Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

Obama Closing in On Re-election

Recs

10

August 10, 2012 – Comments (41) | RELATED TICKERS: SPY , QQQ , DIA

With the new unemployment data, and the improved S&P 500, Obama now has a 77% to 86% chance of winning this November.  There is not much Romney can do.  Even the recent CNN poll has Obama in the lead by 7.

 It is now just a matter of how much.

41 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On August 10, 2012 at 9:40 PM, scotchlover (< 20) wrote:

Me thinks thou art optimistic.  One weeks data does not an election predict.  While the major indexes (in my humble opinion) will continue to rise modestly through the election cycle, unemployment will probably remain at 8.2% or higher.  So, where does an election oracle turn?  I think the rising price of food and fuel will be a major negative factor for Obama as the effect of the poor corn crop (for food and ethanol) will be greatest near election day. I don't know if Romney can pull it out, but Obama has the greater opposing forces.

Report this comment
#2) On August 10, 2012 at 9:45 PM, JohnChisum (68.86) wrote:

Many voters do not pay attention to the election until after Labor Day. Even then, for many it is a last minute decision. The two to three weeks before are the critical ones to win over the fence sitters. Polls are useless until then.

 

Adding on to scotchlover's comment above, UE over 8%, ( the actual UE much higher than that) and a rating below 50% for the current President usually portend bad news for a incumbent.

Report this comment
#3) On August 10, 2012 at 10:50 PM, IBDvalueinvestin (99.68) wrote:

A vote for Romney is a wasted vote, everyone knows he has no shot at winning.

Report this comment
#4) On August 10, 2012 at 11:17 PM, HarryCarysGhost (99.70) wrote:

What you want to watch is the GDP# coming out on Halloween. A week or so before the election.

That will probably make the difference.

Investment wise I might add to cash position, much better to react rather than predict.

Report this comment
#5) On August 10, 2012 at 11:57 PM, awallejr (85.46) wrote:

Way to early to even argue this.  Personally I don't want to vote for either one.  Think I will do a write in for Ralph Nader but not sure if the guy is still alive heheh.

Report this comment
#6) On August 11, 2012 at 7:27 AM, ThomasPound (84.18) wrote:

My findings are based on research from every election since 1896.  I use changes in the misery index (unemployment and four year inflation rate) and changes in the S&P 500.  The correlation is r = .798 if one only focuses on data from 1920 (which tends to be more reliable).  The data from 1896 only has a correlation of r = 0.656.  I often wonder if women not be allowed to vote accounts for this difference. 

Either way, the current data shows that Obama will win by a landslide.

We will see in November, and I will be back with this issue in September.

Report this comment
#7) On August 11, 2012 at 7:34 AM, ravens9111 (64.25) wrote:

With Romney selecting Paul Ryan, that could be a gamechanger. The fact is that CNN is a left leaning poll so I think it would be FOOLish to put much faith in it. The independent vote is what will count. That has yet to be seen and won't be determined until after the debates. Without a teleprompter, I think Obama will lose badly. 

Report this comment
#8) On August 11, 2012 at 7:53 AM, ETFsRule (99.94) wrote:

Intrade has Obama at about 57% to win, but that seems a bit low. If the site were legal here in the states, I would load up on shares at those odds.

Report this comment
#9) On August 11, 2012 at 7:54 AM, ETFsRule (99.94) wrote:

"HarryCarysGhost (99.75) wrote:

What you want to watch is the GDP# coming out on Halloween. A week or so before the election.

That will probably make the difference.

Investment wise I might add to cash position, much better to react rather than predict."

Voters care about employment and the stock market. Not so much GDP.

Report this comment
#10) On August 11, 2012 at 10:11 AM, drgroup (69.48) wrote:

Romney 58%

obama 41%

Not even close. You cult followers will be in therapy for years after this Romney landslide. It is impossible to comprehend how intelligent, open minded people can find even one reason to re-elect Obama. As such, his blind followers react as zombie like cultist...

Report this comment
#11) On August 11, 2012 at 11:24 AM, HarryCarysGhost (99.70) wrote:

@ETFsRule-

I think employment and the stock market are part of GDP.

My point was that if the number is higher then expected the Obama camp can scream SEE IT"S WORKING!

Lower GDP will enable the Romney cap to scream SEE IT'S FAILING!

Personally I'll be voting for neither the douche nor the t*rd.

Casting my vote for the only honest man in Congress Ron Paul.

Report this comment
#12) On August 11, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Rujikin (< 20) wrote:

Rommney has little to no chance of winning. If he is the republican canidate the republicans might as well consider this a loss and withdraw.

