On October 31 2012 02:36 Defacer wrote: Christie going rogue this morning across all the major news shows.
"I have no idea nor am I in the least bit interested."
Smacking down any attempt to tie the Romney campaign in to positively dealing with the disaster. Not even a "I'm sure if Romney were President he would be just as attentive to the disaster but obviously right now he's irrelevant to the issue of getting emergency relief" but instead just dismissing him entirely. Obviously Romney is irrelevant to the Presidential response to the disaster but still, after the Fox host tried to tie him in Christie could have gone with it.
On October 31 2012 02:52 xDaunt wrote: So I've been sitting on this for a day or so to see if anyone else was going to bring it up, but I'm going to share it now.
From Gallup:
Fifteen percent of registered voters nationwide have already cast their ballots in this year's election, according to Gallup Daily tracking for the week ending Oct. 28. That is up sharply from 5% a week earlier. .... Thus far, early voters do not seem to be swaying the election toward either candidate.
Romney currently leads Obama 52% to 45% among voters who say they have already cast their ballots. However, that is comparable to Romney's 51% to 46% lead among all likely voters in Gallup's Oct. 22-28 tracking polling. At the same time, the race is tied at 49% among those who have not yet voted but still intend to vote early, suggesting these voters could cause the race to tighten. However, Romney leads 51% to 45% among the much larger group of voters who plan to vote on Election Day, Nov. 6.
Yes, this is a national survey, but I really don't see Obama taking the electoral college while losing the popular vote by 5+ points.
That's why he won't lose the popular vote by 5+ points.......I guess I'll consider it a sign of a coming Obama victory that xDaunt is now forced to use evidence that clearly doesn't agree with what he's trying to say.
Article: "Thus far, early voters do not seem to be swaying the election toward either candidate."
xDaunt: "This sways it in Romneys favor."
lol ok
Er. I'm not even conservative, but a 6% for Romney lead is kinda ominous for Obama.
A 6 percent lead for Romney gleaned from a non-representative sample of 15% of early voters who voluntarily declared their vote does not indicate anything.
You may want to reread what Gallup is saying. They asked the people in the sample whether they had voted early, whether they were going to vote early, and whether they intended to vote on election day. Romney leads by 7 in the first category, is tied with Obama in the second category, and leads Obama by 6 in the last category (which is the largest category). That points to Romney winning the popular vote by 5+ points.
Also, the Republican party released data today showing an 18+ point lead for Romney in Pennsylvania in absentee ballots (these are votes that have already been counted).
The pain train is coming for Obama.
Wasn't Romney supposed to win Penn anyways?
Nah, that was with the voter ID law, which has been struck down until after the election. Also, xDaunt, I'd like to see that Republican Party data; how exactly are they counting ballots and releasing counts already?
It also seems to me like how the president handles this national emergency will impact the polls. Christie has already very vocally supported the president. Potentially throwing Romney under the bus now to win in 2016? I'd vote for him if he softened his social stances.
On October 31 2012 02:52 xDaunt wrote: So I've been sitting on this for a day or so to see if anyone else was going to bring it up, but I'm going to share it now.
From Gallup:
Fifteen percent of registered voters nationwide have already cast their ballots in this year's election, according to Gallup Daily tracking for the week ending Oct. 28. That is up sharply from 5% a week earlier. .... Thus far, early voters do not seem to be swaying the election toward either candidate.
Romney currently leads Obama 52% to 45% among voters who say they have already cast their ballots. However, that is comparable to Romney's 51% to 46% lead among all likely voters in Gallup's Oct. 22-28 tracking polling. At the same time, the race is tied at 49% among those who have not yet voted but still intend to vote early, suggesting these voters could cause the race to tighten. However, Romney leads 51% to 45% among the much larger group of voters who plan to vote on Election Day, Nov. 6.
Yes, this is a national survey, but I really don't see Obama taking the electoral college while losing the popular vote by 5+ points.
That's why he won't lose the popular vote by 5+ points.......I guess I'll consider it a sign of a coming Obama victory that xDaunt is now forced to use evidence that clearly doesn't agree with what he's trying to say.
Article: "Thus far, early voters do not seem to be swaying the election toward either candidate."
xDaunt: "This sways it in Romneys favor."
lol ok
Er. I'm not even conservative, but a 6% for Romney lead is kinda ominous for Obama.
A 6 percent lead for Romney gleaned from a non-representative sample of 15% of early voters who voluntarily declared their vote does not indicate anything.
