Most recent Presidential election poll results

[Dan Druff]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...use/?hpt=hp_c1

While I admit that Obama has the edge and will probably win, Romney has a real chance given the way this map looks.

This map shows 206 safe electoral votes for Romney and 247 for Obama.

According to the article:

The map currently indicates that seven states are true toss-ups. Those states are Colorado (9 electoral votes), Florida (29), Iowa (6), Nevada (6), New Hampshire (4), Ohio (18) and Virginia (13). Eighty-five electoral votes are up for grabs in those seven states.

Four states currently lean towards Obama: Michigan (16), New Mexico (5), Pennsylvania (20) and Wisconsin (10). Four states currently lean towards Romney: Arizona (11), Indiana (11), Missouri (10), and North Carolina (15).

The 206 for Romney and 247 for Obama assumes that the "leaning" states listed above stay where they are.

So let's say everything stays the way it is and we are looking at the 7 tossup states:

The winner will need 270 votes.

That means Romney will need 64 and Obama 23.

If Romney can capture Florida, Ohio, and Virgina -- all states Bush won in 2004 -- that will bring him to 266. If he can then go on to win either Nevada, Iowa, or New Hampsire, he will win the election.

Of course, these are all big IFs. Romney will have to win all three of those big tossup states -- which is no trivial matter, considering two of them went for Obama in 2008 -- and also not lose any states where he is currently ahead. And then he'll also have to take one of the three smaller tossup states.

But it's possible. And Obama definitely wasn't helped by the recent terrible jobs report.

My analysis: Obama will probably win, but it won't be a shocker if Romney takes it. Four years ago, I felt it would have been a miracle if McCain won.

[OSA]

Let's hope the blacks forget to vote. I hope either KFC/Popeyes has a free drumstick deal that day so they will be all waiting on line for their beloved chicken.

[LLL]

I would still bet trivial amounts of money that Obama ships this.

[tommyt]

i lost all respect for Romney when i saw the way he holds a microphone

[Steve-O]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...use/?hpt=hp_c1

While I admit that Obama has the edge and will probably win, Romney has a real chance given the way this map looks.

This map shows 206 safe electoral votes for Romney and 247 for Obama.

According to the article:

The map currently indicates that seven states are true toss-ups. Those states are Colorado (9 electoral votes), Florida (29), Iowa (6), Nevada (6), New Hampshire (4), Ohio (18) and Virginia (13). Eighty-five electoral votes are up for grabs in those seven states.

Four states currently lean towards Obama: Michigan (16), New Mexico (5), Pennsylvania (20) and Wisconsin (10). Four states currently lean towards Romney: Arizona (11), Indiana (11), Missouri (10), and North Carolina (15).

The 206 for Romney and 247 for Obama assumes that the "leaning" states listed above stay where they are.

So let's say everything stays the way it is and we are looking at the 7 tossup states:

The winner will need 270 votes.

That means Romney will need 64 and Obama 23.

If Romney can capture Florida, Ohio, and Virgina -- all states Bush won in 2004 -- that will bring him to 266. If he can then go on to win either Nevada, Iowa, or New Hampsire, he will win the election.

Of course, these are all big IFs. Romney will have to win all three of those big tossup states -- which is no trivial matter, considering two of them went for Obama in 2008 -- and also not lose any states where he is currently ahead. And then he'll also have to take one of the three smaller tossup states.

But it's possible. And Obama definitely wasn't helped by the recent terrible jobs report.

My analysis: Obama will probably win, but it won't be a shocker if Romney takes it. Four years ago, I felt it would have been a miracle if McCain won.

Unfortunately for Romney Obama only needs to win Florida, OR Ohio + Iowa OR Ohio and Nevada. Romney needs a lot of chips to fall perfectly to win under these conditions: Romney is chasing a gutterball straight and Obama is Double-Gutted. Realistically though, these polls aren't too important until the debates start which is when most people start paying attention. There are likely a lot of people saying Romney right now who know very, very, little about him, but once they got a load of his personality they'll be put-off. Obama has the advantage of being the sitting president so EVERYBODY knows who he is and has an opinion on him already, whereas people are still forming their opinions on Romney.

[Shizzmoney]

I love how most people I know have no interest voting in the POTUS election....but will spend hours debating lines and who they want to bet on.

Considering that Obama, the more likeable candidate, has the fund raising lead (and 94% of the candidates who raise the most money, win)....he should win.

But I still only put him at a -175 favorite due to the polling (consensus is around 55-45, aggregate 3.5 pts...which is high for an incumbent), the state of the country (DOW, Gas, maybe more QE), and the fact that the youth of the nation (20% jobless rate) is very long libertarian (whether conservative or progressive), and simply may not vote in November out of spite ("both don't care") / protest ("fuck them") / disinterest or other shit to do ("work") / hubris ("Obama is going to win, anyways").

Reasons why Romney has a chance, even though he maybe the most flawed Major Party Presidential Candidate, ever?

Poor people generally don't vote. Most of us now only make under $50K a year for the household. Not exactly Mitt Romney's political wheelhouse.

However those voters who do go to the pools, especially in swing states, most of the time happen to be white. And rich. It's estimated that people who make over $250K have a 85% voting ratio (which makes sense if you see where the country is going).

Really, what do poor-to-low income people have to lose? They voted the "populist" guy in, and got more of the same shit, minus maybe longer Unemployment and ObamaCare (which they would of gotten, anyways).

The well-to-do guy on the other hand, has a TON to lose, especially with the economic news as of late. Romney himself will have to pay $5 million in new taxes (that Obama would let the bans on expire, like Bush tax cut, etc) if he were to lose the race. That paranoia could run to the polls, especially with "the economy" being the #1 thing voters have been interested in.

The fact that Mitt Romney, a self-contradicting Mormon man who triumphs the return of serfdom has a chance to win vs a populist, likeable, and minority (considering that the majority of people in this country will soon be Latino) Democrat Incumbent, is astonishing to me.

But it goes to show how fucked our country is, and who really runs the place:

[Dan Druff]

Not looking good for Romney.

At the moment Obama leads Ohio by 5 and Florida by 1. If Romney loses either state, he's done.

Obama also leads by 1 in Virginia.

Obama leads by 5 in Nevada, 1 in Iowa, 3 in Colorado, 4 in Michigan, and 4 in New Hampshire.

It is now looking pretty good for Romney in Missouri (+5) and Indiana (+9), but he was expected to take those, anyway.

Romney has also fallen into a tie in North Carolina -- a state he was originally expected to take.

While many of Obama's leads are within the 3% statistical margin of error, it doesn't look good for Republicans that Obama is currently leading all seven toss-up states, including a 5-point lead in Ohio.

We still have 3 months to go, so a lot can change, but I am not seeing Romney doing a lot to change his image as an out-of-touch rich guy.

Romney could probably win Florida by getting Marco Rubio as his VP candidate, but Rubio wouldn't do a lot to solve the Ohio problem.

I think Romney's only hope lies in two areas:

1) Obama really fucks up big time in some way, and everyone gets really pissed off at him

2) There is another major economic failure (such as the bank crisis in September, 2008) between now and election time, which kills people's faith in Obama to handle the economy

Otherwise Obama is going to win this one, and it won't even be that close.



Looks like the Republicans are about to beat themselves again, just as the Democrats did in both 2000 and 2004 (especially 2004).

[Dan Druff]

By the way, while I don't expect Romney to be online-poker-friendly, if you are going to vote for Obama for online poker's sake, recall the following:

1) Obama was the one in office for Black Friday, and it was his appointee (Preet Bharara) who was behind the whole thing. Also note that Bharara himself is a Democrat.

2) The Obama Administration responded to the latest PPA petition to legalize online poker by saying that they don't support federally legalized online poker.

So basically online poker is fucked no matter who wins.

[LLL]

Not looking good for Romney.

At the moment Obama leads Ohio by 5 and Florida by 1. If Romney loses either state, he's done.

Obama also leads by 1 in Virginia.

Obama leads by 5 in Nevada, 1 in Iowa, 3 in Colorado, 4 in Michigan, and 4 in New Hampshire.

It is now looking pretty good for Romney in Missouri (+5) and Indiana (+9), but he was expected to take those, anyway.

Romney has also fallen into a tie in North Carolina -- a state he was originally expected to take.

While many of Obama's leads are within the 3% statistical margin of error, it doesn't look good for Republicans that Obama is currently leading all seven toss-up states, including a 5-point lead in Ohio.

We still have 3 months to go, so a lot can change, but I am not seeing Romney doing a lot to change his image as an out-of-touch rich guy.

Romney could probably win Florida by getting Marco Rubio as his VP candidate, but Rubio wouldn't do a lot to solve the Ohio problem.

I think Romney's only hope lies in two areas:

1) Obama really fucks up big time in some way, and everyone gets really pissed off at him

2) There is another major economic failure (such as the bank crisis in September, 2008) between now and election time, which kills people's faith in Obama to handle the economy

Otherwise Obama is going to win this one, and it won't even be that close.



Looks like the Republicans are about to beat themselves again, just as the Democrats did in both 2000 and 2004 (especially 2004).

You mean the one where Gore won the popular vote and if a full statewide recount was done would have won Florida and the election?

[son of lockman]

Florida will decide the election...And poker should be a states right issue...

Personally I'm a former Repubican (1960-2006), Romney I consider a Facist pig...Bent on war and perserving Imperialisn...

[sonatine]

There is a lot of concern that Obama is going to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by opening his fucking yap without a teleprompter handy. Legit concern IMO. Also I suspect Romney will sink or swim ultimately on the basis of his running mate. Gotta wonder how things pan out if Lieberman is his VP for example...

[shortbuspoker]

Florida will decide the election...And poker should be a states right issue...

Personally I'm a former Repubican (1960-2006), Romney I consider a Facist pig...Bent on war and perserving Imperialisn...

Did they kick you out of the party for poor grammar and spelling?

[Dan Druff]

Not looking good for Romney.

At the moment Obama leads Ohio by 5 and Florida by 1. If Romney loses either state, he's done.

Obama also leads by 1 in Virginia.

Obama leads by 5 in Nevada, 1 in Iowa, 3 in Colorado, 4 in Michigan, and 4 in New Hampshire.

It is now looking pretty good for Romney in Missouri (+5) and Indiana (+9), but he was expected to take those, anyway.

Romney has also fallen into a tie in North Carolina -- a state he was originally expected to take.

While many of Obama's leads are within the 3% statistical margin of error, it doesn't look good for Republicans that Obama is currently leading all seven toss-up states, including a 5-point lead in Ohio.

We still have 3 months to go, so a lot can change, but I am not seeing Romney doing a lot to change his image as an out-of-touch rich guy.

Romney could probably win Florida by getting Marco Rubio as his VP candidate, but Rubio wouldn't do a lot to solve the Ohio problem.

I think Romney's only hope lies in two areas:

1) Obama really fucks up big time in some way, and everyone gets really pissed off at him

2) There is another major economic failure (such as the bank crisis in September, 2008) between now and election time, which kills people's faith in Obama to handle the economy

Otherwise Obama is going to win this one, and it won't even be that close.



Looks like the Republicans are about to beat themselves again, just as the Democrats did in both 2000 and 2004 (especially 2004).

You mean the one where Gore won the popular vote and if a full statewide recount was done would have won Florida and the election?

FALSE.

The popular vote part is true, but your statement about Gore winning if a full statewide recount was done is very misleading.

The correct statement is, "If a full statewide recount was done, and the standards from each individual county (which varied from county to county) were used, Gore would have won by about 100 votes."

The problem is that this statement assumes that the standards in each county are fair. Some were very flawed, and would happened to have to ended up benefiting Gore.

Let's look at the 2000 election a different way.

If you count the "hanging chad" votes (where a punch was made but the piece that's supposed to fall out didn't detach), Bush wins, even in a complete statewide recount.

This can be found on the NY Times website, which is clearly not biased for Bush, as the NY Times is very liberal.

http://www.nytimes.com/images/2001/1...nt/index.html#

Select any of the "Chads detached" options on the right and click for the results.

Oh, and another fact lost from the 2000 election was that Gore would have lost if his own campaign's last recount request (to only recount from heavily Democratic counties) were granted. Gore didn't want the whole state recounted because he thought this would put him at a disadvantage, so he tried to ask for just certain counties that would favor him to be recounted. That was rejected, but he still would have lost.

[Dan Druff]

There is a lot of concern that Obama is going to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by opening his fucking yap without a teleprompter handy. Legit concern IMO. Also I suspect Romney will sink or swim ultimately on the basis of his running mate. Gotta wonder how things pan out if Lieberman is his VP for example...

The bigger problem is Biden saying something stupid, which is likely if they let him talk enough.

When Obama took a big lead in September '08, his campaign actually shut down Biden from doing any interviews. While the media made a big deal about Palin eventually being quieted by McCain, they ignored the fact that Biden was shut down after September 9th.

Smart move by Obama's people, actually. They knew that Biden could only hurt them at that point.

[Steve-O]

There is a lot of concern that Obama is going to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by opening his fucking yap without a teleprompter handy. Legit concern IMO. Also I suspect Romney will sink or swim ultimately on the basis of his running mate. Gotta wonder how things pan out if Lieberman is his VP for example...

No running mate has ever made a positive difference in modern politics; the best you can hope for is that your running mate shores up your base on some front and doesn't prove to be a liability

[LLL]

You mean the one where Gore won the popular vote and if a full statewide recount was done would have won Florida and the election?

FALSE.

The popular vote part is true, but your statement about Gore winning if a full statewide recount was done is very misleading.

The correct statement is, "If a full statewide recount was done, and the standards from each individual county (which varied from county to county) were used, Gore would have won by about 100 votes."

The problem is that this statement assumes that the standards in each county are fair. Some were very flawed, and would happened to have to ended up benefiting Gore.

Let's look at the 2000 election a different way.

If you count the "hanging chad" votes (where a punch was made but the piece that's supposed to fall out didn't detach), Bush wins, even in a complete statewide recount.

This can be found on the NY Times website, which is clearly not biased for Bush, as the NY Times is very liberal.

http://www.nytimes.com/images/2001/1...nt/index.html#

Select any of the "Chads detached" options on the right and click for the results.

Oh, and another fact lost from the 2000 election was that Gore would have lost if his own campaign's last recount request (to only recount from heavily Democratic counties) were granted. Gore didn't want the whole state recounted because he thought this would put him at a disadvantage, so he tried to ask for just certain counties that would favor him to be recounted. That was rejected, but he still would have lost.

Just curious how that is Gore/the Democrats beating themselves. If anything the Nader factor was strongest in that election.

[Steve-O]

FALSE.

The popular vote part is true, but your statement about Gore winning if a full statewide recount was done is very misleading.

The correct statement is, "If a full statewide recount was done, and the standards from each individual county (which varied from county to county) were used, Gore would have won by about 100 votes."

The problem is that this statement assumes that the standards in each county are fair. Some were very flawed, and would happened to have to ended up benefiting Gore.

Let's look at the 2000 election a different way.

If you count the "hanging chad" votes (where a punch was made but the piece that's supposed to fall out didn't detach), Bush wins, even in a complete statewide recount.

This can be found on the NY Times website, which is clearly not biased for Bush, as the NY Times is very liberal.

http://www.nytimes.com/images/2001/1...nt/index.html#

Select any of the "Chads detached" options on the right and click for the results.

Oh, and another fact lost from the 2000 election was that Gore would have lost if his own campaign's last recount request (to only recount from heavily Democratic counties) were granted. Gore didn't want the whole state recounted because he thought this would put him at a disadvantage, so he tried to ask for just certain counties that would favor him to be recounted. That was rejected, but he still would have lost.

Just curious how that is Gore/the Democrats beating themselves. If anything the Nader factor was strongest in that election.

Not as strong as Perot in 1992

[gut]

You mean the one where Gore won the popular vote and if a full statewide recount was done would have won Florida and the election?

FALSE.

The popular vote part is true, but your statement about Gore winning if a full statewide recount was done is very misleading.

The correct statement is, "If a full statewide recount was done, and the standards from each individual county (which varied from county to county) were used, Gore would have won by about 100 votes."

The problem is that this statement assumes that the standards in each county are fair. Some were very flawed, and would happened to have to ended up benefiting Gore.

Let's look at the 2000 election a different way.

If you count the "hanging chad" votes (where a punch was made but the piece that's supposed to fall out didn't detach), Bush wins, even in a complete statewide recount.

This can be found on the NY Times website, which is clearly not biased for Bush, as the NY Times is very liberal.

http://www.nytimes.com/images/2001/1...nt/index.html#

Select any of the "Chads detached" options on the right and click for the results.

Oh, and another fact lost from the 2000 election was that Gore would have lost if his own campaign's last recount request (to only recount from heavily Democratic counties) were granted. Gore didn't want the whole state recounted because he thought this would put him at a disadvantage, so he tried to ask for just certain counties that would favor him to be recounted. That was rejected, but he still would have lost.

I always found it silly to debate the recounts and hanging chads and whatnot. I think people fail to realize just how much voter fraud exists in this country. Don't get me wrong, we have a much better voting system than most of the world; but in a race as close as 2000 was, the insiders ultimately won/lost the election in Florida. Also the fact that the supreme court ruled via party lines.

Ohio in 2004 was a bigger travesty, when the state secretary Ken Blackwell later bragged in emails about "delivering the state to Bush." I'm sure if the Democrats had won either of those years, there would have been stories about the same type of indiscretions.

[Dan Druff]

Also, Nixon got cheated in the 1960 election, where JFK emerged victorious.

It is generally accepted that there was mass voter fraud in Texas (where LBJ was Senator) and Illinois (where Mayor Daley helped rig the vote against Nixon).

Democrats who idolize JFK like to ignore that he unfairly won that election, yet they often bitch about the Bush/Gore results.

[Pooh]

Romney will win this election going away.

1) Obama no longer has the automatic black vote. He's expected to lose about 6% from 4 yrs ago.

2) The young voters are no longer a shoe in to vote Obama. Most are unemployed and poor. What change from Obama? A lot either won't vote or will vote Romney.

3) Obama hates Jews. If a Jew votes for this guy they should be slapped.

4) Gays and hispanics are the only groups that are "automatics" this time.

You all going to be very surprised come election day. The people don't want this guy anymore.