[quote]Sloth wrote:
Romney up 1 in a national poll, NPR, D +4[/quote]
If NPR says he’s up by 1 that means he’s up by at least 4.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Pretty much…[/quote]
I actually laughed out loud when I read this.
One can only imagine the pressure that would have been brought to bear by the main stream liberal media if it were a republican President who did what Obama did regarding the Libya debacle.
I wonder how long they would wait before they’d be calling for impeachment proceedings.
Good news for meaningful developments before election day:
Also, a quick question-does somebody have a link that delves into the amount each candidate is currently favored in each state they are favored in-including runaways? I’m particularly interested in number of voters estimate to go for each…I know I could put it together myself, but I really don’t want to bother if it’s out there already…
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Pretty much…[/quote]
Versus this
Can you say biased? I knew you could
[quote]kevinm1 wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Pretty much…[/quote]
Versus this
Can you say biased? I knew you could
[/quote]
This is when fanaticism reaches critical mass. Romney would be fucked no matter what he did, whether donating or not.
It’s like Global Warming.
Sunny skies and nice breezes = Global Warming.
Rain and snow = Global Warming.
Windy and dry = Global Warming.
When people are married to a movement (in this case it’s the only-Obama movement), it’s practically a religion.
PA starting to get scary for Obama. Is there enough time left to close a 4 point gap by 1 or 2 points? Take a look at the commentary about turnout. The poll seems almost in fantasy land with it’s sampling being close to 2008 turnout. I don’t think very many election wonks see this happening. Turnout seems to be trending better for republicans according to polls measuring enthusiasm, likeliness to vote for their pick, and early voting sampling. Could get interesting in PA. Just saying…
[quote]Sloth wrote:
PA starting to get scary for Obama. Is there enough time left to close a 4 point gap by 1 or 2 points? Take a look at the commentary about turnout. The poll seems almost in fantasy land with it’s sampling being close to 2008 turnout. I don’t think very many election wonks see this happening. Turnout seems to be trending better for republicans according to polls measuring enthusiasm, likeliness to vote for their pick, and early voting sampling. Could get interesting in PA. Just saying…[/quote]
Is Santorum campaigning for Romney in PA? If so I have not heard anything about that. What would cause this shift and will it hold past Obama looking Presidential with Christies lips pressed tightly to Obama’s ass for two days?
Just read a CBS poll that put Obama ahead of Romney by 5pts in Ohio. And I want everyone to know that this is total nonsense. There is no credible poll that has any more than a 2pt difference between the candidates. And 2pts means it’s anyone’s game. And in fact because of the anti Obama turnout that is expected Obama could be up by 2pts and still lose.
McCain lost to Obama in Ohio by exactly 206,000 votes which is 4%.
I am not claiming that Romney will win ohio but in my view he is the favorite in that state.
All Romney needs is:
-
A lower Obama turnout (which is inevitable)
-
And convince about 103,000 of 2008 Obama voters to vote for him.
Does anyone really think that Romney is going to lose Ohio by more than McCain did?
Romney and company have visited Ohio 32 times.
Obama just over 20 times.
They are virtually tied in money spent While in 08 Obama spent up to three times more than McCain in that state!
I am calling bullshit on the CBS poll.
CBS has been in the tank for Obama since he announced in O8’ and they are going to go down shilling for him every step of the way.
1 or 2 points is within every margin of error I ever heard of.
By the way as long as we are on the topic of the 2008 race compared to Tuesday’s, McCain only lost Florida by just over 204,000 votes, that is only 2.5%.
I find it difficult to believe that Romney would not be able to better this number with all of the resources that he’s poured into this state. And that’s probably why he didn’t pick Rubio as his VP (among other reasons).
If Obama turnout is less than O8’ which it will be, or, if Romney convinces about 102,000 2008 Obama voters to switch from Obama to Romney he’s won Ohio.
One more point to consider regarding where the Romney peole have poured money over the past 3 days:
PA, Michigan and Minnesota, if they are worried about losing such states as Ohio and Florida why are they spending valuble resources on three states which went for Obama in a big way in 2008?
Something tells me that, while the storm may have changed things (maybe not), the Romney internal polling reflects a much rosier picture than the typical liberal pollsters like CBS or CNN.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Just read a CBS poll that put Obama ahead of Romney by 5pts in Ohio. And I want everyone to know that this is total nonsense. There is no credible poll that has any more than a 2pt difference between the candidates. And 2pts means it’s anyone’s game. And in fact because of the anti Obama turnout that is expected Obama could be up by 2pts and still lose.
McCain lost to Obama in Ohio by exactly 206,000 votes which is 4%.
I am not claiming that Romney will win ohio but in my view he is the favorite in that state.
All Romney needs is:
-
A lower Obama turnout (which is inevitable)
-
And convince about 103,000 of 2008 Obama voters to vote for him.
Does anyone really think that Romney is going to lose Ohio by more than McCain did?
Romney and company have visited Ohio 32 times.
Obama just over 20 times.
They are virtually tied in money spent While in 08 Obama spent up to three times more than McCain in that state!
I am calling bullshit on the CBS poll.
CBS has been in the tank for Obama since he announced in O8’ and they are going to go down shilling for him every step of the way.[/quote]
“In each of these three states, the CBS/NYT/Q-poll shows Republicans at a lower percentage level of turnout than in the 2008 election…”
It’s bunk.