You may want to reread what Gallup is saying. They asked the people in the sample whether they had voted early, whether they were going to vote early, and whether they intended to vote on election day. Romney leads by 7 in the first category, is tied with Obama in the second category, and leads Obama by 6 in the last category (which is the largest category). That points to Romney winning the popular vote by 5+ points.
Also, the Republican party released data today showing an 18+ point lead for Romney in Pennsylvania in absentee ballots (these are votes that have already been counted).
The pain train is coming for Obama.
Wasn't Romney supposed to win Penn anyways?
No. Pennsylvania is a blue state that should have been an easy Obama win. If Obama loses there, he's done.
Huh? Penn is worth like 20, Obama projected to get 290, need 270 to win. Doesn't seem to me like he needs it at all.
In the scenario that PA flips Romney, a load of other states (Ohio, Wisconsin, Minnesota) would flip Romney too.
(Out of the last 40 polls in PA Romney has been up once, so that's not gonna happen, but thats what xdaunt means)
Usually, when a poll is an outlier relative to the consensus, its results turn out badly.
You do not need to look any further than Gallup’s track record over the past two election cycles to find a demonstration of this.
In 2008, the Gallup poll put Mr. Obama 11 points ahead of John McCain on the eve of that November’s election.
That was tied for Mr. Obama’s largest projected margin of victory among any of the 15 or so national polls that were released just in advance of the election. The average of polls put Mr. Obama up by about seven points.
The average did a good job; Mr. Obama won the popular vote by seven points. The Gallup poll had a four-point miss, however.
In 2010, Gallup put Republicans ahead by 15 points on the national Congressional ballot, higher than other polling firms, which put Republicans an average of eight or nine points ahead instead.
In fact, Republicans won the popular vote for the United States House by about seven percentage points — fairly close to the average of polls, but representing another big miss for Gallup.
Apart from Gallup’s final poll not having been especially accurate in recent years, it has often been a wild ride to get there. Their polls, for whatever reason, have often found implausibly large swings in the race.
In 2000, for example, Gallup had George W. Bush 16 points ahead among likely voters in polling it conducted in early August. By Sept. 20, about six weeks later, they had Al Gore up by 10 points instead: a 26-point swing toward Mr. Gore over the course of a month and a half. No other polling firm showed a swing remotely that large.
Then in October 2000, Gallup showed a 14-point swing toward Mr. Bush over the course of a few days, and had him ahead by 13 points on Oct. 27 — just 10 days before an election that ended in a virtual tie.
In 1996, Gallup had Bill Clinton’s margin over Bob Dole increasing to 25 points from nine points over the course of four days.
After the Republican convention in 2008, Gallup had John McCain leading Mr. Obama by as many as 10 points among likely voters. Although some other polls also had Mr. McCain pulling ahead in the race, no other polling firm ever gave him larger than a four-point lead.
It’s not clear what causes such large swings, although Gallup’s likely voter model may have something to do with it.
Even its registered voter numbers can be volatile, however. In early September of this year, after the Democratic convention, Gallup had Mr. Obama’s lead among registered voters going from seven points to zero points over the course of a week — and then reverting to six points just as quickly. Most other polling firms showed a roughly steady race during this time period.
Because Gallup’s polls usually take large sample sizes, statistical variance alone probably cannot account these sorts of shifts. It seems to be an endemic issue with their methodology.
To be clear, I would not recommend that you literally just disregard the Gallup poll. You should consider it — but consider it in context.
The context is that its most recent results differ substantially from the dozens of other state and national polls about the campaign. It’s much more likely that Gallup is wrong and everyone else is right than the other way around.
From that link it's showing more than 180000 less absentee ballots this year than in 2008. Seems like maybe they're reporting very early, and might possibly be skewing their report to make it seem like there's a landslide when there is not.
Or maybe there was a MASSIVE absentee ballot decrease. Who knows. Seems shady as fuck, though.
On October 31 2012 02:52 xDaunt wrote: So I've been sitting on this for a day or so to see if anyone else was going to bring it up, but I'm going to share it now.
From Gallup:
Fifteen percent of registered voters nationwide have already cast their ballots in this year's election, according to Gallup Daily tracking for the week ending Oct. 28. That is up sharply from 5% a week earlier. .... Thus far, early voters do not seem to be swaying the election toward either candidate.
Romney currently leads Obama 52% to 45% among voters who say they have already cast their ballots. However, that is comparable to Romney's 51% to 46% lead among all likely voters in Gallup's Oct. 22-28 tracking polling. At the same time, the race is tied at 49% among those who have not yet voted but still intend to vote early, suggesting these voters could cause the race to tighten. However, Romney leads 51% to 45% among the much larger group of voters who plan to vote on Election Day, Nov. 6.
