RCP Electoral Map Thread

**HoustonRaven** · 11-03-2012, 08:32 AM

Originally Posted by NCRAVEN

Few things. Sting is right, the polls are still using a model for turnout in some cases that projects a higher Dem turnout than 08.

Also, I went back and looked at the RCP polls for 08, lets just say, most were not correct.

All that said, I'm with you as far as the polls, they're not painting a pretty picture.

I get that. But as you said "some" polls are weighted with the 2008 Dem turn out numbers.

My issue is with Michael Barone, Dick Morris, et all who think its going to be a Mitt blow out.

**StingerNLG** · 11-03-2012, 08:36 AM

Originally Posted by HoustonRaven

RCP state averages.

I don't know how you can look at those and think they bode well for Mitt.

because you're missing my point completely. Look at the poll themselves. Look at the samples. Look at the internals.

most every one of those polls has some sort of sample that suggest higher turnout for Obama than 2008.

and if you believe for a second that with crowds of 10,000 to 30,000 coming out for Mitt Romney at his rallies that turnout is going to be higher for Obama that it was in 2008 then the media and polling folks have done their job and lead you to believe he will lose the election.

I have on the other hand have been reading in the same polls, that Rommey is winning by double digits with independents, he leads in categories like who is better for the economy.

So you have to excuse me if a state poll with a D+8 sample and Obama winning by 3 doesn't have me in a panic, when I know the turnout for that state in 2008 was D+4.

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk 2

**NCRAVEN** · 11-03-2012, 08:39 AM

Originally Posted by HoustonRaven

I get that. But as you said "some" polls are weighted with the 2008 Dem turn out numbers.

My issue is with Michael Barone, Dick Morris, et all who think its going to be a Mitt blow out.

Right, some polls show a higher Dem turnout than 08, some predict the same. To my knowledge Rasmussen and Gallup are the only ones that go buy how people identify themselves, not how the turnout for the last election was.

Morris is/was the only one predicting blowout, he is worried now since Sandy may have given BHO a bounce.

I heard Barone say he thinks Mitt is a slight favorite and might get about 285 electoral votes.

**NCRAVEN** · 11-03-2012, 08:52 AM

I stand corrected about Barone, just saw he's saying Mitt at 315

**StingerNLG** · 11-03-2012, 08:54 AM

The other thing that most pollsters are forgetting about is this little election in 2010.

Besides, the running joke on Twitter is that places like PPP polling is just there to keep the race close.

can Obama still win? Of course he can. I would lose extreme faith in the country, but he could win. however at this point in time I just don't see it. this is just not 2008. and even people like John King on CNN say the same thing. Like in Ohio, where he said the ground game for Romney is nothing like what it was for McCain, was not even a comparison. And even said that Romney was well positioned to win the state. this is John King, this is Karl Rove.

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk 2

**StingerNLG** · 11-03-2012, 10:44 AM

Early voting in Ohio. And again, this is CNN polling.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...ion-Day-Voters

So again, what do you believe? That Romney is winning the early vote, but there will be this giant flood of Obama voters on Tuesday that will wipe this out?

This is why you can't trust these polls at this point.

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk 2

**Haloti92** · 11-03-2012, 11:00 AM

Some of the state polls have trimmed their +Dem sampling into the mid-single digits or even as low as a few points in Ohio, and they still show it close but slightly favoring Obama.

The issue I think is that early voting is really affecting these state polls and the effect is to exaggerate Democrats support.

Each pollster has a likely voter "screen" that is used to determine likely vs registered voters. It usually includes questions about how many times you have recently voted or whether you know where your polling place is, or whether you have recently moved. The answers to these questions are then scored, and if your score is too low, then you are not included as a likely voter, regardless of your true likelihood of actually voting. Simply saying "I am certainly going to vote" does not qualify you as a likely voter.

But...with early voting, the pollster often gets the response "I have already voted." In these cases, the pollster is simply adding these people to the likely voter group automatically. Even if you ignore the chance the person is lying (and people do lie about already having voted and their likelihood of voting because to most people voting equates to being a good citizen), you still are getting poll results whereby early voters are being "oversampled" by the fact none of them are being screened out of the sample like they would/might have been the day before they voted (by failing the screening questions).

This leads to the result that the party that has more people who have voted early gets more people through the likely voter screen. More people through the likely voter screen means a larger portion of the sample (of likely voters).

All that said, the race is going to be close, Ohio is going to decide it, imo, and Romney, because the auto-bailout issue (which has been mishandled by his campaign), is currently a very slight underdog, imo, though not by so much as to be insurmountable with a good weekend push.

**AirFlacco** · 11-03-2012, 11:15 AM

If the path to the WH goes thru OHio, 30,000 turned out to hear Mitt speak. So much for the bailout which is overblown.

Remember those huge crowds Galen always showed us 4 years ago while smiling. They're gone now. Mitt's getting them even in OHio.

Romney is ahead in FLA by +6 (51-45%). If he gets FLA and PA he doesn't need OHio but with the early voting favoring Mitt as we've been saying for 2 days, looks like Mitt gets those 300 elect votes.

Rubio was on TV Thurs night and said we know OBY will get 48% but we'll win if we get
the turnout. Looks like the conservatives are mobilizing for the turnout and Cuban
Americans in FLA are buying that Ad linking Oby with Chavez and Castro.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/politic...cle1259531.ece

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/2...nclick_check=1

**AirFlacco** · 11-03-2012, 11:26 AM

Another reason why it will be over early. Mitt won't even need OH with this and FLA.

______________________________________________________
President Barack Obama simply isn’t working for culturally conservative Democrats in Western Pennsylvania and the proverbial “T” — which is Pennsylvania-speak for the entire state except the city of Philadelphia and the four counties (Bucks, Chester, Delaware and Montgomery) abutting the city.

Half of the NRA membership in the entire country is within a four-hour drive of Pittsburgh. These voters do, in fact, cling to their guns and religion.
___________________________________________________________

I posted 3 days ago OBY hasn't even appeared in PA yet. He took it for granted - his biggest
blunder of the campaign. Now this guy says he hasn't been hitting on the conservative DEMs in West PA - you know - that hated Pissburgh Squeelers territory.

_________________________________________
and even the MSNBC crowd — will realize once the results are in from Pennsylvania that the other three time zones won’t matter.
__________________________________________

Come Wed, we'll owe those Squeeler fans some beer.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/02/ro...#ixzz2BB51Puxv

http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/02/ro...-pennsylvania/

**Haloti92** · 11-03-2012, 11:32 AM

The odds of Pennsylvania going for Mitt are not very good, imo. Anything is possible, but I think the effort put towards that state was too little too late. It has been relaibly Democrat for 20+ years, and while this year it will be closer than usual, I don't see how Romney can get over the hump based on the polling, unless Obama's ground game is asleep at the switch in Philly (which I suppose is possible).

**AirFlacco** · 11-03-2012, 11:47 AM

YAHOOOOOO!!!!

Romney up by 4% in PA. This was posted yesterday on FREEPERS.

Those PHilly Inquirer polls (mainstream DEM media) are not with registered or likely voters and they poll heavily DEMs like the phony Times poll. Susquehanna which did this poll is
the most accurate pollster in PA.

This poll surveys registered or likely voters and even the GOP challenger for Senate
is leading the incumbent. It all adds up.

In the same sample Republican Tom Smith leads Senator Casey by two percentage points in the race for the United States Senate seat from Pennsylvania. Smith is at 48% to Casey’s 46% according to this poll.

Looks like the coal miners in West PA are finally turning vs OBY for his war on coal.
Talk about jobs and bailouts. This is killing him.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2954131/posts

**StingerNLG** · 11-03-2012, 11:54 AM

Originally Posted by Haloti92

The odds of Pennsylvania going for Mitt are not very good, imo. Anything is possible, but I think the effort put towards that state was too little too late. It has been relaibly Democrat for 20+ years, and while this year it will be closer than usual, I don't see how Romney can get over the hump based on the polling, unless Obama's ground game is asleep at the switch in Philly (which I suppose is possible).

