When President Obama is re-elected!!

DavidG · Post by **DavidG** » Wed Oct 31, 2012 11:54 pm

JScott wrote:David, I hope you're right. I would actually be relieved to find out this was just someone's screw up, that transmissions didn't go through or up the chain, etc. FWIW, I'm not relying solely on Fox for this; a good bit of this is direct testimony from State Dept and CIA personnel. I have no delusions about Fox News political leanings or intentions, nor do I have any delusions about the leanings of those who are currently ignoring it.

I hope so too, and pretty much for the same reasons.

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Thu Nov 01, 2012 12:22 am

Q. Will Obama's response to Sandy affect the vote in hurricane states, esp Florida? (LA should take note!)
Q2. Will Chris Christie's praise of Obama have any effect on voters, esp in purple states?

Jay Winton · Post by **Jay Winton** » Thu Nov 01, 2012 2:14 am

sure, Obama looks presidential and the other side of the aisle is praising him. All good, IMO.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Thu Nov 01, 2012 2:25 am

President looking very presidential. Christie comments are gold.
Jeep ad seems to be backfiring on Romney, sounds like he finally went too far in his lies.
Polls showing Obama holding, indeed opening up, leads in Ohio and other swing states.
Seems like a Sandy bounce for Obama.
Big jump in the JHEPI tonight for Obama: 60.

Tom In DC · Post by **Tom In DC** » Thu Nov 01, 2012 2:52 am

There has to be a huge (Ok. maybe only big) Obama bounce for being presidential in the face of a disaster. If this was an act of God, all them fundamentalists out on Tornado Alley might have to reconsider where to place their lightning rods... "No, no Mildred, you gotta make it lean left!"

Tom In DC · Post by **Tom In DC** » Thu Nov 01, 2012 2:55 am

So somebody has to explain to me how early voting affects the undecided.

Are we counting the votes and announcing how the ballots are leaning? Seems like a huge breach of faith to me.

Wouldn't the only folks voting early be "the decided"?

Houndsong · Post by **Houndsong** » Thu Nov 01, 2012 4:16 am

I did respond to a robo poll the other night. It asked whether I voted early and for whom I voted. What becomes of that I know not. I hope it wasn't the other side, they kept track of my phone number, and have put me on the enemies list.

DavidG · Post by **DavidG** » Thu Nov 01, 2012 4:39 am

Agree, Obama had an opportunity to look Presidential. Romney was in a no-win bind the last couple of days - probably did about as well as could be expected.

Polls, early voting, decided/undecided, at this point blah blah blah, spin, spin, spin.

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Thu Nov 01, 2012 6:58 am

What's Christie up to politically? Did he just flush his chances of being the next Repub nominee, or does he expect the make-up of the party to change dramatically, or what? He's gone way beyond expressing thanks to the Pres for being there. I fell off my chair when the guys on Fox asked him if he expected Gov Romney to appear in NJ and he responded with an "I don't know and I don't care!" It is truly phenomenal.

DavidG · Post by **DavidG** » Thu Nov 01, 2012 11:46 am

Yes, very unusual to see a politician acting so human during the silly season. Guess Sandy blew away a lot of the BS. Doubt it will last, but I think the party's reaction will hurt him. Maybe not, though, if his conduct elicits a strongly positive reaction from the regular people (ie voters) nationally.

Winona Chief · Post by **Winona Chief** » Thu Nov 01, 2012 12:13 pm

New Jersey is dealing with the Sandy disaster - a very real disaster. As Governor of New Jersey, this is Christie's primary responsibility. I think Christie genuinely cares about this. Obama is in a position to help. Romney is not in a position to help. Christie is up for election in 2013. Christie is being smart and practical.

Chris Bublitz

RDD · Post by **RDD** » Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:14 pm

Winona Chief wrote:New Jersey is dealing with the Sandy disaster - a very real disaster. As Governor of New Jersey, this is Christie's primary responsibility. I think Christie genuinely cares about this. Obama is in a position to help. Romney is not in a position to help. Christie is up for election in 2013. Christie is being smart and practical.

