These states are most likel going to go for Obama. Current polls in each state show Obama ahead and the democrats have carried each one for the last five elections, including supporting bad candidates like John Kerry and Al Gore and won last time by Barack Obama. Next to each of them is the number of electoral votes.
California (55), Connecticut (7), D.C. (3), Delaware (3), Hawaii (4), Illinois (20), Maine (4), Massachusetts (11), Maryland (10), Michigan (16), Minnesota (10), New Jersey (14), New York (29), Oregon (7), Pennsyvania (20), Rhode Island (4), Vermont (3), Washington (12) and Wisconsin (10).
That equals 242 almost certain electoral votes. It takes 270 to win.
Florida has 29 votes which means if Obama wins Florida, he wins the election. Obama won it last time by two percent and is leading in the polls right now by four percent.
Obama is ahead by three percent in Virginia and won it over McCain by six percent four years ago to get their 13 electoral votes. Obama won Ohio by four percent last time and recent polls show him up over Romney by six percent. They have eighteen votes up for grabs.
New Hampshire has 4 votes and Obama is ahead by four percent in polling and they have voted for the democrat candidate 4 of the last five (Gore lost by one percent). New Mexico has also supported the democrat four of the last five (Kerry lost by one percent) and polls show Obama up by four percent. Obama won this state last time by fifteen percent to capture their five votes.
Obama also won in Colorado last time by eight percent to get their nine electoral votes. Obama also won Nevada by twelve points last time and recent polling shows him up by five points for six votes.
Those states have a total of 55 electoral votes.
If Obama wins Ohio and Virginia, he wins. If he only wins one of them and three of the smaller four, he wins.
In order to win, Romney has to hold on to his 191 likely votes, win Iowa where he is two points ahead in polling but Obama won last time by nine percent (the democrats have won this state four of the last five and Kerry only lost by one point), and North Carolina (Romney ahead by one point but won by Obama by one point last time, and basically run the table on every other state.
I think Obama wins Florida, Ohio and all the smaller states listed above to get at least 317 electoral votes.
I'm interested to see how the Ryan choice effects the polling.
It's given the GOP a reason to vote for someone instead of against someone.
I believe he'll become the election news way beyond ol' whats-his-name, the Republican Presidential candidate.
Ryan probably won't make all the gaffs the preceding GOP VP candidate made.
Quote from: Townsend on August 13, 2012, 01:54:21 PM
Ryan probably won't make all the gaffs the preceding GOP VP candidate made.
Which is probably why you will see far less face-to-face interviews. They are already cutting out some of his interviews (60 minutes) that present him in far too good of light.
Pretty sure that Ryan lost Florida for Mitt. I think he will have a positive impact on Ohio though. President Obama had significant independent support in that state in 2008. His performance as president has eroded that, and Mitt's pick of Ryan has cauterized the Romney platform to be one of economic and budgetary focus. President Obama will continue to run on social issues and fear, and I think that will have less impact on independent voters this time around.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 13, 2012, 02:06:18 PM
I think that will have less impact on independent voters this time around.
Whatever Obama is doing, independents have been quite happy with it thus far, at least compared to Romney. It will indeed be interesting to see how the numbers change over the coming weeks.
Goldwater II .... landslide approaching....86 daze!
Quote from: erfalf on August 13, 2012, 02:01:11 PM
Which is probably why you will see far less face-to-face interviews. They are already cutting out some of his interviews (60 minutes) that present him in far too good of light.
They?
You mean the incompetent republican handlers or that conspiratorial left wing media? I decrease the credibility of a post when "they" is used without reference. There is no evil like the evil of an undefined "they".
Quote from: AquaMan on August 13, 2012, 02:17:39 PM
They?
You mean the incompetent republican handlers or that conspiratorial left wing media? I decrease the credibility of a post when "they" is used without reference. There is no evil like the evil of an undefined "they".
ABC, CBS, NBC. The networks that made habit out of trying to nail Palin, which in fairness was quit easy to do.
I agree with you. I hate when people use "they". My mistake. I really knew who I was talking about in this case though.
Just my pet peeve.
Does anyone pay any attention to the new from those networks anymore? It seems the news is so light as to be useless these days. I get most of my news fix from MSNBC, the business channels, a smidgen of Fox and Colbert/Stewart. When someone leaves a perfectly good news magazine or newspaper laying around I'll soak that up as well.
From my perspective though I have to tell you I see no love for Obama or Biden from the big three or print. Its like sports, the Cowboys always think they're getting the shaft and the Sooners know they are!
Quote from: Gaspar on August 13, 2012, 02:06:18 PM
President Obama will continue to run on social issues and fear
Please.
Listen to Mitt's stump speaches and honestly tell me he is side stepping "fear". Or maybe all you hear is the "I love the hymns of America" meme.
Quote from: AquaMan on August 13, 2012, 02:30:57 PM
Just my pet peeve.
Does anyone pay any attention to the new from those networks anymore? It seems the news is so light as to be useless these days. I get most of my news fix from MSNBC, the business channels, a smidgen of Fox and Colbert/Stewart. When someone leaves a perfectly good news magazine or newspaper laying around I'll soak that up as well.
From my perspective though I have to tell you I see no love for Obama or Biden from the big three or print. Its like sports, the Cowboys always think they're getting the shaft and the Sooners know they are!
I actually agree. We spent a good deal of time this weekend watching the "take" from different news organizations on Mitt's pick and though there was a good dose of vitriol against Romney and Ryan, there was no love or praise of President Obama. In fact most used the term "failing economy" several times, also "troubled" and "embattled."
There wasn't a single instance that I saw where they contrasted or detailed an Obama success. The mention of Ryan seemed to give them the poop face, but there was no foil to that when they discussed President Obama. It seems that the passion for Obama may have passed and all they have left is distain for the other guy.
He may be a disappointment, but he's their disappointment, and that makes them angrier than normal.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/signal/romney-path-victory-goes-florida-ohio-virginia-172824466.html
Mitt Romney has one clear route to victory on Nov. 6: In addition to winning all the states we know he will win, he has to capture Florida, Virginia, Ohio and at least one of five other swing states.
It's very possible Romney will win more than that. Our model of presidential elections, for example, has him with a 17.2 percent chance of winning Pennsylvania. Were he to manage that, however, it would almost certainly be part of a national landslide in his favor that includes most of the swing states. While I'm sure the Romney campaign would be delighted to win Pennsylvania, if it manages that it will be because Romney won far more than the 270 electoral votes he needed.
According to the Signal's election model, which combines polling, prediction markets and historical data, there are 18 states that will definitely vote for Romney and 13 that will definitely vote for Obama. There are six additional states in each camp that have at least an 80 percent chance of going for the leading candidate. In those 12 heavily leaning states, it is very possible that Romney or Obama can pick off one. It is nearly impossible that one of these states will decide the election.
This leaves eight states, worth 95 electoral votes, in play. Without those states, Obama has 237 electoral votes to Romney's 206 electoral votes. A candidate needs 270 votes for victory, so Obama needs 33 more and Romney needs 64 more to win.
If Romney can capture Florida, Virginia, and Ohio—the three swing states he's most likely to win—he will come within four votes of the magic number. At that point, he would need any one of the other swing states: New Hampshire and Iowa are the most likely, both near 55 percent for Obama. While Romney's running mate, Paul Ryan, hails from Wisconsin, the polls there have consistently favored Obama by about 4 percentage points. Data from the past 10 elections has demonstrated again and again that vice-presidential home state bumps are negligible.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on August 17, 2012, 09:16:09 PM
Mitt Romney has one clear route to victory on Nov. 6:
Winning more Electoral College votes than Obama. We'll see what happens.
One thing in my favor is being an old guy with no kids. I doubt the country will go to he!! in a handbasket in the time I have remaining in this world. You young guys will reap what you sow. I have no kids or grandkids to worry about. Vote Obama. Either way you will be supporting me in a few years. I hope you can afford it.
Quote from: Red Arrow on August 17, 2012, 09:21:54 PM
I hope you can afford it.
Absent total global economic meltdown, we can afford it. That's what's so insidious about the Republican strategy. They, with complicit Democrats have cut taxes time and time again so as to create a seemingly intractable budget deficit which they then use as a club to force a reduction in social spending. I would have an easier time believing the Republicans when they say that they really are interested in the deficit if they didn't blow a hole in the budget every chance they get.
The economy moved along fine even when we had higher tax rates, so the Republican insistence that lowering taxes is the solution to our economic problems makes no sense at all. Not to mention that a trillion dollars or so in Obama tax cuts seems to have not helped much, either. I'm not ready to believe that tax cuts are stimulative when tax levels are too low, as some economists have argued after looking at the Bush I and Clinton tax hikes, but I also don't believe that tax cuts are very stimulative at existing low rates, either.
So yeah, if people come to their senses, we'll have no problem supporting you in your old age. Hell, even Paul Ryan wants to keep you from having to eat cat food. Not so much with folks not that much younger than you, but at least he's not a completely heartless bastard. Apparently we'll find the money somewhere by shrinking the rest of the federal budget to levels not seen since early in the last century, but we'll be fine. Perhaps hauling more goods by wagon than by truck, but fine overall.
Quote from: nathanm on August 17, 2012, 11:30:14 PM
Absent total global economic meltdown, we can afford it.
Thank you. Anything you said beyond that is just left wing script. Good evening. It's time for me to call it a day.
Quote from: Red Arrow on August 17, 2012, 11:33:49 PM
Anything you said beyond that is just left wing script.
I don't read from scripts, it's a hopeless endeavor. You can ask my drama teacher for confirmation on that one. :P
80 days.... I got 311 electoral votes for Obama. It may get closer than that but not by much....
The mandate approaches....
The polling today says that every state but one will vote the same as last year (Indiana will go to Romney).
I guess it doesn't matter whether the candidate is John McCain or Mitt Romney. Obama beats them both by almost identical margins.
Once people get their Obamaphone, Obamamoney, and Obamafood it's nearly impossible to take it away. The chains of dependence become more comfortable than the promise of opportunity. The hopeless, jobless, and ambition-less will vote for President Obama, not because he offers hope, but because he offers rations.
Teatown is absolutely right. At this point it is becoming obvious that perhaps no other candidate can challenge this progressive momentum.
No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. – Ronald Reagan
Voters who live off taxpayers are the Democrats' ace in the hole. The Democrats created big programs and never let the recipients forget it. This gives them an initial advantage of tens of millions of votes in any presidential election. – Joseph Sobran
Americans are so enamoured of equality they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom. – Alexis de Tocqueville
It's not an endlessly expanding list of rights – the "right" to education, the "right" to health care, the "right" to food and housing. That's not freedom, that's dependency. Those aren't rights, those are the rations of slavery – hay and a barn for human cattle. – Alexis De Tocquiville
Very soon, the takers will outnumber the creators.
I'm kind of fascinated with the claims that Democrats are being over-sampled in the polls and the rebuttal to it. The only problems with polls at this stage is they all make the assumption that those who are polled will actually show up to vote. I've always said, the only poll which matters is the one on the first Tuesday of November (Weds for the Democrats).
Obama needs to ensure that those who supported him in 2008 will show up this time. He enjoyed a clear personality advantage over McCain as the Democrats are good at finding candidates who are more likable on a personal basis, while Republicans seem to choose someone who seems a little stiff or stuffy and is "all business".
Obama's key demographics (women & minorities) are those with the highest jobless rates and consequently those who suffer the most from high gas prices. If they see him as not helping with their plight like they thought he would in '08, I suspect they simply won't vote rather than vote for Romney who they clearly aren't identifying with.
I suspect ACORN will be assisting in getting those people to the polls again this year.
New Republic takes on the claim of over-sampling by Republicans:
http://www.tnr.com/blog/electionate/107813/no-the-polls-arent-oversampling-democrats#
There's right about a 3 point enthusiasm gap right now. That's why Romney isn't looking even worse than he already is, and is fairly typical. Romney's biggest problem is that he's starting to lose seniors. As far as gas prices go, apparently most women realize that Obama doesn't control them. Interestingly, when you break down the ALP results by income cohort, the only group Romney leads is the $50,000-$99,999 group. Obama is far ahead among the less than $50,000 group and a few points ahead among the over $100,000 group. By education, Romney only leads among the "some college/associate's degree" group. He leads the no college folks pretty handily and the bachelor's degree or greater group by a few points, basically mirroring the income breakdown.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 28, 2012, 11:44:17 AM
I'm kind of fascinated with the claims that Democrats are being over-sampled in the polls and the rebuttal to it. The only problems with polls at this stage is they all make the assumption that those who are polled will actually show up to vote. I've always said, the only poll which matters is the one on the first Tuesday of November (Weds for the Democrats).
Obama needs to ensure that those who supported him in 2008 will show up this time. He enjoyed a clear personality advantage over McCain as the Democrats are good at finding candidates who are more likable on a personal basis, while Republicans seem to choose someone who seems a little stiff or stuffy and is "all business".
Obama's key demographics (women & minorities) are those with the highest jobless rates and consequently those who suffer the most from high gas prices. If they see him as not helping with their plight like they thought he would in '08, I suspect they simply won't vote rather than vote for Romney who they clearly aren't identifying with.
I suspect ACORN will be assisting in getting those people to the polls again this year.
New Republic takes on the claim of over-sampling by Republicans:
http://www.tnr.com/blog/electionate/107813/no-the-polls-arent-oversampling-democrats#
They will probably only make the Obamaphones available when you show up at the polls.
http://obamaphone.net/obama-phone
(http://obamaphone.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/obama-phone-apply.jpg)
I see you have a problem with the Lifeline program. Doesn't that date back to Reagan? You also seem to have a problem with saving money. It's cheaper to provide a wireless phone than it is a landline. (Not that it's free to the end user, anyway, but that's not as funny)
There's stupid on both sides. Here's the real core of Romney's support, poor uneducated rural often racist white people, mostly in the south.
There's tons more out there.
Quote from: Gaspar on September 28, 2012, 09:42:46 AM
No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. – Ronald Reagan
So said one of the great 'growers' of government...
