How Mitt Romney can win Ohio

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/jon-husted-voter-fraud-ohio-14403661

and why vote once when you can try to vote twice...

http://www.nevadaappeal.com/article/20121104/NEWS/121109951/1006&parentprofile=1

Enthusiasm is low for Obama, high for Romney.

I don't believe this for a second....especially the "high for Romney" part. People in his party cannot even stand him and they're tolerating him because they want to beat Barack Obama so that doesn't speak to any high enthusiasm for Mitt Romney.

We also know for a fact that Independents are overwhelming in Romney's corner. There is no gender gap this time around; women are NOT favoring Obama.

I don't know about either one of these statements unless you mean those special Republican Independents who are masquerading as Independent for whatever reason. Suzy Homemaker women are probably okay with Mitt Romney but any woman who believes she should get paid the same for doing the same job as a man would be stupid to support Mitt Romney. I don't believe any poll that shows him with an advantage or equal to. If you want to use the oversampling argument for other things then here's another area in which oversampling should be applied.

The President is very much in a defensive mode while Romney is moving in an offensive manner; the differences in how these men appear at their respective campaign rallies is obvious.

Seriously. Mitt Romney asking people to vote early for him so they can influence the media's narrative is the sign of a really confident man on offense. Next, I'd like to hear how the lying Jeep ad shows confidence that he's going to run away with Ohio and doesn't need Jon Husted to invalidate provisional ballots for him. Oh and let's not forget that desperate ad he's running in Florida in which he speaks in Spanish and connects Barack Obama to Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez. That is the sign of a man on offense alright. Don't let the truth get in the way of a really huge lie.

What did the polls say just prior to the 2010 election? Nancy Pelosi thought she was secure as Speaker of the House... then BOOM! That was only two years ago and the mood in the nation hasn't improved. The economy is just as bad, if not worse. The jobs picture hasn't improved. Libya happened. Sandy happened. Meanwhile, in between partying with rock stars and campaigning, Obama turned in what is arguably the worst performance EVER by an incumbent President in a debate...

You can't seriously tell me that things are looking fantastic for President Obama right now and the man will cruise to another effortless victory with a clear mandate by the American people... You can't seriously tell me that even the most Liberal hardliner isn't just a little bit uncomfortable right now...

You pretty much remind me of why I loathe partisan politics and don't wish to be associated with either party--the Republicans more so than the Democrats. Mainly because I find the Republicans to be more offensive and less conciliatory. I heard two people from the same state yesterday take opposing positions on candidates based on their own personal situations. The one who was thriving in her business said she was voting for Barack Obama, the other who was not said she voted for Mitt Romney because he's a good businessman. I feel sorry for everyone who relies on Mitt Romney as a good businessman. A lot of them don't understand how much cheap labor plays a part in the success of certain good businessmen and that the U.S. is not a good source of cheap labor so the idea that his business expertise is going to automatically translate to jobs for Americans is a fantasy.

The economy was bad under George Bush and was bad again under his son George Bush but Republicans don't admit to that do they? Democrats are more willing to own up to their failures than Republicans who can only see what bad things Democrats do. Apparently the only thing that happened in Libya was the embassy murders. Anyone else that knows anything about Libya will also know that the Gadaffi is gone as well. They will also know that there have been successes as well.

"Sandy happened" does that mean Barack Obama caused a hurricane? I don't even get that reference because so far he seems to have done his best to help, at least according to Chris Christie.

A poor debate performance is a reason to get rid of a President but it's okay to elect a man with foot in mouth disease to go out and speak with foreign leaders? This is the part where I swear I'm convinced I landed in an episode of the "Twilight Zone" and logic is something other than it truly is.

Let me guess... another D+8 sampling?

Let's examine some other polls, too... yes, the very latest:

Politico/Washington University/Battleground - TIE

NBC News/Wall Street Journal - +1 Obama

ABC News/Washington Post - TIE

FOX News - TIE

CBS News/NY Times - +1 Obama

Pew Research - TIE

Gallup - +5 Romney

NPR - +1 Romney

And how many of these polls are ridiculously unbalanced in terms of Dem samples vs. Rep samples? The electorate of 2008 can't be measured as the electorate of today. Republican registration is way up this year and Democrat registration way down. Enthusiasm is low for Obama, high for Romney. Even in most polls where Obama is ahead, I invite you to look at the sampling - it just isn't good news for the President when he runs only a point or two ahead of Romney - and with anywhere from a +5 to +9 Democratic sample! That means more moderate Democrats are breaking from the party and voting for Romney, or not voting at all.

We also know for a fact that Independents are overwhelming in Romney's corner. There is no gender gap this time around; women are NOT favoring Obama.

These are all facts... Look beyond poll numbers and examine the data behind the polls. The answers are there, Vee.

Yes, I look at the polls everyday. I look INSIDE the polls every day. The statistical analysis is in Romney's favor, NOT Obama's. When Obama is sinking money into places like Pennsylvania, Michigan,or Wisconsin... when the President's campaign sends people to Nevada in the final days... that means something is up. For an incumbent, that's VERY bad news. The most accurate polling is the polling we're not allowed to see - that is the internal polling data taken by both Obama and Romney's campaigns. The President is very much in a defensive mode while Romney is moving in an offensive manner; the differences in how these men appear at their respective campaign rallies is obvious.

What did the polls say just prior to the 2010 election? Nancy Pelosi thought she was secure as Speaker of the House... then BOOM! That was only two years ago and the mood in the nation hasn't improved. The economy is just as bad, if not worse. The jobs picture hasn't improved. Libya happened. Sandy happened. Meanwhile, in between partying with rock stars and campaigning, Obama turned in what is arguably the worst performance EVER by an incumbent President in a debate...

You can't seriously tell me that things are looking fantastic for President Obama right now and the man will cruise to another effortless victory with a clear mandate by the American people... You can't seriously tell me that even the most Liberal hardliner isn't just a little bit uncomfortable right now...

Brian, your'e negating the Mormon factor. It's his achilles heel. 95 percent of all conservative christians consider Mormonism to be a cult, and that opinion is not to be undervalued. There are ones that vote the straight abortion ticket and don't care baout ANYTHING else. But those aren't a high percentage.

Edited November 4, 201213 yr by alphanguy74

This crap about sampling is a completely non-factor, yet the right-wing loves to push it, because they need a reason to dismiss the polls and because they are completely crazy with fear that Romney could lose.

Party ID is fluid, which means polls should not weighted by it and are not weighted by it (except the ultra-Republican Rasmussen, which gives 2% weighting to Republicans in their polls). A whole lot of extremist Republican who don't believe the Republican Party is far right enough have switched to independent, which makes the sample of independents fairly right leaning. Not all independents are swing voters and they certainly aren't all moderates. A different set of independents tends to show up every election.

Plus, the state polls are consistent with a +2% Obama lead nationally. At this point, Obama is in the driver's seat.

This crap about sampling is a completely non-factor, yet the right-wing loves to push it, because they need a reason to dismiss the polls and because they are completely crazy with fear that Romney could lose.

Party ID is fluid, which means polls should not weighted by it and are not weighted by it (except the ultra-Republican Rasmussen, which gives 2% weighting to Republicans in their polls). A whole lot of extremist Republican who don't believe the Republican Party is far right enough have switched to independent, which makes the sample of independents fairly right leaning. Not all independents are swing voters and they certainly aren't all moderates. A different set of independents tends to show up every election.

Plus, the state polls are consistent with a +2% Obama lead nationally. At this point, Obama is in the driver's seat.

Well the sorry MSM has been pushing it for 2 years now. That Democratic enthusiasm is no where close to the TBs. I don't now where these morons are getting their data.

Let me guess... another D+8 sampling?

Let's examine some other polls, too... yes, the very latest:

Politico/Washington University/Battleground - TIE

NBC News/Wall Street Journal - +1 Obama

ABC News/Washington Post - TIE

FOX News - TIE

CBS News/NY Times - +1 Obama

Pew Research - TIE

Gallup - +5 Romney

NPR - +1 Romney

And how many of these polls are ridiculously unbalanced in terms of Dem samples vs. Rep samples? The electorate of 2008 can't be measured as the electorate of today. Republican registration is way up this year and Democrat registration way down. Enthusiasm is low for Obama, high for Romney. Even in most polls where Obama is ahead, I invite you to look at the sampling - it just isn't good news for the President when he runs only a point or two ahead of Romney - and with anywhere from a +5 to +9 Democratic sample! That means more moderate Democrats are breaking from the party and voting for Romney, or not voting at all.

We also know for a fact that Independents are overwhelming in Romney's corner. There is no gender gap this time around; women are NOT favoring Obama.

These are all facts... Look beyond poll numbers and examine the data behind the polls. The answers are there, Vee.

The presidential election isn't decided by a national popular vote. Most swing state polls show Obama leading. I have no doubt Romney will win more votes than McCain did and his margin of victory will be astronomical in the deep south, but that doesn't really matter. It all goes back to who can win Ohio, Colorado, Virginia, Iowa, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Florida, and Nevada. And Obama is leading in all or tied.

Seriously, that is a Republican group think cra-cray that there is just no breaking through. Two days before the election and they are STILL deluding themselves that the polls and the early voting stats are wrong. I cannot wait to see all their deluded crazy lying heads explode on Tuesday night. I will never forget the look on Karl Rove's face when Ohio went for Obama or Scarborough's horror at Obama's victory and how he left the set before the end of the show.

Anyone see the segment this morning on The CBS Sunday morning show on election polls and Nate Silver? Very well done and pared down so that the average viewer could understand how Silver arrives at his numbers. I hope Mitt supporters took note.

I missed this. Hopefully, it will be posted online somewhere. ETA: I just found it on CBS's site. It was okay, but we got the typical journalistic cop out at the end, "only time will tell." RME.

Edited November 4, 201213 yr by Ann_SS

You pretty much remind me of why I loathe partisan politics and don't wish to be associated with either party--the Republicans more so than the Democrats. Mainly because I find the Republicans to be more offensive and less conciliatory.

Sorry to be so disappointing to you, Wales.

Sorry to be so disappointing to you, Wales.

I'm not disappointed . You just reminded me but c'est la vie.

Well the sorry MSM has been pushing it for 2 years now. That Democratic enthusiasm is no where close to the TBs. I don't now where these morons are getting their data.

I'm lost....what's TB? I'm thinking you meant TP as in Tea Party but maybe you're talking about something else.

Brian, your'e negating the Mormon factor. It's his achilles heel. 95 percent of all conservative christians consider Mormonism to be a cult, and that opinion is not to be undervalued. There are ones that vote the straight abortion ticket and don't care baout ANYTHING else. But those aren't a high percentage.

I found that Billy Graham endorsement suspect. Up until then his website referred to the Mormon religion as a cult. The Grahams must be saying that their hatred of Barack Obama outweighs their need to be true to their belief which renders their faith useless, if it can be swayed over politics.

I'm not into the poll thing at all and the fact that Pew had Mitt Romney and Barack Obama even with women a few weeks ago and now they say Barack Obama has a 13 point edge is a great example. I didn't believe that Mitt Romney had an edge or broke even with women at any point.

The confident candidate uses Donald Trump for robo calls and the one running scared sends Joe Biden out to tell Chris Matthews he thinks they are going to win but bring your mother and everyone else out to vote anyway.

I like how Chuck Todd tried to cover his bases....you see the polls are still ever so close so can't really say who is going to win but if he were to pick who has a wee bit of momentum then it would be the President.

The attacks on Chris Christie for complimenting Barack Obama are ridiculous.

Today the mainstream media is finally tip toeing and picking a winner as they have played out "it is a toss up." They are so pathetic.

It's always "a thin margin" or "eked out" when it's a Democrat.

Obama trounced McCain and he's about to trounce Mitt but the DC press has refused to ever admit that a Democrat could possibly have a substantial lead, a mandate or a landslide. That's fine. Wait and see.

Edited November 5, 201213 yr by Vee

Now the NY Times has an article saying that the mainstream media (including the AP) plans to be cautious. They doubt that they can call the race by 11:00 p.m. on Tuesday because the swing states are expected to be close. RME. What losers! They are just trying to string out the election so they can keep the suspense going and ratings higher. Thank goodness for all the political and election blogs and Web sites.

Edited November 5, 201213 yr by Ann_SS

Now the NY Times has an article saying that the mainstream media (including the AP) plans to be cautious. They doubt that they can call the race by 11:00 p.m. on Tuesday because the swing states are expected to be close. RME. What losers! They are just trying to string out the election so they can keep the suspense going and ratings higher.

I had completely forgotten but we're in a Nielsen sweeps period and have been since last week. I'm not sure what effect the Hurricane had on numbers but that's even more motivation for the networks to string this out.

Y'all forget that in the age of twitter and facebook the media cannot unilaterally draw this out. Sure they did in the past month or so but on Tuesday they cannot. What I see, as a Democrat, is cautious Democrats who have been put through the ringer and have learned to expect the Democratic Party to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

I have to say it would be sweet revenge for 2000 if Obama lost the popular vote and won the Electoral vote. Then you will hear for calls to get rid of the Electoral college.. and the democrats can stick their tongues out when it bites the Republicans in the butt.

Edited November 5, 201213 yr by alphanguy74