Governing through Reason
The 2012 Republican Vice Presidential Field: July 23, 2012
The Elephants are back, smaller than ever.
Former Massachusetts Governor Willard “Mitt” Romney, the presumptive Republican Presidential nominee, is widely expected to announce his pick for Vice President in the next five weeks, well before the Republican National Convention in Tampa Bay, Florida, August 27–30.
Just as we’ve covered the Stampeding Elephants in the past, let’s take a few moments to run down the potential running mates (elephant calves?) based on their Intrade percentages. Since there are 11 candidates that are judged by Intraders to stand a better than one percent chance of securing the VP nomination, I won’t give a biography on each one, but I will tell you something about the top five, with a few comments about those ranked six to 11.
A Politico article by Mike Allen and Jim Vandehei in May coined the acronym “Incredibly Boring White Guy” (IBWG) for the ideal Romney running mate. Of the 11 top candidates, only seven are white non-Hispanic guys (I’ll leave the “boring” judgment up to the reader). Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is neither white nor a guy, but she doesn’t seem to be interested in the job.
I’ve listed the potential Republican Vice Presidential candidates below, in order of their Intrade percentages, from highest to lowest. There are dozens of other “Vice Presidential Nomination” contracts on Intrade, but each of the ones not listed is below one percent. In each case, the Intrade percentages are rounded to the nearest whole number. (Rice is at 6.0 percent and Jindal is at 5.5 percent; both Ayotte and Petraeus are tied at 2.8 percent.)
| Candidate | Jul 23 Rank |
Jul 23 Intrade % |
| Ohio Sen. Rob Portman | 1 | 29% |
| Former Minn. Gov. Tim Pawlenty | 2 | 25% |
| Florida Sen. Marco Rubio | 3 | 8% |
| South Dakota Sen. John Thune | 4 | 7% |
| Former Sec. State Condoleezza Rice | 5 | 6% |
| Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal | 6 | 6% |
| Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan | 7 | 4% |
| CIA Dir./ Former General David Petraeus | 8 (tie) | 3% |
| New Hampshire Sen. Kelly Ayotte | 8 (tie) | 3% |
| Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell | 10 | 2% |
| New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie | 11 | 1% |
1. Ohio Senator Rob Portman
Portman’s qualifications include former White House Legislative Director (1989–1991, under President George H.W. Bush), former Representative (1993–2005), former Director of the Office of Management and Budget (2006–2007, under President George W. Bush), and current Senator from a key swing state, and incredibly boring personality. That’s not my judgment, that’s Politico’s, and they rate him as the most likely to get the VP nod. Politico’s Scott Wong and Manu Raju call Portman “one of the most boring characters currently on the national stage. Portman is vanilla, wonky and unflappable.” As can be seen in the graph, his stock on Intrade has risen more or less monotonically (!) since the first of the year.
Be that as it may, he may be just the guy for Mitt Romney. His budgetary experience is catnip for the Tea Party wing. However, I have some doubts whether he can take on the traditional Pit Bull role that Vice Presidential nominees have taken on more recently. Conventional wisdom says to pick a VP candidate to balance the ticket; the contemporary reality is that hasn’t worked for several decades, if it ever worked at all.
2. Former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty
He couldn’t make it as a Presidential nominee, but does Tim Pawlenty have The Right Stuff to be a VP nominee?
Intraders think so. They have him at a close second to Portman, with a large gap between Pawlenty and number three Marco Rubio (25 percent versus eight percent). On June 20, Politico reported that Pawlenty topped Romney’s shortlist for VP. That gave him an Intrade spike, as seen here, and he had a second spike about a week ago. He fits the IBWG profile, but can he deliver Minnesota? Minnesota has not sent electors to Washington for the Republican Presidential candidate since Richard Nixon beat George McGovern in a 1972 landslide.
3. Florida Senator Marco Rubio
He’s white, but Hispanic. He’s not boring: he’s a dynamic American of Cuban descent, the son of immigrants. Romney, who badly lags with Hispanic voters (by 48 points, 22–70, in a recent poll), might feel the need for a little spice on his ticket. Or not. Rubio was recently anointed by the Tea Party Express. Rubio certainly fails the IBWG test, having only one of the three necessary attributes, and just because he speaks Spanish fluently doesn’t mean he can deliver Hispanic votes from the primarily Mexican-American West. He might tip the delicate balance in Florida, however. His Intrade stock has been on a steadily declining path since an early spring peak.
4. South Dakota Senator John Thune
You want boring? We’ve got yer boring right here. He’s a white guy, too.
He made sure the press knew he met with Romney’s VP vetter, Beth Myers. Later, he apparently heeded Politico’s rule: if you say you’re under consideration, you’re not. His sole qualification seems to be that he knocked off Majority Leader Thom Daschle some years ago, or maybe it’s that he didn’t even make it to the Pawlenty Level in the Presidential nomination game. Actually competing for the nomination may notch his Excitement Quotient (EQ) up too high to be a VP contender.
5. Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
When asked by CBS whether she would accept the VP nomination, Rice said:
There is no way I would do this.
