[mike777]

It looks like Romney needs to win Ohio and Florida.

Lose one ...no chance..

Win both he wins.

[billw55]

 mike777, on 2012-May-07, 02:04, said:

It looks like Romney needs to win Ohio and Florida.

Lose one ...no chance..

Win both he wins.

meh polls. Sometimes I don't believe them and this is one of those times. I think Obama is winning this election comfortably, barring a major negative event in the interim.

[jdeegan]

 billw55, on 2012-May-07, 06:33, said:

meh polls. Sometimes I don't believe them and this is one of those times. I think Obama is winning this election comfortably, barring a major negative event in the interim.

I sorta hope Barry loses, but the chances are slim to none. Romney will have to come up with an economic plan that makes sense in today's situation. If he is that smart, more power to him. He might prevail.

[kfay]

Ohio sucks!

[cherdano]

 jdeegan, on 2012-May-07, 14:58, said:

I sorta hope Barry loses, but the chances are slim to none. Romney will have to come up with an economic plan that makes sense in today's situation. If he is that smart, more power to him. He might prevail.

So you think voters will analyze Romney's economic plan, decide whether it makes sense, and base their decision on that?

[cherdano]

According to 538, it's Virginia (30%) or Ohio (20%) that are most likely to swing the election. If Romney loses Florida he is doing badly enough that he isn't winning anyway.

[JLOGIC]

 cherdano, on 2012-June-09, 09:46, said:

According to 538, it's Virginia (30%) or Ohio (20%) that are most likely to swing the election. If Romney loses Florida he is doing badly enough that he isn't winning anyway.

If you like free money Obama dropped to low 50s on intrade and nate has him at like 63 % to win lol

[Phil]

 billw55, on 2012-May-07, 06:33, said:

I think Obama is winning this election comfortably, barring a major negative event in the interim.

Like the May jobs report?

[BunnyGo]

 JLOGIC, on 2012-June-09, 10:05, said:

If you like free money Obama dropped to low 50s on intrade and nate has him at like 63 % to win lol

I like free money...

[USViking]

 mike777, on 2012-May-07, 02:04, said:

It looks like Romney needs to win Ohio and Florida.

Lose one ...no chance..

Win both he wins.

There are numerous reasonable scenarios by which Obama could lose both Ohio and Florida
but still win 270 EV.

See the following excellent, data-rich site which among many other things will summarize
and map state-by-state Presidential preference poll results every week for several months
prior to the general election:

The Votemaster

In the most recent summary Obama is only 7 EV short without six states he won in 2008:
Ohio, Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, Indiana and Iowa; either Michigan (16EV), North Carolina (13EV)
or Indiana (11EV) would put him over.

NC might be a tough one to win again given that it had gone Republican in every general election
1968-2004, and given Obama's tiny 2008 popular vote margin over McCain of only ~+14k/0.32%

Similarly, the Republican presidential candidate won Indiana 1968-2004, and Obama's 2008 margin
over McCain there was only ~+28k/1.03%

However, Michigan is another story, having gone Democrat 1992-2008, and delivering a whopping 57-43%,
+800,000-vote margin to Obama last time around.

Another thing to consider is that Obama trailed McCain in Missouri (10EV) by only 3,903 votes out of
more than 2.9 million cast, and Missouri is seldom a safe bet for either party.

So Romney must almost surely need to win both Florida and Ohio to win the general election, but neither
is essential for Obama, although you can bet he is going to devote a lot of attention to both.

[mike777]

 USViking, on 2012-June-09, 11:03, said:

There are numerous reasonable scenarios by which Obama could lose both Ohio and Florida
but still win 270 EV.

See the following excellent, data-rich site which among many other things will summarize
and map state-by-state Presidential preference poll results every week for several months
prior to the general election:

The Votemaster

In the most recent summary Obama is only 7 EV short without six states he won in 2008:
Ohio, Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, Indiana and Iowa; either Michigan (16EV), North Carolina (13EV)
or Indiana (11EV) would put him over.

NC might be a tough one to win again given that it had gone Republican in every general election
1968-2004, and given Obama's tiny 2008 popular vote margin over McCain of only ~+14k/0.32%

Similarly, the Republican presidential candidate won Indiana 1968-2004, and Obama's 2008 margin
over McCain there was only ~+28k/1.03%

However, Michigan is another story, having gone Democrat 1992-2008, and delivering a whopping 57-43%,
+800,000-vote margin to Obama last time around.

Another thing to consider is that Obama trailed McCain in Missouri (10EV) by only 3,903 votes out of
more than 2.9 million cast, and Missouri is seldom a safe bet for either party.

So Romney must almost surely need to win both Florida and Ohio to win the general election, but neither
is essential for Obama, although you can bet he is going to devote a lot of attention to both.

so if I follow you, he has to win Michigan and Virg.

I dont see alot of paths if he loses both ohio and florida.

I see alot of paths if he wins one.

I guess I am saying if he wins both fl and ohio then michigan and virg are going to be really really tight.