Quote from: Gaspar on September 28, 2012, 09:42:46 AM
Once people get their Obamaphone, Obamamoney, and Obamafood it's nearly impossible to take it away. The chains of dependence become more comfortable than the promise of opportunity. The hopeless, jobless, and ambition-less will vote for President Obama, not because he offers hope, but because he offers rations.
Teatown is absolutely right. At this point it is becoming obvious that perhaps no other candidate can challenge this progressive momentum.
No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. – Ronald Reagan
Voters who live off taxpayers are the Democrats' ace in the hole. The Democrats created big programs and never let the recipients forget it. This gives them an initial advantage of tens of millions of votes in any presidential election. – Joseph Sobran
Americans are so enamoured of equality they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom. – Alexis de Tocqueville
It's not an endlessly expanding list of rights – the "right" to education, the "right" to health care, the "right" to food and housing. That's not freedom, that's dependency. Those aren't rights, those are the rations of slavery – hay and a barn for human cattle. – Alexis De Tocquiville
Very soon, the takers will outnumber the creators.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/cellphone.asp
ODS - at it again.
Quote from: Hoss on September 29, 2012, 08:35:42 AM
http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/cellphone.asp
ODS - at it again.
If anyone could explain the actual people's derangement, then that would be something.
Don't you find it funny that Obama gets credit for a government subsidized phone program started before he was President?
Quote from: erfalf on September 29, 2012, 10:23:43 AM
If anyone could explain the actual people's derangement, then that would be something.
I'm talking about Gassy having it...
Quote from: RecycleMichael on September 29, 2012, 10:35:09 AM
Don't you find it funny that Obama gets credit for a government subsidized phone program started before he was President?
Funny how that works, isn't it. could it be...ODS?
Quote from: RecycleMichael on September 29, 2012, 10:35:09 AM
Don't you find it funny that Obama gets credit for a government subsidized phone program started before he was President?
Not really. I assume you mean funny=odd or peculiar vs. funny ha ha.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on August 13, 2012, 01:27:10 PM
These states are most likel going to go for Obama. Current polls in each state show Obama ahead and the democrats have carried each one for the last five elections, including supporting bad candidates like John Kerry and Al Gore and won last time by Barack Obama. Next to each of them is the number of electoral votes.
California (55), Connecticut (7), D.C. (3), Delaware (3), Hawaii (4), Illinois (20), Maine (4), Massachusetts (11), Maryland (10), Michigan (16), Minnesota (10), New Jersey (14), New York (29), Oregon (7), Pennsyvania (20), Rhode Island (4), Vermont (3), Washington (12) and Wisconsin (10).
That equals 242 almost certain electoral votes. It takes 270 to win.
Florida has 29 votes which means if Obama wins Florida, he wins the election. Obama won it last time by two percent and is leading in the polls right now by four percent.
Obama is ahead by three percent in Virginia and won it over McCain by six percent four years ago to get their 13 electoral votes. Obama won Ohio by four percent last time and recent polls show him up over Romney by six percent. They have eighteen votes up for grabs.
New Hampshire has 4 votes and Obama is ahead by four percent in polling and they have voted for the democrat candidate 4 of the last five (Gore lost by one percent). New Mexico has also supported the democrat four of the last five (Kerry lost by one percent) and polls show Obama up by four percent. Obama won this state last time by fifteen percent to capture their five votes.
Obama also won in Colorado last time by eight percent to get their nine electoral votes. Obama also won Nevada by twelve points last time and recent polling shows him up by five points for six votes.
Those states have a total of 55 electoral votes.
If Obama wins Ohio and Virginia, he wins. If he only wins one of them and three of the smaller four, he wins.
In order to win, Romney has to hold on to his 191 likely votes, win Iowa where he is two points ahead in polling but Obama won last time by nine percent (the democrats have won this state four of the last five and Kerry only lost by one point), and North Carolina (Romney ahead by one point but won by Obama by one point last time, and basically run the table on every other state.
I think Obama wins Florida, Ohio and all the smaller states listed above to get at least 317 electoral votes.
RM's "almost certain" Obama list includes some states that are less than "almost certain". e.g., Wisconsin is very much in play. Pennsylvania and Michigan may still be in play. Even Oregon and Minnesota could be in play.
Nevada, Colorado, Iowa, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina and Florida are all trending towards Romney. The latest polls have him leading in Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, and Colorado, and within the margin of error in Iowa, Ohio and Nevada.
Romney's 191 "likely" votes are almost certain. North Carolina is close behind. I think Romney also wins at least Florida, Virginia, Iowa, Colorado and Nevada. That's 279 electoral votes. He probably also takes Ohio and very likely Wisconsin (307 total votes). Possibly Pennsylvania, Michigan, Minnesota, and Oregon (in order of declining likelihood) (360 total votes).
Quote from: Teatownclown on August 17, 2012, 11:56:39 PM
80 days.... I got 311 electoral votes for Obama. It may get closer than that but not by much....
The mandate approaches....
Still looking good on the EC front for Obama, aside from FL and VA. Ohio continues to show a consistent small lead for Obama. If Romney can't flip it, he's done unless he runs the table on all the other tossups. At this point, it looks like 290-300ish for Obama by my count.
Wisconsin being in play is just wishful thinking from the Romney camp. On what was the worst day of polling for Obama this year Rasmussen, which tends to run a point or two too strong for the Republicans showed Obama up by 2.
Obviously, the debate could render these comments moot. ;)
Quote from: nathanm on October 16, 2012, 05:58:47 PM
Still looking good on the EC front for Obama, aside from FL and VA. Ohio continues to show a consistent small lead for Obama. If Romney can't flip it, he's done unless he runs the table on all the other tossups. At this point, it looks like 290-300ish for Obama by my count.
Wisconsin being in play is just wishful thinking from the Romney camp. On what was the worst day of polling for Obama this year Rasmussen, which tends to run a point or two too strong for the Republicans showed Obama up by 2.
Obviously, the debate could render these comments moot. ;)
But the other recent Wisconsin polls were done by CBS/NYTImes, which tends to favor Democrats by at least 2, and shows Obama up only 3; and PPP which tends to run several points too strong for Dems and only gives Obama a 2 point lead. All 3 polls are well within the margin of error. That is in play... Not wishful thinking. Cerainly far from "almost certain". And the trend is clearly against Obama.
Obama will end up closer to 250 than to 300.
Quote from: Oil Capital on October 16, 2012, 11:33:46 PM
But the other recent Wisconsin polls were done by CBS/NYTImes, which tends to favor Democrats by at least 2, and shows Obama up only 3; and PPP which tends to run several points too strong for Dems and only gives Obama a 2 point lead. All 3 polls are well within the margin of error. That is in play... Not wishful thinking. Cerainly far from "almost certain". And the trend is clearly against Obama.
Wishful thinking.
No matter what anyone says on here, I do read Nate Silver's 538. Once again, over the last two election cycles, he tends to be the closest tracker. Romney had his big gains after the first presidential election, but now have shown in the last two days to be trending away from it.
But hell, what do I know. Nate's only use fancy formulas and stuff...you know, that stuff that many Republicans don't know? Math?
Intrade?
They have him at 63.5 today. They had him around 80 earlier in September. He's trending up since the Biden debate.
The last Wisconsin poll that had Romney up at all was in August. Since then, Rasmussen, PPP, CBS, NBC, and WeAskAmerica have all shown Obama ahead. It is possible, but highly unlikely that Romney is up in Wisconsin at this point. It would be nice to see more recent numbers, though. The last poll of Wisconsin was the Rasmussen poll on the 9th.
Also note that the last poll to show Romney up was PPP before you complain about their supposed bias. And again, these polls are from a period where Romney was at his high water mark. Given that Romney's first debate bounce has somewhat faded in other states, it is likely it has faded in Wisconsin as well. I suspect that a bunch of polls taken today would have Obama at around +5 in Wisconsin.
Now, if you want to talk about Colorado or North Carolina, those are not looking good for Obama. I had previously been reasonably confident in Obama taking Colorado, but now I see it as a true tossup. If Romney had the consistent lead in Colorado that Obama has had in Wisconsin, I'd think it would likely go his direction, but he's only gotten two +1s so far.
I guess we'll just have to see how it all plays out in the end, won't we? ;D
I've said all along 311...that could be lite.
I'd bet it won't be less than 250....
Quote from: nathanm on October 16, 2012, 11:56:57 PM
The last Wisconsin poll that had Romney up at all was in August. Since then, Rasmussen, PPP, CBS, NBC, and WeAskAmerica have all shown Obama ahead. It is possible, but highly unlikely that Romney is up in Wisconsin at this point. It would be nice to see more recent numbers, though. The last poll of Wisconsin was the Rasmussen poll on the 9th.
Also note that the last poll to show Romney up was PPP before you complain about their supposed bias. And again, these polls are from a period where Romney was at his high water mark. Given that Romney's first debate bounce has somewhat faded in other states, it is likely it has faded in Wisconsin as well. I suspect that a bunch of polls taken today would have Obama at around +5 in Wisconsin.
Now, if you want to talk about Colorado or North Carolina, those are not looking good for Obama. I had previously been reasonably confident in Obama taking Colorado, but now I see it as a true tossup. If Romney had the consistent lead in Colorado that Obama has had in Wisconsin, I'd think it would likely go his direction, but he's only gotten two +1s so far.
I guess we'll just have to see how it all plays out in the end, won't we? ;D
Apparently the Obama campaign thinks its more than just Romney's wishful thinking that Wisconsin is in play... Mrs. Obama is making 2 campaign stops there this week and the Pres. made a campaign swing through Wisconsin earlier this month. The pres., 1st lady do not spend their time campaigning in the last month of the campaign in states that are not in play.
I feel bad for the people in those swing states. They're getting carpet bombed with campaign ads.
Yet here in Oklahoma, we get Mullin vs Wallace. This is a contest that truly calls for a cage match...."Two men enter! One man leaves!"
Quote from: Ed W on October 17, 2012, 04:53:25 PM
I feel bad for the people in those swing states. They're getting carpet bombed with campaign ads.
Yet here in Oklahoma, we get Mullin vs Wallace. This is a contest that truly calls for a cage match...."Two men enter! One man leaves!"
I'm not really concerned if either is able to leave.
Quote from: nathanm on October 16, 2012, 11:56:57 PM
The last Wisconsin poll that had Romney up at all was in August. Since then, Rasmussen, PPP, CBS, NBC, and WeAskAmerica have all shown Obama ahead. It is possible, but highly unlikely that Romney is up in Wisconsin at this point. It would be nice to see more recent numbers, though. The last poll of Wisconsin was the Rasmussen poll on the 9th.
Also note that the last poll to show Romney up was PPP before you complain about their supposed bias. And again, these polls are from a period where Romney was at his high water mark. Given that Romney's first debate bounce has somewhat faded in other states, it is likely it has faded in Wisconsin as well. I suspect that a bunch of polls taken today would have Obama at around +5 in Wisconsin.
Marquette University took a poll in Wisconsin October 11-14... Obama at +1. Margin of error: 3.4. What should terrify the Obama campaign about this poll is that two weeks earlier (Sept. 27-30), Marquette's poll had Obama at +11. Guys, like it or not, Wisconsin is in play.
Quote from: Ed W on October 17, 2012, 04:53:25 PM
I feel bad for the people in those swing states. They're getting carpet bombed with campaign ads.
Yet here in Oklahoma, we get Mullin vs Wallace. This is a contest that truly calls for a cage match...."Two men enter! One man leaves!"
At least their vote means something.
Forget About The Polls, These Are The Numbers That Really Matter In The Presidential Race
http://www.businessinsider.com/electoral-map-romney-obama-paths-to-victory-2012-10
(https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/409368_476759039024704_1917547210_n.jpg)
It's a no win situation for RMoney....not enough women backers....
Quote from: Hoss on October 16, 2012, 11:43:01 PM
Wishful thinking.
No matter what anyone says on here, I do read Nate Silver's 538. Once again, over the last two election cycles, he tends to be the closest tracker. Romney had his big gains after the first presidential election, but now have shown in the last two days to be trending away from it.
But hell, what do I know. Nate's only use fancy formulas and stuff...you know, that stuff that many Republicans don't know? Math?
LOL All of Nate's fancy formulas and stuff must have confused you. He has Wisconsin listed as "competitive". Sounds a lot like "in play" to me. ;-)
Quote from: Oil Capital on October 18, 2012, 10:44:29 AM
Marquette University took a poll in Wisconsin October 11-14... Obama at +1. Margin of error: 3.4. What should terrify the Obama campaign about this poll is that two weeks earlier (Sept. 27-30), Marquette's poll had Obama at +11. Guys, like it or not, Wisconsin is in play.
Considering this is the same state where voters voted to retain Scott Walker, I think the 11% in favor of Obama was a highly skewed number. Wisconsin has been in play all along.
Here's what I'm not seeing this election season which could really hurt Obama: The enthusiasm factor seems to be lacking this time around. I really don't think the Obama turn out will be there in force like it was in 2008, here's why:
I think a lot of the younger voters who were so euphoric in their support in '08 have perhaps learned the hard cold lesson that in spite of a president's promises, life won't necessarily be better in four years.
It's not an historic election like 2008 was where people could help elect the first black POTUS.
Even to the most ignorant of the electorate, their "Obama money" is long since spent. Poverty is no better than it was four years ago and I suspect the sound bite we aren't hearing from the lower income classes is "Obama doesn't care about me, all he cares about is partying with JayZ."
His only major agenda issue seems to be rolling back the Bush tax cuts on those earning over $250K. Big whoop! That's not as exciting as a promise to overhaul healthcare. I think most people are convinced that promise is nothing but hot air.
He really doesn't have any new legacy legislation to champion which would get his base on board.
What is there really to be enthusiastic about this go round?
QuoteConsidering this is the same state where voters voted to retain Scott Walker
Obviously poll workers paid off by the Koch brothers.
QuoteWhat is there really to be enthusiastic about this go round?
