Who Will Win the Elections? Predictions and Analysis

[CAC1001]

I think the signature difference is welfare reform, which Clinton signed. By contrast Obama is using executive power to undermine the law of the land (abusing the power in my view).

Remember though that Clinton vetoed welfare reform twice, and then signed it because the public was behind it. The Democratic party was very much against it and two members of HHS resigned over it at the time.

 

[Angry Citizen]

Yes he is (as I stated, not as that Annenburg Foundation quote says). Primary source:



http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/resource/policy/im-ofa/2012/im201203/im201203

Are you aware that there is a caveat to that waiver? That's why Fact Check calls your position on this a bold-faced falsity.

 

[Angry Citizen]

The American right-wing is rather alien to many Europeans. I find a French newspaper saying that rather ironic, as France just elected a proud socialist to power.

Social democrat; not socialist. He's a member of the Parti Socialiste, which is not a far left party. That would be the Front de Gauche, whose nominee was a guy named Melenchon. Those guys support a 100% tax on the rich, quite literally. The PS just wants a 70% tax - and before you say that's too crazy, guess what the US's was in 1955? 91%. Yep.

 

[mheslep]

Remember though that Clinton vetoed welfare reform twice, and then signed it because the public was behind it. The Democratic party was very much against it and two members of HHS resigned over it at the time.

Yep.

 

[Angry Citizen]

A rate which nobody paid on gross income. Nope.

Does anyone pay the rates as they're advertised? "Nope". Point being, if 35% is the top rate now, and no one pays that, they're still paying significantly less than the lower-than-91% they paid in 1950. Unless the Kennedy and Reagan tax cuts were just.. eh.. relabeling?

 

[Angry Citizen]

Please show from a primary source where *my* statement is false.

From the same source:

Thus, HHS has authority to waive compliance with this 402 requirement and authorize a state to test approaches and methods other than those set forth in section 407, including definitions of work activities and engagement, specified limitations, verification procedures, and the calculation of participation rates. As described below, however, HHS will only consider approving waivers relating to the work participation requirements that make changes intended to lead to more effective means of meeting the work goals of TANF.

 

[Angry Citizen]

The point is that income was heavily sheltered back then - pushed here and there all to avoid taxes and now much less so. The government gets roughly the same share, but the economy sees far higher productivity of capital.

http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/charts/2012/income-tax-receipts-680.jpg

You just cited the Heritage Foundation in an argument. Think I wouldn't check the source?

 

[OmCheeto]

The poll results kind of reflect my facebook friend's consensus.

If it weren't for my southern relatives, there'd be only that one sole; "I always vote for the loser, so you can't blame this mess on me" type person.

----------------------------------
still waiting for the call from my sister. (texan to the end)

 

[Angry Citizen]

What Sibellius says are her "priorities", or what feel good motivations she offers along side the waivers do not make my statement false. She *is* waiving TANF.

Keep telling yourself that.

 

[mheslep]

shrug, I suppose none of this belongs in this thread.

 

[ParticleGrl]

To a person like myself, there is nothing right-wing about either plan. The Republicans at the time, for whatever reason, adopted said plan and an individual mandate. But I'd disagree that there is/was anything right-wing about it.

The market based reform plan created by Heritage, championed by the US right wing party, drafted and enacted on the state level by a Republican governor wasn't right wing?

Maybe this will help- my definition of 'right wing' is 'what the party that's considered right-of-center wants to do/what the think tanks considered right-of-center want to do.' In general, I think 'market-based', and 'less centralized'. What definition are you using?

Didn't know that about the Republicans supporting carbon cap-and-trade, however, cap-and-trade applied to pollution emissions from energy plants was a Republican idea, the idea being market-based as you said. The problem with cap-and-trade applied to carbon emissions, and why Republicans oppose it, is that there is no known way to cap the emissions. So it will essentially act as a tax. Technologies to "scrub" the other forms of emissions, such as sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, and so forth, companies were able to utilize.

Remember that the tech. to scrub sulfur dioxide was in its infancy when the original cap and trade style laws were passed. Once there were market incentives, the technology developed quickly. Thats how markets work. Thats how the law is supposed to work- pass cap and trade and now there is a niche for technologies that the market will fill. I don't think the republican opposition is based on the idea that markets can't innovate, because if so, I have no idea what they stand for.

Also, the actual, stated Republican opposition to cap-and-trade is that they don't believe global warming is happening, so its the solution to a non-problem.

Either way, I hope we can agree that the Republican party of the 90s was right of Bill Clinton. And that championing two major policy proposals of that Republican party is at least some evidence that Obama governs right of Clinton. Keep in mind these aren't proposals forced on Obama- these are HIS positions.

Also, isn't returning TANF requirements to the states something republicans should support? I thought pushing things to the state level was the whole idea?

 

[CAC1001]

Social democrat; not socialist. He's a member of the Parti Socialiste, which is not a far left party.

Their platform is social democracy and democratic socialism, and they are a member of the Socialist International. I'd say that makes them pretty far-left, unless your definition of left is Soviet communism socialism.

That would be the Front de Gauche, whose nominee was a guy named Melenchon. Those guys support a 100% tax on the rich, quite literally. The PS just wants a 70% tax - and before you say that's too crazy, guess what the US's was in 1955? 91%. Yep.

The U.S.'s was very high in the 1950s because of the tax increases that had been passed during the very left-leaning FDR.

 

[Angry Citizen]

Their platform is social democracy and democratic socialism, and they are a member of the Socialist International. I'd say that makes them pretty far-left, unless your definition of left is Soviet communism socialism.

Labour (UK) is also a member of Socialist International. Anyone who claims they're "far left" is just plain wrong. Social democracy and democratic socialism are two very different things; please learn what you're talking about. It is impossible to advocate both at the same time.

The U.S.'s was very high in the 1950s because of the tax increases that had been passed during the very left-leaning FDR.

Fine. Don't like that? The highest tax bracket was in the low-to-mid 70s during Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Carter. In other words, the bracket was at or above what the "uber-socialists" in France want to raise it to, for at least thirty of the most productive and prosperous years in American history.

You folks really need to learn the nuances of politics before making broad, sweeping statements about left wing ideology. Commies, socialists and liberals, oh my!

 

[CAC1001]

The market based reform plan created by Heritage, championed by the US right wing party, drafted and enacted on the state level by a Republican governor wasn't right wing?

Correct. Now you're getting into why for many years many Republican voters have complained that the Republican party has not been conservative. However, it wasn't championed by the Republican party as a whole or conservatives as a whole, just by certain Republicans and conservatives. That it was created by Heritage, championed by certain people in the Republican party, and drafted by a Republican governor at the state level means nothing. It just means that certain members of the Republican party, at the time, decided to adopt a left-leaning policy. It also was not much different at all from Hillary's plan.

Also, Mitt Romney has never been a right-wing Republican. He was a pro-choice Republican who signed cap-and-trade at the state level, an Assault Weapons Ban, and passed a universal healthcare bill featuring a mandate. No right-winger is going to pass any of those things. And those are likely the reasons why the Democrats of the state speak/spoke highly of him as a governor, because he essentially governed as a Democrat.

The Cato Institute never supported an individual mandate.

Here is a detailed article on the history of conservatives and the mandate: http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/20...nservative-history-of-the-individual-mandate/

Maybe this will help- my definition of 'right wing' is 'what the party that's considered right-of-center wants to do/what the think tanks considered right-of-center want to do.' In general, I think 'market-based', and 'less centralized'. What definition are you using?

My definition of right-wing is does it meet the principles of limited government, fiscal conservatism, free-market capitalism, and so forth. Any plan that features a literal mandate that people purchase something is not right-wing, as that goes against some of the most fundamental principles of conservatism. It entirely dismisses the idea of a government that derives its powers from the people and of concepts such as individual liberty. That the Republican politicians decided to reject this doesn't make it right-wing.

Remember that the tech. to scrub sulfur dioxide was in its infancy when the original cap and trade style laws were passed. Once there were market incentives, the technology developed quickly. Thats how markets work. Thats how the law is supposed to work- pass cap and trade and now there is a niche for technologies that the market will fill. I don't think the republican opposition is based on the idea that markets can't innovate, because if so, I have no idea what they stand for.

