VANITY: Way to early for an election prediction, but I'll do one anyway (Romney 270)

Saturday, July 21, 2012 | rightcoast

[rightcoast]

Yes, there is still four months to go, and an electoral map prediction seems ill-advised and premature... But what the heck...

I based my projections on a modified RCP poll average: I included only recent polls of likely voters, ignoring RV polls. I also used a more conservative version of the "incumbent rule" for the undecideds in these LV polls. Certain theory holds that 80% of undecided voters will break for the challenger. For this analysis, I was more conservative and assume that 65% of undecideds will ultimately vote for Romney.

Based on these criteria and assumptions, I've arrived at a prediction of exactly 270 votes for Romney, just enough for election. Two states remain very tight and too close to call: Colorado and Ohio.

Click here for my custom RCP map.

It's worth noting that money of the "close states" could end up breaking for Romney, especially in the Midwest; a "Rust Belt sweep" that includes Michigan and Pennsylvania, as well as the aforementioned Ohio, is still quite possible at this point.

[max americana]

You didn’t build that prediction...it was made by everyone else. (s/)

[South40]

The liberal will win. It’s guaranteed.

[rightcoast]

Here is a corrected link to my RCP map - I had omitted Hawaii by simple oversight.

[doc1019]

You are correct a liberal will win.

[One Name]

You must have had government help coming to such a conclusion. No one is smart enough to figure this s_it by themselves...

Don’t rest, exhort and proselytize!

It ain’t over, but I share your feeling that the groundswell is with us...

Press on!

[2ndDivisionVet]

That’s what he said, Romney. Better that than the anti-American, anti-capitalist communist winning, don’t you think?

[The Duke]

Does this factor in Democrat voter fraud?

[103198]

A month and a half ago I told my wife and a small gathering of friends that my x+1 choice for Republican candidate will win in a blowout. I made the mistake of not posting it here. I stand by that prediction today.

[goldstategop]

285-253. IND and OH, NC should return to the GOP as FL.

But there are enough brain dead morons on the Left Coast and the Northeast to make it a close race - unless the economy is coming underwater by Election Day.

[goldstategop]

I forgot to add VA... no way its going D this year - in 2008 you had a very liberal electorate. Bamster is facing very skeptical voters - he’ll do better than Jimmy Carter simply because the demographics exist to keep it close.

But he’ll lose and I see the GOP keeping if not modestly expanding its House majority and the GOP should take over the Senate.

[goldstategop]

I forgot to add VA... no way its going D this year - in 2008 you had a very liberal electorate. Bamster is facing very skeptical voters - he’ll do better than Jimmy Carter simply because the demographics exist to keep it close.

But he’ll lose and I see the GOP keeping if not modestly expanding its House majority and the GOP should take over the Senate.

[imemyself]

Virginia could be a problem - Marylander’s are moving there in droves to get away from outrageous taxes and regulations.

No way to know how they will vote but, if they’re from the suburbs, it will go Republican. If they’re from the City and beltway area’s to DC, it will go Democrats.

[presently no screen name]

I forgot to add VA.

Maybe Barry will keep Mitt off the ballot in VA. After all, Romney did it to Newt. This is about which one, Barry or Mitt, will be reaping what they have sown first. Nothing about America.

[radpolis]

I have my map say 336-202 in favor of Romney.

And I don’t consider myself a self-deluded wishful thinker.

I wish it could be an even bigger blow out if there was some way Chris Christie could get a win for Romney in New Jersey.

But that is where I cross the line from possible into the realm of the absurd.

[nathanbedford]

Good work. I think your methodology is on the right track. Certainly, discarding registered voter polls is indispensable. I had also been thinking about your 65% rule for the undecideds. What have you done about the 4% or 5% who are turning up as third party?

Have you made any assumptions concerning turnout?

Why do you suppose that Colorado and Ohio, but not Virginia or Iowa, are too close to call? In other words, what is the margin which puts a state in one category but not in the other?

We know that both Pennsylvania and Ohio on election day will not be too close to call but will actually be called by actual votes. So the result will not be 270 for Romney it could be as high as 308 for Romney or as low as 232 with your analysis still controlling.

That means that in these very close states the results will actually be called and one side or another can very rapidly win or lose big. If we extend questionable projections to the Virginians and the Iowas, Romney is a very vulnerable, but if we consider, as you do, that Pennsylvania and certainly Wisconsin or perhaps even Michigan could go the other way, it is Obama who now looks vulnerable.

I think this latter scenario will be the one that actually plays out but is that belief more than just a hunch? I think this will be a wave election much like Ronald Reagan's victory in 1980 but I want to be wary of mere wishful thinking. I am not usually a Pollyanna in these matters, I believe that if the Republicans can win this one it will only be a one time aberration from the demographic norm caused by Obama's ham-fisted overreach. I am on record on these threads years in advance in predicting the debacles of 2006 and 2008. But I think the forces that dominated in 2010 will be no less powerful in 2012, although I concede that Obama in a presidential race will be able to turn out his base with more success than was possible in 2010. I still think that the balance of forces generating turnout will be with the Republicans.