Not really enthusiasm. Fear. Who really wants Akin backers et al to feel empowered?
Apathy will keep more voters away from the polls than fear will drive to it.
I'm sure Nate will be here shortly with a graph to prove me wrong.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 18, 2012, 11:31:39 AM
Apathy will keep more voters away from the polls than fear will drive to it.
Since I live in Oklahoma, all I can do is hope enough fearful people make it to the polls in states that matter.
Quote from: Townsend on October 18, 2012, 11:33:19 AM
Since I live in Oklahoma, all I can do is hope enough fearful people make it to the polls in states that matter.
Yeah, but there's lots of them who fear communism & socialism as well...
We don't have an exclusive headlock on ignorance in Oklahoma.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 18, 2012, 11:34:27 AM
Yeah, but there's lots of them who fear communism & socialism as well...
We don't have an exclusive headlock on ignorance in Oklahoma.
When asked to be taken to their leader, they bring 'em here.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 18, 2012, 11:23:04 AM
Considering this is the same state where voters voted to retain Scott Walker, I think the 11% in favor of Obama was a highly skewed number. Wisconsin has been in play all along.
Here's what I'm not seeing this election season which could really hurt Obama: The enthusiasm factor seems to be lacking this time around.
I have been thinking the same thing. I don't know how it will tranlate to the polls, but there is certainly a different tone when it comes to describing Obama. In 2008, Obama was great and a huge breath of fresh air. Today, it just seems like a daily battle to stomp out fires here and there with a far more difficult job of placing blame on someone other than himself.
This isn't good:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map.html#.UIA5GfI93a8.twitter
Now its 52-45 in the uber conservative Gallup poll.
Quote from: guido911 on October 18, 2012, 12:28:46 PM
This isn't good:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map.html#.UIA5GfI93a8.twitter
Now its 52-45 in the uber conservative Gallup poll.
Gweed is epitomizing this...
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/16/falling-prey-to-the-dangerous-temptation-to-cherry-pick-polls/
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map.html
Just saw that! Major map change. I was expecting a bump from the last debate, but nothing like that.
Libs can rant all they want about Binders of Women, but it seems that women must be tired of being the administration's tools.
Apparently, every time Romney gets an opportunity to talk to the people, he seems to gain support.
Perhaps if the president could offer a plan, or something different than Tax and Spend. His message is flat.
. . .and hoss, the reason the RCP poll carries more value is because it aggregates multiple polls in every state to get an average instead of relying on a single poll.
Quote from: Gaspar on October 18, 2012, 12:45:17 PM
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map.html
Just saw that! Major map change. I was expecting a bump from the last debate, but nothing like that.
Libs can rant all they want about Binders of Women, but it seems that women must be tired of being the administration's tools.
Apparently, every time Romney gets an opportunity to talk to the people, he seems to gain support.
Perhaps if the president could offer a plan, or something different than Tax and Spend. His message is flat.
. . .and hoss, the reason the RCP poll carries more value is because it aggregates multiple polls in every state to get an average instead of relying on a single poll.
But it's not aggregating as many as Nate's analysis does. Much as you would like to think that just because it's a sub of the NYT that it's biased, IMO, it doesn't appear to be. He was just as accurate last midterm when it predicted huge gains for the GOP.
But feel free to cherry-pick away.
Quote from: Hoss on October 18, 2012, 12:47:52 PM
But it's not aggregating as many as Nate's analysis does. Much as you would like to think that just because it's a sub of the NYT that it's biased, IMO, it doesn't appear to be. He was just as accurate last midterm when it predicted huge gains for the GOP.
But feel free to cherry-pick away.
Haven't seen Nate's analysis. Where is it?
Quote from: Gaspar on October 18, 2012, 12:52:11 PM
Haven't seen Nate's analysis. Where is it?
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com
Quote from: Gaspar on October 18, 2012, 12:45:17 PM
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map.html
Just saw that! Major map change. I was expecting a bump from the last debate, but nothing like that.
Libs can rant all they want about Binders of Women, but it seems that women must be tired of being the administration's tools.
Apparently, every time Romney gets an opportunity to talk to the people, he seems to gain support.
Perhaps if the president could offer a plan, or something different than Tax and Spend. His message is flat.
. . .and hoss, the reason the RCP poll carries more value is because it aggregates multiple polls in every state to get an average instead of relying on a single poll.
In the absence of any agenda by Obama all they are doing is nit-picking every single gaffe and calling every Romney initiative a lie.
That's not a campaign, it simply points to how incredibly lazy and intellectually dishonest this president really is.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 18, 2012, 01:18:41 PM
In the absence of any agenda by Obama all they are doing is nit-picking every single gaffe and calling every Romney initiative a lie.
That's not a campaign, it simply points to how incredibly lazy and intellectually dishonest this president really is.
I'm thinkin' you might be back on the Fox....
Quote from: Hoss on October 18, 2012, 12:55:45 PM
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com
For those who are intelligent enough to understand Nate's and RCP's analyses (i.e., obviously not you, Hoss, given your misunderstanding of the state of the race in Wisconsin ;-) ), their analyses of the race do not look all that different:
In the "no-toss-ups" map, RCP shows Obama with 294 electoral votes vs. 244 for Romney. Nate's "now-cast" shows 281.2 for Obama and 256.8 for Romney.
RCP shows Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Wisconsin, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia as "toss-up" states. Nate shows Colorado, Florida, Iowa, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, Virginia and the Maine 2ne Congressional District as "competitive."
RCP shows its RCP average with Romney at 47.7 vs. Obama's 46.7 in the national popular vote. Nate shows Romney at 49.1 vs. Obama's 49.8.
Quote from: Hoss on October 18, 2012, 01:20:27 PM
I'm thinkin' you might be back on the Fox....
Nope. I'm not hearing any agenda out of this guy. All he does is call Romney a liar and poke fun at his gaffes.
It's getting annoying.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 18, 2012, 01:21:30 PM
Nope. I'm not hearing any agenda out of this guy. All he does is call Romney a liar and poke fun at his gaffes.
It's getting annoying.
Truth hurts sometimes...
Quote from: Oil Capital on October 18, 2012, 01:21:04 PM
For those who are intelligent enough to understand Nate's and RCP's analyses (i.e., obviously not you, Hoss, given your misunderstanding of the state of the race in Wisconsin ;-) ), their analyses of the race do not look all that different:
In the "no-toss-ups" map, RCP shows Obama with 294 electoral votes vs. 244 for Romney. Nate's "now-cast" shows 281.2 for Obama and 256.8 for Romney.
RCP shows Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Wisconsin, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia as "toss-up" states. Nate shows Colorado, Florida, Iowa, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, Virginia and the Maine 2ne Congressional District as "competitive."
RCP shows its RCP average with Romney at 47.7 vs. Obama's 46.7 in the national popular vote. Nate shows Romney at 49.1 vs. Obama's 49.8.
I'm not speaking to the race in Wisconsin and never did. It's not about one state until election night. Wow. that's why I use 538. That is an aggregation and weighing of polls.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 18, 2012, 01:21:30 PM
Nope. I'm not hearing any agenda out of this guy. All he does is call Romney a liar and poke fun at his gaffes.
It's getting annoying.
Romney lying and making all those gaffes is getting annoying too. Reminds me of our state government too much I guess.
Quote from: Hoss on October 18, 2012, 01:24:07 PM
I'm not speaking to the race in Wisconsin and never did. It's not about one state until election night. Wow. that's why I use 538. That is an aggregation and weighing of polls.
Oh but you did. (Sometimes your dishonesty catches up with you)
You told us back on page 3 of this thread that the idea that Wisconsin was in play was "wishful thinking" and referred us to Nate Silver's analysis.
The following was copied and pasted from Hoss's post on page 3 of this thread, responding to (and quoting) my post contending that Wisconsin is in play:
"Wishful thinking.
No matter what anyone says on here, I do read Nate Silver's 538. Once again, over the last two election cycles, he tends to be the closest tracker. Romney had his big gains after the first presidential election, but now have shown in the last two days to be trending away from it.
But hell, what do I know. Nate's only use fancy formulas and stuff...you know, that stuff that many Republicans don't know? Math?"
Wow, indeed. Again, if you understood Nate's analyses, you would see he does aggregations of individual state polls, not just aggregations of national voter surveys.
Quote from: Hoss on October 18, 2012, 01:22:50 PM
Truth hurts sometimes...
It would if it was.
You of all people with your binder talk. Even the actual candidates are pulling that one.
Quote from: erfalf on October 18, 2012, 01:37:57 PM
It would if it was.
You of all people with your binder talk. Even the actual candidates are pulling that one.
Someone has a sad. Get over it. It was funny. Even if it was at the expense of your candidate. Did he not say it? Well?
I find it funny and hypocritical. You guys make all the jokes you want at Biden's expense. I laugh, because they're funny. When a joke is made about Willard, however, boohoo. Predictable.
Quote from: Hoss on October 18, 2012, 01:39:32 PM
Someone has a sad. Get over it. It was funny. Even if it was at the expense of your candidate. Did he not say it? Well?
But using it as a campaign fodder by actual candidates for President & Vice-President. This is something that 10 year-olds get a kick out of (which may be saying something). It's one thing for you and I to joke about it in passing, but I think it is well below the dignity of the office of the President. Do you not agree?
Quote from: Gaspar on October 18, 2012, 12:52:11 PM
Haven't seen Nate's analysis. Where is it?
Who gives two craps about Nate freakin Silver. Seriously, I guess its okay to cherry pick him but not any one else. And don't you just love the timing of his little rant, right after Romney starts leading in polls--which continue to suck as usual.
Quote from: guido911 on October 18, 2012, 01:43:34 PM
Who gives two craps about Nate freakin Silver. Seriously, I guess its okay to cherry pick him but not any one else. And don't you just love the timing of his little rant, right after Romney starts leading in polls--which continue to suck as usual.
When Republican's claim about the polls, they need to just get over it. When Dems complain, it's critical analysis.
Quote from: Hoss on October 18, 2012, 01:22:50 PM
Truth hurts sometimes...
(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTXxFO11MIm5S0PTUdeYSuJAgix4C97jAu-PU_amDnpJq0r2LkPuQ)
Quote from: guido911 on October 18, 2012, 01:43:34 PM
Who gives two craps about Nate freakin Silver. Seriously, I guess its okay to cherry pick him but not any one else. And don't you just love the timing of his little rant, right after Romney starts leading in polls--which continue to suck as usual.
Once again, you don't understand. Not surprising from you. Nate .... read this slowly now.... A-G-G-R-E-G-A-T-E-S... polls from many sources. He then weighs them based on many factors.
But just because his blog gets posted on the NYT you assume it's biased. IT'S NOT HIS POLL.
Wow.
Quote from: erfalf on October 18, 2012, 01:44:22 PM
When Republican's claim about the polls, they need to just get over it. When Dems complain, it's critical analysis.
That's exactly the point. Silver was ranting about how unbiased the polls were just a few weeks ago and how the gop should get over it and accept Obama was leading. Now, the man-child is talking about cherry picking.
Quote from: erfalf on October 18, 2012, 01:44:22 PM
When Republican's claim about the polls, they need to just get over it. When Dems complain, it's critical analysis.
Kinda like when a republican gets his donkey beat in a debate, Fox News calls it a draw.
Quote from: Hoss on October 18, 2012, 01:46:19 PM
Kinda like when a republican gets his donkey beat in a debate, Fox News calls it a draw.
Yea, sure. ::)
http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/10/will-krauthammer-obama-came-out-ahead-138719.html
Quote from: erfalf on October 18, 2012, 01:47:15 PM
Yea, sure. ::)
http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/10/will-krauthammer-obama-came-out-ahead-138719.html
Once again, there's that cherry-picking. Were there any others on the FNC that said Obama came out ahead?
I thought Real Clear Politics AGGREGATES polls. Something like this:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html
HOSS, you are like Shadows without the common sense to know when to clam up.
Quote from: Hoss on October 18, 2012, 01:51:23 PM
Once again, there's that cherry-picking. Were there any others on the FNC that said Obama came out ahead?
Probably about as many on MSNBC that thought Romney came out ahead. ;D
Quote from: Hoss on October 18, 2012, 01:51:23 PM
Once again, there's that cherry-picking. Were there any others on the FNC that said Obama came out ahead?
(http://everydayathletetraining.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/strawmani.jpg)
Quote from: guido911 on October 18, 2012, 01:52:27 PM
I thought Real Clear Politics AGGREGATES polls. Something like this:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html
HOSS, you are like Shadows without the common sense to know when to clam up.
Once again, Republicans screech louder when a dissenting opinion is introduced. It's a pattern. Doesn't dissuade me however.
Realclear is a real bastion of down-the-middle polling. ::)
It's important to share your victories, but even more important to own your defeats.
Romney took several of the President's policy points on issues from the debate and is forcefully using them on the campaign trail.
On the other hand, just as in the first debate, the president has taken to the ridicule of semantics to avoid issues. He couldn't get Big Bird off the ground, and now he's using the odd, and perhaps poorly worded, mention that Romney requested binders of resumes to ensure that his staff was well balanced and representative of his constituency in hopes that it will turn women off. Not only is that strange, but the only way I can really describe it is Fluked up!
Who is trying to USE women here?
What's funny is that the Romney gaffes are only gaffes to Democrats. It's not like Romney said that he believes that some people make too much money even though they earned it or made fun of the mentally handicapped or something. Geeze.
Quote from: Gaspar on October 18, 2012, 01:57:00 PM
It's important to share your victories, but even more important to own your defeats.
Romney took several of the President's policy points on issues from the debate and is forcefully using them on the campaign trail.
On the other hand, just as in the first debate, the president has taken to the ridicule of semantics to avoid issues. He couldn't get Big Bird off the ground, and now he's using the odd, and perhaps poorly worded, mention that Romney requested binders of resumes to ensure that his staff was well balanced and representative of his constituency in hopes that it will turn women off. Not only is that strange, but the only way I can really describe it is Fluked up!
Who is trying to USE women here?
Wow. Speechless.
Quote from: guido911 on October 18, 2012, 01:52:27 PM
I thought Real Clear Politics AGGREGATES polls. Something like this:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html
HOSS, you are like Shadows without the common sense to know when to clam up.
Real Clear Politics
does aggregate polls. But according to Hoss, if you cite RCP's aggregation, you are cherry-picking; but if you cite Nate Silver's aggregation you are apparently conveying the wisdom of God. (Never mind that their aggregations do not show wildly different results.... but that gets into Hoss's whole problem of not understanding Nate Silver's analyses, as discussed above.)
Quote from: Hoss on October 18, 2012, 01:56:42 PM
Once again, Republicans screech louder when a dissenting opinion is introduced. It's a pattern. Doesn't dissuade me however.
Realclear is a real bastion of down-the-middle polling. ::)
Pointing out stupidity is now loud screeching. Check.
Quote from: Oil Capital on October 18, 2012, 01:58:50 PM
Real Clear Politics does aggregate polls. But according to Hoss, if you cite RCP's aggregation, you are cherry-picking; but if you cite Nate Silver's aggregation you are apparently conveying the wisdom of God.
I thought the Times was the voice of God.
Quote from: erfalf on October 18, 2012, 01:59:42 PM
Pointing out stupidity is now loud screeching. Check.
Once again, stupidity to you is not to others. I'm just pointing out now how the graphics have been coming hot and heavy from Gweed. That's screaming. That's fine. I guess Gweed's head hurts from all his daytime litigating, so he goes light on the evening.
Quote from: Hoss on October 18, 2012, 02:02:14 PM
Once again, stupidity to you is not to others. I'm just pointing out now how the graphics have been coming hot and heavy from Gweed. That's screaming. That's fine. I guess Gweed's head hurts from all his daytime litigating, so he goes light on the evening.
So you think the binder thing is not a stupid childish joke told by those that understand what he was saying but chose to ignore it anyways because it could possibly score some political points?
Quote from: erfalf on October 18, 2012, 02:08:03 PM
So you think the binder thing is not a stupid childish joke told by those that understand what he was saying but chose to ignore it anyways because it could possibly score some political points?
Shhh. It's all they got left.
(http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSIdQF3DO_5_2ttfHpL0LgG3zu-AMAxAdAvZjrn-CCE03LRAcLgU2ucI056)
Quote from: erfalf on October 18, 2012, 02:08:03 PM
So you think the binder thing is not a stupid childish joke told by those that understand what he was saying but chose to ignore it anyways because it could possibly score some political points?
What's almost as bad is hearing a montage of journalists trying to run with it and say it shows Romney is sexist.
What I think is pathetic is the left trying to make it sound as if abortion and free birth control is the biggest issue facing women on a daily basis. I think it's a sexist notion to suggest women alone are responsible for contraception in the first place.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 18, 2012, 02:17:51 PM
What's almost as bad is hearing a montage of journalists trying to run with it and say it shows Romney is sexist.
I noticed that too. Apparently perceived sexism is far more dangerous to society than actual sexism.
There seems to be a cracker on the floor in this room.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 18, 2012, 02:17:51 PM
What's almost as bad is hearing a montage of journalists trying to run with it and say it shows Romney is sexist.
What I think is pathetic is the left trying to make it sound as if abortion and free birth control is the biggest issue facing women on a daily basis. I think it's a sexist notion to suggest women alone are responsible for contraception in the first place.
The biggest issue for women & men is jobs and income. That seems to be something the president would rather avoid, therefore giving something for nothing is what he has to work with, and since his campaign has been hemorrhaging women voters, his focus is naturally focused on free stuff.
The talk about binders may send a thrill up the leg of the more ignorant and childish among Obama's supporters, but it's hard to believe it will sway anyone to vote for him. To the extent it does, such votes will probably be outweighed by potential voters driven away by the focus on insignificant non-issues and avoidance of the real issues.
You guys don't think the Dems are taking the binder comment as a joke and the GOP is the party over reacting to the whole thing?
Quote from: Townsend on October 18, 2012, 02:24:32 PM
There seems to be a cracker on the floor in this room.
Someone say "Cracker"???
That's a racial slur!!!
Quote from: Townsend on October 18, 2012, 02:30:36 PM
You guys don't think the Dems are taking the binder comment as a joke and the GOP is the party over reacting to the whole thing?
Take a listen to Mika and ask her if she thinks it is a joke--or if she is overreacting..
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2012/10/18/poll-panicky-mika-fights-producer-lead-binder-gate
She looks like she is about to Hoss, er smile (I keed) a brick over this scandal..
Quote from: Gaspar on October 18, 2012, 02:12:27 PM
Shhh. It's all they got left.
(http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSIdQF3DO_5_2ttfHpL0LgG3zu-AMAxAdAvZjrn-CCE03LRAcLgU2ucI056)
Come on guys... for a majority of us, it is just a little humor in a situation where the humor is hard to find. I am not sure why everything has to be so damn serious all the time. Just because life gives you lemons doesn't mean you have to squirt them in your eyes.
Quote from: guido911 on October 18, 2012, 02:50:20 PM
Take a listen to Mika and ask her if she thinks it is a joke--or if she is overreacting..
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2012/10/18/poll-panicky-mika-fights-producer-lead-binder-gate
She looks like she is about to Hoss, er smile (I keed) a brick over this scandal..
OK, so I had to click on your link because I had no idea who Mika is. Is that link to MSNBC's version of Fox morning show? Is she their Gretchen?
If so, people need to switch to something else.
Quote from: Townsend on October 18, 2012, 02:57:18 PM
OK, so I had to click on your link because I had no idea who Mika is. Is that link to MSNBC's version of Fox morning show? Is she their Gretchen?
If so, people need to switch to something else.
Not trying to be critical of MSNBC (because FOX has it's fair share of nit wits), but Mika has got to be the most brainless political pundit out there. If her old man wasn't anybody, she'd be working at Macy's like she ought to be.
Now I'm a sexist right?
Quote from: erfalf on October 18, 2012, 03:00:44 PM
Not trying to be critical of MSNBC (because FOX has it's fair share of nit wits), but Mika has got to be the most brainless political pundit out there.
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-dUjQSlVll18/TtJPGig2Z8I/AAAAAAAAAj4/mBhd_aQs0Vc/s1600/Gretchen+Carlson+Miss+America.jpg)
After listening to this chick argue with Chris Wallace a few weeks ago, Mika would have to work very hard to sound more brainless.
Quote from: Townsend on October 18, 2012, 03:05:54 PM
After listening to this chick argue with Chris Wallace a few weeks ago, Mika would have to work very hard to sound more brainless.
The most apt description I have ever heard about Mika is that she is the resident Newspaper reader. And if you would ever watch the show, you would understand perfectly. Usually the only comments she has are lifted directly from the days paper held directly in front of her face as she reads it while the screan is plastered with a screenshot of said article.
Quote from: Gaspar on October 18, 2012, 02:12:27 PM
Shhh. It's all they got left.
(http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSIdQF3DO_5_2ttfHpL0LgG3zu-AMAxAdAvZjrn-CCE03LRAcLgU2ucI056)
The reason this became an instant meme is because of how awkward Romney was when faced with the subject: Equality for Women. Rather than address the question he tried to pivot to a lame personal story that didn't even ring true. As a result he ended up looking like his idea of women in the work place was based on the show Mad Men.
Quote from: erfalf on October 18, 2012, 03:19:13 PM
The most apt description I have ever heard about Mika is that she is the resident Newspaper reader. And if you would ever watch the show, you would understand perfectly. Usually the only comments she has are lifted directly from the days paper held directly in front of her face as she reads it while the screan is plastered with a screenshot of said article.
Pass
Quote from: Townsend on October 18, 2012, 03:05:54 PM
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-dUjQSlVll18/TtJPGig2Z8I/AAAAAAAAAj4/mBhd_aQs0Vc/s1600/Gretchen+Carlson+Miss+America.jpg)
After listening to this chick argue with Chris Wallace a few weeks ago, Mika would have to work very hard to sound more brainless.
I knew Fox News would come back into this...This'll give you nightmares T:
(http://radioactiveliberty.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/bgman01.jpg)
Quote from: guido911 on October 18, 2012, 03:33:42 PM
I knew Fox News would come back into this...This'll give you nightmares T:
You posted a link about MSNBC. Of course the twin would pop up.
Quote from: erfalf on October 18, 2012, 03:00:44 PM
Not trying to be critical of MSNBC (because FOX has it's fair share of nit wits), but Mika has got to be the most brainless political pundit out there. If her old man wasn't anybody, she'd be working at Macy's like she ought to be.
Now I'm a sexist right?
Pig!
I bet you have binders freekin full of women!
Legs hanging out!
I have to admit though, Mika is several rungs higher on the sentience scale than some of the other folks on that network. Joe Scarborough has to be the most confused person I've ever had to listen to.
Quote from: Gaspar on October 18, 2012, 03:40:49 PM
I bet you have binders freekin full of women!
Let's hang out!
FIFY
Quote from: Gaspar on October 18, 2012, 02:24:51 PM
The biggest issue for women & men is jobs and income. That seems to be something the president would rather avoid, therefore giving something for nothing is what he has to work with
You say that, but Obama directly addressed the question including an example of what he has already done to help them in the quest for pay equality while Romney did not.
Quote from: nathanm on October 18, 2012, 03:53:12 PM
You say that, but Obama directly addressed the question including an example of what he has already done to help them in the quest for pay equality while Romney did not.
And the binders thing wasn't an exmple of something that Romney did. He saw a need and tried to address it.
Quote from: nathanm on October 18, 2012, 03:53:12 PM
You say that, but Obama directly addressed the question including an example of what he has already done to help them in the quest for pay equality while Romney did not.
And how did Obama explain away what happened to middle class income the last four years?
Quote from: erfalf on October 18, 2012, 04:03:53 PM
And the binders thing wasn't an exmple of something that Romney did. He saw a need and tried to address it.
Except that he didn't "see a need and try to address it". He was given the binder as had been planned before the election by some women's group.
Again, Romney didn't even address the question, but instead talked about his binders full of women. The question wasn't about getting more women into the workforce, it was about making sure they get equal pay for equal work.
Conan, he didn't. I will. It's called supply and demand. As long as supply exceeds demand, wages will continue to be pushed down. It's called the free market.
Back to the electoral college topic, if I may. There is a new Susquehanna poll taken October 11-13 that shows Romney leading in Pennsylvania, 49-45. The prior Susquehanna poll, taken exactly one week earlier, had Obama leading 47-45 (in itself a bit of a caution sign for an incumbent Democrat president).
Lest I be accused of cherry-picking polls, it should be noted that a Quinnipiac poll conducted October 12-14 gives Obama a 50-46 lead, to which the Philadelphia Inquirer commented "OK, this is getting close." (Quinnipiac had Obama up by 12 points in September.)
Either way, another 20 of RM's "almost certain" electoral votes for Obama may be looking a little less certain.
Quote from: Oil Capital on October 18, 2012, 05:55:49 PM
Back to the electoral college topic, if I may. There is a new Susquehanna poll taken October 11-13 that shows Romney leading in Pennsylvania, 49-45. The prior Susquehanna poll, taken exactly one week earlier, had Obama leading 47-45 (in itself a bit of a caution sign for an incumbent Democrat president).
Lest I be accused of cherry-picking polls, it should be noted that a Quinnipiac poll conducted October 12-14 gives Obama a 50-46 lead, to which the Philadelphia Inquirer commented "OK, this is getting close." (Quinnipiac had Obama up by 12 points in September.)
Either way, another 20 of RM's "almost certain" electoral votes for Obama may be looking a little less certain.
Bunches of bitter clingers having their say right now...
O M G !! Forget the electoral college!
Heaven has arrived in Oklahoma.
Medium sized sweet potato, microwaved on high for 3 minutes, turned over and hit again for another 3 minutes. When done, cut evenly down the middle, and spread on a medium sized plate.
Apply a half dozen pats of real butter. Let it melt into the potato for a couple minutes. Finish the decorations with a BIG glob of sour cream on each side, with grated sharp cheddar over the top. If I had chives, I would put them on, too, even though I don't like them very well!
This is the culinary incarnation of the number '42'.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on October 18, 2012, 07:08:26 PM
O M G !! Forget the electoral college!
Heaven has arrived in Oklahoma.
Medium sized sweet potato, microwaved on high for 3 minutes, turned over and hit again for another 3 minutes. When done, cut evenly down the middle, and spread on a medium sized plate.
Apply a half dozen pats of real butter. Let it melt into the potato for a couple minutes. Finish the decorations with a BIG glob of sour cream on each side, with grated sharp cheddar over the top. If I had chives, I would put them on, too, even though I don't like them very well!
This is the culinary incarnation of the number '42'.
See you at your house in 10 minutes...
Time for Skippy's head to asplode.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/18/gallup-vs-the-world/
Quote from: guido911 on October 18, 2012, 07:43:49 PM
See you at your house in 10 minutes...
Bring a bottle of Wild Turkey. I'll be here - and I have more sweet potatoes ready to go...bring some friends.
Man, that was good stuff. Can't handle the whole brown sugar, marshmallow thing with them, but the savory combination is ideal.
I have been planning to put some on the grill next time I fire it up, just to see how that goes. With some grilled cajun cabbage...I don't know if I could stand it so good.
I actually like it with butter and brown sugar, but no marshmallows. The whole "Yam" thing is disgusting to me. Another great way to do them is dice them into 1/2 cubes toss them in olive oil then toss them in Italian spice mix, place them on a cookie sheet, grind kosher salt over them and cook at 400 for 25 minutes, turn them once while baking. Serve with ranch dressing.
Oh, and as far as Nate Silver, sounds like he's skeeerd!
Quote from: Conan71 on October 19, 2012, 08:27:26 AM
I actually like it with butter and brown sugar, but no marshmallows. The whole "Yam" thing is disgusting to me. Another great way to do them is dice them into 1/2 cubes toss them in olive oil then toss them in Italian spice mix, place them on a cookie sheet, grind kosher salt over them and cook at 400 for 25 minutes, turn them once while baking. Serve with ranch dressing.
