ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2014 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Monday, August 20, 2012

WND column

Why Romney Will Win

Intrade says Romney is going to lose. Nate Silver, the expert meta-pollster of FiveThirtyEight fame, says Romney is going to lose. Rasmussen Reports has the Electoral College count at 247 to 206 in favor of Obama, with 85 votes in the toss-up category. With the exception of Gallup, most of the major polls are predicting an Obama victory in November.

I don’t think so. I think the Republican Romney/Ryan ticket is going to win in November.

Labels: ,

64 Comments:

Blogger James Dixon August 20, 2012 6:14 AM  

Short, simple, and to the point. Good work. And I think this makes you the first (of what I expect to be many) actually predicting a Romney victory.

Like you, I wish I could think it mattered. Well, at least we should see a nice short term pop in the markets if he does win.

Anonymous VD August 20, 2012 6:19 AM  

The reason I don't take the polls at all seriously is because I can remember when Bush the Elder was trailing Mike Dukakis by 17 points around this time. And yet, he won the election rather easily.

Dukakis Lead Widens, According to New Poll
July 26, 1988

In the aftermath of the Democratic National Convention, the party's nominee, Michael S. Dukakis, has expanded his lead among registered voters over Vice President Bush, the probable Republican nominee, according to a Gallup Poll.

In the aftermath of the Democratic National Convention, the party's nominee, Michael S. Dukakis, has expanded his lead among registered voters over Vice President Bush, the probable Republican nominee, according to a Gallup Poll. Fifty-five percent of the 948 registered voters interviewed in the poll said they preferred to see Mr. Dukakis win the 1988 Presidential election, while 38 percent said they preferred to see Mr. Bush win. The poll had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus four percentage points.

Anonymous trk August 20, 2012 6:27 AM  

WAs that before or after his tank ad?

Anonymous the abe August 20, 2012 7:50 AM  

I was (briefly)in a position to see the aforementioned Dukakis up close and personal on a regular basis. He seemed pretty good-natured and always treated others with a good deal of respect.

Barring his being a brilliant actor (unlike his cousin)and master of deception, it's hard to imagine anybody like that getting that close to the Cherry Blossom Throne and slightly deflates the conspiracy theory of reality.

Anonymous the abe August 20, 2012 7:54 AM  

That said, if the Forces of Darkness were really keen on seeing a second term, you'd think they'd manage to a little more bread and circus for the plebs, at least until the election was hemmed-up.

Anonymous VD August 20, 2012 7:57 AM  

if the Forces of Darkness were really keen on seeing a second term

You'd also think the big boys would be giving to Obama, not Romney.

Blogger Dan Hewitt August 20, 2012 8:07 AM  

What is your source for the ratio of incremental debt issued to GDP gained?

Blogger Vox August 20, 2012 8:23 AM  

I worked it out myself from the federal releases. It's here on the blog somewhere.

Anonymous scoobius dubious August 20, 2012 8:24 AM  

I can't remember the 1988 stats, or how they played out historically, but my memory of the Dukakis loss to Bush Sr was this: in connection I think with the whole Willie Horton thing, some reporter asked him how he would react if his wife (I think her name was Kitty) were raped and murdered... and Dukakis stood there and answered the question. Had he told the reporter to step the fuck outside til he broke the asshole's nose for speaking about his wife like that, Dukakis would have won the election on the spot.

Anonymous JP (real one) August 20, 2012 8:34 AM  

The stock market is predicting an Obama victory.

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2012/02/24/stock-market-picks-90-percent-of-presidential-elections

"In the 16 elections when the stock market climbed before Election Day, the incumbent party was re-elected 15 of 16 times. And, in the 12 election years when the stock market suffered losses, the incumbent party lost 10 of 12 elections."

I can't imagine why the market thinks an Obama re-election (i.e., increased taxes/regulations) would be bullish, but that's what we're seeing.

Anonymous Rantor August 20, 2012 8:36 AM  

I think a lot of the big boys are more acutely aware than we of the impending EPA regulations which will shut down a lot of energy production in the US (like Obamacare, many of these rules start in 2013 or later). Hard to grow an economy when there isn't any electricity.

The big bankers believe that Romney will be on there side and may actually be beneficial to their interests.

Hell even Newsweek went anti-Obama with their latest cover story. (Yes written by a McCainite...)

Blogger Vox August 20, 2012 8:45 AM  

The stock market is predicting an Obama victory.

No, it's not. It isn't predicting anything yet, for the obvious reason that it is the middle of August, not the end of October.

