Obama +2 in Colorado — CNN/ORC International

State polls are still filing in down the home stretch.  CNN/ORC International’s latest has Obama leading in Colorado 50 to 48. The party ID is D +2 (Dem 33, Rep 31, Ind 35). This compares to 2008 of R +1 (Dem 30, Rep 31, Ind 39) and 2004 R +9 (Dem 29, Rep 38, Ind 33). Colorado is trending Democrat but this is an unusually pro-Democrat turnout compared to the last two elections.  Not good news for the President.

The poll’s Thursday release also came just two hours after Rep. Paul Ryan, the GOP running mate, headlined a rally in Greeley, Colorado. The top line results of the CNN survey are very similar to an American Research Group poll conducted this past weekend which had Romney at 48% and Obama at 47%, and an NBC News/Wall Street Journal/Marist poll conducted last week which suggested the race was tied up at 48%.  “If you didn’t know why President Obama and Paul Ryan are here today, and Mitt Romney is coming Saturday, now you know,” said CNN Chief National Correspondent John King, who was reporting Thursday from Colorado. As in most swing states, there is a fairly big gender gap, with the CNN poll indicating Romney ahead among men by 10 points and Obama winning women by 13 points.  In the battle for crucial independent voters, the poll indicates the president has a 49%-47% edge.

For President Percent
Barack Obama 50
Mitt Romney 48
Gary Johnson 1
Undecided 1

167 Comments

  1. Bryan
    Posted November 1, 2012 at 7:35 pm | Permalink | Reply

    John King seemed rather gleeful with these poll results a little while ago on TV…I really wonder if CNN’s pollsters are skewing the results just enough to give Obama a small lead but not so much that they can’t bark “margin of error” when Romney wins CO.

    • live_free290248
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 7:38 pm | Permalink | Reply

      More skew complain. It has gotten old by now. Rasmussen poll had Romney leading too, was that a conspiracy? They are just polls.

      • Bryan
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 7:55 pm | Permalink

        Eh.

    • Brad
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 7:40 pm | Permalink | Reply

      live_free – as opposed to your complaining about the complaining.

    • Medicine Man
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 8:02 pm | Permalink | Reply

      I think Live Free is Peter’s Evil Twin 😉

      • live_free290248
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 8:13 pm | Permalink

        I promise you, I am not evil. I like the analysis that Keith does, and that he has kept the place clean without all the fringe. I am a politics junkie probably just like yourself. We are probably going to disagree though which I hope is OK.

      • Medicine Man
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 9:28 pm | Permalink

        It was actually more of a tongue in cheek for the people who have been on this site for a while referring to our resident troll Peter. We say white, Peter says black..etc.

      • Medicine Man
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 9:46 pm | Permalink

        This site, generally, is for people who are for the election of Mitt Romney. But because polling is an inexact science, this site has become so popular because of much of the modeling is set to the 2008 election. We not all cheerleaders or Kool aid drinkers, but more into the truth of the electorate. We don’t get upset because a poll doesn’t give us the result we like, but when the poll has the inherent problems which gives a probable incorrect sample. We get a little upset when trolls spout off talking points,

        So in closing, we have people who want the President to be re-elected and bring much to the table (Allthings), but if we can’t agree that this is not 2008 and the President is polling under 50%, underwater with indies, down on enthusiasm with his base and D+ 7 polls (same as 2008) PROBABLY are not accurate…then it is going to be a long 5 days.

  2. live_free290248
    Posted November 1, 2012 at 7:36 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Colorado is anyone’s guess. Rasmussen also had Romney leading today, so I look at other polls and see where they are trending.

    • jeff
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 7:39 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Just dont see Obama winning CO. I dont think Romney has any stops in CO and it isnt because he has conceded it to Obama.

      • cbr66
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 8:21 pm | Permalink

        Romney will be in Colorado Saturday.

    • Brad
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 7:41 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Early vote is R+2.8 that’s not being factored in.

      • displacedRhodeIslandConservative
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 7:45 pm | Permalink

        Interesting how that nugget gets left out while the media harps on Obama’s advantages elsewhere….all interesting.

  3. Posted November 1, 2012 at 7:37 pm | Permalink | Reply

    If you’re banking on a better than 2008 just get a point or two in front, you’re not winning.

    • Bryan
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 7:55 pm | Permalink | Reply

      tru dat

  4. zang
    Posted November 1, 2012 at 7:40 pm | Permalink | Reply

    http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/11/01/topco1.pdf

    No crosstabs provided re early voting. My suspicions is because it would show Democrats ahead in early voting, and this would be demonstrably refuted by the SOS’s hard data.

    • live_free290248
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 7:47 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Whether deliberate or not, not a good idea to leave out such critical information.

      • live_free290248
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 8:06 pm | Permalink

        Although, it does say say Obama was wining ind. votes.

    • TheTorch
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 7:49 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Colorado looks good for Romney, and quite frankly any Poll from CNN, Marist or PPP, all have one thing in common, they want a President Obama, and love to oversample Dems.
      I mentioned it in a previous thread, but worth mentioning again, this article at Breitbart, pretty much sums up where I see all this: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/11/01/Eight-reasons-Pro-Obama-Polls-Are-Wrong

      and this quote from the article:
      In my opinion, and the data backs me up, there’s simply no question that these pro-Obama pollsters are living on another planet if they believe Obama’s going to best or come close to his 2008 turnout advantage. And yet, that’s what most every poll showing obama up assumes. Regardless, we’ll know for certain on Election Day when Virginia closes at 7pm. If it’s close or Obama wins, we’re in for a long night. But if Romney wins Virginia by 5 points or more, we all need to tune to MSNBC and enjoy the show.

      • Bryan
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 8:59 pm | Permalink

        THANK YOU so much for that, and for the link. We’re going to do this. Imagine the feeling when they call Ohio for Romney. We’ve got to keep our eyes on that prize and push right through, all out effort.