…
I didn’t run for student council president. I don’t see myself in any way in elected office. I love policy. I’m not particularly fond of politics.
Still, a July 12 Drudge Report set off a firestorm of speculation. Cooler heads have since prevailed, suggesting that she might be unacceptable to the base since she’s mildly pro-choice and strongly pro-immigration reform, both of which are presumably unacceptable to The Base.
6–11. Jindal, Ryan, Petraeus, Ayotte, McDonnell, Christie
It’s unclear where the idea of current Obama Administration CIA Director and former General David Petraeus came from. I dug up this RedState article from May, and there was some speculation about Petraeus on Daily Kos, but beyond that, it’s unclear why he’s had his recent spike. Unlike the other Intrade graphs, this one just shows the last 14 days. You can see that Petraeus’s spike occurred on Friday, July 20, but why? I don’t know. Maybe one of our readers can comment.
Related articles
- Pawlenty’s Odds of Getting the VP Nod Rise — on Intrade (blogs.wsj.com)
- Poll: Rice top VP choice of Republican voters (thehill.com)
- Romney has array of possibilities for running mate — Kansas City Star (kansascity.com)
- Meet The 11 People Who Could Be Mitt Romney’s Vice President (businessinsider.com)
- The veepstakes: Romney soon must choose a running mate (kansascity.com)
- Condoleezza Rice would make a ‘wonderful’ vice-president, says Palin (guardian.co.uk)
- In Pawlenty, Romney Campaign May Find Down-to-Earth Appeal (nytimes.com)
- Romney to Change the Subject by Naming His Veep (theatlanticwire.com)
- Romney Veepstakes Down to Final Three: Portman, Pawlenty, Jindal (theatlanticwire.com)
-
shiloh,
There are a lot of good candidates just below the 1.0% threshold. Martinez is one of those.The Politico article about IBWGs goes on at length about how Romney’s team is loath to do anything that McCain did in 2008. According to this analysis, picking a governor who’s female would count on that score.
My personal favorite female dark horse is Cathy McMorris Rodgers. I also think Nikki Haley is a distinct possibility.
-
#3 written by rgbact 10 months ago
I honestly don’t see anyone being picked that might result in a lost seat to the GOP elsewhere. I believe its been awhile since someone left a competitive Senate seat to take the VP slot. Competitive Senate seats are more valuable than potential VP slots imo. Therefore,I don’t see Portman, Rubio, Ayotte,Christie, or Martinez as likely. I also don’t see Rice or Petraus as viable,due to not having much political acumen.
I originally though Santorum was a shoein, but he appears to have burned too many bridges during the primary. Therefore,I think Bob McDonell is defintely the frontrunner now, TPaw a strong 2nd, with Thune and Jindal as potentials
Rodgers is a good darkhorse btw. Kay Bailey Hutchinson might be another. Also wonder if John Engler could be lured from retirement. Definitely many possibilities.
-
I think Romney is too frightened to be compared in any way to McCain. I doubt he’ll pick a woman. Palin (followed by the horror that is Bachmann) spoiled the possibility of a woman as a Republican Pres or VP candidate for at least a generation.
The funny thing about Good-N-Pawlenty is that Romney strategists might think he’ll put Minnesota into play, thus opening up the possibility of grabbing a “swing” state. That’s nonsense. Living in Minnesota, I can say with total assurance that MN is going to go for Obama, regardless of who’s in the R-VP slot. And if anything, T-Paw there would lose some votes for Romney. Timmy left the state in an awful condition. The thought of him being a heartbeat away from the presidency, and then doing the same thing to the whole nation, should send cold chills down the county’s spine.
-
rgbact,
I believe its been awhile since someone left a competitive Senate seat to take the VP slot.
Yes. Four whole years. Then again, it’s been about the same amount of time since anyone had the opportunity to take the VP slot, so…
Competitive Senate seats are more valuable than potential VP slots imo.
To whom? The only people who have the real power in this case are Romney and whomever he choses as his VP. It’s not as if the Republican Party will refuse to support Romney if he picks someone that costs the party a seat in the Senate. He’s the lone GOP horse they have on the ballot in November, so they’re stuck with him at this point.
-
Portman seems to me like the choice with the biggest bang for the buck. Ohio is a close enough state that a Portman VP slot would probably have just enough of an impact to give their 18 electoral votes to Romney. It won’t give him Wisconsin or Minnesota, but choosing a VP from either of those states is a longer shot on the flip, and each of those states is worth a mere 10 EVs. It’s still hard to see a path for Romney to 270, short of either a clear beginning of a recession, such as we had in October of 2008, or some similar catastrophic event of that sort.
-
#7 written by rgbact 10 months ago
Yes. Four whole years.
I assume you label DE as a competitive Senate seat. I don’t.
To whom?
To the GOP and the individual. If the choice is Marco Rubio as VP and losing a FL Senate seat or Pawlenty as VP and keeping a FL Senate seat.……Scenario #2 is WAY better.…. for everyone but Romney.
It’s still hard to see a path for Romney to 270
Thats funny.
-
rgbact,
Also remember there’s a pretty big chance the Senate race ends up in a 50–50 tie. Then having a tiebreaker to go along with President Romney is a win; if Romney/Senator loses, then the Senator goes back to the Senate as a Republican (as John McCain did) which is a win.
