Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: blacken700 on October 27, 2012, 12:53:22 PM
-
Huff Po (yes, I know) had an interesting story on the Republicans apparently coming to grips that in all probability Ohio is lost and they now view Wisconsin as the most favorable flip in the upper Midwest states.
But giving Romney Wisconsin, Florida, Virginia, Colorado and North Carolina it still leaves him at 267.
I don't see how Obama loses a legitimate election in Wisconsin either. From what I gather on the tubes Wisconsin is probably home to their best GOTV machine, and Shark Eyes is a native but Wisconsin has been reliably Democratic for many years.
The GOP will also point to the Walker recall as a sign they can win there, however that was a product of people showing up to vote against the concept of a recall as much as it was some kind of overwhelming support for Walker.
I guess the bottom line is this demonstrates how brutal the math is for them.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2012/10/26/mitt-romney-2012-campaign_n_2026484.html?icid=hp_front_top_art
-
ever heard of scott walker?
-
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82948.html (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82948.html)
A short article from Adrian Gray in the Politico from 10/26 (Yesterday)
"I have always been a believer in data telling me the full story. Truth is, nobody knows what will happen on Election Day. But here is what we do know: 220,000 fewer Democrats have voted early in Ohio compared with 2008. And 30,000 more Republicans have cast their ballots compared with four years ago. That is a 250,000-vote net increase for a state Obama won by 260,000 votes in 2008."
-
If Romney is up 5 in Gallup and RAS no way he loses Ohio.
-
Obama's fuzzy Ohio early vote math
By: Adrian Gray
October 26, 2012 03:18 PM EDT
At this point in an election cycle, many campaign staffers are busy fighting the press on what they call “process stories.” The candidates and their staffs want to talk about their plans and policies while reporters covering them find their audiences demand a play-by-play of the horse race.
The result is constant overstuffing of campaign metrics and polling that only serve to muddy the waters for most political observers. In a close race, such as we have today, there is often plenty of data for both sides to use to their favor. One poll says this, another says that.
(See also: Latest polls from across U.S.)
This makes it especially surprising to see the piece put out by President Barack Obama’s field director this week on early voting in Ohio. When things are ugly for a campaign, these types of memos can start flying. It is troubling for the president’s supporters that they could not come up with at least a handful of positive data points in Ohio. I worked as director of strategy at the Republican National Committee during the difficult 2006 election cycle — I know firsthand how hard it it is to come up with positive data in a negative cycle.
There are normally three signs you know a campaign metrics memo is purely spin.
1. Anecdotes: “We have seen groups as big as 100 voters going to vote in Athens, Ohio.” Only 604 democrats have voted in person in the entire county and no more than 40 in a single precinct (that would be Athens 3-5, for those scoring at home).
(Also on POLITICO: Romney's road to victory in Ohio)
2. Unverifiable Data: “Precincts that Obama won in 2008 are voting early at a higher rate”: This is unverifiable and misleading because there is no such thing as an “Obama precinct.” Every ten years, the entire country rebalances its voting districts based on a constitutionally mandated census. In 2010, this process redrew the lines of reportable voting areas that were used in 2008. So this year, we have entirely new precincts, thereby making it impossible to validate their claim.
3. Cherry-picking random sub-poll data: “Time poll shows the President up 60-30” among early voters. That sub-sample was asked of 145 people and was one of many of similar ilk (with a huge variation in results). Their central data argument is that 43 more people told Time’s pollster over a two-day window they supported Obama. If that is their best claim to a lead in Ohio, it is a troubling picture for the president.
(See also: POLITICO's swing-state map)
I have always been a believer in data telling me the full story. Truth is, nobody knows what will happen on Election Day. But here is what we do know: 220,000 fewer Democrats have voted early in Ohio compared with 2008. And 30,000 more Republicans have cast their ballots compared with four years ago. That is a 250,000-vote net increase for a state Obama won by 260,000 votes in 2008.
Adrian Gray is a veteran of two winning presidential campaigns, the White House, the RNC and the Pickens Plan. He is currently working in Asset Management in New York and can be found on twitter at @adrian_gray
© 2012 POLITICO LLC
More information & opt-out options »What is interest based advertising »Learn more about quadrantONE »Privacy Controls by Evidon[ X ]This ad has been matched to your interests. It was selected for you based on your browsing activity.
