2012 Presidential Campaign

[RainMaker]

One thing I find funny after each election is the doom and gloom from the losing side. All these Facebook/Twitter posts, blogs going beserk, people denouncing their country.

Lets be honest, most people are not going to see/feel an impact from this election. And if they do it'll be relatively minor. But we go through this cycle every couple years where the country's existence seems to be beholden to the election.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

A professor at Fordham has published a ranking of the various pollsters based on their success at predicting the presidential election outcome. And the winner is ...

(snip)

You don't have a link that includes his methodology, do you?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by stevew

Aw Man.....

It's tough when you find out Santa Claus isn't real.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

That actually sounds worse. I mean, you can't even vote in those elections, yet, you get bombarded with them.

Our local TV is out of Youngstown, but I live in PA so you see so much dumb shit in ads for people that I will never vote for. I take away from this that Ohio takes its campaigns sewious.

[RainMaker]

How does Florida continue to fuck up election after election? Seriously Florida, this shit isn't that hard.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by stevew

Our local TV is out of Youngstown, but I live in PA so you see so much dumb shit in ads for people that I will never vote for. I take away from this that Ohio takes its campaigns sewious.

So what's worse? Living in a swing state or living close enough to a swing state, that you get to see their political ads?

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

How does Florida continue to fuck up election after election? Seriously Florida, this shit isn't that hard.

Honestly, I found Virginia to be even worse. It took them forever to count and they have half the votes that Florida does.

Then again, I can't figure out why Florida isn't final. I see 100% on all counties at CNN. Are there some absentee ballots out or something?

SI

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

One thing I find funny after each election is the doom and gloom from the losing side. All these Facebook/Twitter posts, blogs going beserk, people denouncing their country.

Lets be honest, most people are not going to see/feel an impact from this election. And if they do it'll be relatively minor. But we go through this cycle every couple years where the country's existence seems to be beholden to the election.

Truth.

Judging by all of the folks that left the country after the '04 election and all of them that are quitting their jobs (so they don't have to support "welfare mamas" and all the "lazy bums that don't work") after this year, the unemployment rate should be much lower than it is.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

How does Florida continue to fuck up election after election? Seriously Florida, this shit isn't that hard.

They have to think of new ways each time to disenfranchise voters. That's not an easy or quick thing to do.

[sterlingice]

An interesting thought on the whole "Mainstream media" vs "Conservative media" "debate":
How Conservative Media Lost to the MSM and Failed the Rank and File - Conor Friedersdorf - The Atlantic

SI

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Then again, I can't figure out why Florida isn't final. I see 100% on all counties at CNN. Are there some absentee ballots out or something?

SI

Did the vote totals fall in the automatic-recount range?

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by BrianD

Did the vote totals fall in the automatic-recount range?

Last night they were saying that they would still have to count absentee ballots, though I thought that was going to happen today.

[JonInMiddleGA]

HuffPo had it as being absentee & provisional ballots still to count today

Nine counties -- Broward, Duval, Escambia, Hillsborough, Miami-Dade, Okaloosa, Palm Beach, Pinellas and Putnam -- are still counting absentee ballots, the Associated Press reported Wednesday morning. In total, 200,000 absentee and provisional ballots had yet to be counted as of Wednesday morning, larger than Obama's lead.

About 20,000 absentee ballots still had to be counted in Miami-Dade county as of Wednesday morning, according to the Miami Herald.

[Young Drachma]

I am hearing a great deal of talk about "appealing to Hispanics" and "appealing to women." But I am not hearing much about endorsing actual policies. What happened last night is not a matter of cosmetics. This is not false consciousness. This a real response to real policies. Mitt Romney actually endorsed Arizona's immigration policies. You can't fix this by flashing more pictures of brown people.

This is not a "branding problem." This is a "problem problem." Latino voters didn't go crazy. Latino voters went voter.

The Latino Vote: Wide Awake, Cranky, Taking Names - Ta-Nehisi Coates - The Atlantic

[RainMaker]

There are 3rd world countries that have more efficient elections than Florida. Since the state is split 50/50, can both parties agree to just not count them in anything anymore?

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

How does Florida continue to fuck up election after election? Seriously Florida, this shit isn't that hard.