Edit: Their own poll shows a 14 point enthusiasm advantage for republicans in Ohio…Over sampling Democrats much? Republican percentage turnout lower than 2008? Give me a break. I hope they didn’t pay for that poll.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Just read a CBS poll that put Obama ahead of Romney by 5pts in Ohio. And I want everyone to know that this is total nonsense. There is no credible poll that has any more than a 2pt difference between the candidates. And 2pts means it’s anyone’s game. And in fact because of the anti Obama turnout that is expected Obama could be up by 2pts and still lose.
McCain lost to Obama in Ohio by exactly 206,000 votes which is 4%.
I am not claiming that Romney will win ohio but in my view he is the favorite in that state.
All Romney needs is:
-
A lower Obama turnout (which is inevitable)
-
And convince about 103,000 of 2008 Obama voters to vote for him.
Does anyone really think that Romney is going to lose Ohio by more than McCain did?
Romney and company have visited Ohio 32 times.
Obama just over 20 times.
They are virtually tied in money spent While in 08 Obama spent up to three times more than McCain in that state!
I am calling bullshit on the CBS poll.
CBS has been in the tank for Obama since he announced in O8’ and they are going to go down shilling for him every step of the way.[/quote]
“In each of these three states, the CBS/NYT/Q-poll shows Republicans at a lower percentage level of turnout than in the 2008 election…”
It’s bunk.
Edit: Their own poll shows a 14 point enthusiasm advantage for republicans in Ohio…Over sampling Democrats much? Republican percentage turnout lower than 2008? Give me a break. I hope they didn’t pay for that poll.[/quote]
Exactly Sloth and it’s all done to sway opinion in the favor of Obama. That’s why I’ve repeatedly stated that Rasmussen and Gallup are the two most reliable polls. I pay no attention to any of the rest such as, (but not limited to) Pew, CBS, CNN, The NY Times or FOX News. They all have agendas.
Very interesting. Caveat, the author is obviously biased in favor of Romney.
However, I definitely believe that the anti-Obama vote is much more motivated this year than in 2008. So if the author is correct, imo the Obama-campers are making a mistake with the polling bias because it will actually motivate the anti-Obama/pro-Romney turnout even more, while potentially mitigating the anti-Romney turnout.
This will definitely be a watershed election as far as the science of polling is concerned.
[quote]punnyguy wrote:
Caveat, the author is obviously biased in favor of Romney.
[/quote]
Yeah, it is Breitbart, lol. That goes without saying.
[quote]punnyguy wrote:
Very interesting. Caveat, the author is obviously biased in favor of Romney.
However, I definitely believe that the anti-Obama vote is much more motivated this year than in 2008. So if the author is correct, imo the Obama-campers are making a mistake with the polling bias because it will actually motivate the anti-Obama/pro-Romney turnout even more, while potentially mitigating the anti-Romney turnout.
This will definitely be a watershed election as far as the science of polling is concerned.[/quote]
Interesting that you mentioned “anti-Obama turnout in 2008” I think that was very light. Other than thinking the man was too inexperienced, or perhaps too far left to be President why would anyone be chomping at the bit to vote against him? However, after four years of actually making things worse there is strong anti-Obama sentiment. And I have a feeling that while the Tea Party has been quiet they are flying under the radar and are organizing a very strong get out the vote drive in several key states. In fact I know this to be the case 
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]punnyguy wrote:
Caveat, the author is obviously biased in favor of Romney.
[/quote]
Yeah, it is Breitbart, lol. That goes without saying.[/quote]
Hey Beans, I have a friend who owns a company and he said he pays no taxes because all of the shares of the company are owned by him and his employees (of course the employee shares are non voting shares). I know little about this and have been too busy to do any research. What’s your take on it?
I have a right to take this thread off course for just a bit since I started it…isn’t that the rule?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]punnyguy wrote:
Caveat, the author is obviously biased in favor of Romney.
[/quote]
Yeah, it is Breitbart, lol. That goes without saying.[/quote]
Hey Beans, I have a friend who owns a company and he said he pays no taxes because all of the shares of the company are owned by him and his employees (of course the employee shares are non voting shares). I know little about this and have been too busy to do any research. What’s your take on it?
I have a right to take this thread off course for just a bit since I started it…isn’t that the rule?
[/quote]
Sounds like rubbish based on that level of detail. Who owns shares (assuming C or S corp) isn’t a factor when it comes to income taxes. He may be talking about Qualified Small Business Stock, but it is tough to meet those guidelines and you still are paying an effective 14% rate.
I would assume he isn’t clear on what his CPA communicated to him at this point.
All these polls can be confusing with the differences they show. Saw this today. Basically, as it has been for months, the race remains close with momentum toward Mitt Romney. With less than one week remaining, will be interesting to see if the up swing continues for Romney.
“Obama Leads in Iowa, Race Close in NH, WI”
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/11/01/obama-leads-in-iowa-race-close-in-nh-wi/
[quote]Menthol wrote:
All these polls can be confusing with the differences they show. Saw this today. Basically, as it has been for months, the race remains close with momentum toward Mitt Romney. With less than one week remaining, will be interesting to see if the up swing continues for Romney.
“Obama Leads in Iowa, Race Close in NH, WI”
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/11/01/obama-leads-in-iowa-race-close-in-nh-wi/[/quote]
First of all don’t pay much attention to ANYTHING with “NBC” involved.
I love my CPA, he had the best line when the whole “Romney isn’t paying his fair share of taxes” bullshit came out.
It went something like this…
“hey, I didn’t write the fucking tax laws, I just find ways to navigate through them. It’s my job to find ways for you (meaning me, Max) to keep more of your money (legally), if they have a problem with the tax code, then change the fucking tax code.”
Keep in mind, dude worked for the IRS for 25 yrs, and got my dad through 2 audits.