With less than two weeks to go, it’s high time for another presidential election thread – especially now that I’ve been inspired to put pen to paper by a fascinating article from Peter Kellner of YouGov, a British polling firm which has been sticking its oar into the American campaign.
The broad picture painted by the mountain of opinion polling is that a handy lead to Barack Obama disappeared after the first debate, and that to the extent that he is still favourite it is because he maintains slender leads in key swing states. According to RealClearPolitics, Mitt Romney now has a 0.5% lead on aggregated national polling after trailing by 0.2% two days ago. However, Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight gives Obama a 70.3% chance of victory by virtue of state polling which shows, among many other things, an adjusted 1.9% lead to Obama in the likely crucible of the election, Ohio.
Until now, my favourite explanation for Obama’s stronger performance on electoral college projections has been that America’s decaying industrial “rust belt” is over-represented in the list of key states, which includes Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania together with Ohio. Romney’s image as a rapacious capitalist has by all accounts been especially damaging to him in these areas, owing to their long history of mass lay-offs and economic decline. This was illustrated when the General Motors bailout emerged yesterday in the context of what was supposed to be a debate about foreign policy, with Romney again haunted by his assertion from 2008 that the government should, as the New York Times subeditors helpfully paraphrased it, “let Detroit go bankrupt”. However, Kellner points to an intriguing alternative explanation involving polling methodology, with encouraging implications for Obama.
In the United States as in Australia, polling generally involves contacting random samples of respondents, the composition of which differs entirely from one poll to the next. However, the alternative approach, known as panel surveying, is to call back on the same set of respondents to determine how many are changing their minds. As Nate Silver observes, there are good reasons why this method is not generally favoured: the fact of being surveyed on multiple occasions may influence the way respondents behave, and a biased sample will produce consistently biased results, rather than random variation in the direction of errors from one poll to the next. The virtue of the approach is that it provides a more stable footing for evaluating changes over time, which is especially useful in the event of a significant shift such as that which the polls appeared to detect after the first debate.
As Kellner explains, YouGov fortuitously conducted just such a survey on a vast scale both before and after the debate. Whereas the RealClearPolitics aggregate saw a 4.3% lead to Obama on September 29 turn into a 1.3% lead to Romney by October 13, the panel survey found next to no change, with the small number of respondents switching from Obama to Romney matched by an equal share going the other way. What did emerge though was a crucial distinction in response rates from one survey to the next. Whereas the first survey elicited 33,000 responses, YouGov was only able to get 25,000 to complete the survey after the debate. This included 80% of those who indicated support for Romney the first time, against only 74% of the Obama supporters. That meant the raw numbers became immensely more favourable for Romney, and remained so after the data was weighted in the normal fashion according to demographics (by age, gender, region and race).
However, when weighting was further done according to party identification – so that responses from those identifying as Republican, Democrat or independent carried equal weight from one poll to the next – the effect of the differential response rates washed out, along with all but sliver of the swing to Romney. Responses are weighted in this fashion by YouGov as well as Rasmussen, but not by most other American pollsters. The argument against this approach (which, amusingly enough, has most often been heard from liberal critics of Rasmussen, which is renowned for its Republican lean) goes that party identification can change sharply in response to specific events, and that weighting for it negates their impact on voting intention. However, YouGov’s evident failure to find large numbers of individuals who changed their tune after the debate (allowing for the previously noted qualification that panel respondents may be shy about admitting they have changed their minds) suggests that, on this occasion at least, party identification weighting might have produced more meaningful results.
Nate Silver was moved to hypothesise that a lack of such weighting might cause polls to exaggerate bounces which occur in response to focusing events such as party conventions and clear debate victories. This is not to say that the poll shift to Romney isn’t meaningful, as the surge of enthusiasm which made Republicans more forthcoming when pollsters came calling could equally translate into higher turnout, with very real consequences for the outcome. However, Kellner offers a compelling counter-argument: that as the campaign intensifies with the approach of polling day, the enthusiasm gap and its attendant advantage to Romney will diminish. This may well be reflected in Obama’s lead in the swing states, where campaigning is already quite intense enough.
Fran – I totally agree with your analysis of the candidates. This is about centre-right versus extreme right, not left versus right.
