Washoe County Final Day Closes Strong, GOP Ahead by a Nose

In a nearly dead even final day, the GOP cast five more ballots than the Democrats in Washoe County. Total ballots cast were 14,234 by far the largest of the cycle as expected. Republicans cast 5348 while Democrats cast 5343. The Independent/Other category definitely made their presence felt casting 3543 ballots. With this being the final day it seems more instructive to look at the aggregate totals and compare them to the 2008 results.  Although Democrats carried the in-person early vote by 641 ballots, most everything else about this performance was bad news.  Of the three groups only the Democrats had a lower turnout than 2008 bolstering the argument of reduced enthusiasm for the party. At the same time their differential over Republicans was 11,337 fewer than the 2008 margin. Republicans increased their ballots cast 8485 and 4.5pp of the overall total. The Independent/Other segment increased its vote total 4270 ballots and 2.3pp of the overall total.  As was the trend throughout the early voting, the increased Independent/Other vote may well be the deciding factor in Washoe County and the state as a whole. Republicans still lead in the aggregate early voting count thanks to absentee voting and mail-in ballots although they had hoped to add to this lead by greater performances from in-person balllots.

Contrast between 2012 and 2008 in-person early voting

2012 Final Tally 2008 Final Tally
Dem – 45043 (40.4%) Dem – 47895 (47.1%)
GOP -44402 (39.8%) GOP – 35917 (35.3%)
NP – 22062 (19.8%) NP – 17792 (17.5%)

Overall we see that 2012 had little relation to 2008 in that the competition was far stiffer this time around with Republicans giving as good as they were getting. Although hopes for a Washoe win from in-person voting were dashed due to strong late performances by Democrats, the full cycle performance was stellar especially when contrasted to a woeful 2008.

2012 Early Vote Trendlines by Party

2008 Early Vote Trendlines by Party


  1. AC
    Posted November 3, 2012 at 12:45 am | Permalink | Reply

    How do things look in aggregate early voting for the entire state: 2012 vs 2008?

    • rcl_in_va
      Posted November 4, 2012 at 12:20 pm | Permalink | Reply

      This is an updated post. In the prev post I had to use estimated numbers for 11/2 non-Clark county voting. Today I have the final SOS numbers and 11/2. The statewide DEM advantage after all EV and Mail is +59k ballots. The estimate previous was +60k.

      After the final Clark early vote numbers I was ready to post the old DDM (Turn Out the Lights, the Party’s Over) for NV; or if I were a DEM I’d light up a cigar in Red Auerbach fashion. Others were not so pessimistic, so I decided to model the numbers through election day. Since Obama went to NV on Thursday, I thought it was probably for a good reason. Maybe it’s closer than it looks.

      There seems to be two states of Nevada; Clark County and everywhere else. I come from the three states of Tennessee; go figure. Giving the DEMs and REPs zero crossover, 60/40 “Other” to DEMs in Clark and 40/60 elsewhere leaves DEMs with a +52k vote advantage today.

      On election day ’08 DEMs’ turned out 44% of their early vote total and REPs 62%. Given the same “Other” vote allocations as before then the DEMs win by +48k (52% to 48%). Total voter turnout would be a bit high (83%); it was 80% in ’04 and ’08.

      If the turnout is like ’04 (DEMs 79% of early vote and REPs 75%) then it’s a 54% / 46% blowout for the DEMs. This doesn’t seem realistic since overall voter turnout would be 91%!!

      If the election day turnout ratio is the same as ’08 or better for REPs the game is still on. What if the “Other” (independents) ratio in Clark is DEM 55/45 vice 60/40? DEMs still win by 24k (51% to 49%). What if the REPs increase their turnout to the ’04 level (75% vs 64%) and DEMs do not? That ties it up, and overall voter turnout is high but perhaps reasonable (85%). It’s still about the “Others” (independents) and election day turnout. REPs are in a hole and it will be hard to get out. Guess I just don’t want to give up quite yet.

    • rcl_in_va
      Posted November 4, 2012 at 6:02 pm | Permalink | Reply

      PPP has Independents at R+9, USA Survey has R+18 and Gravis R+35. All over the map. FWIW if Independents are R+12 or better AND the REP election day turn out is as good as it was in ’08 relative to early voting then it’s a dead heat. This doesn’t include D to R and R to D crossover votes which PPP has R+2. Not a big PPP fan so if anyone has better numbers please let me know. Probably beating a dead horse, but it would be stunning to see NV red Tuesday night.

  2. billyboy
    Posted November 3, 2012 at 12:45 am | Permalink | Reply

    when do we see Clark County, probably another big DEM day, sigh!

  3. Posted November 3, 2012 at 12:48 am | Permalink | Reply

    There was some speculation today about why Romney didn’t drop into Nevada when he was nearby in Colorado this weekend – apparently there was a tentative rally scheduled – but it may be because of the trip to PA which BTW you’ll want to post – there is a new poll out showing Romney UP BY 4 IN PA! 🙂

  4. AC
    Posted November 3, 2012 at 12:48 am | Permalink | Reply

    Can someone please re-state the changes that Rasmussen made starting November 1st to its Party ID assumptions for the nation, Ohio, etc.?

    • TheTorch
      Posted November 3, 2012 at 10:40 am | Permalink | Reply

      It has not been released yet, as far as I know.

  5. Dewayne
    Posted November 3, 2012 at 12:49 am | Permalink | Reply

    I know this not NV… but something just occurred to me… In Colorado 1.4M have already voted with registered Republicans having a 38k vote lead and polls show about even split on Indys and Repubs get more crossover vote. Is this a sign Colorado may already be in the bag?

    • jeff
      Posted November 3, 2012 at 12:51 am | Permalink | Reply

      Pretty much so.

    • Posted November 3, 2012 at 2:24 am | Permalink | Reply

      Yes. I am getting so tired of Rasmussen keeping CO in the “toss-up” category. How many more thousands of votes do Republicans have to lead over Democrats before it’s obvious this state is going red? It’s been obvious to me for months just on the huge amount of enthusiasm for Romney here and almost none for Obama.
      ~ Brittany

    • Andrew
      Posted November 3, 2012 at 2:34 am | Permalink | Reply

      Not necessarily. In 2008, Dems led early voting by 2 points. Obama eventually won Colorado by 9 points. This year, Republicans lead by 2. I don’t think you can make a direct extrapolation, but the state is still up for grabs.

  6. WillBest
    Posted November 3, 2012 at 12:50 am | Permalink | Reply

    Romney isn’t heading back to NV. Its been an impressive effort, but unless indies break 15-20 points for Romney its game over in NV.

  7. nvClark
    Posted November 3, 2012 at 12:53 am | Permalink | Reply

    Well, I guess it’s good that I’ve seen so many posts writing off Nevada, that way no one will be disappointed with todays Clark County numbers. I guess that’s one bright side anyway.

    Dem 23398, Rep 13760, Other 11032, Total Dem advantage now that all early votes are in: 69728

    • Posted November 3, 2012 at 1:15 am | Permalink | Reply

      What is most worrisome is that they massively increased their lead in the past three days. The big question is will the Democrats percent lead drop like a stone on election day, like it did in 2008, or if it remains steady, like it did in 2010.

      It’s all about election day now. The Democrats won’t have all those convenient early vote locations (like the one on the Vegas strip that all of the union members were bused to.

      • David Weed
        Posted November 3, 2012 at 2:23 am | Permalink

        Political Hat, I find your post truly offensive. This is one of the MAIN reasons I feel so passionate about this election. Republicans have blatantly tried to oppress voter turnout. The GOP quite simply wants fewer people to vote.

