Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
7 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
If Obama is doing better in "swing states" than he's doing overall...are they STILL "swing states"? (Original Post) Ken Burch Oct 2012 OP
From whatmI have seen some of these polls are over weighting the south, and the swing states we need still_one Oct 2012 #1
Not to mention it seems that even if you weight the South properly, karynnj Oct 2012 #7
that's the same weirdness as assigning 'tipping point' states bigtree Oct 2012 #2
No. I don't wonder about it. MineralMan Oct 2012 #3
This message was self-deleted by its author Ken Burch Oct 2012 #5
Indeed. Revolutionary Girl Oct 2012 #6
I prefer the term battleground states. morningfog Oct 2012 #4

still_one

(92,219 posts)
1. From whatmI have seen some of these polls are over weighting the south, and the swing states we need
Fri Oct 19, 2012, 08:57 PM
Oct 2012

Do point in our favor

karynnj

(59,504 posts)
7. Not to mention it seems that even if you weight the South properly,
Fri Oct 19, 2012, 11:00 PM
Oct 2012

the President can be ahead in the electoral college while behind in the popular vote. (It also seems that the Gallup LV model is out of line with every other pollster. )

bigtree

(85,998 posts)
2. that's the same weirdness as assigning 'tipping point' states
Fri Oct 19, 2012, 08:58 PM
Oct 2012

there seems to be a shifting rationale for the indicators.

MineralMan

(146,317 posts)
3. No. I don't wonder about it.
Fri Oct 19, 2012, 08:59 PM
Oct 2012

In this election, nobody gives a crap about anything but the swing states. So that's all we hear about. Go look at the polls in Massachusetts, to refresh your confidence. Or Minnesota, for that matter. Or New York, or California. Nobody's writing about those.

This year, the election hinges on the swing states. Nobody cares about the ones where we already know who will win. Look at Georgia or Alabama. Nobody gives a solitary crap about those states, which will go overwhelmingly for Romney. They don't matter.

Eleven swing states. That's it. All the ads are there. All the campaigning is there. The whole election revolves around them.

Response to MineralMan (Reply #3)

6. Indeed.
Fri Oct 19, 2012, 10:57 PM
Oct 2012

I live in Alabama (please pity me), and it's hilarious to see all the Romney signs stuck out on lawns, as if they made some difference and it wasn't always a foregone conclusion that this state's electoral votes would go to Romney.

But the other side is - Obama is still going to win the election, and it wouldn't matter if the ENTIRE STATE (besides me) voted Romney. Their votes are powerless. Just as you say, it makes no difference. So I just smile and let them have their little lawn signs. In a few weeks, they'll be taking them back down again in impotent disgust.

Of course, the fact I live where I do also means that MY vote is completely powerless to help Obama. I can only rely on states and people far away to deliver the victory I'm nonetheless confident is coming.

 

morningfog

(18,115 posts)
4. I prefer the term battleground states.
Fri Oct 19, 2012, 09:06 PM
Oct 2012

As far as comparing them to how he's doing overall. The overall is poorly defined. The national polls are essentially meaningless, other than showing possible trends.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»If Obama is doing better ...