Everything between Philly and Pittsburgh is Romney world. That is not an absolute, but it tends to be true ( I lived in Philadelphia for 10 years). I was born in kentucky, live in Tennessee, and I saw more Confederate flags in PA by a long shot, than I ever saw down here

Ohio continues to be and will be the only state that really matters… between the other swing states, they will likely split.

I like how you're openly cheering for voter suppression at this point.

Remember kids, rape induced pregnancies are what god intended. Maybe the GOP should lay off the god talk, no? Stick to trying to outright buy the election.

Ohio could be hit by this storm as well. Indiana has been talking about it and Ohio sits between Indiana and Pennsylvania...

Wrong, Putin. They should just lay off the rape talk. Once they can manage that, they can probably do God in the next election. Don't ask them to sacrifice their religion for our secular nation now, they aren't ready yet.

Who's cheering?

As much as I'm sure Obama will win Pennsylvania (and Michigan and probably Wisconsin and Nevada), it is nice to see polls where the two are tied. Especially when the polls have a Democrat turnout advantage on 2008 levels, which isn't too likely. I'm more optimistic now than I've ever been, but I still think it will be very close.

Polls are biased except when they lean Republican. The media is biased except when they're propping up Romney and ignoring his constant lying/flip flopping.

"a Democrat turnout advantage on 2008 levels, which isn't too likely."

Not when you're illegally going around trying to suppress the vote in Democratic areas, no.

Speaking of suspect voting methods, what the hell is this "vote early" crap all about?

People have different working schedules...early voting is great. I have done so in the last 6 votes I participated in...no lines, easy to find best time.

"Polls are biased except when they lean Republican. The media is biased except when they're propping up Romney and ignoring his constant lying/flip flopping."

I wasn't one of the people who thought the polling was biased in September. I think it's silly to expect a high number of Democrats to show up this year than did in 2008, but I think polls really do capture where the public is at a moment in time quite well.

As for the media propping up Romney, I'll just assume you've started drinking already.


Octavious, I completely agree. If people have a real reason to not be able to make it on election day then let them vote early, but don't let just anyone do it. What if we found out that Romney is actually a spy for Ruritania, but with early voting he still has enough votes already chalked up to win the presidency? Voters aren't voting with the same information with early voting, and a genuine October Surprise may not have the influence it deserves.

So, eliminate absentee and early voting except for people that can prove they need it?

Maybe. At least shorten the time where people can do it. Or make Election Day a federal holiday. I don't pretend to really have an answer here, it just strikes me as a bad thing that people in some states can vote well over a month before election day. So much can happen.

The campaign is 2 years long for christs sake. The republicans are whining because more convenience means higher turnout, not because theres not enough info. Evidently the gop is hoping for more dirty tricks and distractions because their candidate has been a shitshow.

I love how the Romney-ites keep finding new and exciting ways every day the election might just somehow swing their candidate's way...

You'd think if they were so confident in his ability they wouldn't need to keep finding these new and exciting happenstances of coulds and maybes and perhaps and what ifs to come up with a scenario for a campaign that's done just about all it can to lose so far and has been kept in the race mainly just because the Obama folks haven't been able to finish the job--or get folks a job, for that matter.

Think the early voting is the answer to calls for election day to be a national holiday. Personally, I think it is better. 2 weeks would probably be enough...but, I don't mind it being longer. I do find it funny that people are upset with it, and not absentee ballots. Was really funny that a conservative think tank singled absentee voting as the real voter fraud problem..but, id checks are still yge only thing people talk about.

Romney is in the race because the media calls his flip flops savvy instead of dishonest. More people think they are better off now than before, first time since before the recession.

Thats because they rely on those fraudulent absentee votes.

^I dislike the idea of early voting, Tantris, unless you're serving abroad or have some other similar extenuating circumstance...

I dislike the notion of making such a premature judgment; for all you know, you might vote for a candidate earlier and a few days later they might reveal that they think 47% of Americans are leeches and see themselves as moochers so who cares about them... ;)

And before anyone defends Romney on that--plug in Obama and the handling of the consulate situation and you can have the same thing for the other candidate.

Just saying, if you voted for Romney early thinking one thing and the 47% comment put you off, or voted for Obama early but have now lost confidence due to his handling of the consulate attack, well...

Not a good situation, hence why I'm opposed to early voting, I think just making the day a national holiday is a better solution.

Because 2 years is not enough time....Im going to vote tomo just to spite you.

You are not going to get around early voting or absentee voting if you want to improve turnout. People have a lot to do in this day and age. Squeezing in going to your polling station is difficult. You have to give people the flexibility to vote when they have time. The argument that if you vote early and something happens to change your mind is legit, but doesn't hold up. After election day the person you vote for may turn out to be a totally different person than before election day. Same for early voting, although you could just add a rule saying that you can retract your vote up until election day. Problem solved.

BTW anyone looking for an election game similar should look here http://www.your-election-game.com

I'm honestly completely resigned to the result, whatever it is. I have said this to others but, as a Texas voter, I have about as much impact on the outcome as does a resident of Nairobi.

I mean I guess I could donate my meager funds to be used for yet more ads.. but for some reason I can't really bring myself to get particularly amped about that. Haha.

All I really care about are the racist voter ID laws here, for the future when Texas may actually be in play. But they're suspended for now, so whatever.

FWIW: Mostly likely voter turnout models aren't based on the 2008 election, they just take it into account, along with lots of other data. It's not just carbon copied over when that was such an anomalous turnout year. If anything, many people say the turnout models still underplay Democratic turnout. Hell, there's still a bunch of polls that don't call cell phones in a country where even my parents don't have a landline anymore and absolutely no one I know under the age of 40 has one. No one.

Sandy isn't going to distrupt the election...it's projected to make landfall a *week* before the election. And....you know...Obama being the greatest President ever he should have federal fix-em-up teams all prepared to fix up the northeast, right? No problem...

Krellin, one of my classmate's father in the Indiana National Guard is headed to Albany as we speak to prep for exactly that. Don't know if that was a state or federal decision, but it has been done...

bo_sox - That's good to hear - Federal disaster planners should be preparing for this - that's what they are there for. That being said...it's due to hit a week before the election...the hype is overblown about this disrupting the election. And if it does....so what...One would have to assume that if voters in afected states and regions turn out in a smaller proportion, they will statistically match whatever the larger turnout will be, and the total state electoral votes will still be distributed correctly (By the way, this is an example of why the electoral college *is* a good thing -- low turnout in an east-coast state due to a storm will not mean they are disenfranchised by not counting as much, because their full college will still vote.)

re low turnout....if only the Obama adminstration was as concerned with making sure soldiers overseas in combat zones were getting their chance to vote

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/090712-624998-obama-ignores-military-absentee-voting-problems.htm?p=full

Here is the thread with Republicans doing a jig for hurricane Sandy. The nonsense about early voting looks particularly foolish in light of people sitting without access to fuel or electricity around election day.

Rove says Sandy helped Obama more than Romney.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/11/rove-says-sandy-helped-obama-148280.html

WHERE IS YOUR GOD NOW