When I posted earlier today, the RCP average was at Obama +3. It's now at Obama +3.9, thanks largely to the inclusion of one poll: a WT/Zogby poll showing Obama with a 9 point lead. It makes you wonder if polling averages, which are clearly superior to individual polls, could be further improved. This is what it currently says:

Obama: 49.1
Romney: 45.2
Spread: Obama +3.9

Using the kind of analysis I did previously, taking the standard deviation of the polls in the average, removing the poll with the largest deviation, running it again and repeating, you start with a standard deviation of 2.3, and the Zogby poll being 5 points out. Removing the poll farthest out and starting over, you eventually have four polls left, all with a deviation of 0.5 from the mean. The new average:

Obama: 49.3
Romney: 46.8
Spread: Obama +2.5

I think the method I used is probably more accurate than just an average, which can be skewed heavily by a single poll. The quick and dirty means of arriving at a similar result is to look at the median:

Obama: 49
Romney: 46
Spread: Obama +3


The thing that stands out when you compare the polls is that they all show a similar level of support for Obama, from 48-50. The support for Romney is where most of the deviation comes in, going from 41-47. The polls that show Obama with huge leads all show a lower level of support for Romney, not a higher level of support for Obama. What that means is that the polls with a big Obama lead show a much larger number of undecideds.

If in the Zogby poll, for example, Obama had a 9 point lead with no undecideds, it would be 54.5-45.5. Instead it's 50-41. Obama's "lead" is the same as the number of undecideds.

Originally Posted by B Butler

Americans Are Sick of Divided Government

The source on this one is the highly liberal Firedoglake, but as far as I know the poll means as much as any of them. Anyway, we are supposedly tired of (unravelling) deadlock, and ready for something more decisive. I suspect people are more ready for a party to gain decisive control if it is their party.

I just wonder how sick they are. When will they be ready to consider dividing up the country? That may be the only answer, unless demographics dooms the Republicans first.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

When I posted earlier today, the RCP average was at Obama +3. It's now at Obama +3.9, thanks largely to the inclusion of one poll: a WT/Zogby poll showing Obama with a 9 point lead. It makes you wonder if polling averages, which are clearly superior to individual polls, could be further improved. This is what it currently says:

Obama: 49.1
Romney: 45.2
Spread: Obama +3.9

Using the kind of analysis I did previously, taking the standard deviation of the polls in the average, removing the poll with the largest deviation, running it again and repeating, you start with a standard deviation of 2.3, and the Zogby poll being 5 points out. Removing the poll farthest out and starting over, you eventually have four polls left, all with a deviation of 0.5 from the mean. The new average:

Obama: 49.3
Romney: 46.8
Spread: Obama +2.5

I think the method I used is probably more accurate than just an average, which can be skewed heavily by a single poll. The quick and dirty means of arriving at a similar result is to look at the median:

Obama: 49
Romney: 46
Spread: Obama +3


The thing that stands out when you compare the polls is that they all show a similar level of support for Obama, from 48-50. The support for Romney is where most of the deviation comes in, going from 41-47. The polls that show Obama with huge leads all show a lower level of support for Romney, not a higher level of support for Obama. What that means is that the polls with a big Obama lead show a much larger number of undecideds.

If in the Zogby poll, for example, Obama had a 9 point lead with no undecideds, it would be 55.5-44.5. Instead it's 50-41. Obama's "lead" is the same as the number of undecideds.

This has been pretty funny, but it's starting to border on the pathetic.

One just needs to Google "new poll obama" in past 24 hours news to see why.

The polls are coming out fast and furious now. Since my last post, the RCP average changed again, from 3.9 down to 3.5. National Journal has a new poll showing the race tied. Last week (as shown in my earlier posts), they had Obama +7. I don't know how exactly one should interpret the fluctuations. I certainly suspect, as many do, that a lot of these polls have been biased in favor of Obama. But I'm not saying that definitively. It could be they're just really incompetent. Of course, that would be their excuse of last resort if in fact they had been deliberately skewing their data.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

For the last four years, we have been flat-lined. The stock market recovered, the economy has not. There has been no economic recovery.

No kidding.

It should be self-evident that reform in this case means putting them on a sound financial basis. My personal preference is to means-test Social Security and Medicare, but it is virtually impossible that either party will do so.

That would work for Social Security, but threaten the program as it would turn it from old age insurance to a welfare benefit. It's not near enough for Medicare. More importantly, it doesn't address the key problem with Medicare

The "stimulus" bill was a bailout of government, to follow the TARP bailout of Wall Street. Both sectors have been doing quite well since '08.

You need to document your claim about the stimulus bill, because what you said doesn't jive with the information that I have read.

The economy has not recovered. It achieved stasis.

Obviously you didn't even read what I wrote. I said the assumption was that the economy would recover on its own. By 2011 it was clear this wasn't happening, but by this time it was too late. Any policy that would help the economy improve would also help Obama's re-election chances. Republicans weren't going to support anything that might help Obama. Thus it was a fool's errand to spend a whole lot of time trying to come up with policy that might help. Republicans would be idiots to allow anything they believe might help to pass--as long as they pay no political prices for obstruction. As far as I can tell there was no price and so Republican obstruction made sense.

Increasing coverage (mandatory whether you want it or not) will increase demand, which will increase prices.

In a normal market, this would be true. If health care were a normal market there would be no cost problem, just as the rising cost of home PCs, software and interent services over the 1985 to 2000 period was not a problem. Health care is a very strange market in which the exactly same service can cost different customers (insurance companies) very different amounts. It is very strange because it is often very difficult to obtain the price for a service before you buy it.

If the Republicans win we'll start drilling more, which should drive the price down.

This is wishful thinking. Drilling has risen along with price. In 1998 about 1000 rigs were active, by 2008 there were about 2500. Price quadrupled over that time. Number of rigs in service dropped with the recession to below the 1500 level in 2009 and rose to about 2000 in 2010. Baker Hughes reports about 1850 now.

It is clear that the "Arab Spring", which Obama approached with a hands-off nod, has resulted in fundamentalist parties taking power.

And this is a surprise? Just what do you suppose the US could do? We did intervene quite dramatically in Iraq (and at enormous expense) and converted that nation from an enemy of Iran to an ally of Iran. We also intervened in Afghanistan, and the result will likley be a fundamentalist government once we leave.

A fundamentalist party has taken over in Eqypt. So what? In Libya terrorists attacked the US embassy, which now appears to be backfiring on the terrorists as national opinion turns against them.

We need to be exerting influence to prevent that from happening. We currently are not.

Enormous investments in Iraq and Afghanistan have reaped squat. What would you do, prop up unpolular dictators. Should we have assisted the Libyan or Eqyption dictators? how would that dovetail with our democracy shtick?

Four more years of the same is not a bold prediction if Obama is re-elected.

Nope its what I expect.

If we have continued unrest in the Middle East, oil prices will go up.

There is always some damn thing going on in the Middle East and oil prices pretty much follow supply and demand.

And when the rise is significant, it almost always triggers a recession in the U.S. It doesn't take a crystal ball to see this stuff, just common sense and some knowledge of recent history.

The only time a politically influence price spike caused a recession was in 1973. The very high oil prices in 2008 developed after the economy had already fallen into recession. The panic was caused by a real estate bubble, not oil prices. Even if high oil prices contributed to economic weakness (as is likley) they were not caused by unrest, but supply and demand.

JPT's theory wrong again:

General Election: Romney vs. Obama NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl Obama 49, Romney 46 Obama +3
General Election: Romney vs. Obama Quinnipiac Obama 49, Romney 45 Obama +4
General Election: Romney vs. Obama Gallup Tracking Obama 50, Romney 44 Obama +6

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I just wonder how sick they are. When will they be ready to consider dividing up the country? That may be the only answer, unless demographics dooms the Republicans first.

I hear civil war and dividing the country often enough in the T4T forums, but never anywhere else. I figure being into the theory we are more ready to anticipate civil wars and revolutions than other folk. Still...

When a country tries democracy for the first time, I expect trouble, a century or so of unrest and failing governments. One needs not just the form and paperwork of a democracy, but the culture and values of a democracy. This takes centuries to build.

Once built though, how often does it fall apart?

Anyway, I'm seeing nothing in the way of a spiral of violence. The divide is rural / urban, so it won't be easy to geographically divide the country.

I'm dubious.

And the demographics does seem problematic for the Republicans.

Originally Posted by B Butler

Once built though, how often does it fall apart?

Well, let's speculate a bit more, here on T4T. After all, Mr. Strauss said the boundaries of the US may look different after the 4T.

