Skip to comments.PPP polls: Romney ahead in NH, IA
Posted on 10/19/2012 10:33:30 AM PDT by cdchik123
-Mitt Romney leads our new New Hampshire poll 49-48. Obama had led by 6-8 pts in our polling before the first debate
-Romney has a 52/45 advantage over Obama in New Hampshire on the economy
-NH voters think Obama won debate by 8 pts, still support Romney by 1. Democrats need to accept debate this week was not a big game changer
-Romney leads Obama 49-48 in Iowa as well, although Obama does have a 66/32 early vote lead there
-Iowa voters think Obama won this week's debate 45/36, similar to New Hampshire, but not having a big impact on the head to head
-We've found most of Obama's October drop has been with white voters, so makes sense he's had a particularly big decline in IA and NH
No surprise there.
And Romney will carry WI as well.
Here’s something else that was just posted on Twitter. (if you like it and think it deserves its own thread feel free to post it)
AWESOME VIDEO! 5 REASONS NOT TO VOTE FOR OBAMA
The wheels are coming off!
Doesn’t seem like that firewall thingy is working very good.
They are racist, talking about no Black voters in NH.
When I lived there in 1988, there was a black guy. I remember it clearly. Because they would not allow him into the American Legion in Manchester. And yes...they told him it was because he was black.
But there were black folk there.
Could someone explain how it is known who leads in early voting? Are the counted and released or is the estimate by party voted? I know a number of Dims who are voting for Romney.
The PPP national poll has O winning today.
We all agree the poll is garbage.
For consistency sake I will consider this garbage as well.
no one knows. It’s probably based on who returned absentee ballots. Not sure what else it could be. saying that Obama has that lead also makes me wonder how they are counting independents.
Twitter ? this needs to get out to Rush, Drudge, Mark Levin, all the new Media.
Party affiliation of Dims and Indies may not show anything if how they vote is unknown. Thanks.
“Could someone explain how it is known who leads in early voting?”
A couple of Elections officials talked about that on Fox. Nobody actually knows who leads. They do know who has cast ballots — it’s public information. They then match those names (voter info is also public information) to the declared parties and do a WAG. They assume voters cast ballots for the guy in their declared party.
A tiny sample of their polled people who said they already voted.
But, it’s ridiculous to assume anything based upon such a tiny sample no matter what it says. And furthermore, they are way off considering the fact that all the polls show huge numbers of “already voted” compared to what state records actually show.
Did F Chuck admit to this? He always seems to be over sampling.
Were up to three now.
Do Red Sox and Celtics players count ?
In other news:
Liberal heads explode, unexpectedly, all over the country and especially in DC......................
That’s actually on average a pretty reasonable guess.
They can't know the actual vote, because those ballots aren't opened and counted until election day.
However, there are counts of a.) how many absentee (or early vote) ballots have been sent out to voters registered with a given party and b.) how many of these ballots have been returned.
A claim that the "early vote" is 66/32 Obama/Romney would probably be based on the number of Democrat vs Republican ballots returned.