Cut in wedges, olive oil, heavy cumin, heavy smoked paprika and salt. Same temp, same time.
Quote from: Townsend on October 19, 2012, 08:42:53 AM
Cut in wedges, olive oil, heavy cumin, heavy smoked paprika and salt. Same temp, same time.
Sounds right up our alley. Might even have to experiment with some Hatch chile powder (New Mexican crack to Mrs. C and I)
Quote from: Conan71 on October 19, 2012, 09:17:33 AM
Sounds right up our alley. Might even have to experiment with some Hatch chile powder (New Mexican crack to Mrs. C and I)
Damn both of you to hell. I'm hungry for sweet potatoes now. ;)
Quote from: Hoss on October 19, 2012, 09:32:42 AM
Damn both of you to hell. I'm hungry for sweet potatoes now. ;)
I mixed up a batch of Emeril's Essence last weekend - not the stuff they sell in the stores - from the recipe he posted about 10 years ago on his web site. Pretty good stuff. I'm thinking maybe I need to add a "bam" or two to the mix just to see what happens....
Uh-Oh. Minnesota appears to be tightening and may be a surprise battleground in the final weeks.
Here's an interesting blurb from MSNBC regarding ad buys. For those of you bitterly clinging to the fantasy that Wisconsin is not in play, note the ad spending in Wisconsin and try to explain that away:
Hottest markets: Ohio, Ohio, Ohio. Four of the top 10 hottest markets this week (in terms of advertising points from Oct. 15-21) are in the Buckeye State. Wisconsin has two, including Green Bay in the top spot. One striking thing about this week's top markets -- no Virginia. Markets like Norfolk, Roanoke, and Richmond have routinely been in the top 10, but they have dropped out to 16, 21, and 22, respectively. The Obama campaign has maintained its levels in Norfolk and Richmond, but cut it in half in Roanoke, from 1,500 points to 795 this week. The Romney campaign, on the other hand, INCREASED its spending in that market. The Obama campaign increased in places like Mason City, IA. Romney has more ad points than Obama narrowly in Denver, Mason City, and Orlando. One of the "tells" we told you about MONTHS ago about this battleground map was to keep an eye on October and see where the battle was being waged more intensely. If it was in the New South battleground states of FL/NC and VA more than the Midwest, advantage Obama. Well, this list of markets tells you, the battle is in the Midwest, that's good news for Romney.
Quote from: Oil Capital on October 19, 2012, 11:23:23 AM
Well, this list of markets tells you, the battle is in the Midwest, that's good news for Romney.
Why would this be good news for Romney? Because MSNBC says so?
The state of Ohio has been listed as a battle ground state for more than a few presidential elections in a row. Look at the history of thae last couple of election polls for Ohio...http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2012/Pres/Graphs/ohio.html
Show me the polls that say that show the Minnesota race tightening. These collection of polls say otherwise...http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2012/Pres/Graphs/minnesota.html
Quote from: RecycleMichael on October 19, 2012, 11:52:47 AM
Why would this be good news for Romney? Because MSNBC says so?
The state of Ohio has been listed as a battle ground state for more than a few presidential elections in a row. Look at the history of thae last couple of election polls for Ohio...http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2012/Pres/Graphs/ohio.html
Show me the polls that say that show the Minnesota race tightening. These collection of polls say otherwise...http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2012/Pres/Graphs/minnesota.html
I think the point is that the fact that polls are showing things either tightening or flipping is the issue. That's at least the teasing messages I have been sending. Sill, its Obama's race to lose.
I guess news that the presidential race is close is not really news to me. Look at these popular vote percentage differences...
John F Kennedy in 1960 won by .17 of one percent
Richard Nixon in 1968 won by .70 of one percent
Jimmy Carter in 1976 won by 2.06 percent
George W. Bush in 2000 lost the popular vote by .51 of one percent
George W. Bush in 2004 won by 2.41 percent
Who is surprised that this race is close? It is the norm for the country.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on October 19, 2012, 10:34:48 AM
I mixed up a batch of Emeril's Essence last weekend - not the stuff they sell in the stores - from the recipe he posted about 10 years ago on his web site. Pretty good stuff. I'm thinking maybe I need to add a "bam" or two to the mix just to see what happens....
I agree, the original recipes in the cookbooks are much better. Paul Prudhomme's Blackening spice from his first cookbook is so easy do double or triple and it is much better than the stuff in the jars. There is too much salt and other stuff in the commercially produced product.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on October 19, 2012, 11:52:47 AM
Why would this be good news for Romney? Because MSNBC says so?
Your argument is with Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, Domenico Montanaro, and Brooke Brower of MSNBC. Take it up with them. But in case you really don't get it... It's because the battle is now being fought in states that are much more "must win" states for Obama than for Romney. Romney's on offense, so to speak. Obama is defending his home turf (as exemplified by the fact that Wisconsin, a state many observers thought would be "almost certain" for Obama is very much in play). At this point, Ohio is every bit as much (if not more) of a "must win" state for Obama as for Romney.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on October 19, 2012, 11:52:47 AMThe state of Ohio has been listed as a battle ground state for more than a few presidential elections in a row. Look at the history of thae last couple of election polls for Ohio...http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2012/Pres/Graphs/ohio.html
Yeah... And???Quote from: RecycleMichael on October 19, 2012, 11:52:47 AMShow me the polls that say that show the Minnesota race tightening. These collection of polls say otherwise...http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2012/Pres/Graphs/minnesota.html
It's a little bit anecdotal (like the fact that the Obama campaign is doing events in Minnesota in these closing weeks). And if you dig into the polls, it is probably closer than it appears on the surface.
Quote from: Oil Capital on October 19, 2012, 01:41:28 PM
Your argument is with Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, Domenico Montanaro, and Brooke Brower of MSNBC. Take it up with them.
Yeah... And???
It's a little bit anecdotal (like the fact that the Obama campaign is doing events in Minnesota in these closing weeks). And if you dig into the polls, it is probably closer than it appears on the surface.
Wow. Even screaming in text.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on October 19, 2012, 11:52:47 AM
Show me the polls that say that show the Minnesota race tightening. These collection of polls say otherwise...http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2012/Pres/Graphs/minnesota.html
They don't. There were two taken right after the first debate. One showed Obama +10, the other +4. The latest poll has Obama at +10 again. It's not unreasonable to argue that Wisconsin
could be in play (not likely given that Romney has yet to be up in any poll there, but possible), but saying the Minnesota race is tightening is just wishful thinking.
That said, today wasn't a great day for the President. I still have him at 271, but the remainder of the battleground states were leaning in Romney's direction today. I'm not ready to call Iowa, for example, for Romney but PPP had him up by 1 there. Not that you should place much emphasis on a single poll, but it's enough to make me wonder. Romney also got good news in Virginia, with Rasmussen showing him up +3 (IOW, probably +1 in reality). PPP also had Romney +1 in New Hampshire.
So it wasn't really a great day in the polls for Romney, but it definitely wasn't a good day for the Obama, either.
Again, as far as Winsconsin being very much in play, Obama polled at 50% in a Rasmussen poll yesterday. Sure, if Romney has a strong ground game or the Democrats suddenly become demoralized and refuse to vote he could win. It's not likely, though. He has led in three polls so far this year, most recently in
August. If he couldn't pull out a win in at least one during his post-debate bounce, he's not likely to win. It's just competitive enough to give the news media something to talk about and give the campaigns a reason to continue spending money there, but unless there's a dramatic shift in the next two and a half weeks, Romney loses there.
The thing is that if Obama holds Wisconsin and the rest of his safe states, he only has to win Ohio and Nevada to get to 271. Romney has to win Florida and Ohio both, plus Virginia and either New Hampshire, Colorado, Iowa, or Nevada. (Or lose Virginia and get all of Colorado, Iowa, and New Hampshire) Point being that it's still an uphill battle for him. More likely than it was 3 weeks ago, but still an uphill battle.
On occasion I talk to a group of Wisonsins and the feeling I get from what is admittedly a very limited cross section is that Scott Walker notwithstanding, it is not that sure a bet for either side. And the ones who got stung with that recall craziness may just show up in a little bit bigger concentration than before. They seem to have been just a little bit complacent (just like the rest of the country) but some were very worked up over the recall and are not putting that energy into this campaign. Remains to be seen if it is just a tempest in a teapot....
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on October 19, 2012, 07:20:58 PM
On occasion I talk to a group of Wisonsins and the feeling I get from what is admittedly a very limited cross section is that Scott Walker notwithstanding, it is not that sure a bet for either side. And the ones who got stung with that recall craziness may just show up in a little bit bigger concentration than before. They seem to have been just a little bit complacent (just like the rest of the country) but some were very worked up over the recall and are not putting that energy into this campaign. Remains to be seen if it is just a tempest in a teapot....
That pretty much comports with all other available evidence, to-wit: Wisconsin is in play.
I guess I was almost expecting an Obama lean, since they are all big city people. Guess the city/country divide is a little blurry, too.
Quote from: Oil Capital on October 22, 2012, 12:40:50 PM
That pretty much comports with all other available evidence, to-wit: Wisconsin is in play.
So you think that Obama has a reasonable chance at winning Florida?
Quote from: nathanm on October 22, 2012, 07:06:19 PM
So you think that Obama has a reasonable chance at winning Florida?
I think Florida is still in play, although Obama's chances are quickly diminishing.
Quote from: Oil Capital on October 22, 2012, 09:01:48 PM
I think Florida is still in play, although Obama's chances are quickly diminishing.
You're late to the party...the dims know they can't do anything about all the rednecks in north Floriduh. Every democrat in Dade, Broward and Palm Beitch would have to turn out and vote for Obama to win the state. BUT THEY SURE GOT MITT TO MOVE HIS RESOURCES THERE OPENING UP OHIO FOR THE KILL.... why do so many angry Americans hate having smart people running our executive branch?
Quote from: Teatownclown on October 22, 2012, 09:17:29 PM
You're late to the party...the dims know they can't do anything about all the rednecks in north Floriduh. Every democrat in Dade, Broward and Palm Beitch would have to turn out and vote for Obama to win the state. BUT THEY SURE GOT MITT TO MOVE HIS RESOURCES THERE OPENING UP OHIO FOR THE KILL.... why do so many angry Americans hate having smart people running our executive branch?
ROFL Enjoy Election night.
Don't worry, I will....and the next 4 years watching all the bigots suffer inside their bubbles. :o
From Politico this morning:
Top strategists for both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney flooded the media center following the third and final presidential debate here Monday night, and made clear they will be primarily fighting over seven states and will spend most of their time and money in them between now and Nov. 6.
The main battlegrounds: Ohio, Iowa, Colorado, Virginia, New Hampshire, Florida and Wisconsin.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82739.html#ixzz2A8UMt8Lz (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82739.html#ixzz2A8UMt8Lz)
Quote from: Oil Capital on October 23, 2012, 10:58:44 AM
From Politico this morning:
Top strategists for both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney flooded the media center following the third and final presidential debate here Monday night, and made clear they will be primarily fighting over seven states and will spend most of their time and money in them between now and Nov. 6.
The main battlegrounds: Ohio, Iowa, Colorado, Virginia, New Hampshire, Florida and Wisconsin.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82739.html#ixzz2A8UMt8Lz (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82739.html#ixzz2A8UMt8Lz)
That's pretty close if they are going to spend a bunch of time fighting over four EC votes in New Hampshire.
Quote from: Oil Capital on October 23, 2012, 10:58:44 AM
From Politico this morning:
Top strategists for both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney flooded the media center following the third and final presidential debate here Monday night, and made clear they will be primarily fighting over seven states and will spend most of their time and money in them between now and Nov. 6.
The main battlegrounds: Ohio, Iowa, Colorado, Virginia, New Hampshire, Florida and Wisconsin.
Too bad we always miss out on that money.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 23, 2012, 11:24:59 AM
That's pretty close if they are going to spend a bunch of time fighting over four EC votes in New Hampshire.
Why would they do that, you ask? Because if Obama wins Nevada, Colorado, Iowa, Wisconsin, and New Hampshire, he can lose both Ohio and Virginia and still get to 272 EVs.
Quote from: Townsend on October 23, 2012, 11:36:53 AM
Too bad we always miss out on that money.
It is not too late for next time. All we need is to convince about 50,000 Oklahomans to switch their Romney votes to Obama votes.
Then we will be in play and the campaign money will be rolling in in 2016.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on October 23, 2012, 12:38:42 PM
It is not too late for next time. All we need is to convince about 50,000 Oklahomans to switch their Romney votes to Obama votes.
Then we will be in play and the campaign money will be rolling in in 2016.
It was easy for the Romney ticket to fool these folks. It is much harder to show them they've been fooled.
Maybe next time.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on October 23, 2012, 12:38:42 PM
It is not too late for next time. All we need is to convince about 50,000 Oklahomans to switch their Romney votes to Obama votes.
Then we will be in play and the campaign money will be rolling in in 2016.
It would require a LOT more than 50,000 voters to switch before Oklahoma gets anywhere near to being in play.
OK. Maybe more like 228,725 votes.
Then it would be a tie.
Quote from: Townsend on October 23, 2012, 12:45:57 PM
It was easy for the Romney ticket to fool these folks. It is much harder to show them they've been fooled.
Maybe next time.
So that explains why Obama is counting so heavily on repeat votes from '08.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 23, 2012, 01:28:26 PM
So that explains why Obama is counting so heavily on repeat votes from '08.
Oh you can't just use mine. Come up with a scathingly brilliant retort.
Quote from: Townsend on October 23, 2012, 01:31:01 PM
Oh you can't just use mine. Come up with a scathingly brilliant retort.
I'm just not able to channel scathing or brilliant this afternoon, sorry for the bogart, it's all I got right now.
Quote from: Oil Capital on October 23, 2012, 10:58:44 AM
The main battlegrounds: Ohio, Iowa, Colorado, Virginia, New Hampshire, Florida and Wisconsin.
