• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

512 Paths to the White House

IndepCentristMA said:
What happens if Romney wins a PA, MI, MN, NM, OR...
Click to expand...

I reckon all bets are off if that happens. Dogs will lay down with cats, water will run up hill, Romney will stick to a position for more than three months....

In any case, Silver doesn't use a simple averaging method like RCP, and for good reason. Michigan clearly is not as close as NC when you look at the totality of the polling. The RCP average is easily distorted by bad outlier polls.
 
Last edited:
IndepCentristMA said:
Right... the "blogger" that the NY Times has pretty much sold out its election coverage to...

No coincidence that they're using the states that Nate Silver thinks are swing states...

Which again, goes against the facts, that RCP clearly shows MI and PA with the same spread as NC, yet, for some reason aren't listed as potential swing states in the election... why is that? Liberal bias...
Click to expand...

Do I really need to school and embarrass you some more. The fact you have not even looked at the tool and claim to be able to refute it is ****ing hilarious.

So, Nate Silver is a blogger. He does not run election coverage, he runs a blog. Richard Stevenson runs election coverage. This is what is known as a fact. No amount of claiming otherwise is going to change that.



Like I said... the choice to not include several key swing states presents this information in a biased manner... and ignores relevant facts...

Again, facts you fail to address, and incorrectly attribute to me not understanding "the tool"... rather than actually disagreeing with the limitations of the tool to only include a situation where more paths favor Obama to win, and just a few narrow ones where Romney stands a chance to win...
Click to expand...

The list of states is a common choice of swing states. No other states are as close in the polls for the last month. The only relevant fact to the tool is how many electoral votes are available in the state. This is something you would know if you actually had looked at it instead of being incensed since you did not like the conclusion.


You're right... it doesn't... nor did I claim it did...

What I claimed is that the order of the vote will influence states out west where its either close or an edge to Obama... where if its announced that Mitt wins FL, NC, VA, and NH while polls are still open... especially given most of the other early closing polls are from large delegate southern states which will add up, too... people who are still in line to vote out west are going to be jumping on the Romney bandwagon...
Click to expand...

You did claim that. You went off on this long rant about east coast states being first...

Your scenario...did you know you can model it with this tool? of course you did not because you just went on a knee jerk rant instead of actually looking at the tool.

No you can't... because the scenario I presented includes Romney winning the 2nd congressional district in ME, which he leads by 5 points in the 2 polls which have been taken there... So that alters what this tool has as potential outcomes...

Also, it doesnt add the potential of turning Minnesota, Oregon, or New Mexico...

Like I said, this "tool" that you seem to have sunk your life's worth into, is heavily flawed...

What happens if Romney wins a PA, MI, MN, NM, OR... what are you going to do with your tool then?

It also won't figure in that Romney is likely to win 1 delegate from the 2nd congressional district of ME... which forges a 2 pt swing which alters each of his calculations...


I also didn't focus all of my response on just "this tool"... I focused it on realistic paths that Romney is likely going to have to help him win... Your "tool" may give a realm of possibilities (which I've already shown are limited), but it doesn't give likelihood of those paths...

When it gives raw number of paths (leaving out many other paths which could lead to either Romney or Obama victories)... It doesn't suggest what the most likely occurance is... I was venturing down that path instead...
Click to expand...

Seriously, it gives swing states because those are the ones that we do not know the likely outcome in. Sure, Romney could win NY and California, but it is highly unlikely and adding those two would up the complexity of the programming of the tool immensely.



Zzzzzz... It's tiring watching you refute things I never said...

What I said is IF its going to show NC in the realm of states that Obama could win by... than it isn't being realistic...

For instance... It says if Obama wins FL, and then Obama wins NC it's over and Obama wins... Well... Not if Romney wins PA, OH, WI... As well as NH, CO, IA... So your model is FLAWED... Like I said, it gave a FL & NC win as a Obama win... not necesarily the case...

The choice to include NC, which has 15 electors, and a RCP spread of 3.8pt for Romney in there... but ignore that MI which has 16 electors and RCP has as a 3.8pt spread for Obama (which is closing and a recent poll had it tied), and PA which has 20 electors and RCP has as a 3.9pt spread for Obama (and closing, with recent polls showing it tied) is a biased decision...