They're still trying to figure out how to program their VCR clocks.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

Florida election officials got to a ballot with a hanging chad & went fetal position.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

There are good things about it though. Such as inheritance, the ability to make medical decisions, and so on. But I don't know if this should be called "marriage". Maybe it should just be given another legal name and people can sign up for it. That is essentially what it is now, but we've attached a bunch of spiritual stuff to something that really isn't.

Why do you need marriage to do these things?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

An interesting thought on the whole "Mainstream media" vs "Conservative media" "debate":
How Conservative Media Lost to the MSM and Failed the Rank and File - Conor Friedersdorf - The Atlantic

SI

I have never understood why conservatives put up with their media. I'd be pissed if I kept buying things that were lying to me just to get my money.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I have never understood why conservatives put up with their media. I'd be pissed if I kept buying things that were lying to me just to get my money.

That article rocked.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Why do you need marriage to do these things?

Why do you care about who can get married?,

[miked]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

How does Florida continue to fuck up election after election? Seriously Florida, this shit isn't that hard.

My friend lives in West Palm. He says they use scantron-like sheets to vote. When he was done, the lady told him all the machines were broken and he should just drop it into the box and they were going to scan them all when the machines were back up. He just tossed it in and left and figured they would probably screw that up too.

[Neon_Chaos]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

There are 3rd world countries that have more efficient elections than Florida. Since the state is split 50/50, can both parties agree to just not count them in anything anymore?

Being from a third world country... This is true.

[Blackadar]

Looks like the Radical Right is doubling down on the stupidity:

TRENDING: A day after loss, conservatives point fingers – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

All the activists at the press conference agreed that Tuesday's election signaled a need for the GOP to re-institute more conservative "fundamentals." While some argue the Republican Party's failure to retake the Senate or make gains in the House suggests the tea party is losing steam, the group of individuals Wednesday argued the opposite.

Given this week's results, they said, conservatives will be even more motivated to reform the party. Richard A. Viguerie, chairman of ConservatieHQ.com, ended the press conference with one final prediction.

"Tea partiers will take over the Republican Party within four years," he said.

[PilotMan]

Swap Indiana and Virgina and it looks like the east could be a Civil War map.

[RendeR]

You say that likes its not a civil war already.

[King of New York]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Swap Indiana and Virgina and it looks like the east could be a Civil War map.

You have to swap West Virginia too

But, yeah.

[King of New York]

Excellent piece by Megan Mcardle on the question of demographics:

Is Demography Destiny? - The Daily Beast

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Looks like the Radical Right is doubling down on the stupidity:

TRENDING: A day after loss, conservatives point fingers – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

Well their Tea Party candidate won a Senate seat in Texas so clearly the message is working.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by RendeR

You say that likes its not a civil war already.

Half a million dead vs angry comments at the bottom of Yahoo articles. Don't think we are there yet.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by King of New York

You have to swap West Virginia too

But, yeah.

And Kentucky. And potentially Florida.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by King of New York

Excellent piece by Megan Mcardle on the question of demographics:

Is Demography Destiny? - The Daily Beast

Wow. Just a poorly thought out article with some really sore losers quoting on it.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

A professor at Fordham has published a ranking of the various pollsters based on their success at predicting the presidential election outcome. And the winner is ...

1. PPP (D)*
1. Daily Kos/SEIU/PPP*
3. YouGov*
4. Ipsos/Reuters*
5. Purple Strategies
6. NBC/WSJ
6. CBS/NYT
6. YouGov/Economist
9. UPI/CVOTER
10. IBD/TIPP
11. Angus-Reid*
12. ABC/WP*
13. Pew Research*
13. Hartford Courant/UConn*
15. CNN/ORC
15. Monmouth/SurveyUSA
15. Politico/GWU/Battleground
15. FOX News
15. Washington Times/JZ Analytics
15. Newsmax/JZ Analytics
15. American Research Group
15. Gravis Marketing
23. Democracy Corps (D)*
24. Rasmussen
24. Gallup
26. NPR
27. National Journal*
28. AP/GfK

Public Policy Polling wins top honors. Some may argue that a Democrat won, therefore its a coincidence that PPP won because they are a Democratic polling firm. So is Democracy Corps, which ranked No. 23.

