Who Will Win the Elections? Predictions and Analysis

[AlephZero]

Feel free to participate in the thread with the quiz on political orientation.

There's an interesting op-ed comment in this weekend's UK Financial Times on the orientation shift in US politics: not so many years ago, the left-wing of political opinion in Europe had no big problem with Clinton's policies, and the right wing no big problem with George Bush.

But now, Obama is seen as more or less aligned with the mainstream European right wing, and a serious French newpaper has run a political analysis under the headline "Is Romney an extra-terrestrial?". Typical Europoean opinion polls would prefer Obama over Romney by about 70% to 7%.

From personal experience, I don't think the political spectrum has shifted much in Europe in that time frame - and if anything it's shifted to the right, not to the left.

 

[mheslep]

Obama. Intrade says so.

http://www.intrade.com

Wisdom of the crowd, and that particular crowd pays to give opinions. Or, as they say, Money talks, BS walks. Intrade is the most convincing piece of evidence I've seen that Obama will win re-election (unfortunately).

 

[mheslep]

But Ras was off by 2 or 3 on Ohio, and they show Ohio roughly tied. The PV doesn't matter.

PV is not decisive. Yes it matters, especially trend, both as indicator for electoral outcome and for the political power of the presidency. If national PV had no relevance, no pollster would bother with it.

 

[mheslep]

Don't let the title mislead you. The Economist is probably the best English-language general news magazine, now that Time is a shadow of its old self, and and Newsweek and US News & World Report are gone or going away. My wife and I started subscribing to The Economist this year after we realized that I was buying it often enough at airports (great in-flight reading!) and bookstores at $8 or so a pop to make a subscription worthwhile.

With a clear but not radical lean to the left in my view. I've also been reading The E for decades on and off; it is has moved left quite a bit from twenty years ago.

 

[mheslep]

...
I don't see how he has governed to the right of Clinton. ...

I think the signature difference is welfare reform, which Clinton signed. By contrast Obama is using executive power to undermine the law of the land (abusing the power in my view).

 

[Angry Citizen]

I think the signature difference is welfare reform, which Clinton signed. By contrast Obama is using executive power to undermine the law of the land (abusing the power in my view).

No he's not:

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/08/does-obamas-plan-gut-welfare-reform/

Work requirements are not simply being “dropped.” States may now change the requirements — revising, adding or eliminating them — as part of a federally approved state-specific plan to increase job placement.
And it won’t “gut” the 1996 law to ease the requirement. Benefits still won’t be paid beyond an allotted time, whether the recipient is working or not.

 

[mheslep]

... Also, physicsforums is actually a comparatively right wing site. I'm pretty sure I'm the most left wing person here, and I'd rank myself not very left of center. ...

C'mon. You describe a political party as "dead" and "will end". On examination you grant you state those words mean it might win the next election. Now PF is a "comparatively right wing" site, because, why, posts here are only compared to your personal political views, or of the Daily Worker?

 

[Angry Citizen]

C'mon. You describe a political party as "dead" and "will end". On examination you grant you state those words mean it might win the next election.

You're twisting my words. Would you seriously contend that the Republican Party of 1950, the one that built the Interstate Highway System, is the same Republican Party that wants to give your woman a transvaginal ultrasound? No - the parties are almost wholly divorced from one another except in name. When a party dies, its apparatus is taken over by the next most popular ideological movement. The Republican Party of today would hardly recognize itself even a scant ten years ago. I argue that it wouldn't even really care for what it was four years ago, when McCain ran with a pro-climate change view and other "heresies". The Republican Party of today is not the same party of yesterday. That was my point.

Now PF is a "comparatively right wing" site, because, why, posts here are only compared to your personal political views, or of the Daily Worker?

Because I'm arguing with you about welfare work requirements. On left-leaning sites, I argue with people about whether to nationalize just the banks or half the economy. Believe me, I know the difference. PF has its fair share of right-wingers, and the leftists come across more as moderates and American Liberals than any serious, European-style leftist.

And no, I've never read the Daily Worker.

