Romney +2 in Ohio — Rasmussen

Ohio remains neck-and-neck with Mitt Romney showing a 2-point advantage, 50 to 48, in the latest from Rasmussen Reports:

The race for Ohio’s Electoral College votes remains very close, but now Mitt Romney now has a two-point advantage. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Ohio Voters shows Romney with 50% support to President Obama’s 48%. One percent (1%) likes some other candidate, while another one percent (1%) remains undecided. Ohio remains a Toss-Up in the Rasmussen Reports Electoral College Projections. Based on the current projections, Romney would have to win Wisconsin if he loses Ohio in order to move into the White House.

The candidates have been locked in a very tight battle in Ohio since August. A week ago, Romney and Obama were tied in the Buckeye State with 48% support each. This is the first time Romney has taken even a modest lead in the race. Nearly one-in-three Ohio voters (32%) have already cast their ballots. Obama leads 62% to 36% among these voters. Romney has a large lead among those who still plan to vote. The question of who wins Ohio may come down to whether enough Romney voters get to the polls on Election Day to overcome the president’s lead among early voters.

Among all Ohio voters, Romney now has a 12-point lead over the president in voter trust – 53% to 41% – when it comes to the economy. Last week, he had just a seven-point advantage among voters in the state when they were asked which candidate they trusted more to deal with the economy. Romney’s also trusted more by eight points in the areas of job creation and energy policy but leads Obama by just two when it comes to housing issues. National security has been an area where the president has typically had an advantage over Romney this year. But, the Republican challenger now has a 52% to 42% advantage on the issue.

For President Percent
Barack Obama 48
Mitt Romney 50
Other 1
Undecided 1

125 Comments

  1. kindredsoul
    Posted October 29, 2012 at 10:40 am | Permalink | Reply

    Alleluia

    • nick
      Posted October 30, 2012 at 12:59 am | Permalink | Reply

      Is it true that 1 in 3 (30%) ohio voters have already cast their ballots (Rasmussen data)? I read conflicting numbers that only 15% have already voted in ohio. Can anyone substantiate these findings?

      • chadp71
        Posted October 30, 2012 at 6:35 pm | Permalink

        Tuesday, October 30, 2012

        SECRETARY HUSTED: ONE WEEK BEFORE ELECTION DAY, MORE THAN 1.2 MILLION OHIOANS HAVE ALREADY CAST BALLOTS

        COLUMBUS – With one week to go before Election Day, Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted today released the latest absentee voting data for Ohio based upon an informal survey of Ohio’s 88 boards of elections.

        As of Friday, October 26th, more than 1.2 million Ohioans had already cast their ballots. Of the 1.3 million absentee ballots that have been mailed to voters during the absentee voting period, more than 950,000 have already been returned or 71.9 percent. In addition, more than 306,000 voters had voted in person at their board of elections or designated vote center.

        “The voting process in Ohio continues to go smoothly,” Secretary Husted said. “As we near Election Day, the pace of early voting is picking up.”

        Secretary Husted is encouraging all voters who have requested and received absentee ballots to get them returned over the next week. Absentee ballots returned by mail must be postmarked by November 5, 2012 and received no later than November 16, 2012, though voters may also return their ballots in person to their board of elections up until the close of polls on Election Day. It is important to note that if a voter has requested an absentee ballot and decides instead to vote in person, they will be required to vote provisionally.

      • chadp71
        Posted October 30, 2012 at 6:36 pm | Permalink

        Statewide, 8.2 million people are now registered. That’s an increase from just under 8 million in 2004, 7.5 million in 2000 and 6.6 million in 2006.

        County 2004 2008 Change Pct Chng
        Adams 17,696 17,871 175 1.0%
        Allen 68,151 70,733 2,582 3.8%
        Ashland 34,850 36,704 1,854 5.3%
        Ashtabula 62,926 63,622 696 1.1%
        Athens 45,103 43,874 -1,229 -2.7%
        Auglaize 33,094 33,610 516 1.6%
        Belmont 44,231 46,594 2,363 5.3%
        Brown 28,922 28,090 -832 -2.9%
        Butler 238,022 257,432 19,410 8.2%
        Carroll 20,076 19,585 -491 -2.4%
        Champaign 25,376 26,005 629 2.5%
        Clark 89,721 92,021 2,300 2.6%
        Clermont 125,832 133,338 7,506 6.0%
        Clinton 25,092 26,882 1,790 7.1%
        Columbiana 78,536 68,905 -9,631 -12.3%
        Coshocton 22,679 21,958 -721 -3.2%
        Crawford 29,591 29,523 -68 -0.2%
        Cuyahoga 1,005,807 1,093,943 88,136 8.8%
        Darke 38,290 34,020 -4,270 -11.2%
        Defiance 25,849 26,314 465 1.8%
        Delaware 100,676 117,800 17,124 17.0%
        Erie 55,517 54,606 -911 -1.6%
        Fairfield 91,498 104,832 13,334 14.6%
        Fayette 16,094 16,255 161 1.0%
        Franklin 845,720 826,279 -19,441 -2.3%
        Fulton 28,561 29,417 856 3.0%
        Gallia 23,568 23,515 -53 -0.2%
        Geauga 65,396 70,235 4,839 7.4%
        Greene 105,079 110,116 5,037 4.8%
        Guernsey 26,889 25,003 -1,886 -7.0%
        Hamilton 573,612 594,484 20,872 3.6%
        Hancock 49,617 53,496 3,879 7.8%
        Hardin 18,921 17,920 -1,001 -5.3%
        Harrison 11,475 11,024 -451 -3.9%
        Henry 19,685 19,985 300 1.5%
        Highland 28,243 26,545 -1,698 -6.0%
        Hocking 18,209 18,605 396 2.2%
        Holmes 17,870 18,039 169 0.9%
        Huron 39,352 36,888 -2,464 -6.3%
        Jackson 23,998 22,936 -1,062 -4.4%
        Jefferson 49,656 49,723 67 0.1%
        Knox 36,972 38,485 1,513 4.1%
        Lake 160,196 158,102 -2,094 -1.3%
        Lawrence 41,524 45,269 3,745 9.0%
        Licking 111,387 109,160 -2,227 -2.0%
        Logan 29,406 30,486 1,080 3.7%
        Lorain 196,601 200,130 3,529 1.8%
        Lucas 300,137 310,441 10,304 3.4%
        Madison 23,183 23,905 722 3.1%
        Mahoning 194,903 176,826 -18,077 -9.3%
        Marion 43,323 41,212 -2,111 -4.9%
        Medina 118,268 125,802 7,534 6.4%
        Meigs 15,205 15,792 587 3.9%
        Mercer 31,306 27,465 -3,841 -12.3%
        Miami 72,169 70,809 -1,360 -1.9%
        Monroe 10,350 10,227 -123 -1.2%
        Montgomery 391,914 382,347 -9,567 -2.4%
        Morgan 9,358 9,113 -245 -2.6%
        Morrow 24,248 25,467 1,219 5.0%
        Muskingum 51,552 53,530 1,978 3.8%
        Noble 8,879 8,953 74 0.8%
        Ottawa 30,334 29,956 -378 -1.2%
        Paulding 14,226 13,476 -750 -5.3%
        Perry 23,480 22,651 -829 -3.5%
        Pickaway 30,045 32,295 2,250 7.5%
        Pike 19,655 19,034 -621 -3.2%
        Portage 109,565 106,418 -3,147 -2.9%
        Preble 28,137 28,603 466 1.7%
        Putnam 24,579 24,486 -93 -0.4%
        Richland 91,311 93,801 2,490 2.7%
        Ross 43,463 43,650 187 0.4%
        Sandusky 39,407 42,837 3,430 8.7%
        Scioto 48,005 54,871 6,866 14.3%
        Seneca 37,974 35,849 -2,125 -5.6%
        Shelby 28,460 30,467 2,007 7.1%
        Stark 267,939 267,826 -113 0.0%
        Summit 368,858 373,479 4,621 1.3%
        Trumbull 142,436 145,752 3,316 2.3%
        Tuscarawas 55,656 59,550 3,894 7.0%
        Union 30,200 32,432 2,232 7.4%
        Van Wert 21,100 20,284 -816 -3.9%
        Vinton 8,527 9,024 497 5.8%
        Warren 125,165 137,317 12,152 9.7%
        Washington 40,889 41,203 314 0.8%
        Wayne 69,810 72,674 2,864 4.1%
        Williams 26,722 26,449 -273 -1.0%
        Wood 90,688 99,638 8,950 9.9%
        Wyandot 15,834 16,545 711 4.5%
        TOTAL 7,972,826 8,164,823 191,997 2.4%

