Oct 27 2008
3rd Early Voting Indicator National Polls May Be Way Off – Now 4th!
Major Update: DJ Drummond (another poll skeptic like me) has discovered another indication that the poll weighting of party for party ID are nonsensical and Obama may be in some serious trouble. Before I get to DJ’s analysis I want to address comments about early voting typically being led by Republicans. While true, early voting is not stagnant but a growing phenomena. In some states it is approaching 30-40% of the electorate. As early voting expands the GOP edge will disappear and the early voting results will simply mirror the state as a whole. This is pure mathematics and obvious to anyone who thinks about it.
While early voting my have been at one time only 10% of the voting population, it would be dominated by GOP friendly groups who use it (military and older voters). But when it approaches 40% of the vote, the early voting will reflect the general population – it has to. Just as 1% of precincts will not give a good estimate of the final state wide vote, when you get 40% of precincts in you can tell how the race will end up. It either favors one candidate or is too close to call. Right now early voting looks to show ‘too close to call’.
Now, onto DJ Drummond’s 4th indicator the polls are critically flawed:
I found serious problems in their fundamental assumptions, not the least being the heavy weighting of democrats in the polls (and let’s not mince words – any poll weights by party affiliation, the ones which simply accept what is called in are just accepting the raw data as demographically accurate, which is just as absurd in terms of party affiliation, as it would be if they assumed that race, gender, age, or educational demographics did not need to be reweighted)
This is what many call as circular logic. This is a statistical no-no, so from the start we know the polls have gone from scientific to fantasy. But DJ notes something else in the Gallup early voting data that belies a large differential in democrat turnout:
Says Gallup; “Early voting ranges from 14% of voters 55 and older (in aggregated data from Friday through Wednesday) to 5% of those under age 35. Plus, another 22% of voters aged 55 and up say they plan to vote early, meaning that by Election Day, over a third of voters in this older age group may already have cast their ballots.”
The last two statements are very good news for McCain and bad news for Obama. This is because it demonstrates that enthusiasm to actually vote by republicans is equal to enthusiasm to vote by democrats. This runs directly against claims made in polling up to now, demonstrating that participation in polls is not directly related to voting this year.
Clearly the older, reliable McCain voters are getting out and voting, while those new, unreliable younger voters are NOT getting out and voting. So much for the vaunted Democrat Obama wave. - end update
I have been noting that national polls and some state polls may be way off based on optimistic voter turnout models which are historically nonsense (see posts here and here). One of the first indicators of whether Obama really is enjoying some massive lead is the early voting opportunities, which have not shown what Obama and the media have been saying is a huge democrat wave, like 2006.
First there was early voting and registration in Ohio, where Obama’s campaign promised to make huge gains – only to fall 80% short of their mark. All the hype in Ohio was pure fantasy when it came to Obama getting out the vote with this massive wave, which turned out to be barely a ripple.
Second, Gallup came out with poll numbers showing the amount of early voters between Obama and McCain show no huge wave for Obama, but actually a dead even race. Even though Gallup’s own national poll models showed a huge lead for Obama, it was not showing up in the early voting.
But today there is a 3rd indicator from early voting that things are just not going Obama’s way, and this time it is from deep blue California:
The results are simply shocking. The polls showed Barack Obama with an 18 point lead in California just a few days ago. The results thus far are the complete opposite. In the most liberal state in the entire country,the results are that 99,000 Republicans have voted and 96,000 Democrats voted. In the mail-in balloting the results so far are that 9,000 Democrats sent in their ballots and that 5,000 Republicans did so. So with nearly 210,000 people having voted,the Democrats have only a 1,000 vote advantage !
If we take the liberty of assuming that all Republicans will vote for John McCain and all Democrats will vote for Obama,then the race is incredibly close. I’m sure that Obama will eventually win in California,but if he is struggling here after he pushed so hard for early voting,then he will lose the election ! Everybody thought he would win California in a landslide,but so far anyway,it’s very tight. That means that in the less liberal states he is in real trouble.
This election is all about turnout. And I confess Obama’s crowds of 150,000 in MO and 100,000 in Denver has me worried he might pull this off. But there may be an equal force out there, a very quiet but very large and very much determined to vote against Obama. And if that is true, then Obama will not win. If there is a fight in CA in early voting, then there will be a fight across this land.
45 Responses to “3rd Early Voting Indicator National Polls May Be Way Off – Now 4th!”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Well see, Republicans will show up an vote and it will be a very tight race. By the way AJ, John Kerry was able to get 80,000 in St Louis in 2004, don’t let democratic party rock concerts dismay you. Look, the dems have pretty good headwinds this year, but they can lose and we sure as hell can make them sweat it out. A tight race, even loss is the first step to making gains 2010. Go vote, and a victory in two weeks will be sweet.
AJ
I am not worried about the large crowds Obama is bring in. Dems and Unions are FAMOUS for BUSING rent a crowds in. I am sure you have noticed the MSM is not telegraphing the crowds McCain and more specific Palin are drawing. This is just another slight of hand aka trick the Obama camp and the MSM are playing on us to make the world believe he will be coronated on Nov 4th.
First I must take issue with the notion that California is “deep blue” or even “the most liberal state in the entire country”. We have a couple of very liberal regions such as Los Angeles and San Francisco but the rest of the state is pretty conservative. The fastest growing areas of California such as the “Inland Empire” of Riverside and San Bernardino counties are decidedly Republican country.
Look this map. Most of Calfornia was “red” in the 2004 election. Now compare that to Massachusetts or Connecticut or Vermont. I believe those would most likely be “the most liberal” in the country.
I can’t understand this assumption people have that California is so Liberal. They see Hollywood or San Francisco and lump the entire state in with them. And San Francisco is seeing their political power wane. The city is not “family friendly”, the schools are bad, it is too expensive to live in the city for most average families. While more conservative areas East of San Francisco are gaining political clout as their populations increase.
And many of the counties were “blue” by only a slim margin. California turnout tends to be poor. Maybe this year will make a difference if the Republicans get off their duffs and actually vote.
In my county in 2004 Bush lost by about 10,000 votes. Voter turnout was 41%. Of 781,890 eligible voters, only 321,788 showed up at the polls. Assuming for a moment that the no-shows were evenly divided between the parties, lets say that 220,000 Republicans didn’t go to the poll that day. In other words, MORE Republicans probably stayed home than went to the poll. If only 10% of those staying home could have voted that day, the election result for the county would have been the exact opposite. There would have been 20,000 more votes for Bush who would have then won the county by 10,000 votes.
If you are doing GOTV work, make sure people know where their polling place is. Do they need a ride to the poll because their car isn’t running? Can you get a group of ladies together to watch a stay at home mom’s kids or elderly relative while she goes to vote? Can you fill in for a co-worker for a few minutes so they can go vote? There is a lot more to getting the vote out than just reminding people. Sometimes a person needs a little help to get to the poll.
More Obama on redistribution of wealth
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck
A fight in California…
One of the touchstones of this election year, I thought, was that California would vote for Obama. It’s been a mainly Blue state since Earl Warren became governor, going Republican only a few times since then. If I had a……
A tight race here in California would explain why I’ve seen so many of what have to be expensive Obama commercials. Maybe their internal polls show a worrisome weakness?
To Crosspatch: I’ll agree with you that California isn’t as nutty-liberal as stereotypes in other parts of the nation make us out to be. But we are dominated by Los Angeles and the Bay Area, both of which are heavily Democratic/liberal, and we have a gerrymandered legislature that gives control to the most left-wing faction of the Democrats. The way I describe the state overall is socially moderate-liberal and fiscally moderate, but our cultural and political elites give the rest of the country a skewed perception.
Fascinating news, AJ. You’ve given this lonely Los Angeles conservative a ray of hope.
Check the 8 minute mark of this one.
He says that the Constitution ‘represents the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this very day’.
http://apps.wbez.org/blog/?p=372
Awww.. it’s so *CUTE* that you’re trying to convince yourself that McCain actually has a chance.
