Romney-Obama: Handicapping the Race

[Alien Space Bats]

the iconic "3 AM phone call" issue

I don't think I've ever heard that mentioned. Let me guess, it's basically asking if you think the candidate can be trusted to deal with an incredibly important situation at 3 AM?

It's a reference to a 2008 Hillary Clinton campaign ad (called "Children"): The issue is which candidate you'd rather have in the White House if an international crisis broke and a swift, decisive decision had to be made (when it's 3AM in Washington, it's late morning in Europe and early afternoon in Asia).

[Zaras]

I don't think I've ever heard that mentioned. Let me guess, it's basically asking if you think the candidate can be trusted to deal with an incredibly important situation at 3 AM?

It's a reference to a 2008 Hillary Clinton campaign ad (called "Children"): The issue is which candidate you'd rather have in the White House if an international crisis broke and a swift, decisive decision had to be made (when it's 3AM in Washington, it's late morning in Europe and early afternoon in Asia).

Correct answer'd be Obama, not the guy who got Dave Cameron to insult him on his world tour.

[Neo Art]

It's a reference to a 2008 Hillary Clinton campaign ad (called "Children"): The issue is which candidate you'd rather have in the White House if an international crisis broke and a swift, decisive decision had to be made (when it's 3AM in Washington, it's late morning in Europe and early afternoon in Asia).

Correct answer'd be Obama, not the guy who got Dave Cameron to insult him on his world tour.

Indeed. I am more comfortable with the person who has been manning it for 4 years as opposed to the one who might think the phone is a person.

[New Chalcedon]

I don't think I've ever heard that mentioned. Let me guess, it's basically asking if you think the candidate can be trusted to deal with an incredibly important situation at 3 AM?

It's a reference to a 2008 Hillary Clinton campaign ad (called "Children"): The issue is which candidate you'd rather have in the White House if an international crisis broke and a swift, decisive decision had to be made (when it's 3AM in Washington, it's late morning in Europe and early afternoon in Asia).

Essentially. And one upshot of Romney's disastrous first foreign policy trip has been to demonstrate to many voters his complete inability to handle such a crisis competently. ASB, do you think that this issue has any realbearing on the election? I don't recall a large number of voters polled stating that they'll vote on the basis of foreign policy chops.

[Zaras]

It's a reference to a 2008 Hillary Clinton campaign ad (called "Children"): The issue is which candidate you'd rather have in the White House if an international crisis broke and a swift, decisive decision had to be made (when it's 3AM in Washington, it's late morning in Europe and early afternoon in Asia).

Essentially. And one upshot of Romney's disastrous first foreign policy trip has been to demonstrate to many voters his complete inability to handle such a crisis competently. ASB, do you think that this issue has any realbearing on the election? I don't recall a large number of voters polled stating that they'll vote on the basis of foreign policy chops.

But they probably don't want a return to the Bush era of America being ostracised by everybody else for acting like an asshole on the international stage.

[Laerod]

Essentially. And one upshot of Romney's disastrous first foreign policy trip has been to demonstrate to many voters his complete inability to handle such a crisis competently. ASB, do you think that this issue has any realbearing on the election? I don't recall a large number of voters polled stating that they'll vote on the basis of foreign policy chops.

But they probably don't want a return to the Bush era of America being ostracised by everybody else for acting like an asshole on the international stage.

American exceptionalism runs very deep...

[New Chalcedon]

But they probably don't want a return to the Bush era of America being ostracised by everybody else for acting like an asshole on the international stage.

American exceptionalism runs very deep...

I was rather referring to the fact that in America, as elsewhere, foreign policy isn't exactly a hot-button issue in most elections.

I wonder, however, if there's a "basic competancy" threshold a candidate needs to very publicly pass in order to be taken seriously outside their own base....if so, then Romney may well be in trouble at large.

[Farnhamia]

But they probably don't want a return to the Bush era of America being ostracised by everybody else for acting like an asshole on the international stage.

American exceptionalism runs very deep...

If you have enough, it will even keep you warm on a cold winter's night.

[Bodegraven]

American exceptionalism runs very deep...

I was rather referring to the fact that in America, as elsewhere, foreign policy isn't exactly a hot-button issue in most elections.

I wonder, however, if there's a "basic competancy" threshold a candidate needs to very publicly pass in order to be taken seriously outside their own base....if so, then Romney may well be in trouble at large.

There is, but is incredibly low.

EDIT: My proof? Michele Bachmann and Christine O'Donnel. They aren't taken seriously outside of the GOP (AFAIK, at least)

[Wamitoria]

I was rather referring to the fact that in America, as elsewhere, foreign policy isn't exactly a hot-button issue in most elections.