That would mean that Obama has 242 electoral votes and Romney has 206 electoral votes locked up.
If Obama wins Florida, he wins. If Obama wins Ohio and Virginia, he wins. If Obama wins Ohio and any two of the other states (Nevada, Colorado, Iowa and Wisconsin) he wins.
Romney pretty much has to win Florida, Ohio and either Wisconsin or Virginia to win.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on October 23, 2012, 01:37:16 PM
That would mean that Obama has 242 electoral votes and Romney has 206 electoral votes locked up.
If Obama wins Florida, he wins. If Obama wins Ohio and Virginia, he wins. If Obama wins Ohio and any two of the other states (Nevada, Colorado, Iowa and Wisconsin) he wins.
Romney pretty much has to win Florida, Ohio and either Wisconsin or Virginia to win.
Except there is obviously a category that falls in between "main battleground" and "locked up". Nevada, for example, whose absence from that list is inexplicable. Nevada is very much in play... Romney and Obama are both visiting this week.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on October 23, 2012, 01:37:16 PM
That would mean that Obama has 242 electoral votes and Romney has 206 electoral votes locked up.
If Obama wins Florida, he wins. If Obama wins Ohio and Virginia, he wins. If Obama wins Ohio and any two of the other states (Nevada, Colorado, Iowa and Wisconsin) he wins.
Romney pretty much has to win Florida, Ohio and either Wisconsin or Virginia to win.
What's your bookie saying the odds are on those right now?
Quote from: Conan71 on October 23, 2012, 01:50:42 PM
What's your bookie saying the odds are on those right now?
My bookie and my insurance guy are the same person. I pay them a little every month and if something bad happens, the insurance man pays. If something good happens, the bookie pays me.
Quote from: Oil Capital on October 23, 2012, 01:47:13 PM
Nevada is very much in play
Whatever helps you sleep at night. Even Rasmussen has Obama +3 in Nevada. It's hard to believe that Romney has a good chance of exceeding his high water mark after the first debate. This race has been very hard to move so far. I believe if you average out the numbers, Romney got about two points for showing that he wasn't a complete buffoon and that's been the largest shift in the election so far.
Barring a major October surprise, I just don't see how things are going to drift that far in Romney's direction after having lost two of the three debates and neither candidate having much in the way of momentum at the moment. Obama has been creeping up slightly, but it's slight and I don't see it going much farther.
Like my view on Wisconsin, I think the only way Romney wins Nevada is if it turns into a wave election in which case it won't matter because he'll have already won North Carolina, Florida, Virginia, New Hampshire, and Ohio.
Quote from: nathanm on October 23, 2012, 02:36:12 PM
Barring a major October surprise
Trump. He will blow your mind.
Quote from: Townsend on October 23, 2012, 02:40:47 PM
Trump. He will blow your mind.
Probably about as much as Obama explaining to Romney how planes land on aircraft carriers and illustrating with his hands like he was talking to a four year old.
This Map has OH, NV, WI, CO NH, and IA leaning BLUE and AZ, CO, FL and NC leaning RED with VA a tie.
SOURCE: http://electoral-vote.com/ (http://electoral-vote.com/)
(http://electoral-vote.com/evp2012/Pres/Pngs/Oct23.png)
I saw a discussion this morning about an EC tie...that is what I would LOVE to see in this election....it would most likely mean Romney as President and Biden as Vice President. How cool would that be??
Quote from: nathanm on October 23, 2012, 02:36:12 PM
Whatever helps you sleep at night. Even Rasmussen has Obama +3 in Nevada. It's hard to believe that Romney has a good chance of exceeding his high water mark after the first debate. This race has been very hard to move so far. I believe if you average out the numbers, Romney got about two points for showing that he wasn't a complete buffoon and that's been the largest shift in the election so far.
Barring a major October surprise, I just don't see how things are going to drift that far in Romney's direction after having lost two of the three debates and neither candidate having much in the way of momentum at the moment. Obama has been creeping up slightly, but it's slight and I don't see it going much farther.
Like my view on Wisconsin, I think the only way Romney wins Nevada is if it turns into a wave election in which case it won't matter because he'll have already won North Carolina, Florida, Virginia, New Hampshire, and Ohio.
Staying connected with reality does help me sleep at night. ;-)
If Nevada is not in play why would
both Obama and Romney be spending crucial time and money there in the final two weeks of the campaign? Even the hallowed Nate Silver lists Nevada as competitive.
In another thread you claimed Obama is moving up in state polls. In which states have Obama's poll standings recently improved?
Quote from: Oil Capital on October 24, 2012, 08:57:28 AM
Staying connected with reality does help me sleep at night. ;-)
If Nevada is not in play why would both Obama and Romney be spending crucial time and money there in the final two weeks of the campaign? Even the hallowed Nate Silver lists Nevada as competitive.
In another thread you claimed Obama is moving up in state polls. In which states have Obama's poll standings recently improved?
How about we do this?
How about YOU cite the polls where his haven't improved or have gotten worse. Since you seem to like to ask people for citations.
Quote from: Hoss on October 24, 2012, 09:50:26 AM
How about we do this?
How about YOU cite the polls where his haven't improved or have gotten worse. Since you seem to like to ask people for citations.
Quick Robin! To the Bat Fox News website!
(http://ct.politicomments.com/ol/pc/sw/i55/5/9/10/pc_dda7501fe12248627352cdca71272cad.jpg)
Quote from: Oil Capital on October 24, 2012, 08:57:28 AM
If Nevada is not in play why would both Obama and Romney be spending crucial time and money there in the final two weeks of the campaign?
Maybe they were not
spending money there. Maybe they were getting money there.
Quote from: Hoss on October 24, 2012, 09:50:26 AM
How about we do this?
How about YOU cite the polls where his haven't improved or have gotten worse. Since you seem to like to ask people for citations.
(http://bp1.blogger.com/_g4L3ucPD5R4/RrIy3myHH-I/AAAAAAAAAvs/1fwIheBtYQI/s320/panic_button2.jpg)
This is just hilarious watching the left acting like someone stole their wubby. Seriously, when you are left relying on a 30 something man child that used to post at DailyKOs to prop up your positive election news, you've pretty much hit bottom.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on October 24, 2012, 10:21:11 AM
Maybe they were not spending money there. Maybe they were getting money there.
LOL
Maybe... Except there's that pesky little thing called reality. Both Obama and Romney are doing campaign events, not fund-raising events, in Nevada this week. (It would be an even worse sign for any campaign to be doing fund-raising stops at this late date.)
Quote from: Oil Capital on October 24, 2012, 12:24:14 PM
LOL Maybe... Except there's that pesky little thing called reality. Both Obama and Romney are doing campaign events, not fund-raising events, in Nevada this week. (It would be an even worse sign for any campaign to be doing fund-raising stops at this late date.)
You want reality...
http://fundrace.huffingtonpost.com/neighbors.php?type=name&oldest=1&lname=adelson&fname=First+Name&search=Search+Names
Millions and millions of campaign contributions to political campaigns and PACs. And that is just from one husband and wife.
If you don't believe that campaign stops are for more than just kissing babies for the photographers, you are naive.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on October 24, 2012, 01:09:11 PM
You want reality...
http://fundrace.huffingtonpost.com/neighbors.php?type=name&oldest=1&lname=adelson&fname=First+Name&search=Search+Names
Millions and millions of campaign contributions to political campaigns and PACs. And that is just from one husband and wife.
If you don't believe that campaign stops are for more than just kissing babies for the photographers, you are naive.
Whatever, dude. If you think that the fact that Romney raised money from Las Vegas donors early this year somehow proves that (or is even relevant to whether) he is now in Reno on a fundraising visit rather than a campaign event stop, well, there is just nothing I can do for you.
With both candidates going to Nevada, I just assumed both were degenerate gamblers.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 24, 2012, 01:32:16 PM
With both candidates going to Nevada, I just assumed both were degenerate gamblers.
Cashing in the flyers handed out on the Strip.
Quote from: Townsend on October 24, 2012, 01:33:33 PM
Cashing in the flyers handed out on the Strip.
I bet Romney saves a ton at the stripper bars by not drinking.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 24, 2012, 01:35:03 PM
I bet Romney saves a ton at the stripper bars by not drinking.
He buys those $100 non alcoholic drinks that the dancers love.
Quote from: Oil Capital on October 24, 2012, 01:16:21 PM
Whatever, dude. If you think that the fact that Romney raised money from Las Vegas donors early this year somehow proves that (or is even relevant to whether) he is now in Reno on a fundraising visit rather than a campaign event stop, well, there is just nothing I can do for you.
Who would ever go to Reno to raise money?
http://www.kcra.com/news/politics/Romney-rakes-in-more-than-1M-at-Reno-fundraisers/-/11797268/15972822/-/10yrme8/-/index.html
http://www.lvrj.com/news/10597162.html
Quote from: RecycleMichael on October 24, 2012, 02:00:41 PM
Who would ever go to Reno to raise money?
http://www.kcra.com/news/politics/Romney-rakes-in-more-than-1M-at-Reno-fundraisers/-/11797268/15972822/-/10yrme8/-/index.html
http://www.lvrj.com/news/10597162.html
Is it really that difficult for you to follow along, or are you just that dishonest?
Nobody every said or suggested the candidates did not raise money in Nevada, either Las Vegas or Reno. Fundraising having been conducted in Reno in early 2012 has no relevance to whether the campaigns are doing campaign events this week in Nevada. No matter what other irrelevant bluster you may post, the reality is, both campaigns are doing campaign events (not just fund-raising events) in Nevada THIS week. That is a sure sign of a state that is in play.
Quote from: Hoss on October 24, 2012, 09:50:26 AM
How about we do this?
How about YOU cite the polls where his haven't improved or have gotten worse. Since you seem to like to ask people for citations.
How about we do this?
It's more than a little disingenuous to demand citations from someone not making a particular claim.
How about I provide backup and sources for claims I make and you and Nathan provide backup and sources for claims you and Nathan make?
Quote from: Oil Capital on October 24, 2012, 04:03:27 PM
How about we do this?
It's more than a little disingenuous to demand citations from someone not making a particular claim.
How about I provide backup and sources for claims I make and you and Nathan provide backup and sources for claims you and Nathan make?
I use Gweeds favorite - 538, as I always have. I cited it last election cycle and will continue to cite it as he has been proven to be pretty close to the mark in the last two election cycles.
Whether or not you agree with it isn't my concern.
Quote from: Oil Capital on October 24, 2012, 08:57:28 AM
In another thread you claimed Obama is moving up in state polls. In which states have Obama's poll standings recently improved?
Why don't you go over to realclearpolitics.com and click the link that says "latest election 2012 polls" and look for yourself? Then be amazed that Obama is still several points ahead in Ohio and Nevada. "In play" does not mean "could go either way".
Quote from: Oil Capital on October 24, 2012, 03:54:16 PM
(It would be an even worse sign for any campaign to be doing fund-raising stops at this late date.)
Is it really that difficult for you to follow along, or are you just that dishonest?
Campaigns don't stop fundraising. Many times campaigns even have fundraisers after the election.
You are just wrong.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on October 24, 2012, 04:38:37 PM
Campaigns don't stop fundraising. Many times campaigns even have fundraisers after the election.
You are just wrong.
I NEVER said campaigns stop fund-raising. Stop with the strawmen. This whole discussion started with your suggesting that Romney and Obama are going to Nevada to raise money, not to do campaign events. YOU are just wrong. The reality is Obama and Romney are BOTH doing campaign events in Nevada this week.
Quote from: nathanm on October 24, 2012, 04:29:17 PM
Why don't you go over to realclearpolitics.com and click the link that says "latest election 2012 polls" and look for yourself? Then be amazed that Obama is still several points ahead in Ohio and Nevada. "In play" does not mean "could go either way".
I go there multiple times every day. Why is it so difficult for you to just tell me which states you are referring to?
But just for fun, here is what currently shown for
Ohio:
Rassmussen has gone from O +1 last week to TIED today. Obama moving down
SurveyUSA has gone from O +3 on Oct. 15 to O+3 on Oct 22. Obama not moving up
PPP has gone from O+5 on Oct. 13 to O+1 on Oct. 20. Obama moving down
Quinnipiac has gone from O+10 on Sept. 24 to O+5 on Oct. 20. Obama moving down
Gravis has gone from R+1 on Oct. 10 to TIED on Oct. 19. Obama moving up.
Fox News has gone from O+7 on Sept. 18 to O+3 on Oct. 18. Obama moving down.
The RCP graph goes from O+0.8 on Oct. 10 to O+2.1 on October 24. Obama moving up.
Poll Trends in Florida:
Rassmussen went from R+4 on Oct. 11 to R+5 On Oct. 18. Obama moving down.
Fox News went from O+5 on Sept. 18 to R+3 on Oct. 18. Obama moving down.
PPP went from R +1 on Oct. 14 to R +1 on Oct 18. Obama not moving up. (It was O+4 in PPPs prior poll Sep 23)
SurveyUSA went from O+4 on Sept. 9 to O+1 on Oct 18. Obama moving down.
CNN went from O+4 on Aug 26 to R+1 on Oct. 18. Obama moving down.
The RCP graph goes from R+0.7 on Oct. 9 to R+1.8 on Oct. 23. Obama moving down.
Quote from: Oil Capital on October 24, 2012, 04:51:46 PM
I NEVER said campaigns stop fund-raising. Stop with the strawmen. This whole discussion started with your suggesting that Romney and Obama are going to Nevada to raise money, not to do campaign events. YOU are just wrong. The reality is Obama and Romney are BOTH doing campaign events in Nevada this week.
I was using your own words. My bad.
That's bizarre. I look at the graph for Ohio and it clearly shows Romney's vote share declining over the past two weeks while Obama's has increased slightly. Don't cherry pick, bud. Same time period in Nevada, Romney's vote share is flat, Obama's has increased. Wisconsin, same time period, both men's vote share has decreased, but Romney's by a larger amount, thus increasing Obama's margin. Colorado, same time period. Romney is slightly ahead, but has not seen an increase in his vote share while Obama has closed the gap. Should I continue?
