How Dare Wayne LaPierre...

How dare he? What in the world is he thinking? How could anyone have the audacity to challenge the mainstream Media's coverage of violence and crime? How could anyone muster the courage to call them out on their lies and hypocrisies? Everyone knows that the solution to school shootings is an assault weapons ban, because that is what the media has been pressing for years. Everyone knows that guns are evil. Well, they do find some obvious exceptions; like when they are used by the secret service to protect the President, the police when responding to a shooting in progress, armed security at professional sporting events. (after all the fans must be protected right?) Yet, Wayne LaPierre must surely be off his rocker now. He claims that guns must also be used to protect our children. Why, how dare he? He almost acts as if they are young, defenseless, and innocent. The Executive Vice President of the NRA also made some other insinuations. Can you believe that someone could possibly believe that young people's addiction to violent video games could lead to...(gasp) violence? Then to think that the media's glorification of Hollywood and Hollywood's obsession with violence could somehow be linked to a violence filled society. Then to accuse the media of silence on these "non-issues" right in front of them. Surely, this was an accidental oversight. They were covering more important things, like gun control. Because everyone knows that if you take away guns, you take away crime.

Enough sarcasm? Except the problem is, this is not sarcasm. This is the media's response to the NRA's press conference earlier today. Actually, their response was primarily focused on those which some how found their way into the event to protest; holding signs which accuses the NRA of the CT shooting and children dying. Because, they felt like protesters calling the NRA child killers was more newsworthy then the NRA's multi-million dollar investment to start a program offering school solutions to discourage these types of crimes from occurring in the future. This program was yawned at, because they have already successfully convinced the majority of American people, that the only solution is an assault weapons ban.

What is wrong with an assault weapons ban? Nothing, if there was actually a definition of assault weapons and a logical plan to enforce the law; without violating individual rights, that could be presented for debate. Yet, debate is exactly what the media wants. A debate that they can dictate and moderate. A debate that they can spin as being one-sided and one with only one obvious solution. The very term, "assault weapons",  was coincidentally formed by democrats several years ago on capitol hill. The term has never been defined and what constitutes a gun being placed in this classification is up to individual opinions. The media talks of them like they are clearly marked on the box which holds the gun. "WARNING- THIS IS AN ASSAULT WEAPON." So let us outline these problems in simplicity.

1.) Their is no such thing as an assault weapon. A 22 used to hunt squirrels can be used as a weapon which assaults another person, just like: knives, (primary murder weapon in countries that attempts to ban guns) box cutters, (only weapon used on 9-11) ball bats, and even toilet plungers. I can hear it now...The NTPA. (The National Toilet Plunger Association) Some have suggested that any semi-automatic gun should be classified in this category and thus banned. Here is the problem...The people that are suggesting such laws do not even know how guns are manufactured. Almost any hunting rifle can be easily turned into a semi-automatic and their is no way to stop this, without eliminating the Second Amendment. Are their some types of guns that are on the streets, which should not be there? Absolutely, but they must be clearly defined.

2.) Enforcement of such laws are nearly impossible to enforce, except after a violent crime has been committed. Let's take the shooting at Columbine for example. Their was already an "assault weapons ban" in the books and being "enforced" at the time of that terrible shooting. How quickly people forget that Bill Clinton signed such a law back in the 90s and that the law did nothing to cut down on gun related violence. In fact, up until this year, gun violence has been rapidly declining since the ban was repealed. Is their a need for better enforcement of gun laws? Absolutely, but the focus would have to be shifted to law enforcement. Solving questions like: How do we get guns out of the hands of the mentally handicapped? How do we stop the sales of some of these dangerous weapons?, without violating or restricting the lawful gun ownership of law-abiding citizens for self-defense and hunting. Let's not forget that what took place in CT broke almost every law in the book. The revolting act took place despite having clear laws banning guns from the school property, "assault weapons" banned in the state, and not to mention that old law about murder. New laws may be great and perfectly in order, but in a lawless society, laws will always be broken. I have become nauseated by this gullible notion that new laws will immediately stop that which has been outlawed.

The problem with this is that it takes the focus off of gun laws and onto enforcement and this is not what the gun blamers and media wants to talk about. Of course, the media gets to choose what they talk about and what the American people consider the news for the day. If they do not want want something discussed, then they stay silent. The American people in return will either never find out or think it was not really newsworthy. Since the shooting in Sandy Hook the prevailing story line has been that every rational person wants gun control and that this would immediately eliminate school shootings.

What I will never understand about this debate is that these types of shootings are always occurring at the very places in which guns are not allowed for any reason. The the movie theatre shooting took place in Aurora, CO and happened to be one of the few theatres that did not allow concealed weapons. In fact people have been speculating as to why the shooter did not target one of the six theatres closer to his home. I don't think it is a coincidence that all six of these happened to allow concealed carry. I also find it compelling that in states like Florida and Texas, which have legalized concealed weapons, that the crime rates are at much lower points today then at any time before the law was enacted.

Is the Sky Falling?

For those that may have been wondering if the sky had fallen above our home in PA and if that was the reason for the sudden hiatus from political blogging. No, I am just keenly aware of a few things.
1.) That I was in dire need of a break from this sort of thing. In the heat of an election season, especially Presidential ones, I spend a tremendous amount of my free time dissecting every aspect of an election, especially things involving numbers.
2.) It it also my firm belief that the vast majority of those which closely followed my blog was ready for a break from politics in general. While I may be privately following 2014 Senate races and prospective 2016 presidential candidates; Does anyone really care, except me?
3.) I also tend to believe the majority of those who followed my blog so closely during the election, was doing do with direct interest in what the numbers were saying about who the next president would be. People in general do not put much stock in political opinions from non-media talking heads that they do not know. However, I wish people would place less stock in media talking heads as they spin the news to tell you what they want you to believe and generally what you want to hear.
4.) The vast majority of my conservative readers are not going to like my political opinions, because I don't believe most of the conspiracy theories and I tend to feed my mind on current events that are actually happening. This differs from the popular, "The Sky is Falling" and "Obama is About Ready to... Overthrow the Government, close churches, make it illegal to pray, ban all guns, etc." mantras.

