User talk:Voxhumana/2012 Election

This poll needs an over/under or point spread either in terms of points or Electoral College votes. Theory of Practice Years of being an atheist: 30. Instances of persecution on that account: 0. 23:48, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

My knowledge of gambling is insufficient here, so tell me what to do (or go ahead and set it up yourself). VOX^HUMANA 23:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

US citizens who think Obama will win	13	Vote
US citizens who think Romney will win	2	Vote
Non-US citizens who think Obama will win	6	Vote
Non-US citizens who think Romney will win	3	Vote

Worship me if you must--User:Brxbrx/sig 03:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Ever heard of ballot-stuffing? Peter ^{This is not my first temporal anomaly} 03:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

"Should he?"

I was mostly commenting on the difference between who people think will and should win the election (and who they will actually vote for). Peter ^{This is not my first temporal anomaly} 03:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Such a discrepancy does in fact exist. Pretty sure Intrade has Obama at over a 60% chance of winning, while his polls against Romney only show him leading by 3 points. Mr. Anon (talk) 03:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't find the 'goat' option

So I abstained. Bad Faith (talk) 10:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

It's too early to tell. The US attention span is too short to make a prediction this far out. sterile^{sporadic heavy hitter} 16:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

This isn't a "vote" - it is an opinion poll. As RW people ten to have an opinion on pretty much anything, I didn't see a need for the goat option. But someone has added it anyway. VOX^HUMANA 00:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Electoral College

In response to ToP's comment about the Electoral College, here's my prediction. There are a lot of states almost guaranteed to vote for Obama (California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Washington DC = 201 EVs); a lot guaranteed to vote for Romney (Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, Wyoming = 123 EVs). Then you have several that seem fairly likely to vote Obama (Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Nevada, Virginia, New Hampshire = 96 EVs) and ditto Romney (Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Missouri, South Carolina, Tennessee = 68 EVs), which leaves Iowa (6), Florida (29) and North Carolina (15) as genuine toss-ups.

That's already enough to guarantee Obama the ball game (297-191 with 50 still in play). I'll go Obama 347-191 Romney as my final prediction. rpeh •T•C•E• 11:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

You're giving Wisconsin, which just re-elected Scott Walker, to Obama? --PsyGremlinHable! 13:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Definitely. The re-election thing is part of the reason why - there's a big incumbency boost in most political systems and Wisconsin is no different. Don't forget that, although they re-elected Walker, the legislature switched from Rep to Dem. rpeh •T•C•E• 13:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

And what's more, a number of Democrats voted for Walker due to concerns over the recall being politically motivated and there not being sufficient grounds for it. I'd still say Wisconsin, Michigan and Ohio are tossups, and could very well go red if the economy worsens before the election. Blue (pester) 16:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm basing my prediction on there being no huge game-changing event, like another 9/11 or Iran declaring war or something. Ditto with the economy - I'm assuming it's going to continue its slow-but-steady improvement, maybe with a couple of bad months. Yes, if things start going pear-shaped, then the states you mention, plus almost all the other "fairly likely" states are in doubt. OTOH, if Romney keeps fucking things up the way he's fucking up this Bain thing, I'd say Arizona, Indiana and Missouri come into play and even South Carolina, Georgia and Montana start looking interesting.

Obama is going to beat Romney easily in the debates. The only good thing you can say about Mittens' performance in the Primary debates was that he didn't screw up as badly as his opponents. I simply don't think any of the GOP field could have beaten Obama this time. rpeh •T•C•E• 16:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

@Rpeh, based on your original post, I'm going to mention one, rather insignificant thing (based on numbers) But Obama can get atleast one Electoral vote out of nebraska, based on how certain districts vote (How we do voting here). However for this election... his chances of carrying this district are not as good as before based on what i've read and seen. --il'Dictator Mikal 22:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you're absolutely right. It slipped my mind while I was writing. Call that one vote a "fairly likely" for Romney. rpeh •T•C•E• 05:14, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and New Mexico are toss ups. Three years into the Obama Recovery, some states are continuing to have job loss. Right track/Wrong track polls are your best indicators at this moment. Only an October foreign crisis surprise (Iran, North Korea, Syria) could save him now. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 22:49, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Republicans are trying their hardest to convince independents that the election is a referendum on Obama's first term, that it doesn't matter who the challenger is. The problem is, Obama was trounced in the midterms, so for the most part the referendum has already happened. We're talking now about the 5% of the population who haven't made up their mind about for whom to vote, and they are being barraged by ads from both sides. This election won't be about the economy in toto, it won't be about national polls on "right track/wrong track," it'll be about how that 5% perceives the two major candidates. And right now Romney is letting himself be defined by the Obama campaign. He's losing those all-important voters, and it'll take something huge to get them back.

Romney's the one who needs "saving," now. Blue (is useful) 23:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Blue, don't even bother. It's Rob, Mr. Alternate Republican Reality. Osaka Sun (talk) 01:20, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

That figure is closer to about 9% non-partisan/undecided. Obama's got about 44-46% solid popular vote going into November; a GOP challenger has about 44-45%. But there is always a "hidden vote" for Republicans & Conservatives in any polling -- people who by they're conservative nature don't respond to polls of lie to them. By contrast, liberal and Democratic strength is often is either reflected in polls, or even exaggerated. Even if the undecided-lacking-in party-identity-or-loyalty vote were to split evenly, it's still a tuff call for the incumbent with such a miserable domestic record. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 02:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

people who by they're [sic] conservative nature don't respond to polls of lie to them. Don't dilute the good name of "conservative" here. You mean the Bradley effect, Rob. Blue (is useful) 02:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think race is a factor in this, at all. No unemployed white guy who feels disappointed and lied to, or misled in 2008, is gonna vote for Obama in the secrecy of the voting booth just to prove he's not a racist. Dream on. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 02:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

What? I was responding to your claim that conservatives tend to lie to pollsters. I pointed out that only some "conservatives" do, and they are probably saying they're undecided or will vote for Obama (because they don't want to seem racist to the pollster) only to vote for Romney in the end. Nowhere did I imply the reverse is true. Blue (is useful) 02:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

There's no disagreement, the hidden vote is only some conservatives. As to the Bradly effect, those were not conservative or Republican voters lying to pollsters. They were Democrats and undecideds/independants, what I referred to as "exaggerated". nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 02:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)