I dont see a blow out for the President then.

[USViking]

 mike777, on 2012-June-09, 22:28, said:

so if I follow you, he has to win Michigan and Virg.

No, I was saying any one of Michigan, or North Carolina, or Indiana, or Missouri would win it for him.

Michigan alone is the most likely, based on prior historical results.

 mike777, on 2012-June-09, 22:28, said:

I dont see alot of paths if he loses both ohio and florida.

Four paths are listed above, and there are others.

 mike777, on 2012-June-09, 22:28, said:

I see alot of paths if he wins one.

IMO he can't lose if he wins Florida's 29EV.

 mike777, on 2012-June-09, 22:28, said:

I guess I am saying if he wins both fl and ohio then michigan and virg are going to be really really tight.

Not sure what you mean here.

 mike777, on 2012-June-09, 22:28, said:

I dont see a blow out for the President then.

IMO it will be much closer than in 2008.

[billw55]

 Phil, on 2012-June-09, 10:24, said:

Like the May jobs report?

Not nearly enough. I'm talking Watergate level here, or at least Iran-Contra. Lewinsky might be enough but I wouldn't bet on it.

What I see in this country is more partisanship than ever before. The large majority of voters are voting their party no matter what moron is the candidate. Donald Trump? Yep, gets all the republican votes. Tim Robbins? Yep, gets all the democrat votes.

On top of that, we have reached a point where the presidency is basically an eight year term, barring something really extreme. This a token election, the real one comes in 2016.

No, I'm not armed with a bucket of facts to back all this up. It's just my own observations and sense of the situation.

[mike777]

1) dont know what a token election is


2) fwiw I see around the world they seem to have fast short elections which no one knows anything. today see greece and egypt

----


I still see Ohio and florida as bell weathers......no posts seem to say other....

[Gerben42]

Strange system - if you live in Texas, your vote doesn't matter because it's going Rep anyway, and if you live in Alaska you get to vote after someone has already been declared winner. So if you want to change something, move to Florida ?

Not that it is easy to have an ideal system. In Germany they are discussing about the voting system at the moment. Apparently in the old system, in some weird constellations your vote for a party could lead to your party doing WORSE.

[kenberg]

The electoral system is indeed a bit strange, but I don't think I really mind. Maybe I even like it. I live in Maryland which I presume will go for Obama but I don't really know that and I will be voting. I grew up in Minnesota, and I think the choice is usually a closer call there.

Our system of primaries worries me more, as it seems to give too much power to zealots. And I guess what bothers me the most is that, in my view, a person has to be nuts to even consider running for president. If, for example, I did something stupid with Monica Lewinsky it would not make the national news. I have no plans for Monica, but I do like the anonymity.

Anyway, I think that it is way too early to predict the course of the election. Obama was our first Black president. Been there, done that, it won't be working for him this time. Obama, it was said, gives inspiring speeches. People get tired of inspiring speeches. Romney seems downright weird, and the primaries put him in league with the even weirder. What will be the decision? Beats me.

[blackshoe]

I'm going for "none of the above is acceptable". Either that, or I vote for Cthulhu.

[y66]

 Gerben42, on 2012-June-16, 04:50, said:

Strange system - if you live in Texas, your vote doesn't matter because it's going Rep anyway, and if you live in Alaska you get to vote after someone has already been declared winner. So if you want to change something, move to Florida ?

If you want to make a difference in November, move to Virginia, currently the most likely state to decide the electoral vote in November. You can have my apartment at the end of July. It is conveniently located one block away from Obama's northern Virginia campaign headquarters and 4.7 miles from the White House.

[billw55]

 Gerben42, on 2012-June-16, 04:50, said:

Strange system - if you live in Texas, your vote doesn't matter because it's going Rep anyway,

Agree! I am very strongly in favor of abolishing the electoral college in favor of a straight popular vote. That way, my vote will actually matter .. along with millions of others in the numerous landslide states.

[billw55]

 kenberg, on 2012-June-16, 07:09, said:

The electoral system is indeed a bit strange, but I don't think I really mind. Maybe I even like it. I live in Maryland which I presume will go for Obama but I don't really know that and I will be voting. I grew up in Minnesota, and I think the choice is usually a closer call there.

Our system of primaries worries me more, as it seems to give too much power to zealots. And I guess what bothers me the most is that, in my view, a person has to be nuts to even consider running for president. If, for example, I did something stupid with Monica Lewinsky it would not make the national news. I have no plans for Monica, but I do like the anonymity.

Anyway, I think that it is way too early to predict the course of the election. Obama was our first Black president. Been there, done that, it won't be working for him this time. Obama, it was said, gives inspiring speeches. People get tired of inspiring speeches. Romney seems downright weird, and the primaries put him in league with the even weirder. What will be the decision? Beats me.

I really hate the primary system too. Basically we have a minority of voters in the early-vote states who are deciding for the rest of the nation who their candidates are. I want nationwide primaries, on a single day.