Gay Patriot Header Image

Dan’s New Math for Election Forecasting

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 7:32 pm - November 2, 2012.
Filed under: 2012 Presidential Election

When I first read Bruce’s math post, I noted the percentage of Obama supporters who have declared for Romney and wonder if those who hadn’t yet committed either way were like Ann Althouse and or were double-downers, who in the end will double down on their 2008 bet. Since I’m not privy to their inner workings

First, let’s start with the popular vote results from 2008.  Obama, 52.87%; McCain, 45.6%.

Bruce’s chart showed Obama keeping 84% of his 2008 vote, with 13% already defecting to Romney, leaving 3% up for grabs.  Now, in August, Gallup released a poll showing that Romney was only getting 92% of McCain’s 2008 vote, with Obama getting 5%.

Let’s start with what Obama has.  .84 x 52.87 = 44.41%.  Now, add in Obama 5% of the McCain vote.  .04 x 45.6 = 2.28%.  That gives Obama a base vote of 46.69%, roughly 47%.

On to Romney.  He starts with the McCain base .92  x 45.6 = 41.95%.  Now, add it that 13%.  .13 x 52.87 = 6.87%.   That gives him a base vote of 48.82%.  And that’s without accounting for the disaffected Republicans who didn’t vote in 2008.

This math shows Romney up 2 points over Obama, likely more given GOP enthusiasm.  And it may be a tad conservative, given that the Gallup poll was conducted before Romney had tapped Paul Ryan as his running mate or showed his qualities in the three debates.

Will (more) late-deciders follow Ann Althouse’s lead?

Conservative Blogress Diva Regent neoneocon finds it significant that fellow blogress diva Ann Althouse has come out for Mitt Romney:

Well, for one thing, Althouse lives in Wisconsin, a swing state. For another, although she is her own very unique self, she also probably represents a political trajectory shared by others who voted for Obama in 2008 and are not doing so in 2012. If so, that’s a good thing—I’d like to see a lot more changers, all around the country but especially in swing states.

Like neoneoocon, I have also been aware that Althouse has been “very hard on Obama for most of his administration.”  And while the Wisconsinite offer hints, as I saw it, that she was moving in Romney’s direction, she did not, until today, commit to Mitt Romney.  Simply put, Obama “lost” her:

Mitt Romney got the nomination, which is what I had been hoping for (after Mitch Daniels decided not to run). It was time to pay attention again to Obama The Candidate, and his campaign centered on vilifying Mitt Romney in the most inane Occupy-Wall-Street style that was completely alienating to me. Romney seamlessly transitioned from being my choice in the primaries to being my presumptive choice for President. I remained open to Obama. Obama could have won me.

Then came Benghazi, and a door closed.

(No wonder the legacy media are giving only limited coverage to this story. (more…)

In a democracy, Mr. President, voting is not “revenge”

Earlier today, Bruce blogged about Mitt Romney’s “barnburner of a” closing argument.  It was a most upbeat speech.

By contrast, in his closing speech, President Obama said, “Voting is the best revenge.

Which candidate is best qualified to unite the nation after this divisive campaign?

UPDATE:  The Weekly Standard John McCormack calls this revenge talk . . .

. . . strange rhetoric from any politician, especially one who sold himself to the country as the candiate of hope and change. In fact, before Obama’s remarks today, I had only ever heard one politician encourage people to vote out of revenge: failed 2009 congressional candidate Dede Scozzafava. 

UP-UPDATE: The winning argument?


UP-UP-UPDATE: John Hinderaker doubts that “Obama’s blunder” will “tip the scales with many voters, but in the closing days of the campaign it serves as a useful reminder of Obama’s dark side.

UP-UP-UP-UPDATE: Obama campaign struggles to explain ‘revenge’ remark It’s not good to be playing defense in the closing days of a campaign.

UP-UP-UP-UP-UPDATE: “Revenge for what?” Jonah Goldberg asks. Read the whole thing. It’s short.

FROM THE COMMENTS: Our reader Kurt

. . . was thinking about Obama’s whole anger and revenge thing and what I earlier called the “divide and conquer” approach, but it occurred to me that the better term is really “divide and agitate” since he only seems to know how to make people angry, resentful and worked up. (more…)

Actual Voting Numbers & “Math Is Hard”:
Predicting Tuesday’s Outcome

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 5:23 pm - November 2, 2012.
Filed under: 2012 Presidential Election

I remember, with part glee and part horror, that those on the Left claimed that George W. Bush stole the 2004 elections.  Why?  Because the first batch of exit polls showed Kerry winning.  Yep, ACTUAL VOTE totals were said to be wrong — because the EXIT POLLS could not possibly be an error!!  I wish I was joking about this.

