Early-vote totals indicate extremely tight race

[Black Dog]

Looks like this is going to be exciting if nothing else.

12:27AM EDT October 29. 2012 - WASHINGTON — While President Obama's and Mitt Romney's campaigns are both pointing to absentee- and early-voting data as reasons to be optimistic about their candidates' chances, a review of election data in seven swing states offers further evidence that the race for the White House will remain extraordinarily close to the end.

Already, more than 12.3 million ballots have been cast throughout the country, according to the United States Election Project at George Mason University in Virginia. There has been an increase in key battleground states such as Florida, Iowa and North Carolina, areas where both campaigns have used their formidable ground operations to encourage supporters to not wait until Election Day to vote.
[FONT=arial, sans-serif]"We're seeing such high volumes already," said Michael McDonald, a George Mason University professor and early voting expert. "It tells you just how critical the early vote is in general. If you neglect that early vote, you're neglecting a large segment of the population."

- [/FONT]Early-vote totals indicate extremely tight race

[FONT=arial, sans-serif]Discuss! [/FONT]

 

[Black Dog]

So much for the hacks who predicted a Mitt or Obama landslide, lol.

 

[Mycroft]

This article seems to base it's conclusion on the number of ballots by Party. I'm not so sure this is very accurate. For example, in the Gravis poll conducted Oct. 24 for Florida, 86% of Democrats said they would vote for Obama...92% of Republicans said they would vote for Romney. Public Opinion Polls and Market Research : Florida Poll Shows Romney and Obama... This means that 14% of Democrats said they would vote for Romney. So, even though more early voter ballots have been cast by Democrats, we can't be sure they were voting for Obama.

This is one reason I prefer to wait till the actual votes have been counted before I start assigning chickens.

 

[obvious Child]

So much for the hacks who predicted a Mitt or Obama landslide, lol.

That's why we call them hacks.

This is going to be a close race, no question about it.

 

[Black Dog]

This article seems to base it's conclusion on the number of ballots by Party. I'm not so sure this is very accurate. For example, in the Gravis poll conducted Oct. 24 for Florida, 86% of Democrats said they would vote for Obama...92% of Republicans said they would vote for Romney. Public Opinion Polls and Market Research : Florida Poll Shows Romney and Obama... This means that 14% of Democrats said they would vote for Romney. So, even though more early voter ballots have been cast by Democrats, we can't be sure they were voting for Obama.

This is one reason I prefer to wait till the actual votes have been counted before I start assigning chickens.

I was thinking the same thing when I read it. However this will make it no less a very close race.

 

[obvious Child]

What I really want to know is what are the early votes for Johnson, Stein and Goode?

Seems a growing number of people are fed up with the two party choice. Goode is going to take from Romney. Stein from Obama. Johnson is the diamond double edged sword. High Johnson votes would make this election uber-interesting.

 

[Anagram]

What I really want to know is what are the early votes for Johnson, Stein and Goode?

Seems a growing number of people are fed up with the two party choice. Goode is going to take from Romney. Stein from Obama. Johnson is the diamond double edged sword. High Johnson votes would make this election uber-interesting.

I doubt any of them break 1%. Maybe Gary Johnson, because he's a little more well known, but only if he's doing exceptionally well.

 

[Black Dog]

What I really want to know is what are the early votes for Johnson, Stein and Goode?

Seems a growing number of people are fed up with the two party choice. Goode is going to take from Romney. Stein from Obama. Johnson is the diamond double edged sword. High Johnson votes would make this election uber-interesting.

This race is so tight I doubt they will make any kind of real dent. Sad really as the 2 party system we have sucks all kind of ass at this point. I still hope Mitt wins though.

Hey I am still a conservative, lol.

 

[obvious Child]

I doubt any of them break 1%. Maybe Gary Johnson, because he's a little more well known, but only if he's doing exceptionally well.

But that 1% may be sufficient to determine key states. Goode may be a real threat in Virginia. It only takes a few points in a few states to change the outcome. And if Stein takes 0.5% from Obama, that may be the deciding factor.

 

[obvious Child]

This race is so tight I doubt they will make any kind of real dent.