So it isn't so much that the "tool" is biased, it's the people who set the "tool" up that are biased, which is why they set it up in such a manner which makes it seem it's a sure fire Obama victory... and that Romney has little to no chance at a win...

That couldn't be further from the truth... Mitt Romney is closing most polls, and Obama is playing defensive in states he thought he wouldn't be... This election has shifted from FL and OH deciding it, to FL seems likely Romney, and OH and a combination of WI, PA, MI, MN, CO, NV, NH, IA, etc. are going to decide it... ALL of which are states Obama won last time... and he's scratching to hold onto...

So, again, presenting it as if there are 9 states in play (that they only think 7 are really battleground states), when other sites have 10, 11, and 12 states as battleground states presents this information in a biased manner which favors Obama...

Chuck Todd did a much better job presenting this information on Meet the Press Sunday Morning... taking the states in and out of the different camps...
Click to expand...

Actually you did say it, it was a direct ****ing quote.

And for gods sake learn what assumptions are. Assuming those states are the states in play(probably true), then if Obama wins FLA and NC it is in fact all over.

Crying because the electoral math favors Obama is not going to change the fact that the electoral math favors Obama. Does that mean Obama is going to win? Of course not. It does mean that the odds are in Obama's favor however. Crying, lies, prevarication and whining about bias is not going to change that.
 
Redress said:
Do I really need to school and embarrass you some more. The fact you have not even looked at the tool and claim to be able to refute it is ****ing hilarious.

So, Nate Silver is a blogger. He does not run election coverage, he runs a blog. Richard Stevenson runs election coverage. This is what is known as a fact. No amount of claiming otherwise is going to change that.
Click to expand...

It's hard to "school" someone who obviously knows more than you...

Especially when your entire argument is that I havent "used the tool"... I have looked it over, and disagree with it's analysis... There's a difference...

Again, I showed you, that;

1) it ignores that Romney will likely win 1 electorate from ME, in the 2nd congressional district, which the 3 polls from 2 agencies have Romney up 5pts there. That means there's a 2pt swing on the results in that tool.

2) it ignores the paths from just as likely scenarios. You say agreed upon swing states... but it RCP has NC, MI, and PA all at a 3.8pt spread (with NC having been steady, but PA and MI polls closing), why is it they decided to include NC, but not PA and MI...

Because of NATE starING SILVER's POLLING!!!

Nate Silver doesn't "run a blog"... he also runs a polling average agency, which the NY Times has been relying upon for its coverage... Nate Silver's polling average agency doesn't just look at the polls and provide an average though, but he applies computer model predictions from economic indicators and other considerations.

Yet, that's what the NY Times used as a guide for what it considers are the swing states... ignoring others...


Redress said:
The list of states is a common choice of swing states. No other states are as close in the polls for the last month. The only relevant fact to the tool is how many electoral votes are available in the state. This is something you would know if you actually had looked at it instead of being incensed since you did not like the conclusion.
Click to expand...

As I just said, I've used to tool, I just think it's wrong, by mistaken analysis...

The relevant facts are, that it awards 4 delegates to Obama for Maine, when Maine allocates 2 of their electors by congressional district and all information gathered on Maine has Romney winning the 2nd congressional district. So that makes the configuration of this "tool" that you are so in love with OFF BY 2PTS!!!

That's not even considering swing states... That's considering 3 polls in October by 2 different agencies all came up with a 5 pt Romney lead in the 2nd congressional district...


Then, as I said, there are other issues, in what consideration for a swing state is...

the latest polls MI tied and PA narrowing... for that matter MN narrowing as well...

They're swing states, RCP has them as swing states, other polling agencies list them as swing states...

If this tool wanted to be better, they would've listed all the states that are potential swing states as swing states...

Instead they chose to push a bias that is predicated by Nate Silver's polls...


Redress said:
You did claim that. You went off on this long rant about east coast states being first...

Your scenario...did you know you can model it with this tool? of course you did not because you just went on a knee jerk rant instead of actually looking at the tool.
Click to expand...

No, what I said was if Romney comes out and wins the first few states, and they're decided early, it's a sign that Romney is winning, and that the western states will swing to Romney and add to the wins on the east coast to put him over the top...

The fact that you call it a "long rant" and then can't accurately convey the sentiment I gave shows that you didn't read what I wrote, so you can't comment...