Therefore, I think it will break at the end for Romney. I think the sweep could very well include Wisconsin and Pennsylvania and perhaps even beyond. I believe Romney will easily be pulling crowds in excess of 20,000 by the time of the convention.

All of this subject to Romney avoiding gaffes and performing adequately in the debates and Obama not contriving an October surprise.

Thanks for a good job.

[Jyotishi]

Thanks for your prediction but does it take liberal dirty tricks into account?

[Irenic]

"All of this subject to Romney avoiding gaffes and performing adequately in the debates and Obama not contriving an October surprise."

____________________________________________________

I fret over the debates. Romney came off rather frazzled in the primaries.

His face would change colors, his hair would become a mess and he would start to stammer and show a bit of a temper.

Romney was able to land a couple of decent punches but overall he didn't appear too impressive or likable in the debates.

I hope team Romney puts Romney through the paces before the debates.

And for gosh sakes, I hope they get that hair under control! It makes him look very stressed and not in control when it starts flopping around.

He needs to play offense not defense--confident and unshakeable.

[2ndDivisionVet]

You don’t see the economy as being “underwater” now? Real unemployment is at least 17% and that’s only because they don’t count those millions of people who have given up looking for work, been granted a disability, gone on welfare, moved into a tent city or live completely off the grid. Black youth unemployment, for example, is over 50%. That means that less than 1 in 2 or 3 blacks under 25 have any kind of a over the table job. Lookout for a crack house might pay a couple of bucks, but it’s not really a career, is it?

[Irenic]

Perhaps they could get Gingrich to debate with Romney—poke and prod until Romney can keep his cool, stay smooth and unflappable.

[nathanbedford]

I think we have to be clear about the matrix upon which to judge who wins or loses the debate. Of course, the answer is, which side advances his chances of election? But very often the pundits and we ourselves ignore the ultimate question and fixate on collateral matters.

I believe the debates will come down to not changing the minds of liberals resulting in them changing their vote from Obama to Romney but, at best, dissuading some liberals from voting at all. This is really not in Romney's power to accomplish even if he turns in a stellar debate performance. This is within the scope of Obama's performance. If Obama stinks, or commit some major gaffe, many liberals who support him because he is "cool" will themselves cool off. But Romney cannot do much in this regard.

The same applies, of course, in reverse for Republicans and conservatives concerning Romney's performance, if he blunders the momentum goes out of his campaign.

But the debates can be critical to the disposition of the "independents" and "undecideds." I think the common wisdom is right to the effect that those voters who are undecided are in that state precisely because they are unhappy with the incumbent but have not yet decided that they can entrust the Challenger with the keys to the treasury and the codes the nuclear football. So they will be viewing the debates to determine whether the Challenger is "presidential." If Romney appears to be the kind of man who fits that job, he will get the undecided vote regardless of the give-and-take of incidental and collateral matters during the the debate. The question for these people will be, can we use Romney to get rid of Obama?

This is almost a guaranteed win for Romney or at least the debates are his to lose. That is not to say that he cannot lose the debates, major gaffes-and even minor ones-will be magnified beyond all recognition by the establishment media. They will take hours and days to tell us what it was we saw with our own eyes.

This is where the unflappable image, the askew hairstyle can make a difference if the challenger's performance is otherwise weak.

I have a different view Romney's overall performance in the primary debates. I think he performed adequately, up to the standard which will be applied for the challenger in the presidential debate. In the primary debates the standard was, who was the most captivating? Nobody beats Newt Gingrich at that game. But note, Gingrich failed on the eve of the Florida primary because he did not live up to the standard necessary for him at that time which was to dominate. Rather, Romney came through.

My point is that after we judge which candidate advances his cause, we must ask what standard to apply and did the candidate meet that standard?

[ConservativeDude]

Excellent post. And while I didn’t support Romney in the primary (who here did?), I thought he was the clear frontrunner in every debate. I think in this regard, he will do fine.

I also think he has a very good chance of winning.

[svcw]

I have an idea, wait until after the conventions, as who knows what might happen, regardless a liberal is going win in November.

[tsowellfan]

Hopefully we will do better than that. Which blue leaning states do you suggest we should try to move pink or red?

[tsowellfan]

Obama is not a liberal. He’s a marxist commie wannabe dictator with pure hatred for this country.

[johnthebaptistmoore]

What happens in VA will depend upon how many total votes Virgil Goode, of the Constitution Party, gets, this November.

[1035rep]

“For this analysis, I was more conservative and assume that 65% of undecideds will ultimately vote for Romney.”

Rasmussen: Thursday, July 19, 2012
Among Uncommitted Voters, Obama Job Approval Is At 29%

[SatinDoll]

Do you honestly believe Romney can win in a blowout WITHOUT a Conservative of Tea Party VP sharing the ticket?

