Bellwether Areas in Ohio and New Hampshire Point to Romney Win

Lake County in Ohio tends to predict the statewide vote of Ohio pretty darn well.

As do a pair of towns, Epping and Milford, in New Hampshire.

The polls predict Romney wins.

In Lake County, Romney led Obama 47 percent to 43 percent with Independent Richard Duncan receiving 4 percent and Stewart Alexander (Socialist Party) receiving 1 percent, while 2 percent were undecided and 4 percent refused a response. Romney led 49 percent to 44 percent among those planning to cast ballots and led 43 percent to 41 percent among those who had already voted.

Duncan is a local candidate who isn't playing in the state generally. Unfortunately for our purposes he's a leftwing candidate. So, taking his votes away and giving them to Obama... it's a 47-47 tie in the state. (Assuming Duncan does not play much outside of Lake county.)

I wish there was time to start pushing Richard Duncan to Ohio liberals. Alas, a bit late for that.

Still. I think the "refused a response" people are more Romney than Obama. People know who the media and institutions want them to vote for.

What do I base this on? John Kerry's seven hour presidency in 2004. Exit polls showed him well ahead... but actual votes showed him losing. The most commonly given reason for this is the "Shy Tory" effect -- Tories, and American conservatives, understand all too well that their preferences are strongly disfavored by the institutions which transmit "mainstream" opinion (mainstream, that is, according to the institutions' own liberal lights), and are simply not as willing to publicly declare for the conservative as liberals are wiling to collect up their Social Credits for declaring for Obama.

As a general matter, I'm thinking "refused to answer" means "voting for Romney," by a 3-1 margin.

When you see, say, the FoxNews poll "split" at 46-46, you have to wonder if that 8% is truly undecided, or if they just don't want to share their opinion with a poll interviewer. Or if they're embarrassed, say, by their 2008 vote, and it's a bit of a sore point with them.

Many undecideds won't vote, but many will vote. Despite the fact that the Incumbent rule has loads of exceptions, I have to think in this election, it holds, and probably pretty strongly.

Look at all the reasons people would be more comfortable saying they're voting for Obama:

1. He's black, so if you vote for him, you're Not Racist. If you say you vote for Romney, you are Racist Until Proven Otherwise (and voting for Obama would be the proof you're looking for).

2. The media and smart set strongly favors him and are willing, ready, and eager to tell you how backwards the "bitter clingers" not voting for him are. As Andrew Breitbart was always arguing, the media have ginned up pure straight hatred of Tea Partiers and conservative-leaning voters.

They're not dumb. They feel the hate, and, being human, react to it. Defensively. By, say, not being very willing to discuss their vote.

3. Dave Chappelle. CONTENT WARNING (but funny): "White people do not like talking about their political affiliations." Actually I guess this is the same as 1 and 2, but Chappelle puts it in a funny way.

I mean, try to figure it from the other angle: Can anyone think of any reasons why an Obama leaner would be shy about proclaiming his inclination? I suppose their might be some embarrassment about supporting an incompetent, but... that seems to cut badly against Obama, too.

Meanwhile, in Epping and Milford, New Hampshire:

In Milford, Romney led Obama 51 percent to 46 percent and in Epping, a closer bellwether, Romney led Obama 49 percent to 47 percent.

Andrea Mitchell: "If Pennsylvania is in Play, Obviously This Is All Over For the President." Well, it is in play. Whether or not Romney wins it is a separate question.

Democrats say they expect to win Pennsylvania by bigger margins than Minnesota. Which makes me really wish Romney and Ryan (or just Ryan) would take a trip over to Minnesota tonight and lay down a marker there.

posted by Ace at 03:48 PM

| Access Comments