Obama’s failures are many. The endorsement of torture (via Guantanamo and similar ‘facilities’), extra-judicial murders of both civilians and ‘enemies’, and military action in countries not at war with the United States top the list. On the domestic front he has overseen a radical expansion of state spying and has had the Justice Department fighting like crazy to crush civil liberties and personal constitutional rights in every court case that comes along. The levels of warrantless wiretapping and domestic spying in the US are at truly disturbing levels now.
For example:
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/
And of course he has let Wall Street off for ruining millions of lives, let the Bush junta off for violating human rights and the constitution, and let the telcos off for their role in illegal spying on US citizens.
Despite all of that, he is significantly less scary than Romney. And Romney was the least nutty Republican candidate.
How bleak is that?
There are times when I think that the parallels between the US and 1930s Germany are getting a little too clear. And with the rise of China, an unstable domestic economy, and a hard-right dominated political elite, the future doesn’t look rosy at all for America. Or Australia, given our geographic location and status as a vassal state (now complete with our own imperial legions stationed in Darwin).
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/20/1147573/-Gallup-Internals-Corrected-for-predicted-racial-turnout-Romney-at-49-3
Interesting article showing a possible explanation for why Gallup is out of synch with other national polls (Gallup has Romney 4 points ahead +-1) in daily tracking polls whereas most other firms have it at 0-1% for Romney.
http://www.latinodecisions.com/blog/2012/10/23/why-pollsters-missed-the-latino-vote-2012-edition/
If pollsters are in fact seriously underweighting black voters (among whom Obama has a 90% lead, 94-4) and Hispanic voters (among whom Obama has a 40% lead, 70-30) then Obama is doing about 3% better than his polling suggests.
Also, all these polls are using “Likely voter” filters. If you cannot tell the polling company where your voting place is you are often considered not a likely voter. In 2008, Obama got millions of “unlikely voters” to do the “unlikely” and actually vote!
Given the demographic shifts in Obama’s favour, the likely voter filter likely underestimating the Obama vote and the polling companies quite definitely underestimating the Obama vote, the fact that the polls are currently showing a narrow Obama win is encouraging that he will probably win. Early voting results are confirming this (so far) with Obama well ahead (20%+) in Ohio among those who have voted and doing OK in Colorado and Florida.
….I should add that the analysis correcting for racial demographics in Gallup changes it from a 52-48 (or 4%) win for Romney into a 50.7-49.3 (or 1.4%) win for Obama. In other words, its about 3% each way which rounds to a 5.4% adjustment to the final lead from -4% to +1.4%.
So if Gallup shows a 5% win to Romney it actually means a dead heat in the national vote.
Interesting that Gallup seems to admit (in that article) that they are getting it wrong but persist with their methodology.
Apparently more Americans (18%) believe Obama is Jewish than Muslim (10%).
I’m not sure what this means.
Joss Whedon speaks to the possibility of a Zomney Apocalypse
Amusing.
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_FL_1028.pdf
Obama winning Florida by 1% (he was losing by1% in the last 2 polls from this firm).
The interesting thing is that there were 14% Hispanic respondents and they FAVOURED ROMNEY by 54-46!!!!
There would have been about 80 respondents who were Hispanic and I cannot imagine what the margin of error would be with such a small subsample, but there is no conceivable way that Romney could be winning the Latino vote. In almost every poll, and in exit polls from the 2008 election, the Democrats win the Hispanic vote by somewhere in the 55-45 to 75-25 margins, occasionally even bigger margins.
If you “adjust” the PPP poll for, say 60-40 Obama win of Latino voters, you would get a >5% margin for Obama. The Black vote is also a few points lower in this poll than almost all other evidence suggests (it was 89-10 and it is usually 94-4).
Whatever the case with all this random number generation, there is plenty of upside for Obama in a poll in which he is leading despite potential underrepresentation of his voting base!
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com
Nate Silver @ 538.com has Obama’s chances @ 80.1% today!
Much better than the 56.1% on 12th October.
He also has a 1.8% margin in the national vote for Obama.
Starting to look solid, everything except Gallup and Rasmussen looking good (with the caveats on potential sampling bias I have been discussing in earlier posts with Gallup). Rasmussen doesn’t release its respondent demographics unless you have platinum membership!
