#701
|
||||
|
Quote:
The closeness of the race was played up in order to maximize ratings. Romney had no shot in PA, Michigan, New Hampshire, or Minnesota. Given that fact, he absolutely could not win without Florida -- which was 50/50, at best. To win without Ohio (where he was behind in the polls), he'd absolutely have to carry Florida, Virginia (behind), North Carolina, and Wisconsin (behind), and he'd have to carry all but one of: Iowa (behind), Colorado (behind), and Nevada (behind). People got caught up in the fact that Romney was fairly close in a lot of the traditional swing states, but he was still behind, and he needed to take almost all of them to win. Look at the map. He could've swept Florida, Ohio, and Virginia and he still would've lost. He would've been the first person to do that and lose since Nixon ran against JFK. And in reality, Romney's going to lose all 3 (Florida isn't done yet, but based on the districts, the likelihood is that Obama took it). | |||
|
#702
|
||||
|
Well I think there were some reasonable reasons to suspect the polls (e.g. the Bradley effect) but as it happens they were extremely accurate.
__________________
Raev | Loraen | Sakuragi <The A-Team> | Solo Artist Challenge | Farmer's Market
Quote:
| |||
|
#703
|
||||
|
Quote:
Romney also was polling at a higher share of the white vote than any Republican candidate since 1988, so it's not like there was much room for the Bradley effect to kick in. He was polled at 59-60% of the white vote to Obama's 38%, which is a massive lead. It just seems unlikely that those numbers had room to be significantly fudged based on the Bradley effect. | |||
|
|
|