But it was an infant technology that could be developed quickly. Technologies to allow cap-and-trade for carbon are wholly different ballgame as you aren't talking filtration but carbon capture and sequestration. It's like the incandescent light bulb ban that was enacted. On paper, it just raises the energy efficiency requirements for light bulbs. In practice however, it outlaws the incandescent as the incandescent cannot meet that requirement. It thus is going to force people to have to use the much more costly and complex CFL and LED bulbs (which is likely why the manufacturers lobbied for the ban, as the more expensive bulbs will increase their profits).

Also, the actual, stated Republican opposition to cap-and-trade is that they don't believe global warming is happening, so its the solution to a non-problem.

Either way, I hope we can agree that the Republican party of the 90s was right of Bill Clinton. And that championing two major policy proposals of that Republican party is at least some evidence that Obama governs right of Clinton. Keep in mind these aren't proposals forced on Obama- these are HIS positions.

I can't agree with that position. It just means that elements of the Republican party adopted left-leaning policy positions that Obama himself has adopted right now. Obama has not adopted any of the right-leaning policies Bill Clinton supported. Also, I don't know if I'd say his healthcare law was really his position, as it was designed by Nancy Pelosi.

Also, isn't returning TANF requirements to the states something republicans should support? I thought pushing things to the state level was the whole idea?

Republicans are generally fine with pushing things to the states as far as I can tell.

 

[CAC1001]

Labour (UK) is also a member of Socialist International. Anyone who claims they're "far left" is just plain wrong. Social democracy and democratic socialism are two very different things; please learn what you're talking about. It is impossible to advocate both at the same time.

They're kissing cousins, and yes one can advocate both at the same time as they are pretty much different variants of the same thing unless one wants to switch to communism.

According to this link, the Parti Socialisti supports both: http://www.parties-and-elections.eu/france.html

Fine. Don't like that? The highest tax bracket was in the low-to-mid 70s during Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Carter. In other words, the bracket was at or above what the "uber-socialists" in France want to raise it to, for at least thirty of the most productive and prosperous years in American history.

You folks really need to learn the nuances of politics before making broad, sweeping statements about left wing ideology. Commies, socialists and liberals, oh my!

What that shows is that the U.S. had a very confiscatory top income tax rate during the time. And calling them "thirty of the most productive and prosperous years in American history" is over-simplifying. You have to remember that you had:

1) Europe rebuilding after having been bombed to oblivion, which allowed the U.S. to dominate economically (and some countries adopting socialism like the UK at the time, thus stagnating economically and thus not providing competition)

2) A huge industrial base that had been built up in the U.S. from during the war

3) Infrastructure from the New Deal that allowed whole areas of the country that had previously been under-developed to develop into booming, thriving economies

4) Also the birthrate had declined during the Depression, so by the 1950s, men coming of age found jobs readily available.

5) Development of the Interstate Highway System, which had a massive impact on the development of towns, cities, and the country's overall economic growth

6) A massive amount of research and development in science and technology that had been conducted during WW2 that then spilled over into the private sector

7) Continual massive investment in R&D of science and technology due to the Cold War defense budget

8) The U.S. space program, which was probably the all-time greatest government investment in R&D for science and technology in human history---the economic benefits from the space program are almost unfathomable. The modern world and the modern economy as we know it would not exist if not for the things developed in the space program that then were adopted by the private sector.

9) It's a lesser-known thing, but after WWII, the United States stole an enormous amount of patents and intellectual property from Germany -- https://www.amazon.com/dp/0804717613/?tag=pfamazon01-20

So I mean it wasn't as if the U.S. just had high tax rates and prospered greatly, the prosperity was due to quite a few factors that the modern U.S. will likely not experience again (our economic competition being bombed out, rural areas getting lots of infrastructure that allowed them to develop economically, massive government investment in R&D, etc...).

By the 1970s, the U.S. economy was suffering stagflation, and then when foreign competitors finally began to give domestic U.S. companies real competition (something they weren't used to), it was disastrous initially for them and then forced them to get their act together.