I wonder, however, if there's a "basic competancy" threshold a candidate needs to very publicly pass in order to be taken seriously outside their own base....if so, then Romney may well be in trouble at large.

There is, but is incredibly low.

EDIT: My proof? Michele Bachmann and Christine O'Donnel. They aren't taken seriously outside of the GOP (AFAIK, at least)

I don't think they're taken all that seriously inside the GOP, but what does that have to do with the various statistical calculations that this thread is about?

[Bodegraven]

There is, but is incredibly low.

EDIT: My proof? Michele Bachmann and Christine O'Donnel. They aren't taken seriously outside of the GOP (AFAIK, at least)

I don't think they're taken all that seriously inside the GOP, but what does that have to do with the various statistical calculations that this thread is about?

NC asked if there is a "basic competancy" threshold a candidate needs to very publicly pass in order to be taken seriously outside their own base, because if it were so, Romney could get in trouble. I answered the question with, yes, there is such a threshold, but it is RIDICULOUSLY low.

[Silent Majority]

I don't think they're taken all that seriously inside the GOP, but what does that have to do with the various statistical calculations that this thread is about?

NC asked if there is a "basic competancy" threshold a candidate needs to very publicly pass in order to be taken seriously outside their own base, because if it were so, Romney could get in trouble. I answered the question with, yes, there is such a threshold, but it is RIDICULOUSLY low.

I think he was specifically referring to foreign policy, so Bachmann and O'Donnel probably aren't examples of a lack of a competency threshold, as foreign policy experience isn't really need to run for congress.

[New Chalcedon]

There is, but is incredibly low.

EDIT: My proof? Michele Bachmann and Christine O'Donnel. They aren't taken seriously outside of the GOP (AFAIK, at least)

I don't think they're taken all that seriously inside the GOP, but what does that have to do with the various statistical calculations that this thread is about?

I was asking whether anyone (probably ASB) knows how to crunch the numbers to factor in the impact (if any) of events such as Romney's "foreign policy" trip, etc. etc. - or even if they really matter at all.

[Bodegraven]

@Everyone: Sorry for misunderstanding the question. I eill be more careful next time.

And ASB, do you think the post-VP-nomination bump for Romney is on a normal level, or a bit higher/lower? And if it is higher/lower could that mean that Romney's chances are better?worse than we expected before the nomination?

[Wamitoria]

@Everyone: Sorry for misunderstanding the question. I eill be more careful next time.

And ASB, do you think the post-VP-nomination bump for Romney is on a normal level, or a bit higher/lower? And if it is higher/lower could that mean that Romney's chances are better?worse than we expected before the nomination?

It's lower, but there aren't a ton of undecided voters out there. Then again, it could be lower because Boston totally fucked up the VP roll out.

[Khadgar]

@Everyone: Sorry for misunderstanding the question. I eill be more careful next time.

And ASB, do you think the post-VP-nomination bump for Romney is on a normal level, or a bit higher/lower? And if it is higher/lower could that mean that Romney's chances are better?worse than we expected before the nomination?

It's lower, but there aren't a ton of undecided voters out there. Then again, it could be lower because Boston totally fucked up the VP roll out.

Amusingly Fivethirtyeight showed Obama gaining ground in Florida after Ryan was picked. Mitt really ought have listened to his advisers and not his party.

[Wamitoria]

It's lower, but there aren't a ton of undecided voters out there. Then again, it could be lower because Boston totally fucked up the VP roll out.

Amusingly Fivethirtyeight showed Obama gaining ground in Florida after Ryan was picked. Mitt really ought have listened to his advisers and not his party.

Not just his party. Hell, judging by the fact that Ryan requested stimulus funds, I don't even think that they vetted him properly.

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

So where does Matt Romney fit in to all this?

[Jocabia]

@Everyone: Sorry for misunderstanding the question. I eill be more careful next time.

And ASB, do you think the post-VP-nomination bump for Romney is on a normal level, or a bit higher/lower? And if it is higher/lower could that mean that Romney's chances are better?worse than we expected before the nomination?

It's lower, but there aren't a ton of undecided voters out there. Then again, it could be lower because Boston totally fucked up the VP roll out.

It's likely some of both. There are not a lot of voters out there identifying as undecided. I compared that to past years just about a page up. In my opinion this election is shaping up to be exactly what you'd expect when the congress, the news and commentators have become so wildly partisan.

[Jocabia]

I don't think they're taken all that seriously inside the GOP, but what does that have to do with the various statistical calculations that this thread is about?

I was asking whether anyone (probably ASB) knows how to crunch the numbers to factor in the impact (if any) of events such as Romney's "foreign policy" trip, etc. etc. - or even if they really matter at all.

It's really difficult to attribute numbers directly to one specific event when there are so many simultaneous things going on. You can look at reactions and apply some logic and figure what is impacting what, but it still requires some assumptions and little bit of guesswork.

The interesting bit is that because the outstanding undecideds is such a small percentage of the electorate (at least in polling), that small changes have a much greater impact. Basically, Romney needs every vote so if he shifts, say, .1% of the electorate through some action, then that's huge. However, given the margin of error in a single poll or even a group of polls, it's hard to isolate that small of a change.

That's why the kind of broad analysis of the numbers and logical analysis of actions (when compared to what we know of historical trends) is a much better methodology than trying to micro-analyze everything.

Of course, ASB might disagree.

[Alien Space Bats]

And ASB, do you think the post-VP-nomination bump for Romney is on a normal level, or a bit higher/lower? And if it is higher/lower could that mean that Romney's chances are better?worse than we expected before the nomination?

I'm hearing that it's much smaller than might normally be expected, but this race is "further along" than most races, in that the undecided vote is down to rough 8% in most polls, as opposed to the usual 13-14% we see at this point in the campaign.

Fewer undecideds would obviously produce a smaller bounce.

ASB, do you think that this issue has any realbearing on the election? I don't recall a large number of voters polled stating that they'll vote on the basis of foreign policy chops.

I'm thinking that the main issue would be character; foreign policy weakness would just be the way to expose that issue.

Then again, maybe the American people ought to remember that the last time we thought that foreign policy wasn't a big deal in a Presidential campaign was in 2000. Within a year, the World Trade Center was a smoldering ruin.

That's the thing: In the world of foreign policy, everything can change in a... ahem... New York Minute.

[Alien Space Bats]

Electoral-vote.com Map (as of August 18th, 2012)



Obama 284, Romney 241 (13 Undecided)

---

Eleven new polls have been added in the last few days. Almost all of these polls were take after Mitt Romney named Paul Ryan as his running mate, so at this point we're finally beginning to see the effects of that decision.

Exceptions (i.e., polls that were taken before Ryan joined the Republican ticket) are noted below.

• In Florida (29 EV's), two polls (one by Purple Strategies dated August 14th and one by Rasmussen dated August 15th) show Romney leading by an average of 2%; clealy, Florida is still very much in play. The Sunshine State swings from "Barely Democratic" to "Barely Republican".
  
  
• In Virginia (13 EV's), a new Purple Strategies poll dated August 14th shows Romney leading by 3%; averaging this with the Rasmussen poll from August 7th (which is just within the sliding window for averaging, per Tanenbaum's rules), the State essentially ends up being even. "Old Dominion" slides from "Barely Democratic" to "Exactly Tied".
  
  
• In Ohio (18 EV's), a new Purple Strategies poll dated August 14th shows Romney leading by 2%; averaging this with the two other polls taken within the sliding window (one by Rassmussen dated August 13th and one by PPP dated August 12th), we end up with a net lead of 1% for the President. The Buckeye State remains "Barely Democratic").
  
  
• In Wisconsin (10 EV's), two new polls (one by ORC International dated August 14th and one by Rasmussen dated August 15th) show Obama with an average lead of 1%. This marks a shift from early August, when Obama lead by 4-6% in the Badger State; that said, the shift is not inconsistent with recent polling that suggested that Paul Ryan's addition to the GOP ticket would help Mitt Romney by as much as 4% locally. The State slides from "Likely Democratic" to "Barely Democratic".
  
  
• In Colorado (9 EV's), a new Purple Strategies poll dated August 14th shows Obama leading by 3%; since a cluster of polls in early August suggested that the Centennial State was pretty much a toss-up, we're going to want to keep an eye open to see if this poll marks the start of a trend in the President's favor. For now, the State moves from "Exactly Tied" to "Barely Democratic".
  
  
• In New Hampshire (4 EV's), an August 8th poll by PPP has been added to the map; the poll shows Obama leading by 6%. Averaging this poll with the other two recent polls from the Grantie State (one by UNH dated August 12th and another by PPP dated August 12th) yields a net average advantage for President Obama of 5%. The State shifts from "Barely Democratic" to "Likely Democratic".
  
  Note that this poll predates the selection of Paul Ryan as Mitt Romney's running mate.
  
  
• In Maine (4 EV's), a new poll by Moore Consulting dated August 6th shows Obama leading by 15%. This is consistent with earlier polls from the Pine Tree State taken back in June. The State remains "Strongly Democratic".
  
  Note that this poll also predates the selection of Paul Ryan as Mitt Romney's running mate.
  
  
• In Michigan (16 EV's), a new poll by Mitchell Research dated August 13th shows Obama leading by 5%. This is consistent with a cluster of four polls from late July showing the President with a 6% lead. The Great Lake State remains "Likely Democratic".
  
  
• In Pennyslvania (20 EV's), a new poll by Franklin & Marshall College dated August 12th shows Obama leading by 5%. This marks a tightening of the race from where it was in late July, when two polls gave the President an 8% lead; we will
  
  Note that two-thids of the polling period for this survey (August 7th through August 12th) predated the selection of Paul Ryan as Mitt Romney's running mate, so at best the poll reflects only part of the effects of that decision.

In general, these polls represent good news for the Romney team: If they are accurate (and the polls posted recently by Purple Strategies differ enough from earlier results as to make me suspect them, so I'm reserving judgement), then they would suggest that Mitt Romney is gaining ground in several key swing States where he badly needs a boost. He has also apparently added Wisconsin to the list of possible "swing" States (a big win, because up until now most of the States that comprise each Party's "wall" have only flirted with being competitive, and may be pulling close enough in Pennsylvania for that State's blatant efforts at voter suppression to hand him an undeserved victory there.

Should Romney hold his current position everywhere while shifting Wisconsin into play and cheating his way to victory in the Keystone State, the race would all come down to two States - Virginia and Wisconsin. If Romney won either he'd become the Nation's next President; if he lost both, Barack Obama would win a second term. Such a situation would clearly reverse the logic of the last few months, in which it's been Romney who faced the need to sweep the table while Obama enjoyed multiple paths to victory; in the new paradigm, Romney would have the clear edge needing to capture only one out of two key "battleground" States in to become the next President.

That said, it should be remembered that we are in the midst of a month of surges. On the average, challengers have historically gained 4% in the national polls from the announcement of a running mate, so any Veep rollout that doesn't generate some sort of discernible boost is a badly executed rollout (and/or an unwise pick). Following the Ryan surge (if it lasts), Mitt Romney should enjoy a further surge from the Republican National Convention; at the end of that second surge, he really needs to be in the lead in this race, preferably by a sizable margin.

That's because the Democrats will have their Convention the following week, and will likely regain lost ground in the wake of that spectacle. Thus Romney must have a good, solid lead before the Democrats meet in Charlotte, NC, so as tro arrive in mid-September with at least a fighting chance of victory.

[New England and The Maritimes]

When we talked about trends into the future, we agreed that Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, and Texas were likely to go blue in the next few decades. Florida has been dead even in presidential races for as long as I can remember, so what makes Florida different and will the new polarization start a trend here toward blue or red?

[Jocabia]

When we talked about trends into the future, we agreed that Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, and Texas were likely to go blue in the next few decades. Florida has been dead even in presidential races for as long as I can remember, so what makes Florida different and will the new polarization start a trend here toward blue or red?

One thing different about Florida is that its population doesn't age, per se. It collects the aging population from other states. As such, it's elderly population tends to be more predictably representative of the stereotype for elderly populations. Where you might see an aging population in California that are all "hippies", i.e., democrats, you generally see an elderly population in Florida that is what you'd expect, conservative relative to modern ideals. By the very nature of being elderly, people who are come from a time where things were different, and, in America, different usually means less accepting of social freedoms.

I can see urban populations and school populations outnumbering other populations in other states, but that just isn't going to happen in Florida.

[Farnhamia]

When we talked about trends into the future, we agreed that Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, and Texas were likely to go blue in the next few decades. Florida has been dead even in presidential races for as long as I can remember, so what makes Florida different and will the new polarization start a trend here toward blue or red?

One thing different about Florida is that its population doesn't age, per se. It collects the aging population from other states. As such, it's elderly population tends to be more predictably representative of the stereotype for elderly populations. Where you might see an aging population in California that are all "hippies", i.e., democrats, you generally see an elderly population in Florida that is what you'd expect, conservative relative to modern ideals. By the very nature of being elderly, people who are come from a time where things were different, and, in America, different usually means less accepting of social freedoms.

I can see urban populations and school populations outnumbering other populations in other states, but that just isn't going to happen in Florida.

Florida had, as of a year ago, 17.3% of its population over 65. At the same time, 21.9% of Floridians were under 18. So I don't think you can say that Florida voters are a bunch of hidebound sticks-in-the mud (that's twice I've used "hidebound" today, weird). The Cuban emigré population is aging, too, and the young people may not see a hard line on Castro as all that important, certainly not after he kicks off, which he will do one of these days. If what you say were true, the Democrats would have no chance in Florida, nor would Obama have taken the state by 3% in 2008.