Thanks for your well reasoned response. I still think Ras’s latest D+5 is a bit excessive in favor of the Dems. I realize 2008 turnout factors come into play, however what annoys me the most is that 2010 turnout stats seem to mean NOTHING to ANY of the polling firms. And 2010 is more recent than 2008. Everyone is acting as if 2012 is 2008 all over again. And it isn’t. The economy sucks crap and Obama now has a record to defend. Obama should be toast if it’s still all about the economy, stupid, as James Carville once famously said.
I have to concur that I think D+5 is excessive. My gut (with nothing but anecdotal data) tells me that, which can always be wrong.
We talk a lot about demographic shifts here, but I don’t think there’s a huge difference in the electorate since 2004, when both parties were highly motivated and went to the polls in almost equal numbers.
I could see a D+2, but D+5 makes me suspicious.
2010 voter turnout shouldn’t and won’t be used to fully guide 2012 turnout, as an interim election year, when there isn’t a presidential election, doesn’t typify a presidential election turnout. It is very rational to assume that the presence of Obama on the ticket this year will bring many more voters (who often support him) that wouldn’t turn out in 2010. The key issue is if, for example, blacks vote at 11, 12, or 13% of the total turnout. This variance with many groups who came out strongly in 2008 (blacks, young people, women, etc.) will basically determine the outcome. Turnout, really, is all that matters this year, and all the current data suggest that the GOP turnout will be stronger than average, and the Dem turnout weaker than average. This is why I predict Romney will win.