CalvinBall wrote:obama up to 71 percent in 538.

we're doing it.

@NumbersMuncher: PPP national tracking has Obama up 1, 49-48 (tied yesterday). Sample moved from D+4 to D+5. Romney up 2 w/ indys. 2 days post debate.

BigEd76 wrote:Obama is on Leno's show right now

MoBettle wrote:and it's really going against a lot of stuff at the moment.

jerseyhoya wrote:My biggest problem with Nate's formula is he has Obama winning nationally by 1.4%. And I don't think he's winning by 1.4% nationally. I don't understand how he gets there.

The people hyping up the OHIO or 'difficulty of Romney's path to 270' angles as the explanation are missing the substance of what Nate is putting out there. He has Obama wins EC loses PV at 6.1% and Romney wins EC loses PV at 2.3%. His model is 71/29 instead of 67/33 right now because it's an EC not PV driven outcome.

His model thinks there is a better than 2/3 chance that Obama will win the popular vote. This isn't a fancy electoral college based argument. There is a *shitton* of evidence out there going in the other direction.

philliesphhan wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:My biggest problem with Nate's formula is he has Obama winning nationally by 1.4%. And I don't think he's winning by 1.4% nationally. I don't understand how he gets there.

The people hyping up the OHIO or 'difficulty of Romney's path to 270' angles as the explanation are missing the substance of what Nate is putting out there. He has Obama wins EC loses PV at 6.1% and Romney wins EC loses PV at 2.3%. His model is 71/29 instead of 67/33 right now because it's an EC not PV driven outcome.

His model thinks there is a better than 2/3 chance that Obama will win the popular vote. This isn't a fancy electoral college based argument. There is a *shitton* of evidence out there going in the other direction.

Not sure where you're seeing this. He has EC at 70%+; PV at like 50%

Jim Messina: “The Republicans are anticipating that minority turnout will drop off, but we already know that’s not the case, and that’s important as you look at some polls here. The electorate has been increasingly and consistently more diverse. Minority voting is going to reach an all-time high this year, projected as high as 28% of all voters in the ‘12 election. Most new registrants over the past three months are under 30, and nearly all—four in five—are youth, women, African American or Latino. You know, these are all groups that strongly support the President’s re-election. Voter registration has increased most among Latinos and African Americans…”

And a senior official told me this, “It seems like the Romney campaign is counting on a big drop off in minority voters and young voters to make their theory of the case work but there’s no indication in the historical data or in the early vote data that that’s happening or bound to happen. It seems like it’s been refuted in the polls, right now.”

MARK HALPERIN: So is it possible that their theory that you mentioned is correct? That, despite indications you have from the early vote, the enthusiasm for people who are going to vote for the other side will just be bigger and the data you’re looking at is just not accurately reflecting what’s going to happen?

SENIOR OBAMA CAMPAIGN OFFICIAL: I equate that with dynamic scoring. I mean, you know, ours is based on the science of what we know. Theirs is based on the faith of what they hope will be.

jerseyhoya wrote:

MoBettle wrote:and it's really going against a lot of stuff at the moment.

Don't tell CalvinBalls