For an alleged NASA engineer, AJ – I am amazed at the number of mathematical inconsistencies you ignored for this post:
What is the history of CA early voting?
On that same vein – what’s the chance that McCain wins CA? 0%? Less than 0%?
Why are you applying national “when do you plan to vote” numbers when evaluating voting numbers for a specific state, when the rules about early voting vary wildly from state to state?
Isn’t it just a bit silly to “take the liberty of assuming that all Republicans will vote for John McCain and all Democrats will vote for Obama”? Colin Powell, Ken Adelman, William Weld, Charles Fried? (Do you know of any recent Obama advisors that have publically proclaimed they are voting for McCain?)
Where are the Independant numbers?
This is, honestly, sloppy partisan nonsense.
You have to remember St Louis is right next to one of the most Democrat held counties in Illinois. we here have not elected a republican in 50 years. This is Chicago-lite. E St Louis, Brooklyn, Alorton, Venice and many other communities can bus them in by the tons. I live in Liberal Hell right across the river from St. Louis. And Remember only St. Louis and Kansas City are Dem holds in Missouri, the rest are either Conservative or Reagan Democrats and they are not going to vote for Obama.
And ACORN is doing their best to register Mickey Mouse and the Dallas Cowboys in Missouri.
And breschau/norm/conman, the walking advertisement for birth control and abortion, is heard from.
On that same vein – what’s the chance that McCain wins CA? 0%? Less than 0%?
Given that Obama has pissed off some of the Democrat bigwigs out here, including a fair number of Latinos . . . if he’s lucky, he only gets benign neglect, and California’s only closer than it should be. If he’s unlucky, the Latino community may decide to say “Somos la raza, nos escuchará rugir,” and he can kiss 55 electoral votes good-bye, along with any prayer of winning the election.
One thing worth noting: Hillary Clinton won Los Angeles County by an even more convincing margin than she did statewide (and her statewide margin was very comfortable, something like 54-42 over Obama).
I usually only see or hear political ads when they get news coverage–most sensible presidential campaigns simply do not bother to buy airtime in this reliably blue state.
Obama is saturating the airwaves out here, including Spanish-language stations. Now, either (a) this executive experience that he cites (i.e., running his campaign) is a clue as to how he will govern (namely, very wastefully, throwing money at everything in sight without concern for the larger picture), or (b) he is really, really, freakin’ worried about this state for some unknown reason.
BTW . . . how come we never, ever see a survey that addresses the PUMA issue? Am I to believe that it’s obviously a complete non-issue? Or have such surveys been done . . . and immediately suppressed because the results are not in line with the media’s obvious bias toward The One (PBUH)?
I live near San Jose where we have a significant Latino population. While I live in a mostly Asian neighborhood, I do travel downtown once in a while. I am not seeing any kind of overwhelming Obama support. A few bumper stickers, a few signs, but nothing like what I saw for Kerry or Gore. On the surface it would look like Obama isn’t going to get much of the Latino vote by historical standards.
My guess is that Obama is going to get a surprise and it seems that people are playing their cards close to their vest this election. To put it another way, if there are that many Obama supporters, they don’t seem to be proud of the fact because they aren’t putting out signs or slapping on the stickers.
So… some of you think that Obama might actually lose CA in the general?
Hmm. Well, you all seem… wait, what’s the term? Oh, right – batshit crazy.
I will bet you all $10,000 that Obama wins CA in the general election. I will give you all 10-1 odds.
Any takers?
Breshau, yeah, it is a major flaw with our electoral system. What we need to do is have the electoral votes be done the way they are supposed to be. You get two electoral votes for carrying the state, and one for each congressional district you take. That would make the electoral vote reflect the popular vote and that was originally the way it was intended until states started going “winner take all” with electoral votes.
If you got a vote for each congressional district you took, the elections would be much more interesting.
So… some of you think that Obama might actually lose CA in the general?
1. He’s either (a) acting as if he is worried about the possibility or (b) wasting a boatload of money on advertising in a state he’s supposed to be guaranteed. I guess you’re asserting that, as far as you can tell, Senator Obama is a wasteful fool. A fine sentiment to have for a candidate you allegedly support.