  2. William Jefferson Jr.
    Posted October 29, 2012 at 10:42 am | Permalink | Reply

    Very solid poll. Very fair internals: age distribution, racial make-up, party id (parity). Looking good in Ohio!

    • Bryan
      Posted October 29, 2012 at 11:01 am | Permalink | Reply

      How can you see the internals? I read the release and they didn’t say anything about party id — said its available to platinum members

      • William Jefferson
        Posted October 29, 2012 at 11:09 am | Permalink

        I am a platinum member.

      • Bryan
        Posted October 29, 2012 at 11:18 am | Permalink

        That explains it! Does Ras “weight” by party id? Was the “parity” something like 45/45/10 or more like 33/33/33 (D/R/I)?

    • Yale_s
      Posted October 29, 2012 at 4:33 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that rasmussen is a solely a robocall poll. This has a (much) less than 10 percent response rate. But far more importantly, it does not call cellphones (by law). Since almost 40% of the voting population use mobile-only phones (almost 60% of younger and minority demographics) which skew strongly to minorities, youth, and lower-income demographics, landline-only polls are rather suspect. With essentially the entire Democratic base excluded from rasmussen polling, I would not bet the farm on its results.
      Look at fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com for blended poll results.

      • Guest
        Posted October 30, 2012 at 5:18 am | Permalink

        538 is even worse.

        But, eh, there are lots of polls to look at, and I think most of them cluster around a neck-and-neck race, leaning slightly in Obama’s favour.

  3. Posted October 29, 2012 at 10:44 am | Permalink | Reply

    Per twitter

    Most stunning #s in Ras OH are from the issues: R +12 on economy, +8 jobs, +10 nat’l security, 8 energy. Inflated early voter #s saving O.— NumbersMuncher (@NumbersMuncher) October 29, 2012

    • Freddie
      Posted October 29, 2012 at 12:04 pm | Permalink | Reply

      +12 on voter trust – ouch.

      Those veterans groups need to do a short TV ad or video that essentially says – “Obama could have saved those 4 Americans in Libya, he had real time info & video, troops were in the air, the military was mobilized and Obama left them to die.”

  4. Tom
    Posted October 29, 2012 at 10:46 am | Permalink | Reply

    Excellent. However we need to play like we are a field goal behind until election day. Do everything we can to get this thing done.

  5. ed
    Posted October 29, 2012 at 10:47 am | Permalink | Reply

    He’s breached the line….

  6. Michel Daoud
    Posted October 29, 2012 at 10:49 am | Permalink | Reply

    This is great news, but is it true that Ras has a bad record in predicting state polls?

    • Michel Daoud
      Posted October 29, 2012 at 10:50 am | Permalink | Reply

      Meant to say in predicting state outcomes.

      • William Jefferson
        Posted October 29, 2012 at 10:52 am | Permalink

        No worse than anyone else.

    • cbr66
      Posted October 29, 2012 at 11:42 am | Permalink | Reply

      FYI Wall Street Journal rated Ras as one of the worst in 2008 and PPP one of the best. May be because 2008 was a Dem wave election. We will all know soon enough.

      • William Jefferson
        Posted October 29, 2012 at 11:44 am | Permalink

        I heard PPP, like Silver, had access to the Obama internals.

      • Posted October 29, 2012 at 11:52 am | Permalink

        if you look at record over the entire campaign they blast rasmussen as being wholey inaccruate. But if you look at the last poll taken before election day he, pew and one other were the three most accurate predictors for the outcome.

        Honestly I am no sure how you rate someone as accurate over the whole campaign….i guess if say Joe Blow Polling had OBAMA up 17 everty week until the last and then the last poll nailed his election rate to the tenth of a point. BUt anyway.

        On Ras’ early voting numbers could be be taking into account early voting PLUS absentees?