Let's check Virginia:
Rassmussen goes from R+2 on Oct. 11 to R+3 on Oct. 18. Obama moving down.
ARG goes from O+2 on Sept. 27 to R+1 on Oct. 14. Obama moving down.
NBC goes from O+2 on Oct. 1 to R+1 on Oct. 9. Obama moving down.
Quinnipiac goes from O+4 on Sept. 17 to O+5 on Oct. 9. Obama moving up.
PPP goes from O+5 on Sept. 16 to O+3 on Oct. 7. Obama moving down.
WeAskAmerica goes from O+3 on Sept. 17 to R+3 on Oct. 4. Obama moving down.
The RCP graph goes from O+0.3 on Oct. 10 to TIED on Oct. 24. Obama moving down.
Quote from: Oil Capital on October 24, 2012, 05:16:20 PM
Let's check Virginia:
Quinnipiac goes from O+4 on Sept. 17 to O+5 on Oct. 9. Obama moving down.
Do you need a calculator? Maybe math is not your strong suit. Insulting people seems to be your skill set.
Quote from: nathanm on October 24, 2012, 05:15:36 PM
That's bizarre. I look at the graph for Ohio and it clearly shows Romney's vote share declining over the past two weeks while Obama's has increased slightly. Don't cherry pick, bud. Same time period in Nevada, Romney's vote share is flat, Obama's has increased. Wisconsin, same time period, both men's vote share has decreased, but Romney's by a larger amount, thus increasing Obama's margin. Colorado, same time period. Romney is slightly ahead, but has not seen an increase in his vote share while Obama has closed the gap. Should I continue?
No cherry picking here, dude. I compared all of the recent polls shown on RCP with the prior polls conducted by the same pollster. If there's a flaw in what I've posted, please share. The flaw in relying on RCP's graph is that is is comparing one set of polls with a set of polls that is not necessarily the same pollsters/methodologies, etc. Personally, I'm much more comfortable with my comparison for the purposes of identifying the trends, but both are worth looking at.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on October 24, 2012, 05:18:06 PM
Do you need a calculator? Maybe math is not your strong suit. Insulting people seems to be your skill set.
Good catch. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I have corrected the post.
Iowa:
Rassmussen goes from O+2 on Oct. 7 to TIED on Oct. 21. Obama going down.
PPP goes from O+7 on Sept 26 to R+1 on Oct. 19. Obama going down.
NBC goes from O+8 on Sept. 18 to O+8 on Oct. 17. Obama not going up.
WeAskAmerica goes from O+4 pm Sept 27 to O+3 on Oct. 15. Obama going down.
ARG goes from O+7 on Sept. 23 to TIED on Oct. 14. Obama going down.
The RCP graph goes from O+3.2 on October 8 to O+2.0 on October 22. Obama going down.
Quote from: Oil Capital on October 24, 2012, 05:23:52 PM
No cherry picking here, dude. I compared all of the recent polls shown on RCP with the prior polls conducted by the same pollster. If there's a flaw in what I've posted, please share. The flaw in relying on RCP's graph is that is is comparing one set of polls with a set of polls that is not necessarily the same pollsters/methodologies, etc. Personally, I'm much more comfortable with my comparison for the purposes of identifying the trends, but both are worth looking at.
So basically you think that taking the mathematical average of all the "recent" polls isn't a good way of capturing the trends in the race? Ok. Needless to say, I strongly disagree. (I prefer to take the median, but the mean is usually close enough anyway) Averaging reduces the amount of noise inherent in any given poll. Statistically speaking, you'll see random fluctuations of 3-4% in the same poll just because of sampling error. If you average out many polls, sampling error is reduced as a proportion of the real signal you're looking for.
Also, as far as I can tell, all the polls this month reported on RCP are likely voter polls. Either way, I think we can both agree that neither candidate is broadly improving their position at present, although Romney clearly improved his standing after the first debate. (How much of that was due to the shift to LV rather than RV numbers being reported, I don't know)
Colorado:
Rassmussen goes from O+1 on Oct. 7 to R+4 on Oct. 21. Obama moving down
PPP goes from O+6 on Sept. 23 to O+3 on Oct. 18. Obama moving down.
WeAskAmerica goes from O+3 on Sept. 27 to R+1 on Oct. 15. Obama moving down.
SurveyUSA goes from O+1 to Sept. 12 to R+1 on Oct. 10. Obama moving down.
Gravis goes from R+3 on Oct. 4 to O+2 on Oct. 11. Obama moving up.
ARG goes from O+2 on Sept. 12 to R+4 on Oct. 8. Obama moving up.
Quinnipiac goes from O+1 on Sept. 1 to R+1 on Oct. 9. Obama moving up.
The RCP graph goes from R+0.5 on Oct. 9 to R+0.2 on Oct. 23. Obama moving up.
Quote from: nathanm on October 24, 2012, 05:42:23 PM
So basically you think that taking the mathematical average of all the "recent" polls isn't a good way of capturing the trends in the race? Ok. Needless to say, I strongly disagree. (I prefer to take the median, but the mean is usually close enough anyway) Averaging reduces the amount of noise inherent in any given poll. Statistically speaking, you'll see random fluctuations of 3-4% in the same poll just because of sampling error. If you average out many polls, sampling error is reduced as a proportion of the real signal you're looking for.
Also, as far as I can tell, all the polls this month reported on RCP are likely voter polls. Either way, I think we can both agree that neither candidate is broadly improving their position at present, although Romney clearly improved his standing after the first debate. (How much of that was due to the shift to LV rather than RV numbers being reported, I don't know)
I think using the mathematical averages of all recent polls is a good method to get the current state of the race. I am not a statistician, but for purposes of showing or identifying a trend, it strikes me as flawed to compare one set of polls for one period with a different set of polls for another period. We can easily apply an average to my group of poll changes to remove the noise inherent in any given poll. (The flaw in that is that the comparisons are not over the same periods.) Because I think both methods have flaws, I think it's important to look at both.
Nevada:
PPP goes from O+4 on Oct. 10 to O+4 on Oct. 24. Obama not moving up (the prior PPP poll: O+9)
Rassmussen goes from TIED on Oct. 8 to O+2 on Oct. 23. Obama moving up.
ARG goes from O+7 on Sept. 23 to O+2 on Oct. 22. Obama moving down.
LVRJ goes from O+1 on Oct. 8 to O+3 on Oct. 15. Obama moving up.
The RCP graph goes from O+1.5 on Oct. 10 to O+2.7 on Oct. 24. Obama moving up.
Wisconsin:
Rassmussen goes from O+2 on Oct. 9 to O+2 on Oct. 18. Obama not moving up.
NBC goes from O+5 on Sept. 18 to O+6 on Oct. 17. Obama moving up.
Marquette goes from O+11 on Sept. 30 to O+1 on Oct. 14. Obama moving down.
Quinnipiac goes from O+6 on Sept. 17 to O+3 on Oct. 9. Obama moving down.
PPP goes from O+7 on Sept. 19 to O+2 on Oct. 6. Obama moving down.
The RCP graph goes from O+6.6 on Oct. 9 to O+2.7 on Oct. 23. Obama moving down.
On a completely different note, Obama has ridiculous leads in early voting in both Ohio and Nevada, but in both states pollsters have reported that those who have yet to vote are slightly favoring Romney. The crosstabs on PPP's Nevada release today are just dismal for Romney. Not that you should place too much stock in a single poll, but bear with me. Obama is up 22 points among the third of the sample that claims to have already voted. He trails by 6 points among the other two thirds of the sample.
Also, if we scrape together 20 grand, we can hire PPP to do a tracking poll in Ohio for the remainder of the cycle.
Oi. Oil Capital spam. most polls you are currently citing do not reflect the final two debates...
A few things.... First debate was Oct. 3rd. Second debate (VP) was Oct 11th. Third debate was Oct 16th. Final debate was Oct 22nd.
... some polls post an average of a few days worth (Gallup does six)... some swing state polls barely publish more than 1-2 times per month... most polls have a disclaimer stating differences of 2-3 points are basically meaningless...
INHO, these polls are not much different than Vegas odds... except the odds are being given while part of the game is still being played...
However, if Nate Silver says Obama has a 67% chance of winning two weeks before the vote and Romney ends up winning... Republicans will claim LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS!
Go figure.... :P
Quote from: nathanm on October 24, 2012, 06:13:21 PM
On a completely different note, Obama has ridiculous leads in early voting in both Ohio and Nevada, but in both states pollsters have reported that those who have yet to vote are slightly favoring Romney. The crosstabs on PPP's Nevada release today are just dismal for Romney. Not that you should place too much stock in a single poll, but bear with me. Obama is up 22 points among the third of the sample that claims to have already voted. He trails by 6 points among the other two thirds of the sample.
Also, if we scrape together 20 grand, we can hire PPP to do a tracking poll in Ohio for the remainder of the cycle.
How does the 1/3 who have claimed to have voted compare to the number that have actually voted? Any idea?
I did a little searching and it tells us that this poll may have some significant flaws The poll claims 34% of voters have already voted.
In 2008, approximately 967,000 votes were cast for President. If we presume a similar percentage voter turnout this year, the 34% stated in the poll would mean 341,117 people had already voted. The Secretary of State's office says 214,609 votes have been cast. That is only 21% of the the anticipated vote. This is one of the few occasions and issues in which we can fact-check a poll in real time.
Quote from: Oil Capital on October 24, 2012, 07:07:12 PM
How does the 1/3 who have claimed to have voted compare to the number that have actually voted? Any idea?
As of the last update, 24% of the 2008 electorate in Nevada has voted. I'm not sure how much registration has grown since 2008, though. In 2008, 66% of the Nevada electorate voted early.
Quote from: nathanm on October 24, 2012, 07:39:18 PM
As of the last update, 24% of the 2008 electorate in Nevada has voted. I'm not sure how much registration has grown since 2008, though. In 2008, 66% of the Nevada electorate voted early.
Nevada has 1,500,818 registered voters for the 2012 election.
It looks like they had 1,446,538 registered voters in 2008. Registration has not grown by a huge amount, but it has grown. See my post above. The PPP poll looks pretty flawed.
Quote from: TulsaRufnex on October 24, 2012, 06:15:39 PM
Oi. Oil Capital spam. most polls you are currently citing do not reflect the final two debates...
A few things.... First debate was Oct. 3rd. Second debate (VP) was Oct 11th. Third debate was Oct 16th. Final debate was Oct 22nd.
... some polls post an average of a few days worth (Gallup does six)... some swing state polls barely publish more than 1-2 times per month... most polls have a disclaimer stating differences of 2-3 points are basically meaningless...
INHO, these polls are not much different than Vegas odds... except the odds are being given while part of the game is still being played...
However, if Nate Silver says Obama has a 67% chance of winning two weeks before the vote and Romney ends up winning... Republicans will claim LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS!
Go figure.... :P
Sorry you don't like the numbers. They are what they are. I am merely reporting the most recent poll results available. If you have something more recent, bring it on.
Oil Crapital, I'll buy you a Big Green Burrito from Carl Jr.'s if Willard wins Nevada. You don't need to give me anything...
Quote from: Oil Capital on October 24, 2012, 08:09:44 PM
Sorry you don't like the numbers. They are what they are. I am merely reporting the most recent poll results available. If you have something more recent, bring it on.
No, the numbers don't concern me at this point... I'm simply pointing out the numbers you are spamming us with are already out of date.
Most numbers are within the margin of error.
Have a nice day.
Quote from: Teatownclown on October 24, 2012, 09:28:03 PM
Oil Crapital, I'll buy you a Big Green Burrito from Carl Jr.'s if Willard wins Nevada. You don't need to give me anything...
Please don't. ;-)
Quote from: Oil Capital on October 24, 2012, 12:24:14 PM
(It would be an even worse sign for any campaign to be doing fund-raising stops at this late date.)
http://www.news8000.com/news/politics/Romney-campaign-reports-massive-fund-raising-haul/-/1032/17128076/-/ildq3u/-/index.html
The latest numbers do not include fund-raising that occurred around the final presidential debate, which took place Monday, October 22. A major super PAC supporting Romney's candidacy had a strong night, too, the group's founder said the day after the debate.
"I think that today will probably be the best fund-raising day we've had, if not one of the top two fund-raising days we've ever had," Charlie Spies of Restore our Future said on CNN's Erin Burnett "OutFront."
In September, the Romney effort raised $170 million, while President Barack Obama's team raised $181 million last month.
Romney's campaign announced they held their final fund-raiser for the cycle on Saturday, shifting focus to public rallies in the final two weeks of the race.
Through the end of September, Romney had raised more than $361.3 million this cycle, Federal Election Commission records show.
His running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan, however, continues to attend fund-raisers this week.Is this enough proof to admit you are wrong? Or are you going to just call me names again?
Quote from: RecycleMichael on October 25, 2012, 10:55:27 AM
http://www.news8000.com/news/politics/Romney-campaign-reports-massive-fund-raising-haul/-/1032/17128076/-/ildq3u/-/index.html
The latest numbers do not include fund-raising that occurred around the final presidential debate, which took place Monday, October 22. A major super PAC supporting Romney's candidacy had a strong night, too, the group's founder said the day after the debate.
"I think that today will probably be the best fund-raising day we've had, if not one of the top two fund-raising days we've ever had," Charlie Spies of Restore our Future said on CNN's Erin Burnett "OutFront."
In September, the Romney effort raised $170 million, while President Barack Obama's team raised $181 million last month.
Romney's campaign announced they held their final fund-raiser for the cycle on Saturday, shifting focus to public rallies in the final two weeks of the race.
Through the end of September, Romney had raised more than $361.3 million this cycle, Federal Election Commission records show.
His running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan, however, continues to attend fund-raisers this week.[/b]
Is this enough proof to admit you are wrong? Or are you going to just call me names again?
Dude, no where did I say the campaigns do not continue to raise funds during the final stages of the campaign. I said that Obama and Romney would not be spending time at fund raisers. Your quoted article actually confirms my position with regard to Romney.
I'm a little surprised that Ryan is doing as much fund-raising as he is this week, but my point was really about the top dogs. And more to the point, this whole ridiculous discussion was about the Romney and Obama events in Nevada this week. As I originally said, they both conducted campaign events, NOT fund-raising events. Where is your evidence otherwise? When do you admit you are wrong?
Who uses the word "Dude?"
All I said was that maybe the candidates were going to Nevada to also fund raise as well. You went off and said they are not and how embarrassing it would be to do a fundraising stop at this late date.
I show evidence that candidates are still doing fundraising stops.
Yet you insist that I am wrong.
Dude.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on October 25, 2012, 11:16:41 AM
Who uses the word "Dude?"
All I said was that maybe the candidates were going to Nevada to also fund raise as well. You went off and said they are not and how embarrassing it would be to do a fundraising stop at this late date.
I show evidence that candidates are still doing fundraising stops.
Yet you insist that I am wrong.
Dude.
Yeah, you were wrong. Romney and Obama did NOT go to Nevada to raise funds
.
It is like having a battle of the wits and you are only half a wit. I will type this slow so that you might understand.
I said they were maybe going to also raise some money while in Nevada. I didn't say they were not going to campaign.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on October 25, 2012, 11:28:26 AM
It is like having a battle of the wits and you are only half a wit.
With you being the other half? ;D
Looking at the crosstabs from recent Florida polls, it seems that Hispanics in general are not terribly keen on Obama there, which stands in stark contrast to the rest of the country. If your first thought is "but, the Cubans, they are quite Republican," you're in good company. They don't make up much of Florida's Hispanic population these days, though. Also, almost all the polls that show Romney with a comfortable lead are landline-only. Poll cell phones and the race is basically tied.
I wonder if Romney has been more aggressive with spanish language attack ads there than he has elsewhere or something.
Edited to add: And Romney better not get too comfortable with Gravis showing him up by only 1 point there today.
Interesting to note, and I realize it is not scientific, but the greater majority of my Hispanic friends in the Tulsa area are staunch Romney supporters. Doesn't matter if they were born here or naturalized. I suppose it's the red in the water.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 25, 2012, 02:22:32 PM
Interesting to note, and I realize it is not scientific, but the greater majority of my Hispanic friends in the Tulsa area are staunch Romney supporters. Doesn't matter if they were born here or naturalized. I suppose it's the red in the water.
Would be nice if we could get a few opinion polls here in Oklahoma. I'd like to know how Bridenstine-Olson is going from someone not hired by the Bridenstine campaign.
Quote from: nathanm on October 25, 2012, 02:34:35 PM
Would be nice if we could get a few opinion polls here in Oklahoma. I'd like to know how Bridenstine-Olson is going from someone not hired by the Bridenstine campaign.
Olson would be a perfectly good conservative candidate in most states. He doesn't stand a chance in OK with that "D" by his name.
Quote from: nathanm on October 25, 2012, 02:34:35 PM
Would be nice if we could get a few opinion polls here in Oklahoma. I'd like to know how Bridenstine-Olson is going from someone not hired by the Bridenstine campaign.
Bridenstine has out raised Olson by 35%. How often does the outcome mirror the fundraising?
Quote from: carltonplace on October 25, 2012, 02:36:44 PM
Olson would be a perfectly good conservative candidate in most states. He doesn't stand a chance in OK with that "D" by his name.
His watch party is at Cain's. Another reason elections should be on weekends.
Quote from: Townsend on October 25, 2012, 02:45:51 PM
His watch party is at Cain's. Another reason elections should be on weekends.
Why are elections on Tuesdays. Seems like Sunday would be the optimal day.
Quote from: erfalf on October 25, 2012, 02:47:53 PM
Why are elections on Tuesdays. Seems like Sunday would be the optimal day.
QuoteWhen election day was selected by Congress in 1845 the country was mainly an agricultural society. November was chosen because the fall harvest was over and it was still mild enough for farmers and rural workers to be able to travel to the polls over unimproved roads.
Tuesday was chosen because most of the country had to travel a great distance to the polls in their counties. Monday was not reasonable because that would mean that people would have to start travel on Sunday and that would interfere with church services. The second Tuesday was chosen for two reasons, one, to keep election day from falling on all saints day and secondly, merchants were accustomed to doing their books on the first of the month.
Quote from: Hoss on October 25, 2012, 02:55:26 PM
Thanks for posting. A tad antiquated. Although the rules were made so that the maximum amount of people would be able to vote. Well, I think the time has come to revisit these rules to decide when the optimum time for elections would be.
I guess we just stick with the Tuesday thing for every other election as well, for no other reason than the federal elections are on Tuesday?
Quote from: Conan71 on October 25, 2012, 02:22:32 PM
Interesting to note, and I realize it is not scientific, but the greater majority of my Hispanic friends in the Tulsa area are staunch Romney supporters. Doesn't matter if they were born here or naturalized. I suppose it's the red in the water.
Not my experience at all... please continue... did they say this in spanish? were they co-workers? ::)
Government Sues Tulsa-Area Restaurants Over $1 Million In Unpaid Wageshttp://m.newson6.com/story.aspx?story=19913654&catId=112042
QuoteThe suit was filed in federal court against the restaurants and owner Carlos Aguirre and seeks to recover the full amount of back wages for the employees as well as an injunction prohibiting future violations.
"The restaurant industry employs some of our country's lowest-paid, most vulnerable workers," said Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis. "When violations of the FLSA are discovered, the Labor Department will take appropriate action to ensure workers receive the wages they have earned and to which they are legally entitled."
The news release says the investigation determined employees, who in some cases worked as many as 72 hours in a week, were paid a fixed salary without overtime compensation for hours beyond 40 in a week.
The department also says employees did not always receive at least the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour.
Investigators say they also found that wait personnel were required to turn their tips over to management at the end of every shift, which caused their pay to fall below the minimum wage.
Quote from: Hoss on October 25, 2012, 02:55:26 PM
When election day was selected by Congress in 1845 the country was mainly an agricultural society. November was chosen because the fall harvest was over and it was still mild enough for farmers and rural workers to be able to travel to the polls over unimproved roads.
Tuesday was chosen because most of the country had to travel a great distance to the polls in their counties. Monday was not reasonable because that would mean that people would have to start travel on Sunday and that would interfere with church services. The second Tuesday was chosen for two reasons, one, to keep election day from falling on all saints day and secondly, merchants were accustomed to doing their books on the first of the month.
Sure makes getting a voter ID sound like much less of an asspain now, doesn't it?
Quote from: carltonplace on October 25, 2012, 02:36:44 PM
Olson would be a perfectly good conservative candidate in most states. He doesn't stand a chance in OK with that "D" by his name.
I think he could have mopped up in OK D-2. He's much like Dan Boren.
I intend to vote for him unless they find a corpse in his trunk between now and election day.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 25, 2012, 04:02:11 PM
I intend to vote for him unless they find a corpse in his trunk between now and election day.
I probably won't vote for Olson if they find a corpse in his trunk, but that still won't get me to vote for Bridenstine.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 25, 2012, 04:02:11 PM
I intend to vote for him unless they find a corpse in his trunk between now and election day.
A plus for him that they've already found the corpse then.
Quote from: Townsend on October 25, 2012, 04:07:10 PM
A plus for him that they've already found the corpse then.
Was there a bloody, stainless hook next to the body?
Quote from: Conan71 on October 25, 2012, 04:07:53 PM
Was there a bloody, stainless hook next to the body?
Hanging from the door handle.
Quote from: erfalf on October 25, 2012, 03:01:09 PM
Thanks for posting. A tad antiquated. Although the rules were made so that the maximum amount of people would be able to vote. Well, I think the time has come to revisit these rules to decide when the optimum time for elections would be.
I guess we just stick with the Tuesday thing for every other election as well, for no other reason than the federal elections are on Tuesday?
It's Tuesday because that is what the Congress said to do.
Seriously, this might be the place to discuss it - what day would be a better day?? And why??
My thought is that there is no real reason to change it - how would it be better any other time, especially with all the absentee and early voting possibilities available now?
Quote from: Oil Capital on October 25, 2012, 11:05:48 AM
As I originally said, they both conducted campaign events, NOT fund-raising events. Where is your evidence otherwise?
Why look...Vegas billionaire gives $10 million dollars to Romney campaign this week.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/26/us-usa-campaign-money-adelson-idUSBRE89P04I20121026
Sorry oil capital. Proof that you are wrong.
Checkmate.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on October 26, 2012, 07:30:42 AM
Why look...Vegas billionaire gives $10 million dollars to Romney campaign this week.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/26/us-usa-campaign-money-adelson-idUSBRE89P04I20121026
Sorry oil capital. Proof that you are wrong.
Checkmate.
ROFL You CANNOT be serious! The only thing you have proven is your own dishonesty. Are you just throwing up random links?
How do early October contributions to a PAC relate to, let alone disprove, the statement that the Romney and Obama campaigns visited Nevada this week for campaign events, not for fund-raising events?
As I originally said, both Romney and Obama went to Nevada this week to do campaign events, not to do fund-raising events. That is reality.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on October 26, 2012, 07:30:42 AM
Why look...Vegas billionaire gives $10 million dollars to Romney campaign this week.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/26/us-usa-campaign-money-adelson-idUSBRE89P04I20121026
Sorry oil capital. Proof that you are wrong.
Checkmate.
Adelson has been shoveling money Romney's way since day 1.
OC and RM, with all due respect, do you mind carrying on your distracting conversation via PM or start another thread?
Reading the bickering on this thread is worse than watching a presidential debate.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on October 25, 2012, 07:31:52 PM
Seriously, this might be the place to discuss it - what day would be a better day?? And why??
My thought is that there is no real reason to change it - how would it be better any other time, especially with all the absentee and early voting possibilities available now?
I agree with you that as long as early voting is allowed for everyone, Tuesday is fine. The only reason to move it to Saturday would be for the watch parties. We could make Tuesday and Wednesday a national holiday.
My big concern is the early voting. Will the GOP continue to try to remove it? If so, Tuesday is not a good day.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 26, 2012, 09:24:46 AM
OC and RM, with all due respect, do you mind carrying on your distracting conversation via PM or start another thread?
I guess this is the only thread that ever went off on a tangent between two people who disagree.
Since I won the argument, I will stop.
That only seems fair.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on October 26, 2012, 10:27:44 AM
I guess this is the only thread that ever went off on a tangent between two people who disagree.
Since I won the argument, I will stop.
That only seems fair.
You forgot one important point: Marshall's.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 26, 2012, 10:33:45 AM
You forgot one important point: Marshall's.
Thanks for the reminder. I still have never had Oktoberfest.
Check your PMs, BTW.
Those three Ohio polls that came out today probably have some folks thinking about committing suicide, or at least moving out of the country.
Quote from: Hoss on October 26, 2012, 10:39:24 AM
Thanks for the reminder. I still have never had Oktoberfest.
You need to change that.
My wife chose Cooper over Marshall's last night. The fool.
Quote from: Townsend on October 26, 2012, 03:33:35 PM
You need to change that.
My wife chose Cooper over Marshall's last night. The fool.
And you're still with her! LOL. ;)
Quote from: Hoss on October 26, 2012, 03:37:51 PM
And you're still with her! LOL. ;)
For the children
Point brewed a really good Oktoberfest this year.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 26, 2012, 03:49:34 PM
Point brewed a really good Oktoberfest this year.
Steven's Point?
Quote from: RecycleMichael on October 25, 2012, 11:28:26 AM
It is like having a battle of the wits and you are only half a wit. I will type this slow so that you might understand.
I said they were maybe going to also raise some money while in Nevada. I didn't say they were not going to campaign.
Perhaps you should have typed more slowly so that you could keep up with your lies. Here is what you actually said, copied and pasted directly from your post:
"Maybe they were not spending money there. Maybe they were getting money there."
You were wrong on both counts. They did go to Nevada last week to spend money (i.e., do campaign events). They did NOT go to Nevada last week to raise money.
How do you know? Are you Romney?
Romney goes to Nevada and two days later a Nevada casino owner gives him another $10 million.
But according to you, there was no fundraising.
You are either lying, ridiculously naive, or ignorant about how campaigns work.
Quote from: TylerBGoode on October 26, 2012, 09:25:31 AM
Reading the bickering on this thread is worse than watching a presidential debate.
You could jump right in and join the fun....
Quote from: RecycleMichael on October 28, 2012, 07:47:03 PM
How do you know? Are you Romney?
Romney goes to Nevada and two days later a Nevada casino owner gives him another $10 million.
But according to you, there was no fundraising.
You are either lying, ridiculously naive, or ignorant about how campaigns work.
Where have you shown us, or where is the evidence that Adelson (or any casino owner) gave $10 Million to the Romney campaign last week (two days after Romney's October 24 visit to Reno)? Where?
The $10 Million Adelson has given to the super PAC was
not given last week (and was not given to the Romney campaign). It was reported in the FEC reports as having been given during the first half of October (for those of you who are mathematically-challenged, that means well before Romney's October 24
campaign event in Reno.)
In fact, the recent Adelson $10 Million contributions to the independent super PAC (not to the Romney campaign) were given October 5 ($5 Million) and October 11 ($5 Million). Again, the Romney campaign event was in Reno October 24.
(and "Deep in the longest day of his campaign [October 24 or 25], President Barack Obama was in a Las Vegas casino, gambling that his re-election bid needed one more stop. It was 1:40 a.m. on his clock, and he was pleading with the hotel cooks and waiters for their votes"http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-10-25/obama-resumes-campaign-marathon-in-florida (http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-10-25/obama-resumes-campaign-marathon-in-florida).)
Here's a hint for future reference. The date of a news article reporting a donation to a super PAC is NOT the date the contribution was made. But I kinda think you already knew that.
FWIW, Obama returned to the not-in-play-Nevada
again November 1. I'm sure it was just to raise money. :o