Does Ohio Matter?

The election is near, the debates are over, the candidates have laid out their positions, so it all boils down to the numbers now. Today’s electoral map shows Obama with 237 “safe” electoral votes and Romney with 206 supposedly “safe” electoral votes. But are any electoral votes safe this year? I contend not, especially for Obama. However, let’s assume that Rasmussen is right with these “safe” predictions, as they historically have been, and analyze the path to 270 for each candidate. First of all, let’s look at Romney. Current polling has Romney up by 2 in Florida, up by 4 in Colorado, and up by 3 in Virginia. In all of those states, Obama is polling less than 50%, which historically means that the independents will break for Romney, so I think it is a safe bet to move those states, and their 51 electoral votes into the Romney column, giving Romney now 257 electoral votes – just 13 votes  shy of victory. On the bubble for Romney is New Hampshire and their 4 electoral votes and of where Romney leads by 2, Iowa and their 6 electoral votes and of where Romney is tied with Obama, and WI and their 10 electoral votes, and again where Romney and Obama are tied. But again, in WI, NH and IA, Obama is polling less than 50% so the independents in those states should break for Romney giving him the win in all three states. Under this scenario, Romney wins the Presidency without OH.

Obama on the other hand has lost FL, VA, & CO, that is pretty much a given, so how does the path to 270 look for Obama? With 237 safe electoral votes, he is 33 shy, meaning he will need Ohio to win. Excluding Ohio, all the other toss up states; IA, NH, NV, & WI, will only bring him 26 electoral votes, and that assumes he wins NH where Romney leads. This also assumes Obama wins WI where he is tied with Romney and polling under 50%, so there is no question that Obama needs OH much more so than Romney. If Romney wins WI, this race is over, and considering that Gov. Walker just held off a fierce recall battle, and that Paul Ryan hails from the Badger state, I like Romney’s chances.

UPDATE, by Mark Noonan:  October 29th, 2012 Rasmussen Ohio poll – Romney 50, Obama 48.  Getting that sinking feeling Democrats?

Advertisements

80 thoughts on “Does Ohio Matter?

  1. cyberactor October 27, 2012 / 1:03 pm

    That calculation is hilariously wrong. First, Romney needs to run the table in at least five of the seven big swing states. In most of those, he is lagging, not leading. My prediction is that Obama not only wins Florida (which is the whole ballgame) but also Wisconsin and Ohio. He’ll win just shy of 300 electoral votes, if not more. Romney simply doesn’t have the support. Sorry, guys.

    • Cluster October 27, 2012 / 1:26 pm

      Cyber,

      Romney leads FL by 2 in the Rasmussen poll, and recently Gallup had him up by 5 points in FL, which is also Romney’s lead nationwide according to Gallup. So instead of your “hilarious” opinion, maybe you can offer some poll numbers that back up your prediction.

      • cyberactor October 28, 2012 / 1:02 pm

        Absolutely. In fact, the blog that has been keeping me sane and rational the past few weeks is right here:

        http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

        This is a brilliant encapsulation of ALL of the polls and has been as accurate a predictor of elections as any other over the past decade. You want poll numbers that back me up? There you go. Read ’em and weep.

        The number to watch, by the way, is the percentage chart on the right that says “likely to win.” After the first debate, and for a week afterwards or so, that number actually dipped down into the sixties, scaring the bejesus out of those of us on the left. But in the weeks since, that number has crept back up and is now solidly above seventy percent.

        Seriously, and without rancor: Your guy is going to lose. Not lose big. Not like ’08. But Mitt will NOT be President of the United States. The sooner you accept that idea, the less apoplectic you will be on November 7th when my prediction comes true.

      • Amazona October 28, 2012 / 1:22 pm

        Too funny—-we are supposed to find something credible when it allegedly contributes to what the actor considers “sane” and “rational” and comes from the NYT.

        As Karl Rove and others have pointed out, the superficial poll accounts don’t matter nearly as much as the internals of the individual polls. Polls are a classic example of GIGO.

        And there is a vested interest in using polls not to reflect movement but to direct movement. We all remember the Dirty Trick of telling Floridians in the Central Time Zone that Florida had already been called for Gore, and how thousands of voters just went home, figuring there was no reason to stand in line to vote for Bush if he had already lost.

        The same dynamic is in place when it comes to polls, using ginned-up conclusions to try to encourage or depress turnout, based on the nature of the poll and its claims.

        I notice that the Nate Silver articles tend to lump all the battleground states together, a clever ploy which dramatically alters perception of actual polling data.

        But if he goes against accepted wisdom and makes you feel sane and rational, then you better stick with him–there aren’t too many who can pull that off.

      • cyberactor October 28, 2012 / 1:26 pm

        Whatever you say, Amazona. Whatever you say. See you in about a week.

      • cyberactor October 28, 2012 / 1:55 pm

        Okay, one final comment:

        Once this election is over and Romney has lost, I have an additional prediction: the knives come out on the right for all things moderate. Again, you will gnash your teeth and pull your hair about having nominated someone not conservative enough and swear that next time.. NEXT TIME…you won’t make the same mistake. In other words, a re-tread of what happened after the last election.

        Your party has been consistently and disturbingly tilting further and further right as the years progress and your politics, as a result, have become positively toxic to most of the country. To appease those in the middle, you try to nominate “nice” candidates that will mask the nastiness, but it shows through anyway. And that’s why you lose. And that’s also why there is no longer such a thing as a Republican moderate or centrist anymore. Your severe right-wing orthodoxy has purged them from your party.

        This is all fine and dandy to us on the left because we foresee a split in your party. The true moderates and the crazy wingers will eventually face off and, we hope, will split your party in half. That is our hope and dream but even we can see that you might not be quite THAT stupid. But you’re plenty stupid in other areas so…hope springs eternal.

        But lose you will next Tuesday. And scream and cry and wail about how Obama bamboozled the electorate or somesuch nonsense. And I’ll be here, next Wednesday, to simple say:

        Told you so.