  7. John
    Posted October 29, 2012 at 10:51 am | Permalink | Reply

    Based on Rommey leading on foreign policy by 10% now it appears Benghazi is having an impact even if the MSM refuses to cover it. Thank goodness for Fox News and the internet!

    • Tom
      Posted October 29, 2012 at 10:56 am | Permalink | Reply

      Yes the new media is beginning to breach the msm firewall. Just look at msm ratings and circulations compared to 10-20-30 years ago. Still a long way to go, but it is working.

    • Porchlight
      Posted October 29, 2012 at 12:22 pm | Permalink | Reply

      This is my sense, too. The Benghazi news is seeping past the media wall somehow and having an impact. Of course, Fox’s huge audience doesn’t hurt.

  8. NHConservative
    Posted October 29, 2012 at 10:53 am | Permalink | Reply

    Weekly Standard is still saying that Battleground “projection” is 52-47. They have all sorts of stats as if it’s real. I’m confused as the GWU/Battleground Poll that came out today says O is up by +1. http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/new-poll-projects-romney-52-obama-47_658066.html

    Any read on this?

    • Keith W
      Posted October 29, 2012 at 10:59 am | Permalink | Reply

      The poll an the predictive model are two seperate things. The Battleground Predictive model predicts the final popular vote totals and it predicts a 52-47 Romney win.

      • Porchlight
        Posted October 29, 2012 at 11:12 am | Permalink

        Does anyone have a link to the Battleground projections? All I’m seeing is the Weekly Standard write up, but they don’t provide a link. Am battling Nate Silver fans on FB re: polls and need some ammo. Thanks!

      • Guest
        Posted October 30, 2012 at 5:20 am | Permalink

        Tis a scary thing when we become so obsessed with polls that glorified hacks like Nate Silver start getting fans of their own.

        No offense to Keith 😛

    • William Jefferson
      Posted October 29, 2012 at 11:12 am | Permalink | Reply

      Frankly, I think their regular poll doesn’t apply a meaningful likely voter screen; it is mroe like a registered voter poll and it’s results align with Gallup’s Registered voter poll.

      The “projection” poll does all the things you would expect from a likely voter poll: use criteria to screen out the likely voters from the non-likely voters. Look up their history. They have an excellent track record in elections involving an incumbent (1992, 1996, 2004). They are a little off when there is no incumbent and races are more fluid.

    • Dave
      Posted October 29, 2012 at 11:27 am | Permalink | Reply

      If Obama ends up getting 47% nationally, that will be absolutely priceless. The poetic justice of a national vote like that, after everything’s that been said about that statement, would be beyond words.

      • Porchlight
        Posted October 29, 2012 at 11:49 am | Permalink

        Totally agree and he’s hitting that number in poll after poll.

    • swinch
      Posted October 29, 2012 at 11:58 am | Permalink | Reply

      Porchlight, that info is within the poll analysis linked on the Politico Battleground Poll

  9. Chris
    Posted October 29, 2012 at 10:54 am | Permalink | Reply

    I don’t understand how Romney can be up so much among indies in national polling, but be down with indies in OH. This is not the only poll to show that, either. Are Dem leaning independent early voters making it into the likely voter screens, skewing the results? Or did the early barrage against Romney poison the well, so to speak?

    • Dave
      Posted October 29, 2012 at 11:29 am | Permalink | Reply

      Three words…Busloads of somalians… And that might explain NV too.

      • cbr66
        Posted October 29, 2012 at 11:40 am | Permalink

        I am sure you meant to say American citizens who imigrated from Somalia.

      • Dave
        Posted October 29, 2012 at 11:59 am | Permalink

        Yes, sir. That’s of course what I meant….

  10. Benson
    Posted October 29, 2012 at 10:59 am | Permalink | Reply

    chris. I read somewhere else that the campaign in Ohio is very different than anywhere else in the country. Obama has been pounding Romney with ads for months that have made some mud stick- which tends to make the Ohio independents more wary of him. So he tends to poll poorer. Hoping the trend continues with him gaining a point or two in the next week.

  11. allthingsgeography1
    Posted October 29, 2012 at 11:05 am | Permalink | Reply

    Not surprised Romney is slightly ahead in Ohio. I always thought he was frankly…with the independents in Romney’s favor, it’s up to Obama to have a huge turnout of his base if he expects to win Ohio.

    • Philanthropic_Extortinist
      Posted October 29, 2012 at 11:16 am | Permalink | Reply

      You are absolutley correct that Obama needs a large turnout, that’s why I think you are seeing the push for younger (aka MSM/Daily Show influenced) voters. It seems all of his stops these days are on college campuses.

      • Dogfish
        Posted October 29, 2012 at 11:49 am | Permalink

        He stops there and at the halfway houses to get some more Somalians.

        The Democrats have no shame.

  12. ed
    Posted October 29, 2012 at 11:06 am | Permalink | Reply

    Axelrod is downplaying the RAS poll citing early voting. Whats the breakdown of early voting?

    • Chris
      Posted October 29, 2012 at 11:11 am | Permalink | Reply

      I’m wondering the same thing. Anyone know what it is in comparison with ’08 at this point? This is from Adrian Gray a few days agao : ‏@adrian_gray

      OHIO in one tweet: 220k fewer Dems have voted vs 2008, 30k more GOP. That’s net 250k. Obama won by 260k in ’08. Now 11 days left.

    • Dave
      Posted October 29, 2012 at 11:38 am | Permalink | Reply

      Why is Axelrod always on TV just about everyday downplaying every negative poll against dems. The guy’s everywhere.

    • Bunker It Up
      Posted October 29, 2012 at 11:45 am | Permalink | Reply

      Here is an excerpt from the Corner on early voting

      3. Early-Voting Statistics. Former Bush ’04 campaign voter contact guru Adrian Gray wrote a thoughtful and thorough piece for Politico this weekend titled “Obama’s Ohio fuzzy early vote math.” In the piece, Gray writes:

      “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.”

      Our view of early voting continues to be that Republicans are crippling Obama’s early vote margin, which was his key to victory in Ohio in 2008.

      On top of that, we believe the Obama campaign is cannibalizing its Election Day voter list during the early-voting period. Consider Karl Rove’s assessment on Fox News Sunday:

      “This is an important point. If you look at Ohio, for example, 57 percent of the absentee ballot requests come from Democrats who had voted in none, one or two of the last three elections, 72 percent of the Republican absentee ballot application come from people who didn’t vote — voted in none, one or two of the last elections. That is to say the Democrats are cannibalizing their Election Day turnout, the Republicans are the ones who are getting the new voters out.”