For someone who claims I haven't used "the tool"... you surely haven't read the comments I've written on it and commented in regards to that...

Redress said:
Seriously, it gives swing states because those are the ones that we do not know the likely outcome in. Sure, Romney could win NY and California, but it is highly unlikely and adding those two would up the complexity of the programming of the tool immensely.
Click to expand...

Right... Romney winning CA or NY is highly unlikely...

But... Rasmussen (one of the most accurate polling agencies) has polls tied in MI and OH, and a 2 pt lead in PA for Obama...

Those are well within the margin of error and within reach for Romney...

Especially considering that there are about 4-5% listed as undecided... and late breaking undecideds have gone 80% to 20% against every incumbent running for re-election... so that would mean a 3/4-1 advantage for Romney... and 2-3 pt leads could easily disappear...

MI, PA, and MN are all trending downwards and are under 4pts...

Redress said:
Actually you did say it, it was a direct ****ing quote.

And for gods sake learn what assumptions are. Assuming those states are the states in play(probably true), then if Obama wins FLA and NC it is in fact all over.

Crying because the electoral math favors Obama is not going to change the fact that the electoral math favors Obama. Does that mean Obama is going to win? Of course not. It does mean that the odds are in Obama's favor however. Crying, lies, prevarication and whining about bias is not going to change that.
Click to expand...

Yes... I accurately pointed out that there is a major flaw in this "tool" that you swear your life by... that the fact that they already are 2 pts off at their starting point, given ME's 2nd congressional district, and that there are other paths they haven't given credit to, when they are realistic ones...

You still don't want to admit it... but...

Here are the last 3 polls from PA
Trib poll shows presidential race in Pennsylvania remains too close to call | TribLIVE
READ THE RESULTS: Muhlenberg College/Morning Call 2012 Pennsylvania Presidential Election Survey - mcall.com
Public Opinion Polls and Market Research : Final Pennsylvania Poll Results

That's 3 polls, 1 tied, 1 2pts, 1 3pts...

So, like it or not... PA is in play... and closing...

BTW... let's compare that with the last 3 polls in NC...
Public Opinion Polls and Market Research : Final North Carolina Presidential Poll Shows...
WRAL News poll: Romney edges ahead in NC as election nears :: WRAL.com
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_FLNC_1105.pdf

That's 3 polls, 1 tied, 2 with 4pts...

So in the last week... the 3 polls regarding PA and NC has PA closer than NC...

yet, Nate Silver doesn't consider it a swing state... so the NY Times tool doesn't give it as a path to victory for Romney, when it truly is...
 
AdamT said:
I reckon all bets are off if that happens. Dogs will lay down with cats, water will run up hill, Romney will stick to a position for more than three months....

In any case, Silver doesn't use a simple averaging method like RCP, and for good reason. Michigan clearly is not as close as NC when you look at the totality of the polling. The RCP average is easily distorted by bad outlier polls.
Click to expand...

What happens if Romney wins a PA, MI, MN, NM, OR... you still didn't answer the question...

The last 3 polls in PA, 1 shows a tie, 1 shows 2 pts, and 1 shows 3 pts...

with 4-5% undecided... and undecideds have historically gone historically 80% to 20% against incumbents... what makes you think PA isn't in play?

Also, what makes you think early results which all favor Romney wouldn't turn Oregon, to Romney, by further discouraging those who are upset with the president in Oregon, and who are pro-liberal third party candidates?

Also, what happens when the polling that's been done all turns out to be off, by using 2008 models, when it turns out to be a 2004 turnout? That would be a 5 pt swing for Romney...

There are more paths to the presidency than have been considered by this tool... it's as simple as that...
 
jerry7 said:
It will be very interesting to see which polls were accurate. Rasmussen had Wisconsin even yesterday. There's an NBC poll out today that has Obama up by 6 in Ohio with dems oversampled by 9.
Click to expand...

I think CNN, NBC/WSJ, and the NYT polls will all prove to be off by the greatest factor. I mean CNN has a +11 pt Democratic advantage.
 
IndepCentristMA said:
What happens if Romney wins a PA, MI, MN, NM, OR... you still didn't answer the question...

The last 3 polls in PA, 1 shows a tie, 1 shows 2 pts, and 1 shows 3 pts...

with 4-5% undecided... and undecideds have historically gone historically 80% to 20% against incumbents... what makes you think PA isn't in play?

