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.
According to Silver's analysis, early voting in Democratic strongholds is likely to match or even EXCEED that of 2008, a belief he thinks is consistent with the most recent polling data.
It's also consistent with Romney going to PA all of a sudden.
Funny, Dems are sending their best surrogate, Bill Clinton, to Penn four times on Monday. The bitter clingers in PA may have something to say about this election. If PA was a mortal lock for Obama, as you suggest, no way O sends Clinton there....it would make zero sense. I think the desparate ones Are the Dems, as Obama has PO'd to many voting blocs of people.
Romney is making a Pennsylvania push. Obama is countering it.
Apparently, responding to your opponent's moves is a sign of 'desperation'...
What I can't figure out is why supposedly the early vote favors one party while election day results favor another.
Having moved from a state with no early voting to one that does, I have to say that early voting is one of the most convenient things ever!!!
It has to rank right up there with Direct Deposit, Online Banking, and filing your taxes online. Once you cast your early vote you realize that you are never going to wait until election day again.
I would think people from both parties would see the benefits and early voting and election day percentages would be about the same.
Why counter if its a mortal lock? Resources better spent elsewhere....
A) no one beleives it is a mortal lock
B) defense is generally a better resource allocation than offense
C) the Obama campaign has abundant resources to wage the campaign on many fronts
It's no different than a football team up by 10 points covering all the receivers and rushing the quarterback.
You're trying way too hard to spin a losing hand...
The bad news: Every recent poll shows President Barack Obama either tied or ahead of GOP rival Mitt Romney in Wisconsin, Nevada and bailout-friendly Ohio and Michigan. We aren’t counting Romney out in any of those states, but there is a real possibility he could lose them all. (Update: A poll released this morning shows Romney ahead by 1 in Michigan.)
The good news: Romney doesn’t need to win any of those four states if he can win Pennsylvania, where his prospects look good indeed. Consider the three most recent polls there:
A poll by Franklin & Marshall College, released October 31, has President Obama ahead of Romney among likely voters by 4 points, 49-45, with an absurd D+13 sample. By comparison, turnout was just D+7 in 2008, when Obama-mania was at its peak. The Franklin & Marshall poll shows Romney winning Independents by a whopping 16 points.
A) no one beleives it is a mortal lock
B) defense is generally a better resource allocation than offense
C) the Obama campaign has abundant resources to wage the campaign on many fronts
It's no different than a football team up by 10 points covering all the receivers and rushing the quarterback.
You're trying way to hard to spin a losing hand...
Exactly, Obama no question has a clear advantage in PA however not NY. Its a Dem leaning state, not hard Dem. Just because someone has a clear advantage in a state, doesn't mean they should take it for granted and ignore in. Indiana in 2008 is a perfect example.
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.