-
If Romney is up 5 in Gallup and RAS no way he loses Ohio.
it;s slipping away bro, oooohhh goooddd.
-
it;s slipping away bro, oooohhh goooddd.
I have always been a believer in data telling me the full story. Truth is, nobody knows what will happen on Election Day. But here is what we do know: 220,000 fewer Democrats have voted early in Ohio compared with 2008. And 30,000 more Republicans have cast their ballots compared with four years ago. That is a 250,000-vote net increase for a state Obama won by 260,000 votes in 2008.
-
Huff Po (yes, I know) had an interesting story on the Republicans apparently coming to grips that in all probability Ohio is lost and they now view Wisconsin as the most favorable flip in the upper Midwest states.
But giving Romney Wisconsin, Florida, Virginia, Colorado and North Carolina it still leaves him at 267.
I don't see how Obama loses a legitimate election in Wisconsin either. From what I gather on the tubes Wisconsin is probably home to their best GOTV machine, and Shark Eyes is a native but Wisconsin has been reliably Democratic for many years.
The GOP will also point to the Walker recall as a sign they can win there, however that was a product of people showing up to vote against the concept of a recall as much as it was some kind of overwhelming support for Walker.
I guess the bottom line is this demonstrates how brutal the math is for them.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2012/10/26/mitt-romney-2012-campaign_n_2026484.html?icid=hp_front_top_art
Guess what that means.
Even if Romney were to concede Ohio (which he obviously is NOT), if he wins New Hampshire, guess what that gives him: 271.....and the WIN!!
The Wisconsin recall was proof that the GOP could match the Dems' vaunted ground game. The Dems were in top form, in that aspect; yet Walker ran away with the race.
-
http://www.humanevents.com/2012/10/26/is-voter-fraud-being-committed-in-ohio
-
I have always been a believer in data telling me the full story. Truth is, nobody knows what will happen on Election Day. But here is what we do know: 220,000 fewer Democrats have voted early in Ohio compared with 2008. And 30,000 more Republicans have cast their ballots compared with four years ago. That is a 250,000-vote net increase for a state Obama won by 260,000 votes in 2008.
Obama will probably focus even more of his energy in Colorado, Wisconsin, and New Hampshire.
Those states allow Romney to win without Ohio.
-
Obama ready to concede north carolina, but nate silver says anyone with a 2-3 point lead when pollin data is this rich, is going to win - meaning Obama will have OH.
Won't matter if romney gets wisc. But ohio looking to be over.
Nate Silver: Ohio is not a toss-up
Ohio Is Not a Toss Up
Nate Silver looks at the polling average in Ohio -- made up of roughly a dozen polling firms who have surveyed the state over the past 10 days -- and notes it shows President Obama with a 2.4 percentage point lead over Mitt Romney.
"There are no precedents in the database for a candidate losing with a two- or three-point lead in a state when the polling volume was that rich... It is misinformed to refer to Ohio as a toss-up. Mr. Obama is the favorite there, and because of Ohio's central position in the Electoral College, he is therefore the overall favorite in the election."
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/10/27/ohio_is_not_a_toss_up.html
-
Obama ready to concede north carolina, but nate silver says anyone with a 2-3 point lead when pollin data is this rich, is going to win - meaning Obama will have OH.
Won't matter if romney gets wisc. But ohio looking to be over.
Nate Silver: Ohio is not a toss-up
Ohio Is Not a Toss Up
Nate Silver looks at the polling average in Ohio -- made up of roughly a dozen polling firms who have surveyed the state over the past 10 days -- and notes it shows President Obama with a 2.4 percentage point lead over Mitt Romney.
"There are no precedents in the database for a candidate losing with a two- or three-point lead in a state when the polling volume was that rich... It is misinformed to refer to Ohio as a toss-up. Mr. Obama is the favorite there, and because of Ohio's central position in the Electoral College, he is therefore the overall favorite in the election."
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/10/27/ohio_is_not_a_toss_up.html
No, over is North Carolina.
Ohio is well in play. And Nate Silver ought to know better. A 2.4-point lead is MOE, which means it's effectively TIED.
Silver's job is to tell the libs that things are just fine for Team Obama, to ignore all the common sense and reality around them that show Obama is in major trouble.
And, he'll be among the first to have a heart attack, in the event his prediction is dead wrong.
Not to mention, the Obama team not only has to spend money on Ohio, they have to worry about New Hampshire and Wisconsin. They know that Romney can still beat them without Ohio, if he gets those two states.
If you want to talk precedents, there are no precedents for a challenger losing to an incumbent, when that challenger has been at 50% or higher in Gallup since mid-October. Romney's been there nearly two weeks and shows little signs of slowing up.
I don't know how many times it has to be explained to you, 240. But, once again:
Romney's got 206 right now, according to CNN, Rasmussen, and RCP (once they move NC back to "Lean Romney"; it got moved back to "toss-up", thanks to a PPP poll that had them tied with Dems oversampled by 9 points. Two new polls have Romney up 6 and 8 ).
Give him Florida and Virginia and Romney's up to 248.
If Romney takes Colorado, that's 257. What's 270 minus 257? THIRTEEN, not EIGHTEEN (the number of EC votes in Ohio).
Wisconsin has 10; New Hampshire has 4. If Romney gets both of those, even if Obama keeps Ohio, guess what happens?
-
in your path... romney's gotta be darn near perfect to win without ohio. everything has to go right. Methinks, if he's doing well enough to win every one of those, he'll be good enough to win OH too. If he loses ohio, then he's not good enough to win all of those - ddrop 1 of those 6, any one of those, and obama wins.
-
in your path... romney's gotta be darn near perfect to win without ohio. everything has to go right. Methinks, if he's doing well enough to win every one of those, he'll be good enough to win OH too. If he loses ohio, then he's not good enough to win all of those - ddrop 1 of those 6, any one of those, and obama wins.
That's not necessarily the case. Some swing states have been barraged with more ads than others. Now that Obama has to keep burning money in states he thought would be locked up by now, it gives Romney a bit more of an edge.
Romney doesn't have to be perfect. The scenario I mentioned put Romney at 271. That means, of the remaining swing states, Romney does not have to pick up Nevada, Iowa, Pennsylvania, or Michigan.
If Obama had Wisconsin, New Hampshire, and Colorado locked up, all he'd have to do is pour everything he's got left in Ohio; then, he could afford to let Romney have the southeastern states.
But, by not doing that, Ohio is no longer the "do-or-die" path for Romney that it once was.
-
240 again proving to be fucking clueless. After thus race this idiot silver is going to have a lot of spkanin to do.
-
Oddly......240 used to follow RCP as the gold standard of polling...now cause Nate Silver is polling what he wants to here....thats the guy.
-
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82948.html (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82948.html)
A short article from Adrian Gray in the Politico from 10/26 (Yesterday)
"I have always been a believer in data telling me the full story. Truth is, nobody knows what will happen on Election Day. But here is what we do know: 220,000 fewer Democrats have voted early in Ohio compared with 2008. And 30,000 more Republicans have cast their ballots compared with four years ago. That is a 250,000-vote net increase for a state Obama won by 260,000 votes in 2008."
I was in OH last week visiting family. I was rather surprised to hear such a different tune coming from them. They literally are ALL union people from all-union families. In 2008, about half of them voted for 0bama, while the rest simply refused to vote.
There are many things they don't like about Romney and the republican party in general, BUT THEY ESSENTIALLY ARE VOTING FOR ROMNEY TO "VOTE AGAINST" 0BAMA.
These are people who traditionally have always voted by party rather than candidate, and I was frankly shocked at what I was hearing.
From what they said, it sounds as if they're not the only ones who feel this way and are planning to vote accordingly.
I'll still be very surprised if Romeny takes OH, PA, and WI, but this may be the best chance the republicans have in those states in recent history (PA last elected a R-governor, which itself, was shocking).
-
Mitt Romney 2012 Campaign: Wisconsin Becomes The New Ohio
Translation: our Ohio strategy has been a flop, so time for Plan B
-
Mitt Romney 2012 Campaign: Wisconsin Becomes The New Ohio
Translation: our Ohio strategy has been a flop, so time for Plan B
Wisconsin, being the new Ohio, has been on the political circuits for the last several days. It didn't originate with the Romney campaign.
And, in case you missed it, Obama and Biden zipped to Wisconsin with the quickness, after the most recent set of polls.
Translation: Ohio ain't quite the "do-or-die" state for Romney that political pundits (and especially Team Obama) think it is (or was).
-
if romney doesn't win ohio his road to 270 becomes difficult
-
if romney doesn't win ohio his road to 270 becomes difficult
Not necessarily. I pointed that out earlier. That's why Wisconsin has become such a huge deal, as of late (as has New Hampshire).
If Romney takes those two, along with Colorado, he wins without Ohio.
-
I was in OH last week visiting family. I was rather surprised to hear such a different tune coming from them. They literally are ALL union people from all-union families. In 2008, about half of them voted for 0bama, while the rest simply refused to vote.
There are many things they don't like about Romney and the republican party in general, BUT THEY ESSENTIALLY ARE VOTING FOR ROMNEY TO "VOTE AGAINST" 0BAMA.
These are people who traditionally have always voted by party rather than candidate, and I was frankly shocked at what I was hearing.
From what they said, it sounds as if they're not the only ones who feel this way and are planning to vote accordingly.
I'll still be very surprised if Romeny takes OH, PA, and WI, but this may be the best chance the republicans have in those states in recent history (PA last elected a R-governor, which itself, was shocking).
In the aftermath of the Wisconsin recall, I remember a certain MSNBC hack still scratching his head as to why nearly 40% of union households went for Walker.
Those are the groups that Obama thinks will carry the day for him in 9 days. But, if Romney gets what Walker got in that respect, Obama is DONE. I have a feeling that, outside the union families (especially the auto workers' union), Romney had the edge.
-
Not necessarily. I pointed that out earlier. That's why Wisconsin has become such a huge deal, as of late (as has New Hampshire).
If Romney takes those two, along with Colorado, he wins without Ohio.
that's why OH matters. He wins Ohio (easily winnable in our great depression against a failure prez) - or he HAS to win all 3 of these, along with all those other things going right.
If you were an oddsmaker, would you bet all of this will happen? Intrade doesn't think it will, but ya never know.
What I'm saying is that if Romney is strong enough to win all 3 - Wish, HN, and Colorado - then he's already so strong that OH is an easy win.
I'm not saying he won't get all 3 - i'm saying if he does get all 3, then OH is already in the bag.
-
that's why OH matters. He wins Ohio (easily winnable in our great depression against a failure prez) - or he HAS to win all 3 of these, along with all those other things going right.
If you were an oddsmaker, would you bet all of this will happen? Intrade doesn't think it will, but ya never know.
What I'm saying is that if Romney is strong enough to win all 3 - Wish, HN, and Colorado - then he's already so strong that OH is an easy win.
I'm not saying he won't get all 3 - i'm saying if he does get all 3, then OH is already in the bag.
come on man, you didn't know if you don't win ohio it makes it easier ;D
-
A 2.4-point lead is MOE, which means it's effectively TIED.
As opposed to mere differences of opinion we may have, here you are blatantly wrong on two accounts:
1. The margin of error for a metapoll (a poll of polls) is going to be much lower than the margin of error for any given poll; a rather particular calculation is required to determine its precise value. You have no idea what the margin of error is -- it goes without saying you haven't run the numbers -- and thus cannot assert whether 2.4 is within its bounds or not.
2. Even if 2.4 were within the MOE, given a specific margin of error and percentage lead, it is possible to calculate the probability that a given candidate really is ahead and thus whether they would win if the election were held today. If we assume a much higher MOE than is really the case, say, 4.0, Nate's metapoll still indicates an almost 74% chance of an Obama victory in Ohio. This isn't an effective tie in the slightest.
3. (1) and (2) derive from basic facts about statistics, so Nate's being a propagandist for the Democrats, if true, doesn't affect their veracity in the slightest -- attacking the messenger's character as you have done won't make the facts go away.
In this instance at least, the data -- and reality more generally -- has a liberal bias.
And Nate Silver ought to know better.
lol
-
I have always been a believer in data telling me the full story. Truth is, nobody knows what will happen on Election Day. But here is what we do know: 220,000 fewer Democrats have voted early in Ohio compared with 2008. And 30,000 more Republicans have cast their ballots compared with four years ago. That is a 250,000-vote net increase for a state Obama won by 260,000 votes in 2008.
As opposed to mere differences of opinion we may have, here you are blatantly wrong on two accounts:
1. The margin of error for a metapoll (a poll of polls) is going to be much lower than the margin of error for any given poll; a rather particular calculation is required to determine its precise value. You have no idea what the margin of error is -- it goes without saying you haven't run the numbers -- and thus cannot assert whether 2.4 is within its bounds or not.
2. Even if 2.4 were within the MOE, given a specific margin of error and percentage lead, it is possible to calculate the probability that a given candidate really is ahead and thus whether they would win if the election were held today. If we assume a much higher MOE than is really the case, say, 4.0, Nate's metapoll still indicates an almost 74% chance of an Obama victory in Ohio. This isn't an effective tie in the slightest.
3. (1) and (2) derive from basic facts about statistics, so Nate's being a propagandist for the Democrats, if true, doesn't affect their veracity in the slightest -- attacking the messenger's character as you have done won't make the facts go away.
In this instance at least, the data -- and reality more generally -- has a liberal bias.
lol
-
I have a feeling that, outside the union families (especially the auto workers' union), Romney had the edge.
It sounds like Romney may even have a good chunk of the union demographic.
I was quite surprised at my relatives' new rhetoric, considering they are ALL union people. In fact, my Uncle worked for Ford Motors for about forty years. While retired now, he draws a damn nice pension, his daughter is in a strong union, and his son-in-law belongs to the elctrician's union.
They've always gotten into political arguments with my other Aunt & Uncle, who are ULTRA-conservative. I was astonished at how well everyone got along and how much agreement there was last weekend every time politics came up.
-
I have always been a believer in data telling me the full story. Truth is, nobody knows what will happen on Election Day. But here is what we do know: 220,000 fewer Democrats have voted early in Ohio compared with 2008. And 30,000 more Republicans have cast their ballots compared with four years ago. That is a 250,000-vote net increase for a state Obama won by 260,000 votes in 2008.
How is obama winning in the exit polls by 2.4%, if way more repubs are voting?
Are the repubs choosing Obama? Shit, if that's the case, yikes.
-
How is obama winning in the exit polls by 2.4%, if way more repubs are voting?
Are the repubs choosing Obama? Shit, if that's the case, yikes.
LOL!!!!!!!! remember Wisconsin exit polls you stupid fuck?
-
As opposed to mere differences of opinion we may have, here you are blatantly wrong on two accounts:
1. The margin of error for a metapoll (a poll of polls) is going to be much lower than the margin of error for any given poll; a rather particular calculation is required to determine its precise value. You have no idea what the margin of error is -- it goes without saying you haven't run the numbers -- and thus cannot assert whether 2.4 is within its bounds or not.
2. Even if 2.4 were within the MOE, given a specific margin of error and percentage lead, it is possible to calculate the probability that a given candidate really is ahead and thus whether they would win if the election were held today. If we assume a much higher MOE than is really the case, say, 4.0, Nate's metapoll still indicates an almost 74% chance of an Obama victory in Ohio. This isn't an effective tie in the slightest.
3. (1) and (2) derive from basic facts about statistics, so Nate's being a propagandist for the Democrats, if true, doesn't affect their veracity in the slightest -- attacking the messenger's character as you have done won't make the facts go away
In this instance at least, the data -- and reality more generally -- has a liberal bias.
lol
First, the election isn't being held today and the longer Obama is under 50%, the more vulnerable he is. Most margins of error are 3 points; a few are 4 to 4.5. Either way you slice it, Obama's having a 2.4 lead in Ohio, THIS LATE, is hardly good news for him.
Second, Silver's bias affects his veracity based on how he weighs certain polls vs. others. I posted a link about that a few days ago.
-
come on man, you didn't know if you don't win ohio it makes it easier ;D
Obviously, you've yet to purchase one of those things called clues.
I never claimed it'd be easier for Romney to win without Ohio. What I've said, REPEATEDLY, that Wisconsin's being in play makes Romney's path to winning without Ohio (should that be the case) much more plausible.
-
It sounds like Romney may even have a good chunk of the union demographic.
I was quite surprised at my relatives' new rhetoric, considering they are ALL union people. In fact, my Uncle worked for Ford Motors for about forty years. While retired now, he draws a damn nice pension, his daughter is in a strong union, and his son-in-law belongs to the elctrician's union.
They've always gotten into political arguments with my other Aunt & Uncle, who are ULTRA-conservative. I was astonished at how well everyone got along and how much agreement there was last weekend every time politics came up.
There's no way union people are behind Romney, especially the auto industry he wanted to let fail...
-
There's no way union people are behind Romney, especially the auto industry he wanted to let fail...
Same thing was said in Wisconsin.
-
Read what Romney said.. Hr said he would have helped the auto industry but not wih tax payers money.. He wanted government to secure the loans.. In the end it was essentially the same.. But we will never get that money back..
-
Free Republic
Browse · Search Pings · Mail News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.
Dem warning: Obama could lose Wisconsin
The Washington Examiner ^ | 10/28/12 | Alan Blinder
Posted on October 28, 2012, 5:30:11 PM EDT by markomalley
The Democratic mayor of Denver said Sunday that President Obama could lose the battleground state of Wisconsin if the incumbent’s supporters fail to increase early voter turnout in the Badger State.
“If the election was held today, President Barack Obama would lose the state of Wisconsin because where his base is, we have not turned out the vote early," Mayor Michael Hancock told a Democratic rally. "The suburbs and rural parts of Wisconsin – the Republican base – are voting. President Obama’s base has yet to go vote.
"We've got to get our people to go vote," Hancock said.
Early voting, which began in Wisconsin on Oct. 22, is a central component of Obama’s strategy to win the state. The president won Wisconsin four years ago by 14 percentage points, but recent polls show the race with Republican Mitt Romney tightening, and that is fueling Republican enthusiasm about their chances of seizing the state.
In a later interview with The Washington Examiner, Hancock said he was confident Obama would emerge from Wisconsin victorious.
“There’s a great deal of enthusiasm,” Hancock said. “We expect clearly that President Obama will win the state of Wisconsin.”
But he also said that it’s vital for Obama’s base to make it to the polls in Wisconsin.
“This is a very close race, and the point we’re trying to make is make sure the base shows up, turns out and begins to vote early,” Hancock said. “I saw where the votes were rolling in, and I said we’ve got to make sure that where the president’s base is, they get out and vote.”
Hancock was in Wisconsin to stump for Obama, but the Obama campaign said their surrogates portrayal of where the race stands doesn't match the early voting statistics they've seen.
“We are very grateful that Mayor Hancock came and did what we need to do, which is keep people enthused. He is absolutely right that we have to get our base out,” Joe Zepecki, a spokesman for Obama’s campaign in Wisconsin, said. “But the numbers we are seeing do not back up his assessment that our base is not turning out.”
Zepecki said the campaign remains optimistic nine days from Election Day.
“We are seeing a lot of enthusiasm and a lot of turnout in the places where we need to see it,” Zepecki said. “We’re very confident.”
-
Latest Electoral Map
-
KING OF PRUSSIA, Pa. -- If Mitt Romney were to make a last-minute move to expand his electoral map, Ground Zero for that effort likely would be here amid the suburban sprawl of Montgomery County, outside of Philadelphia.
But as about 20 Obama campaign volunteers gathered Thursday night for another evening of phone-banking, there was little concern among the Democratic partisans inside Dave Hopkins’ actuarial office just off of the Pennsylvania Turnpike.
Confidence about the president carrying Pennsylvania has always been high here, as he has not trailed in a single state poll since February and leads Romney by 4.8 percentage points in the latest RCP Average.
But there is added reason for Obama’s Keystone State legions to feel optimistic with just a week and a half to go until Election Day: The Romney camp has not aired a single TV ad in Pennsylvania, and the former Massachusetts governor has not set foot here in a month.
“If he thought he could win, Romney would be doing something really strong here, and he’s not,” said Cindy Bellamy, the local neighborhood team leader for the Obama campaign. “And that’s because he doesn’t have any hope.”
Romney’s running mate, Paul Ryan, did hold a rally in the Pittsburgh suburb of Moon Township last Saturday, and Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus on Friday headlined a campaign bus tour through western Pennsylvania with former Gov. Tom Ridge, Pittsburgh Steelers great Lynn Swann, and other Republican surrogates.
But Mary Isenhour, a longtime Democratic strategist in the state, said the GOP nominee’s campaign here has been as quiet as she has ever seen one at this stage of the game. Isenhour did not even feign concern that a last-minute Romney blitz could close the gap.
“This is a really big state with a whole lot of people in it,” she said. “You can’t drop 60 or 80 people here, even with three or four weeks, and expect to deliver anything. It just doesn’t work that way.”
But Republicans insist they see glimmers of hope both here and in Michigan -- Romney’s birth state and another potentially inviting late target, where he trails by an even smaller margin of 4 percent in the latest RCP Average.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/10/27/pa_among_reach_states_tempting_romney_camp_115937.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/10/27/pa_among_reach_states_tempting_romney_camp_115937.html)
-
LOL!!!!!!!! remember Wisconsin exit polls you stupid fuck?
I hadn't thought about it like that. Calling me a stupid fucck really cleared things up.
-
Sans toss up.
-
More data.
-
More data.
Funny - Obama has been so great that he is doing worse in every state than from 2008.
-
Funny - Obama has been so great that he is doing worse in every state than from 2008.
shit, i didn't know 2008 obama was running against 2012 obama,thanks :D :D :D :D :D :D
-
shit, i didn't know 2008 obama was running against 2012 obama,thanks :D :D :D :D :D :D
Actually he is. Obama 2008 was a media creation. Obama 2012 is a traitor and THUG with blood on his hands.
-
shit, i didn't know 2008 obama was running against 2012 obama,thanks :D :D :D :D :D :D
LOL didnt know obama ran against bush in 2008 and now either...Thanks LOL :D :D :D :D :D :D
-
he ran against mccain remember ;D
-
he ran against mccain remember ;D
Yeah and now he has a disastrous record he can't defend.
-
Read what Romney said.. Hr said he would have helped the auto industry but not wih tax payers money.. He wanted government to secure the loans.. In the end it was essentially the same.. But we will never get that money back..
LOL Romney said nothing of the sort, jesus, you can't go back and change the past to suit your needs.
-
LOL Romney said nothing of the sort, jesus, you can't go back and change the past to suit your needs.
we went though a managed bananktuptcy for GM moron.
-
yes you can it's done all the time here ;D
-
yes you can it's done all the time here ;D
When OTHUG gets landslided are you going to burn down your hood?
-
Funny - Obama has been so great that he is doing worse in every state than from 2008.
You are right, with the exception of Ohio where he is doing slightly better then he did in 2008.
When the going gets tough, the populous looks for a change. Things were tough in 2008 and people voted for change. The economy hasn't recovered sufficiently yet and so, once again many folks will vote for change. Sometimes change is good and sometimes it isn't. I am not sure there are enough voters with such short memories that they've forgotten that it was a Republican administration that got us into the financial mess we've been in these last several years to get your guy elected.
-
You are right, with the exception of Ohio where he is doing slightly better then he did in 2008.
When the going gets tough, the populous looks for a change. Things were tough in 2008 and people voted for change. The economy hasn't recovered sufficiently yet and so, once again many folks will vote for change. Sometimes change is good and sometimes it isn't. I am not sure there are enough voters with such short memories that they've forgotten that it was a Republican administration that got us into the financial mess we've been in these last several years to get your guy elected.
I dpnt blame obama for the situation he walked in to, I blame him for his appointments, decisions, and policies since he took office that have retarded any possibility of even a historical recovery by comparison to what we have going on now.
-
I dpnt blame obama for the situation he walked in to, I blame him for his appointments, decisions, and policies since he took office that have retarded any possibility of even a historical recovery by comparison to what we have going on now.
And there is no possibility in your mind that you and many other people expected an economic fix with an unrealistic time-line? Many people acknowledge that this has been the worst economy since the Great Depression. Not only that, it was the world economy that tanked not just the U.S. economy. It took decades for the U.S. to fully recover from the Great Depression. Today many people, like you, believe it is possible to fix a huge problem like this in less than 4 years. I find that thinking both amazing and indicative of were society is today.
Sadly, I don't believe our next President, be it Obama or Romney, will be able to fix things in four more years. However, I hope whoever is elected can make some improvements and get folks back to work in jobs which offer a decent salary and reasonable benefits. I sincerely wish that the President and congress will protect and preserve the benefits we've all worked for and paid into for so many years, such as SSI and Medicare. Lastly, I hope whoever is President won't have our military fighting and dying in yet another senseless war (I have a very personal reason for this). This is just my short list....I could go on.
-
And there is no possibility in your mind that you and many other people expected an economic fix with an unrealistic time-line? Many people acknowledge that this has been the worst economy since the Great Depression. Not only that, it was the world economy that tanked not just the U.S. economy. It took decades for the U.S. to fully recover from the Great Depression. Today many people, like you, believe it is possible to fix a huge problem like this in less than 4 years. I find that thinking both amazing and indicative of were society is today.
Sadly, I don't believe our next President, be it Obama or Romney, will be able to fix things in four more years. However, I hope whoever is elected can make some improvements and get folks back to work in jobs which offer a decent salary and reasonable benefits. I sincerely wish that the President and congress will protect and preserve the benefits we've all worked for and paid into for so many years, such as SSI and Medicare. Lastly, I hope whoever is President won't have our military fighting and dying in yet another senseless war (I have a very personal reason for this). This is just my short list....I could go on.
I didnt say FIX. However, i believe the decisions he made HURT the recovery. There have been so many forks in this road where he took the wrong path its hard to remember. At a certain point you have to realize the guy is just not up to the job and does not have the instincts to make the right choices.
-
I didnt say FIX. However, i believe the decisions he made HURT the recovery. There have been so many forks in this road where he took the wrong path its hard to remember. At a certain point you have to realize the guy is just not up to the job and does not have the instincts to make the right choices.
So then, are you convinced that Romney will do any better? Of course one can always hope for a brighter future with change and the unknown. However, it is much more reliable to look back then to look forward. The past good or bad is a known quantity while the future is always unknown. If Romney becomes president, will you be pointing out all his mistakes and calling him a thug four years from now? Is it not possible that you have a bias?
-
So then, are you convinced that Romney will do any better? Of course one can always hope for a brighter future with change and the unknown. However, it is much more reliable to look back then to look forward. The past good or bad is a known quantity while the future is always unknown. If Romney becomes president, will you be pointing out all his mistakes and calling him a thug four years from now? Is it not possible that you have a bias?
1. I am done at 99,999 posts
2. I have stated my opinion many times. Romney = 50/75 - 100% chance of failure. Obama = 100% chance of failure. I am voting for romney on the small small chance he will be better w the expectation of getting screwed.
-
1. I am done at 99,999 posts
2. I have stated my opinion many times. Romney = 50/75 - 100% chance of failure. Obama = 100% chance of failure. I am voting for romney on the small small chance he will be better w the expectation of getting screwed.
How much do you really know about Mitt Romney? My guess is no more than folks knew about President Obama four years ago. How have you concluded that Romney has a 50 to 100% chance of failure? These don't seem like really good odds, btw. I agree that if President Obama cannot get congress to move on anything, he has a fairly high chance of failure too. In the end, I don't believe either person has a 100% chance of failure nor a 100% chance of success in all the issues before them.
People can be so weird. I am phone banking on weekday evenings. One phone call I made was to what was probably some kind of commune because the person who answered the phone said everyone there was voting a straight Democratic ticket with the exception of one. That one person was, according to the person I spoke with, unemployed, not looking for work, on food stamps and receiving welfare. I managed to avoid the question of whether this person had their head up their ass. Do they not realize they are on of the 47% that Romney says don't count anyway?
-
How much do you really know about Mitt Romney? My guess is no more than folks knew about President Obama four years ago. How have you concluded that Romney has a 50 to 100% chance of failure? These don't seem like really good odds, btw. I agree that if President Obama cannot get congress to move on anything, he has a fairly high chance of failure too. In the end, I don't believe either person has a 100% chance of failure nor a 100% chance of success in all the issues before them.
People can be so weird. I am phone banking on weekday evenings. One phone call I made was to what was probably some kind of commune because the person who answered the phone said everyone there was voting a straight Democratic ticket with the exception of one. That one person was, according to the person I spoke with, unemployed, not looking for work, on food stamps and receiving welfare. I managed to avoid the question of whether this person had their head up their ass. Do they not realize they are on of the 47% that Romney says don't count anyway?
TBH too - i detest obama as a person. I think he is slug and skell as a person.
-
Rasmussen now has Romney up 50-48.
He's also up by that same margin in Florida and Virginia and it's a tie in Wisconsin.
So, it's safe to say that the answer to the question in this thread is.....NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/ohio/election_2012_ohio_president
http://www.13wmaz.com/news/topstories/article/201906/175/Ohio-Poll-Romney-Obama-Tied-Among-Likely-Voters