Also, what makes you think early results which all favor Romney wouldn't turn Oregon, to Romney, by further discouraging those who are upset with the president in Oregon, and who are pro-liberal third party candidates?

Also, what happens when the polling that's been done all turns out to be off, by using 2008 models, when it turns out to be a 2004 turnout? That would be a 5 pt swing for Romney...

There are more paths to the presidency than have been considered by this tool... it's as simple as that...
Click to expand...

You're just not being realistic. First of all, Obama is ahead in the last three PA polls: +3 +3 and +6. PA has been polled 61 times and of those 61 polls, Romney was ahead exactly three times. The last time he was ahead was in February, and that was a poll by a very pro-Republican house. IOW, it's perfectly reasonable for Silver not to count PA as a swing state.

Obama is up 6 points in OR. He has never been polled at less than a 4% lead. Not a swing state.

MI is a similar story, etc.

Further, you don't understand how polling is done. The only major firm that uses party ID weighting is Rasmussen, so the others aren't making any assumptions about '08 or '04 or any other year's turnout.
 
Mr.Nick said:
Well considering I only live between Chicago and Milwaukee and have had many political discussions with individuals - yeah I think I know....

Not that electing Walker then booting his recall has anything to do with it...

Wisconsin is a Romney lock...
Click to expand...

AND

IndepCentristMA said:
What happens if Romney wins a PA, MI, MN, NM, OR... you still didn't answer the question...

The last 3 polls in PA, 1 shows a tie, 1 shows 2 pts, and 1 shows 3 pts...

with 4-5% undecided... and undecideds have historically gone historically 80% to 20% against incumbents... what makes you think PA isn't in play?

Also, what makes you think early results which all favor Romney wouldn't turn Oregon, to Romney, by further discouraging those who are upset with the president in Oregon, and who are pro-liberal third party candidates?

Also, what happens when the polling that's been done all turns out to be off, by using 2008 models, when it turns out to be a 2004 turnout? That would be a 5 pt swing for Romney...

There are more paths to the presidency than have been considered by this tool... it's as simple as that...
Click to expand...

.... hey, we all appreciate your........ refreshing(?).... perspectives. I know I, for one, would sleep a lot better if you would keep your wallets in your pockets and refrain from any wagers based on these refreshing and unique perspectives.
 
Last edited:
AdamT said:
You're just not being realistic. First of all, Obama is ahead in the last three PA polls: +3 +3 and +6. PA has been polled 61 times and of those 61 polls, Romney was ahead exactly three times. The last time he was ahead was in February, and that was a poll by a very pro-Republican house. IOW, it's perfectly reasonable for Silver not to count PA as a swing state.

Obama is up 6 points in OR. He has never been polled at less than a 4% lead. Not a swing state.

MI is a similar story, etc.

Further, you don't understand how polling is done. The only major firm that uses party ID weighting is Rasmussen, so the others aren't making any assumptions about '08 or '04 or any other year's turnout.
Click to expand...

I already linked to the last 3 polls... it was tied, 2pts, and 3 pts... which has dropped the 8pt lead Obama had in the RCP average 2weeks ago down to 3.8... He just started advertising there, and he's just getting into the area personally... So Romney is building late ground in PA which could swing it... PA is in play...

MI has been odd in that polls have fluctuated heavily up and down... I don't expect Romney is going to win MI, but there is a potential there that he could...

OR is not a swing state in the least... I never claimed it was... However, there is the possibility that early returns which show Romney winning the early states, and having a huge early lead in the electorate, it may disuade some voters from going to the polls, or encourage them to cast a protest vote... which could cause the Romney/Ryan turnout to outdue the Obama/Biden turnout... and since much of OR are independent, and OR is often one of the states that gets the highest votes for indepent and third party candidats, it's possible Jill Stein could pull enough votes away from Obama, which could open the door for a big upset in NV, OR, NM... or one of those western states, where the polling hasn't been as often, and it's been assumed that it's in Obama's backpocket... but the enthusiasm isn't there nearly what it was in the last election...

LMFAO @ the suggesting that I don't know how polling is done... Not only have I done polling, and my girlfriend is an expert on creating polls... but I've also taken a stat course for social science topics which we made a lot of specific models to analyze the use of data, including a focus on presidential polling...

