Romney is the next President

Gallup reports Romney is up 7% in early voting nation wide.

Update 11/1: Tough News for Obama in Early Voting Figures

"The Pew Research Center survey found that the race is even among all likely voters nationwide (47% Obama, 47% Romney). Unlike the last campaign, the race also is close among voters who say they have already voted.......Currently, Romney holds a seven-point edge among early voters (50% to 43%)....At this point four years ago, Obama led John McCain by 19 points (53% to 34%) among early voters."

Update 11/3: If Gallup is right, Tuesday will be a long night for the Democratic party.

"The Pew Research Center has posted party identification data going all the way back to 1929. The data series suggests that this deterioration in the Democrats standing with American voters is nearly unprecedented.....Gallups finding would hand Romney a lead between five to ten points"

I believe he will be, yes. And nothing changed.MrPraline

But when the democrat loses early voting they are finished.

This really isn't indictive of anything because a large portion of the voting population are still voting on election day.

This really isn't indictive of anything because a large portion of the voting population are still voting on election day.

DarkGamer007

Don;t want to turn this into a political issue, but that storm may affect the outcome of the election so I wouldn't be cheering for romney yet.

[QUOTE="DarkGamer007"]

This really isn't indictive of anything because a large portion of the voting population are still voting on election day.

KC_Hokie

Did you read your own article?

"By 19% to 15%, a slightly higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats have already voted."

Democrats are finished!!

Don;t want to turn this into a political issue, but that storm may affect the outcome of the election so I wouldn't be cheering for romney yet.

super600

as much as despise romeny i think the man will win. and he will win simply for the fact people don't like Obama because they think he is Kenyan and a Muslim. I just hope that those who voted for Romeny suffer the most.

Electoral college is still stacked towards an Obama victory.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="DarkGamer007"]

This really isn't indictive of anything because a large portion of the voting population are still voting on election day.

JML897

Did you read your own article?

"By 19% to 15%, a slightly higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats have already voted."

Democrats are finished!!

"Romney currently leads Obama 52% to 45% among voters who say they have already cast their ballots"

[QUOTE="super600"]

Don;t want to turn this into a political issue, but that storm may affect the outcome of the election so I wouldn't be cheering for romney yet.

KC_Hokie

That's my point.It skews with early voting results for both sides most likely.So it;s stupid to declare romney the winner yet.

and he will win simply for the fact people don't like Obama because they think he is Kenyan and a Muslim.helwa1988

Early voting doesn't mean jack squat. Stevo_the_gamer

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="super600"]

Don;t want to turn this into a political issue, but that storm may affect the outcome of the election so I wouldn't be cheering for romney yet.

super600

That's my point.It skews with early voting results for both sides most likely.So it;s stupid to declare romney the winner yet.

Just recongnized something.The storm will skew early voting results starting this week.

Early voting doesn't mean jack squat. Stevo_the_gamer

[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]Early voting doesn't mean jack squat. JML897

And when someone is up 5% in the Gallup the electoral college won't be that close. History shows us that.

More info about how Sandy could skew the election results

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/how-sandy-is-affecting-early-voting-in-swing-states/

[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]Early voting doesn't mean jack squat. KC_Hokie

Except Democrats are polling just fine (though close races) in swing states, the states that will actually matter in the election. Obama can lose big time in early voting in the south and it won't make much of a difference.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]Early voting doesn't mean jack squat. _BlueDuck_

Except Democrats are polling just fine (though close races) in swing states, the states that will actually matter in the election. Obama can lose big time in early voting in the south and it won't make much of a difference.

[QUOTE="JML897"][QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]Early voting doesn't mean jack squat. KC_Hokie

And when someone is up 5% in the Gallup the electoral college won't be that close. History shows us that.

It;s never a good idea to use history.I attempted to use history for a Canadian provincial election in Quebec and was severly owned

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="JML897"] Thank you for that sane opinion. Also, ITT Hokie proves that he doesn't understand how the electoral college works. There's a very good chance Obama will lose the popular vote and still win the Presidency anyway. super600

And when someone is up 5% in the Gallup the electoral college won't be that close. History shows us that.

It;s never a good idea to use history.I attempted to use history for a Canadian provincial election in Quebec and was severly owned

But I'm not done making fun of Obama yet. DaBrainz

I feel much more comfortable about Obama's chances now that hokie has guaranteed Romney's victory. -Sun_Tzu-

[QUOTE="super600"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Early voting is crucial for the democrat.

And when someone is up 5% in the Gallup the electoral college won't be that close. History shows us that.

KC_Hokie

It;s never a good idea to use history.I attempted to use history for a Canadian provincial election in Quebec and was severly owned

It's possible to still win.I actually predicted the Quebec liberals would win based on the fact the Alberta PC party owned a bunch of pollsters and I got severly owned.It's stupid to use stats because they can be flawed like in the Alberta example.

Thread bookmarked for a week from nowJML897

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="super600"]

It;s never a good idea to use history.I attempted to use history for a Canadian provincial election in Quebec and was severly owned

super600

It's possible to still win.I actually predicted the Quebec liberals would win based on the fact the Alberta PC party owned a bunch of pollsters and I got severly owned.It's stupid to use stats because they can be flawed.

[QUOTE="super600"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]If the democrat loses early voting they never win in the US. KC_Hokie

It's possible to still win.I actually predicted the Quebec liberals would win based on the fact the Alberta PC party owned a bunch of pollsters and I got severly owned.It's stupid to use stats because they can be flawed.

It did in Alberta.Pollsters were predicting a Wild Rose minority/ majority and when it came time to vote the PC party pulled off another majority.

It does seem odd for a supposed Gary Johnson supporter to be so giddy over the prospect of a Romney presidency. -Sun_Tzu-

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]It does seem odd for a supposed Gary Johnson supporter to be so giddy over the prospect of a Romney presidency. KC_Hokie

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="super600"]

It's possible to still win.I actually predicted the Quebec liberals would win based on the fact the Alberta PC party owned a bunch of pollsters and I got severly owned.It's stupid to use stats because they can be flawed.

super600

It did in Alberta.Pollsters were predicting a Wild Rose minority/ majority and when it came time to vote the PC party pulled off another majority.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]It does seem odd for a supposed Gary Johnson supporter to be so giddy over the prospect of a Romney presidency. -Sun_Tzu-

[QUOTE="_BlueDuck_"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Of course it does. if the democrat loses early voting they are toast. KC_Hokie

Except Democrats are polling just fine (though close races) in swing states, the states that will actually matter in the election. Obama can lose big time in early voting in the south and it won't make much of a difference.

You don't seem to understand how polling or the electoral college works. Democrats are currently polling ahead in just about every swing state in early voting (still too close to call though). National Gallup polls are irrelevant if the democrats are winning Ohio, Wisconsin, Florida and so on.

Not to mention Gallup is the only poll that is showing such an advantage to Romney.

Thread bookmarked for a week from nowJML897

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]The prospect of Obama losing is great even though I support Gary Johnson.KC_Hokie

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="_BlueDuck_"]

Except Democrats are polling just fine (though close races) in swing states, the states that will actually matter in the election. Obama can lose big time in early voting in the south and it won't make much of a difference.

_BlueDuck_

You don't seem to understand how polling or the electoral college works. Democrats are currently polling ahead in just about every swing state in early voting (still too close to call though). National Gallup polls are irrelevant if the democrats are winning Ohio, Wisconsin, Florida and so on.

Not to mention Gallup is the only poll that is showing such an advantage to Romney.

[QUOTE="super600"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Theoretically, technically..sure. Doesn't happen though.KC_Hokie

It did in Alberta.Pollsters were predicting a Wild Rose minority/ majority and when it came time to vote the PC party pulled off another majority.

What I'm trying to say is that using a bunch of stats to declare a party the winner a week or two before the election is stupid because you don't know what may happen on election day since the US election is so tight and I used the Alberta election as an example to emphasize that.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]The prospect of Obama losing is great even though I support Gary Johnson.KC_Hokie

[QUOTE="JML897"]Thread bookmarked for a week from nowMrPraline