Realcent.org

LINK:
http://search.yahoo.com/search?cs=bz&p= ... 701&fr2=ps

PROJECTED ELECTORAL VOTES
Obama 285
Romney 191

Wow, I thought this was going to be closer. It even shows Romney behind on the popular vote (47.0 to 45.6).

Is this the consensus or is this skewed?

I don’t believe it. Every poll I see has projected turnout at 2008 levels and pulls in between 4-8% more Democrats. This isn’t 2008. It’s going to be much closer than the above numbers. I know around me it’s about a 1.5 hour wait every day for early voting and majority of those are not voting for the incumbent.

Here is the Realpolitik:

"Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything." Josef Stalin.

"Power comes from the end of a gun." Chairman Mao Zedong

"If I control the schools, I control the Nation." Adolph Hitler

"Vote for me, Sucka." Barack Obama

Does anyone remember what the projections were in 2008 around this stage (a few day before the election)?

I can't remember. It seems like they were projecting Obama to probably win, but I can't remember how close the projected margin was to what happened on election night (373-173). It seems like they were projecting it to be close, but I could be mistaken.

I always assumed the media wanted to make it look close to keep people interested and therefore help ratings. That why the Yahoo! projection seems weird to me.

I wouldn't worry too much about what Yahoo says as they are pretty left leaning. I tend to believe Rasmussen as they have the best track record at predicting election results. In 08 their last poll had Obama winning 52 - 46. The actual results were 53 - 46.

In 2008, according to exit polls, party Identification favored Democrats by 7 points (36 - 29). Gallop did a 9000 person survey and found that party ID was just about even. Many left-leaning polls showing Obama ahead still assume an advantage to the Democrats.

In terms of electorial votes, anything can happen. Romney still has a good chance of winning and outside chance of an electorial landslide. Romney will almost definately win Florida and he should pull out Virginia. If that happens Obama must win Ohio to win the election. Rasmussen currently has the in Ohio race tied at 49. If Obama does win Ohio, Romney can still take the election by winning Wisconsin, Colorado and either Iowa or New Hampshire.

Pennslyvania (my home state) is also potentially interesting. Obama CANNOT afford to lose here. Rasmussen had Obama up 51 - 46 last week. However, the campaigns' internal polls must show it closer because we are suddenly getting bombarded with ads from both sides. Also, Ryan is having rally here today and Romney will be here tomorrow. Remember, although Obama won here by 10 points in 08, we elected a Republican govenor and senator in 2010.

On election night, Watch the Virginia returns. If Romney wins there by more than 3 points, it will be bad night for Democrats. If Obama wins, then the election is likely his. But if Romney squeezes by with a 1 or 2 point victory, it will be a long night for everybody.

theo wrote: I tend to believe Rasmussen as they have the best track record at predicting election results.

I read somewhere that when Rasmussen shows it's close, it's really bad for Romney, since they oversample older voters, due to the "call once" policy (younger people have jobs, retirees don't). They also don't sample "cellphone only" households (younger people in general).

And Rasmussen is now projecting 237 Obama - 206 Romney (with 95 toss-up).

I can't really back it up. I am just repeating what I read.

Do you not buy this?

If what you said about Rasmussen were true, then why were they so accurate in 2004 and 2008? Rasmussen oversamples older adults because they are far more reliable voters. I would argue that other polls are less accurate in part because they over sample younger voters who vote at much lower percentages.

I tend to think all the polls including Rasmussen are under-estimating Republican enthusiam. Obama is supposed to have a solid lead in PA yet Romney yard signs outnumber those of Obama 2 to 1 in my area (in 2008 it was 3/4 to 1 Obama). I just heard a Bob Casey (PA Democrat Senator) commercial which states ". . . .and Bob Casey opposed Obama's trade deals." Why would a Democrat say such a thing if he was confident in an Obama victory?

Concerning the electorial vote comparison, please reread my above analysis.

theo wrote:If what you said about Rasmussen were true, then why were they so accurate in 2004 and 2008?

I am not saying that I believe it, but I have seen it claimed that Rasmussen's polls have a republican bias until right before the election, because (for example) "no one can tell if a June poll is accurate but everyone can tell if a poll released the day before the election is accurate."

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2012/I ... ussen.html

Again I am not saying I buy it. But I have seen it claimed a couple times (probably by Democrats).

in other news, colorado seems to be tipping more and more towards romney.

Klark Cent wrote:

theo wrote:If what you said about Rasmussen were true, then why were they so accurate in 2004 and 2008?

I am not saying that I believe it, but I have seen it claimed that Rasmussen's polls have a republican bias until right before the election, because (for example) "no one can tell if a June poll is accurate but everyone can tell if a poll released the day before the election is accurate."

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2012/I ... ussen.html

Again I am not saying I buy it. But I have seen it claimed a couple times (probably by Democrats).

Understood. This election will be one for the ages. The major polls seem to give the edge to Obama, but other data suggests that the Republicans have a significant enthusiam advantage, as well as a solid lead among independents. Its hard to know which to believe. Here is my source for election info. It has all the major polls plus articles reflecting both conservative and liberal veiwpoints.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/

Come Wednesday morning, we'll know what states are being re-counted!

I know Im Canadian but I heard (government radio) the early ballots useually favor the Democrats. I dont know if this is true, I did no further research. Their reason was that democrats are more likely to be in a situation where they are unable to get to the polls on election day due to work.

frugalcanuck wrote: Their reason was that democrats are more likely to be in a situation where they are unable to get to the polls on election day due to work.

Not trying to bust your chops, frugal. I know this is just something that you heard, not what you believe. But I don't buy a word of this!!! The unemployed, the college kids, the welfare leaches, criminals, ect. They have time to vote. They are democrats. The union workers, they are encouraged to and probably on the clock when they vote. Dems.

The people working full time jobs are more likely to be Republicans. To say that those with higher incomes are somehow more able to take time off work, I just don't buy it. The people that I know that have low paying jobs, or part time jobs are the ones with time to do stuff. My most "affluent" friends are the ones that don't have any extra time. They are too busy trying to do their job, or run a business.

Whoever wrote that article is either stupid or lying. IMHO

Wow! I'm very surprised and disillusioned at these results, Obama is doing far better in several states than I'd imagined. It seems possible that Romney pulls out Ohio but loses Florida.

I know Romney isn't the answer to all of the nation's problems, but four more years with Obama is unthinkable

faux news is already showing 268 to 0bamma...

gave him ohio

make that 275

im feeling a bit sick...

NBC called the election for Obama like five minutes ago.

Obama has won. Be ready for the ride!
EDit: It has cost 6 Billion dollars for this election process and we are left with the status quo. Somebody got rich off of it. What do you think?

Ohio was the tipping point. Of interest there was the 39 counties that got "experimental" voting machines to count the vote.

When will we demand paper ballots, hand-counted by human beings? Damn the cost, its worth any price to have a real, honest elections, instead of corrupted software to do the math, and no paper trail to verify anything.

R. Reagan: "Trust, but verify."

i haven't checked it myself, but someone on another forum said rasmussen got 6 of the 9 swing states wrong.

nate silver of 538.com (the guy most repubs thought was full of sh*t) got all 50 states right.