predictwise last 30 days - election
October 26th, 2012 at 10:47:23 PM
permalink
I follow Predictwise which is an average of Intrade and Betfair.
Mid September after the conventions, the national average polls had the race about even, maybe Obama a point ahead. the electoral map and most key swing state polls favored Obama by 3 or 4 points. Predictwise has Obama at just about 2-1 favorite, 65-67% chance of winning.
Late September, the hidden camera video of Romney's fundraiser comments came out and polls stretched. The national average polls had Obama by as many as 4, key swing states like Ohio and Wisconsin were polling Obama by 7 or 8, Virginia and even Florida, Obama by 2 or 3. Predictwise went as above the 75% mark to the upper 70's. I think it may have touched 80%, but am not sure.
Early October after the first debate, Romney gains momentum. The national averages go back to even and eventually in Romney's favor by 3 or 4 points (gallup showed 6, but I am going averages). Ohio and Wisconsin dropped close to even. An individual stray poll may have had Romney up a point, but the Average in these two swing states never went to even. I'll say they got down to Obama +1. Virginia and Colorado went to even and Florida past even to Romney plus 2-3. Predictwise dropped down below Obama 60%. Intrade dropped as low as 55%.
And now after the final debate, the dust has settled. Romney has had a net gain in the national averages. I feel comfortable saying he is up 2ish, maybe 3. But the key-ist of states, Wisconsin and Ohio, have settled about +2.5-3 for Obama (close to where they were in mid september). Virginia and colorado about even (right where they were in mid september) and Florida still is Romney about +2. So Romney over the course of the month Romney has made gains in national average and the secondary key state of Florida and North Carolina, which most people always figured were his. Predictwise is at 65.2, jusut about 2-1 and right where it was in mid September.
So the polls and predict markets moved all around when the hidden Romney video hit and during the debates. Created plenty of noise to fill the 24/7 news airwaves, but in the end, we are right where we were mid September after the conventions. Close race in national average, I will even concede Romney ahead, but the key-ist of swing states Wisconsin and Ohio and with them electorial advantage still belong to Obama. Only thing that has really changed since mid Septmeber is now about 25% of the population has voted, and the remaining pool of voters is smaller.
Mid September after the conventions, the national average polls had the race about even, maybe Obama a point ahead. the electoral map and most key swing state polls favored Obama by 3 or 4 points. Predictwise has Obama at just about 2-1 favorite, 65-67% chance of winning.
Late September, the hidden camera video of Romney's fundraiser comments came out and polls stretched. The national average polls had Obama by as many as 4, key swing states like Ohio and Wisconsin were polling Obama by 7 or 8, Virginia and even Florida, Obama by 2 or 3. Predictwise went as above the 75% mark to the upper 70's. I think it may have touched 80%, but am not sure.
Early October after the first debate, Romney gains momentum. The national averages go back to even and eventually in Romney's favor by 3 or 4 points (gallup showed 6, but I am going averages). Ohio and Wisconsin dropped close to even. An individual stray poll may have had Romney up a point, but the Average in these two swing states never went to even. I'll say they got down to Obama +1. Virginia and Colorado went to even and Florida past even to Romney plus 2-3. Predictwise dropped down below Obama 60%. Intrade dropped as low as 55%.
And now after the final debate, the dust has settled. Romney has had a net gain in the national averages. I feel comfortable saying he is up 2ish, maybe 3. But the key-ist of states, Wisconsin and Ohio, have settled about +2.5-3 for Obama (close to where they were in mid september). Virginia and colorado about even (right where they were in mid september) and Florida still is Romney about +2. So Romney over the course of the month Romney has made gains in national average and the secondary key state of Florida and North Carolina, which most people always figured were his. Predictwise is at 65.2, jusut about 2-1 and right where it was in mid September.
So the polls and predict markets moved all around when the hidden Romney video hit and during the debates. Created plenty of noise to fill the 24/7 news airwaves, but in the end, we are right where we were mid September after the conventions. Close race in national average, I will even concede Romney ahead, but the key-ist of swing states Wisconsin and Ohio and with them electorial advantage still belong to Obama. Only thing that has really changed since mid Septmeber is now about 25% of the population has voted, and the remaining pool of voters is smaller.
October 26th, 2012 at 11:03:37 PM
permalink
Quote: kewljand with them electorial advantage still belong to Obama..