Anyway, our actual vote totals in early voting states (all of them, including Nevada) show Romney is overperforming McCain and Obama 2012 is underpeforming Obama 2008.  It is a fact.  Search the state election board websites.  The ACTUAL votes are all there.  You can short-cut your work by reading good analysis like I am.  But since I’m accused of being a right wing nut job by people who trust EXIT POLLS over ACTUAL VOTES — you can do your own work.

In the absence of the total actual votes from Tuesday, we have this interesting bit of math via Instapundit today.

I’m copying the whole post because it is just so good and lines up with the 5-7 point Party ID switch (2008 to 2012) that Gallup and Rasmussen have been tracking over the past two years.

PS – Math is hard.

UPDATE: Interesting number crunching from reader John Bono:

This looks like a good math experiment to try and predict the popular vote for ’12. (more…)

Real Change From Day One — Mitt’s Closing Argument

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 4:50 pm - November 2, 2012.
Filed under: 2012 Presidential Election,Mitt Romney

Mitt Romney gave a barnburner of a speech this morning in Wisconsin.  He goes off script a lot, I notice.  He even uses the a variation of a line that I’ve been tweeting all year long: “Americans are tired of being tired.”

We are Americans. We can do anything.

The only thing that stands between us and some of the best years we have known is lack of leadership. And that’s why we have elections.

This Tuesday is a moment to look into the future and imagine what we can do … to put the past four years behind us and start building a new future.

You saw the differences when President Obama and I were side-by-side in our debates. He says it has to be this way. I say it can’t stay this way. He’s offering excuses, I’ve got a plan. He’s hoping we’ll settle. I can’t wait for us to get started.

Americans don’t settle. We build, we aspire, we listen to that voice inside that says, “We can do better.” A better job; a better life for our kids; a bigger, better country.

That better life is out there, waiting for us. Our destiny is in your hands.

The full text of the speech is after the jump.

(more…)

Of late-deciders & closing arguments

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 2:49 pm - November 2, 2012.
Filed under: 2012 Presidential Election

If votes cast on Election Day decided the 2008 election,” the AP reported in September, John “McCain would have won in Florida, Colorado, North Carolina and Iowa.”  That stat has always surprised me, given that it suggests late-deciders broke for the candidate of the incumbent president’s party.

Now, to be sure, John McCain was not then the incumbent.  Anyway, I checked the 2008 exit polls and was fascinated by the break-down among late decides.  McCain actually won those decided in the last week by a narrow margin and, by a greater margin, he won those deciding in the three days before the election.

Obama, however, won those who made up their mind on Election Day:

With the race very tight, it’s going to come down to two factors, how those late-deciders break — and how good of job each team does with its ground game (i.e., getting its voters to the polls).

Perhaps it’s a good sign then that Mitt Romney, in his “closing argument,” is at, as Jennifer Rubin put it, his “rhetorical best.

Seems his message is more upbeat than Mr. Obama’s.

Why Jay Cost does not take polls at face value

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 12:36 pm - November 2, 2012.
Filed under: 2012 Presidential Election

Like many conservatives covering the race, Jay Cost considers the internals of the polls, focusing, as we have done, on the independent vote.  He observes, that in the last thirty years, party identification has reached near parity, with independents increasingly tilting toward Romney (as per this post).

Cost grants that his approach is different from those that the “poll mavens” have offered:

They are taking data at face value, running simulations off it, and generating probability estimates. That is not what this is, and it should not be interpreted as such. I am not willing to take polls at face value anymore. I am more interested in connecting the polls to history and the long-run structure of American politics, and when I do that I see a Romney victory.

Read the whole thing.  Polling internals do show more support for Mitt Romney than the top-line number sometimes suggests; most surveys show him leading on the economy and even on an ability to fix Washington’s gridlock.

Conn Carroll sees something similar, contending that since, “Obama is losing among independents by double-digits, all of the state polls showing Obama ahead in swing states like Ohio, Iowa, and Wisconsin, are predicated on voter turnout models that don’t just match Democratic turnout in 2008, but ambitiously exceed it.

Not only is Obama losing independents, but according “to a new study by the liberal group Third Way,” Ed Morrissey reports, “Republican registration has gained a net 3.8% over Democrats in the last four years,” meaning that turnout models based on the 2008 election aren’t applicable for the current contest.

GAYPATRIOT ELECTION BULLETIN: NORTH CAROLINA

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 12:08 pm - November 2, 2012.
Filed under: 2012 Presidential Election

From the GayPatriot Command Center’s 2012 Decision Desk, I am prepared to make this call:

NORTH CAROLINA GOES TO MITT ROMNEY FOR PRESIDENT.

Here’s why from my friend Scott Elliott, the Blogging Caeser.

Despite rumors of a mega uptick in Democrats registering since 2008, less have voted at this point in the early voting process than in 2008. On the other hand, more Republicans and Unaffiliateds have voted than at this point in 2008.
 
 
These numbers represent a drop of 4.9% for Democrats and a rise of 2.58% and 2.18% for Republicans and Unaffiliateds, respectively.
 
If Unaffiliateds vote for Obama at the same rate they did in 2008 (impossibly unlikely, in my view), then Obama’s >1% victory in 2008 becomes an 8-point Romney victory.
 
If Unaffiliateds vote for Romney more than they voted for McCain, you can increase that lead by a point or two.
 
 
Another important fact:  Barack Obama only won NC in 2008 by <15,000 votes.
 
There you have it folks.  The GayPatriot Decision Desk has now made two official calls for Election Night:
 
1 – The Republicans will retain the US House of Representatives
2 – North Carolina goes to Mitt Romney
 
-Bruce (@GayPatriot)

Salt Lake City Theater Portrays Ritual Murder of Barack Obama

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 12:05 pm - November 2, 2012.
Filed under: Liberalism Run Amok

Reader Kurt passed this on.

At a theater last Friday in Salt Lake City, Mormon zealots portrayed the ritual murder of Barack Obama.

Oops, got that one wrong, it was Boulder, Colorado and they were portraying the ritual murder of Mitt Romney.

Americans, Your Doctors Have A Message For You

From major newspapers across the country today.

 

-Bruce (@GayPatriot)

SiriusXM Gay Leftist Host Michelangelo Signorile
Issues Apology, Of Sorts

Here is Bully Signorile’s attempt at apologizing, printed in full.

On Wednesday I challenged a gay caller, Wess, who expressed his support for Mitt Romney. While expressing the thought that any gay person who votes for Romney is doing himself harm, I began an analogy in the wrong place. After the caller said he voted for Romney, I said he should just get some arsenic, make a potion, and take it, which would be more painless. Not because I thought he should kill himself—I do not think gay Romney supporters should kill themselves—but because voting for someone who is committed to undermining your rights is a self-destructive behavior.

Any gay person who votes for Romney is undermining his own life, his own rights, and the lives and rights of all other LGBT people. And let’s be clear: It is Romney, with his bigoted positions (“Some gays are actually having children. It’s not right on paper. It’s not right in fact.”),who feeds a culture of hate that leads to gay teen suicides.
 
At first, I was criticized by angry, sometimes vile Romney supporters on Twitter while Obama supporters on the show and on Twitter seemed to get the point I was trying to make and defended me. I was defensive initially too, including yesterday on the show, pointing out that I was using a metaphor. We can get lost in the partisan fog of war during a heated election battle.
 
But after talking with friends over dinner last night, and after reading Andrew Sullivan’s take this morning, I can now see that my statement was not just jarring but offensive—certainly in the current climate of gay teen suicides. Sullivan is not some far-right gay Romney supporter; indeed, Sullivan and I are on the same side in the current political climate. We both support Obama and, contrary to Sullivan’s rather silly characterization of me as “far left,” he and I are actually in the same place on many issues these days, even including the role of ACT UP and direct action. We certainly agree on the issues of bullying and teen suicide, issues about which I’ve been very outspoken and passionate. If Sullivan didn’t get the point I was trying to make then I must have made it very badly.
 
I’m not making excuses, but sometimes, when you’re on the radio for four hours a day, things come out backwards. Live talk radio is essentially thinking out loud and sometimes our thoughts come out garbled. Again, I’m not making excuses, and certainly listeners have a right to expect that someone who hosts a radio show is going to be a little better at thinking out loud than the average person. And I like to think that I usually am. But it seems that all my engines weren’t firing this week. Like a lot of New Yorkers, I was operating on little sleep, with hurricane fatigue, and displaced family and friends. It was a recipe for total botch up. And I botched this one.
 
My apologies to Wess, and to my listeners.

 Posted by Signorile at9:26 AM

My shorter translation of Signorile’s statement: “Gay Romney supporters are still scum and should die, I was just tired and got caught on tape.  I’m not making excuses, but actually I am.  Also, I was ashamed into apologizing by Andrew Sullivan of all people.”

My longer take on this is that Signorile got his ass chewed out by his bosses at SiriusXM yesterday.  He was awfully arrogant and defiant towards me on Twitter during the time he was on the air.  But suddenly about 5pm, he got silent.  I think The Man who signs his check got involved.

There is no doubt that this is another win for the conservative blogosphere!  Signorile has always been like this.  I know, since he has treated me to the same treatment in the past and I was an invited guest.  So he is “sorry” because he got caught.  Typical progressive bullshit apology.

I have $100 sitting on my desk and will give it to the next person who documents that Signorile’s treatment of gay conservatives hasn’t changed.  The bet is for the next 30 days.

