User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out! |
Page rendered in 0.6991 seconds
50 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
The primary problem with right-wing debaters is their complete inability to read the English language.
The utter incapability of acknowledging this basic fact is what I've found particularly amusing about this particular kerfuffle.
I'm like Finnegan's Wake. Complex. Densely packed. Utterly impenetrable. Highly overrated.
My favorite bit of this bit of kabuki theater is the fact that the administration never failed to acknowledge the militant nature of the Benghazi attack. Never. Not even for a little bit.
The argument with Snapper was that he didn't know what the hell he was talking about in regards to an AC-130 and the morality of killing innocents so long as your aiming at the bad guy. It wasn't about calling it a riot or demonstration or act of terror or terrorist attack. If you want to jump onto the AC-130 crazy train though, there are plenty of good seats still available.
//the notion that we have these magic weapons systems that can "surgically" engage the enemy in extreme close quarter encounters is based in fantasy.
I don't think snapper has been back to this thread since I asked him if it would be moral to use a nuke to flatten the city if that was the only weapon available.
And burdened by an extraneous apostrophe.
*heartsparkdollarsign*
Have you noticed anything about Condi Rice's complexion, spike? A certain...tone. Remind you of someone? Maybe, Colin Powell? And...? C'mon, man! This is obvious. They're all so totally in this together!
Could happen, and it would seem to be a scenario that favors Romney. Since WWII, Presidents that were re-elected equaled or bettered the showing they made when first elected - Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton & Bush all did about as well or better in their re-election campaigns. Obama's best-case scenario would now seem to have him considerably behind his 2008 performance, which isn't the normal path to being re-elected.
I for one am *shocked* that you would find a scenario that favors Romney.
I wouldn't characterize Finnegans Wake as overrated. No one has yet been found who is remotely competent to render such an ultimate verdict. Ulysses forced the literary culture and its readers to evolve. Finnegans Wake, however, is a saltation--a hopeful monster. It's too big a jump to have progeny. It may always be like that. But as curiosity it can be fun, even instructive. And it's a great artist perfectly communicating, giving no quarter/taking no prisoners, with the only audience capable of appreciating his creation-himself. That is unique in the truly Joycean sense.
Like me!
Just like you--whatever the hell that is.
I see your shocked, and raise you a stunned. No, the hell with it, make it a gobsmacked.
In the meantime, here are just a few previews of what will likely be hundreds or thousands of musings on this topic before and after the end of the campaign:
How Hurricane Sandy could test Obama’s leadership
Hurricane Sandy Could Be Obama’s October Surprise
Hurricane Sandy: Will Obama and Romney talk about climate change now?
In fact, we might even say that this is a more important factor than "poll bias".
But nah, that's just silly.
Solipsism should not be the artist's goal, and let's hope it wasn't Joyce's.
The self that writes is not the self that reads. Identity is the world's longest running myth.
Well right, which puts to rest Morty's contention that Joyce is the only audience capable of appreciating his creation. Others (and thank god there are others!) bring insight to and can add to another's creation.
some answers from factcheck.org on Benghazi, some of which runs counter to what I've read here:
http://factcheck.org/2012/10/benghazi-timeline/
"There were no protesters at the Benghazi consulate prior to the attack, even though Obama and others repeatedly said the attackers joined an angry mob that had formed in opposition to the anti-Muslim film that had triggered protests in Egypt and elsewhere. The State Department disclosed this fact Oct. 9 — nearly a month after the attack.
Libya President Mohamed Magariaf insisted on Sept. 16 — five days after the attack — that it was a planned terrorist attack, but administration officials continued for days later to say there was no evidence of a planned attack.
Magariaf also said the idea that the attack was a “spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous.” This, too, was on Sept. 16. Yet, Obama and others continued to describe the incident in exactly those terms — including during the president’s Sept. 18 appearance on the “Late Show With David Letterman.”
Matt Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, was the first administration official to call it “a terrorist attack” during a Sept. 19 congressional hearing. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did the same on Sept. 20. Even so, Obama declined opportunities to call it a terrorist attack when asked at a town hall meeting on Sept. 20 and during a taping of “The View” on Sept. 24."
Just as a thought experiment, let's imagine the possibility that an "angry mob" might have formed *elsewhere* - perhaps some people gathered outside a mosque or something; I don't know, use your imagination. Then, maybe some militants in the city joined them and incited them to march on the embassy of the Satanic Americans.
Just, you know, as a thought experiment. Not that anything like that might have happened.
This is classic stupid.
There's something in what you say, but it’s so fear-driven it ends up as an attempt to evade understanding. Joyce had a revolutionary effect on literature. With that came for many (I'm excluding the popular read mindset here) a fear of a ”catastrophic collapsing consensus,” to borrow Daniel Dennett's phrase dealing with why the religious get so upset when their beliefs are attacked or even criticized, and an anger directed at that hopeful monster for daring to do what instills that fear.
Still, I would insist that Joyce's attitude and stance here is invigorating (at least theoretically), even thrilling. And he did want readers, readers, though, that would make a commitment no other author demanded. He was not willing so much to stoop to conquer. He expected you to attempt to rise to his level. Disregarding and subverting the time-honored conventions of story-telling and eschewing the devices and techniques of narrative conventions were a big part of that.
Don’t get me wrong. I don’t say every writer should aspire to follow Joyce in that particular (although literature certainly has in other ways), certainly not to the radical extent he did. But somebody should, and I can't help feel that talk of identity as myth and solipsism would have amused him. It seems to be a close-minded, fear-driven attempt to miss the point and to discount the daringness. It's where his art and his particular talents lead him. Einstein and Quantum Mechanics are hard, too. Too ####### bad. That doesn't invalidate their holdings. Joyce is the equivalent of that. Somebody has to be. Let’s not prematurely conflate consumerism with esthetics.
But there will always be those who don’t understand that someone has to take it to the limit. That only excess is sufficient. Unless it happens to fall within what obsesses them. The puny included his wife, who would grow annoyed at his laughing deep into the night while working at FW: “Quit laughing,” She would tell him, “or quit writing.” He never did either.
So? I mean really, so what? Maybe there was a counterintel operation going on and this was part of the official cover. What exactly is the problem here? What would have changed if they had said something different? The petulance on display that this is only seen as a Watergate-level crime by those with a vested interest in doing so is just epic.
Americans die in Benghazi = "Who gives a crap?"
Big Bird, "binders," and bayonets = Major campaign issues.
It's a tempest in a teapot on a mountain of a molehill.
Oh I think his wife was being perfectly reasonable. After all, her dream life might have been as expansive and brilliant as his writing, and he was being an unpleasant small-minded, even puny, obstacle. The published, like the victors, write history but that doesn't mean they write the whole truth.
Hindsight is 20/20. This wasn't the information that our intelligence community was telling people at the time.
That you keep on harping on this like it matters that the CIA initially said the wrong thing is beyond asinine.
Well, those are the issues from the debates. I think it's weird that Romney didn't bring up Benghazi, but there you go.
Eh?
Politics as catchphrase bingo.
Romney brought up Benghazi in the second debate, but the media decided that "binders" was the more important issue.
***
I guess the word "semantics" now means "pretend to forget that both Obama and Susan Rice refused to use the word 'terror' when directly questioned."
Oh, okay. I didn't watch the debates, so I only have people's reactions to go on.
I still think this is a dumb excuse for an issue. Is Romney's promise "I will say the word terror more than the other guy"? The thing about blaming a demonstration vs. blaming a planned attack is at least sort of relevant.
While I dislike the idea that Obama & Co. misled people about Benghazi — a terror group took credit for the attack before Amb. Stevens had even died — I don't believe this is the biggest issue in the campaign. People on the right are making a big deal out of it simply because the media has afforded much more coverage to much lesser issues. It's bizarre for allegedly serious news organizations to ignore Benghazi while giving extensive front-page coverage to Big Bird, "binders," bayonets, Sandra Fluke, etc.
***
Yes, they are:
Benghazi-gate continues: CIA operators were told to 'stand down'
SEAL father: Who denied backup during Benghazi attack?
Not to mention the oh-so-pressing issue of "you didn't build that".
Anyway, don't you have enough to be preoccupied with, given how Nate's now got Obama's chances up to 74.4% while RCP has Romney a full point ahead? Sic em, baby!
Obama leads Romney 54 percent to 39 percent among voters who already have cast ballots, according to Reuters/Ipsos polling data compiled in recent weeks
About 18 percent of registered voters already have cast ballots, the Reuters/Ipsos polling data showed.
Political scientists who specialize in early voting predict that a record 35 to 40 percent of all U.S. voters will cast their ballots before the November 6 election.
"In some of the battleground states, rates are even above that," said Michael McDonald, a political science professor at George Mason University in Virginia who runs the U.S. Elections Project and tracks all early votes
Nate seems to be all-in based on Obama's 2-point lead in Ohio. I know he says he's not out on a limb, but it sure looks like he is. Bad economy, underwater approval ratings for Obama, Romney leading at RCP for 16 out of the last 19 days, Romney +2.2 at RCP in national polls conducted within the past 7 days ... it's a tough sale Nate is trying to make. It will be interesting to see what Nate says if Obama loses, which I'm increasingly confident will happen.
If that's his best explanation, he'll deserve a slot below Dick Morris on the respectability scale.
And if Obama manages to win in spite of his crushing RCP deficits, I'm sure your spin will be an Amazon bestseller.
What I still think is going to affect the race one way or the other is Hurricane Sandy. I just have absolutely no idea which way it'll affect it, since a lot will depend on the public's perception of the government's reaction to it, which is a complete unknown at this point.
Nate Silver may call this election exactly, but I wouldn't think that a track record based on one Presidential election cycle guarantees that, especially when that election was a bit of an outlier with the strongest Democratic tilt in almost 50 years. Eleven days before the 2010 election, Silver said there was a 70% chance the Republicans would pick-up less than 60 House seats. They gained 63.
Gallup continues to have Romney up 5, 51-46; and Rasmussen has Romney up 4. Both of those margins are probably too big to allow Obama to thread the needle to an Electoral College victory even while losing the popular vote. Has anyone ever lost while holding a 5 point lead, and topping 50%, in the Gallup Poll? Don't think so. If the current Gallup margin holds, Obama has a problem.
Facts? We can't let them get in the way of a good narrative.
At the state level and on the electoral map it looks like it is going to be an Obama win.
Why? Are folks going to blame Obama if they lose power? Credit him if power is restored in less than 72 hours? Just don't see it. There might be some minor disruptions if a tree falls on a polling place, but there's a week to clean up the mess before election day. Now if Obama goes on TV tonight saying he has ordered the storm out to sea, and delivers, it would likely help him with Evangelical voters, but I don't see that happening, either.
This isn't exactly a revelation. It's also the case that if whatever poll happens to favor Obama by the widest margin proves to be the one that precisely nails the result, Romney is in a world of hurt.
But what a model such as Silver's does is to not assume that any particular poll is the last word, and instead aggregates them all in a careful manner to distill the essence of the combined message. Because that combined message is very, very likely to be a closer approximation of the actual result than any specific poll -- especially any specific poll that stands as an outlier in either direction.
Surely you can grasp this.
The spread was a little off on that one, no? Not sure why some folks are so resistant to the idea that there is any uncertainty in the Presidential election, but there are a lot of things that suggest a different result, or closer odds, than Nate Silver's formula.
I agree with #5156. I don't see how this storm will affect the election much, if at all. At most, there might be a slight drop-off in turnout in states that are solidly Obama.
The spread said there was a 30% chance of something happening. It happened.
I can't be the only person who finds it funny that on a baseball site people are acting like something succeeding with a .300 chance of happening means the model is flawed.
Joe, you keep quoting the RCP national average but what about their state-by-state averages? According to those (with every poll but Colorado having one of the candidates up at least 1.1%) Obama is likely to win the EC 281-248 with Colorado currently an unknown since it's tied.
Also, which states do you consider to be actual battlegrounds that are in play for this election?
It's not so much this as the fact that Nate keeps lowering Romney's odds despite Romney gaining in the national trackers (and several vital swing states). If Nate's model was just a little slow in converging with the national polling numbers, that would be one thing, but Nate seems to be making a big show out of going in the opposite direction.
The genius of Nate's model was supposed to be that it looks beyond just polling to things like the economy, presidential approval ratings, historical state-by-state voting trends, etc., but none of those are positives for Obama at all this year, let alone positive enough to offset Romney's +2.2 lead at RCP (over the past week). Nate seems to be all-in based on Obama's slim lead in one swing state despite everything else being a headwind for Obama.
At some point, the national polls and state polls have to converge. It's possible that Obama is doing better state-by-state than he is nationally, but there isn't much, if any, history of a candidate winning in the Electoral College when trailing by more than a point in the national tracking polls on Election Day.
I believe Romney has Florida, Virginia, and North Carolina essentially in the bag and believe he's likely to win Colorado.
Ohio, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, and Iowa are probably the four remaining battleground states.
Surely you can grasp this.
Sure, but there is also the possibility that Silver's poll selection and weighting is not more accurate than what other aggregators come up with, or even the most accurate single poll, at least for 2012. Not every poll makes their cross tabs publicly available, and I don't claim to have checked all of them any how, but just from sampling, I see some that seem to have problems. Put too many of those in Silver's formula and you aren't going to get an accurate result, IMHO.
Gallup has a long record - longer than Nate's. I think folks should at least entertain the possibility that Gallup (and Rasmussen) are pretty close this year. Not giving 70% odds myself, but a lot of folks here are making the "IT'S OVER!" call way too early. How'd that work out for Ray?
Right. Just about everyone except that RAND tracker has a longer track record than Nate, and Nate bases his model on the polls these organizations churn out. But we're supposed to believe that Nate's subjective modeling is not only better but foolproof.
I'm still seeing a lot of people compare this election to 2004 as if that's a positive for Obama, but RCP's 2004 graph doesn't bring any good news for Obama. John Kerry's last lead at RCP in 2004 was around August 25; Romney, meanwhile, has led for 16 of the past 19 days with just 10 days left to go.
Of course it's possible. But possibility is a very different thing from probability. Obviously none of us knows what will happen, but what we're engaging in is the assessment of comparative probabilities.
It's possible that Nate Silver, who has chucked his previous career and gone all-in as an election predictor in the most high-profile fashion possible, and is devoting his efforts full-time in an elaborate and transparent manner to factoring everything in he reasonably can in order to get his prediction as accurate as it can be, will get it badly wrong and be enormously humiliated. It's possible. But how probable is it, when compared to the probability that a single outlying individual poll, which digests vastly fewer datapoints than Silver's comprehensive model, will more accurately predict the outcome?
So Nevada for Obama. I'll give you credit, your scenario does result in it all coming down to whether or not the Ohio polls favoring Obama are correct. Wisconsin might officially be a battleground but it's really hard to imagine Romney actually winning it so it's going to be Ohio or bust for either candidate under your terms.
Nate's current electoral vote projection: Obama 295, Romney 243
RCP's "No toss-ups" electoral map: Obama 290, Romney 248
You also can't simply pick a poll you like and then point to Nate's model and say he isn't getting it. As Steve said already, surely the people on BTF can grasp this stuff better than dinosaur baseball reporters did with sabermetrics.
Nobody here is putting their faith in a single outlier poll. Romney is up +2.2 at RCP in polls taken over the past week, while Nate is telling us that Obama remains a ~75 percent favorite because he holds a 2-point lead in a single swing state — and not only a single swing state, but a single swing state that's increasingly difficult to poll due to early voting.
Based on what? Maybe you should entertain the possibility that they aren't, since they seem to dramatically differ from other results. Whatever, keep clapping - Tinkerbell is in serious trouble.
Once again, RCP isn't a model, it's an average. Thus, almost by definition, it's "less subjective than Nate."
***
Nate's U.S. track record in 2010 was mediocre, and some of his foreign efforts were a disaster. I follow Nate's work, but this idea that his model is far superior if not infallible is absurd.
Nope. Most liberals here are saying:
1. They trust Silver more than the other polls/poll analysts, based on his method, his skillset, and his 2008 results.
2. Silver as of today says that Obama has roughly a 74% chance of winning, and that makes them feel better about Obama's chances.
I am in that group above, but I will not be at all surprised if Romney wins, nor will I be surprised if it comes down to recounts in a couple of counties in Ohio and we don't have a winner until Friday of election week, and I doubt those outcomes would surprise Silver all that much (he has already written that there is a 50/50 chance that Ohio decides it), either. 3-1 or 4-1 longshots come in all the time, and Obama's supposed lead in some swing states is very small.
You and Kehoskie are bothered by Silver's numbers and how much weight they carry in the discussion because you are partisan righties who really, really, really want Obama to lose, so you keep quoting other polls that make you feel better. That's all that's going on here at this point.
If we wake up Nov. 7 and Silver's numbers are off and Romney has won, you can crow and gloat then, and as Hutcheson said, the first thing Silver will do in that scenario is to try to figure out where he was off, and I am pretty sure that will include asking himself some questions about subjectvity and bias.
So, the ideas that tons of people here are saying it's over (some people were before the first debate, but not many really are now) is wrong, as is the idea that Silver is "out on a limb."
Which is a lot more than can be said about that unskewed idiot if Obama wins.
Have you visited RCP or Pollster lately? If you believe only Gallup and Rasmussen have Obama ahead, you're about two weeks behind in the polling.
Based on what? Maybe you should entertain the possibility that they aren't, since they seem to dramatically differ from other results. Whatever, keep clapping - Tinkerbell is in serious trouble.
Within the last week, Gallup, Rasmussen, ABC News/Wash. Post, AP/Gfk, Politico/GWU/Battleground, and Monmouth/Survey USA/Braun have all showed Romney ahead by 1 to 5 pts.
There are other polls that have shown a tie, or Obama slightly ahead, but let's not pretend this is a single outlier.
Coke to Joe.
Current RCP averages for those states:
Florida: Romney +1.8
Virginia: Romney +1.0
North Carolina: Romney +3.8
Colorado: Tie
Ohio, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, and Iowa are probably the four remaining battleground states.
Again, the current RCP averages for these states:
Ohio: Obama +2.3
Wisconsin: Obama +2.3
New Hampshire: Obama +1.4
Iowa: Obama +2.3
Also, in other battleground states:
Nevada: Obama +2.4
IOW three of the four states that you say Romney has "essentially in the bag" have smaller Romney margins than the Obama margins in three of the four states that you call "battlegrounds".
This kind of reminds me of Nikita Khrushchev's old maxim: What's mine is mine, and what's yours is negotiable.
I love this. Nate doesn't try to "sell" anything, especially a particular result. He puts the data into the model and lets the chips fall where they may. Other aggregator results and "16 of 19 days!!!" is exactly the sort of bullshiat tweaking and turd polishing that other partisans, not statisticians. engage in
1. They trust Silver more than the other polls/poll analysts, based on his method, his skillset, and his 2008 results.
2. Silver as of today says that Obama has roughly a 74% chance of winning, and that makes them feel better about Obama's chances.
You and Kehoskie are bothered by Silver's numbers and how much weight they carry in the discussion because you are partisan righties who really, really, really want Obama to lose, so you keep quoting other polls that make you feel better. That's all that's going on here at this point.
Of course liberals trust in Silver couldn't possibly be because they really, really want Obama to win.
Only conservatives are ever influenced by their desires, liberals are all clear thinking and logical, 100% of the time.
How does that differ from modern liberals philosophy on taxation and Gov't spending?
If you use Rasmussen as your guiding light then it comes down to 8 "toss-up" states holding 95 electoral votes. Obama would need 33 votes and Romney would need 64 votes to win the election. Of those 8 states Ras has it as a tie in 3 of those states and have Obama leading 1 state and Romney leading in 4 states. Those 4 states give him 55 votes and the one state gives Obama 6 votes. So now it is 27 votes needed to 9 votes needed. At that point Romney would need to win either Ohio or Wisconsin while Obama would need to take them all or all but Iowa.
I don't know what Gallup is saying in terms of the electoral map.
There's no reason for a subjective model to get so much attention when it was right once and substantially wrong the second time around.
Nate has Obama as a 3:1 favorite — despite a bad economy, despite underwater approval ratings, and despite trailing at RCP for 16 of the last 19 days — simply on the basis of Obama having a ~2-point lead in a single difficult-to-poll swing state. That seems like the very definition of "out on a limb."
Gallup and Rassmussen have +5 and +4 respectively. Nobody else has it more than 3 in either direction.
Rasmussen Reports 10/24 - 10/26 1500 LV 3.0 50 46 Romney +4
IBD/TIPP 10/21 - 10/26 930 LV 3.5 45 47 Obama +2
Gallup 10/20 - 10/26 2700 LV 2.0 51 46 Romney +5
ABC News/Wash Post 10/22 - 10/25 1382 LV 3.0 49 48 Romney +1
Associated Press/GfK 10/19 - 10/23 839 LV 4.2 47 45 Romney +2
Monmouth/SurveyUSA/Braun 10/18 - 10/21 1402 LV 2.6 48 45 Romney +3
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 10/17 - 10/20 816 LV 3.4 47 47 Tie
CBS News 10/17 - 10/20 790 LV 4.0 46 48 Obama +2
WashTimes/JZ Analytics* 10/18 - 10/20 800 LV 3.5 47 50 Obama +3
Politico/GWU/Battleground 10/15 - 10/18 1000 LV 3.1 49 47 Romney +2
And how, exactly, does your math spin those RCP state numbers I quoted in #5182?
Perhaps, but stories suggest Obama has pulled back in at least a couple of those states, and some pollsters have stopped polling in Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia. When one or both of those things happen, it's usually a good sign that a state has turned and is no longer expected to be competitive.
If Ohio is close, we may be waiting considerably longer than that. Ohio takes 10 days to process provisional ballots & late arriving absentee ballots postmarked by election day. They don't start a recount until those votes are tabulated and certified. This could be a difficult scenario for those that have trouble staying calm.
Apparently, Joe missed this:
Go to CNN's electoral map thingie and assign the states to whoever is leading above, leaving CO as a toss up, and you get Obama 281, Romney 248. Basically, Romney has to win 2 states where his lead is less than 2 points, and the state where he is behind by 2 points, and the tossup. Obama only has the win the state where he's up by 2 points. I'm not a stat talking guy, but given that, 3-1 favorite sounds like it's in the ballpark.
Individual polls aren't "out on a limb," they're just individual polls. A polling model that aggregates dozens of national polls, applies some subjective weighting, and then makes the trailing candidate not only the favorite but a 3:1 favorite is way out on a limb.
Also, Gore won the national popular vote by 0.5 points, which isn't anything close to the 2.2-point lead Romney now enjoys.
See #5190.
I enjoy this. Ohio isn't getting harder to poll--it's getting easier with early voting. There's less uncertainty in the polling because rather than having to rely on a likely voter screen, you can just ask people if they've already voted.
If you concede Nevada (which you appear to have above, Obama can win Ohio + (NH and Iowa) or Ohio + Wisconsin. For Romney to win without Ohio would require him to win in all the states where he's currently slightly ahead or tied (NC, VA, CO, FL), as well as sweep all the other non-OH swing states where he is currently behind more than in Ohio (IA, WI, NH).
Romney does not have a realistic path to victory that does not include Ohio. That's why it matters more than how Romney is doing in Florida or Virginia. Romney needs to win ALL the swing states to win.
Republican Voter Suppression In Florida May Have Backfired
If Rasmussen is THE correct poll then Romney could win without winning Ohio.
Of course, I didn't say that liberals aren't biased. But I did point out that there are other reasons to trust Silver, as I explained, and you predictably ignored them, since you are just venting and bloviating here. Personally, I can say that if Silver's numbers were telling us that Romney was in the driver's seat right now, I would tend to believe that he was. If Silver misses on this election, I will pay attention to how he re-evaluates his model and adjust expectations accordingly.
At this point, a lot of the poll-watching on both sides is simply an exercise in the kind of faux-sabermetric fanboyism we sometimes see around here before post-season series and rivalry series: guys interpreting data points about close and difficult-to-call outcomes based on what they hope will happen. If you trust Gallup more than you trust Silver, power to you. We will see who was right in ten days.
Republican Voter Suppression In Florida May Have Backfired
I don't think that article means much.
And for what it's worth, the GOP standard bearer has done better in Ohio than his vote nationally in the past nine presidential elections.
Yes. If Rasmussen is correct, and Romney were actually able to win WI (Ras has it, as well as Iowa as a tie), then Romney could theoretically win without Ohio.
But if Romney wins Wisconsin, he's almost certainly winning Ohio as well.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main