 

Ron Paul is the only one that has a chance to win. He would draw all of the independants and many democrats. 

Report this comment
#13) On August 11, 2012 at 4:20 PM, awallejr (85.46) wrote:

I think Romney just made a big mistake choosing Ryan.  Congress is more despised by the public than even Wall Street.  Their approval rating was what 9%?

 

Report this comment
#14) On August 11, 2012 at 5:03 PM, BMFPitt (73.35) wrote:

@ETFsRule

Intrade has Obama at about 57% to win, but that seems a bit low. If the site were legal here in the states, I would load up on shares at those odds.

I was so mad that I was blocked from using that site in 2008.  I wanted to buy a bunch of Obama when he was trading at like 10-15%.  I knew that there was no way a Republican could win, and there was no way Hillary would get the nomination, so he was easy money. 

Report this comment
#15) On August 11, 2012 at 5:30 PM, AvianFlu (37.50) wrote:

I almost hope obama wins. In my view a currency crisis is already baked in the cake regardless of who wins. If Romney is president they will immediately blame him and capitalism for the crisis even though he will have been a victim of circumstance.

For helpless victims of Paul Krugman I suggest deprogramming yourself at http://freetochoose.tv/ which is all Milton Friedman all the time.

 Slogan of the day: Communism only killed 100 million people. Let's give it another chance!!

Report this comment
#16) On August 11, 2012 at 5:38 PM, rdub76 (55.31) wrote:

Romney will lose because he is not discernibly different than Obama.  GOP is trying to run Obama-lite in order to pull a few waffling lefties but it won't work.  Personally I'm voting for Gary Johnson, no more 'lesser of two evils' for me.  Especially when I can't tell which is which.  I think the market will keep churning along like it has been with an Obama win.  A romney win will produce a quick jump and then a pullback (sugar high) when everyone realizes he isn't going to do anything different. 

 

Report this comment
#17) On August 11, 2012 at 6:41 PM, jmlerche (< 20) wrote:

I'm also voting Gary Johnson for the same reason - tired of the lesser of two evils thing.  Voting FOR someone rather than against someone.

Report this comment
#18) On August 11, 2012 at 7:04 PM, wilhelmjm (< 20) wrote:

What a crock.  Obumer will go down in flames worse than Jimmy "the lame" Carter.  Real UE is around 15%, SCOTUS's ruling on "Death Panels", and "you didn't build it" socialism will bring this Socialist/Communist down faster than a wireless cable LLC of the 1990's...believe me, I know...I lost a bundle.

Report this comment
#19) On August 11, 2012 at 8:42 PM, tomlongrpv (75.70) wrote:

The "you didn't build it" remark needs to be taken in context.  It was about businesses needing government infrastructure and needing to understand that the infrastructure was something they didn't build.  It's amazing how many Republicans don't understand the importance of government.  With all the s**t they dish out to everyone who disagrees with them, you would think they would be aware that it is government that builds and maintains the sewers that carry it all away.  Every Republican should think when they flush the tiolet "there goes my biggest contribution to society and it's government taking it away!"

Anyway, as someone who earns about 2% of what Romney earns each year and pays twice the share of my income taxes that he pays (I pay 30% to the feds alone) I am not about to vote for such a chisler or for his hatchet man VP who will destroy the security of health care reform and Medicare.  There is a difference this time and its just as much if not more than last time.

Report this comment
#20) On August 12, 2012 at 12:15 AM, awallejr (85.46) wrote:

I think #19 is right. I think Romney just made it a 1% versus 99% campaign. 

Report this comment
#21) On August 12, 2012 at 1:09 AM, NOTvuffett (< 20) wrote:

tomlongrpv, they understand it perfectly.  it was businesses that paid the taxes to build that stuff in the first place.

Report this comment
#22) On August 12, 2012 at 2:12 AM, callumturcan (97.20) wrote:

Obama is leading in the polls, but there are polls out from both Rasmussen and Gallup that show Romney being ahead or tied with Obama (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/). Statistically speaking, very few presidents have won when the unemployment rate was above 8% (and the U-6 unemployment rate being at 15%). While Obama may be leading in the polls, a recent poll came out showing Romney with a 5 point lead in Colorado (by CBS), which would definitely shake things up a bit. Picking Paul Ryan could give Romney an edge in Wisconsin as well, as most saw this going to Barack, but with Paul as his VP and Scott Walker winning the recall election and turning a massive deficit into a $155 million surplus, Romney has a chance. It is far too early to call a winner, and I'm guessing by the time it is Election Day it will still be too close to call.