You'se guys are just fixated on the electoral college
as your savior, aren't you. That only comes into play
if this is a razor thin election like we had in 2000.
It ain't. Its going to be a blowout. Y'all are stuck in
the first stage of grieving, denial. This can't be
happening. This isn't real. Obama is the greatest
president of all time. Romney is Satan.
Get over it. Obama's been fooling people all his
life, and he finally got to the stage of 'You can't
fool all the people all the time', and its his undoing.
A Peter Principle example that will be used for decades.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
October 26th, 2012 at 11:16:14 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobYou'se guys are just fixated on the electoral college
as your savior, aren't you.
Umm....yes....because that is how we elect the President of the United States. lol
Quote: EvenBobY'all are stuck in
the first stage of grieving, denial. This can't be
happening. This isn't real. Obama is the greatest
president of all time. Romney is Satan.
Your reply was to my post, but I hope this statement isn't directed at me. I never said Obama was great. I have said many times, he has been a disappointment. Hasn't fulfilled many of his promises and probably doesn't deserve to be re-elected. Unfortunately we are only offered 2 choices and I don't care for Mr Romney or his parties positions on many issues. I am also sure I never said Romney was Satan. That's not my style. I try to be respectful at all time. I can disagree with someones positions and policies and not support them without the need to disrespect them and call them names.
October 26th, 2012 at 11:16:20 PM
permalink
When you look at the polling and study the internals, then it's easy to see that Intrade is not accurate when it comes to this election. I suspect that Intrade is being manipulated by the dems in the same way that both parties are currently manipulating the twitter hits. Such hits are designed to create the illusion that a candidate has the lead and the momentum in the election. Right now there are some good opportunities to exploit the intrade inefficiencies. If you're going to buy Romney, then you should buy relatively soon.
October 26th, 2012 at 11:23:13 PM
permalink
Quote: KeyserWhen you look at the polling and study the internals, then it's easy to see that Intrade is not accurate when it comes to this election. I suspect that Intrade is being manipulated by the dems in the same way that both parties are currently manipulating the twitter hits. Such hits are designed to create the illusion that a candidate has the lead and the momentum in the election. Right now there are some good opportunities to exploit the intrade inefficiencies. If you're going to buy Romney, then you should buy relatively soon.
You suspect 2 million dollars is being used to create a false market in in-trade? How many voters do you think in-trade is actually persuading?
Hopefully you've got in deep on intrade and making lots of money to back up your viewpoints.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
October 26th, 2012 at 11:30:33 PM
permalink
Such manipulation is more common than you may realize. Both parties are doing it on twitter as well.
October 26th, 2012 at 11:34:22 PM
permalink
Quote: KeyserSuch manipulation is more common than you may realize. Both parties are doing it on twitter as well.
Twitter manipulation makes much more sense. I don't doubt there's plenty of posts and opinion shaping being attempted on twitter. I remain skeptical that anything of the sort is happening on intrade. Without some sort of proof, I'll remain that way.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
October 26th, 2012 at 11:37:59 PM
permalink
Study: Congressional Twitter accounts are plagued by phony followers: http://thehill.com/blogs/twitter-room/other-news/244985-study-congressional-twitter-accounts-plagued-by-fake-followers
There are other stories as well.
Regarding Intrade: All you have to do is do the math. The polling numbers don't match the intrade lines. What was interesting is earlier in the year you could still place bets on Romney winning the republican nomination at 98% or so, even after he had clinched it.
Massive Position On Intrade Presidential Betting Markets Causes Wild Swing, Some Suspect Manipulation. http://www.ibtimes.com/massive-position-intrade-presidential-betting-markets-causes-wild-swing-some-suspect-manipulation
There are other stories as well.
Regarding Intrade: All you have to do is do the math. The polling numbers don't match the intrade lines. What was interesting is earlier in the year you could still place bets on Romney winning the republican nomination at 98% or so, even after he had clinched it.
Massive Position On Intrade Presidential Betting Markets Causes Wild Swing, Some Suspect Manipulation. http://www.ibtimes.com/massive-position-intrade-presidential-betting-markets-causes-wild-swing-some-suspect-manipulation
October 26th, 2012 at 11:53:57 PM
permalink
Quote: KeyserStudy: Congressional Twitter accounts are plagued by phony followers: http://thehill.com/blogs/twitter-room/other-news/244985-study-congressional-twitter-accounts-plagued-by-fake-followers
There are other stories as well.