2. The visible support is simply not there as it was for Clinton, Gore, and Kerry–and I’ve lived in this particular neighborhood since 1996, and at my current address since 2002. I know who in my neighborhood is a Democrat, and less than 20% of them have a yard sign out, compared to damn near 100% for Gore, Kerry, and Hillary Clinton. Now, given that Obama’s supporters tend to have the sort of visible self-reinforcement usually only attributed to Moonies and Hare Krishnas, I find the lack of visible support . . . interesting.
I am not saying that California will go to McCain with certainty. All I can say is that the present zeitgeist around here isn’t as pro-Obama as it was pro-Clinton, pro-Gore, pro-Kerry, and pro-Hillary . . . and that Obama is acting as if my observation is not a local hiccup, but rather a real phenomenon.
Like I said, maybe Obama is merely a fool, and a spendthrift one at that.
Then again, maybe not.
“Winner take all” was designed to allow large political machines to “deliver” entire states by tinkering with the vote in a large metro under their control such as Chicago, NYC, or LA. With “winner take all” a corrupt machine can rig the ballot in that city and the immediately surrounding area to the extent that it carries an entire state’s electoral vote. If you only got two “at large” electoral votes and one per district, such rigging would be nearly impossible, require a huge organization, cooperation of large numbers of people in rural areas, and be much more at risk of being discovered. AND the result would more accurately reflect the will of the people in that state. And it would be just as fair or unfair for each party.
Look at this map and check out the “solidly blue” state of Illinois and see what the result is. By far most of Illinois votes Republican but the voices of those people are never heard and never reflected in the national power balance. “Winner take all” electoral votes disenfranchises everyone outside of the major cities and puts political races into the hands of powerful machines.
We need to change that and it can be changed very easily.
Crosspatch:
“Yeah, it is a major flaw with our electoral system. ”
Why do you hate our Founding Fathers?
“I am not saying that California will go to McCain with certainty.”
Oh – well, I am glad to hear that you are just not ready to go that way “with certainty”. Because, hey – going by the recent Presidential election history of CA, who *knows* which way it might lean, right?
Tell you what – I will give you 1,000:1 odds, on a $1,000 bet. If Obama wins CA, you owe me $1,000. If McCain wins CA, I owe you $1,000,000.
You good with that?
No, our founding fathers had the right idea. The concept of the electoral college was critical to getting rural states to sign on. What has happend SINCE then is that states have gone to “winner take all” which means the votes in the large metros are the only ones that count.
The electoral college was designed to ensure that the people in the rural states would have their voices heard and that Boston and Philadelphia wouldn’t run the country.
The idea was that every congressional district got one electoral vote. A candidate got two electoral votes for carrying the overall state. But what started to happen under (I believe) the Roosevelt administration was that corrupt Democrat political machines (mainly in New York and Chicago) decided to change state laws to make them “winner take all”. That is how Kennedy was elected. Daley “delivered” Illinois by tinkering with the Chicago vote.
I want it to go BACK to how the founders had it to begin with. Not what the corrupt Democrats have turned it into. The Democrats would even want to abolish the electoral college altogether which would give only the people in the cities any say in government and make the entire country “flyover country”.
Breshau, you don’t know very much about politics, do you? Or history, for that matter.
And changing the Senate from election by State Legislatures to election by popular vote did the same thing, it disenfranchises millions of rural voters. Instead of each district in the state having one vote as would happen when legislators voted for senators and coalitions of rural districts could carry some weight, we end up with a situation where, like in California, the populations of two cities decides the vote for the entire state. It doesn’t matter what the people outside of LA and San Francisco want, there isn’t enough votes there (if everyone eligible voted) to make a difference. The only way we can win now is by voter turn out. We have to get 60% or more of the Republicans to the polls. At that point, all the opinion polls are wrong.
An opinion poll is different from an election because an opinion poll always has 100% turnout. They call you, if you don’t answer, they call someone else. An election depends on who shows up to vote, which might be completely different from who answers the phone.
That AOL poll, as of this Monday morning has seen a major shift
from previous weeks.
It now shows McCain 69 – 21, and winning all states except Washington DC
McCain gets 535 electoral votes, Barry gets 3.
Yeah, it may be wrong, but it has more likelihood of being right
than all our major in the tank mainstream media owned polls.
Anyways, I’m just looking at the movement, the poll has been running
for weeks, and is started over every week. During the last two weeks
the race had tightened giving Obama a position not so far behind
McCain. This week it has moved far the other way.
Something’s going on.
I particularly liked obama’s proposed 25% defense spending cut
and the elimination of our missile defense program. Classy. Why
should we be able to stop an Iraninan Electro Magnetic Pulse
strike from a freighter 500 miles off the East Coast? Obama sez
“We shouldn’t”.
The poll can be seen at:
http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/10/24/aol-straw-poll-oct-24-31/#comments
You have to be an AOL member to vote, though you can register with
them and then vote.
breschau,
You list a bunch of republican elites as proof that the rank and file will not vote. One of the themes of this blog the past couple weeks is the growing rejection of the bi-partisan status quo as a way for McCain Palin to get over the finish line. I do not know what will happen, but the race will be tight and we shall see.
On a serious note, what is the Obama appeal to you?
I thought breschau left in a huff.
Too bad, the little bootlicker is still here.
I saw this link about polls, it is anecdotal but interesting.
And breschau:
I don’t care who those people support. The interesting thing is that Obama is attracting the support of people that you would have called war criminals or fascists a few months ago. I call them opportunistic, and they know one of their own when they see him. So pucker up and get ready to kiss a** for the big guys.
Because, hey – going by the recent Presidential election history of CA, who *knows* which way it might lean, right?
The last time anybody had this kind of air campaign in this state was in 1992, when it was not entirely certain that Clinton would carry this state. Commercials cost a great deal of money. Obama is running them to the point of saturation in a state he’s supposed to have in the bag.
Are you arguing that Obama is merely a wasteful fool?
[...] Obama’s campaign promised to make huge gains — only to fall 80% short of their mark,” adds A.J. Strata at the Strata-Sphere: All the hype in Ohio was pure fantasy when it came to Obama getting out the vote with this [...]
A word of clarification…
In my post yesterday writing about why the prospect of an Obama presidency is so troubling, I may have given off the impression that I had “given up” on the presidential race. I assure you, I have not. And in spite of any polling news you…
But what started to happen under (I believe) the Roosevelt administration was that corrupt Democrat political machines (mainly in New York and Chicago) decided to change state laws to make them “winner take all”.
If by “Roosevelt administration” you mean “by the middle of the 1800s” and if by “Democrat” you mean “Democrat, Whig, Republican and other national parties” and if by “New York and Chicago” you mean “all the states”, you are entirely correct.
The winner take all system evolved when the states decided electors based on popular vote (which they all did by 1836, except South Carolina which came on board by 1860). Because of the way the system worked, parties made sure to only run as many candidates as there were electors: if a state had 10 electors, a party would run only 10 candidates. If people voted a straight Republican ticket (which included the electors), and the Republicans won, all the electors would be Republican and presumably voting for their party’s ticket. The only way for this not to happen was if for some reason the voter chose to vote for a mix of electors, or perhaps missed voting for some on the list. The last time there was a mixed result from a state was in 1916 in West Virginia. That would be before FDR was president, by the by.
In some states (again starting in the 1800s), state laws formalized what was effectively a winner take all system in practice into a winner take all system in law. Maine and Nebraska actually stepped back from that only relatively recently.
So once again, you statement was entirely correct. Except for the part where it was entirely wrong.
This lesson in American electoral history is brought to you by a Canadian. Canada, educating Americans about America since 1867 ™.
[...] is abuzz with stories from RedState, Strata-Sphere and elsewhere that the massive early voting so far isn’t going overwhelmingly for Barack [...]
Bresch?
CA, you owe me $1,000. If McCain wins CA, I owe you $1,000,000.
is that in Scotch dollars or US dollars?