[Fran Barlow
Posted Monday, October 29, 2012 at 1:07 pm | PERMALINK
Joss Whedon speaks to the possibility of a Zomney Apocalypse
Amusing.]
So is this a few videos down!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2_LiZw-oIU&feature=related
Mod Lib – where did you get the Obama at 80% on 538? I can only see 74.6 (which is still up on last week by 8%)
Click on the “Now-cast” tab for the current state of the race.
The main page tells you what his number crunching thinks will be the final result based on a whole range of factors (economy decreasing in value, polls increasing in value and trend lines, etc etc). Right now (as in yesterday) it is 80% Obama.
[Right now (as in yesterday) it is 80% Obama.]
And it gives Obama a better chance of winning Virginia than Romney’s chance of winning Florida!
It is astonishing that after all this campaigning, and the very slow economic recovery, the only certain Republican pick up is Indiana which clearly Obama never had a chance of winning as it is a Republican state and he only won it by 1% in 2008.
I don’t think the hurricaine helps Romney either because it means Obama will be able to spend late this week looking around at the disaster zone being presidential.
ML:
[So is this a few videos down!]
Meh … humour is plainly a very individual thing …
ML – Florida is a bit different re: Latinos than the rest of the US, owing to the Miami Cubans.
Here’s how bad Romney’s situation is.
If Romney wins Ohio, Florida, Iowa, and Colorado. But Obama wins New Hampshire, Virginia, Nevada, Michigan, and Minnesota.
Obama wins.
Don’t know how I feel about all that white on Minnesota at electoral-vote.com.
I have a maxim regarding US political analysis: Never trust a US political commentator who considers Minnesota a swing state!
Pew Research have released another of their very detailed polls, from a sample of 1678, showing 47-47 among likely voters. The last Pew Research poll from October 4-7 surprised everyone by coming in at 49-45 in favour of Romney. From the breakdowns:
– Obama is down 5% among Republicans and 16% among independents, but up 10% among Democrats. This suggests to me that his decline among independents, which some are pointing to as a portent of his doom, is largely to do with changing patterns of party ID: former independents for Obama becoming Democrats, for instance. It’s also consistent with the notion that Tea Partiers are proudly identifying as independents while really being Republicans so far as anyone else is concerned.
– Obama down 4% among college graduates but 11% among non-college graduates, and relatedly, 5% among high income earners, 9% among middle incomes and 11% low incomes.
– Obama down 13% among 18-29 and 11% among 65+ (down 11%), but essentially unchanged in between.
– Obama down 8% among white and steady among blacks.
http://election.princeton.edu/2012/10/29/nerds-under-attack/#more-8151
[Nerds under attack!
October 29th, 2012, 10:00am by Sam Wang
Paul Krugman is calling out National Review Online for their attempted takedown of Nate Silver for biased methods and somehow cooking the books. Krugman writes:
“This is, of course, reminiscent of the attack on the Bureau of Labor Statistics — not to mention the attacks on climate science and much more. On the right, apparently, there is no such thing as an objective calculation. Everything must have a political motive.”
Now more commentators on the right, including Jay Cost (The Weekly Standard) and Jennifer Rubin (Washington Post), are getting in on the act. Wow, dogpile on the rabbit!]
Also check out http://election.princeton.edu/electoral-college-map/
What’s all this about Australia being exorcised?
[lefty e
Posted Monday, October 29, 2012 at 9:25 pm | PERMALINK
ML – Florida is a bit different re: Latinos than the rest of the US, owing to the Miami Cubans.]
True, about a third of the Latinos in FLorida are Cuban origin who are different from the others, but I cannot see Romeny winning a majority of Latino voters in Florida anyway.
All the other race stratification I have seen outside Florida,plus a couple within it, show Obama clearly winning Latinos. The last IBD national poll has him winning 65-25…..a lot different from losing 45-55 in a small poll with a few dozen Latinos!!!
[William Bowe
Posted Tuesday, October 30, 2012 at 5:51 am | PERMALINK
Pew Research have released another of their very detailed polls, from a sample of 1678, showing 47-47 among likely voters.]
Indeed. Interestingly, Obama leads by 2% among Registered voters, just like many other polls….so, again, its all about turnout.
There is also the issue of racial demographics (and potential under-representation of Hispanics and Blacks in polling in PEW). The 2008 election had 13% Black voters and 9% Hispanic. The numbers of Black and Hispanic voters registering has increased since 2008 and white voter proportion has decreased in many of the pivotal states this year.
Looking at recent polls (Obama position vs. Romney with Likely voters):
Pew (Obama +0) has 12% Blacks and 7% Hispanics
ABC (Obama +0) has no demographic info
Gallup (Obama -5) has under-represented minorities as described above
Rassmusen (Obama -2) data not available
Politico (Obama +1) has 12% Blacks and 7% Hispanics
IBD (Obama +1.3) difficult to work out but could be 12% Black/10% Hispanic
AFP (Obama -2) has 10% Blacks and 14% Hispanic
NBC (Obama +0) has 12% Blacks and 8% Hispanics
So all but AFP under-represnet Hispanics, and AFP probably underestimates Blacks, which if corrected to increase Blacks by 2% would wipe out Obama’s deficit
http://elections.gmu.edu/early_vote_2012.html
Early voting data so far:
Colorado: 36.0% Dem to 38.5% Rep
Florida: 42.0% Dem to 41.5% Rep
Iowa: 44.6% Dem to 32.1% Rep
Nevada: 45.2% Dem to 37.0% Rep
Nth Carolina: 49.6% Dem to 30.9% Rep
Of course, you can be a Registered Dem and vote Rep or vice versa, but the polls suggest 90% of Registered voters are going to vote for their party……
We also have some other information we can use to guess what the vote is currenty because Obama is clearly winning among female voters and the 2008 vote was
1) North Carolina early voters:
White 66.1% (vs. 72% in 2008 exit polls)
Black 29.0% (vs. 23% in 2008 exit polls)
Other 4.8%
Female 55.8% (vs. 54% in 2008 exit polls)
Male 43.1% (vs. 46% in 2008 exit polls)
(there obviously must be 1.1% intersex people in Nth Carolina!!!)
2) Virginia:
Female 55.2% (vs. 54% in 2008 exit polls)
Male 44.8% (vs. 46% in 2008 exit polls)
So what does all this mean? I am taking it to be positive for Obama in all the important states with the exception of Colorado. You cannot work out what is happening in Ohio from this dataset, but 59% of the number who early voted in 2008 have already early voted today (with a week to go) which is good, and polls reporting results for respondents who say they have already voted have Obama well in front (20% + in all of them).
[Carey Moore
Posted Monday, October 29, 2012 at 11:50 pm | PERMALINK
Don’t know how I feel about all that white on Minnesota at electoral-vote.com.
I have a maxim regarding US political analysis: Never trust a US political commentator who considers Minnesota a swing state!]
Perhaps a little unfair? Hehe 🙂
Yes, Obama won MN by 10% in 2008, but the Dem margin was only 3% in 2004 and only 2% in 2000!
Minnesota has been the most loyally Democratic state in the union. Last time it went Republican was in 1972, before that was the 50s. It’s certainly not the most strongly Democratic state but it’s consistent. (It has a very strong socially democratic base)
Hard to say what the effect of Hurricane Sandy will be.
Unless thing spiral out of control as they did after Katrina, I think Obama will get a small positive boost as long as he does the concerned president thang.
It also dampens Romney’s last push. He has a smaller voice in the aftermath of a storm.
I also wonder if the storm, with it’s subtext of the effects of climate change, will remind people of the regressive anti-science world view infecting the GOP at present.
Hurricane Sandy has beena two edged sword for Obama. it gives him an opportunity to demonstrate action, and a risk that some might not get out to vote for him. The second effect is still unknown, but the first looks liek a positive:
[President Barack Obama has won glowing praise from a fierce foe for his handling of superstorm Sandy, which has killed at least 30 Americans and caused widespread destruction along the east coast.
Republican New Jersey governor Chris Christie has repeatedly attacked Mr Obama on the campaign trail, claiming the Democrat does not deserve a second term in the White House.
But just hours after the worst of the storm knocked out power for 2.4 million people in New Jersey, south of New York City, Mr Christie gave Mr Obama a glowing character reference.
He said he had asked the president to cut through bureaucratic “mumbo jumbo” and help New Jersey, and he “got on it”.
