Rasmussen: Obama +5 in FL, +2 in OH, +3 in MO, +3 in VA, tied in NC

[thesubstanceofdreams]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/fox_rasmussen_polling/fox_rasmussen_swing_state_polling_october_12_2008

[thesubstanceofdreams]

1. This are good numbers

Essentially the same numbers as last week - the race is in a steady state which is great news for the frontrunner - Obama.
Keep in mind Kerry lots of these states, and Obama could very well win the election while losing all of these 5 states (by carrying Kerry states+IA+NM+CO).

[featherman]

2. Excellent

[goodgd_yall]

3. And a 33 point spread between Obama and McCain in NY!

Up from a 19 point spread. This is according to the latest Survey USA poll.

Go New York!

[BlueManDude]

4. Obama will win none of those states.

This is going to be a very close election.

[Doremus]

5. Karnak has spoken. n/t

[BlueManDude]

6. NC is a pipe dream. The others are all within the margin.

[thesubstanceofdreams]

8. NC is no pipedream

Obama may win or lose NC but it'll be close. Obama has invested a lot of resources into NC, he's outspending McPalin 8:1 in the state. You can't base your logic on results from 4 or 8 years ago.

[Doremus]

10. And on the basis of one Ras poll 3 weeks out you predict he "will win none of those states" ?

You might want to take that crystal ball of yours in for an overhaul.

Or perhaps calibrate it to all the polls, not just this one.

Your psychic reputation is on the line here! :rofl:

[BlueManDude]

12. Point is you can't count on him winning states that the GOP usually wins

If it comes down to FL or OH - WE LOSE.

[msallied]

13. GOP usually wins.

Did Bill Clinton lose either state in 92 or 96?

[BlueManDude]

15. Clinton won OH twice and FL once, but he also won LA, TN, GA, KT

and Obama ain't winning any of those.

[Zynx]

17. That's if you assume Obama only wins by 0.5%.

If he wins by more than 2%, FL and OH likely come his way.

[Marsala]

Well gosh, we must be doomed no matter what

Since we can't count on winning states the GOP normally wins - which is all of the swing states, it comes down to FL or OH and WE LOSE! We don't have any chance at all! That big lead in all the polls everywhere? PHONY!

[Doremus]

18. Oopsie, better read the tea leaves again.

If Barack takes all the Kerry states plus Iowa, all he needs are TWO of the tossup states. Forget Ohio and Florida.

McCain, otoh, needs ALL of them.

Didn't your voices tell you that? Shame on them!

[thesubstanceofdreams]

7. Why not? He is leading FL, VA, OH in pretty much EVERY poll

He has even larger leads in CO, NM, IA and all Kerry states.

[BlueManDude]

9. He's peaking right now, McCain will have his surge. This election

is going to be very very close.

I'm not trollimg or looking to be q downner but he's not going to get 300 elec votes. He just ain't.

[msallied]

11. You remind me of NJ Secularist.

[Zynx]

16. You are a sad and pathetic person.

[Doremus]

20. "He's not going to get 300 elec. votes" Dude, have you even GLANCED at an electoral map?

You're spouting a lot of nonsense.

Check the map before you embarrass yourself.

Oops, too late.

[DCBob]

14. That's quite definitive. Are you willing to put some money on that "opinion"?

[KingFlorez]

19. Why wouldn't he?

It's all very conceivable.

[book_worm]

21. This is now the second poll to show Obama ahead in MO.

[Phx_Dem]

22. Obama insiders think his numbers are artificially high

and McCain's are artificually low, so says Jake Tapper. Hmmmm. Are they lowering expectations to keep supporters focused and on their toes so they don't get overconfident and lax? Or, maybe it explains the intense focus on states, like PA, that look like a solid Dem vote. Maybe the numbers aren't as high as we think? Nah.

Whatever the case, everyone needs to keep the focus, volunteer and VOTE!


That's not what lots of smart folks in the Obama campaign think. They believe Obama's poll numbers are artificially high, McCain's are artificially low, this race will come down to two or three points, and anything could happen.

As Anne Kornblut and Jon Cohen in the Washington Post today remind us, "recent history suggests that mid-October leads are vulnerable...At this stage in 1992, Bill Clinton held a 14-point advantage over incumbent George H.W. Bush in Post-ABC polling, and it was as high as 19 points before the election, which he won by six points. In mid-October 1976, Jimmy Carter had leads as big as 13 points in Gallup polling; Carter defeated incumbent Gerald Ford by two points."

CNN on October 5, 2000 reported that the "CNN/USA Today/Gallup tracking poll indicates that Vice President Al Gore may be opening a solid lead over Texas Gov. George W. Bush, after nearly two weeks of neck-and-neck competition. Today's figures -- 51 percent for Gore to 40 percent for Bush -- represents a significant margin for the vice president."

Obviously the numbers narrowed a little bit.

As will these as well.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/10/obama-backers-c.html

[Marsala]

23. The race will probably narrow, but note that all of those mentioned above still won

Well, except Gore, who (a) blew his Oct. 5th lead in the first debate and (b) still won anyway.

[Phx_Dem]

24. There you go!

Technically, Gore won. But you can't fight the Supreme Court so, officially, he lost.