We're not talking about democracy falling apart, the way Lincoln did. We're talking about a country, and the world trend is for larger nations to divide. It depends on how much our love of the concept of a USA supercedes our frustration. My guess is that it probably will, but maybe it won't.

Anyway, I'm seeing nothing in the way of a spiral of violence. The divide is rural / urban, so it won't be easy to geographically divide the country.

I'm dubious.

Violence may not be needed to split the country. And it's early yet. The divide doesn't seem so hard to me. States with a strong blue or red majority would take their own urban/rural split with them. One scenario is for the blue states to join up with Canada to create a new contiguous country. If you look at the states that are trending blue now, there is a contiguous group in the north and east, and on the west, with only NM and maybe FL outside the fold. The red states are contiguous in the south, plains and mountains, except maybe AK. If some states split off, there might be a movement to join up with one side or the other.

And the demographics does seem problematic for the Republicans.

It does, but as young voters age, and poor voters get richer (if they do), they could switch allegiance. It's hard to turn off trickle-down. I hope we can.

from Real Clear Politics

Which Romney Will Show Up?
By Eugene Robinson - October 2, 2012

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...up_115637.html


Wednesday's presidential debate promises sharp contrasts. One candidate wants to repeal Obamacare, one candidate invented it. One opposed the auto industry bailout, one takes credit for it. One doubts the scientific consensus about climate change, one believes in it. One wants to "voucherize" Medicare, one wants to save it. One dismisses nearly half of Americans as a bunch of moochers, and one claims to champion the struggling middle class.

It promises to be an epic clash: Mitt Romney vs. Mitt Romney. Oh, and President Obama will be there, too.

..... It seems to me that Romney's prospects Wednesday night will depend heavily on his ability to explain why he has taken so many different positions on so many issues.

He was "effectively pro-choice" before he was staunchly anti-abortion. He supported stricter gun control before he opposed it. He promises to cut everyone's taxes while also reducing the deficit, but won't explain how.

Romney gives the impression of being willing to say anything he believes voters want to hear. That's why the conservative Republican Party base is so vigilant, always on the lookout for signs that Romney is wavering on the hard-line positions he took during the primaries. Softening his views on immigration, for example, might help shrink Obama's overwhelming advantage among Latino voters. But the base won't allow it.

I believe Romney's history of ideological flexibility explains why his "47 percent" remarks were so damaging. It's not that his phrasing was inelegant, as the candidate and his surrogates maintain. It's that Romney was speaking behind closed doors, among like-minded friends, and finally we could glimpse what he really believes. We could see what's at his core -- and it wasn't a pretty sight.

Of course, Romney promptly denied that the smug and callous man in that grainy video -- the one who lamented he would "never convince" nearly half of his fellow Americans to "take personal responsibility and care for their lives" -- was the real Romney.

At this point, it's unclear to me that a "real" Romney exists. If one does, however, he'd better show up Wednesday night. If there's one thing we know about presidential debates, it's that voters can often look right through the persona and see the person.

If Romney plans some kind of scripted "zinger" that somehow is designed to turn the whole election around -- a variation on Ronald Reagan's immortal "There you go again" -- viewers are likely to see through the artifice. He's not Reagan.

The same holds true for Obama, of course. But we know who Obama is and what he believes. Some people like him, some don't, but the nation has seen him in action for nearly four years. His job Wednesday night is clear: Defend his record and outline his plans for the next four years.

Romney's task is more difficult. For the umpteenth time, he has to introduce himself to the American people. He has to erase the impressions left by all the Mitt Romneys we met earlier -- the clueless rich guy, the heartless private-equity baron who likes "being able to fire people," the moderate who became a hard-line conservative and then became a little bit moderate again, kind of. And he has to reveal a coherent person, one whom voters can imagine as a leader.

The question is whether such a coherent person exists. In the business world, where Romney had great success, winning means saying whatever you need to close the deal. A presidential campaign, though, is different. At some point you have to say what you really believe.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Which Romney Will Show Up?

The question is whether such a coherent person exists. In the business world, where Romney had great success, winning means saying whatever you need to close the deal. A presidential campaign, though, is different. At some point you have to say what you really believe.

I don't know. At some point you have to try to convince people you've said what you really believe. Not the same thing.

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

PS: Whom do you trust, and why[?]

I trust Romney to say whatever he thinks will get him the most votes. He seems to be of the 1%, and I trust him to keep their interests at heart.

Obama? We've seen him for four years, and he's running on Stay the Course. He at times talks liberal and pushes change, but I don't anticipate him fighting hard for anything. If he hasn't got the votes cleanly in hand, he won't push to get them. His economic advisors are of the 1%, and I trust them to keep their own interests at heart.

I trust we'll get the best government money can buy.

Your Highness? Do you really think we ought to be trusting politicians?

Trust yourself, and know the truth, be open to it, and act on it.

I know business is sometimes called the "real world," but I can't think of a world that is as far removed from reality as the business world. It is all based on a complete abstraction: money. The last people we should trust are business people, especially big business people, although I know all people have different hats.

Are you interested in winning, or in whining? Just a fun play on words there. I admit sometimes I can't tell the difference.

I am always willing to believe the best about people. Unless they are Republican politicians. But even then, I can stand corrected. But I dunno about some people who choose not to believe facts that are reported. They better have some facts too.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

The polls are coming out fast and furious now. Since my last post, the RCP average changed again, from 3.9 down to 3.5. National Journal has a new poll showing the race tied. Last week (as shown in my earlier posts), they had Obama +7. I don't know how exactly one should interpret the fluctuations. I certainly suspect, as many do, that a lot of these polls have been biased in favor of Obama. But I'm not saying that definitively. It could be they're just really incompetent. Of course, that would be their excuse of last resort if in fact they had been deliberately skewing their data.

The polls are indeed coming out, most of them on the states that most seem to matter.

Here is a good, professional website on the 2012 Presidential election with much insight on the US Senate.

A hint: President Obama seems to be stuck in the range of 320 electoral votes. Read it and weep, because the Senate that looked ripe for a GOP takeover isn't so ripe anymore. There's little on the House.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

Here's mine

http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/ind...758#msg3448758

which is modeled partly upon electoral-vote.com but is adapted for what I think are the realities of the last five weeks of an electoral campaign. It is faster to recognize any solidification of support (which may be the ultimate reality in this election) or any collapse by a Presidential candidate, which remains a possibility. An 8% lead that looks vulnerable in June that does not get whittled down by October is downright-solid. electoralvote.com uses thresholds of 1%, 5%, and 10% margins which are fine in all but the last six months of the election. 4% is the usual margin of error in a poll; 8% is solid late.

If the color pattern that I show looks strange, then it is because I have blogs within a blog for all practical purposes and I must adopt the conventions of the meta-blog for coloring. Contrary to most contemporary reporting (but valid for historical polling) red indicates polls showing leads for President Obama, blue for those showing leads for Romney, and white for ties or near-ties. Unless I have two polls on the same day I do not average (unlike electoralvote.com, which has a more sophisticated algorithm than mine) -- which gives more erratic results. I reject polls commissioned by Parties, candidacies, and advocacy groups.

OK -- so what are the gray and pastel greens and oranges in my scheme? The pastel orange is for a state or district that I consider locks for President Obama with no polls after September 29 (like New York or California) and the pastel green is for states that I consider locks for Mitt Romney with the same paucity of polls. I have seen polls pop up for some such states and have made adjustments accordingly. I hadn't seen any polls either Louisiana or Rhode Island since at least February, and I saw a small surprise. Gray is for states that I consider 'interesting' that have not been polled since the last weekend of September.

Originally Posted by B Butler

I hear civil war and dividing the country often enough in the T4T forums, but never anywhere else. I figure being into the theory we are more ready to anticipate civil wars and revolutions than other folk. Still...

When a country tries democracy for the first time, I expect trouble, a century or so of unrest and failing governments. One needs not just the form and paperwork of a democracy, but the culture and values of a democracy. This takes centuries to build.

Once built though, how often does it fall apart?

Anyway, I'm seeing nothing in the way of a spiral of violence. The divide is rural / urban, so it won't be easy to geographically divide the country.

I'm dubious.

And the demographics does seem problematic for the Republicans.

I was thinking about this "sick of division" issue again. If we really want to unite again, more of us need to be willing to edge off of our dogmatic positions a little. It is possible.

Let's take an example. The right believes that abortion is immoral and should be illegal, while the left thinks gun violence is unacceptable and that guns should be restricted or banned. One way of easing off the battle would be to say, let's back off on banning either one, but come to a consensus that both are bad and should be avoided as much as possible. So we can't ban guns by using guns to enforce gun bans, but more of us could realize that guns are bad and don't solve the problems of violence, and put the guns away and accept restrictions; that the self-defense and sporting arguments and so on are traps. We can't ban abortion without endangering women's lives, but we could restrict it in a reasonable way and provide alternatives, rather than thinking it's OK.

