CNN/Time Poll: Obama Leads in Florida among likely voters 50%-46%

[flpoljunkie]

Obama Leads in Florida

A new Time/CNN/Opinion Research poll in Florida shows President Obama leading Mitt Romney by four points among likely voters, 50% to 46%.

"Obama's edge in Florida is bolstered by women voters, among whom he's beating Romney, 54%-42%, and by nonwhite voters, with whom he boasts a 70%-29% advantage. There are signs the incumbent is stitching together the same demographic coalitions that helped him capture Florida's 29 electoral votes four years ago."

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/08/27/obama_leads_in_florida.html

[woolldog]

1. If we win Florida, it's over.

There's no reasonable path to 270 for Romney without Florida

[RedSpartan]

10. Excellent post. I use 270 To Win a lot to figure out different scenarios.

Although I would add, watch out for NH in your map. But of course, we're talking only about the ultimate, and most unlikely, perfect storm for Romney.

[woolldog]

16. thank you.

[CabCurious]

17. FL + PA

[woolldog]

19. Looks like PA is in the bag for Obama already.

I'm calling it.

[still_one]

2. Wash post/abc said their national poll shows a dead heat. The polls are worthless today. Too many

Factors. Time of day, cell phones local phones, etc

I don't trust any of them

[woolldog]

4. Just average them.

You can't expect them all to show the same numbers and youll drive yourself crazy if that's what you expect. You average them to eliminate the "statistical noise" and it gives you a pretty accurate picture:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

[apnu]

5. The popular vote and national polls don't win Presidential elections (nt)

[Marsala]

6. The W. Post/ABC poll has been bad for Obama all year

Obama is indeed consistently ahead in the average. Barring a shift to Romney or virtually all the polls being wrong, Obama is significantly more likely to win.

[flpoljunkie]

8. Link. MOE is 4. Obama/Biden beats Romney/Ryan 49% to 42% among all voters.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/polling/romney-edges-obama-economy-overall-race/2012/08/27/698d6e70-effc-11e1-b74c-84ed55e0300b_page.html

There is a lot of good news in this poll for President Obama. Unmentioned by the media, of course.

[WI_DEM]

12. that is why GOTV will be critical--Obama is doing well among reg voters overall but not as well

with likely voters.

[woolldog]

18. Bingo.

How good is the Obama ground game this time around? That's the key.

[Larkspur]

9. National polls for Prez are junk

We don't vote for Prez by national popular vote. We do it by electoral college, so you have to look at each states, specifically each swing states' polls, to see who has the lead for Prez or not. Obama is winning FL, PA, OH. I think he also has a slim lead in VA. NC switches back and forth. And Obama is leading in NV. Not sure what CO is showing for Obama.

But historically, no Republican candidate has ever won the Presidency by losing Ohio, so I'd say the trend so far is in Obama's favor.

[gkhouston]

20. "Dead heat" means "we're reviving cryogenically frozen R corpses so we can poll them." n/t

[Ashleyshubby]

3. Good news

slightly igger lead than any other recent poll in FL. Good sign.

[GallopingGhost]

7. It's an excellent sign, and I think

after the debates, when R/R *clarify* their positions on a few things (ahem) the lead will be even bigger.

[Amonester]

14. Yep. Post-debates Electoral-College polls will be the real deal.

Everything else from here to there is pure speculation.

Not worth 'eating own nails' over any of it for now.

Still hoping Robmehood's dubious 'business model' (tax-cheat masterminding) will be fully exposed to the nation by then, though.

DURING the debates would be priceless!

[BelieveMe3]

11. registered voters +9 it says?

I"m in FLA and missed a polling call today!

[Akamai]

13. Why not give prizes to people who have voted? This should help get people to the polls.

Why not increase voting through privately supported voter prizes for randomly chosen voters?

A major problem facing United States elections is a relatively low turnout of voters here.

Australia has a system of penalties for those who do not vote, the penalties increasing the more times that the citizens do not vote. There the voter participation is almost 100%.

While the United States is not likely to adopt such a method of penalties for non-voting, maybe we can do our own thing--have prizes for randomly chosen names of those who have voted and those who are registering to vote. (Mark Osterloh of Arizona helped put on the 2006 ballot there a related state measure which would have set up a state prize for voting, and this measure garnered about 500,000 votes, 1/3rd of the vote on this issue. But what I am suggesting is not public-funding, but private funding, group funding, etc., of prizes, with no government money at all going into the prizes.)

This would give an incentive for people to actually go to the polls and vote, not only for "good government" (which I believe is a sufficient reason for most of us on this list to vote), but also because the person might win a prize, etc. I discussed this notion with a handful of average Americans and they all said that this would make it more likely for them and others to vote. One noted that we already give prizes for a variety of things.

Such voter prizes would be a huge topic of conversation, in private interactions, on the radio, on television, etc., and would eliminate the view of people having no possible tangible reward, because with such a voter reward approach, "some lucky dog" is going to win, no matter which candidate gets elected.

This would also help address the issue of, "My vote doesn't matter," because indeed your vote might win you a lot of money, or perhaps services, a carnival cruise, a week in Las Vegas, college tuition, a car, etc. (A variety of agencies and organizations may also want to contribute to the prizes.) People would then know that they had a right to have themselves randomly selected for such prizes AND THEY WOULD BE CORRECT.

The names of people who are registering to vote and who have actually voted is part of the public record and are easily accessible. A random drawing of those registering to vote and also of voters would certainly lead to people from all major parties winning prizes, and this is a good thing. It has to be absolutely random, and well-publicized. Such prizes might be state wide, nationally given, etc.

I would advocate having prizes on a weekly basis for those who register to vote in the previous week, and also a major series of prizes to give to those randomly chosen from those who actually did vote.

This is all perfectly legal, would probably dramatically increase voting (especially among less affluent people), and it would therefore increase the number of people who actually give their views on how the country should be run. This would be a motivating reason for people to take time off to vote, especially important in areas in which voting is not easy.

Any thoughts at all about this approach? Seems to me that this approach would be a nightmare for those interested in voter suppression.

I sure would contribute 100 dollars to such prizes and many, many other Americans would too, along with, perhaps, the major political parties, public interest groups, private citizens, labor unions, consumer-based businesses, etc.

(Please feel free to distribute to anyone who might be interested in this approach to increase voting.)

Yours,

Caleb

[Thrill]

15. Thats great for an incumbent. Hitting the 50% in any

battleground state