Interesting...
1 posted on
11/06/2012 6:53:28 AM PST by
rlbedfor
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-34 next last
To: rlbedfor
They pulled the link? They are SOOOOO worried that news will get out early that Obama is done. Panic about to hit the dems! ----------------------------------------
Freeper made video featuring a FR clip:You Shouldn't vote...(for Obama) hits 1,100 views.
2 posted on
11/06/2012 6:54:50 AM PST by
icwhatudo
(Low taxes and less spending in Sodom and Gomorrah is not my idea of a conservative victory)
To: rlbedfor
My knowledge of Ohio is pretty limited, but shouldn’t Romney have a bigger lead in Cincinnati? I thought that was Republican territory...
To: rlbedfor
Don’t believe it. To early to tell. By early evening if the trend hold up then maybe.
And also remember that just tells them how many votes need to be made up.
4 posted on
11/06/2012 6:57:05 AM PST by
redgolum
("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
To: rlbedfor
The socialists got the 0bamacare win. Now it’s OUR turn.
To: rlbedfor
And they assume that ALL (D) voters vote for Obozo. That ain’t necessarily so.............
6 posted on
11/06/2012 6:57:55 AM PST by
Red Badger
(Why yes, that was crude and uncalled for......That's why I said it..............)
To: rlbedfor
Can’t imagine those numbers are accurate.
Hope so because it would point to a blowout Romney win in Ohio, but most are expecting Obama to have anywhere between a 10% to 25% lead in the early voting numbers there.
11 posted on
11/06/2012 7:02:14 AM PST by
comebacknewt
(Newt (sigh) what could have been . . .)
To: rlbedfor
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. WUH-HUT?! Wooooooooooooowwwww!!!
To: rlbedfor
To: rlbedfor
If Romney is up in Ohio by 92K in early voting, paint Ohio red on the map. It was reported yesterday that the Obama campaign would “declare victory” based on early returns in Ohio in order to discourage and demoralize the Romney vote. This situation, if indeed true, would put the shoe on the other foot.
To: rlbedfor
R 53.5%
About right?
Hopeful but not expectant. Don’t want to be crushed by wishful thinking.
To: rlbedfor
These early voting numbers are very encouraging. The only negative I can see is that a lot of Republicans were so gung-ho to get the Kenyan Commie out of office that they couldn't wait for today and voted early, thus tamping down the Election Day vote, since republicans are only allowed to vote once.
For the statistically inclined, here is a link to the 2008 vote in Ohio. Scroll down a bit for the county-by-county tabulation.
21 posted on
11/06/2012 7:10:08 AM PST by
TruthShallSetYouFree
(I've waited for Nov 6th like it's Christmas. Please--no lump of coal.)
To: rlbedfor
These early voting numbers are very encouraging. The only negative I can see is that a lot of Republicans were so gung-ho to get the Kenyan Commie out of office that they couldn't wait for today and voted early, thus tamping down the Election Day vote, since republicans are only allowed to vote once.
For the statistically inclined, here is a link to the 2008 vote in Ohio. Scroll down a bit for the county-by-county tabulation.
22 posted on
11/06/2012 7:10:28 AM PST by
TruthShallSetYouFree
(I've waited for Nov 6th like it's Christmas. Please--no lump of coal.)
To: rlbedfor
That was bad data, which is why the story was pulled.
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.
23 posted on
11/06/2012 7:11:13 AM PST by
TonyInOhio
(~~ THE EXIT POLLS ARE WRONG! ~~)
To: rlbedfor
25 posted on
11/06/2012 7:14:37 AM PST by
PMAS
(All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing)
To: rlbedfor
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!
To: rlbedfor
32 posted on
11/06/2012 7:19:37 AM PST by
rawhide
To: rlbedfor
Cleveland's local channel 5, WEWS, reported last night that there were fewer Democrats voting early than last election. Link
here.
"While Democrats state the poll numbers show the early vote benefits them, its interesting to note as a percentage, the early vote reflects an uptick for Republicans compared to their early voting numbers in 2008."
34 posted on
11/06/2012 7:20:25 AM PST by
neefer
(Because you can't starve us out and you can't make us run.)
To: LS
35 posted on
11/06/2012 7:20:36 AM PST by
SE Mom
(Proud mom of an Iraq war combat vet)
To: rlbedfor
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
36 posted on
11/06/2012 7:20:55 AM PST by
Bon mots
(Abu Ghraib: 47 Times on the front page of the NY Times | Benghazi: 2 Times)
To: rlbedfor
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-34 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson