General Election Thread (no partisan sniping allowed!)

[JasonEvans]

Ok folks, we are going to try again.

The GOP nominating race is done. Now we move onto the election of Obama vs. Romney.

The rules for this thread are quite simple: Keep it civil and non-partisan. If you want to talk about poll results or how various strategies might or might not appeal to voters, that is fine. But, if you make what is seen as a partisan argument, you will be cited and punished. The mods (mostly me) will be keeping a tight leash on this thread. It is not enough to merely say, "Don't cross the line..." In this thread, the mantra is, "don't even approach the line."

The vast, vast majority of posters in the GOP thread did a good job of maintaining non-partisan civility. I am certain we can do the same here.

Thanks... and happy posting!

--Jason "please, please report anything you even begin to consider partisan or argumentative... let the Mods deal with it" Evans

[OldPhiKap]

I will be curious to see how the different sides spin the French results. Rejection of austerity and vindication of stimulus? Or rejection of incumbent status-quo and vindication of a new path?

My guess is that the former is more likely true than the latter, although there will be a large dash of both come November I suspect.

[Duvall]

I will be curious to see how the different sides spin the French results. Rejection of austerity and vindication of stimulus? Or rejection of incumbent status-quo and vindication of a new path?

My guess is that the former is more likely true than the latter, although there will be a large dash of both come November I suspect.

Will either side bother spinning the results? The segment of the electorate that pays enough attention to European politics closely enough to be swayed by an analogy to the U.S. seems rather small.

[OldPhiKap]

Will either side bother spinning the results? The segment of the electorate that pays enough attention to European politics closely enough to be swayed by an analogy to the U.S. seems rather small.

I guess we'll know the answer watching Fox and MSNBC tonight. But I would argue that the course of the economy between now and November depends more on Europe and Iran than anything domestic (natural disasters excluded).

[davekay1971]

I'm glad Jason's got the trust to initiate this thread. I'll probably recuse myself since I already have a problem merely perusing facebook without getting into political, ahem, discussions. Good luck ladies and gentlemen!

[gus]

I guess we'll know the answer watching Fox and MSNBC tonight. But I would argue that the course of the economy between now and November depends more on Europe and Iran than anything domestic (natural disasters excluded).

This seems like a story that spins itself.

From the Fox News watching crowd: "Austerity rejected by European Socialists". Implication: Austerity good!
From the MSNBC Crowd: "Austerity rejected by European voters". Implication: Austerity bad!

No spin needed.

For a majority of the rest: like Duvall intimated: "Holland took over France?"

[OldPhiKap]

For a majority of the rest: like Duvall intimated: "Holland took over France?"

Now that's pretty funny right there.

As long as Angela Merkel has a sense of humor, of course.

[hurleyfor3]

I will be curious to see how the different sides spin the French results. Rejection of austerity and vindication of stimulus? Or rejection of incumbent status-quo and vindication of a new path?

Or just France being France.

[Olympic Fan]

A pretty good resource for the coming six months is the projected Electoral College map at Real Clear Politics -- which is derived by averaging the various polling data.

You can check out how it stands right now at the end of April/start of May:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...llege_map.html

Obviously a long way to go, but the current map shows what Romney has to overcome to win. The current map gives Obama 161 firm Electoral votes with 92 leaning in his direction. That leaves him with 253 -- just 17 short of the 270 needed for election. Romney starts with a base of 131 EVs and 39 leaning -- just 170 votes.

There are still nine states with 115 EVs that are too close to call. But even that data is breaking in Obama's favor. He currently leads Ohio (18 votes) by 4.2 points; Virginia (13) by 3.2 points; New Hampshire (4) by 3.5; Iowa (6) by 3.0; North Carolina (15) by 2.4; and Florida (29) by 0.4 -- a razor thin margin. Romney holds narrow leads in Arizona (11) by 4.2 and Missouri (10) by 3.2 The latest polls in Colorado (9) have it dead even.

You see Romney's problem -- he's GOT to win most of these states (or detach strong Obama states to compensate). If Obama wins either Florida or Ohio, he's going to be re-elected.

