Gyroscopic Investing

This is how Romney can win despite losing most of the swing states in the West and Midwest:

[align=center][/align]

Virginia, New Hampshire, Connecticut, New Jersey, and DC? I don't see that happening in this or any other universe. Might as well give him Illinois too just for kicks and giggles.

Pointedstick wrote: Virginia, New Hampshire, Connecticut, New Jersey, and DC? I don't see that happening in this or any other universe. Might as well give him Illinois too just for kicks and giggles.

Why isn't Romney carrying Massachusetts?  I thought you were supposed to carry your home state.

Show me a candidate who isn't projected to carry his home state and I will show you a candidate with potential problems on election day.

I've always suspected that there were actually very few genuine Romeny supporters out there.  There are lots of people who will vote for whoever the Republican nominee is and in this cycle there are lots of people who are going to vote for whoever is running against Obama, but I have yet to meet a single person who seems to be genuinely excited about Romney the candidate.

MediumTex wrote: I have yet to meet a single person who seems to be genuinely excited about Romney the candidate.

What do you mean? Massachusetts has a long history of turning out conservative candidates. How can this possibly go wrong?

craigr wrote:

MediumTex wrote: I have yet to meet a single person who seems to be genuinely excited about Romney the candidate.

What do you mean? Massachusetts has a long history of turning out conservative candidates. How can this possibly go wrong?

Well, if his credential to be President is that he was a good governor, you would like to see the people from the state he governed acknowledge he did a good job by supporting him for President.

OTOH, if the people in the state where he was Governor don't support him for President, why should anyone else?

That's like having a former employer give you a bad reference.

I remember in 2000 when Al Gore didn't carry Tennessee.  I thought to myself "this guy is in trouble."  In retrospect, if he HAD carried Tennessee he would have won the election.

Think back to 1984 when Mondale only carried one state--it was his home state of Minnesota.

Based on this factor alone, I am going to predict that the election won't even be close--Obama will win comfortably.

I agree with MT that Romney has no chance. Then again, I almost think Romney and Gore both got hit by the same curse of your home state being one that generally goes for the other party at the federal level. Even though Romney was reasonably popular back then, I think it's much more important for the average liberal Massachusetts voter to support the liberal candidate than the conservative former governor. Might the whole "home state advantage" only really apply to politicians from a state that leans toward their party or swings unpredictably? Certainly I can see how it would become less relevant when your home state usually rejects people like you at the federal level.

I am very skeptical of polls, especially from the MSM.

The only prediction I know will come true this year is I'll be voting for neither of them.

I do not have to be supremely excited about someone who might be boringly competent and fiscally responsible, while embracing our allies and putting our enemies on notice. I can just be happy about such a man.

And then there is Barack.....

Reub wrote: I do not have to be supremely excited about someone who might be boringly competent and fiscally responsible, while embracing our allies and putting our enemies on notice. I can just be happy about such a man.

And then there is Barack.....

I understand that.  What I am saying is that I don't know if a candidate like that can get enough people to go to the polls on election day just to vote against the other guy.

Reub wrote:.. and putting our enemies on notice.

And of course, just like many of these pols, their own children:

A) Are not in the military (and never have been).
B) Won't ever be deployed into active combat.

What enemies are the Romney Boys going to face down? Or the Obama daughters? Or Bush's daughters? Or Clinton's daughter? Are they going to Iran? To Afghanistan? To whatever new enemy they think we should be fighting? No, they won't. Just something to consider when you see them talking tough on TV.

MediumTex wrote: I understand that.  What I am saying is that I don't know if a candidate like that can get enough people to go to the polls on election day just to vote against the other guy.

Well, the same problem exists with Obama.  Democrats are so disappointed by him dropping the ball on "change", that they're not even going to bother to show up to vote.  And that's just the voters.  If the non-registered, likely voters would ever show up, it would be a landslide win over Romney.  But where's their incentive?

Frankly, I don't see much difference between the two candidates when it comes to actual real-world governing.  Ideaology makes for a good pre-game show, but walking the talk is everything.  To paraphrase Murder at 1600, "the presidency is an institution".

MediumTex wrote: Based on this factor alone, I am going to predict that the election won't even be close--Obama will win comfortably.

Let's make this fun.  I predict a Mitt Romney win.  (Definitely one without deep blue Massachusetts, though!)

When and if my prediction turns out to be wrong, I will simply pretend that I thought this was like the Suicide Portfolio contest and you were supposed to pick the most hopeless candidate.    My "victory" is assured!

Lone Wolf wrote:

MediumTex wrote: Based on this factor alone, I am going to predict that the election won't even be close--Obama will win comfortably.

Let's make this fun.  I predict a Mitt Romney win.  (Definitely one without deep blue Massachusetts, though!)

When and if my prediction turns out to be wrong, I will simply pretend that I thought this was like the Suicide Portfolio contest and you were supposed to pick the most hopeless candidate.    My "victory" is assured!

Simonjester wrote: if i am making a suicide portfolio pick, i predict the American people.... i can just about guarantee they loose no matter who wins...

Ooh, I like this game. I predict a crushing Bernie Sanders victory.

MachineGhost wrote:

MediumTex wrote: I understand that.  What I am saying is that I don't know if a candidate like that can get enough people to go to the polls on election day just to vote against the other guy.

Well, the same problem exists with Obama.  Democrats are so disappointed by him dropping the ball on "change", that they're not even going to bother to show up to vote.  And that's just the voters.  If the non-registered, likely voters would ever show up, it would be a landslide win over Romney.  But where's their incentive?

Frankly, I don't see much difference between the two candidates when it comes to actual real-world governing.  Ideaology makes for a good pre-game show, but walking the talk is everything.  To paraphrase Murder at 1600, "the presidency is an institution".

The dynamic you are describing strongly favors the incumbent.

I don't like either one of them, but I think that Obama has a pretty strong advantage right now.

The fun debates to watch will be the VP debates.  It will be buffoon vs. wonk.  Biden's tenure as VP has not disappointed me in any way.  The one time I questioned whether Obama was as smart as people said he was was when I heard that he had selected Biden as his running mate in 2008.  How could he have not known what a clown Biden is?  Maybe he wanted a clown, but why?  Did he think the U.S. might have a foreign policy crisis involving a circus?

MediumTex wrote: Did he think the U.S. might have a foreign policy crisis involving a circus?

By making debt the centerpiece of his campaign, Romney was making a calculated bluff of historic dimensions – placing a massive all-in bet on the rank incompetence of the American press corps. The result has been a brilliant comedy: A man makes a $250 million fortune loading up companies with debt and then extracting million-dollar fees from those same companies, in exchange for the generous service of telling them who needs to be fired in order to finance the debt payments he saddled them with in the first place. That same man then runs for president riding an image of children roasting on flames of debt, choosing as his running mate perhaps the only politician in America more pompous and self-righteous on the subject of the evils of borrowed money than the candidate himself. If Romney pulls off this whopper, you'll have to tip your hat to him: No one in history has ever successfully run for president riding this big of a lie. It's almost enough to make you think he really is qualified for the White House.

http://tinyurl.com/98dqu2y

Even though I now find this simple prediction algorithm to be outclassed by newer methodologies, I wanted to provide a final update using the latest economic data.

The VP (Democrat share of popular vote) is 49.05% and the VC (Democrat share of house vote) is 46%.

In other words, too close to call on the popular vote, but it looks like the Democrats are going to lose House seats.

MediumTex wrote: Based on this factor alone, I am going to predict that the election won't even be close--Obama will win comfortably.

Pointedstick wrote: I agree with MT that Romney has no chance.

Lone Wolf wrote: Let's make this fun.  I predict a Mitt Romney win.

Having at last accepted that Gary Johnson and/or Calvin Coolidge probably won't win this election cycle, all I've got left is to win this prediction contest.  You probably can't tell over an internet forum, but I've fixed you both with my steely, withering gaze.  That's right -- one eyeball on each of you.  It looks a little weird, I admit.

I wanted to raise the stakes in this "contest" but failed to think of a way to do so.  I was going to propose that the loser not be allowed to check their Permanent Portfolio balance for a month, but then I realized that I already do that. 

I'm still a PP n00b, so that will actually be a challenge for me. Challenge accepted!

P.S. now I'm thinking of this:

http://msgboard.snopes.com/photos/grues ... googly.jpg