I figured it out by myself the first time I ran into the limit: just delete the weird number appendage it puts on your URL when you’re above your limit and you can read it just fine.
ETA: For example, I just tried one of the links and got this in my address bar:
[noparse]No Guarantee of Obama Rebound in Second Debate - The New York Times
delete everything past the last slash and you’re golden.
It’s all explained on this page.
So seeing the video clips of Mitt voicing his contrasting stances is somehow not ‘substantive’? What other substance were you hoping for?
Well, his stances could be pretty wide.
No, that was the other Republican. You remember, the Bible-thumping, Family-Values, homophobic, overweight white guy. 
SCOTUS has the last word on Ohio early voting - good news for POTUS: U.S. Supreme Court denies Ohio early-voting appeal; hours set for weekend before election - cleveland.com
I know it’s just coincidence, but this quote from the article made my day:
An eye-popping Gallup tracking poll which shows Romney up by 6. However the other tracking polls tell a different story with Rasmussen having Romney up by 1, Reuters-Ipsos showing Obama up by 3 and Tipp showing Obama up by 2. Anyway obviously the large majority of their calls were before the second debate. The dust should clear in a few days and my guess is Obama will be up by a couple of points in the national polls. Ideally he would like to build a 5-6 point buffer in states like Wisconsin and Iowa and Ohio which are part of his likely winning path and a 2-3 point lead in Colorado and Virginia which are his back-ups.
‘Bricker, of SDMB fame, went on record as saying ‘Ptttttttttttt!’ while sticking out his tongue and making antler hand gestures. Obama and his staff could not be reached for comment…’
Looking at Gallup’s numbers in more detail, they show Romney with a massive lead in the South and trailing everywhere else (i.e. a natural “win the popular vote, lose the election” pattern for a Republican). Also, the massive size of the Southern lead for Romney (22 percentage points) and the relatively small leads for Obama elsewhere (4, 4, & 6 percentage points) indicate heavy sampling of the South to get a +6pt Romney total..
Conclusion: fuggedaboutit
Right, the increase in Romney’s support is mostly from no-longer-wavering white evangelicals in the Confederacy. Not in places that will decide the election.
It would be very interesting if true that Romney’s lead consisted entirely of overperformance in the South, but I wouldn’t be too quick to reach that conclusion. Do we even know the margin of error for those groupings?
If you think the 6 points is out of line with the rest of the polling, you’d be right. But a perfectly sufficient explanation is that the poll is simply a statistical outlier. That’s a much more likely possibility than Romney actually being up by 6 overall solely as a consequence of support in the South.
Just as a reminder, Silver gives Romney only a 3.8% chance as of yesterday to win the popular vote but lose the electoral college.
It’s an outlier. That’s the ticket!
You might want to rethink this post. Regions don’t vote; people, who live in states, do. Just because Obama or Romney leads a region does not mean he’s going to win every state in that region. Although unlikely, you do realize that it’s easy win every state in a region by one vote, but to lose one state by 10,000 votes and have the final top line say that the candidate in question lost that region, correct?
What you seem to be ignoring from that graph, because it probably doesn’t suit you, is the fact is that Obama’s support is down among every group from 2008 while Romney is running better than McCain among every group as compared to 2008. That’s not good and spells trouble. Even if you were to look at the other tracking poll released today for which I can find the data (O+1.5), the internals are really terrible for Obama, even with the extraordinarily large number of people responding who said they were “unsure”. There’s no way Obama would win reelection while losing Indies by five points (a 13 point swing from 2008) and only retaining 84% of his Democratic vote from 2008. It would be IMPOSSIBLE, especially with Romney retaining 92% of McCain supporters.
Romney’s going to win every state in the South handily except Florida.
Er, no. People don’t vote for the President; states do – that’s US Constitution 101.
Laughably wrong. States have an electoral college which follows the popular vote in that state.
Did I miss a cite somewhere? Too many threads in this forum.
Wait, the poll shows Obama ahead… but its own internals show that it’s impossible for him to be ahead… so the poll must be wrong… but the internals are still right… so Obama is toast?
But not by necessity. IIRC, if Ohio wanted to give their electoral votes to the candidate with the snappiest necktie, there’s nothing keeping them from doing so.
As long as the candidate met the minimum criteria for being president, you are correct. But there are cases where votes have been summarily thrown out when an electoral voter cast a vote for a dead person, for instance.
Laughably missing the point, if what he meant was that winning 51% or 99% of Georgia makes no difference with an electoral college. So a big jump in Republican voters in a Solid Red State makes no difference. Isn’t this something everyone over the age of twelve knows?