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.
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.
Party ID and Party enrollment are two totally different questions The 2008 exit poll asked party id, the F&M poll is asking party registration.
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.
Still holding on to Silver put CNN internals of last Ohio poll and apply them to Sos early voting file you just attached. You'll find Romney wins.
Also his little insight was crapped on by about everyone on twitter. Oh and did you catch Axlerod stumbling when confronted with the early voting situation in Ohio?
Why counter if its a mortal lock? Resources better spent elsewhere....
I think following where candidates spend money in the stretch was a more reliable indicator before we hit the days of insane fundraising amounts.
Now, it's hard to tell when a cash rich campaign is spending money just because it can. It's not like Team Obama has to pick and choose. They can afford to counter Romney wherever he decides to go while still campaigning where they want.
Don't worry repub's. You only have 48 hours left to live it up in this alternate reality where Romney wins the presidency. Tues. night will bring you back to earth.
There are two schools of thought going on right now...The Dems seem to think the election turnout will be similar to 2008 while the GOP is thinking it will be a bit whiter and older. Somebody will be right and somebody will be wrong on Wednesday, I just listened to the person who does the polling for Quinnipiac say he doesn't know which one is right or wrong.
There are two schools of thought going on right now...The Dems seem to think the election turnout will be similar to 2008 while the GOP is thinking it will be a bit whiter and older. Somebody will be right and somebody will be wrong on Wednesday, I just listened to the person who does the polling for Quinnipiac say he doesn't know which one is right or wrong.
Well when Q does polling for the NY Times/CBS they seem to conclude it will be an electorate that favors Obama, when they go it alone it's the opposite.
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.
Need to debunk delusion.
Romney has only led or tied in PA in two polls this year. And they were both by the same polling firm! So while the race in PA looks tighter, Obama will take it.
In Michigan, the only polls that Romney has lead in the past three months are all by the same polling firm, and there are precisely two such polls.
In Nevada, the closest the Romney has come is tying two polls this entire year
In Wisconsin, Obama has lead in all polls this year, with the exception of three showing a slight Romney advantage (last one of those in August), and 3 showing a tie.
In Ohio, of the 34 polls released since the beginning of October, Romney has lead in 4, and tied 5. Obama has lead 25 of them.
You guys really love to cherry pick polls, either to show how much Romney is ahead, or how one particular poll is somehow ridiculous. What I'm challenging you to do is to go to Real Clear Politics and look up each state's polling done this year - just the list of poll results. 1 poll may be off. 5 may be off. But almost every single one? Not a chance.
You guys are in for a really hard night on Tuesday.
There are two schools of thought going on right now...The Dems seem to think the election turnout will be similar to 2008 while the GOP is thinking it will be a bit whiter and older. Somebody will be right and somebody will be wrong on Wednesday, I just listened to the person who does the polling for Quinnipiac say he doesn't know which one is right or wrong.
The white, non-hispanic portion of the population has dropped from 65% in 2008 to 63% in 2012.
What this means is that the white share of the vote has to increase 3% and the non-white share of the vote has to decrease 6% just to get the voting ratios back to where they were in 2008.
When has the Presidential vote gotten whiter than the previous Presidential election?
Here is the share of the electorate, by race, over the past 20 years:
A lot of Republicans seem to be clinging to this idea that the jump in non-white voting as a share of the electorate in 2008 (and the corresponding dip in the white share of the electorate) is a one-time thing that only happened because of the then-Senator Obama's race. Not so. It's a long-term trend.
Anyone who thinks the white share is going to actually increase this election is dreaming. I think most Republican demographers who actually know the numbers would be ecstatic if it just stayed static. But that's not going to happen, either.
Dick Morris is already starting the backtracking! Even if Romney wins, this guy will blame the 'close' election (he predicted 5-10 point win for Romney) on Hurricane Sandy. And if Obama wins, it will be Sandy's fault.
This could make a great 'How Weather Changed History' for The Weather Channel!
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.
