2012 presidential election odds

[GameTheory]

I'm wondering about the Ohio early voting numbers. I've read a few sources that claim that Democrats requested many less ballots this year and Republicans more. But you don't register by party in Ohio, so how are those labels assigned? I read a comment somewhere that said that they go by who you voted for in the primary, and since there was a big deal Republican primary and basically no Democratic one naturally there were not many voters in the Dem primary so that explains the difference. And therefore we really can't tell how many of which group requested ballots.

Anybody able to shed any light on this? I can't find anything to confirm or deny how these labels get assigned, and where these ballot numbers come from.

[lamboguy]

Originally Posted by GameTheory

I'm wondering about the Ohio early voting numbers. I've read a few sources that claim that Democrats requested many less ballots this year and Republicans more. But you don't register by party in Ohio, so how are those labels assigned? I read a comment somewhere that said that they go by who you voted for in the primary, and since there was a big deal Republican primary and basically no Democratic one naturally there were not many voters in the Dem primary so that explains the difference. And therefore we really can't tell how many of which group requested ballots.

Anybody able to shed any light on this? I can't find anything to confirm or deny how these labels get assigned, and where these ballot numbers come from.

i have no idea, but i am hearing that Iowa is falling apart now and Colorado is on the verge of going democrat now as well.

[bigmack]

Originally Posted by GameTheory

Anybody able to shed any light on this? I can't find anything to confirm or deny how these labels get assigned, and where these ballot numbers come from.

Under Ohio Law, party affiliation is determined by the ballot you vote in a Primary Election.
http://vote.franklincountyohio.gov/v...vices-faqs.cfm

220,000 fewer Democrats have voted early in Ohio compared with 2008. And 30,000 more Republicans have cast their ballots compared with four years ago. That is a 250,000-vote net increase for a state Obama won by 260,000 votes in 2008.

BO won OH 52-47 over McC. At this point in '08 McC could barely get 1000 people to show up at a rally. This weekend Romney is expected to have tens of thousands.

OH is DEFINITELY going MR.

Originally Posted by lamboguy

i have no idea, but i am hearing that Iowa is falling apart now and Colorado is on the verge of going democrat now as well.

Where did you 'hear' that rubbish?

[Jake]

Originally Posted by GameTheory

I'm wondering about the Ohio early voting numbers. I've read a few sources that claim that Democrats requested many less ballots this year and Republicans more. But you don't register by party in Ohio, so how are those labels assigned? I read a comment somewhere that said that they go by who you voted for in the primary, and since there was a big deal Republican primary and basically no Democratic one naturally there were not many voters in the Dem primary so that explains the difference. And therefore we really can't tell how many of which group requested ballots.

Anybody able to shed any light on this? I can't find anything to confirm or deny how these labels get assigned, and where these ballot numbers come from.

Yes, Chuck Todd over at First Read on NBC Politics did a video on this subject several weeks ago. You might still be able to find it there. What you can tell is how many ballots were requested, then you can check to see how many of those ballots have been casted, finally you can telephone poll those people to see how they say--honestly or not--that they voted with the early ballot. That's my understanding of the current tracking numbers by both sides and some independent polling groups. That's why the actual banked voting is so important, because you can refer the numbers back to the remaining likely voter split and see where the thresholds are for each candidate. But it is also a chaotic wildcard, because with the Tea Party and Ron Paul group, they may be IDing themselves as Independents (rather than Republicans), but there is no doubt they will vote for Romney. So, as you and BigMack have pointed out, knowing what are real numbers and which are media numbers are two different things. Having said that, even with all the uncertainty, I still think those early ballots will prove enough of a difference to carry Obama.

[bigmack]

Originally Posted by Jake

I still think those early ballots will prove enough of a difference to carry Obama.

Hard to believe, given Pew just did a poll nationally. At this point in '08, early voting had Obama besting McC by 19.

Now, in early voting, Romney leads by 7.

19 + 7 is what? That's right - Quite a swing.

[lamboguy]

Originally Posted by bigmack

Under Ohio Law, party affiliation is determined by the ballot you vote in a Primary Election.
http://vote.franklincountyohio.gov/v...vices-faqs.cfm



BO won OH 52-47 over McC. At this point in '08 McC could barely get 1000 people to show up at a rally. This weekend Romney is expected to have tens of thousands.

OH is DEFINITELY going MR.