Another example: entitlements. Unlike some of the left I'd be ready to accept something like a small rise in the retirement age, provided the program was not cut back overall. What would the right be willing to give, in exchange for that bargain? Could corporate taxes be cut, with some cuts in deductions if possible, but income taxes be allowed to return to the Clinton levels?

Are we ready to embrace health care coverage for all Americans? Until then, I don't think the health care debate will end. I think unity is possible, but I admit I think there needs to be more give from the right. Their positions are extreme, while the "left" in this country is already moderate.

Are we concerned with doing what's right for the people and the country, or just victory for our team, or for our own interests and beliefs? It is always a question to keep in mind, although people have different answers.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

The polls are indeed coming out, most of them on the states that most seem to matter.

Here is a good, professional website on the 2012 Presidential election with much insight on the US Senate.

A hint: President Obama seems to be stuck in the range of 320 electoral votes. Read it and weep, because the Senate that looked ripe for a GOP takeover isn't so ripe anymore. There's little on the House.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

JPT wouldn't like this one:
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp201...t03-noras.html

my estimate

Right now it looks like these are the closest states; my guess on final vote:
Colorado +3 Obama
Virginia +3 Obama
Iowa +3 Obama
Florida +2 Obama
North Carolina tie
Missouri +3 Romney
Arizona +3 Romney

I think Oregon will shift to likely Obama, by over 10%

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

There is no "business world"-distinction, Eric. IOW, It's all the "real world".

Prince

If no one counts the money, does it cease to exist?

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

I'm really bummed b/c I have to work tonight and will be unable to watch the festivities live on TV tonight. Apparently, Texas and Oakland are going to duke it out for the AL West-Title and the NYY and Baltimore are within a game of each other for the AL East- Title. I'm sure I'll be able to see analysis ad nauseum of the "winners" and "losers" all night long, though. Besides, they're all making the playoffs anyway, so there will be plenty of oppurtunities for future analysis going forward.

Can't wait. I'm soooooo excited!

Ah, Baseball. You just gotta love it!

Prince

PS: And luckily, no one has made-up their minds yet on who they want to win, so....these are "sewius" contests!

I've made up my mind! First time Division Champs in my local area in 80 years!

Go, Washington, Nationals!

The Detroit Tigers are the first team to establish themselves as Division champs in the American League even if they will end up with the weakest record of all but one post-season team (second wild card, National League). What a set of pennant races!

The Debate is on -- and so far Mitt Romney has little to offer but a laundry list of special-interest proposals.

Lehrer has too much Silent "Niceness" to keep Mitt moderated, UGH!!!

I am an Obama supporter, but Romney won that debate.

Romney did better than I expected. He could have been a bit tougher in going after Obama at times in my opinion, but he came armed with facts and made the case pretty well. The scurrilous attacks that Obama can get away with on the campaign trail cannot hold up when Romney is right there to respond to them. Obama was foolish to keep stretching the truth about Romney's proposals, as it was clear to anyone watching that it was dishonest. If nothing else, as I said before the debate, I think for a lot of people just being able to see Romney stand up in that format and not sprout the fangs that the Democrats have been trying to paint on him will be a huge boost to him.

It is clear that Obama has nothing good to say about the economy of the last four years, and no new plans going forward. All he can talk about is how he wants to punish the rich and "spread the wealth". He said nothing about how or why the economy will improve if he's re-elected. If people want four more years like the last four, they can vote for Obama and they'll get it.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Just did a check on fb, and even the diehard libs are handing it to Mittens.
The prez looked tired. It made me a bit sad ... no more "yes we can."

It's been four years. Maybe we "can", but we definitely haven't.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Just did a check on fb, and even the diehard libs are handing it to Mittens.
The prez looked tired. It made me a bit sad ... no more "yes we can."

Obama has been thrown softballs by a willing media and Mittens has been thrown under the bus. Was happy to see fight out of him.

I was listening to Gary Johnson's responses on his Youtube page for most of the debate.

Originally Posted by wtrg8

Obama has been thrown softballs by a willing media and Mittens has been thrown under the bus. Was happy to see fight out of him.

I was listening to Gary Johnson's responses on his Youtube page for most of the debate.

Romney threw his own tax plan under the bus. Clearly he will say anything to win.