  13. Bryan
    Posted October 29, 2012 at 11:07 am | Permalink | Reply

    Another interesting thing about the poll — the Rasmussen poll reports that 32% of Ohio voters have voted early. However, at the GMU election project page, http://elections.gmu.edu/early_vote_2012.html, actual early voting figures account for only 17.4% of 2008 votes as of 10/27. Looking down the county lists, not all counties have reported up to date numbers, but most have reported through 10/25 and Cuyahoga County is updated as of 10/27. While lots of explanations could account for a disparity between the poll and actual reported figures, such a large discrepancy sort of sticks out. Thoughts?

  14. kenberthiaume
    Posted October 29, 2012 at 11:11 am | Permalink | Reply

    rasmussen today has romney up only 2. Any idea of what rasmussen’s party ID breakdown for national results it? Hopefully it’s not R+1 as that would mean +2 is kind of an “optimistic” number.

    • William Jefferson
      Posted October 29, 2012 at 11:18 am | Permalink | Reply

      It looks like D+2. Interestingly, Rasmussen also doesn non-political polls which includes a full demographic break down. Today he has one on whether society has gotten more rude. The party ID for that was R+2; so i’m pretty sure what he is seeing out there is R+2.

    • jeff
      Posted October 29, 2012 at 11:27 am | Permalink | Reply

      I heard Ras has switched to a D+4 model. Maybe hes trying to keep it close for business reasons.

    • Dave
      Posted October 29, 2012 at 11:35 am | Permalink | Reply

      I’ve heard reports that this is what RAS does a week before the election. He’ll make it look as good as possible for Repub and then a week to go, close the gap in favor of dems. Or, so I’ve heard. Is that really what’s happening now?

      • William Jefferson
        Posted October 29, 2012 at 11:39 am | Permalink

        Can’t say that makes sense. Last week, he averaged a D+4 poll, which is higher than his own polling on partisan identification is showing, and is 5 points too favorable to Democrats compared to Gallup. There has been very little movement in his national poll–just one point or so for either candidate. Don’t know who you’ve “heard” the conspiracy theory from but I would be a little more skeptical of the source.

      • Dave
        Posted October 29, 2012 at 11:50 am | Permalink

        That could be. Or it could be random behavior since he’s only been poplular on the scene since 2000 or so. And 4 pres elections is not big sample. I wouldn’t call this a conspiracy theory so much as a theory on business model…call it the fox news model. And sometimes, conspiracy theories are true…that’s what everyone was saying about the Fed in the markets back in 2009…and whoa..4 years later, that conspiracy theory turned out to 100% true. This is one example. There are others. Sometimes they’re true esp when large $$$ and more are at stake.

      • Fred S
        Posted October 29, 2012 at 12:00 pm | Permalink

        Today’s Rasmussen swing state poll (11 states) is still 50 – 46 Romney, unchanged from yesterday, even though the national poll is 49 – 47.

      • Posted October 29, 2012 at 1:04 pm | Permalink

        four presidential cycles, 7 congressional cycles (counting 2012) is a small sample…yet Nate Silver has 1 presidential and 1 congressional under his belt and he is being heralded as some sort of Oracle? Interesting.

        Sadly, and I pray to 8.5 lbs baby jesus in his Skynard shirt that it is not our side, everyone is seeing what they want to see in the polls.

        Anecdotally, I would say that looking purely at conventional wisdom…if a campaign is publically questioning polls a week out, claiming their are false, claiming their internals show them in “good position” and are championing early voting stats that are massively lower than 4 years ago…those are not the public statements of a campaign that feels very comfortable in their footing.

        One would expect Romney’s camp to be the ones out there railing on all these state polls and national polls like CNN, PPP, etc as wildly wrong, that they are leading, internals show them up, polls are bias, etc.

        that is what makes this election cycle so odd in my book…Obama is leading the electoral math, leading quite a few polls, leading quite a few states but is out there calling out pollsters as bias, championing internals. Romney is down in many of those previously mentioned and yet they are not out there claiming those polls are wrong, etc.

        No wonder my Rally Beard for Romney is showing signs of gray 🙂

  15. Philanthropic_Extortinist
    Posted October 29, 2012 at 11:12 am | Permalink | Reply

    My hope for Romney in OH hinges on the fact that the president can’t get beyond the 50% mark in the only two polls that actually count, Ras and Suffolk. Forget PPP, CNN, Gravis, Time, NBC… they all skew for D and minorities. If the prez can’t breakthorugh on Ras at this point in the game, he’s toast in OH. BOOM!

    • Dogfish
      Posted October 29, 2012 at 11:52 am | Permalink | Reply

      The wildcard is how much voter fraud the Democrats can commit. You know it will be a lot, but can they commit enough fraud to carry the election.

      I don’t think so.

      • Dave
        Posted October 29, 2012 at 12:05 pm | Permalink

        “be a lot, but can they commit enough fraud to carry the election.”

        Ah, a fellow believer. That is the $64K question. Or, can the repubs keep pace with their own kind of “GOTV” ? It’s been a lonely few days here. Welcome aboard! :).

      • Philanthropic_Extortinist
        Posted October 29, 2012 at 12:12 pm | Permalink

        We all know fraud is alive and well, but I have to believe Romney’s campaign is well aware of this also. Every step of the way, Romney’s campaign has been on the ball. If there isn’t a huge Truth the Vote presence in OH then I would be surprised.

  16. jvnvch
    Posted October 29, 2012 at 11:13 am | Permalink | Reply

    It’s great news, except Romney voters need to start voting, before it’s too late. According to this poll Obama is very, very far ahead in early voting, 62 to 36, and almost one out of three respondents reported already having voted. That’s troubling. If the poll is accurate, Romney needs to win the remaining vote by something like 57-43.

    • William Jefferson
      Posted October 29, 2012 at 11:40 am | Permalink | Reply

      “Romney voters need to start voting, before it’s too late.” I’m pretty sure we all know when election day is. I’m pretty sure that’s not too late.

    • Dogfish
      Posted October 29, 2012 at 11:54 am | Permalink | Reply

      I don’t understand the ‘before it’s too late comment’..

      If every democrat in the state votes early, what would it matter as long as the Repubs and Independents turnout and vote on or before Nov 6th?

      • Fred S
        Posted October 29, 2012 at 12:02 pm | Permalink

        Karl Rove indicated that Dems may be canabalizing their voters who would vote anyway and that Reps EV are more of people who are not steady voters (2 or less times voted in last 4 yrs.)

    • jvnvch
      Posted October 29, 2012 at 12:41 pm | Permalink | Reply

      I’ve already voted in Indiana. You never know what might happen to you from day to day. I don’t see any good reason for waiting. Some people who plan to vote won’t even be alive on November 6th. I know the relative few who die before election day probably won’t be enough to make a difference, but you never know.

      • fab4gal
        Posted October 29, 2012 at 2:55 pm | Permalink

        Legally speaking, if you vote and then die before election day, your vote won’t count. Just saying.
        ~ Brittany

      • jvnvch
        Posted October 29, 2012 at 3:23 pm | Permalink

        You’re wrong, Brittany. Even an absentee ballot would count, but I voted in person, so my vote is locked in. Supposedly no one knows how I voted, anyway, so how would anyone know how to subtract it? Also, how would the election officials be able to figure out who had died and who had not, in a timely manner? I assure you, if you vote early, your vote will count, even in the unfortunate event of your demise.

        http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2012/10/absentee_ballot_still_counts_i.html

        “CLEVELAND, Ohio — The growing popularity of early voting raises the question of what happens when someone who casts an absentee ballot dies before Election Day.

        Does the vote still count?

        The answer, it seems, is yes, though Ohio election law does not specifically address the question and the Ohio Secretary of State’s office issued a ruling only after receiving inquiries last week from The Plain Dealer. A survey by the newspaper found differing opinions among elections officials in some Northeast Ohio counties. The elections director in Medina County believed the ballot should be invalidated, while the Lorain elections chief said the vote should count.

        Cuyahoga County Elections Director Jane Platten sought advice from the Ohio Secretary of State’s office, and said she received conflicting opinions. At first, an attorney for the state office advised her that a ballot must not be counted if cast by someone who is not a qualified voter on Election Day.

        But later another state election official overruled that and told her the ballot counts.”

      • fab4gal
        Posted October 29, 2012 at 3:33 pm | Permalink

        Actually – it depends on the state. If you’ve turned on the TV at all recently, a man in Hawaii who is a war hero voted then died, and the law says his vote will not count. His family is fighting to get his vote to count.
        http://www.khon2.com/mostpopular/story/WWII-vet-93-dies-after-casting-last-ballot/BDd99cnJUUqj5TjDBqeK3Q.cspx
        “According to state law, Frank Tanabe’s vote will be invalid. That’s why many believe it’s time to update the law.”
        ~ Brittany

      • jvnvch
        Posted October 29, 2012 at 4:02 pm | Permalink

        Brittany, that clearly says mail-in votes might not count in Hawaii, not in-person votes. I voted on a machine, in person, so there’s no way my vote can be canceled. I’ll bet that old gentleman’s vote will wind up counting in Hawaii, also, when all is said and done, but most of the time nobody would even know the voter had died. His was a special case.

        One thing is certain; if you die before voting, your vote definitely won’t be counted.

      • Guest
        Posted October 30, 2012 at 5:23 am | Permalink

        “if you die before voting, your vote definitely won’t be counted”

        Really?

        Stranger things have been known to happen in Chicago.

    • jvnvch
      Posted October 29, 2012 at 1:57 pm | Permalink | Reply

      I just looked up some stats, and something like 50,000 people in the US will die between now and election day. No telling how many more will become disabled or incapacitated in some way. In 2000 Bush won the election by a little over 500 votes. Why wait until election day to vote if you have the ability to vote now?

    • Yong
      Posted October 30, 2012 at 1:55 am | Permalink | Reply

      Sample size of those voted already is too small to be predictive. Ras is just pointing out that in his sample that is the outcome. I wonder if he scaled it to the 17.4% that has voted already or not.

  17. Posted October 29, 2012 at 11:14 am | Permalink | Reply

    Keith: What does Adrian Gray have to say about EV numbers?

  18. Posted October 29, 2012 at 11:18 am | Permalink | Reply

    I am still worried beyond belief….I still have this gut deep feeling Obama will squeak out a win.

    Reason: well he leads the math. But also I do not understand polls in which Rep enthusiasm is way up, Romney gets north of 90% repubs while Dems are in the mid to upper 80s (stats show dems only hold about 75% of that number while Rep hold about mid 80s on election day of their base), Romney is leading independents in almost every polls yet he is barely up a 1 in the RCP average and in many polls and in the states that matter he still trailing or tied.

    This all makes me nervous and makes me wonder if this whole ground swell, momentum thing is just media driven and isnt in the actual numbers just like the Silver’s say. This is going to be a VERY long week.

    • William Jefferson
      Posted October 29, 2012 at 11:26 am | Permalink | Reply

      Unfortunately, we have no recent precedent to compare this race to. When was the last race in which an unpopular incumbent Democrat was up for re-election? 1980, right? We have no idea what a race is supposed to look like in this situation. Why do we assume the Republican should be up by 4 points in every poll, including swing states?

      • Dave
        Posted October 29, 2012 at 11:33 am | Permalink

        Yeah, and the country is bigger too now than 1980 but there are still only 24 hours in a day to vote.

    • stuckinmass
      Posted October 29, 2012 at 11:37 am | Permalink | Reply

      I think a lot of us are wondering the same.. looking inside the polls shows very good news for Romney, but then the top line shows neck-in-neck. so the RCP average is a squeaker, the electoral maps show Obama ahead, etc. i think this is by design. Media organizations pay for many of these polls, and what they want is a narrative that it’s going to be a close election. That’s good for ratings. It seems that every election we are told that it is going to be very close. Even Reagan/Carter was “too close to call” at this point and we know what a blowout that was!

      so no matter what the polls top-line say, many factors seem to favor Romney, but it all depends on turnout

    • Chris
      Posted October 29, 2012 at 11:44 am | Permalink | Reply

      What we’re seeing is that it is very, very difficult to knock off an incumbent who remains personally popular, one that has raised and spent hundreds of millions trashing his opponent while basically having the mainstream media at his beck and call. In spite of all those advantages, the national tracking has clearly showed movement towards Romney. It’s a thin lead, but it’s very different from where he was in late Sept. So, I don’t think it’s all media driven.

    • Yong
      Posted October 30, 2012 at 2:01 am | Permalink | Reply

      Accuracy is an issue. 2008 was such a huge year for Obama. RCP average is small because they are averaging out 10 pollsters results. There are no standards on demographs. They are not making sufficient calls to fit any census. One sample can have too many women or too many black male or too many hispanics, etc. Ideology also, party ID, etc. So, Who got the momentum is likely to win. Follow the trend. Incumbent supposed to lead and have at least 49 percent of the vote. etc. The spread is like a lottery. Mitt is winning but how much. 2008, two pollsters were close, Ras and Survey USA.

  19. Bill Mitchell
    Posted October 29, 2012 at 11:19 am | Permalink | Reply

    I’m sorry but BS. 1/3 of voters in OH have NOT cast their ballots. Nowhere even close. Just check OH States own numbers. The subsample used to poll this in a state poll is simply too small. MOE is HUGE.

  20. Blackcloud
    Posted October 29, 2012 at 11:24 am | Permalink | Reply

    Early voting numbers in Ohio are skewing all polls. Many say up to 40% have already voted early, but official numbers say only 20% have so far. Those numbers are a bit old, though.

    http://www.sos.state.oh.us/SOS/mediaCenter/2012/2012-10-23.aspx

    Someone above asked for a link to the Battleground memo “projecting” Romney winning 52-47. It’s posted below. A few caveats should be noted regarding the memo and the overall poll. The memo is from the Republican half of the poll. The Democratic half hasn’t said anything. As for the poll itself, although it shows Obama up 1%, the actual raw numbers are Obama 487, Romney 484. That is a rounding error. 12 more people supported Obama, 4 fewer supported Romney, than in the previous poll. Again, that’s MOE stuff. I gleaned those numbers from Logan Dobson (@logandobson), who works for Tarrance Group, the Republican outfit that does the poll.

    http://images.politico.com/global/2012/10/goeasbattlegroundmemooct28.html

    • Porchlight
      Posted October 29, 2012 at 12:05 pm | Permalink | Reply

      I’m the one who asked for the Battleground link – thanks so much!

  21. JGS
    Posted October 29, 2012 at 11:30 am | Permalink | Reply

    FWIW, ARG has a new poll today showing Romney +1 in CO, with a sample that is R+2 but with Obama supposedly ahead by 8 points with independents. The poll also shows Romney +5 in early voting (which ARG says accounts for 31% of the sample), and with a 47-47 split of those who will be voting on election day. So my hunch is that this poll understates Romney’s strength in CO by several points, primarily because I cannot believe either that Obama is really up +8 with independents, or that he will split the election day vote.

    http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres2012/CO12.html

    • Dave
      Posted October 29, 2012 at 11:44 am | Permalink | Reply

      So here we go. If after the election, and an Obama win, you have a skewed independent vote in favor of Obama in more than one swing state and those countradict the indie vote in most other states esp when those swing states are seperated by large distances (read different voter personalities … i.e. Ohio vs CO — completely different states)..then there are quite possibly three words to explain it…buloads of somalians…lol. Don’t be surprised…..

      • JGS
        Posted October 29, 2012 at 11:48 am | Permalink

        My liberal friends have assured me that all of the Somalians in those busloads were among the 40% of Ohio’s Somalians who are citizens, and could not possibly have been among the 60% who are not. Funny how both OH and VA allow registration to be based on something as flimsy as a utility bill. I wonder if Patrick Moran has been spending time in OH as well.

      • Dave
        Posted October 29, 2012 at 11:56 am | Permalink

        “could not possibly have been among the 60% who are not ”

        Whew. That’s a load off….

  22. JGS
    Posted October 29, 2012 at 11:52 am | Permalink | Reply

    Oh, and in the category of high-level political gamesmanship, Obama’s Labor Department has now set up an ambiguity as to whether the monthly employment report that is due on Friday 11/2 will be released on time, or delayed until after the election, based upon its assessment of the impact of Hurricane Sandy. Gee, I wonder if they’d release an unfavorable report on Friday, or delay it until after the election and blame it on the hurricane. Gee, I wonder if they’d delay a favorable report, or rush to get it out there on Friday (Sandy be damned).

    • Dave
      Posted October 29, 2012 at 12:15 pm | Permalink | Reply

      I can’t believe the timing of these damn hurricanes that open windows of opportunity like that.

      • Posted October 29, 2012 at 1:08 pm | Permalink

        Hurricanes are unpredicatable…but considering the report is already done and waiting to be release…and considering the expanse and size of government….how does a hurricane prevent the FEDERAL government from releasing a report via email, paper copy, etc?

        Hmmm…makes one wonder what could be in the report…guesses are unemployment rate ticks back above 8%

  23. JGS
    Posted October 29, 2012 at 11:53 am | Permalink | Reply

    http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2012/10/29/labor-department-may-delay-jobs-report/

    • John
      Posted October 29, 2012 at 12:04 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Two possibilities come to mind:

      1) With the entire DC empire on stand-down due the storm there isn’t time to cook the books without leaving obvious traces in the data.

      2) The report is so bad it can’t be artificially adjusted and won’t be released until Nov 7.

    • Dogfish
      Posted October 29, 2012 at 12:17 pm | Permalink | Reply

      I think if they DO NOT release the numbers that will hurt the Democrats more than if they did.

      Granted, the great majority of Democrats lack integrity and honor…. but there are still a few (maybe 15%) that actually have some sense of right and wrong and want to see things done fairly.

      If the numbers are not released under the pretense of this storm, that 15% will have to see that for what it is….. another underhanded act by Obama (like Benghazi) to try and sway the election.

      The morally bankrupt 85% of Democrats may cheer such a move, but the 15% will see it for what it is and be ashamed that what was once a proud party has stooped so low.

      • JGS
        Posted October 29, 2012 at 12:26 pm | Permalink

        I don’t think they know what the numbers are yet. But I do believe they’re using the storm to set up optionality to delay a bad report and blame it on the storm, which is beyond reprehensible.

  24. JAF
    Posted October 29, 2012 at 12:36 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Agree with the above- worse for Obama if they do NOT release the economic report. we know they are cooking the books in the last month anyway, they will cook it again and report 6.7% unemployment with only 1,203,890 dropping out of the workforce

    better to not have any economic news until we beat Obama

  25. the drewman
    Posted October 29, 2012 at 12:39 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Anyone know did Ras changing their weighting for national poll…I heard the weekend argument but I am concerned dropping two points since Friday nationally.

  26. MikeN
    Posted October 29, 2012 at 12:48 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Did this poll give results for early voting numbers? Are they in line with the actual results, about 20% have voted early?

    Most of the polls have been oversampling this, proving that Democratic response rate is higher than Republican, or at least early voters are, and they are known to be Dem heavy. I have been thinking that if a poll comes out that shows Romney leading in Ohio, he has won the state.

    • Donald
      Posted October 30, 2012 at 12:58 am | Permalink | Reply

      Bingo. Democrat response rate is higher than Republican. Think about it. Would a Democrat or Republican be more likely to be a Facebook addict? I think we all know that would be the Democrats. They are much more likely to be narcissistic “look at me” types. As such, they are also more likely to want to talk to a pollster…it’s someone new to pay attention to them. Republicans will tend to be more “my vote is my business” type. I realize this is painting with a very large brush but in general terms, it’s true. And it would explain why there is more Dem participation in polls. I would imagine that everyone in Ohio has been called 10 times now by the sheer number of pollsters polling it. The Dem’s don’t get tired of telling everyone what they think and assume the other party is interested other than to just get a number. Repubs more likely to just screen the call.

  27. Posted October 29, 2012 at 12:54 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Should I remind you all just how bad Ras is in state polling?

    in 2008 he predicted a tie in OH. Obama won by 4.6%.

    • Dogfish
      Posted October 29, 2012 at 12:59 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Peter, in 2010 Rasmussen was among the top 2 firms in polling accuracy….. the NY Times (and your boy Nate Silver) was not

    • Philanthropic_Extortinist
      Posted October 29, 2012 at 1:05 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Peter, I don’t think your trolling is going to deflate anyone on this site. Nice try though.

      • Posted October 29, 2012 at 1:07 pm | Permalink

        It wasn’t just OH. Ras was wrong on most battleground states that year. Need the links?

      • Philanthropic_Extortinist
        Posted October 29, 2012 at 1:17 pm | Permalink

        Sure

      • Posted October 29, 2012 at 1:28 pm | Permalink

        Simplest way to check 2008 results by state is to go here:

        http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/co/colorado_mccain_vs_obama-546.html

        That’s the link for the 2008 CO polls. On the left you will see a little box with links to all the other states.

        Some results from BW states:

        CO: Final was O+9.0, Average was O+5.5, Ras was O+ 4, Ras GOP bias of 5
        OH: Final was O+4.6, Average was O+2.5, Ras was tie, Ras GOP bias of 4.6
        VA: Final was O+6.3, Average was O+4.4, Ras was O+ 4, Ras GOP bias of 2.3
        WI: Final was O+13.9, Average was O+11, Ras was O+ 7, Ras GOP bias of 6.9
        NV: Final was O+12.5, Average was O+6.5, Ras was O+ 4, Ras GOP bias of 8.5

        Note that Ras is among the worst and has a consistent pro GOP bias.

      • Posted October 29, 2012 at 1:29 pm | Permalink

        true true the generic ballot R vs D is alway tricky. RAS did not hit it. But you keep telling us look at the poll averages…well the RCP for 2010 was off by 2.6 points. So the average if the polls being averaged are garbage can be garbage.

        WHat this tells us is that out of eleventy billion polls across all the states and nationally…fewer than half a dozen are usually within the margin of error in the final count. There is not one single polling company or organization that has been dead accurate nearly every election cycle. Polling is a polaroid picture of that moment the electorate is asked. It does not take into account (Both ways) a person walking into a ballot booth and changing their mind on the spot. I have done it a few times in my 17 years of voting going in thinking I am voting for one person and decide on gut to change

      • Posted October 29, 2012 at 1:33 pm | Permalink

        You are right, there is no perfect poll. And even average of polls can be wrong. But it’s the best piece of information we have. Note that both for the 2010 Congressional vote as well as the 2008 battleground states I list above the RCP averages all had a GOP bias.

      • Posted October 29, 2012 at 1:37 pm | Permalink

        your weight of so called bias is discounting that the AVERAGE had a pretty significant so called bias as well. The ONE Ras was WAY off the average was Wisconsin. But overall if the average is the best tool then look at those numbers you posted the average “bias” of those five polls was more than 3 points between the average and the outcome. In many of those races, in fact all of the states, the average UNDER ESTIMATED the outcome of the winner.

        So that doesn’t prove Rasmussen is some partisan hack trying sway something, it proves that apparently all the polls put into the averages were off by a good margin.

      • Philanthropic_Extortinist
        Posted October 29, 2012 at 1:43 pm | Permalink

        PP, I’d like to make two points. I agree with Shane, you’re “bias” should be bias off the avg., not the actual. It was biased based on your data but not to the extent you claim. Secondly, the Dems had the largest voter enthusiams they had every seen that election year. That will not happen this year. If the avg. was off, like you clearly point out, then anyone skewing for Dems were proven correct that year. But skewing for Dems will not pan out this year. Based on Rep enthusiasm vs. Dem enthusiasm, I would certainly skew for Rep this election cycle. Bottom line, enthusiasm is not in favor of the Dems now and should not be ignored.

      • Posted October 29, 2012 at 1:59 pm | Permalink

        Shane, PE:

        There are many ways to measure bias, I don’t pretend mine is perfect. If you measure bias against the average, as you propose, that’s perfectly OK and it gives you a sense of how Ras (or any pollster) did relative to others. The way I measure it in this post gives you a sense of how off it was against final results. Both are OK, both answer different questions.

        Note that while there was Dem enthusiasm in 2008 which could explain why the averages had a GOP bias, what about 2010? That was a GOP wave election yet the Congressional vote average also had a GOP bias.

        In the end we will find out in 8 days who got it right.

      • Philanthropic_Extortinist
        Posted October 29, 2012 at 2:04 pm | Permalink

        Good discussion, see you in the next thread…

      • Evan3457
        Posted October 29, 2012 at 3:17 pm | Permalink

        Yes, Rasmussen was far off the numbers in states in 2008. Of course, he didn’t have access to Obama’s internal polling like ubergenius Nate Silver did.

    • Yong
      Posted October 30, 2012 at 2:10 am | Permalink | Reply

      On, 10/26– Ras predicted Obama will win by 4 back in 2008. Their last poll, just before day of election, they got a tie. This year, 10/29, a week before, Ras has MItt up by 2. This seems to be more accurate. Closer to day of election not be accurate for many reasons. Pollsters scrambling to make so many calls like these days.

    • Yong
      Posted October 30, 2012 at 2:16 am | Permalink | Reply

      Also, RCP does not weigh different sample sizes either. Some pollsters’ sample is 1000 or 500 or 600 or 1023. Averaging is awful way. It should be plotted on a graph and draw a line through the plot. You can see the outliers. The slope will tell you who has the momentum. I don’t know why RCP average them esp different sample size, different demographs,etc.

    • Yong
      Posted October 30, 2012 at 2:26 am | Permalink | Reply

      At any given polls, cross tabs are more important then the headline. Who is winning men, women, latinos, blacks, independents, party, etc. Most Ohio polls show Mitt winning Independents, men, narrow the gaps (women, young voters, etc). Trends per pollsters. Obama leads shrinking each time. They seems to think voting groups favoring Obama will turnout same or better than 2008. However, the trends per pollster shows differently, except for PPP. PPP must be rich. They pumping polls like water. Fishy to me. Mitt will win Ohio.

  28. C-Bus GOP
    Posted October 29, 2012 at 1:09 pm | Permalink | Reply

    On the ground comments:

    1. There is a relatively prominent Somali population here on the near east side of Colimbus, but it is still overall small and just not big enough to affect this race IF the GOP voters turn out like expected. There are no Somalis in any other Ohio cities. The article said Vanloads BTW not bus loads. Still despicable that Dems give these guys a couple of packs of smokes in exchange for voting Dem “all the way down” but again if the GOP turns out there just won’t be enough Somalis this side of Mogadishu to pull it out for Obama.

    2. What I don’t get about Rasmussen is how he consistently finds O to lead in Ohio with Ondependents when no other poll shows this. In fact I believe in the “Obama is toast” article there was a stat that R’s lead with indies has consistently been higher in Ohio vs the national average.

    3. What was the breakdown on this BTW? Did I see D+2?

    Thanks

  29. JGS
    Posted October 29, 2012 at 1:17 pm | Permalink | Reply

    New Elon University poll shows 45-45 tie in NC, but with D+7 party ID (D+9 if exclude D-leaning and R-leaning independents). Anyone know NC party ID breakdown for 2008?

    http://www.elon.edu/docs/e-web/elonpoll/102912_PollExecutiveSummaryAndData.pdf

  30. margaret
    Posted October 29, 2012 at 1:32 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Adrian Gray has tweeted today:

    OHIO: Updating my bellwether counties [Hamilton, Lake, Montgomery and Stark]
    in Ohio, GOP is currently outperforming 2008 by just under 8%.

    and

    OHIO: No “party affiliation” in this metric: Solid McCain counties turning out 98% of 2008 turnout, Obama counties at 89%.

    • zang
      Posted October 29, 2012 at 2:08 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Considering that Obama won Ohio by 4.5 points, wouldn’t it be better to differentiate between “Kasich Counties” and “Strickland Counties”

  31. hetz
    Posted October 29, 2012 at 2:04 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Great news, as I trust Rasmussen, but two things bother me:

    1. If Obama has a 2 to 1 lead among people who have already voted, and a third of people already have, that seems pretty unsurmountable.

    2. Obama leads +4 among independents. This is totally at odds with what is being seen in the rest of the country. What gives?

    • zang
      Posted October 29, 2012 at 2:09 pm | Permalink | Reply

      the internals for most of these polls do not make any sense and do not add up. the early voter numbers are way out of proportion to reality. I would like to see someone do a poll of a state without early voting (like PA) and ask people if they have already voted. It would be interesting to see that result.

    • MikeN
      Posted October 29, 2012 at 3:46 pm | Permalink | Reply

      So that’s an 11% lead to be made up among 2/3 of the public, so it needs to split 39-27. Looks tough. However, there is the fact that Democrats are more likely to vote early to begin with, so really you are just left with a Republican heavy ‘sample’ in the election day crowd.

  32. Dogfish
    Posted October 29, 2012 at 2:15 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Peter, you need to try and get beyond 2008…. you are clearly living too far in the past…. this is 2012

    By the way, your statement earlier about Rasmussen was wrong.

    See http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/john-farrell/2010/06/11/Ranking-the-Political-Polls-for-the-2010-Elections

    and pay particular attention to the statement…’The big names deserve their fame. Field, Mason-Dixon, Gallup, Pew, Marist, and Rasmussen all did very well’……

    • No Tribe
      Posted October 29, 2012 at 2:45 pm | Permalink | Reply

      ONly 4 state polls by MD this cycle. That’s a disgrace. Wish they got hired more.

  33. EpiphoneKnight
    Posted October 29, 2012 at 3:29 pm | Permalink | Reply

    If Mitt wins all the states Ras has him winning, he wins. Plus some others very tight too.

  34. chadp71
    Posted October 29, 2012 at 9:39 pm | Permalink | Reply

    @keithbacker; Hello I just found your site the other day and I really like it. I live in Ohio and have been following this really close. I would like to ask in your opinion. I was thinking that Romney would win Ohio with 53% of the vote but after a few polls and stories I read over the weekend. I now think he will only win with 52% of the vote. Do you think I’m close ? Also I was chatting with a Democrat friend I have and told him if I was Obama I would just camp out in Nevada just wonder what your thoughts would be on that as well? Thanks and keep up the great work.

  35. Kelly
    Posted October 30, 2012 at 7:04 pm | Permalink | Reply

    I live in the smallest county in OHIO, Lake. 4 years ago Obama signs were everywhere, today Mitt Romney signs are everywhere, especially in front of small and medium size businesses. My owns personal polls show Romney winning by a landslide.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: