Skip to comments.Mitt Romney pushes into battle ground states of PA and NH weeks before presidential election
Posted on 10/20/2012 1:34:49 PM PDT by Red Steel
click here to read article
I took a 200 mile trip today starting in Pittsburgh. I only saw one obama sign the whole way and not one car on the road had obama bumper stickers on it. 4 years ago, almost half of the vehicles on the road had that nasty stain on their bumpers and yard signs were as frequent as mailboxes. Looks very promising to me. Paul Ryan stopped at the airport today for a speech and there were 20 democrat protesters, 1000 RR fans.
I believe they’re doing this because they’ve done the same electoral college analysis I have. If Romney wins FL, VA and CO, but lose OH, he needs one of the below combinations of swing states to make up for OH...
1. PA or MI
2. NV, IA and NH
3. NV, IA and 1 EV from Maine
4. WI and any one of the above states
PA looks so desirable as an easy substitute for OH, but McCain/Palin tried extremely hard for it and failed miserably. I think they should focus heavily on NV, IA, NH and WI. That gives them 2 paths to victory.
I meant the Ohio Gallup poll, if there is one.
Seems like Romney hasn’t been in NV much. Or NH for that matter.
Up route 79 to Greenville and back. Funny thing is the person who I had to meet was the one with the zero sign in his yard.
I had my empty chair in the back of my truck as well as several anti-obama stickers and got no ugly looks. In ‘08 there were as many zero yard signs as mailboxes in my neighborhood and now almost none. I live in the thick of liberal Pittsburgh and things have definitely changed (for the better).
Living just outside State College -- Leftwing Central -- 0bama yard signs are just about nonexistent (they were everywhere last time) and bumper stickers are quite rare.
(That'd be *you*, lasereye.)
No they're not going for a mandate. That's delusional. They may need to carry PA because OH is iffy.
But you wrote in this thread:
There hasnt been a Presidential election with R+1. Bushs wins were with a small Democrat edge in party ID. I dont see why it should be R+1 any more than it should be D+9.
The answer is that the Obaama wave election of 2008 was D+8; and in order for things to be D+9, there must be an even GREATER surge of enthusiasm for Teh One than there was in 2008.
And even at D+9, Romney leads by 1.
But a D+9 is absolutely, provably, UTTERLY false.
In Ohio, actual early results by party show a 7-point shift in *early ballots* in favor of the GOP. (McCain won the "election day" voting in Ohio, but was so far behind from early balloting that it was out of reach).
Here are the details.
Another clue can be seen by the recent activity by both campaigns: they have access to internal polls which had *better* be accurate -- if they are not, and the candidate loses because of it, the pollster goes out of business.
Obama is pulling out of Florida and North Carolina, and begins campaigning in the all-important bellwether state of ...New Hampshire?
Romney pulls resources from other states and *begins* campaigning in PA (with rumors of Michigan to come) -- both of which had been called as "safe Obaama" by all the pundits.
Romney and Ryan regularly pull crowds of 8,000-10,000 (similar to Palin) whereas according to the known Koch-brothers-puppet-organization Rolling Stone, all this year Obaama has been touring with Rock Stars -- note how when he didn't, even though it was the Democrat National Convention, attendance collapsed to the point that they had to relocate the venue.
Not to mention the "turning the crowd of 18,000 to 5,000" fiasco in Milwaukee.
The Washington Post (itself nefariously funded in secret by Jerry Falwell, right?) even reports on a DNC funding shortfall.
And log into any thread you like. FReeper after FReeper reports -- eyewitness reports -- of a preponderance of Romney signs and a lack of Obaama signs, even in prior Obaama strongholds:
and read this.
Oh, yes, do recall a convicted felon getting 43% of the Dem primary vote against Obama in West Virginia earlier this year?
And then there's the little matter of this. Winners, *especially* incumbents, don't have to do this kind of thing.
I think I'll keep this post handy in case you decide to resume defeatist trolling.
Guys, ol lasereye can be as skeptical as he wants. All any of us can do is post the data and encourage others to interpret. Merely carping without going to the absentee data doesn’t accomplish much. Now, if someone can honestly look at those numbers and still conclude Romney’s losing? Don’t know what to say. But I’m not telling anyone what to read into it-—go look for yourself.
I’ve been posting articles here for a long time and anyone who sees what I’ve posted and thinks I’m a troll is stupid.
All I said is Ohio is iffy. If that makes me a troll then so be it, I’m a troll. What do you want me to say, it’s all locked up for Romney? Okay it’s all locked up for Romney. Feel better?
By all means keep this post handy.
I remember 2008 when lots of Freepers were saying McCain was going to win. It was not backed by any polls but everyone kept touting the Bradley Effect. How ridiculous does that look now? I think anyone who disagreed was probably attacked.
Of course Romney’s going to do better than McCain but that’s not automatically the same as winning.
That’s not the argument. The data says that Ibama’s early vote #s show such a falloff that he can’t win. Now, if you want to keep going on this, fin but I am not going to talk about 2008. Show me in the 2012 data where Obama wins. Don’t give me polls. Give me evidence from the actual data. But please don’t keep whining about 08.
I’m not aware it’s possible to project the outcome with any confidence based on early voting patterns. I’m not disputing what you say but I’m curious as to where it comes from. Is there a statistical correlation model which produces such a prediction? Is it a computer model? Is it a methodology you developed? Just asking.
That guy just says IA will be close based on early voting, but the polls are showing that too. So early voting isn’t telling us something different than polls, if he knows what he’s talking about.
Well other than the WSJ/NBC poll, IA is close.
Other states, such as NC, also have heavy early voting, but in 08 Ds turned out higher on Election Day, so it's important the Rs LEAD in absentee/early voting (which they have in NC).
IA and NV are just the opposite: there the Ds build up big early voting leads.
We've explained the science here dozens of times. Have you been watching the threads? Let tell you what sold me on this reality. In 2004, late at night they were still counting ballots in IA. Michael Barone was on FOX looking at just one or two counties. He said, with the counties still yet to report, Bush has won. The counties were composed in such a way that if they voted at traditional percentage splits, Bush would win.
That's all we do here. We look at which counties turned out in what percentages, and just draw trend lines. If you have a red county turning out 20% higher than in 08 when it lost by 10% it doesn't take a genius to see that the Rs will win that county.
Every state has key counties that tell you all you need to know. If the early vote is held own in Clark Co. NV. , we win. If the absentee/early vote is heavy in Warren Co. or Hamilton Co. it's pretty likely we win.
See, you’re still not getting it. The guy didn’t say IA “will be close”, what he said was that the early voting percentages (D/Rsplits + turnout) look like 04, not 08. Well, in 04 it was lose but Bush won. In 08 IA was gone before early voting was over because of the D lead in early voting, but that isn’t happening in 2012. Early outing is not about numbers it’s about percentages-— who has the bullets left in their gun? I’m not saying R will win IA, but rather that it looks like 04, not 08, which means Rs are MORE LIKELY to win.
One big static billboard had a picture of a chicken with the caption "A taxpayer voting for Obama is like a chicken voting for Col. Sanders".
Bottom line, the effort is there in W. PA.