If the election were held today, Obama wins 338 or 347 EVs (depending on Colorado). Of course, it's not going to be held today ... but I think the current numbers show the huge hill that Romney has to climb.

[Reilly]

Here's another good starting point resource:

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/cry...toral-college/

[Bluedog]

In addition to RealClearPolitics, I like looking at electoral-vote.com for the state-by-state breakdown. It ranked as one of the top 10 blogs in the world in 2004 and had over 1 million visitors a day in 2008. He updates it every morning with the latest polling data. His methodology is as such: "The most recent poll is always used, and, if any other polls were taken within a week of it, they are all averaged together. " Similar to RealClearPolitics' results, the polling data on that site shows Obama currently at 254 EVs (including "strong" and "weak" states), while RCP shows him at 253. It has Romney at 172 EVs (RCP has Romney at 170). That leaves 114 toss-ups (115 on RCP). Arizona and Colorado are exactly tied according to the latest polls.

[OldPhiKap]

In addition to RealClearPolitics, I like looking at electoral-vote.com for the state-by-state breakdown. It ranked as one of the top 10 blogs in the world in 2004 and had over 1 million visitors a day in 2008. He updates it every morning with the latest polling data. His methodology is as such: "The most recent poll is always used, and, if any other polls were taken within a week of it, they are all averaged together. " Similar to RealClearPolitics' results, the polling data on that site shows Obama currently at 254 EVs (including "strong" and "weak" states), while RCP shows him at 253. It has Romney at 172 EVs (RCP has Romney at 170). That leaves 114 toss-ups (115 on RCP). Arizona and Colorado are exactly tied according to the latest polls.

Interesting, thanks.

I have trouble believing that GA and SC are "weak" Romney. Last Dem to win GA was Clinton in his first term (lost the second). SC is as red as it comes.

[Reilly]

... SC is as red as it comes.

While true, I thought the discussion was about the electoral college map.

[Bluedog]

Interesting, thanks.

I have trouble believing that GA and SC are "weak" Romney. Last Dem to win GA was Clinton in his first term (lost the second). SC is as red as it comes.

Hmmm, I did not realize this at the time, but it looks like he hasn't yet updated it from the 2008 election results and is simply using those as the projection of Obama vs. Romney for now. If you cursor over the states, they say "Election 2008 January 1" as the source. SC was won by McCain by 9%, which falls barely under the 10% threshold for "weak." I would guess since Romney was fairly recently declared the expected nominee, there hasn't been enough state-by-state Obama vs. Romney polling yet. Although it looks RCP has some data, but if you look at the details, it's really old. For SC, RCP's most recent poll is by NBC News/Marist on 12/4 and has Obama leading by 3%! While Romney was +6 back in October of last year, which is meaningless at this point since so much has changed. So, as of now, it seems like both websites are not that accurate until polling companies actually have data that isn't several months old. Although admittedly, RCP has more recent data as of now for several states. My apologies for the confusion; I still like the site (even if it's not great for projections right now. In the fall, it'll be updated with polls daily for sure).

[Olympic Fan]

Hmmm, I did not realize this at the time, but it looks like he hasn't yet updated it from the 2008 election results and is simply using those as the projection of Obama vs. Romney for now. If you cursor over the states, they say "Election 2008 January 1" as the source. SC was won by McCain by 9%, which falls barely under the 10% threshold for "weak." I would guess since Romney was fairly recently declared the expected nominee, there hasn't been enough state-by-state Obama vs. Romney polling yet. Although it looks RCP has some data, but if you look at the details, it's really old. For SC, RCP's most recent poll is by NBC News/Marist on 12/4 and has Obama leading by 3%! While Romney was +6 back in October of last year, which is meaningless at this point since so much has changed. So, as of now, it seems like both websites are not that accurate until polling companies actually have data that isn't several months old. Although admittedly, RCP has more recent data as of now for several states. My apologies for the confusion; I still like the site (even if it's not great for projections right now. In the fall, it'll be updated with polls daily for sure).

Well, there are states were there has been little recent polling because there is so little doubt which way it's going to go. I would count South Carolina and Georgia in that mix, even though it currently shows them just leaning Romney.

As for the states that will be in play next November -- including every one of the states that is listed as a tossup -- there IS recent polling data, either the last week of April up to the first of May.

I prefer the RCP method of averaging poll results to the electoral-vote.com method of using the last poll. The trouble is that not all polls are created equal. Nate Silver did a breakdown not long ago, demonstrating that certain polling organizations have a consistent bias for one side or the other. I can't remember which he rated worst/best, except that he made a pretty convincining case that Rassmussen skews Republican. Averaging the recent polls is a better way of diminishing this bias (when there are enough polls to average).

Again, I agree that none of this is written in stone at this point. But the data is a useful guage -- even this early -- of how the horserace stands. I'd say they are on the backstretch and Obama leads by a length or two. Obviously, we've seen a LOT of horses come from behind down the stretch (am I pushing the horserace analagy too far?)

Actually, we can get caught up in a lot of debate about various states. But you know that Obama is going to win California, New York, Illinois and most of the Northeast. You know that Romney is going to win Texas, the Deep South and the upper Western States.

The critical states Obama HAS to win are Michigan, Pennsylvania and New Jersey. He probably does, but those are at least in play. For Romney, the critical states he has to win are Florida, Ohio and Virginia/North Carolina.

The reason that Obama is "leading" right now is not because he has a slightly larger base, but hecause the poll show he's in a stronger postion in his crucial states than Romney is in his.

[Reilly]

... For Romney, the critical states he has to win are Florida, Ohio and Virginia/North Carolina....

If I'm reading this right, I believe Map 2 at this link shows how Romney can win Florida, Ohio, Virginia and NC ... and yet still lose the election:

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/cry...toral-college/

[Olympic Fan]

If I'm reading this right, I believe Map 2 at this link shows how Romney can win Florida, Ohio, Virginia and NC ... and yet still lose the election:

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/cry...toral-college/

I agree that you can concoct bizarre scenarios that have Obama and/or Romney winning without traditional Democratic/Republican states.

Yeah, it could happen. But my prediction was that Romney HAS to win Ohio, Florida, Virginia and NC ... Obama has to win Pennsylvania, Michigan and New Jersey.

I'm not saying for 100 percent that if they do hold those states, they win ... just if they lose any of them they lose.

And, yes, I know you can concoct a scenario where Obama wins without New Jersey or Romney wins without Ohio ... I just believe that in the real world, that doesn't happen.

[hurleyfor3]

If I'm reading this right, I believe Map 2 at this link shows how Romney can win Florida, Ohio, Virginia and NC ... and yet still lose the election:

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/cry...toral-college/

Flip IN and NH as well, both very possible with Romney, and you get a 269-269 tie. Then it comes down the one congressional district in Nebraska that went for Obama in 2008.

Another calculator is here: http://www.uselectionatlas.org/TOOLS/evcalc.php (Dave Liep switches the colors around, as his site was established before the Red=R Blue=D convention became entrenched.)

[Olympic Fan]

Reading Sabato's blog, linked above, made an interesting point about Ohio. No Republican has ever won the White House without winning Ohio. And Ohio has voted for the winner in 27 of the last 29 elections.

One of the two misses was in 1944, when Ohio voted for Dewey in the midst of the FDR third-term landslide. Why? Sabato suggests it was because Ohio governor John Bricker was on the ticket as Dewey's VP candidate. That leads him to wonder if adding Rob Portman to the ticket this year would help get Romney over the hump in Ohio. In itself, that's not enough to beat Obama, but it is hard to see how Romney wins without winning Ohio.

Obviously, the same argument can be made for Mario Rubio and Florida, another battleground state that Romney has to win.

Think at this point, those are the two logical VP frontrunners. Anybopdy else?

[throatybeard]

Interesting, thanks.

I have trouble believing that GA and SC are "weak" Romney. Last Dem to win GA was Clinton in his first term (lost the second). SC is as red as it comes.

I have trouble believing Missouri is a tossup. I can't envision any scenario in which Obama wins here. Unless a couple hundred thousand old White people outstate died and no one told me.