 GARY JOHNSON - RON PAUL - JIM GRAY 2012

Report this comment
#23) On August 12, 2012 at 9:51 AM, ETFsRule (99.94) wrote:

:callumturcan (63.87):

The overall polls don't really matter, you have to look at it state-by-state. If this article is right, then Romney needs to win Florida, Virginia, Ohio, and one additional state to win the election. If you trust the odds here, and assuming he is a lock to win "one additional state" that would only give him about a 12% chance of winning the election: (.59)x(.45)x(.45)=.12

Even if you thought his odds were as high as 70% in each of those states, the odds of him winning all 3 would only be: .7^3=.343

Also: regardless of whose positions you prefer, I don't think it's even debatable that Obama is the better public speaker, debater, and campaigner. The smart money is on Obama in this election.

Report this comment
#24) On August 12, 2012 at 11:13 AM, AvianFlu (37.50) wrote:

Say what you want about the candidates, but they most certainly are not the same ideologically.

Here is what I have learned about Romney in the last 2 weeks: He is a felon. He is tied to South American death squads. He kills people in the US by giving them cancer. He is mean.

Why would we want to elect someone who is clearly worse than Charles Manson?

Report this comment
#25) On August 12, 2012 at 11:24 AM, NOTvuffett (< 20) wrote:

AvianFlu, I am going to write in Charles Manson's name for president.  How could you not vote for a guy that had the willpower to carve a swatiska into his own forehead, lol? 

Report this comment
#26) On August 12, 2012 at 11:26 AM, EvanBuck (99.81) wrote:

I think it's too early to tell.  One week's worth of polls do not nail down anything.  They give an indicator of the opinions of a select group of American voters for one week.

That being said, the Electoral College math is looking pretty ugly and dicey for Romney.  If I were him, I would be a lot more worried over the EC math than a few opinion polls.

Report this comment
#27) On August 12, 2012 at 11:58 AM, tomlongrpv (75.70) wrote:

Heny No. 20, actually I am in the top 1% too, just at the bottom of it and without all the fancy tax loopholes Romney has.  Remember Romney makes about $20 million per year.  As I said, I make around 2% of that.  That still puts me toward the top and makes me a well into six figures taxpayer.  I have no problem with that.  I just want others in my income bracket and above me to pay the same share I do. UnderRomney I will actually pay more because I don't have the fancy investment loopholes.  It's not 1% versus 99%, it's more like .01$ versus 99.9%.

Report this comment
#28) On August 12, 2012 at 1:24 PM, tomlongrpv (75.70) wrote:

#21 no it wasn't businesses that paid the taxes that built the infrastructure.  Infrastructure is largely built by sales taxes and property taxes.  Business pay neither of those things to any significant degree--at least in California.  The vast majorty of revenues from sales and property taxes are from individuals.  Business discharge to sewers built by individuals and put their trucks on roads built by individuals.  Businesses, particularly small ones, are heavily subisidized by taxes paid by individuals.  Nothing wrong with that but it is a reality small business owners need to realize.

 

 

Report this comment
#29) On August 12, 2012 at 4:00 PM, awallejr (85.46) wrote:

I thought Condoleezza Rice would have been a good pick.  With Ryan you now have a clear choice, except I don't like either one.

Report this comment
#30) On August 12, 2012 at 11:55 PM, Melaschasm (55.93) wrote:

This election is likely to be very close, with a slim chance that it breaks against Obama by a wide margin.

Since the end of WW2, it is very rare for an incumbent president to be reelected with a U3 rate at or above 8%.  It is very unlikely for the rate to drop below 8% before the election.

While a strengthening economy like we currently have tends to benefit incumbents, if it is perceived to be bad, it tends to hurt the incumbent.  Our current economy is perceived to be much worse than it is, which could cause a Romney landslide, IF that perception does not change before November.

Report this comment
#31) On August 13, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Melaschasm (55.93) wrote:

#23 your math is very wrong.

On an individual basis Florida and Virginia may be around 60% chance of voting for Romney, while Ohio is about a 50% chance.

However, if Romney wins Ohio, he almost certainly wins both Florida and Virginia. 

The formula should be something like 45 - 55% chance to win Ohio, with a 95% chance of wining both Virginia and Florida if Romney carries Ohio.

Report this comment
#32) On August 13, 2012 at 7:03 PM, ETFsRule (99.94) wrote:

"However, if Romney wins Ohio, he almost certainly wins both Florida and Virginia."

What??

Report this comment
#33) On August 13, 2012 at 7:15 PM, awallejr (85.46) wrote:

I think Romney just lost Florida with a Ryan pick.  There are an awful lot of voting retirees and Ryan will be "demonized" there.

