Karl Rove is generally detestable but not known for spewing bullshit on the air like Dick Morris. That said, Rove gave the Ohio stats on O'Reilly last night.
[...]
Early voting in Ohio has shown that Democrats are down about 170K from 2008 and that Republican are up about 70K from 2008 (comparisons of early voting in 2008 vs 2012) meaning the difference between the early voting (in those raw comparisons) is about 230-240K and the margin with which Obama won Ohio by in 2008 was around 250K. Whatever the case, I remember Rove spinning that they were about even. So he was using facts but just how significant those facts are is the question.
So to sum it up, they are saying that early Republican turnout is smashing early Dem turnout in Ohio. I don't know about the other states but this is really the one that matters. And these numbers are general (only my recollection after seeing it said once by Rove on the air) but you get the idea.
I do see a lot of spin in what you are stating, especially in the conclusions. Rove is saying that they think 70k more Republicans already voted and 170k less Democrats. But he doesn't say anything about the totals, so you can't say that early Republican turnout is smashing early Democrat turnout (for instance, if Democratic turnout is now 330k compared to 500k 4 years ago and Republican went up from 200k to 270k then still more people affiliated with the Democratic party voted). And apparently, it's also difficult to know in Ohio how many people from which political party voted:
Who's Really Winning Early Voting? - Molly Ball - The Atlantic
"For an example of the difficulty of reading early voting in these states, take a look at Ohio. Though all voters are technically unaffiliated, the state tracks them by which party's primary they last participated in. By that metric, Democrats lead the early vote, but by a smaller margin than 2008. It's an iffy metric, though, because there was a Republican but no Democratic presidential primary this year, boosting Republican "registration." Both parties have turned to other measures instead: Democrats say more voters have turned out in the precincts that voted for Obama than those that voted for John McCain four years ago. Republicans counter that the counties that went for McCain are turning out at higher rates than those that went for Obama. "
But the question is - the voting sampling. Forget Dickhead Morris and "landslides"...that's keying in on the wrong issue. Rove used the new CBS/NYT poll as an example.
The poll takers are using 2008 data to frame their 2012 polls.
How do you know they use a 2008 model to frame their 2012 data? How can you be sure that pollsters do not take into account changes in demographics and political composure?
And Rove (and unfortunately Dick Morris) and most Republicans are saying that this is why the polls (not only in Ohio but in other swing states) are going to be so off the mark.
And you have to admit - there is some logic to that idea.
I think it's quite telling that persons of the political party that is behind are now saying this. Especially when about every poll (by different pollsters) are saying about the same thing. It can be the case that one or a few pollsters use an incorrect model/algorithm, but dozens of (independent) pollsters?
Lastly, I know it rankles the feathers of the more ideological Left among us - but check Rasmussen this close to election day. Romney +2. And look at the margin for the three Presidents that lost the popular vote but won the electoral college.
It's interesting that you pick one of the few pollsters that have a demonstrable bias in their results. Based on empirical data (and also their results of the 2010 elections) it appears that Rasmussen overstates its polls by about 2 percentage points in favour of Romney. I don't want to say they have an editorial bias (that they are partisan and willfully manipulating their numbers), but it does appear that either their model of the electorate or their methods in getting the data has some inaccuracies.
Note about Rasmussen
ElectoralVote
All I'm saying is - this election is a toss up. Don't believe anyone that tells you different.
The election is certainly close. Though I'm not sure I'll qualify it as a toss-up anymore. Obama clearly has the best chances.
Everyone is saying that Ohio is his firewall. Personally, I see a 3-state firewall: Ohio, Colorado and Virginia. If Obama wins any one of those states then he'll very likely win the election by getting more than 270 electoral votes. Granted, his lead in Colorado and Virginia is even less than his lead in Ohio, but he seems to have a small lead in most of the polls there. Not to mention that Florida again seems to be a tie again.
Besides, not a single time has Romney lead in enough states to get 270 electoral votes. I believe he maxed out at about 250 electoral votes a couple of times. See also the top graph on this page:
Electoral College Graphs
While Obama has the best chances, that doesn't mean that he's already in the clear for a victory. Though getting smaller every day, Romney still has a chance to win (Nate Silver puts it at about 20%). And once every while these surprising victories do happen.
After that he chugged down a Big Gulp and a large order of fries
I will bring a really, really, really good gift.
Popmartjian! You have a better grasp on our election than do many political pundits.