 

[russ_watters]

Ok, I threw in my vote for Romney. This is based partly on hope, but there is a reasoning behind it:

There are three sources of information I use when looking to predict the election:
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/?state=nwa
http://www.gallup.com/poll/election.aspx

Gallup is a poll (two polls, actually), realclearpolitics is an aggregator and fivethirtyeight is a predictor. Currently, they show:
Gallup, Registered Voters: Tied at 48%
Gallup, Likely Voters: Romney 51%, Obama 46%
RealClearPolitics: Romney 47.3%, Obama 47.5%
FiveThirtyEight: Odds of winning, Obama 85.1%

Nate Silver of Fivethirtyeight criticizes Gallup for diverging from the other national polls, yet it still gets the highest weight in his predictor due to it having the largest sample size of all the national polls and ability to also incorporate cell phone users (edit: that cell phone part may be out of date): http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/18/gallup-vs-the-world/

So I'm going to go with that: I'm going to trust that Gallup is both unique and superior to the other polls. I'm also going to go with the assumption that it would be highly unlikely for Obama to "lose" the popular vote by 5% and still come out on top in the electoral vote.

FiveThirtyEight is tough to interpret because it is a predictor not a poll and I don't have a clear understanding of his methodology, so I'm going to predict that he's over-mathing it.

I have also heard of issues with possible oversampling of Democrats, but this is difficult to confirm.

[edit] Additional food for thought:
-In 2004, Gallup had Bush with a slight lead in likely voters and Kerry with a slight lead in registered voters. http://www.gallup.com/poll/13873/Final-Poll-Shows-Presidential-Race-Dead-Heat.aspx

Here's a list of Gallup's final election poll results for every Presidential election they've done: http://www.gallup.com/poll/9442/election-polls-accuracy-record-presidential-elections.aspx

 

[Angry Citizen]

Gallup gets the highest individual weight. However, it's significantly more likely that Gallup is wrong than all the other polls are wrong, because the aggregate sample size far outweighs even Gallup's large sample size. Rasmussen, a notoriously right-leaning firm, puts the race at a tie. Gallup was one of the worst pollsters in 2008 - it is highly overrated. Plus it hasn't put out data since the 28th. The race has moved since then.

To be blunt, russ, I think you betrayed your reasoning in your second sentence: hope. You need hope that Obama is not going to be President for the next four years. Your hope is unfounded. In order for Obama to lose, the vast majority of polls in the country would have to be wrong by several points. The RCP averages in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin are 2.8%, 4.1%, 3.8%, and 4.2% for Obama, respectively. Romney must have one of these in order to win, even if he sweeps all the other states sans Nevada (this being a state that Romney has practically given up in). The chances of such a sweep are almost nil, considering every other swing state except North Carolina and Virginia shows an Obama lead; and Virginia is a tie.

One of the best phrases to come out of this election is, "the math doesn't work". Your math doesn't work, russ, and you're making a huge mistake in trusting one poll that is far outside the mean. But we'll see come Wednesday, eh?

 

[russ_watters]

Gallup was one of the worst pollsters in 2008...

According to the link I just added above, Gallup overrated Obama and underrated McCain by 2% apiece in the last election. That error, if repeated here but in the opposite direction would not swing the election from Romney. But in both of the last two elections, they underrated the Republican. Further back than that, it is tough to parse the data to eliminate the influence of the 3rd party candidates.

What is your basis (evidence) for saying Gallup was one of the worst in 2008?

To be blunt, russ, I think you betrayed your reasoning in your second sentence: hope. You need hope that Obama is not going to be President for the next four years. Your hope is unfounded.

I was quite clear in my previous post that I think the election is a toss-up. It is currently a statistical tie. So...

In order for Obama to lose, the vast majority of polls in the country would have to be wrong by several points.

If you ignore the margin for error, sure. But most polls that I've seen have the election at a statistical tie.

One of the best phrases to come out of this election is, "the math doesn't work". Your math doesn't work, russ, and you're making a huge mistake in trusting one poll that is far outside the mean. But we'll see come Wednesday, eh?

Relax. I would never make a bet on this election because it is a statistical tie. The above was mostly just for fun. I don't actually "trust" in any of these polls much at all.

