Interesting Twitter Debate with "Concerned" GOPer (he says)

self/twitter | 10/27/2012 | LS

[LS]

Ok, so here is the latest explanation (this from a self described Romney voter who is "concerned") for the EV numbers.

You can't measure D/R because of all the "unaffiliated" voters in OH. If a voter doesn't vote in the previous primary he is labeled "unaffiliated" in the next election. Supposedly, this means that 30% more Ds will come out of the woodwork as "unaffiliated."

First, while the D primary was boring, people don't come out for a reason. They MAY be bored, but they also might not like where the party is heading.

Second, the crash we've seen in D numbers in absentees is mimicked by the crash in "unaffiliated" absentee ballot requests, which fell by 158,000 from 2008. Ds fell by 140,000. Rs ROSE by 4200. In other words, these people either left the D party or left politics, more or less altogether, and 4000 may have joined the Rs.

Third, when you hear a statement that "Obama has a 13 point lead in early voting," that is a) a cherry picked county---not across the board; b) it is not a firm number because it results from an EXIT POLL and we all know how reliable those were in 04. Oh, and perhaps most important, in OH, Obama led by 20 (!) in early voting in 08. So even if everyone tells the truth, and even if the reporters in fact got a correct sample of all counties, Obama is STILL short of winning.

[LS]

1) The absentee data remains constant with a 5 to 25 point GOP gain over 08 in almost every county. 2) the evidence from Adrian Gray's bellwether counties show a slight R lead in early votes. But evidence from all counties shows Ds way down in early voting. 3) the local evidence is that the Ds are a fraction of what they had in 08. 4) almost every poll shows Romney with a small to very large Indy lead.

All this adds up to a solid 3- 4-point R win.

[carton253]

Exactly...Ohio goes as the nation goes. She isn’t a voting trailblazer.

[Ravi]

Yes this point seems to confuse many people. Read mcdonald (huffpo pollster) on the side of the spreadsheet. Last primary refers to a primary the voter last voted in. So again if voter a voted in a democratic primary in 2006 or 2008 or 2010 primary but not 2012, they are still listed as democratic in their particular county again not unaffiliated. Definitions need to be clear so we are arguing the data correctly. The only way you lose your democratic tag is if you chose to vote in the republican or unaffiliated primary (there is such a thing) in 2012. How many dems do u know that did that? So the only democrats that are not labelled “democrats” imo would be college kids who have never voted in a primary. That would be franklin county.

Dems on twitter are trying to spread misinformation because they see the same data we are seeing and trying to confuse us by trying to obscure the definition of “last primary.” Dems, last primary does not mean what u think it means. They are a little scared.

Look at cuyahoga as an example. 183,000 “dems” have voted as of 10/26. How many actually voted in dem primary in 2012. Not many. However all of them have voted in dem primaries in either 2006 or 2008 or 2010. So that’s why so many of the voters in cuyahoga are labelled “dem.” It’s not because they voted only in 2012.

Don’t get distracted. This is a dem misinformation campaign.

One other point. Some of these counties go way back to the 2000 election to determine if u voted in a party primary. Other counties go back to 2006. Counties differ there. Also there is some mislabeling of voters but I don’t believe it is widespread - mostly clerical error.