Posted on 10/27/2012 11:05:03 AM PDT by Steelfish
I don’t see it that way. I don’t think you could be complacent. The grassroots must understand that this is like a “do-or-die” thing and be fired up. We are in the last 100 yards of this relay and Portman and his crowd need to take the baton and run like they are being chased by Pamplona bulls.
The dems are maintaining that many of their early voters would not show up in the polls because they would not be classified as “likely voters” if they were polled before they voted. But I have read that Republicans have data that show that actually the opposite is true - more of the voters they are getting to the polls early would not be classified as likely voters before they voted. This is important because to the extent that either party is able to bus more voters to the polls who would not normally vote, they might have an advantage that doesn’t show up in an otherwise accurate poll.
I would not normally be this concerned - but the stakes are incredibly high.
Agree, CO, WI, NH and OH all go Romney. NH and OH will be really close, but he’ll win it.
Yes it is you who are fixated on Ohio. It’s the only remaining hope for a team on the ropes.
Portman answered a gotcha question. What was he supposed to say, “No we don’t need Ohio, we have other paths”?
And you mention Barone. Do you know what Barone said last night (on Greta) when asked who is going to win the election? He said, Romney without flinching, in a split second answer. He didn’t hem and haw and get all concerned about Ohio.
As for “rose-colored glasses”, give me a break. Romney has a clear 4-5 point lead in the two independent national polls, the two polls that have no media attached to them, and the two polls which have been polling the race every day all year. Rose colored would be if the opposite were true (Obama up 51-46 in Gallup).
With that said, there have been two cases where the popular vote winner has lost the election. (Compromise of 1877 does not count.)
1888 (Harrison over Cleveland) and 2000 (Bush over Gore). And both times the popular vote winner (Cleveland, 48.6% & Gore, 48.4%) never reached 50% and the difference was less than 1% - not 3,4 or 5%.
So never in history has a candidate reached 50% and/or won the popular vote by more than 1% and lost the presidency.
And you are going to tell me it will happen this year? I ain’t buying what you are selling. Romney will win 52-47 and win the electoral college. At this point, with a solid national lead, I don’t care about state polls (that’s for the losing team to figure out a path). It will all shake itself out. Take it to the bank.
I’ve heard people say that a three point win in the national election makes it statistically impossible to lose the electoral college.
Thanks for the opposing comments. I do understand that dynamic. It seems there would be a better way to motivate voters than saying it’s Ohio or bust.
I don’t see Ohio as being the state to win. You could lose any number of states besides Ohio and be out of it. You could win lose Ohio and still win.
In a way, we only have ourselves to blame. We keep saying our nation’s life depends on voter turnout. Never has it been as true as it is this year.
“Oh hum, they always say that...”
The take away is that we both want to see Obama gone. Take care.
To Steelfish:
“Are you on our side? Because you seem to cling to every story re: Ohio...”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.