Rasmussen, Ohio tied and Romney by 2 in NH.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Gallop comes back to earth. 50-47 romney.
[/quote]
This should have Dems worried more than the 7-point lead–whereas that was an obvious outlier, this is a realistic representation of the race.
I do believe that some of the same sets of interviews figure into each days numbers, i.e., Thursday’s numbers are based on interviews conducted Monday-Wednesday and Friday’s are based on Tuesday-Thursday, leaving an overlap which in some ways taints the new data. Someone correct me if I’m wrong about Gallup doing this.
If that’s the case, the come-down could be expected to continue over the course of the net couple days.
I would sell my body to see both obama and romney internal number right now.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
I can tell this is getting bad for Obama, by the articles in the very Left Los Angeles Times.
Any time Obama is doing well, there are numerous articles about it. Not a single one, and hasn’t been one for at least a week now. [/quote]
If the election were held today and the rcp poll average correctly predicted the winner of each swing state, Obama would take Ohio, Iowa, Nevada, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania and therefore the election. There is every reason to believe that Mitt Romney can win this election, but there is also every reason for Republicans to be worried about him losing and every reason to call him, at this point in time, a modest underdog.[/quote]
I think you misunderstood me.
I am saying that, HERE, in Los Angeles, if Obama were doing well, the LA Times would be all over it, but they aren’t. There are usually more than a handful of article talking about Obama winning this, or gaining that, but there aren’t right now, and haven’t been in more than a week.
What I see, are articles either making fun of, or teasing Romney. California is not in play, Obama has this state locked up by a huge margin, but the overall narrative here has changed. It went from, “Obama leads, Obama wins, Obama gains” or some shit like that to “Romney and his binders, Romney and his bayonets, or Romney and his underwear.”
There is, at almost all times, some shit about Latinos winning it for Obama on the LA Times, not anymore.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Gallop comes back to earth. 50-47 romney.
[/quote]
This should have Dems worried more than the 7-point lead–whereas that was an obvious outlier, this is a realistic representation of the race.
I do believe that some of the same sets of interviews figure into each days numbers, i.e., Thursday’s numbers are based on interviews conducted Monday-Wednesday and Friday’s are based on Tuesday-Thursday, leaving an overlap which in some ways taints the new data. Someone correct me if I’m wrong about Gallup doing this.
If that’s the case, the come-down could be expected to continue over the course of the net couple days.[/quote]
From what I read the huge spike was from statistical outliers from days that are now being rolled out of the poll, yes.
So the number may come back to even.
Rasmussen has Romney moving upward, and the two are coming into line.
Like Zep said, 13 days is a lifetime and the way the news is flying today, it will be drama central.
Mitt Romney will win the presidency, and it won?t be close.
I?m feeling a 5 to 7 point popular vote victory. The polls say it will be close, the polls are wrong. They are badly skewed towards Democrats. Quite simply they are over-polling Democratic voters and assuming a turnout that looks like 2008, when record numbers of Democrats came out for Obama.
My contention is a 1 point Romney lead in those Democrat-skewed polls is really a comfortable 5 to 7 point Romney lead on election day.
There are several specific reasons I predict a comfortable Romney victory on election day:
1.The news media is ignoring signs of mass revulsion towards President Obama. In the West Virginia Democrat primary, a felon got 40% of the vote versus Obama. Several recent polls even show Romney competitive in Illinois… Obama?s home state.
2.In 2008 Democrats overwhelmingly controlled the majority of governorships. Today Republicans control the majority of Governorships. Presidential elections are always steered in each state by the governor, arguably the most powerful force in state politics.
3.After the 2010 census, electoral votes were added to states that lean Republican in elections: Texas, Florida, Arizona, Nevada, Georgia, South Carolina, and Utah. Deep blue Democrat states like New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, and Massachusetts lost electoral votes.
