Decision 2012
Quote: kewljIt is actually being speculated that Bill Clinton wants some sort of role in an Obama second term. .
Never happen. Him and Hillary will stay
as far away as possible if Obama is
re-elected. His second term can only
be an even larger disaster and they want
no part of if Hillary is to run in 2016.
This Libya cover up will also get much
larger either way and I suspect Hillary's
name will be sullied forever as Obama
tries to shift as much blame as possibe
for his incompetence onto Hillary.
I shudder to think what the press would
do if this had been Bush with Libya. It
took forever for the press to climb aboard
the Monica train with Clinton, they can't
ignore Libya much longer. It grows more
and more every day.
Obama -215
Romney +193
If we split the difference, Obama has a 66.6% chance of winning.
In other news, 270towin.com has changed PA and MI from blue to battleground status. They lowered the probability of Obama winning from about 95% before the first debate to 72% now.
We'll see how the debate tonight affects the odds.
Quote: WizardLet the record show that the morning before the the second debate the Pinnacle lines are:
Obama -215
Romney +193
If we split the difference, Obama has a 66.6% chance of winning.
In other news, 270towin.com has changed PA and MI from blue to battleground status. They lowered the probability of Obama winning from about 95% before the first debate to 72% now.
We'll see how the debate tonight affects the odds.
I know it is not remotely scientiffic but there are far fewer signs of Obama support here in PA than in 2008. Yard signs favored Obama then, about even at best now. Unions still pushing him, that is about it. Could easily flip to Romney if not enough dead people vote in inner-Philly.
Quote: WizardLet the record show that the morning before the the second debate the Pinnacle lines are:
Obama -215
Romney +193
If we split the difference, Obama has a 66.6% chance of winning.
In other news, 270towin.com has changed PA and MI from blue to battleground status. They lowered the probability of Obama winning from about 95% before the first debate to 72% now.
We'll see how the debate tonight affects the odds.
have you thought anymore about tie breakers on the election contest if romney wins... i dont think anyone had Ryan as a VP pick
Quote: WizardLet the record show that the morning before the the second debate the Pinnacle lines are:
Obama -215
Romney +193
If we split the difference, Obama has a 66.6% chance of winning.
In other news, 270towin.com has changed PA and MI from blue to battleground status. They lowered the probability of Obama winning from about 95% before the first debate to 72% now.
We'll see how the debate tonight affects the odds.
This seems about right as most outfits that I look at regularly have now settled just about the 65-66% range, down from 80+% before the first debate. They dropped to a low of around 60% last week, before this slight rebound to where they have settled.
As for the electoral map, real clear politics, which I favor because they use an average of many polls, has also move Pa and Michigan into the toss-up category. But a couple recent polls by organizations that do lean republican like mullenberg college in Pa might be tainting these results. I lived in Pa before relocating to Vegas, and anyone that knows Pa politics doesn't think this will be a tossup state, with or without voter ID laws (which have been tossed). For Pa and Michigan to truely be toss up states, would mean that the electorate has moved right towards Romney. This would mean that all the truly toss-up states like Virginia, Florida Iowa, Nevada, Colorado, and those slightly leaning like Ohio, wisconsin would have already moved towards Romney and the election would have been over before Pa and Michigan moved. This just isn't likely to happen. One reason, that you know Pa and Michigan are not tossup states is that the neither candidate is visiting those states and very little money from the campaigns or their PACs are being spent there. Candidates may 'talk' about states being in play, but follow the money to find out what they REALLY think.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/glbt-corner/11651-decision-2012-digression-my-bad/#post189328
http://www.romneytaxplan.com/
Quote: Mission146The digression (my fault!) has been seperated and moved to:
Digression? It's the same battle with different names...
Quote:https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/glbt-corner/11651-decision-2012-digression-my-bad/#post189328
Did you just pick a section at random?
Quote: NareedDigression? It's the same battle with different names...
Did you just pick a section at random?
It's only the third or fourth time I've done that! LOL
Let me go move it...(Chuckle at myself)
That's what I wanted to do!
--President told Jon Stewart, 'If four Americans get killed, it's not optimal'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2220241/Barack-Obama-Benghazi-attack-Mother-diplomat-criticises-Presidents-optimal-comment.html#ixzz29lgnYNuc
Quote: RonC
--President told Jon Stewart, 'If four Americans get killed, it's not optimal'
Its the real Obama off the prompter. He doesn't care
about those men, why should he, they mean nothing
to him. Narcissists only care about themselves. The
mother of the ambassador who was killed hugged
Obama and she said he just stared off into the distance
like she wasn't even there. At least Bill Clinton would
have faked feeling her pain, Obama can't even do that.