Never doubted twitter manipulation
Quote:
Regarding Intrade: All you have to do is do the math. The polling numbers don't match the intrade lines. What was interesting is earlier in the year you could still place bets on Romney winning the republican nomination at 98% or so, even after he had clinched it.
Depends on the exact nature of the line. If the line states that it's settled by the NOMINEE taking the nomination on a certain date, even after a clinch there may be an effect that stops them taking the nomination. People will bet on that. People may be irrational and wrong.
The polling numbers don't have to match the winning margins. If the polling numbers were 100% accurate, the chance of Mitt winning would be 100 or 0, depending on that pool. Obviously, this isn't true. The intrade market is giving a chance of winning the election NOT the percentage of votyes each candidate will give.
A very different thing. In a 51/49 split, two weeks before final polling, a 51/49 split of the probabilities would incorrect assumption of the chances.
Quote:
Massive Position On Intrade Presidential Betting Markets Causes Wild Swing, Some Suspect Manipulation. http://www.ibtimes.com/massive-position-intrade-presidential-betting-markets-causes-wild-swing-some-suspect-manipulation
It's happening. In short, I'm part of it.
The final word, from Wolfers' Twitter account: "Lesson from the Obama Flash Crash: Manipulating prediction markets briefly is easy. Having a lasting effect is hard, and expensive."
I doubt this is a concerted effort, and I doubt it is effective, as the article states. But thanks for the link. And as you've said, if you truly believe the Democrats are inflating the stock price of an Obama win, you are making a good play by buying Romney, regardless of who you think should win.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
October 27th, 2012 at 10:56:20 AM
permalink
I've been saying all summer that Intrade was being
manipulated. For one thing, the comment section is
80% wise assed Lib's who do nothing but trash Romney.
And not even cleverly, just your typical 'Bush looks like
chimp' crap. Grow up.
manipulated. For one thing, the comment section is
80% wise assed Lib's who do nothing but trash Romney.
And not even cleverly, just your typical 'Bush looks like
chimp' crap. Grow up.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
October 27th, 2012 at 11:25:04 AM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobwise assed Lib's who do nothing but trash Romney.
And not even cleverly, just your typical 'Bush looks like
chimp' crap. Grow up.
I am confused as to how one saying "Bush looks like a chimp is trashing Romney", Bob.
I also find it interesting that you draw a distinction between this Bush comment, which you find offensive, as per the need to tell the person to grow up and your recent comment that "President Obama walks like a pimp on 42nd street". Should you not grow up as well?
October 27th, 2012 at 11:26:15 AM
permalink
Good analysis. I agree with most of your comments, except for Ohio, which I firmly believe that Romney will win. Colorado, Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia will also go to Romney. My fearless prediction is that Romney wins the electoral college with 311 against Obama's 227, plus or minus.
October 27th, 2012 at 11:40:54 AM
permalink
Quote: kewljI am confused as to how one saying "Bush looks like a chimp is trashing Romney", Bob.
They don't say Bush looks like a chimp. Their
comments about Romney are in the same class
as Bush looks like a chimp. I was using an
example everybody would understand to make
my point.
Like saying a comic's routine is just typical
bathroom humor. None of his jokes are
about bathrooms, but everybody knows what
you mean.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
October 27th, 2012 at 12:26:06 PM
permalink
You also have to consider the following: The average Romney voter is more likely to be voting for him based on his qualifications. By nature they are more likely to be a well educated, rational, measured, and conservative gambler, (provided that they even gamble at all). However, the people voting for Obama are more likely to be voting based on emotions, rather than based on the qualifications of their candidate. They are more likely to be an impulsive type of gambler. Such a gambler is more likely to take big risks that make little sense. This is likely one of the additional reasons that Intrade is skewed. There are simply more dems on the site.
Note: I'm not saying that all of one side or the other is one way or the other. I'm simply stating what internal polling demonstrates. Clearly there are some intelligent people on both sides, and elections can be a very emotional time for some people. During such times people sometimes chuck common sense, logic, and accountability out the window, and vote democrat.
-Keyser
Note: I'm not saying that all of one side or the other is one way or the other. I'm simply stating what internal polling demonstrates. Clearly there are some intelligent people on both sides, and elections can be a very emotional time for some people. During such times people sometimes chuck common sense, logic, and accountability out the window, and vote democrat.