  5. John
    Posted November 1, 2012 at 7:47 pm | Permalink | Reply

    We keep hearing over and over that Obama is winning the early voting but according to the Colorado Sec of State office (link below) this is not true in Colorado. As of today, ballots returned are
    Dem 457,337 Rep 493,457 Ind 341,920. This CNN poll is one of the few showing Ind breaking from Obama with most others showing a rather substantial Romney lead amongst Independents so if one applies a 55%-45% split among Indies for Romney you get Dem 611,201 Rep 681,513 or Romney with about a 70,000 vote lead to build on when Republicans and conservative Independents show up in force next Tuesday.

    http://content.govdelivery.com/attachments/COSOS/2012/11/01/file_attachments/172596/Gen%2BTurnout%2B11%2B01%2B2012.pdf

    • Commonsenseobserver
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 7:52 pm | Permalink | Reply

      I think CO indies have consistently gone to 0.
      But they also value fiscal responsibility and low taxes.

      • Svigor
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 9:59 pm | Permalink

        I’d need something more than your opinion on that, since national and state polls all show Romney well ahead with indies, and states don’t tend to trend to far from the averages on this kind of thing.

      • kenberthiaume
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 11:23 pm | Permalink

        last election they went 55-45 for obama. mccain only netted about 3/4 of repub votes and obama got about 85% of dem votes. Accorrding to cnn exit polls. So it wouldn’t be unlikely that romney would at least win independents given how much they swing elsewhere.

    • jeff
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 7:55 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Another example of poor polling and in kind contribution to the Obama campaign. Lets get it straight. Romney has FL VA NC CO in the bag. Im sick of these drive by commentators incuding those at FOX continue to claim that these sates are too close to call. That said I still think WI is an uphill climb for Romney. More likely that PA falls in Romneys camp.

      • TheTorch
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 8:11 pm | Permalink

        Tend to agree with what you said above Jeff. I think WI maybe better than we think though. PA is fascinating, there does seem to be a real shot there, and if the Catholic vote is collapsing and going Romney, that would be quite something and PA has a lot of Catholics!

      • Bryan
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 9:01 pm | Permalink

        Also, PA has a lot of seasoned citizens, and they’re going strong Romney, and they will show up, and there’s nothing like an angry old person who shows up to vote rather than going on a Michael Moore commercial and cursing.

    • Tom
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 8:12 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Yes the GOP is winning and will win on election day as well. Mitt-Mentum

  6. Posted November 1, 2012 at 8:20 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Reports are that a total of around 10,000 people total attended 3 Obama rallies today. I remember this happening in McCain in 2008. The crowds got smaller at campaign stops as election day drew nearer and foreshadowed the loss that was to come. Looks like what is happening to Obama this year.

    • No Tribe
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 9:22 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Well, who wants to drive out to an airport to see a canned rally for a losing campaign?

      • Ron
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 11:55 pm | Permalink

        That’s another of his problems. He’s boring–and overexposed.

  7. No Tribe
    Posted November 1, 2012 at 8:21 pm | Permalink | Reply

    120 hours till we get results and can stop guessing!

    • William Jefferson
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 8:40 pm | Permalink | Reply

      I am as excited for election night to find out the partisan turnout as I am to find out the winner!

      • No Tribe
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 9:23 pm | Permalink

        I think it’s gonna be the best election night for political junkies since 2000.

  8. John
    Posted November 1, 2012 at 8:21 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Another piece of the puzzle concerning these skewed polls has to do with this piece: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/house-not-looking-good-democrats_660029.html
    If the nation really is in a 2008 D+6 or even D+2 why aren’t Dems expected to pick up a signficant number of house seats. In fact it looks like the house will be as Republican or more Republican than it is now. It just doesn’t make sense unless we have about an even electorate.

    • Tom
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 8:28 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Excellent point John. This is a GOP mini-landslide.

      • jeff
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 8:38 pm | Permalink

        Bill Cunningjam of radio Cincinnati who seems to have a good sense of Ohio politics predicted that RR will win there 4~7 margin. My sense is that RR have looked at the early vote absentee. pattern and feel that an expected Republican tide will puy them on top. In other words the cake has already been baked as the result of the early vote. Agree?

      • TheTorch
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 8:40 pm | Permalink

        Yes I heard him on Hannity, and he was very confident that Ohio is going Romney’s way.

      • C-Bus GOP
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 9:15 pm | Permalink

        Agree

      • Philanthropic_Extortionist
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 10:20 pm | Permalink

        Hey Tom, what exactly is a mini landslide anyway?

      • Svigor
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 11:27 pm | Permalink

        I read somewhere that a landslide is a 10+ point win. So a mini-landslide might be a 5+ point win? Should probably be the new landslide, really, since the browning of America has led to fewer and fewer swing votes and more and more locked-down demographics.

    • TheTorch
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 8:42 pm | Permalink | Reply

      The house is also something to keep an eye on – I keep forgetting about that! It is looking great for the GOP, very few losses if any, and actually the possibility to pick up some seats.

      • Jim S.
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 9:15 pm | Permalink

        The fact that the house seem to be a wash, with an actual possibility of picking up a few seats, bodes well for Romney I would imagine and a hint of what the electorate will look like.

      • Jim S.
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 9:15 pm | Permalink

        seems*

  9. David
    Posted November 1, 2012 at 8:32 pm | Permalink | Reply

    This is rather contrary to what is going on the ground. While the state demographics have changed, the state is leaning R/R. Why? Unemployment is increasing, more foreclosures, and the bankruptcy court is still quite busy. Indeps in Colorado are generally a conservative lot, but gave Obama a look in 2008 because McCain ran such a poor campaign here.

    The key to Colorado is for R/R to “mind the gap” (using Keith’s phrase) in the metro Denver area, and to run up the vote totals in the rest of the state.

    @jeff –

    Ryan had a rally today in Greeley. 2-3 weeks ago, Biden attracted less than 300 in Greeley and was devoid of any energy. Ryan’s rally with more than 1,000 and was highly energized. Ryan campaign stop tomorrow in Montrose.

    Mitt & Ann Romney will be campaigning in Colorado on Saturday, first in C. Springs then in the Denver suburbs later in the evening. The Denver rally is expected to draw 20,000+ plus an overflow area for another 20,000. Colorado Springs is solid Republican, so drawing an energized crowd shouldn’t be a problem.

