Support NeoGAF

[GhaleonEB]

70% on 538. Bad News For Michelle Obama

Ohio is over 70% now. Iowa too. Wisconsin over 80%. I think Florida dropped a bit for Romney. NC is a lean Romney state now, unfortunately.

Nearly 72% on the now-cast. Very sharp reversal the past two days on the strength of the state polls.

I wonder if Nate does any particular special weighting for leads on early votes cast.

Edit: dat Senate forecast. Wow.

 

[Measley]

70% on 538. Bad News For Michelle Obama

Ohio is over 70% now. Iowa too. Wisconsin over 80%. I think Florida dropped a bit for Romney. NC is a lean Romney state now, unfortunately.

Ohio, WI, and IA should be lean Obama states then.

 

[SmokeMaxX]

I haven't looked at that Iowa site, but Intrade kind of sucks.

First they make you scan an id and two proofs of address.

Next, they won't allow you to make deposits using a debit card or bank routing information if you live in the U.S. You have to either make an international transfer (and pay the transfer fee) or send in a paper check (and pay for international delivery), which they hold for 10 business days (14 real days) before crediting to your account.

I have been working on this shit since September, and I won't be able to buy shares until next Wednesday, by which time I'd expect my margin to be cut in half. Easily one of the least customer-friendly sites I've ever experienced, and that's saying a lot.

If you're willing to lose a percentage (7-10%) of your money, you can get it in within 24 hours by transferring it via Paypal to one of the people doing it on the Intrade forums. That's what I did. You don't make as much money, but you gain a lot in convenience. If I sent a check in right now, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't even make it in before the election.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Gallup was a national poll so what good was it anyway? At most it would mean Obama wins and conservatives go batshit crazy because Romney wins the popular vote.

Gallup's LV model has had huge swings in the past, so it's possible Obama can regain some ground. Still I wouldn't be surprised if every tracker shows Obama up except Gallup on November 1st (assuming Obama wins), given their methodology.

And you're right, there will be plenty of people who claim voter fraud

 

[SmokeMaxX]

Glad I decided to buy Intrade stocks at $6.26. It's probably about to shoot up and that's the lowest price I was going to get considering I just got more funds in. Of course considering how the last 5 times I said that, Obama stock crashed...

Anyone know anything about the Iowa Electronic Market? It's a US prediction market- not sure why people don't use it instead of Intrade?

Son-of-a.... 538 predicts 70% Obama wins and Intrade goes DOWN? Stock at $6.23 right now. Unbelievable. Intrade you disgust me.

 

[ryutaro's mama]

Still holding @ 48-49% chance for Obama to win the back-to-back championship, PHONEX?

 

[Black Mamba]

Nearly 72% on the now-cast. Very sharp reversal the past two days on the strength of the state polls.

I wonder if Nate does any particular special weighting for leads on early votes cast.

Edit: dat Senate forecast. Wow.

It's not just the state polls. Other than Gallup, everyone has moved towards Obama or held steady (Ras) in the national polling.

But yes, state polling is the major driver. If only Gallup would return to normal, Obama would be back to like 80%

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Son-of-a.... 538 predicts 70% Obama wins and Intrade goes DOWN? Stock at $6.23 right now. Unbelievable. Intrade you disgust me.

They know what the Oct surprise is.

 

[Father_Brain]

In case anyone is interested, this is how the right is spinning the Marist/NBC IA/WI polls:

Tonight Marist released two state polls through NBC, from Iowa and Wisconsin. Their last polls in those states were released just after the Democratic National Convention, and the polls today found Obama with essentially the same leads as he had after the DNC.

