Romney ain't winning

[Necrosis]

PLEASE! That has only happened four times in all of history. Here's the problem: It has NEVER OCCURED with a race involving an incumbent president.

As for that "one poll", it's (thus far) 100% accurate. Every challenger at 50% or higher in Gallup (mid-October onward) has WON!!

Even with all the polls you cite, the bulk of them has the race TIED. What usually happens to an incumbent president in tied races again?

OH, THEY LOSE!!! Why? The undecideds break for the challenger.

What's laughable is your pathetic attempt to hide from actual data (i.e. early voting numbers) that clearly show Obama is in trouble.

I give up, tomorrow it will all be over, your delusion is beyond belief, the vast majority of polls and raw data indicated obama will win, you are stuck on early voting data and making extrapolations that at best have the past as their indicator yet we know that's not always so.

Put you account on the line toughguy. I'm a mod here and will gladly step down if I am wrong.

[MCWAY]

I give up, tomorrow it will all be over, your delusion is beyond belief, the vast majority of polls and raw data indicated obama will win, you are stuck on early voting data and making extrapolations that at best have the past as their indicator yet we know that's not always so.

Put you account on the line toughguy. I'm a mod here and will gladly step down if I am wrong.

I'm using ACTUAL numbers of actual votes; you're using skewed polls (PROVEN skewed polls, I might add); and I'm the one that's delusional? PLEASE!!

Obama won, in large measure, due to massive early voting. That is GONE. So far, Romney is getting exactly what he needs to win: He's going toe-to-toe with Obama in the early voting marks (In Colorado, he's beating Obama; In Florida and Ohio, Romney's right behind Obama). McCain got CRUSHED, which is why he lost so decisively.

Romney needs to get the turnout edge TODAY, as McCain did on election day 2008.

The polls that predicted that Obama's early voter turnout would be far lower ALSO predict a GOP edge in turnout on election day. I've posted the data that backs such.

As for the polls you're citing, most have it TIED, with Obama under 50%. One more time, what usually happens to incumbent presidents who are under 50%?


When face with such data, you flee from it, as if it were a leper. Yet, I'm supposed to put my account on the line, for a guy who can't even answer the simplest of questions......GET REAL!!

[Necrosis]

I'm using ACTUAL numbers of actual votes; you're using skewed polls (PROVEN skewed polls, I might add); and I'm the one that's delusional? PLEASE!!

Obama won, in large measure, due to massive early voting. That is GONE. So far, Romney is getting exactly what he needs to win: He's going toe-to-toe with Obama in the early voting marks (In Colorado, he's beating Obama; In Florida and Ohio, Romney's right behind Obama). McCain got CRUSHED, which is why he lost so decisively.

Romney needs to get the turnout edge TODAY, as McCain did on election day 2008.

The polls that predicted that Obama's early voter turnout would be far lower ALSO predict a GOP edge in turnout on election day. I've posted the data that backs such.

As for the polls you're citing, most have it TIED, with Obama under 50%. One more time, what usually happens to incumbent presidents who are under 50%?


When face with such data, you flee from it, as if it were a leper. Yet, I'm supposed to put my account on the line, for a guy who can't even answer the simplest of questions......GET REAL!!

put up or shut up spinster

[MCWAY]

put up or shut up spinster

Look who's talking.

You can't answer a simple question, regarding the early voting numbers.

Kick rocks. I'm not going anywhere.

[Necrosis]

Look who's talking.

You can't answer a simple question, regarding the early voting numbers.

Kick rocks. I'm not going anywhere.

I have already answered the question, it means nothing other then what the stat itself means. The implications are imposed by you, the only data to suggest any trend is past data which is unreliable.

I am done talking about it, I am confident and am willing to place a wager, you with all your "data", month old polls and spurious football correlations lack conviction.

Put up or shut up.

[MCWAY]

I have already answered the question, it means nothing other then what the stat itself means. The implications are imposed by you, the only data to suggest any trend is past data which is unreliable.

I am done talking about it, I am confident and am willing to place a wager, you with all your "data", month old polls and spurious football correlations lack conviction.

Put up or shut up.

You haven't answered JACK. You've hidden behind questionable polls, even when those polls were exposed for all to see, with its blatant Dem oversampling.

The data I posted are ACTUAL numbers of ACTUAL voters. And those numbers have backed what my "month old polls" have said from the start: Obama's early voting numbers are down and such does NOT bode well for the president.


When THAT data is put before you, you flee from the questions and start talking about mess that has ZILCH to do with the topic.

You don't even have the spine to answer the simple question of what usually happens to incumbent presidents who are tied, at this point.

And, you have the unmitigated gall to tell me to "put up"? GET REAL!!!

[240 is Back]

I'm hearing the early voting numbers for obama SUCK and even cook political report and silver backtracking based on their flawed turnout models. 

yep, however rush and hannity didn't want to release the early numbers, odd.

we'll know soon

[WOOO]

romney is a douche

[Necrosis]

You haven't answered JACK. You've hidden behind questionable polls, even when those polls were exposed for all to see, with its blatant Dem oversampling.

The data I posted are ACTUAL numbers of ACTUAL voters. And those numbers have backed what my "month old polls" have said from the start: Obama's early voting numbers are down and such does NOT bode well for the president.


When THAT data is put before you, you flee from the questions and start talking about mess that has ZILCH to do with the topic.

You don't even have the spine to answer the simple question of what usually happens to incumbent presidents who are tied, at this point.

And, you have the unmitigated gall to tell me to "put up"? GET REAL!!!

What was that?

[whork]

You haven't answered JACK. You've hidden behind questionable polls, even when those polls were exposed for all to see, with its blatant Dem oversampling.

The data I posted are ACTUAL numbers of ACTUAL voters. And those numbers have backed what my "month old polls" have said from the start: Obama's early voting numbers are down and such does NOT bode well for the president.


When THAT data is put before you, you flee from the questions and start talking about mess that has ZILCH to do with the topic.

You don't even have the spine to answer the simple question of what usually happens to incumbent presidents who are tied, at this point.

And, you have the unmitigated gall to tell me to "put up"? GET REAL!!!

Seriously if this doesnt make you change news sources i dont know what to say

A grown man

Arent you ashamed?

[Necrosis]

Seriously if this doesnt make you change news sources i dont know what to say

A grown man

Arent you ashamed?

he ignored all polls to the contrary put stock in early voting numbers that have no predictive value and also ignored the raw data.

[whork]

he ignored all polls to the contrary put stock in early voting numbers that have no predictive value and also ignored the raw data.

Ignoring facts?

GOP and their voters is alike

[MCWAY]

he ignored all polls to the contrary put stock in early voting numbers that have no predictive value and also ignored the raw data.

Incorrect!!

I didn't ignore all polls to the contrary. In fact, I cited some of them.

I also cited raw data, which included early voting numbers.

What did I say from the start? Early voting numbers are DOWN for Obama, which turned out to be true, especially in certain swing states.

The KEY, which I also stated from the start, was whether Romney could close the gap on election day, which unfortunately he did not.

Romney was up with independents, up with white-working class, and up with men overall. What killed him was bleeding Latinos (and perhaps a lack of evangelical voters).

[240 is Back]

we all under-estimated how much repubs hated romney.

we knew obama turnout would suck - and it did - down 10 million votes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We didn't know romney woudln't even get mccain numbers.  ugh.

[whork]

we all under-estimated how much repubs hated romney.

we knew obama turnout would suck - and it did - down 10 million votes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We didn't know romney woudln't even get mccain numbers.  ugh.

It makes me feel there is still hope for some GOP voters