I had to shut down PMs as I've been getting death threats bc I am so popular with the ladies... the email function works. Good luck to you and I hope you stick around.
note to AK last night Rasmussen stated to Hannity, it was too close to call. But Rove came out with a solid analysis showing why Romney will win. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...8090820229096046.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop ... Adrian Gray, who oversaw the Bush 2004 voter-contact operation and is now a policy analyst for a New York investment firm, makes the point that as of Tuesday, 530,813 Ohio Democrats had voted early or had requested or cast an absentee ballot. That's down 181,275 from four years ago. But 448,357 Ohio Republicans had voted early or had requested or cast an absentee ballot, up 75,858 from the last presidential election. That 257,133-vote swing almost wipes out Mr. Obama's 2008 Ohio victory margin of 262,224. Since most observers expect Republicans to win Election Day turnout, these early vote numbers point toward a Romney victory in Ohio. They are also evidence that Scott Jennings, my former White House colleague and now Romney Ohio campaign director, was accurate when he told me that the Buckeye GOP effort is larger than the massive Bush 2004 get-out-the-vote operation. Democrats explain away those numbers by saying that they are turning out new young Ohio voters. But I asked Kelly Nallen, the American Crossroads data maven, about this. She points out that there are 12,612 GOP "millennials" (voters aged 18-29) who've voted early compared with 9,501 Democratic millennials. Are Democrats bringing out episodic voters who might not otherwise turn out? Not according to Ms. Nallen. She says that about 90% of each party's early voters so far had also voted in three of the past four Ohio elections. Democrats also suggest they are bringing Obama-leaning independents to polls. But since Mr. Romney has led among independents in nine of the 13 Ohio polls conducted since the first debate, the likelihood is that the GOP is doing as good a job in turning out their independent supporters as Democrats are in turning out theirs. Desperate Democrats are now hanging their hopes on a new Quinnipiac University/New York Times/CBS News poll showing the president with a five-point Ohio lead. But that survey gives Democrats a +8 advantage in turnout, the same advantage Democrats had in 2008. That assumption is, to put it gently, absurd. In addition to the data, the anecdotal and intangible evidenceâfrom crowd sizes to each side's closing argumentsâgive the sense that the odds favor Mr. Romney. They do. My prediction: Sometime after the cock crows on the morning of Nov. 7, Mitt Romney will be declared America's 45th president. Let's call it 51%-48%, with Mr. Romney carrying at least 279 Electoral College votes, probably more.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/ Barack Obama 79.0% +8.0 since Oct. 24 Mitt Romney 21.0% -8.0 since Oct. 24 Electoral Mitt Romney 237.6 -9.6 since Oct. 24 Barack Obama 300.4 +9.6 since Oct. 24 Electoral
I think Rove is one one of the best political guys in the country,but I think he is telling republicans what they want to hear and is trying to do some last minute fundraising for his superpac(no more donations if he says Romney will lose) Romney has never lead on Roves EC map and he still doesn't.
thanks, and good luck to you as well (not with the bet though, heh). i'm only banned for a month or two if i lose, so i'll still be around. I'll email you on the 7th.
MAYOR BLOOMBERG ENDORSES BARACK OBAMA FOR RE-ELECTION Mayor Bloomberg: If the 1994 or 2003 version of Mitt Romney were running for president, I may well have voted for him
rove does not care about his map of slanted polls. try a map made up of the 2010 turnout. Romney kicks ass. or in between 2008 and 2010 like Rasmuessen... where Romney is winning.
very interesting article.... this writer states the sides have different polling models... the media has adopted the dems model for the polls the results are very different and both sides worry the other side might be correct. http://www.nationaljournal.com/colu...r-which-side-s-polls-reflect-reality-20121101 Parties Wonder Which Side's Polls Reflect Reality Divergent results spark apprehension about who gets the new normal, and who will be proven seriously wrong. Share on facebookShare on twitterShare on emailMore Sharing Services Updated: November 1, 2012 | 12:48 p.m. November 1, 2012 | 6:00 a.m. A few days ago, I sat down with Rob Jesmer, the executive director of the National Republican Senatorial Committee. Jesmer is usually tight-fisted about his polling; he doesn't share it with members of the media when the numbers are good for his candidates, which avoids the inevitably uncomfortable dilemma when the numbers are bad for his candidates. But he wanted to open his books, if only for a peek, to demonstrate a phenomenon happening across the political spectrum these days: His polls look nothing like polls Democrats are conducting. It's a constant refrain from both sides these days. The two parties, the outside groups that are playing such a big role this year, and even some candidates themselves are so dubious about their own numbers that they are employing two pollsters for one race, using one to double-check the other. What flummoxes them even more is that their own party's pollsters are getting similar results, while the other side is offering a completely different take. Whether it is the presidential contest or battles for critical Senate and House seats, the smartest pollsters in the business have spent the past three weeks looking at exactly the same data and coming to dramatically different conclusions. That can be explained, in part at least, by the volatile history of the last three election cycles. The nearly decade-long erosion of trust in government, the economic recession, the collapse of the housing bubble, and the partisan brawls in Washington are all factors that contributed to three straight wave election cycles. Elections in 2006 and 2008 overwhelmingly favored Democrats. The 2010 midterms overwhelmingly favored Republicans. This year, there's no wave cresting the week before Election Day, meaning that Tuesday's results will reflect the will of a deeply and bitterly divided nation, roughly the same thing we saw in 2004. We're about to see the new political normalâbut after six years of dramatic waves, no one really knows what normal is supposed to look like. Democrats argue that history shows an inexorable march toward a larger and more diverse electorate. In every election since 1992, the electorate has grown. Bill Clinton won when 83 million people cast a ballot in 1992; 100 million votes were cast in 2000, and 129 million in 2008. And while voters tell pollsters they hate politics and politicians, their actions don't tell the same story. One prominent Democratic pollster suggested a counterintuitive cause: The explosion of cable-news channels means politics is available all the time; the constant, unceasing news cycle keeps people engaged; the increased polarization of the electorate means voters identify more closely with their party, their team; and the proliferation of absentee ballots and early-voting access makes it easier than ever to vote. That which voters say they hate most may actually be what's keeping them engaged. In every cycle since 1992, the number of African-American and Hispanic voters has gone up as a share of the electorate. In 1992, exit polls showed 83 percent of the electorate was white. By 2008, whites made up just 74 percent of the electorate. There's no question that President Obama's 2008 campaign, which focused on turning out new low-propensity voters in minority communities, helped inflate nonwhite voters' influence in the electorate. In Virginia alone, the nonwhite share of the electorate spiked from 21 percent in 2006 to 30 percent just two years later, a virtually unprecedented leap. The question is how many of those voters come back to the polls in 2012. Republicans and Democrats alike believe the African-American vote is unlikely to change between 2008 and 2012. But they differ dramatically on the number of Hispanic voters who will show up at the pollsâa key factor in critical battleground states like Colorado and Nevada. Republicans believe turnout will be down, depressed by Obama's failure to pursue immigration reform during his first term. Democrats think the booming number of Hispanic residents means their share of the electorate will only increase. The same argument applies to younger voters. In 2008, 18 percent of the electorate was made up of voters between 18 and 29 years old. That's higher than the percentage has been in recent presidential years, when the youth vote has made up around 15 or 16 percent. Republicans believe the younger share of the electorate will slide slightly, and that Obama will win fewer of those voters anyway. The manifestation of these disagreements is evident in polling weights. Most Republican pollsters are using something close to a 2008 turnout model, with the same percentage of white, black, and Hispanic voters as the electorate that first elected Obama. Most Democratic pollsters are a little more bullish on minority turnout, which helps explain some of the difference between the two sides. Add in a population that's changing its habits and pollsters have to contend with additional confusing factors. The number of Americans without landline phones is growing, particularly among younger voters. Those voters are much more difficult to convince to complete a poll, surveyors say. What concerns Republicans most is the fact that media polls seem to track more closely with Democratic internals than with the GOP's numbers. Internal surveys conducted for Republican candidates like George Allen in Virginia, Richard Mourdock in Indiana, and Josh Mandel in Ohio draw much rosier conclusions than polls conducted for their Democratic counterparts Tim Kaine, Rep. Joe Donnelly, and Sen. Sherrod Brown. And media surveys, at least in Virginia and Ohio, show Kaine and Brown winning (restrictive Indiana laws make polling prohibitively expensive there). Republicans say their party is a victim of media biasâbut not in the standard "Lamestream Media" sort of way. Pollsters on both sides try to persuade public surveyors that their voter-turnout models are more accurate reflections of what's going to happen on Election Day. This year, GOP pollsters and strategists believe those nonpartisan pollsters are adopting Democratic turnout models en masse. Regardless of the cause, strategists on both sides acknowledge the difference in their internal polling. Republicans believe Democrats are counting far too much on low-propensity voters and a booming minority turnout that isn't going to materialize on Election Day. Democrats believe Republicans are hopelessly reliant on an electorate that looks far more like their party than the nation as a whole. The day after Election Day, somebody's pollsters are going to be proven seriously wrong. Deep down, both parties secretly worry it's their side that is missing the boat.
The most recent abc news washington post poll has obama plus one. It is D plus 4. on 5/30/12 it was D plus 9. on 4/8/12 it was plus 13 to the Dems... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postabcpoll_20121031.html As predicted these polls "unslanted" themselves by election day to make themselves look more responsible.