[Rockingham]

I think that Romney is poised to win by a surprisingly substantial margin. The economy is weak and tilting back into recession, with virtually all the economic indicators of political consequence now against Obama.

Bear in mind that being based on general public sentiment instead of reliable models of likely voters, almost all of the public polling now overstates Obama's support. Viewed though in the context of an electorate called to pass judgment on a faltering incumbent, Obama is polling at a level that is better than Jimmy Carter but similar to George H. W. Bush.

Moreover, Romney and his campaign seem to be getting better and more willing to push back and take the fight to Obama. Meanwhile Obama seems gaffe prone as the campaign process gives us glimpses of his radical politics by forcing him off-teleprompter.

Obama's rhetoric and campaign spending suggest that he is desperate. I surmise that he has been told by his top campaign advisers that his reelection is not just in jeopardy but is becoming less likely by the month, with more campaign cash needed.

Obama's campaign strategy though has a fundamental weakness: in trying to mobilize his base publicly, Obama is also mobilizing his opposition. His approach to that problem is organizational, betting that his campaign will do better at getting supporters to the polls than the Romney and the GOP can do.

Yet even superior campaign efforts get swamped when public sentiment turns against the candidate. In such cases, many seeming supporters dragged to the polls defect once they get to the privacy of the voting booth.

The great imponderables are events, and especially that Obama has the power to redefine the race through the use of Presidential power. The US going to war with Iran in October could be Obama's ticket to reelection -- or to cementing his defeat for reelection into place.

[xzins]

I disagree.

I pretty much side with Rasmussen: Obama: 247 - Romney: 191 - Toss-up: 100

All of the toss-up states are too close to call, but that simply means that Romney must prevent Obama from taking only 23 of them. That’s not impossible, of course, but that does put Romney on the defensive.

If Romney could put pennsylvania or michigan in play that would really help him. Pennsylvania is numerically his best bet, but Michigan has a family connection. Choosing a dynamic VP from one of those 2 states might help him since he’s running well in other toss-up states, except in Ohio he’s only 2 down and in Virginia he’s only one down.

[newnhdad]

I’ve written this before but it bears repeating. Obama will lose all the states he flipped in 2008. The states he wins, will be by a much smaller margin the states he loses will be a blow-out.
Obama will suffer the largest percentage popular vote loss since the Duke back in 1988 but maintain a higher percentage of the EC vote than the popular vote indicates.

[LibLieSlayer]

“He needs to play offense not defense—confident and unshakeable.”

If you see romney performing with any of those traits... it will be most certainly an act... for he will be roll playing.

LLS

[ripley]

“...but there are enough brain-dead morons on the Left Coast
and the Northeast to make it a close race...”

They think they’re absolutely brilliant intellectuals as they insist that those in flyover country are
knuckle-dragging, bible-thumping, gun-loving, Christian morons.

Absolutely irritating, annoying and disgusting.

IMHO

[Forward the Light Brigade]

My prediction: Obama will not run. Some reason will stop him and Hillary will take his place “reluctantly”. If that happens, and its a long shot, I may go into the prediction business.

[John W]

Here in Indiana for sure. Shouldn’t be close.

[103198]

Yes...

In the Commonwealth of Virginia I see the Tea Party folks and associated conservative groups already donating money, campaigning, volunteering, and working to defeat Barry. I’m one of them...

[imemyself]

Your prediction sounds good to me.

[GVnana]

From your lips to God’s ears.

[svcw]

Let’s put it this way.
We (the American people) are bolts, we can be hand torqued or machine torqued.
Either way we are torqued.

[SatinDoll]

“Yes...” in Virginia.

After what happened in the Republican Virginia primary, I'm not sure that the turnout in November will be enough to put Romney over the top, unless he unstiffens his animus for Conservatives and brings them into his camp.

That is the way politics is played in this country. My past support for a conservative Republican candidate doesn't color my thinking as I have no specific person in mind - only that the person chosen be eligible per the U.S.Constitution.

This is politics, my FRiend; and Romney is behaving immaturely.

See the following:

Soetoro’s 2012 election contingency
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/48202

[snip]

“We’re talking about something taking place to make sure that Obama stays in office. I’ve been privy to ‘contingency plans’ ordered by Jarrett for one that defines the protocol for DHS response to the ‘temporary suspension of U.S. elections due to international and domestic crisis.’ It’s a real document, ordered by Jarrett and contains plans for travel restrictions, gun possession ban by citizens, and in general, ‘martial law.’”

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

I want BHO2 out of the White House, and via an oppositional landslide so huge, there will be no question about the American people's choice. That means Romney must bring Conservatives into his camp.

A Romney landslide will be impossible without Conservatives aboard, and with Romney acting like a political neophyte and spoiled rich kid used to getting his way all the time, it will be damned near difficult.