      • Amazona October 28, 2012 / 2:50 pm

        actor, please define “right” and then explain just what is meant by “… further and further right …” and what about this alleged shift is so as “… toxic to most of the country.” And while you are at it, define “moderate”.

        In completely political terms, “left” refers to a collectivist, big-government, an essentially unrestrained federal government in terms of size, scope and power. And in the United States in the 21st Century, “right” means allegiance to the Constitutional form of government, which centers on retaining most of the power of the nation in the states or local governments, and severely restricting the size, scope and power of the federal government.

        If you disagree with these political definitions of right and left, please explain how I am wrong.

        It is my perception that one cannot move very far to the right, as the definition is basically that of adherence to the Constitution and applying the terms of the 10th Amendment to all aspects of government, and once you are there, you are there. According to this definition, “far right” would be really REALLY REALLY believing that the Constitution is the only legitimate way to govern the nation.

        What is so toxic about this, and why is it offensive to, as you claim, “…most of the country..” ?

        Or are you conflating various social issues with political ideology? Religious beliefs? Cultural inclinations?

      • Amazona October 28, 2012 / 2:58 pm

        actor, I think you may have fallen prey to the confusion purposely created by the minders on the Left, and gotten all tangled up in Identity Politics, personal animosity toward a poorly understood Other, poorly defined terms, etc.

        As an example: One can be a hard-core right-wing ideologue, in believing with deep conviction that the United States must be governed according to its Constitution, yet also believe that the state has an obligation to provide certain public programs to certain groups—the poor, the elderly, the disabled, etc. These two positions are not contradictory, as long as the conservative understands that these programs must, according to the Constitution, be state programs, as they are not allowed to the federal government.

        Someone with a poor understanding of political ideology, who is confused by issues masquerading as ideology, might get hung up on words like “moderate”, but in fact it is possible to be a conservative and still believe that the unions of gay couples should be called “marriage” or that the state should help pay for health care.

        It is not about issues, it is about whether the issues are addressed by states, according to the Constitution, or by the federal government, in defiance of it.

        The Left has been brilliant in misleading people into making political decisions based on issues which, in and of themselves, are not political, but which have been linked in peoples’ minds with political ideology because this makes it easier to divide and conquer.

      • ricorun October 28, 2012 / 5:06 pm

        Amazona asks: please define “right” and then explain just what is meant by “… further and further right …”

        Then she says: It is my perception that one cannot move very far to the right, as the definition is basically that of adherence to the Constitution and applying the terms of the 10th Amendment to all aspects of government, and once you are there, you are there.

        And finally she adds: One can be a hard-core right-wing ideologue, in believing with deep conviction that the United States must be governed according to its Constitution, yet also believe that the state has an obligation to provide certain public programs to certain groups—the poor, the elderly, the disabled, etc. These two positions are not contradictory, as long as the conservative understands that these programs must, according to the Constitution, be state programs, as they are not allowed to the federal government.

        And Amazona is right — the two aren’t necessarily contradictory, but they don’t necessarily follow, either. So it seems to me Amazona answered her own question — one who is “further and further right” is one who does NOT “believe that the state has an obligation to provide certain public programs to certain groups—the poor, the elderly, the disabled, etc.” Perhaps it’s just poor messaging, but the message many people are receiving from the right wing of the Republican party is not “The federal government stands in the way of the states who can provide better services at a lower cost”, but rather the message too many people are getting is, “No government on ANY level should provide anything but the most essential services or regulate free enterprise in any way.” Whether it’s a fair impression or not, my guess is that if you were to ask Lefties and moderates which image of the far right they find most accurate, it’s probably the latter by a long shot.

      • Amazona October 28, 2012 / 5:33 pm

        rico, as someone who obviously has high intelligence, you can screw up an idea faster and more thoroughly than anyone else I know.

        Fine. You just keep muddling along, conflating social issues with political ideology—-you’ve already proved that you have absolutely no clue as to the difference, anyway.

        Let me try a different tack:

        Do you understand that some things are absolute? For example, the word “unique” means one of a kind. It cannot be modified. Something is unique or it is not, but it cannot be “more unique”.

        I’ll let that sink in for a minute.

        OK. Now let’s apply that to belief that the United States must be governed according to our Constitution. Do you understand that this is an either/or position? You either do, or you don’t, believe this. Period.

        If you think the Constitution can be stretched, or ignored according to circumstance, you fall outside the definition of right wing, because you do NOT believe the nation must be governed by the Constitution.

        Therefore, one cannot be more or less right wing, when we are talking about the political ideology that the nation must be governed according to our Constitution.

        Now, let’s move on to issues which may be found important to people who are on the Right according to their POLITICAL ideology. There are lots and lots of these issues, but as long as the underlying allegiance to governance according to our Constitution remains the core political belief, the person is a conservative, POLITICALLY, no matter which social issues he or she may find important.

        Therefore, a person can be socially quite liberal, in being comfortable with non-traditional social values or cultural beliefs, and be a political conservative. A person who is adamantly against abortion, for example, can also be a Liberal if he or she believes that federal power should be unrestrained and that the central government should have a great deal of scope and power.

        As usual, you have completely misunderstood and/or distorted what I said. You state “… So it seems to me Amazona answered her own question — one who is “further and further right” is one who does NOT “believe that the state has an obligation to provide certain public programs to certain groups—the poor, the elderly, the disabled, etc.” Yeah, but how it seems to you has nothing at all to do with what I said. I just do not understand how you can be so utterly befuddled and so determinedly wrong in your understanding of what is said.

        Whether or not a person believes that “… the state has an obligation to provide certain public programs to certain groups..” is related to whether that person is on the Right or on the Left solely, ONLY, by whether the State referenced is the federal government or in accordance with the 10th Amendment, and the responsibility of the individual state.

        I know how desperately some of you need to cling to your Identity Politics, as it is all you can really understand, but it is simply a way to confuse you and steer you away from the most basic decision you SHOULD be making in every election—–do you want the nation run according to Constitutional principles or Leftist dogma?

        And look at this dog’s dinner of an idea: “Perhaps it’s just poor messaging, but the message many people are receiving from the right wing of the Republican party is not “The federal government stands in the way of the states who can provide better services at a lower cost”, but rather the message too many people are getting is, “No government on ANY level should provide anything but the most essential services or regulate free enterprise in any way.” ”

        ??????????????

        “The federal government stands in the way of the states who can provide better services at a lower cost”??????????????????

        Who in hell believes THIS? What a bizarre distortion of fact! Unless you have chosen to define “standing in the way of” as “providing it at the federal level” but even that is pretty convoluted.

        And if anyone truly gets the message that “No government on ANY level should provide anything but the most essential services or regulate free enterprise in any way.” he is a moron and a dupe and beyond reason.

        Not that there aren’t plenty of you out there. But how anyone can take the oft-repeated message of state sovereignty, the language of the 10th Amendment, the constant drumbeat of LIMITED FEDERAL GOVERNMENT and twist it into the goofball nonsense you state is way beyond my ability to understand stupidity. That single sentence has two of the biggest, stupidest, most moronic distortions of fact I have ever seen encapsulated in so few words—to the point of being out-and-out lies.

        If this is what comes out after ideas are run through wood chipper of your mind, that explains a lot.

      • Amazona October 29, 2012 / 9:29 am

        Another comment on the Nate Silver spinning of poll data: (emphasis mine)

        By Mickey Kaus, of the Daily Caller:

        “Alerted by Brad (“The Scoutmaster”) DeLong–protector of vulnerable young journalists!–the NYT‘s Paul Krugman defends Nate Silver’s election projections against a fairly calm critique in National Review. I leave it to you, the reader, to decide if arguing that Silver includes too many old polls is the sort thing that, allowed to proliferate, “means … science — or any kind of scholarship — will become impossible.” But what surprised me was this Krugman graf:

        ” ‘It’s almost besides the point to notice that the whole notion that Nate Silver is somehow serving Obama’s interests by skewing the results is bizarre. This race is going to be decided by actual votes, not perceptions of “momentum”. But then posturing and bragging seems to be central to the right’s theory, for reasons I don’t get. [E.A.]” ‘

        I thought the whole reason for the “momentum” wars–is Mitt surging or not?–is that the perception of momentum can easily become self-fulfilling, because undecided voters tend to break toward the candidate they think is the likely “winner.” It’s not just “posturing and bragging”–though there’s plenty of that. It might affect “actual votes.” If Krugman doesn’t understand that, what else …”

        I am sure Krugman DOES understand the role of perception but is just being Krugman and saying what he thinks needs to be said to cover for the Left, while getting in a slam against “the right”.

    • M. Noonan October 27, 2012 / 2:20 pm

      While is it true that if we see FL called for Obama we can shut off the TV because it’s all over, I don’t see how anyone can have a credible analysis which shows FL going for Obama. The State went overwhelming for the GOP in 2010 in what was really nothing more than a gigantic rejection of Obama. Nothing Obama has done since 2010 has improved his standing in Florida. As Obama won the State by only 1.5 percentage points in a year where Democrat turnout was at historic highs I don’t see how he can possibly win it in 2012 which will have a historic high GOP turnout and a much reduced Democrat turnout.

    • neocon01 October 27, 2012 / 3:25 pm

      ciber your boy

    • Amazona October 28, 2012 / 5:38 pm

      If there is a “…Right wing of the Republican Party…” then tell us the political philosophy of the Left wing of the Republican Party.

      If the Republican Party stands for Constitutional government, as it should and as we are demanding it does, then what would a “moderate Republican” believe?

  2. M. Noonan October 27, 2012 / 2:31 pm

    I think that RCP does, at times, get too cautious – which is probably good given that you don’t want to over-predict. But it is pretty certain that Romney will win all the McCain 2008 States and that gets Romney to 180. Add Indiana as another sure-Romney win and we’re at 191. VA, NC and FL get Romney to 248. There are, then, 8 States undecided – NH, PA, OH, MI, WI, IA ,CO and NV – Romney has to win two of them if he wins OH and three of them if he loses OH. Obama has to win 7 of them if he loses Ohio. This is why Ohio is now crucial for Obama – without Ohio he has to run the boards, including winning NH and CO where he’s behind in the polls as well as IA, WI and MI where he’s tied (and as you note, under 50%).

    My view is that Romney has 261 sewed up and that Obama has 179 safe for him (I don’t consider ME, MN, OR and NM as really safe for Obama). 301 to 237 in favor of Romney is in my view the most likely outcome – but if the trends we’re seeing on the ground continue to election day (ie, continued surge for Romney) then it could be a 363/175 blowout.

    • neocon01 October 27, 2012 / 2:44 pm

      this is the only way Ochimpy “wins”

      REPORT: Vanloads of Somalians driven to the polls in Ohio…

      • neocon01 October 27, 2012 / 2:47 pm

        four more years of the muslim commie?

        Senators demand White House declassify Libya video…

        CIA OPS ‘DENIED HELP’ THREE TIMES DURING BENGHAZI…

        Father of Slain SEAL: Who Made the Decision Not to Save My Son?

      • neocon01 October 27, 2012 / 2:48 pm

        obambas sister?

        City’s ‘Democrat of the Year’ Convicted for Stealing from Blind, Wheelchair-Bound Elderly Woman…

      • neocon01 October 27, 2012 / 3:00 pm

        Beck’s Emotional Response to Bombshell ‘Stand Down’ Libya Allegations: ‘Today Officially Is the Day That I No Longer Recognize My Country’

        “That’s not America. That’s not who we are! That’s not the way we treat Americans!”

        really?
        the kenyan muslim does

      • neocon01 October 27, 2012 / 3:18 pm

        October 27, 2012
        Obama still lying; He Knew Within Minutes.
        James Lewis

        When did the President know, and what did he know about the Benghazi assault?

        Fact 1: According to Special Ops Lt, Colonel “Doug” calling Rush Limbaugh today, there are standing orders for instant flash communication about any attacks on US Ambassadors or four-star generals. As soon as the assault on the Benghazi mission started, local personnel notified the US Embassy in Tripoli, which triggered an instant alarm in Washington, DC. The President’s military aide knows within a few minutes and is required to notify POTUS immediately. Two separate “In Extremis” rescue teams were alerted, a C-130 was ready, and F-18 jet bombers. US personnel laser-spotted the Libyan mortar team that killed Americans, pointing the way for bombs that never came. This is an historic video of instant testimony by Rush Limbaugh’s military caller. No need to wait for an “investigation” long after the election.

        Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/10/obama_still_lying_he_knew_within_minutes.html#ixzz2AWqCwlsC

      • neocon01 October 27, 2012 / 4:38 pm

        we are in deep doo doo

        The Navy said Saturday it is replacing the admiral in command of an aircraft carrier strike group in the Middle East, pending the outcome of an internal investigation into undisclosed allegations of inappropriate judgment.

        This comes just days after General Ham was replaced as head of Africom.

        While your Newspaper has long lost any real journalistic credibility, you might be a bit curious as to why these two were replaced so soon after Benghazi.

        Many sources say that both were going to disobey WH orders to stand down and not help during 9 hour long Benghazi firefight that killed four Americans. They were thereafter relived of command.

        Of course, perhaps another front page story about some obscure Senate Race where a candidate expressed the Catholic Position on Rape and Abortion is more informative than two high ranking military men being replaced after they were forced to listen to the screams of four fellow Americans in real time and were prohibited from helping.

        Thank God Vice President Biden was there to console the grieving father of the fallen SEAL who disobeyed orders to help save lives by complimenting the grieving father on the size of his dead hero son’s balls.

    • ricorun October 27, 2012 / 4:39 pm

      If that’s really what you think, then you could clean up on InTrade. Now is a good time, too. Obama got a bit of a bounce from the last two debates, so now is the time to maximize your earnings.

      Myself, I was rather planning to ride my stake up to the elections. But Obama’s performance in the first debate was so abysmal that the probability of a steady erosion was not likely at that point. Most of the erosion had already taken place. So all one had to do was ride the wave until just before the second debate. At that point it was a no-brainer that Obama would bounce back to some extent, so it was time to cash in. My ROI was almost 15% (after subtracting the juice), which is pretty good for a 2 week investment

      And guess what? Obama did rebound. Right now, as I speak, the InTrade odds of an Obama victory are up again to 63%. Personally, I think that’s realistic, maybe even conservative. After all, now that the debates are out of the way, the fact that Obama controls the “bully pulpit” can only help him if something significant happens. Consequently, though I still think Romney’s chances of winning are better than that, the odds aren’t sufficient to re-invest. But you obviously do, so GO FOR IT! Put your money where your mouth is! Constructionist Constitutionalism is all about taking risks, isn’t it? If you’re not willing to take risks, then maybe you’re just a Democrat in conservative clothing. Walk the walk instead of just talking the talk.

      • neocon01 October 27, 2012 / 4:41 pm

        reek-O

        are you drunk?

      • neocon01 October 27, 2012 / 4:47 pm

        PSALM 109:8

      • neocon01 October 27, 2012 / 5:00 pm

        reek-O

        would you like to wager a 6 pack?
        Im for Romney

      • dbschmidt October 27, 2012 / 7:35 pm

        Rico,

        You sound a great deal like those I have left in the dust in the stock market. You ponce without knowing all of the fundamentals. “Ohhh, Facebook looks so hip” would have cost you 50%.

        If you believe “an Obama victory are up again to 63%. Personally, I think that’s realistic, maybe even conservative. you should be buying in in increments until you are fully loaded.

        I have no such “faith” (if I can use such a term in the presence of flapping monkey atheists) in the outcome; nevertheless, I am doing my homework on several real corporations that could possibly bring me a large return with the Romney election and even more on a landslide.

      • M. Noonan October 27, 2012 / 8:09 pm

        Ricorun,

        I don’t think Intrade is a good predictor any longer – it is too easy for a campaign to spare chump change to keep their Intrade odds looking good. Just a few thousand dollars plunked down at the right time and you can get and keep pretty much whatever results you want. Intrade had its moment in the sun and its gone.

      • Amazona October 28, 2012 / 12:36 pm

        However, we need to acknowledge that rico seems to define “pragmatic” as basing political decisions on bookmakers.

        I guess it’s not any more superficial than basing them on individual issues and ignoring the underlying core ideology of the party represented by a candidate.

      • ricorun October 29, 2012 / 10:54 pm

        Cluster: I don’t bet..

        You, more than most others, should understand that every investment is a bet, Cluster. Whether it’s betting the odds in Vegas, buying a home or a car, or anything else. Even buying a ticket to a Vegas show is an investment — have you ever wished you didn’t spend the money for a show that was below your expectations? It’s all about the expected return on your investment.

        dbschmidt: You sound a great deal like those I have left in the dust in the stock market. You ponce without knowing all of the fundamentals.

        You can think that if you want, but you’d be very wrong. I do my homework, I pay attention, and I have not been seriously burned in a market dive in a very long time. Those who have been following me for years know that I got out of the real estate market before the crash, put most of that into tax free municipal bonds while the market was crashing, then as those matured I invested in gold just before (actually, just after) that market took off. Now I am prepared to change my investment strategy depending upon the options the election offers. In fact, I’m already doing so. And it’s not just the presidential election that matters either — all kinds of opportunities open up, or close, depending upon even very down-ticket races. As an example from the past, I thought GW Bush was too hasty going into Iraq. But given that he did, investing in defense stocks like Halliburton, Raytheon, and others, were pretty much no-brainers. I was called a hypocrite at the time because my investment strategy did not coincide with my political beliefs. Similarly, VP candidate Paul Ryan has taken heat because he applied for a considerable amount of stimulus funds despite the fact that he opposed them. As a result, he has been called a hypocrite too. Is either conclusion fair? I think not. Rather, I think it’s a stupid argument.

        Mark: I don’t think Intrade is a good predictor any longer.

        But that’s the whole point! If you really think the odds they’re offering are grossly wrong, then that is precisely why you should bet against them! I mean come on, you can’t make any real money if you think they’re right, you can only make money when you think they’re very wrong — wrong enough to cover the spread (and the juice). It appears you think that, so go for it.

        Amazona: However, we need to acknowledge that rico seems to define “pragmatic” as basing political decisions on bookmakers.

        What a ridiculous thing to say. You guys really have to start paying more attention. As I’ve said many times before, I make INVESTMENT decisions based upon what I see as inconsistencies in whatever market applies, not POLITICAL decisions. Only a fool would think the two are the same. But if you think they are, or even should be, my advice is: don’t invest.

    • neocon01 October 27, 2012 / 5:13 pm

      a great video

    • Amazona October 28, 2012 / 12:41 pm

      emphasis mine

      ” Two volunteer poll workers at an Ohio voting station told Human Events that they observed van loads of Ohio residents born in Somalia — the state is home to the second-largest Somali population in the United States — being driven to the voting station and guided by Democratic interpreters on the voting process.

      ??????????????

      People born in the United States speak English.

      Naturalized citizens must pass a test that shows a basic ability to understand English.

      So why would a citizen need an interpreter?

      It seems to me that the need for an interpreter is proof that the voter is not a citizen.

      • Amazona October 28, 2012 / 12:51 pm

        “The voter is not required to show the driver’s license or social security card, but must merely write it on the absentee ballot request form. While the individual would be required to show a utility bill, bank statement or other printed document if he or she chooses that option, this is in lieu of writing the driver’s license or social security number. Therefore, the information cannot be checked against the Bureau of Motor Vehicles or other state databases. Essentially, a person is asked to check a box stating that they are a citizen, and the poll worker is to trust that they are the person who is listed on the item being shown or the information being written. In other words, someone can be an illegal resident of the state of Ohio and the United States, get an apartment, turn on the heat, bring in the Columbia Gas bill, register to vote by the deadline, and vote by showing that same bill. There is then no verification that this individual is a citizen of the United States.”

  3. dbschmidt October 27, 2012 / 7:21 pm

    Well, let’s see. According to RCP Obama is up 201 to 191 but when one drills down a little further using Rasmussen;

    Romney is +2 in Florida (29)
    Romney is +4 in Colorado (9)
    Tied in Iowa (6) – tends to break to the challenger
    Romney +2 in New Hampshire
    Romney is +6 in N. Carolina
    Tied in Ohio (18) – see above
    Romney is +2 in Virginia
    Tied in Wisconsin (10)—see above

    That means (without the ties);
    Romney: 261 with three (total 34) states ready to break his way and it only seems to get worse by the news cast

    • James0601 October 27, 2012 / 7:51 pm

      db, I think you’re delusional. you only look at Rasmussen…why is that?

      bottom line. The President will win 290 electoral votes.

      He will win NV, PA, OH, WI, MI, IA, CO, and New Hampshire. The rest of the states are safe for him.

      Romney will win VA, NC, FL, IN. that’s it for the swing states.

      Look at ALL the polls on real clear politics and it will become clear that this President is odds on favorite to win the election.

      • M. Noonan October 27, 2012 / 8:14 pm

        James,

        But you have to drill down in to the polls a bit to see the reality. One of the polls which makes Obama tied to Romney in Ohio per RCP had a D+7 sample – there is just no way that there will be a D+7 set of voters in this election in Ohio. At best, given how much time and money the Democrats are spending in Ohio, it will be D+1 or D+2 (and I think it will actually wind up R+1, but we’ll leave that aside). Given this absolute, hard as nails fact then a poll which shows Obama +5 in Ohio with a D+7 sample actually works out to Obama down by 2 (at minimum). As Obama is consistently under 50% in Ohio and he’s the incumbent and its 10 days before the vote, the more rational prediction for Ohio is Romney 51.5%.

        But you just go on believing that your man Obama is going to win – it will make November 6th that much more fun for us…

      • James0601 October 27, 2012 / 9:57 pm

        Mark,

        what you believe the turnout will be doesn’t matter. Pollsters are professionals who know their business. You simply take a poll in which your candidate is down in, and then say the turnout will be different than what the poll states…..riiight….keep on dreaming.

        Cluster,

        The same article you linked clearly states that in early voting, Obama leads 60-30….

        Like I said, this election won’t even be that close. Obama with 290 or more.

      • Cluster October 27, 2012 / 10:07 pm

        James,

        Do me a favor. Please come back to the blog on Nov 7 if Romney wins. I know you will be here if Obama does.

      • M. Noonan October 28, 2012 / 12:00 am

        What Cluster said…funny how when the GOP wins all our liberals become rather scarce for a while…

      • bozo October 28, 2012 / 8:55 am

        Aw, we miss you, too! Actually, we’re out there voting early and often. You wouldn’t believe how much time it takes to forge the thousands of documents it takes to vote in every county in the nation. And the price of gas to drive to them all is draining my tie dye clothing budget!

      • Cluster October 28, 2012 / 9:05 am

        Romney will win VA, NC, FL, IN. that’s it for the swing states. – James

        He will also win CO and NH where he is ahead in the polling, leaving him just one more state to win. Either IA, WI, or OH where he is tied and Obama is polling less than 50%.

      • Amazona October 28, 2012 / 10:31 am

        James, I thought you were eager to discuss policy, ideology, etc. You kind of danced around the edge of this a little, but when there were thoughtful responses you disappeared, only to pop up here with more of the Same Old Same Old, droning on about your prediction, which is really more like wishful thinking.

        Guess you have showed us just how serious you are about political discussion, eh?

  4. Cluster October 28, 2012 / 9:02 am

    More brilliant commentary from the left. I actually think Bozo is Jay Thomas. They seem to think a lot alike.

    He’s a gosh-darn guy. He doesn’t drink. The other guy’s a big Catholic. I mean, I can’t believe we’re talking the 21st century and these two white idiots are running for something. I just think it looks like 1955. These are the most un-modern people I’ve ever seen. They’re medieval, almost. They don’t believe in abortion. They like gay people, but they don’t want them to get together. It’s really odd. I just believe that Barack Obama looks like the future of the United States, I’ve always said.

    I just don’t know that the people that he really can help are going to get out in the number to vote, and I’m really worried, and I feel right now that Mitt Romney has a really good chance of winning the election. You want to almost shake people to go, look, all of the people that the Republican guys say they hate, the ones that need, you know, entitlements or whatever, I’m afraid you’re not going to get out and vote and you’re going to get your ass kicked by these two idiot white guys. – Jay Thomas, Current TV

    • Amazona October 28, 2012 / 10:34 am

      Charming. Racist, smug, and a religious bigot—quite a hat trick for yet another entertainment pinhead.

    • Amazona October 28, 2012 / 11:23 am

      I’d say Obama looks like the future of the Peoples’ Republic of America.

  5. GMB October 28, 2012 / 9:19 am

    Does Ohio matter? Of course it does. The bigger the victory the better. Maybe just maybe if Mitt and the repubs win big it will give some spine to the rinos in the party. Maybe, just maybe they will show some courage and tell the James and bozos of the world to go pound sand.

    I doubt it.

    Enough negativity. Have a laugh.

    • Retired Spook October 28, 2012 / 10:05 am

      GMB,

      That’s hilarious!

    • Cluster October 28, 2012 / 10:52 am

      Great parody. Women should be insulted by the way democrats think of them.

    • Amazona October 28, 2012 / 10:57 am

      BTW, the ad I saw at the beginning of this was a particularly nasty anti-Mike Coffman ad. The ads may be geared to geographic location, so I may have seen it just because I am in Colorado, but I found it very offensive.

      That is to say, a typical Dem smear ad.

      I drove up to Denver yesterday to a function featuring Hugh Hewitt and Mike Gallagher, and one of the speakers was Mike Coffman. Coffman is the real deal, just what we need in Washington. His background is not that of a typical state politician.

      He enlisted in the army and then got his high school diploma through an army program. While he was in the Army Reserves he got a degree from the University of Colorado and then went back into active duty in the Marine Corps. All in all, he served his country for more than 20 years, in the Army, the Army Reserves, the Marines, and the Marine Reserves, and he took an unpaid leave to serve in the Persian Gulf War. When he was State Treasurer he resigned to go back to Iraq, to oversee their first two national elections. He is smart, tough, and dedicated, and a man of honor and integrity with a deep love for this country and a determination that it be governed according to its constitution. He’s a good guy, a straight shooter, and after admiring him from afar for so many years it was great to see him in person.

      The ad, of course, is a typically crotch-centric Dem ad, focusing on contraception and abortion, which makes it a great lead-in to the video.

  6. GMB October 28, 2012 / 10:39 am

    Mitt within the margin of votes found in al franken’s car trunk in Minnesota. Close election indeed.

    Can’t find my sarcasm tag. Rats, James must of took it with him to Oktober Fest this year.
    😛

    • neocon01 October 28, 2012 / 11:12 am

      HUH??

      Saudi king urges UN action against religious insults…

      Israel rattled by rise in anti-Semitic rhetoric from Egypt…

  7. Amazona October 28, 2012 / 11:16 am

    The Speakers Tour Event last night, which by the way was attended by over 2500 people, after being rather lightly advertised, was supposed to include Jon Voight. He appeared only in a video, where he apologized for not being there but said he had been asked at the last minuted to attend a Romney rally. I like Voight, but I was thrilled to see who flew in at the last minute to replace him—-Karl Rove.

    I like Karl, always have, but seeing him in person, meeting him, watching him speak spontaneously and off the cuff, I have to say I now REALLY like him. He is very funny, very warm and personable, and incredibly good at what he does.

    And he had figures on Ohio that were extremely encouraging. Rove went through his figures, which were in part based on the number of early ballots requested by people from each party, and then pointed out that one of the polls quoted was based on polling of 143 people, while his assessment was based on more than 500,000 ballots requested.

    Here in Colorado, the momentum is clearly moving toward Romney. I live in the most conservative county in the state, I think, so it’s hard to tell from where I sit, but evidently even in the more liberal parts of the state support for Romney is growing. I heard a radio caller the other day who echoed what I had already heard, which is that the Red Rocks appearance would have had more than 30,000 people if there had been room for them.

    I know Red Rocks well—-it is a spectacular natural phenomenon, a bowl with perfect acoustics, in the foothills of the Rockies. We used to take out of town visitors there during the day, to climb the stairs to the top to show that even there we could hear a person speaking down on the stage, and I’ve been to many concerts there, watching the city of Denver to the east glow as the sun set behind us, and then as the lights started to come on in the city below. It is outside the little town of Morrison. Morrison, 2.5 miles away, was a parking lot hours before the appearance, and people walked that 2.5 miles to get to the theater. Traffic control police estimated the number of people turned away at about 20,000 and the theater seats about 9500.

    Obama’s been here, but has not received nearly the response that the Romney team has, and the energy here in Colorado is really amping up for Romney.

    And the Obama ads are getting more and more desperate, uglier and uglier, while Romney’s ads are taking the high ground, and I think this will resonate with a lot of people. I would not write off Colorado, or Ohio, and calling Florida for Obama is just plain silly.

    • Cluster October 28, 2012 / 12:21 pm

      I have always liked Rove too and I just finished watching him on Fox News Sunday and he echoed what he told you yesterday. The number of early ballot requests for Democrats in OH is off by 190,000, while early requests for ballots by republicans is at an all time high. I think the liberal media is doing everything they can (polling 143 people for instance), to keep up the appearances that this election is closer than it really is. In effect, they are covering for Obama as they have done for the past 4 years.

      In addition, Obama’s approval rating has taken a huge negative hit just in the last few days because of this Beghazi debacle, which will only get worse for him this week.

      • Amazona October 28, 2012 / 12:32 pm

        Benghazi SHOULD be a negative for Obama, but it will all depend on how successful the Complicit Agenda Media are in keeping this under the radar till after the election.

        Look at what we see here, with RRL mouthpiece freakzo dismissing eyewitness testimony and expert opinion based on the fact that it is quoted from Newmax, with Fox listed as the source.

        I think this is going to be the strategy—to keep the Complicit Agenda Media silent on the subject, so any coverage at all has to come from sources like Fox, and then to dismiss it based on claims of bias of Newsmax and Fox.

        I doubt that they will come out and deny the veracity of the reports, because at some time this is going to all blow up and they don’t want to be on record as contradicting the facts, so they will do what they are doing in the election itself, and try to distract with attacks on people instead of addressing the real issues.

        Mike Rosen, a Denver talk radio host, commented when See BS was in so much trouble, that it, or some network, really ought to switch over to real journalism and a slight conservative slant. In a country where about twice as many people self-identify as conservative, this would be a guaranteed market, but the problem would lie in staffing it with people free of bone-deep Liberal bias.

        As it is, only Fox and a couple of minor players are willing to, as the Libs used to love to say, “speak truth to power”.

  8. Amazona October 28, 2012 / 11:20 am

    One thing discussed last night was the possible impact of Hurricane Sandy on the election. If the East Coast is still experiencing power outages next week, the entire voting process will be affected, particularly electronic voting, leading to the possibility of having to go to paper ballots—-not only being hand-counted, but being hand-delivered to where they are counted. Can you say “votes found in car trunks??”

  9. Cluster October 28, 2012 / 12:55 pm

    Keep this in mind – Obama has met with Leno, Letterman and Jay Z more often this year than he has with his jobs council. Actions speak louder than words.

  10. Amazona October 28, 2012 / 1:04 pm

    OT, with a note to freakzo that he can just skip this as it quotes an article from Newsmax: emphasis mine

    “A leading Jewish human rights group is once again calling on President Obama to sever ties with the Muslim Brotherhood after its former leader, new Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi, was seen answering “amen” to a call to “destroy the Jews.”

    Egyptian state television aired a video showing Morsi attending services in a mosque in the coastal city of Marsa Matruh on Friday, Oct. 19.

    Morsi was shown in fervent prayer as a Muslim cleric declared, in remarks translated by the Middle East Media Research Institute: “Oh Allah, absolve us of our sins, strengthen us, and grant us victory over the infidels. Oh Allah, destroy the Jews and their supporters. Oh Allah, disperse them, rend them asunder. Oh Allah, demonstrate your might and greatness upon them.”

    Morsi could be seen on tape mouthing “amen” to these calls.

    The word “amen,” used by both Hebrew and Arabic speakers, is translated as “so be it.” ”

    This has been cited as being a threat to Jews, but I think we need to see it as a threat to the United States, as well.

    Islam considers non-Muslims “infidels” and the United States has an official position of supporting Israel—therefore, Morsi agreed, saying “so be it”, with the prayer that Allah destroy the United States a well as Israel.

    Gee, it looks like time to apologize again for being Americans, and then sending them a few billion more dollars………

    • neocon01 October 28, 2012 / 1:26 pm

      TRAITOR?

      • Retired Spook October 28, 2012 / 4:57 pm

        Neo,

        As I said to a email political forum earlier today, IMO, there are a couple likely explanations:(1) Valerie Jarrett made the decision that the political risks of a failure were too great, and (2) from security blogs I’ve read. the place was crawling with spooks, maybe as many as a couple dozen on our side, and probably a few CIA assets on the other side whose value was greater than the life of an ambassador, two ex-Seals and a com tech. That I would suggest Barry and his ilk are capable of something so repugnant tells you exactly where I place them on the scale of human debris. I think Glenn Beck is probably very close to the truth when he suggests Stevens was the point man in a gun-running operation to Syrian rebels, made up in large part of al Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood types. This has the smell of Iran Contra X 100. I’m betting we’ll never know the truth, though, regardless of who wins the election.

      • GMB October 28, 2012 / 5:53 pm

        “I’m betting we’ll never know the truth, though, regardless of who wins the election.”

        Your journey to the dark side is almost complete. When you arrive we will have cake and ice cream. Chocolate. Dark Chocolate.

        😛

      • Retired Spook October 28, 2012 / 8:00 pm

        Chocolate. Dark Chocolate

        The darker the better — oops, sorry; is that racist?

      • Amazona October 28, 2012 / 8:04 pm

        What isn’t?

      • M. Noonan October 28, 2012 / 8:21 pm

        The most astounding thing about this is that the fates handed Obama re-election on a platter. I’m not one of those who thought that Romney was ever behind – I’ve always thought that it was Obama who had to play catch up. So here we’ve got an attack by barbarians on an American embassy on 9/11 and two Seals stand off the enemy for 7 hours during a firefight which takes, by one account I read, 60 enemy lives. This was plenty of time for Obama to send a rescue force which even if the same four men died would still have worked out to a heroic fight ordered by a President who won’t stand any nonsense about Islamists attacking us.

        Instead no aid was sent and so the four men died after having been betrayed by the chain of command – and then Team Obama cooked up this idiotic twaddle about a video causing a demonstration which got out of hand. Rather than a rally ’round the flag (and, thus, the President) moment, Obama ensured the worse possible outcome – and what was already looking like a loss for him on November 6th might turn in to a landslide route.

  11. GMB October 29, 2012 / 4:01 am

    There is nothing anymore that is not racist, misogynist, homophobic, or otherwise bigoted. Everything you say or can be labeled as one of these things. Labeling people is easier than eating a piece of your favorite cake.

    Just ask your friendly neighborhood dictator.

  12. Retired Spook October 29, 2012 / 10:11 am

    This has gotta sting.

    The Des Moines Register, which hasn’t endorsed a Republican in four decades, has thrown its support behind GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney, saying that his success in the public and private sectors makes him the stronger candidate to help the nation’s economy recover.

    The newspaper posted the endorsement on its website Saturday evening with the headline: “Mitt Romney offers a fresh economic vision” — the first time it has endorsed a Republican presidential candidate since Richard Nixon in 1972.

    Having backed President Barack Obama in 2008, the publication said that Obama’s efforts to rebuild the economy “have fallen short.” It also criticized Obama for contributing to Washington’s “partisan divide.”

    Guess they didn’t like what Obama told them “off the record”.

  13. Retired Spook October 29, 2012 / 10:20 am

    Remember Joe the Plumber? Obama killed him.

    • Amazona October 29, 2012 / 11:14 am

      This is a heartbreaking story, and unfortunately not uncommon.

      And to give you an idea of how a Lib reacts to it, here is a response to the video, posted within the hour.

      “suck it up

      you were over spending for years

      Millions of dollars coming in

      new vehicles? really necessary?

      Allll those employees? Just showing off?

      TheNotTypicalDotCom 36 minutes ago”

      Yep—you didn’t build that business, Mr. Employer, but the it’s your fault it went under.

      Why did you have so many employees? Was it to get the job done? No, it was just showing off

      ?????????????

      Nothing could be a better example of the mindset of the typical RRL lemming, with absolutely no understanding of how businesses work—-or why they should work. Yet this economic moron second-guesses how many employees were necessary, if they should have been hired at all, if it was necessary to buy “new vehicles” (just how new WERE they? He seems to know.) and what overhead should have been—and decides that they were just reckless and “showing off”.

      Yes, the compassionate Left’s attitude toward a business failing, dozens of people thrown out of work and on unemployment, the loss of homes, etc. is just to SUCK IT UP.

  14. James0601 October 29, 2012 / 1:43 pm

    Mark,

    Once again, you ignore all the other polls in Ohio and ONLY post the Rasmussen. It’s been shown and it’s statistically obvious to anyone that knows anything that The President is up in Ohio.

    You cling to ONE poll that shows Romney up by 2…which is in the margin of error and then claim you’re winning?

    Really? I just hope you’re here on election day so I can personally mock you.

    • Amazona October 29, 2012 / 2:00 pm

      James, what ever happened to all that big talk about you wanting to discuss issues,policies, etc? You kind of skirted around a discussion and then scurried back to your tiresome little game of predictions and advance gloating.

      I guess that’s all you’ve got. You can’t defend the positions or ideas you claimed, so all you can do is play this silly game.

      You say ” It’s been shown and it’s statistically obvious to anyone that knows anything that The President is up in Ohio. ”

      Really? By what criteria? By comparing the number of advance ballots requested by Dems and Republicans? By the early voting of Dems vs Republicans? By shifts in demographics of people voting Dem vs Republican? By polling large numbers (more than 143) of people very likely to vote? Have your polls factored in the coal mining areas of Ohio? Is his approval rating above 50% in Ohio? By historical evidence that independents and undecideds tend, strongly, to go with the challenger? Has there been a shift in momentum toward Obama? How many people who voted for McCain in Ohio are now planning to vote for Obama? Where is the President “up” in Ohio, and on what do you base this claim?

      Or are you going to just be James, and throw out a lot of wishful thinking and pretend it is really political commentary?

      • James0601 October 29, 2012 / 2:23 pm

        maybe you should look at various sites like RealClearPolitics.

        If the ONLY poll that has the President down is Rasmussen, and the other 10 polls have him up by a small margin…it’s not outlandish to believe he is up.

        Second of all, you can lay out the GOP talking points as to why they will win Ohio, but when you lose Ohio on election day, you’ll come back wondering what happened.

        Look at the people who voted early and tell me who they favored by a 2-1 ratio. Once you tell me that, we will discuss the next point.

        And this talk about undecided people breaking for the challenger is a farce. show me anyone other than Dick Morris who claims that and you may just convince me.

    • James0601 October 29, 2012 / 2:20 pm

      Amazona, you are the one who doesn’t want to discuss policies because and I am quoting here “we have nothing to discuss”.

      I make a prediction, and you call it a farce…Mark makes a prediction, and you don’t say a word.

      • neocon01 October 29, 2012 / 6:07 pm

        jimmah/sasan

        your “prediction” is only a hope a dope, for a doper…….good luk wit dat.

      • Amazona October 29, 2012 / 8:13 pm

        Where did you get that quote, James?

        Because I went back to the thread where I agreed to enter into a discussion with you, and I read each of my serious and respectful posts, and nowhere did I find that “quote” addressed to you in that sequence. If I ever made that comment to you, in another context, it is not relevant to the statement you made to Cluster and me that you were quite willing to have a serious discussion of politics.

        Here is a list of the times I responded to that promise:

        2012/10/26 at 5:42 pm | In reply to James0601
        2012/10/26 at 5:28 pm | In reply to James0601.
        2012/10/26 at 1:30 pm | In reply to James0601
        2012/10/26 at 1:05 pm | In reply to James0601
        2012/10/26 at 1:04 pm | In reply to James0601

        No, James, you simply threw out a couple of comments, they were addressed point by point in a respectful manner, and you had nothing left, so you just took off and went back to your silly game of gloating in advance, based on nothing but your own wishful thinking and a frantic desire to be able to “mock” someone.

        And now you try to invent a reason for your spinelessness. So typical…….

      • Amazona October 29, 2012 / 8:14 pm

        And BTW, Jimmy-boy, YOU are the one using the word “farce”.

        We just think you are empty headed and silly.

Comments are closed.