Gallup Early Voting results Romney 52% and Obama 46%

reply to post by Taiyed

I'm not entirely sure I can agree with you.

Romney will face the same fillibuster in the Senate.

Obama's 2nd term, he doesn't have to play nice, he doesn't have to worry about re-election. The Republicans either play ball or get all the blame square on their shoulders.

Putting the blame on the Republicans? An empty threat. He's been doing that for the last four years and nobody thinks the Democrats will win the House. And how much less "nice" can Obama play? Congress has subpoenaed Holder, and you know they're going to go after the Benghazi documents. The Republicans have learned how Obama likes to play and I don't believe they'll be cutting him any slack this time around.

Some are talking about impeachment over Benghazi, the crime being homicide.

Who is talking about this?

I'd like some names and some links to sources.

Just out of curiosity, say I give you names and links, what difference will that make? Will you become a Romney voter? Feel free to just assume I'm lying, if you'd like (although I've never lied on ATS).

Looks like that lead has slipped:

Obama Ahead in 10-Point Favorability Measure, 62% to 55%

GALLUP POLL from Nov 1

reply to post by charles1952

Just out of curiosity, say I give you names and links, what difference will that make? Will you become a Romney voter? Feel free to just assume I'm lying, if you'd like (although I've never lied on ATS).

No, it will not make me a Romney voter.

I am interested in

A) If there is a politician that was stupid enought to make that comment that I haven't heard about yet.

and

B) See if you are just talking without actually having proof of that statement, which I think is more likely.

reply to post by gavron

Thank you for posting those numbers. Of course they don't reflect who the person will vote for, as Gallup says later in the article:

While there is some correspondence between scalometer ratings and election outcomes, it is far from perfect. Across the 10 prior presidential elections for which Gallup has candidate scalometer ratings, the candidate with the higher net favorable score won in six of these: George W. Bush in 2004, Reagan in 1984, Jimmy Carter in 1976, Richard Nixon in 1972, Nixon in 1968, and Lyndon Johnson in 1964. The candidates with the higher or highest favorable scores did not win in three elections: 1992 (third-party candidate Ross Perot), Carter in 1980, and Nixon in 1960. In 2008, Obama and John McCain were about tied in favorability, yet Obama won by a substantial margin.

So since 1980, the candidate with the higher favorability rating wins half the time and loses half the time.

reply to post by gavron


Although this thread concerned early voters alone, I have to admit that I was concerned the storm would have some affect. It was predicted that it would likely cause an upward surge in Obama voters. And I am hoping it will settle by election day. Now another thing I noticed... This is just a "favorability measure" and not a flat out poll of who they would vote for. And a warning below the links states, "Trends suggest this is not a perfect predictor of victory in the election,". This is since folks may think so and so is an ok guy, but is voting for the other man due to a particular policy.

There is one thing that bothers me here with the math. Under registered voters, Obamas favorable and unfavorable add up to 101%. But for Romney it adds up to 97%. A difference of 4%, which is exactly the difference of Obamas lead. Even for the National adults, who don't really count as much, it doesn't quite add up. I most certainly trust gallop, but what gives with these numbers that don't add up?

reply to post by Taiyed


Groan... Enough time wasted with this. Whatever....

A. I wouldn't count your chickens before they're hatched.
B. 85% of the population has yet to vote
C. well see whats what in 2 days. Good luck romney lover may you not regret your decision.

Why promising? I call it disturbing. Romney doesn't have experience creating jobs, his experience was in increasing the bottom line for companies. And if that meant getting rid of people, like replacing them with robots or sending the jobs to other countries, that's what he did. He supported stockholders and management, NOT workers. Foreign policy? NO experience whatsoever. What does he bring to the table????? Success at becoming rich? I'd say some of the ways he did that were questionable as far as morals and ethics goes. A truth teller? According to the fact checkers that check BOTH SIDES (Romney AND Obama) he changes his story allllll the time. Details? None. He has been caught in so many face changes its sadly funny. Going back to the same "ideals" that got us into this trouble? Why isn't that troubling? Relaxing "red tape" that helps keep our environment slightly healthier (as we are headed for deep trouble even if we don't increase regulations) in order to make more profit for corporations? How short sighted is that? So promising, huh? I'd call it depressing.

Most people I know (ya know, working class joes and janes, the "working poor") think that Romney is full of #.

Just about the only people that don't are probably out of touch with reality or they work for the Romney campaign.

That 47% comment really hit the wrong people smack-dab in the faces.

Originally posted by kimar
How any ATS member could want a Romney win is beyond me.

I tend to feel Romney supporters posting here and other forums that I frequent are either trolls or paid shills. Surely only the 0.1% and corporate entities want him in power? The only way he is going to win is with wholesale voter fraud... which could happen.

But Gallup uncovered one very significant shift in this year’s voting electorate. There has been a remarkable movement toward the Republican party. As Gallup reports:

The largest changes in the composition of the electorate compared with the last presidential election concern the partisan affiliation of voters. Currently, 46% of likely voters identify as Democrats or lean Democratic, compared with 54% in 2008. But in 2008, Democrats enjoyed a wide 12-point advantage in party affiliation among national adults, the largest Gallup had seen in at least two decades. More recently, Americans have been about as likely to identify as or lean Republican as to identify as or lean Democratic. Consequently, the electorate has also become less Democratic and more Republican in its political orientation than in 2008. In fact, the party composition of the electorate this year looks more similar to the electorate in 2004 than 2008.

If anything, Gallup understates the case. In 2008, Democrats enjoyed a decisive ten-point advantage in partisan affiliation, 39 percent to 29 percent. When undecided voters were pushed to choose a party, the Democrats’ edge grew by another two points, to 54 percent to 42 percent. Yet in the Gallup polls conducted since October 1, the two parties have pulled even, with Republicans actually ahead by a statistically insignificant percentage point, 36 percent to 35 percent. After being pushed to choose a party, likely voters give the Republicans a further boost, resulting in an overall three-point advantage of 49 percent to 46 percent.

Parsing the Polls
If Gallup is right, Tuesday will be a long night for the Democratic party.
By Michael G. Franc November 3, 2012 12:00 A.M.

Originally posted by zigguratvertigo

Originally posted by kimar
How any ATS member could want a Romney win is beyond me.

I tend to feel Romney supporters posting here and other forums that I frequent are either trolls or paid shills. Surely only the 0.1% and corporate entities want him in power? The only way he is going to win is with wholesale voter fraud... which could happen.

Originally posted by elouina

Originally posted by Taiyed
National polls.

The last hope of a desperate supporter.

I would define desperation as rushing to be the first poster in every Romney thread with negative remarks. May I be the first to welcome you here.

There's a number of us who call out you and your fellow right-wing and/or Teabaggin' fellow travelers on your goonie political posts when we see them. Like the first commenter said, this is a national poll, which means next to nothing. What matters, because of the way the president is elected in the US, is the state by state vote; and in that Obama leads in the majority of the swing states, enough to handily give him the electoral votes he needs to win. But you either don't understand this, or as the first poster said, you're so desperate that you will grab at any straws of hope. Romney's popular vote surplus is going to come primarily from the larger southern states, where he has large margins in the electorate, and which were always considered his anyway.

In the one case I know of examining the early voting in a swing state, Ohio, Obama leads Romney 60% to 30%:

Ohio early voting results

Ohio is, for all intents and purposes, a must-win state for Romnesia, and from these results and the polls for the state, it does not appear that Willard will win it.

Speaking of Ohio.

Here's a lot of good information for Romney Supporters, as well as Obama Supporters to Dissect.

2012: Romney Has "Edge" In Ohio

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by Taiyed

 

Allow me to shift the subject just a little. Assume for a moment that your scenario comes true. 51%-49% for Romney nationally and an Electoral College win for Obama. Isn't Obama's smart move then to resign?

The majority of the citizens are against him, and the House of Representatives is against him, even more so after being on the receiving end of the most negative campaign in recent history. Then he has to finally start answering questions about Fast and Furious, Benghazi, the hundreds of billions of dollars lost in green energy give aways to his supporters. Not to even mention the economy, jobs, the debt, our foreign relations failures, etc.

In 2014 the Democrats will lose the Senate because of all of the above, and Congress will take away Obama's parking space, and make him eat at White Castle.

It's better for everyone if Obama is not the next president.

That's rich, truly rich. Resign because he only wins the electoral college vote, but not the popular vote. Let's put it this way: George W. Bush didn't do it in 2000, so why should Obama do it this time around? No doubt, if the outcome turns out that way, this will be one of the talking points of the right-wing blathersphere, but so what?

Don't buy your political analysis either. You assume a WHOLE LOT in terms of issues that will drag him down. And why on earth should the fact that he has been on the receiving end of the most negative campaign ever have any part in this argument. The fact that the campaign against him has been so negative is because the GOP and their presidential candidate have nothing of positive substance to offer the nation -- all the more reason one doesn't want those dirt bags controlling the government.

As for the 2014 elections, if the GOP congress continues to be obstructionist, then the Democrats should propose lots of good legislation that they can then tell voters the Republicans were responsible for not passing, and that they should vote for Democrats to get it passed.

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask

Im not gonna sit here like I did on the other thread, and spoon feed you info.........because LIKe on the other thread youll just deny that the information I gave to you , was what you asked for......

You dont want the truth or youd seek it out for yourself.......

If you watched or even remembered the 2008 election.........you would remember CNN MSNBC NYTIMES and many others constantly using Gallup as a source for Obamas election chances.......

I swear........some people cant do things for themselves.........

BTW you never answered me...............are you going to come back on your thread and admit that you were wrong when Romney gets elected?

edit on 3-11-2012 by ManBehindTheMask because: (no reason given)

What does the fact that CNN, MSNBC and the NYTIMES used the national Gallup poll in their analyses of THE LAST presidential election chances have to do with it? Who claimed that these news organizations were correct because of their "analysis" anyway? It happened that in the last election Obama had a popular vote majority as well as a electoral college victory. Nobody worth his/her salt is claiming that this time around. Rather, the election will be determined by the individual decisions in each of the swing states, hence one must look at polls for those. And in this Obama is winning -- or at least has a statistical lead in most of these states and the best analysis now has his chances of winning the election at 81+ %.

Originally posted by elouina
I always have liked my Ohio neighbors. Here's your Ohio.

Ohio to Obama: ‘What Are You Hiding?’

According to the White House pool report, Ohioans greeted the president with some unfriendly signs this morning as he headed to the Franklin County fairgrounds:

As Obama motorcade rolls by, Ohio citizens demand truth about Benghazi

All right! Two people and a sign -- maybe even actually in Ohio -- is the best indicator of how Ohio will trend this election. Man, this post of yours is even more desperate and ridiculous than your original claim based on the Gallup nation poll.



Enjoy your delusions. We aren't having any of it.

Originally posted by beezzer
I'm currently searching, but didn't the early results from the 2008 election get touted greatly by the democrats as being an indicator for how the election would go?

Now, the results are being downplayed (obviously).

I'm just wondering if anyone else has noticed this dichotomy.

What dichotomy? Look at INDIVIDUAL SWING STATES' EARLY VOTING. In the 2008 election the margin was large enough that one could look at national results. This time around one needs to look that the swing states individually to get an indication of which way the election will go. That's the only dichotomy.

In the one state I checked on, Ohio -- arguably the most important one, the early voting is going 60% Obama and 30% Romney, according to a Time Magazine survey. See my other post with the link to this NBC news story.

This is excellent news. I don't agree with Romney on all policies, but at least he's an American with a real U.S. birth certificate.

I'm still not voting for either of them. But I would like to point out that "team Romney" includes advisers that some may be familiar with, including but not limited to one of the authors of the PATRIOT Act, the head of the NSA during the warrant-less wiretapping under George W. Bush, former PNAC members (including a co-founder,) former Vice Chairman of Blackwater, and the second head of the DHS under George W. Bush.

Of course, there are just as many reasons why I won't be voting for Obama either, personally.

Just saying.

Peace.