[Archived] US Presidential Election 2012

[jim mk2]

Am I alone in thinking that the military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan is less to do with some vague war on terror as much as to do with establishing bases on both sides of Iran and preparing the forces for desert warfare?

Good thinking Eisenhower. That must be why western forces are preparing to withdraw from Afghanistan in the next few years.

[Jeru tha Damaja]

Am I alone in thinking that the military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan is less to do with some vague war on terror as much as to do with establishing bases on both sides of Iran and preparing the forces for desert warfare?

If that was the plan then it wasn't a good one.

First, it was unnecessary. American troops are already stationed in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Diego Garcia, not to mention pretty much having the freedom to use eastern Turkey, so they had all the operational bases that they could ever need for a hypothetical assault on Iran without wasting resources destabilising other countries. Even better, Diego Garcia is out of range of Iran's military, which would make it an ideal command centre for such a war.

Strategically, Iraq is not that helpful and Afghanistan is practically useless. Tehran is pretty central and that's a long way from the borders with Iraq and Afghanistan. From Afghanistan you'd have to cross some massive salt flats and a whole lot of barren land before you got to anything of any importance, so Kabul has no great advantages from a military point of view. From Iraq you could go over the southern border and try to snatch the oil fields, but you could also have done that by going from Kuwait, through Saddam's Iraq (not a massive ask) and into that part of the country. To get from there to Tehran on land would be difficult for an army because the Iranian capital would be the other side of the Zagros mountains. If you prefer the northern route then a war-torn Iraq would be a less attractive base than a friendly Turkey.

Second, they'd better get a move on because there are very few military personnel on the ground in Iraq now and the exit from Afghanistan is fast approaching.

Third, if the plan had been to move from Iraq into Iran then it has backfired quite spectacularly. Now that Baghdad is under Shi'ite control, the co-operation between Iraq and Iran might be cause for concern. Some nationalist and tribal angst still separates the countries, but the Iranians have had a fairly big role in rebuilding parts of Iraq, supplying certain militias with arms and running weapons through Iraq into Syria. If Iraq is to become a colony then Washington may be disappointed, because its most likely master now appears to be the Ayatollah.

[Steve Moss]

Romney is moving into the lead:

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/334368.php

What is interesting is that Republicans are leading amongst the likely voters by 1%, which is a significant change from 2008. Romney may win by a landslide, if true.

Also encouraging for Romney is that the battles are now being fought in traditionally blue states, not red:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/fighting-in-blue-states-is-a-good-sign-for-romney/2012/10/29/0b897b14-21e5-11e2-8448-81b1ce7d6978_blog.html

It will be an interesting November 6, 2012.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

Romney is moving into the lead:

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/334368.php

What is interesting is that Republicans are leading amongst the likely voters by 1%, which is a significant change from 2008. Romney may win by a landslide, if true.

Also encouraging for Romney is that the battles are now being fought in traditionally blue states, not red:

http://www.washingto...d6978_blog.html

It will be an interesting November 6, 2012.

Like I said, you get the leaders you deserve. Apart from Rovers that is.

[philipl]

Nate Silver is the best pundit/analysist in America.

He still has Obama more than twice as likely to win than Flip Flop.

On any rational basis, Obama massively deserves his second term.

[Steve Moss]

I think Nate Silver will be proven wrong this time around. Too many polls are showing a Romney surge. But still, we'll have to wait until Nov. 6 before we know who is right and who is wrong.

As to what Obama deserves, its not re-election. A scandal which will make Watergate look like a white lie is in the making: http://pjmedia.com/blog/questions-for-white-house-over-benghazi-just-beginning/

[philipl]

Benghazi- you forget my Maltese connections.

I can tell you masses about Libya but my god that link is utterly risible! There were far more armed CIA operatives in Benghazi than anybody knew about- it was just the most horrible operational balls up. Nearly 50 US secret ops personnel turned up for evacuation the next day and 30 seats were available. Plus all it needed was a call to the Brits or French from the guys under attack and they would have been saved.

And the Republicans refused to vote for the President's request for additional diplomatic protection funds which included small consulates like Benghazi so your guys abandoned the post.

[Steve Moss]

Now Investors Business Daily is on the Benghazi story:

http://news.investor....htm?src=IBDDAF

And Obama is getting heat on his civil rights record, making Bush look good by comparison:

http://www.tnr.com/b...ic-wiretapping#

[philipl]

There is a very smelly story in Benghazi but it isn't the one you want.

It would put some of Dick Cheney's old mates in a very bad light.

[BuckyRover]

Obama will win.

Probably good for us as well. It would be difficult for us to cut at the same time they are. Our economy will be in a better place when they let the Republicans have a go again in four years.

Hope Obama has a more successful second term. I think he will do.

As an aside, only 1 member of congress (534 members) is an Atheist. (This is unrelated other than it is about the US)

[Steve Moss]

Obama won't win. This morning there was a storm in a teacup when it was announced that a Q poll has Obama 5 points ahead in Ohio. Then it materialized that they sampled 37% Democrats and only 29% Republican, which is contrary to both 2008 and 2010 turnouts. When they have to fiddle the numbers to show an Obama lead, it means they're desperate.

[jim mk2]

I suppose this poll has been fiddled too.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/31/us-usa-campaign-poll-idUSBRE89K0A920121031

[Beta Ray Bill]

Obama won't win. This morning there was a storm in a teacup when it was announced that a Q poll has Obama 5 points ahead in Ohio. Then it materialized that they sampled 37% Democrats and only 29% Republican, which is contrary to both 2008 and 2010 turnouts. When they have to fiddle the numbers to show an Obama lead, it means they're desperate.

Are Americans branded with a particular party at birth?

[Steve Moss]

Nope. But the percentages of registered Democrats to Republicans are known (public record) and certain pollsters are: 1) ignoring those percentages; 2) ignoring that every poll so far indicates there is a far higher enthusiasm level for this election amongst Republicans as opposed to Democrats (making Republicans more likely to vote); and instead, 3) substitutes some arbitrary much lower Republican percentage as opposed to a much higher Democrat percentage.

Essentially, some pollsters (Nate Silver, etc.) are engaging in the military's version of pre-Election Day psy-ops. They want a percentage demonstrated (i.e. Obama 5% ahead in Ohio), so they reverse engineer the poll numbers (% Republican participation vs. Democrat) to get that result. They do it to create the illusion of momentum (or lack thereof), which hopefully encourages fundraising for the preferred candidate as well as demoralizing the opposition.

It works on a soundbite level (i.e. "CBS News reports . . . .") but it doesn't withstand scrutiny once you dig into the background data.

In my opinion, the trend amongst the polls, adjusting for the vast oversampling amongst Democrats in some, is for a Romney victory. I'll go far to say its going to be a landslide. The pollsters who are now spewing spun data indicating an Obama/Democrat victory will adjust numbers due to some "unexpected" event or surge around this weekend. We saw it in 2010 and we'll see that same pattern in 2012. The writing is on the wall.

[SydneyRover]

In my opinion, the trend amongst the polls, adjusting for the vast oversampling amongst Democrats in some, is for a Romney victory. I'll go far to say its going to be a landslide. The pollsters who are now spewing spun data indicating an Obama/Democrat victory will adjust numbers due to some "unexpected" event or surge around this weekend. We saw it in 2010 and we'll see that same pattern in 2012. The writing is on the wall.

Your opinion is incredibly biased. You mention biased polls towards the Dems but don't mention the Rasmussen polls which have found to have a 3.9% bias towards Republican candidates.

Back in the real world, this site is quite good as it collates plenty of polls (including the Rasmussen biased polls):

http://electoral-vote.com/

When likely or definite Obama states (so well within poll margins of error) are collated, he numbers 247 votes

When the same is done for Romney, he numbers 191.

There's 52 votes who are barely in favour of Obama and just 15 barely in favour of Romney, with 33 votes tied (Florida and New Hampshire).

That means that of the 99 electoral college votes still in play, Romney needs to get 80 of them to take the presidency, despite the fact that Obama is leading in the polls in 52 of them.

I would say that is a very tough ask. The best you can say is that your man has a chance.

In my opinion, the trend amongst the polls, adjusting for the vast oversampling amongst Democrats in some, is for a Romney victory. I'll go far to say its going to be a landslide. The pollsters who are now spewing spun data indicating an Obama/Democrat victory will adjust numbers due to some "unexpected" event or surge around this weekend. We saw it in 2010 and we'll see that same pattern in 2012. The writing is on the wall.

:lol: A landslide?? That is hilarious. Even if Mitt wins, there is no chance he will cross 300 electoral votes. He would need to win EVERY vaguely marginal state currently in the polls as well as winning at least one state thats currently 5% or more in favour of Obama. No matter what you think of the polling, that is not going to happen.

Obama won't win by a landslide. But I think it's likely he will win.

Your conspiracy theories about the pollsters is typical Republican madness. These companies live or die by their accuracy. Sure they might all have slightly faulty methods in their own ways but to deliberately forecast an incorrect result will make their company look far worse and less reliable.

[BuckyRover]

I was in the US recently and caught a TV debate about recent legislation that meant that fast food restaurants had to put calorie information on their menu. There was a republican in the debate and he described this as "socialism at its worst".

[BuckyRover]

If what Steve was saying is true (it isn't) then there is definitely a gap in the market for setting up a research agency's that is fair or even biased to republicans.

[Steve Moss]

We'll see how wrong I am (or not) in a mere 5 days time.

[speeeeeeedie]

Steve, I have no idea where you are getting your information from but your posts read like Fox talking points.

At this late juncture my money is on an Obama win via the electoral college. He will lose the popular vote. Republicans will keep the house of representatives, and gain a seat in the Senate (hopefully not that clown Akin).

Final

President- Democrat

House - Republican

Senate - Democrat (small)

Result - more chaos and fighting with nothing getting done.

As a side, hurricane Sandy has kept the election off the news.

[thenodrog]

Obama won't win. This morning there was a storm in a teacup when it was announced that a Q poll has Obama 5 points ahead in Ohio.

I think a rather bigger storm has influenced things a little in Obama's favour. Personally I neither know nor care about US politics but I do think that Romney is definitely flakey.

[Steve Moss]

Steve, I have no idea where you are getting your information from but your posts read like Fox talking points.

At this late juncture my money is on an Obama win via the electoral college. He will lose the popular vote. Republicans will keep the house of representatives, and gain a seat in the Senate (hopefully not that clown Akin).

Final

President- Democrat

House - Republican

Senate - Democrat (small)

Fox's most recent poll (through 10/28) has it as a tie, 46% each. So I'm not getting it from there.

I would point out that the real clear politics map, which averages out the polls, has 201 electoral votes for Obama and 191 for Romney with the balance being undecided. http://www.realclear...ollege_map.html

The problem for Obama is FL, NC, VA, OH and IA are more or less breaking for Romney (though they are currently declared toss-ups). NPR (hardly a conservative organ) was discussing the implosion of Obama's campaign in FL and NC today). And when the Republican is campaigning in places like WI, PA and MI in the last few days, its generally a sign the Democrats are on the back foot.

I think Obama will take NV and MI from the undecideds, and that's about it. The rest will go to Romney. If I'm off by a state or two it won't effect the outcome.

I could be wrong, but I doubt it. And in any event will know Tuesday evening.

I think a rather bigger storm has influenced things a little in Obama's favour. Personally I neither know nor care about US politics but I do think that Romney is definitely flakey.

I did not vote for Romney in the primary. But I'm supporting him in the general as he is a vast improvement over Obama.

If anything the storm hurts Obama. It's primary landing areas has been traditionally Democratic so it may hurt their turn-out but won't effect the Republican turn-out.

And here is a summary of the Gallup and Rasmussen polls of a few days ago: http://www.mediaite.com/online/gallup-rasmussen-forecast-more-republican-voters-in-2012-than-2004/. The voting demographic is no longer the same as it was in 2008, as the Democrats found to their dismay in 2010.

If anything, the electorate has become even more Republican than the 2010 Republican sweeps.

Romney is still gaining momentum. Obama is losing it, as indicated by his campaign stops. Obama is playing the prevent defense (almost always a loser) and Romney is going for the touch down.

My predictions:

WH: Republican

House: Republican

Senate: 1-2 votes Republican majority.

[jim mk2]

New York mayor seems a sensible sort of chap.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/01/nyc-mayor-bloomberg-backs-obama-for-re-election-citing-climate-change/

[Steve Moss]

The "evil" genius Karl Rove's analysis: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/11/01/Rove-predicts-Romney-victory-51-48

And I take back my prediction that Obama ultimately wins Nevada. That was a registered voter poll, not a likely voter poll. Whomever wins NV will likely do so by only about 1-2 points.

[JAL]

Listening to todays speeches by Obama and Romney just get the feeling that Obama is the man you'd trust more.

[SydneyRover]

Fox's most recent poll (through 10/28) has it as a tie, 46% each. So I'm not getting it from there.

I would point out that the real clear politics map, which averages out the polls, has 201 electoral votes for Obama and 191 for Romney with the balance being undecided. http://www.realclear...ollege_map.html

The problem for Obama is FL, NC, VA, OH and IA are more or less breaking for Romney (though they are currently declared toss-ups). NPR (hardly a conservative organ) was discussing the implosion of Obama's campaign in FL and NC today). And when the Republican is campaigning in places like WI, PA and MI in the last few days, its generally a sign the Democrats are on the back foot.

I think Obama will take NV and MI from the undecideds, and that's about it. The rest will go to Romney. If I'm off by a state or two it won't effect the outcome.

I could be wrong, but I doubt it. And in any event will know Tuesday evening.

I did not vote for Romney in the primary. But I'm supporting him in the general as he is a vast improvement over Obama.

If anything the storm hurts Obama. It's primary landing areas has been traditionally Democratic so it may hurt their turn-out but won't effect the Republican turn-out.

And here is a summary of the Gallup and Rasmussen polls of a few days ago: http://www.mediaite....han-2004/. The voting demographic is no longer the same as it was in 2008, as the Democrats found to their dismay in 2010.

If anything, the electorate has become even more Republican than the 2010 Republican sweeps.

Romney is still gaining momentum. Obama is losing it, as indicated by his campaign stops. Obama is playing the prevent defense (almost always a loser) and Romney is going for the touch down.

My predictions:

WH: Republican

House: Republican

Senate: 1-2 votes Republican majority.

Obama will EASILY win Philadelphia for one. It might be down as a toss up but he's around 5 points ahead in all the polls, even allowing for error that's still Obama's state.

Ohio might be tight, but every poll has Obama leading there, apart from Rasmussen which as I pointed out has been shown to have an almost 4% Republican bias.

Romney is not still gaining momentum, the BBC "poll of polls" is showing Obama has gained ground since the storm. It's not that useful in predicting the winner in a race as tight as this, but it is useful in analysing trends. Romney was three points ahead pre storm, now they are tied.

You are using Karl Rove as a supposedly unbiased resource! Besides the obvious bias, all of his methodology for predicting the winner is flawed. There's mention consistently of popular vote when the only true way of predicting the winner is looking at the swing states. A lot may be "toss ups" but Obama has the edge in all of them.

And the storm can have effects outside of the places where it lands. The Dem lead is so big in places like NJ and NY that it wont affect the result, but nationwide public opinion will look at the way he's dealt with the storm for sure. Not saying it will make a big difference, but it's definitely a factor outside of the Eastern seaboard.