I think Portman makes sense for all of the reasons stated above.
Delaware was a competitive seat, that was going to flip Republican, until Christine O’Donnell came along to mess things up.
-
Portman seems to me like the choice with the biggest bang for the buck.
Portman’s former boss, Bush, just announced he won’t be attending the Rep convenvention. btw, I predited this (4) years ago.
Anyway, the line of attack er campaign ads pretty much write themselves, eh ie Portman worked for someone who is ashamed to show his face in public, let alone the Rep convention! 
So Portman should be just as ashamed, etc. etc.
The MSM will be all over Portman like flies on shit. ok, ok, they’d be all over anybody lol, ie mama grizzly. But Portman has more Bush baggage than Airforce 1 during the cheney/bush era.
Did I mention mittens loses Ohio regardless …
btw, didn’t Pawlenty coin/popularize the phrase Obamney Care. And Jindal had that brain fart …
>
So many Rep train wrecks, so little time!
>
And Romney has to pick someone who has released equal or less tax returns than himself. Walkin’ that fine line.
-
Also remember there’s a pretty big chance the Senate race ends up in a 50–50 tie.
If the Senate does end up 50–50 with Biden as tiebreaker, then the Democrats really should take a page from how the Republicans acted when they had that arrangement under Bush. Basically, they acted as if they had a filibuster-proof majority, with the Might of God behind them. The rammed though at least two major bills using Reconciliation (you remember, the technique that was going to Destroy Democracy when the Democrats did it in 2009), including the massive Bush tax cuts. And when the Democrats let it be known they would filibuster some judicial appointments, the Republicans simply threatened to nuke the rules.
It’s about time Republicans got back what they dished out.
-
-
rgbact,
I assume you label DE as a competitive Senate seat. I don’t.
Perhaps you forget how well Mike Castle polled against Chris Coons. Were it not for Chrazy Christine O’Donnell winning the Republican nomination, that Senate seat would almost certainly have been Castle’s. That’s pretty competitive if you ask me. But perhaps you consider a close race between a Democrat and a Republican not to be competitive.
Scenario #2 is WAY better.…. for everyone but Romney.
And whose choice is it? Romney’s. So Scenario #2 is rather irrelevant, isn’t it?
Thats funny.
It’s only funny to you because you have this strange belief that everyone who is currently undecided will cast a vote for Romney. If that were to happen, it would be the first time. My predictions (and it seems everyone else’s who doesn’t work for RedState or The Free Republic) are that undecideds will fall in line with historical trends, and that it will take a significant external event to shift that breakdown. I haven’t looked to others to tell me which way to predict the states to fall; I’ve conducted my own analysis, and it (unsurprisingly) falls pretty much in line with those others. We differ on some of the close states, because we’re using different inputs and slightly different weightings, but that’s pretty much it. In fact, if anything, I have been overly generous to Romney, compared to most nonpartisan projections. And even then it’s hard to see a path for Romney to 270.
Let me remind you that your projection assumes that Romney picks up not only every single tossup, but also a handful of states that lean to Obama. Short of the coming recession hitting between now and the first week of November, that’s not gonna happen. I have a picture of Benjamin Franklin that says the EV count is bluer than your prediction.
-
Speaking of political ads, come October the Obama campaign should/will be carpet bombing swing states w/an ad depicting Romney as an etch-a-sketch wannabe C-in-C who will do anything world leaders want/tell him to do.
As befits his accurate flip/flopping, say anything, do anything persona.
carry on
-
Nate takes on the “undecideds break to the challenger” issue:
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/22/do-presidential-polls-break-toward-challengers/ -
#15 written by rgbact 10 months ago
Perhaps you forget how well Mike Castle polled against Chris Coons.
I can’t recall if Castle was in the mix then and if it went into the thought process. If Obama was actually thinking “if I pick Biden, we may lose DE”, I’ll accept that 2008 was an exception to my rule. I still think if you can avoid losing a Senate seat, you should.
It’s only funny to you because you have this strange belief that
everyone who is currently undecided will cast a vote for RomneyNot “everyone”, but a majority seems reasonable statistically. If you modeled a scenario analysis of something like “whats the probability that on July 23rd, Mitt Romney can be expected to pickup 70% of the current undecided vote given the general unhappiness of voters”, I’d say its far higher than zero and even something worth forecasting. You seem to think its zero.
-
rgbact said,
If you modeled a scenario analysis of something like “whats the probability that on July 23rd, Mitt Romney can be expected to pickup 70% of the current undecided vote given the general unhappiness of voters”, I’d say its far higher than zero and even something worth forecasting. You seem to think its zero.
Given that the Abramowitz study I linked earlier says that only 1% of the electorate is truly undecided at this point, I’ll give you that. That produces 0.7% for Romney and 0.3% for Obama for a net swing of 0.4% to the challenger.
If you read the Abramowitz article, you’ll see why so much of the current political climate is geared towards turnout rather than actually trying to persuade anyone. For example, President Obama’s ads aren’t being run to pursuade you to vote for him. Rather, they’re to make sure if you’re a supporter, you go out and vote. That produces a huge difference in message, and accounts for a lot of the negative campaigning.
-
#17 written by rgbact 10 months ago
Given that the Abramowitz study I linked earlier says that only 1% of the electorate is truly undecided at this point, I’ll give you that.
Interesting study. However, they may be internally decided, but externally undecided. At least thats what polls indicate. The 10% currently externally undecided could very well be internally leaning to Romney. Seem reasonable. If not, then it sounds like campaigns are a complete waste of time.
-
#18 written by mclever 10 months ago
To piggy-back on what Monotreme said, I can offer anecdotal evidence for how the campaigns are proceeding here in Iowa. I’m on the mailing/phone lists for both the Obama and Romney campaigns, so I get to hear both messages.
Currently, the Obama campaign is running the ubiquitous ads, but they’re much more active on the ground, contacting registered Democrats and prior Obama supporters and getting them involved in the campaign, signing up for absentee or early voting, and basically making sure they plan to vote. There’s very little actual persuasion, though there are planned door-to-door events and regular phone banking. Most of the effort is centered around energizing those who’ve already said they support the President and making sure their votes are locked in.
The Romney campaign is mostly running ads (well, the RNC and PACs are running ads) and occasionally swinging through the state for a campaign stop, which cranks up the robodialers to contact all of his (supposed) supporters to get them to show up for the event. They don’t have a local office or feet on the ground yet, so it’s hard to gauge how effective this is. Like the Democrats, the local Republican groups are concentrating on voter registrations, which are definitely necessary after some of the recent registration purges.
So, here in Iowa, one of the top ten tipping point or swing states, neither campaign is concentrating on persuasion, but rather on GOTV.
-
#19 written by Max 10 months ago
-
#20 written by mclever 10 months ago
@rgbact
To someone who always votes and was going to vote anyway, the campaigns might seem to be “a complete waste of time.” But most of the campaign efforts center around getting marginal voters to go vote, i.e. turnout. That isn’t a complete waste of time, because turnout largely decides the election.
-
rgbact said,
The 10% currently externally undecided could very well be internally
leaning to Romney. Seem reasonable.Reasonable, but not supported by the Abramowitz or Silver (or anyone else’s) data.
If not, then it sounds like
campaigns are a complete waste of time.Well, actually…
They’re not a waste of time if you look at them both tactically (get out the vote) and strategically (define your party’s brand). They are a waste of time if you think they’re about persuading voters to vote for your candidate. This is not my opinion — in fact, it makes me quite sad — but it’s what the data show.
-
rgbact,
I can’t recall if Castle was in the mix then
He was.
and if it went into the thought process. If Obama was actually thinking “if I pick Biden, we may lose DE”, I’ll accept that 2008 was an exception to my rule.
Since I haven’t seen the movie Being Barack Obama, I don’t know what he was thinking. But we never really get to know what any of them are thinking; we merely get to speculate from the outside.
Not “everyone”, but a majority seems reasonable statistically.
Based on what statistical data?
If you modeled a scenario analysis of something like “whats the probability that on July 23rd, Mitt Romney can be expected to pickup 70% of the current undecided vote given the general unhappiness of voters”, I’d say its far higher than zero and even something worth forecasting.
Nate Silver just did that work for us (thanks, Nate!). Based on his analysis, it’s far lower than zero.
You seem to think its zero.
Or, more accurately, something very close to zero. One thing I found most interesting was that there wasn’t a single instance out of the eleven “modern elections” where the margin changed signs. Not one. The closest we got was in 2000, when, while it didn’t change signs, the electoral margin went the other way, and Bush became President.
Now, an interesting bit of possible signal exists in Nate’s data. Since 1992 (inclusive), the incumbent has consistently underperformed the September poll margin (i.e., the undecideds have broken against the incumbent). Then again, it’s not unusual to flip a coin and get heads five times in a row. So is it signal or statistical noise? I’m sure you’ll want to call it signal.
-
#23 written by rgbact 10 months ago
Based on his analysis, it’s far lower than zero.
Didn’t know probabilities could be lower than zero.
there wasn’t a single instance out of the eleven “modern elections” where the margin changed signsSo is it signal or statistical noise?
I’d say noise. These “rules” aren’t exactly statistically credible. I’ll stick with my own which is no president has ever been releected at lower than 48% in Gallup. Incidentally,Obama is at 44% today in Gallup, matching his lowest daily approval since March. I guess that doesn’t matter since everyone is decided already.
Anyway, back to VP’s. I’d be interested if anyone as any other interesting darkhorses. And has anyone analyzed whether favorites or darkhorses typically get the nod? I actually picked Palin last time, so she wasn’t a darkhorse.
-
I’ll stick with my own which is no president has ever been releected at lower than 48% in Gallup.
That’s just an arbitrary number. Arbitrary “rules” change. Prior to 2008, no president had been elected while being black. We’ve never had a Mormon president. Before 1960, we never had a Catholic. Prior to 1968, every Nixon had lost.
But you’re wrong anyway. On this date in 2004, Bush was also below 48%.
-
As mentioned previously, between 2001 and Nov. 2004 the Rep party registered 300/400k new voters in both OH and FL. And of course turdblossom was very good at GOTV.
Again, presidential elections aren’t that complicated!
>
And as mclever reiterates, Obama’s historic 2008 GOTV is up and runnin’ on all cylinders. All aboard! Whereas mittens has no ground game …
>
Continuing dc’s trivia:
No president has been elected w/out using his real 1st name ie Willard mittens.
Only James Polk was elected president while losing his state of birth and residence.
Which begs the question: What is mittens home state?
CA ? NH ? MA ? UT ?Romney will lose MI/CA/NH/MA but we’ll give him UT.
In 2009, the Romneys sold their primary residence in Belmont and their ski chalet in Utah, leaving them an estate along Lake Winnipesaukee in Wolfeboro, New Hampshire, and an oceanfront home in the La Jolla district of San Diego, California, which they had bought the year before.
Oops, scratch Utah off the list.
Will Romney buck the odds lol. Stay tuned …
-
Romney has the same problem with his veep selection as he has with the tax returns…an impossible situation where he’s damaged by whatever choice he makes. If he chooses a game-changing, charismatic person, he makes himself look vapid and colorless by comparison and he can’t afford that. If he picks a dull, competent IBWG, he fails to motivate both his base and those undecided voters he needs to win.
I still think T-Paw is the only one who sort of squeaks between those two extremes (especially now that he’s begun offering to show people his tats… imagine Portman doing that!) but as DC points out, Pawlenty doesn’t even bring his own state.
It’s a tough, tough position. Poor Mitt… his life of full of them.
As for my thoughts on the numbers ending last week… they are even worse for Romney than I thought. He’s still almost 20 points behind at Intrade and IEM, and the “you didn’t build that” boomlet, despite being tirelessly flacked by FOX and every other conservative outlet in the land, has done nothing at all to boost his numbers.
And you all are forgetting the most important thing of all, which is this.… Romney would have to be 4 0r 5 points ahead going into October to even have a chance, because he’s going to be KILLED in the debates. His nervous laugh and uneasy manner will be painful to watch one-on-one… and Obama will be equipped with facts and figures that he will use with the quiet, ruthless skill of a surgical scalpel. Those debates will be civil, courteous, low-key, devastating and lethal… and all on nationwide television.
-
#28 written by Rose 10 months ago
The debates will be fun!
Romney will take UT even though he doesn’t have a home there. The State is solid R and while the LDS church technically doesn’t engage in politics, Mitt’s being LDS means church members will vote for him without questioning. They are isolated enough from the non-LDS, that there is a level of distrust and fear.
-
Hi Rose… my lovable, intensely annoying Mormon brother-in-law tells me placidly that he will vote for Romney even though he doesn’t like the guy much, suspects that his policy positions are way too flexible, and fears that he might “do some crazy stuff to please the base.” He also feels some personal fondness for Obama and freely admits that his (hugely successful) business has tended over time to do better in years when there is a Democrat in the White House.
“So why are you voting for Romney?” I ask.
Whereupon he shouts with laughter, gives me a massive bear hug and says, “If you have to ask that, you’re not as bright as I used to think.”
-
-
@Michael… If an LDS candidate were running as a Democrat, would the LDS population still overwhelmingly vote for him?
Rose is a lot more informed on this issue than I am, but I suspect the answer lies in the “no true Scotsman” fallacy. I believe the general LDS population would probably think that no true Mormon would ever run for really high office as a Democrat, so the guy would be an object of suspicion.
In fact that’s how my brother-in-law feels about Jon Hunstman. He thinks there is “something funny about that guy” and openly speculates that he probably doesn’t attend church very often.
-
#32 written by Mainer 10 months ago
-
@filistro
the “you didn’t build that” boomlet, despite being tirelessly flacked
by FOX and every other conservative outlet in the land, has done
nothing at all to boost his numbers.I suspect the reason there was no bump was that the only people who buy into the nonsense Romney tried to make of it are people who were going to vote against Obama anyway. Obama’s supporters (even the causal ones) are far too smart to have been fooled by Romney’s lies about the line. And anyone undecided is used to Romney lying, and by now would know that Obama is not anti-business. In short, the FOXian misrepresentation never had a chance of having any legs.
This may be a harbinger to things to come. Romney’s only hope is to misrepresent — the economy, Obama’s statements, and anything else he can think of to misrepresent. But Romney already has a reputation for simply making things up, and then for lying even about the things he made up. It will be hard for any of his attacks to stick.
-
DC… and then there’s this.…
NBC News discovered
footage of Romney making pretty much the same point as Obama in a 2002
Olympic speech:“You Olympians, however, know you didn’t get here
solely on your own power,” said Romney, who on Friday will attend the
Opening Ceremonies of this year’s Summer Olympics. “For most of you,
loving parents, sisters or brothers, encouraged your hopes, coaches
guided, communities built venues in order to organize competitions. All
Olympians stand on the shoulders of those who lifted them. We’ve already
cheered the Olympians, let’s also cheer the parents, coaches, and
communities. All right! [pumps fist].”This is just too easy, isn’t it? The wealth of Mitt footage over the years makes managing this campaign about as challenging as shooting fish in a barrel. Plouffe and Axelrod could do it in their sleep.
-
@filistro,
Yeah. It’s surprising how many politicians aren’t aware that the technology exists to record prior events, save those recordings for a future time, and then reproduce the images and sound with substantial fidelity, even years later.
Conservative politicians in particular seem unable to comprehend that the era of reversing yourself on important issues — and then attacking your opponent for saying precisely the things you yourself used to say, with absolute conviction — and doing this for cynical partisan purposes — and not expecting to get caught — is completely over.
Of course, the True Believers will come along with you, and refuse to recognize that history was documented (i.e.,
sheeplemmings will continue to besheeplemmings). But there are portions of this newly-discovered typing box called The Internets (a series of tubes) that might not be fooled.I don’t think there is a single policy position that Romney has taken which 1) isn’t the reverse of something he used to say, and 2) is actually true. And yet, there will still be lots of people who will vote for him. Just sayin’.
-
My last comment on the gun issue —
A whole big bunch of pundits are saying it is “too early” or “not the right time” to talk about sane gun control measures — things like banning semi-automatics, or outlawing magazines that carry more than (oh, say) 30 rounds (50? 100?), or requiring background checks for online sales, or raising a flag somewhere when someone buys over 3000 rounds of ammunition.
On the other hand, there’s talk of banning costumes in movie theaters.
Do we really have our priorities straight?
-
-
#39 written by turrboenvy 10 months ago
-
#40 written by rgbact 10 months ago
Btw, interesting comments on Nate’s blog to his analysis. Similar points to mine. More conservatives than I remember on there, Bart included. I suspect you can’t create a simple rule for how challenger’s perform vs incumbents. That why they play the game, as the saying goes. It is an interesting topic though and its fun to torture data until it tells us how it all will play out.
-
rgbact,
I forgot to respond to this yesterday…Didn’t know probabilities could be lower than zero.
Not in a null hypothesis binary test, but in this particular case it’s really trinary:
1) The challenger gets a boost
2) Nobody gets a boost
3) The incumbent gets a boostThe historical data indicated that, for mid-summer poll numbers, the incumbent ends up outperforming. Since your hypothesis was #1 above, and #3 represents the opposite sign of #1, that’s what I was referring to by “less than zero”.
These “rules” aren’t exactly statistically credible.
R2 of 0.86 is pretty high. And the residual errors are mighty small. Sounds statistically credible to me.
I’ll stick with my own which is no president has ever been releected at lower than 48% in Gallup.
You’re taking a dummy variable approach to an analog input. That’s on the path to confirmation bias. If you want to find a statistical correlation, regress the vote margin against the Gallup approval rating. That’s a far better test than applying a dummy variable to a binary output.
-
#43 written by GROG 10 months ago
-
#44 written by rgbact 10 months ago
Since your hypothesis was #1 above, and #3 represents the opposite
sign of #1, that’s what I was referring to by “less than zero”.Since Option #3 is moot (Obama wins under #2 and #3, just by a bigger
margin), than testing the binary is all that matters in my scenario
test. If you’ve made 2 more free throws than me and we have 10 more to go, all I care about is the probability that I make 3 more than you in
the last 10. The chance that you make 10 in a row isn’t really relevant
and doesn’t lower my chances.
You’re taking a dummy variable approach to an analog input. That’s on the path to confirmation biasSo is coming up with sidestepping arguments to bash stats you don’t like. But as the IPCC (and I) can attest to, its damn hard to put down your political hat when analyzing numbers, no matter how many degrees you have.
Currently Nate has Obama’s chance of winning at 66.9% to Romney’s 33.1%
According to MW, Romney’s chances are near 0% though. What is Nate smoking?
-
#45 written by mclever 10 months ago
I’ve avoided commenting on the “undecideds break towards X” thread, but there’s just so much misinformation floating around that it’s hard for me to remain silent, considering my own experiences from interacting with political scientists and reading social science journal articles pertaining to voting behavior.
First of all, Nate’s analysis aligns well with the findings of most political scientists, that the undecideds do not have a particular historical tendency to break in either direction, either for or against the incumbent. In a competitive race, the undecideds tend to break roughly equally–with a slight lean towards the existing polling margins–and the gap between front-runner and trailer tends to narrow as the election nears, regardless of whether the challenger or the incumbent is leading. (The gap in very wide, non-competitive elections behaves erratically.)
A few years ago, I made a comment in the presence of several political scientists to the effect that I thought undecideds break towards a challenger, and when they quit laughing at me, one of them nicely explained that because it happened once, someone latched onto it and it became conventional wisdom amongst ignorant pundits and the media, but the truth is closer to the opposite. Usually the incumbent is leading in the polls, and usually the undecideds break somewhere between 50–50 and the already-decideds, so usually they actually break slightly for the incumbent. And, no, this wasn’t wishful thinking on the part of the “liberal” political scientists, because at the time, a Republican was the incumbent, and I was the one wishfully hoping that the undecideds might break for the Democrat.
So, that’s a really long way of saying that projecting the undecideds to break anything other than about 50–50 in a closely competitive race is a fool’s gamble.
-
GROG,
This is why I shy away from looking at individual polls by themselves. Overall, the numbers in the latest poll are within the 95% confidence interval of their previous polls, albeit on the edge of the interval. So are those results signal or noise? We can’t tell until we get some corroborating evidence elsewhere. This is also why you see me hit the poll view only twice a month at this point in the election cycle. -
rgbact,
Since Option #3 is moot (Obama wins under #2 and #3, just by a bigger margin), than testing the binary is all that matters in my scenario
test.Sure, fine. I prefer to speak in the general case, since that’s more interesting from a statistical perspective than the specific case.
So is coming up with sidestepping arguments to bash stats you don’t like.
Contrary to your accusation, I don’t care about the results in this context. I care about the method. Your 42% stat is like the sort of thing that sports color commentaries love to trot out to fill air time, e.g., “The New York Giants have never won a game against the New Orleans Saints when they were down by more than 10 points at halftime.” It’s a fun conversation piece and a bit of a parlor game, but it’s not statistical analysis.
Currently Nate has Obama’s chance of winning at 66.9% to Romney’s 33.1%
According to MW, Romney’s chances are near 0% though. What is Nate smoking?Naw, you’re reading way too much into a flip comment I made. I doubt that the polls are understating Obama’s position by that much. Rather, I think that the convention bumps that occurred back in the days of earlier conventions are coloring the month-specific data. That said, let’s return to the hypothesis in question: do undecideds tend to break consistently for either the incumbent or the challenger? The answer is “no”. Therefore, any projection that assumes a significant undecided break in one direction, merely on the grounds that “undecideds break for the challenger” is questionable at best.
-
#48 written by rgbact 10 months ago
It’s a fun conversation piece and a bit of a parlor game, but it’s not statistical analysis.
Naw, you’re reading way too much into a flip comment I made
If you’re OK with making flip commentary, I’m OK with my occasional parlor game statistics.
do undecideds tend to break consistently for either the incumbent or the challenger? The answer is “no”.I actually agree that there probably isnt a “rule” per se, I just think they will this year. Sometimes you actually have to play the game.
-
rgbact,
If you’re OK with making flip commentary, I’m OK with my occasional parlor game statistics.
Sure. Just be prepared to admit that it has no foundation in anything.
I actually agree that there probably isnt a “rule” per se, I just think they will this year. Sometimes you actually have to play the game.
OK, let’s play. You project Romney gets 301 electoral votes. I have a Benjamin that says Romney gets 300 or fewer. You want to take it?
-
#50 written by GROG 10 months ago
-
#51 written by rgbact 10 months ago
I have a Benjamin that says Romney gets 300 or fewer. You want to take it?
a) Not sure how to guarantee payment.
b) I think alot of things are mispriced, doesnt mean I want to pay the price I think is fair, given the current market. IOW, you need to give me odds. I’d really rather you give me 15 to 1 on $100 for a Romney victory, barring a recession, since that seems about what you’ve predicted.
Btw, just to beat data up some more, the current Gallup #‘s might have some story to tell on how the “you didnt build that” remark is playing gender wise. The gender gap for Obama’s approval is typically about 5%, but jumped to 10% in last weeks Gallup. Thats about a high water mark. All I can think of is Obama’s remark plays much better with women, and very badly with men.
-
rgbact,
Not sure how to guarantee payment.
That’s easy. Really. Think of the shame bestowed upon either of us if it became known that we reneged on a public bet like that.
I think alot of things are mispriced, doesnt mean I want to pay the price I think is fair, given the current market. IOW, you need to give me odds.
I did. Even odds on the over/under of Romney 301EV.
I’d really rather you give me 15 to 1 on $100 for a Romney victory
I’m sure you would, but that wasn’t my offer.
the current Gallup #‘s might have some story to tell on how the “you didnt build that” remark is playing gender wise
Sure it might. But there are not yet enough data points to draw any such inference.
-
#53 written by Max 10 months ago
-
-
explained that because it happened once …
Not sure if you/they are talking about 1980 when the presidential election broke for Dutch in the last week, but …
The most important event of the entire 1980 presidential campaign was the second presidential debate, which was held one week to the day before the election (Oct. 28, 1980). Over the course of two hours, the entire race changed drastically, and what was considered an extremely tight race with the President slightly ahead became a comfortable Republican victory for Reagan. Nothing of that magnitude has happened since in any televised confrontations.
Also, because of mass media/cable/internet etc. comparing 2012 to 1980 is useless. Again, GOTV is key which is why Republicans are trying soooo frickin’ hard to disenfranchise Obama voters.
The only remaining question:
Can conservative billionaires buy the election for mittens? As Obama will clean Romney’s clock in the debates.
Repeating, most experts say Kerry won all (3) debates w/Bush and yet he lost! ie the power of incumbency, especially a wartime incumbent.
>
And if just before the election polls indicate an Obama victory, how many cons will stay home?
-
#56 written by mclever 10 months ago
Wow, shiloh, you remember 1980?
