A graphic that ran with the Post/ABC results.
Someone asked me that at Rotary today, and I say that in the presidential contest (which is what the question was about), if you force me to pick a winner, I say it will be President Obama. In the Electoral College at least. Although it’s close enough that I could be wrong, at this point I think we’re where we were months ago: A slight edge for the incumbent.
As more than one poll has indicated, I’m with most Americans in making that prediction. The latest one I’ve seen shows that 55 percent of the electorate thinks Obama will win, and only 35 percent thinks Mitt Romney will.
Here’s the boiled-down-to-essentials way Nate Silver over at FiveThirtyEight put it several days ago:
Mr. Obama is leading in the polls of Ohio and other states that would suffice for him to win 270 electoral votes, and by a margin that has historically translated into victory a fairly high percentage of the time.
Over the weekend, Silver noted that various polls also show a slight Obama advantage in the popular vote, but generally within the margin of error.
Now comes the last Washington Post/ABC p0ll of the election, showing that same pattern:
Heading into Election Day, likely voters divide 50 percent for President Obama and 47 percent for his challenger, Republican Mitt Romney, according to the latest, final weekend release of the Washington Post-ABC News tracking poll.
A nail-biter throughout, the presidential contest remains closely competitive through its last days, even as most voters perceive a likely win for the president.
In regular polls since early July, neither candidate ever gathered more than 50 percent of likely voters, and neither ever slipped below 46 percent. Across nearly 7,000 interviews with likely voters from Oct. 18 through Sunday evening, less than four-tenths of a percentage point separates Obama and Romney.
The difference between the candidates in the final weekend tally is right at the 2.5 percentage margin of sampling error for the final four-night sample of 2,345 likely voters. This makes Obama’s being at plus three points over Romney an edge only by the slimmest of margins, well below conventional measures of statistical significance…
So how are you seeing it?
Related Posts
Has anyone ever won a U.S. presidential election with a mere 43% of the popular vote?
I go with math. Nate Silver is correct.
If Obama doesn’t win, expect to see a major emotional meltdown with the mainstream media teleprompter readers. Chris Mathews might actually end it all right on screen.
Rioting in the streets, tea in the harbor. And for the winner, a month off.
But we must factor in, as well, intense voter-discouragement and disenfranchisement efforts, as well as the possible technical conflict of the voting machines themselves being owned by the family of one of the candidates.
I’ll go wild card, and say Obama wins Ohio but loses the election. Why not? Map on my site.
November 5, 2012 at 7:17 pm
Has anyone ever won a U.S. presidential election with a mere 43% of the popular vote?
Yes.
Bill Clinton won in ’92 with 42% of the vote.
FWIW, Lincoln won in 1860 with 39% of the vote.
Oh, and Obama gets about 303 Electoral votes tomorrow.
@Burl
But we must factor in, as well, intense voter-discouragement and disenfranchisement efforts,
I’ve been following the voter id and conflicts trying to restrict early in person voting pretty closely. While I agree that they are voter disenfranchisement I’ve heard from both left and right leaning media establishments that their effects have been very minimal.
If polls are to be believed Its Obama. He has the electoral college on his side. I think the fact that as an incumbent he is struggling this much it sends a message though.
It will not effect him in the second term though since he pretty much said The election is over. I’ll do what I want his first term.
I think we will be within the margin of litigation to some degree though. Romney has alot of cash and might as well blow it.
I’d love to be wrong but I doubt it.
I think this election will end up being the election that almost was for the republicans. They squandered their chances with a weak field when they had a very vulnerable president.
In answer to Juan’s question, two cases in our lifetimes: Richard Nixon (1968), Bill Clinton (1992).
Juan, I believe Bill Clinton won in 1992 with something in the low 40s.
Bryan, Romney could win but he has a zero chance without Ohio. I’m sticking with this:
Popular Vote: Obama 51% – Romney 48% with a few third party votes making up the difference.
Electoral: Obama 303 – Romney 235.
Obama will win the battleground states of NV, CO, WI, OH, MI, PA, NH, VA and IA. Romney takes FL and NC.
This is such an important election with the economy of the US at stake. A Romney win will likely thwart the slow recovery. In addition women’s rights will be set back 50 years with a likely conservative court overturning Roe v Wade in a couple of years.
The banking industry will again run wild. This will result in some future disaster.
Granny goes over the cliff as medicare as we have known it comes to an end.
The rich will get a whole lot richer, at least for a while. The middle class will lose all the momentum gained under Obama.
After 4 years of slowly improving budget deficits they will again skyrocket as alway happens under a GOP POTUS. The gradual international improvements will revert back to the Bush disaster years.
All in all this important election crys out for four more years of sound presidential stewardship. Sadly the folks of SC will not get to participate given the ludicrous nature of our election process.
If Obama wins tonight, can we at last call the next four years the Obama economy? Or does the Bush excuse extend through another four years as well?
If Romney somehow pulls out a win, how many years of blaming Obama and Bush does he get?
My wife and I vote over at Kilbourne Park Baptist. She got in line at 8:30AM, and she’s still in line. My ward is pretty conservative, so it tells me there are a whole lot of energized conservatives voting today.
Could this be happening nationwide?
It’s a sad commentary on our election choices this year that there is so little to actually vote for that matters. SCs 9 electoral votes will go to Governor Romney. Joe Wilson is unoppossed. The only ballot initiative is one that doesn’t even have the correct choice, elimination of Lt. Gov. My state senate seat is contested between Jake Knotts and Tea Party Katrina Shealy – UGGH. But, for what it’s worth, I’ll do my civic duty and head to the polls about 3 this afternoon.
No endorsement for POTUS from The State or Brad. What a weird year this has been.
Just back from my polls after investing 90 minutes in my vote.
Several thoughts: Millions of productive hours are wasted by people waiting in lines.
Almost one in three persons now votes early.
The political establishment needs to come to grips with this antiquated method and modernize a ballot process in which the average person demonstrates a desire to participate through their patience.
My polling area had only three voting machines, and we had two different congressional districts that demanded two separate ballots.
Why not more machines?
Maybe 1,000 people will vote, which means 1,500 hours of time — which is about one year of human labor. What’s that worth: perhaps $30,000?
Here is my final call: 290-248 for Obama, who wins Ohio although it will turn out that he could have lost it and still eked out a win:
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2012/custom-presidential-election-map#njamdnjannaajenje
Popular vote very close, Obama wins but by margin of less than 2%, maybe really really close.
I shouldn’t even joke about this but I sort of have a perverse wish to see what would happen with a 269-all tie, House electing Romney President and Senate re-electing Biden VP. THAT would be four entertaining years!