4.Follow the money. Yes, Obama is raising plenty of money, although potentially from questionable illegal foreign contributors. But ignoring that. What matters is that in 2008 Obama overwhelmed McCain by out-spending him 10 to 1 down the stretch. That won?t happen in 2012. Romney is even, or can out-spend Obama, in the last 2 weeks of the election. That makes a huge difference in the outcome.
-
Christians. They will turn out in record numbers this year. Obama has offended Christians again and again. Last election 20 million evangelical Christians did not vote. They will turn out in record numbers in 2012 to defeat the most anti-Christian President in US history. How motivated are Christians? Did you see the long lines around the country to support Chick-fil-A this summer? You?ll see those same lines on election day.
-
Voter rolls have been purged in 2012 of felons and illegals in many states, particularly Florida and Ohio. Turnout of Democrats will be nothing like 2008
-
The ?Enthusiasm Factor? for Romney is huge. Conservatives are focused, intense, motivated, and enthusiastic. Democrats turned out for Obama in record numbers in 2008. Today they are demoralized. A big edge goes to Romney on Election Day as conservatives, white voters, middle class voters and independents turn out in record numbers for Romney.
-
Finally, history suggests that a majority of undecided voters break for the challenger. Romney will take most of the undecided voters on election day
One thing putter2712 brought up is the amount candidates spend…why are okay with what I view as a massive waste of money? I guess they are private funds, but what a waste. The economy’s in shambles let’s spend millions on advertisements.
Should there be a cap on how much you can spend campaigning?
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I guess they are private funds, but what a waste. The economy’s in shambles let’s spend millions on advertisements.
[/quote]
If the economy is in shambles, isn’t paying people to provide a product kind of what you want?
Putter,
You can thank your point #3 to California, there has been an exodus of people (mostly business owners and middle class people) to other states.
When Comcast and Campbell Soup decided to up and leave Cali, and when asked why they were leaving, they cited the anti-business pro-tax policies that California loved.
Then, Governor Moonbeam threatened to audit those two companies unless they changed their public comment, because who would want to be seen chasing almost 2000 jobs out of the state, in only one day, on account of over-taxing and over-regulating the shit out of business.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
One thing putter2712 brought up is the amount candidates spend…why are okay with what I view as a massive waste of money? I guess they are private funds, but what a waste. The economy’s in shambles let’s spend millions on advertisements.
Should there be a cap on how much you can spend campaigning?
[/quote]
Absolutely. And it should be part of a broader push for massive campaign reform.
[quote]putter2712 wrote:
In the West Virginia Democrat primary, a felon got 40% of the vote versus Obama.
[/quote]
This says a hell of a lot more about West Virginia than it does about anything else.
Didn’t John Ashcroft lose to a dead guy ?
[quote]putter2712 wrote:
a great post
[/quote]
Brought a tear to my eye.
I wish American’s paid as much attention as you do.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
One thing putter2712 brought up is the amount candidates spend…why are okay with what I view as a massive waste of money? I guess they are private funds, but what a waste. The economy’s in shambles let’s spend millions on advertisements.
Should there be a cap on how much you can spend campaigning?[/quote]
Well, what you call a waste of money, others call political speech. The money is just a means to an end. It may not influence your vote very much, but it may well others.
I don’t think that capping money on campaign expenditures does anything all that worthwhile - but I do believe that all donations should be disclosed to the public, say, in a big online, public database.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
One thing putter2712 brought up is the amount candidates spend…why are okay with what I view as a massive waste of money? I guess they are private funds, but what a waste. The economy’s in shambles let’s spend millions on advertisements.
Should there be a cap on how much you can spend campaigning?[/quote]
Well, what you call a waste of money, others call political speech. The money is just a means to an end. It may not influence your vote very much, but it may well others.
I don’t think that capping money on campaign expenditures does anything all that worthwhile - but I do believe that all donations should be disclosed to the public, say, in a big online, public database.
[/quote]
Personally I’d prefer to see a couple of more debates and honestly I’d like to see writings by the candidates about the most pressing topics of the election.