Now back to the original question..."Is the Sky Falling?"
To be sure, there is a lot to be discouraged over...
I.) One of the most hideous and violent shootings in our nations history just occurred, in which many of the victims were innocent young children. While so many people search for a motive and a simple fix, the reality is that these just cannot and do not exist. As long as we have sin and temptation we will have these types of crimes occurring. Some of the same people that insisted on kicking God out of our schools, court rooms, and government now ask the question, "Where is God?".
II.) That so many politicians believe that increasing guns laws is the answer to such violence. How so many people can be sucked into the concept that increasing gun laws are going to take guns out of the hands of criminals and that the problem lies in the weapon rather then the heart within the person operating that weapon.
III.) We could very soon be going over the fiscal cliff, because of a mixture of indifference, political games, and just plain stubbornness. I tend to think this is a natural byproduct of a two party system that believes we have two teams, rather then one. Each party must follow the party line and vote the way their party tells them. then if someone from the opposing party comes up with a brilliant plan that they personally agree with then they must vote against it, because it came from the wrong party.
IV.) That the most important republican taking part in these deliberations has been thrown under the bus by his own party, because he has the audacity to think that both parties are going to have to compromise in order to get a deal done. Then a person whom conservatives generally choose to trust more then God, none other then Rush Limbaugh himself, tells his party leaders to just let the taxes dramatically increase on everyone. Why? Because his taxes are going up regardless. So why does it matter to him if those in the lower and middle class endure it too? If he's not going to get his way, then why let anyone else get their way? Then, of course, he makes the mind boggling assertion that this will hurt Obama more. Not only do I (as well as polls) find this idea to be wrong, but I also find it disheartening that so many people think through the lens of politics first and country last.
V.) Finally, half of the country still finds the election results very painful and life altering. After all when someone from the opposing party wins it obviously means that this will be the last election we ever have, those from their very own party are going to roll over and allow him to become a dictator, that he must be the anti-Christ, that the election must have been rigged, and God was so surprised that He resigned or decided to move up His return to earth.

Why the Sky is Not Falling?
How soon we forget the past and fail to learn lessons from the past. How quickly we cast away our confidence in everyone and everything. How easy it is to think that everything wrong that happens, changes everything. Understanding these things would help us gain a clearer mindset when we look for reasons why the sky is not falling. As a pastor allow me to look at the Spiritual realm for a moment.
I. God knew before the foundations of time who would win the last election. He does not view elections like we do. Meaning that He does not put any stock in party affiliation or who the good guy is supposed to be or who many people think the bad guy is. While it is important to note that not everything which happens in elections are God ordained or even the perfect plan of God. Since when is our personal relationship with God affected or influenced by any politician? The next four years can bring the greatest spiritual growth we have ever seen, if we want it to.
II. Who created the sky? Who keeps the sky suspended above the earth? How is it that the sky falls? While these questions may in fact be applied literally and cause some encouragement. They can also be taken in a figurative sense. If the answer to all three questions go back to God then how can any crime, debt crises, or election change this? It can't!
III. Now let us look at this through the preferred lens of many...Good Versus Evil. What is it that makes someone good or evil?, or something good or evil? If we answer these questions through the test of its relationship or connection to God, as I would; Then how does any event or circumstance that does not altar that which is good or evil, change what truly is good or evil?
IV. In the event that the last one lost you, this one is down a similar line, yet simpler to understand. What is it that matters most about good or evil? The one that ultimately prevails in the end. If we really believe that God will, then the sky is not and will not ever fall.
V. There is something called cycles in life and this applies to politics as well. The easiest thing in the world to assume is that because something did not or is not going our way currently, then it will never go our way again. When Clinton won, republicans were convinced that they would never win again. When Bush won re-election, then democrats were saying they would never win again. Now...well we already know what the skeptics are saying. When a bad piece of legislation passes, then the easiest thing to assume is that it will always stand and things will never be different then they currently are. If the sky was falling every time something bad happened, then the sky would have fallen a long time ago.
VI. We have a choice as to whether or not we buy into the skeptics, antagonists, and doubters. Yourr family, friends, and acquaintances may be convinced their sky is falling, but we have the choice of looking up and realizing that it has not.

Now to sign off...A very Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all of you!

 Your feedback matters greatly and may influence how often I post. I would love to start talking about future elections, but I still think some time is needed before we jump back into those areas.

Was David Petraeus Blackmailed?

There have been some very interesting developments in the David Petraeus affair and resignation as director of the C.I.A., which may have some political implications. I have thus far held back too much interest in the case, as just another unfortunate sex scandal involving one of our leaders. However, today it is being reported that the FBI was notified and began investigating the Petraeus situation in the middle of the summer. Therefore, this creates a lot of interesting questions that can hopefully be answered in the days and weeks to come. 

One of the important pieces to this puzzle is how this is, if at all, related to the Libya scandal that was largely shoved under the rug due to its political implications. One must remember that Petraeus was involved in pushing the idea that what took place on September 11 was just a spontaneous demonstration that had terrible consequences, denying that there was any organized terrorist attack. Now we know that the C.I.A. also seemed to have information regarding security failures and terrorist involvement. Just two days after the attack on our Benghazi consulate, representatives of the FBI and NCTC gave Capitol Hill briefings in which they said the evidence supported an al-Qaida or al-Qaida-affiliated attack. 

Yet, up to this point democrats have been adamantly opposed to any further investigation of a possible cover-up in the Benghazi attack as political games. Now democrats have changed their minds with these latest developments coming to light. Remember, Petraeus was due to testify about the Benghazi attack this week, right before he admitted to an extramarital affair and resigned his post. Both parties are rightfully angry about not being notified that the FBI was investigating the C.I.A. director as they were obligated by law to know the moment this was revealed in the middle of the summer. So now it appears that both the House and Senate intelligence committees are wanting to know answers about not only the affair with the possibility of security breaches that may have occurred, but has now pledged to investigate if there was any connection to his false assertions following the attack.

• We now know that Eric Holder was informed by email of this Petraeus investigation months ago, but thus far has been refusing to comment as to if he read the emails and informed the Obama administration of it. Why the sudden silence from Eric Holder?
• Was this affair being kept silent, contrary to law, because of the upcoming election?
• Is it just a coincidence that all of this came to light a couple days after the election?
• Did David Petraeus resign a couple days before the Congressional hearings to avoid testifying about the Benghazi attack? He knew that his affair had been uncovered by the FBI weeks ago.
• Was there a cover-up of the Petraeus investigation to cover-up the Benghazi investigation? If so then we have an investigation that will go down in our history books and could have the FBI, C.I.A., justice department, and the Obama administration all fidgeting at the same time.
• John Edgar Hoover the first director of the FBI and served in that capacity for 48 years was proven to have used sex scandals as black mail and leverage for the government on numerous occasions. Could we have another case of the government black mailing in order to keep information from coming out?

Final Election and Projection Review

A Landslide That Was Not a Landslide
Barring a swift reverse in Florida following what is set up to be a mandatory recount; Obama's electoral vote count will end up at 332. Yet, the popular vote sits at the slimmest of margins...1.2. This total is likely to grow slightly when the final results have been certified, but it will likely be no greater then a 1.5 margin. He has only received 50.3 percent of the vote, yet the liberal media talking heads are talking about Obama getting a mandate. However, this is what we all know about our President...He always thinks he has a mandate and will continue to govern accordingly. We are now seeing a real possibility of the electoral system being totally different then the popular vote margin as it has been for three out of the last four elections.

The gridlock will continue in Washington. Americans as a whole still want Obamacare repealed, but now our health care system will forever be run by the government. Americans by a rather overwhelming margin do not favor raising taxes on the job creators to pay down the debt, yet this will be the next item that Obama has vowed to pursue. Evidently having the largest tax rate on Corporations in the world is not enough and republicans will continue to be coined as the party for the rich for opposing new taxes on anyone right now.

Hispanics and Evangelicals...One Group Votes and the Other...
The two biggest story lines of this election was the record Hispanic turnout and the overwhelming margin in which they voted for Obama. Romney did much worse with this voting block then even McCain and this will continue to haunt the GOP in future elections until we realize this. I expected the African American vote to once again be large and it was, but I was hoping against all hopes that Hispanics would turn out in similar numbers as 2008 and that Romney could at least get a reasonable percentage. If this would have happened...we would be saying president elect Romney.

The other story line is the lack of Evangelical turnout. This was indicated not only in exit polls, but also in the  real vote. Hamilton County in Ohio is considered by some to be the Evangelical hub of the country and also coincides with the city of Cincinnati. This is a county that Bush won in both 2000 and 2004 by at least five points both times. The Obama team made it very clear that they were not expecting another five point victory in this county and that all they could hope for is a draw. With all the votes in...Obama once again won this county by five points. When Evangelicals decide to come out in full force it always shows up in this county and clearly the exit polls were right about this voting block once again staying home.

Romney Better then McCain?
The margin was much closer, but that was due to Obama getting around 10 million less votes then 2008. Actually, more people voted for McCain in 2008 then voted for Romney in 2012 by around 2 millions voters when it is all said and done probably. So much for the logic that Romney would do a better job at getting the base out to vote. The republican party is going to have to stop having 7-10 candidates, most of which agree on almost everything, fighting among themselves in primary season. In the process we end up splitting the base vote and having a moderate forced down our throats. The bottom line: A moderate to liberal republican will likely never win a presidential election unless they appeal to the base of the party in the process. Perhaps, people could not get past Romney's Mormomism and the daily flip flops on the issues. Whatever the issue...it is over now for another three years.

My Erroneous Statement about GOP House Gains
Last night I said it appeared that the Republicans would end up gaining some seats in the House and that is not the case whatsoever. I did a quick glance and that is how it appeared at the time. Sorry...The final results seem to indicate a democrat gain of six seats.

The Polls and My Projections
When I started this blog I received a lot of heat for what I was doing among my fellow conservatives. I lost track of how many times I heard...Don't I know that polls mean nothing? Don't I know that polls no longer work? Don't I know that polls have a tremendous liberal bias? Don't I know that Rasmussen (when they are showing positive results) is the only poll that can be trusted? Let me look at these statements in retrospect now that another election has it the books.

• "Don't I know that polls mean nothing?" I have continued to argue that while any one poll means very little the consensus of the polls are very good indicators of the final outcome as it was in this election. If polls do not mean anything then they sure do a really great job guessing every election season. This is what I always heard when someone was making the case of why Romney was going to win Michigan, Pennsylvania, or Minnesota. How could I be 90% confident in these states, because don't I know the polls don't mean anything there, well except for the one showing Romney tied or in the lead. I kept insisting that the poll margins in these states and the past track record told me there was virtually no possible way of winning these states.
• "Don't I know that polls no longer work?" At times I began to wonder if due to the changing demographics of this country if we had seen the end incredible accuracy in polls. Yet, I refused to change my formula or change the numbers when I disagreed with their system as tempting as what it was. Why? Polls have to prove that they can no longer gauge the views of the American people and they once again proved contrary. Actually, an argument could be made that polls are doing better then they ever have. I also was impressed with the ways polls were changing in order to deal with changing voter behavior.
• "Don't I know that polls have a tremendous liberal bias?" The problem is that this has never been the case. Are there years that a party has been biased in the polling? Absolutely. In 2008 polls were biased against Obama and the democrats and it appears like this is going to be the case again in 2012. People forget that regardless of the personal views of the pollster they continue to exist only if they show a level of accuracy.
•  "Don't I know that Rasmussen is the only poll that can be trusted?" Their state polls were once again clearly biased in favor of republicans in 2012. In fact their polls will continue to get more scrutiny in coming years unless they change their system that lends itself to be extremely republican biased. However, their margins in which they were off were still not that bad in several swing states. 