Yes, this is a national survey, but I really don't see Obama taking the electoral college while losing the popular vote by 5+ points.
That's why he won't lose the popular vote by 5+ points.......I guess I'll consider it a sign of a coming Obama victory that xDaunt is now forced to use evidence that clearly doesn't agree with what he's trying to say.
Article: "Thus far, early voters do not seem to be swaying the election toward either candidate."
xDaunt: "This sways it in Romneys favor."
lol ok
Er. I'm not even conservative, but a 6% for Romney lead is kinda ominous for Obama.
A 6 percent lead for Romney gleaned from a non-representative sample of 15% of early voters who voluntarily declared their vote does not indicate anything.
You may want to reread what Gallup is saying. They asked the people in the sample whether they had voted early, whether they were going to vote early, and whether they intended to vote on election day. Romney leads by 7 in the first category, is tied with Obama in the second category, and leads Obama by 6 in the last category (which is the largest category). That points to Romney winning the popular vote by 5+ points.
Also, the Republican party released data today showing an 18+ point lead for Romney in Pennsylvania in absentee ballots (these are votes that have already been counted).
The pain train is coming for Obama.
Wasn't Romney supposed to win Penn anyways?
No. Pennsylvania is a blue state that should have been an easy Obama win. If Obama loses there, he's done.
Huh? Penn is worth like 20, Obama projected to get 290, need 270 to win. Doesn't seem to me like he needs it at all.
If he loses PA, he's in trouble. I don't think OH is nearly as important if he drops PA.
On October 31 2012 02:52 xDaunt wrote: So I've been sitting on this for a day or so to see if anyone else was going to bring it up, but I'm going to share it now.
From Gallup:
Fifteen percent of registered voters nationwide have already cast their ballots in this year's election, according to Gallup Daily tracking for the week ending Oct. 28. That is up sharply from 5% a week earlier. .... Thus far, early voters do not seem to be swaying the election toward either candidate.
Romney currently leads Obama 52% to 45% among voters who say they have already cast their ballots. However, that is comparable to Romney's 51% to 46% lead among all likely voters in Gallup's Oct. 22-28 tracking polling. At the same time, the race is tied at 49% among those who have not yet voted but still intend to vote early, suggesting these voters could cause the race to tighten. However, Romney leads 51% to 45% among the much larger group of voters who plan to vote on Election Day, Nov. 6.
Yes, this is a national survey, but I really don't see Obama taking the electoral college while losing the popular vote by 5+ points.
That's why he won't lose the popular vote by 5+ points.......I guess I'll consider it a sign of a coming Obama victory that xDaunt is now forced to use evidence that clearly doesn't agree with what he's trying to say.
Article: "Thus far, early voters do not seem to be swaying the election toward either candidate."
xDaunt: "This sways it in Romneys favor."
lol ok
Er. I'm not even conservative, but a 6% for Romney lead is kinda ominous for Obama.
A 6 percent lead for Romney gleaned from a non-representative sample of 15% of early voters who voluntarily declared their vote does not indicate anything.
You may want to reread what Gallup is saying. They asked the people in the sample whether they had voted early, whether they were going to vote early, and whether they intended to vote on election day. Romney leads by 7 in the first category, is tied with Obama in the second category, and leads Obama by 6 in the last category (which is the largest category). That points to Romney winning the popular vote by 5+ points.
Also, the Republican party released data today showing an 18+ point lead for Romney in Pennsylvania in absentee ballots (these are votes that have already been counted).
The pain train is coming for Obama.
Wasn't Romney supposed to win Penn anyways?
No. Pennsylvania is a blue state that should have been an easy Obama win. If Obama loses there, he's done.
Huh? Penn is worth like 20, Obama projected to get 290, need 270 to win. Doesn't seem to me like he needs it at all.
In the scenario that PA flips Romney, a load of other states (Ohio, Wisconsin, Minnesota) would flip Romney too.
(Out of the last 40 polls in PA Romney has been up once, so that's not gonna happen, but thats what xdaunt means)
Why? The states' electoral votes aren't tied to each other at all.
On October 31 2012 02:52 xDaunt wrote: So I've been sitting on this for a day or so to see if anyone else was going to bring it up, but I'm going to share it now.
From Gallup:
Fifteen percent of registered voters nationwide have already cast their ballots in this year's election, according to Gallup Daily tracking for the week ending Oct. 28. That is up sharply from 5% a week earlier. .... Thus far, early voters do not seem to be swaying the election toward either candidate.
Romney currently leads Obama 52% to 45% among voters who say they have already cast their ballots. However, that is comparable to Romney's 51% to 46% lead among all likely voters in Gallup's Oct. 22-28 tracking polling. At the same time, the race is tied at 49% among those who have not yet voted but still intend to vote early, suggesting these voters could cause the race to tighten. However, Romney leads 51% to 45% among the much larger group of voters who plan to vote on Election Day, Nov. 6.
Yes, this is a national survey, but I really don't see Obama taking the electoral college while losing the popular vote by 5+ points.
That's why he won't lose the popular vote by 5+ points.......I guess I'll consider it a sign of a coming Obama victory that xDaunt is now forced to use evidence that clearly doesn't agree with what he's trying to say.
Article: "Thus far, early voters do not seem to be swaying the election toward either candidate."
xDaunt: "This sways it in Romneys favor."
lol ok
Er. I'm not even conservative, but a 6% for Romney lead is kinda ominous for Obama.
A 6 percent lead for Romney gleaned from a non-representative sample of 15% of early voters who voluntarily declared their vote does not indicate anything.
You may want to reread what Gallup is saying. They asked the people in the sample whether they had voted early, whether they were going to vote early, and whether they intended to vote on election day. Romney leads by 7 in the first category, is tied with Obama in the second category, and leads Obama by 6 in the last category (which is the largest category). That points to Romney winning the popular vote by 5+ points.
Also, the Republican party released data today showing an 18+ point lead for Romney in Pennsylvania in absentee ballots (these are votes that have already been counted).
Interesting. Anyways, I don't really care about absentee ballots. There's not that many of them and I don't think they represent a good figure of the general electorate. When Romney wins on election day then you can come in here and gloat about how we were all wrong or something (which isn't really saying much, just that more people are in line with what you want than what the others in this thread have wanted)
I still think Obamallama is going to win. Got any figures for that lead claim xDaunt?
Usually, when a poll is an outlier relative to the consensus, its results turn out badly.
You do not need to look any further than Gallup’s track record over the past two election cycles to find a demonstration of this.
In 2008, the Gallup poll put Mr. Obama 11 points ahead of John McCain on the eve of that November’s election.
That was tied for Mr. Obama’s largest projected margin of victory among any of the 15 or so national polls that were released just in advance of the election. The average of polls put Mr. Obama up by about seven points.
The average did a good job; Mr. Obama won the popular vote by seven points. The Gallup poll had a four-point miss, however.
In 2010, Gallup put Republicans ahead by 15 points on the national Congressional ballot, higher than other polling firms, which put Republicans an average of eight or nine points ahead instead.
In fact, Republicans won the popular vote for the United States House by about seven percentage points — fairly close to the average of polls, but representing another big miss for Gallup.
Apart from Gallup’s final poll not having been especially accurate in recent years, it has often been a wild ride to get there. Their polls, for whatever reason, have often found implausibly large swings in the race.
In 2000, for example, Gallup had George W. Bush 16 points ahead among likely voters in polling it conducted in early August. By Sept. 20, about six weeks later, they had Al Gore up by 10 points instead: a 26-point swing toward Mr. Gore over the course of a month and a half. No other polling firm showed a swing remotely that large.
Then in October 2000, Gallup showed a 14-point swing toward Mr. Bush over the course of a few days, and had him ahead by 13 points on Oct. 27 — just 10 days before an election that ended in a virtual tie.
In 1996, Gallup had Bill Clinton’s margin over Bob Dole increasing to 25 points from nine points over the course of four days.
After the Republican convention in 2008, Gallup had John McCain leading Mr. Obama by as many as 10 points among likely voters. Although some other polls also had Mr. McCain pulling ahead in the race, no other polling firm ever gave him larger than a four-point lead.
It’s not clear what causes such large swings, although Gallup’s likely voter model may have something to do with it.
Even its registered voter numbers can be volatile, however. In early September of this year, after the Democratic convention, Gallup had Mr. Obama’s lead among registered voters going from seven points to zero points over the course of a week — and then reverting to six points just as quickly. Most other polling firms showed a roughly steady race during this time period.
Because Gallup’s polls usually take large sample sizes, statistical variance alone probably cannot account these sorts of shifts. It seems to be an endemic issue with their methodology.
To be clear, I would not recommend that you literally just disregard the Gallup poll. You should consider it — but consider it in context.
The context is that its most recent results differ substantially from the dozens of other state and national polls about the campaign. It’s much more likely that Gallup is wrong and everyone else is right than the other way around.
Well, keep in mind that what I'm citing is not the Gallup Tracking Poll that Silver is discussing.
