***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[True Blues]

Romney 271-267 or 279-259. Romneys taking OH/WI, FL, NC, VA, CO, and NH

BOOK IT

New Hampshire is a reach, but the rest is certainly doable.

 

[essential1]

Key Battleground States:


Florida : Romney's held the lead for 2-3 weeks.. Obama has decreased it to 2 according to Rasmussen and 1 according to Gravis who both have a right wing skew.. PPP which has a slight left skew (less to the left than Rasmussen is to the right) had Obama up 1.

North Carolina... PPP has it tied... Other polls have Romney's lead 3, 6 & 8... Likely Romney's state

New Hampshire: PPP has Obama up 2. New England College has Obama up 3... Romney has led for 3 days of the past 9 months in NH.. Which was a week ago and it has flipped back to Obama.

Ohio: PPP Obama +4. Gravis O +1. Purple Strategies O +2. CNN O +4.. Romney has not lead one day since October 2011.. Also with the Auto Bailout saving jobs in Ohio and the unemployment rate much better than the National %. Obama holds a favorable # with voters.

Wisconsin... PPP O +6. Rasmussen tie.. Romney has lead in only 3 polls the entire year in Wisconsin.

Iowa.. PPP O +2 ... Gravis O +2.. Rasmussen Tie.. Biggest lead Romney had was +1 a week ago in PPP poll.

Colorado... Dead Tie

Nevada... Safe Obama... The Spanish vote will give the state to Obama.. Romney hasn't lead a Nevada poll since April.

Virginia... PPP has Obama up 5... Rasmussen Romney +4.. Purple Strategies Obama +1.. So it will be a day of election decision..




Likely Obama : Nevada, Wisconsin, New Hampshire
Lean Obama: Ohio, Iowa
Toss Up: Colorado, Virginia
Lean Romney: Florida
Likely Romney: North Carolina


For visual learners

 

[Nike Jordan]

Some of you should read this:

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytime...te-poll-averages-usually-call-election-right/

 

[True Blues]

Almost every lead is within the margin of error, though. It's too close to call either way.

Not to mention, polling firms have increasingly become party instruments in recent years.

Two issues that should worry Democrats:

1. Ohio electorate isn't behaving the same as in 2008:

I have always been a believer in data telling me the full story. Truth is, nobody knows what will happen on Election Day. But here is what we do know: 220,000 fewer Democrats have voted early in Ohio compared with 2008. And 30,000 more Republicans have cast their ballots compared with four years ago. That is a 250,000-vote net increase for a state Obama won by 260,000 votes in 2008.

2. Romney is ahead among Independents:

Romney is currently doing better with independents than Obama did in 2008. Obama won independents by 8 in 2008, while Romney is currently leading by 10.6 points on average. If the independent numbers are entered in to the 2008 results, Romney would have a victory of more than 4 points. Even if Romney does not take any more crossover votes (Democrats who vote Republican and vice versa) than McCain got in 2008, he would still win by more than 4 points on Election Day.

While Team Obama loudly declares that Gallup has to be an outlier, there is one other poll that has been tracking party affiliation every day as well: Rasmussen. Just like Gallup, Rasmussen runs a daily tracking poll with about 1,500 respondents included in the partisan-affiliation breakdown. In 2008, Rasmussen found Democrats with a 7.1 percentage point advantage in turnout, which was a perfect prediction of the Democratic-turnout margin on Election Day. In September of 2012, Rasmussen has Republicans now edging Democrats by 2.6 points, with a split of 34 percent Democrats, 37 percent Republicans, and 29 percent independents. Keep in mind that September was a brutal month for Romney — between enduring Obama’s post-DNC bounce, the 47 percent video, and the media reaction to his Egypt-embassy statement. This means that October, given the debates, could be even stronger than September was for the GOP.

 

[essential1]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/27/us-usa-campaign-voting-idUSBRE89P15920121027

Obama is up 54-39 among early voters.

"About 18 percent of registered voters already have cast ballots, the Reuters/Ipsos polling data showed. Around a quarter of minority voters - who tend to support Obama - and almost a fifth of white voters have cast ballots, the data showed."

RECORD NUMBERS

Early voting, which began in some states in September, is now underway in nearly all 50 states, either by mail-in or in-person voting. Political scientists who specialize in early voting predict that a record 35 to 40 percent of all U.S. voters will cast their ballots before the November 6 election.

"In some of the battleground states, rates are even above that," said Michael McDonald, a political science professor at George Mason University in Virginia who runs the U.S. Elections Project and tracks all early votes

 

[Nike Jordan]

National Review

.

 

[kix4kix]

I think this election is going to be close, like 2000 close. Supreme court justices cracking their knuckles as we speak

 

[True Blues]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/27/us-usa-campaign-voting-idUSBRE89P15920121027

Obama is up 54-39 among early voters.

"About 18 percent of registered voters already have cast ballots, the Reuters/Ipsos polling data showed. Around a quarter of minority voters - who tend to support Obama - and almost a fifth of white voters have cast ballots, the data showed."

RECORD NUMBERS

Early voting, which began in some states in September, is now underway in nearly all 50 states, either by mail-in or in-person voting. Political scientists who specialize in early voting predict that a record 35 to 40 percent of all U.S. voters will cast their ballots before the November 6 election.

"In some of the battleground states, rates are even above that," said Michael McDonald, a political science professor at George Mason University in Virginia who runs the U.S. Elections Project and tracks all early votes

I read that earlier, too.

But I'm skeptical because a) it's an online poll, which hinders its reliability (technically, online polls aren't scientific); and b) when broken down by state, the sample is minuscule.

Acknowledging these methodological flaws, if we narrow the sample to the swing states identified above (CO, FL, IA, MI, NV, NH, NC, OH, VA, WI; n= 422), then Romney actually leads among early voters: 56%-44%.

Again, it's way too early to call.

 

[Nike Jordan]

Michigan and Wisconsin are not swing states.

 

[True Blues]

Michigan and Wisconsin are not swing states.

I disagree, but OK, then it will reduce the sample even more. And in favor of Romney.

The point is: The early voter poll is a headline, that's it. It may shift votes (i.e. Spiral of Silence), but if we want to know "who's ahead," it's impossible to tell from a sample of online voters-- only 422 of whom actually matter in electoral terms.

 

[essential1]

I disagree, but OK, then it will reduce the sample even more. And in favor of Romney.

Obama's current likelihood of winning Michigan is 1.5% higher than Romney's likelihood of winning Arizona... Unless you think Arizona is a swing state.

And Obama's likelihood to win Wisconsin is better than Romney's to win NC

 

[Nike Jordan]

Michigan and Wisconsin are not swing states.

I disagree, but OK, then it will reduce the sample even more. And in favor of Romney.

The point is: The early voter poll is a headline, that's it. It may shift votes (i.e. Spiral of Silence), but if we want to know "who's ahead," it's impossible to tell from a sample of online voters-- only 422 of whom actually matter in electoral terms.

Michigan hasn't backed a Republican candidate since 1988 and I'm pretty they're sure not gonna vote for Mr. Let Detroit Go Bankrupt.

Wisconsin hasn't backed a Republican candidate since 1984, when Reagan won all but one state.

But what do I know anyway? I just do the research.

 

[True Blues]

I disagree, but OK, then it will reduce the sample even more. And in favor of Romney.

Obama's current likelihood of winning Michigan is 1.5% higher than Romney's likelihood of winning Arizona... Unless you think Arizona is a swing state.

And Obama's likelihood to win Wisconsin is better than Romney's to win NC

You're missing the point.

The Ipsos/Reuters early voter poll doesn't tell us anything. Democrats want to point it and say, "Look! We're in good shape!", but it's nearly impossible to make any real inferences from it.

I'm not trying to be brash, but I think there needs to be greater skepticism with regard to polling in here. I've studied public opinion (and elections) in-depth for the better part of 3 years. Polls can be very deceiving at face value. Look at the methodologies, look at sample sizes, look at MOEs (that is, if they're even reported, but that's another issue.); otherwise, the figures are meaningless.

 

[essential1]

You're missing the point.
The Ipsos/Reuters early voter poll doesn't tell us anything. Democrats want to point it and say, "Look! We're in good shape!", but it's nearly impossible to make any real inferences from it.
I'm not trying to be brash, but I think there needs to be greater skepticism with regard to polling in here. I've studied public opinion (and elections) in-depth for the better part of 3 years. Polls can be very deceiving at face value. Look at the methodologies, look at sample sizes, look at MOEs (that is, if they're even reported, but that's another issue.); otherwise, the figures are meaningless.

I wasn't going by Reuters on that one.

 

[True Blues]

^ The early voter poll you cited on the last page was conducted by Ipsos/Reuters.

The probability you mentioned later was 538, I assume?

EDIT: And this isn't a partisan attack, by the way. I want Obama to win the election. However, based on everything I have read/seen to this point, Dems should be scared. This election could break to either candidate.

 

[essential1]

^ The early voter poll you cited on the last page was conducted by Ipsos/Reuters.
The probability you mentioned later was 538, I assume?

Yup.. and Yup.

 

[ninjahood]

Michigan and Wisconsin are not swing states.

I disagree, but OK, then it will reduce the sample even more. And in favor of Romney.

The point is: The early voter poll is a headline, that's it. It may shift votes (i.e. Spiral of Silence), but if we want to know "who's ahead," it's impossible to tell from a sample of online voters-- only 422 of whom actually matter in electoral terms.

Michigan hasn't backed a Republican candidate since 1988 and I'm pretty they're sure not gonna vote for Mr. Let Detroit Go Bankrupt.

not for nothing but Mitt got a raw deal with politics of that op-ed piece...clearly he states at da end of it

The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk.

In a managed bankruptcy, the federal government would propel newly competitive and viable automakers, rather than seal their fate with a bailout check.

thats exactly what happened under president obama, and yet he painted mitt romney as someone who would've let Detroit fend for themselves looking for private captial

to rescue them or completely liquidate.

 

[ccastro02]

however, there is such a thing as clean coal technology.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/clean-coal.htm

da US is either gonna burn its own coal or its gonna sell its coal to da highest bidder and other countries are gonna burn it, so environmental factors is pretty much nill.

i rather we burn our own coal, we'll keep energy cheap domestically, keep people working, and consume it alot more responsibly then other nations.

There's no such things as clean coal. Clean coal is nothing more than dead research that's been in the works for the past 100 years. To this day clean cole has never physically been developed. Tons of research and not a physical form of clean cole has ever been developed or certainty not to the point where it can be made public. And thats with 100+ years of research. Coal was what they used to power the titanic with in 1912. 100 years later conservatives want to resort to that?

Clean coal is not an actual invention, a physical thing — it is an advertising slogan. Like “fat-free donuts” or “interest-free loans"

Mitt Romney AND OBAMA need to knock it off with this clean coal thing. Invest in technology that actually physically exists: Solar, ultraviolet, wind, geo-thermal, and infrared.

What happened to the innovation in this country? I swear if it were up to the GOP we'd be using latnerns instead of light bulbs to lower electricity costs.

 

[cj863]

FLORIDA VOTERS. Anyone that's confused about the language of the amendments on your ballot, here's a breakdown of each proposal and how to vote for it.

http://www.advocateforfloridastate.fsu.edu/site/PageServer?pagename=deploymenthome

 

[debso]

^ The early voter poll you cited on the last page was conducted by Ipsos/Reuters.
The probability you mentioned later was 538, I assume?
EDIT: And this isn't a partisan attack, by the way. I want Obama to win the election. However, based on everything I have read/seen to this point, Dems should be scared. This election could break to either candidate.

agreed.

 

[aeropower]

^ The early voter poll you cited on the last page was conducted by Ipsos/Reuters.
The probability you mentioned later was 538, I assume?
EDIT: And this isn't a partisan attack, by the way. I want Obama to win the election. However, based on everything I have read/seen to this point, Dems should be scared. This election could break to either candidate.

agreed.

Pretty much. I think anyone who think this election will be a landslide, will have a bad have a pretty bad anxiety from election day...

 

[ninjahood]

however, there is such a thing as clean coal technology.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/clean-coal.htm

da US is either gonna burn its own coal or its gonna sell its coal to da highest bidder and other countries are gonna burn it, so environmental factors is pretty much nill.

i rather we burn our own coal, we'll keep energy cheap domestically, keep people working, and consume it alot more responsibly then other nations.

There's no such things as clean coal. Clean coal is nothing more than dead research that's been in the works for the past 100 years. To this day clean cole has never physically been developed. Tons of research and not a physical form of clean cole has ever been developed or certainty not to the point where it can be made public. And thats with 100+ years of research. Coal was what they used to power the titanic with in 1912. 100 years later conservatives want to resort to that?

Clean coal is not an actual invention, a physical thing — it is an advertising slogan. Like “fat-free donuts” or “interest-free loans"

Mitt Romney AND OBAMA need to knock it off with this clean coal thing. Invest in technology that actually physically exists: Solar, ultraviolet, wind, geo-thermal, and infrared.

What happened to the innovation in this country? I swear if it were up to the GOP we'd be using latnerns instead of light bulbs to lower electricity costs.

da way you're talking you're acting as if da US gets its electricity from da majority of somewhere else.

like i said, coal is gonna be burned, its either gonna get done here, or sold overseas and burned there.

 

[futuremd]

Romney on disaster relief.:

Shout out to everyone enduring Hurricane Sandy

 

[astronout]

Romney on disaster relief.:

Shout out to everyone enduring Hurricane Sandy

was that suppose to be detrimental? I saw nothing wrong with what he said at all.  

 

[Retroballer]

He's saying the federal government shouldnt be spending the money on relief and the states and private sector should footing the bill. In that case, nothing would get done.