Romney ... With 270. But Only if Scott Reusser Was Right
Although at this hour InTrade continues to insist that President Obama is more than twice as likely as Gov. Romney to win tomorrow, I say--and I bring to bear on this pronouncement 30 years of close attention to American politics--nuts.
Not that I'm with Brother Rahe. Much as I'd like to suppose Romney will win in a landslide, I can find no evidence anywhere for a Romney victory of more than two points--and even that would strike me as surprisingly large.
Still. I feel certain Romney will win in Florida and North Carolina, reasonably confident that he'll win in Virginia and--this one'll be tight--New Hampshire. That leaves one prize, the great prize, Ohio. In the matter of the Buckeye state I repose my confidence in the analysis of our own Scott Reusser, surely one of the stoutest patriots, and finest prose stylists, that Ohio has ever produced. On our podcast last week, as you may recall, Scott offered a trenchant and memorable prediction. Ohio may not have warmed to Mitt Romney, but, after enduring four years of Barack Obama, voters in the Buckeye state will step into voting booths tomorrow to experience a primal emotion: disgust.
"In the end," Scott said, "Ohio will vomit Obama out."
Romney will win--with exactly 270 electoral votes.
- Comment (36)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (5)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Oct '10
Re: Romney ... With 270. But Only if Scott Reusser Was Right
Hey, a win's a win. I'll take it.
Oct '10
Re: Romney ... With 270. But Only if Scott Reusser Was Right
But I'm sticking by my prediction of a few days ago.
Romney: 326
Obama: 212
Aug '10
Re: Romney ... With 270. But Only if Scott Reusser Was Right
That's just it. There's no evidence for any prediction. People are choosing to believe the pundit who buttresses his/her political and/or psychological inclination. There's nothing to compare this to. Perhaps if Khrushchev had run against Nixon in 68, we'd have a model. He didn't and we don't know.
What I do know, is that my back-up champagne bottle in chilling in the fridge and I'm feeling good about this one. For someone with a constitutional penchant for pessimism, this is something of a first for me. I can't believe that another string of hollow lies will outweigh an actual record this time. People know what he did. People saw the debates. I'm going to knock the dust out of my champagne glasses.
Edited on November 6, 2012 at 7:17amMay '10
Re: Romney ... With 270. But Only if Scott Reusser Was Right
Peter Robinson:
Romney will win--with exactly 270 electoral votes.
Peter,
You are so not winning a Ricochet coffee mug with that entry.
Jul '11
Re: Romney ... With 270. But Only if Scott Reusser Was Right
I believe we reject socialism tomorrow.
Aug '10
Re: Romney ... With 270. But Only if Scott Reusser Was Right
I think your assessment is dead on. Though I think it is more likely that Romney wins Colorado than New Hampshire. So, I'll take both of them. :)
Aug '10
Re: Romney ... With 270. But Only if Scott Reusser Was Right
The inTrade prediction seems to fit within the statistical probabilities if the underlying polls are accurate. Nate Silver's percentile predictions are accurate in as far as the data points he is using are accurate. If the weighting of the polls is wrong, then hes application of statistical tools will fall flat.
What's interesting is that even in 2008 the polls overestimated Obama's appeal.
We'll know tomorrow.
Mar '11
Re: Romney ... With 270. But Only if Scott Reusser Was Right
You fellas in the punditocracy are being way too timid. No one can tell me that after the crowds I saw at this week's rallies that Romney isn't going to sustain a Paul Rahe type of victory. If I'm wrong tomorrow, I'll drown my sorrows in the best Merlot in my cabinet, but I fully expect to be at work on Wednesday morning bright eyed and with a huge smile on my face -- especially since I'm only one of a small handful of 'pubbies in my office. I'm betting that there are still more people in this nation with common sense than the useful idiots here in CA and the Northeast states (please God!).
Sep '11
Re: Romney ... With 270. But Only if Scott Reusser Was Right
I haven't been involved at the highest levels as you have, Peter, but I know the smell of the wrong end of election night (hey, I'm a conservative in the state of Washington for crying out loud). This isn't it. One of Michael Medved's rules of American politics applies here; the optimistic, less scary candidate tends to win. The President has been little more than a nattering nabob of negativity (Spiro Agnew's contribution to our national discourse). Once the Potemkin image of Romney was shattered by the 1st debate, the negative stuff Obama throws doesn't stick nearly as well.
A more empirical take; with a non-2008 electorate, I don't see how Romney loses while winning independent voters by 5-10 points. I think Dan Henninger touched on an important point in his column today. Not only evangelicals, but serious Catholics are going to vote in greater numbers this year, not just in Ohio, but in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Virginia. The more religiously committed the electorate, the worse it is for the President.
I would certain take your prediction, given the alternative. However, I'm in the Michael Barone neighborhood: 309.
Jul '11
Re: Romney ... With 270. But Only if Scott Reusser Was Right
I still pick 308, for no reason beyond it being a good cartridge.
Aug '10
Re: Romney ... With 270. But Only if Scott Reusser Was Right
I wonder if Michael Barone is still in that neighborhood.
Nathaniel, you mentioned a link that states the polls overestimated Obama's lead. But the numbers they were using weren't complete. Obama won by just over 7 points. The average pollster showed a 7.5 lead. These weren't bad predictions at all.
This year there are pollsters that will be outright wrong. Two big ones show Obama with a three point win a few show a tie, and two others show Romney by 1. it will be interesting to see how the pollsters respond to the results.
I sure hope Gallup and Rasmussen are right!
Oh, and Brian, hello fellow conservative in Washington! I guess I'm not alone after all!
Edited on November 6, 2012 at 8:07amFeb '11
Re: Romney ... With 270. But Only if Scott Reusser Was Right
Brian McMenomy:
The President has been little more than a nattering nabob of negativity (Spiro Agnew's contribution to our national discourse).
Great quotes must be preserved precisely. It's "negativism."
And it was written by William Safire.
May '12
Re: Romney ... With 270. But Only if Scott Reusser Was Right
I don't think the vast majority of people who gamble on Intrade, and it is gambling, have any special information that we don't have and maybe less (I'm sure there are a lot of people from other countries taking a try at it). If Obama loses there are going to be a lot of broke people angry at Nate Silver.
Look how much the "experts" on Intrade vacillated during the Republican primaries before the Iowa caucus. I could have told you that Gingrich, Cain, and Bachmann did not have the campaign infrastructure to sustain any momentum that they temporarily gained. They were not serious candidates, an expert would have told you that. And look how many people were betting on Ron Paul, his chances were always 0%, yet people were willing to "invest in his stock", I'm guessing it was because they were Ron Paul fans. I wonder how many people on this European website might be buying Obama stock because he is Obama, and that is who they would vote for.
Edited on November 6, 2012 at 8:55amAug '10
Re: Romney ... With 270. But Only if Scott Reusser Was Right
Hey! Who let Peter inch backwards on the Ricochet Limb of Optimism???
Mar '11
Re: Romney ... With 270. But Only if Scott Reusser Was Right
Lord, hear our prayer
Apr '11
Re: Romney ... With 270. But Only if Scott Reusser Was Right
I think I agree with this, although this agreement is tempered by Mitt visiting Manchester again, and not spending more time in Colorado. And with "more likely" being as non-falsifiable as it is.... I'm going to stop here.
Oct '10
Re: Romney ... With 270. But Only if Scott Reusser Was Right
Peter, although I appreciate you finally announcing for Romney with 270 electoral votes I think you are underestimating Romney’s margin. I have Romney at 295, and while I will be extremely disappointed if the American people don’t reject President Obama and end this national nightmare; you are correct that there are conflicting data points that don’t indicate whether this will happen or not. After several decades of involvement in politics, I am convinced that politics is more of an art than a science. In difficult times, Americans have always chosen a positive view of the future. Romney has one, Obama doesn’t. The enthusiasm we are seeing at the Romney rallies in the last couple of weeks and Romney’s wide margin among independents give me confidence that the discrepancy between the national polls and the state polls will be resolved Tuesday decisively in Romney’s favor. Professor Rahe will be more correct than people imagine.
May '12
Re: Romney ... With 270. But Only if Scott Reusser Was Right
I have the same count. 270. Rove has 285!
Nov '11
Re: Romney ... With 270. But Only if Scott Reusser Was Right
I'm making no electoral college count prediction. But here's my final call: tomorrow night will end in sleeplessness, with both Ohio and Pennsylvania too close to call, rampant allegations of voter fraud, and the White House hinging on Romney's victory in at least one of the two.
Unless Romney pulls off the Wisconsin path to victory -- which is just possible.
The polls, and the queer sinking feeling I've had since the debt ceiling fight, point to an Obama win.
Every other instinct, and 2010, and Paul Ryan, and justice (poetic and otherwise), and enthusiasm, and American history, all indicate that Romney should win.
I don't know which to believe.
May '10
Re: Romney ... With 270. But Only if Scott Reusser Was Right
Good morning, everyone. We're awake and voting in the Buckeye state. Good luck to all.
That prediction of mine was our little secret, Peter, since it didn't make the cut on the podcast, but thanks for getting it on the record.
It's gonna happen. Got to.