In all, 51% of Americans now express explicit anti-black attitudes, compared with 48% in a similar 2008 survey. When measured by an implicit racial attitudes test, the number of Americans with anti-black sentiments jumped to 56%, up from 49% during the last presidential election. In both tests, the share of Americans expressing pro-black attitudes fell.
Really sad if we lose health care and explode the deficit to give rich people more money because Americans forgot to ignore the color of someone's skin.
Remember that Republicans were all set to go with Herman Cain--a black man--as their candidate before the scandal broke out. Racism is overstated. What people don't like about black American culture is the fact that it is largely antagonistic to mainstream culture. They don't have problems with blacks, per se.
wha'. Racism is a huge problem among all races on both sides of the spectrum. Race relations in this country are atrocious. Just because one black guy got "close" to a Presidential nomination for the Republican party doesn't mean there isn't a persisting problem. Growing up I've experienced multiple race riots, and I'm in California, a liberal and relatively tolerant state. I can't imagine what things are like in the Southern states.
In some ways my experiences in DC and hte carolinas were better in terms of race relations than in Norcal. (I think where I'm from Richmond, CA plays a huge role in those poor relations, unfortunately.) Where I'm from there are huge socioeconomic cleavages between whitse and blacks, which are somewhat less in DC and Carolina.
But that's just on the surface. There might be further underlying issues (of course, historical civil rights etc)
When you say DC, where do you mean exactly? I only ask because the city is incredibly stratified, with the 8th and 7th ward being incredibly different from the 2nd and 3rd. One could live in Georgetown and think the city wonderful and harmonious, or one could live in Anacostia and think the city in the midst of a race riot.
As for pointing at Herman Cain as evidence that the Republicans are certifiably non-racist.....well that's merely another form of the "Well, I have black friends" argument that is actually racist in and of itself.
Thinking about it most of what I'm thinking of is Prince George County Virginia.
Usually, when a poll is an outlier relative to the consensus, its results turn out badly.
You do not need to look any further than Gallup’s track record over the past two election cycles to find a demonstration of this.
In 2008, the Gallup poll put Mr. Obama 11 points ahead of John McCain on the eve of that November’s election.
That was tied for Mr. Obama’s largest projected margin of victory among any of the 15 or so national polls that were released just in advance of the election. The average of polls put Mr. Obama up by about seven points.
The average did a good job; Mr. Obama won the popular vote by seven points. The Gallup poll had a four-point miss, however.
In 2010, Gallup put Republicans ahead by 15 points on the national Congressional ballot, higher than other polling firms, which put Republicans an average of eight or nine points ahead instead.
In fact, Republicans won the popular vote for the United States House by about seven percentage points — fairly close to the average of polls, but representing another big miss for Gallup.
Apart from Gallup’s final poll not having been especially accurate in recent years, it has often been a wild ride to get there. Their polls, for whatever reason, have often found implausibly large swings in the race.
In 2000, for example, Gallup had George W. Bush 16 points ahead among likely voters in polling it conducted in early August. By Sept. 20, about six weeks later, they had Al Gore up by 10 points instead: a 26-point swing toward Mr. Gore over the course of a month and a half. No other polling firm showed a swing remotely that large.
Then in October 2000, Gallup showed a 14-point swing toward Mr. Bush over the course of a few days, and had him ahead by 13 points on Oct. 27 — just 10 days before an election that ended in a virtual tie.
In 1996, Gallup had Bill Clinton’s margin over Bob Dole increasing to 25 points from nine points over the course of four days.
After the Republican convention in 2008, Gallup had John McCain leading Mr. Obama by as many as 10 points among likely voters. Although some other polls also had Mr. McCain pulling ahead in the race, no other polling firm ever gave him larger than a four-point lead.
It’s not clear what causes such large swings, although Gallup’s likely voter model may have something to do with it.
Even its registered voter numbers can be volatile, however. In early September of this year, after the Democratic convention, Gallup had Mr. Obama’s lead among registered voters going from seven points to zero points over the course of a week — and then reverting to six points just as quickly. Most other polling firms showed a roughly steady race during this time period.
Because Gallup’s polls usually take large sample sizes, statistical variance alone probably cannot account these sorts of shifts. It seems to be an endemic issue with their methodology.
To be clear, I would not recommend that you literally just disregard the Gallup poll. You should consider it — but consider it in context.
The context is that its most recent results differ substantially from the dozens of other state and national polls about the campaign. It’s much more likely that Gallup is wrong and everyone else is right than the other way around.
Well, keep in mind that what I'm citing is not the Gallup Tracking Poll that Silver is discussing.
