President Barack Obama leads Mitt Romney by 3 in Ohio in a poll from SurveyUSA. The automated poll, conducted Oct. 12-15 on behalf of Columbus-based NBC affilaite WCMH-TV, shows Obama leading Romney among likely Buckeye State voters, 45 percent to 42 percent. Nine percent said they remain undecided. Obama's lead over Romney swells among Ohio voters who have already cast their ballots, 57 percent to 38 percent. Obama led by only a point in SurveyUSA's previous poll of Ohio, conducted the first weekend of October. The PollTracker Average shows the president with a tiny lead there.
Nate Silver is the gospel. http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytime...r-debate-strong-swing-state-polls-for-romney/ The FiveThirtyEight forecast did show a clear shift toward Mr. Romney on Friday, giving him a 15.1 percent chance of winning the Electoral College — up from 12.9 percent on Thursday. (That was Oct 5, today it's 35.2% chance, you figure it out)
And here's a terrific analysis of the possible electoral college outcomes. It seems Obama has to win Ohio, period, to get to 270. http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/what-s-next-in-the-obama-romney-duel-20121017 According to RealClearPolitics, Obama currently has 201 of the 270 electoral votes needed to win. But that doesn't give Obama electoral votes from Pennsylvania (20), Michigan (16), or Wisconsin (10). Of these three, Romney advisers believe that only one, Wisconsin, is even theoretically winnable. Obama advisers believe they will win all three. That would put Obama at 247 electoral votes. If Obama wins Ohio (18), Iowa (6), Nevada (6), and New Hampshire (4) he would claim 281 electoral votes. That means he could afford to lose New Hampshire and Nevada and still eke out a razor-thin victory of 271 electoral votes. Romney, according to RCP, has 191 electoral votes. If you add Florida (29), North Carolina (15), and Virginia (13), that brings his total to 248 electoral votes. Add Colorado (9) --which neither campaign is prepared to claim or concede--and Romney's total rises to 257 electoral votes. If Romney wins Ohio (18) in addition to these states, he would have 275 electoral votes. If Romney loses Ohio, he would need to win Iowa, Nevada, and New Hampshire to reach 273 electoral votes. There is a scenario where Romney could lose Ohio and New Hampshire but win Iowa and Nevada and one electoral vote from the 2nd Congressional District in Maine (the state allocates electoral votes by district vote) and capture the bare minimum of 270 electoral votes. "I really don't see a path for Romney without Ohio," Plouffe said. "And we feel very good about where we are in Ohio with voter contacts, messaging, and early voting. Our early voting is ahead of where we were in 2008." "God bless them in the Obama campaign," said RNC Communications Director Sean Spicer. "We are gaining in Ohio, and they can say all they want about early vote. We are way, way ahead in early voting in Ohio compared to 2008, and what matters are residual voters after the early vote. We believe we will have enough to win." --- http://blogs.ajc.com/kyle-wingfield/2012/10/17/is-the-election-coming-down-to-four-states/ Ohio on its own could swing the election to Romney, but not to Obama, who would also need to win Iowa or Nevada. At the same time, this scenario means Romney doesn’t have to win Ohio — but Obama does; he can’t get to 270 with his current leaning/likely/solid states plus Iowa, Nevada and New Hampshire.
Nate Silver is a cheerleader for the Democratic Party candidates. I follow him on twitter and read his stuff daily (at least). He may well end up being very wrong.
Anyhow, it really boils down to ~20 days left in the campaign, how many $$$ each campaign has left, and that both would ideally spend all they have on trying to win Ohio. Obama really should contest Colorado, in case he does lose Ohio. I think there's a chance Romney wins Nevada. Iowa is going to be tough for him to win - MUCH tougher than Ohio would be.
In a few days we will see if this debate moved the polls at all. My guess is there will not be any big movement, but just a point or two could have big consequences.
I think polls will move quite a bit. My informal poll of "women I know" tells me they weren't that impressed with Romney's response to a number of women's issues. The "binder full of women" answer seems pretty tone deaf on several levels when you actually ask women what they thought of it. It made it seem like Romney was saying, "We'll grow jobs so much even a woman could get hired," as well as the idea that "Yeah, I know it sucks hiring women, but if you make a lot of exceptions for their needs to cook and clean and raise kids and stuff, they'll be ok. But that's what you get with hiring women." As though a lot of men don't also have to deal with those same issues. Obama also hammered home birth control and Planned Parenthood, and Romney had no effective response. My wife remembers going to a Planned Parenthood center and being told she was pregnant with our first son. It's not something she takes lightly. Romney, and I suspect most of the people who want to see Obama lose on this board, think that social issues don't matter and it's just about the economy. The majority of voters are women, and they care about birth control, abortion, sexism, and Planned Parenthood too. But maybe the women I know are different from the women you know. I encourage you to ask the women around you what they thought of the debate and report back.
Denny Crane is a cheerleader for the Republican Party candidates. I follow him on S2 and read his stuff daily (at least). He may well end up being very wrong. barfo
A lot of men care about those issues also, feel they are important to the progress of our country, and/or respect the women in their lives enough to care about those issues. Romney just doesn't get it, on so many levels, he's very lucky he was born with a silver spoon in his mouth or he'd have nothing at all.
A very astute point. We have about 12 women in our office and they're typical voters. 4 or so are sheep and vote how they are told to, 4 don't vote at all and the others are a bit more independent minded. Of those latter 4, 2 say they may not vote and the other 2 are actually looking at issues as they are and not like sheep. So 1 out of 6 women in my office (Portland) is looking at the Presidential race and thinking for themselves.
I root against democrats. http://sportstwo.com/threads/223087-Obama-Romney-Debate-ROUND-II?p=2873602&viewfull=1#post2873602
You have made a great point on your observations. The sad truth is that Mitt got sucked into this quicksand arguement. Fact is, most of what these ladies are so concerned about has already been decided. NO candidate has plans to make anyting worse for them. barrycare to force insurance companies to pay for birth control? really? thats the "Big Stick"? wowzers, I want condoms, or cookies or ahhh lemme see,what do I want....
The president gets to choose replacement justices for the Supreme Court. That court decides all kinds of issues, including abortion, discrimination and birth control. Ergo whoever wins can indeed make things worse (or better) for them.
point well taken. If barry gets the nod, well two to three leftr wing libs, how can that hurt? If Mitt gets the hot seat, two to three on the othe side? He is smart enough to live and let live on these issues. while barry got a pass from the press, Mitt realizes that he will be under the microscope from day one. All the pent up rage saved from the past four years, hell no way he even speaks out aginst any issues like that.
I'm confident Romney wouldn't truly mess with abortion rights or any of the other things Democrats are using to try and scare women. He specifically said in the debate that all women should have access to birth control - something you might not hear from a hard line religious conservative type republican. Now, whether we should tax the rich to pay for womens' birth control (or condoms) or for much of anything else is fair debate.
That's one thing I have discussions with with many of my highly liberal female friends in WA. No one's saying that we're going to dump every condom into the ocean and outlaw diaphragms. No one's going to make it so that you need a note from your priest to get birth control pills. However, I don't feel the need to borrow from China to buy you condoms and pills. You want to engage in sex without risk of pregnancy? Great. Trojans are $6.47 for a box of 12. EDIT: And if the Gates and Buffett Foundations choose to donate billions for these items, they're welcome to.
