Election 2012

[bosk1]

What are the predictions for the next major states (Kansas, Alabama, Mississippi)?

hmm, without looking at any polling at all, I suspect all three of those are at least "in play" for Santorum, considering their proximity to the bible belt.  Lemme check the polling.  *brb*

I don't think it matters much at this point.  Yeah, there's a long way to go.  And after what Santorum was able to accomplish in Michigan, it seemed like yesterday could mark a massive shift if he could gain a bit of ground on Romney with all the delegates at stake.  But given that he actually lost ground, I think it's pretty much over.  He'll likely stay in it awhile longer to keep his name out there, but it seems pretty obvious to me who the nominee will be.

[kirksnosehair]

I can't really find much polling on the next three states, but they all lean heavily Republican in he general election. 

Here's the map of the bible belt with the state abbreviations for Kansas (KA), Alabama (AL) and Mississippi (MS) on it:



By the looks of this map and those state's proximity to the bible belt, I'd say Romney's best chance is in Kansas and he may be in trouble in Alabama and Mississippi.  I'd love to see what the polling projections say about this, but I'm too lazy to dig them up.

[kirksnosehair]

What are the predictions for the next major states (Kansas, Alabama, Mississippi)?

hmm, without looking at any polling at all, I suspect all three of those are at least "in play" for Santorum, considering their proximity to the bible belt.  Lemme check the polling.  *brb*

I don't think it matters much at this point.  Yeah, there's a long way to go.  And after what Santorum was able to accomplish in Michigan, it seemed like yesterday could mark a massive shift if he could gain a bit of ground on Romney with all the delegates at stake.  But given that he actually lost ground, I think it's pretty much over.  He'll likely stay in it awhile longer to keep his name out there, but it seems pretty obvious to me who the nominee will be.

Oh, I've said all along that Romney will get the nomination.  I still think that today.  But Santorum could now be hoping to have enough delegates to get Romney to put him on the ticket.

[rumborak]

Well, if Ssntorum plays his cards right he might get all of those, which could be a big blow to Romney.

rumborak

[kirksnosehair]

Delegates:

Romney: 429
Santorum: 169
Gingrich: 118
Paul: 67

Needed to win: 1144

Most of the remaining states allocate delegates proportionally, not winner take all.  I don't think anyone can catch Romney.

So, all they're doing now in reality is helping Obama by beating each others heads in.

[Chino]

Delegates:

Romney: 429
Santorum: 169
Gingrich: 118
Paul: 67

Needed to win: 1144

Most of the remaining states allocate delegates proportionally, not winner take all.  I don't think anyone can catch Romney.

So, all they're doing now in reality is helping Obama by beating each others heads in.

IMO, they started doing that a few months ago.

[kirksnosehair]

Well, yeah, but the closer we get to November with these guys at each others throats the more powerful and lasting the impact will be.  However, I still think Romney will put up a pretty good challenge to Obama.  At the end of the day, though, his lack of strong core beliefs and his flip-flops are going to do to him the same thing that a lack of strong core beliefs and flip-flops did to John Kerry.

[jsem]

There is absolutely NO way those delegate counts are accurate. Just saying.

Obama's going to win EASILY.

[kirksnosehair]

There is absolutely NO way those delegate counts are accurate. Just saying.

Obama's going to win EASILY.

Depends where you look, but those are pretty much the numbers right now.

Realclearpolitics.com has them this way:

Romney: 404
Santorum: 161
Gingrich: 105
Paul: 61

So, I'm not really sure what you're objecting to.  Some are only "pledged" and the other numbers I got were from CNN.com

[kirksnosehair]

There is absolutely NO way those delegate counts are accurate. Just saying.

Obama's going to win EASILY.

Also, you should really keep your eye on this web site for polling data:  https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/president_obama_vs_republican_candidates.html

They're the best in the business and they aggregate polls from all over the place and give an average, which I think is the most accurate reflection of what's really going on.

Right now they've got Obama leading Romney in a general election match up but it's not by any landslide type numbers like you seem to be implying, and is, in fact, very close to the margin of error.

Obama: 49.5%
Romney: 44.3%

Obama +5.2%

Margin: 4%

[bosk1]

^Yes.  VERY good site.  And the guy who runs it is a class act.

[kirksnosehair]

Gotta love YouTube - for all of the conservatives raging against Obama right now because of gas prices, they should look at this video first.

[Super Dude]

That was great.

[kirksnosehair]

Yep, reality is a mo-fo

[rumborak]

^Yes.  VERY good site.  And the guy who runs it is a class act.

That site has been my #1 go-to for polls, absolutely.

Regarding the delegate count, there's usually agreement between the major media outlets about it. Only the RP supporters seem to count completely differently due to their crazy "if then else" scheme of how delegates will vote.

rumborak

[jsem]

There is absolutely NO way those delegate counts are accurate. Just saying.

Obama's going to win EASILY.

Also, you should really keep your eye on this web site for polling data:  https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/president_obama_vs_republican_candidates.html

They're the best in the business and they aggregate polls from all over the place and give an average, which I think is the most accurate reflection of what's really going on.

Right now they've got Obama leading Romney in a general election match up but it's not by any landslide type numbers like you seem to be implying, and is, in fact, very close to the margin of error.

Obama: 49.5%
Romney: 44.3%

Obama +5.2%

Margin: 4%

My prediction isn't based on actual evidence. More of a general hunch.

[antigoon]

Gotta love YouTube - for all of the conservatives raging against Obama right now because of gas prices, they should look at this video first.

Maybe this deserves its own topic, but what is behind the fluctuation (increase) of pump prices? I was always under the impression that the price of gas had more to do with the speculation of oil futures than it did anything else.

[rumborak]

I think the "X vs. Obama" polls are pretty meaningless tbh. Obama hasn't even run a single ad, i.e. the airwaves have been permeated with conservative fare for the last few months. I think the polls will shift quite a bit once it switches to "liberal vs. conservative".

rumborak

[rumborak]

Maybe this deserves its own topic, but what is behind the fluctuation (increase) of pump prices? I was always under the impression that the price of gas had more to do with the speculation of oil futures than it did anything else.

Gas prices are, for all intents and purposes, outside the sphere of influence for a president. It's the OPECs and the Irans that influence it. The president can choose to subidize the price, but all that does is to eventually cause the gas price to rise even higher because demand becomes artificially inflated. Yet another reason to become more energy independent (preferably with renewables), because then you have domestic control over the single more important resource, energy.

rumborak

[bosk1]

I think the "X vs. Obama" polls are pretty meaningless tbh. Obama hasn't even run a single ad, i.e. the airwaves have been permeated with conservative fare for the last few months. I think the polls will shift quite a bit once it switches to "liberal vs. conservative".

rumborak

Exactly.  Not that they're completely meaningless, but they're definitely of very limited utility.

[rumborak]

Any poll that has RP as the "most likely candidate to defeat Obama" as a result also has that giant red flag of "something's amiss here" waving over it.

rumborak

[bosk1]

  I personally think you are right.

[Scheavo]

Any poll that has RP as the "most likely candidate to defeat Obama" as a result also has that giant red flag of "something's amiss here" waving over it.

rumborak

I think you don't understand young liberals.

[Super Dude]

Hey, conjecture can't stand against empirical evidence. Not to mention young folks have the lowest voting rate in the country.

[rumborak]

@Scheavo: Not sure I follow. Are you a) saying I missed that young liberals have flooded those polls with their idea that RP could defeat Obama or b) you're actually saying RP has a chance of defeating Obama?

If RP becomes the nominee, all they will need to do is to do a collection of RP's wild stuff. E.g. shut down half of the federal government in one year, don't give money to disaster victims, let Iran acquire nuclears etc. etc.
Then you invite him to a debate and let him ramble like grandpa on coke, and the deal is done.

EDIT: Lol, first had the typo "RP has a chance of defeating RP" in my post. That's probably closest to reality actually.

rumborak

[Scheavo]

@Scheavo: Not sure I follow. Are you a) saying I missed that young liberals have flooded those polls with their idea that RP could defeat Obama or b) you're actually saying RP has a chance of defeating Obama?

rumborak

Out of all the Republican candidates, I actually think he has the best chance. Oh, voter turnout, overall, might be lower, but I think Obama could theoretically lose enough votes to Paul, who could siphon away a lot of his base. I think there's enough young people who would just love the opportunity to end our foreign involvements (especially in the Middle East), and end the War on Drugs (seriously, that'd win you the under thirty crowd pretty quickly), that it would make it interesting.

Plus, there'd still be quite a bit of pure anti-Obama votes.

I mean, he has some of the strongest and most fervent supporters out there, and when you have as low of voter turnout as is normal in America, sometimes that's more important than anything else (which is why elections always feature politicians riling up and playing to the base).

[Super Dude]

I wish there was some way to increase voter turnout. Like the Australian compulsory system or something.

[rumborak]

Regarding ending the foreign involvement, you get that with Obama too, only at a much more reasonable level, not just shrugging your shoulders and walking away from genocide and nuclear ambitions like RP suggests.

Yes, RP has a fervent base, but his problem is that that's all he has. He can not garner any support from other people, as has been painfully obvious over the last few months. Ever candidate turned out to be shit, and yet RP got nowhere as Republicans turned from one bizarre person to the next in hope for that anti-Romney.

Also, I find RP hasn't even remotely been scrutinized as much as the other candidates, simply because everybody agree he's not gonna be the candidate. If the Democratic war chest focused all its efforts on exposing the faults of RP, his current semi-benign image of the half-senile crazy neighbor would switch to "this guy set out to destroy the fabric of society".

I wish there was some way to increase voter turnout. Like the Australian compulsory system or something.

Get rid of winner-takes-all. It is pointless in MA to go voting essentially.

rumborak

[TL]

The thing that will help Romney in Alabama and Mississippi is Gingrich.

I can call it right now; Romney will at best win a plurality in those states. He has no chance of a majority in either.
If Gingrich drops out before those states hold their contests, Santorum will win both. However, it's a strong region for Gingrich as well. Gingrich has no shot at the nomination himself, but he can still split the vote with Santorum in the deep south.

[Scheavo]

Regarding ending the foreign involvement, you get that with Obama too, only at a much more reasonable level, not just shrugging your shoulders and walking away from genocide and nuclear ambitions like RP suggests.

And while I agree with this, I also know our involvement over there is only self-perpetuating our need to be there. And I know quite a few people who are in the same dilemma. Considering Paul has very high support from the military, this could play into an interesting election dynamic.

Yes, RP has a fervent base, but his problem is that that's all he has. He can not garner any support from other people, as has been painfully obvious over the last few months. Ever candidate turned out to be shit, and yet RP got nowhere as Republicans turned from one bizarre person to the next in hope for that anti-Romney.

The last few months have been primaries and caucuses, not a general election. For example, Mitt Romney has won the primaries by getting out and winning the rich vote. Voter turnout is extremely low for primaries, and it's generally been lower than in 2008 so far. Considering the working class, and a lot of people, don't get off work, or school, to vote in the primaries, whose gonna be able to vote more? The old, and the rich. It's sorta false to use the Republican primaries to actually gauge Ron Paul's support, when polls show him, in a general election, fairing quite well, and have for a while.

(the above is a reason I think Romney will, in the end, get beaten badly. I don't think he's nearly as strong as some people think he is)

Also, I find RP hasn't even remotely been scrutinized as much as the other candidates, simply because everybody agree he's not gonna be the candidate. If the Democratic war chest focused all its efforts on exposing the faults of RP, his current semi-benign image of the half-senile crazy neighbor would switch to "this guy set out to destroy the fabric of society".

I don't think that's true. He was getting a surge for a little bit, and the newsletters showed up, and some other baggage.


---

By the way, just so it's clear, I'd either vote for Obama, or not vote, if Paul was somehow the candidate - but he won't be, so it's not really a real issue. Paul gets the attention of a lot of young people, and a lot of young liberals, and I think he splits the liberal vote up in some ways that might explain why he gets as much support, in current national polls, as Romney, the "front runner."

[jsem]

I wish there was some way to increase voter turnout. Like the Australian compulsory system or something.

Factoring in the average intelligence and ignorance of the average voter - a compulsory system would be terrible.

Maybe that's why Australia is sliding into a surveillance state.

[Super Dude]

Maybe that's why Australia is sliding into a surveillance state.

Any Aussies like to confirm this? No offense, the claim just seems like the sort that would come from someone with whom I regularly disagree about U.S.'s becoming a nanny state.

[snapple]

I'd like to remind everyone that it will be Romney in Game 6.

[rumborak]

Maybe that's why Australia is sliding into a surveillance state.

Any Aussies like to confirm this? No offense, the claim just seems like the sort that would come from someone with whom I regularly disagree about U.S.'s becoming a nanny state.

Kinda had the same reaction to that post. Reminds me of Santorum claiming that Dutch elders run around with "do not euthanize" bracelets.

rumborak

[jsem]

Maybe that's why Australia is sliding into a surveillance state.

Any Aussies like to confirm this? No offense, the claim just seems like the sort that would come from someone with whom I regularly disagree about U.S.'s becoming a nanny state.

Kinda had the same reaction to that post. Reminds me of Santorum claiming that Dutch elders run around with "do not euthanize" bracelets.

rumborak

It wasn't meant as a serious post. I wouldn't ever blame that on compulsory voting.

On a more serious note though, Australia has relative economic freedom but the people are losing the civil liberties battle over there.