The thinking is probably that if the Ohio polls are right, then all of romney’s efforts hasn’t budged them, so he needs to try to move a state that has been more volatile, like Pennsylvania.
If the Ohio polls are wrong, and Romney expects to win the popular vote, then he wins Ohio, so he might as well try to expand the map.
Either way, he belongs in Pennsylvania.
Per RCP for the past month the range has been one tie, two up by 7, two up by 6, five up by 3 … for the month averaging O+4 in a reasonable range.
Again, states may not be completely independent of each other but they are not completely correlated with the national numbers either. Even national politics is local. Local issues, local economic conditions, impact the choices differently.
Quite true, but there’s a reason that states fall pretty predictably red or blue in Presidential races. I simply don’t believe that Ohio has gotten more blue since 2008 or 2010. I think the best Obama can hope for is for Ohio to mirror the national results. If Obama performs better in Ohio than nationally, that is actually a pretty important change. And if the polls are right, he’s doing it on greater Democratic enthusiasm than ever.
As a State, no - Ohio is not more blue. But it is a voting population that is less fertile for Romney.
Let’s compare it with Michigan.
Ohio’s auto is more Chrylser/GM (e.g., bailouts). Michigan has significant Ford presence.
Ohio has multiple significant urban areas with multiple local machines that can produce votes. Michigan has fewer urban areas, the most significant of which (Detroit) is dysfunctional.
Ohio unions are especially aware of and opposed to Romney due to his endorsement of SB5.
National unions long have sent loaned employees to Ohio for ground-game. Michigan has never been a swing state, so it is a “fresher” place for Romney to challenge.
In Michigan, the population center is gradually moving west, to the fertile areas for Republicans. In Ohio, the population center is north, and especially northeast - Democratic ground.
Now, a couple of questions for the board. Are independents identified in polls reflecting historical levels, or are there more or fewer of them this year? Are there any polls showing Obama leading among independents? Is there precedent in Ohio or nationally for a winning candidate to lost independents?
To amend the Constitution to eliminate those extra 2 votes per state, you would need 38 states to agree; 13 states can block an amendment (3/4 of 50 states are required for a constitutional amendment; US Constitution, Art. V)
There are 15 states with 5 or less electoral votes (Alaska (3 EV), Delaware (3 EV), Hawaii (4 EV), Idaho (4 EV), Maine (4 EV), Montana (3 EV), Nebraska (5 EV), New Hampshire (4 EV), New Mexico (5 EV), North Dakota (3 EV), Rhode Island (4 EV), South Dakota (3 EV), Vermont (3 EV), West Virginia (5 EV), and Wyoming (3 EV). The proposed amendment would reduce their electoral influence substantially: from 56 EVs to 26 EVs.
Of those, 7 have only 3 electoral votes, so the proposed amendment would result in them losing 2/3 of their electoral influence.
What combination of these states would you see as supporting the proposed amendment, to make it a relatively easy fix?
By a small amount, yes. GWB lost independents by 4 points to John Kerry but better GOP turnout and Democratic defections put him over the top.
Obama’s losing independents by a wide margin.
Interesting. As a lifelong resident, I’ve never heard this. Certainly Detroit’s population is tanking but Macomb and Oakland counties may well make up for that. Do you have a cite?
You know, there are issues other than historic voting trends that can help an observer in determining how a state might possibly vote next week. As has already been discussed, the auto bailout should mean increased support for Obama in Ohio.
So why isn’t there a similar or greater boost in the auto industry hotbed of Michigan? Well, there’s the little issue of that basically being Romney’s home state. His father was governor of Michigan, for Edsel’s sake. Romney should be getting a home-state discount in the Michigan polling … so one ought to include that factor when looking at Romney being down 3. Perhaps having Obama ahead at all is indeed due to his actions on the auto industry bailout. Comparing Romney being down 3 to McCain losing Michigan by 16 is just way too simplistic … McCain didn’t have any connection at all to Michigan, whereas Romney absolutely does.
