Sandy's effect on election
1. Power, flooding and transportation issues even a week from today could lower turnout in New Jersey and New York. Neither state is in play. Obama still wins each state, but both could get fewer votes which could increase what I believe is an already strong chance that Romney will win the popular, while Obama wins the electoral vote.
2. Heavy snow in West Virginia and Virginia mountains. Won't effect West Virginia as that is safely Romney win. In Virginia that area is Romney territory. Even a slight reduction in voting turnout could help Obama (and Tim Kaine) in a very close race.
3. This one is not related to the storm itself, but more of an aftermath. Chris Christie singing the praises of President Obama. No bigger (figuratively and literally...lol) critic of the President. Could help Obama. More importantly, Christie could end up being the big winner in 4 years. I think this situation shows him in a good light.
Quote: Buzzard" Christie could end up being the big winner in 4 years. " Pound for pound, the Republican's biggest hope.
I made light of his weight as well, so I can't fault you for it, but would hope to stay more on topic. lol
Obama -230
Romney +205
Before Sandy Obama had been around -200 for about two weeks. I'm not sure if this is due to Sandy, that some major bookies involved with Pinnacle were arrested, or something else.
it would is if the public thought he was on ogre, and
when they see him they go oh, he's not an ogre at all.
They don't think he's an ogre, when he gives his little
blurbs on the damage, he's the same ol boring Obama.
Distant, uninspired, sounding flat and disinterested.
Whats interesting is, more and more Dem's are asking
if Obama can postpone the election because a lot of
Obama voters won't be able to get to the polls in the
effected states next Tue. And thats all there is in NY,
NJ, DE, Maryland, the highest concentration of Dem's
in the country.
Obama has no such power. If he did, a president could
cancel an election not going his way and some of them
would, for sure. Maybe congress can do it, but they won't.
Oh well..
Quote: rdw4potusIowa an Nevada early voting look good for Obama as well. I think there's a perception that Obama may be wrapping those up before election day, which really cripples Romney's path to 270 EV. I could see that popping out the line on intrade a bit.
Yeah, Nevada is a done deal. I think Iowa may be a little closer.
I saw an interesting peice on CNN today that was saying the polls are all undervaluing the Latino Vote as not one single pollster, using either live or automated has an option to speak spanish. As a result the Latinos that doesn't speak English or don't speak it that well, just hang up. (part of the high hang-up rate)
Quote: EvenBob
Whats interesting is, more and more Dem's are asking
if Obama can postpone the election because a lot of
Obama voters won't be able to get to the polls in the
effected states next Tue. And thats all there is in NY,
NJ, DE, Maryland, the highest concentration of Dem's
in the country.
You know? I can understand thinking that a large popular vote gap is extremely unlikely to swing opposite to the electoral college, but thinking that an increase in the gap coming entirely from blue states, while they remain blue, will affect the election is a kind of magical thinking on par with Parliament's infamous query of Babbage.
Quote: 24Bingowill affect the election is a kind of magical thinking on par with Parliament's infamous query of Babbage.
The only state in the whole region that
isn't blue is NH. The storm won't change
anything.
Quote: EvenBobThe only state in the whole region that
isn't blue is NH. The storm won't change
anything.
Except the popular vote. :)
Quote: EvenBobThe only state in the whole region that
isn't blue is NH. The storm won't change
anything.
...
A: That's not true: Virginia and Pennsylvania were hit pretty hard, and also North Carolina and Ohio.
B: The part that is true, that the storm's assault on blue states won't change anything, was exactly what I was saying, in response to your implicit assertion that it would.
NH Governorship
VA Senate
OH Senate
PA Senate
House races in Eastern OH, Northern VA, NH, MD, RI, NJ, PA, Western NY, NYC.
I would think that the skew might actually be slightly towards the Dems. Urban residents have more travel options and less distance to go to get to their polling places.
Quote: kewljExcept the popular vote. :)
Not by much. Obama will still get the electoral votes
for all the good it will do him. For the EC to come
into play, the race would have to be razor close. It
isn't. In 2000 Gore won the popular vote by a
percentage point of a percentage point. Those are
the times the EC matters.
Quote: EvenBobNot by much. Obama will still get the electoral votes
for all the good it will do him. For the EC to come
into play, the race would have to be razor close. It
isn't. In 2000 Gore won the popular vote by a
percentage point of a percentage point. Those are
the times the EC matters.
The EC is the only thing that matters. That's how the president is elected. (what the hell are you talking about?)
Quote: rdw4potus(what the hell are you talking about?)
Gosh, sonny, you know exactly what I'm talking about.
Quit playing the rube..
Quote: EvenBobGosh, sonny, you know exactly what I'm talking about.
Quit playing the rube..
Usually, I do and I'm just messing with you. This time, I have no idea. Did you use the wrong word somewhere in here?
Quote: Evenbob
Not by much. Obama will still get the electoral votes
for all the good it will do him. For the EC to come
into play, the race would have to be razor close. It
isn't. In 2000 Gore won the popular vote by a
percentage point of a percentage point. Those are
the times the EC matters.
The EC always matters. It's all that matters. What are you trying to say here?
Quote: EvenBobGosh, sonny, you know exactly what I'm talking about.
Quit playing the rube..
I can tell you that I don't know what you are talking about, Bob. Quite frankly you have been all over the place tonight. Your thoughts seem random and jumbled.
For what it's worth you can HAVE the popular vote. We will take the EC. I actually started talking about this scenario early last spring, even before Romney was the nominee. You can have the popular vote. You are NOT getting Ohio, Wisconsin, nor Nevada and those 3 will give Obama 271. I am pretty sure Iowa will be on our side as well for 277, which is the total wizard and I both came up with a while ago, but Iowa that is just insurance for Nevada at this point.
Quote: EvenBobNot by much. Obama will still get the electoral votes
for all the good it will do him. For the EC to come
into play, the race would have to be razor close. It
isn't. In 2000 Gore won the popular vote by a
percentage point of a percentage point. Those are
the times the EC matters.
Just, quickly, do you actually know how the President is chosen?
Quote: rdw4potus
The EC always matters. It's all that matters.
The elections of 1876, 1888, and 2000 were the
only times the EC produced a president who didn't
get the majority of popular votes.
1876 was 200,000 apart 51/47
1888 was 90,000 apart in popular votes. 47/48
2000 was 500,000 apart 48/48
Do you really think this election is that close?
Quote: 24BingoJust, quickly, do you actually know how the President is chosen?
Yup.
Quote: EvenBobThe elections of 1876, 1888, and 2000 were the
only times the EC produced a president who didn't
get the majority of popular votes.
1876 was 200,000 apart 51/47
1888 was 90,000 apart in popular votes. 47/48
2000 was 500,000 apart 48/48
Do you really think this election is that close?
A: As close as 51/47? Easily. Even Rasmussen has it at 49/47; only Gallup has a difference like that.
B: There's a first time for everything.
Quote: 24BingoA: As close as 51/47? Easily..
Don't get your hopes up. 20 EC votes in that
election weren't counted, and the South made
an agreement that they would let Hayes win if
the North withdrew their troops from the South,
ending Reconstruction. I doubt if that could
happen these days.
Quote: 24BingoA: As close as 51/47? Easily. Even Rasmussen has it at 49/47; only Gallup has a difference like that.
B: There's a first time for everything.
Gallop has lost all credibility. Rasmussen somewhat as well. I say this not because their republican leaning polls do not favor the candidate that I am backing but based on their own most recent history.
In the 2010 midterm election, Gallups final poll said that republicans had a 15% margin nationwide, Rasmussen's final estimate was 12%. The average of all the other polls was 7%. The actual final margin was 6.6%. A substantial win as the Repubs picked up 60-some house seats, but still less than half the total margins Gallup was projecting.
The problem is Gallup is underestimating the non white vote. In this current 2012 election they are projecting a non white vote of 20%, which was consistent with the 2010 midterm elections. Problem is this is NOT a midterm election where the turnout is lower. A better comparison would be to look at the last 3 presidential elections. 2000 - 19% non-white vote. 2004 -23% non-white vote. 2008 -26% non-white vote. Do you see a trend here. 19% -> 23% -> 26%. Same direction as the census tells us that the population is going. Why would Gallup all of the sudden expect the percentages to revert back 12 years. Maybe that's what Gallup and Rasmussen would like, but it's not going to happen (despite attempts to surpress the vote).
Bottom line: Gallup and Rasmussen are both credible firms, but it appears they may both be using outdated models. This is why I value the averages of many polls. And even better than using averages, is throwing out 1 or 2 outliers on either side and taking the average of the remaining polls.
Quote: kewlj
Bottom line: Gallup and Rasmussen are both credible firms, but it appears they may both be using outdated models.
Can you be any more cliche? Rasmussen said just last
week that everybody who's down in a poll has a hundred
reasons why the poll skewed, outdated, and just plain
wrong.
Quote: EvenBobCan you be any more cliche? Rasmussen said just last
week that everybody who's down in a poll has a hundred
reasons why the poll skewed, outdated, and just plain
wrong.
I am sure you are correct Bob. There are less Latinos that there were in 2008 and 2004. Perhaps they all self-deported as Mr Romney suggested. lol
Quote: kewljI see 3 possible effects from the storm on the election.
1. Power, flooding and transportation issues even a week from today could lower turnout in New Jersey and New York.
2. Heavy snow in West Virginia and Virginia mountains. Won't effect West Virginia as that is safely Romney win.
3. This one is not related to the storm itself, but more of an aftermath. Chris Christie singing the praises of President Obama.
Suddenly, at this late date, Romney is beginning an advertisement campaign in Pennsylvania. “And by the way, I like coal!” Romney is seen saying in the first presidential debate, with upbeat music in the background. “People in the coal industry feel like it’s getting crushed by your policies.” The ad, titled “Crushed by your Policies,’’ blames the administration for the closing or converting of 22 coal units in Pennsylvania. Unlike some of the other swing states, Pennsylvania does not offer early in-person voting.
While I am sure that they would deny it forever, I think that Romney is trying to capitalize on Sandy. All the reasons they claim are valid in them going after Pennsylvania were just as true two years ago. But with a hard hit NJ, NY, PA and DE there is only one state of those 4 where Obama had a 10% spread over McCain. I think that Romney is counting on a miserable populace who might be angry enough to want change in something. Romney has the advantage that all he has to do is look like he is not exploiting a national tragedy. Anything that goes wrong with FEMA will be Obama's fault.
It also doesn't make sense in that the coal regions are already republican territory and they are already voters who are going to vote republican. If you are really going to 'turn' the state you need to turn some people that normally vote democrat, probably not the hardcore union and labor type democrat democrats but the suburban more moderate, Reagan democrat types. But that's not who he's targeting. So far it really smacks of a not very well thought out desperation move.
Quote: kewljA republican strategist that does not work for the Romney campaign, but did work for John McCain in 2008, said it could indicate that republican internal polling shows Ohio slipping away and they may be trying a long shot effort to find another path to 270 electoral votes.
The "experts" that news people interview are all over the place with their speculation about what may be happening. Some of them will be right come next Wednesday morning but many of them will be wrong. I guess I wonder whether some of them try to come up with some point that is a little controversial just to get some attention for themselves. I'm not saying they don't know anything; I just think their view is more likely to be heard if it is different...
It could be that there is desperation but I think that covers everything at this point--both men know it is a battle to the end and are trying to figure ANY path to 270, even if it is a long shot. Two months ago, Romney was dead in the water. Obama had a solid lead and all the news was good for him. He phoned in the first debate, and the swing started away from him and towards Romney. Now it is back and forth...
Sandy could have an impact on voting in many states and the President does have a huge opportunity to look Presidential. It is a bit harder for Romney to do so because he isn't in control of the federal assets that help in the recovery, so he can't "order" anyone to be responsive. He'll have to do the best he can with what he can do. People might not vote because they are without power, without a home, etc. but I'm wondering at this point if it will be huge in relationship to voting or just a blip...the only thing certain is that damage is in the billions!!
Anyway...took the long way to get to the point...I think this election is far from over. To me, that is a bigger problem for the President than for Romney. How big? We'll see!!
"The question is: Why this Republican move?
GOP efforts in the trio of Rust Belt states could indicate that Romney is desperately searching for a last-minute path to the needed 270 Electoral College votes - without all-important Ohio. Or just the opposite, that he's so confident in the most competitive battlegrounds that he's pressing for insurance against Obama in what's expected to be a close race.
Or perhaps the Republican simply has money to burn. Use it now or never."
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20121030/DA2854680.html
A lot of speculation but no real answer...or, looking at it another way, answers pointing in both directions...
Quote: EvenBobCan you be any more cliche? Rasmussen said just last
week that everybody who's down in a poll has a hundred
reasons why the poll skewed, outdated, and just plain
wrong.
Another reason to doubt Rasmussen? Reality.
Quote: RonC"Romney, GOP suddenly plunging onto Democratic turf"
"The question is: Why this Republican move?
GOP efforts in the trio of Rust Belt states could indicate that Romney is desperately searching for a last-minute path to the needed 270 Electoral College votes - without all-important Ohio. Or just the opposite, that he's so confident in the most competitive battlegrounds that he's pressing for insurance against Obama in what's expected to be a close race.
It's the former. He's short and he knows it. That's why he's talking about "momentum" even though he hasn't actually gained ground in polling in weeks, that's why he's appealing to new states, that's why he's come out with the Jeep ad. He's down to lying and throwing money at things.
Polls , shmolls my foot.
Quote: RonC"Romney, GOP suddenly plunging onto Democratic turf"
"The question is: Why this Republican move?
