***Presidential Polls*** #2 (thought, racist, Clinton, leader)

[Ponderosa]

Originally Posted by gtc08

virginia rasmussen romney +3.

its irrelevant though to the election. let romney take it. obama just needs wisconsin, ohio and nevada or iowa and he wins.

O is still looking good in VA. Rasmussen 3 is not anything to lose hope over. It's a toss up and ground game will make the difference.

[Cardiff Kook]

Originally Posted by gtc08

virginia rasmussen romney +3.

its irrelevant though to the election. let romney take it. obama just needs wisconsin, ohio and nevada or iowa and he wins.

i've come to terms that R-Money will take Florida and VA. sucks because I live in VA

[Cardiff Kook]

Originally Posted by bellhead

How do you explain 34% of likely voters have already voted? With early voting breaking 2 to 1 for dems?

This according to a Ruetors/Ipsos poll in Iowa?

Obama grabs wide lead among those who have already voted: Reuters/Ipsos poll | Reuters

Don't expect anything other than, "the polls are garbage" or "Its a liberal media conspiracy"

[Ponderosa]

Originally Posted by EdwardA

After the election I suspect NBC/WSJ and Marist will part ways. Way off the mark on Iowa, PPP tweets their results are much better for Romney. Any poll that shows no movement from September is suspect a poll that overestimates early voting by nearly 100% more than official numbers is down right dubious.

I agree. Any swing state with 8 point bust at this point is off. Cut it in half. Obama by four. IA is going to go blue.

[wxjay]

Iowa is going to be close. It was in 2000 and 2004 (Bush won by 10,000 votes). The problem for Romney in Iowa are the Evangelicals in the rural counties who showed up for Bush in 2004 and didn't for McCain in 2008. If those people are motivated more for the desire to defeat Obama, then it'll be close.

I also think the Democratic turnout will be less than 2008, and that is not good news in close battleground states for Obama, including CO and NV.

[cdw1084]

Originally Posted by wxjay

Iowa is going to be close. It was in 2000 and 2004 (Bush won by 10,000 votes). The problem for Romney in Iowa are the Evangelicals in the rural counties who showed up for Bush in 2004 and didn't for McCain in 2008. If those people are motivated more for the desire to defeat Obama, then it'll be close.

I also think the Democratic turnout will be less than 2008, and that is not good news in close battleground states for Obama, including CO and NV.

Wishful thinking at its best.

[gtc08]

Originally Posted by wxjay

Iowa is going to be close. It was in 2000 and 2004 (Bush won by 10,000 votes). The problem for Romney in Iowa are the Evangelicals in the rural counties who showed up for Bush in 2004 and didn't for McCain in 2008. If those people are motivated more for the desire to defeat Obama, then it'll be close.

I also think the Democratic turnout will be less than 2008, and that is not good news in close battleground states for Obama, including CO and NV.

Obama is over 50 in Iowa right now.

[wxjay]

^Is that the vote tally? I asked someone to post it for me.

[sware2cod]

There were 9 million more women voters than men in 2008. This isn't good for Romney if this trend continues.

[Randomstudent]

Originally Posted by wxjay

Iowa is going to be close. It was in 2000 and 2004 (Bush won by 10,000 votes). The problem for Romney in Iowa are the Evangelicals in the rural counties who showed up for Bush in 2004 and didn't for McCain in 2008. If those people are motivated more for the desire to defeat Obama, then it'll be close.

I also think the Democratic turnout will be less than 2008, and that is not good news in close battleground states for Obama, including CO and NV.

So far that is not the case. Iowa, Ohio, Florida, and North Carolina all show stronger turnout then in 2008. In North Carolina and Iowa it is way, way up.

In fact yesterday's early voting turnout In North Carolina alone was 34,000 more then it was at the same time in 2008.