CT a Tossup with Romney: PPP

[Heimdal]

It is funny how even PPP-polls are discarded as outliers when they show the Republicans winning. However, when the Democrats are winning then PPP is considered a very reliable pollster.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

It is funny how even PPP-polls are discarded as outliers when they show the Republicans winning. However, when the Democrats are winning then PPP is considered a very reliable pollster.

Romney has about as much of a chance winning Connecticut as Obama winning Georgia.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

It is funny how even PPP-polls are discarded as outliers when they show the Republicans winning. However, when the Democrats are winning then PPP is considered a very reliable pollster.

Romney has about as much of a chance winning Connecticut as Obama winning Georgia.

More like Obama winning Mississippi.

[redcommander]

Wow I certainly didn't expect this. Romney could actually beat Obama in Connecticut? Yet another reason to nominate him. If he could force Obama to spend money and campaign in Connecticut,he could seriously wound his chances of winning.

[redcommander]

It is funny how even PPP-polls are discarded as outliers when they show the Republicans winning. However, when the Democrats are winning then PPP is considered a very reliable pollster.

Romney has about as much of a chance winning Connecticut as Obama winning Georgia.

More like Obama winning Mississippi.

Obama certainly had a chance of winning Georgia in 08, but diverted money elsewhere in the Fall.

[Napoleon]

Come on guys you know this poll is wrong. 5% chance that its outside the margin of error,  this poll is one of those in the 5%.

[Lief 🗽]

Look folks, Romney, if the Republicans are smart enough to nominate him, would defeat Obama handily. You would see a lot of weird states falling into his column, just like you saw states like Indiana going to Obama in 2008.

[krazen1211]

Come on guys you know this poll is wrong. 5% chance that its outside the margin of error,  this poll is one of those in the 5%.

That claim is made much more than 5% of the time.

[Vosem]

Look folks, Romney, if the Republicans are smart enough to nominate him, would defeat Obama handily. You would see a lot of weird states falling into his column, just like you saw states like Indiana going to Obama in 2008.

We're in agreement. BTW, seeing one of your posts reminded me to change my sig.

[Napoleon]

Come on guys you know this poll is wrong. 5% chance that its outside the margin of error,  this poll is one of those in the 5%.

That claim is made much more than 5% of the time.

Uh not by me so what is your point?

[The_Texas_Libertarian]

If Connecticut is a tossup the Democrats can say hello to a hefty 120 or so electoral votes on election night

These pre-nomination general election polls definitely show a lot of interesting races (being close in Texas, Connecticut, Michigan, etc)

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Lol... c'mon people... worst case scenario in CT is 55-45 Obama...

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

If Connecticut is a tossup the Democrats can say hello to a hefty 120 or so electoral votes on election night

These pre-nomination general election polls definitely show a lot of interesting races (being close in Texas, Connecticut, Michigan, etc)

As I said with Massachusetts:

Regardless of whether Romney is the nominee or not, if Obama manages to lose Connecticut, he'll probably lose by a really huge margin. He'd probably lose states like Illinois and California, too.

[The_Texas_Libertarian]

If Connecticut is a tossup the Democrats can say hello to a hefty 120 or so electoral votes on election night

These pre-nomination general election polls definitely show a lot of interesting races (being close in Texas, Connecticut, Michigan, etc)

As I said with Massachusetts:

Regardless of whether Romney is the nominee or not, if Obama manages to lose Connecticut, he'll probably lose by a really huge margin. He'd probably lose states like Illinois and California, too.

Illinois won't go Republican in 2012 under any realistic scenarios.  Unless Indiana annexes Chicago, however that would just shift Indiana to a Democratic state

[Nichlemn]

It is funny how even PPP-polls are discarded as outliers when they show the Republicans winning. However, when the Democrats are winning then PPP is considered a very reliable pollster.

Romney has about as much of a chance winning Connecticut as Obama winning Georgia.

More like Obama winning Mississippi.

No, Georgia is pretty much bang on. CT is D+7, GA is R+7, while MS is R+10. Also, MS (and GA to a lesser extent) are especially polarised, while CT has quite a lot of Independents.

[memphis]

It's hard to say how the GOP would do in CT with a well-behaved nominee. They haven't had one in so long.

[redcommander]

It's hard to say how the GOP would do in CT with a well-behaved nominee. They haven't had one in so long.

Exactly, which is why Romney's numbers in the state should be taken seriously. 2012 could be the opportunity for Republicans to significantly gain a presence on the electoral map again. The last comfortable win for them was all the way back in 1988. Remember Democrats went through a period from roughly 1972 to 1992 where they were either in the wilderness in presidential elections, or couldn't manage to break 300. Yet, Clinton came along and significantly altered the map for them, and arguably gave them an electoral vote advantage they have maintained, and will likely lose come 2012.

[Mr.Phips]

It's hard to say how the GOP would do in CT with a well-behaved nominee. They haven't had one in so long.

Exactly, which is why Romney's numbers in the state should be taken seriously. 2012 could be the opportunity for Republicans to significantly gain a presence on the electoral map again. The last comfortable win for them was all the way back in 1988. Remember Democrats went through a period from roughly 1972 to 1992 where they were either in the wilderness in presidential elections, or couldn't manage to break 300. Yet, Clinton came along and significantly altered the map for them, and arguably gave them an electoral vote advantage they have maintained, and will likely lose come 2012.

Clinton may have helped Democrats in the electoral college, but he destroyed them at the Congressional and local level, which Obama made even worse.  As a Democrat, I would rather have control at the Congressional and local level rather than at the Presidential level.  As you can see from Obama, having the White House means basically nothing. 

[The_Texas_Libertarian]

It's hard to say how the GOP would do in CT with a well-behaved nominee. They haven't had one in so long.

Exactly, which is why Romney's numbers in the state should be taken seriously. 2012 could be the opportunity for Republicans to significantly gain a presence on the electoral map again. The last comfortable win for them was all the way back in 1988. Remember Democrats went through a period from roughly 1972 to 1992 where they were either in the wilderness in presidential elections, or couldn't manage to break 300. Yet, Clinton came along and significantly altered the map for them, and arguably gave them an electoral vote advantage they have maintained, and will likely lose come 2012.

Clinton may have helped Democrats in the electoral college, but he destroyed them at the Congressional and local level, which Obama made even worse.  As a Democrat, I would rather have control at the Congressional and local level rather than at the Presidential level.  As you can see from Obama, having the White House means basically nothing. 

Same here

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

It's hard to say how the GOP would do in CT with a well-behaved nominee. They haven't had one in so long.

Exactly, which is why Romney's numbers in the state should be taken seriously. 2012 could be the opportunity for Republicans to significantly gain a presence on the electoral map again. The last comfortable win for them was all the way back in 1988. Remember Democrats went through a period from roughly 1972 to 1992 where they were either in the wilderness in presidential elections, or couldn't manage to break 300. Yet, Clinton came along and significantly altered the map for them, and arguably gave them an electoral vote advantage they have maintained, and will likely lose come 2012.

Clinton may have helped Democrats in the electoral college, but he destroyed them at the Congressional and local level, which Obama made even worse

Most presidents do that to their party.  The only reason why Carter didn't see his party lose control of Congress was because he enjoyed very large majorities, especially in the House.