Actually I think because it's so tight that they pose a real threat. A half percent point to any of them in key states could decide that state. Remember that both parties fought tooth and nail to deny Johnson a place on the ballot. The Republicans tried to get Goode off the ballot as well. A half point in Ohio or Wisconsin (based on recent polls) could decide the election. And I can easily see Johnson getting that half point, no problem.

Sad really as the 2 party system we have sucks all kind of ass at this point. I still hope Mitt wins though.

I honestly blame the GOP this round. They COULD have gone with Huntsman and had the election wrapped up in August (if not earlier). It would have been over. The GOP would vote for Huntsman, Independents would landslide and moderate and Conservative Democrats would vote Republican by the busload. Obama would have been finished in August. Only the diehard liberals would be for Obama. Huntsman wouldn't be alienating women, minorities and youth. And he would have strong foreign policy chops. And the fact that Huntsman doesn't have the flip flopping record the length of Tennessee would help loads. The GOP could have saved itself insane amounts of money by simply choosing Huntsman, not to mention this whole ****fest of an election.

Hey I am still a conservative, lol.

Voting for Romney? You sure about that?

 

[Anagram]

But that 1% may be sufficient to determine key states. Goode may be a real threat in Virginia. It only takes a few points in a few states to change the outcome. And if Stein takes 0.5% from Obama, that may be the deciding factor.

It's possible for sure. Just look at Florida in 2000. I just don't think it's incredibly likely that we have a tipping point state within a half percent.

 

[Black Dog]

Actually I think because it's so tight that they pose a real threat. A half percent point to any of them in key states could decide that state. Remember that both parties fought tooth and nail to deny Johnson a place on the ballot. The Republicans tried to get Goode off the ballot as well. A half point in Ohio or Wisconsin (based on recent polls) could decide the election. And I can easily see Johnson getting that half point, no problem.

I honestly blame the GOP this round. They COULD have gone with Huntsman and had the election wrapped up in August (if not earlier). It would have been over. The GOP would vote for Huntsman, Independents would landslide and moderate and Conservative Democrats would vote Republican by the busload. Obama would have been finished in August. Only the diehard liberals would be for Obama. Huntsman wouldn't be alienating women, minorities and youth. And he would have strong foreign policy chops. And the fact that Huntsman doesn't have the flip flopping record the length of Tennessee would help loads. The GOP could have saved itself insane amounts of money by simply choosing Huntsman, not to mention this whole ****fest of an election.

Voting for Romney? You sure about that?

You could be right, I just know it is going to be close.

Yes I am voting for Romney. When Obama said he wanted a new AWB, that was the straw that broke this camel's back. Plus it looks like the Democrats will retain the Senate, so I am good.

 

[obvious Child]

It's possible for sure. Just look at Florida in 2000. I just don't think it's incredibly likely that we have a tipping point state within a half percent.

Some polls are showing states dead even within the margin of error. A half percent point with that kind of polling could change a state. Extremely tight races create opportunities for third parties to have dramatically bigger effects on the outcomes then in regular races. Say Stein takes half a percent from Obama. Johnson takes .75 from Obama and .25 from Romney. Obama is now down 1.25% from Romney. That's enough to give Romney the state. Two third party candidates with less than 1% changing a state's outcome. You can swap Stein for Goode and the result ends in an Obama victory.

 

[obvious Child]

Yes I am voting for Romney. When Obama said he wanted a new AWB, that was the straw that broke this camel's back. Plus it looks like the Democrats will retain the Senate, so I am good.

I do find it hilarious that in this race, it was the Republican who actually signed a firearms ban law. I seriously doubt Obama will ever get ANY legislation on firearms. The GOP house will never allow that. I voted Johnson (you can see my ballot in the "vote yet?" poll). Looks like the Senate will stay Democrat as well. Thankfully. I really hate my Democrat Candidate, but there is no f-ing way I think giving the Senate to the GOP who can't do math and puts Creationists on science committees is a good idea. My Democrat Senate candidate looks to be 10% above the GOP candidate and I do like my GOP candidate. I feel okay voting for the GOP who is going to lose. Second last thing I wanted to do was vote for the Democrat.

What bothers me is people who think we should try one party rule again. For the third time. The GOP showed it cannot be trusted with one party rule. The Democrats show they screw it up. Divided government was something the founders preached. We should follow that wisdom.

 

[Anagram]

Some polls are showing states dead even within the margin of error. A half percent point with that kind of polling could change a state. Extremely tight races create opportunities for third parties to have dramatically bigger effects on the outcomes then in regular races. Say Stein takes half a percent from Obama. Johnson takes .75 from Obama and .25 from Romney. Obama is now down 1.25% from Romney. That's enough to give Romney the state. Two third party candidates with less than 1% changing a state's outcome.

Yeah, but you can't really apportion all of Stein's vote to Obama. A lot of a third party candidate's supporters just wouldn't vote if they're candidate wasn't running. Also, third party candidates usually end up drawing pretty equally from both ideological ends. I think in the end you end up with about an absolute maximum of .5% in favor of one or the other. It's possible that the third party candidates decide the election, but it would have to be an abnormally slim margin in a tipping point state. Certainly within the realm of possibility, but highly unlikely.

 

[Black Dog]

I do find it hilarious that in this race, it was the Republican who actually signed a firearms ban law. I seriously doubt Obama will ever get ANY legislation on firearms. The GOP house will never allow that. I voted Johnson (you can see my ballot in the "vote yet?" poll). Looks like the Senate will stay Democrat as well. Thankfully. I really hate my Democrat Candidate, but there is no f-ing way I think giving the Senate to the GOP who can't do math and puts Creationists on science committees is a good idea. My Democrat Senate candidate looks to be 10% above the GOP candidate and I do like my GOP candidate. I feel okay voting for the GOP who is going to lose. Second last thing I wanted to do was vote for the Democrat.

What bothers me is people who think we should try one party rule again. For the third time. The GOP showed it cannot be trusted with one party rule. The Democrats show they screw it up. Divided government was something the founders preached. We should follow that wisdom.

Well Mitt said he was not going to push any kind of gun legislation. I mean if he wants to win a second term after this he can't so.

Yea I was going to vote for Obama solely to keep one party out of control. Now that I see the senate will most likely stay Democrat, I feel better about it and I am good. My reasoning is the more they have to battle, the less damage they can do to the people. I mean Romney is no Reagan, so going to the people will not work for him.

So I pretty much agree with you on the keeping them divided. Hell they have done it to us long enough.

 

[obvious Child]

Yeah, but you can't really apportion all of Stein's vote to Obama. A lot of a third party candidate's supporters just wouldn't vote if they're candidate wasn't running. Also, third party candidates usually end up drawing pretty equally from both ideological ends. I think in the end you end up with about an absolute maximum of .5% in favor of one or the other. It's possible that the third party candidates decide the election, but it would have to be an abnormally slim margin in a tipping point state. Certainly within the realm of possibility, but highly unlikely.

This might be the election where it happens. I agree with you it's normally highly unlikely, but Romney and Obama are polling virtually dead even in several key states. I think this may be the election where third party candidates can spoil an election.

We'll see come November.

 

[zimmer]

I do find it hilarious that in this race, it was the Republican who actually signed a firearms ban law. I seriously doubt Obama will ever get ANY legislation on firearms. The GOP house will never allow that. I voted Johnson (you can see my ballot in the "vote yet?" poll). Looks like the Senate will stay Democrat as well. Thankfully. I really hate my Democrat Candidate, but there is no f-ing way I think giving the Senate to the GOP who can't do math and puts Creationists on science committees is a good idea. My Democrat Senate candidate looks to be 10% above the GOP candidate and I do like my GOP candidate. I feel okay voting for the GOP who is going to lose. Second last thing I wanted to do was vote for the Democrat.

What bothers me is people who think we should try one party rule again. For the third time. The GOP showed it cannot be trusted with one party rule. The Democrats show they screw it up. Divided government was something the founders preached. We should follow that wisdom.

We had 40-years of Democrats writing socialist legislation and screwing the country incrementally. It's time to take the butcher's knife out and start hacking away the fat in chunks.

The founders didn't exactly preach a socialist superstate that quashes the individual... which is what we've got now.

Creationism is a threat? Noooooooooooo. Forest... trees...

Leftist socialist programs with rosy scenarios are the problem... their clouded crystal ball of predictions. How's ObamaKare's predictions working out???

I'd give R's all chambers and let them cut and slash the federal beast. If they don't... then they can be accused, but that spending is going to be sold to the public with the Leftists; they don't want to cut anything, they think baseline budgeting is fine.

You can rationalize all you like... this is not the America our founders had in mind. There is no Limited Government here; we have a group that spent 6TRILLION in four years.
I think the R's get it, and I think Romney/Ryan gets it.

You don't seem to get it. Creationism (facepalm).

 

[obvious Child]

Well Mitt said he was not going to push any kind of gun legislation. I mean if he wants to win a second term after this he can't so.

Well, I seriously doubt either of them would push gun restriction laws considering the mess we're still in. The whole Arab world going to hell kind of makes fire arm restrictions a lot less pressing.

Yea I was going to vote for Obama solely to keep one party out of control. Now that I see the senate will most likely stay Democrat, I feel better about it and I am good. My reasoning is the more they have to battle, the less damage they can do to the people. I mean Romney is no Reagan, so going to the people will not work for him.

My state is voting Obama. Doesn't matter what I vote. So I honestly considered not voting President at all. The down side of division is that if the parties fighting cannot agree on anything, that in some ways causes lots of damage itself. Businesses can't plan anything because both parties can't get together and work on preventing the fiscal cliff. What's worse then having rates go up and spending go down is not knowing where rates will be how much spending will be cut. With certainty you can plan. With fog that has to be cut with a chainsaw, not so much. In some ways, I think the inability to work together is causing the real problem of uncertainty. If Romney wins and attempts to repeal Obamacare that will cause a giant mess across the country. If he fails to repeal and companies stop enacting it and then have to enact it, that will be a disaster. If he does repeal, all of the new policies that went into effect get tossed causing another giant mess. How the hell are you suppose to plan with that on the horizon? It doesn't matter if you are for or against the ACA. There is no real capacity to plan.

So I pretty much agree with you on the keeping them divided. Hell they have done it to us long enough.

Well that's the first step. Next step is to take redistricting away from the parties. Honestly, I feel that America's problems can be solved by redistricting to make every race as possible competitive. Open primaries with top vote getters of all candidates advancing to the general with no strongholds. I feel that after America redistricted to eliminate independent strongholds in the 1990 census, we got a lot more problems.

 

[obvious Child]

We had 40-years of Democrats writing socialist legislation and screwing the country incrementally. It's time to take the butcher's knife out and start hacking away the fat in chunks.

Can you have your meltdown in the basement? You're disturbing the adults here.

And you should look up what Socialism is. I don't think you know what it means.

The founders didn't exactly preach a socialist superstate that quashes the individual... which is what we've got now.

Ah yes. By forcing you to buy your own private insurance to cover your own healthcare costs and stop the theft of premiums from responsible people. Yes, that totally quashes the individual.

Creationism is a threat? Noooooooooooo. Forest... trees.

No, Creationism is a symbol that the GOP places people extremely out of touch with reality on to key committees that determine the science and technology support that the country gets from Congress. As science and Technology are the only real factors for major growth in America, we need to put people who don't think that the world is 6,000 years old on key committees. It pains me that I had to explain that. That should be inherently obvious.

Seriously, go to the basement to have your meltdown.

Leftist socialist programs with rosy scenarios are the problem... their clouded crystal ball of predictions. How's ObamaKare's predictions working out???

Know what is Socialism? Military healthcare. Are you for the ending of the VA system?

I'd give R's all chambers and let them cut and slash the federal beast. If they don't... then they can be accused, but that spending is going to be sold to the public with the Leftists; they don't want to cut anything, they think baseline budgeting is fine.

You mean like how the Democrats were willing to cut entitlements? How they agreed to the 50-50% split between military and domestic that is part of the fiscal cliff? Unwilling to cut anything but voted yes on a series of huge cuts? Methinks you need to get off the Kool-aid.

You can rationalize all you like... this is not the America our founders had in mind. There is no Limited Government here; we have a group that spent 6TRILLION in four years.
I think the R's get it, and I think Romney/Ryan gets it.

You don't seem to get it. Creationism (facepalm).

This is all too amusing coming from Zimmer.

 

[zimmer]

OC's originality lumped together. Every few lines comes with the same BS.
Par for the course.

Can you have your meltdown in the basement?

Seriously, go to the basement to have your meltdown.

You're disturbing the adults here.

My, you stun me with your originality.
My... I realize your vocabulary is limited; perhaps next time you can find a synonym for "meltdown".

You should also look in the dictionary to learn what it means. It does not mean rebutting your inanities, exposing you lies and when you put words in other people's mouths as you do with regularity. That does not constitute a "meltdown"; for you on the other side perhaps.

And you should look up what Socialism is. I don't think you know what it means.

ROTFLOL...

Ah yes. By forcing you to buy your own private insurance to cover your own healthcare costs and stop the theft of premiums from responsible people. Yes, that totally quashes the individual.

It's not the Federal government's job to dictate we buy a product.
All those great, bankrupt and corrupt waiting lists called SocialistKare. How is Canada's and Europe's systems doing? Fiscally? Service wise?

No, Creationism is a symbol that the GOP places people extremely out of touch with reality on to key committees that determine the science and technology support that the country gets from Congress. As science and Technology are the only real factors for major growth in America, we need to put people who don't think that the world is 6,000 years old on key committees. It pains me that I had to explain that. That should be inherently obvious.

The point being... to vote for a Democrat based on this is retarded. Of course if that, not the economic plight of our nation is your concern, then you vote as you described.

Know what is Socialism? Military healthcare. Are you for the ending of the VA system?

That is a service they receive when they sign up to defend this nation. I think it's just.
Have you seen how poorly run the VA is?

You mean like how the Democrats were willing to cut entitlements? How they agreed to the 50-50% split between military and domestic that is part of the fiscal cliff? Unwilling to cut anything but voted yes on a series of huge cuts? Methinks you need to get off the Kool-aid.

We require a strong military, not a third rate military.

This is all too amusing coming from Zimmer.

Of course it's amusing for you. You are the one who placed Creationism ahead of out our fiscal mess.
That's OK... we see your deep thinking (ROTFLOL) on serious matters of the nation... ROTFLOL...

Awaiting the twists, the lies, the deception, the putting words in other people's mouths that never stated them... as always... :coffeepap

 

[obvious Child]

OC's originality lumped together. Every few lines comes with the same BS.
Par for the course.

As expected from Zimmer.

My, you stun me with your originality.
My... I realize your vocabulary is limited; perhaps next time you can find a synonym for "meltdown".

You should also look in the dictionary to learn what it means. It does not mean rebutting your inanities, exposing you lies and when you put words in other people's mouths as you do with regularity. That does not constitute a "meltdown"; for you on the other side perhaps.

Considering you do none of that at the same time getting yourself suspended, my use of the term is quite accurate. Again, please have your meltdown in the basement, so you don't get suspended like you did the last two times.

ROTFLOL...

It's not the Federal government's job to dictate we buy a product.
All those great, bankrupt and corrupt waiting lists called SocialistKare. How is Canada's and Europe's systems doing? Fiscally? Service wise?

How does that prove the ACA is Socialist? How does any of that show you understand what Socialism is? You make a snide remark at me when I question if you understand the term but then you go and fail to show you understand the term.

The ACA is quite different from Canada and the various European Systems. For one, the ACA doesn't own the hospitals, doesn't hire the doctors and doesn't own the medicine. Britain's healthcare system has the means of production of healthcare literally owned by the state. The ACA puts millions of people into private insurance. And Medicare itself isn't Socialist as it does not hire the doctors, does not own the hospitals and right now pays for pretty much all of the services a doctor orders (partially why it costs so much). Again, you use the term but you do not appear to understand what it means. On top of that, while Socialist Healthcare does cost a great deal of money, it is not the reason why Europe is in the tank. FYI, Canada's doing quite well, partially because they did not follow our banking deregulation spree. And I agree with you that Socialist Healthcare while expanding coverage reduces service. The same is a complaint about military healthcare. It's "free" and everyone can get it but the service is less then acceptable. Citing European and the Canadian system as why the ACA is Socialist is a sign you do not use the term properly. Systems where the means of production is owned by the state is not the same as a system which increases peoples' access to private insurance. Please consult the dictionary for proper usage of Socialism.

The point being... to vote for a Democrat based on this is retarded. Of course if that, not the economic plight of our nation is your concern, then you vote as you described.

It's only retarded if you think that science and technology shouldn't receive any help from the Federal Government and if you believe that we should disadvantage our industries by putting people who have no real concepts of science and technology on them when every other nation on the planet is actively helping their industries grow, expand and excel. The economic growth of our nation depends on growing technology and science sectors. Putting people who have no grasp of science on these committees is going to hold us back if not directly damage science and technology in the nation. How you think that is beneficial for America, I don't know, but I get the feeling this rant of yours is another "I hate Obvious Child, I'll attack him on anything because I have an obsession with hating him." And more then a few people have pointed this out before on your behavior in stalking me.

That is a service they receive when they sign up to defend this nation.
Have you seen how poorly run the VA is?

Criminal isn't? I take it you are for the wholesale privatization of the VA then if you are adamantly anti-Socialism?

We require a strong military, not a third rate military.

And why do you think that cutting $500 billion over 10 years will result in a third rate military when after the cuts we will still spend more then the next 10 countries combined? Heck, we could privatize the VA and save billions! Gates was right in saying that unless we get the healthcare costs of the military down, it will eat the Pentagon alive.

Of course it's amusing for you. You are the one who placed Creationism ahead of out our fiscal mess.

Hardly. I used creationism as a sign of why the GOP is not ready for leadership. You missed this blaringly obvious point largely because this is a "I Hate Obvious Child" rant. They are out of touch with basic reality. What makes you think this is a good trait to have for dealing with the financial mess we have?

That's OK... we see your deep thinking (ROTFLOL) on serious matters of the nation... ROTFLOL...

Awaiting the twists, the lies, the deception, the putting words in other people's mouths that never stated them... as always... :coffeepap

It is not my fault you do not understand how to debate. Taking the logic of one's argument and using it against them by taking it to its logical conclusion is a valid and pedestrian tactic. It is not my fault you never learned this. While you clearly do not like having your logic used against you, it is hardly lies, deception twists or putting words in other's mouths.

And considering how you accuse me of lying, do you now accept that the Democrats are willing to cut spending? After all, you said they weren't willing to cut anything and I cited the sequestering cuts they agreed to. To not be a liar, you must now accept that the Democrats agreed to cuts. To argue otherwise means you are pushing an argument you know to be false as the truth, aka a lie.

Furthermore, do you accept that forcing people to pay for their own insurance for their own healthcare is not Socialism as the state does not control the means of production? To argue otherwise means you are pushing an argument you know to be false as the truth, aka a lie.

Also, if you keep acting like this, I will report every infraction you make.

 

[Panopticon]

We had 40-years of Democrats writing socialist legislation and screwing the country incrementally. It's time to take the butcher's knife out and start hacking away the fat in chunks.

The founders didn't exactly preach a socialist superstate that quashes the individual... which is what we've got now.

You can rationalize all you like... this is not the America our founders had in mind. There is no Limited Government here; we have a group that spent 6TRILLION in four years.

Benjamin Franklin to Robert Morris
25 Dec. 1783Writings 9:138

...
All Property, indeed, except the Savage's temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it. All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

That's why we call them hacks.

This is going to be a close race, no question about it.

Maybe I'm just not a big fan of Mitt, but I view current positioning to be more based on Obama failures, as opposed to mitt's successes. Though I always figured he would make a strong showing on economic issues given his background ( not so much the ability of presenting good policy, but the ability to push it)

 

[Fisher]

from the OP link:

"VIRGINIA. Absentee voting is up 18.8% in the 86 Virginia localities that McCain won in 2008, but only up 4.4% in Obama localities, according to an analysis of state voting data by Dave Wasserman of The Cook Political Report.

Blue areas such as Richmond, Charlottesville and Arlington County have seen big drops in absentee voting, while two counties in southwest Virginia's Republican-tilting coal country have seen some of the biggest surges in absentee voting in the Old Dominion, Wasserman said."

Like I have been telling people all along--VA is settled. Nothing left to see. Move onto Ohio.