Where did you 'hear' that rubbish?

i am not posting rubbish my good man.

for what O'REILLY, MORRS, and ROVE have done to deceive the gambling public should be criminal and they deserve to be arrested for perpetrating this fraud on gamblers throughout the world.

[bigmack]

Originally Posted by lamboguy

i am not posting rubbish my good man.

for what O'REILLY, MORRS, and ROVE have done to deceive the gambling public should be criminal and they deserve to be arrested for perpetrating this fraud on gamblers throughout the world.

That's deep. Meanwhile...

i have no idea, but i am hearing that Iowa is falling apart now and Colorado is on the verge of going democrat now as well.

Where did you hear this?

[elysiantraveller]

This is just the Poll "interpretation" shitstorm that happens before every presidential election.

Polls at this point are completely meaningless unless they are coming from the campaigns directly.

This race was a dead heat a week ago and "Nothing" has happened to suggest otherwise. As to Lambo I have no idea why the line is moving. Nothing here would warrant it other than stupid late money on the chalk.

[bigmack]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

This race was a dead heat a week ago and "Nothing" has happened to suggest otherwise.

Wrong again. You're batting around .750 of late.

[Jake]

Originally Posted by bigmack

Hard to believe, given Pew just did a poll nationally. At this point in '08, early voting had Obama besting McC by 19.

Now, in early voting, Romney leads by 7.

19 + 7 is what? That's right - Quite a swing.

Well, I guess you changed your mind. I thought you only looked at Rasmussen polls?

Give me the site for this poll, please, since I don't seem to find any new Pew Research polls in the last few weeks. Interested to see what Pew has for Ohio as well as the rest of the swing state. Thanks.

Jake

[lamboguy]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

This is just the Poll "interpretation" shitstorm that happens before every presidential election.

Polls at this point are completely meaningless unless they are coming from the campaigns directly.

This race was a dead heat a week ago and "Nothing" has happened to suggest otherwise. As to Lambo I have no idea why the line is moving. Nothing here would warrant it other than stupid late money on the chalk.

you are more than likely 100% correct. the group that is behind Romney is strong, so you really can't sell them short. they have some type of a chance of pulling this thing off.

one way or the other, we all have to agree that this is the most exciting election to follow. it is full of nastiness and hate for one another. each guy has gone down to the canvas and has gotten up. its going to be the last man standing at the wire that is going to win it. at the end, i am going to feel bad for either guy that loses, neither one of these guys is going down looking at a fastball right down the center of the plate for a called third strike.

[bigmack]

Originally Posted by Jake

Well, I guess you changed your mind. I thought you only looked at Rasmussen polls?

#1 tied in reliability with Rass? Pew.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=pew+poll+early+voters

[Jake]

Originally Posted by bigmack

#1 tied in reliability with Rass? Pew.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=pew+poll+early+voters

"Currently, Romney holds a seven-point edge among early voters (50% to 43%); because of the small sample, this lead is not statistically significant."

I guess you missed the statistically not significant part of this, sample size too small.

And, guess you missed this, too, from the lead paragraph of the actual Pew Reseach release:

"Just as the presidential race is deadlocked in the campaign’s final days, the candidates are also running about even when it comes to the ground game. Voters nationally, as well those in the closely contested battleground states, report being contacted at about the same rates by each of the campaigns. And with a fifth of likely voters reporting already having cast their ballots, neither Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney has a clear advantage among early voters. This is in sharp contrast to early voting at this point four years ago, which favored Obama by a wide margin."

Sorry, BigMack, for someone stressing reliability of the numbers, I think your last posting was a bit dubious. Also, no early Ohio numbers that I could find in this report, which I think is critical to know, given the current discussion.

Jake

[bigmack]

Silly for me to continue this discussion. We're upon judgement day. I have reason to believe I've been right about 92% of the time. Not bad, Hombre, I says to myself.

Say what you will about Karl "That's my Neck!" Rove - His column in the journal says it awl...

It comes down to numbers. And in the final days of this presidential race, from polling data to early voting, they favor Mitt Romney....

....But doesn't it all come down to the all-important Buckeye State? Here, too, the early voting news isn't encouraging for the president.

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.

http://www.rove.com/articles/432?utm...Full%20Article

[lamboguy]

If Karl Rove really believed that, he would not be writing about it, he'd be betting on it. all i see is higher and higher lines for Ohio. that article makes no sense whatsoever.