        We’re ALL Americans, Hat. We’re ALL entitled to vote. And while voting should be controlled and regulated, the Republican efforts to manipulate this election have been obscene. AND THERE’S NO MENTION OF IT ON THIS SITE!

        Why shouldn’t it be easier to vote, Hat? Why shouldn’t ALL polling places be convenient? Voters in Florida are waiting in line 3-4 hours, because Governor Scott limited early voting by 20-25%. He did this to limit the minority vote.

        Luckily, MOST of the GOP attempts at “stacking the deck” have been beaten back by the courts. But I have a question for you, The Political Hat. Why are you so afraid of Americans voting? Is your message so weak that you KNOW you can’t win?

        I bet that’s it.

        To quote Ann Romney: “You people”. You’ll forgive Mitt Romney blatantly LYING about something every single week. Jeeps to China. Obama selling Chrysler to Italy. You don’t even CARE! Maybe you’ll point to something Obama said. But you guys are supporting a guy who will LIE over and over, even after being called on a lie by everyone, just because you so desperately want President Obama to lose.

        You make me sick. Because, by and large, the discourse on this site is fairly high-minded. You’re fairly educated voters. And yet, you turn a blind eye to your ridiculous candidate.

        Hat, EVERY citizen should be allowed to vote. Both sides have their share of “low information” voters. If you’re afraid it’s too easy to vote, perhaps you have the wrong message.


        2 months ago, I predicted 332 EV for Obama. I think that’s likely, but not as much as before. However, President Obama will win PA, OH, NV, CO, and PROBABLY win Virginia. You get FL, MAYBE, and likely NC. And then this site and Rasmussen, along with Dick Morris and that dude from the fictitious Washington Examiner get to lick your wounds.


      • AC
        Posted November 3, 2012 at 2:28 am | Permalink

        David Weed, You have been watching too much MSNBC. On MSNBC, the ratio of negative to positive stories on GOP candidate Mitt Romney was 71 to 3.

      • Evan3457
        Posted November 3, 2012 at 2:40 am | Permalink

        David, don’t bogart that. Pass that “Weed” around the room.


        I find your post offensive. As if the Democrats haven’t been frustrating the will of the majority of the people in EVERY major poll that’s ever been done on Voter ID laws. As if Democrat judges on state and federal benches haven’t been frustrating the will of the majority.

        Every citizen should be allowed to vote? Yes, of course. But only ONCE, same as you and me, and only in their local polling place. Voter ID laws help make sure of that. If you oppose that, then YOU are the one who’s afraid of democracy, not us.

      • David Weed
        Posted November 3, 2012 at 2:58 am | Permalink

        That’s fine, AC. I’ll accept those numbers without any sort of fight. But you didn’t address any of the issues I brought up. You merely suggested that I was likely ill-informed.

        I’ll accept that MSNBC has done more attack pieces on Romney, because, frankly, Mitt’s earned them. There were certainly a HUGE number of attack pieces after the infamous 47% recording was released. How about some of you people explain THAT lovely recording? There were likely attack pieces after the GOP convention, with Governor Chris Christie’s anemic speech, Clint’s empty chair theater, etc. There have been tons of attack segment on Bain Capital. On Mitt’s taxes. These are fair game.

        I’ve yet to really see any true support for Mitt Romney on this site. It’s why you’re likely to lose. Do any of you really LIKE Mitt? Really?

        I understand you hate Democrats, and you hate President Obama. But the problem is that you don’t even LIKE your own candidate. You’ll forgive Mitt his trespasses, for what you think is the common good. And that might work, if the GOP weren’t faced with a Democrat who is generally liked and trusted by MOST Americans.

        That’s the problem with AC, Hat, and most of the people who post on this site. You don’t seem to truly BELIEVE in your candidate. Your hatred of Obama is palpable, but it’s all you’ve got. Whereas, the majority of Democrats actually believe in Barack Obama, while also seeing Mitt Romney as a lying, conniving entitled piece of garbage. We have the same disgust as you guys do for the opponent, but we also BELIEVE that our guy is basically good.

        It’s why you’ll lose.

      • AC
        Posted November 3, 2012 at 4:47 am | Permalink

        David Weed, You have drunk the Kool-Aid and can’t see straight. The issues that you list as relevant are silly, minor, and right from the MSNBC play book. I can probably list on one hand the politicians whom I have admired during my adulthood, and I am 48 years old. What I can say with confidence is that Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and pretty much every other partisan Democrat (and I could name 20 off the top of my head) are stupid, ignorant, immoral, etc. etc. and are destroying this country. On the contrary, Romney and Ryan are good people, smart people, accomplished people. I strongly agree with Romney’s five-point plan. I pretty much support the Republicans on every political issue, and I hate Obama and the Democrats. My vote for Romney Ryan is a positive vote. It’s also a vote to save the country. Republicans have the edge big-time in excitement; it’s why we are going to win.

      • NHConservative
        Posted November 3, 2012 at 7:59 am | Permalink

        I’m not sure where you are getting all the Republican “oppress” (it is actually suppress). Early voting is Un-American. Get off your butt on Election Day and vote the way it has been done for over two hundred years. If you really want to vote and not be persuaded and bused to poll stations from schools and rally’s then show up on Election Day. If you need to vote early, request an Absentee Ballot like our military and abroad citizens need to do? It would require work and desire which non of the Dem’s typically have when it comes to voting.

        And what about voter fraud? Why does one have to show an ID to buy liquor, get a hotel room, go through an airport, even get into an Obama rally with an ID but you don’t need one to vote? Dead people voting, non-State residents in critical swing states such as students?

        Your suppression claims are ridiculous. Do us a favor and get your trolling butt out of here and don’t let the door hit you it on the way out.

      • Prescient11
        Posted November 3, 2012 at 8:35 am | Permalink

        Dear David Weed. Go fuck yourself you troll. Your ramblings do not merit a response.

      • TheTorch
        Posted November 3, 2012 at 10:48 am | Permalink

        Guys I really would not engage with Mr. Weed. You cannot reason with stupidity.
        Unfortunately Mr Weed knows what is about to happen, and they are in turmoil.
        I actually feel a little sorry for them, that they are starting to realise that Nate Silver has been selling them hope and change, when actually it will be love of country.
        The meltdown will only get worse as each day passes and more and more evidence piles up, to where this is heading.

        As Rush Limbaugh would say:

        Right On! Right on!

  8. MikeP
    Posted November 3, 2012 at 12:57 am | Permalink | Reply

    What is the early voting in Washoe county vs the actual vote on E-day? Do repub candidates do better on election day in Nevada then in the EV as they generally do in the nation?

  9. Keep To The Right
    Posted November 3, 2012 at 12:57 am | Permalink | Reply

    Back of the envelope take on Nevada in 2012. EV/Absentee (D) – 275,812 EV/Absentee (R) – 235,144 EV/Absentee (Other) – 117,078 Total – 550,363
    Democrat Lead – 40,668. 2008 – 970,000+/- Voted. 2012 – If we bump that up to an even 1,000,000, that means roughly 450,000 votes on election day.
    Add the 117,000 Other EV/Absentee Votes + 450,000 Election day votes to total 567,000 votes. Republicans would need roughly a 54%/46% split in their
    favor to get the win. Of course we don’t know what the extent of the D to R or R to D crossover votes were in the EV/Absentee total, so that could be the wild card.

    • Bob San Diego
      Posted November 3, 2012 at 12:59 am | Permalink | Reply

      What’s the RV demo in Nevada?

    • Keep To The Right
      Posted November 3, 2012 at 1:02 am | Permalink | Reply

      Should note that my figures were from the Nevada Secretary Of State website as of 11:15am on November 2nd, so those totals are subject to change.

    • nvClark
      Posted November 3, 2012 at 1:11 am | Permalink | Reply

      Wow. Despite all the posts I saw writing off Nevada I personally hadn’t done so. Although I admit to being demoralized by the last few days in Clark County I hadn’t actually given up hope. But if your 54%/46% split estimate is accurate then I’m officially heartened again. To me that seems very achievable. Especially considering Reps usually turn out better on ED, and I have thought the whole time while monitoring the Clark numbers that the “Other” votes seemed really strong (85473 this time as opposed to the number I have for 2008 of 68288). If I ask myself who is more likely to comprise that strength, Dems in the face of Obama’s performance and possibly their own disappointment with him, or Reps that want to boot him out, I can’t help wondering if the “Others” are going to be a huge bowtied gift for Romney when they are revealed.

      • WillBest
        Posted November 3, 2012 at 1:20 am | Permalink

        That isn’t necessarily true in NV like it is most places. Obama won election day in Nevada last time by I believe 30,000 votes. Its not like OH, FL, NC where you can expect to gain 200-300k votes on election day.

    • Donald
      Posted November 3, 2012 at 1:28 am | Permalink | Reply

      You pretty much summed it up Keep. However, the one thing you didn’t factor in is that while the D and R vote is highly partisan (i.e. so motivated for their guy that they are getting out early to vote), the unaffiliated vote is motivated differently. They are less likely to be “for” a candidate so much as “against” one. And the likelihood is that would be Obama which is why the Independents are going against him. If you just assume that 10% more of those Independents voted for Romney than Obama (and Nevada is heavily Mormon so it might even be a higher difference than 10%) you get an election day split of closer to 52-48. That’s easily doable. I still believe Nevada will surprise. The union machine in Clark has gotten their votes out. The more affluent residents in the burbs likely have not voted in such numbers and they will be Romney votes. I think we’ll know Romney won before the vote is tallied in Nevada so I think Nevada’s electoral votes will just be gravy.

      • Donald
        Posted November 3, 2012 at 1:30 am | Permalink

        Should have said you would “need” an election day split of closer to 52-48 rather than you would “get” that. Sorry for the confusion.

  10. Bob San Diego
    Posted November 3, 2012 at 12:58 am | Permalink | Reply

    Wow, that’s huge day for the Dems.

    I think the Dems thought they needed 35K margin (which was probably low), the Reps thought less than 60K (which was probably high).

    Close to 70 I think seals the deal unless the Dems can’t get anyone to the polls Tuesday.

  11. Posted November 3, 2012 at 1:00 am | Permalink | Reply

    If Romney wins in his first 100 days he should worry less about Obamacare and worry more about Latino-care and African American-care because the Republican Party is suffering death by a thousand cuts if it keeps attracting 4% AA votes and 25% Latino votes.Whatever it takes to kiss these voters’ a** should be done… Immigration Reform, Education Reform, Minority Small Business Incentives, High level minority appointments; whatever it takes.

    • Brad
      Posted November 3, 2012 at 1:21 am | Permalink | Reply

      Or conservatives could remind conservatives Hispanics that the Dems support abortion, gay marriage, etc by actually working to educate them on what the Dem party is all about. Most of them don’t even know what their party is doing.

      • damien
        Posted November 3, 2012 at 1:25 am | Permalink

        as long as the dems support open borders they could kill puppies for all hispanics care

      • David Weed
        Posted November 3, 2012 at 3:01 am | Permalink

        Brad, THIS is why the GOP is losing Latinos. They’re NOT a single-issue voting block. But keep thinking that way. Eight years, and Texas will be a swing state, and that will be the end of the GOP as a national party.

      • Angelina Joseph
        Posted November 3, 2012 at 8:26 am | Permalink

        Weed, there are plenty of Conservative Latinos here in the Red state of Texas. Praying that the blue state liberals do not move here. We had major hurricanes in TX. Sandy was a Cat 1. Never heard of people defecating in apartment building hallways. Stay in your blue state, elect democrats and live happily wherever you are.

    • WillBest
      Posted November 3, 2012 at 1:26 am | Permalink | Reply

      The problem is the dems do a really good job of branding the republican party as the party of racist haters who want to see poor minorities suffer. Nevermind that the real racist were all part of the democrat party, and the party never cast them off. Like Klansman Robert Byrd, they all died off eventually.

    • Bob San Diego
      Posted November 3, 2012 at 1:39 am | Permalink | Reply

      I’ll disagree here.

      When you’re in leadership, you need to do what’s right and then figure out how it’s beneficial for those other constituencies and educate them.

      Bush 43 pandered to everyone, and that’s a good part of the reason we’re in this mess.

      Pandered to everyone including Vicente Fox, and what good did it do?

      If you get away from your principles, it’s hard to argue about stuff in which you you don’t believe.

      In the end, it is still about the economy. If the economy is going well and the budget is under control, the rest of it will take care of itself.

    • Prescient11
      Posted November 3, 2012 at 8:37 am | Permalink | Reply

      Can we please ignore these fucking trolls. It’s how you know Keith’s blog has gotten popular, these types start popping up…

    • JGS
      Posted November 3, 2012 at 8:47 am | Permalink | Reply

      Let’s be straight about something here folks. The reason why the Democrats want “comprehensive immigration reform” and a “path to citizenship” is because, without printing more Democrats in the form of illegal immigrants who are presently not entitled to vote because they are not even entitled to be in our country, eventually you will run out of Democrats. If you believed that illegal immigrants, if made legal, would vote 75% for Republicans, you would have completely different views about “comprehensive immigration reform.” We are on to this scam. No amnesty, not now, not ever. And if you think that citizens of Hispanic origin are always going to vote for the candidate who panders to illegal immigrants, you are mistaken. They want the same things we all want, and their interests are not served by continued massive influxes of low-skilled immigrants from other countries who have a depressive effect on wages.

  12. Posted November 3, 2012 at 1:03 am | Permalink | Reply

    The true question is not Washoe, which looks like to be a wash (pun intended), but the margins in Clark County. If we assume a 80% total turnout, that comes to just under a million votes. The rural counties are on track to net about 25K for the GOP after election day, it will be the Clark numbers less these rural number which will tell us the Dem raw voter lead going into election day.

    After that point, it comes down to who really gets the independents (I’ve seen numbers from R+18 to D+24), as well as how many more Democrats does Romney get than Obama gets of the Republicans.

    Of course, a strong finish on election day would masively help too.

    Jon Ralston’s favorite pollster shows obama ahead by 6… but winning Independents by 24%! If we estimate that the total independent vote to be around 18% of that 80% turnout, that is over 40K votes, which is about what the Dem raw voter leas is after day 13 of the early votes. If we readjust this to an even independent split, then the Dems early raw early vote lead disappears.

    If the GOP really does have far more of their hard core voters left to go to the polls (or turn in the late absentees), then Nevada might just be winnable, assuming the GOP keeps the Dem advantage on election day to a minimum (or ever trumps them) and/or wind more of the Dems than Obama wins of the GOP.

    This is also very good news for the Sen. Heller, and Tarkanian in NV04.

    • Brad
      Posted November 3, 2012 at 1:23 am | Permalink | Reply

      NV is looking like a long shot, but keep in mind EV is also up in the rest of state. Let’s wait for the full statewide net differential before calling it for O. It looks grim, but it ain’t over yet.

  13. zang
    Posted November 3, 2012 at 1:07 am | Permalink | Reply

    Paul Ryan is returning to Nevada on Monday. I am beginning to think that trip is more about helping Dean Heller than anything else.

