Posted on 11/02/2012 7:09:20 AM PDT by AdamBomb
First, let me say that I do believe the race is close….but I don’t see this thing as a tie.
Like it or not, Rasmussen has Republican leanings. He also knows that there is more enthusiasm on our side.
So here is the question: Is Rasmussen or has he intentionally kept this race close (even though he might know otherwise) to ensure that our side is not complacent? How else could he use the +3 Dem turnout unless he is certain of that amount of fraud?
What is the psychology of a close race? Is it different for Democrats that it is for Republicans?
Thoughts?
Dem voter fraud +3 - +5%
Rasmussen got hammered by Sandy. I doubt that his staff can even get into work if they wanted to (No Gas). He has thrown in the towel by making a no-call.
I wish I could be as optimistic as some seem to be, but I’m worried.
Alternately, Rasmussen got a call from Axelrod asking if they’d like a taste of what Gallup got.
We just have to accept the reality: it is going to be close.
Romney might win.
But he might not.
If he does NOT win, obama will be even weaker than he has been the last two years. Yes, it would be very, very bad if we don’t get to flush this anti-American loser. But he will be limited. The country will survive. And next time, the D’s will nominate a white guy and the few straggling sympathy votes will come back to us.
Upward and onward. Show no fear. We are in this for the long haul.
And.....Romney might still pull this out.
As far as Ras, I don't think he's cooking the books at all. We all tout him as the most reliable pollster when he tells us what we want to hear and we get conveniently skeptical when he doesn't.
The kool-aid drinkers cherry-pick the polls they agree with and the ones they don't, just like they did in 2008 (and how wrong the kool-aid krew was then!). Ras isn't suddenly a bad guy just because he is showing momentum for President Choomy; he's just reporting what appears to be the truth.
How will somebody who bypasses Congress be limited?
Rat vote fraud is real and rampant ,, easy +3% ,,, I want the next congress to pass laws regarding the acceptance of vote totals from the states in federal elections ,, if the vote isn’t on a paper ballot , counted by hand or by optical scan that has been verified accurate , with observers from each major party at each polling place... with photo id checked before a ballot is handed out... then your vote totals will not be accepted.
Because the turnout is likely to be D+3 or D+2 as that has been the historic precedent for many years. 2004 and 2008 were both anomalies in opposite directions.
He may be a little disrupted, but he's still updating and analyzing. I certainly hope he's not doing new polling in NJ - Scott Rasmussen is way too smart to try to predict their voting based on those who respond to his calls under these conditions - but he just updated CO, IA, and OH, all with gains fro Romney (and FL and VA just lost a little ground).
As of today, Rasmussen holds Romney in the lead by at least 5% for 206 EV, plus his leads in CO (10 EV by 3%), VA (13 EV by 3%), FL (29 EV by 2%), OH (18 EV by 2%), NH (4 EV by 2%), which takes Romney to 280 EV in states that he leads by 2% or better. Iowa is now 1% in favor of Romney according to Scott's numbers, and Wisconsin is still tied. I don't see that update as a "no call", just a refinement of his previous numbers based on available current and historical data. Ras can't assume that a presidential election will be as lopsided in favor of Republican turnout as the 2010 off year election. Whether or not we think this year will be like 2010 in conservative turnout, there is no mathematical justification for using those numbers. Obama has built enthusiasm in his base, and their turnout will be better than in 2010, although we don't know by how much. Fortunately, the cost of reviving his lethargic base was alienating the swing voters, and I have been loving those independent numbers. Rasmussen has Romney leading, barely, but it's well within the margin of error for random sampling errors, even before you worry about his underlying assumptions. This election is definitely too close to call based on the math.
I don’t think we’re being played. How I see it is Americans are getting cold feet about breaking away from the devil they know. Change during a turbulent time seems to be frightening to them.
ok.
maybe you’re right.
we all know the stakes are higher than ever. but it is also true that obama might win. if that happens, we can either throw our hands up and say, “goodbye America, easy come, easy go.” Or, we can keep trying. Them’s our choices. (but you might be right).
If conservatives and GOPers aren't motivated enough to turn out in record numbers and unseat Obama, they never will be.
I’m with on the worrying. A close race is easier to steal. I’m afraid we’re doomed with another 4 year to eternity and beyond reign of the evil one.
“If he does NOT win, obama will be even weaker than he has been the last two years.”
In what way? No indications are showing the GOP is going to win back the Senate.
Willard wins with 271 or 272 EV without OH.
If Obama does win it could be only due to fraud. I don’t think he will be weaker, he will push his agenda through without having to worry about reelection. He doesn’t worry about working with congress.
The thing to get out of these polls is Obama (incumbent) < 50%.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.