"If the stock market gains in the two months leading up to the presidential election, the incumbent party wins. If the market falls, the incumbent party loses."

That jury hasn't even begun deliberating.

Blogger James Dixon August 20, 2012 8:45 AM  

> The stock market is predicting an Obama victory.

I don't think so, I think it's factoring in a probable Romney victory. If Obama wins, I expect a major sell off.

Anonymous JP (real one) August 20, 2012 8:54 AM  

Well, you can think what you wish, but the data shows a strong pre-election gain (like we're seeing now with a vengeance) = victory for incumbant.

If you're trying to "read" some hidden message in the markets...well, good luck with that.

Blogger Vox August 20, 2012 8:56 AM  

Right here

By my calculations, the debt/GDP ratio has fallen from 3.75 to 3.48 since Q2-2008. The problem, however, is that the debt-shifting that Karl describes is even more significant than most people who know about it grasp. The federal government has not only increased its outstanding debt by 105.76 percent, but as I will show in my column tomorrow, it has provided 168 percent of the $3.3 trillion in post-crisis credit growth. This means that when people talk about the economy needing $3 in new debt to purchase $1 in GDP growth, they are failing to account for the decline in private credit. In other words, the federal government has needed to take on $5.21 in new debt in order to purchase $1 in new nominal GDP.

Blogger James Dixon August 20, 2012 8:57 AM  

> If you're trying to "read" some hidden message in the markets...well, good luck with that.

The market rising indicates that the market expects future market conditions to be good. That's all it ever means. Extrapolating beyond that, as both US News and I have done is usually a mistake. :)

Blogger Vox August 20, 2012 8:58 AM  

Well, you can think what you wish, but the data shows a strong pre-election gain (like we're seeing now with a vengeance) = victory for incumbant.

For the second time, no. What we're seeing now doesn't matter. What matters is what we see in September and October. You're not paying attention to the very article you cited.

Anonymous JP (real one) August 20, 2012 8:58 AM  

"If the stock market gains in the two months leading up to the presidential election, the incumbent party wins. If the market falls, the incumbent party loses."

Well, you also have to look at the chart in this article:

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/breakout/obama-election-odds-better-think-says-hirsch-181506895.html

Notice how stocks start performing around June of an election year--EXACTLY what has happened this year so far.

Anonymous FUBAR Nation (Ben) August 20, 2012 9:04 AM  

This only means one thing. Vox is leveraged up to the hilt on intrade. Nice try pumping up Romney's stock but it won't work.

Anonymous Josh August 20, 2012 9:33 AM  

The real reason Vox is predicting a Romney win has to be the power of magic underoos.

Anonymous Joe Doakes August 20, 2012 9:39 AM  

Would the validity of the stock market prediction vary if the stocks themselves varied?

Suppose the vast majority of stock trades in Election Cycle A were businesses that employ people and make things and therefore have an interest in promoting a good economy.

Suppose the vast majority of stock trades in Election Cycle B were government-backed financials swapping paper between themselves and who therefore have an interest in promoting more government.

Would the predictions change? This is a serious question, I don't know the answer or even how to weight the variables.

Anonymous Daniel August 20, 2012 9:53 AM  

When the tea leaves become digital and consist of a stock market infected with autotrading engines, a polling process infected with autocalling and autoresponding engines, and analysis infected by automatic metadata, you know the machine is giving you one accurate piece of advice:

Vote SkyNet.

Anonymous dh August 20, 2012 9:57 AM  

Gallup's tracking poll isn't a win predictor, it's a national preference poll. This is useful for tracking job performance but not that useful for predicting a win or loss.

EV-based polls are inherently more accurate, as they reflect the "rules of the road".

Anonymous VryeDenker August 20, 2012 10:01 AM  

It's much easier to make progress if you stride with the left AND right leg. Although, what shape "progress" is going to take remains to be seen.

Blogger IM2L844 August 20, 2012 10:03 AM  

I might agree if it looked like Romney were trying to win, but it looks, to me, like he is deliberately trying to lose.

He could have countered this whole releasing his tax documents thing by announcing he would release all of his taxes if Obama would release his college transcripts. That wouldn't have answered the questions, of course, but it might have given pause to the Obama camp when it came to making demands about releasing documents.

The other thing that tells me Romney is just a hedge is the fact that nobody is bringing up tax credits for new jobs created as a solution to the raising taxes on the "job creators" issue.

It doesn't matter who is elected, but it will be less of a disruption in the flow of the globalist's agenda if Obama is re-elected.