I can't say that Romney is going to win Pennsylvania, however once again we are forgetting what happened in 2010. Republicans knocked out almost every Democrat in state and local elections there.

so if Republicans can mobilize that kind of turnout again on Tuesday, it is possible that they could nab it.

given Romney's campaign strategy, I don't think he would be there on Sunday if he didn't think he had a shot at it.

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk 2

**AirFlacco** · 11-03-2012, 12:05 PM

And dont forget this. Unemployment up in Oct to 7.9% from 7.8%. There's some pissed
off voters as Federal, State and Local gov'ts cut thousands of jobs.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/...eport/1675225/

**Haloti92** · 11-03-2012, 12:13 PM

Originally Posted by StingerNLG

I can't say that Romney is going to win Pennsylvania, however once again we are forgetting what happened in 2010. Republicans knocked out almost every Democrat in state and local elections there.

so if Republicans can mobilize that kind of turnout again on Tuesday, it is possible that they could nab it.

given Romney's campaign strategy, I don't think he would be there on Sunday if he didn't think he had a shot at it.

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk 2

I don't think it is fair to compare midterms with presidentials. Especially if we are talking about inner-city turnouts when one of the candidates is African-American. Odds of random Philadelphian voting for governor in off-year are way less than voting for Obama for president. Especially when you consider Obama will pick up said voter and take them to the polls, feed the voter, maybe give the voter some cigarettes, and return the voter to his/her house.

Mid-term, statewide elections for governor, and even Senator, etc, aren't great indicators of presidential elections. At least in terms of net results; maybe they can predict trends or relative margins of victory. But simply put, less people vote in midterms and less people means a higher percentage of conservatives, since conservatives tend to vote regularly at a greater percentage than liberals. It is similar (though not close to the same extent) to saying that Ehrlich winning in 2002 gave Bush a shot at MD in 2004.

I agree Romney could win Pennsylvania. And I think his decision to campaign there means he thinks he has some kind of shot. But since he hasn't put too much effort into it until now, I am a bit worried the "shot" may be more a shot in the dark to possibly replace Ohio, which is being stubborn in support of Obama (though again, Ohio is clearly winnable for Romney, I would say moreso than Pennsylvania).

I absolutely hope I am wrong and you are correct in terms of what is going on here.

**StingerNLG** · 11-03-2012, 01:10 PM

Originally Posted by Haloti92

I don't think it is fair to compare midterms with presidentials. Especially if we are talking about inner-city turnouts when one of the candidates is African-American. Odds of random Philadelphian voting for governor in off-year are way less than voting for Obama for president. Especially when you consider Obama will pick up said voter and take them to the polls, feed the voter, maybe give the voter some cigarettes, and return the voter to his/her house.

Mid-term, statewide elections for governor, and even Senator, etc, aren't great indicators of presidential elections. At least in terms of net results; maybe they can predict trends or relative margins of victory. But simply put, less people vote in midterms and less people means a higher percentage of conservatives, since conservatives tend to vote regularly at a greater percentage than liberals. It is similar (though not close to the same extent) to saying that Ehrlich winning in 2002 gave Bush a shot at MD in 2004.

I agree Romney could win Pennsylvania. And I think his decision to campaign there means he thinks he has some kind of shot. But since he hasn't put too much effort into it until now, I am a bit worried the "shot" may be more a shot in the dark to possibly replace Ohio, which is being stubborn in support of Obama (though again, Ohio is clearly winnable for Romney, I would say moreso than Pennsylvania).

I absolutely hope I am wrong and you are correct in terms of what is going on here.

I think moreso than any other midterm election you have to factor that in. This wasn't your run of the mill midterm elections. This was a repudiation of the President at the federal level not only taking the house back with wide margin, but taking the supermajority away from the Democrats in the Senate, and coming a couple bad candidates away from retaking the Senate. This midterm was all about punishing those who supported shoving Obamacare down the country's throat.