--Neither one of them is a superstar
--one of them has had his chance and should go into retirement in Hawaii
...but the press continues to be in the bag for one side...
"The $831,000,000,000 economic “stimulus” that President Obama spearheaded and signed into law requires his administration to release quarterly reports on its effects. But “the most transparent administration in the history of our country” is now four reports behind schedule and has so far not released any reports whatsoever in 2012. Its most recent quarterly report is for the quarter than ended on June 30, 2011."
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/ahead-election-obama-stops-releasing-stimulus-reports_654968.html
Notice the word "requires". Unless you can prove that it is not correct for some reason (and I did not read the bill before or after it was signed into law), you have to assume that the administration is in VIOLATION of a law. Why would you openly violate the law? Hmmm...
BECAUSE THE STIMULUS WAS A BUST AND SHOWS AS A BIGGER BUST ALL THE TIME...WHY WOULD THEY WANT TO PUT THE PROOF OUT THERE FOR ALL TO SEE????
;)
Quote: WongBoWow, a little too much coffee today?
;)
No, thanks for your concern...I'm just sick and tired of everyone busting on Romney and President Obama getting away with more cheap crap each and every day.
I've stated it the best way I can because I am not a huge Romney guy but I know we can't afford another four years of this mess of a Presidency. We'll survive it, if it happens, but I don't see good things happening if he is re-elected.
Quote:The biggest newspaper in the state likely to give Mitt Romney his biggest margin on Election Day has endorsed Barack Obama for president
The Salt Lake Tribune's endorsement, which is titled "Too Many Mitts," praises Romney for his "singular role in rescuing Utah's organization of the 2002 Olympics from a cesspool of scandal" and declares him Utah's "favorite adopted son."
But the newspaper's editorial board says the Romney it has gushed over since his 2002 Olympic performance is not the same Romney running for president in 2012.
"As the party's shape-shifting nominee," the Tribune says, "Romney has raised the most frequently asked question of the campaign: 'Who is this guy, really, and what in the world does he truly believe?' "
here
Quote: rxwine
Wow...HUGE surprise there...but you missed as little bit of the important stuff in the article...
"For more than a century, the Tribune has been perceived as the left-leaning, non-Mormon — sometimes anti-Mormon — daily newspaper in a Democratic city in a Mormon-dominated state.
The Tribune endorses Republicans from time to time, but it also endorsed Obama in 2008."
No news here--a paper that is in the bag for Liberals picked the...wait on it...Liberal!!!
Quote: RonC
The Tribune endorses Republicans from time to time, but it also endorsed Obama in 2008."
No news here--a paper that is in the bag for Liberals picked the...wait on it...Liberal!!!
You know that these were consecutive lines in your post, right? :-)
Quote: rdw4potusYou know that these were consecutive lines in your post, right? :-)
You are quite right--but, if you decide not to take things in the quote out of context, it all fits. If you cherry-pick the quote, you can make it say something different.
A left-leaning organization with known anti-Mormon sentiments picked a left-leaning candidate non-Mormon to endorse.
Parse it however you want--they were not going to endorse Romney yesterday, today, or ever.
I'm picking a Democrat in a local race because his opponent has committed a crime that came to light after the primary (cannot be removed from the ballot). That doesn't change my overall opinion of the parties or my leanings...
Quote: RonCYou are quite right--but, if you decide not to take things in the quote out of context, it all fits. If you cherry-pick the quote, you can make it say something different.
A left-leaning organization with known anti-Mormon sentiments picked a left-leaning candidate non-Mormon to endorse.
Parse it however you want--they were not going to endorse Romney yesterday, today, or ever.
I'm picking a Democrat in a local race because his opponent has committed a crime that came to light after the primary (cannot be removed from the ballot). That doesn't change my overall opinion of the parties or my leanings...
I wonder what they would have done if a more consistent and moderate mormon was the nominee. They'd have picked Huntsman over 4 more years of Obama, right? I suppose he's also from Utah, so maybe that's not quite a fair comparison...
Quote: rdw4potusI wonder what they would have done if a more consistent and moderate mormon was the nominee. They'd have picked Huntsman over 4 more years of Obama, right? I suppose he's also from Utah, so maybe that's not quite a fair comparison...
Romney never was all that far to the right, part of their argument is that he has changed positions (centering himself perhaps--hmmm...worked for Clinton rather well; he remains popular) and they don't know which Mitt they'll get. Fair enough criticism but it is rather interesting that they don't apply the same criteria to the President--he has done a bit of flipping and flopping , too--carrying out campaign promises you can keep (transparency for one big one) is pretty much either a bold-faced lie or a flip flop.
Found on Facebook.
"If 'Romney' is the answer, how stupid was the question?"
Also found on Facebook.
Quote: RonCRomney never was all that far to the right, part of their argument is that he has changed positions (centering himself perhaps--hmmm...worked for Clinton rather well; he remains popular)
I think it's the run from the center to the right and then back to the center that's caused the problem for Romney. Clinton never was a liberal, but moved a bit to the center and stayed there when he campaigned. Even in the primaries, he took an centrist position. Romney governed as a moderate, ran in the primaries as a conservative, and moved back to the center for the general election. On pretty much every issue, he's shifted twice. Maybe that's good - if he hadn't, Rick Santorum would be the nominee - but it's also pretty transparent, especially to people who work in the news industry.
Quote: EvenBobDebates seldom change the outcomes of elections.
You have to concede that Ronald Reagan did completely kill an issue in a debate.
Of course it didn't decide the election where Reagan one almost every county in the country
Quote: rdw4potusI think it's the run from the center to the right and then back to the center that's caused the problem for Romney. Clinton never was a liberal, but moved a bit to the center and stayed there when he campaigned. Even in the primaries, he took an centrist position. Romney governed as a moderate, ran in the primaries as a conservative, and moved back to the center for the general election. On pretty much every issue, he's shifted twice. Maybe that's good - if he hadn't, Rick Santorum would be the nominee - but it's also pretty transparent, especially to people who work in the news industry.
I think it sucks but the bottom line is that you have to appeal to two different sets of voters. In the primaries, you have candidates running to the "base" in each party, which is firmly left or right depending on the party. This is a center-right country (so they tell us, at least) and all candidates end up moving in that direction from the primary to the general election, where both voters from the other party and from the more center of their party are in play.
President Obama has had to do some handling of his base this year (many of them think he did not govern liberally enough) but there was no primary to speak of so his "adjustments" are much less than the other side.
They all flip-flop, they all know they can't get all they say they will do done, and we all know it. We just have to pick the one we think is best for the job and go from there. President Obama has had a four year audition for rehiring and my opinion is that he should not be hired for a second term. Has he done anything good? Sure. I just think the bad outweighs the good.
If each county got one vote then we'd have Republican presidents always.Quote: pacomartinOf course it didn't decide the election where Reagan one almost every county in the country
If this holds up, and the undecideds go 80% for
the challenger, which they always do, I wonder if
that will be a mandate for Romney.
In an election where there's an incumbant, an undecided
voter means he's not voting for the president. He's
just undecided if he'll vote at all. And when they do,
its overwhelmingly for the challenger. Its been this
way as long as records have been kept.
Quote: EvenBobGallup has had Romney at about 52-45 for days now.
If this holds up, and the undecideds go 80% for
the challenger, which they always do, I wonder if
that will be a mandate for Romney.
In an election where there's an incumbant, an undecided
voter means he's not voting for the president. He's
just undecided if he'll vote at all. And when they do,
its overwhelmingly for the challenger. Its been this
way as long as records have been kept.
And yet somehow state-level polls continue to show Obama narrowly leading the electoral college. It's almost as if the Gallup poll that you've cherry-picked is an outlier.
Quote: rdw4potus
It's almost as if the Gallup poll that you've cherry-picked is an outlier.
Nope, same Gallup everybody uses. RCP has Romney
leading in the electoral college by 206-201. Rasmussen
has tight races evrywhere in the swing and battleground
states. I don't look at poll's like Bob and Jacks Real Election
Poll, where they ask their neighbors in their mostly welfare
neighborhood who they're going to vote for. Just stick
with the big boys with the accurate track records.
Quote: rxwineBring on Nov 6!
Quote: EvenBobNope, same Gallup everybody uses...Just stick
with the big boys with the accurate track records.
You want accuracy and you're quoting Gallup? You need to actually look at their track record. Start in 1948...:-)
Quote: rdw4potusYou want accuracy and you're quoting Gallup? You need to actually look at their track record.
I just saw Frank Gallup on a Sunday show. He explained
in intricate detail how they do their polls. People think
all poll companies skew results. How would doing that
be in their favor?
They do this for a living. Gov'ts and big businesses from
all over world hire them to poll everything from who uses
what toothpaste to presidential elections. How accurate they
are is hugely important. They would never skew any poll,
it would make them look like fools when the final result
comes in and would hurt their business.
We talked about this back in May. You have to have polls you
trust and only look at those. I only look at Rasmussen and
Gallup. I never pay attention to any other. You can drive
yourself insane doing that. If you have polls you consider
more accurate, use them. The only poll that counts is the
one we take on Nov 6th.
Quote: EvenBobNope, same Gallup everybody uses. RCP has Romney
leading in the electoral college by 206-201. Rasmussen
has tight races evrywhere in the swing and battleground
states.
You are cherry picking, Bob. You are only willing to accept the one poll that seems out of whack with all the others. You apparently are willing to accept Real Clear Politics Electoral college map because it has your candidate on top. So why would you discredit RCP popular votes total which have been running just about even (President Obama currently up .2%). Furthermore RCP electoral map is not credible. They are listing toss up states that don't belong as toss ups. Pennsylvania and Michigan are not toss ups. Although the race has tightened, Obama is still comfortably in control in these states. You know this because the Republicans are not willing to spend any money in these states. That tells you they know these states are not in play. By the same token, RCP lists North Carolina as a toss up and it clearly is in Romney's ledger now. I even believe Florida is no longer a toss up, and in Romney's ledger as well. But what hasn't moved is Obama's Firewall. Ohio, Wisconsin and Iowa. These three states will put him over the top with Nevada as insurance, should Iowa fall through. Until Romney takes the lead in Ohio and Wisconsin, he has no chance of winning the presidency no matter what happens elsewhere.
Now one other thing. Since you are comfortable with RCP electoral map, click on the 'no toss up map'. This is what the electoral map would look like if the election where today. Obama 277, Romney 261 (270 needed to win the presidency)
Quote: EvenBobI just saw Frank Gallup on a Sunday show. He explained
in intricate detail how they do their polls. People think
all poll companies skew results. How would doing that
be in their favor?
They do this for a living. Gov'ts and big businesses from
all over world hire them to poll everything from who uses
what toothpaste to presidential elections. How accurate they
are is hugely important. They would never skew any poll,
it would make them look like fools when the final result
comes in and would hurt their business.
I don't think anyone thinks that Gallup is intentionally skewing their poll. As you said there is no benefit to that for them. What is being questioned is their definition of likely voter. Their criteria seems to be a bit different than other legit organizations, which may explain the discrepancies in their recent polls.
Quote: EvenBobI just saw Frank Gallup on a Sunday show. He explained
in intricate detail how they do their polls. People think
all poll companies skew results. How would doing that
be in their favor?
They do this for a living. Gov'ts and big businesses from
all over world hire them to poll everything from who uses
what toothpaste to presidential elections. How accurate they
are is hugely important. They would never skew any poll,
it would make them look like fools when the final result
comes in and would hurt their business.
We talked about this back in May. You have to have polls you
trust and only look at those. I only look at Rasmussen and
Gallup. I never pay attention to any other. You can drive
yourself insane doing that. If you have polls you consider
more accurate, use them. The only poll that counts is the
one we take on Nov 6th.
I disagree that you can trust just a few. Especially when some of the best pollsters are regional, like Selzer (for the Des Moines register and now Bloomberg) and the Marquette University folks. And if you're going to trust just two, one of them really can't be Rasmussen. Scott does it wrong. He adjusts for party identification, which is pretty much the same as adjusting for the results you wanted to see. Nobody else makes that choice, and there's a reason for that.
Quote: EvenBobI just saw Frank Gallup on a Sunday show.
Waaaaait a minute...what year do you think it is??
Quote: kewljYou are cherry picking, Bob.
Nope. I stated in May (look it up) that I only
look at Gallup and Rasmussen. They're the
most accurate and I like them. RCP is RCP,
they're a poll aggregator, not a poll taker. I
find them to be trustworthy. If you have polls
you trust, I have no problem with it. Why would
I care?
Quote: rdw4potusWaaaaait a minute...what year do you think it is??
1936, the year Gallup started. Isn't it? He was the
current head of Gallup, whoever he was. For some
reason I got the impression he was Gallup's grandson.
Edit: It was Frank Newport but my brain heard Frank
Gallup. Oh well.
Quote: EvenBob1936, the year Gallup started. Isn't it? He was the
current head of Gallup, whoever he was. For some
reason I got the impression he was Gallup's grandson.
That's Frank Newport. He's a good guy. Spanked Rasmussen pretty good when he was the president of AAPOR. Non-standard practices and all...
Quote: rdw4potusone of them really can't be Rasmussen. Scott does it wrong.
Yeah, they all do it wrong, all of them, just ask
10 different people. Like I said, I like them, you're
free to like whoever you want.
Quote: rdw4potusThat's Frank Newport. He's a good guy. Spanked Rasmussen pretty good when he was the president of AAPOR. Non-standard practices and all...
My brain heard Frank Gallup. Oh well, I don't watch
TV, I listen to it.
I don't even need to look at any outlier polls. One major blunder of some sort, --- poof it's all gone.
Quote: rxwineI follow 538 daily. While it may project an Obama win, seeing what I believe was the big 1st debate dip makes me nervous enough. It still seems too easy for the lines to converge and Romney to be on top within any period of a few days.
I don't even need to look at any outlier polls. One major blunder of some sort, --- poof it's all gone.
I too follow 538 on a daily basis. Mr Silver uses some pretty sophisticated polling and projection methods and is widely considered pretty knowledgeable. The first debate was a huge turning point. Almost unprecidented. It turned what was starting to look like a runaway election, with many notable Republican operatives like Karl Rove, about to bail on Romney and begin exclusively concentrating on senate and congressional races into a horse race again. The good news is that he has not overtaken Obama, just pulled close and things seem to have stabilized. Further good news is that there just isn't much left to move these polls. The third debate-topic foreign policy, won't do much. Mr Romney will harp on mistakes made in the Libya attack and aftermath and President Obama will tout ending the war and killing Bin Laden. The truth is foreign policy is not the issue that is driving this election, and the few remaining undecided holdout are most likely economy driven. So unless someone screws up royally, this debate will not move the needle for either side.
After the debate, the one remaining event before the election will be the October Jobs report, due out the Friday before the election. As you know the unemployment rate ticked down below 8% last month. Even if it ticked back up a notch to 8% again, it would have little impact as this 8% range has already been factored into the equation. It would take a massive jump or decline to have any meaning and neither scenario is likely.
What you have left is a very close election, which will be decided by a couple very close swing states. This will be more of a turnout election, and Obama is reported to have the stronger ground game in several of the key states like Ohio.
But you are right, I too am more nervous that I would like and thought I would need to be.
Quote: rxwine
I don't even need to look at any outlier polls. One major blunder of some sort, --- poof it's all gone.
But, but...what if some of the bundled polls show results that I'd rather ignore?
Quote: kewljI too follow 538 on a daily basis. .
If I was a Lib, I would follow a NYT poll also. The
most Lib rag in the known universe. Its Nate Silver
who's always saying not to trust Gallup of Rasmussen.
Gosh, what a shock.
Quote: EvenBobIf I was a Lib, I would follow a NYT poll also. The
most Lib rag in the known universe. Its Nate Silver
who's always saying not to trust Gallup of Rasmussen.
Gosh, what a shock.
1. It's not a Poll
2. Nate isn't a lib
3. He's been doing this since before his site was bought by NYT
4. Rasmussen does it wrong. They might get to the right place, but their method is horsecrap. Your new buddy Frank Newport feels that way, too.
5. Gallup has had some giant misses in the past. When that happened, the lead-up looked just like their polls now. Maybe this election will be a miss for them, maybe it won't...
Quote: rdw4potus
3. He's been doing this since before his site was bought by NYT
.
When I want unbiased news and reporting, I
always turn to the NYT.
You must be joking. Thats like me recommending
a writer on The Weekly Standard page.
Quote: EvenBobWhen I want unbiased news and reporting, I
always turn to the NYT.
You must be joking. Thats like me recommending
a writer on The Weekly Standard page.
No, it isn't. It's like you recommending a story on the Fox News website. Oh, what's that? You'd done that many times? Well, then:-)
Quote: kewljObama has 3 times the campaign offices in this state.
Thats controlled by the expensive internal polling
all campaigns pay up the butt for. It must be telling
Obama to hit Nevada hard, and telling Romney its
probabaly not worth spending a lot there.
