Oh, I can tell. Obama +6 is all you need to know. Clearly they oversampled Obama voters.
There’s a reference to another poster in the comment you quoted. Derogatory comments about political groups are allowed here, but you can’t insult other posters. This is a reminder to steer clear of that boundary.
In the comments to numerous articles, hell yeah. Legions. An entire army of nutters.
Will do. No personal insult intended.
Well, if you get 270 EVs in favor, then the small states lose their leverage. If you get the 270 EVs cast in favor of the popular vote winner, what’s the point of refusing to pass the constitutional amendment if you’re a small state? If your candidate wins or loses, at that point, how you vote is irrelevant.
No. If enough states sign on, the proposed strategy is *already *constitutional. States are already allowed to choose electors in whatever way they want.
Thus, the measure is a constitutional solution.
To address your other concern, I don’t see why an amendment might not have the same weaknesses. If the law as written has loopholes, maybe it needs to be rewritten and repassed. But it doesn’t require becoming an amendment. That moves it from the theoretical to the possible.
Interesting discussion here about how in 2010, and possibly in 2012, pollsters have underestimated both the latino vote in general, and latino support for Democrats.
Well, I’m not sure it’s constitutional - that would likely have to be adjudicated. The Article II language does state that a state may appoint electors however they see fit. However, there is ample other evidence, both in and outside the Constitution, that the intent was for these electors to be elected by popular vote by the voting population of the state in question. The notion that the electors could be selected by other states’ voters seems dubious to me, but IANACL.
This is, of course, wildly OT, so further discussions should probably be held elsewhere.
And now the latest Rasmussen poll shows a tied race in Ohio. That would be troubling IF (1) Rasmussen wasn’t so notoriously right-leaning, and (2) their last poll, conducted four days ago, hadn’t shown a +2 Romney lead. That signifies a +2 improvement for Obama coming from a Republican pollster. Ohio is going to be singularly out of reach for Romney within the next day or two.
Also, PPP just released its newest poll of Colorado showing Obama leading Romney +4.
Rasmussen isn’t actually notoriously right leaning. In fact, even Nate Silver (whom is God around here) notes that Rasmussen’s house effect-- at least back in June-- was actually close to even. Well, much closer to even than PPP, anyway.
BTW> I do believe the difference between the two polls is 1.2% (1.7% lead vs 0.5% lead). Just a bit of info.
Here is the article. Rasumussen’s house effect is estimated as being +1.3 Republican. So “close to even”? Depends on your definition. But yes, closer to even than PPP. (And, by the way, “who,” not “whom.”)
Rasmussen seems to skew their earlier results toward R, then taper toward reality as the election approaches, so they can’t be proven to have been biasing the numbers. They typically give the R an edge over other polls, yet come into alignment near the election.
The point being that Rasmussen moving towards Obama at this stage probably says more about Rasmussen than about who is going to vote for Obama or Romney.
Dick Morris is starting to see bumps in the road to a Romney landslide. If Dick Morris starts expressing doubts in you, it’s time to stick a fork in yourself.
Actually, that makes me nervous that Romney will pull it out after all. Keep the faith, Dick!
I’ve never understood this argument they make. Of course there will be a higher number of Democrats responding if the Democrats are the ones winning. That’s kinda what that means.
Just in case you aren’t kidding, what “oversampling” means is that there is some flaw in the pollster’s methodology that causes them to poll more Democrats than are statistically present in the population. The classic example of this is the Rasmussen poll, which it is claimed relies heavily on people with land telephone lines, as opposed to those who rely exclusively on cell phones. People who rely exclusively on cell phones tend to be younger, and tend to be more likely to vote Democratic. So if you don’t make any effort to control for that in your polling, Republicans will be over-represented in the poll, i.e., over-sampled.
I’m not sure on what basis claims that Democrats are over-represented are being made, other than “gee, I really wish it were so,” a frequent basis for claiming polls are off, by partisans on both sides.
The basis is that despite record minority turnout in 2008, many pollsters think minorities will vote in even larger numbers in 2012. That is an educated guess, which if it turns out to be wrong, will mean most pollsters missed by a mile.
Pollsters are also figuring that the youth vote will be similar to what it was in 2008, which is very unlikely to be true. If the electorate is older than in 2008, that’s a couple of points in Romney’s favor.
I think that you’re talking about the Black vote - I don’t think Hispanics were particularly energized in 2008 (or 2012). The problem is, few of the swing states have a sizable AA population. The two that do, Virginia and Florida, are the ones Romney is doing the best in. States like Colorado, Iowa, Wisconsin, and New Hampshire hardly have any AA’s at all. Ohio is below the national average by a couple of points.
The point is, even if AA voters don’t turn out, it isn’t going to make a difference where it counts. Obama was never going to win Alabama and Mississippi anyway.
Even if fewer minorities vote this year than in 2008, that may not mean that Romney should be favored:
In Ohio, Romney is only winning white voters by 50-45. That is unlikely to be a big enough margin for victory.
The faulty assumption that Silver has is that Romney would only win the white vote by the percentage that Bush did. He’s poised to win 60%. Bush won 58%. Those two percentage points get Romney to even.
Unless of course Gallup’s figures are right, in which case Romney does in fact lead by 5, in which case Ohio is a sure thing for him.
Really? For example, in the latest Pew poll, Romney is only winning 57% of white voters. The ABC/Washington Post poll gives Romney 58% of white voters.
Romney is obviously going to win white voters by a sizable margin. The question is whether he does so by enough to win the election.