I completely agree (borrowing from my comments on the ICANN’t thread), that the Internet and correlated blogosphere have totally transformed the way politics are conducted. In the early 1980s, the primary ways for campaigns to get out their message was TV advertising, the Debates, and door-to-door/retail politics. Even into the 1990s, the Internet remained a niche product, with politics still conducted mainly over the airwaves and door-to-door.
Now, the Internet and social media have largely replaced retail politicking. Ads are shared faster and spread farther on social media than on TV, which many people watch using TiVo or OnDemand or otherwise mute/skip ads. Candidate flubs and newsworthy moments aren’t just played once a night on the late night news, but 24–7 on YouTube and blogs. And if a candidate tries to tell everyone what they want to hear, it’s far too easy to cobble together clips of them saying contradictory things. Even since 2008, the spread of Twitter and Facebook has yet again changed the way politics is conducted.
You’re absolutely right that the comparison to 1980 is almost worthless if looking for some sort of political precedent.
-
#57 written by astrodude 10 months ago
-
#58 written by mclever 10 months ago
@astrodude
Debate performance is often in the eye of the beholder, and in how the media choose to portray/replay key moments. Many Democrats actually do think Gore made W look terrible, but the general public got a different impression because the media chose to ignore W’s lies and other outrageous statements in favor of replaying Gore’s sighs.
A single, key one-liner delivered well can make or break a debate performance, especially in today’s sound-byte world. Likewise, one bad line or momentary lapse can doom a debate performance, depending how much the media chooses to focus on it to the exclusion of the other 99% of the debate.
Which is a really long way of saying that I agree with you, that no one should be confident in how the debates are going to go, because how the debates go may depend largely on what narrative fits the story that the media chooses to tell.
-
Actually mclever, 1980 was in the USN. Indeed, Dutch became my C-in-C, but I muddled thru somehow.
Regarding 2012 comparisons to 1980 lol suffice it to say mittens ain’t no Reagan!
And even though Gore was quite wooden/stiff in those debates, one must remember he got more votes than Bush, eh.
>
As a side note, can one imagine how pissed off cons would be if Clinton could run for a 3rd term ie wiping the floor w/Bush41’s little boy after being impeached! Hell, if not for the 22nd amendment, Clinton might still be president.
-
astrodude,
As I recall, everyone was sure that Gore would make W look terrible in those debates.
Everyone thought he’d make W look stupid. And he did. But, as someone so succinctly put it at the time…
W spoke as if English wasn’t his first language. Gore spoke as if English wasn’t our first language.Prior to the Gore/Bush debates, we hadn’t seen Gore in any significant debates. We already know how Obama looks in them. We also know how Romney looks in them. There shouldn’t be any surprises there.
-
#61 written by GROG 10 months ago
Ran across another poll, prominently displayed on just about every major website I’ve read today.
Obama approval — 49%
Obama over Romney 49 — 43.
An interesting tidbit — they polled 11% more Democrats than Republicans. For the polling resident polling experts, does NBC/WSJ actually think 11% more Dems will vote than Reps.
-
they polled 11% more Democrats than Republicans.
Any repeated random sample will sometimes have more of Flavor A than Flavor B. The question isn’t who they got more of. The question is whether afterwards they weighted their numbers to account for the demographics of the actual population. I suspect NBC/WSJ knows how to properly weight a sample.
Furthermore, in a poll with lots of people who represent themselves as Indies, it’s entirely possible that people (considering the Bush era and the débâcle of this year’s Republican presidential field) are too embarrassed to associate themselves with that particular clown car.
-
GROG,
they polled 11% more Democrats than Republicans. For the polling resident polling experts, does NBC/WSJ actually think 11% more Dems will vote than Reps.
Nope. That’s what sampling error is all about. Sometimes they’ll oversample one side or the other, since they don’t know who will answer the poll until they answer the poll.
Some polling firms will adjust for this sampling error by increasing the weight of the underrepresented party and/or decreasing the weight of the overrepresented party. If they do so, they have some sort of method by which they estimate what the partisan breakdown will be. This, of course, leads to all sorts of sample bias opportunities, which manifest themselves in house biases (which is why Rasmussen gets adjusted left by one percentage point, and PPP by about 4.5 to the right, in my calculations).
-
#64 written by GROG 10 months ago
DC,
Furthermore, in a poll with lots of people who represent themselves as Indies, it’s entirely possible that people (considering the Bush era and the débâcle of this year’s Republican presidential field) are too embarrassed to associate themselves with that particular clown car.
Sorry I asked...seriously.
-
You must be logged in to post a comment.
- Comment Feed for this Post
grog commented recently it’s an exciting time to be a Rep. hmm, I can give you (11) reasons why it isn’t lol. ok, ok, 12.
My “guess” er suggestion several mos. ago was Susana Martinez.
But she probably has a personality and alas, would make her incompatible w/mittens.
>
My post from (7) mos. ago in a thread w/some, how shall I say, interesting observations ie rgbact was “bullish” on Newt. Whereas I would have said it would take a cosmic explosion for the Rep hierarchy to pick Gingrich as their boy.
btw, Mayan’s End of Days prophecy less than (5) mos. from now …