Report this comment
#34) On August 14, 2012 at 12:11 AM, Melaschasm (55.93) wrote:

Ohio is to the left of both Virginia and Florida.  A strong showing in Ohio indicates that independents and moderates are breaking towards Romney.  If this happens it would be shocking to lose Virginia, and unlikely that he loses Florida.

I have heard some rumors that Wisconsin and Michigan could be in play.  While I doubt Romney wins either, if Obama has to play defense in those two states, it will be an early indicator that he is in trouble.

Report this comment
#35) On August 15, 2012 at 5:51 PM, ThomasPound (84.18) wrote:

First, if one looks at GDP data, s/he will notice that it roughly tracks the S&P 500.  Problem solved.

 As for the unemployment rate being higher than 8% with a sitting president running for reelection?  Three times that has happened; 1932, 1936, and 1940.  Two times, Roosevelt each, the incumbent was reelected.  What needs to be considered whether the unemployement rate is improved or not, and even then, it needs to be considered along with inflation.

Report this comment
#36) On August 15, 2012 at 7:38 PM, ETFsRule (99.94) wrote:

"First, if one looks at GDP data, s/he will notice that it roughly tracks the S&P 500. Problem solved."

I'm not sure how you're looking at it, but to me they look very different, especially in terms of volatility. For example, in 2011 the S&P experienced a 20% drop, but GDP never dropped at all in that year. Link

"Melaschasm (69.86) wrote:

Ohio is to the left of both Virginia and Florida. A strong showing in Ohio indicates that independents and moderates are breaking towards Romney. If this happens it would be shocking to lose Virginia, and unlikely that he loses Florida."

I think you're relying way too much on assumptions here. First of all, if your 95% figure was accurate, then the odds for Virginia and Florida could not possibly be correct, because they are too different from the odds for Ohio.

If we were to accept your theory as being correct, it would mean that the odds for Virginia and Florida could never be more than 5% lower than the odds for Romney winning Ohio. And that doesn't seem to be the case. Nor do I believe that past history supports your theory.

Report this comment
#37) On August 15, 2012 at 7:39 PM, ETFsRule (99.94) wrote:

.

Report this comment
#38) On August 19, 2012 at 7:08 AM, ThomasPound (84.18) wrote:

Three times, a sitting president ran for re-election while unemployment sat above 8%.  Hoover in 1932, and Roosevelt in 1936 and 1940.  It is not a signficant piece of data to use by itself.  In point of fact, it only has a correlation of r = -.102 with the difference in the popular results between the controlling party and the challenging party.  It is not until one couples it with inflation (the misery index), and the rate of improvement of the misery index that one starts seeing levels of signficance.

The bottom line is this, the current misery index is at 9.5.  When Obama was elected, it sat at 10.2.  There is a clear indication here that Obama will be re-elected.

Report this comment
#39) On August 19, 2012 at 6:24 PM, awallejr (85.46) wrote:

I agree with comment #37 ;p

Report this comment
#40) On August 24, 2012 at 1:10 PM, Melaschasm (55.93) wrote:

If an analysis that has correctly predicted the winners of the last eight presidential races is to be believed then Mitt Romney will be elected the 45th president of the United States in November, the Boulder Daily Camera reported.

University of Colorado political science professors have predicted the outcome of presidential elections since 1980, and have been right each time. They are forecasting Romney to win 52.9 percent of the popular vote compared with 47.1 for Obama, the Camera reported.

The professors, Kenneth Bickers and Michael Berry, conducted a state-by-state analysis using economic data. It shows that President Barack Obama will only win 218 votes in the electoral college. He needs 270 to be re-elected.

The election cycle mirrors that of 1980 in some ways, Bickers told the paper, with the economy in a drawn-out slump. Ronald Reagan triumphed over President Jimmy Carter in that race.

"If the economy were just average, we would be forecasting Obama to win," Bickers told the Camera. "But the economy is below average, and he is struggling."

Report this comment
#41) On August 25, 2012 at 10:46 AM, drgroup (69.48) wrote:

#40 has it correct. After 4 years of obama and team, it is obvious that "Hope and Change" has mutated to "Rope and Chains". Obama wants to rope the American people in to socialism and chain private industry into fascism. This blind love affair with the slogan "the first black president" should be over by now. So what if he is black and president. Obama is in way over his head. Giving him the keys to the white house is as rediculous as giving a soap box derby champ the keys to an indy 500 race car. Just spend the time to vet this man and you will realize that obama is a fraud and dangerous to all Americans if re-elected....

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement