and WI, if he wins only WI of that group, he could win the Presidency by also carrying IA, VA and CO.

But honestly, we're drifting into the deeply unlikely here. First, there is precious little evidence Romney is going to carry Wisconsin. Second, his last few polls in Iowa haven't been so hot either. He could lose IA if he wins NH (keeping VA and CO), but I think his chances of winning there have been overstated (Nate has him at 30/70 against in NH).

Just not seeing a better-than-even likelihood of winning the EC for Romney here.

jerseyhoya wrote:

mozartpc27 wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:He's campaigning like he's winning, which tracks with what I've heard from former coworkers, while the Obama campaign has the flailing, increasingly negative tone of a campaign that sees it slipping away.

This is the political equivalent of "I watch the games."

I was told tonight Romney's up in internals in Ohio, tied in WI.

I just can't put much stock in internal polls. I understand if you can, or more importantly WANT to, but trusting internal polling (from either candidate) is like going to their website for "news" about how the race is going, IMHO, if for no other reason than they have fund-raising to do, and they ain't gonna do much of it if they run around saying "our internal polling shows us as really having to pull out a miracle to win this thing." Or whatever.

I am sure Walter Mondale and Goerge McGovern had internal polls that showed the race to be "tighter than what people think" and "pretty much a dead heat" where "even one contribution could make a difference," etc.