Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Benny B on October 05, 2012, 09:39:12 AM
-
This is a speech by FDR during his reelection campaign in 1936. I think of this whenever I hear Republican presidential candidates talk about "making health care more accessible and affordable for every American." In FDR's case, the Republicans were claiming they could create and manage the social programs FDR was fostering better than FDR himself. I think everyone knows the Republicans can not be trusted with social programs like universal health care, but they've seen the writing on the wall and desperately want to take the issue away from the liberals and progressives. The GOP (Greedy Old Perverts) can not be trusted with any issue that benefits the poor and middle class. By the way, even though it's not widely known, we were worse off in 2008 than we were in 1936 when FDR gave this speech.
-
Talk about an epic failure of a thread.
-
>:(
-
Talk about an epic failure of a thread.
Sort of like a President who is incapable of looking another man in the eye?
-
Talk about an epic failure of a thread.
[/quote
What did you expect? As Obama was getting stomped during the debate, Benny didn't even show up on his own thread about the debate (and it hadn't even been moved to the Politics forum at that point).
-
Meet the Obama donors...
http://freebeacon.com/meet-the-obama-donors-at-the-bls/
-
Meet the Obama donors...
http://freebeacon.com/meet-the-obama-donors-at-the-bls/
Obama donors at the BLS, Obama gets pummeled in Wednesday's debate, a month out from the election.....POOF! Unemployment's under 8% for the first time in 45 months..........HOW CONVENIENT!!!
-
Ouch! :-[
(http://i50.tinypic.com/u4l74.jpg)
-
Getbig should start a Politics board so members can express their views without cluttering up the G&O world. I'll PM Ron to get his thoughts.
-
Getbig should start a Politics board so members can express their views without cluttering up the G&O world. I'll PM Ron to get his thoughts.
lol
-
There's not enough bandwidth for a politics board. But, were there, it could be named the "Politics and Political Issues Board". After all, We all love polictics - whether we are Democrats, Republicans or some other party. Care to debate. Here you go. The American election is coming up!
-
;)
BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!
(http://i50.tinypic.com/10pt4l4.png)
[/quote
-
POW!!! ;)
(http://thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/drudge-ue-e1349443475244.jpg)
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-aFogCZDq-o8/UG7XRhxoooI/AAAAAAAASSM/c85RDDUd4ak/s1600/PayrollSept2012.jpg)
Hold on repubes, first aid is coming! :D
(http://t4toby.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/whambulance.jpg?w=242)
-
LOL talk about desperate for anything.
POW!!! ;)
(http://thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/drudge-ue-e1349443475244.jpg)
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-aFogCZDq-o8/UG7XRhxoooI/AAAAAAAASSM/c85RDDUd4ak/s1600/PayrollSept2012.jpg)
Hold on repubes, first aid is coming! :D
(http://t4toby.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/whambulance.jpg?w=242)
-
POW!!! ;)
(http://thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/drudge-ue-e1349443475244.jpg)
[/img]
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Numbers more fake than Romney's magic underwear.
-
More people are unemployed today than when Obama first took office.
Those tiny bars on that graph don't tell the whole story let alone a story.
-
More people are unemployed today than when Obama first took office.
Those tiny bars on that graph don't tell the whole story let alone a story.
Benny is about as deep as Paris Hilton, he buys into it hook, line, and sinker.
-
LOL talk about desperate for anything.
Where's that graph again about where unemployment was supposed to be by now?
OOOOOH!!!!!
(http://blogs.reuters.com/james-pethokoukis/files/2011/06/rbchart.jpg)
Projection: about 5.5%
Actual (fudged numbers and all, with six trillion dollars gone) 7.8%
FAILURE!!!
-
Is Benny a gimmick created by Reggie Love?
-
:)
-
Where's that graph again about where unemployment was supposed to be by now?
OOOOOH!!!!!
(http://blogs.reuters.com/james-pethokoukis/files/2011/06/rbchart.jpg)
Projection: about 5.5%
Actual (fudged numbers an all, with six trillion dollars gone) 7.8%
FAILURE!!!
-
Unemployment wasn't supposed to exceed 8%; it stayed above that for 44 months straight.
It's supposed to be 5.5% by now.....NOT EVEN CLOSE.
Keep ducking and dodging, Obama Boy.
I'm sure you were waiting with cheeks wide open, to console the President, after that beating he took Wednesday night.
