You could be considered out of touch for considering it acceptable for the country to ever again have a Republican in the White House.
So, if you do, you are.
I’ve been saying the same thing in various threads for weeks. It seems that some people just never get it.
They do relate, and are currently relating. If we give Romney all the states that he’s leading in plus the ones Obama leads by less than one, Romney wins 275 electoral votes. The state and national polls move in tandem.
And if my Aunt had balls, she’d be my Uncle.
Do the same for O and he’d have 332. Which position would you rather be in?
Yes, it is too early to say Romney has lost, for the simple reason that no one’s cast any votes yet.
In fact, Sunday’s NYT noted that 20% of all ballots will be cast absentee this round…
Anonymous pollster: “When you give conservatives bad news in your polls, they want to kill you. When you give liberals bad news in your polls, they want to kill themselves.” Intrade puts Romney at 37.5%, which is a little high in my view. Nate Silver gives Romney 28.8%: I think his odds are better than that.
This election has always been winnable for Romney. Republican economic sabotage, voter suppression and boatloads of Super Pac cash has made it an uphill battle for Democrats, one which they’ve met with hard work and cold, hard facts.
h/t Greg Sargent
I think Really Not All That Bright is a Dutch citizen, he may have permanent leave to remain and not be able to vote. Complete guess though.
It’s worth comparing these numbers to historical ones.
Still just a link to Firefox.
I don’t understand why this is being repeated, as if readers don’t understand it. Of course it’s understood. The 538 probabilities quoted reflect the electoral college result, not popular vote.
You know why national polls matter? Because Romney won’t win the election by a full percentage point or more and lose the electoral college. Never happen.
Exactly. From what I can tell, a general national swing usually manifests itself at the state level. Now Romney’s electoral map is difficult, but it’s well within the range of possibility. My gut feeling is that some of this post-debate Romney euphoria is going to wear off and wane, but if we get another sub-par Obama performance and the jobs numbers in October tank, President Romney does not seem like such a far-off fantasy.
I’m not trying to be Chicken Little here, but I don’t want this to be a replay of 2004 where we were all scratching our heads asking how in the fuck we re-elected Bush, as if it was some kind of unforseeable outcome.
Some people either don’t understand the difference between the electoral college and the popular vote, or ignore it for whatever reason. That’s all I’m saying.
I’m not seeing a lot of evidence the individual jobs reports are affecting the polls.
Granted, a massive drop would definitely make headlines and make people rethink, but that’s still just four days before the election. What kind of impact would/should one expect from that?
Not positively, no. A lot of people feel those numbers are cooked, anyway, (even though I don’t believe that), and if the numbers rise back up or even end up back above 8.0%, I think you’d be foolish to think that wouldn’t be reflected in the outcome.
Not a huge impact, but if the election does end up being as tight as 2000 and 2004, my guess would be enough.
What are the odds that the next employment numbers release is worse than the last one? Have the unemployment numbers risen (more than .1%) in any month in the last 4 years?
Not disputing that “a lot of people” think the numbers are cooked. The fact that people like that are allowed to vote is very disturbing.
Ever? Ever? Come on. I’m a loyal Democrat and am volunteering for, and have contributed to, Obama’s reelection campaign. But any party that remains in power too long - even one that I agree with on policy - grows complacent, corrupt and out of touch. In time the wheel will turn, the GOP may change, and the time will surely come when a Republican once again sits behind the desk in the Oval Office. That won’t necessarily be a bad thing.