Chris Bublitz

I was thinking along the same lines. But I don't think Christie is even thinking about the 2013 election. His NJ needs help and that's all that he sees.
And as much as I "hate" big government, it is events like this when I realize it is sometimes necessary to marshall enough resources to recover from disasters in a timely manner.

I've seen the aftermath of a lot of hurricanes in NC , but the damage is usually much more localized. Sandy was so friggin' huge it boggles the mind.

Gerry M. · Post by **Gerry M.** » Thu Nov 01, 2012 4:40 pm

Winona Chief wrote:New Jersey is dealing with the Sandy disaster - a very real disaster. As Governor of New Jersey, this is Christie's primary responsibility. I think Christie genuinely cares about this. Obama is in a position to help. Romney is not in a position to help. Christie is up for election in 2013. Christie is being smart and practical.

Chris Bublitz

In the past I've viewed Christie as rather clownish but I must admit with recent events my opinion has radically changed. He was able to step away from the politics and truely act in the best interests of his state without regard for the potential political fallout. I agree with the previous statements including the reponse to a Romney visit to NJ. If Romney did decide to visit it would only serve as a backdrop for him to find a way to blame Obama for the storm. Christie clearly demonstrated that he has true pasion and concern for those he represents and it's not just a put-on like his party's nominee.

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Thu Nov 01, 2012 5:26 pm

Sheesh, I can't believe how, what's the word, "pollyanna"?, you guys are. To think that Christie isn't thinking about or considering the political implications/ramifications of his self-presentation strikes me as naive. Or perhaps I'm overly cynical. While I'm sure he is concerned about his State -- it is his job and he is professional enough to do it. Nonetheless, he has gone way beyond what would normally be required of a governor thanking a president for help. I can't help but see him as going after 2 birds with one stone.

Here's a couple of pairs of polls that say, "Rasmussen, check your methodology . . . ."

Wisconsin: Romney vs. Obama NBC/WSJ/Marist Obama 49, Romney 46 Obama +3
Wisconsin: Romney vs. Obama Rasmussen Reports Obama 49, Romney 49 Tie

Iowa: Romney vs. Obama NBC/WSJ/Marist Obama 50, Romney 44 Obama +6
Iowa: Romney vs. Obama Rasmussen Reports Obama 48, Romney 49 Romney +1

Then this: Nevada: Romney vs. Obama LVRJ/SurveyUSA Obama 50, Romney 46 Obama +4

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Thu Nov 01, 2012 6:01 pm

If Obama loses Maine, Massachusetts and/or Vermont, I will shave all of my body hair:

http://m.newyorker.com/online/blogs/sho ... mises.html

JScott · Post by **JScott** » Thu Nov 01, 2012 7:10 pm

Bacchus wrote:Sheesh, I can't believe how, what's the word, "pollyanna"?, you guys are. To think that Christie isn't thinking about or considering the political implications/ramifications of his self-presentation strikes me as naive. Or perhaps I'm overly cynical. While I'm sure he is concerned about his State -- it is his job and he is professional enough to do it. Nonetheless, he has gone way beyond what would normally be required of a governor thanking a president for help. I can't help but see him as going after 2 birds with one stone.

Here's a couple of pairs of polls that say, "Rasmussen, check your methodology . . . ."

Wisconsin: Romney vs. Obama NBC/WSJ/Marist Obama 49, Romney 46 Obama +3
Wisconsin: Romney vs. Obama Rasmussen Reports Obama 49, Romney 49 Tie

Iowa: Romney vs. Obama NBC/WSJ/Marist Obama 50, Romney 44 Obama +6
Iowa: Romney vs. Obama Rasmussen Reports Obama 48, Romney 49 Romney +1

Then this: Nevada: Romney vs. Obama LVRJ/SurveyUSA Obama 50, Romney 46 Obama +4

Bacchus, I've been puzzled by the polls all along. Not saying you're wrong, but looking at those pairs what makes you say Rasmussen is wrong and the other is right??