Pennsylvania and Minnesota are two of the states with the closest margin in 2008. The fact that they are so completely ignored by the Republicans in favor of Wisconsin and Nevada up to now is a little bit of a puzzle. The attitude towards coal is big in PA. But Hurricane Sandy had something to do with it. Pennsylvania is feeling a little miserable (not as much as NY, NY, MD or DE), but it would take more than an Act of God to make those states vote for Romney.
Obama margin over McCain in closest states
13.91% Wisconsin
12.50% Nevada
10.35% Pennsylvania <======
10.24% Minnesota <======
9.61% New Hampshire
9.54% Iowa
8.95% Colorado
6.30% Virginia
4.59% Ohio
2.81% Florida
1.04% Indiana
0.33% North Carolina
Indiana seems to have decided to vote against President Obama last year, even before the Republican candidate had been chosen.
North Carolina will almost certainly go Republican this time.
Quote: rdw4potusIt's the former. He's short and he knows it. That's why he's talking about "momentum" even though he hasn't actually gained ground in polling in weeks, that's why he's appealing to new states, that's why he's come out with the Jeep ad. He's down to lying and throwing money at things.
You could be 100% correct...but you could also be 100% wrong. Polls are polls; they aren't the actual results that will come from the vote. With the rampant political correctness in the country, it is pretty easy for someone to tag you as a racist if you aren't for Obama. Why suffer that crap publicly--just go with the flow and vote how you really feel in the election. It is the same the other way--people can say they are fed up with Obama, but vote for him in spite of it because they can justify that vote with Romney's shortcomings.
We've got two flawed candidates and the choice is nowhere close to as clear as either side would like it to be at this point.
What I find interesting is the people who are so closed minded that they don't even see the possiblity that the other side could win. I see at as close and that it could go either way once people actually close that curtain and vote. I've told pollsters all kinds of stuff...mostly, I just want to get off the phone when they call.
Quote: RonCI've told pollsters all kinds of stuff...mostly, I just want to get off the phone when they call.
It's amazing to me how different polls can be, especially in local races or on policy issues. I usually try to be nice to people, but it's hard sometimes. The MN GOP hit me with "Do you favor increased gun control, or do you love America?" last year. This summer, I was asked "Some have said that Teresa Collette is an idiot. Do you share their view?" and THEN asked whether I favored Collette or McCallum in the MN CD-4 congressional race. (I didn't make it to the end of that poll, but it's obviously dem-backed)
Quote: WASHOO2An administration without any accomplishments plus a 16 TRILLION Dollars debt and lying to the American people about the Benghasi failure is in more hot water than the what the polls are attempting to flim flam us with.. .
Polls , shmolls my foot.
People can debate whether saving the auto industry and all the jobs in and associated with it is an accomplishment. Same with Obamacare, which many presidents have tried or wanted to try for 75 year and no doubt has flaws and needs some adjustments.
But ending a war. Winding down a second war and bringing US troops home. How about killing the man responsible for taking over 3000 American lives. Good lord....these are undeniable accomplishments.
In addition, we don't need to know if you have shmolls, bunions, planter fasciitis or any other foot problems. lol
No one on here will change the mind of anyone who disagrees with them.
What is debatable is who WE THINK WILL WIN. It seems like both sides feel they're gonna win, which I find fascinating.
The hardcore Romney supporters seem to be convinced that he will win, almost exclusively because of poor economic factors and because "no one wants another four years like the last." The swing state polls disagree, but "polls don't vote."
Then when Romney supporters do find a poll they like, they treat it like Gospel. Rasmussen is a Romney supporter's best friend, even though in 2010 he had something like a +5% republican bias on average and predicted a bunch of senate races incorrectly.
In a week, one side will be very happy and one side will be surprised and very sad. The polls don't vote, but for the past few election cycles, the polls haven't been wrong either.
Quote: ams288I feel like it's beyond pointless to argue about Obama's failings and/or accomplishments. Obamacare is seen by some as "tyranny," by others as an amazing accomplishment.
Agreed. But I do take issue to NO accomplishments, which overlooks the killing of America's greatest enemy. To overlook this is to just create an alternative reality.
Quote: kewljAgreed. But I do take issue to NO accomplishments, which overlooks the killing of America's greatest enemy. To overlook this is to just create an alternative reality.
Haha, I thought it was common knowledge that most Romney supporters were living in an alternate reality.
Polls , schmolls <<<<<< that New Yorkeese ! " my foot " was a polite substitute for : My Ass.
So we tried to keep it clean. Can`t win .
Quote: kewljPeople can debate whether saving the auto industry and all the jobs in and associated with it is an accomplishment. Same with Obamacare, which many presidents have tried or wanted to try for 75 year and no doubt has flaws and needs some adjustments.
Lets say it like it is-Obama didn't "save" the auto industry. He took GM and Chrysler from their rightful owners, thbe bondholders, and gave them to the UAW, Fiat, and keeping some for the government. Ford survived on their own. Plants owned by Honda, Hyundai, Kia, Audi, BMW and others kept on with no government help. VW has built a plant since.
And just becuse many POTUSs "wanted" nationalized health care for 75 years does NOT make it a good idea. If it was so good and popular, why hasn't Obama mentioned it every chance he has gotten?
Quote:But ending a war. Winding down a second war and bringing US troops home. How about killing the man responsible for taking over 3000 American lives. Good lord....these are undeniable accomplishments.
Iraq was winding down when he took office.
Afghanistan is still killing our troops, and for nothing since he has promised to pull out by 2014.
Osama killed, good job. But after he APOLOGIZED TO ALQUEIDA FOR "OFFENDING" THEM! Blamed a youtube video.
Osama/Libya can best be summed up this way:
"When Obama calls, the Navy SEALS answer, when the SEALS call Obama, the answering machine picks up."
Quote: ams288Haha, I thought it was common knowledge that most Romney supporters were living in an alternate reality.
Right there with those that think President Obama has done a great job.
Billions in stimulus money borrowed; much wasted with no great impact.
Saved the auto industry from being saved under the normal bankruptcy process (airlines do it once every few years; the process would have worked for the auto industry, too)
Promising to end a war (it hasn't happened yet)
Killing Bin Laden (this is a great thing, but it isn't enough to over come his weaknesses)
Look--you can drink whichever flavor of Koolaid you'd like. The choice is between a guy who has been an average to below average President and Romney. I just can't see how ANYONE thinks either one is a great choice.
I am not arguing with the support for Obama; it is the praise for mediocrity that bugs me!! Vote for who you think will do the best job but I'm not buying either side's argument about their guy being great...there is no great as far as I've seen thus far...
was speaking? I like Christie sometimes, but he's
really just a fat bully. He's real short, and really
really fat. His ass has got to be a yard wide. And
he's got this angry look permanently plastered on
his face ever since the strom hit. Standing behind
Obama, his mouth is turned down so much he looks
like a Batman movie villian. A little of the fat mad bully
act goes a long long way..
C'mon, isn't the first thing you think of when you see
Christi, how many seats does he have to buy when he
travels commercial?
Quote: kewljAgreed. But I do take issue to NO accomplishments, which overlooks the killing of America's greatest enemy. To overlook this is to just create an alternative reality.
I think the reason Obama's opponents don't give him much/any credit for bin Laden is that it's sort of a no-brainer. Whoever was president at the time would get the credit, because whoever was president at the time would be a fool not to take bin Laden out. It's not like it took great courage or anything for that decision to be made. It didn't show the fortitude of his leadership capabilities. Imagine an ordinary thing, that any ordinary person would do. Now you see someone do it, do you run over and slap them on the back and congratulate them? Perhaps you do. I, and many others, don't.
So taking credit for "killing America's greatest enemy" feels a little weak in the "accomplishments" category.
But it doesn't matter - how long do you think he could have hidden in Abbotabad? They let him go until a politically convenient moment. The Republicans needed him alive to get people defense-minded, and the Democrats were better off with him dead, 15 months before the election being the perfect time to set up a troop withdrawal. Why? Because of the grand conspiracy: there is no conspiracy, except the conspiracy to hide that fact. The terrorists acted independently, and Bush didn't want a war with Saudi Arabia, so he found a scapegoat who in a happy coincidence had been rumored a month earlier to be plotting an attack on air travel. He denied it for a while, but his convictions are mostly for show, so they bought him off for the better part of ten years, then disposed of him when he was no longer convenient to keep alive.
Quote: 24BingoBush had seven years.
But it doesn't matter - how long do you think he could have hidden in Abbotabad? They let him go until a politically convenient moment. The Republicans needed him alive to get people defense-minded, and the Democrats were better off with him dead, 15 months before the election being the perfect time to set up a troop withdrawal. Why? Because of the grand conspiracy: there is no conspiracy, except the conspiracy to hide that fact. The terrorists acted independently, and Bush didn't want a war with Saudi Arabia, so he found a scapegoat who in a happy coincidence had been rumored a month earlier to be plotting an attack on air travel. He denied it for a while, but his convictions are mostly for show, so they bought him off for the better part of ten years, then disposed of him when he was no longer convenient to keep alive.
Wow. Just wow.