    • Posted November 3, 2012 at 1:09 am | Permalink | Reply

      Considering how many easy seats the GOP has thrown away elsewhere, Heller may be the difference between Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid.

      • zang
        Posted November 3, 2012 at 1:14 am | Permalink

        What a colossal failure the senate GOP has been this cycle. So many missed opportunities. Tea partners are going to have to think twice before nominating these yahoos. Not only may it cost us Indiana and Missouri, it probably cost us Maine as well – Snow saw the primary challenge writing on the wall and called it quits.

      • Posted November 3, 2012 at 1:22 am | Permalink

        Those bums haven’t given any help to Romney. If Romney wins I hope they appreciate he dragged some of their a**es across the finish line. Mourdock is running 10pts behind Romney when he should be polling mid fifties.

      • WillBest
        Posted November 3, 2012 at 1:28 am | Permalink

        The GOP’s handling of the Senate races and the senatorial candidates behavior has been downright criminal. We should have had 51 in a walk with 53 being a bit of a reach and now we will be lucky to get 50.

      • Posted November 3, 2012 at 1:38 am | Permalink

        The thing about Mourdock is not so much what he said but the words he used and the uncommitted way he delivered them. I can’t believe he didn’t expect that question.
        Saying he agonized over it must have had women throwing shoes at the television. What is he agonizing over?

      • AC
        Posted November 3, 2012 at 2:14 am | Permalink

        I don’t think that Snow had a primary challenge. She just decided out-of-the-blue to retire, and then the Repubs had to scramble to find a candidate.

    • nvClark
      Posted November 3, 2012 at 1:14 am | Permalink | Reply

      After a little encouragement from the post by “Keep To The Right” I’m not ready to write of Nevada yet. Especially since that Romney Field Director said on a conference call the other day that unless Dems got to an 80,000 vote lead in early voting that Romney would win NV. And of course they are nowhere near 80,000… not even in Clark County alone, let alone when you factor in Washoe and all the other Rep leaning counties that have early voted.

      • NP
        Posted November 3, 2012 at 1:23 am | Permalink

        nvClark: Thanks for providing numbers and analysis. I think Dems cannibalized voters who they think they can get. If total difference is somewhere around 40-50k, Romney will win.

      • Posted November 3, 2012 at 1:28 am | Permalink

        80K early votes in Clark, or statewide? As of the 13th day of early voting, the rural counties had a GOP + 17K voters, which would shrink the Dem statewide voter lead from 70K to somewhere in the high- to mid-50K time period.

      • Posted November 3, 2012 at 1:28 am | Permalink

        I am not all that familiar with Nevada but virtually every poll has Obama at 50% in a State he won by 12 where the Latino vote has increased.

      • nvClark
        Posted November 3, 2012 at 1:35 am | Permalink

        @The Political Hat, Just did a search and looked it up, apparently the reference was only to Clark County, but Clark County isn’t at 80,000 so I guess unless the guy was bluffing…

        Here’s the link: http://washingtonexaminer.com/the-romney-conference-call/article/2512268#.UJS60VL07MA

      • Posted November 3, 2012 at 1:36 am | Permalink

        Steupz (@Bourgy),

        See my post above about the Democrat pollster that Jon Ralston loves so much. He has Obama winning by 6%, but only by winning independents by 24%! If the independent vote come to an even 50/50 split then that is a shift in Obama’s lead by over 4% overall, thus reducing his lead to less than 2% by that poll. This assumes that Romney doesn’t get more of the Democrat vote than Obama gets of the GOP vote, AND the independents don’t break for Romney.

        Honestly, that Democrat poll is the best news I’ve heard in a while. With Heller being between 4-6% ahead of Romney in polling, this is encouraging… especially when that poll has 4% undecided.

      • Posted November 3, 2012 at 1:42 am | Permalink

        My bad, the 24% split was for unaffiliated voters, excluding 3rd party, the vast majority of which is the conservative Independent American Party, though the IAP only makes up less than 25% of the total non-R/non-D “independents, which leaves the non-affiliated with 17% of the active registered voters. That would still leave 33K the pollster is getting for the un-affiliated out of about 140K potential total, which would still cut Obama’s 6% lead more than in half.

      • Posted November 3, 2012 at 1:42 am | Permalink

        Ohh. By 24 uh (sid-eyeing that) Even if all Independents saw was “that fundraising video” it would be difficult to accept Pres. Obama is +24 with Indies.
        Man, I really need this thing to be won by Romney because it will take me 3 months at least to get over it.

      • Posted November 3, 2012 at 2:29 am | Permalink

        The guy on the call said we had to win Clark by 80,000, not by 80,00 early votes. With the Dems having a 70,000 vote lead in Clark already, they only need to add 10K. In ’08 they added about 15K on election day…

      • Posted November 3, 2012 at 2:47 am | Permalink

        I listened to the call. The Romney guy said that if we keep the Dems to 80K in Clark we’ll win because of our turnout elsewhere. Washoe has been a null effect so far. They guy is talking out his rear, I’m affraid. This does not bode well…

      • nvClark
        Posted November 3, 2012 at 3:29 am | Permalink

        @The Political Hat, I think you need to listen to the call again, he was *clearly* talking about early voting. See my transcription of the question and answer session a little further down the thread.

    • Brad
      Posted November 3, 2012 at 1:24 am | Permalink | Reply

      Wasn’t Akin, the establishment’s choice in MO?

      • WillBest
        Posted November 3, 2012 at 1:29 am | Permalink

        No Akin was the social conservatives choice, and he got elected with a $1 million dollar ad blitz by a PAC supporting McCaskel and some Dem crossover vote.

      • Guest
        Posted November 3, 2012 at 1:36 am | Permalink

        The establishment didn’t really have a choice. Brunner, perhaps.

      • Brad
        Posted November 3, 2012 at 1:38 am | Permalink

        I actually think Akin is going to win that race. Claire is way under 50 and Akin might just be dragged across by insurgent GOPers. MO has significantly trended R over the last 15 years and I think that fact will show all the more this cycle.

      • zang
        Posted November 3, 2012 at 2:02 am | Permalink

        In both Missouri and Indiana, there’s a libertarian polling mid to high single digits. These protest voters may, at the end of the day, hold their noses and vote GOP. We can only hope

    • zang
      Posted November 3, 2012 at 1:33 am | Permalink | Reply

      As horrendous as the senate GOP has been, the House Dems were even worse… But they have to wait only 2 years to recoup… This failure will last us six years.

      • AC
        Posted November 3, 2012 at 2:06 am | Permalink

        Would like to see the Repubs spend some money in MO. A win is a win, and a loss is a loss. I am saying even though I think that Akin is a selfish bastard for staying in the race.

  14. Dewayne
    Posted November 3, 2012 at 1:31 am | Permalink | Reply

    When it comes to Missouri… Akin has been in Congress 10 years… he won because the vote was split 3 ways. All 3 candidates left something to be desired. And it’s hard to know he was going to say something stupid. So blaming the “tea party” for Akin is asinine. It’s the new scapegoat.

    As for Mourdock, he’s a good man. I’m from Indiana… he’s been our treasurer for 2 terms. He got the most votes of any statewide candidate. So this isn’t some newby. He’s been around. He chose his words poorly. But his position on abortion is the same as Ronald Reagan’s was. Pro-life with the only exception being life of the mother. He could have phrased what he said better… again, blaming the tea party for a poor choice of words is a nice scapegoat. Lugar lost by a wide margin because he didn’t represent Indiana any more. He hasn’t lived here for 20 years and votes like a north eastern Republican. And he’s been in office 36 years. It was time for change. And Mourdock killed him in the debate they had. He’s smart.