JScott · Post by **JScott** » Thu Nov 01, 2012 7:11 pm

....and if Obama loses Ohio, I will shave my face!

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Thu Nov 01, 2012 7:37 pm

Hey John,
Only hearsay about their methodology. From what I've read, they only poll land lines; no cells or smart phones. So, the logic goes, they're primarily getting older voters, who are more inclined to vote Repub, and missing the under 40 hipsters, who, apparently, are more inclined to vote Obama. Don't know if the argument holds water, but it's interesting that Rasmussen's results generally favour the Repubs more than other polls do. Apparently that was the case in 08 as well.

If Obama loses Ohio or any of the NE states mentioned by Jim, I will drink some tannic monster from the 05 vintage, perhaps Ch. Lascombes. If he wins all those states, I will buy another case of the 09 Giscours. Now that's the kind of betting I can get behind.

Houndsong · Post by **Houndsong** » Thu Nov 01, 2012 8:19 pm

[Ed. note: perhaps I should have put some smilely emphasis in this post.]

Bloomberg. Surely this puts Obama over the top in Ohio and Virginia. [

] But his reasoning - Obama's stance on climate change - is timely [

]. Isn't the Kyoto thingy that we never ratified still a rallying point for the right? [

]

manton · Post by **manton** » Thu Nov 01, 2012 8:27 pm

Just curious, are Republicans welcome on this board?

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Thu Nov 01, 2012 8:43 pm

Why would you think not manton?

manton · Post by **manton** » Thu Nov 01, 2012 8:44 pm

I just don't see any of them in this thread, which seems to be all about celebrating an impending Obama victory.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Thu Nov 01, 2012 8:49 pm

Yes, there are Democrats here who are hoping Obama wins. But that doesn't mean Republicans aren't welcome.

manton · Post by **manton** » Thu Nov 01, 2012 8:57 pm

OK, to answer one question above, the big difference between Gallup and Rasmussen OTOH and several others is that the others are sampling Democrats at a turnout rate of +7% or higher. That's what the electorate looked like in 2008, a wave year for Democrats and the biggest D turnout advantage since '64. It's highly unlikley that this turnout pattern will be repeated next week. If you look at all the underlying numbers in these (and other) polls, it in fact appears highly dubious.

As far as I have read, every poll that gives Obama a national lead is sampling Democrats at that rate. It may happen but based on everything we know right now, there aren't any reasons to believe it will. In other words, if it happens, it will be a surprise. In 2008, it was not a suprise. After Lehman weekend, the polls all showed dramatic movement to Dems and to Obama and that never changed.

DavidG · Post by **DavidG** » Thu Nov 01, 2012 9:03 pm

I think this is a key observation. The raw poll numbers really don't mean much because of the choices made in sampling. You might get a feel for momentum by comparing the numbers in a given poll over time as long as the methodology stays the same from week to week. But I agree with Manton, which prompted my earlier blah blah blah spin spin spin comment.

manton · Post by **manton** » Thu Nov 01, 2012 9:13 pm

Obama won independents by 8 in 2008, Romney is winning independents by double that right now. That includes in Ohio and other swing states. And, interestingly, most of the very same polls that have Obama up also show a double digit Romney advantage among independents. So one cannot just dimiss certain polls as outliers, it's more complicated than that.

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Thu Nov 01, 2012 9:33 pm

I got the answer to the Christie mystery -- he did it to meet the Boss!

JScott · Post by **JScott** » Thu Nov 01, 2012 9:49 pm

Sampling is a problem, both in terms of how people self-identify and how one chooses to assemble D's and R's, as well as guessing at the likely turnout, as well as the issues Bacchus raised, with old and new technologies (not to mention caller ID, which I have used with abandon this year!). In short, lots and lots of guessing. I think David's got it about right; the only utility of a poll is following the same poll using (supposedly) the same sample over time. Even that assumes no monkey business with changing the variables. Sure as hell seems like awfully soft science to me.

And FWIW, manton, I don't consider myself either a Democrat or Republican. Everyone's welcome here and you will find the discussion is remarkably civil.

JScott · Post by **JScott** » Thu Nov 01, 2012 9:50 pm

Bacchus wrote:I got the answer to the Christie mystery -- he did it to meet the Boss!

Zing!

DavidG · Post by **DavidG** » Thu Nov 01, 2012 9:55 pm

Interesting piece on NPR the other day about the first time any of the networks used a computer to follow the returns on election night. It was the 1952 Eisenhower vs. Stevenson race. I don't recall which network did it (2 did it and 1 publicized it), but the computer gave Eisenhower a 90% likelihood of winning based on early returns and the algorithms put into the machine. This ran so counter to the pre-election polling and the "common wisdom" at the time that the Sperry/Rand programmers held back the information from the network, which was left to comment that the machine didn't seem to amount to much.

I guess we'll know next week...

And Manton, while I am a registered Democrat and a social liberal, I am not a slave to voting the party line, and am very happy to hear all points of view. We seem to have a rather reasonable group of non-rabid partisans here, so feel free to jump in.

Houndsong · Post by **Houndsong** » Thu Nov 01, 2012 10:04 pm

Anyone ever see that movie, Capricorn One? Does anybody really know what happens when they pull the voting machine lever?

DavidG · Post by **DavidG** » Thu Nov 01, 2012 10:11 pm

When I pull that lever, I'm hoping for bells and sirens and a bevy of scantily clad women presenting a check in my name for $10,000,000.

Oh, wait, wrong lever...

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Thu Nov 01, 2012 10:19 pm

The only place where I hear about this supposed oversampling of Democrats is on Fox. When Gallup had Obama up by 6, they were making the same complaint about Gallup. I don't believe a word Karl Rove says about the polls. He heads the multi-million dollar PAC that supports Romney. Somehow all these polling firms don't know something that only Karl Rove and Dick Morris know about oversampling. Sorry. I don't buy it. Karl Rove was calling the last election for John McCain four years ago when Fox called Ohio for Obama. I just don't buy it. I can't explain the strange Gallup "likely voter" lead of 5 points for Romney (tied among registered voters) but I'm guessing that the other polling firms are not so strangely blind about this supposed over-polling of Democrats. I think it is all Fox News spin. We'll see who is right and who is wrong soon enough. I see this as tied or slightly ahead for Romney in national popular vote, but small but holding lead for Obama in Electoral College.

manton · Post by **manton** » Thu Nov 01, 2012 10:37 pm

Just read the stuff below the topline. The polls themselves will quantify how they sampled the electorate, three numbers, D+R+I=100%, that's the predicted electorate. If D>R by 7+ points, your eyebrows should go up.

Houndsong · Post by **Houndsong** » Thu Nov 01, 2012 10:40 pm

Both sides fear a mine shaft gap. Thus the polling.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Thu Nov 01, 2012 11:18 pm

Obama up 49-48 in today's ABC poll.
It's been a while since Obama has been up in that poll.
Other swing state polls all have Obama ahead.
Bloomberg, Powell, and geez even Christie are supporting Obama.
It's feeling like Obama on the all important Thursday before Election Day.
JHEPI: 65.

manton · Post by **manton** » Thu Nov 01, 2012 11:45 pm

Christie is not supporting Obama.

Houndsong · Post by **Houndsong** » Fri Nov 02, 2012 12:15 am

If you have a feeling that this site and the so-called "JHEP Index" are part of the MSM conspiracy to reelect Obama, you're not alone. Maybe. Or maybe you are.

Houndsong · Post by **Houndsong** » Fri Nov 02, 2012 2:12 am

This business is making me anxious. And when I get anxious, I buy Bordeaux. I've been holding off on a couple of items until I could ship them direct to Hawaii. Can't hold off much longer.

Claret · Post by **Claret** » Fri Nov 02, 2012 2:18 am

JimHow wrote:Watch Nevada on election night.

Jim, Northern Nevada, namely Washoe County where I live will likely determine the fate of this state. There are many right wing haters here and it could go either way.

Ryan was here again today.