Comments on the election

[Reality Check]

... the Obama campaign has a lot of money that mostly came from small donations. This means he has a large and very motivated group that feel connected to him personally.

You give great credit to polls that say Obama is 2% ahead in some critical battle ground states. Those same polls say Obama is behind, by over a dozen points in terms of voter enthusiasm. I guess you can say the polls are correct when you agree with the results, but the same polls are incorrect when you do not like what they say, but I am not sure that position would be very persuasive.

Virtually all these "small donations" came in through automated systems run by the various Obama campaign organizations which do not collect information on what the actual source of the money was. By design these automated systems only collected information on who "some" unknown person claimed was making the donation. What does that strange statement mean? All donations through Obama campaign automated systems are received electronically from bank accounts, credit cards, etc. All these bank accounts and credit card accounts have names and addresses associated with them. Those names, on those accounts, are available at the time the credit card or bank account donations is processed but are not recorded by the Obama campaign automated systems. The Obama campaign has reported, both in 2008 and during this election, that they do NOT recorded the name and account number information of the people associated with these bank accounts, credit cards, etc. Normally businesses would collect the name data associated with the bank account or credit card to prevent fraud. But the Obama campaign automated systems encourages fraud by not recording that information. Instead the Obama automated systems allow a different name and address, even one totally unrelated to the account where the money came from, to be reported by unknown third parties, as the donor of these transactions.

This unverified ( as in not verified to have any connection to the bank account or credit card account that was the actual source of the money ) name and address information, that is recorded by the Obama campaign automated systems for each "small donation" could be keyed in by a live person, or supplied by other computer programs interacting with the Obama campaign automated systems, at the rate of hundreds of donations per minute. The true source of the name and address information could be anywhere, such as unknown third party software, or unknown third party individuals, simply picking names and addresses randomly out of online telephone directories in random U.S. cities.

If election fraud was being committed using these Obama campaign automated systems, it would be the third parties committing the election fraud, not the Obama campaign. As the Obama campaign repeatedly points out, election laws do not require collecting credit card or bank account related names or account numbers. Who would want to commit such fraud? Obama supporters, such as foreign citizens, foreign governments, foreign corporations who can not legally make any contribution to Obama and U.S. corporations/associations who can not make huge donations to Obama legally. Anyone with Billions of dollars and who would benefit greatly from Obama being re-elected, could also use this simple method. ( For example: China, Iran, Russia, the too big to fail banks, George Soros, or foreign based front groups for any of these).

Interestingly, third party internet transaction data collection sites report the vast majority of transactions with Obama campaign donation servers are coming from IP addresses in foreign countries. Sort of hard to explain if these were just average Joes in the U.S. making small contributions from their living room in the United States.

Is this type of fraud going on, on a massive scale, by unknown third parties with 100s of millions of dollars to throw to Obama? Maybe, maybe not ( the Obama campaigns have made sure they do not record, and do not report. any data that would allow this to be investigated ). But the huge disconnect between the enthusiasm shown in the polls you rely on for other purposes, and your suggestion that small contributions reported by the Obama campaign automated systems as evidence of huge enthusiasm by Obama voters, does appear to be a problem.

[Reality Check]

I do not know who is going to win this Presidential election.

At best I believe Romney has a fifty-fifty shot at this point.

The world's problems are just too complex for the average American voter to evaluate either Obama's or Romney's plans for the future.

But in my humble opinion the American voters should do what they have done well in the past: throw the bums who have failed so far out, and hope the new ones get the message that things must change for the better, or they will suffer the same fate.

[Reality Check]

This graph speaks for itself.

[OLD1953]

RC, you need to be more cynical. I repeat, this is all about the money and getting the big donors (most of whom are Republican) to open those deep pockets. Now that the polls have switched to "likely" voters we can and will get polls of noise, until that few days before the election.

The issue of who gets over 50% is meaningless in terms of polls, undecideds this late in the game are often no shows when it comes to voting. If you want to count by registered voters, hardly a modern President was elected with over 1/3 of the voters voting for him. I can't recall offhand anyone who reached 50% of registered voters. And you don't even want to think about the number of eligible voters who never register.

A great deal of noise is now being made about likely voters and what is a likely voter. Given the money issue, do you think they are going to tend to overcount Republicans or Democrats? Moreover it's all about electoral votes, not popular vote. This election the popular vote will be much closer than the electoral vote, and that's the usual case. In either case, I'm mystified by likely voter counts for several reasons, and those reasons include this, why on earth would I ever believe that a fairly random group in the population would be more likely to vote and also more likely to vote Republican or Democrat? Discounting all the pride issues, just what would make that a pattern? And I don't see any reason for it other than dislike for Obama, which is countered by dislike for Romney. In other words, you are measuring something that doesn't exist, people who actually voted a month from now.

Were this situation reversed I'd be saying Obama has the harder job, but it's not. He's worked hard to build that large number of small donors, and they are going to be a factor, and they are motivated to vote and get others to vote. Those are facts. He's got that incumbent advantage, and in every close election, the incumbent retained the office. And I've already stated several times that this is not about popular candidates people vote FOR, it's about who you are voting against. There are plenty of people, especially women, who'll go through anything to vote against Romney and the same can be said of people who despise Obama. That's the big factor in this election, not the candidate. If it was the issues, people would be voting at random. (I did notice that the press dropped Romney's remark about capping deductions down a black hole very quickly. Given that's an actual policy difference, you'd think it would get some play.)

In fact, I'll say this, Romney's only path to victory lies in reducing the number of people who detest him and will do anything to vote against him. I do not believe Obama can do anything to reduce the number who detest him, that number is pretty much fixed in stone.

The VP debate was not all that remarkable, though I thought it was funny when they couldn't identify differences between policy on Iran. Of course they can't do anything differently short of going to war, we stand at the ragged edge of war with Iran right now. After cutting off trade, destroying their money and causing them as much hardship as possible without war, just what's the next step that doesn't go directly to war? Can't blockade em', you'd block the Strait of Hormuz, besides which it would cost like crazy.

I'm not happy with either candidate this time, of the serious contenders in the last 4 years I'd say Hillary Clinton was probably the best of the pack. Why not McCain? Because the man would have been 72 on taking office, and 72 is too old for the highest stress job on the planet! I wish the parties would both sign pledges that they would not run anyone over 65 for the Presidency (for the first term), and nobody over 70 for any office at any time. High stress positions should not be filled by the elderly. If you disagree with this I'm fine with it, but you will never change my mind on the matter, on this subject I'm solid as stone until the day somebody discovers a rejuvenation treatement. I've spent too much time with the elderly for anyone to change my mind. It's a damn few years till I join them, and I'm absolutely not the man I was 15 years ago.

Personally, I'd probably be better off if Romney won and actually did what he's talking about. I work for the military as a civilian contractor, and a hundred billion a year less in that budget vs a hundred billion increase instead would make it a lot more likely I'd have a job. But that's neither here nor there in a discussion of who is winning this election.

[Reality Check]

this is all about the money and getting the big donors (most of whom are Republican) to open those deep pockets.

What this is really about is who can get the most ballots counted, on a state by state basis, between now and a few days after November 6th, 2012.

How those ballots get into the ballot box ( by mail, or weeks before the election, or by busing in people from the neighboring state, by the same person voting multiple times in the same state using multiple fraudulent registration under multiple names, by the same person voting in multiple states under the same - or different - name, or the old fashion way - one man one vote per election ) does not matter. The candidate who can get the most ballots in the ballot box wins that state's electoral votes. The guy with 270 electoral votes, or more becomes the next U.S. President.

The electoral system does make it easier to cheat. Voters can be bussed into Iowa, Wisconsin and Ohio from Illinois for instance.

But the bottom line is simple if Romney can figure out how to win Ohio, he wins.

If Obama wins Ohio, Romney loses.

Even in Ohio it remains too close to call.

[OLD1953]

I meant that was what the polling and reporting is about.

[Reality Check]

The issue of who gets over 50% is meaningless in terms of polls, undecideds this late in the game are often no shows when it comes to voting.

IMHO just the opposite is true on both of your points.

This close to the election only likely voters are polled, and likely voters, by definition, vote.

Historically it is more likely that either the "likely Democrats" or the "likely Republicans" will fail to show up at the polls.

For Obama, the incumbent, not being at 50% is a big deal. Being at 47% or below is a likely disaster.

Conventional wisdom, and electoral history, tells us at least two thirds of undecided are going to break against the incumbent.

If the state poll shows 47% to 46% Obama, with 6% undecided and 1% other, then the most likely result is 50% Romney, 49% Obama.

If the state poll shows 48% Romney, 46% Obama, with 5% undecided and 1% other then likely result is 51% Romney, 48% Obama.

Ohio is the key. And polls can be wrong for all kinds of reasons, so it could turn out to be landslide ( 53% to 46% either way ) in any, or all, battle ground states.

Early ( and in some cases often ) voting started weeks ago in many key battle ground states. Even if Romney has the momentum, and the momentum continues to election day, early voting may have already killed his chances in key swing states.

People also lie to poll takers and avoid poll takers, especially in polls where a truthful answer, such as I am voting against gay marriage, or I am voting against the first black President, might be attacked as less than politically correct.

Polls indicate it is uphill for Romney still. Economic based election models indicate Obama should lose. Conflicting indicators.

Impossible to predict either way at this point.

[John]

> Early ( and in some cases often ) voting started weeks again in many key battle ground states.

How big a factor is this, in terms of percentages? I've always assumed that only
a very small percentage vote early, but I keep hearing about early voting without
anyone saying how many people actually do that.

[Reality Check]

How big a factor is this, in terms of percentages? I've always assumed that only
a very small percentage vote early, but I keep hearing about early voting without
anyone saying how many people actually do that.

Good Question.

Things have been changing radically over the last few years.

In the states of Washington and Oregon virtually all voting is now done by mail in ballots that are delivered to the voters weeks in advance of the election.

Roughly half simply fill them out and send them back within the first week. Roughly half procrastinate.

I have no idea what is actually going on in say Ohio, Virgina and Florida this year.

It is my understanding that a large percentage of the "Billion dollars" in campaign funds is being spent on getting out the vote early by both parties in ( battle ground ) states where that is allowable.

[Reality Check]

Ohio has an interesting system which is effectively an "opt In" vote by mail system.

In early September every registered voter in Ohio is mailed an absentee ballot request form.

A second copy of the absentee ballot request form is mailed to every registered voter in early October who did not receive one in September. This would include newly registered voters, and voters with voter registration information changes ( such as an address change ).

Absentee ballot request forms may also be downloaded from Ohio government web sites.

Absentee ballot requests can also be filled in online, printed and mailed.

Requested ballots are mailed out 35 days before the election, or later if the request for a ballot is received later, then immediately in response to the request.

Absentee ballots may be returned immediately after receipt by the voter.

As of September 28th, 2012: 920,000 absentee ballots had already been requested in Ohio.

Early in person voting in Ohio is also allowed.

In person voting requires a photo ID or a utility bill.

Absentee ballot requests by mail only require knowing a social security number or a drivers license number or a photo copy of a utility bill, or similar identifying information.

http://www.disabilityrightsohio.org/vote-early

http://www.wdtn.com/dpp/news/absentee-b ... HmLdYZtg_4