Not surprising to see Rasmussen and Gallup tied at No. 24. The last NPR poll was +1 Romney, and came at a time when most other polls started showing the Obama shift. Rasmussen and Gallup were about the only final days polls showing a Romney win. The last AP poll I see was Romney +2.

Funny thing is that the last batch of PPP polls out Monday were roundly criticized, yet everyone was on the mark. In addition to getting every state right, PPP also got every Senate race right.

Their secret? They projected African-Merican, Hispanic and young voter turnout to be just as high as 2008 and weighted their polls accordingly.

The key to polling is correctly predicting the sample. It was Dem +5 in 08, so many like Rasmussen and Gallup felt that Dem +1-3 was more accurate given the apparent passion on the right to get rid of Obama and the negatives across the board on the economy. While that logic certainly made sense, it was incorrect as the actual turnout was Dem +6. I don't know too many people (outside of extremely partisans on the left) who predicted that the democratic turnout would increase from 08. Therefore, those ended up being the most accurate when it came to the polls. This is a credit to Obama and the extremely high favorability he had in spite of the terrible economic climate.

The opposite happened in 2004 when democrats felt that Bush's turnout would be less because of the economy/war. In that election, the more moderate/conservative polls were more accurate as the sample didn't lean as democrat as many thought.

The accuracy of polls comes down to nailing the sample that actually happens on election day. If you do that, you will be more accurate. But, oftentimes, that is easier said than done. If the sample goes back to Dem +3-4 in 2016, Rasmussen will be more correct in all probability and the PPP/NBC/Reuters crew will probably be less accurate. Predicting that sample is the key and it's going to be interesting to see the results in 2016.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Kodos

Why do you care about who can get married?,

I don't; that was the point of my question-why have government involved in marriage/civil unions (whatever you want to call them)?

[Thomkal]

Oh Karl Rove, I'm so glad you found the real reason Romney lost:

The President's 'Grand Bet' Pays Off | Karl Rove

Hurricane Sandy "an act of God" broke Romney's momentum. So let me get this straight-if Romney had won you would have said it was God's will that he won over the evil Obama-so I guess God didn't really want Romney to win and sent the storm?

Not in the article but reported elsewhere-Had his SuperPacs not been there it would have been a landside win for Obama-so their presence "Narrowed the Margins" and made it a closer race. Hmmm, I don't think all those millionaires and billionaires were giving you money to "narrow the margins"

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

Oh Karl Rove, I'm so glad you found the real reason Romney lost:

The President's 'Grand Bet' Pays Off | Karl Rove

Hurricane Sandy "an act of God" broke Romney's momentum. So let me get this straight-if Romney had won you would have said it was God's will that he won over the evil Obama-so I guess God didn't really want Romney to win and sent the storm?

Not in the article but reported elsewhere-Had his SuperPacs not been there it would have been a landside win for Obama-so their presence "Narrowed the Margins" and made it a closer race. Hmmm, I don't think all those millionaires and billionaires were giving you money to "narrow the margins"

Have to tell something to the people who gave you $300 million and got nothing in return.

[King of New York]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

Wow. Just a poorly thought out article with some really sore losers quoting on it.

Care to explain in what ways it's "poorly thought out?"

[Subby]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Looks like the Radical Right is doubling down on the stupidity:

TRENDING: A day after loss, conservatives point fingers – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

I totally agree with this strategy.

[Subby]

Originally Posted by RendeR

You say that likes its not a civil war already.

Right except there are millions of voters in the blue states that voted for Obama and vice versa.

I hate the electoral map - it over-generalizes our country. I think we are much more nuanced than it lets on.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Subby

Right except there are millions of voters in the blue states that voted for Obama and vice versa.

I hate the electoral map - it over-generalizes our country. I think we are much more nuanced than it lets on.

That's a good point about the map. It really is an ugly and dividing image. 57% or whatever of the voters in a state going a certain way doesn't tell you as much about a state as that map would lead one to believe.

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by Subby

I totally agree with this strategy.

I get the feeling that this strategy will be paired with some national figure suggesting that the reason the GOP has a Latino problem is because they haven't deported enough of them yet.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by Subby

Right except there are millions of voters in the blue states that voted for Obama and vice versa.

I hate the electoral map - it over-generalizes our country. I think we are much more nuanced than it lets on.

If you look at the counties vote map (or better yet, the size of lead map per county) that the NY times had for this election, it shows where the split is.

The split is not North vs South or a "civil war map". The split is for the most part the cities vs rural. That is probably an over-generalization, but on the Size of lead map, you can see small red dots all over the country. Both northern states, southern states, Midwest, Far West. Even in California and a very small bit Massachusetts. For the most part, there is red all over the map (very little of it in New England).

The Blue is also all over the country. Not every state, but most states. The blue dots aren't speckled all over, they are grouped up in the cities. Where big cities such as Chicago, Miami, LA, or the East coast, you have HUGE blue dots. Even in smaller cities in various states, you still have small blue dots there. To go with the big blue dots in cities, you also see the largest red usually surrounds those cities in most cases, which is likely the sub-urbs.

There are probably many ways you could sub-divide this up.. Wealthy, affluent neighborhoods vs inner cities? Caucasians vs African-Americans/Hispanics? Urban vs Rural? All of the above?

From these maps, the reason that the states that went red did so is there was no large population center within them that had enough votes to tip the vote a different direction.

My un-educated guess, since I have no experience training or research in this field.... is that the population in this country, especially in the cities is constantly increasing. The percentage of hispanics in this country is growing while the percentage of this country that is white is shrinking. You'll always have wealthy vs poor, but with the economy that becomes a battle field... Those things combined, this map isn't going to get more red without some change in focus on the side of the Republicans.

They need a way to get back into these population centers in order to be relevant or they'll continue to lose these state-wide races in states with decent sized cities. Whether that is suddenly championing the cause of the inner-cities (welfare, helping the lower-class financially, etc) which I don't see happening, or getting some in-roads with the Hispanic population, the lack of doing so is going to make things more frustrating for them in the future.

[sterlingice]

To build on that point, there are differing levels of effectiveness of different types across different segments of people. What works best for cities is not necessarily what works best for rural areas. But at the same time, what works best in urban areas needs to be applied uniformly so that's at odds with what works best in rural areas.

A simple example of this is the credit card laws/South Dakota example. Because the rules aren't applied uniformly across all 50 states, SD gets to benefit while the rest of us suffer from the lax regulation of one state.

SI

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by Alan T

If you look at the counties vote map (or better yet, the size of lead map per county) that the NY times had for this election, it shows where the split is.

Plus the blue Plankton Belt in he south.

Obama's Secret Weapon In The South: Small, Dead, But Still Kickin' : Krulwich Wonders... : NPR

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Arles

The key to polling is correctly predicting the sample. It was Dem +5 in 08, so many like Rasmussen and Gallup felt that Dem +1-3 was more accurate given the apparent passion on the right to get rid of Obama and the negatives across the board on the economy. While that logic certainly made sense, it was incorrect as the actual turnout was Dem +6. I don't know too many people (outside of extremely partisans on the left) who predicted that the democratic turnout would increase from 08. Therefore, those ended up being the most accurate when it came to the polls. This is a credit to Obama and the extremely high favorability he had in spite of the terrible economic climate.

The opposite happened in 2004 when democrats felt that Bush's turnout would be less because of the economy/war. In that election, the more moderate/conservative polls were more accurate as the sample didn't lean as democrat as many thought.

The accuracy of polls comes down to nailing the sample that actually happens on election day. If you do that, you will be more accurate. But, oftentimes, that is easier said than done. If the sample goes back to Dem +3-4 in 2016, Rasmussen will be more correct in all probability and the PPP/NBC/Reuters crew will probably be less accurate. Predicting that sample is the key and it's going to be interesting to see the results in 2016.

Most polling firms aren't predicting the partisan turnout directly. They weight by demographics and let partisan ID swing based on respondents answers. The likely voter screen weights on the answer to questions about current desire to vote and past history to vote. When Quinnipiac was showing a +6 Dem turnout, they didn't start from that, they based it on the answers to questions.

[larrymcg421]

Looks like a 2.4% advantage in popular vote for Obama. He won Colorado by 4.7% and that's the closest state that gets him over 270. So the vote could've shifted nationwide by 4.6% and Obama would've won the electoral college while Romney won the popular vote by 2.2%.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by Arles

I don't know too many people (outside of extremely partisans on the left) who predicted that the democratic turnout would increase from 08. Therefore, those ended up being the most accurate when it came to the polls.