The thing is that African Americans are going to overwhelmingly support Obama no matter what. HOWEVER, some of the religious Blacks that are against things like gay marriage might not show in the numbers they did in '08 either. PLus, and while it's in NO way a sizable mark yet, there are a growing number of Black Conservatives out there that feel like they can vote and make their presence known. Not to mention I think Romney could carry 40% of the Jewish vote as well (which includes 90% of my own family, even my Democrat relatives in Florida who loved Clinton are voting Romney this time.)

This is why I think trying to use '08 sampling is flawed. And the polls aren't even doing that now. They are assuming HIGHER Democrat turnout than '08.

And yet again, a perfect example of why I don't believe the sampling is Ohio. In 2008, 80,000 people came to Obama rallies in Cleveland. Yesterday, on his final stop where you should be rallying the troops, he had 4,000, after last night only having 2,800.

Romney on the other hand ended his Ohio campaign with a rally of 30,000 people. GOP enthusiasm is through the roof right now, and much is pro-Romney and not anti-Obama.

Speaking of the Ohio polls and another reason you can't believe them. According to most of the EV polls (even the CNN one), they say 30-40% of people already voted. The problem with that is the state is only reporting that around 20-25% have voted early. So who's lying.

Now in that hard count, comparing early voting in Pro-Obama and pro-Romney counties show the GOP in much better shape than it was in 2008. In 2008, Obama only won Ohio by 4.6%. It's probable that Romney's early vote has cut into that by half if not more. Can Romney's Tuesday voters make up the rest is the question.

This is why I'm not conceding this election nor am I pushing the panic button. I still in my heart believe Romney is going to pull this out.

**NCRAVEN** · 11-03-2012, 01:38 PM

I saw and NBC poll for Ohio that predicts Obama will win Ohio by the same margin he want it in 08. Are they really saying he's lost no support since 08?

**NCRAVEN** · 11-03-2012, 01:55 PM

Another thing about Ohio I forgot about. I know this was the midterms, but all 88 counties of Ohio voted to opt out of Obamacare.

That's a positive sign. We'll know soon enough if it's positive enough.

**AirFlacco** · 11-03-2012, 02:25 PM

For the pessimists, I posted above that 30,000 waited in long lines in the freezing cold
to see Mitt in OHio, only 2800 showed up to see OBY. This morning on his last stop
in the same city, only 4000 showed up and that's in a DEM strong hold.

That's compared to 80,000 that showed up in Ohio to see him in 08.

These crowds coincide with the early voting figures for Mitt in OHio. He is over-performing
by 75,000 more votes from 08 to over 181,000 less votes for the under-performing Obama
since 08. Mitt is over-performing in all the counties in early voting in Ohio.

This was posted on FREEPERS today.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2954374/posts

**AirFlacco** · 11-03-2012, 02:57 PM

FROM ANOTHER BOARD:

And Romney got the endorsement of Lee Iacocca - that's significant in MI, as state that just came into play since the drubbing Obama took in the first debate. In OH, the endorsement is even more significant. His name and endorsement still carries weight with the lifers in the auto industry.

FROM ME:

Looks like Ohio is listening to Lee not OBY. So much for the bailout issue.

**Haloti92** · 11-03-2012, 03:08 PM

Again my concern is the discrepancy between all the anecdotal evidence you are providing, Iacocca, rally-sizes, yard signs, a poll here or there, and the stubborn lead Obama has in the vast majority of the Ohio polls.

Obviously the polls can be flawed, but for so many to be flawed, the mistake they are making has to be systematic. Along with the anecdotal positives, I would feel better with a strong argument why all these polls are consistently bucking the anecdotal evidence. And the argument needs to explain why this election shows the systematic polling error while other recent elections really didn't. I threw out the idea of early voting affecting likely voter samples, but I am still not sure that does the trick in reconciling the way the polls look vs. the way everything else looks.

Stay positive though, your points and optimism is helping me keep hope alive. Without it, I may have already written this thing off, as pessimistic as I normally am, lol.