Noted, in other news I thought this was fascinating
On October 31 2012 02:52 xDaunt wrote: So I've been sitting on this for a day or so to see if anyone else was going to bring it up, but I'm going to share it now.
Yes, this is a national survey, but I really don't see Obama taking the electoral college while losing the popular vote by 5+ points.
That's why he won't lose the popular vote by 5+ points.......I guess I'll consider it a sign of a coming Obama victory that xDaunt is now forced to use evidence that clearly doesn't agree with what he's trying to say.
Article: "Thus far, early voters do not seem to be swaying the election toward either candidate."
xDaunt: "This sways it in Romneys favor."
lol ok
Er. I'm not even conservative, but a 6% for Romney lead is kinda ominous for Obama.
A 6 percent lead for Romney gleaned from a non-representative sample of 15% of early voters who voluntarily declared their vote does not indicate anything.
You may want to reread what Gallup is saying. They asked the people in the sample whether they had voted early, whether they were going to vote early, and whether they intended to vote on election day. Romney leads by 7 in the first category, is tied with Obama in the second category, and leads Obama by 6 in the last category (which is the largest category). That points to Romney winning the popular vote by 5+ points.
Also, the Republican party released data today showing an 18+ point lead for Romney in Pennsylvania in absentee ballots (these are votes that have already been counted).
The pain train is coming for Obama.
Wasn't Romney supposed to win Penn anyways?
No. Pennsylvania is a blue state that should have been an easy Obama win. If Obama loses there, he's done.
Huh? Penn is worth like 20, Obama projected to get 290, need 270 to win. Doesn't seem to me like he needs it at all.
In the scenario that PA flips Romney, a load of other states (Ohio, Wisconsin, Minnesota) would flip Romney too.
(Out of the last 40 polls in PA Romney has been up once, so that's not gonna happen, but thats what xdaunt means)
Why? The states' electoral votes aren't tied to each other at all.
Obama's lead in the polls of PA has been larger than his lead in the polls of OH / IA / CO / etc. If Romney wins PA it means either there was a problem with the polls underestimating Romney's support or there has been a shift in voter sentiment since the polls... doesn't matter really. A massive undercount of Romney support in PA is unlikely to be completely isolated from the rest of the nation.
That is actually somewhat to be expected. Chris Christie sees himself as a favourite in 2016 for presidential election. If Romney wins the upcoming election, he will not have that possibility. For his own political carrier, it would be far better if Obama is elected. 2020 is far too far away for him to keep the momentum up. 8 years of politilcs is a very long time and a lot of newcomers can threaten his favourability ratings in that time. Especially after he has started to move his opinions to better align with the socially conservative.
On October 31 2012 02:52 xDaunt wrote: So I've been sitting on this for a day or so to see if anyone else was going to bring it up, but I'm going to share it now.
From Gallup:
Fifteen percent of registered voters nationwide have already cast their ballots in this year's election, according to Gallup Daily tracking for the week ending Oct. 28. That is up sharply from 5% a week earlier. .... Thus far, early voters do not seem to be swaying the election toward either candidate.
Romney currently leads Obama 52% to 45% among voters who say they have already cast their ballots. However, that is comparable to Romney's 51% to 46% lead among all likely voters in Gallup's Oct. 22-28 tracking polling. At the same time, the race is tied at 49% among those who have not yet voted but still intend to vote early, suggesting these voters could cause the race to tighten. However, Romney leads 51% to 45% among the much larger group of voters who plan to vote on Election Day, Nov. 6.
Yes, this is a national survey, but I really don't see Obama taking the electoral college while losing the popular vote by 5+ points.
That's why he won't lose the popular vote by 5+ points.......I guess I'll consider it a sign of a coming Obama victory that xDaunt is now forced to use evidence that clearly doesn't agree with what he's trying to say.
Article: "Thus far, early voters do not seem to be swaying the election toward either candidate."
xDaunt: "This sways it in Romneys favor."
lol ok
Er. I'm not even conservative, but a 6% for Romney lead is kinda ominous for Obama.
A 6 percent lead for Romney gleaned from a non-representative sample of 15% of early voters who voluntarily declared their vote does not indicate anything.
You may want to reread what Gallup is saying. They asked the people in the sample whether they had voted early, whether they were going to vote early, and whether they intended to vote on election day. Romney leads by 7 in the first category, is tied with Obama in the second category, and leads Obama by 6 in the last category (which is the largest category). That points to Romney winning the popular vote by 5+ points.
Also, the Republican party released data today showing an 18+ point lead for Romney in Pennsylvania in absentee ballots (these are votes that have already been counted).
Interesting. Anyways, I don't really care about absentee ballots. There's not that many of them and I don't think they represent a good figure of the general electorate. When Romney wins on election day then you can come in here and gloat about how we were all wrong or something (which isn't really saying much, just that more people are in line with what you want than what the others in this thread have wanted)
I still think Obamallama is going to win. Got any figures for that lead claim xDaunt?
AB ballots are hugely important.
Why? 5,840,258 votes in Pennsylvania in 2008. Right now there's like what, a little over 100,000 absentee ballots counted. Sounds huge to me, too. Oh wait... sounds like grasping at straws.
On October 31 2012 02:52 xDaunt wrote: So I've been sitting on this for a day or so to see if anyone else was going to bring it up, but I'm going to share it now.
Yes, this is a national survey, but I really don't see Obama taking the electoral college while losing the popular vote by 5+ points.
That's why he won't lose the popular vote by 5+ points.......I guess I'll consider it a sign of a coming Obama victory that xDaunt is now forced to use evidence that clearly doesn't agree with what he's trying to say.
Article: "Thus far, early voters do not seem to be swaying the election toward either candidate."
xDaunt: "This sways it in Romneys favor."
lol ok
Er. I'm not even conservative, but a 6% for Romney lead is kinda ominous for Obama.
A 6 percent lead for Romney gleaned from a non-representative sample of 15% of early voters who voluntarily declared their vote does not indicate anything.
You may want to reread what Gallup is saying. They asked the people in the sample whether they had voted early, whether they were going to vote early, and whether they intended to vote on election day. Romney leads by 7 in the first category, is tied with Obama in the second category, and leads Obama by 6 in the last category (which is the largest category). That points to Romney winning the popular vote by 5+ points.
Also, the Republican party released data today showing an 18+ point lead for Romney in Pennsylvania in absentee ballots (these are votes that have already been counted).
The pain train is coming for Obama.
Wasn't Romney supposed to win Penn anyways?
No. Pennsylvania is a blue state that should have been an easy Obama win. If Obama loses there, he's done.
Huh? Penn is worth like 20, Obama projected to get 290, need 270 to win. Doesn't seem to me like he needs it at all.
In the scenario that PA flips Romney, a load of other states (Ohio, Wisconsin, Minnesota) would flip Romney too.
(Out of the last 40 polls in PA Romney has been up once, so that's not gonna happen, but thats what xdaunt means)
Why? The states' electoral votes aren't tied to each other at all.
No, but PA is considered more democratic than most swing states. The situation where Obama loses PA but still wins enough other states to win the presidency is extremely unlikely. The logic is essentially is that OH votes more republican than PA, thus if Obama loses PA, he is extremely likely to lose a large portion of the other swing states that lean democratic.
He still won't lose it tho ;p. The absentee ballots are largely meaningless because unless every absentee ballot up to this point was counted, and not just some non-random part of it, the result will skew tremendously. There's no way to tell anything on the basis of the gop.com link.
On October 31 2012 02:57 farvacola wrote: [quote] That's why he won't lose the popular vote by 5+ points.......I guess I'll consider it a sign of a coming Obama victory that xDaunt is now forced to use evidence that clearly doesn't agree with what he's trying to say.
Article: "Thus far, early voters do not seem to be swaying the election toward either candidate."
xDaunt: "This sways it in Romneys favor."
lol ok
Er. I'm not even conservative, but a 6% for Romney lead is kinda ominous for Obama.
A 6 percent lead for Romney gleaned from a non-representative sample of 15% of early voters who voluntarily declared their vote does not indicate anything.
You may want to reread what Gallup is saying. They asked the people in the sample whether they had voted early, whether they were going to vote early, and whether they intended to vote on election day. Romney leads by 7 in the first category, is tied with Obama in the second category, and leads Obama by 6 in the last category (which is the largest category). That points to Romney winning the popular vote by 5+ points.
Also, the Republican party released data today showing an 18+ point lead for Romney in Pennsylvania in absentee ballots (these are votes that have already been counted).
The pain train is coming for Obama.
Wasn't Romney supposed to win Penn anyways?
No. Pennsylvania is a blue state that should have been an easy Obama win. If Obama loses there, he's done.
Huh? Penn is worth like 20, Obama projected to get 290, need 270 to win. Doesn't seem to me like he needs it at all.
In the scenario that PA flips Romney, a load of other states (Ohio, Wisconsin, Minnesota) would flip Romney too.
(Out of the last 40 polls in PA Romney has been up once, so that's not gonna happen, but thats what xdaunt means)
Why? The states' electoral votes aren't tied to each other at all.
No, but PA is considered more democratic than most swing states. The situation where Obama loses PA but still wins enough other states to win the presidency is extremely unlikely. The logic is essentially is that OH votes more republican than PA, thus if Obama loses PA, he is extremely likely to lose a large portion of the other swing states that lean democratic.
He still won't lose it tho ;p. The absentee ballots are largely meaningless because unless every absentee ballot up to this point was counted, and not just some non-random part of it, the result will skew tremendously.
Is exactly what I'm thinking is happening.
Explains the 1) Extremely low number of ballots counted thus far 2) the massive skew
Edit: To me this just sounds like more Republican boasting about how they're so comfortably in the lead and going to win. It's just a campaign strategy... not something that holds any relevance.
On October 30 2012 22:45 kwizach wrote: BluePanther, I might have missed it but did you end up posting a link to the leaks that made you decide not to vote for Obama?
I did not, but I know it's out there somewhere on a reputable news site. I tend to avoid the bowels of the political internet due to my work. It was just one factor, but the leaks are what kinda shook my faith in him a little. Remember that I lean republican as it is, so it's not like I was a strong Obama vote or anything.
That is actually somewhat to be expected. Chris Christie sees himself as a favourite in 2016 for presidential election. If Romney wins the upcoming election, he will not have that possibility. For his own political carrier, it would be far better if Obama is elected. 2020 is far too far away for him to keep the momentum up. 8 years of politilcs is a very long time and a lot of newcomers can threaten his favourability ratings in that time. Especially after he has started to move his opinions to better align with the socially conservative.
He's got to feel like that was an incredibly trolling question at the end though. NJ got hit pretty badly by this storm... the governor isn't likely to care about Fox's partisan games while there's a real emergency situation in his state.
On October 31 2012 02:52 xDaunt wrote: So I've been sitting on this for a day or so to see if anyone else was going to bring it up, but I'm going to share it now.
From Gallup:
Fifteen percent of registered voters nationwide have already cast their ballots in this year's election, according to Gallup Daily tracking for the week ending Oct. 28. That is up sharply from 5% a week earlier. .... Thus far, early voters do not seem to be swaying the election toward either candidate.
Romney currently leads Obama 52% to 45% among voters who say they have already cast their ballots. However, that is comparable to Romney's 51% to 46% lead among all likely voters in Gallup's Oct. 22-28 tracking polling. At the same time, the race is tied at 49% among those who have not yet voted but still intend to vote early, suggesting these voters could cause the race to tighten. However, Romney leads 51% to 45% among the much larger group of voters who plan to vote on Election Day, Nov. 6.
Yes, this is a national survey, but I really don't see Obama taking the electoral college while losing the popular vote by 5+ points.
That's why he won't lose the popular vote by 5+ points.......I guess I'll consider it a sign of a coming Obama victory that xDaunt is now forced to use evidence that clearly doesn't agree with what he's trying to say.
Article: "Thus far, early voters do not seem to be swaying the election toward either candidate."
xDaunt: "This sways it in Romneys favor."
lol ok
Er. I'm not even conservative, but a 6% for Romney lead is kinda ominous for Obama.
A 6 percent lead for Romney gleaned from a non-representative sample of 15% of early voters who voluntarily declared their vote does not indicate anything.
You may want to reread what Gallup is saying. They asked the people in the sample whether they had voted early, whether they were going to vote early, and whether they intended to vote on election day. Romney leads by 7 in the first category, is tied with Obama in the second category, and leads Obama by 6 in the last category (which is the largest category). That points to Romney winning the popular vote by 5+ points.
Also, the Republican party released data today showing an 18+ point lead for Romney in Pennsylvania in absentee ballots (these are votes that have already been counted).
Interesting. Anyways, I don't really care about absentee ballots. There's not that many of them and I don't think they represent a good figure of the general electorate. When Romney wins on election day then you can come in here and gloat about how we were all wrong or something (which isn't really saying much, just that more people are in line with what you want than what the others in this thread have wanted)
I still think Obamallama is going to win. Got any figures for that lead claim xDaunt?
AB ballots are hugely important.
Why? 5,840,258 votes in Pennsylvania in 2008. Right now there's like what, a little over 100,000 absentee ballots counted. Sounds huge to me, too. Oh wait... sounds like grasping at straws.
Also, if I remember correctly the early votes include a significant amount of foreign stationed military personel with a traditional support for republicans (given the slash of the military spending we saw from Obama, you would think that the tendency is even more significant than usual.) I know more people have voted early and that may count the other way, so it is pretty blurry overall.
EPT