 

[CAC1001]

Right- so Obama's healthplan pretty much IS the health plan of the 90s Republicans, which was the right wing alternative to Clinton's health plan.

To a person like myself, there is nothing right-wing about either plan. The Republicans at the time, for whatever reason, adopted said plan and an individual mandate. But I'd disagree that there is/was anything right-wing about it.

Cap-and-trade was also the republican position on global warming in the 90s, as an alternative to a carbon tax. Its very obviously a market based regulation. Again, right of Clinton.

Didn't know that about the Republicans supporting carbon cap-and-trade, however, cap-and-trade applied to pollution emissions from energy plants was a Republican idea, the idea being market-based as you said. The problem with cap-and-trade applied to carbon emissions, and why Republicans oppose it, is that there is no known way to cap the emissions. So it will essentially act as a tax. Technologies to "scrub" the other forms of emissions, such as sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, and so forth, companies were able to utilize.

It's like the difference between filtering the pollutants out of a car's exhaust versus filtering the carbon dioxide of the exhaust itself. While you can make the exhaust a lot cleaner, the CO2 still must be released into the atmosphere right now.

On many (perhaps most) major policy issues, Obama sides with the Republican party of the 1990s- hence, slightly to the right of Clinton.

I don't think Obama would have agreed with the welfare reform the Republicans passed, NAFTA, the capital gains tax rate cut Clinton signed, or the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act he signed.

 

[CAC1001]

There's an interesting op-ed comment in this weekend's UK Financial Times on the orientation shift in US politics: not so many years ago, the left-wing of political opinion in Europe had no big problem with Clinton's policies, and the right wing no big problem with George Bush.

But now, Obama is seen as more or less aligned with the mainstream European right wing, and a serious French newpaper has run a political analysis under the headline "Is Romney an extra-terrestrial?". Typical Europoean opinion polls would prefer Obama over Romney by about 70% to 7%.

The American right-wing is rather alien to many Europeans. I find a French newspaper saying that rather ironic, as France just elected a proud socialist to power.

 

[CAC1001]

I think the signature difference is welfare reform, which Clinton signed. By contrast Obama is using executive power to undermine the law of the land (abusing the power in my view).

Remember though that Clinton vetoed welfare reform twice, and then signed it because the public was behind it. The Democratic party was very much against it and two members of HHS resigned over it at the time.

 

[Angry Citizen]

Yes he is (as I stated, not as that Annenburg Foundation quote says). Primary source:



http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/resource/policy/im-ofa/2012/im201203/im201203

Are you aware that there is a caveat to that waiver? That's why Fact Check calls your position on this a bold-faced falsity.

 

[Angry Citizen]

The American right-wing is rather alien to many Europeans. I find a French newspaper saying that rather ironic, as France just elected a proud socialist to power.

Social democrat; not socialist. He's a member of the Parti Socialiste, which is not a far left party. That would be the Front de Gauche, whose nominee was a guy named Melenchon. Those guys support a 100% tax on the rich, quite literally. The PS just wants a 70% tax - and before you say that's too crazy, guess what the US's was in 1955? 91%. Yep.

 

[mheslep]

Remember though that Clinton vetoed welfare reform twice, and then signed it because the public was behind it. The Democratic party was very much against it and two members of HHS resigned over it at the time.

Yep.

 

[Angry Citizen]

A rate which nobody paid on gross income. Nope.

Does anyone pay the rates as they're advertised? "Nope". Point being, if 35% is the top rate now, and no one pays that, they're still paying significantly less than the lower-than-91% they paid in 1950. Unless the Kennedy and Reagan tax cuts were just.. eh.. relabeling?

 

[Angry Citizen]

Please show from a primary source where *my* statement is false.

From the same source:

Thus, HHS has authority to waive compliance with this 402 requirement and authorize a state to test approaches and methods other than those set forth in section 407, including definitions of work activities and engagement, specified limitations, verification procedures, and the calculation of participation rates. As described below, however, HHS will only consider approving waivers relating to the work participation requirements that make changes intended to lead to more effective means of meeting the work goals of TANF.

 

[Angry Citizen]

The point is that income was heavily sheltered back then - pushed here and there all to avoid taxes and now much less so. The government gets roughly the same share, but the economy sees far higher productivity of capital.

http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/charts/2012/income-tax-receipts-680.jpg

You just cited the Heritage Foundation in an argument. Think I wouldn't check the source?

 

[OmCheeto]

The poll results kind of reflect my facebook friend's consensus.

If it weren't for my southern relatives, there'd be only that one sole; "I always vote for the loser, so you can't blame this mess on me" type person.

----------------------------------
still waiting for the call from my sister. (texan to the end)

 

[Angry Citizen]

What Sibellius says are her "priorities", or what feel good motivations she offers along side the waivers do not make my statement false. She *is* waiving TANF.

Keep telling yourself that.

 

[mheslep]

shrug, I suppose none of this belongs in this thread.

 

[ParticleGrl]

To a person like myself, there is nothing right-wing about either plan. The Republicans at the time, for whatever reason, adopted said plan and an individual mandate. But I'd disagree that there is/was anything right-wing about it.

The market based reform plan created by Heritage, championed by the US right wing party, drafted and enacted on the state level by a Republican governor wasn't right wing?

Maybe this will help- my definition of 'right wing' is 'what the party that's considered right-of-center wants to do/what the think tanks considered right-of-center want to do.' In general, I think 'market-based', and 'less centralized'. What definition are you using?

Didn't know that about the Republicans supporting carbon cap-and-trade, however, cap-and-trade applied to pollution emissions from energy plants was a Republican idea, the idea being market-based as you said. The problem with cap-and-trade applied to carbon emissions, and why Republicans oppose it, is that there is no known way to cap the emissions. So it will essentially act as a tax. Technologies to "scrub" the other forms of emissions, such as sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, and so forth, companies were able to utilize.

Remember that the tech. to scrub sulfur dioxide was in its infancy when the original cap and trade style laws were passed. Once there were market incentives, the technology developed quickly. Thats how markets work. Thats how the law is supposed to work- pass cap and trade and now there is a niche for technologies that the market will fill. I don't think the republican opposition is based on the idea that markets can't innovate, because if so, I have no idea what they stand for.

Also, the actual, stated Republican opposition to cap-and-trade is that they don't believe global warming is happening, so its the solution to a non-problem.

Either way, I hope we can agree that the Republican party of the 90s was right of Bill Clinton. And that championing two major policy proposals of that Republican party is at least some evidence that Obama governs right of Clinton. Keep in mind these aren't proposals forced on Obama- these are HIS positions.

Also, isn't returning TANF requirements to the states something republicans should support? I thought pushing things to the state level was the whole idea?

 

[CAC1001]

Social democrat; not socialist. He's a member of the Parti Socialiste, which is not a far left party.

Their platform is social democracy and democratic socialism, and they are a member of the Socialist International. I'd say that makes them pretty far-left, unless your definition of left is Soviet communism socialism.

That would be the Front de Gauche, whose nominee was a guy named Melenchon. Those guys support a 100% tax on the rich, quite literally. The PS just wants a 70% tax - and before you say that's too crazy, guess what the US's was in 1955? 91%. Yep.

The U.S.'s was very high in the 1950s because of the tax increases that had been passed during the very left-leaning FDR.

 

[Angry Citizen]

Their platform is social democracy and democratic socialism, and they are a member of the Socialist International. I'd say that makes them pretty far-left, unless your definition of left is Soviet communism socialism.

Labour (UK) is also a member of Socialist International. Anyone who claims they're "far left" is just plain wrong. Social democracy and democratic socialism are two very different things; please learn what you're talking about. It is impossible to advocate both at the same time.

The U.S.'s was very high in the 1950s because of the tax increases that had been passed during the very left-leaning FDR.

Fine. Don't like that? The highest tax bracket was in the low-to-mid 70s during Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Carter. In other words, the bracket was at or above what the "uber-socialists" in France want to raise it to, for at least thirty of the most productive and prosperous years in American history.

You folks really need to learn the nuances of politics before making broad, sweeping statements about left wing ideology. Commies, socialists and liberals, oh my!

 

[CAC1001]

The market based reform plan created by Heritage, championed by the US right wing party, drafted and enacted on the state level by a Republican governor wasn't right wing?

Correct. Now you're getting into why for many years many Republican voters have complained that the Republican party has not been conservative. However, it wasn't championed by the Republican party as a whole or conservatives as a whole, just by certain Republicans and conservatives. That it was created by Heritage, championed by certain people in the Republican party, and drafted by a Republican governor at the state level means nothing. It just means that certain members of the Republican party, at the time, decided to adopt a left-leaning policy. It also was not much different at all from Hillary's plan.

Also, Mitt Romney has never been a right-wing Republican. He was a pro-choice Republican who signed cap-and-trade at the state level, an Assault Weapons Ban, and passed a universal healthcare bill featuring a mandate. No right-winger is going to pass any of those things. And those are likely the reasons why the Democrats of the state speak/spoke highly of him as a governor, because he essentially governed as a Democrat.

The Cato Institute never supported an individual mandate.

Here is a detailed article on the history of conservatives and the mandate: http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/20...nservative-history-of-the-individual-mandate/

Maybe this will help- my definition of 'right wing' is 'what the party that's considered right-of-center wants to do/what the think tanks considered right-of-center want to do.' In general, I think 'market-based', and 'less centralized'. What definition are you using?

My definition of right-wing is does it meet the principles of limited government, fiscal conservatism, free-market capitalism, and so forth. Any plan that features a literal mandate that people purchase something is not right-wing, as that goes against some of the most fundamental principles of conservatism. It entirely dismisses the idea of a government that derives its powers from the people and of concepts such as individual liberty. That the Republican politicians decided to reject this doesn't make it right-wing.

Remember that the tech. to scrub sulfur dioxide was in its infancy when the original cap and trade style laws were passed. Once there were market incentives, the technology developed quickly. Thats how markets work. Thats how the law is supposed to work- pass cap and trade and now there is a niche for technologies that the market will fill. I don't think the republican opposition is based on the idea that markets can't innovate, because if so, I have no idea what they stand for.

But it was an infant technology that could be developed quickly. Technologies to allow cap-and-trade for carbon are wholly different ballgame as you aren't talking filtration but carbon capture and sequestration. It's like the incandescent light bulb ban that was enacted. On paper, it just raises the energy efficiency requirements for light bulbs. In practice however, it outlaws the incandescent as the incandescent cannot meet that requirement. It thus is going to force people to have to use the much more costly and complex CFL and LED bulbs (which is likely why the manufacturers lobbied for the ban, as the more expensive bulbs will increase their profits).

Also, the actual, stated Republican opposition to cap-and-trade is that they don't believe global warming is happening, so its the solution to a non-problem.

Either way, I hope we can agree that the Republican party of the 90s was right of Bill Clinton. And that championing two major policy proposals of that Republican party is at least some evidence that Obama governs right of Clinton. Keep in mind these aren't proposals forced on Obama- these are HIS positions.

I can't agree with that position. It just means that elements of the Republican party adopted left-leaning policy positions that Obama himself has adopted right now. Obama has not adopted any of the right-leaning policies Bill Clinton supported. Also, I don't know if I'd say his healthcare law was really his position, as it was designed by Nancy Pelosi.

Also, isn't returning TANF requirements to the states something republicans should support? I thought pushing things to the state level was the whole idea?

Republicans are generally fine with pushing things to the states as far as I can tell.

 

[CAC1001]

Labour (UK) is also a member of Socialist International. Anyone who claims they're "far left" is just plain wrong. Social democracy and democratic socialism are two very different things; please learn what you're talking about. It is impossible to advocate both at the same time.

They're kissing cousins, and yes one can advocate both at the same time as they are pretty much different variants of the same thing unless one wants to switch to communism.

According to this link, the Parti Socialisti supports both: http://www.parties-and-elections.eu/france.html

Fine. Don't like that? The highest tax bracket was in the low-to-mid 70s during Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Carter. In other words, the bracket was at or above what the "uber-socialists" in France want to raise it to, for at least thirty of the most productive and prosperous years in American history.

You folks really need to learn the nuances of politics before making broad, sweeping statements about left wing ideology. Commies, socialists and liberals, oh my!

What that shows is that the U.S. had a very confiscatory top income tax rate during the time. And calling them "thirty of the most productive and prosperous years in American history" is over-simplifying. You have to remember that you had:

1) Europe rebuilding after having been bombed to oblivion, which allowed the U.S. to dominate economically (and some countries adopting socialism like the UK at the time, thus stagnating economically and thus not providing competition)

2) A huge industrial base that had been built up in the U.S. from during the war

3) Infrastructure from the New Deal that allowed whole areas of the country that had previously been under-developed to develop into booming, thriving economies

4) Also the birthrate had declined during the Depression, so by the 1950s, men coming of age found jobs readily available.

5) Development of the Interstate Highway System, which had a massive impact on the development of towns, cities, and the country's overall economic growth

6) A massive amount of research and development in science and technology that had been conducted during WW2 that then spilled over into the private sector

7) Continual massive investment in R&D of science and technology due to the Cold War defense budget

8) The U.S. space program, which was probably the all-time greatest government investment in R&D for science and technology in human history---the economic benefits from the space program are almost unfathomable. The modern world and the modern economy as we know it would not exist if not for the things developed in the space program that then were adopted by the private sector.

9) It's a lesser-known thing, but after WWII, the United States stole an enormous amount of patents and intellectual property from Germany -- https://www.amazon.com/dp/0804717613/?tag=pfamazon01-20

So I mean it wasn't as if the U.S. just had high tax rates and prospered greatly, the prosperity was due to quite a few factors that the modern U.S. will likely not experience again (our economic competition being bombed out, rural areas getting lots of infrastructure that allowed them to develop economically, massive government investment in R&D, etc...).

By the 1970s, the U.S. economy was suffering stagflation, and then when foreign competitors finally began to give domestic U.S. companies real competition (something they weren't used to), it was disastrous initially for them and then forced them to get their act together.

 

[russ_watters]

Ok, I threw in my vote for Romney. This is based partly on hope, but there is a reasoning behind it:

There are three sources of information I use when looking to predict the election:
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/?state=nwa
http://www.gallup.com/poll/election.aspx

Gallup is a poll (two polls, actually), realclearpolitics is an aggregator and fivethirtyeight is a predictor. Currently, they show:
Gallup, Registered Voters: Tied at 48%
Gallup, Likely Voters: Romney 51%, Obama 46%
RealClearPolitics: Romney 47.3%, Obama 47.5%
FiveThirtyEight: Odds of winning, Obama 85.1%

Nate Silver of Fivethirtyeight criticizes Gallup for diverging from the other national polls, yet it still gets the highest weight in his predictor due to it having the largest sample size of all the national polls and ability to also incorporate cell phone users (edit: that cell phone part may be out of date): http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/18/gallup-vs-the-world/

So I'm going to go with that: I'm going to trust that Gallup is both unique and superior to the other polls. I'm also going to go with the assumption that it would be highly unlikely for Obama to "lose" the popular vote by 5% and still come out on top in the electoral vote.

FiveThirtyEight is tough to interpret because it is a predictor not a poll and I don't have a clear understanding of his methodology, so I'm going to predict that he's over-mathing it.

I have also heard of issues with possible oversampling of Democrats, but this is difficult to confirm.

[edit] Additional food for thought:
-In 2004, Gallup had Bush with a slight lead in likely voters and Kerry with a slight lead in registered voters. http://www.gallup.com/poll/13873/Final-Poll-Shows-Presidential-Race-Dead-Heat.aspx

Here's a list of Gallup's final election poll results for every Presidential election they've done: http://www.gallup.com/poll/9442/election-polls-accuracy-record-presidential-elections.aspx

 

[Angry Citizen]

Gallup gets the highest individual weight. However, it's significantly more likely that Gallup is wrong than all the other polls are wrong, because the aggregate sample size far outweighs even Gallup's large sample size. Rasmussen, a notoriously right-leaning firm, puts the race at a tie. Gallup was one of the worst pollsters in 2008 - it is highly overrated. Plus it hasn't put out data since the 28th. The race has moved since then.

To be blunt, russ, I think you betrayed your reasoning in your second sentence: hope. You need hope that Obama is not going to be President for the next four years. Your hope is unfounded. In order for Obama to lose, the vast majority of polls in the country would have to be wrong by several points. The RCP averages in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin are 2.8%, 4.1%, 3.8%, and 4.2% for Obama, respectively. Romney must have one of these in order to win, even if he sweeps all the other states sans Nevada (this being a state that Romney has practically given up in). The chances of such a sweep are almost nil, considering every other swing state except North Carolina and Virginia shows an Obama lead; and Virginia is a tie.

One of the best phrases to come out of this election is, "the math doesn't work". Your math doesn't work, russ, and you're making a huge mistake in trusting one poll that is far outside the mean. But we'll see come Wednesday, eh?

 

[russ_watters]

Gallup was one of the worst pollsters in 2008...

According to the link I just added above, Gallup overrated Obama and underrated McCain by 2% apiece in the last election. That error, if repeated here but in the opposite direction would not swing the election from Romney. But in both of the last two elections, they underrated the Republican. Further back than that, it is tough to parse the data to eliminate the influence of the 3rd party candidates.

What is your basis (evidence) for saying Gallup was one of the worst in 2008?

To be blunt, russ, I think you betrayed your reasoning in your second sentence: hope. You need hope that Obama is not going to be President for the next four years. Your hope is unfounded.

I was quite clear in my previous post that I think the election is a toss-up. It is currently a statistical tie. So...

In order for Obama to lose, the vast majority of polls in the country would have to be wrong by several points.

If you ignore the margin for error, sure. But most polls that I've seen have the election at a statistical tie.

One of the best phrases to come out of this election is, "the math doesn't work". Your math doesn't work, russ, and you're making a huge mistake in trusting one poll that is far outside the mean. But we'll see come Wednesday, eh?

Relax. I would never make a bet on this election because it is a statistical tie. The above was mostly just for fun. I don't actually "trust" in any of these polls much at all.

[edit] Also:

Rasmussen, a notoriously right-leaning firm, puts the race at a tie.

Yes, it is true that Rasmussen often has polls that show results to the right of where others show. Nevertheless, they were dead-on in the 2008 election: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...2008/2008_presidential_election/how_did_we_do

 

[Pythagorean]

Anybody want to take bets? Loser has to post "I was wrong, I let my desire to see Romney win interfere with my ability to accurately predict the outcome of the presidential election."

;p

 

[Angry Citizen]

What is your basis (evidence) for saying Gallup was one of the worst in 2008?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/11/12/659768/-Best-and-Worst-Pollsters-of-2008-chart

It was also one of the worst in 2004:

http://www.androidworld.com/prod35.htm

I was quite clear in my previous post that I think the election is a toss-up. It is currently a statistical tie. So...

It is not a statistical tie. Quit that.

If you ignore the margin for error, sure. But most polls that I've seen have the election at a statistical tie.

Aggregate polling has a margin of error somewhere in the neighborhood of 1%. The only state that is at that level of indecision is Virginia.

Yes, it is true that Rasmussen often has polls that show results to the right of where others show. Nevertheless, they were dead-on in the 2008 election

Ras has a 2 point McCain bias in 2008. Plus it's conspicuous (to me) that they've been calling the election several points to the right during this entire election season, and only just recently moved towards the mean. But if Rasmussen is such a great firm, why aren't you focused on Rasmussen which shows a tie instead of Gallup, the only trustworthy firm predicting a Romney PV victory?