Posted on 11/06/2012 6:53:26 AM PST by rlbedfor
Mitt Romney already has 697,143 votes before the polls opened a couple of hours ago, while Barack Obama only has 605,546, a difference of almost 92,000 votes. The data is time-stamped at 2:03 ET this morning, and the link on the front page of the site reads, “Early voters: How Ohio has voted.”
A few counties have not yet reported any early-voting results, but one county in particular looks huge. Cuyahoga, which includes Cleveland, should be a Democratic stronghold, and perhaps the one area where Democratic early-voting efforts should have produced their biggest lead. Instead, Romney has a lead of about 14,000 votes already, 127,570 to 113,373. In Hamilton County, where Cincinnati itself is located, Romney leads by over 5,000, 29,969 to 24,808. A quick scan of the data shows Romney leading in every county with more than 25,000 EVs.
This may be a very big deal, if these numbers are correct.
For the statistically inclined, here is a link to the 2008 vote in Ohio. Scroll down a bit for the county-by-county tabulation.
For the statistically inclined, here is a link to the 2008 vote in Ohio. Scroll down a bit for the county-by-county tabulation.
Obama will have a lead coming out of early voting (which includes absentees in Ohio's tally); what matters is how large the lead is. In 2008, he netted more than 300,000 votes in the early period, and won the state by 262,000. This time, he's down at least 125,000 so far (as of yesterday, some votes are still coming in this morning).
Our peeps on Twitter (including LS) think we need to get about a 6% turnout margin today to win, and the last Dispatch poll showed Romney winning in-person voters by 11%. It'll be close (I think), but I think we pull it off.
Sorry about the double post. I got a “Server Error” on my first try. FreeRepublic has been slow and glitchy lately, probably due to interest in the election.
*
They are just going by party affiliation of those who voted, not actually the votes themselves........
And they assume that ALL (D) voters vote for Obozo. That ain’t necessarily so.............
I don’t how they handle, count or process, early votes. I doubt they have been counted as of yet.
However news sites construct articles/data for publishing at some later time and this isn’t the first time something meant to go live at a later time has slipped though. Chances are this is an article being constructed to go live later today or after the polls close.
People need to have a strong shot in the arm of 2004......these kind of early voting figures were touted by Dems causing a tidal wave of motivated late Bush voters.......
until them polls close, it is healthy to believe this is on a knife edgde...healthy for the campaign that is, not your average FReepers health!
They are just going by party affiliation of those who voted, not actually the votes themselves........
You're ruining my breakfast. ;)
What is your source?
As far as I know, that’s exactly the case.
Early votes are counted, because they are electronic.
Provisionals and absentees are only opened and counted if their total count exceeds the margin of victory.
Wow! Yes! Yes! Yes!
“I doubt they have been counted as of yet.”
It looks to me like they have been counted:
http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20121106/NEWS010601/311060015/?nclick_check=1
Thoughts on this?
The Democrats might even muster an early lead, but once all the Republicans get out of work and vote, it will go the other way very quickly
This is EARLY VOTING.
Doesn’t look like all of the precincts have reported early voting numbers. The fact that the total is already at 24% of the expected vote leads me to believe this is bogus data.
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.