    So knock it off with scapegoating. The wonderful politicians who say all the right things gave us $16 trillion in debt. We don’t need any more.

    • Vegetarian Conservative
      Posted November 3, 2012 at 1:44 am | Permalink | Reply

      But can Mourdock still pull out a victory? Indiana is a conservative state, and while many may disagree with him, I can’t see them pulling for the Democrat just over that. Indiana residents know what’s at stake.

    • NP
      Posted November 3, 2012 at 1:52 am | Permalink | Reply

      Mourdock still has a chance. I am not a big Akin fan, but I do think Muordock is very capable and good man. Media twisted his words.

    • AC
      Posted November 3, 2012 at 2:11 am | Permalink | Reply

      I don’t know if I am right about this, but there seems to be a high Evangelical Christian component to the so-called Tea Party candidates who lost in 2010 or may lose in 2012: Angle, O’Donnell, Akin, Mourdock. They need to talk to people besides their base in order to get negative feedback. They have been living in a bubble. I am saying this while generally supporting Mourdock’s position on abortion. He didn’t need to directly address the rape exception; instead he could have kept his comments general and non-offensive.

  15. nvClark
    Posted November 3, 2012 at 1:40 am | Permalink | Reply

    Whoa!, I was just searching to check back on my memory of the claims about Clark County made in the Romney conference call earlier this week. I didn’t expect to find this but it seems to be the audio of the actual call (haven’t listened to it all yet but am listening now)


    • Posted November 3, 2012 at 1:43 am | Permalink | Reply


    • Brad
      Posted November 3, 2012 at 1:46 am | Permalink | Reply

      Thanks for the link. I think this is the conference call Barone cited a few days ago.

    • Brad
      Posted November 3, 2012 at 1:55 am | Permalink | Reply

      Per that call, RR said that Dems would need to be at 80k or higher in Clark Co. to win NV.

      • nvClark
        Posted November 3, 2012 at 2:08 am | Permalink

        Yep and he not only claims it in the prepared statement but actually defends the claim during the question and answer session.

      • Brad
        Posted November 3, 2012 at 2:26 am | Permalink

        Heard that too. The LVJ reporter was almost indignant when she asked her question about it.

        Like, seriously, do you guys think you can overcome a 12 point hole if you give up that much in Clark Co. Funny stuff.

    • Posted November 3, 2012 at 2:15 am | Permalink | Reply

      Angle’s internals showed her ahead, yet she flamed out once the votes were tallied. I’d take ANYTHING said from internal numbers unless they can explain why they are more correct than Angle and most pollsters were in 2010.

      • zang
        Posted November 3, 2012 at 2:21 am | Permalink

        The explanation is that pollsters were random digit dialing throughout the state. I believe they are now more careful to make sure they have a balanced sample out of Clark vs the rest of the state.

      • Bob San Diego
        Posted November 3, 2012 at 2:57 am | Permalink

        I’m not a Vegas guy, but I’m guessing the Dem machine got their votes out in numbers no one anticipated.

        I suspect the opposite will be true i most places this year.

    • Posted November 3, 2012 at 2:35 am | Permalink | Reply

      The guy on the call said we had to win Clark by 80,000, not by 80,00 early votes. With the Dems having a 70,000 vote lead in Clark already, they only need to add 10K. In ’08 they added about 15K on election day…

      • nvClark
        Posted November 3, 2012 at 3:08 am | Permalink

        I think you need to listen to the call again, he was *clearly* talking about early voting. See my transcription of the question and answer session a little further down the thread.

  16. MikeP
    Posted November 3, 2012 at 1:54 am | Permalink | Reply

    At the end of the day, Washoe county had an 11 pt swing to Mitt Romney, very impressive (even if he loses ). This is a sign that the 2012 electorate will be different then 2008 ( which a significant amount of polls suggest)

    • Brad
      Posted November 3, 2012 at 1:59 am | Permalink | Reply

      Also worth noting was that O’s Washoe’s margin in 2008 was almost identical to his total vote margin for the state. O won NV by 12.6% and took Washoe by 12.6%. Today, the %s are even per EV, and this county should go RR once election day votes are counted.

      • Bob San Diego
        Posted November 3, 2012 at 2:08 am | Permalink

        So … you’re saying there’s a chance … YEAH!

      • Brad
        Posted November 3, 2012 at 2:27 am | Permalink

        Slim but yeah, there’s a chance, with or without Jim Carey’s endorsement.

    • nvClark
      Posted November 3, 2012 at 2:32 am | Permalink | Reply

      Not only is Brad saying it, but Romney’s Field Director is saying it… here is a brief transcription of the question and answer session from the Romney conference call…

      Question: Yeah, thanks for taking the call…you mentioned that you think that Obama needs 80,000 advantage in Clark County but that was uh what he got in 2008 and he won the state by 12 percentage points. So, you know, it’s gonna be a much closer race, doesn’t Romney have to make up a lot more ground to, actually, um, to beat the President here?

      Answer: Well again, uh, I mean, you may have just made my point. If that’s the high water mark… my point being is if he doesn’t have that lead then we’re going to win. That’s the… I guess that’s our whole point is if he gets what he gets in ’08 and we get what we’re getting across the board, we’re going to win. So, yeah, I mean, in a way you’ve made my point, that, uh, we’ll see how it goes but he’s going to have to get 80,000 votes out of Clark County, to make up what were going to get in Washoe and the rest of the state. One key point about this is in Washoe County in 2008 we never won a single day of early voting, we’ve now won eight days of early voting, and today their numbers dropped in Clark County for the first time, they never dropped in 2008. So, you clearly see the dropoff in intensity, and momentum in Nevada, so we feel very good about where we stand in Nevada…… and one other key point, if they were as confident in Nevada as some of their folks say they are, I’m not sure why they would be sending the President back in there.


      • Brad
        Posted November 3, 2012 at 2:37 am | Permalink

        I agree… Romeny’s Field Director > Brad’s speculation.

      • nvClark
        Posted November 3, 2012 at 2:42 am | Permalink

        Not trying to diminish the value of your speculation. I just thought that was a pretty confident and almost completely uncategorical response. Of course they could be bluffing but you could ask for much more assurance from an official campaign spokesman.

      • Posted November 3, 2012 at 2:52 am | Permalink

        I listened to the call. The Romney guy said that if we keep the Dems to 80K in Clark we’ll win because of our turnout elsewhere. Washoe has been a null effect so far, and the rural counties will probably only be about 25K. The Democrats will have a 5-6% lead after election day unless the Republicans massively turn things around… which they’ve been promising for a while.

        Almost everyone, including the internal GOP pollsters, got the 2010 race very, very wrong. Unless they end up doing a lot better with their polling this time then they did two years ago, which remains to be seen, Nevada will be very difficult.

        They guy is talking out his rear, I’m afraid. This does not bode well…

      • Bob San Diego
        Posted November 3, 2012 at 3:06 am | Permalink

        Not saying it’s happening, but the other possibility is the Dems have already shot their wad, and gotten everyone to the polls and there’s no one left in Clark to vote.

      • nvClark
        Posted November 3, 2012 at 3:13 am | Permalink

        @The Political Hat, I’m not sure how you could mishear the call, and misread the transcription I made so badly but they are clearly discussing early voting and the response transcribed above is about a claim that Dems need to reach 80,000 in early voting not win Clark County by 80,000 in the end as you allege further up the thread. But then again in that same post you say “The guy on the call said we had to win Clark by 80,000, not by 80,00 early votes.” and the “we” there is referring to the Dems (having to reach that number to win), so if you really meant to consider yourself part of that “we” then I guess I understand where your confusion and anxiety are coming from.

