2012 Presidential Election Run-Up

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
221

[quote]smh23 wrote:

Nate Silver’s forecast model, which I reference because I’ve heard from people in the business that it’s about the best out there, has begun what may be a sharp swing back toward an even race. And many of the polls figured into it included pre-debate surveys.

It looks like a horserace from here to the finish.[/quote]

smh:

My feeling is that a close (almost even) race favors Romney.

My reasoning is the the “Not Obama” voter is MUCH stronger and motivated to get out and Vote than that of the President’s supporters.

Stated another way…the hate for the President is much stronger than his support. (Just look at this Forum for a good snapshot…)

Thoughts?

Mufasa

222

One other thing…

People need to get off TV comparing their “support and Love” for Romney to that of Reagan…

Right.

Maybe in Utah and parts of Idaho; but that’s about it…

Mufasa

223

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

Nate Silver’s forecast model, which I reference because I’ve heard from people in the business that it’s about the best out there, has begun what may be a sharp swing back toward an even race. And many of the polls figured into it included pre-debate surveys.

It looks like a horserace from here to the finish.[/quote]

smh:

My feeling is that a close (almost even) race favors Romney.

My reasoning is the the “Not Obama” voter is MUCH stronger and motivated to get out and Vote than that of the President’s supporters.

Stated another way…the hate for the President is much stronger than his support. (Just look at this Forum for a good snapshot…)

Thoughts?

Mufasa[/quote]

Mufasa–I agree completely. If the polls are 49-49 or even close to that on Nov. 5, I will almost guarantee a Romney win.

One thing not to forget–and I know I keep stressing this–is that national polls are in many ways far less important than state polls. This election, as they say, is really a hot contest in a few districts of a small handful of states. As long as Romney is down–and he may well not be, come the beginning of next week–Ohio is the place to look. Silver has that contest at 80% Obama. Those numbers do not yet fully reflect the post-debate picture: I predict that, by mid week, Ohio looks more like 70% Obama. But that would still be a pretty safe state for the President, and if Romney can’t continue to chip away at that lead, his path to 270 electoral votes is a long shot at best.

As of right now, I believe that Obama has the edge. Momentum has shifted in Romney’s favor, but it’s not enough yet in my opinion.

224

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]phaethon wrote:
I’m about as anti-libertarian as you can possibly get and yet I agree with removing most regulation, shrinking the size of the government, and keeping the state out of peoples private lives. I really enjoyed the article.[/quote]

You contradict yourself here. You are anti-libertarian yet completely agree with the main tenants of their ideology?

How does that make any sense.
[/quote]

At its core libertarianism is not conservative. Taking a left wing idea and adding strict private property rights might make it a right wing idea but it doesn’t make it a conservative idea.

The underpinnings of the philosophy are morally abhorrent and illogical when applied to the real world.

The issues with homesteading (aka the basis of libertarianism private property rights) and with lack of emphasis on social conservatism (aka all rights, no responsibility) have been covered dozens of times on this forum.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Both of these are allowed to happen because of a distinct lack of individual responsibility on the part of the citizenry and electorate. You have no one to blame but yourself.[/quote]

And if we work together we can hopefully change things.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]phaethon wrote:
The Republicans could win the house and senate for the next few decades if they stopped sucking up to corporations.

[/quote]

Are you insinuating it is just the republicans that are pandering for big corps?[/quote]

No. I am saying that by pandering to big corps, and having a reputation of pandering to big corps, the Republicans scare away a ton of the conservative leaning independent voters.

The biggest issue is Republican voters suck. They are far too concerned with winning elections and not nearly concerned enough with actually being conservative and voting conservative.

It is why the presidential candidate for the Republican party is essentially a big business loving liberal. Because he is close enough in beliefs to Obama, but a bit better on the economy, that he stands a chance of swaying the independents who are concerned with the economy.

225

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
CB:

I probably come off that way on this Forum because I don’t agree with all the vitriol thrown at the President. I neither think he hates America nor wishes to destroy Her.

Mufasa[/quote]

You mean he’s this bad and he’s actually trying?

YIKES!

227

First piece of good news Romney leads significantly in Florida:

[quote]A poll released Wednesday morning indicates that Mitt Romney holds a six point lead over President Barack Obama in the crucial battleground state of Florida.

According to the Quinnipiac University survey, 47% of registered voters in the Sunshine State say they back Romney, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, with 41% saying they support Obama, with 7% unsure.[/quote]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/23/poll-romney-takes-lead-in-florida/

Second piece of good news Romney leads in Ohio:

Third piece of good news, Romney closes the gap in Wisconsin:

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/10/romney-debate-bounce-wisconsin-poll-obama-economy.php

Fourth piece of good news Romney takes the lead nationally:

There is a long way to go yet, 30 days can be a lifetime in politics. We have two more Presidential debates and one VP debate to go. And between now and then barrels of ink will be used by left wing newspapres to discredit Mitt Romney. And many words will be used by the left wing talking heads to shoot him down as well. So, I don’t consider this any more than a momentum shift. For Romney to win this he needs to show himself at least as strong as Obama in his final two debate performances. If Obama gives him another gift like he did in the first debate this race will break wide open for Romney by 6 to 8 points. But I don’t expect that to happen.

As I’ve been saying it is Obama’s race to lose. However, if Obama is up by only one or two points on election day I think he will lose for two reasons:

  1. The undecideds always break for the challenger. This has been the case over the past 32 years.

  2. The turn out will be stronger for Romney than for Obama. The main reason being the anti Obama vote is much stronger than the anti Romney vote.

But I never underestimate the main stream liberal media. If there is a way to defeat Romney they are the ones (not Obama) who will turn it!

228

Wow, those are good numbers for Romney. Perhaps my guess, made just about an hour and a half ago, was completely off.

Newest from Silver estimates that the polls will settle at around a 2-point Obama lead:

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/07/oct-7-national-polls-show-signs-of-settling/#more-35662

229

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

…I neither think he hates America nor wishes to destroy Her.

Mufasa[/quote]

Define “hate” and “destroy” in this context.[/quote]

Now, Push:

By now, you should know I’m not good at, and therefore usually avoid, these “Philosphical Rabitt Holes”.

If you can re-word the question, I probably can give you some kind of answer.

Mufasa

230

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

…I neither think he hates America nor wishes to destroy Her.

Mufasa[/quote]

Define “hate” and “destroy” in this context.[/quote]

Now, Push:

By now, you should know I’m not good at, and therefore usually avoid, these “Philosphical Rabitt Holes”.

If you can re-word the question, I probably can give you some kind of answer.

Mufasa[/quote]

Not to answer for Push, but when I use those terms to talk about oabma and America, I don’t mean hate and destroy in the same way Rambo hates Murdock and destroys his field office.

I think Push is just looking for what you mean by hate and destroy.

231

Mufasa,

Obama is either the most incompetent modern day President (after LBJ of course), or he is actively down sizing America. This by the way is what he intimated he wanted to do in 2008. After all he is his father’s son.

232

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Mufasa,

Obama is either the most incompetent modern day President (after LBJ of course), or he is actively down sizing America. This by the way is what he intimated he wanted to do in 2008. After all he is his father’s son.

[/quote]

History,(and time),tends to offer a less abrasive and partisan view of a President.

I will have more thoughts on this after the election; but the President’s place in the history of America will NOT be of a white-hating, Kenyan-Born Revolutionary Muslim, whose Goal was to turn America into a Nanny State of dependent sheeple for Political Gain.

Mufasa

233

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Mufasa,

Obama is either the most incompetent modern day President (after LBJ of course), or he is actively down sizing America. This by the way is what he intimated he wanted to do in 2008. After all he is his father’s son.

[/quote]

History,(and time),tends to offer a less abrasive and partisan view of a President.

I will have more thoughts on this after the election; but the President’s place in the history of America will NOT be of a white-hating, Kenyan-Born Revolutionary Muslim, whose Goal was to turn America into a Nanny State of dependent sheeple for Political Gain.

Mufasa[/quote]

Good post Mufasa.

I agree with a lot of the individual critiques of President Obama that are offered on this board. But when the “big picture” is painted by many otherwise astute thinkers, words like “enemy” and “destroy” seem more like partisan hyperventilation than fair analysis.

234

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Mufasa,

Obama is either the most incompetent modern day President (after LBJ of course), or he is actively down sizing America. This by the way is what he intimated he wanted to do in 2008. After all he is his father’s son.

[/quote]

History,(and time),tends to offer a less abrasive and partisan view of a President.

I will have more thoughts on this after the election; but the President’s place in the history of America will NOT be of a white-hating, Kenyan-Born Revolutionary Muslim, whose Goal was to turn America into a Nanny State of dependent sheeple for Political Gain.

Mufasa[/quote]

Not if Romney wins.

But history has already shown us through the leaked tape of him addressing a room full of African Americans that he is a race baiter…among other things.

235

I think that what History writes and thinks about President Obama will be independent of whether or not he wins or not.

(Note: I am still on record predicting a Romney win).

Mufasa

236

interdasting

237

Wow. New Pew poll shows Romney erasing an eight-point deficit, and he now leads by four among likely voters:

And, in this poll, he closed the gap with women voters.

238

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Wow. New Pew poll shows Romney erasing an eight-point deficit, and he now leads by four among likely voters:

And, in this poll, he closed the gap with women voters.[/quote]

Yeah, just came here to post this, but you’ve beat me to it. Huge shift.

239

I don’t know if anyone else has noticed this but I haven’t seen any Pro Romney ads lately. The only ad I keep seeing is the Obama add talking about Romney’s tax plan with a sound bite from the debate. The ad says how can we trust Romney in office. Anyone seeing any Romney ads??

240

The Illegal-Donor Loophole

…Further complicating the issue are websites like Obama.com?which is owned not by the Obama campaign but by Robert Roche, an American businessman and Obama fundraiser who lives in Shanghai. Roche?s China-based media company, Acorn International, runs infomercials on Chinese state television. Obama.com redirects to a specific donation page on BarackObama.com, the official campaign website. Unlike BarackObama.com, Obama.com?s traffic is 68 percent foreign, according to markosweb.com, a traffic-analysis website. According to France-based web analytics site Mustat.com, Obama.com receives over 2,000 visitors every day.

The name Robert W. Roche appears 11 times in the White House visitors log during the Obama administration. Roche also sits on the Obama administration?s Advisory Committee for Trade Policy and Negotiations, and is a co-chair of Technology for Obama, a fundraising effort. (In an email exchange, Roche declined to discuss his website, or his support for the Obama reelection effort, referring the inquiries to the Obama campaign team. The Obama campaign, in turn, says it has no control over Roche?s website; it also says only 2 percent of the donations associated with Obama.com come from overseas.)

But it isn?t just foreign donations that are a concern. So are fraudulent donations. In the age of digital contributions, fraudsters can deploy so-called robo-donations, computer programs that use false names to spew hundreds of donations a day in small increments, in order to evade reporting requirements. According to an October 2008 Washington Post article, Mary Biskup of Missouri appeared to give more than $170,000 in small donations to the 2008 Obama campaign. Yet Biskup said she never gave any money to the campaign. Some other contributor gave the donations using her name, without her knowledge. (The Obama campaign explained to the Post that it caught the donations and returned them.)

This makes it all the more surprising that the Obama campaign does not use a standard security tool, the card verification value (CVV) system?the three- or four-digit number often imprinted on the back of a credit card, whose purpose is to verify that the person executing the purchase (or, in this case, donation) physically possesses the card. The Romney campaign, by contrast, does use the CVV?as has almost every other candidate who has run for president in recent years, from Hillary Clinton in 2008 to Ron Paul this year. (The Obama campaign says it doesn?t use the CVV because it can be an inhibiting factor for some small donors.) Interestingly, the Obama campaign?s online store requires the CVV to purchase items like hats or hoodies (the campaign points out that its merchandise vendor requires the tool).