It depends, some states are still not “winner take all”. Different states changed at different times. In New England I believe Maine still splits theirs and one other state that I can’t remember. Maybe it was earlier. I know the Senate changed from Legislature to popular vote in the eary 1900’s. And I thought I remembered the debate in the state where I was living when I was young but now that I think about it, I believe I might have confused winner take all electors with winner take all primaries.
But that notwithstanding, the fact remains that by going back to the per-district system, the electoral vote nationally will more closely match the popular vote nationally and give a voice back to the rural areas as originally intended as the purpose of the electoral college. As it stands now, one or two cities carry an entire state. Most of Pennsylvania is Republican except Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. All any candidate needs is one popular vote more and they gets a share of electoral votes completely out of line with his popularity as a candidate.
And I believe “Winner take all” didn’t start until the late 1800’s when states were given control of their electors.
crosspatch
“Breshau, you don’t know very much about politics, do you? Or history, for that matter.”
Not US history anyway, he’s from Scotland. I googled him. He denies it, but I checked him out. He posts on several blogs and they all refer to him as being from scotland.
I’m reasonably sure also that he comments as conman and norm on this blog…
I live in one of those states that no one ever considers going red. However, I do believe we will get rid of our Democratic governor this year because her administration failed big time. She even has the sports fans in Seattle against her for her failure to act to save the Sonics for Seattle.
Anyway, if commercials are a sign of how a candidate is doing in a state, this state is staying blue. There are very few ads from either side. There have been more of Obama lately but that might be because he has to spend his ill-gotten campaign funds somewhere.
If I was McCain one of the first thing I would do after being inaugurated, I would call for an investigation on Obama’s campaign funds. It is so clear that there has been massive fraud in that area.
KeithM
“This lesson in American electoral history is brought to you by a Canadian. Canada, educating Americans about America since 1867 ™”
and not very well. Your thesis is so full of errors it’s not worth the effort to refute all of them. You could learn a lot from Google.
Funny how we keep getting told how to vote by Canadians, French, Scotch, Aussies, etc. Notice how those countries all vote for Socialist black leaders in their countries?
breschau,
In an interview on the Colorado Springs station KOAA yesterday (video available at POLITICO and HotAIR among others), Obama said: “I don’t think we’re going to have time to engage in a bunch of crazy things that people, the McCain campaign specifically, has suggested we might.”
Obama does not think he will have the time to engage in crazy things; what does that say about the case if he suddenly finds the time?
It is unbelievable to hear somebody asking for your support/vote saying that only lack of time will stop him from engaging in stupid things.
Anybody voting for Obama will get their just reward and they do so being fully warned by none other than Obama.
[...] said that, let’s look at the other piece of extremely interesting news: All the hype in Ohio was pure fantasy when it came to Obama getting out the vote with this massive [...]
But that notwithstanding, the fact remains that by going back to the per-district system, the electoral vote nationally will more closely match the popular vote nationally and give a voice back to the rural areas as originally intended as the purpose of the electoral college. As it stands now, one or two cities carry an entire state. Most of Pennsylvania is Republican except Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. All any candidate needs is one popular vote more and they gets a share of electoral votes completely out of line with his popularity as a candidate.
And…Barack Obama would still (likely) be elected president. Assuming that the congressional districts would tend to vote for the president of the same party as the person they elected to the House, you did notice that the Democrats hold the majority, yes?
Besides, if one or two cities carry a state, well, that’s still the majority of the population of the state who voted. There’s nothing magical about living outside cities that makes one’s opinion worth more or more important.
Besides, almost 60% of the US population lives in rural areas of 200,000+ population, and over 80% in metropolitan areas. Only 20% of the population lives in areas that can be considered rural. Why should that shrinking 20% have a greater say than the 80% that’s growing?
WA State Voter
“I live in one of those states that no one ever considers going red. However, I do believe we will get rid of our Democratic governor this year because her administration failed big time. ”
And you might point out that she was never elected in the first place, she got in by ‘counting’ fraud.
Nebraska is the other state, besides Maine, that allocates two of their EVs by CDs.
I do not have the list handy, but many states do NOT require their Electors to abide by the popular vote. The total EVs in those states is about 240 as I recall. I researched this a few months ago to see if Hillary would carry her fight to the Electoral College.
I am NOT a PUMA, nor did I vote for Hillary on Feb. 5 because she isn’t a very good senator. However, I was reading Hillbuzz yesterday, and someone there estimated 14 million Hillary voters would vote for Obama, one million would stay home, and three million for McCain. Hard to know where they live.
I always thought a lot of Hillary voters starting with Ohio on March 4 were actually votes against Obama, just like my vote on Feb. 5 was a vote against Hillary.
As to Massachusetts being deep blue? 49% of voters are not registered with either party. Gov. Romney’s legacy has improved with the disappointment of Gov. Patrick (Axelrod’s test run for Obama approval rating is seeking to move up to 45%). Lots of veterans, lots of very patriotic people who fly their flag every day. Employment is holding up ok. You just never know what may happen on Nov. 4, even in Massachusetts. It will depend on turnout. Same for New York.
BTW . . . how come we never, ever see a survey that addresses the PUMA issue? Am I to believe that it’s obviously a complete non-issue? Or have such surveys been done . . . and immediately suppressed because the results are not in line with the media’s obvious bias toward The One (PBUH)?
PUMA’s are the difference in this election that no poll has taken into consideration. They will deliver the election for McCain, he carries 40 states. Over 18 million voted for Hillary in a bitterly contested primary and they are bitter about the DNC selecting Obama.
It is not out of the realm of possibility that McCain carries California, maybe even New York if enough of the Hillary vote goes to McCain/Palin. The PUMA’s love Palin.
Ray, I really hope you’re right.
Ray:
You are seriously delusional.
Would you like to know why no poll has taken the alleged PUMAs into consideration? Because they do not exist in numbers anywhere near enough to make a statistical blip. If they did, they would have shown up somewhere.
For the past month, Obama and McCain has both had between 86-89% of support inside their own party. So – where are they?
Here we go: 253 EVs that are NOT bound by law. The Electors have to meet on Dec 15, votes have to be in the hands of the President of the Senate by Dec 24 to be counted. What could possibly happen between Nov. 5 and Dec 15 to change minds?
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/laws.html
No Legal Requirement
Electors in these States are not bound by State Law to cast their vote for a specific candidate:
ARIZONA – 10 Electoral Votes
ARKANSAS – 6 Electoral Votes
DELAWARE – 3 Electoral Votes
GEORGIA – 15 Electoral Votes
IDAHO – 4 Electoral Votes
ILLINOIS – 21 Electoral Votes
INDIANA – 11 Electoral Votes
IOWA – 7 Electoral Votes
KANSAS – 6 Electoral Votes
KENTUCKY – 8 Electoral Votes
LOUISIANA – 9 Electoral Votes
MINNESOTA – 10 Electoral Votes
MISSOURI – 11 Electoral Votes
NEW HAMPSHIRE – 4 Electoral Votes
NEW JERSEY – 15 Electoral Votes
NEW YORK – 31 Electoral Votes
NORTH DAKOTA – 3 Electoral Votes
PENNSYLVANIA – 21 Electoral Votes
RHODE ISLAND – 4 Electoral Votes
SOUTH DAKOTA – 3 Electoral Votes
TENNESSEE – 11 Electoral Votes
TEXAS – 34 Electoral Votes
UTAH – 5 Electoral Votes
WEST VIRGINIA – 5 Electoral Votes
You are seriously delusional.
I’ve been on several PUMA sites and there are a lot of them. They are either not participating in polls or telling the pollsters that they are going to vote for Obama. If you don’t believe that, then go over to Hilbuzz or PUMA pac and root around the comments and stories.
We’ll see who is delusional on the 5th. It could very well end up being you
For the past month, Obama and McCain has both had between 86-89% of support inside their own party. So – where are they?
See above. Those percentages would be of the people who actually participated in the polls. They (the PUMA’s) claim that they have an identified constituency of over 8 million and think that there are significantly more. They don’t take kindly to the Obama camp thugging up the caucuses and the DNC selecting Obama.