In Iowa, Marist/NBC has Obama leading 51–43, which is the same margin as their poll following the DNC (50–42). Between the two states, this poll is the more of a head-scratcher, considering Romney has gained about 4 percent nationally in that same time frame. The party-ID breakdown has a Democratic advantage of 2 percent, higher than 2008 (D+1) and 6 percent better than 2010 (R+4). One tidbit that is going to be an issue with all polls now that early voting is underway in many states: 34 percent of the sample claims to have already voted, and they break for Obama 67–32. That number is way higher than the current estimates from the Iowa secretary of state, which shows about 18 percent have already voted. Because they claim to have already voted, they immediately are pooled into the likely-voter pool, which can inflate the top-line numbers. In addition, among ballots actually cast, there have been only 20 percentage points more Democratic votes cast than Republicans. This excludes the 15 percent of ballots filed by independent voters, but a 35 percent lead for Obama among early voters still seems grossly inflated. In the Marist poll among voters planning to vote on Election Day, Romney leads by 15 percent (54–39).

In Wisconsin, Marist/NBC has Obama leading 51–45, which is a slightly better margin than their post-DNC poll (50–45). Again, considering the gains Romney has made nationwide, it is interesting that Romney would actually lose ground in Wisconsin. The poll has a Democratic advantage of 5 percent, just a bit lower than 2008 (D+6) and 6 percent better than the 2011 recall election (R+1). Among early voters, Obama is up 64–35, but among Election Day voters Romney holds a one percent lead (48–47). The poll finds 15 percent have voted early or by absentee (or plan to); this again is likely an inflated number that could impact the top-line results.

Overall, these polls will give Obama supporters some good news on an otherwise bad polling day, though they’ll give Romney supporters more ammunition against Marist polls which have leaned heavily to Obama this season. For the most part, Marist/NBC polls have consistently shown some of the largest Obama leads of all polls in battleground states.

Last note, but a significant one: In both states, the Obama margin did not move much after the second debate. In Iowa, Obama’s lead in the surveys before the debate was 9 percent, and after the debate it was 8 percent. In Wisconsin, Obama went from a 5 percent lead pre-debate to 6 percent afterwards. This would certainly indicate that Obama won’t be seeing the movement that Romney did after the first debate in Denver. On the other hand, if you believe these Marist polls, Denver never happened at all.

 

[kirblar]

It's not just the state polls. Other than Gallup, everyone has moved towards Obama or held steady (Ras) in the national polling.

But yes, state polling is the major driver. If only Gallup would return to normal, Obama would be back to like 80%

The scary part is that Gallup's regional numbers actually made sense.

 

[Forever]

If Obama destroys Romney in the third debate as thoroughly as he did in the town hall, I'll be feeling really good about this election.

 

[AniHawk]

I was just thinking about doing this, to get an idea of Romney's chances for victory in Iowa. Seems pretty slim, if not nonexistent. So he basically needs every undecided voter to pick him? And then some?

yes, and it's actually worse in ohio, going by the latest ppp poll.

if i were to give romney, say, anything, it wouldn't matter because obama would have broken the 50% mark out of the total votes cast.

(original post below before i realized the simplicity of the results)

Spoiler

one thing about the hypothetical situation using the marist poll is that it's not counting third-party candidates. of the 62.2k that would need to go to romney to make it extremely close (say, under a thousand), about 8k would probably break for third party candidates. 12k for third-party candidates might be underestimating things though, as 19k voted for third-parties in 2008. there's also the possibility that people might not vote for president. 13k didn't vote for president in 2008 either.

but if i were to give romney, say, 54.2k, he only gets up to 49.39%.

 

[Suikoguy]

If Obama destroys Romney in the third debate as thoroughly as he did in the town hall, I'll be feeling really good about this election.

The impact of the 3rd debate will be even less consequential then the first two. It will take a significant screw up by either side for it to do much. Which I don't see happening. Where the polls settle by mid next week, is likely about where it will hover to election day IMO.

 

[RDreamer]

If Obama destroys Romney in the third debate as thoroughly as he did in the town hall, I'll be feeling really good about this election.

I feel like it hinges on his answers for Libya, since that's probably the only thing anyone gives a fuck about now. Other than that, though, there really isn't much of anything Romney can hit him on or even say. The positions Ryan had in the VP debate were completely laughable.

In the end it'll probably be a decent Obama win, though not decisive. The right isn't going to let up on the narrative enough for it to be called a big win. It'll probably poll just a tiny bit worse than the last debate (closer to a tie).

 

[SmokeMaxX]

They know what the Oct surprise is.

