RCP Electoral Map Thread

[StingerNLG]

it's very easy answer. most of the pulling it done by democratic leaning firms. the idea is to create a narrative. that's narrative is built to keep Republicans from voting on Tuesday because they think the election is lost cause.

Here, read this. It will bring you off the ledge. . http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives...-poll-in-ohio/

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk 2

[Haloti92]

Ok. I am back inside, but I am leaving the window open.

I realized the Marist poll was BS. I was more talking about the ones showing 2 point leads, etc in Ohio; I think the 1-2 point lead may be real. I don't think all these pollsters are rigging their results purposely, though Marist makes it obvious that they are one of the pollsters that does.

The problem with trying to gauge "intensity" is that these month-long early voting windows negate the "intensity" factor because Democrats (Republicans have gotten into the game this election, but I am sure not to the same extent) flat-out corral people who wouldn't in a million years motivate themselves to vote, early or otherwise, onto buses, etc, and hold their hand all the way through the process. The longer the early voting window the more busloads they can round up. So I agree Republicans are more pissed off, and if people had to put in effort to vote that rage/intensity would help a lot, but people don't have to put in much effort these days.

And to some extent, I think Obama's 2008 performance wasn't a maximum effort like this one is going to be in terms of rounding up stray votes. He had it in the bag vs. McCain relative to this election. One can easily argue they took their foot off the early vote gas in 2008 once they realized victory was clear.

Thanks though. I am inside again, though I can't promise that the ledge and I won't meet again before Tuesday, lol.

[StingerNLG]

I understand. So let me balance it with this. Can you say Minnesota?

http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-...up-148296.html

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk 2

[4G63]

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).

Western PA = coal country which Obama has said this about:



He doesn't like coal or fracking, both of which are big in western PA.

[StingerNLG]

what I said about Pennsylvania a couple of posts ago? now I'm starting to believe.

http://triblive.com/mobile/m/2878015...dential-voters

and Bill Clinton is going to be there on Monday for FOUR stops. you don't send arguably your biggest surrogate to a state you think you got locked up for four rallies the day before the election.
Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk 2

[StingerNLG]

I have some new Ohio information to from a source watching the hard count of early voting:

"OHIO: GOP has increased their early turnout by more than 100k from 2008. Dems down 150k. That is 250k net (Obama won in 2008 by 260k)."

That's not a poll, that is the count from the state on party turnout. How many of those Democrats also voted Romney, and how many Republicans voted Obama aren't going to be here.

Remember something else, most all polling in '04 had John Kerry winning the state. And even on election day the exit polls were saying Kerry was going to win it. Bush won by 3%. This is why I have no confidence in the poll numbers right now.

[StingerNLG]

Good morning......MICHIGAN:

http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/story/19...-michigan-poll

[HoustonRaven]

Thought you had "no confidence" in poll numbers, Sting?

[StingerNLG]

Thought you had "no confidence" in poll numbers, Sting?

I don't. I'm trying to make the point that these polls mean nothing right now.

However, sending Bill Clinton to Pennsylvania all day? That means more than any poll out there. THAT tells me someone in the Obama camp sees Romney in a position they don't want him to be in.

Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk 2

[Haloti92]

I am starting to feel a little better, though I am still not confident. The Michigan poll was a bit of a surprise. A nice surprise. Like Pennsylvania, it may not come through, but I think it indicates late momentum.

But about the 2004 Ohio polls, they actually did show Bush winning for the last week, by the margin he actually won (2.1%). That said, the only pollsters who polled that last week were some of the pros, not the news networks (who always seem a bit pro-Democrat). Note the CNN final poll. We are getting more CNN-like polls now, I am sure.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Pre.../oh_polls.html

[AirFlacco]

Romney spoke to 17,000 in Colorado yesterday as he keeps getting the crowds from OHio to Col.

Bite Me Biden spoke before just less than 1,000 at a Colorado school and then slightly over 1,000 at another school yesterday in that critical state.

The crowd numbers coincide with the early return numbers we're hearing.

Meanhile, the Trib poll has them now tied in PA and just about all the polls on Drudge Report including Rasmussen has them tied but Mitt is getting the crowds and early voting returns.

In reference to Dick Morris prediction of a land slide for Mitt, Ras said anyone who said he knows who is winning is lying. Well, Dick is just guessing like everone else.

The crowd numbers and early returns are bearing him out at the moment.


www.denverpost.com

www.drudgereport.com

[AirFlacco]

Someone should get rid of this jerk off. This is the most disgraceful
thing said in the campaign. Rush would be crucified by every paper
and TV station in the country for saying something like this.

This is what they've given us - fear via the race card. They played it
in 08 and this year. McCain was scared to death to link OBY with
Jeremiah Wrong for fear of being called a racist.

I remember during the 60s when they burned the cities down from
Watts to Bmore. North Ave and Penn Ave were burned to the ground.

Afterwards in school I asked the blacks how could you burn down your
own neighborhoods? I was just trying to understand them.
They said we're coming out to your neighborhood the next time.
I said come on out.


I always got along with them, even broke up a fight with 2 white
guys beating on a black. I was one of the biggest guys in the school and
wrestled in the unlimited weight class at 175 lbs (no body fat) in the 10th grade.
I beat a senior by just falling on him and got promoted to the varsity.


If OBY wins, I cant wait for the next campaign. At least there won't
be this:


http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...-and-will-come

[NCRAVEN]

I don't. I'm trying to make the point that these polls mean nothing right now.

However, sending Bill Clinton to Pennsylvania all day? That means more than any poll out there. THAT tells me someone in the Obama camp sees Romney in a position they don't want him to be in.

Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk 2

Hears what I take from this and why I have no idea what's really going on.

IN every state listed as a "swing state" it's now even or within the margin of error. IF obama won it by 16, 13, or 10 it's now even. Now if he won it by 3, 2 4, or 6 it's still a toss up.

That just doesn't make sense, how does someone lose 14 or 15 points in two or three states but only 2 or none (ohio) in others.

The only thing I can think of is, close elections mean big business and no one really knows what's going on sense most polls are done by landlines and no one has a landline and those who do don't answer their phones.

This election could be a toss up or a landslide in either direction....

[Haloti92]

This is why it will be tough for Romney to win such a close race with such early voting rules that are in place:

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/art...nclick_check=1

[kojo]

Based on all the recent swing state polls (in particular Ohio), this election appears to be Obama's to lose at this point. When even Gallup and Rasmussen start changing their national/swingstate polls from outside margin of error Romney leads to ties, you know the momentum has clearly shifted Obama's way. The only thing romney supporters can hope for is that the reduced early voting days/hours that has taken place in Ohio and Florida leads to less democrats voting and way more republicans voting on election day to tip it Romney's way...for folks that are into complex number crunching, Sam Wang from the Princeton Election Consortium, who accurately got 2008 and 2010 results down has Obama at 98%. Nate Silver, also accurate in 2008 and 2010 has Obama at over 85%. Their sites go into great detail how they arrive at those numbers so go there, read up, and then hit them up if you got questions/concerns. Sam has mentioned that he will eat bugs and show the footage if he's wrong so take that for what it's worth haha

[Haloti92]

Based on all the recent swing state polls (in particular Ohio), this election appears to be Obama's to lose at this point. When even Gallup and Rasmussen start changing their national/swingstate polls from outside margin of error Romney leads to ties, you know the momentum has clearly shifted Obama's way. The only thing romney supporters can hope for is that the reduced early voting days/hours that has taken place in Ohio and Florida leads to less democrats voting and way more republicans voting on election day to tip it Romney's way...for folks that are into complex number crunching, Sam Wang from the Princeton Election Consortium, who accurately got 2008 and 2010 results down has Obama at 98%. Nate Silver, also accurate in 2008 and 2010 has Obama at over 85%. Their sites go into great detail how they arrive at those numbers so go there, read up, and then hit them up if you got questions/concerns. Sam has mentioned that he will eat bugs and show the footage if he's wrong so take that for what it's worth haha

Both of them just analyze poll results. The concerns people have cannot be addressed by them because the concerns are about the data they are analyzing (and its accuracy) not their actual analyses. They both start with the assumption that the polls are showing them the actual electorate.

The fact is, with early voting expansion, cell phones, Caller ID, an extra partisan electorate, and more polling being done by more pollsters with more methodologies, it is not a given that these polls can be relied on to the extent they are being relied on.

That said, the extra poll numbers combined with averaging them should even out the anomalous, bad apples, but it wouldn't catch a systematic failure/asumption that exists throughout the majority of the polls. Obviously, whether there is a systematic failure is clearly up for debate, and the burden of proof is on those claiming there is, and as of yet I have not heard great evidence, though I have heard some compelling speculation. We won't know until Tuesday.

[NCRAVEN]

Both of them just analyze poll results. The concerns people have cannot be addressed by them because the concerns are about the data they are analyzing (and its accuracy) not their actual analyses. They both start with the assumption that the polls are showing them the actual electorate.

The fact is, with early voting expansion, cell phones, Caller ID, an extra partisan electorate, and more polling being done by more pollsters with more methodologies, it is not a given that these polls can be relied on to the extent they are being relied on.

That said, the extra poll numbers combined with averaging them should even out the anomalous, bad apples, but it wouldn't catch a systematic failure/asumption that exists throughout the majority of the polls. Obviously, whether there is a systematic failure is clearly up for debate, and the burden of proof is on those claiming there is, and as of yet I have not heard great evidence, though I have heard some compelling speculation. We won't know until Tuesday.

Best breakdown I've read by far about the analysis of the polls.

On Polling Models, Skewed & Unskewed

[kojo]

Both of them just analyze poll results. The concerns people have cannot be addressed by them because the concerns are about the data they are analyzing (and its accuracy) not their actual analyses. They both start with the assumption that the polls are showing them the actual electorate.

The fact is, with early voting expansion, cell phones, Caller ID, an extra partisan electorate, and more polling being done by more pollsters with more methodologies, it is not a given that these polls can be relied on to the extent they are being relied on.

That said, the extra poll numbers combined with averaging them should even out the anomalous, bad apples, but it wouldn't catch a systematic failure/asumption that exists throughout the majority of the polls. Obviously, whether there is a systematic failure is clearly up for debate, and the burden of proof is on those claiming there is, and as of yet I have not heard great evidence, though I have heard some compelling speculation. We won't know until Tuesday.

Again, this is why I said to visit their site and read their posts...they discuss these very points you bring up (see Nate's article on anti Romney poll bias). Again, both these guys have VERY accurate track records on elections and 2012 should be no different. It's one thing if partisan hacks like Michael Moore, Rachel Maddow, or Bill Maher are throwing these sort of #s around, but these guys make a reputation on being objective and accurate. If Obama was the one that was consistently 1-3 points behind Romney in Ohio polls, then the numbers would be swinging the other way Romney, that's how important that state is for both candidates...but believe what you wish. Nothings a sure thing so we'll see who is right on Tuesday.

[AirFlacco]

TEAM O IS WORRIED ABOUT PENN. FROM FREEPERS:


I didn't think PA was really a possibility until last couple days. Polls are looking good. However some real clues lie in the size of the crowd Romney pulled in a district Obama won with 53% in 2008. Additionally Clinton going there for 4 stops tomorrow. That is important for two poins. Dems worried. And the bigger point (my editorial belief) they know Obama isn't popular but PA liked Clinton, so they are sending him to try to pull the indy's and Dem's they are losing! The momentum is there PA people just get out and vote

[Haloti92]

Again, this is why I said to visit their site and read their posts...they discuss these very points you bring up (see Nate's article on anti Romney poll bias). Again, both these guys have VERY accurate track records on elections and 2012 should be no different. It's one thing if partisan hacks like Michael Moore, Rachel Maddow, or Bill Maher are throwing these sort of #s around, but these guys make a reputation on being objective and accurate. If Obama was the one that was consistently 1-3 points behind Romney in Ohio polls, then the numbers would be swinging the other way Romney, that's how important that state is for both candidates...but believe what you wish. Nothings a sure thing so we'll see who is right on Tuesday.

I have read what they say, but it doesn't answer the questions. It amounts to: we have no reason to think these polls are any less accurate than 4 years ago (or 8 years ago, etc). But that is exactly the issue. If something is special about this election, and one could argue that these elections are so rare as to make every one special in some way, then the polls may be missing something (as it relates to the electorate vs who they are sampling) which would, in turn, make Silver's and Wang's conclusions erroneous. Their conclusions wouldn't be erroneous due to their math, but merely the data sets they were using (being given by pollsters).

Your constant mention of their VERY accurate track records, besides being somewhat meaningless in the sense that you are only talking about 2 elections (one of which was a blowout that many people predicted, and which Silver was fed more accurate internal polls from the Obama campaign) which is a nearly non-existent sample size, is also a textbook fallacy.

Yes, if Romney were ahead in the polls by the same numbers Obama is then, yes, Wang and Silver would have mirror image predications (most likely, Silver does have some subjectivity in his methodology that might be affected by his bias, but if so, is fairly slight). This is exactly what I am saying. They are analyzing the polls. The issue is not with their math, it is with the polls they are using. That is if an issue exists at all, and it might not.

It has nothing to do with what to "believe," it has to do with what is true.

It is an absolute fact that these polls could be making universal assumptions that are incorrect that lead them to produce biased results. For example they all weight by demographics, and choosing to assume the electorate will be 74% white vs 76% white is enough to move their poll results 2 points. Same goes with assumptions about women vs men, Hispanics, blacks, ages 18-29, ages 65+, etc etc. Every poll weights their results to fit an assumed electorate. Normally these electorates change slowly and in semi-predictable ways, but because the change between 2004 and 2008 was so huge, it is a legitimate question as to whether the trend (of change) continues, whether the electorate remains the same (as 2008), or even possibly goes back to something between 2004 and 2008 (because Obama hype is less and the groups that turned out in 2008 in proportions larger than usual will actually turn out less this time). There is also the very real issue about early voting affecting the likely voting screens, which has been mentioned on this thread. The point is, the polls are by no means factual; they are a mix of science and art, and this year the art may make up a larger portion than normal due to very rare election circumstances.

We will indeed find out Tuesday. And frankly I tend to believe that the polls will likely be somewhat accurate. I do think Romney will win Virginia (contrary to Silver's prediction) and Florida. But as for Ohio or another, I wouldn't bet a lot on it, myself. Maybe Colorado or New Hampshire, which won't matter without Ohio. I think Pennsylvania is very unlikely and states like Michigan/Minnesota, lol, have 0% chance (literally 0%).