[edit] Also:

Rasmussen, a notoriously right-leaning firm, puts the race at a tie.

Yes, it is true that Rasmussen often has polls that show results to the right of where others show. Nevertheless, they were dead-on in the 2008 election: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...2008/2008_presidential_election/how_did_we_do

 

[Pythagorean]

Anybody want to take bets? Loser has to post "I was wrong, I let my desire to see Romney win interfere with my ability to accurately predict the outcome of the presidential election."

;p

 

[Angry Citizen]

What is your basis (evidence) for saying Gallup was one of the worst in 2008?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/11/12/659768/-Best-and-Worst-Pollsters-of-2008-chart

It was also one of the worst in 2004:

http://www.androidworld.com/prod35.htm

I was quite clear in my previous post that I think the election is a toss-up. It is currently a statistical tie. So...

It is not a statistical tie. Quit that.

If you ignore the margin for error, sure. But most polls that I've seen have the election at a statistical tie.

Aggregate polling has a margin of error somewhere in the neighborhood of 1%. The only state that is at that level of indecision is Virginia.

Yes, it is true that Rasmussen often has polls that show results to the right of where others show. Nevertheless, they were dead-on in the 2008 election

Ras has a 2 point McCain bias in 2008. Plus it's conspicuous (to me) that they've been calling the election several points to the right during this entire election season, and only just recently moved towards the mean. But if Rasmussen is such a great firm, why aren't you focused on Rasmussen which shows a tie instead of Gallup, the only trustworthy firm predicting a Romney PV victory?

 

[rootX]

Anybody want to take bets? Loser has to post "I was wrong, I let my desire to see Romney win interfere with my ability to accurately predict the outcome of the presidential election."

;p

Will others post "I was wrong" if Romney actually wins?

 

[russ_watters]

Anybody want to take bets? Loser has to post "I was wrong, I let my desire to see Romney win interfere with my ability to accurately predict the outcome of the presidential election."

;p

Even if Romney wins? That wouldn't make much sense!

 

[russ_watters]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/11/12/659768/-Best-and-Worst-Pollsters-of-2008-chart

That doesn't match Gallup's website. Can you explain that?

I'm also not sure that that is an acceptable source.

Aggregate polling has a margin of error somewhere in the neighborhood of 1%.

Source, please. My understanding is that by nature aggregators can't have a calculable margin for error. That doesn't make it zero (or 1%), it just makes it uncalculable.

It is not a statistical tie. Quit that.

Even if we assume your logic to be true, Realclearpolitics, an aggregator, says they are polling at an aggregate differential of 0.2%. So that contradicts your assertion. So please do tell me what the basis is of your assertion that it is not a statistical tie.

 

[Pythagorean]

hint:

;p means "teeheehee"

 

[ParticleGrl]

My understanding is that by nature aggregators can't have a calculable margin for error. That doesn't make it zero (or 1%), it just makes it uncalculable.

This isn't true- I do a lot of sample aggregation for work (not in political polls, but lots of other contexts) and there are plenty of methods to estimate the error/uncertainty in the aggregate. Its really bread-and-butter stats stuff. Now the uncertainty might be dependent on some assumptions you make, so its not necessarily obviously cut and dry. Sam Wang's uncertainties are very different than what you see in some similar models.

Poll aggregation models RELY on the fact that an aggregate of state polls has a lower uncertainty than any single poll. The other improvement is that polling state-by-state gives you a much better picture of the electoral college than the popular vote (considering you can win an election and lose the popular vote).

 

[ParticleGrl]

Will others post "I was wrong" if Romney actually wins?

I have several thousand riding on the outcome spread through a few election markets (its not quite a straight bet, because I used the odds-spread to hedge a bit).

I will also post here in this thread "I was wrong" if Romney wins the election- if it doesn't cost money, its hardly a bet.

 

[SixNein]

free-market capitalism

Can you please tell me what you mean by free-market capitalism?

My definition of free market capitalism is a economic system where no governance exists. IE: The concept of free-market means one doesn't believe there should be a government.

 

[russ_watters]

This isn't true- I do a lot of sample aggregation for work (not in political polls, but lots of other contexts) and there are plenty of methods to estimate the error/uncertainty in the aggregate. Its really bread-and-butter stats stuff. Now the uncertainty might be dependent on some assumptions you make, so its not necessarily obviously cut and dry.

Clearly, if you have two identical polls with a certain margins for error, you should be able to combined them to make one big poll with a lower margin for error. But that requires that the polls actually be identical and I'm not sure they actually are. I'm having some trouble finding how RealClearPolitics does its aggregation, but Nate Silver provides a little insight:

The nine national polls included in the RealClearPolitics average as of Sunday evening, for instance, contained about 12,000 interviews between them. (Collectively, they showed Mr. Obama ahead by a trivial margin of 0.2 percentage points.)

The margin of sampling error on a 12,000-person sample is larger than you might think: about plus or minus 2 percentage points in measuring the difference between the two major candidates. So the national polls reflected in the RealClearPolitics average could in fact be consistent with anything from a two-point lead for Mr. Romney to one of about the same margin for Mr. Obama.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytime...but-obama-remains-electoral-college-favorite/

This at least gives us the lower limit on the error. The best it could possibly be is 2% if all the polls were conducted identically, which of course, they were not.

 

[AnTiFreeze3]

Gary Johnson.

 

[CAC1001]

Can you please tell me what you mean by free-market capitalism?

My definition of free market capitalism is a economic system where no governance exists. IE: The concept of free-market means one doesn't believe there should be a government.

Never heard of it defined that way. Maybe you are confusing the ideal of a completely free-market economy versus an actual free-market economy?

Generally, a free-market economy is an economic system where the means of production are privately-owned and where decisions about how to distribute scarce resources are determined by the forces of the market, via supply and demand, as opposed to the government. A free-market requires a government to enforce things like rule of law, protection of private property, regulation, and so forth, and thus will also require taxation as well.

 

[Pythagorean]

Clearly, if you have two identical polls with a certain margins for error, you should be able to combined them to make one big poll with a lower margin for error. But that requires that the polls actually be identical and I'm not sure they actually are. I'm having some trouble finding how RealClearPolitics does its aggregation, but Nate Silver provides a little insight: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytime...but-obama-remains-electoral-college-favorite/

This at least gives us the lower limit on the error. The best it could possibly be is 2% if all the polls were conducted identically, which of course, they were not.

Err... I don't know every branch of statistics, but every time I've used statistics combining data sets, the the combined data set does not have a lower error margin than both of the constituents. It is found in a pythagorean fashion, so it always ends up being more than the max of error margins of your constituent datas.

like 2 and 3 MOE's would give an aggregated MOE: sqrt(2^2 + 3^2) = 3.6

 

[AlephZero]

Err... I don't know every branch of statistics, but every time I've used statistics combining data sets, the the combined data set does not have a lower error margin than both of the constituents. It is found in a pythagorean fashion, so it always ends up being more than the max error margins of your constituent datas.

I think you are confusing variance (which does behave as above) and error margin (i.e. variance expressed as a percentage of population size.

For n Bernouilli trials, the variance = $np(1-p)$ which clearly increases as n increases. But the expected error is proportional to $\sqrt{n}$ (i.e. the standard deviation), and expressed as a percentage of the sample size it is proportional to $1/\sqrt{n}$.

 

[Pythagorean]

It was explicitly error aggregation.

Here is a powerpoint from the state data center of www.census.gov that uses the same convention:

"www.census.gov/sdc/trent.ppt"

 

[Pythagorean]

Though I do agree that they use the variance in the above examples (as I was taught to). Margin of error is defined elsewhere with the 1/sqrt(n). I think within one study, you surely use the 1/sqrt(n).

But aggregation, I'm not so sure about. I remember learning that errors from different sets should compound, not cancel. But this is from classes, not real research experience.

 

[Pythagorean]

In the wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_deviation#Population-based_statistics

they actually divide each term by the sum, which would mean if 2 and 3 above both came from N samples, we'd now have 2N, so the result would be divided by sqrt(2)

so then we'd have 3.6/sqrt(2) = 2.5