Now at $6.21 a share... Did unskewedpolls.com just update within the past 30 minutes? I don't understand how the Romney fans on Intrade make their decisions to buy shares. "Romney is getting crushed in the polls? Let's buy more!"

 

[SmokeMaxX]

I feel like it hinges on his answers for Libya, since that's probably the only thing anyone gives a fuck about now. Other than that, though, there really isn't much of anything Romney can hit him on or even say. The positions Ryan had in the VP debate were completely laughable.

In the end it'll probably be a decent Obama win, though not decisive. The right isn't going to let up on the narrative enough for it to be called a big win. It'll probably poll just a tiny bit worse than the last debate (closer to a tie).

All Obama has to do is mutter some gibberish about Libya and then throw in "and now Osama Bin Laden is dead" and he won't lose points on that question.

 

[GhaleonEB]

It's not just the state polls. Other than Gallup, everyone has moved towards Obama or held steady (Ras) in the national polling.

But yes, state polling is the major driver. If only Gallup would return to normal, Obama would be back to like 80%

Agree, I didn't mean to imply that. Just that the state polls were stronger than the national today (at least, from the ones I saw) so I figured they were probably the primary reason for the large swing. Looking forward to Nate's write up, as the move is notable.

 

[RDreamer]

Now at $6.21 a share... Did unskewedpolls.com just update within the past 30 minutes? I don't understand how the Romney fans on Intrade make their decisions to buy shares. "Romney is getting crushed in the polls? Let's buy more!"

Gallup is probably tricking them.

 

[ryutaro's mama]

I feel like it hinges on his answers for Libya, since that's probably the only thing anyone gives a fuck about now. Other than that, though, there really isn't much of anything Romney can hit him on or even say. The positions Ryan had in the VP debate were completely laughable.

He already conquered that shit on the 2nd debate and on Jon Stewart tonight--"We didn't know the details but once we did, we called it what it was. We will find them and they will be brought to justice.

Ask Bin Laden if I'm a man of my word."

Imagine if the Libya tragedy never happened.

Mitt would be walking into this debate without a single fucking thing of credibility to talk about.

 

[jbug617]

The impact of the 3rd debate will be even less consequential then the first two. It will take a significant screw up by either side for it to do much. Which I don't see happening. Where the polls settle by mid next week, is likely about where it will hover to election day IMO.

I just hope people don't put a low expectation on Romney, It seems when people doubt him like the first debate, the media acts surprised on how well he can do.

 

[Black Mamba]

The scary part is that Gallup's regional numbers actually made sense.

Not sure what you mean by this.


BTW, remember how Gallup last had Romney +22 in the south? Among RV it's more like +10. That's pretty damn big gap from RV to LV. Seems like they're capturing a bunch of Dems who won't vote in the South since Obama can't win.

The Midwest and East have double digit margins for Obama among RV, about half for LV. West is about the same in mid single digits.

So basically the Southern Repubs are super excited to vote compared to Southern Dems. That is the driver of their LV craziness. I also think they are thinking way less Dems show up in the East than reality. Probably midwest too. But the South stuff is the outlier.


edit: FWIW, Gallup is basically saying "Obama wins the midwest if Dems get a high turnout."

 

[jiggle]

are the poll#s really that good?
O's lead looks kinda low

Gallup was a national poll so what good was it anyway?

it could affect turnout if ppl think he's losing though
no?

 

[AniHawk]

In case anyone is interested, this is how the right is spinning the Marist/NBC IA/WI polls:

any truth to the bolded? not to sound all chicken littley, but it does seem a little too good to be true. the way the math might affect the final results does look about right, though.

 

[Ecotic]

This is never going to happen, but if Obama were to ever lose, it'd be amazing if in 2016 he runs again hoping to pull a Grover Cleveland while Biden, unwilling to stop his plans, runs for the Presidency. Meanwhile Cuomo, wanting to be President while he's still young, gives it a run and Clinton, knowing it's her last chance, runs.

 

[RDreamer]

He already conquered that shit on the 2nd debate and on Jon Stewart tonight--"We didn't know the details but once we did, we called it what it was. We will find them and they will be brought to justice.

Ask Bin Laden if I'm a man of my word."

Imagine if the Libya tragedy never happened.

Mitt would be walking into this debate without a single fucking thing of credibility to talk about.

I agree, but I mean when the question comes up he can't just say "It's a settled issue."

Well, I suppose that would be kind of interesting, lol. But yeah, I'm not saying he could lose the debate on that question. I'm just saying that's the only one that even really matters at this point. I don't think too many people actually care about Syria. Some might have some sort of curiosity on cracking down on China or whatever, but Obama has some tire story or whatever and no low information undecided knows what the hell they're talking about anyway.

He's got some good ammo for some jabs at Romney, too, so I'm pretty confident it'll be a decisive Obama win with probably a nice soundbite or two in there.

It would be interesting if they get the people that did the Libya attack before the debate like that article said was possible. Imagine how much he'd crush if that were in the news cycle right beforehand.

 

[ryutaro's mama]

I just hope people don't put a low expectation on Romney, It seems when people doubt him like the first debate, the media acts surprised on how well he can do.

Problem with this debate is, Romney knows jack shit about FP. A least he could point to, "But I'm a businessman, I know about jobs and shit." for a sense of credibility in the first one. And he was able to use the 'Moderate Mitt" Gish Gallop too.

He is gonna have to point to hypotheticals for the entire debate. It could be a long evening for Mitt.

But, then again, Romney is a helluva used car salesman so stranger things could happen.

 

[SmokeMaxX]

I just hope people don't put a low expectation on Romney, It seems when people doubt him like the first debate, the media acts surprised on how well he can do.

I think Romney's capable of scoring points to "undecided voters" and I don't think people should downplay that. However, I don't think this debate will really do anything. The best Romney should be able to do is a tie since noone really cares about foreign policy and Obama scores pretty high on it. Also, with the first two debates and all the ads playing in the battleground states, I just don't see how this debate will sway people one way or the other. Actually the biggest change would be from Romney firing up the base and making them scared that Obama will cause another terrorist attack.

are the poll#s really that good?
O's lead looks kinda low

it could affect turnout if ppl think he's losing though
no?

I think people would be more likely to show up FOR Obama if they think he's losing, while those on the right would be more complacent if they think it'll be a landslide for Romney.

 

[SmokeMaxX]

This is never going to happen, but if Obama were to ever lose, it'd be amazing if in 2016 he runs again hoping to pull a Grover Cleveland while Biden, unwilling to stop his plans, runs for the Presidency. Meanwhile Cuomo, wanting to be President while he's still young, gives it a run and Clinton, knowing it's her last chance, runs.

Why would it be Clinton's last chance? She's a good amount younger than Biden and in your hypothetical, you have Biden running. She also has "Clinton" as her last name so she could really run whenever she wants to.

EDIT: Sorry for all the double posts. This thread goes by fast sometimes and then slows to a crawl other times.

 

[RDreamer]

I just hope people don't put a low expectation on Romney, It seems when people doubt him like the first debate, the media acts surprised on how well he can do.

I dunno, I'm pretty confident he doesn't have much to say but weird apologizing for America and chest thumping type rhetoric. You could tell their foreign policy plan from Ryan. They agree to disagree on Afghanistan, kind of, so we know how that exchange'll go. They pretty well agree on Syria, except they'd go back in time and do it the same but better... somehow. There's the libya thing. I suppose Mitt'll probably bitch about Obama not meeting with Netanyahu. Then Mitt labeling China a currency manipulator, etc.

Really, it's mostly shit America as a whole doesn't care about, and hasn't really stuck yet because of that.

 

[Ecotic]

Why would it be Clinton's last chance? She's a good amount younger than Biden and in your hypothetical, you have Biden running. She also has "Clinton" as her last name so she could really run whenever she wants to.

Because Biden will be too old but he just doesn't know any better.

 

[metalslimer]

Sorry but despite how much Romney might want it to, Libya really is a blip on most people's radar. This isn't 2004 anymore. I honestly don't know what issue Romney can swing the momentum forward in the next debate. Afghanistan? Nope. Iraq? Nope. Libya is wildcard after how bad it went last time. Basically he can try and harp on Iran having nukes but just like when Ryan tried they have no coherent message on what they would do with Iran. At the very worst for Obama this area ends up in a tie and the race continues as it is. At the worst for Romney, he has a very bad night where he tries to be really aggressive to pull himself ahead.

Really, it's mostly shit America as a whole doesn't care about, and hasn't really stuck yet because of that.

Pretty much. The Libya thing might have been devastating 8 years ago, but now no one cares especially when you try and call the guy who was in charge of Osama's death, the end of the Iraq war, and the current ending of the Afghan war weak on foreign policy. The whole "apology tour nonsense" shows how little republicans have on this issue. It's quite amazing, I would have slapped you if people had said Democrats would be much stronger on foreign issues.

 

[AniHawk]

people in general trust obama with foreign policy, so it's an uphill battle for mitt.

aside from libya, which has been botched by both sides in different ways, the biggest thing is china. and actually, people don't really give a shit about libya- otherwise it would have been 'please proceed, governor' and not 'binders full of women' that dominated the news afterward.

obama is pretty good at killing al-qaeda. i'm sure that'll get brought up once it gets to the middle east. i guess the nuclear thing will get brought up, and mitt might talk about how obama hates bibi and israel, but not too many people really give a shit about that either.

china only somewhat matters because they're somewhat related to the economy. people understand the idea of losing jobs to china and might see them as a threat. all obama would have to do is point out, as he did in the 2nd debate, that mitt is a man invested in china, who probably wouldn't ever be tough on them.

i'd really love to be right on this, since i'm 2/3 for my predictions on the debates so far. would be 3/3 but biden really brought it.

 

[GhaleonEB]

any truth to the bolded? not to sound all chicken littley, but it does seem a little too good to be true. the way the math might affect the final results does look about right, though.

Quick google hit:

Pace of early voting in Iowa “off the charts”

The pace of early voting in Iowa is brisk.

“It’s off the charts,” says Secretary of State Matt Schultz, the state’s commissioner of elections.

Schultz expects over 40 percent of the votes cast in the 2012 election will be cast before Election Day, with absentee ballots.

“There are just a lot of absentee ballot request forms being turned in,” Schultz says. “We think it’s going to — obviously — increase over the next few weeks.”

According to the latest data from the secretary of state’s office, absentee ballot requests are “outpacing 2008 by well over 50 percent.” In the 2008 presidential election, 32 percent of the votes cast in Iowa were absentee or “early” ballots. That increased to 35 percent in 2010.

.....

According to Schultz, Democrats jumped out to an early — and “significant” — lead in the number of absentee ballots when early voting began September 27. He says Republicans have begun to eat into that lead.

“(Republicans) were pretty far behind, so clearly they got their act together here and are starting to increase,” Schultz says. “But Democrats are still out-performing Republicans on absentee ballots by a wide margin.”

A spokesman for the Romney campaign in Iowa says Republicans added 23,000 early votes last week alone and have cut the Democratic Party’s advantage in half. The latest data from state election officials indicates 115,000 registered Democrats already have cast an absentee ballot, compared to 62,000 registered Republicans who’ve already voted early. That’s a 53,000 vote advantage for Democrats.

So that's a steep Dem advantage on registered partisans. Unmentioned are unaffiliated voters. I don't know the time frame for those figures, though. Given the pace of early voting if they're a week old the poll would pick up a lot more than those totals.

 

[watershed]

Sorry but despite how much Romney might want it to, Libya really is a blip on most people's radar. This isn't 2004 anymore. I honestly don't know what issue Romney can swing the momentum forward in the next debate. Afghanistan? Nope. Iraq? Nope. Libya is wildcard after how bad it went last time. Basically he can try and harp on Iran having nukes but just like when Ryan tried they have no coherent message on what they would do with Iran. At the very worst for Obama this area ends up in a tie and the race continues as it is. At the worst for Romney, he has a very bad night where he tries to be really aggressive to pull himself ahead.

Romney's message is going to be the same, that President Obama has weakened us, that he sends mixed signals, that he openly disagrees with Israel, that he isn't getting the job done in Iran, that he failed to protect our embassy in Libya, that he's not leading on Syria.

The unspoken truth through all of this is that Romney either agrees with President Obama, has no idea what he would actually do if he were president, or defaults to the standard neo con position. There will be a lot of about "projecting weakness and sending mixed messages".

 

[ryutaro's mama]

Sorry but despite how much Romney might want it to, Libya really is a blip on most people's radar. This isn't 2004 anymore. I honestly don't know what issue Romney can swing the momentum forward in the next debate. Afghanistan? Nope. Iraq? Nope. Libya is wildcard after how bad it went last time. Basically he can try and harp on Iran having nukes but just like when Ryan tried they have no coherent message on what they would do with Iran. At the very worst for Obama this area ends up in a tie and the race continues as it is. At the worst for Romney, he has a very bad night where he tries to be really aggressive to pull himself ahead.

You can't talk about Libya for 90 minutes.

But the Republicans still want to push that Jimmy Carter bullshit angle with 2 weeks to go by the time last debate happens.

Stay free, fam.

 

[metalslimer]

I'm surprised the Obama administration terrible handling of Mexico and the cartel (especially with that gun debacle) hasn't been brought up more. Of course it would probably require republicans to create an anti drug war position, so that might be why it gets skirted by so much. Also I guess most Americans don't give a shit that thousands of Mexicans are dying until it spills over farther onto our side of the border.

 

[pigeon]

any truth to the bolded? not to sound all chicken littley, but it does seem a little too good to be true. the way the math might affect the final results does look about right, though.

CNN just did an article on this:

• Iowa (September 27 [early voting began]): Of the almost 450,000 absentee ballots requested, more than half have been returned. Democrats lead the pack, requesting more than 200,000 ballots and returning almost 65% of those. Republicans requested almost 140,000 and returned just less than 60%. Ballots requested with no party affiliation or for other party affiliations total about 105,000 and 50% of those have been returned.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/18/politics/early-voting-status-check/index.html

Iowa had about 1.5 million voters in 2008, and these figures may or may not include early voting in person. They certainly don't include ballots that have been filled out and not yet mailed or that are in the mail -- and early voting is happening FAST this year. So 34% doesn't seem utterly impossible. They can't measure how many Obama vs. Romney votes have been cast, only the partisan affiliation -- but Iowa's a swing state, so that's not a very reliable benchmark. I dunno, if it's really a bad poll, then we should see some more polls that say they're bad soon enough, but it doesn't seem impossible to me.

 

[AniHawk]

Quick google hit:


So that's a steep Dem advantage on registered partisans. Unmentioned are unaffiliated voters. I don't know the time frame for those figures, though. Given the pace of early voting if they're a week old the poll would pick up a lot more than those totals.

wow, assuming everyone's voting party lines, that's a 30-point spread for the democrats. that's actually really close to the marist poll.

and yeah, being a week old, it's possible the lead might have grown or come even closer to the 35-point mark.

thanks for the info.

i also don't know how reliable marist is. it's been a while. i seemed to remember from 2008 that quinnipiac, pew, and susa were among the top ones.

 

[Black Mamba]

Even though the next election is a Foreign Policy Debate, there will be some other questions I believe.

That's what happened the last few elections IIRC. There's a chance for a gay marriage, abortion, and one more economy question I bet.

 

[metalslimer]

Even though the next election is a Foreign Policy Debate, there will be some other questions I believe.

That's what happened the last few elections IIRC. There's a chance for a gay marriage, abortion, and one more economy question I bet.

Man I want a gay marriage question. Abortion is such a dead issue it's so fucking annoying anytime it's even brought up. A drug question (hey you can actually relate this to foreign policy) would be great as well.

 

[ryutaro's mama]

Even though the next election is a Foreign Policy Debate, there will be some other questions I believe.

That's what happened the last few elections IIRC. There's a chance for a gay marriage, abortion, and one more economy question I bet.

Really?

