Politico: Both campaigns believe Obama has advantage, that Ohio is lean D

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

The GOP has never won without Ohio and this year will be no different.

1960, but your point stands.

[Negusa Nagast 🚀]

The GOP has never won without Ohio and this year will be no different.

1960, but your point stands.

Democrats won in 1960. Yes, they won without Ohio, and it was a near-miss and a dent to its bellwether status. It is true that the Republicans have never won without Ohio.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

The GOP has never won without Ohio and this year will be no different.

1960, but your point stands.

Democrats won in 1960. Yes, they won without Ohio, and it was a near-miss and a dent to its bellwether status. It is true that the Republicans have never won without Ohio.

Ah, sorry about that. Misread the question.

[mileslunn]

It may be mathematically possible to win without Ohio, but realistically it seems unlikely.  I think Iowa and Wisconsin are both slightly more Democratic so although technically possible to win those and lose Ohio it seems unlikely.  Ohio is also a very polarized state so even if Obama has a slight edge I doubt it is that big.  Regardless of who wins Ohio, it won't be a blowout.  I think both sides have a floor of 47% and ceiling of 53% so you are dealing either way with a rather small pool of swing voters.  Also turnout is another factor.  I am totally against voter supression, but I suspect Obama's lead is partly due to his huge lead amongst younger voters and African-American and the real question is will turnout amongst this group be like it is in 2008 or like it was in most previous elections.  If like 2008, it will be tough for Romney to win Ohio, but if more like 2004, not so much.  In fact had young voters and African American as a percentage of voters matched their percentage of the overall population, its unlikely Bush would have won Ohio in either 2000 or 2004. 

[Oldiesfreak1854]

It may be mathematically possible to win without Ohio, but realistically it seems unlikely.  I think Iowa and Wisconsin are both slightly more Democratic so although technically possible to win those and lose Ohio it seems unlikely.  Ohio is also a very polarized state so even if Obama has a slight edge I doubt it is that big.  Regardless of who wins Ohio, it won't be a blowout.  I think both sides have a floor of 47% and ceiling of 53% so you are dealing either way with a rather small pool of swing voters.  Also turnout is another factor.  I am totally against voter supression, but I suspect Obama's lead is partly due to his huge lead amongst younger voters and African-American and the real question is will turnout amongst this group be like it is in 2008 or like it was in most previous elections.  If like 2008, it will be tough for Romney to win Ohio, but if more like 2004, not so much.  In fact had young voters and African American as a percentage of voters matched their percentage of the overall population, its unlikely Bush would have won Ohio in either 2000 or 2004. 

It may be mathematically possible to win without Ohio, but realistically it seems unlikely.  I think Iowa and Wisconsin are both slightly more Democratic so although technically possible to win those and lose Ohio it seems unlikely.  Ohio is also a very polarized state so even if Obama has a slight edge I doubt it is that big.  Regardless of who wins Ohio, it won't be a blowout.  I think both sides have a floor of 47% and ceiling of 53% so you are dealing either way with a rather small pool of swing voters.  Also turnout is another factor.  I am totally against voter supression, but I suspect Obama's lead is partly due to his huge lead amongst younger voters and African-American and the real question is will turnout amongst this group be like it is in 2008 or like it was in most previous elections.  If like 2008, it will be tough for Romney to win Ohio, but if more like 2004, not so much.  In fact had young voters and African American as a percentage of voters matched their percentage of the overall population, its unlikely Bush would have won Ohio in either 2000 or 2004. 

I disagree.  Ohio is a toss-up, and so are Iowa and Wisconsin.  I base that on historical models, including margins of victory since 1992.  Young voters have only been as strongly Democrat as they are now since 2006, and blacks already vote at about 100% rates.  Ohio is the ultimate swing stae, and even if Pres. Obama seems to have an edge now, that's no gurnantee he'll carry it in two months.

[mileslunn]

It may be mathematically possible to win without Ohio, but realistically it seems unlikely.  I think Iowa and Wisconsin are both slightly more Democratic so although technically possible to win those and lose Ohio it seems unlikely.  Ohio is also a very polarized state so even if Obama has a slight edge I doubt it is that big.  Regardless of who wins Ohio, it won't be a blowout.  I think both sides have a floor of 47% and ceiling of 53% so you are dealing either way with a rather small pool of swing voters.  Also turnout is another factor.  I am totally against voter supression, but I suspect Obama's lead is partly due to his huge lead amongst younger voters and African-American and the real question is will turnout amongst this group be like it is in 2008 or like it was in most previous elections.  If like 2008, it will be tough for Romney to win Ohio, but if more like 2004, not so much.  In fact had young voters and African American as a percentage of voters matched their percentage of the overall population, its unlikely Bush would have won Ohio in either 2000 or 2004. 

It may be mathematically possible to win without Ohio, but realistically it seems unlikely.  I think Iowa and Wisconsin are both slightly more Democratic so although technically possible to win those and lose Ohio it seems unlikely.  Ohio is also a very polarized state so even if Obama has a slight edge I doubt it is that big.  Regardless of who wins Ohio, it won't be a blowout.  I think both sides have a floor of 47% and ceiling of 53% so you are dealing either way with a rather small pool of swing voters.  Also turnout is another factor.  I am totally against voter supression, but I suspect Obama's lead is partly due to his huge lead amongst younger voters and African-American and the real question is will turnout amongst this group be like it is in 2008 or like it was in most previous elections.  If like 2008, it will be tough for Romney to win Ohio, but if more like 2004, not so much.  In fact had young voters and African American as a percentage of voters matched their percentage of the overall population, its unlikely Bush would have won Ohio in either 2000 or 2004. 

I disagree.  Ohio is a toss-up, and so are Iowa and Wisconsin.  I base that on historical models, including margins of victory since 1992.  Young voters have only been as strongly Democrat as they are now since 2006, and blacks already vote at about 100% rates.  Ohio is the ultimate swing stae, and even if Pres. Obama seems to have an edge now, that's no gurnantee he'll carry it in two months.

I do think Wisconsin and Iowa are indeed up for grabs.  My point was the Democrats in the past thirty years have pretty much always done better in those two states than Ohio, thus if Romney wins those two, he will likely win Ohio and if he loses Ohio he will likely lose those two.  By contrast I could see Romney win Ohio but lose either Wisconsin or Iowa or both.  I agree if an election were held today, Obama would probably win Ohio, but I don't think his lead is insurmountable never mind convention bumps rarely last forever.  After all I believe in 2004, several polls showed Bush ahead in New Jersey after the RNC convention yet he lost by 7 points there.  At this point I would say it is almost a 50/50 chance in Ohio, maybe a very slight advantage for Obama, but not by much. 

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Despite the buzz, I would be shocked to see Obama carry Ohio by more than 5-6 pts.  If that was the case we'd see a situation where they call Ohio at 7:30!  7:30 PM and it's all a formality, no way does Romney get to 270 without Ohio.   

[mileslunn]

Despite the buzz, I would be shocked to see Obama carry Ohio by more than 5-6 pts.  If that was the case we'd see a situation where they call Ohio at 7:30!  7:30 PM and it's all a formality, no way does Romney get to 270 without Ohio.   

I agree.  I actually don't think they will call Ohio until after 11:00 PM, otherwise unlike 2008 I don't think a winner will be declared when the polls on the West Coast close.  There may be a favourite, but not a winner.  Maybe when Alaska closes at 1:00 AM Eastern time there might be a winner that is possible.  As for calling on exit polls only, I noticed CNN is very cautious and usually only calls it if one side has a 10 or more point lead which definitely won't happen in Ohio.  In fact I doubt they will even call Michigan or Pennsylvania in the case of Obama or Indiana and Missouri in the case of Romney on solely exit polls.