    • stephanie
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 10:22 pm | Permalink | Reply

      I am surprised Ryan only attracted 1,000 people in Green Bay.

      • David
        Posted November 2, 2012 at 12:13 am | Permalink

        Ryan had a rally today in Greeley, in Colorado. It’s farm country there.

  10. TheTorch
    Posted November 1, 2012 at 8:33 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Well I have not seen this, but reading about it elsewhere. Apparently CNN, CBS and FOX has run negative stories on Benghazi for Obama tonight. Also CNN has hit the FEMA response time regarding Sandy. It is indeed unravelling.
    Think of the optics. President goes in for his photo op, to save the day. Now he back out campaigning (as of course he must) But reality is now hitting hard in New York and New Jersey and even the fawning media is starting to do some random acts of journalism! (as Rush would say).

    • Posted November 1, 2012 at 8:43 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Christie playing it super smart all along, knowing there’d be a big FUBAR with the hurricane response and tying Obama to it???

    • Posted November 1, 2012 at 8:44 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Yeah, declaring the federal response a success after one day is kind of ridiculous. The press just wanted to claim an early victory for their Dear Leader, now he will own the fallout.

      • No Tribe
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 11:08 pm | Permalink

        All they lacked was a Mission Accomplished! banner.

    • jeff
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 8:44 pm | Permalink | Reply

      I just dont think this Sandy thing is going to matter at the polls. And yrs it looks kind if bad when the pres is out campaigning abd you have pictures of people foraging dumpsters for food and waiting hours for gasn

    • edtitan77
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 9:42 pm | Permalink | Reply

      While Obama was hamming it up with Christie there were still bodies in Staten Island. It looks like Katrina.

  11. John
    Posted November 1, 2012 at 8:45 pm | Permalink | Reply

    ABC News: “This is America, not a third world nation. We need food, we need clothing,” Staten Island Borough President Jim Molinaro said today. “My advice to the people of Staten Island is: Don’t donate the American Red Cross. Put their money elsewhere.”

    Yest, it is unravelling fast. But blaming the Red Cross? What about the government?

    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/11/were-going-to-die-staten-island-residents-plead-for-help-3-days-after-sandy/

    • TheTorch
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 8:49 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Blaming Red Cross, even though it may have some validity (I would need to look into it), seems to be more of a distraction – to take the focus off the government response.

    • Brad
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 9:38 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Yeah, blame the volunteer organization rather that the mother of all nanny state governments. Of course, you need look no further than where Mr. Molinaro works to get your answer why he’s so “upset” with the Red Cross.

      • Svigor
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 10:04 pm | Permalink

        He’s probably pissed it isn’t Red Crescent.

  12. Posted November 1, 2012 at 8:57 pm | Permalink | Reply

    I have been listening to Bill Cunningham form years on Cincys 700 WLW..he is full of bluster..his “gut feeling” is often wrong..he after all said that Bill Clinton was unelectable…Not saying he is wrong, just take his words with a grain of salt…

    • TheTorch
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 9:01 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Fair point, but apparently he has a good record predicting the Ohio results…

      • jeff
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 9:10 pm | Permalink

        Keep in mind that before the Romney surge he said Romney had little chance of winning Ohio.

  13. C-Bus GOP
    Posted November 1, 2012 at 8:57 pm | Permalink | Reply

    TRANSMITTING FROM THE GROUND IN OHIO……

    http://boe.cuyahogacounty.us/pdf_boe/en-US/2012/2008_2012InHouseVotingDailyComparison.pdf

    Cuyahoga county walk-in early voting total for today = 2963. Better than the last 2 days when Cuyahoga County was gripped by power outages. There are still some outages but today was a mild day (40-50’s, sunny). Weather should not have been a factor getting people out. Overall not a great showing, does not show a huge groundswell of “make up” votes from the past 2 days of bad weather…

    All in all whether or not they can rally to meet last elections’ totals or not doesn’t really matter. Overall it is a small number of votes. But it is important because, as has been well chronicled in many places, there are 2 views on this election:

    1. The Axelrod Hypothesis: Democrats will swarm the GOP and independents, The polls show D+8 because that is what is out there. Early voting and weak LV screens are not skewing the polls. Gallup, Rasmussen, and Pew are idiots. Barack will get the turnout he needs which will need to eclipse his 2008 turnout. It may be closer than in 2008 but Obama will still win.

    2. The GOP hypothesis: Gallup and Rasmussen show increased R enthusiasm and increased R turnout which is consistent with what we see and feel in battleground states. The media polls are subject to bias by early voting in states like OH as well as through weak LV screens. The media polls are thus inaccurate. We predict a relatively comfortable R win on ED.

    Cuyahoga county early voting is O’s honey pot. If they are struggling to match turnout there, there is no way they can make a case that overall D turnout will be higher in Ohio or anywhere else. Hard to argue #1 given this and given what else we know about voter registrations, absentee requests and returns, early voting, crowd sizes at rallies, etc.

    #MITTMENTUM

    • JGS
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 9:01 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Looks like behind by more than 9,500 votes just in the past 6 days. That can’t be good that they didn’t have any makeup at all.

      • TheTorch
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 9:03 pm | Permalink

        Looking good…

      • Dave
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 10:06 pm | Permalink

        What’s that in Ohio?….ah, give it a day or so, they’ll round up a few busloads of somalians and get it even,

    • Brad
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 9:41 pm | Permalink | Reply

      c-bus, good take. It’s important to remember how important this county is. In 2008, O won OH by 260k votes which was almost identical to his margin in just this county.

  14. Posted November 1, 2012 at 9:08 pm | Permalink | Reply

    yes, Bill does have contacts deep in the Ohio GOP, I hope he is right.

  15. zang
    Posted November 1, 2012 at 9:21 pm | Permalink | Reply

    What party insiders have to say is rarely of value. Most of the people doing the talking are mid-level and are only repeating what the top level people have told them.