In the meantime, thanks very much to our reader Tim for exposing Signorile’s hate.  I will be providing Tim with a gift from our blog as well.

Now you may discuss.

UPDATE from comments on my $100 wager: 

No, Paul.  I have $100 on my desk for audio proof that Signorile STILL berates gay conservatives.  He will not change.  Maybe today or tomorrow, but he is a mean spirited radical.

He will spout off and demean and bully a gay conservative.  I have $100 waiting here for the proof that his apology was bullshit.

-Bruce (@GayPatriot)

Friday Morning Housekeeping

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 11:04 am - November 2, 2012.
Filed under: Blogging

First, a BIG THANK YOU to all of our devoted readers here at GayPatriot.  October 2012 was our most heavily visited month since the blog started eight years ago.  We had over 200,000 page views in October 2012 and our next best month had about 100,000. 

So, thanks very much!  Perhaps this is another sign of conservative voter enthusiasm as well??

Secondly, today I received my 20,000th follower on Twitter.  Thanks to all of you who follow me there.  As you know, I’ve become much more active on Twitter than here at GP HQ the past couple of years.  I love the Twitter format and the ability to get a thought “out there” right away with no fuss.

Thirdly, we seem to be having a problem with our spam filter for comments.  Please be patient.  I think it is a glitch with the spam filter program itself, as none of our conditions for moderating comments have changed.  Both Dan and I will make sure to check regularly until we are confident things are back to normal.

Thanks again, folks!

-Bruce (@GayPatriot)

Watcher of Weasels — 1st winners of November 2012

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 9:54 am - November 2, 2012.
Filed under: Blogging,Conservative Ideas

Council Winners

Reconsidering Ben Affleck

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 3:39 am - November 2, 2012.
Filed under: Movies/Film & TV

Every since I saw The Sum of All Fears, I have been reluctant to see a movie featuring Ben Affleck. He has this wooden screen presence, coming across, at best, like an underwear model. He sometimes seems like a cardboard cut-out with moving part who sucks the energy out of whatever scene he’s in.

About a month ago, when I first saw a trailer for Argo , I wondered that it engaged me, even as the bearded lead was clearly Affleck.  Maybe he would come across as wooden in the next trailer.  That didn’t happen.  Each time I saw the trailer, I became more interested in watching the film.

I saw it last night and it’s really good, with an excellent script; it moves along at a nice pace.  Not only is Affleck’s direction top-notch, but the editing is simply amazing.  And while it clearly falls into the action/adventure/thriller genre, it has some really funny lines, mostly those making fun of Hollywood.

Now, this is not to say it’s a “perfect” film on the order of, say, The Godfather or On The Waterfront.  The beginning was a little off (and its history a little inaccurate) and there was a cheeseball chase scene toward the end.  But, other than that, it really holds your attention — and sometimes keeps you on the edge of your seat.

If you haven’t already, see this film.

Meanwhile, I’m reconsidering my opinion of the star of Gigli.  He can certainly direct.  And in this film, he can act.

Is this America?

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 3:12 am - November 2, 2012.
Filed under: Bush-hatred,Katrina Disaster,Media Bias

Caught this on Drudge last night:

Let me start by saying that I don’t blame President Obama for the problems plaguing the Big Apple in the aftermath of Sandy. But, bear in mind, how quick the legacy media were, seven years ago, to blame George W. Bush for the problems plaguing the Big Easy in the aftermath of Katrina.

We heard all sorts of horror stories, most of them untrue, about the goings-on at the Superdome, most supposedly Bush’s fault.  So, why is Drudge the only one linking the desperate situation in parts of Manhattan to the president?

And when Katrina hit, the city most impacted was governed by a Democratic Mayor, the state by a Democratic Governor.

When Sandy hit, New York had a Mayor who would endorse Obama, the state has a Democratic Governor.

Over at the American Thinker, J. James Estrada contends that the electrical outages might not have happened had congressional Democrats not blocked a Bush administration plan to upgrade the nation’s electrical grid.  (Via our reader Former Left-Leaning Lesbian.)

RELATED: BLOOMBERG DIVERTS FOOD, GENERATORS FROM DEVASTATED STATEN ISLAND TO NYC MARATHON

ALSO RELATED: Applying Bush/Katrina rules to Obama/Sandy

CREDIT WHERE IT’S DUE:  Anderson Cooper is reporting the crisis on Staten Island.  (Via Instapundit.)

FROM INSTAPUNDIT:

BARACK OBAMA’S KATRINA, WITH BLOOMBERG IN THE ROLE OF RAY NAGIN? This Depressing NBC Segment On Staten Island Could Change The Way The World Sees Hurricane Sandy. “This NBC segment on the situation this week on Staten Island is awful, and makes the response look horrible.”