 

[AlteredBeast]

I am surprised that neither candidate, but especially Romney, harped on all of China's human rights violations. He talked about currency manipulation, intellectual property theft, etc, but not their egregious dedication to exploitation? Come on, now.

 

[Ecotic]

The Libya situation also requires way too much in-depth knowledge before you even know what's being argued about. When me and my Dad were watching the debate, after the Libya exchange he asked me "What difference were they even arguing over?" You have to know who Susan Rice is, what she was saying on talk shows many weeks ago, what the intelligence community initially believed, and such.

 

[jiggle]

last election they talked about the economy too


hard to decide who i want to see winning most
duckworth or warren or graves
maybe hirono, but looks like she's safe there

 

[Mgoblue201]

any truth to the bolded? not to sound all chicken littley, but it does seem a little too good to be true. the way the math might affect the final results does look about right, though.

I'm not entirely sure about the reliability of my logic here, but I did a little research and I believe what the National Review article is referring to is the 284,000 ballots already cast, in comparison to the 1.5 million votes cast in 2008, which results in approximately 18%. That's actually correct, as far as I can tell. However, there's a huge caveat here: more than 463,000 people have requested ballots, which is more like 30% of the 2008 total. The party breakdown of these requested ballots is 45% Democrat and 30% Republican. Assuming all those ballots are returned, that's a distinct advantage here.

Of course, I think that we should be skeptical of Marist/NBC as a true representation of the eventual outcome, just as we should be skeptical of all individual polls. What the National Review should be more worried about is the fact that 538 gives Obama a 73.5% chance of winning Iowa.

 

[watershed]

Even though the next election is a Foreign Policy Debate, there will be some other questions I believe.

That's what happened the last few elections IIRC. There's a chance for a gay marriage, abortion, and one more economy question I bet.

I'm surprised there hasn't been a gay marriage question yet. Its a matter of domestic policy, topical, controversial, and an issue of clear contrast between the candidates. Should have been addressed by now. Is the media/PDC keeping it off the table for some reason or saving it for the 3rd debate?

 

[ryutaro's mama]

The Libya situation also requires way too much in-depth knowledge before you even know what's being argued about. When me and my Dad were watching the debate, after the Libya exchange he asked me "What difference were they even arguing over?" You have to know who Susan Rice is, what she was saying on talk shows many weeks ago, what the intelligence community initially believed, and such.

All your dad needs to know is:

Obama = Jimmy Carter

Romney = Ronald Reagan

(even the ticket is Double R...it's a sign!)

 

[RustyNails]

I feel like it hinges on his answers for Libya, since that's probably the only thing anyone gives a fuck about now. Other than that, though, there really isn't much of anything Romney can hit him on or even say. The positions Ryan had in the VP debate were completely laughable.

In the end it'll probably be a decent Obama win, though not decisive. The right isn't going to let up on the narrative enough for it to be called a big win. It'll probably poll just a tiny bit worse than the last debate (closer to a tie).

I wonder how Romney will bring up Libya again with a straight face, after Obama's stare down and a bodyslam by Candy Crowly.

 

[metalslimer]

I am surprised that neither candidate, but especially Romney, harped on all of China's human rights violations. He talked about currency manipulation, intellectual property theft, etc, but not their egregious dedication to exploitation? Come on, now.

Well Obama isn't going to do anything about it (nor realistically can he) so he's not going to touch it. Since it doesn't relate to our economy, Romney doesn't care about bringing it up.

I wonder how Romney will bring up Libya again with a straight face

Talking about the guy who brought 47% up in the last debate with no mention of it.

 

[Jackson50]

Who would be more shocked if their guy loses: Republicans or Democrats? I can think of arguments for both.

Democrats. Definitely. Just look at this thread. It's as if no one even considers Obama might lose.

Oh you're right but my point was that with all that superPAC money, why not flood the airwaves before early voting?

Republican groups have outspent Democratic groups on advertising in Iowa. Otherwise, Iowa's not important enough to warrant more attention. They'd only be mitigating, presuming they're even successful, Obama's already considerable advantage. They have other pressing priorities; for example, look at advertising in FL, OH, and VA.