-
Benny...the UE rate moved from the mid 8's to 8.1% largely due to people giving up an leaving the workforce. It moved to 7.8 based on fiction...
-
Ouch! :-[
(http://i50.tinypic.com/u4l74.jpg)
Does the name Benny B ring a bell?
-
:)
Why can't you ever answer a question regarding the time you started work, PEA BRAIN/GOOMBA GIANNI? :P
What time did you get into work today, PEA BRAIN? ::)
97,000 posts...posting ALL DAY EVERY DAY and never leaving his apartment
GET A JOB!!! >:(
(http://www.marriage-wise.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/loser.jpg)
Arthur Avenue ghetto slum-bum...and fat little no-pussy-getting turd. :D
-
(http://a.scpr.org/i/8ecfc650273892de2575f2fd086f952a/48396-six.jpg)
-
(http://a.scpr.org/i/8ecfc650273892de2575f2fd086f952a/48396-six.jpg)
;D
If you doubt that the new unemployment statistics are great for Obama, the biggest indication is that Republicans are accusing President Obama of cooking them. Former General Electric CEO Jack Welch accused Obama of falsifying the numbers. Come on, Jack—if you don’t like those numbers, why not just go with Mitt Romney’s fantasy numbers? Welch tweeted “Unbelievable jobs numbers. These Chicago guys will do anything. Can’t debate so change numbers.” The debate was Wednesday, Jack. They certainly changed them quickly. You should look at the report for signs of white-out! Does anybody even remember white-out? It must still be around. I think Jack Welch has been sniffing it.
-
Unemployment wasn't supposed to exceed 8%; it stayed above that for 44 months straight.
It's supposed to be 5.5% by now.....NOT EVEN CLOSE.
Keep ducking and dodging, Obama Boy.
I'm sure you were waiting with cheeks wide open, to console the President, after that beating he took Wednesday night.
LOL...forget 5.5, it's not even close to 7.8%. It was predicted go to 8.3% when the reports came out, low and behold it's magically 7.8. hahaha, what a fraud.
-
(http://a.scpr.org/i/8ecfc650273892de2575f2fd086f952a/48396-six.jpg)
"The discovery that Jack Welch isn't just a book-cooking right winger but also an outright conspiracy theorist is only one of today's amazements.
Interestingly, the "conservatives" who insist that the Obama administration is mucking with the employment numbers for political gain never had any issue with the numbers when they were anti-Obama fodder. Why is that?"
-
LOL...forget 5.5, it's not even close to 7.8%. It was predicted go to 8.3% when the reports came out, low and behold it's magically 7.8. hahaha, what a fraud.
Yep. As if conservatives hadn't been predicting for about a year that the libs would cook the numbers to get it below 8, just before the election.
Of course, they also have to cover that Rodney-King-style beatdown Obama took during the debate.
-
;D
If you doubt that the new unemployment statistics are great for Obama, the biggest indication is that Republicans are accusing President Obama of cooking them. Former General Electric CEO Jack Welch accused Obama of falsifying the numbers. Come on, Jack—if you don’t like those numbers, why not just go with Mitt Romney’s fantasy numbers? Welch tweeted “Unbelievable jobs numbers. These Chicago guys will do anything. Can’t debate so change numbers.” The debate was Wednesday, Jack. They certainly changed them quickly. You should look at the report for signs of white-out! Does anybody even remember white-out? It must still be around. I think Jack Welch has been sniffing it.
You are hilarious dude.
-
"The discovery that Jack Welch isn't just a book-cooking right winger but also an outright conspiracy theorist is only one of today's amazements.
Interestingly, the "conservatives" who insist that the Obama administration is mucking with the employment numbers for political gain never had any issue with the numbers when they were anti-Obama fodder. Why is that?"
Benny, I got 10k that says not only are these numbers fixed but after it's all said and done, we'll find out Obama is a COMPLETE fraud. Whatcha say? You're really (or almost anyone) is questioning Welsh? You're the one delusional.
-
(http://polination.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/obama_debate_butt_bandaged.jpg)
-
That Cartoon is dead on.
-
(http://polination.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/obama_debate_butt_bandaged.jpg)
haha! Good stuff!
-
How did I know Benny would abandon another thread.
-
(http://polination.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/obama_debate_butt_bandaged.jpg)
LOL
It's amazing how little it takes to make repubes gleeful. ::) I guess you like this new, moderate Romney that emerged at the debate? One that basically disavowed all of the "severely conservative" stuff he's espoused for the last two years? The one that's going to "repeal" ObamaCare, yet keep all of its major components???
Hmm...let's see. Would you rather win a single debate through continous LYING, or actually win the election?
I know what I prefer. ;)
BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!
(http://i50.tinypic.com/10pt4l4.png)
On election day, its your boy Willard that is going to get his ass kicked. ;D
-
Just finish your shift at Mac.Donalds?
-
Benny, you claim to be a financial expert. Explain to the people how the ue came down to 7.8 when.all indications pointed to 8.3, up from 7.8. Even some kind are questioning it. So explain
-
real uemployment numbers are so much higher, and not just in the usa...
-
LOL
It's amazing how little it takes to make repubes gleeful. ::) I guess you like this new, moderate Romney that emerged at the debate? One that basically disavowed all of the "severely conservative" stuff he's espoused for the last two years? The one that's going to "repeal" ObamaCare, yet keep all of its major components???
Hmm...let's see. Would you rather win a single debate through continous LYING, or actually win the election?
I know what I prefer. ;)
BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!
(http://i50.tinypic.com/10pt4l4.png)
On election day, its your boy Willard that is going to get his ass kicked. ;D
Maybe, maybe not. Voter registration among Republicans is higher than that of Democrats. Throw out the polls that grossly oversample Democrats and the fact that independents usually break against the incumbent and you may get something more like........
(http://www.unskewedpolls.com/map_swingstatespoll01.jpg)
BOOM THAT, Obama Boy.
BTW, the only lying going on here is by Team Obama, as his deputy campaign manager had to admit on CNN that Obama's claim about Romney's so-called $5 trillion tax cut was FALSE.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/10/04/cutter_concedes_5_trillion_attack_on_romney_is_not_true.html
-
Jesus Christ...how about everybody just vote for who they're gonna vote for and STFU for the next 6 weeks!
-
LOL
It's amazing how little it takes to make repubes gleeful. ::) I guess you like this new, moderate Romney that emerged at the debate? One that basically disavowed all of the "severely conservative" stuff he's espoused for the last two years? The one that's going to "repeal" ObamaCare, yet keep all of its major components???
Hmm...let's see. Would you rather win a single debate through continous LYING, or actually win the election?
I know what I prefer. ;)
BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!
(http://i50.tinypic.com/10pt4l4.png)
On election day, its your boy Willard that is going to get his ass kicked. ;D
Debate Slaughter Meltdown........hahahaha hahahahaha.
Win a debate with lies? Your man was right there on stage, why didn't he get off his dumb ass and refute them then? Face it....48 hrs later and obama still can't counter Romney.
Your one man prediction means sweet fuck all. This will be a Repub landslide just like the mid-terms. Pack your bags saggy arm michelle, you and your pancake titties are headed back to Blue Island.
-
lol. You are a funny guy.
What's funny is listening to liberals make excuses for why Obama got creamed Wednesday night.
Let's see there's:
- Hanky-Gate
- Altitude-Gate
- Lack-of-Angry-Black-Man-Gate
As for the EC polls, try getting some where Dems aren't oversampled six to ten points (or more); then, run the numbers and see where it leads you.
[/list]
-
What's funny is listening to liberals make excuses for why Obama got creamed Wednesday night.
Let's see there's:
- Hanky-Gate
- Altitude-Gate
- Lack-of-Angry-Black-Man-Gate
As for the EC polls, try getting some where Dems aren't oversampled six to ten points (or more); then, run the numbers and see where it leads you.
[/list]
What was that line Romney came out with? "I had a friend who said 'You don't pick the winners and losers...you just pick the losers!'"
LOL talk about complete and utter pawnage as Obama heard that line and then immediately looked down at his feet!!
-
Debate Slaughter Meltdown........hahahaha hahahahaha.
Win a debate with lies? Your man was right there on stage, why didn't he get off his dumb ass and refute them then? Face it....48 hrs later and obama still can't counter Romney.
My point exactly!! Every time Obama tried to advance one of his falsehoods about Romney's policies and plans, Romney cut him to pieces, especially about the tax cuts.
Best of all, Romney beat Obama over the head with his record REPEATEDLY (to which Obama could not answer) and reminded him, "You've been president for four years., when he tried to pull the Blame-Bush card.
-
What was that line Romney came out with? "I had a friend who said 'You don't pick the winners and losers...you just pick the losers!'"
LOL talk about complete and utter pawnage as Obama heard that line and then immediately looked down at his feet!!
My favorite was, "Look! I’ve got five boys. I’m used to people saying something that’s not always true, but just keep on repeating it and ultimately hoping I’ll believe it.
That was his counter when Obama, for the third or fourth time, accused Romney of wanting a $5 trillion tax cut for the rich.
-
My favorite was, "Look! I’ve got five boys. I’m used to people saying something that’s not always true, but just keep on repeating it and ultimately hoping I’ll believe it.
That was his counter when Obama, for the third or fourth time, accused Romney of wanting a $5 trillion tax cut for the rich.
Yeah that was a classic too! Man this has got me pumped up...almost like watching a Tyson knockout highlight reel! I think I might have to rewatch it to see just how big of a brutal ass whooping Romney really put on Obama!! 8)
-
Guess this is the last we'll see of Obama Boy on this thread.
-
What's funny is listening to liberals make excuses for why Obama got creamed Wednesday night.
Yes, that is funny as well. Though I think the "creaming" was just Romney being a better actor, which is something that probably doesn't indicate much about how he would perform once in office.
As for the EC polls, try getting some where Dems aren't oversampled six to ten points (or more); then, run the numbers and see where it leads you.
1. OK. Let's throw out the results from all organizations that oversample Dems -- if indeed that's what's happening -- by only looking at the results from an organization that definitely doesn't do that, since it oversamples Republicans instead: Rasmussen.
I've noticed that you focus on national polls in your posts; that would be fine if this country were a democracy. As it happens, the candidate who wins does so by winning electoral votes, not the popular vote. We can use Rasmussen's Ohio polls as a metric for Willard's chances since no Republican has won the White House without winning Ohio.
2. Rasmussen's latest poll -- which accounts for any potential effects of the first debate -- indicates Obama is ahead by 1% in Ohio, with a margin of error of 4.5%. It is a common misperception that since the difference between the candidates is within the margin of error, the candidates are 'essentially tied.' But this isn't true: given the margin of error and difference between the candidates, we can infer the probability that the candidate the poll says is ahead really is ahead. This table captures such probabilities:
(http://jonathanturley.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/margin-of-error-for-difference.gif?w=500)
Since our particular margin of error is 4.5%, there is a 59% chance Obama really is ahead and would win Ohio -- and thus the White House -- if the election were held today. The conclusion that Willard is in poor shape is doubly reinforced by three more facts: Rasmussen uses likely voters and not registered voters, the probability above is as high as it is for an organization that oversamples Republicans, meaning the real probability is higher, and market data -- which as I've said repeatedly is more accurate than polling data -- indicates a 64% chance of an Obama victory.
3. So that's what happens when we remove any potential effects of Dem oversampling. Thanks.
-
Yes, that is funny as well. Though I think the "creaming" was just Romney being a better actor, which is something that probably doesn't indicate much about how he would perform once in office.
1. OK. Let's throw out the results from all organizations that oversample Dems -- if indeed that's what's happening -- by only looking at the results from an organization that definitely doesn't do that, since it oversamples Republicans instead: Rasmussen.
I've noticed that you focus on national polls in your posts; that would be fine if this country were a democracy. As it happens, the candidate who wins does so by winning electoral votes, not the popular vote. We can use Rasmussen's Ohio polls as a metric for Willard's chances since no Republican has won the White House without winning Ohio.
2. Rasmussen's latest poll -- which accounts for any potential effects of the first debate -- indicates Obama is ahead by 1% in Ohio, with a margin of error of 4.5%. It is a common misperception that since the difference between the candidates is within the margin of error, the candidates are 'essentially tied.' But this isn't true: given the margin of error and difference between the candidates, we can infer the probability that the candidate the poll says is ahead really is ahead. This table captures such probabilities:
(http://jonathanturley.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/margin-of-error-for-difference.gif?w=500)
Since our particular margin of error is 4.5%, there is a 59% chance Obama really is ahead and would win Ohio -- and thus the White House -- if the election were held today. The conclusion that Willard is in poor shape is doubly reinforced by three more facts: Rasmussen uses likely voters and not registered voters, the probability above is as high as it is for an organization that oversamples Republicans, meaning the real probability is higher, and market data -- which as I've said repeatedly is more accurate than polling data -- indicates a 64% chance of an Obama victory.
3. So that's what happens when we remove any potential effects of Dem oversampling. Thanks.
I wasn't just referring to national polls. The state-by-state polls are just as guilty of oversampling Dems, some by double digits. But, don't take my word for it:
After Wednesday night’s smashing debate victory for Romney, we may expect the national and swing state polls to change in the Republican’s direction. But not by as much as they should. These polls are biased in favor of Obama and here’s the data to prove it:
From noted Republican pollster John McLaughlin comes a clear and convincing exposé of the bias of media polls in the swing states of Florida, Ohio, and Virginia.
McLaughlin reviewed exit polls in each state for the past four elections. From this data about who actually voted, he found that the party divisions manifest on election day have little to do with the samples upon which the media is basing its polling. And, coincidentally, it is always the Republican vote that tends to be undercounted.
In Florida, for example, McLaughlin finds that the average of the last four elections produced a turnout of 37% Democrats and 38% Republicans. But here is the partisan distribution of the most recent Florida media polls:
9-26: CBS/NY Times = 36% Dem / 27% Rep
9-23: Wash Post = 35% Dem / 29% Rep
So the media polls reflect a 9 point and six point Democratic edge even though the actual experience of the past four elections has been a 1 point Republican advantage.
Things are no better in Ohio. Here, McLaughlin finds a 2 point Democratic edge in the past four elections (38% Dem, 36% Rep). But the media polls show vastly more Democrats and fewer Republicans in their samples:
9-26: CBS/NY Times = 35% Dem / 26% Rep
9-23: Wash Post = 35% Dem / 27% Rep
9-11: NBC/Wall St Journal = 38% Dem / 28% Rep
Once again, the actual exit poll-measured vote in Ohio shows a 2 point Democratic edge, but the polls reflect Democratic advantages of 9 points, 8 points, and 10 points respectively.
In Virginia, it’s the same story. The last four elections have a combined 1 point Republican edge, 37-36. But the media polls show a big pro-Democratic bias:
10/2: Roanoke College = Democrat 36% / Republican 27%
9/17: CBS/NYTimes = Democrat 35% / Republican 26%
9/16: Washington Post = Democrat 35% / Republican 24%
9/11: NBC/Wall St Journal = Democrat 31% / Republican 26%
So instead of showing a 1 point Republican edge, these media poll samples show Democratic advantages of 9,9,11, and 5.
The correct conclusion to draw from all these polls is that Romney is comfortably ahead in Virginia and Florida while he holds a slight lead in Ohio. And, remember these polls are all pre-debate!
Also, bear in mind that the undecided vote in all of these polls usually goes against the incumbent.
That’s the real story.
http://www.dickmorris.com/swing-state-polls-are-rigged/
-
1. Strictly speaking, we won't know whether such numbers constitute "oversampling" until the election is over and we have the real numbers to compare them with. At best, we can assert that there is some probability that polls have overweighted Dem registration/turnout. This assertion may turn out to be incorrect.
2. Even if Dick is correct, it doesn't change the fact that Willard is in trouble even when we correct for potential Dem oversampling, as I did in the above post. This isn't brain science: I used polling that oversamples Republicans and the result is still a high probability for a second Obama administration.
3. Let's assume that it's true that undecideds tend to 'break toward the challenger' (it isn't obvious that this is so -- what may be happening is simple "regression toward the mean"). I've already established that the race in Ohio will decide the election. And according to Rasmussen, only 1% of likely voters in that state are undecided, with the rest of them split 50/49 in favor of Obama. This means that Willard would not only have to capture 100% of undecideds; he'd also need to poach voters from Obama.
In other words, having a literally flawless performance with undecideds in Ohio is necessary but not sufficient for Willard's goals. And since such a flawless performance is literally impossible -- no candidate ever acquires 100% of the undecided vote -- Willard is still screwed. This isn't due to anything about Willard; as everyone knows, running against an incumbent is difficult, and this year in particular was going to present an intimidating electoral college situation for any challenger. There's a reason the Republican heavy hitters sat this cycle out!
4. With that said, the election will likely grow tighter, which will afford you more opportunities to copy and paste Dick articles (I have no idea why anyone would be a fan of such a man). After 6 November, however, you'll hopefully come to understand what I've been telling you all this time.
-
1. Strictly speaking, we won't know whether such numbers constitute "oversampling" until the election is over and we have the real numbers to compare them with. At best, we can assert that there is some probability that polls have overweighted Dem registration/turnout. This assertion may turn out to be incorrect.
2. Even if Dick is correct, it doesn't change the fact that Willard is in trouble even when we correct for potential Dem oversampling, as I did in the above post. This isn't brain science: I used polling that oversamples Republicans and the result is still a high probability for a second Obama administration.
3. Let's assume that it's true that undecideds tend to 'break toward the challenger' (it isn't obvious that this is so -- what may be happening is simple "regression toward the mean"). I've already established that the race in Ohio will decide the election. And according to Rasmussen, only 1% of likely voters in that state are undecided, with the rest of them split 50/49 in favor of Obama. This means that Willard would not only have to capture 100% of undecideds; he'd also need to poach voters from Obama.
In other words, having a literally flawless performance with undecideds in Ohio is necessary but not sufficient for Willard's goals. And since such a flawless performance is literally impossible -- no candidate ever acquires 100% of the undecided vote -- Willard is still screwed. This isn't due to anything about Willard; as everyone knows, running against an incumbent is difficult, and this year in particular was going to present an intimidating electoral college situation for any challenger. There's a reason the Republican heavy hitters sat this cycle out!
4. With that said, the election will likely grow tighter, which will afford you more opportunities to copy and paste Dick articles (I have no idea why anyone would be a fan of such a man). After 6 November, however, you'll hopefully come to understand what I've been telling you all this time.
Romney doesn't need to get 100% of the undecided voters to beat Obama. As for the heavy hitters sitting out, that doesn't make much sense. Romney was/is one such heavy hitter. This warped idea that you have that people are somehow afraid of Obama is without merit.
Running against an incumbent with a lousy record hardly strikes fear into anyone. And there's nothing intimidating about the electoral college. There's basically no state that McCain won in 2008 that looks to flip blue. It's all about the swing states. While Romney has to win more of them than Obama does, as the polls suggest, that's hardly a lock for the president at this point.
If he fails to come close to the turnout he had in 2008 (blacks and young voters may be shaky, at this point), he could lose and lose big.
-
Romney doesn't need to get 100% of the undecided voters to beat Obama.
My logic pertains to the poll I used an example, viz., the Rasmussen poll indicating a 50-49 lead for Obama in Ohio. This means that only 1% of voters there remain undecided and that by extension Romney will have to win that entire 1% just to tie Obama. In other words, if the election were held today, Romney could not win (given that the poll is accurate and that Ohio is necessary but not sufficient for a Republican victory).
As for the heavy hitters sitting out, that doesn't make much sense. Romney was/is one such heavy hitter.
We'll simply have to agree to disagree on this matter. Given the current status of the GOP, I for one do not think that a one-term, pro-life governor counts as a 'heavy hitter', especially not when there are more popular politicians on offer (e.g., Christie). Despite a historically vulnerable incumbent, we had a Republican primary with Herman Cain leading the polls for weeks. The best explanation for this fact needs to cite a lack of heavy hitters, or so it seems to me.
This warped idea that you have that people are somehow afraid of Obama is without merit.
It isn't my idea, for I said no such thing. What I did say is that the electoral college situation is 'intimidating' in that it presents challenging prospects for a Republican victory, regardless of the candidate.
And there's nothing intimidating about the electoral college. There's basically no state that McCain won in 2008 that looks to flip blue. It's all about the swing states. While Romney has to win more of them than Obama does, as the polls suggest, that's hardly a lock for the president at this point.
1. McCain didn't win very many states, so the fact that none of them are liable to flip blue doesn't affect the proposition that this election cycle marks a challenging race for Republicans.
2. Yes, the swing states will decide the election. The same swing states Obama has had grassroots organizations operative in for several years and where his numbers have been strong for a similar amount of time (this has of course changed in several of them, but the current topic is what the prospects were for a Republican victory at the start of the cycle -- what a Republican deciding to run in the primary would be looking at -- and not the current prospects). Incumbent presidents win 80% of the time as is; the above facts would only reinforce the tendency of a qualified candidate to wait this cycle out.