How do they have these stats about early votes? Are they counting early votes already? How do they know that Obama is leading 65% to 35% unless they are already counting votes. But surely it’s wrong to be counting and releasing results before most people have cast their ballots?
Or are these just fancy guestimates? If so, why does the article report them as if they are actual election results.
This early voting crap stinks.
I thought the 62% for Obama had been debunked numerous times already.
FIFTY FIVE PERCENT of those who have already voted are black, and nearly one-third of the people have already voted? Even if one in six Ohio voters are black, (which I really doubt) they would already have to have had 100% turnout to reach this point. Moreover, if the sample is 55% Black and he wins this group, say by 90% (say 50 for him and 5 for Romney), it means that in the other 45% he is loosing by close to 3 to 1 (say 12 for him and 33 for Romney. If he is doing better than 90% in the black vote, he is loosing the non-black vote by even more.
While the numbers don’t add up, unless the black turnout is going to be at about the 200% level (which it looks to be on track to be), they don’t look good for O.
“Female voters favor Obama by 53-45 and 35% of early votes have been cast by females. But the male vote goes to Romney by a 14% margin, 56-42. And only 28% of the early vote was cast by males.”
Hmm. So some other gender cast 37% of the vote? These numbers are obviously wrong.
What a contrast. Should there even be a question?
One question : how do we know for a fact that Rasmussen is the most unbaised, factually sound, reliable poll that does the best job in determing leads based on actual voting data ?