Except many pollsters did, and it had nothing to do with partisanship. It has to do with research. PPP was pretty clear all along why they were projecting a heavy Democratic turnout -- they showed a strong likelihood to vote among minorities and younger voters. If you projected that, you were right. If you projected a 75% or higher white turnout as a pollster, you were doing faulty math. None of the information available suggested that as a likelihood.

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Most polling firms aren't predicting the partisan turnout directly. They weight by demographics and let partisan ID swing based on respondents answers. The likely voter screen weights on the answer to questions about current desire to vote and past history to vote. When Quinnipiac was showing a +6 Dem turnout, they didn't start from that, they based it on the answers to questions.

Largely yes. The reason polls done repeatedly tend to get more accurate predictions is that they discover the trends. They start with an assumption based on what they think the voter turnout will be, then modulate that based on respondents tell them. In this election, pollsters who saw certain demographic trends adjusted their polls accordingly.

The reason Gallup and Rasmussen were so wrong is that they assumed a weak Democratic turnout and never adjusted for that no matter what responses they got back.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

Except many pollsters did, and it had nothing to do with partisanship. It has to do with research. PPP was pretty clear all along why they were projecting a heavy Democratic turnout -- they showed a strong likelihood to vote among minorities and younger voters. If you projected that, you were right. If you projected a 75% or higher white turnout as a pollster, you were doing faulty math. None of the information available suggested that as a likelihood.


Largely yes. The reason polls done repeatedly tend to get more accurate predictions is that they discover the trends. They start with an assumption based on what they think the voter turnout will be, then modulate that based on respondents tell them. In this election, pollsters who saw certain demographic trends adjusted their polls accordingly.

The reason Gallup and Rasmussen were so wrong is that they assumed a weak Democratic turnout and never adjusted for that no matter what responses they got back.

It's funny that the polls accused of faulty math had better methodology than the ones that were "unbiased".

[kcchief19]

Question to consider about this election and the impact on Karl Rove's role in the GOP ...

Based on my beliefs, I have never cared for Rove. But based on my appreciation of smart politics, I've had great respect for Rove's results. It's been hard to argue with his results, regardless of the tactics or the policies.

Does this election diminish his influence in the GOP? There seems to be a long-term trend among political strategist that its difficult to remain on top for a long time. I think part of the success of Rove and James Carville to name another was their challenge of the status quo and conventional wisdom and doing things differently. After a time, perhaps they become the status quo and don't have anyone around to challenge their thinking. I don't know the cause, but it seems like strategist have a shelf life.

Rove raised $300 million to win back the White House and Senate, and accomplished neither goal. If you're a GOP donor, do you back Rove again in four years? My feeling is that between his lack of success in this cycle and his meltdown the last few days, he has lost his magic touch. He seems to entering Carville territory where he is becoming a caricature of himself.

Does Rove make a comeback or is he done?

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

Question to consider about this election and the impact on Karl Rove's role in the GOP ...

Based on my beliefs, I have never cared for Rove. But based on my appreciation of smart politics, I've had great respect for Rove's results. It's been hard to argue with his results, regardless of the tactics or the policies.

Does this election diminish his influence in the GOP? There seems to be a long-term trend among political strategist that its difficult to remain on top for a long time. I think part of the success of Rove and James Carville to name another was their challenge of the status quo and conventional wisdom and doing things differently. After a time, perhaps they become the status quo and don't have anyone around to challenge their thinking. I don't know the cause, but it seems like strategist have a shelf life.

Rove raised $300 million to win back the White House and Senate, and accomplished neither goal. If you're a GOP donor, do you back Rove again in four years? My feeling is that between his lack of success in this cycle and his meltdown the last few days, he has lost his magic touch. He seems to entering Carville territory where he is becoming a caricature of himself.

Does Rove make a comeback or is he done?

I don't think he's done; there's plenty of grumbling over at RedState et all about his $300M failure and about him being an open border establishment type, but I find it hard to believe that he will be completely done. Maybe someone more in the weeds of that world has a different perspective (Ie, this is a good time to see if Cam Edwards was still posting here).