VA: Rasmussen: Romney and Obama even, Perry down big

[Rowan]

Virginia(Rasmussen)

Romney: 46%
Obama: 45%

Obama: 50%
Perry: 40%

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/virginia/election_2012_virginia_presidential_election

[Tender Branson]

How do you know it's 50% Obama 40% Perry ?

Did you subscribe to Rasmussen's offers ?

It makes it very hard for me now to enter this, because of Rasmussen's new hardcore capitalist model. They could at least write the fu**ing topline numbers into the article and when the poll was conducted ... morons !

Grrrr !

[Eraserhead]

Perry is just awful. Stick a fork in the guy.

[Peeperkorn]

How do you know it's 50% Obama 40% Perry ?

Did you subscribe to Rasmussen's offers ?

It makes it very hard for me now to enter this, because of Rasmussen's new hardcore capitalist model. They could at least write the fu**ing topline numbers into the article and when the poll was conducted ... morons !

Grrrr !

Austrian people should not see polls. They can commit Anschluss.

[Rowan]

How do you know it's 50% Obama 40% Perry ?

Did you subscribe to Rasmussen's offers ?

It makes it very hard for me now to enter this, because of Rasmussen's new hardcore capitalist model. They could at least write the fu**ing topline numbers into the article and when the poll was conducted ... morons !

Grrrr !

I didn't subscribe for this new thing but it seems that since I once had a Platinum account(even though it's not active anymore), I just used the same login and it let me read the article. Who knows how long that loophole will work though.

But yeah, I have no reason to make up the numbers.

EDIT: It was conducted September 28.

[pbrower2a]

The matchup between Obama and Romney in Virginia is about what I would expect with Presidential approval near 45% nationwide. Basically the electoral map looks much like about it was three years ago to the day, except that the current President doesn't have the gaudy leads that he had in some states then. But the states that were nearly even then (except that Colorado and Indiana aren't shown due to the absence of recent polling) are about even now. Such  was a bad situation  for the Republican nominee in 2008 and would be again in 2012 because with about 50% chances of winning each of Nevada and Colorado together, Florida, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia,  the current President had or will have effectively 63 chances in 64 of being elected. Drop Missouri and it is still roughly 31 in 32, still making the Presidency a long-shot proposition for the Republican. John McCain. as events showed, was nearly compelled to go on a high-risk and ultimately futile effort to win Pennsylvania for lack of good alternatives. 

Why am I not talking about Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, or Montana?  The President isn't going to win Arizona without also winning Colorado and Nevada and winning overall by winning Colorado and Nevada; he can't win Georgia without also winning Florida and North Carolina (both or which clinch); he can't win Indiana without also winning Ohio and thus winning without need of other states; Montana is unlikely under any circumstances and its three electoral votes are little likely to make a difference. 

With Rick Perry... he shows signs of a catastrophic collapse in his chances. Republican nominees for President haven't won without Virginia since 1924. How long ago was that? There were still quite a few Civil War veterans still around. Virginia is about R+2, which means that if Virginia follows that pattern, the President Obama wins about 53-47 and gets at the least 395 electoral votes.