freeman2 wrote:What I found interesting was that Obama's overall approval rating was 45 percent whereas the approval rating for presidents who lost reelection was in the 30s the approval rating for those who won reelection was in the 50s but those were all landslide victories So this poll is consistent with an Obama victory (even If not a landslide)

I guess we'll see. I think it's more consistent with this idea: people like Obama personally, but they don't think he's doing a good job. I think it's a bit of the opposite of Bush in 2004--they thought he had done a reasonably good job but didn't like him as much.

Based on current trends, I could see the President losing by 8-10%. The economy is going to be his burden and it's not going to improve between now and the election. It may even worsen. If so, It could be a real waxing in November.

df

The economy is going to be his burden and it's not going to improve between now and the election.

Silver

13,275.20. That was the closing price of the Dow Jones industrial average on Friday, which left it just a few points shy of its highest close since the financial crisis. The stock market has gained ground for six consecutive weeks.
The S.&P. 500 is now up almost 19 percent year over year. And it is up 76 percent since Mr. Obama took office on Jan. 20, 2009.
However; most are economists predicting economic growth of only about 2 percent over the next couple of quarters.
Research suggests, however, that when the stock market has improved significantly, the actual rate of G.D.P. growth tends to beat economists’ forecasts.

Moreover, if the election were only about the economy.... the effect of the economy would be paramount. But, particularly with the introduction of Ryan the election has become about Medicare and the current US Federal social safety net and what other programs Ryan and Mitt intend to cut. And taxes, who pays and who doesn't.
Mitt seems to have widen the focus of the elecetion from one issue, the economy, to many. And also to a focus on how very popular government programs, from which many voters or their families actually experience benefit .

In uncertain times, people tend to appreciate benefits from social programs more...
Interesting dichotomy. If the economy worsens Romneys chances should improve but if the economy worsens the importance of the discussion of which benefits Ryans plan seems to threaten grows.

There's an incredilbly wonkish examination of the stock market GDP forecast comparison here, which is whence the above quotes come.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.co ... more-33362

Watch Wisconsin.

Thompson ahead.

Romney edging Obama.

If WI goes red, watch out.

Florida/Ohio/Wisconsin/Virginia

If those four go red, Obama is not re-elected.

It is close, but trends are going more red...

True.

Gallup tracking:

Romney 47
Obama 45

Look at the Realclear map. The "toss-up" States are:

Nevada, Colorado, Iowa, Wisconsin, Ohio, New Hampshire, Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida. That puts Romney at 191, Obama at 237.

I think it's very likely Romney wins Nevada, Wisconsin, Ohio, North Carolina and Florida. I give him a slight edge in Iowa. If I'm right about Iowa, that's 275. If I'm wrong, it's 269 and he would need to pick up one of the others.

I like Romney's chances.

Nevada is in the dumper fiscally, particularly with regard to unemployment and property values. I think it is unlikely Obama can win.

The Midwest seems to have taken a bit of a shift toward Romney with the Ryan pick. We'll see if he holds that. Wisconsin is turning red because of all the Democratic shenanigans they tried to thwart Walker. The base is fully mobilized and . . . they now have Paul Ryan to support too. I think Ryan helps in Ohio as well.

North Carolina is not going to be close, particularly with the gay marriage plank the Democrats are putting in the platform.

Florida is going to be close, but the Republicans have many advantages--and it seems Ryan may help there too. I think the President is going to have his hands full.

Obama needs 38 out of the 110 toss-up electoral votes? I like Obama's chances. Not much of a bump with the Ryan pick, btw. Love that Ryan pick when you have to have Florida to have a chance. DF, you're going to have the same frustrating feeling Democrats had in 2004--losing to a beatable incumbent president because you have an extremely weak candidate.

Nah.

It's more like 1980. You've got an incumbent whose biggest achievement is unpopular and whose leadership is non-existent.

Take it state by state. Obama may only win Colorado. There is no way he wins Florida. Polls are showing seniors get it.

Plus, Biden is a clown.

Wisconsin becomes less of an indicator when one party's VP is from there - it becomes a more local trend.

Florida will be key, because if Obama gets that, he only needs one or two of the other toss-up states.

Bbauska

Florida/Ohio/Wisconsin/Virginia If those four go red, Obama is not re-elected

True, but you are being overly optimistic The case against….