It’s just too simplistic to look at how a state voted in 2008 and/or 2010 and say, “Hey, the polls say it’s going to be different this year. They must be wrong!” Plenty of changes have happened since past elections, and some of them have much more pronounced local effects in certain states. If you consider the auto bailout (helping the economies of Ohio and, to a lesser extent, Michigan) perhaps being countered somewhat by Romney’s “home” advantage, it’s not all that surprising that Ohio is showing a greater move towards blue (comparative to past elections) than you see in Michigan.
No, not as of TODAY. You are factually wrong. From the Ohio Secretary of State: “As of Friday, October 26th, more than 1.2 million Ohioans had already cast their ballots (my bold).” The exact number, should you care, is 1,257,320. Turnoutin the last two presidential elections in Ohio was just north of 5.7 million people; assuming the same this year, that means 22% of ballots had been received by October 26.
The SurveyUSA poll that ChrisM is referring to was conducted from 10/26 through 10/29, so starting on the same day, and continuing for three days after the SOS’s cut-off date. The survey found that 25% of respondents had already voted. As you might expect, this number is a bit larger than the actual percentage that had voted by the *first *day of the poll, October 26.
That’s well within the polls margin of error, but if you’d like to extrapolate, daily voting totals over the week of 10/19 to 10/27 have been about 60,000 people per day, or just over 1%. To align the polling data with the SOS’s numbers, you’d then have to add somewhere between 0% and 3% to the SOS’s numbers, so call it about 23.5%. And that doesn’t take into account the delay due to mailing absentee ballots, which might add another percent or two.
No, the total of 1.3 million early voters comes from an Ohio report dated 10/30:
http://elections.gmu.edu/early_vote_2012.html
The Survey USA survey was active between 10/26 and 10/29, and the Gravis poll was conducted on 10/27. So there is no discrepancy in the dates.
Or what zut just said.
George Romney last ran for governor in 1966. This was prior to the 18 year old vote, so anyone who voted for him is at least 67 years old now. This notion that Michiganders are waxing nostalgic and saying “ahhhhhhhhh…Romney!” is nonsense. In his day, he was personally popular. But that day was long ago. Far more of us have fond memories of Bill Milliken than we do of George Romney. And let’s not forget, Lenore Romney got positively buried in her race for Senator. No, the Romney name is not magic in Michigan.
Just so we’re clear: Romney is not “down by 3” in Michigan. A 3-point deficit was the result of his **best **Michigan poll; 538’s weighted poll average has Romney down by more than 7 in the state, with a 1.4% chance of winning it. Romney is no more down 3 in Michigan than he is up 3 in Ohio.
And I notice that the best they could come up with, from a partisan poll, is that Romney’s down by 2% in Wisconsin. If the best poll you’ve got shows that you’re behind, then you’re* really* behind. So I think we can all stop worrying about Wisconsin.
[Note: The deal with partisan polls isn’t so much that the polls themselves are biased, but that the partisan outfit commissioning the polls can cherry-pick which polls (or even which individual poll results) to release.]
Say adaher, you may not have caught this the last 99 times it was posted, but voters’ affilliation is not a static thing - it can can (and does) change. There are many more independents now than there were years ago. The reason? Many folks who would have formerly identified as “Republican voter” now call themselves “Independent voter”. You have even been presented with numbers and graphs that show this.
It is therefore not a surprise that these “new independents, formerly Republicans” would tend to say in a poll that they intend to vote for Romney.
4 years ago, they would have shown up in polls as “Republicans who intend to vote for McCain”. Now these SAME PEOPLE show up as “Independents who intend to vote for Romney”.
I hope that this 100th repetition will sink in.
I also hope for a pony that poops skittles.
Just an aside, why am I just seeing Obama’s campaign press secretary Jen Psaki for the first time in this campaign? Beautiful.
Down, boy.
This is getting to be pretty pointless. The debate will be settled in a few days, you can’t argue against “the polls are all wrong”.
Some certainly can! And will!
