Do Republicans think Mitt Romney will win?

[Keystone Phil]

No but it's posts like this one that...

[Drew1830]

But, on the other hand, the early voting in Colorado, Iowa, Florida, and Ohio all seem to close Romney victories, which seems to translate into a Romney victory.

What early voting are you looking at?

Obama will have a 60,000+ early vote lead in Iowa with almost 2/3 of the vote in. The only state in which Romney leads among early voters in Colorado and they have the highest number of independents.

[7,052,770]

Yes, Fox News has told them that the polls are all lying, and they believe it hook, line, and sinker.

[Drew1830]

I'm 40.  I've been through several elections.  In 08 it was a no brainerf.  This time it's easy to see the polls are wrong.  It's hard to say that b/c it makes it easy for you guys to ridicule, I'm a cautiously optimistic person generally, but it boils down to the fundamentals and mainly the economy.  We'll find out in a couple days if you get D+8 turnout and win independents, that's what you have to have.

I'm very confident Romney wins.  I feel very good about a D+3 electorate or better towards R.

The fact that you're 40 is frightening. I hope to God that you have no kids and no responsibility.

[Cliffy]

Boy the polls sure got 2004 and 2010 right, right?  They got the angle Reid race right right, the RCP right before it had Angle beating Reid.

As far exit polls, are you saying they haven't been wrong before?  04 ring a bell? 2010 they were way off on hispanics. I will not be surprised if exit polls are off.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=exit%20polls%20wrong%20in%2004&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&ved=0CCkQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fwp-dyn%2Farticles%2FA22188-2005Jan19.html&ei=lziXUPjCF43KqAGI04HACA&usg=AFQjCNFCNf-uhAW3z72uoc0GsC7YxaPKjg

[rbt48]

Well, this Republican does think so.

If Romney carries all the McCain states (pretty much a given) and adds IN, NC, FL, VA, OH, and NH, he wins 270-268.  The first two states are likely, the next two can easily happen, the last two are tougher but doable.

[Torie]

I gave Mittens a 40% chance of winning 2 days ago, but the trends don't seem good for him. Maybe 30% now. It depends of course how right the turnout models are for the majority of the polls. I am not as trusting of them as most of the enthusiastic Dems are around here. Call me a hack, but that is my best judgment. Sure they may well be right - but they also  might be off by a tad.

[Drew1830]

Boy the polls sure got 2004 and 2010 right, right?  They got the angle Reid race right right, the RCP right before it had Angle beating Reid.

The Nevada Senate race got it wrong....for the Republican. In a state that historically underestimates the latino and union vote. Two strong Reid voting blocs.

Are you seriously banking on a severe outlier in one state that broke AGAINST your party?

Seriously?

[mileslunn]

I am not  Romney supporter, but I think it is possible he could win but not likely.  I would say Romney has about a 30% chance of winning so if a Romney supporter it would be silly to throw in the towel now and likewise if an Obama supporter it would be equally silly to assume the election is locked up.  I doubt there will be a strong last minute swing towards either party, but I do think turnout could make a difference and which side does a better job of getting their supporters out.  This is especially important in the swing states where a stronger turnout by either side could tip the balance.  And contrary to some Republicans I don't think the GOP has a huge advantage here.  Dems may not be as excited about voting for Obama as 2008, but many are terrified of a GOP victory and will vote just to stop this.  Likewise I think I don't think a large number of GOP supporters are actually excited about Romney winning, rather than despise Obama and want him removed from office.  Otherwise most on both sides are voting against the other not for.

[tmthforu94]

I expect Obama to win, but I wouldn't be surprised if Romney pulls it out.

[Hatman 🍁]

Well, I saw how bad pollsters did in the Alberta election earlier this year, and have been weary of them ever since. However, that election had a high number of undecideds and represented a huge change in the electoral landscape there. This election does not have a lot of undecideds. The only worry I have is the effect of all of this voter ID BS on the election.

[mileslunn]

Well, I saw how bad pollsters did in the Alberta election earlier this year, and have been weary of them ever since. However, that election had a high number of undecideds and represented a huge change in the electoral landscape there. This election does not have a lot of undecideds. The only worry I have is the effect of all of this voter ID BS on the election.

I was thinking the same, but I should note unlike Canada, the US election cycle is much longer so votes tend to stablize more towards the end.  Lets remember even if the final week numbers were still moving around in Alberta and Canada federally.  In the case of 2006 federal election which was 8 weeks vs. the normal six weeks the polls were a lot closer.  Also Americans are far more polarized than Canadians so it is a lot harder to get someone to switch parties.  Still it is possible they could be wrong.  Anybody know more about 1948 when newspapers read Dewey defeats Truman when in fact it wasn't even close.  Mind you US politics up until the last decade was far less polarized and the swing vote was much larger than today 

[Orion0]

Well, I saw how bad pollsters did in the Alberta election earlier this year, and have been weary of them ever since. However, that election had a high number of undecideds and represented a huge change in the electoral landscape there. This election does not have a lot of undecideds. The only worry I have is the effect of all of this voter ID BS on the election.

I was thinking the same, but I should note unlike Canada, the US election cycle is much longer so votes tend to stablize more towards the end.  Lets remember even if the final week numbers were still moving around in Alberta and Canada federally.  In the case of 2006 federal election which was 8 weeks vs. the normal six weeks the polls were a lot closer.  Also Americans are far more polarized than Canadians so it is a lot harder to get someone to switch parties.  Still it is possible they could be wrong.  Anybody know more about 1948 when newspapers read Dewey defeats Truman when in fact it wasn't even close.  Mind you US politics up until the last decade was far less polarized and the swing vote was much larger than today 

The argument could be made that the US electorate isn't stabilizing though, given the differences in polls (Florida reported as anywhere between Romney +6 and obama +5 can't both be founded on correct assumptions). Undecideds are also still making up between 2 and 6% in most of the state polls, which is more than enough to swing it for either candidate in the close races. After the debacle in Alberta I've come to realize the only poll that matters is the one on election day, the one with real results.

[John_Engle]

Romny will win or not

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Here's what gives me lingering hope: Romney doesn't do that terribly even in current polling. If you accept the turnout models we're getting from, um, "questionable" polling firms, Romney can still win Indiana, North Carolina, Florida, and Colorado (I know this one is contentious, but it's still close and I'm liking the early vote numbers). Heck, even Virginia isn't a done deal for Romney yet.

So if Romney can count on Indiana, North Carolina, Florida, and Colorado, and if he's got, say, a 40% chance of winning Virginia... well, that's not too bad. It puts him an Ohio away from the presidency. And if the turnout models ("party ID") are uniformly off by a few points, Viriginia becomes more reliable, New Hampshire looks decent, Iowa is back in play, Wisconsin could flip, Pennsylvania isn't out of the realm of possibility, and Ohio is a coinflip. Since I do think some of the party ID numbers look a little too good for the Democrats, there's a real chance that Romney could win.

Short version: Romney's not that far behind in the current polls. If the polls are, in fact, systematically off-target by a couple points, a ton of states flip to Romney (such that he'd be favoured to win). Obama's looking good at the moment not because he's blowing Romney out of the water with large margins, but because he's had consistent leads of about two points in important states. If those leads are artificially bloated, Obama's got nothing.

[Cliffy]

and Gallup was off by 7 in 1980, abc/harris by 5, cbs/nyt by 9 and Washington post by 5 in their final polls.  So it's not like it hasn't happened before....

[King]

I'm 40.  I've been through several elections.  In 08 it was a no brainerf.  This time it's easy to see the polls are wrong.  It's hard to say that b/c it makes it easy for you guys to ridicule, I'm a cautiously optimistic person generally, but it boils down to the fundamentals and mainly the economy.  We'll find out in a couple days if you get D+8 turnout and win independents, that's what you have to have.

I'm very confident Romney wins.  I feel very good about a D+3 electorate or better towards R.

If the exit polls show a D+7, will you believe them?  Or will you still hold out hope?

Since you don't believe polls that all universally say D+7, what will determine the turnout for you?

Are you purposefully trying to get a rise out of all the Romney supporters on this board?

I'm just trying to understand the logic behind your beliefs.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

Check Ann Coulter's twitter, apparently Romney is on track to win IL.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Check Ann Coulter's twitter, apparently Romney is on track to win IL.

LOL. How does she expect that Romney will do in Vermont, Hawaii, and DC?

[7,052,770]

and Gallup was off by 7 in 1980, abc/harris by 5, cbs/nyt by 9 and Washington post by 5 in their final polls.  So it's not like it hasn't happened before....

You realize that polling methods are improved a whole lot since 1980, right?

The first national poll ever had FDR losing in a landslide in 1936 -- do you want to use that in your argument too?

[Zanas]

It reassures me a lot to see that blue avatars that are at the same time citizens of Atlasia have a way more educated and rational explanation as to how much they believe Romney will win.

[Brittain33]

and Gallup was off by 7 in 1980, abc/harris by 5, cbs/nyt by 9 and Washington post by 5 in their final polls.  So it's not like it hasn't happened before....

The biggest difference with 1980 was having a semi-viable third party candidate who could temporarily host undecided voters and potentially draw from both sides. D vs. R, most people already have a team and are sticking with it.

[Cliffy]

It was probably easier in 80 to poll due to land lines and no cell phones,  response rate were way higher than now.  There is definitely some questions on accuracy of polling right now due to such low response rates.

Polls do not have this history of always being right and in republican years there is usually some sort of trickery with them coming from the left. 

Right now this is all about suppressing the GOP turnout, it wont work.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Romny will win or not

And there you have it. John has it right.

[Maxwell]

I do not, though I would not be too surprised if he pulls it off. I'm surprised any Republican is enthusiastic about him, but if there is enthusiasm, then it could carry him to election.