      • Posted November 3, 2012 at 3:28 am | Permalink

        When he was talking about Nevada, he did not specify that the 80K lead was early vote. While that might have been implied from his talking about early votes in other states, but he didn’t specify that for Nevada. the LVRJ seems to quote the ’08 80K vote lead in EV, but that was not specified. I find that curious.

        Combined with the fact that I am skeptical about the GOP’s internal polling after the disaster that was 2010, I’m a little hesitant to take his statement as reality.

        Also mistyped about claiming that he said “we”… my bad.

      • nvClark
        Posted November 3, 2012 at 3:43 am | Permalink

        @The Political Hat, I have previously downloaded the early voting results from 2008 and although there might be a bug in the counting program I wrote (the file is too big for Excel, or at least my old version of it which maxes out at something like 65,000 rows) The Dem early voting advantage I get is 83687. Couple that with the fact that around 80,000 is the number that everyone has been talking about as 2008’s early voting Dem advantage and the fact that that is the number that both the questioner and the Romney spokesman are talking about surrounded exclusively by the context of early voting in the actual response that mentions that figure and I think it’s pretty obvious that the fact that the guy didn’t mention explicitly that the 80,000 vote metric he was referring to was in reference to early voting and not the final vote tally was already obvious. But just for the heck of it I’ll go back and see if I can find the actual Dem lead for Clark County after ED because since he is saying they have to get what they got last time and he was talking about 80,000 then if what they got after ED in Clark County last time wasn’t very close to 80,000 that’s clearly not what he was referring to, which only leaves early voting as his possible reference. Seems like a lot of work to go through to prove the obvious but I guess I’ll do it.

      • Posted November 3, 2012 at 3:59 am | Permalink

        83087 was their lead for early votes. The Republicans had absentee lead of 3772. The Democrats had a lead amongst election day voters of 15071 votes, as well as provisional lead of 485.

        It seemed from the context that he was referring to early voting, but he did not explicitly state it. Perhaps I’m just being too skeptical, but that he didn’t make that explicit, though he did elsewhere, just bothers me. I’ve dealt with too many people trying to spin bad results in the past to be anything but skeptical.

        I hope that that was just referring to early votes, and that the Romney campaigns internal metrics indeed are far more accurate than the internal GOP polling for the 2010 Senate race, but things are not as good I I’d like them to be to fee comfortable about the outcome.

      • nvClark
        Posted November 3, 2012 at 3:59 am | Permalink

        @The Political Hat, Actually it wasn’t that much work at all, I had previously had to do extra work to only count early votes from the composite file. I just pointed my Clark County counting program at the file and counted all the records. The final results for Clark County in 2008 were:

        Dem 313291, Rep 218420, Other 122134 for a total Dem voting advantage after election day of 94871

        The 94871 figure is clearly not what the Romney spokesman was referring to what he specifically mentioned 80,000 as the number that the Dems needed to get to match their 2008 performance. Therefore he must have been talking about early voting which would make sense since approximately 80,000 is what they indeed did get in early voting in 2008.

        In other words the Romney spokesman is saying that since the Dems didn’t get an 80,000 early vote advantage (they only got 70,000) then they are going to lose. He could be wrong but his reference and statement are crystal clear.

      • No Tribe
        Posted November 3, 2012 at 7:23 am | Permalink

        What the Romney guy is saying is that if Romney is winning the swing places like Washoe, that he’s going to make up the lost votes that McCain had in ’08, enough so that Obama would have to keep his ’08 Clark margin, just to keep even. Look, you can’t extrapolate the makeup of Washoe just by going with the party ID. You have to know the makeup of the unaffiliated Independent vote. And we don’t know it. But, it’s entirely possible, given that we have seen 4/4 canibalization in NV — recall the GOP.com chart– that they are meeting such numbers.

        If Romney wins Washoe, he is winning the country that flipped from Bush ’04 to Obama ’08. Romney is also winning in the only other NV county, Carson City, that is a swing flip. Since Bush barely won NV thats not entirely a determining factor, but it does tell us its going to be close.

        There are two election day wild cards that we just don’t know, and one that we do.

        The Latino vote. I am suspect that this is going to be there. I know in other parts of the country where there have been housing problems, that hispanics are the hardest hit and the first ones to have to move, relocate, and are now harder to find by Democrats. Hispanics depend more on new construction than any other part of the population. My gut sense is that a lot of them just up and left NV to go to other states where there is work.

        The Mormon vote. I estimate this is going to add about 30K to Romney’s NV vote total, and that’s not a wild guess or overly conservative.

        The LV business vote. This, and nothing else, is why Reid won in 2008. It was the playbook from the beginning, and if you look at the closing ads, it’s obvious. If it was a Democratic machine vote, they wouldn’t have flipped over to Sandoval from Rory Reid for Gov. Harry told his son not to run, lol. Well, the LV business vote is entirely against Obama. Just look at ’08 Obama voter Steve Wynn for a representative sample.

        Finally, this state votes with its casino’s. They know that is their haul, and that money is going with the guy who doesn’t drink, doesn’t gamble, and goes to church.

        I think the combination of these three things are what is going to bring a Romney victory in Nevada, but we’ll see.

      • nvClark
        Posted November 3, 2012 at 10:28 am | Permalink

        @No Tribe RE: “Look, you can’t extrapolate the makeup of Washoe just by going with the party ID.”
        Aside from the fact that the numbers I mentioned were from Clark, not Washoe, I completely agree. But I wasn’t trying to extrapolate the makeup of the county I was trying to demonstrate that it was far fetched to claim that the Romney spokesman was talking about the number on election day instead of the early voting number, and I was showing that it was unlikely (not impossible depending on the crossover vote and how independents voted, but definitely unlikely) that the actual Dem lead on election day in Clark County was reasonably close to 80,000 which it would have had to have been in order for the Romney spokesman to be using election day results as his reference. But the bottom line is that I let myself get baited into a debate about something that is completely obvious if you actually listen to the call, which is that the Romney spokesman is very clearly referring to Clark County early voting and saying that if the Dems don’t reach an 80,000 early voting lead in Clark then they will lose the election. (He even mentions that they are unlikely to make it to 70,000 “at this rate” which is almost exactly the actual number they didn’t quite make it to). The ultimate point being that the whole context of his comments was early voting, and he was referring to the figures that were from early voting, therefore *he was talking about early voting*, and not election day results.

  17. Neil in NC
    Posted November 3, 2012 at 2:28 am | Permalink | Reply

    I don’t know how PBO is winning Indi’s by 24% in Nevada. That doesn’t make any sense.

    If that’s not true and GMR is carrying Indi’s by the national minimum (8%) then that would add 16,627 to the early vote for GMR reducing the Clark/Washoe difference from 69728 to 53101.

    Oh well – no way to know until Tuesday.

    Thanks for all the hard work Keith! It’s been fun to watch Nevada with you and the rest of this motley but considerate crew.

  18. Andrew
    Posted November 3, 2012 at 2:38 am | Permalink | Reply

    What these early vote numbers are not showing: the +5 Romney landslide predicted by Gallup. Instead they suggest the state polls are closer to reality.

    • Bob San Diego
      Posted November 3, 2012 at 2:58 am | Permalink | Reply

      Looks like Rpmney will make up 10-12% over McCain from 2008 in Nevada.

      if he makes up 12% nationwide, that will give him a 5% popular vote margin.

    • zang
      Posted November 3, 2012 at 3:20 am | Permalink | Reply

      These numbers would be suggestive of a 3 point national popular vote win

      • Bob San Diego
        Posted November 3, 2012 at 11:42 am | Permalink

        Obama beat McCain by 7 in 2008.

        Why wouldn’t a 12% swing mean a 5% popular vote victory for Romney?

    • Interested Party
      Posted November 3, 2012 at 6:16 am | Permalink | Reply

      What are you talking about? Can 1.4 million people in CO be wrong?

  19. Bob San Diego
    Posted November 3, 2012 at 2:46 am | Permalink | Reply

    Ralston said he thought the indies would break “within the margin of error.”

    I’m not sure what that means, but I’m guessing it means about +/- 1.5% of even.

    • Bob San Diego
      Posted November 3, 2012 at 2:54 am | Permalink | Reply

      Unless it means within the margin of error +/- 24% for Obama.

      I don’t know.

  20. EpiphoneKnight
    Posted November 3, 2012 at 3:42 am | Permalink | Reply

    I don’t think the obsession over NV is warranted. It’s obviously important for Nevada people, but it’s not a major point of Romney’s campaign to take NV. I’ve been thinking for awhile NV would go blue and that Mitt would win overall.

    • nvClark
      Posted November 3, 2012 at 4:43 am | Permalink | Reply

      I think part of the reason that I am fixated on NV (I don’t live there), besides the fact that it only has two counties that are Dem strongholds both of which release data that is easy and straightforward to parse, which to me makes it a good barometer, is because there’s a part of me that says that if Romney wins NV it would almost have to be as part of a landslide.

  21. Commonsenseobserver
    Posted November 3, 2012 at 6:51 am | Permalink | Reply

    Oh, David Weed, sounding so much like Saruman.

    I suppose they don’t like Mitt -thrandir’s words of truth very much, and they all sound like lies to their ears. They’re really orcs, so far from Auckland.

    • Posted November 3, 2012 at 7:04 am | Permalink | Reply

      “Mitt -thrandir” I love it, that is too funny, Mr. Obama has always creep-ed me out a bit because he reminds me of Saruman and he has all those supporter with weird almost brainwashed ads and videos.

  22. Posted November 3, 2012 at 7:00 am | Permalink | Reply

    Hi. Im a Canadian and i really do not understand why the right seems to want to limit early voting and the left is often against voter ID. Democracy is so precious i dont get why some folks on both sides want to play games with it. Voter ID should be a no brainer, everyone should have it and if they really cant afford it there should be an accommodation made as ID is so important for so many things today. The more people that vote the better, people fought and died for your rights, why restrict it in any way? If the policies are bad then it does not matter how many people are bussed in from either party, eventually they will be voted out. Anyway, i hope you all vote it s important. Im crossing my fingers for for Romney as im right of center. Good Luck All…

    • John
      Posted November 3, 2012 at 8:50 am | Permalink | Reply

      David – thanks for your thoughtful perspective from up north. I can’t speak for “the right” but from my viewpoint it isn’t early voting per-se but the fact that it starts way too soon. Some states open early voting as much as six weeks before election day. Votes cast that early are done so out of blind allegiance and with far from complete information. Why would anyone want to cast their precious vote before the first debate even occurs, much less other events and critical data points (Benghazi, Jobs reports, etc.)? Personally, I would like to see a national standard of two weeks for early voting with absentee requests accepted before that but not returnable until two weeks out. As for voter ID, yeah it seems like a no-brainer. Heck when President Obama voted they make him show ID (was on all the news shows) and he didn’t bat an eyelash over it. We can’t fly, cash a check, or get into a bar (if lucky enough to look young) without showing a picture ID but we can vote – amazing!

    • Prescient11
      Posted November 3, 2012 at 8:58 am | Permalink | Reply

      I am ok with 7 days of early voting. As you said, democracy is precious and those who actually care enough can get there to vote in one in 7 frigging days. We don’t need 30 days of democrat operatives dragging vanloads of somalis to the polls. jmho.

      if you can’t do it in 7 days, then you don’t care enough and shouldn’t be voting anyway. jmho

      • JGS
        Posted November 3, 2012 at 9:52 am | Permalink

        And we should make sure those Somalis being dragged to the polls during that 7-day period are, in fact, legally entitled to vote. It boggles my mind that people do not want to protect the votes of those legally entitled to cast them by making sure that they are not degraded and diluted by illegal votes. Fraud happens, people. Al Franken is in the Senate, and we have Obamacare because of his being in the Senate, precisely because of votes illegally cast by felons who were not entitled to vote.

  23. John
    Posted November 3, 2012 at 7:36 am | Permalink | Reply

    Not including yesterday the Nev SOS office shows statewide cumulative totals (link below) has Dems with almost exactly a 40K early voting lead (in person + absentees returned). Reps are winning the rest of the state 2:1 and more in many counties. According to Keith Clark provided a 10K Dem advantage on the last day and Washoe was equal. The rest of state will probably negate several thousand of the Clark Dem votes so the statewide Dem lead after early voting (yesterday was the last day) should be right around 45K. I’m definitely not an expert on NV elections like some on this blog and don’t know if there is even enough rural population to make that difference up but that does not seem like an insurmountable lead, especially if independents break for Romney. I agree with some others that NV could still be a pleasant surprise Tuesday night.

    NV county-by-county early/absentee voting results: http://nvsos.gov/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=2500

  24. Posted November 3, 2012 at 7:43 am | Permalink | Reply

    Interesting article on what it takes for O to win Ohio. Looks like an uphill battle if I am looking at it right.


  25. JN
    Posted November 3, 2012 at 7:46 am | Permalink | Reply

    Clark numbers out looks like final EV with be around 69700for the dems in clark

  26. No Tribe
    Posted November 3, 2012 at 8:05 am | Permalink | Reply

    Was just looking at RCP to see how far the aggregate margin was off in ’08:

    CO: 3%
    FL: .7%
    IA: 6%
    MI: 3%
    NV: 5.9%
    NH: .9%
    NM: 7.4%
    NC: 1%
    OH: 1.5%
    PA: 3.1%
    VA: 2.9%
    WI: 2.9%

    Meanwhile, the national average was right on the money: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

    Point is, that Nate Silver saying state polls are more accurate is just plain wrong. Now, one could argue that since most all of these states were undercounting Obama, he’s even more ahead, but that’s not how to realistically read these results. The average across these battleground polls, in being off the correct margin, is 3.2%

    • No Tribe
      Posted November 3, 2012 at 8:16 am | Permalink | Reply

      SIlver is just looking at the predictive value, not the margin. But it is the margin, and how wildly off the state polls usually are, that is the point. In a blowout election, with one candidate having the momentum, like ’08, that doesn’t matter. But in a close election at the margins, it really matters. I’ve looked at the ’00 aggregates through the NJ archives, and there were many states that were predicted incorrectly, as I think will happen in 2012 as well. And it might not just be states within 3.2% either. Instead, there will be some aggregates that are right on the money, and others that are off 6-9% The latter could be in states like PA, MI, WN, or MN. Or it may be in states that are supposed to be close according to the aggregate, like VA, CO, or FL.

  27. John
    Posted November 3, 2012 at 8:07 am | Permalink | Reply

    With close senate races in PA, WI, FL, VA if RR turnout is as good as many think it will be on Tuesday their coat tails could drag at least a few of the Republican senate candidates across the finish line with them. Also Scott Brown (MA) is +2 in this poll that came out yesterday (http://kimballpoliticalconsulting.com/KPC_MA_Statewide_11.1.pdf). It is a D+26 poll with about 50% of the respondents being Independents. Jobs (31%) and deficit spending (27%) are the main issues of the electorate and it seems Brown would do well on those issues.

    • No Tribe
      Posted November 3, 2012 at 8:22 am | Permalink | Reply

      Right, Kimball is one of the pollsters that is saying Romney is going to pull out suburb voters in huge numbers. He has Romney winning Virginia by 11% which is entirely possible. The Republicans just won the last statewide Gov election by a 59-41 margin in 2009.

  28. No Tribe
    Posted November 3, 2012 at 8:38 am | Permalink | Reply

    The way I look at it, about exactly 4 days from now, I’ll probably be falling asleep in my chair, after pulling an all-nighter looking at a close race.

    I’d love though, for PA to be called for Romney.

  29. NHConservative
    Posted November 3, 2012 at 8:53 am | Permalink | Reply

    Garbage NBC poll has Obama 51-45 in OH and 49-48 for him in FL. I didn’t check FL’s ID since OH’s was +9!!! How do they come up with this? Nearly double D turnout in OH from 2008?

    • John
      Posted November 3, 2012 at 9:01 am | Permalink | Reply

      Desperation is setting in and it is comical (but sad – well mabybe not) to watch.

    • housebroken dad
      Posted November 3, 2012 at 9:22 am | Permalink | Reply

      It’s so they can be announced on Saturday’s Today show for all to see that O has a commanding lead in Ohio and it’s all over. Suppress turnout. Been their MO from the beginning.

    • Dave
      Posted November 3, 2012 at 9:32 am | Permalink | Reply

      It’s not desperation, it’s propaganda. It’s crowd/behavior control. The people that work at these companies aren’t stupid. Television is the most powerful mass media manipulator in existence. They know what they’re doing and they have an agenda. THat agenda involves money and the corporations behind the polls have an agenda. Right now Obama is the goose that laid the golden egg for these companies and has been the last 4 years with tax payers dollars and they want to keepn that going. In addition, the government now needs to recoup that loss. Romney has said he would cut spending (which would essentially stop or reduce the flow of tax dollars to corporations) and lower taxes for everyone (limit deductions for the ceos, etc.). Obama wants to raise taxes on the “rich’ now and will try to raise them on everybody in a few years while continuing to spend in an experiment that he hopes will allow the economy to grow its way out of debt. When it’s clear that won’t work or will take too long and too much more spending (in addition to healthare expenses, etc), the cry for “tax refrom” from the “establishment” (from ex, krugman, wall street ceos, etc.) louder and louder. What was unthinkable before and during the election will become a serious topic of discussion in congress.

      • bks
        Posted November 3, 2012 at 9:37 am | Permalink

        The corporations are conspiring against Romney, the guy who wants to cut taxes on capital gains? Yow!


      • JGS
        Posted November 3, 2012 at 9:54 am | Permalink

        It’s not “the corporations”, troll, it’s the hyper-partisan MSM. Why do all of the MSM-sponsored polls (CNN, Time, CBS, NYT, NBC) ALL oversample Ds in their polls? Why do you never see any “undersampling” of Ds? You would think they, and the pollsters they hire to deliver the outcomes they are seeking in their efforts at “crowd/behavior control” (I like the way Dave put it), would err equally on both sides if they were not being deliberately partisan in their polling. You can’t always miss in the same direction and then claim that it was “random”.

      • Dave
        Posted November 3, 2012 at 1:05 pm | Permalink

        bks -you’re right. I don’t know exactly why its happeninng but I know that it’s happening and I don’t believe what most are saying about it being random. The question is why. Now bless your little liberal heart you probably want to believe it’s because all the people that control these companies agree with your social views and so are doing all in their power to propagandicise Obama to help create a progressive world. I seriously doubt that. That’s a pretty polyanna view of things. My experience is that with corporations (disney, comcast, viacom, nbc, the wall street and ceos of industry giving money to O in record sums) who report to shareholders and benefit from making as much money as possible, you don’t need to look very far to find answers — the reasons are rooted in money.

        Of course, the most unique thing about the last 4 years (unlike anything that has happened in the history of the US) is the way many corporations (wall street, banks, ceos, trading floors, companies that have had their stock reinflated with tax payer dollars) have benefited under Obama and at tax payers expense. Contrast that with Romney’s stance on cutting spending (including the largesse that Obama has given corporations through stock market spending) and you can begin to see an answer. How that has worked is too long to spell out here but suffice to say it involves backstopping the stock market and interest rate policies that have put the needs of the wealthy in front of the needs of everybody else and continuing to spend on health care and other entitlements.

        The idea that the stock market is the economy has been proven FALSE. But what it has proven is that the wealthy benefit OVERWHELMINGLY from any government policy to jack markets, and spend whatever it takes. That’s why the gap between the rich and the poor under Obama (a democrat) is at HISTORIC extremes.

        Under a republican model, you cut taxes that ignites growth, and stocks go up. Everyone benefits because you get to keep more of your paycheck you don’t need to pick stocks. The last 4 years, the idea has been, jack the marekts with tax payer dollars and lower interest rates (at the expense of seniors) and that will reignite the economy. I don’t need to rehash where we are in terms of jobs and growth. But I think we are on the cusp of realizing you can’t spend your way out of a depression. But what it also has done is left us with one helluva bill. How that bill gets paid will become the focus of intense debate. Already so-called economists and now wall street and ceos of indsjtry are calling for “tax reform” or higher taxes for everyone.

        In the most cynical view, this was Obamas reelection guarantee. You spend tax dollars to juice the market, which flows into corporations and people at the top the most, create the biggest cronies market in history to recapitalize banks and wall street and then these same people come out in droves to support your reelection. That’s what we’re seeing now. In the fairest sense it’s an absolute failed attempt to ignite an economy that just happens to allow for massive wealth accumulation by those connected to the Fed and the stock market mchienery.

        You probably aren’t familiar with Romney’s tax plan other than what the democrats tell you — it favors the rich. That’s crap. What it does actually is favor everyone who pays taxes. Obamas method is to raise taxes, close some tax loopholes on targeted industries, and (keep your fingers crossed) grow your way out of debt disporportionately favors the wealthy. And if the kind of tax reform espoused by these early cries gets enacted (the kind of tax reform that only a democrat could embrace– raising taxes), and you don’t have a 401K or haven’t participated in the stock market the last 4 years, you will still be paying higher taxes for those who have benefitted in stocks. So whose plan is fairer? Cut taxes that every one benefits from or raise taxes on everyone to repay the largesse given by Obama (even the people that didn’t benefit from the run up in stocks)? If CA is any model of they way dems are going, this also plays right into the dems hands by giving them an excuse to raise taxes enough to fund social security and Obamacare.

        You can see a lot of this starting now (that no politician is willing to talk about) from so-called “economists” and wall street bankers and ceos of corporations cries for “tax reform” — higher taxes for everyone. Romney would try to limit spending and its that spending that has inflated the wealth of “the rich” (as dems like to call them) disporporationally to everyone else — including these so-called captains of industry calling for tax reform and now propgandicising Obamas reelection in their news companies.

        The idea that Cutting taxes favors the rich is a crock when your economic polcies are to spend whatever it takes to jack the stock market which also favors the rich but descriminates against many tax payers that aren’t benefitting from the stock market (including seniors on fixed incomes) much more so than cutting taxes ever will.

        If you’re a senior on a fixed income I don’t know how you could vote for 4 more years of the same.

        Ryan was right “watch out middle class, the tax man if coming”.

  30. petep
    Posted November 3, 2012 at 8:59 am | Permalink | Reply

    NV indys are not your typical Is. Lot of anti-government types, lots of Paulites, even lots of refugees from around the country from blue states. If they vote 3rd party in large numbers, then that will help O. The Cal and NY transplants are probably the most likely to support O of any of the Indys.

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: