Romney ready to concede Ohio?

[blacken700]

Huff Po (yes, I know) had an interesting story on the Republicans apparently coming to grips that in all probability Ohio is lost and they now view Wisconsin as the most favorable flip in the upper Midwest states.
 
But giving Romney Wisconsin, Florida, Virginia, Colorado and North Carolina it still leaves him at 267.
 
I don't see how Obama loses a legitimate election in Wisconsin either. From what I gather on the tubes Wisconsin is probably home to their best GOTV machine, and Shark Eyes is a native but Wisconsin has been reliably Democratic for many years.
 
The GOP will also point to the Walker recall as a sign they can win there, however that was a product of people showing up to vote against the concept of a recall as much as it was some kind of overwhelming support for Walker.
 
I guess the bottom line is this demonstrates how brutal the math is for them.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2012/10/26/mitt-romney-2012-campaign_n_2026484.html?icid=hp_front_top_art

[magikusar]

ever heard of scott walker?

[GigantorX]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82948.html

A short article from Adrian Gray in the Politico from 10/26 (Yesterday)

"I have always been a believer in data telling me the full story. Truth is, nobody knows what will happen on Election Day. But here is what we do know: 220,000 fewer Democrats have voted early in Ohio compared with 2008. And 30,000 more Republicans have cast their ballots compared with four years ago. That is a 250,000-vote net increase for a state Obama won by 260,000 votes in 2008."

[Soul Crusher]

If Romney is up 5 in Gallup and RAS no way he loses Ohio.

[Soul Crusher]

Obama's fuzzy Ohio early vote math
By: Adrian Gray
October 26, 2012 03:18 PM EDT
 
At this point in an election cycle, many campaign staffers are busy fighting the press on what they call “process stories.” The candidates and their staffs want to talk about their plans and policies while reporters covering them find their audiences demand a play-by-play of the horse race.

The result is constant overstuffing of campaign metrics and polling that only serve to muddy the waters for most political observers. In a close race, such as we have today, there is often plenty of data for both sides to use to their favor. One poll says this, another says that.

(See also: Latest polls from across U.S.)

This makes it especially surprising to see the piece put out by President Barack Obama’s field director this week on early voting in Ohio. When things are ugly for a campaign, these types of memos can start flying. It is troubling for the president’s supporters that they could not come up with at least a handful of positive data points in Ohio. I worked as director of strategy at the Republican National Committee during the difficult 2006 election cycle — I know firsthand how hard it it is to come up with positive data in a negative cycle.

There are normally three signs you know a campaign metrics memo is purely spin.

1. Anecdotes: “We have seen groups as big as 100 voters going to vote in Athens, Ohio.” Only 604 democrats have voted in person in the entire county and no more than 40 in a single precinct (that would be Athens 3-5, for those scoring at home).

(Also on POLITICO: Romney's road to victory in Ohio)

2. Unverifiable Data: “Precincts that Obama won in 2008 are voting early at a higher rate”: This is unverifiable and misleading because there is no such thing as an “Obama precinct.” Every ten years, the entire country rebalances its voting districts based on a constitutionally mandated census. In 2010, this process redrew the lines of reportable voting areas that were used in 2008. So this year, we have entirely new precincts, thereby making it impossible to validate their claim.

3. Cherry-picking random sub-poll data: “Time poll shows the President up 60-30” among early voters. That sub-sample was asked of 145 people and was one of many of similar ilk (with a huge variation in results). Their central data argument is that 43 more people told Time’s pollster over a two-day window they supported Obama. If that is their best claim to a lead in Ohio, it is a troubling picture for the president.

(See also: POLITICO's swing-state map)

I have always been a believer in data telling me the full story. Truth is, nobody knows what will happen on Election Day. But here is what we do know: 220,000 fewer Democrats have voted early in Ohio compared with 2008. And 30,000 more Republicans have cast their ballots compared with four years ago. That is a 250,000-vote net increase for a state Obama won by 260,000 votes in 2008.

Adrian Gray is a veteran of two winning presidential campaigns, the White House, the RNC and the Pickens Plan. He is currently working in Asset Management in New York and can be found on twitter at @adrian_gray
 
© 2012 POLITICO LLC
 

More information & opt-out options »What is interest based advertising »Learn more about quadrantONE »Privacy Controls by Evidon[ X ]This ad has been matched to your interests. It was selected for you based on your browsing activity.

[Necrosis]

If Romney is up 5 in Gallup and RAS no way he loses Ohio.

it;s slipping away bro, oooohhh goooddd.

[Soul Crusher]

it;s slipping away bro, oooohhh goooddd.

I have always been a believer in data telling me the full story. Truth is, nobody knows what will happen on Election Day. But here is what we do know: 220,000 fewer Democrats have voted early in Ohio compared with 2008. And 30,000 more Republicans have cast their ballots compared with four years ago. That is a 250,000-vote net increase for a state Obama won by 260,000 votes in 2008.

[MCWAY]

Huff Po (yes, I know) had an interesting story on the Republicans apparently coming to grips that in all probability Ohio is lost and they now view Wisconsin as the most favorable flip in the upper Midwest states.
 
But giving Romney Wisconsin, Florida, Virginia, Colorado and North Carolina it still leaves him at 267.
 
I don't see how Obama loses a legitimate election in Wisconsin either. From what I gather on the tubes Wisconsin is probably home to their best GOTV machine, and Shark Eyes is a native but Wisconsin has been reliably Democratic for many years.
 
The GOP will also point to the Walker recall as a sign they can win there, however that was a product of people showing up to vote against the concept of a recall as much as it was some kind of overwhelming support for Walker.
 
I guess the bottom line is this demonstrates how brutal the math is for them.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2012/10/26/mitt-romney-2012-campaign_n_2026484.html?icid=hp_front_top_art

Guess what that means.

Even if Romney were to concede Ohio (which he obviously is NOT), if he wins New Hampshire, guess what that gives him: 271.....and the WIN!!

The Wisconsin recall was proof that the GOP could match the Dems' vaunted ground game. The Dems were in top form, in that aspect; yet Walker ran away with the race.

[Soul Crusher]

http://www.humanevents.com/2012/10/26/is-voter-fraud-being-committed-in-ohio

[MCWAY]

I have always been a believer in data telling me the full story. Truth is, nobody knows what will happen on Election Day. But here is what we do know: 220,000 fewer Democrats have voted early in Ohio compared with 2008. And 30,000 more Republicans have cast their ballots compared with four years ago. That is a 250,000-vote net increase for a state Obama won by 260,000 votes in 2008.

Obama will probably focus even more of his energy in Colorado, Wisconsin, and New Hampshire.

Those states allow Romney to win without Ohio.

[240 is Back]

Obama ready to concede north carolina, but nate silver says anyone with a 2-3 point lead when pollin data is this rich, is going to win - meaning Obama will have OH.


Won't matter if romney gets wisc.   But ohio looking to be over. 
Nate Silver: Ohio is not a toss-up


 Ohio Is Not a Toss Up
Nate Silver looks at the polling average in Ohio -- made up of roughly a dozen polling firms who have surveyed the state over the past 10 days -- and notes it shows President Obama with a 2.4 percentage point lead over Mitt Romney.
 
"There are no precedents in the database for a candidate losing with a two- or three-point lead in a state when the polling volume was that rich... It is misinformed to refer to Ohio as a toss-up. Mr. Obama is the favorite there, and because of Ohio's central position in the Electoral College, he is therefore the overall favorite in the election."
 
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/10/27/ohio_is_not_a_toss_up.html 

[MCWAY]

Obama ready to concede north carolina, but nate silver says anyone with a 2-3 point lead when pollin data is this rich, is going to win - meaning Obama will have OH.


Won't matter if romney gets wisc.   But ohio looking to be over.  
Nate Silver: Ohio is not a toss-up


 Ohio Is Not a Toss Up
Nate Silver looks at the polling average in Ohio -- made up of roughly a dozen polling firms who have surveyed the state over the past 10 days -- and notes it shows President Obama with a 2.4 percentage point lead over Mitt Romney.
 
"There are no precedents in the database for a candidate losing with a two- or three-point lead in a state when the polling volume was that rich... It is misinformed to refer to Ohio as a toss-up. Mr. Obama is the favorite there, and because of Ohio's central position in the Electoral College, he is therefore the overall favorite in the election."
 
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/10/27/ohio_is_not_a_toss_up.html  

No, over is North Carolina.

Ohio is well in play. And Nate Silver ought to know better. A 2.4-point lead is MOE, which means it's effectively TIED.

Silver's job is to tell the libs that things are just fine for Team Obama, to ignore all the common sense and reality around them that show Obama is in major trouble.

And, he'll be among the first to have a heart attack, in the event his prediction is dead wrong.

Not to mention, the Obama team not only has to spend money on Ohio, they have to worry about New Hampshire and Wisconsin. They know that Romney can still beat them without Ohio, if he gets those two states.

If you want to talk precedents, there are no precedents for a challenger losing to an incumbent, when that challenger has been at 50% or higher in Gallup since mid-October. Romney's been there nearly two weeks and shows little signs of slowing up.

I don't know how many times it has to be explained to you, 240. But, once again:

Romney's got 206 right now, according to CNN, Rasmussen, and RCP (once they move NC back to "Lean Romney"; it got moved back to "toss-up", thanks to a PPP poll that had them tied with Dems oversampled by 9 points. Two new polls have Romney up 6 and 8 ).

Give him Florida and Virginia and Romney's up to 248.

If Romney takes Colorado, that's 257. What's 270 minus 257? THIRTEEN, not EIGHTEEN (the number of EC votes in Ohio).

Wisconsin has 10; New Hampshire has 4. If Romney gets both of those, even if Obama keeps Ohio, guess what happens?

[240 is Back]

in your path... romney's gotta be darn near perfect to win without ohio.  everything has to go right.  Methinks, if he's doing well enough to win every one of those, he'll be good enough to win OH too.  If he loses ohio, then he's not good enough to win all of those - ddrop 1 of those 6, any one of those, and obama wins.

[MCWAY]

in your path... romney's gotta be darn near perfect to win without ohio.  everything has to go right.  Methinks, if he's doing well enough to win every one of those, he'll be good enough to win OH too.  If he loses ohio, then he's not good enough to win all of those - ddrop 1 of those 6, any one of those, and obama wins.

That's not necessarily the case. Some swing states have been barraged with more ads than others. Now that Obama has to keep burning money in states he thought would be locked up by now, it gives Romney a bit more of an edge.

Romney doesn't have to be perfect. The scenario I mentioned put Romney at 271. That means, of the remaining swing states, Romney does not have to pick up Nevada, Iowa, Pennsylvania, or Michigan.

If Obama had Wisconsin, New Hampshire, and Colorado locked up, all he'd have to do is pour everything he's got left in Ohio; then, he could afford to let Romney have the southeastern states.

But, by not doing that, Ohio is no longer the "do-or-die" path for Romney that it once was.

[Soul Crusher]

240 again proving to be fucking clueless.  After thus race this idiot silver is going to have a lot of spkanin to do.

[headhuntersix]

Oddly......240 used to follow RCP as the gold standard of polling...now cause Nate Silver is polling what he wants to here....thats the guy.

[Montague]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82948.html

A short article from Adrian Gray in the Politico from 10/26 (Yesterday)

"I have always been a believer in data telling me the full story. Truth is, nobody knows what will happen on Election Day. But here is what we do know: 220,000 fewer Democrats have voted early in Ohio compared with 2008. And 30,000 more Republicans have cast their ballots compared with four years ago. That is a 250,000-vote net increase for a state Obama won by 260,000 votes in 2008."

I was in OH last week visiting family. I was rather surprised to hear such a different tune coming from them. They literally are ALL union people from all-union families. In 2008, about half of them voted for 0bama, while the rest simply refused to vote.
There are many things they don't like about Romney and the republican party in general, BUT THEY ESSENTIALLY ARE VOTING FOR ROMNEY TO "VOTE AGAINST" 0BAMA.

These are people who traditionally have always voted by party rather than candidate, and I was frankly shocked at what I was hearing.
From what they said, it sounds as if they're not the only ones who feel this way and are planning to vote accordingly.

I'll still be very surprised if Romeny takes OH, PA, and WI, but this may be the best chance the republicans have in those states in recent history (PA last elected a R-governor, which itself, was shocking).

[blacken700]

Mitt Romney 2012 Campaign: Wisconsin Becomes The New Ohio
Translation: our Ohio strategy has been a flop, so time for Plan B

[MCWAY]

Mitt Romney 2012 Campaign: Wisconsin Becomes The New Ohio
Translation: our Ohio strategy has been a flop, so time for Plan B

Wisconsin, being the new Ohio, has been on the political circuits for the last several days. It didn't originate with the Romney campaign.

And, in case you missed it, Obama and Biden zipped to Wisconsin with the quickness, after the most recent set of polls.

Translation: Ohio ain't quite the "do-or-die" state for Romney that political pundits (and especially Team Obama) think it is (or was).

[blacken700]

if romney doesn't win ohio his road to 270 becomes difficult

[MCWAY]

if romney doesn't win ohio his road to 270 becomes difficult

Not necessarily. I pointed that out earlier. That's why Wisconsin has become such a huge deal, as of late (as has New Hampshire).

If Romney takes those two, along with Colorado, he wins without Ohio.

[MCWAY]

I was in OH last week visiting family. I was rather surprised to hear such a different tune coming from them. They literally are ALL union people from all-union families. In 2008, about half of them voted for 0bama, while the rest simply refused to vote.
There are many things they don't like about Romney and the republican party in general, BUT THEY ESSENTIALLY ARE VOTING FOR ROMNEY TO "VOTE AGAINST" 0BAMA.

These are people who traditionally have always voted by party rather than candidate, and I was frankly shocked at what I was hearing.
From what they said, it sounds as if they're not the only ones who feel this way and are planning to vote accordingly.

I'll still be very surprised if Romeny takes OH, PA, and WI, but this may be the best chance the republicans have in those states in recent history (PA last elected a R-governor, which itself, was shocking).

In the aftermath of the Wisconsin recall, I remember a certain MSNBC hack still scratching his head as to why nearly 40% of union households went for Walker.

Those are the groups that Obama thinks will carry the day for him in 9 days. But, if Romney gets what Walker got in that respect, Obama is DONE. I have a feeling that, outside the union families (especially the auto workers' union), Romney had the edge.

[240 is Back]

Not necessarily. I pointed that out earlier. That's why Wisconsin has become such a huge deal, as of late (as has New Hampshire).

If Romney takes those two, along with Colorado, he wins without Ohio.

that's why OH matters.   He wins Ohio (easily winnable in our great depression against a failure prez) - or he HAS to win all 3 of these, along with all those other things going right.

If you were an oddsmaker, would you bet all of this will happen?  Intrade doesn't think it will, but ya never know.

What I'm saying is that if Romney is strong enough to win all 3 - Wish, HN, and Colorado - then he's already so strong that OH is an easy win.

I'm not saying he won't get all 3 - i'm saying if he does get all 3, then OH is already in the bag.

[blacken700]

that's why OH matters.   He wins Ohio (easily winnable in our great depression against a failure prez) - or he HAS to win all 3 of these, along with all those other things going right.

If you were an oddsmaker, would you bet all of this will happen?  Intrade doesn't think it will, but ya never know.

What I'm saying is that if Romney is strong enough to win all 3 - Wish, HN, and Colorado - then he's already so strong that OH is an easy win.

I'm not saying he won't get all 3 - i'm saying if he does get all 3, then OH is already in the bag.

come on man, you didn't know if you don't win ohio it makes it easier  

[syntaxmachine]

A 2.4-point lead is MOE, which means it's effectively TIED.

As opposed to mere differences of opinion we may have, here you are blatantly wrong on two accounts:

1. The margin of error for a metapoll (a poll of polls) is going to be much lower than the margin of error for any given poll; a rather particular calculation is required to determine its precise value. You have no idea what the margin of error is -- it goes without saying you haven't run the numbers -- and thus cannot assert whether 2.4 is within its bounds or not.

2. Even if 2.4 were within the MOE, given a specific margin of error and percentage lead, it is possible to calculate the probability that a given candidate really is ahead and thus whether they would win if the election were held today. If we assume a much higher MOE than is really the case, say, 4.0, Nate's metapoll still indicates an almost 74% chance of an Obama victory in Ohio. This isn't an effective tie in the slightest.

3. (1) and (2) derive from basic facts about statistics, so Nate's being a propagandist for the Democrats, if true, doesn't affect their veracity in the slightest -- attacking the messenger's character as you have done won't make the facts go away.

In this instance at least, the data -- and reality more generally -- has a liberal bias.

And Nate Silver ought to know better.

lol