With election day just around the corner, there is one prediction that is certain to come true; some prognosticators are going to look pretty foolish, or downright dishonest. In much the same way that you can find polls to suit your political fancy, whatever that may be, you can find some genius that will tell you that your guy is going to win. Part of the reason for this is that apparently confidence drives voter turnout. Perhaps the bigger part is wishful thinking, and ignorance.
I don’t use the term “ignorance” as a pejorative; I mean that people just don’t know, so they take their best guess, or the guess that best fits what they wish to believe. It is a complicated process, figuring out how millions of people are going to vote; and despite making your guess an educated one, in the end it’s still a guess. Of course when the guess is not an educated one, but one that is entirely the product of spin or intellectual laziness, it becomes little more than political noise.
Short of flipping a coin, basing election results solely on telephone polls is perhaps the most simplistic and naive way to try to accurately predict an outcome. Unless the polling is overwhelming, there are too many other factors that enter in to the actual vote count in any given election. Many analysts are doing just that. Going exclusively by the polls, these pundits predict a close election with Romney possibly winning the popular vote, but Obama taking the electoral college. Of course you don’t really need an analyst for this kind of “analysis”, just the RCP website, they have a pretty map!
The left leaning pundits emphasize the swing state polls, and favorable early voting numbers in crucial states. They talk about the President’s “superior ground game”, and the advantage in Democratic voter identification among registered voters. NY Times oracle Nate Silver puts Obama’s chance of winning at about 84%, with the only explanation for Romney pulling out a victory being the outside possibility that the polls, on which his “numbers only” approach so heavily relies, might have been biased. Daily Beast columnist Michael Tomasky has called GOP hopes for victory “Self-delusion Syndrome”, and “denying reality altogether” as reality was defined by the narrow advantages in early polling numbers.
On the right, pundits point to the results of the last election as indicative of a changed electorate, voter enthusiasm gap, advantages in absentee ballots and independent voters, and of course more polls, especially as they relate to Romney’s progress since the first debate termed “Mitt-mentum”. Former Clinton advisor turned conservative analyst, Dick Morris, has from the beginning forecast a Romney landslide, primarily by insisting that “undecided” voters should be counted against the incumbent since invariably that is how they break. Karl Rove while a little more subdued than Morris, still has the election in the bag for Romney.
They used to stone prophets who missed the mark. I’m not suggesting we revive that practice for political pundits, but we should remember when the elections are over how accurate these guys were, especially those who were the more arrogant with their predictions. The same should hold true for polls. The public is tired of excuses and spin, especially when you proclaim your own genius, and blow your own horn.
IMHO: There will be no “horn blowing” from this corner; a genius is one more thing that I can safely say I am not. Nevertheless, I suppose it is expected that I venture an opinion as to the outcome of Tuesday’s voting. Please remember that this is indeed my “humble opinion”!
I do believe that President Obama’s community organizing experience is nothing to be trifled with. It doesn’t altogether matter that his base is less than energized, as long as his campaign workers are. His ground game particularly in the swing states, and especially in Ohio may surprise a few people. That being said, I do agree with Morris that undecided voters will generally break for Romney, which significantly changes the math in the polls.
Of course the polling numbers are now reflecting only likely voters, but they still do not accurately measure differences in voter intensity, and I believe that this may be what decides the election. Conservative causes have over the past few years shown an ability to draw mammoth support, while liberal ones not so much. People willing to drive hundreds of miles to attend a conservative rally, or wait hours in line for a Chik-Fil-A sandwich, will find a way to get to the polls on election day in greater numbers than those less motivated on the left. Of course early voting mitigates this advantage to some extent, giving campaign workers extended windows to drag less motivated voters to cast their ballots. Still, early voting advantages can be over rated. After all, you can only vote once, except in Chicago, and Illinois is safe for Obama anyway.
Hurricane Sandy helped Obama marginally as it diverted attention from Benghazi-gate, and allowed him to look like a President for a change. Going forward it will only hurt him as his “absence in favor of campaigning” m.o. has returned, and the inevitable suffering and chaos of the aftermath persists. The voting in the affected areas will be severely diminished, but should not change the outcome in any of the solidly blue states, with the possible exception of Pennsylvania.
I don’t expect much of a change in the balance of power in the House; Republicans should keep the majority but without significant gains. In the Senate I’m expecting marginal gains for the GOP, but I don’t think enough to take the majority. If the polls start sliding toward Romney on Monday look for a repeat of the Reagan landslide. Right now my best guess, and it is a guess; including one electoral vote from Maine with proportional electoral disbursement…
I’m giving it to Romney by 94 electoral college votes. Let the games begin!
