At most 1.5 million votes have been cast. Gmu shows 1.25 as of 10/30. Turnout will be 5.7 million. Mark my words 5.7 million. 1.5 million out of 5.7 million is 26% not 40%.
It helps to have hard data when interpreting early vote percentages. All polls have been off with regards to the amount of early votes being cast. People are obviously lying to pollsters by saying they have voted when they havent.
Turnout was 5.7 in 2008 in Ohio too, and 5.6 million in 2004; it will be remarkable if it *doesn’t* get to 5.7 million in 2012, not if it *does*.
Still leaves a bit of work to do on election day.
All polls have been off with regards to the amount of early votes being cast. People are obviously lying to pollsters by saying they have voted when they haven't.There is probably some of that, but I think you are missing the more simple conclusion. If the poll says 40% have voted, but the hard data says 26% have voted, then the poll is skewed toward those who have voted. I mean, that is simple logic. Next logical step is, what does that sample of those who say they have voted look like from a partisan perspective? Does it match the overall partisan makeup, or is it skewed itself. Well, lo and behold, the partisan makeup - consistently - across these polls of people who say they have already voted in OH are voting like 60-35 toward Obama. Highly partisan sub-sample which shows the obvious over-sampling of Dems in a purely mathematical fashion.