Anonymous Lysander Spooner August 20, 2012 10:10 AM  

If Obummer gets tossed, it will appear that something has actually changed.

All can return to their state of slumber.......

Blogger LP 999/Eliza August 20, 2012 10:10 AM  

Sounds good, so when's the austerity march? As long as GS's is doing well, all is fine.

Anonymous JP (real one) August 20, 2012 10:11 AM  

I agree. Romney has two easy counters, and never uses either.

Whenever Obama says "Bain Capital..."

Romney should retort: "MF Global, led by your #1 Wall St. fundraiser Corzine..."

and

Obama: "Your tax records..."

Romney: "Sure, I'll release my tax records and college transcripts when you release yours."

Of course, the MSM would side with Obama on both issues, but B. Hussein would still shut up if Romney grew a pair and did this. He wouldn't want either to be brought up in a debate.

Anonymous Noah B. August 20, 2012 10:22 AM  

There are also a great many undecided voters, and it's a long running trend in politics that a majority of undecided voters break to the challenger. And the bankers have already cast their vote for Romney.

Anonymous Jim August 20, 2012 10:23 AM  

While polls are not to be believed, I don't get Intrade, which is usually fairly accurate.

1. Polls are biased whether intentionally or not. They use data from the previous election in 2008, not most recent midterm election data from 2010. The Democrats who voted in 2008 have not returned in 2010.

2. Obama has not attracted voters to his campaign stops at the same enthusiam. This is evident from photos.

3. Romney is outraising Obama significantly from small donors, who are the voters.

Anonymous VD August 20, 2012 10:47 AM  

I might agree if it looked like Romney were trying to win, but it looks, to me, like he is deliberately trying to lose.

It looks like Obama is trying even harder.

Blogger James Dixon August 20, 2012 10:59 AM  

> Of course, the MSM would side with Obama on both issues,

If all you did was follow the MSM, you'd think we had <5% unemployment, the economy was growing at >5%/year, all the foreign wars were won and our people back home, and the Cuban detention center closed and all the captives dealt with.

Anonymous JP (real one) August 20, 2012 11:11 AM  

> If all you did was follow the MSM, you'd think we had <5% unemployment, the economy was growing at >5%/year, all the foreign wars were won and our people back home, and the Cuban detention center closed and all the captives dealt with.

More important, we'd know that Michelle looked "stunning" in her red dress at the Hollywood fundraiser last night. And we'd know all about the daughters' and family dog's favorite food, musicians and movies.

The "Obamanomics is great" stuff is on page 2.

Blogger IM2L844 August 20, 2012 11:17 AM  

It looks like Obama is trying even harder.

Point taken.

It would be wildly popular with the general public if either camp would claim they had engineered a way out of the congressional stalemate and came out with a plan to raise taxes on the 1% that would also encourage job creation. Raise their taxes, but give them offsetting tax credits if they can create new jobs. This is something the masses and the media morons could easily get their soundbite impaired heads wrapped around and both sides, especially the undecided, could rally behind. Simple!

This would open up whole new avenues of resonating rhetoric to the camp that proposes it and it would be difficult to rationalize away in terms the average person could easily understand.

It doesn't matter how realistic it is on it's merits. It's an election year! It's all smoke and mirrors anyway. The important thing to note is that it is so obvious yet nobody is bringing it up as a proposal. I can't believe that it is such a unique idea that nobody else has thought of it. Come on! I can only assume it's more a matter of timing.

I predict that the campaign that comes out with this proposal as a centerpiece first will win by a landslide. I think it's a coin flip if one of them actually will or not. Maybe Romney will spring it on Obama in the first debate. That would be a coup.

Blogger Dan Hewitt August 20, 2012 11:22 AM  

Right here

Thanks for taking the time to find and post that.

Anonymous JartStar August 20, 2012 11:36 AM  

It’s been obvious to me for some time that his body language and energy shows signs of disinterest. He doesn’t have the passion that he had when running the first time as I think he actually thought he could do the things he was saying.

He also is facing a candidate who wants to win and who likes power. There is no comparison in organization and intelligence between McCain’s campaign and Romney’s. Obama’s campaign message so far has been, “Don’t vote for them as they are rich and white!”.

After Romney wins I think the most shocking thing for the GOP faithful will be the very heavy hand with which Romney wields his new found power.

Anonymous Grendelizer August 20, 2012 11:40 AM  

Unless us Ron Paul types can be brought back into the fold, I don't think Romney will win.

Unless our political principles and positions really ARE that irrelevant in the modern scene, which is entirely possible.

I could possibly have been swayed if he had chosen a Paulite conservative for VP. But just another neocon? Hmmm. . . .

Anonymous Contemplationist August 20, 2012 11:45 AM  

WTH Vox?

Then all your bleating (shared by me) about the 'publicans throwing the election away by not nominating Ron Paul was for naught?

Blogger Bob August 20, 2012 11:48 AM  

The Abe sez:

"That said, if the Forces of Darkness were really keen on seeing a second term, you'd think they'd manage to a little more bread and circus for the plebs, at least until the election was hemmed-up.

Not likely.

They made all the glorious promises last election. This time they kow the promises aren't working.

These are Chicago gansters. So they are preparing with tanks, millions of rounds of new hollow point ammo, swarms of armed black civilian forces, military trained police teams, the usual dictator style stuff.

All they need is a suitable crisis not to waste.



Anonymous LES August 20, 2012 12:05 PM  

Perhaps the prospect of Obama losing is why the government is buying
all that ammo.

Anonymous Kickass August 20, 2012 12:08 PM  

This was boring. Can you please interview Doom, Gen Kong and maybe Nate (only if he has been drinking) as experts for your next colum? It is time to spice it up.

Maybe pull a little "War of the Worlds" stunt with one of your short stories? I vote for The Deported, but make the cannibal either Mexican or Morman. Lets at least play some dance music while the ship sinks.

Anonymous Kickass August 20, 2012 12:10 PM  

Dont go all conspiracy on us. It makes complete sense that the SSA needs armed agents . Boomers likes ta getz wild!

Anonymous A Visitor August 20, 2012 12:18 PM  

I read it last night and did a double take, eight hours after it came out. It was simple and to the point. Well done.

Anonymous Roundtine August 20, 2012 12:28 PM  

I might agree if it looked like Romney were trying to win, but it looks, to me, like he is deliberately trying to lose.

It looks like Obama is trying even harder.


They are the two most accidentally intelligent presidential candidates ever.

Anonymous Daniel August 20, 2012 12:34 PM  

Romney wins this one walking away. Obama quit a long time ago, made a number of punchlines about "hope and change" and looked about as engaged as LBJ.

He's got his money and his fame and he's going to live off that now. The last thing he wants is to be is trapped in a White House with a strong black woman for another four years. He's paid his dues and has his pension plus speaking gig money. I honestly don't see whats in it for him anymore.

Too bad, too. I think he was well on his way to extending his inaction and incompetence to permanent status. God forbid we get someone effective in place: they'll prop up the facade of stability using the bodies of the innocent as counterweights. At least Obama was going to let things crash down on their own.

Anonymous Stilicho August 20, 2012 12:53 PM  

Obama really wants to go on the "Bill Clinton Perpetual Speaking, Golfing, Hookers, and Blow Tour."

The allure of voting "present" forever without having to make a single decision is overwhelming his will to power at this point.

Blogger Lovekraft August 20, 2012 1:08 PM  

Debt ceiling is now a couple millimetres above our heads.

We better learn to start crouching.

Blogger JohnG August 20, 2012 1:26 PM  

Polling. I'd like to see what the internal polling is showing to either side. The other stuff has been heavily skewed - usually having 10% more Dems in the mix than Repubs or independents. I'd like to see the ratios on those polls still showing Barry O with a 49% approval rate...

Apparently they turned Biden loose again, I can't wait...I don't think he can control himself and undoubtedly will say something hysterical.

Anonymous DonReynolds August 20, 2012 1:27 PM  

I agree, Vox. Obama will not win in November. The math is simple....

He will not win all the votes he got four years ago and he has totally failed to convert any McCain votes in the past four years. In electoral terms, he will not take all of the states he carried in 2008 and none of those he did not carry last time. That means he will lose.

Romney-Ryan will not win the election, but Obama will lose it. He will lose it because of every decision and action he has taken for the past four years. The accumulated resentment (on the part of Liberals and Independents), the full tonage of broken promises, his constant carping about unimportant matters, his avoidance of what is truely vital to this country, and his complete disregard of the Constitution will have this tyrant and dictator (and his clown VP) tossed out of office. A few will vote FOR Romney-Ryan, but the majority will vote AGAINST Obama, and there is nothing he can do or say that will erase or change all the nonsense of the past four years.

Blogger Positive Dennis August 20, 2012 2:32 PM  

In my blog I give my Magnificent De Jarnac prediction for the election. http://www.prophecypodcast.com/journal/2012/8/19/the-magnificent-de-jarnac.html

Anonymous TheVillageIdiotRet August 20, 2012 2:49 PM  

Walking by in his t-shirt that says:

I was mounted by Obama
And I'm still waiting for my promised reach about


The Village Idiot, with out any warning, whips out his tin foil hat,and runs off into the nite babbling;

The Promised reach about ain't comin'
The Promised reach about ain't comin'

Anonymous dh August 20, 2012 2:52 PM  

Don--

You would be right if everyone had to vote. However, for everyone person who is going to switch votes from R to D are a 3 or 4 voters just won't vote.

Your analysis could easily fall apart.

Anonymous Ghost of Frank Zappa August 20, 2012 3:20 PM  

The illusion must be continued and maintained. Barkey may just have too much baggage to continue the ruse. Willard (Mittens) is probably perfect for the task. Lots to blackmail this guy on.

Interesting, that Gen. Odom admitted publicly that we are an empire, and a hegemonic one at that. For what ever reasons, we lost it.

Dr. Roberts explains that things will never be the same, ever again.

Prepare to embrace the horror...

Anonymous JP (real one) August 20, 2012 3:29 PM  

>You would be right if everyone had to vote. However, for everyone person who is going to switch votes from R to D are a 3 or 4 voters just won't vote.<

And apathetic independents don't get bussed in by the thousands on election day. Most have real jobs and don't want to be bothered with it. A free bus ride downtown and a hot meal won't compel them to vote.

Anonymous Jim August 20, 2012 5:36 PM  

"Romney-Ryan will not win the election, but Obama will lose it."

This is not true. Every election depends on who will show up. It is likely Obama voters will not show up, but the Romney voters will with increased enthusiam. HUGE CROWDS.

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/20220820packed_house_for_romney-ryan_nh_forum_today/srvc=loc&position=

"The energized duo of Mitt Romney and U.S. Rep Paul Ryan riled up a huge crowd on the St. Anselm College campus lawn this morning"

Anonymous E. PERLINE August 20, 2012 6:34 PM  

I just read that Romney was in favor of auditing the Fed. This is a stunning development. It might change a lot of Libertarian minds.

Anonymous Outlaw X August 20, 2012 7:42 PM  

I hope Romney wins just for the administration shuffle that will buy some time. The Obama admin is dug in like a tick. It will also slow down the assault on gun rights.

Anonymous FP August 21, 2012 12:34 AM  

Create your own dream electoral map:
http://www.270towin.com/index.php

Mittens wins it if he holds the momentum but it will be a squeaker. 5-10 electoral votes either way.

Anonymous El Pollo Loco August 21, 2012 12:44 AM  

I'll vote for Romney if he promises free donuts for all.

Anonymous Luke August 21, 2012 2:27 AM  

El P. Loco, if the FedGov does get (more) into handing out doughnuts, here's how it would likely work: you'll only get (if any) doughnuts that are the cheap type, stale, and previously picked over by your inferiors (who got theirs for free), while you will have (over)paid both for your, and their, doughnuts.

Anonymous Stilicho August 21, 2012 9:18 AM  

It will also slow down the assault on gun rights.

Naked assertion, unbacked by facts. Can you support this, or is it merely your opinion? Quite frankly, I think the odds are against you given Romney's abysmal gun rights record along with the fact that a compliant GOP would be more willing to roll over for Romney than Obama. All in the name of "reasonable restrictions" and "not needed for hunting" of course.

Anonymous JP (Real One) August 21, 2012 9:49 AM  

I wouldn't put much (or any) stock in Romney's "audit the Fed" talk. He's just trying to win over some Ron Paul supporters who may otherwise stay home or vote for Gary Johnson on election day. Any audit would be a watered-down, meaningless event--like the silly safety inspections we did when I was a military officer.

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/08/romney-calls-for-softball-audit-of-fed.html

Anonymous E. PERLINE August 21, 2012 9:28 PM  

Still, Romney's "Audit the Fed" talk is a shocker to me--for two reasons.

The first reason is that the banks are reported to have have switched their support to Romney. If Romney was beholden he would hardly want to say anything negative about them.

The second reason is that Romney shone the light of day on a powerful and secretive opponent. I haven't yet heard many politicians, news organs, or non-profit organizations dare to do it.

Maybe, as you say, the banks are showing their humanity to show by subjecting themselves to some less harmful criticism.

Anonymous E. PERLINE August 22, 2012 5:37 PM  

Taking over the Federal Government is like taking the wheel of a racing car that's heading toward a cliff, with no brakes.

In that case winning the presidential election could be a mixed blessing. Maybe should let the Obama administration finish the job.

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts