Its not too early to predict.... The narrative is unlikely to change without an over riding external event... The economy is improving, and even if it falters, Romney hasn't really convinced enough of the eletorate that he has better answers. Beyond that, he's cemented too many voters with perceptions that are unlikely to change. Hispanics, Women, Blacks, are going to vote overwhelmingly for Obama and I don't see Romney being able to change those funadmenta feelings without abandoning much of what he's said during the nomination process. He's capable of doing that, but with the public record, if he did, any credibility he has would be shot too.
Bottom line, the swerve to the right during the nomination process has doomed him,.

Electoral College: Obama 326 Romney 209
Percentage of Vote: Obama 53 Romney 46 Other 1

Edied to correct math.

I think the popular vote could well be about 53-46 to Obama

But the EC will be closer. More like 280-255 to Obama.

Still, it's probably way too early to nail down an actual prediction.

Obama 54 Romney 47 Other 1

I predict that this won't happen.

Or if it does then I predict much talk about a crisis in American mathematics...

Good spot ... this is a Canadian issue.

dan

Still, it's probably way too early to nail down an actual prediction

.

Perhaps you mean too early to predict accurately?
Simply by making a prediction I proved you wrong without the qualifier.
Point behind this early prediction, I dn't think much is likley to change...There's been so much campaigning, and so much media coverage that Romney holds no surprises.... And I doubt he can shake things up with his VP pick the way McCain did. (And lets hope he doesn't unleash another idiot of Palins' ilk).

rickyp wrote:dan

Still, it's probably way too early to nail down an actual prediction

.

Perhaps you mean too early to predict accurately?
Simply by making a prediction I proved you wrong without the qualifier.
Point behind this early prediction, I dn't think much is likley to change...There's been so much campaigning, and so much media coverage that Romney holds no surprises.... And I doubt he can shake things up with his VP pick the way McCain did. (And lets hope he doesn't unleash another idiot of Palins' ilk).

I mean that your confidence that little will change could well be misplaced. We haven't had the outcome of the Supreme Court's decision on Healthcare, and we haven't seen what the reaction will be to it. We haven't had either National Convention, and Romney's VP pick could well be significant if he can find someone who can mobilise the same kind of support as has been backing Santorum/Gingrich et al.

Which means that I have no confidence in my 'prediction' - which was more of a guesstimate anyway.

By the way, not only did your initial 'prediction' give a 102% total vote, the thread title is mis-spelled. Clearly accuracy is not that important this far out..

ruff

The economy is not getting better,

Well I could argue that it is with all kinds of indicators. But your right that it only matters how people feel about the economy. And people feel its getting better...The direction is right. Secondarily, since it is Romneys "strong suit" he'll have to prove he has something that will work better than Obama. And he's saddled with his oppostion to the successful auto bail out (The guy is way behind in Michigan polls) and republica support for tax breaks for the wealthy. (Obama's support for the Buffett bill is another shot in that direction. It cements the us against them narrative...)

The Gallup index of economic confidence has reached its highest level since January 2008, improving to -20 in March from -22 in February. The index has increased for seven straight months after falling to -52 during the federal debt crisis last August.
"Increasing optimism about the unemployment picture is likely a strong driver of improving consumer expectations," Gallup Chief Economist Dennis Jacobe wrote. "Monday's positive report about U.S. manufacturing could also help bolster confidence, as could Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke's apparent support for continuing the Fed's stimulative policies."

.Ruff

But arguing for even more spending and killing off energy intiaitives left and right are not going to help. Neither is $4.00 a gallon gasoline. By the end of the summer the people are going to be damn sick of that

.

Killing off energy inititiaves? US Domestic oil production is at its highest ever. What are you talking about? If it gets to a debate about what Romney would do .... he doesn't have an answer for letting the markets work. They are working... Thats why there's high prices. And Obama pivots to oil company subsidies and republican protection for them. I don't think this issue will work to the advantage you think it will.
Hell, even the recent pipeline issue is cloudy. Since the pipeline was primarily planned for exports of Canadian oil out of the US.

But we'll see.
When many of you on this board thought Obama had shot himself in the foot on the Catholic Church/contraception issue .... it turned out that it contributed to a huge lead in the polls for Obama with women... Women vote more then men, and they like Obama . Forget the specifics of issues, he's trusted more, liked more and his wife is greatly admired. Romney's faith hurts him here... For many women, his relationship with women is 200 years ago. (Not discounting his likeable Ann)

ruff

Most of the electorate is too uninformed on the specifics of this, and those that are aware of it understand the need for flexibility within a national election

There's no more effective negative campaign ad, then showing a candidate contradicting himself on an issue. There's plenty of these in the can waiting for Romney.
(I'm sure there's some for Obama too. But Mitt's record of contradictions is vast and awe inspiring.... )

I know how Ricky loves polls, so this is a favor to him:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150743/Obama-Romney.aspx

Romney 48
Obama 43

My prediction is that Obama will fail to get even 48% of the popular vote. Unless someone intervenes a la Ross Perot, the President will not win reelection.

I know, I know. What about CNN? I've read about that poll and there were many internal inconsistencies. What about Pew?

I'll make you a deal: no debating methodologies, no more posting of polls. Let's just wait. I am pretty certain the President's own policy priorities have sealed his fate. I will be happy the day after election day and my liberal friends will not.

That poll is surprisingly close for the last several months. I would have thought there would be more variation.

Romney's the best republican candidate and he's definitely got a shot, but if the economy continues to improve I think Obama's going to win. If there is stagnation or another downturn, Obama's going to lose.

Polls at this time are meaningless. At this pount in the campaign of 1980 if I remember correctly Reagan trailed by a considerable margin and some of us remember how that turned out. One thing I am tired of is politicians and talking heads saying how smart the American public is. The average citizen does not remember what he had for breakfast and has no clue what he will be having for dinner. Unfortunately for us and our children and other future generations, our current president has a very good chance of being re-elected. 40% of the electorate will vote Democratic even if Genghis Khan was running (Yes Republicans are similar) When half of the country pays no taxes of course they will tend to vote for people that will raise taxes, it doesn't affect them directly,or at least in their ignorance they do not believe it affects them. If you start from one point in that the government can not do ANYTHING correctly you will start to see what to do and how to vote. Romney is the best of a mediocre lot. Obama is HORRIBLE but to be honest McCain would have been only slightly better. The government is a cancer and the only way to figth cancer is to cut it out. We need to starve the government.

geojanes wrote:That poll is surprisingly close for the last several months. I would have thought there would be more variation.

Romney's the best republican candidate and he's definitely got a shot, but if the economy continues to improve I think Obama's going to win. If there is stagnation or another downturn, Obama's going to lose.

Continues to improve?



Housing market . . .

Gas prices . . .

Unemployment . . .

Deficit . . .

Debt . . .

I forget what the technical term is, but spending money (that is money that people have after necessities) has decreased slightly.

If the economy were markedly improved, you'd be right. However, at best, it's incremental. Plus, unless I'm wrong, the conservative SuperPacs and Romney's campaign need only contrast the President's grandiose promises against the spending and results.

Plus, there's the underwhelming popularity of the healthcare reform.

However . . .

rushtomyleft wrote:Polls at this time are meaningless. At this pount in the campaign of 1980 if I remember correctly Reagan trailed by a considerable margin and some of us remember how that turned out.

I agree. I've said this a number of times. I eventually got so sick of Ricky blathering about some polls, then getting into the weeds on why others were not accurate. I know, I know, I responded too much.

One thing I am tired of is politicians and talking heads saying how smart the American public is. The average citizen does not remember what he had for breakfast and has no clue what he will be having for dinner. Unfortunately for us and our children and other future generations, our current president has a very good chance of being re-elected. 40% of the electorate will vote Democratic even if Genghis Khan was running (Yes Republicans are similar)

I agree. I still think if most voters had to answer 5 questions about the government, they would lose their right to vote. I would also support only landowners voting. What politicians (R and D) have done by reducing the number of tax rates is ensure we have a voting revolution on our hands. How so? Because the non-producers need only vote for socialists to give themselves a raise. Hard work is to be punished or is "for suckers." Why work when you can live off the government?

Liberals shrink in horror at that idea. Surely no one thinks that way. Yes, yes they do. That's why we have generational welfare and public housing recipients. That video Alexandra Pelosi produced speaks volumes. Even if that represents 20% of welfare recipients, it's enough to swing elections.

When half of the country pays no taxes of course they will tend to vote for people that will raise taxes, it doesn't affect them directly,or at least in their ignorance they do not believe it affects them. If you start from one point in that the government can not do ANYTHING correctly you will start to see what to do and how to vote.

This idea that the "government" is somehow separate from the people, an entity that has a supply of money separate from the citizenry is at the heart of this idiocy. That's why I would eliminate unearned income credit (where the poor receive directly the money of taxpayers) and institute a minimum tax for everyone with annual income. Even if that tax was $10, people would understand THEY are the government. There is only one escape from poverty: work. I know plenty of people who have had two or more jobs for many years. Is that ideal? I don't know, but I do know that living off the government should not be a career path.

Romney is the best of a mediocre lot. Obama is HORRIBLE but to be honest McCain would have been only slightly better. The government is a cancer and the only way to figth cancer is to cut it out. We need to starve the government.

Romney won't starve it. However, I do believe he will put it on Weight Watchers. I even have some hope that he will do a cost-benefit analysis in Afghanistan and either get the thing over with or pull us out. We should have left two years ago, at least.

I was never a big Thomas Jefferson fan when I was younger but as I have gotten older I appreciate him much more. Some of gems of wisdom:

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.

To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father’s has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association—the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.

I think myself that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.

Dr. Fate: I even have some hope that he will do a cost-benefit analysis in Afghanistan and either get the thing over with or pull us out. We should have left two years ago, at least.

Perhaps. I have some fear that he will advocate a more muscular foreign policy that will result in more cost in both lives and money. It's so hard to know what Romney would actually do if elected particularly because we still don't know his core beliefs.

Doctor Fate wrote:Continues to improve?

Considering where it was in 2009, the bar isn't too high, but yeah, the economy is improving.

Housing market . . . is slowly recovering, though, it remains quite lumpy (Las Vegas would be surprised that sale prices of condos in Manhattan just passed their all time high.)

Gas prices . . . are too high, but overall inflation is pretty tepid . . . at least for now.

Unemployment . . . is falling, though it could be faster (for demographic reasons it may continue to fall even as employment growth lags)

Deficit . . . is very high, but may be one of the reasons the economy is improving.

Debt . . . is unsustainable, but cheaper to finance now than ever before, mitigating its immediate impact.

I don't think anyone would claim that we're in boom times, but there is growth: in the GDP, in employment, and in the stock markets, and if those things continue, even at their disappointing rates, Obama wins. That's my prediction.

That's not to say that everything is OK, the debt is a serious concern, but for the election what matters is the next 6 months, and the world seems to have a monstrous appetite for US debt for some reason.