I know how these polling places are able to craft them in ways to get the specific responses they want to, through how the questions are crafted, to the order of the questions, to the people that they call, where and how they get their sample, etc.

All polls are small sample size, and thus more prone to error... and then, all of those sites assume their sample is matched to the demographic as a whole, which they are not... ALL of those polls are flawed...

There is not a single poll which has the election result predicted accurrately every time... There is not a single poll which could claim to be within 1pt of the election each time... The typical error rate is about 1.5 pts... and in many cases, it's underestimating the turnout...

Which camp do you think the turnout is going to be underestimated from... the Democrats or Republicans? Well... early voting indicates that Democratic turnout is way down... and Republican turnout is up in early voting, and most Republicans intend to vote on election day... Plus, there is a huge enthusiasm gap in favor of Republicans...

So cling to your polls if you want... I'm gonna let the actual vote decide it... and let Republican turnout, Independents, and Democrats voting Romney turn the tide in this election...
 
IndepCentristMA said:
I already linked to the last 3 polls... it was tied, 2pts, and 3 pts... which has dropped the 8pt lead Obama had in the RCP average 2weeks ago down to 3.8... He just started advertising there, and he's just getting into the area personally... So Romney is building late ground in PA which could swing it... PA is in play...

MI has been odd in that polls have fluctuated heavily up and down... I don't expect Romney is going to win MI, but there is a potential there that he could...

OR is not a swing state in the least... I never claimed it was... However, there is the possibility that early returns which show Romney winning the early states, and having a huge early lead in the electorate, it may disuade some voters from going to the polls, or encourage them to cast a protest vote... which could cause the Romney/Ryan turnout to outdue the Obama/Biden turnout... and since much of OR are independent, and OR is often one of the states that gets the highest votes for indepent and third party candidats, it's possible Jill Stein could pull enough votes away from Obama, which could open the door for a big upset in NV, OR, NM... or one of those western states, where the polling hasn't been as often, and it's been assumed that it's in Obama's backpocket... but the enthusiasm isn't there nearly what it was in the last election...

LMFAO @ the suggesting that I don't know how polling is done... Not only have I done polling, and my girlfriend is an expert on creating polls... but I've also taken a stat course for social science topics which we made a lot of specific models to analyze the use of data, including a focus on presidential polling...

I know how these polling places are able to craft them in ways to get the specific responses they want to, through how the questions are crafted, to the order of the questions, to the people that they call, where and how they get their sample, etc.

All polls are small sample size, and thus more prone to error... and then, all of those sites assume their sample is matched to the demographic as a whole, which they are not... ALL of those polls are flawed...

There is not a single poll which has the election result predicted accurrately every time... There is not a single poll which could claim to be within 1pt of the election each time... The typical error rate is about 1.5 pts... and in many cases, it's underestimating the turnout...

Which camp do you think the turnout is going to be underestimated from... the Democrats or Republicans? Well... early voting indicates that Democratic turnout is way down... and Republican turnout is up in early voting, and most Republicans intend to vote on election day... Plus, there is a huge enthusiasm gap in favor of Republicans...

So cling to your polls if you want... I'm gonna let the actual vote decide it... and let Republican turnout, Independents, and Democrats voting Romney turn the tide in this election...
Click to expand...

Check it again. The last three PA polls are +3 +3 +6 for Obama. RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - Pennsylvania: Romney vs. Obama

I would toss the Susquehana poll as they seem to have a +5 Republican lean. PA ... not in play.

If you know how polling is done then you should know that the vast majority of pollsters aren't considering past election turnout at all.

The fact that early voting is closer this time around is not as promising for Romney as you would like to think. In '08 the Obama campaign broke new ground by focusing on early voting in a big way. The McCain campaign did very little to encourage early voting. Romney's campaign learned from McCain's mistake and has been pushing early voting hard. But most of the ground they've made up in early voting is probably just being cannibalized from election day voting.

You're trying to attack the polls (a sure sign that your candidate is losing) by arguing that voter enthusiasm is much stronger on the Republican side. But how do you determine that? That's right ... polling data. Boston, we have a problem....
 
AdamT said:
Check it again. The last three PA polls are +3 +3 +6 for Obama. RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - Pennsylvania: Romney vs. Obama

I would toss the Susquehana poll as they seem to have a +5 Republican lean. PA ... not in play.

If you know how polling is done then you should know that the vast majority of pollsters aren't considering past election turnout at all.

The fact that early voting is closer this time around is not as promising for Romney as you would like to think. In '08 the Obama campaign broke new ground by focusing on early voting in a big way. The McCain campaign did very little to encourage early voting. Romney's campaign learned from McCain's mistake and has been pushing early voting hard. But most of the ground they've made up in early voting is probably just being cannibalized from election day voting.

You're trying to attack the polls (a sure sign that your candidate is losing) by arguing that voter enthusiasm is much stronger on the Republican side. But how do you determine that? That's right ... polling data. Boston, we have a problem....
Click to expand...

I'm not attacking the polls... I'm attacking Nate Silver's intentional discounting of certain delegates that are in play for Romney in his attempt to sway the election...

Again, you're wrong...

That PPP poll with the 6pt lean is from Nov 3...

On Nov 5th Gravis Marketing has a poll with a 3pt lead
On Nov 4th Tribune Review/Susquehana poll has a Tie AND the Morning Call poll has a 3pt lead
On Nov 3rd PPP has a poll with a 6pt lead
On Oct 31st Franklin & Marshall has a 4pt lead
On Oct 27th Philadelphia Inquirer has a 6pt lead
On Oct 25th Rasmussen has a 5pt lead
On Oct 22nd Morning Call has a 5pt lead and Gravis Marketing has a 3pt lead

That averages to a 3.33 lead... and the last 3 polls were all under that average...

So... as you can see... many of the polls have tightened... which is why it's been moved into a battleground states by most sites...

and Romney picked up advertising in the last week or so... and made an appearance in the state, and has another scheduled...

Also, as you can see, the PA polls are also comparable with the NC polls, and yet, liberal sites include NC as a battleground, but not PA... It's the liberals who aren't looking at this realistically...
 
IndepCentristMA said:
I'm not attacking the polls... I'm attacking Nate Silver's intentional discounting of certain delegates that are in play for Romney in his attempt to sway the election...

Again, you're wrong...

That PPP poll with the 6pt lean is from Nov 3...

On Nov 5th Gravis Marketing has a poll with a 3pt lead
On Nov 4th Tribune Review/Susquehana poll has a Tie AND the Morning Call poll has a 3pt lead
On Nov 3rd PPP has a poll with a 6pt lead
On Oct 31st Franklin & Marshall has a 4pt lead
On Oct 27th Philadelphia Inquirer has a 6pt lead
On Oct 25th Rasmussen has a 5pt lead
On Oct 22nd Morning Call has a 5pt lead and Gravis Marketing has a 3pt lead

That averages to a 3.33 lead... and the last 3 polls were all under that average...

So... as you can see... many of the polls have tightened... which is why it's been moved into a battleground states by most sites...

and Romney picked up advertising in the last week or so... and made an appearance in the state, and has another scheduled...

Also, as you can see, the PA polls are also comparable with the NC polls, and yet, liberal sites include NC as a battleground, but not PA... It's the liberals who aren't looking at this realistically...
Click to expand...

You're looking the date that the polls were RELEASED when the relevant dates are the dates the polls were TAKEN -- an understandable mistake, but a mistake nonetheless.
 
affalcon12 said:
Agree with you on NV but not IA I think Romney still has a legitimate chance at taking IA.
Click to expand...

My wife i from Iowa and her conservative family has given up. the polls and the early voting are in Obama's favor. Sorry
 
wolfman24 said:
My wife i from Iowa and her conservative family has given up. the polls and the early voting are in Obama's favor. Sorry
Click to expand...

I still have faith that we will see a much higher evangelical turnout in IA than in 2008. Most of the polls still reflect a 2008 electorate, which will not be the same this year. This will give Romney a fighting chance IMO. Dems always win the early voting number as well.
 
affalcon12 said:
I still have faith that we will see a much higher evangelical turnout in IA than in 2008. Most of the polls still reflect a 2008 electorate, which will not be the same this year. This will give Romney a fighting chance IMO. Dems always win the early voting number as well.
Click to expand...

Ok opinion noted and no one is really going to know until about 11pm tonite
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom