politics and politicians
See other politics and politicians Articles
Title: Election Predictions
Source:
Dissenting Opinions
URL Source: http://jwpegler.blogspot.com/2012/11/election-predictions.html
Published: Nov 3, 2012
Author: jwpegler
Post Date: 2012-11-03 19:26:29 by jwpegler
Keywords: None
Views: 41088
Comments: 65
We are three days away from one of the two most consequential elections in my lifetime (along with 1980). So, it's time to go out on a limb and make my predictions for what is likely going to happen. Presidency Mitt Romney will be elected the next President of the United States. No President since Franklin Roosevelt has won reelection with the unemployment rate above 7.2%. No President ever has won reelection with a smaller share of the vote than he got when originally elected to the Presidency... and no one anywhere argues that Obama will get more than the 52.9% of the vote he got in 2008. The country has been in a sour mood for about four years now. Obama will pay the price, just like McCain did in 2008. They will have both paid the price for denying that the country is in dire economic straights. The big difference between McCain and Obama is that Obama is in charge of the country's troubles. Yes, there are a couple of polls (Quinnipiac and Marist) that show Obama with a substantial lead. However, those polls have unrealistic turnout models. They are both projecting Democrat turnout at or above the record 2008 levels, when people who have never voted before, and may never vote again, turned out to elect America's first black President. We are not going to see an 8 point Democrat advantage in turnout this year. Averaging the 2004, 2006, 2008, and 2010 turnouts gives the GOP a 1% advantage in turnout. This would turn Obama's 5% lead in the Quinnipiac poll into a 4% Romney lead. In addition, in every poll, Romney is leading among independent voters. Romney will get somewhere between 271 and 331 votes. I have a bunch of very realistic models that predict this range. It will definitely not be a landslide like Nixon or Reagan. But unseating a sitting President will be enough to give him the mandate he needs to get the economy back on track. There is a small chance that Romney will win the popular vote, but Obama will win the electoral vote. This is an increasingly popular fantasy with the mainstream media, who are desperate to see Obama re-elected. This scenario had some credibility 2 to 3 weeks ago. But probably no longer. House Republicans will retain control of the House. There is no question about this at all. The GOP could lose up to 5 seats. If Romney wins, they could gain up to 5 seats. Given their advantage with the last redistricting, the GOP should easily pick up 20 to 25 seats. They won't. It demonstrates how incompetent the House GOP "leadership" really is. Senate The Senate should have been a blowout in favor of the GOP this year. There are twice as many Democrat seats up for grabs than Republican seats, and the country is in a sour mood. Unfortunately, like 2010, the GOP nominated many of the wrong people. In 2010, the GOP nominated and won with great people like Rand Paul. However, they also got their ass kicked with the witch from Delaware and the religious kook from Nevada. If the various Tea Parties want to have a sustained positive influence on the country, they need to be able to distinguish between GREAT reformers like Rand Paul and self-serving kooks like Christine O'Donnell. This year, the GOP could have easily won Senate races in Indiana and Missouri. Yet, the are struggling because the GOP candidates in both states made idiotic comments about rape. It's a message to the Tea Parties -- not to be more "moderate", but to be more discerning (selective) about the people they support. The Senate will be tight -- a small Democrat majority is very likely, but a small Republican majority is still possible, in spite of the GOP's idiocy. My prediction is that the Democrats will barely retain control.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 49.
#6. To: jwpegler (#0)
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/ Nate Silver's record speaks for itself.
Nate Silver's record speaks for itself. Yes it does. In 2010, he projected the GOP would pick up 54 seats in the House. They picked up 63 seats - - a whopping 17% difference. In 2010, there were only 4 close Senate races (Colorado, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Alaska). Silver got 3 of the 4 (75%) wrong. For example, Silver predicted that Sharron Angle was going to win Nevada by 3 points. Harry Reid won by 5.5% - - that's a huge 8.5% difference. This year, he gave Santorum an 18% chance of winning the Iowa Caucus and Romney a 44% of winning. Santorum basically tied Romney with 25% of the vote. Silver is NOT infallible. He is going to be wrong again this year.
indeed. Consider Nate Silver's 2010 track record: He correctly predicted 34/36 Senate seats whose outcomes were resolved by November 4, 2010 He predicted a net gain of 54 seats in the House for Republicans (the House actually gained 63 Republicans) Nate correctly predicted the outcome in 36 of 37 gubernatorial elections Importantly, even the elections that Nate got wrong were with in his published margins of error -- i.e., the candidate was projected to get 50.5% of the vote +/- 1.5%, but got 49.5%; it's technically 'wrong' (wrong candidate won), but still a very good prediction. Really, the best measure of Silver's accuracy would be to compare how often reality fell within his margin of error bars; better yet, how often reality fell within his error margins compared to others. http://www.quora.com/Nate-Silver/How-many-House-Senate-and-Governor-races-did- the-NYTs-Nate-Silver-correctly-predict-winners-for-versus-other-well-kno
WOW. We really needed a guru to predict that Barbara Boxer was going to win yet again... What great insight he provided! In the 4 Senate races that were competitive in 2010, Silver was wrong 3 times -- a whopping 75% failure rate. He got the Nevada race wrong by 8.5 points -- he said Sharon Angel would win by 3 points and she lost by 5.5 points. Yep, what a "guru" he really is. Silver has a blog in the New York Times, as does the economic "guru" Paul Krugman, whose head is stuck in the 1930s. They are both cracked.
I'm registered Republican in California yet I got not one flyer advocating the election of Romney/Ryan from the campaign.
Why would they waste their money on California? I live in Washington and I didn't see anything from Romney. It would have been a waste of money.
#51. To: jwpegler (#49)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#12. To: Jameson (#6)
(Edited)
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/
#14. To: jwpegler (#12)
Silver is NOT infallible.
#18. To: Jameson (#14)
(Edited)
He correctly predicted 34/36 Senate seats
#41. To: jwpegler (#18)
(Edited)
#49. To: mininggold (#41)
I'm registered Republican in California yet I got not one flyer advocating the election of Romney/Ryan from the campaign.
Replies to Comment # 49. 
End Trace Mode for Comment # 49.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]