  16. boone
    Posted November 1, 2012 at 9:27 pm | Permalink | Reply

    I dream of a landslide. Go Romney!!!!!! And as my dreams come through, i can say to my inlaws “I told you so”…

  17. No Tribe
    Posted November 1, 2012 at 9:27 pm | Permalink | Reply

    So, Nate Silver got beaten up a bit by the in-house NYT’s reporters, calling him just a blogger– not a journalist, and telling him to grow up, and stop trying to bet $2K on twitter on the outcome.

    He admitted to being stressed out.

    • TheTorch
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 9:44 pm | Permalink | Reply

      His model is about to implode, his credibility with it, and Intrade will tank.

      I should think he should be stressed!

    • zang
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 10:02 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Well hell, and if Obama wins? Will he be some kind of hero to the left?

      • No Tribe
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 10:12 pm | Permalink

        Unbearable for decades to come!

      • Brad
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 10:34 pm | Permalink

        It also shows the depth of his “objectivity.”

    • live_free290248
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 10:18 pm | Permalink | Reply

      I agree, he lowered himself by offering such silly bet.

  18. kenberthiaume
    Posted November 1, 2012 at 9:40 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Republicans are ahead in early voting in Colorado…what did it look like in 2008 at this time, early vote wise? Just out of curiousity.

    • Dean
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 10:02 pm | Permalink | Reply

      According to the GWU website, about 2.8% lean to D’s last time, 3% lean to R’s this time.

      Denver proper is just short of 2008 percentage wise. Not a huge amount though. I wish the “I” numbers in the CO polls were better for Romney. I am a little worried about this state for Romney.

      JMO.

      • kenberthiaume
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 10:24 pm | Permalink

        so last time dem’s were up in early vote by 2.8% but they won by 12%? That doesn’t sound good.

    • Dean
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 10:30 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Not quite.

      You can see the registration vote here for 2012:

      http://elections.gmu.edu/early_vote_2012.html

      and here for 2008

      http://elections.gmu.edu/early_vote_2008.html

      You cant glean everything from that – who knows who votes what – but those are the numbers.

  19. No Tribe
    Posted November 1, 2012 at 9:51 pm | Permalink | Reply

    If Lake doesn’t part with Goeas and project her own numbers, this is going to be a 5% blowout of 52-45. She hasn’t given any indication that she will to date either.

    Democratic pollster Celinda Lake, who helped conduct the Politico/George Washington University Battleground Poll, told Politico that “women are holding back because of the economy.”

    If you missed this memo, its worth the read:
    http://images.politico.com/global/2012/10/goeasbattlegroundmemooct28.html

    As Ed notes at the end, the generic is equal. That is why I don’t think its going to be a Republican wave. R’s could pick up 2-4 in the House, and maybe 1-2 in the Senate.

    • Brad
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 9:58 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Isn’t 52-45, 7%?

      • No Tribe
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 10:13 pm | Permalink

        Yes. O at 47.

    • zang
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 10:01 pm | Permalink | Reply

      I am not sure if the 52-47 is Goeas’ “final” number or if his projection will be based upon the data to be revealed in the very last poll from Battleground. And I wonder how the storm will impact their data collection. I am having a hard time seeing a blowout Romney win based on the early voter data we’ve seen thus far.

      • No Tribe
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 10:18 pm | Permalink

        He states it’s just a snapshot in the memo. Battleground has found Obama’s EV half as strong as it was in ’08.

  20. TheTorch
    Posted November 1, 2012 at 10:01 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Well if you have to give the left wing pollsters credit, they are really trying to prop up Obama.

    Wisconsin – 51 Obama, 42 Romney.
    St. Norbert College/WPR Wisconsin 2012 Presidential Poll

    um, one little problem, D+10.

    ahahahahahahaah

    • Medicine Man
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 10:07 pm | Permalink | Reply

      I think that’s why BO was there today and will be Sunday…to spike that football in Scott Walker’s face… Lol.

      See Live Free…this is the kind of stuff we are talking about. Do you think the POTUS would spend 2 stops the last week of an election in a state he is up 9 points?

      • Pete
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 10:18 pm | Permalink

        Why would anyone doubt the most honest $ ethical Admin ever? The same group that brought you Benghazi and jobs saved or created or thought of or dreamt up.

    • Philanthropic_Extortionist
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 10:26 pm | Permalink | Reply

      They must have polled Madison, the hammer and sickle of the midwest!

  21. Dave
    Posted November 1, 2012 at 10:03 pm | Permalink | Reply

    The skilled propagandists at Disney are at it again. Disney can’t give Obama enough free air time on the nightly news and tonigfht was no exception. Bunch of corporate shills. Every time I see Mickey Mouse I just want (in the words of one Romney) “take a swing at him” Makes me sick to think any money I give that overtly political company goes straight into their Obama-loving pockets.

    • Philanthropic_Extortionist
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 10:28 pm | Permalink | Reply

      No worries Dave, O will be gone and then they can go back to making tree hugging prop movies for the youth of America.

  22. Ken in Bama
    Posted November 1, 2012 at 10:11 pm | Permalink | Reply

    I found this site because I came to the conclusion on my own about two weeks ago that these polls couldn’t be right, After doing a quick search to see if anybody else was seeing the same thing I was seeing I stumbled upon this. Very glad I did, as I couldn’t understand why everything I was reading didn’t match up to what the pollsters were saying. I seem to hit this site about 20 times a day now just to be reassured that I am not alone in my moments of weakness and despair. I keep finding myself on the emotional roller coaster of what my eyes see on RCP, Intrade, and 538 contrasted to what my gut believes from what happened in 2010. So just a quick note of thanks to all who run this site and are able to give real numbers to base my gut feelings on and real observations from people on the ground in the swing states. I am from Alabama, so even though I will be an enthusiastic Romney voter on Tuesday my thoughts will be what is happening in the states that will decide it all. Thank you all for making me feel a little bit better with your great analysis. I have been telling all my friends about this site!!

    • Posted November 1, 2012 at 10:20 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Thanks Ken. All one of us appreciate the support 🙂

    • No Tribe
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 10:23 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Yes, that is the paragraph of thoughts that we all enter into this site with… now in a week we will find out if we are as smart as we think we are, or not.

    • Ken in Bama
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 10:32 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Quickly looking at the polls on WI, strange that for the last month they have all been around 2-3% for O, but as soon as it becomes a news story we get the +8 and +9 for O today. I am really trying to believe that these pollsters are objective, and just have a bad model, but you notice that and it becomes harder and harder. Marquette goes from +1 to +8 in 14 days? To be fair they were at +11 O at the end of September. Just seems very odd that you would even publish something so completely out of whack.

      • No Tribe
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 11:16 pm | Permalink

        Out of whack things happen with elections that defy the predicted outcome. Polling by random sampling may have reached beyond its point of efficacy for a predictive model. I think that’s what ’12 will show, and that Gallup and Rasmussen, and those that choose to include party ID among the weighting, will be proved correct.

      • Ron
        Posted November 2, 2012 at 12:19 am | Permalink

        Jim Lee of Susquehanna Polling in an interview with Ed Morrissey made this point–that too many of the pollsters are all over the place in how they weight their polls. One week it’s D+5, then it’s D+9, then it’s D+3. So they have these results that take great lyric leaps without the public being able to note a discernible trend for either candidate. Great interview. He said PA is a true toss-up.

        Personally, I think we give the network pollsters especially too much credit for decency. I think the polls are deliberately manipulative and strategic. They pop up at times convenient to the left. If there’s too much of an outcry concerning a particularly outrageous result, they pull back some. They’ve been doing this for years.

      • Ken in Bama
        Posted November 2, 2012 at 12:31 am | Permalink

        I for one followed 538 in 2008. Now I see the flaw in his model. As for Intrade, I plan on taking off Tuesday and aside from taking time out from voting, I will be checking Intrade every hour to see the big sell off. I should get a big chuckle out of that.

  23. The_Commish
    Posted November 1, 2012 at 10:12 pm | Permalink | Reply

    I wish some one would talk about Obama’s – second pension here in ILL. – some one put together a Keith like analysis shows that its worth over 400K and includes free life time health care. Probably gets better pension and health benefits from Congressional program.

    Man that debbie wasserman is looking bad in her latest tv speeches……… she looks worried and burned out …. maybe internal polling not looking good ??

    • Medicine Man
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 10:31 pm | Permalink | Reply

      She’s just not your type 😉

  24. Ted
    Posted November 1, 2012 at 10:16 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Early voting results posted today show that over 1.3 million early votes have already been cast. This is somewhere around 50% of the total votes in Colorado. Of those votes 35.02% were Democrat, 37.79% were Republican, 26.16% Independent, and around 1% misc. parties. Assuming everyone votes the party line and Romney has any kind of lead with Independents, it is not unreasonable to come up with an easy 52% to 48% Romney win.

    • Medicine Man
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 10:26 pm | Permalink | Reply

      I feel quite confident about CO. Probably FLA>CO=VA>OH>NH>IA>NV

      • live_free290248
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 11:33 pm | Permalink

        We can agree on something 🙂 Your order is my order as well.

    • Interested Party
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 10:30 pm | Permalink | Reply

      This actual data serves as a good check on the partisan splits of other polling organizations. With over 1.3 million votes cast, this is about as good a sample as you can get. You can take a polling organization, adjust their Colorado splits to the actual splits, and get what the correct split in their polling should be. You can then correct their splits in other states to get a more accurate result.

      • Interested Party
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 10:44 pm | Permalink

        PS–Rassmussen nails Colorado if the early vote (50%) mirrors the final CO demographics. This mean we need to correct most of the CO polls by +3 to +6 Dems.

  25. No Tribe
    Posted November 1, 2012 at 10:21 pm | Permalink | Reply

    In my twisted mind, polls like this are like the water boiling the frog with slowly increasing the temperature. The Democrats that might/won’t vote will not wake up till its over. And the Romney supporters are close enough to keep working hard. Working on a campaign, I always wanted to be closing in and down a point or two the last couple of weeks, rather than losing a big lead and holding on by a point or two. One’s energizing, the other is draining.

  26. Posted November 1, 2012 at 10:30 pm | Permalink | Reply

    The ABC/WashPost had an interesting stat from their daily tracking poll today. Assuming it is true, let’s analyze this…

    According to the ABC/WashPost poll, 57% people who have already voted or plan to vote early have/will vote for Obama, 42% have/will vote for Romney. For people who will vote on election day, Romney is winning 54% to 43%. So the question is…will more people vote on election day, or will more people vote early? What is the break-down of early voters to election day voters in 2008?

    • kenberthiaume
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 10:34 pm | Permalink | Reply

      30% voted early in 2008
      http://elections.gmu.edu/early_vote_2012.html

      30% times 15% is 5% and 70% times 11% is 7.7% so romney wins!

      Gallup said Romney is ahead in early voting. Who knows.

    • No Tribe
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 10:35 pm | Permalink | Reply

      30 percent.
      http://elections.gmu.edu/early_vote_2012.html

    • Ken in Bama
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 10:39 pm | Permalink | Reply

      I read today that it was 19% at this point last year. Not sure about the whole cycle. If that is true and we assume 25% early vote, my math would have it 51-46.5 for R. I’ll take it all day and twice on Sunday.

      • Ken in Bama
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 10:41 pm | Permalink

        Just saw 30%. Higher than I thought. Looks like someone already did the math and R still wins.

    • Posted November 1, 2012 at 10:45 pm | Permalink | Reply

      So it was 30% in 2008. Let’s say it will be higher in 2012. In fact, just to have some numbers to experiment with, let’s say early voting will be 40% this year…

      We can do the math with what we have:

      Early voting: Obama 40% of 57 % = 22.8. Romney 40% of 42% = 16.8
      Election day voting: Obama: 60% of 43% = 25.8 Romney 60% of 53% = 32.4

      So Obama is 22.8 + 25.8 = 48.6% of final total vote.
      Romney is 16.8 + 32.4 = 49.2% of final total vote.

      Romney wins by 0.6%, assuming 40% early voting. In 2008 early voting was 30%. Spread this around. Not sure how many people noticed this from the WashPost/ABC poll today.

  27. John
    Posted November 1, 2012 at 10:32 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Another assumption everyone makes is that Dems are voting essentially unanimously for Obama in early voting and Reps for Romney. But then how can we reconcile the data from Pew, Gallup and GWU/Battleground showing Romney winning the early vote by roughly 7% nationally. Me thinks these early voting Dems are telling the truth to these pollsters and something like 20% of them have voted for Romney. It is the only way the reputable polling organizations can get this result. Huge cross-over is not something any polls show but this is something a person may be most likely to lie about until after they vote.

    • Ron
      Posted November 2, 2012 at 12:30 am | Permalink | Reply

      This kind of cross-over voting will be especially prevalent in states with issues like coal or fracking. Come to think of it, people cross over to vote for the guy who can bring back the economy. So we’re back to square one–it’s the economy stupid. It’s why O can’t reach 50percent nationally.

  28. No Tribe
    Posted November 1, 2012 at 10:34 pm | Permalink | Reply

    So, Romney will make that 1 stop in PA that was projected. I feel luck and a good feel of this campaign is on my side now.

    Obama

    Tue/23rd: Florida, Ohio
    Wed/24th: Iowa, Colorado, Nevada
    Thur/25th: Florida, Virginia, Ohio
    Fri/26th: – (DC)
    Sat/27th: New Hampshire
    Sun/28th: – (DC)
    Mon/29th: Florida, Ohio
    Tue/30th: – (DC)
    Wed/31st: – (DC, New Jersey)
    Thur/1st: Wisconsin, Nevada, Colorado, Ohio
    Fri/2nd: Ohio, Ohio
    Sat/3rd: Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa, Virginia
    Sun/4th: New Hampshire, Florida, Ohio, Colorado
    Mon/5th:

    Romney
    Tue/23rd: Nevada, Colorado
    Wed/24th: Nevada, Iowa
    Thur/25th: Ohio, Ohio, Ohio
    Fri/26th: Iowa, Ohio
    Sat/27th: Florida, Florida, Florida
    Sun/28th: Ohio, Ohio, Ohio
    Mon/29th: Ohio, Iowa, Wisconsin
    Tue/30th: – (Ohio)
    Wed/31st: Florida, Florida, Florida
    Thur/1st: Virginia, Virginia, Virginia
    Fri/2nd: Wisconsin, Ohio, Ohio
    Sat/3rd: New Hampshire, Iowa, Colorado, Colorado
    Sun/4th: Iowa, Ohio, Pennsylvania
    Mon/5th: New Hampshire

    No details yet. Romney starts the 4th in Iowa and has a 2 PM event in Ohio. The last rally of the day will be somewhere near Philly. Think that will force Obama into PA on Mon? Romney will probably be back in Ohio on the 5th too.

    • John
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 10:36 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Candidates will be in Ohio simultaneously on Friday and again Sunday. Comparing the crowd size and excitement on those days may well tell the tail of this election.

    • No Tribe
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 10:39 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Romney just sent out the 5th:

      Ryan goes to Nevada early am, Romney does two events in Virginia, at 12 and 2:45. Then bet he goes to Ohio to meet up with Ryan.

      • Brad
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 10:43 pm | Permalink

        That’s not good that he’s in VA the day before.

      • No Tribe
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 10:47 pm | Permalink

        I am feeling this election! Predictions/Outcomes:

        Ohio-13/12
        Virginia-8/5
        Florida-6/6
        Iowa-4/5
        Colorado-3/3
        Nevada-2/2
        Wisconsin-2/2
        New Hampshire 1/2
        Pennsylvania-1/1

        38 stops. He’s going to exceed 40 by a couple. I definitely over-estimated his presence in Virginia, but otherwise 🙂

      • Dan
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 10:48 pm | Permalink

        Any chance he could squeeze in a stop in Minn-SP on that Sunday? I have this feeling he stops there at some point. Alas, maybe I ate something…

      • No Tribe
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 10:52 pm | Permalink

        haha, no, but I wouldn’t bet against a joint Ryan-Romney event in Wisconsin. I think that’s likely to happen either Sunday or Monday.

      • Posted November 1, 2012 at 10:53 pm | Permalink

        @Brad and it’s not good for Obama that Obama is camping almost two straight days in Ohio.

      • Posted November 1, 2012 at 10:56 pm | Permalink

        Obama’s not stumping in VA though, Brad, apart from what looks like a whistle stop.

        I wonder if it’s Senate-based….Romney trying to drag a few of the strugglers over the line with him?

      • Posted November 1, 2012 at 10:59 pm | Permalink

        He’s in Wisconsin Friday…..just wish he’d pop his head into Minnesota just to mess with the Democrats.

      • No Tribe
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 11:22 pm | Permalink

        Romney just added another event to Mon the 5th, as expected Ohio.

      • No Tribe
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 11:28 pm | Permalink

        Victory Rally with Paul Ryan at Sun Country Airlines in Minneapolis, Minnesota on Sunday, November 4, 2012

        Victory Rally with Paul Ryan at Sun Country Airlines in Minneapolis, Minnesota on Sunday, November 4, 2012

        Sunday, November 4, 2012

        Doors Open 1:30 PM

        Event Begins 3:30 PM

        Sun Country Airlines
        Minneapolis — St. Paul International Airport
        2005 Cargo Road, Minneapolis, MN 55111

        Romney has an event on the 4th in Ohio that is at an airport and starts at 1:45 pm. Nothing after that scheduled yet. Could Romney be flying up to MN for that event with Ryan on the 4th, possible? Probably not, but what if he did, ahaha.

      • No Tribe
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 11:30 pm | Permalink

        So I’ll guess wild here and that Romney goes up to meet Ryan for that 3:30 event in MN, and then they both go over to Wisconsin for a joint event in the evening on the 4th. That would rock.

      • No Tribe
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 11:33 pm | Permalink

        And it would be quite a surprise too, as they are labeling Romney’s WI Fri event as a “closing argument” one.

    • Ken in Bama
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 10:46 pm | Permalink | Reply

      I always heard you can tell where a campaign feels it is by watching the travel. It seems to me that Obama is playing catch up with wherever Romney goes or is saying he will go. I assume that is why his schedule is blank on Monday…waiting to see if Romney actually goes to PA. I think that if we hear he will stop in PA on Monday then Axelrod has to be worried. Just my two cents.

      • No Tribe
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 10:50 pm | Permalink

        They’ve already said they are stopping in PA on the way to NH Sunday. I can’t see Obama ignoring it. Cause you are right, they are just trying to keep up.

  29. Fat Cow
    Posted November 1, 2012 at 10:34 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Can someone tell me when pollsters started using turnout sampling based on the expected demographic profiles of the electorate? It seems to be an accepted practice that is out of control. Is it actually making polling any more certain? If the sampling is supposed to eliminate the randomness that comes from polling random voters, then why do polls still need MOE? Shouldn’t the sample eliminate the MOE?

    Where do they get their data to support their samples? It seems like a practice inviting arbitrariness masked by research and studies. The only certain data available post-election is turnout by precinct or census VTD, which doesn’t provide explicit information about the demographic profile that these samples presume to factor in, i.e., gender, partisan ID, race, and age of the electorate. Surely pollsters aren’t using exit polling to form prospective samples. Is it pretty common for these samples to ignore midterm elections, e.g., 2010? I understand the difference between 2008 and 2010 (presidential election v. not), but empirically each one is an outlier for the same reasons. Which one just depends on your party affiliation. Also, if you’ve worked enough handling election matters you know comparing elections four years apart can suggest pretty wild mood swings by the electorate and the only way to normalize this type of swing is if you account for intervening elections. This type of sampling isn’t using in election litigation, so I don’t understand how this polling methodology is now considered reliable.

    Sampling might have worked well in 2008 for Nate Silver and all the other “innovative” young turks, but most anyone could have called that election by mid-October.

    • Interested Party
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 10:39 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Axelrod got the DOJ to go after Gallup for undersampling minorities. This has scared everyone.

      • Fat Cow
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 10:48 pm | Permalink

        There’s not much out of this administration that would surprise me, but DOJ sued Gallup for something else. Even under this administrations ludicrous interpretations of the civil rights laws,undersampling isn’t a federal violation.

  30. David
    Posted November 1, 2012 at 10:40 pm | Permalink | Reply

    I have been waiting for an article explaining why Democrats are accepting all of these polls that appear to oversampling Democrats. This ( http://www.salon.com/2012/11/01/the_independent_illusion/) is the first article that I have seen that attempts to do that. Here is the main thrust of the argument:

    “In the case of the Romney-Obama race, this suggests that a disproportionate number of functionally Republican voters are identifying themselves as independents instead of Republicans – and, perhaps, that a disproportionate share of functionally Democratic voters are calling themselves Democrats, and not independents. This would explain why Romney is doing so well among independents without gaining a comparable edge overall. It would also explain why pollsters seem to be “oversampling” Democrats.”

    Any thoughts on the validity of the argument. I would be more inclined to believe it if they had actually supported it with some numbers, but it still sounds like a valid point to my untrained ears.

    • Brad
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 10:45 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Ha! That’s just pure speculation. Since we are just trading theories with the libs we should demand that Occam’s Razor should apply.

    • Posted November 1, 2012 at 10:51 pm | Permalink | Reply

      It’s the point/theory the left is using to support their polls that there will be a higher turnout than 08. It’s just a theory, they try to say tea partiers are in the independent #s. I think it was Jay Cost that shot that theory down, seems like I read one of his tweets to that point.

      • Brad
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 10:56 pm | Permalink

        Yeah, I saw a couple articles Jay put out that addressed this. Sure the electorate isn’t going to look like 2010, but D+7 just isn’t reasonable.

    • zang
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 10:55 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Pew, Gallup and Rasmussen all say otherwise. Rasmussen is actually not even trusting his own numbers and making it Dem + 3. But Pew has it dead even.

    • No Tribe
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 10:58 pm | Permalink | Reply

      I just debunked that in the last thread.

      Go to TPM, the site where they are relying on the polling data.
      http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/10/can_romney_win_indies_lose.php?ref=fpblg

      Under pollsters, unclick Fox News and click redraw.

      Wala, the chart goes away that the whole argument is based on. Imagine, Josh Marshall having to rely upon Fox News for starting a meme. It’s an argument based upon nothing.

      Or, separate out all the other poll noise, and just look redraw it with only Pew polling. Wala, Nothing like what Marshall argues for there. In fact Pew shows that D’s have lost to I’s.

      And, he doesn’t even include Gallup or Rasmussen party ID.

    • Fat Cow
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 10:59 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Thanks for the article.

      This seems to just add one more layer of speculation to the whole system and reinforces the concerns I expressed in comment 30 above. Polling is supposed to be an empirical study using objective factors. The more sampling is used, tweaked, compensated with, and oversampled, the more speculative it is.

      As long we are keeping score, we now have independents that are really Republicans. People that aren’t actual Democrats [functional Democrats] calling themselves Democrats. And [presumably] independent voters that are no longer independent. Additionally partisans are now partisans are distinguished two ways: functionally [party affiliation] and actual [party affiliation].

      I thought I wanted to know more about polling, but the more I learn the less illuminating I find it.

      • Fat Cow
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 11:08 pm | Permalink

        This sampling is juust bullshit masked in a veneer of academic doublespeak.

      • Brad
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 11:14 pm | Permalink

        But does it make you mad, Fat Cow. Mad Cow?

    • Jan
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 11:08 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Well, when I looked into Iowa I specifically checked for any evidence that could support that claim. Where there less Republicans but a lot more Indepentents in 2010? No. Was there a sudden rush around the republican primary to republicans? No.
      The fact is the number of Democrats have come down, while the number of republicans has come up, steadily from 2008. If the claim is that republicans rushed to the independent camp, then there is no evidence for that in the Iowa numbers. For the other states it does not seem that like either.

    • Posted November 2, 2012 at 12:02 am | Permalink | Reply

      someone posted this in another comment http://www.jamesjheaney.com/2012/10/27/the-great-democratic-turnout-miracle/

      this is a 538 Nate Silver fan who looks at these cases using actual registration in states. One would theorize that if independents are refugees from Dems or Repubs that increases in IND would obviously show up in decreases in the parties. Long story short looking at you see static Dem numbers, increases in Repubs and Indp.

      His conclusion…it is extremely rare but can and does happen….most of the polling has a flawed set of methodology inputs that are indeed showing huge increases in Democrat turnouts. There is no way Romney leads indp by the numbers he does and loses UNLESS, like 2004 when Bush lost INDP but won out with a huge Republican turnout, Obama turns out LARGER (since he won indp in 08) democrat voters on election day to overcome those advantages by romney. That is possible but highly unlikely as if it was it would be the quietest wave of democrat support in history. if Obama had that kind of support lined up to overwhelm repubs and indp turnout….then why isnt it showing in the polls with large leads going into the weekend ? Why are you not seeing downticket Dems with huge leads. Something is amiss

      my fear is IF Romney pulls this off the MSM will NOT admit polling was wrong or flawed, they will immediately latch onto racism,. cheating and voter suppression

  31. Paul8148
    Posted November 1, 2012 at 10:43 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Thursday, Nov 1 = 9,162
    Dems = 3,429 Reps = 3,613

    Washoe

    • Brad
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 10:45 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Meh. Okay, a win is a win I guess.

    • zang
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 11:09 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Just not seeing it. These numbers are good enough to re elect Heller though.

  32. Brad
    Posted November 1, 2012 at 10:54 pm | Permalink | Reply

    You know it would be funny if Romney lost MN, WI, MN, OH, PA only to win NJ because folks were so ticked at the lack of aid response. NJ has 15 EVs by the way.

    • Posted November 1, 2012 at 10:58 pm | Permalink | Reply

      NJ might “go for Romney” due to lack of turnout thanks to Sandy…..but cue lawsuit upon lawsuit if that happens.

      • No Tribe
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 11:00 pm | Permalink

        That would be funny. Christie in the middle of another storm.

  33. No Tribe
    Posted November 1, 2012 at 11:03 pm | Permalink | Reply

    On power outages:

    PA lost a whole lot. I could see that impacting big election day. I saw the PA Gov already say nothing will be altered for election day.

    • No Tribe
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 11:05 pm | Permalink | Reply

      But it’s not at all inconceivable to imagine Obama losing a couple of million national votes due to this storm along the blue eastern mid-atlantic seaboard.

    • Posted November 1, 2012 at 11:10 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Eastern PA is more dem than western PA, correct?

      Who do you think is more likely to have a flooded basement, a PA democrat, or a PA republican?

      Who do you think will have more trouble getting to the polling booths in eastern PA, a democrat or a republican?

      I am starting to understand why Romney is going to PA. The hurricane might have helped reduce dem turn-out in eastern PA.

      • jeff
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 11:29 pm | Permalink

        With so much sudden intetest in PA and because Romney is a cautious guy by nature thetes something in the internal polling that indicates a tied race or even with Romney slightly ahead. Theres an awful lot of Catholics gun owners and Reagan democrats who had enough of Obama that plus depressed voting in the democratic bastions affected by Sandy may well tip the state to Romney

    • Rick H
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 11:23 pm | Permalink | Reply

      I can assure that Pennsylvania will be ready and did not get hit nearly as hard by the storm. Dems are not motivated. Repubblicans around thhe five county area of corrupt Philadelphia are ON FIRE FOR ROMNEY. PA IS DEFINITELY IN PLAY! Obama can not match Romney’s last 5night days of ads. Obama can’t cover all the leaks.

      • Ron
        Posted November 2, 2012 at 12:49 am | Permalink

        True. Romney’s carpet-bombing PA. In one half hour I saw four ads–powerful ads. I was impressed. Countering this was just one wrong-headed Obama ad bragging about the rise of home values in a state hard hit by declining home values. Dumb.

  34. Tony
    Posted November 1, 2012 at 11:10 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Romney is hitting Northern Va, which is key in Virginia, and also conservative Lynchburg to make sure voters turn out.

    http://blog.4president.org/2012/mitt-romney/

    • No Tribe
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 11:19 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Yea, I might have to go and get a free football for standing there a couple of hours early.

    • kenberthiaume
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 11:27 pm | Permalink | Reply

      the key is will evangelicals turn out for romney. They only supported mccain 3-1 and i think many stayed home. I can’t understand how an evangelical would vote obama at all.

      • jeff
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 11:44 pm | Permalink

        I think with the help of Ralph Reed evangelucal turnout will be much higher than it was in 08. That. plus Catholic disallushionment with Obama. will prove to be a major boost in IA and PA as well as in Ohio.

    • Brad
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 11:33 pm | Permalink | Reply

      But when is he coming to Portland? (OR) 🙂

  35. zang
    Posted November 1, 2012 at 11:16 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Ralston: http://www.ralstonflash.com/blog/democratic-lead-clark-55000-washoe-remains-tight#.UJM6jZG9KSM

  36. Posted November 2, 2012 at 12:54 am | Permalink | Reply

    I think if i am not mistaken that the interdependent vote has always tracked very closely with the actual outcome of every election since the 1960’s, + or – 2%?

  37. Bob San Diego
    Posted November 2, 2012 at 2:05 am | Permalink | Reply

    “Another piece of the puzzle concerning these skewed polls has to do with this piece: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/house-not-looking-good-democrats_660029.html
    If the nation really is in a 2008 D+6 or even D+2 why aren’t Dems expected to pick up a signficant number of house seats. In fact it looks like the house will be as Republican or more Republican than it is now. It just doesn’t make sense unless we have about an even electorate.”

    A *lot* of congressional districts have been gerrymandered in – for both sides.

    It’s going to be pretty hard this decade to have significant congressional shifts, methinks.

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: