Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums

Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: blacken700 on October 12, 2012, 12:36:12 PM



Title: landslide ??? 333386 i don't think so
Post by: blacken700 on October 12, 2012, 12:36:12 PM
There you go. Romney's bounce is receding.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/12/usa-campaign-idUSL1E8LCAY820121012

UPDATE 1-Fiery Biden sets stage for Obama recovery attempt



Fri Oct 12, 2012 3:57pm EDT

* Romney campaign seizes on Biden Benghazi security comment

* Obama prepares for debate rematch with Romney on Tuesday

* Reuters/Ipsos poll: Romney lead slips to 46 to 45 percent

By Patricia Zengerl :De

WASHINGTON, Oct 12 (Reuters) - Joe Biden's spirited performance in the vice presidential debate had Republicans criticizing him for snide grins and a comment on Libya, but it set the stage for President Barack Obama to try to regain his footing during a rematch with challenger Mitt Romney next Tuesday.
 
After Obama was seen as largely passive against resurgent Republican Romney last week in their first debate before the Nov. 6 election, Biden fired up Democrats in Thursday's vice presidential debate by aggressively challenging Paul Ryan, Romney's running mate, on taxes, healthcare and foreign policy.
 


Title: Re: landslide ??? 333386 i don't think so
Post by: Coach is Back! on October 12, 2012, 01:08:53 PM
Romney wins by a landslide or Obama wins by a hair. I've been saying this for almost a year.


Title: Re: landslide ??? 333386 i don't think so
Post by: Straw Man on October 12, 2012, 04:41:52 PM
Romney wins by a landslide or Obama wins by a hair. I've been saying this for almost a year.

where do you get this shit

if anything it would be Obama by a comfortable margin or Romney by a hair



Title: Re: landslide ??? 333386 i don't think so
Post by: AbrahamG on October 12, 2012, 06:21:02 PM
where do you get this shit

if anything it would be Obama by a comfortable margin or Romney by a hair



Exactly. 


Title: Re: landslide ??? 333386 i don't think so
Post by: Coach is Back! on October 12, 2012, 07:19:27 PM
where do you get this shit

if anything it would be Obama by a comfortable margin or Romney by a hair



As of right now Obama's numbers are dropping like a rock.


Title: Re: landslide ??? 333386 i don't think so
Post by: MCWAY on October 12, 2012, 08:04:36 PM
There you go. Romney's bounce is receding.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/12/usa-campaign-idUSL1E8LCAY820121012

UPDATE 1-Fiery Biden sets stage for Obama recovery attempt



Fri Oct 12, 2012 3:57pm EDT

* Romney campaign seizes on Biden Benghazi security comment

* Obama prepares for debate rematch with Romney on Tuesday

* Reuters/Ipsos poll: Romney lead slips to 46 to 45 percent

By Patricia Zengerl :De

WASHINGTON, Oct 12 (Reuters) - Joe Biden's spirited performance in the vice presidential debate had Republicans criticizing him for snide grins and a comment on Libya, but it set the stage for President Barack Obama to try to regain his footing during a rematch with challenger Mitt Romney next Tuesday.
 
After Obama was seen as largely passive against resurgent Republican Romney last week in their first debate before the Nov. 6 election, Biden fired up Democrats in Thursday's vice presidential debate by aggressively challenging Paul Ryan, Romney's running mate, on taxes, healthcare and foreign policy.
 

46-45? That leaves 9 percent of the voters undecided. And how do undecideds break again in race, involving an incumbent?


Title: Re: landslide ??? 333386 i don't think so
Post by: MCWAY on October 12, 2012, 08:06:52 PM
As of right now Obama's numbers are dropping like a rock.

Indeed. Check the RCP electoral college map. Obama's down to 201, as Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and New Hampshire have all been moved from "Leans Obama" to "toss-up".


Title: Re: landslide ??? 333386 i don't think so
Post by: 240 is Back on October 12, 2012, 10:18:58 PM
46-45? That leaves 9 percent of the voters undecided. And how do undecideds break again in race, involving an incumbent?

how did they break in 2004?


Title: Re: landslide ??? 333386 i don't think so
Post by: flipper5470 on October 13, 2012, 06:01:36 AM
Saw a poll in August that had Obama up by 12 pts in Cook county...if he only wins the greater Chicago area by that slim a margin...he could be in trouble in Illinois.  I'm not betting on it...but who knows?


Title: Re: landslide ??? 333386 i don't think so
Post by: MCWAY on October 13, 2012, 07:18:53 AM
how did they break in 2004?

They broke for Bush. How did they break for the previous 7 incumbents?


Title: Re: landslide ??? 333386 i don't think so
Post by: 240 is Back on October 13, 2012, 08:48:57 AM
They broke for Bush. How did they break for the previous 7 incumbents?

they broke for clinton in 96.   they broke for reagan in 84.  I"m not sure where you're going here.


Title: Re: landslide ??? 333386 i don't think so
Post by: MCWAY on October 13, 2012, 03:57:55 PM
they broke for clinton in 96.   they broke for reagan in 84.  I"m not sure where you're going here.

No they didn't. Both Reagan and Clinton LOST independent voters. They got re-elected anyway because the margins were so huge over their respective opponents.

But don't take my word for it. Ask the guy who ran Clinton's campaign.

In these races, the undecided vote went heavily for the insurgent and the incumbent lost vote share between the final poll and the election, even when the incumbent was winning the contest easily overall. Six of eight presidents seeking reelection performed worse than the final Gallup poll predicted, while one finished the same (Reagan in 1984) and one gained votes (Bush in 2004). Seven of the nine insurgent candidates did better than the final Gallup survey predicted.

• In 1964, Johnson lost 3 points to Goldwater at the end.

• In 1972, Nixon lost 1 point to a third-party candidate.

• In 1976, there was a 4-point swing to Carter.

• In 1980, there was a 3-point swing to Reagan or Anderson.

In 1984, there was no change between the final poll and the results.

• In 1992, there was a 1-point shift away from Bush. In that contest, there was also a 5-point swing away from Clinton to Perot at the end.

In 1996, there was a 5-point swing away from Clinton and to Dole or Perot.

• Only Bush in 2004 ran better in the result than in the final poll, by 
2 points.

In other words, of the total of 
19 points that shifted between the final poll and the election results, 17 points or 89 percent went to the challenger.


http://www.dickmorris.com/undecided-lean-to-insurgent/


Title: Re: landslide ??? 333386 i don't think so
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 13, 2012, 04:14:51 PM
Bush had a good first term.  Big difference


Title: Re: landslide ??? 333386 i don't think so
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 13, 2012, 06:56:05 PM
http://dcxposed.com/2012/09/12/forecast-model-predicts-obama-in-electoral-trouble-hasnt-missed-in-32-years


landslide coming 


Title: Re: landslide ??? 333386 i don't think so
Post by: dario73 on October 15, 2012, 05:02:51 AM
Bush had a good first term.  Big difference

The idiots on this board only remember the last 2 years of his presidency WITH A DEMOCRATIC CONTROLLED CONGRESS.


Title: Re: landslide ??? 333386 i don't think so
Post by: whork on October 15, 2012, 05:10:17 AM
The idiots on this board only remember the last 2 years of his presidency WITH A DEMOCRATIC CONTROLLED CONGRESS.

Was Bush on permanent vacation those 2 years?

Does that mean you will stop blaming Obama for the last 4 years?


And by the way isnt it gods will? So why are you complaining? Has your god abandoned you Dario?


Title: Re: landslide ??? 333386 i don't think so
Post by: whork on October 15, 2012, 05:13:23 AM
Bush had a good first term.  Big difference

He had but thats because Clinton gave him a nation that were doing great. It took 4 years of crap republican policies to wreck it thats why his last 4 sucked.

Obama has had a great 4 years especially considering the shit republicans handed over. Just imagine if he had inherited the same nation as Bush.


Title: Re: landslide ??? 333386 i don't think so
Post by: AbrahamG on October 15, 2012, 07:12:09 PM
He had but thats because Clinton gave him a nation that were doing great. It took 4 years of crap republican policies to wreck it thats why his last 4 sucked.

Obama has had a great 4 years especially considering the shit republicans handed over. Just imagine if he had inherited the same nation as Bush.

How come no one else ever makes these points?  I completely agree that Bush's first years weren't "that" bad only because Clinton left him in such good shape.  Likewise, Obama's first 6 months on paper did not look good because of the disaster he inherited.  As of right now, the unemployment rate is lower than when he took office and there is also a net jobs gain.  Not counting the 1st 6 months his jobs numbers are pretty good.  Hope he really steps it up and takes Willard to the woodshed tomorrow night.


Title: Re: landslide ??? 333386 i don't think so
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 15, 2012, 07:26:00 PM
Skip to comments.

Lights Out: Romney By 2 in North Carolina D+10 Poll
Breitbart ^ | 10/15/2012 | Tony Lee
Posted on October 15, 2012 11:16:01 PM EDT by Kolath

The liberal Public Policy Polling (PPP) group conducted a D+10 poll in North Carolina and still found Mitt Romney with a 2-point lead over President Barack Obama (49%-47%).

(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...


Title: Re: landslide ??? 333386 i don't think so
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 15, 2012, 07:45:18 PM
Skip to comments.

Romney heading for a Landslide Win
The Washington Times ^ | Friday, October 12, 2012 | Wayne Allen Root
Posted on October 15, 2012 10:55:14 PM EDT by Senator Goldwater

The news media are ignoring signs of mass disgust with Mr. Obama. In the West Virginia Democratic primary, a felon got 40 percent of the vote against Mr. Obama. In deep-blue Massachusetts and Connecticut, GOP Senate candidates are even or leading in recent polls. In pro-union Wisconsin, Scott Walker won by a country mile.

In 2008, Democrats controlled a majority of governorships. Today, Republicans control the majority of governorships. Presidential elections are always steered in each state by the party of the governor, the most powerful force in state politics.

After the 2010 census, electoral votes were added to states that usually lean Republican in elections: Texas, Florida, Arizona, Nevada, Georgia, South Carolina and Utah. Deep-blue states such as New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota and Massachusetts lost electoral votes.

Christians will turn out in record numbers this year. Mr. Obama has offended Christians repeatedly. Last election, 20 million evangelical Christians did not vote. They will turn out in record numbers in 2012 to defeat the most anti-Christian president in U.S. history. Just recall the long lines at Chick-fil-A in August.

Voter rolls have been purged in 2012 of felons and illegals in many states — particularly Florida and Ohio. Turnout of Democrats will be nothing like in 2008.

The “enthusiasm factor” for Mr. Romney is huge. Conservatives are focused, intense, motivated and enthusiastic. Democrats who turned out for Mr. Obama in record numbers in 2008 are demoralized. I know several people who voted for him in 2008 but won’t do so again.

Finally, history proves that a majority of undecided voters break for the challenger. Mr. Romney will take most of the undecided voters on Election Day — just as Ronald Reagan did against Jimmy Carter in 1980.

(Excerpt) Read more at freerepublic.com ...


Title: Re: landslide ??? 333386 i don't think so
Post by: Coach is Back! on October 15, 2012, 09:51:19 PM
The idiots on this board only remember the last 2 years of his presidency WITH A DEMOCRATIC CONTROLLED CONGRESS.

This


Title: Re: landslide ??? 333386 i don't think so
Post by: whork on October 15, 2012, 11:57:53 PM
How come no one else ever makes these points?  I completely agree that Bush's first years weren't "that" bad only because Clinton left him in such good shape.  Likewise, Obama's first 6 months on paper did not look good because of the disaster he inherited.  As of right now, the unemployment rate is lower than when he took office and there is also a net jobs gain.  Not counting the 1st 6 months his jobs numbers are pretty good.  Hope he really steps it up and takes Willard to the woodshed tomorrow night.

Because people are pretty stupid around here to say the least. They need a team to cheer for. Politics to them is like watching a football game. Pretty sad actually


Title: Re: landslide ??? 333386 i don't think so
Post by: whork on October 15, 2012, 11:58:46 PM
This

And they had Bush locked up right?

Thats fine but then we can blame the last 4 years on a republican congress right?


Title: Re: landslide ??? 333386 i don't think so
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 16, 2012, 04:57:33 AM
*SCHADENFREUDE ALERT!* Daily/Kos SEIU poll gives Romney best numbers of the week (R-50, O-46)
 No linky, linky because Daily Kos is not welcome here at FR | 10/16/12 | Daily Kos
 
Posted on Tuesday, October 16, 2012 8:48:33 AM by The G Man

This was a PPP poll for Kos/SEIU conducted 10/12-14 of likely voters (previous results in parenthesis):



The candidates for President are Democrat Barack Obama and Republican Mitt Romney. If the election was today, who would you vote for?

Obama 46 (47)
 Romney 50 (49)



At a time when other polls are moving back in the president's direction, our own weekly poll by Public Policy Polling saw the opposite—a two-point Romney gain. Per day:



Friday (38%) Obama 47, Romney 49
 Saturday (39%) Obama 49, Romney 47
 Sunday (24%) Obama 43, Romney 55







DDDUUUHHHHOOOOOOOOOOOOOO O!!!!!!!!!!








Title: Re: landslide ??? 333386 i don't think so
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 16, 2012, 09:22:24 AM
Gallup - Romney 50%/Obama 46%
 Gallup ^ | 10/16 | Gallup

Posted on Tuesday, October 16, 2012 1:05:38 PM by tatown

Romney - 50% Obama - 46%


(Excerpt) Read more at gallup.com ...




LANDSLIDE COMING 


Title: Re: landslide ??? 333386 i don't think so
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 16, 2012, 09:29:27 AM
Romney Widens Lead Over Obama in Electoral College: CU Professors (330 R; 208 0)
 New American ^ | 10-16-12 | Bob Adelmann

Posted on Tuesday, October 16, 2012 11:07:46 AM by Mikey_1962

The forecast of the 2012 presidential election by Michael Berry and Kenneth Bicker, political science professors at the University of Colorado, that was released in August has been updated with more current economic information, and the result is the same: a Romney win as the economy continues to falter.

It takes 270 Electoral College votes to win the presidency, and Berry and Bicker are projecting that Governor Mitt Romney will win 330 of the 538 votes up for grabs in November, while President Obama will receive just 208, down from the 213 they predicted in August.

It’s the economy. The model developed by the two professors has an uncanny track record, correctly predicting each presidential election since 1980, often with startling accuracy. In their paper originally published in August by the American Political Science Association [APSA] along with 12 other studies, it differed in its predictive “model” by looking at two essential pieces of the economic puzzle: changes in real per capita income — that is, net, after-tax, spendable income — and unemployment rates. But their model doesn't just rely on the national numbers provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which has been heavily criticized recently for its inexplicable drop in the unemployment rate while real jobs in the economy aren't even reaching maintenance levels. It relies also on state-by-state analyses of those same factors, which appear to be more reliable. As the professors note:

In contrast to these other Electoral College models [published by the APSA], our model includes measures of change in real per capita income, as well as national and state unemployment figures.

Accounting for both changes in personal income and unemployment provides a more robust approximation of state economic well-being and, thus, serves to model the impact of retrospective evaluations of the incumbent party's stewardship of the economy…

The data incorporated in our model are regularly released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) in the US Department of Commerce and the Bureau of Labor Statistics in the US Department of Labor. This gives us high-quality, predictably available data to use as the feedstock for our model.

This is how politically correct political science professors cover themselves: just in case the national data get a little dicey, the numbers from the states are more predictive:

The heart of our forecast centers on the third set of independent variables. We use two basic measures of economic conditions: unemployment levels and change in real income per capita. Unemployment is measured in two capacities. First is the national unemployment rate. The second is the corresponding unemployment rate in each state…

Our third measure of economic well-being taps the extent to which people have more or less real disposable income at their discretion during the current incumbent's presidential term. The measure included in our model is the percentage change in each state in real per capita non-farm income from the fourth quarter of the prior presidential election year to the first quarter of the current election year.

The unstated but important underlying assumption by the professors is almost an iron law of politics: People will vote their pocketbooks. People are hurting, and that’s hurting Obama:

Putting these pieces together, clearly President Obama is in electoral trouble. To be sure, he enjoys some advantages. First, Obama's successful campaign in 2008 gives him a substantial leg up. He can lose some states that he carried four years ago without losing the election. Second, a prominent second-term incumbency advantage should prove advantageous. Still, the big issue is the fragile economy. With an unemployment rate in excess of 8%, Obama is about two-and-a-half points beyond the break-even point for a Democrat running as the in-party candidate…

The states we predict President Obama will carry include a substantially reduced set than those he carried in 2008. This is supported by the fact that no states won by McCain are predicted to flip to Obama.

What is striking about our state-level economic indicator forecast is the expectation that Obama will lose almost all of the states currently considered as swing states, including North Carolina, Virginia, New Hampshire, Colorado, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida. Three other states that might be viewed as swing states — Michigan, New Mexico, and Nevada — are predicted to stay in Obama's column. Our forecast is that the president will receive 208 Electoral College votes, putting him well short of the 270 needed to win reelection.

The economy is having an impact on other presidential predictions, moving the election towards Romney as well. USA Today said on Sunday that Obama’s perceived lead in Electoral College votes, 265 to 191 for Romney, as recently as two weeks ago has now dropped precipitously to just 201 to 191 currently, with 11 states considered to be “toss-ups” with 146 votes at stake there.

Scott Rasmussen noted that as of Monday, “Romney has had a slight lead or been tied on nine of the past 10 days. Before that, Obama had been ahead or tied for 16 consecutive days.” Rasmussen is still calling it a close race, but “in a close race, even a small change can have a big impact.”

Intrade, the online betting site, has also seen a precipitous drop in support for Obama, moving from an apparently invincible high approaching 80 percent to just over 60 percent as of this writing.

If the college professors are right, and voters vote their pocketbooks, and the data they are using to make their predictions are anywhere close to being accurate, Romney should win in November. As the economy continues its decline, so do Obama’s chances at reelection. Perhaps that’s why he’s looking at buying a retirement mansion in Hawaii.