Romney, Obama, Rasmussen

Meanwhile, back at Intrade....

Oh, dear. It appears all those realistic gamblers have dropped Romney to his lowest in quite some time. I think that every day that passes without him making major inroads in the swing states is going to keep him around the 3.60 to 3.90 range. The big boost to his image after Debate 1 has taken him "near even" and "near even" is not enough to negate the reality of the EC vote. After NC "fell into place" (bwahaha)*, I think they expected to see Virginia and Florida coming through. And while they're fighting for a miracle in Pennsylvania and slugging it out in Ohio, there was all sorts of noise about the big shift in Colorado and Iowa and even Nevada. Ain't happening! There is no huge groundswell for Romney in any of those states and Obama just has too many routes to an EC majority. The bettors are seeing this.

*Anyone notice that I was right about the GOP con in NC? RCP just moved it back to Undecided. Mitt's lead in the EC has evaporated. I think this is the real reason the money is shifting.
 
Last edited:
RandFan said:
So the GOP doesn't doesn't have an anti-abortion plank? The GOP hasn't tried to stop the use of certain contraception like the morning after pill and IUDsl? Need I really remind you that the GOP has enacted a record number of abortion restrictions?
Click to expand...

And VP candidate Paul Ryan wasn't a sponsor of the bill to make the Hyde Amendment permanent and re-define the rape exception to only forcible rape?

These are all obviously just "talking points" and not real things.
 
MattusMaximus said:
In the prediction markets, Romney is surging...

... downwards! ;)

Predictwise
Obama 64.5%
Romney 35.8%

Ouch.

Is this because of the flap over Morlock's "God intends rape" comments and Romney's refusal to un-endorse the douchebag? I haven't been watching the news lately, so I've no idea if I've missed something.
Click to expand...

Neither. Most likely market manipulation by Dems.
 
SkepticalDrew said:
Do you believe 38% of voters are located in the South? Do I even need to post voter turnout numbers by state/region? Here's a hint, because it's super easy to search for yourself - it's not 38%.
Click to expand...

I think you're getting a little too close to the same mindset behind unskewedpolls.com: they feel that there is an overrepresentation of democrats on the polls.
 
SkepticalDrew said:
Do you believe 38% of voters are located in the South? Do I even need to post voter turnout numbers by state/region? Here's a hint, because it's super easy to search for yourself - it's not 38%.
Click to expand...
So super easy, yet you won't simply give the link. Here's a clue, it's not my responsibility to cite and support your claims. You can't support your claim and continue to rely on the fallacy of assertion. Got it. Carry on.
 
Neally said:
So super easy, yet you won't simply give the link. Here's a clue, it's not my responsibility to cite and support your claims. You can't support your claim and continue to rely on the fallacy of assertion. Got it. Carry on.
Click to expand...

http://elections.gmu.edu/Turnout_2008G.html

Let's add up Texas, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Oklahoma, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and Louisiana, we get 33%. So in response to your previous statement, they oversampled the south by 5%.

But I'm seriously ready to move on from this. You think it means something good for your guy, that's awesome. I'd rather wait until after election day to see what gender voted for whom. ;)
 
Last edited:
cnnohio.jpg


:confused:
 
Announcing: Wisconsin is the NEW Ohio, With New Improved Republi-Spin

Since Rasmussen is the linchpin of this thread, I figured I'd put this here rather than start a new thread because while it probably deserves its own thread,.. as do all my meanderings... there are just so many Morning Gotcha threads already.

Did anyone note that the tail wagged the dog yesterday. I was a little surprised to see Scott Rasmussen, although trying to spin it nicely, basically throwing in the towel in Ohio. His last poll shows it as "Tie". And he and the RNC and Fox all claim that his polls are the most accurate.

So Scott was on some newsradio show at least 8 hours before the RNC started hyping the strategy, and he announce that Wisconsin Is The New Ohio. Aw shucks, not that we're, I mean "they're" giving up in Ohio, but we, I mean "they" think that Wisconsin is easier to turn.

Really, Scott? Really Mr. Priebus? You can get those 10 votes in WI and that'll take the place of Ohio? They're trying to hustle up disgruntled teabaggers in states where there's been no media blitz. They're buying massive air time in Minneapolis so that the ads will get into western (rural and conservative) Wisconsin. With this strategy, they assume that the DNC is asleep (funny how Biden was in WI this week and Obama's heading there) and will let them spend their remaining hundred or so million in WI, NV, CO, IA, NH and that combined with FL, VA, and NC, this will put them over 270.

I give Romney 248 based on the heavily "leaning" states (VA, FL, NC), and that means he has to get 22 from those five states (if we concede the obvious to Obama, PA, MN, MI, OH...

"Wisconsin is the new Ohio" is a rallying cry to the delusional. They need to get those 22 out of...
NV 6
IA 6
CO 9
NH 4
WI 10

Now, the easier road would seem to be to stay with the plan and go after the first four, but I believe that just like Ohio, they see the writing on the wall in Iowa in particular and likely in NV. They are forced to go after WI because there was no route to 270 left. PA, MI, MN were added into undecided just to make it look good. There's no danger of Obama losing them.

And this whole scenario depends on holding VA and FL. FL looks more secure, but VA is not a given. Moderate Mitt may just give Goode a few conservative votes that he wasn't going to get, and the Powell endorsement probably hits VA harder than other areas.

So, back to the opening contention, then.... Does Scott take his cues from the RNC, or is Scott Rasmussen (neutral pollster) the new Karl Rove and calling the shots for the GOP?
 
If Romney is giving up on Ohio then that is basically the election. He would have to pick up almost every remaining swing state to get to 270. Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Nevada are still listed as swing states on RCP, but you might as well add them to Obama's electoral count.
 
Last edited:
UTLonghorn said:
If Romney is giving up on Ohio then that is basically the election. He would have to pick up almost every remaining swing state to get to 270. Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Nevada are still listed as swing states on RCP, but you might as well add them to Obama's electoral count.
Click to expand...

[respected NEUTRAL pollster mode]"Oh, but we're they're not giving up in Ohio. We're they're going all out and going to win the state. We They are just looking for an excuse to dump five million bucks in a state that has a snowball's chance in hell of turning GOP."[/rNpm off]

Karl Rove was smoking a bong yesterday with Hannity and was touting WI and PA in the same breath. I think there's a fat lady practicing her scales off to stage right. Get the microphone ready.
 
Foolmewunz said:
I give Romney 248 based on the heavily "leaning" states (VA, FL, NC), and that means he has to get 22 from those five states (if we concede the obvious to Obama, PA, MN, MI, OH...

"Wisconsin is the new Ohio" is a rallying cry to the delusional. They need to get those 22 out of...
NV 6
IA 6
CO 9
NH 4
WI 10

Now, the easier road would seem to be to stay with the plan and go after the first four, but I believe that just like Ohio, they see the writing on the wall in Iowa in particular and likely in NV. They are forced to go after WI because there was no route to 270 left. PA, MI, MN were added into undecided just to make it look good. There's no danger of Obama losing them.

And this whole scenario depends on holding VA and FL. FL looks more secure, but VA is not a given. Moderate Mitt may just give Goode a few conservative votes that he wasn't going to get, and the Powell endorsement probably hits VA harder than other areas.

So, back to the opening contention, then.... Does Scott take his cues from the RNC, or is Scott Rasmussen (neutral pollster) the new Karl Rove and calling the shots for the GOP?
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure about Virginia leaning to Romney

The last four polls are:

Public Policy -- Obama by 5
Fox News -- Romney by 2
Rasmussen -- Romney by 2
Purple Strategies -- Tie

Public Policy leans Democratic. Fox News and Rasmussen lean Republican (sorry, I mean Rasmussen is super-accurate) and Purple Strategies, as the name suggests, is a bipartisan group. It's probably pretty darned close to a tie in VA. Nate Silver rates it as leaning very slightly to Obama.
 
Foolmewunz said:
[respected NEUTRAL pollster mode]"Oh, but we're they're not giving up in Ohio. We're they're going all out and going to win the state. We They are just looking for an excuse to dump five million bucks in a state that has a snowball's chance in hell of turning GOP."[/rNpm off]

Karl Rove was smoking a bong yesterday with Hannity and was touting WI and PA in the same breath. I think there's a fat lady practicing her scales off to stage right. Get the microphone ready.
Click to expand...

[tinfoil hat mode] Isn't a little weird that right after Wisconsin is mentioned as the new strategic target for Romney, Rasmussen releases a state poll that has it at a tie?
 
Let's be fair, guys. Wisconsin was ALWAYS a target of theirs, at least ever since they picked Paul Ryan for veep.

I agree that without Ohio their chances are dim indeed, but I can't fault them for pounding Wisconsin. That's what I'd do. Concentrate on Florida, which I never thought would go for Obama to begin with; try to hold NC and Virginia; but bet the farm in the midwest. And that includes Wisconsin. I'd write off NH, NV, and CO if I was short on resources -- which they may not be.
 
Nate Silver just on Bill Maher. Asked who he believes will win, very clearly stated he thought Obama would. Interesting fact he quoted ws Romney had just a 7% chance of winning the Popular vote if Obama takes the EC. Does seem to cast some doubt over the national polls.

Also talked about Gallup being an outlier.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom