
You’ve Read the Rest, Now Read the Best: Greg’s Election Predictions
My prediction at this time - Wednesday, October 31 - is a solid win for Romney, with a popular vote margin of 4-5 points, and an EV count of 296-242. You can see my map here (note that I’m predicting Romney will take 1 vote out of Maine’s 2nd congressional district).
Here’s how I’ve arrived at this prediction:
Romney is riding a surge, sparked by his electric performance in the first debate, and maintained by a growing disappointment over Barack Obama’s presidency. It should be obvious that Obama has been a huge disappointment to a large number of people who supported him in 2008, what with a moribund economy, a staggering $6 trillion addition to the national debt, and an unemployment picture that shows - at least under his leadership - no signs of significant improvement any time soon.
Those things are the constant, dull drumbeats that hammer at people every day, and have been hammering at them for years now. But like any good cacophony, it’s incessantly punctuated by sharp, loud cracks that go straight up your spine and into your brain. A complete immolation of Obama’s Middle East policy, as illustrated by the Mubarak debacle in Egypt, the flare-up in Syria, and the horrible failure in Benghazi, have made his already execrable performance in matters such as Fast & Furious, and his illegal foreign campaign contributions, seem almost quaint by comparison.
The beginning of the end, though, was his demolition by Mitt Romney in the October 3rd debate, when two key things happened:
First, the American people who had thus far not been paying attention to the race, many of whom had had their opinions of Romney formed mainly by the bruising GOP primary season followed by the Obama campaign’s relentless efforts to cast him as the heartless spawn of Thurston Howell, III and Cruella DeVille, had a chance to see him not just unfiltered and un-demonized, but also juxtaposed next to the man he’s proposing we replace with him. What most Americans saw was not just someone who wasn’t the evil caricature Barack Obama had tried to make them believe he was, but they saw someone who frankly looked like a president - and even more frankly, looked more like he belonged in that role than Obama did. Romney was engaged, where Obama was detached. Romney was quick on his feet, where Obama was lethargic. Romney sounded like he wanted the job, where Obama sounded like he was sick of it.
Second, the day after the debate marked a major shift in the odd cult of personality Obama has always enjoyed, and the freedom of those in the middle - especially the white middle-class - to say out loud what so many of them have thinking to themselves: That Obama was not a success, and that it was okay to say so. It was a classic emperor-has-no-clothes moment.
At a very high level, these things help explain and sustain the Romney surge, and the trends in which it is manifested.
With women, Romney has closed the “gender gap” to a tie. He has narrowed the youth-vote gap as well, and while not a tie, there is no denying that both youth enthusiasm for, and allegiance to, Barack Obama resembles nothing like it was in 2008. The rejection by seniors the Obama campaign was counting on never materialized, and has doomed Obama’s chances in Florida.
As you move down through the layers of increasingly arcane election trends, you see several other indications that Romney is heading for a solid victory:
- No candidate has ever been under 50% approval this late in the election and gone on to win. Obama has been mired at about 47% for weeks, while Romney has moved into positive territory.
- Romney has a decisive lead - double digits in some places - among independent voters in swing states. In an even race where Republican and Democrat turnout is tied, this is the imbalance that swings elections one way or another. Romney enjoys the lead in all the right places.
- Most major polls have used turnout samples of D+6 thru D+9, when there is every reason to believe that the actual turnout nationally will be somewhere between D+2 and R+1. The implication here is that polls showing the race tied, with a turnout sample of D+8, reflect what will be in fact a Romney win by somewhere around 6 points. The pollsters who are doing this are looking to 2008 turnout models. Critics point to the 2010 election when the turnout was R+1.3. Pollsters respond that 2010 was a mid-term election, not a presidential election. Critics counter that in 2008, no one who supported Obama had any reason to think he couldn’t do the job, whereas today many of them are deeply disappointed and ready for a change. Whether Republicans enjoy affiliation gains this year over what they enjoyed in 2008 of course remains to be seen; my prediction is that national turnout will actually be somewhere around D+2, so add between 2 and 4 points to whatever lead Romney enjoys now, and that will be the final margin by which he wins. As I mentioned above, I’m predicting a Romney margin of victory between 4 and 5 points nationally, but I won’t be entirely surprised if it’s 6 or 7.
- In modern times, almost without exception, the candidate who wins the national vote by 0.5% or more, has won Ohio. If this hold true in November, then Romney has no worries about winning Ohio. Obama, on the other hand, cannot win without it.
- If Romney wins Ohio, he is almost certain to win Iowa as well, plus Colorado, and stands an excellent chance at winning Wisconsin (I predict he will, especially given today’s slip by Denver mayor Michael Hancock while he was campaigning for Obama in Wisconsin). At that point, the rout is on. Remember that, as I wrote this on 10/31, Romney is with the margin of error in Pennsylvania, there are polls showing him within 2 points in Michigan(!), and he has just begun buying media time in Minnesota. Do I think he will win Minnesota? No - not even Reagan won Minnesota, even in his 1984 landslide. But the fact that his campaign believes they can spare the cash and resources to move into that state, means they are confident enough about wins in “battleground” states such as Ohio and Iowa, that they can afford to put Obama on the defensive in Minnesota and perhaps force him to divert some of his much-needed cash to defend a state he once thought was a gimme.
- The Romney trend is for the most part slow and steady, which indicates a kind of inertia that doesn’t exist in more volatile races. When candidates swap leads every week, it’s because moving the needle one way or the other with antics and rhetoric is easy. Barack Obama is swimming upstream against a current that’s getting steadily stronger. It’s clear that he’s having great difficulty even slowing the margin’s spread; to reverse it and overcome it wlll be practically impossible with just one week left.
This brings me to something I was hoping I’d be able to say to all the conservatives who were wringing their hands back during the primary season, over the damage that was supposedly being done to all of the GOP candidates by their viciousness toward each other in the form of verbal attacks and charges of scandal or impropriety.
The first thing to say is that voters - for better or worse - have short memories. Few, if any, people now deciding whether to vote for Romney or Obama are thinking, “Gosh - I don’t know if I can vote for Romney after Gingrich/Perry/Bachmann/Santorum said that thing about thing back in February…”
The second is: The ordeal by fire that is the primary season has forged a candidate who is October-surprise-proof. Not once have I worried for a moment that the Obama campaign will reveal some devastating scandal about Mitt Romney’s past, because you can rest assured that if Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum had had anything they could use to bring down Romney, they would have used it. So here’s to bruising GOP primary seasons: They’re like boot camp for candidates, from which their intact emergence is an indication of their toughness down the road.
I don’t want to end this by leaving open the question of what I think of Mitt Romney as a candidate. He is not who I would have picked had I had the power to pick. Then again, none of the other GOP candidates turned out to be significantly better, and any composite candidate I could assemble would have no hope of getting more than about 25% of the vote.
Elections, sadly, are usually about choosing the least horrible cretin to rule over you, so in that sense I’m not overjoyed that the best alternative the GOP has been able to field against Barack Obama - truly the most miserable president this country has ever produced - is Mitt Romney. But I have no doubt that Romney is a decent guy, and a quite capable (and proven) executive. I have been more impressed than I thought I would be - from his choice of VP to his composure on the campaign trail; from his articulateness and ability to think on his feet to his shrewdness in campaign and media strategy. It is exactly the opposite experience I had with John McCain in 2008, when my estimation of him - already low - somehow managed to sink like a stone as election day neared.
So there we go: Romney by about 5 points in the popular vote, and a 296-242 win in the electoral college. Plus the bonus of liberal heads exploding all over cable and network TV. I bought my bottle of champagne today and will pop it in the fridge first thing Tuesday morning.
Share this story:
Recent Related Posts
- Free Speech For Me, But Not For Thee
- Never Let a Tragedy Go to Waste
- More from the IX Commandment beat
- Gay Marriage is to Govt. as is Study Hall to Academics
- Hey Anglicans, hearing the Benghazi testimony, how ‘bout that IX Commandment?
- Better headgear or wii to prevent terrorism
- Gay marriage ‘key factor’ in Tory Eastleigh defeat

Comments
Facebook comments are closed.
21 comments
RE: “But like any good cacophony, it’s incessantly punctuated by sharp, loud cracks that go straight up your spine and into your brain.”
That is *so* true.
[1] Posted by Sarah on 10-31-2012 at 05:30 PM · [top]
Greg, a few days I would have agreed with you full stop. Now I’m a bit worried that Obama is going to get a Sandy bounce through being seen taking leadership in a major crisis (assuming he does ok and doesn’t do or say anything horribly stupid.)
thoughts?
[2] Posted by Karen B. on 10-31-2012 at 05:48 PM · [top]
Too little, too late, Karen. The states where Obama’s response to Sandy is being scrutinized - and from which he would gain the most - are blue northeastern swing states (with the exception of New Hampshire, which Romney could lose as long as he wins Ohio and Wisconsin).
I think a merely competent response - which is what Obama has made - doesn’t win any points. It would take a superhuman one at this point to move the needle in a way that results in electoral college gains.
[3] Posted by Greg Griffith on 10-31-2012 at 05:57 PM · [top]
If Greg and others (including me) are right, will you guys promise to do a follow-up half a year later on Nate Silver’s new profession? I’d be curious.
[4] Posted by jamesw on 10-31-2012 at 06:10 PM · [top]
WRT a “Sandy bounce” I know this is only my opinion but he seems to be working it too hard. It’s making him look more pathetic.
[5] Posted by Nikolaus on 10-31-2012 at 06:24 PM · [top]
How do we know that there isn’t some kind of electoral vote redistribution built into Obamacare? We’re only just now finding out some of the provisions as employees get to their open enrollment stuff.
Like, maybe all of your red fly-over states go to the Dems in the event that they are <10% behind the GOP or something.
[6] Posted by Timothy Fountain on 10-31-2012 at 07:49 PM · [top]
I heard something on a local evening talk show that tends to worry me. A person that voted a straight Republican ticket selection reviewed their ballot and found that there was no vote for the Presidential race. I wonder if that is the fix for Obama. Not outright stuffing of the ballot box but just making sure there are fewer votes for Romney through a little bit of chicanery. Could make the difference as there are a lot of people who are going to do that because of their disgust with the Democrats.
[7] Posted by BillB on 10-31-2012 at 08:54 PM · [top]
Note WSJ article on Romney’s Secret Voting Bloc - Evangelical Christians.
[8] Posted by Stephen Noll on 11-1-2012 at 03:46 AM · [top]
The question raised in my previous post is: why would Evangelical Christians crawl over broken glass to vote for a Mormon and a Catholic? I think they are not just “pro-Republican” but have come to the conclusion (rightly) that the Democratic Party has become the godless party, as noted by Dennis Prager on the Democratic platform kerfuffle:
[9] Posted by Stephen Noll on 11-1-2012 at 04:07 AM · [top]
One final thought: that Barack Obama is a good - not the only one available - fit for the godless party.
Whatever one thinks of Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s rants, he does seem to believe in God. Thus his comments on the Obamas’ religion are interesting:
It is certainly true that politicians are selective in matters of truth, and emphasize and exaggerate their side of any story. However, I do think Romney and Ryan retain a basic decency and commitment to truth and that Obama and the Democratic establishment have abandoned the same, as they have abandoned their sense (and fear) of a Creator and Judge of all.
[10] Posted by Stephen Noll on 11-1-2012 at 04:45 AM · [top]
I’m with Ould on the outcome of this election. Plus, I already voted and I have a knack for ALWAYS voting for the eventual loser. My prediction, BHO wins by a 10 - 20 percent margin in the electoral college.
[11] Posted by Greg Sample on 11-1-2012 at 05:34 AM · [top]
and any composite candidate I could assemble would have no hope of getting more than about 25% of the vote
Which is why we have campaigns and elections. My composite would probably garner 15% max.
And so the election takes all the hopes, aspirations, and coin-tosses of 130 million Americans and applies that against the matrix of virtures of the candidates and then, like making a gumbo, something comes out in the mix.
Remember, we would probably never want to actually invite a politician into our house. So, we are voting for the least bad cretin to try and help this nation navigate the realities of a very very cruel world.
[12] Posted by Capt. Father Warren on 11-1-2012 at 10:30 AM · [top]
I think the Sandy question is - will it drop turnout enough in NJ that - as a fluke - Romney carries it. The no Obama/Pro Romney voters have more interest in actually voting
[13] Posted by Paul PA on 11-1-2012 at 11:03 AM · [top]
#7 Bill B., I was in the States for a week for a conference 10 days ago, and I was able to take advantage of early voting in my state. It was EXPLICITLY clear on our ballot that you could NOT use a party line vote for President. There were 3 separate parts to our ballot.
1) Presidential election (required a separate vote)
2) Federal & State Congressional election (you could do a party line vote)
3) Judges - required individual votes for each candidate.
[14] Posted by Karen B. on 11-1-2012 at 11:27 AM · [top]
I’m predicting a 284 electoral vote win for Obama.
[15] Posted by S. Hamilton on 11-1-2012 at 11:32 AM · [top]
I guess we’ll know in a week or so if everyone’s predictions are correct.
[16] Posted by the virginian on 11-1-2012 at 12:22 PM · [top]
I’m pretty much as optimistic as Greg and feel very optimistic about the Florida, North Carolina, Colorado and Virginia races—and increasingly confident about Ohio. My guess is that he might not get both Iowa and New Hampshire.
As to Wisconsin (where I lived for several years), I enjoyed the “blurt out the truth” comments by the Mayor of Denver. But a similar confirming view comes from an old friend and former Democratic governor who privately believes that the Republican ground game developed for the Governor Walker recall along with having Paul Ryan on the ticket will narrowly swing Wisconsin into Romney’s column.
[17] Posted by hanks on 11-2-2012 at 11:16 PM · [top]
I’m just as pessimistic as you folks are optimistic. I WANT Romney to win (not because I’m a huge Romney fan, but we really can’t endure four more years of the “chosen one”), but I think Obama is going to squeak out a victory because we have an amazing number of sheeple in this country. Logic and common sense do not rule any more and government handouts are buying huge numbers of votes. But I hope I am wrong!
[18] Posted by Ann Castro on 11-3-2012 at 09:48 AM · [top]
Ann, I think that is true and a definite hold card in the incumbent’s favor. As I said in my prediction of a narrow Romney win,
So your pessimism and our some of our optimism are but a hair’s breadth apart.
[19] Posted by Timothy Fountain on 11-3-2012 at 10:08 AM · [top]
So your pessimism and our some of our optimism are but a hair’s breadth apart
It seems that part of the problem is that a good portion of the electorate came of age [left college or whatever and entered the workforce] about the time Clinton became President. Under Clinton, Bush, and Obama they have seen nothing but the face of Government. Government does this, government does that. For any issue or problem you look to government first.
So, someone like Romney, trying to persuade them that more government is not the answer, in some respects has a tough sale to make.
Not that these masses are satisfied with what Obama has done, but I think they become sympathetic to his bleating plea that he needs more time to get government right for them.
Their other choice is this guy telling them they can do it on their own, that they need to be [gasp] self-reliant…........almost “ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country”. Many find that too big a leap of faith to make.
[20] Posted by Capt. Father Warren on 11-3-2012 at 11:03 AM · [top]
“Plus, I already voted and I have a knack for ALWAYS voting for the eventual loser.”
Thanks for that, Greg Sample.
So - I’m NOT the only one!
[21] Posted by GSP98 on 11-5-2012 at 03:13 PM · [top]
Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.
Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more explanation, and the posts here, here, and here for advice on becoming a valued commenter as opposed to an ex-commenter. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments which you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm site administrators or Gri5th Media, LLC.