-Keyser
October 27th, 2012 at 12:43:37 PM
permalink
Quote: KeyserYou also have to consider the following: The average Romney voter is more likely to be voting for him based on his qualifications.
-Keyser
This simply is not true, Mr Keyser. There has been poll after poll (from both sides), that state that many many Romney supporters and republicans are fueled by the strong desire to remove President Obama. This very large group would be voting for ANYONE that was running against President Obama. A second very passionate issue is Obama care. There is a large group of voters that only care about one thing...repealing Obamacare. Again, they would be supporting anyone running on the republican ticket.
October 27th, 2012 at 1:25:43 PM
permalink
Quote: KeyserWhat was interesting is earlier in the year you could still place bets on Romney winning the republican nomination at 98% or so, even after he had clinched it.
Yep, that's because of the chance of scandal or incapacitation between the end of the primaries and the nomination at the convention.
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
October 27th, 2012 at 1:32:41 PM
permalink
10 days till the election and I'm still waiting for
just one reason to vote for Obama. Somebody
said a whole list was posted and I missed it.
No such was posted and I didn't miss it.
This proves that voting Obama is driven by
pure emotion, his supporters can't come up with
even one reason to keep him in office. Obama
himself can't even do it. So they make it about
Big Bird and binders & Romnesia. In other words,
vote Obama cause he's not Romney. Thats not
a reason and never has been in any election.
just one reason to vote for Obama. Somebody
said a whole list was posted and I missed it.
No such was posted and I didn't miss it.
This proves that voting Obama is driven by
pure emotion, his supporters can't come up with
even one reason to keep him in office. Obama
himself can't even do it. So they make it about
Big Bird and binders & Romnesia. In other words,
vote Obama cause he's not Romney. Thats not
a reason and never has been in any election.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
October 27th, 2012 at 1:33:48 PM
permalink
Quote: keljThis simply is not true, Mr Keyser. There has been poll after poll (from both sides), that state that many many Romney supporters and republicans are fueled by the strong desire to remove President Obama. This very large group would be voting for ANYONE that was running against President Obama. A second very passionate issue is Obama care. There is a large group of voters that only care about one thing...repealing Obamacare. Again, they would be supporting anyone running on the republican ticket.
Let's face the facts, most people believe that Romney is better qualified to get the economy back on track. Internal polling by various sources, such as Real Clear Politics, and Rasmussen demonstrate this to be fact. Most Americans likely realize that we can no longer trust him with our nations check book.
Can you honestly say that you believe that Obama is more qualified and competent than Romney to get the economy back on track?
Think about the following:
Which candidate do you feel is most qualified to step in as the CEO of a fortune 500 company or rescue your failing small business?
-Keyser
October 27th, 2012 at 1:34:03 PM
permalink
Quote: PaboGood analysis. I agree with most of your comments, except for Ohio, which I firmly believe that Romney will win. Colorado, Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia will also go to Romney. My fearless prediction is that Romney wins the electoral college with 311 against Obama's 227, plus or minus.
He'd have to also win WI, PA, and NV (or IA) to get to your 311 number. How fearless is your prediction? Without WI, PA, or IA/NV, he'd have 275 - still enough to win. I don't see how he'll win PA or WI with the recent polling in those states. Maybe he'll win NV, but most people watching the early-voting are already saying that IA might be out of reach.
Personally, I don't think he'll win CO or VA either. The only compelling downballot issue in CO is a relatively popular weed legalization ballot question, and the only interesting downballot issue in VA is Kaine/Allen and Kaine is pulling away. Both of those things would seem to boost the left.
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
October 27th, 2012 at 1:34:52 PM
permalink
Quote: KeyserLet's face the facts, most people believe that Romney is better qualified to get the economy back on track. Internal polling by various sources, such as Real Clear Politics, and Rasmussen demonstrate this to be fact. Most Americans likely realize that we can no longer trust him with our nations check book.
-Keyser
RCP doesn't poll. And you're misusing "internal."
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
October 27th, 2012 at 1:36:57 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobObama
himself can't even do it. So they make it about
Big Bird and binders & Romnesia. In other words,
vote Obama cause he's not Romney. Thats not
a reason and never has been in any election.
What a bunch of Obamaloney. As if Romney wasn't the "anybody but Obama" candidate! Has your Romnesia caused you to forget that discussion? It lasted pretty much all spring...
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
October 27th, 2012 at 1:47:28 PM
permalink
Quote: rdw4potus
Personally, I don't think he'll win CO or VA either.
I dunno about that. He was at the Red Rock outdoor
theatre this week and blew the place away. They
turned away thousands at the door. I heard a woman
on the radio who was there say she never saw anything
like it. They had to park a mile away and walk in, all
the parking was gone. From higher up she could look down
and see the freeway was stopped, it was so congested.
People came from a hundred miles away just to see
Romney. She said the enthusiasm was over the top,
and Romney and Ryan were completely humbled by
the turnout.
Does this sound like a state Romney might win? I think
there's a good chance.
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/world/55141676-68/romney-campaign-rally-colorado.html.csp
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
October 27th, 2012 at 1:51:03 PM
permalink
Quote: rdw4potusWhat a bunch of Obamaloney.
So whats the reason to vote for Obama, refresh my
memory.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
October 27th, 2012 at 1:57:06 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobSo whats the reason to vote for Obama, refresh my
memory.
Oh, I can't think of one. But that's a completely separate issue from my decision to point out that what you said was crap.
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
October 27th, 2012 at 1:58:40 PM
permalink
Tell us Bob, what reason would you come up with to vote for Obama if you had to hear one. What one thing would swing your vote to Obama?Quote: EvenBobSo whats the reason to vote for Obama, refresh my
memory.
Someday, joor goin' to see the name of Googie Gomez in lights and joor goin' to say to joorself, "Was that her?" and then joor goin' to answer to joorself, "That was her!" But you know somethin' mister? I was always her yuss nobody knows it! - Googie Gomez
October 27th, 2012 at 2:21:04 PM
permalink
I don't believe you will find anyone that can defend Obama or that can state why they feel that he's more qualified than Romney to tackle the failing economy.
October 27th, 2012 at 2:21:32 PM
permalink
Hi, rdw4 potus. It's close in those states you mentioned, no doubt. Colorado is very close, but I believe Romney will carry the day there. I also think Romney will take Pennsylvania, too, but I'm not willing to put any money on it. There will be a few surprises in other places. The polls show it's close in a number of states, which is why I only identified those where my confidence level is above 90%. Barring an October Surprise, I think the pendulum has swung to Romey's side. I think those polls that show Obama winning are wrong for a number of reasons: weighting errors (too many Dems, not enough Repubs--2012 turnout will not be a repeat of 2008), and, unlike Rasmussen, they don't factor in party commitment. As Rasmussen shows, Repubs are far more committed to ousting Obama than Dems/Libs/Progressives/Whatevers are committed to keeping him in office. Polling takes time and money to ensure accuracy. Most of the polls cited by media pundits are junk. Here's my bottom line: Romney will carry the majority of the Independents. He will also win the majority of male voters. A slim majority of women will probably go for Obama, as will the young voters. Obama will also carry minorities (no surprise there). It won't be enough to help him. As I indicated in my projection, the electoral college is plus or minus, maybe 5 - 10 either way. I'm not going to quibble over exact numbers. I only meant to indicate that Romney looks like a winner.
October 27th, 2012 at 2:27:44 PM
permalink
Quote: Pabounlike Rasmussen, they don't factor in party commitment...weighting errors (too many Dems, not enough Repubs--2012 turnout will not be a repeat of 2008)
That's because the pollsters professional organization - AAPOR, the American Association for Public Opinion Research - has determined that it's an unsound practice. Also, how do you suppose they're making weighting errors that result in too many Dems and not enough repbulicans whe they aren't weighting by party ID? All they're doing is taking demographic info from the census and adjusting the sample to match census data.
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
October 27th, 2012 at 2:39:59 PM
permalink
Quote: rdw4potusOh, I can't think of one. .
There isn't one, thats why. Only reasons to get
him the hell out of office.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
October 27th, 2012 at 2:41:35 PM
permalink
Quote: s2dbakerTell us Bob, what reason would you come up with to vote for Obama if you had to hear one. What one thing would swing your vote to Obama?
Tell us the details of how you're going to get
us out the mess you've gotten us into in the
last 4 years. He can't do that, he has no idea.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
October 27th, 2012 at 2:47:32 PM
permalink
Most of the polls are weighted using 2008 voting results, which reflected more Dems than Repubs turned out in terms of percentages. Most of the pollsters use 2008 as a model for their polling, usually including anywhere from 4% to 7% more Dems than Repubs, depending on the state. Like I said, 2012 will not be a repeat of 2008. Turnout of Repubs will be higher. Turnout of Dems will be lower. Independents will probably turnout in roughly the same percentage as in 2008, maybe slightly less. Another factor will be all those Dems and Indies who voted for Obama in 2008 who will not vote for him in 2012. Any expectation that Obama is going to get the same number of votes--or more--from Dems and Indies in 2012 as he did in 2008 is unrealistic.
October 27th, 2012 at 2:51:03 PM
permalink
Quote: PaboMost of the polls are weighted using 2008 voting results
No, they aren't. That's a talk-radio myth.
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
October 27th, 2012 at 3:00:35 PM
permalink
Quote: rdw4potusNo, they aren't. That's a talk-radio myth.
Rasmussen and others talk about it all the time.
Dick Morris has been doing this for 30 years and
he says everybody does it. You have to base your
polls on something. You can't just blindly guess
and have any credibility.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
October 27th, 2012 at 3:05:24 PM
permalink
No, it's not talk-radio myth. It's a proven fact. The polling strategies show the weighted factors they use. You have to do some research and dig a little deep, but "seek and ye shall find."
October 27th, 2012 at 3:10:19 PM
permalink
Quote: PaboNo, it's not talk-radio myth. It's a proven fact. The polling strategies show the weighted factors they use. You have to do some research and dig a little deep, but "seek and ye shall find."
You found a pollster who releases their weighting factors? really? I read the cross-tabs and text of almost every published poll for senate or the presidency, and I don't think I've ever seen the weighting factors published. Are you sure you're not confusing them with the cross-tabs from the polling sample itself?
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
October 27th, 2012 at 3:13:34 PM
permalink
Nope. I've also had experience working for campaigns locally. I know how the game is played.
October 27th, 2012 at 3:16:22 PM
permalink
Quote: PaboNope. I've also had experience working for campaigns locally. I know how the game is played.
What you're describing doesn't match my training or experience in the field. I guess different people must do it differently.
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
October 27th, 2012 at 3:22:40 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBob10 days till the election and I'm still waiting for
just one reason to vote for Obama.
At part of his campaign stump speech Mr Romney often asks the question, "are you better off today than 4 years ago?" He goes on to say "if you are you should vote for president Obama, if not you should vote for change".
Well I am better off today than 4 years ago. My earnings in 2009 thru 2011 were all more than double what they were in 2008 and this year is nearly 4 times as much as 2008. I also benefited from the $8000 tax credit for first time home-buyers in 2009. That was a pretty big deal, because I was having some difficulty getting a mortgage. Despite tax records to show income from past years, the common wisdom of the financial world is playing backjack for a living, is not a steady income, so despite putting down a large down-payment there was still hesitancy. The tax credit helped guarantee I would have some income.
So I simply answered MR Romney's question....yes I am better off, and took his advise and voted for President Obama. :)
October 27th, 2012 at 3:25:14 PM
permalink
Quote: kewlj
Well I am better off today than 4 years ago.
Dude, you don't have a real job. You have complete
control over what you make. Atilla the Hun could
be president, it doesn't effect what you do.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
October 27th, 2012 at 3:30:26 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobDude, you don't have a real job. You have complete
control over what you make. Atilla the Hun could
be president, it doesn't effect what you do.
So people who are worse off should vote for Romney, and people who are better off don't count. Got it. :-)
I'm also better off than I was in 2008. Much more job security than during the recession. Higher earnings, too. I would think that was a relatively common situation, but it must not be or Romney's people wouldn't let him say it.
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
October 27th, 2012 at 3:41:56 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobDude, you don't have a real job. You have complete
control over what you make. Atilla the Hun could
be president, it doesn't effect what you do.
I dispute the real job comment, Mr Bob, and am surprised YOU would make that remark, but agree, I have more control than many folks. I am not crediting president Obama for my situation. Just following Mr Romney's advise. lol
Seriously, there are still issues that concern me. If there is inflation for instance, that will effect me. If there are cutbacks to local and state government that in turn force cutbacks in local services (police, fire etc) that effects me. But mostly because I am in a little bit of a different boat than many people and am doing ok, I can concentrate more on social issues that concern me. And I simply find my views more consistent with democrats than republicans.
October 27th, 2012 at 3:46:48 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobSo whats the reason to vote for Obama, refresh my
memory.
You ought to be suspended. How many times have you posted the same stupid message?
Quote:Do not post the same message more than once. This includes posting the same message in two or more places, and re-posting because nobody replied the first time.
There's no secret. Just know what you're talking about before you open your mouth.
October 27th, 2012 at 3:49:08 PM
permalink
Quote: rxwineYou ought to be suspended. How many times have you posted the same stupid message?
Quote:
Do not post the same message more than once. This includes posting the same message in two or more places, and re-posting because nobody replied the first time.
I think he's found a loophole: re-posting because he doesn't like the replies.
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
October 27th, 2012 at 4:18:51 PM
permalink
Quote: rdw4potus
I'm also better off than I was in 2008.
You finally found a reason to vote for Obama.
Now if the whole country was better off, it would
a different election, wouldn't it.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
October 27th, 2012 at 4:24:54 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobYou finally found a reason to vote for Obama.
Now if the whole country was better off, it would
a different election, wouldn't it.
I guess I'm a little surprised that most people aren't better off. 2008 was a hell of a lot worse economic climate than 2012 is, though both are horrible. Shouldn't the vast majority of people be better off?
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
October 27th, 2012 at 4:39:03 PM
permalink
Quote: rdw4potusShouldn't the vast majority of people be better off?
YES! You're starting to catch on. We should be all
better off, but all Obama did in his first 2 years
was spend money and grow the gov't to unreal
proportions. He cut nothing, and spent money
like an 18yr old who just got his inheritance.
Obamacare, really? Billions to wind power and
solar companies, really? The list goes on and
on, its like Obama had a wish list he'd been adding
to for 20 years and went nuts with it when he got
the power. Has one of his budgets passed in 4
years? Even the Dem senate voted them down.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
October 27th, 2012 at 4:45:15 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobYES! You're starting to catch on. We should be all
better off, but all Obama did in his first 2 years
was spend money and grow the gov't to unreal
proportions. He cut nothing, and spent money
like an 18yr old who just got his inheritance.
Obamacare, really? Billions to wind power and
solar companies, really? The list goes on and
on, its like Obama had a wish list he'd been adding
to for 20 years and went nuts with it when he got
the power. Has one of his budgets passed in 4
years? Even the Dem senate voted them down.
How did he spend money if his budgets weren't passed? Either the spending was his fault/idea or it wasn't.
I don't know the answer to this, but I think we could probably figure it out. What would the deficits for the past 4 years look like with out the Iraq/Afghanistan spending? Without spending related to limiting or ending the recession, the start of which pre-dated Obama's presidency?
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
October 27th, 2012 at 4:56:54 PM
permalink
Quote: rdw4potusthe start of which pre-dated Obama's presidency?
Dang I'm good! I bet myself the first thing
you'd say is its Bush's fault, and sure enough,
there it is. I laid the trap and you walked
right in. And in 4 more years it would still
be Bush's fault. Dem's never take credit for
anything bad, its not in their nature. There
always has to be a fall guy. Just like Obama's
doing with Libya. Don't look at me, he says,
I don't know nuttin about nuttin.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
October 27th, 2012 at 5:03:37 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobDang I'm good! I bet myself the first thing
you'd say is its Bush's fault, and sure enough,
there it is. I laid the trap and you walked
right in. And in 4 more years it would still
be Bush's fault. Dem's never take credit for
anything bad, its not in their nature. There
always has to be a fall guy. Just like Obama's
doing with Libya. Don't look at me, he says,
I don't know nuttin about nuttin.
It's not my fault or Obama's that the recession started when it did. I also don't particularly think it's Bush's fault. Some things are just cyclical. But the cycle indisputably started during Bush's presidency.
And that's not the first thing I said. The first thing I said is that you both blamed Obama for spending and complained that he couldn't get a budget passed.
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
October 27th, 2012 at 5:09:13 PM
permalink
Evenbob,
Have you noticed that not one person can state what makes Obama more qualified than Romney to help rescue the economy?
One thing is for sure, the next president is certain to inherit one hell of a mess!
Update: Gallup: Obama's Job Approval Drops 7 Points in 3 Days. - source is Gallup
Have you noticed that not one person can state what makes Obama more qualified than Romney to help rescue the economy?
One thing is for sure, the next president is certain to inherit one hell of a mess!
Update: Gallup: Obama's Job Approval Drops 7 Points in 3 Days. - source is Gallup