I learned a long time ago to never trust my feelings or my instincts when it comes to projecting elections. When I started this formula in 2004 I was not really for sure that I trusted it fully, because it sometimes diverged heavily from the RCP average I used to rely on exclusively. While it always receives some slight tweaking in between elections it is the same basic system that was so accurate in 2004. With the 50 out of 51 that have been called I was right on the winner of all of them, but I assume that following the Florida recount that I will miss this one. Here are some of my best and worst predictions...

Best Predictions

• My final popular vote projection was 1.4. Just as I was about to say that the margin was currently 1.2 and likely to grow a little more, it jumped all the way to 2.2. I was going to say that I beat out all of the major prognosticators on this, but Nate Silver is likely to get me on this too. (he went with 2.5) However, this projection was far closer then the RCP final of Obama by 0.7 and the election projection site that went with 0.5.
• Ohio is one state that I can feel very good about projection wise. I said 2.5 which was lower then the RCP of 2.9 and far lower then Nate Silver at 3.7. The final margin for Obama was 1.9.
• My final margin was closer then the RCP in Florida, Michigan, New Hampshire, Nevada, Ohio, and Virginia. Among the toss-up states I was closer in four out of the five states we diverged in.

Worst Predictions

• My numbers varied dramatically in Iowa and I was the one off. I continued to show the race as very close at the end and missed it badly in this case. I was also off by a reasonable margin in Wisconsin. I have theories as to why this occurred and will do some hypotheticals some time to see if this was the case.
• My final margin was also off by a greater margin then the RCP in North Carolina and Pennsylvania, but our margins were very similar in both states.
• I missed two Senate races...one in North Dakota and the other in Montana. I confess that I did not follow these races very closely until the end, which made it very difficult to draw conclusions from the limited polling in these states.

This Blog Going Forward

The same moment this blog was starting to take off my projections turned more sour for Romney and I immediately lost a lot of traffic and heard various ones tell me that polls and my projections were a massive waste of time. I knew coming into this that many of my fellow conservatives would not appreciate this line of work regardless of how accurate I came. Sadly, many conservatives would rather listen to Fox News and hear all of their talking heads predict a republican landslide every four years then read what the facts are showing. I am also keenly aware that very few people reading about polls and polling methodologies, and state and poll trend lines Therefore, I am weighing these things out in my mind going forward. I will continue to post my predictions every general election for those who would rather look at the laws of probability rather then conspiracy theories. As to what I will do with this blog in between elections, that will depend upon my traffic. My latest prediction is that very, very few people will read this entire post. I will try and have at least one post every few days and do have some ideas that I think will be entertaining to many, even my democrat readers. However, if very few are checking this out then it is just not worth the time and energy. Thank you once again for the large group of people who joined us last night it was a little joy and encouragement  in the midst of mourning.

Election 2012 Is Behind Us

I would like to start by taking a moment to express my gratitude for all of those who have been following our blog and for the hundred plus that viewed our blog and final predictions last night alone. I can say with sincerity...Unfortunately, I was mostly right. I was asked if I cared more about being right or my candidate winning. This blog and my projections have never been about me becoming some type of famous prognosticator, but always about what my formula was showing about the race as a whole. I would be far happier right now if I would have been way off, but it is easier going into an election having a very good idea of what is going to happen. I know in my heart that this is one of the reasons why I invest the time and energy into working these numbers, because I just have to have some type of knowledge heading into the election as to which way things will go. I also love politics, (However, I am ready for a break) love math, and love making predictions. I continue to have a tremendous amount of confidence in what I do and the formula I use. It appears like I may miss Florida, but that will be the only state I missed of the 50. My margins were very close in several states and regretfully lacking in others. I will show the score card tomorrow on how I did compared to the others. It appears I was able to get my margins closer then the RCP Average, but played second fiddle to Nate Silver in several states. Congratulations go to him for all of his incredible hard work and accurate predictions. I do not always agree with him and take pleasure critiquing his methods and formulas, but he knows what he is doing.

I will have a more complex recap tomorrow, but it does appear that the Hispanics were the difference in this election. They not only came out in the largest numbers ever, but were more democrat then ever before as well. This was not only the problem of 2012, but will continue to haunt republicans going forward unless decisive action is taken.

The other story line is the absence of a strong republican base support. For the last couple elections we have been fed the nonsense that it takes a moderate or liberal republican to win, but the evidence is once again clear; It takes someone that can do what Obama has done for two elections now... get his base to vote. Early indicators I am looking at tells me that Evangelicals once again failed to vote as they did in the Bush elections. I have felt for many years that Evangelicals care more about a candidate giving lip service to Christianity then what we do the preservation of our Constitution. Some people act as if they are voting on a pastor, rather than a president.

By the way, my incumbent democratic congressman Mark Critz, went down in a stunning defeat. Preliminary numbers also show that republicans will actually gain some more seats in the House. I have to extend an olive branch to my fellow conservatives who are deep in despair.

Good night. Or shall I say good morning.

Political Prognosticator VS Professional Prognosticators

KEY STATES	Political Prognosticator	Nate Silver-538.com	RealClearPolitics Avg.
Colorado	Obama-1.5	Obama-2.6	Obama-1.5
Florida	Romney-0.8	Obama-0.2	Romney-1.5
Iowa	Obama-1.5	Obama-3.4	Obama-2.4
Michigan	Obama-4.25	Obama-7.3	Obama-4.0
Nevada	Obama-3.3	Obama-4.7	Obama-2.8
New Hampshire	Obama-2.5	Obama-3.7	Obama-2.0
North Carolina	Romney-3.3	Romney-1.6	Romney-3.0
Ohio	Obama-2.5	Obama-3.7	Obama-2.9
Pennslyvania	Obama-3.6	Obama-6.1	Obama-3.8
Virginia	Obama-0.7	Obama-2.2	Obama-0.3
Wisconsin	Obama-3.1	Obama-5.7	Obama-4.2
Electoral Count	Obama- 303-225	Obama- 332-196	Obama- 303-225
Popular Vote	Obama-1.4	Obama-2.5	Obama-0.7

Follow all the action tonight as well as our final picks in spreadsheet form with open spaces for the actual winners as they are called can do so here:  Follow Along Printable Spreadsheet

Those wishing to view this page in spreadsheet (printable) form can do so here; includes pollsunskewed as well: Comparison Chart

Those wishing to view my projections in map form can do so here. Final Projections Map (No Toss-Up)


LIVE BLOGGING TONIGHT...My impressions, predictions, and thoughts as the action happens. Starting at 7:30 PM and continuing until the race is called. (or not called) I will disect the numbers and exit polls as they come in. Just keep the Live Blog Page up and refresh every little while.

Final 2012 Election Projections (11:46 AM)

Toss-Up States	Projected Winner	EV	Margin	Confidence
Colorado	Obama	9	1.5	60%
Florida	Romney	29	0.75	60%
Iowa	Obama	6	1.5	65%
New Hampshire	Obama	4	2.5	65%
Ohio	Obama	18	2.5	65%
Virginia	Obama	13	0.7	55%
Leaning States
Michigan	Obama	16	4.25	85%
Nevada	Obama	6	3.3	80%
North Carolina	Romney	10	3.3	80%
Pennslyvania	Obama	20	3.6	80%
Wisconsin	Obama	10	3.1	80%
Safe States
Alabama	Romney	9		100%
Alaska	Romney	3		100%
Arizona	Romney	11		95%
Arkansas	Romney	6		100%
California	Obama	55		100%
Connecticut	Obama	7		100%
Delaware	Obama	3		100%
D.C.		3		100%
Georgia	Romney	16		100%
Hawaii	Obama	4		100%
Idaho	Romney	4		100%
Illinois	Obama	20		100%
Indiana	Romney	11		95%
Kansas	Romney	6		100%
Kentucky	Romney	8		100%
Louisiana	Romney	8		100%
Maine	Obama	4		3-100/1-80%
Maryland	Obama	10		100%
Massachusetts	Obama	11		100%
Minnesota	Obama	10		90%
Mississippi	Romney	6		100%
Missouri	Romney	10		95%
Montana	Romney	3		95%
Nebraska	Romney	5		4-100/1-95%
New Jersey	Obama	14		100%
New Mexico	Obama	5		100%
New York	Obama	29		100%
North Dakota	Romney	3		100%
Oklahoma	Romney	7		100%
Oregon	Obama	7		95%
Rhode Island	Obama	4		100%
South Carolina	Romney	9		100%
South Dakota	Romney	3		100%
Tennessee	Romney	11		100%
Texas	Romney	38		100%
Utah	Romney	6		100%
Vermont	Obama	3		100%
Washington	Obama	12		100%
West Virginia	Romney	5		100%
Wyoming	Romney	3		100%
Total Safe States	Obama	201
Total Safe States	Romney	191
Total Leaning	Obama	52
Total Leaning	Romney	10
Toss-Up	Obama/Romney	79
Projected Finish	Obama	303		80%-E. Win
Projected Finish	Romney	235
Popular Vote	Obama	49.4	1.4	65%-P. Win
	Romney	48
SENATE Toss-Up	*- Party Change
Indiana-R	Donnelly*		1.5	60%
Montana-D	Rehberg*		1	55%
Virginia-D	Kaine		2.05	65%
Wisconsin-D	Baldwin		1.4	60%
Senate Leading
Arizona-R	Flake		5.3	90%
Connecticut-D	Murphy		6.2	95%
Massachusetts-R	Warren*		3.95	85%
Missouri-D	McCaskill		3.45	80%
Nevada -R	Heller		4.25	85%
North Dakota-D	Berg*		5.5	90%
Ohio-D	Brown		3.6	80%
Pennslyvania-D	Casey		3.9	80%
Safe or Not up	Democrat	45
Safe or Not up	Republican	43
Senate Leading	Democrat	5
Senate Leading	Republican	3
Toss-Up	Dem/Rep	4
Projected Finish	Democrats	53
	Republicans	47
SENATE CONTROL	Democrats			80%
HOUSE CONTROL	Republicans			90%

What to Watch for in Ohio

It all comes down to one county for both of these candidates. However, it is a different county for each of them to closely watch.

Cuyohoga County:
This is the democrats stronghold and is located in the Cleveland area. Strong voter turnout in this county would make Obama a huge favorite. This of course assumes that Obama wins this county by at least 35%. Voter turnout of at least 600,000 is an indication that turnout is once again strong here.

Hamilton County:
This is the other strong population area and one that generally favors the republican. Democrats have been stressing that all they have to do is work for a relative draw here. They admit that a 3-4 point win for Romney here would be a key indicator of them likely losing the state. In 2008 Obama actually won the county by five points, but Bush won it in both 2000 and 2004. Republicans need the turnout to be 350,000 or more.

Exit Polls:
While you cannot place too much stock in these, here is a few signs that one candidate is likely headed for victory...
Romney-

• Party identification numbers that are very close. Even a two point advantage for democrats is a great sign that Obama is going down in defeat. In 2008 democrats had a 39-31 advantage.
• Protestant/Evangelical turnout is huge in Ohio. A lead of at least 10 points among Protestant and even Catholic voters would be an early indicator that Romney will pull off the upset.

Obama-

• Party identification numbers that show at least a five point lead for democrats is a sign that this state will once again be blue.
• The youth vote (18-29) was won by Obama by a whopping margin of 25 points. A margin close to this again will likely mean another four years for Obama. Last year this group made up 17% of the electorate, which was the same percentage of seniors.

Presidential Election Overview

Can the Polls Be Off Enough for a Romney Win?
Any prognosticator that knows politics would tell you that in any given election the polls can indeed be off by several percentage points. However, the track record of poll averages and trend lines will also tell you that such an event is rare. In fact the last time state polls were off by a significant margin across the board was way back in 1992, in which polls were biased against republicans by 2.9. Such a scenario in reverse for 2012 would not only give Romney the election, but do so quite convincingly. Even the Princeton Election Consortium that is showing a land slide victory for Obama indicates that such a scenario would make Romney the likely winner. This sharp discrepancy is one of many reasons why I really question their predictions.

However, Romney does not need something this dramatic to occur to hand him the presidency. Contrary to what Nate Silver has been saying, this just is not the case. All we need is the polling in one state to be off by about a three point margin (Ohio) and a a couple small things to go Romney's way. This type of scenario happens a lot, including 2008 in which several swing state poll averages had a republican bias between 3-4 points, but in the end the total bias among all the polled states was only 0.8 points. Obviously, in this case we would still need Virginia (which is dead even) to go for Romney and then one state from all the others to go his way. (Colorado, New Hampshire, Iowa, etc.) So republicans are not in need of some type of incredible polling bias as some have tried to state, but the polls to be off in basically one state.

Some would argue that Romney also needs every state that the polls show him narrowly ahead to also break his way and not have a substantial counter-bias in any state that would be pro-republican. With all due respect I do not see much validity for any republican bias in this race. Why?
1.) Reports are showing that even democrats internal polling are showing the same basic results as the media polls. Generally speaking  internal polls are based upon somewhat dream scenarios that they see as likely happening, as it applies to voter turnout ratios. In this case, democrats have the rare "advantage" of having their likely scenarios represented in the published media polls. Back in 2008 democrats claimed that their internal polls were clearly showing Obama's margin being larger then the polls were indicating and this ended up being the case. According to articles I am reading, democrats are not finding much discrepancy between their polls and other polls for the most part.
2.) Almost every poll is showing a repeat of the record seven point advantage that democrats had in the 2008 voter turnout. In fact some Ohio polls are showing this margin even growing to a nine point advantage. I understand that this democrat bias is not intentional and is happening because of their polling formula they use to determine such things, but the notion that we are going to see anything like 2008 in voter turnout this timer around is just plain ludicrous! (Yes, I will stand behind this statement to the end.)
3.) Romney has something going his way that is giving prognosticators nightmares and that is popular vote polls have been showing this a dead even race, which does not collaborate with the state polls whatsoever. I have stated numerous times that my research has shown the state polls to be generally more accurate then national polls, but if the state polls have any reasonable republican bias then this is going to likely mean that the popular vote polls will be off by a very significant margin that has not been seen for a long time.

Will My Formula Consider Polling Bias?
After looking at the internal numbers behind numerous polls I am convinced that we could see dramatically different results then the polls are showing right now. But, like most prognosticators my predictions and margins are based mostly upon polling data. Otherwise, predictions would be based upon conjecture and feelings at the time. One does not need to go very far in my blog to see that my feelings have been all over the board. So if the polls are way off then my final predictions will probably be way off. For the record though I would still have to say my personal conjecture and feelings are still telling me Obama will win by a narrow margin.

The only thing my formula does do is take into consideration polls that have a track record of bias for one party and compensate polls that are outliers to a degree that is based upon that polls past accuracy. This and my trend line compensation are why my margins are usually different from the basic average of all the polls on RCP.

Are Both Candidates Worried and Confident?
When is a presidential candidate not worried, but portraying confidence would be a better question. Yet, from the reports I am reading while both campaigns feel like they are the favorite according to their numbers, both campaigns are losing sleep over one major issue...What if the other sides numbers are correct. After looking at the logic behind both sides numbers I can say that I see the validity behind both sets of opinions. However, republican pollsters admit that if what they see as likely were to happen then it would be a dead even race, with a very slight victory for Romney. However, if the democrats are right then Obama would win by a more comfortable margin.

Obama's Likely Path to Victory
Win the states that are already showing him with reasonable margins of victory; Nevada, Iowa, and Wisconsin all of which he is strongly favored in. Then he would just need one of the following states: Ohio, Virginia, or Florida. He could lose all three of these big states and still win the election if he pulled out both Colorado and New Hampshire as well.

Romney's Likely Path to Victory
Romney needs wins in Virginia (dead even) Florida (currently up by about one point) and Ohio (down by about three points) then he would be considered in the drivers seat on the basis of him only needing one additional state from a long list...Colorado, New Hampshire (both of which are extremely close) or longer shots like: Iowa, Nevada, or Wisconsin.

Predictions 11/3/2012

This is the last predictions that I will give until my final projections are posted on election day. As you can see  the Obama bounce is making Romney's chances appear rather slim. If the election were held today I am about 80% confident of an Obama electoral victory. Wisconsin is now safe for Obama and Ohio is now leaning Obama. However, the last few days before an election can see dramatic changes and tightening.

Toss-Up States	Projected Winner	EV	Confidence	Deficit	Change
Colorado	Obama	9	60%	1.10	0.10
Florida	Romney	29	60%	0.90	0.10
Iowa New Hampshire	Obama Obama	6 4	65% 60%	1.40 1.25	0.20 0.25
Ohio	Obama	18	65%	2.30	0.50
Virginia	Romney	13	50%	0.10	0.25
Leaning States
Nevada	Obama	6	80%	2.8	.20
North Carolina*	Romney	10	80%	3.6	0.00
Ohio Leaning States	Obama Obama	18 24	75% 70-85%	3.25	.95 8
	Romney	10	70-85%		0
Safe States	Obama	247	90% +		10
	Romney	181	90% +		10
Total	Obama	253			10
	Romney	206			0
	Toss-Ups	79	50-65%		-10
Projected Finish	Obama	290			0
	Romney	248			0
Popular Vote	Obama	1.40			0.00

Is This Election Over?

Absolutely not, just because the fat lady is warning up does not mean that she will have to sing. But, make no mistake she is warming up and anticipating having to sing the farewell tune to Romney's campaign very soon. Some of you know that after the final debate I was so discouraged that I said that Romney had just lost the election. I'm afraid I should have trusted my gut instincts better, because a mixture of time and hearing other conservatives think that Romney had done great had me thinking that maybe it was not as bad as I thought. As I pore over polling data and trend lines I can clearly see that the final debate was what clearly started this uptick for Obama in the polls. Here is the problem...this was the most crucial week for Romney to finish what he has started a month ago and that was a massive, unprecedented blast of momentum that kept going and going, all because of one debate. This was the week that those undecideds were supposed to realize they would have to cover their nose and vote for Romney. This was the week that the last bang wagon jumpers were going to hop on and a narrow race that was slightly favoring Obama was going to turn into a narrow race favoring Romney. Now Romney must fight to convince his base that this race is not over and he still has a chance. The truth is that barring an incredible gaffe from Obama's team or a collapse from nearly every pollster, (which they would blame on hurricane Sandy) even conservative leaning ones, this race is beginning to slip out of hand. Even Rasmussen tracking now has a tie, which is a four point swing from what they were reporting before the final debate.

Before, the strategy for Romney was simple: Hang onto the states you are leading in and just win Ohio. Now things have gotten much more complicated. Colorado is going for Obama and is also trending his way in nearly every poll. Virginia is dead even and Florida could likely be a draw by the time that Tuesday rolls around. Now is the time for Romney to think about his last act of desperation and it had better be good. This week is so critical because of those fence riders, but it looks like they will be making their ultimate decision during an Obama high.

What is even more amazing then Romney's 2-3 week surge is the fact that I am beginning to see signs that come election day if things stay on this path, the election may not even be close. One day could change all of that pessimism, but the data is looking bad. I keep waiting for some signs that what appears to be happening was not happening, but what I keep getting is more signs that what I am seeing is not evidence that I need glasses but a tissue.

Note: It's a good thing that I can take this post down tomorrow if things change. Then you will never have any proof that I really said these things 4 days before the election.

Predictions 11/1/2012

Toss-Up States	Projected Winner	EV	Confidence	Deficit	Change
Colorado	Obama	9	60%	1.20	1.20
Florida	Romney	29	60%	1.00	0.15
Iowa New Hampshire	Obama Obama	6 4	65% 60%	1.20 1.00	0.50 0.50
Ohio	Obama	18	65%	2.30	0.50
Virginia	Romney	13	50%	0.35	0.35
Leaning States
Nevada	Obama	6	80%	2.8	.20
North Carolina*	Romney	10	80%	3.6	1.10
Wisconsin Leaning States	Obama Obama	10 16	70% 70-85%	2.80	.90 10
	Romney	10	70-85%		10
Safe States	Obama	237	90% +		0
	Romney	181	90% +		10
Total	Obama	259			10
	Romney	206			0
	Toss-Ups	73	50-65%		-10
Projected Finish	Obama	290			9
	Romney	248			-9
Popular Vote	Obama	1.40			0.20

Will Voter Turnout or Independents Skew Polls?

The basic question that determines every election is not what many people tend to believe. Every primary season we hear the same question or argument of: Who can best win over Independents and thus win the election? Yet, regardless of how often this nonsense is spewed, more and more people are buying into the line. This election could be a prime example: Mitt Romney according to almost every national poll and even many swing state polls is in fact winning among this "key" voter block. Yet, if the election were held today he does not have very good chance of winning the election. Why? There is another question that is far important to winning elections...Who can best energize their own base and get them out to vote? The primary reason behind this is that the vast majority of voters will always be from one party or the other and roughly 90% of these voters will vote strictly according to their party affiliation every election. Then for the most part neither party has much of a track record of winning a decisive percentage of these voters anyway. Let us consider the voting trends among only independents for the past three elections.
2000- Bush 47%- Gore 45%
2004- Kerry 49%- Bush 48%
2008- Obama 53%-McCain 45%

So the largest margin was clearly 2008 in which McCain was defeated by eight percentage points in a year that only 29% of the electorate was classified as independents. Yet, in 2008 a record low 32% of the electorate classified themselves as republicans compared to 37% of the electorate in 2004. Now what was more important? Losing 5% of the total electorate which would have voted for you at roughly a 90-10 clip or losing by 8% among 29% of the electorate. It does not take rocket science or a mathematical genius to figure out that republicans staying home in 2008 was more of a cause for McCain's defeat and in 2004 republican voter turnout was basically the only reason for Bush winning re-election.

Another aspect that must be considered is that roughly 75% of independents vote nearly along one parties line. This means that in 2008 only around 8% were really independents. (For the longest time I was classified on my voter registration card as an independent, but I have only voted for one democrat in my life.)

Now let's take a look at voter turnout among party lines for the past 12 years.
2000- Democrats 39%, Republicans 35%, Independents 27%
2002- Democrats 38%, Republicans 40%, Independents 22%
2004- Democrats 37%, Republicans 37%, Independents 26%
2006- Democrats 38%, Republicans 36%, Independents 26%
2008- Democrats 39%, Republicans 32%, Independents 29%
2010- Democrats 35%, Republicans 35%, Independents 29%
2012- ?????

Here is the ultimate question for 2012...will voter turnout look very similar to 2008 as the majority of pollsters are predicting? Or will we see turnout like it was in 2004 and 2010 that was evenly split? If the answer to question one is yes then Obama should be considered a heavy favorite, but if the answer to question two is yes then Romney should be considered a heavy favorite and pollsters and prognosticators will look silly on election night. In my heart I tend to think we are looking at a median between the 2004 and 2008 numbers. My prediction looks like this...
2012- Democrats 38%, Republicans 35%, Independents 27%

If my non-formulated prediction on voter turnout is correct will this impact the election? The only way to answer that question is to know how close the margin will be in the polling on election day. This is the reason  I keep saying that Romney must be no more then 2% behind in a state like Ohio for me to view him as having a realistic chance of winning on election day. This is because I have reformulated the numbers from the polls that heavily weighs 2008 as the likely voter trend and it either becomes a statistical tie or a very narrow win for Obama still.

There is yet another aspect that must be considered when we look at voting turnout and that is the percentage of current registered voters that fall into each party currently. In 2008, 40.3% of registered voters considered themselves democrats. This was a clear indication from the very start of the 2008 campaign that Americans were not wanting to identify with the GOP whatsoever, therefore any republican would have had an uphill climb to defeat either Clinton or Obama. Of course when we look at these numbers of how registered voters divvy up, we must be reminded that historically democrats turn out on election day at a higher clip then republicans. So just because there may be more republicans at a given point is not any indication that they would likely win an election that is held during that time. Here is the registered voter breakdown for the past few elections in October...
YEAR- R   D      I
2004- 37.2/38.7/24.1
2006- 31.5/37.7/30.7
2008- 33.3/40.3/26.4
2010- 36.0/34.7/29.3
2012- 36.8/34.2/29.0 (As of September)

However, the gap favoring republicans in the past few months has been quickly closing and by the time election day rolls around we could be looking at a nearly even split. So why then are the majority of polls not considering these registered voter numbers much...
1.) They rarely do. Many use an enthusiasm gap method in which if the vast amount of callers identify with one party then that party will be much more heavily weighted. Polls that use this method have had rather mixed voter turnout projections, but they generally either look a lot like the 2008 numbers or show up to 35% of the electorate as independents which ends up bringing down the republican total to between 30-32% of the electorate. These are staggering projections that I tend to think are not based upon realistic reality.
2.) Many pollsters were rather embarrassed in 2008 by having their party weighing system way off. Almost every poll underestimated Obama's numbers and some feel like they could be trying to make up for this mistake in 2012, despite contradicting numbers.
3.) Obama is considered to have a much better ground game in most of the crucial swing states. This means that they can more easily offset these numbers with increased democrat turnout. If a voter knows that the candidate he wants to win is going to take care of driving him to and from the polls and give him a little gift as well, then they will most likely consider themself a likely voter when they are polled and probably be more apt to participate in polls.
4.) These numbers are all general election or popular vote based and popular vote polls seem more inclined to consider these numbers. Ohio generally has very similar numbers to the general electorate as a whole, yet most of the recent polls are not paying much attention to these registered voter numbers, but there is overwhelming evidence that several of the popular vote polls are considering these numbers by the close breakdown by party affiliation. If somehow the popular vote polls were more accurate on election day then the state polls, which is very rare, then this would likely be the key reason. Take for instance that as of June 2012 Rasmussen General Election polls were predicting a 36% republican, 34% democrat, 32% independents outcome. No wonder why Rasmussen is always showing such favorable numbers to Romney. However, in fairness their numbers have likely shifted as the registered voter breakdown has also shifted in the past few months and they were very accurate in their October 2008 predictions when they predicted a 40-33-26 breakdown, (D-R-I) which was close to the actual result of 39-32-29.

New Post and Predictions Coming

Due to circumstances beyond our control we were unable to update the numbers yesterday or add anything to the blog. We will try to do both by this afternoon. Thank you for your understanding.

Rasmussen Now Showing Romney Winning Election

Rasmussen Reports has been a well known and well liked polling company for republicans since it started in 2003. Democrats claims they are always biased in favor of republicans while those in the GOP will tell you that they are relatively accurate and did a great job in 2008. Here's the reality...both sides are right. They do have a very good track record for accuracy in past presidential elections, but a very suspect record in other races. The problem is that they also have a long track record of republican bias which is held in greater scrutiny because Scott Rasmussen himself is a republican. The problem is that both sides have a strong tendency to over react when criticizing and praising the poll.

One of the biggest knocks against this poll in 2012 is their insistence on what is considered old methodology. They are not adopting to any of the new methods such as: calling cell phones, using an enthusiasm gap to determine voter turn out, sprinkling their state polls over a few days, etc. Could their instance on old methodology catch up with them in 2012? Perhaps, but making such a statement is rather risky until more evidence arrives. Nate Silver a professional prognosticator who was very accurate in 2008 is so sure of this assumption that he refuses to weigh their polls as he would other reputable firms. He claims that their methods have to catch up with them soon and assumes it will be in this election. I find this decision to be a major gamble that could create some obvious flaws in his numbers.

However, what everyone must remember is that they are only one poll. Whenever anyone puts too much stock in one poll it leads to terrible misconceptions. While they were one of the most accurate presidential polls in 2008 according to the ARG they also had their share of problems with republican bias. Most of these problems showed up in the important swing states and often with outlier polls. Here is a sampling of their final polls in some of the swing states four years ago and how it compared to the final results.

State	Final Rasmussen Poll	Final Result	Bias
Colorado	Obama by 4	Obama by 8.5	Republican- 4+
Florida	McCain by 1	Obama by 2.5	Republican- 3+
Nevada	Obama by 4	Obama by 12.4	Republican- 8+
New Hampshire	Obama by 7	Obama by 9.5	Republican- 2+
Ohio	TIED	Obama by 4	Republican- 4
Virginia	Obama by 4	Obama by 6.3	Republican- 2+
Wisconsin	Obama by 7	Obama by 13.9	Republican- 6+

Of course in all fairness 2008 was a very bad year in many of these same states for many pollsters, due to underestimating democrats turn out and overestimating republican turn out. Yet, what is different about Rasmussen is that they are always showing the same bias and gives numerous outlier polls in the process. Rasmussen was far more accurate in many of the other non-swing states.

If the election were held today Rasmussen has Romney pulling out Ohio, New Hampshire, Colorado, Virginia, Florida, and tied in Wisconsin. This would be plenty enough to make Romney the victor. So why am I 75% confident that Obama would win the election if it were held today?
1.) This is one poll and I consider all reputable polls.
2.) They are the only poll showing Romney in the lead in Ohio and tied in Wisconsin.
3.) Other polls with a known republican bias still has Obama leading in key states like Ohio, New Hampshire, and Colorado.
4.) I adjust their polls one point for being republican biased unless they are an outlier in which I more heavily adjust the number.

It is not that these latest Rasmussen polls are not important, because they are...in proper context. If Romney is to win the election he will need this firm showing good numbers in states like Ohio, Colorado, and Virginia.  These polls help compensate for some of the other left-leaning polls showing Obama in front by several points. The key is found in some of the other reputable firms showing similar numbers and at this point they are not.