Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It wouldn't be an "upset." They are basically tied right now.
How are they "tied" when Obama is winning in the majority of swing states?
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok
Anyway, Nate Silver is partisan hack. He doesn't even break undecideds the way he says they will, he weights most of the polls more favorable to Obama higher than the polls more favorable to Romney, etc. Romney doesn't have a 70% chance of losing Ohio, but it is a big problem for him.
Riiight. So because you don't like the way his detailed model works, you think he's a partisan hack? It's funny that you guys don't complain when Nate Silver says that Rmoney has an 85 percent chance of winning NC or a 67 percent chance of winning FL (it's all), but when he says the Rmoney only has a 30 percent chance of winning Ohio, his model is biased.
Yes, and I said you had a point there about the mail-in voting. But no state votes in isolation.
As far as registration, the Democrats are dropping according to the graph you posted. As far as your point about Romney having to lead by 8% to put Oregon in play, I even said Romney would have to win by 7-8 to win Oregon. Which I said I don't expect.
False, read the graph again, Democrats are growing but have registered less voters in 2009 and 2010. Republicans have actually been losing registered voters each year.
I have never seen two so diametrically opposed polls.
Gallup: Romney +7
IBD: Obama +6
I think both could be considered 'outliers' at this point, though Gallup has been much more steady while IBD has fluctuated quite a bit over the last week.
I have never seen two so diametrically opposed polls.
Gallup: Romney +7
IBD: Obama +6
I think both could be considered 'outliers' at this point, though Gallup has been much more steady while IBD has fluctuated quite a bit over the last week.
I don't see how national polls could ever really be accurate. The sample sizes are so small.
Mitt Romney has now reached the 50% mark for the first time in Colorado and leads President Obama by four in the critical swing state.
The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Colorado Voters finds Romney with 50% support to Obama’s 46%. Two percent (2%) like some other candidate, and one percent (1%) remains undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
False, read the graph again, Democrats are growing but have registered less voters in 2009 and 2010. Republicans have actually been losing registered voters each year.
If Democrats turned out in midterms the same way they turnout during presidential elections, we would have had a jobs bill by now.
If Democrats turned out in midterms the same way they turnout during presidential elections, we would have had a jobs bill by now.
Yeah, no kidding. All I can say is Oregon did it's part by not caving to the Republican party by getting out to vote, wish I could say the same about the rest of the country.
If Romney holds onto his leads in CO, IA and NH, he doesn't even need Ohio. But I think Ohio will vote for Romney, as will Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
romney is trailing in iowa.
PA is safe dem. Wisconsin is a toss up leaning which probably goes Obama.
Romney has no chance without Ohio. Simple as that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
