| Obama | Romney |
| 86.5% probability of winning | 13.5% probability of winning |
| Mean of 288 electoral votes | Mean of 250 electoral votes |
The previous analysis showed President Barack Obama leading Gov. Mitt Romney by 295 to 243 electoral votes. The Monte Carlo simulation had Obama winning 93.9% of the elections, and Romney winning 6.1%.
The polls have been trickling in over the weekend and on Monday. At press time (which really means, “start running the analysis” time I was able to dig up 16 new polls:
| start | end | sample | % | % | % | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| st | poll | date | date | size | MOE | O | R | diff |
| AZ | Rocky Mountain | 04-Oct | 10-Oct | 523 | 4.4 | 44 | 42 | O+2 |
| CO | Gravis Marketing | 05-Oct | 11-Oct | 2089 | 2.2 | 48.4 | 46.0 | O+2.4 |
| FL | Gravis Marketing | 13-Oct | 14-Oct | 617 | 4.0 | 48 | 49 | R+1 |
| FL | PPP | 12-Oct | 14-Oct | 791 | 3.4 | 48 | 49 | R+1 |
| GA | Abt SRBI | 08-Oct | 12-Oct | 706 | 5.3 | 43 | 51 | R+8 |
| ID | Mason-Dixon | 08-Oct | 10-Oct | 625 | 4.0 | 27 | 63 | R+36 |
| IA | ARG | 11-Oct | 14-Oct | 600 | 4.0 | 48 | 48 | tie |
| NM | Research & Polling | 09-Oct | 11-Oct | 658 | 3.8 | 49 | 39 | O+10 |
| NC | PPP | 12-Oct | 14-Oct | 1084 | 3.0 | 47 | 49 | R+2 |
| NC | High Point U | 06-Oct | 10-Oct | 302 | — | 43 | 49 | R+6 |
| NC | High Point U | 29-Sep | 04-Oct | 291 | — | 49 | 40 | O+9 |
| OH | PPP | 12-Oct | 13-Oct | 880 | 3.3 | 51 | 46 | O+5 |
| PA | PPP | 12-Oct | 14-Oct | 500 | 4.4 | 51 | 44 | O+7 |
| PA | Muhlenberg | 10-Oct | 14-Oct | 438 | 5.0 | 47 | 44 | O+3 |
| SD | Neilson Brothers | 01-Oct | 05-Oct | 762 | 3.6 | 41.1 | 51.6 | R+10.5 |
| VA | ARG | 12-Oct | 14-Oct | 600 | 4.0 | 47 | 48 | R+1 |
A big surprise from a new poll in Arizona: it gives Obama a weak lead over Romney. It seems improbable, but there you have it. There are only two current polls in Arizona, and Romney is up by +9 in the other one. Consequently, Romney would be expected to win the state with an 84% probability.
Colorado has Obama up by +2.4% over Romney in today’s poll. With eight current polls weighing in, the state is pretty close to a tie. Romney would be expected to win the state now with a 60% probability. Here is the trend:
Romney takes a +1% lead in both of the new Florida polls. Overall, he has a 87% probability of winning the state in an election held today.
We finally get an Idaho poll, and Romney leads Obama by +36%. Now we know why nobody wants to poll in the state.
Iowa is all tied up at 48% in today’s poll. But Obama leads in the only other current poll, so he ends up with a 59% chance of winning at this point.
The new New Mexico poll puts Obama up by a solid +10%—a margin right in line with the other two current polls.
There are three new polls for North Carolina, but notice that the High Point University polls include a pre-debate poll, where Obama leads, and a post debate poll, where Romney leads. He also leads in the third new poll (which is post debate). The current polls, taken together, give Romney a 97% chance of winning now. Romney has clearly recaptured the lead he held in August:
Ohio puts Obama up by +5% in today’s poll. The collection of 10 Ohio polls give Obama a +2% and 85% probability of taking the state in an election now. The long-term trend shows something of a dip in Obama’s lead, but not enough to tie up the state or give the lead to Romney.
Obama’s lead in two new Pennsylvania polls. Overall, Obama wins all ten of the current polls. That makes 37 consecutive polls that have gone to Obama, all the way back to early February.
Virginia gives Romney a +1% lead in the current poll. Romney leads in five of eight current polls and there is also a tie in one poll. Oddly enough because Obama leads more strongly in one large poll, he gets a slight overall advantage, with a 54% chance of winning an election held now.
After 100,000 simulated elections, Obama wins 86,465 times and Romney wins 13,535 times (including the 1,003 ties). Obama receives (on average) 288 (-7) to Romney’s 250 (+7) electoral votes. Obama has a 86.5% (-7.4%) probability of winning and Romney has a 13.5% (+7.4%) probability of winning.
The long term trends in this race can be seen from a series of elections simulated every seven days using polls from 15 Oct 2011 to 15 Oct 2012, and including polls from the preceding 14 days (FAQ).
Here is the distribution of electoral votes [FAQ] from the simulations:
Ten most probable electoral vote outcomes for Obama:
- 291 electoral votes with a 3.16% probability
- 278 electoral votes with a 3.02% probability
- 294 electoral votes with a 2.85% probability
- 281 electoral votes with a 2.76% probability
- 290 electoral votes with a 2.66% probability
- 288 electoral votes with a 2.61% probability
- 284 electoral votes with a 2.58% probability
- 287 electoral votes with a 2.40% probability
- 271 electoral votes with a 2.37% probability
- 280 electoral votes with a 2.25% probability
After 100,000 simulations:
- Obama wins 86.5%, Romney wins 13.5%.
- Average (SE) EC votes for Obama: 288.4 (18.3)
- Average (SE) EC votes for Romney: 249.6 (18.3)
- Median (95% CI) EC votes for Obama: 288 (255, 329)
- Median (95% CI) EC votes for Romney: 250 (209, 283)
Each column of this table shows the electoral vote total aggregated by different criteria for the probability of winning a state (Safe=100%, Strong=90%+, Leans=60%+, Weak=50%+):
| Threshold | Safe | + Strong | + Leans | + Weak |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Safe Obama | 157 | |||
| Strong Obama | 83 | 240 | ||
| Leans Obama | 31 | 31 | 271 | |
| Weak Obama | 19 | 19 | 19 | 290 |
| Weak Romney | 10 | 10 | 10 | 248 |
| Leans Romney | 54 | 54 | 238 | |
| Strong Romney | 96 | 184 | ||
| Safe Romney | 88 |
This table summarizes results by state. Click on the poll count to see the individual polls included for the state.
| 0 | 0 | EC | # | Total | % | % | Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8 | 4 | Votes | polls | Votes | Obama | Romney | % wins | % wins | |
| AL | 9 | 1* | 404 | 39.6 | 60.4 | 0.2 | 99.8 | ||
| AK | 3 | 0* | (0) | (100) | |||||
| AZ | 11 | 2 | 1026 | 47.9 | 52.1 | 16.1 | 83.9 | ||
| AR | 6 | 1* | 2006 | 38.3 | 61.7 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| CA | 55 | 2 | 1218 | 60.3 | 39.7 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| CO | 9 | 8 | 6914 | 49.8 | 50.2 | 41.1 | 58.9 | ||
| CT | 7 | 1 | 480 | 53.1 | 46.9 | 83.8 | 16.2 | ||
| DE | 3 | 0 | (100) | (0) | |||||
| DC | 3 | 1* | 94 | 88.3 | 11.7 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| FL | 29 | 9 | 6602 | 49.0 | 51.0 | 13.3 | 86.7 | ||
| GA | 16 | 1 | 664 | 45.8 | 54.2 | 6.5 | 93.5 | ||
| HI | 4 | 1* | 1549 | 67.4 | 32.6 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| ID | 4 | 1 | 563 | 30.0 | 70.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| IL | 20 | 1 | 637 | 60.4 | 39.6 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| IN | 11 | 1* | 736 | 43.5 | 56.5 | 0.7 | 99.3 | ||
| IA | 6 | 2 | 1056 | 50.5 | 49.5 | 58.6 | 41.4 | ||
| KS | 6 | 2* | 1143 | 39.4 | 60.6 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| KY | 8 | 1* | 557 | 42.4 | 57.6 | 0.5 | 99.5 | ||
| LA | 8 | 1 | 2548 | 37.9 | 62.1 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| ME | 2 | 5* | 2886 | 58.4 | 41.6 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| ME1 | 1 | 2* | 588 | 62.2 | 37.8 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| ME2 | 1 | 2* | 538 | 54.6 | 45.4 | 93.9 | 6.1 | ||
| MD | 10 | 2* | 1471 | 61.5 | 38.5 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| MA | 11 | 4 | 2261 | 60.0 | 40.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| MI | 16 | 5 | 3672 | 52.0 | 48.0 | 96.0 | 4.0 | ||
| MN | 10 | 1 | 900 | 55.2 | 44.8 | 98.6 | 1.4 | ||
| MS | 6 | 1* | 717 | 40.0 | 60.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| MO | 10 | 2 | 1147 | 47.5 | 52.5 | 11.6 | 88.4 | ||
| MT | 3 | 1 | 685 | 44.1 | 55.9 | 1.5 | 98.5 | ||
| NE | 2 | 1* | 728 | 44.0 | 56.0 | 1.2 | 98.8 | ||
| NE1 | 1 | 1* | 389 | 45.5 | 54.5 | 9.8 | 90.2 | ||
| NE2 | 1 | 1* | 352 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 50.0 | ||
| NE3 | 1 | 1* | 284 | 35.9 | 64.1 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| NV | 6 | 5 | 3621 | 50.8 | 49.2 | 74.8 | 25.2 | ||
| NH | 4 | 2 | 1056 | 48.9 | 51.1 | 28.6 | 71.4 | ||
| NJ | 14 | 1 | 550 | 56.0 | 44.0 | 97.9 | 2.1 | ||
| NM | 5 | 3 | 1804 | 55.3 | 44.7 | 99.9 | 0.1 | ||
| NY | 29 | 1* | 1426 | 64.6 | 35.4 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| NC | 15 | 6 | 3769 | 47.8 | 52.2 | 3.0 | 97.0 | ||
| ND | 3 | 1 | 588 | 42.5 | 57.5 | 0.3 | 99.7 | ||
| OH | 18 | 10 | 8255 | 50.8 | 49.2 | 85.3 | 14.7 | ||
| OK | 7 | 1* | 431 | 33.4 | 66.6 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| OR | 7 | 1* | 499 | 54.9 | 45.1 | 93.6 | 6.4 | ||
| PA | 20 | 7 | 3955 | 52.2 | 47.8 | 97.0 | 3.0 | ||
| RI | 4 | 2* | 900 | 63.9 | 36.1 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| SC | 9 | 3* | 4199 | 48.2 | 51.8 | 5.3 | 94.7 | ||
| SD | 3 | 1 | 706 | 44.3 | 55.7 | 1.9 | 98.1 | ||
| TN | 11 | 1* | 654 | 46.0 | 54.0 | 7.1 | 92.9 | ||
| TX | 38 | 2* | 2090 | 41.1 | 58.9 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| UT | 6 | 1* | 1149 | 27.7 | 72.3 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| VT | 3 | 1* | 415 | 71.3 | 28.7 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| VA | 13 | 8 | 6735 | 50.1 | 49.9 | 54.1 | 45.9 | ||
| WA | 12 | 2* | 1059 | 57.9 | 42.1 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| WV | 5 | 1* | 361 | 42.1 | 57.9 | 1.7 | 98.3 | ||
| WI | 10 | 4 | 3688 | 51.5 | 48.5 | 90.2 | 9.8 | ||
| WY | 3 | 0 | (0) | (100) |
* An older poll was used (i.e. no recent polls exist).
Details of the methods are given in the FAQ.
The most recent analysis in this match-up can be found from this page.
Romney made dramatic gains in the polls after the first debate because many voters who are dissatisfied with Obama now see him as a viable alternative. Mitt did it by repudiating or backpedaling from GOP litmus positions — for example, he now says he supports abortion in rape cases and regulation of business. But he has flip-flopped so many times — he is so clearly a man who will say anything to get elected — that no one can trust him to do what he says. That will limit the gains he can make by changing his positions on issues. So, we’re probably seeing Romney’s high-water mark; and if he can’t win his current poll numbers, he can’t win, period. Because there are no more votes left to mine where these came from.
Koch Brothers Warn Employees
Koch Industries, to no one’s surprise, has joined the ranks of companies warning their employees to vote for Mitt Romney or “suffer the consequences.”
http://www.cnbc.com/id/49420465
Roger Rabbit Commentary: What do Koch companies do to employees in third world countries who don’t vote for the local pro-Koch military dictator? Shoot them? Just asking …
This probably is the third or fourth high-water mark for Romney that RR has called.
RR’s optimism, as usual, has little basis in reality.
Romney has the upper hand in VA and yet due to a single Q poll showing Obama significantly up in that state, the state tips to Obama in Darryl’s analysis.
Romney has a substantial advantage in FL and in NC.
So an awful lot comes down to Ohio.
Were Romney to win FL and NC (likely), VA (more likely than not, Darry’s analysis notwithstanding), and take OH (not a given, definitely, but also a whole lot more likely than 10 days ago), Romney would need only to take one more of the remaining battlegrounds to reach 270 EVs and win the presidency.
Oh, and he’s tied in NH in a poll released today and not on Darryl’s list:
http://politicalticker.blogs.c.....hampshire/
RR, Romney needs a good finish in OH, and he needs to take one of the remaining states. Romney’s got momentum and polls are a lagging indicator, so they will continue to go his way at least until the second debate is factored into the responses given by those polled.
So Romney’s high-water mark hasn’t been reached, even if Obama has a strong debate tomorrow night. Do you understand that?
It was nice having the collective HA crowd’s IQ raised by several points while you were gone, RR. Welcome back, idiot.
I should mention that I pulled my EV stuff from Halperin’s blog page at the Time site.
He also says this:
One senior Democratic official expressed real concern tonight unlike I have heard before about Ohio potentially slipping away from Obama (the state has been trending Republican in statewide races, Rob Portman has become a force, religious and gun groups are flooding the state with voter contacts, two of Romney’s top strategists have recently won a statewide race there, etc).
Read more: http://thepage.time.com/2012/1.....z29QwkcD7K
Hey, RR: I read Halperin’s stuff twice tonite. Nowhere does it mention anything suggesting Romney’s hit his high-water mark.
Maybe you, lauded RR, have an inside track and access to information that Halperin doesn’t. Although his twitter feed says he spent the weekend in Ohio.
Bob, you seem to have such high regard for perhaps the stupidest man in Washington. I’d reevaluate your heroes.
Bob (Robert?) your FUD is growing more desperate, more transparent by the day.
You really should go back to your day job.
Sweet Jesus. I hope this recent trend discontinues.
Don’t worry, usual suspects: Obama will get re-elected in 22 days. Trolls, it’ll be OK. The government will be balanced against itself fairly well. Nothing dangerous is going to happen in the next four years.
Look at the NC trendlines for Rasmussen – likely they’re dialing down their partisan malarky so that the day before election day, they’re no so far off as they might be, should they keep up the propaganda.
Doesn’t bode well for Willard, does it Bob?
Hey Bob – how ’bout that fraud Ryan – showing up at a soup kitchen to steal some mojo, to pretend he cares…
How do you defend such a reprehensible schmuck?
It won’t likely impact he and Willard at the polls – people expect this sort of shit from Republicans.
If Romney did win, which I think is unlikely, he will continue the American Overseas Empire. I certainly am not interested in us pissing away another eight or nine trillion of borrowed money defending people who don’t like us very much. When are we going to finally realize that we don’t get to dictate to the rest of the world? Those nutty Islamic countries are never going to change as long as we keep screwing with them, and Israel needs to take full respnsibility for its defense and survival.
Let’s just leave all those foreign lands and worry about ourselves.
Speaking of Obama slips……..
Anyone else get the impression that Obama’s hiding behind Hillary’s skirt and slip?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....r_embedded
Now that Hillary’s assumed responsibility, how long before the first leaked memo that confirms that State had told White House about the terrorist basis of the attack well before Rice went on the air?
Unfortunately, the Town Hall debate tonite might not directly address this mess. I’m sure Romney will figure out a way to get into it, even if Crowley won’t.
About two months ago I made one of my more stupid (HA translation: stooooopid) comments and told someone who had referenced Ross Perot that Perot was dead. Took about 5 minutes for me to be smacked down, rightfully so.
More proof that Perot has not yet assumed room temperature:
H. Ross Perot: We can’t afford Obama
It is for these reasons that I am endorsing Mitt Romney. He has spent most of his career in the private sector. He understands how jobs are created. He understands how government can get in the way of that process. As a president, he would do what this administration has been unable to do, which is reform our federal government, pare it back, and — most critically — keep it from acting as a brake on economic growth.
Equally important, as a governor, Mitt Romney balanced the budget of his state for four straight years without raising taxes. Writing in all caps is called shouting, and that fact is something that deserves to be shouted from the rooftops. I should add that Gov. Romney accomplished this feat while working with a legislature that was overwhelmingly under the control of the Democratic Party in one of the most liberal states in the country. In short, although he is a rock-solid conservative, he knows how to reach across the aisle and make common cause with those with whom he disagrees.
http://www.desmoinesregister.c.....ck_check=1
Three points regarding the above:
1. Des Moines Register has significant penetration into IA households. IA is more or less tied. Those Gary Johnson supporters may be swayed by another former third-party heavyweight endorsing Romney.
2. A lot of the HA types continue to insist that I provide a list of five positive characteristics about Romney that induce me to support him, which I have declined to do because it’s enough for me to make sure that Obama loses, and on this site it’s particularly fun to point out Obama’s negatives and watch the HA crowd squirm as they (silently, in most cases) realize they have prostituted their moral and ethical codes in their continued support of The One. Were I to provide a list, however, it might include some of the items contained in the italicized text I inserted above.
3. This is a late endorsement of the GOP candidate. I think most of Obama’s endorsers are already all-in. Among notable GOP bigwigs who have still held back, the biggest (in my opinion):
Colin Powell.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-50.....nd-romney/
Will we see a late move by Colin Powell to endorse Romney? Say, on a Sunday talk show or four or five? Perhaps on the same Sunday that the OBL movie is shown by National Geographic?
Just a thought.
@ 10
1. Wrong thread, Lib Despair.
2. Yup. Noted. Totally mucked up, that visit. Although hardly disqualifying.
3. You’re absolutely correct that it won’t affect the vote. Look at what’s happening that’s important – Syria, Iran, Libya, Egypt.
Oh, and the economy.
It’s only about silliness for those who can’t make more forceful arguments about what counts.
No one better equipped for silly arguments than you, Lib Despair. Fire away.
I always thought Powell should have run for president.
military service should be mandatory for anybody serving in the congress or the presidency.
A few months ago Darryl ran a thread that centered around PA poll results, state voter registration breakdown and influence on poll weighting, when another commenter and I questioned the crosstabs in a PA poll.
Rather than cherrypicking a blog post and including some snark, I’ll just post the page link:
http://hotair.com/archives/201.....ing-in-pa/
for a piece that discusses most recent PA results, including a brand new Q poll released after Darryl’s thread was posted.
Look at the crosstab data. Romney’s within MOE in some of these polls (not PPP). If the poll is D +8 and 2008 turnout was D +7, and Romney is within 4 points before MOE is considered, a pretty good argument can be made that PA turnout will be closer to D +5 and that Obama’s lead is really around a point or so, before MOE is factored in.
At minimum, PA will require a strenuous defense by Obama during a period in which he also needs to defend NV, CO, and apparently even MN, if one asks why they just sent Jill Biden to MN to campaign.
He’s being spread awfully thin in the effort to stop the freefall. He had to spend most of the last 5 days cramming for the debate while Romney was out campaigning in OH.
The link is a good read. Crosstabs matter. Registration advantages mean little if people don’t show up to vote. PA might still go blue, but it won’t be doing it with a D + 8 or even D + 7 turnout advantage.
There’s a reason RCP has PA in its tossup column, despite Obama’s 37 poll winning streak.
@ 15
military service should be mandatory for anybody serving in the congress or the presidency.
I disagree. We have a volunteer defense force. There are many honorable ways to serve one’s country. Hillary’s never served in the armed forces, and yet I have never questioned her ability to make the correct, tough call about a defense issue.
This from a man who says this…
You really have no notion of just how big a jackass you are, do you, Robert?
Um, no.
My, we’re grandiose this morning, aren’t we Robert?
I find it hilarious that a Republican shill would presume to lecture anyone about moral bankruptcy or ethical failures.
Robert, do your employers know how much time you’re stealing from them with your incessant posting on this blog?
@ 1
Maybe my goal should be to get RR to start talking about Obama’s high-water mark.
That probably was sometime in September.
Yesterday Team Obama questioned crosstabs in a Gallup/USA Today poll that gave Romney a 4-point battleground advantage over Obama.
Maybe they should stop doing that. Comedy ensued, the latest guffaw being this:
Daily Kos/SEIU State of the Nation poll: Romney’s best numbers of the week
Swing state Obama 47, Romney 50
Blue state Obama 52, Romney 45
Red State Obama 40, Romney 56
http://www.dailykos.com/story/.....f-the-week
Romney’s up 3 in the Battlegrounds.
Last election, Obama beat McCain by 7, nationwide. Currently, he’s only up 7 in the blue states.
I think we can all agree that Romney’s got the lead, and the Big Mo.
Well, everyone except RR. And Lib Despair. And Rujax.
Those guys are the Larry, Moe, and Curly of HA.
Setting aside for a moment the utter silliness that somehow posting drivel on this site represents “enough for me to make sure that Obama loses”, do I understand you to be motivated by Obama’s loss more than Romney’s win?
I’d really like to understand that.
Is it personal animus toward Obama? Racism? Or are you really in favor of what you think Romney will do (everything he can to increase upward transfers of wealth and political power) but unwilling to be honest about it?
Doesn’t seem like there are many alternatives, when one expresses an overwhelming desire for the President to lose, while studiously avoiding the motivations underlying that position.
@ 22
do I understand you to be motivated by Obama’s loss more than Romney’s win?
Absolutely.
Replace ‘Obama’ with ‘George W. Bush’, replace ‘Romney’ with ‘John Kerry’, make the year 2004, ask the question of a liberal, and you would get exactly the same answer. Kerry was an unpopular candidate but so many Democrats viscerally hated Bush.
In fact there is poll data from that year supporting my last paragraph. So don’t start that racism shit.
Lib Despair/Moe,
First, you stop the bleeding.
I see your analogy about the horseraces, yes.
However, the anti-Bush animus was motivated by the warmongering and war fighting – costing billions of dollars and thousands of lives – for nothing, the accusations that opponents were traitorous, the obliteration of the surplus and explosion of debt to transfer wealth to the wealthy, the domestic spying…
What has Obama done, precisely, to engender such visceral hatred from you? What policies should he have supported/advanced over the past four years that would have avoided such hatred?
About the horserace, perhaps. But that’s effect, not cause – where does the incumbent-hatred come from? For Bush, it’s fairly obvious, as in @24; for Obama, what has he done to engender hatred from the right?
You’re awfully sensitive about asking about racism – which is a completely valid topic to question on its face. Curious.
Cap’n Timex seems to have evaporated…
Curious, we were just getting toward the underlying beliefs that have led him to such Obama hatred.
He seems to have freely admitted as much – that he’s motivated by hatred of Obama, analogous to us lefties’ hatred of Bush2. However, as noted above, that hatred was driven by policy, while Bush’s illiterate entitled frat-boy persona merely added to the disgust, rather than driving it.
With Obama, Cap’n Robert Timex refuses to give the rationale for his loathing, or the policy differences that a Romney presidency would effect, thereby highlighting what he found deficient with Obama. One wonders whether its personal, but he seems very uncomfortable, trying to shut down that line of inquiry about ‘racism shit’ before it can be explored.
So it seems that it’s either something personal, or a policy that he cannot forthrightly state. Seems he’s hiding something either way, which leads one to think that he’s either a racist, or a total greed-head.
Either option is vile, and certainly colors my view of the good doctor.
I think it was a couple of weeks ago that I stated that Obama would probably slip a bit in the polls because he had nowhere to go but down. It seems that about 95% of the electorate has already made up it’s mind, and a significant number have already taken advantage of early voting to cast their ballots. The remaining “undecideds” would have to fall overwhelmingly into Romney’s lap to change the outcome of a “swing state” (the numbers of which are diminishing rapidly).
Even the recent polls showing Romney up in Florida and Virginia (included in the analysis) show Romney up by only 1 percentage point. These are states Romney MUST win, along with some others. Ohio is showing Obama + 5, and that’s also a “must win” for Romney.
Absent a grevious mistake by either side, or some huge new external event, I think the table is set for the election.
This is just hysterical – go check it out!!
@ 27
Ohio is NOT showing Obama + 5.
A single poll – the PPP poll in Ohio – is showing that.
Ohio is a very close race.
Also very close are NV, IA, and CO.
Were Romney to take those three states he does not need OH.
So Ohio, while very important, is not a ‘must win’ for Romney when he can get those electoral votes elsewhere.
You guys keep writing ‘it’s over’ shit as if this very substantial and ongoing poll shift to Romney isn’t occurring. Let me give you a little clue. Look at what Darryl wrote, and specifically what he wrote after his overall Monte Carlo analysis giving Obama an 86+% chance of victory based upon known poll data.
Do you see any positive statements in support of Obama, overall?
No, you do not.
Darryl’s a statistics guy, and the current Monte Carlo result favoring Obama is not statistically significant. The last one wasn’t, either.
This race is very close, the poll data will continue to favor Romney at least until the debate # 2 outcome is included in the poll responses, and the race will likely remain very close or will trend further Romney’s way, right up until the end.
It’s time to stop cheerleading and to start looking very carefully at the numbers.
Nothing’s ‘must win’ anymore.
# 29: “It’s time to stop cheerleading and to start looking very carefully at the numbers.”
Why? I only commented because you did. As far as I’m concerned, the public polls don’t mean much anymore, except to the smattering of “undecideds” who use peer pressure to make a decision.
As of today, we are three weeks away from the ultimate poll, the election itself. I’m content to wait for that decision. If you are still arguing about which polls matter and which ones don’t, at this stage in the race, it says a lot about how you feel about your candidate’s chances of success.
@ 30
“The table is set.”
Oh, Robert’s back – did your boss leave?
Are you still ducking this question, Robert:
Eh, Doc?
@ 32
I harbor no visceral hatred toward Obama.
I think his policies have been bad for the country, and if he is re-elected and no longer accountable I think they will be significantly worse. I am glad that Romney is the nominee because the other main contenders had significant and sometimes disqualifying faults. I think Romney will do fine and I believe he will win, barring some sort of major disaster tonite or in debate #3.
I see no need to respond ‘precisely’ to your queries. When you begin, as you did, with a question of whether it is due to racism on my part, you are due no deference.
I’ve given you what you need to know.
No, you’ve reinforced that you’re a (not very good) propagandist for either greed or racism, Robert.
It’s either policy, or personal – that’s all I’m asking you to clarify – what is it? If policies, which ones and how will they change under Willard? If personal, is it his race?
I’m just trying to have some substance to the conversation around here, rather than just dancing around horse race numbers.
That’s all, Robert.
Oh please! You have the same visceral hatred towards Obama as you do towards Amy Goodman (who you’ve never met in person) and Rachel Maddow. Two women who choose not to conduct their professional lives caked in cosmetics. Oh how offensive to Robert the wise job creator.
Yeah what a radical. Doesn’t believe people should lose their house over a freaking case of acne. Not a word about corporate policies of maximizing profits in low wage sweatshops in Asia.. Ask any Sensata worker about Obama’s “policies”.
@ 1 @ 3
Hey, RR, if I’m not mistaken this is yet another ‘high-water mark’ for Romney:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/158.....oters.aspx
@ 1 @ 3 @ 36
Here’s RR calling a ‘high-water mark’ for Romney back in late August:
http://horsesass.org/?p=45676&.....nt-1180609
Hey, RR, those repeated, ever-higher ‘high-water mark’s that Romney’s achieving?
They mean your guy is drowning, dude.
Suck it.
@37
Wow….now you’re keeping an HA database?
How much of your employer’s time did you steal to create that? What would they say if they knew? Shouldn’t you stay focused on saving lives?
It’s like playing Whack-a-Mole with Dr. Robert. Do your partners have this hard a time keeping track of you?
Bob @ 37,
“Hey, RR, those repeated, ever-higher ‘high-water mark’s that Romney’s achieving?”
In fact, RR was correct in that thread. That particular analysis was Romney’s peak of the post-convention bump that, using the 30 day window I was using back then, resulted in a 3.1% probability of Romney winning an election then.
To make yesterday’s analysis comparable, you would have to use the 2-week window I am using now. With fewer “current polls” adding uncertainty, and less smoothing of trends, Romney’s chances back then go up. You can, in fact, estimate them around the Aug 29th spot in yesterday’s trend graph.
Essentially, Romney has just regained his high-water mark that he attained after the GOP convention, before the DNC convention & 47% remark drastically reversed the trend.
What would be necessary to falsify RR’s claim is for Romney’s winning probability (under a 2 week window) to get significantly better over the next week or so.
Bob @ 37,
“They mean your guy is drowning, dude.”
Get real, Bob.
If the election was held now, Obama would win with a 86.5% probability.
Obama isn’t drowning…he’s only up to his ankles!
If the election was held now, Romney would win with a 13.5% probability.
Romney isn’t out of the water yet! He’s up to his neck in it…but at least he’s breathing again.
Aren’t water metaphors fun!