Electoral Vote Contest

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/11/02/us/politics/paths-to-the-…

Obama might as well call Romney this morning and concede. Why? The Redskins lost.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

I’m hoping this is right:

http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2012/11/05/Why-the-Polls-are-Wrong-P…

Romney: 273

Obama: 265

I’m giving PA, NH, MI to Obama; VA, FL, WI to Mitt.

My home state, OH, unfortunately goes to the incumbant.

But I still get to the outcome I want. B^|

EDIT: My map.

Romney wins 321-217 in the electoral college and 52%-48% in the nationwide popular vote. I used realclearpolitics.com to create the map.

With one exception (MN), my picks are based on states where Rasmussen polling has Romney tied or ahead. In most cases Rasmussen’s poll is higher for Romney than the other polls.

Here’s the additional rationale for my prediction:

Objective Rationale

1. Rasmussen and Gallup are the two polls that have large sample sizes and, hence, a smaller margin of error. I’d use Gallup, too, but didn’t have access to their state polls.
2. Nearly all of the other polls are weighted by party based on turnout percentages for 2008 (or something close to that). I don’t think that’s reasonable. Almost uniformly, the polling shows that Republicans are much more energized and will likely to turn out in higher percentages, and Democrats are less energized and will turn out in lower percentages.
3. Compared to 2008, the percentage of registered voters who identify as Republicans has increased relative to those who identify as Democrats
4. Across the board, the polling shows that independents, who strongly favored Obama in 2008, are breaking very decidedly for Romney this time.
5. Polling shows that Democrats are not building nearly the same “head start” in early voting as last time.
6. On MN, I’m going out on a limb a bit, since Romney’s behind in the polls. George Will convinced me of that one. His rationale: There is a marriage amendment on the ballot which will bring out a higher than usual percentage of the evangelical vote. That, coupled with the overall higher turnout for Republicans in general may surprise everyone. Since my prediction is predicated on an overall big day for Republicans anyway, Will’s argument seemed a bit more credible than fanciful. Probably not coincidentally, George Will’s prediction of the electoral college totals exactly match mine, once I add MN in (similar rationale?).

Great analysis Phil. I know my guess is high, but your statement about voter turnout projections and polls as well as the projections of independents is why I think that it could be a very decisive Romney victory. The one thing that concerns me most is that the vote margins are wide enough to overcome the margin of cheating. My sister in law recently moved from Iowa to MN and is registered to vote in MN now. We got a knock on the door yesterday from an Obama supporter asking if she was going to vote. My wife told them she no longer lived here and then realized that they could use that information to have someone else go and vote in her name since she is still on the voter roles in Iowa and no ID is required. We are in a small town where people knew her, so it is not likely to happen here, but in a bigger city I doubt anyone would ever find out. The sad part is that if someone voted in her name and later the crime was discovered, and she could not prove it was not her who did it, she would be the one to go to jail for voter fraud, not the criminal who actually stole her vote. Voter ID actually protects not just votes, but voters from false accusations.

If Obama wins …. only 4 in S/I EV contest predicted it

I also hope the margin of victory is larger than a “margin of cheating” in most people’s minds. Both sides are primed to claim the election was stolen.

We really need serious voting process reform… but not centralizing. I do think some legislation from Congress normalizing voter identity verification across the country would be a good thing—if it’s done right.

The advantage of the current mess is that it’s much harder to stack the deck than a centralized system would be. Still, it’s not as hard as I wish. Lots and lots of small cheating can make a difference if it accumulates in a few swing states.

This morning I heard an anecdote from someone whose sister-in-law had moved to a different state, but was still registered in her former state. Canvassers came to the door to ask if she had voted yet, This sort of situation is a major opportunity for voter fraud, as are young people who go to college out of state.

This evening I heard about this story out of Las Vegas. I’m not surprised that a union was assisting in voter fraud.

I went to the Dr today. I had to provide:

• Insurance card
• Driver’s license AND
• Credit card

On voter ID: Foreign election officials amazed by trust-based U.S. voting system

The most often noted difference between American elections among the visitors was that in most U.S. states, voters need no identification. Voters can also vote by mail, sometimes online, and there’s often no way to know if one person has voted several times under different names, unlike in some Arab countries, where voters ink their fingers when casting their ballots.

Not optimistic at this point.

I guess I shouldn’t be, but I’m amazed that a liberal president with a dismal record can still win so many votes.

It isn’t over yet, but I’m sad that it’s even this close.

(I bet Romney is really regretting now that he didn’t talk more about Benghazi)

It’s over. Now the media can start investigating Benghazi.

…not am I and astute political analyst.

Jack …. I will be reaching out to you about the prize.