The 2012 Election

[_Molok]

LDS doctrine teaches that freedom is worth fighting for. I think you'd agree.

I like how you conflate Republicans winning an election with freedom.

[_bcspace]

LDS doctrine teaches that freedom is worth fighting for. I think you'd agree.

I like how you conflate Republicans winning an election with freedom.

Socialism equates to slavery.

[_Morley]

I like how you conflate Republicans winning an election with freedom.

Socialism equates to slavery.

No matter how one feels about socialism, this is harmful hyperbole.

[_Molok]

Socialism equates to slavery.

How?

[_cinepro]

I still think there's a reasonable chance we will see multiple Florida 2000's and if so, I predict a good chance of national unrest and rioting etc. as neither party will give way. At least I hope the GOP doesn't.

If I remember correctly, it looked pretty close back in 2008, but things settled pretty quickly on election day. There had even been talk of neither getting to 270 and having it decided by the House of Representatives. But in the end, it really wasn't a nail-biter.

So until we actually see the vote counts next Tuesday, it's a little early to start talking about "Florida 2000's".

As far as unrest and rioting, there may be a little "unrest", but ultimately it's going to go the Supreme Court again (no one will give up until it does), and once the decision is made, the losing candidate will fall in line and life will go on.

[_bcspace]

Socialism equates to slavery.

How?

Because it always requires a dictator to run and no one is paid or rewarded on merit.

[_EAllusion]

If I remember correctly, it looked pretty close back in 2008, but things settled pretty quickly on election day.

The Democrat was heavily favored prior to Obama even being the nominee. Clinton vs. Obama was the real election. McCain had virtually zero chance of winning that election. He was the running on the party ticket of the most unpopular president in the history of measuring presidential popularity during a recession even prior to the full economic meltdown. I think what you are confusing is McCain's post-convention bounce where he briefly took a slight lead in polling with it being "close." But it never was close. That bounce was going to recede. The only reason Obama didn't win a Reagan-esque landslide is due to increasing partisanship in the electorate.

[_bcspace]

If I remember correctly, it looked pretty close back in 2008, but things settled pretty quickly on election day. There had even been talk of neither getting to 270 and having it decided by the House of Representatives. But in the end, it really wasn't a nail-biter.

So until we actually see the vote counts next Tuesday, it's a little early to start talking about "Florida 2000's".

As far as unrest and rioting, there may be a little "unrest", but ultimately it's going to go the Supreme Court again (no one will give up until it does), and once the decision is made, the losing candidate will fall in line and life will go on.

The reason why it's more likely to devolve this time is because many people in both parties understand, rightly or wrongly, it's the end for them if they lose. Whoever wins will be able to cement their philosophy for decades to come.

Also, Democrats are currently taking heart in a Quinnipiac University/New York Times/CBS News poll showing Obama with a 5pt lead in Ohio, but it's based on a +8 Democrat advantage turnout from 2008. Early voting shows Obama turnout is down significantly or Republicans out performing in most, if not all, swing states such as Virginia, Iowa, and Ohio:

In sum, there is considerable evidence from both polling of and actual early voting that the political landscape portrayed in a number of state polls showing an Obama lead in swing states doesn’t exist. If that improvement in early voting holds up, Democrats should wonder if those state polls in which they have been investing so much hope are even in the 2012 election ballpark. We’ll find out next week.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/early-voting-buoys-romney/2012/11/01/1848c188-242f-11e2-9313-3c7f59038d93_blog.html

[_EAllusion]

]
I'd have to say that after perusing PEC and related sites and noting Sam's penchant for quoting far left sources and making a pretense of throwing in some conservative sources to look balanced that he's probably a left wing loon. At least those are the birds he flocks with.

Prof. Wang is a liberal himself, but his forecasting sources are academic, not ideological. His projections roughly correlate with the rest of the forecasting world and are near identical to others that rely on aggregating state poll data like he does. That includes forecasters with a conservative bent.

Rasmussen may be conservative but he seems much more respected (feared in the case of the Left).

Wang has been dead-on as one can hope for in his forecasting since he started. It's statistically inevitable that an event he declares rare will happen, but thus far his median predictions with variance have been as money as you could hope for. He's like a weatherman riding an awesome prediction streak. Rasmussen does polling, not projections, so this isn't a fair comparison for it. It has a history of moderate Republican lean and is run by a Republican partisan. In 2010 it was the worst mainstream pollster by a longshot, consistently overestimating Republican support. No polling outfit consistently outperforms the aggregate of all polling, and Ras is no exception here.

The oversampling of Democrats by many polls is well documented and an aggregator like Sam might get closer but he's still including those data.

If by "well documented" you mean "asserted by hack operatives for Republicans" then, sure. Otherwise, you don't really have a basis for that view.

For whatever reason, exit polls have a slight Democrat lean, so at least you can take comfort that it won't be as bad as it initially starts looking as Tuesday exit polls start to hit the news early in the day. If exits show a slight lead for Obama, that's good for Romney.

[_Molok]

Socialism equates to slavery.

How?

Because it always requires a dictator to run and no one is paid or rewarded on merit.

Ok, so in your world, Canada, England, France, and Germany are all dictatorships?