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... html#polls
There have been 24 polls in Wisconsin. Only two have shown Mitt ahead. Both Rasmussen who tend to have a house effect of 3 to 4 points for republicans…
Ryan is a house member and elected from only one part of Wisconsin. It’s not like he’s guaranteed to be popular across the whole state. Moreover isn’t Wisconsin very polarized by recent state events? Even for the US? There are few undecided there…. Wisconsin is likely to go Obama as it has before…He won 56 to 42 in 08. Mitt wouild need a switch of 7% of the electorate.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... html#polls
Obama has lead in almost all polls in Ohio. Even Rasmussen has him tied. The auto bailout is popular here. Ohio is probably the key. Mitt can’t expect to win if he can’t get Ohio, and it’s not looking good.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... html#polls
Virginia’s demographics have been changing annually… Obama won it comfortably (6.3%) last election. And most pollsters predict he'll win here.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... html#polls
Polls have been all over the map ion Florida. Florida will largely depend upon how the seniors vote. Mitt has a helluva sales job to do on them considering the Medicare issue. He has to believe that they are willing to accept that they get to enjoy a program they really like, and also be comfortable with their younger cousins or children not getting the exact same program. He might pull it off. But people tend to care about their kids ...
The biggest problem for Mitt is that the electorate is so polarized and has been for a while. There are few uncommitted voters and that has also been the case for many months. As long as the election was only about the economy he had a chance to turn those dispirited by the economy ….
But three things are working against that: The economy is improving marginally and history has shown the direction of the economy is most important for incumbents…
Second; He’s widened the relevant issues. Although he’s tried desperately to remain vague about what he’d do, as he’s seen how being specific has hurt him in previous elections, naming Ryan handcuffed him to Ryan’s budget. It’s just specific enough to cause alarm amongst some voters and not specific enough to be easily defensible. His defence on his own taxes, and what he’d do with the budget specific both come down to “trust me”. That’s not a very effective sales argument. Ever.
Third. Obama plays dirty. He’s willing to get down into the weeds and fight fire with fire. Not the usual Democrat. It’s not inspiring. But it will be effective.
The one thing Mitt does have going for him are the voter suppression tactics. They may have enough effect in some states (Florida) to make a difference. The problem with winning that way, is that his election legitimacy becomes questionable. And that kind of question would legitimize Democratic stone walling in congress akin to what the republicans have managed for the last four years.
The long term health of society where power seems to have been won illegitimately should concern people. The 2000 election with the Florida election wasn’t very healthy, but people forget that polarization and acrimony had reached a very high pitch, until 9/11 unified the nation behind Bush…
Voter suppression and tactics like intimidation are common in countries where an entrenched minority are protecting power, but require the façade of democratic institutions to legitimize their positions. Chavez and Putin both have used these tactics). Most democracies have enacted neutral election commissions in order to ensure that the basis of democracy, the voting process, isn’t corrupted or seen to be corrupted. It’s a lesson that should be applied… (I don’t have a problem with voter ID, but if it can’t be systemized without bringing into question the whole process, then a rethink is required. Surely there can be a way to make this a reality, even if it requires a long lead time? Jim Crow laws and poll taxes are a part of history where clearly those entrenched in power sought to corrupt democracy in order to maintain power.)

@ rickyp: I can't wait until the election. Actually, I suspect you'll start tamping down expectations in late September.

You hit one thing right: "Obama plays dirty." There's not been his equal in 40 years.

Rickyp predicts: Wisconsin, VA, and FL for Obama.

Watch and learn, my friend. It's going to be a sad autumn for you.

For example, CNN surveyed registered voters to get Obama ahead in Wisconsin.

Really?

How many recall efforts were there in WI? Who do you suppose is more energized--the unions who could not recall their governor or the Republicans who have a grassroots Republican from WI on the ticket? I like Romney's chances a lot in Wisconsin.

I couldn't find the break down of political party identification of the responsdents in the link. I think that is also rather important to determine the amount of Democratic oversampling.

I have given up trying to convince some about election results and polling data. I will let November speak for itself. I did day latest trends though, didn't I? The RCP average goes back a month to 6 weeks. I think the upward trend since Ryan's selection is boosting the numbers. That is the uptick I was speaking to.

Granted, the sample size is small, but what would the polls look like if the only ones used are since Ryan's selection?

Bbauska, actually, the change in the rcp average is not due to an 'uptick' since Ryan's pick. The only polls since then are from Rasmussen (which usually is more favourable to the GOP, but has gone from Romney +4 to Romney +1 over the week) and Gallup (which is tending to show a slightly smaller Romney lead than Rasmussen and hasn't changed by much at 1 or 2).

the main reason is that the average only goes back a certain length of time (14 days in this case), and polls from late July and early August have dropped off. These were around 7 points in Obama's favour, and as the pollers involved have not yet repeated, we are not yet getting a full picture.

so far, the post-Ryan polls are not showing a boost for Romney compared to polls by the same companies pre-Ryan. They don't show a slump, either. Looks like we don't have any significant trend yet, but maybe more polls will come out this week (by 'significant, I mean in the statistical sense, being smaller than the margin of error).

DF and Ricky are both being absurd in this thread. Prognostications and deriding the other as silly for having a 'different' prognostication? Based in both cases on assumptions of what will happen over the next few months which are simple conjecture.

I still think that Obama has the advantage, but the campaigning tradtionally kicks off after Labor Day, and that's when voters will be starting to pay more attention. When the conventions are over and the autumn weather begins, that's when we'll get a view on who is winning and which states are likeliest to flip. Until then, certainty is for fools.

Prepare to buckle up boys; freeman2, bust out yer wallet:

Two University of Colorado professors, one from Boulder and one from Denver, have put together an Electoral College forecast model to predict who will win the 2012 presidential election and the result is bad news for Barack Obama. The model points to a Mitt Romney victory in 2012.

Ken Bickers from CU-Boulder and Michael Berry from CU-Denver, the two political science professors who devised the prediction model, say that it has correctly forecast every winner of the electoral race since 1980.

"Based on our forecasting model, it becomes clear that the president is in electoral trouble," Bickers said in a press statement.

As Scooby Doo says, "Ruh-roh!"