New Jersey governor Chris Christie
“The president has been all over this, he deserves great credit,” Mr Christie said.
“He gave me his number at the White House, told me to call if I needed anything, and he absolutely means it.
“It’s been very good working with the president, and his administration has been coordinating with us great – it’s been wonderful.”]
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-10-31/fierce-foe-praises-obamas-wonderful-storm-response/4343296
New Jersey is not a swing state, but others nearby are. Virginia would be an obvious example.
A Gallup poll finds things looking bad for Obama. According to this Obama is well behind compared to the last elections at the same time. However Obama’s internal polling gives a different view.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2012/10/30/this_early_vote_calculation_from_gallup_looks_terrible_for_obama.html
Well, its 1 week to go so time to put down some predictions.
After much thought and running out of nails I have decided not to change my long term prediction (not sure exactly how long ago I made it): Obama 332 ECV.
Given that the polling and trending could mean that Romney could win 330 ECV himself, this may be a courageous prediction for me to make, but I think it is the most likely outcome.
Summary of all states currently in contention:
Minnesota: +5
Wisconsin: +5
Nevada: +5
Ohio: +1
Colorado: +2
Virginia: +1
New Hampshire: +1
Iowa: +2
Florida: +0.1
North Carolina: -2.0
(Indiana and Missouri -10 and not in contention)
Early voting swings (margin of Dems:Reps vs. 2008 early voting results) for states where this is possible:
…….2008 early vote D%-R% / Today’s early vote D%-R% / Difference / Obama 2008 margin
Colorado: +1.8 / -2.8 / -4.6 / +8.6
Iowa: +18.0 / +12.1 / -5.9 / +9.3
Florida: +8.3 / +1.7 / -6.6 / +2.5
Nth Carolina: +21.2 / +18.0 / -3.2 / +0.4
So based on current early voting the swings are not big enough in Colorado and Iowa for Romney to take them.
The early voting swings are big enough in Florida, but there is a quirk here based on mail vs. in person early voting and I expect in person to increase the Dem lead over the next week (notwithstanding any problems caused by Sandy).
What are everyone else’s predictions?
Loving the detailed polling analysis Mod Lib. Keep it up!
Obama 332? Ambitious! But I respect your confidence.
For mine:
Obama 290
Romney 248
Romney gains Indiana, North Carolina, Florida and Virginia (this will be super tight, eg. 5,000 votes in it, result won’t be known for days).
With Virginia being a toss-up on my estimation, it could also easily fall to Obama, which puts him over 300.
I think Romney wins Florida, another close one. A lot of the polling suggests Colorado, New Hampshire and Iowa are super tight but I think Obama will take them with +4 margins.
Obama back out to 79.5% on 538 after coming in to 75% yesterday.
Oopss….put this in the wrong thread, and a minor edit….
Ohio has had 28 polls in October:
Romney ahead in 4 (by 1,1,1 and 2%)
Obama ahead in 20 (by 8, 6, 5, 5, 5 and lesser margins)
Exactly tied in 4
The RCP Average has had Obama ahead by 3% (+-2.5%) for the last 6 months.
[gloryconsequence
Posted Wednesday, October 31, 2012 at 7:32 pm | PERMALINK
Loving the detailed polling analysis Mod Lib. Keep it up!
Obama 332? Ambitious! But I respect your confidence.]
Ta! 🙂
I am an absolute maniac every 4 years so I figure I may as well post what I am looking at and people can read or ignore me as they wish!
I agree 332 is ambitious, but when you look at it I have 42 ECV on a knife edge (just in Obama’s column). If they fall into the Romney camp then my ECV drops to 290 which is quite likely (indeed pretty much what most of the prediction sites are predicting).
Also, a look at how the G W Bush % vote changed in 2004 from 2000 in swing states:
Ohio 1
Penn 3
Virginia 1
Florida 3
Wisconsin 1
Iowa 2
Colorado 1
Nevada 1
So not a lot of movement from 1 election to the next in raw percentage terms.
There were big swings for Clinton 2 vs. Clinton 1, but they were all in his favour:
Ohio 7
Penn 4
Virginia 4
Florida 9
Wisconsin 8
Iowa 7
Colorado 4
Nevada 7
What does all of that mean? I dunno, but I like the message so who cares! 🙂
I am personally sticking with 303 for Obama but will make my final revision next week.
Do note that sometimes EV margins may make a race look like it was a bigger win than it was. In a big state with many EVs, the candidate wins all of those votes, regardless of whether they win by 1 vote or 1,000,000 votes!
A perfect example to look at is the 1960 election. That was an extremely close election but, if you look at the electoral vote, it would look like Kennedy won it with ease…
[Ohio: Romney vs. Obama CBS/NYT/Quinnipiac Obama 50, Romney 45 Obama +5
Virginia: Romney vs. Obama CBS/NYT/Quinnipiac Obama 49, Romney 47 Obama +2
Florida: Romney vs. Obama CBS/NYT/Quinnipiac Romney 47, Obama 48 Obama +1]
A few good polls for Obama just released.
…a particularly good finding from the CBS poll is the already voted margin:
Florida: Obama ahead 50-44 (+6)
Ohio: Obama ahead 60-34 (+26!)
…always better to have the votes in the safe, who knows what can happen in the last week, but votes cast cannot be changed.
Romney’s Big Lie Camapign rolls on in Ohio:
http://www.thenation.com/blog/170905/yes-romneys-liar-getting-ridiculous
Carey,
303 for Obama looks great. Hope it doesn’t have a decimal point in front: you can never tell with the US nutters.
Obama’s odd have improved in the last 24 hours – now down to $1.4 or a 71% chance.
Not sure if there’s any polling data to support this move or it just the effects of Sandy running the clock down for Mitt.
Has anyone observed what’s Mitt’s strategy has been to deal with the limitations placed upon him by hurricane Sandy?
Obama opens up big lead in Iowa.
Barring a miracle for Romney, Obama’s got it sewn up. It’s all about margin.
http://www.examiner.com/article/christie-and-obama-will-sandy-be-the-fourth-hurricane-to-damage-romney-and-gop
Mitt was unable to get a gig with Gov Christie touring sites in New Jersey effected by hurricane Sandy.
Instead he spent the day campaigning in Florida. If nothing else, Sandy has sucked the oxygen out of Mitt’s campaign. Movement to Obama on 538 suggests it’s also giving Obama a modest lift in the polls. With so little time to go – that’s gotta make it close to game over.
Also, why is it that the GOP has such a run of bad luck with “acts of god”?
Obama cracks the 300 mark at 538.com!
Yesterday’s polls look very good. Either the polls are wrong, except Rasmussen, or Obama will win.
It would be kind of ironic if a storm which those-who-do-not-support-AGW-theory say has got absolutely nothing at all to do with AGW, 100% certain, knocks off their fellow traveller.
Mitt Romney style:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTCRwi71_ns&feature=youtu.be
Interesting article
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/11/01/mind-games-for-democracy-campaigns-psychological-tricks-playing-unprecedented-role-in-u-s-election/
[‘Mind games for democracy’: Campaigns’ psychological tricks playing unprecedented role in U.S. election
Kathryn Blaze Carlson | Nov 1, 2012 2:58 AM ET
As the campaign ramped up last month, actress Jessica Alba blasted Barack Obama supporters with an email asking them to make a pledge — hand over heart — to vote for the president on Nov. 6.
“Make sure you’re ready to vote this fall,” Ms. Alba wrote. “Putting your hand over your heart is making a promise. Casting your ballot is keeping it.”
Around the same time, the campaign’s Pennsylvania director posted a Twitter picture of an overflowing box of blue postcards asking voters to pledge their support for Mr. Obama.
“Commit Cards = Votes & we have a lot of them! #GOTV,” she wrote, using the acronym for “get out the vote” — something the Democrats badly need to do given their base is typically less mobilized.
These were not thoughtless, spontaneous publicity stunts. Indeed, the campaign was deploying a proven psychological trick plucked from its ever-expanding political toolkit.]
Are we having a tipping competition?
Good idea Dio!
What are we thinking? All final predictions in by 6.00pm Sunday?
Give total EV’s for both Obama and Romney.
Maybe some other predictions of interest… Pick the winning margin in Ohio and Florida (for either candidate)?
Yes or no – will Romney crack 70% in Utah?!
Karl Rove’s “prediction of all predictions” is in:
Romney with 279+.