I think a cap is worthwhile simply because technology should allow for cheaper dissemination of your political beliefs. Facebook, YouTube, etc… all these things should lead to less spending not more. I just think it’s getting out of hand. I wonder what election a billion will be spent on advertisements? That money could be used for schools or to cloth the homeless.
Who would pay for the donor database?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]putter2712 wrote:
a great post
[/quote]
Brought a tear to my eye.
I wish American’s paid as much attention as you do.[/quote]
I don’t know why you would want to label unattributed plagiarism like this as “paying attention”:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]putter2712 wrote:
a great post
[/quote]
Brought a tear to my eye.
I wish American’s paid as much attention as you do.[/quote]
I don’t know why you would want to label unattributed plagiarism like this as “paying attention”:
[/quote]
ZOMG… I didn’t read an opinion piece on Fox, shame on me for being excited that someone appeared to look past the 30 second talking points.
jesus
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
I can tell this is getting bad for Obama, by the articles in the very Left Los Angeles Times.
Any time Obama is doing well, there are numerous articles about it. Not a single one, and hasn’t been one for at least a week now. [/quote]
If the election were held today and the rcp poll average correctly predicted the winner of each swing state, Obama would take Ohio, Iowa, Nevada, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania and therefore the election. There is every reason to believe that Mitt Romney can win this election, but there is also every reason for Republicans to be worried about him losing and every reason to call him, at this point in time, a modest underdog.[/quote]
I have no grand illusions about Obama being easy to beat at this or any other time. I said from the beginning that beating Obama, a sitting President, plus the MSLM was going to be very difficult. For example, we just went through a total of four debates and in 3 of those 4 debates the moderators helped the democrat (If you want specifics just ask). Newspapers, magazines and TV outlets across the country are carrying water for Obama. What Romney has done so far is what I would have to call close to miraculous.
With that said, Obama better be leading by more than one or two points in any of the states that he is “ahead” because there are three forces working against him.
-
His voter base is apathetic. I know they’ll scream about how bad Bush is and it’s not Obama’s fault. But when you peel back the layers many are deeply disappointed in Obama. Part of that is because of all the hype that went along with his 08 election. He was the President who was going to walk on water and heal the world. Four years later he’s looking like Jimmy Carter the second. So the expectation game hurt him…badly!
-
The majority of undecideds ALWAYS (did you read that? Not occasionally, but ALWAYS) break for the challenger. That means if there are 4% undecided by election day a possible scenario is 1% stays home, 1% votes Obama and 2% vote Romney. That is really horrible for Obama and his people understand this fact just as I do.
-
The Romney base is fired up BIG TIME! It doesn’t matter if it rains, snow’s or there is a tornado the anti Obama vote will turn out in droves!
So, I beg to differe with you, if the election were held today Obama would lose! And that is why Romney took the approach he did during the final debate. He wanted the election frozen just as it was BEFORE the final debate and, while we don’t know for sure yet, I think he managed to do just that.
Both Romney and Obama know that unless the President’s numbers rise he will lose!
But as I’ve also said 13 days can be a lifetime in politics. Instead of the MSLM going after Obama about the Benghazi debacle they will probably be fixated on how Mormons of the past married more than one woman.
As I said it is difficult to beat a sitting President and even more so when the media is in his hip pocket.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]putter2712 wrote:
a great post
[/quote]
Brought a tear to my eye.
I wish American’s paid as much attention as you do.[/quote]
I don’t know why you would want to label unattributed plagiarism like this as “paying attention”:
[/quote]
ZOMG… I didn’t read an opinion piece on Fox, shame on me for being excited that someone appeared to look past the 30 second talking points.
jesus[/quote]
It wasn’t a dig at you, sorry, it was a dig at an unattributed plagiarist.
[quote]putter2712 wrote:
Mitt Romney will win the presidency, and it won?t be close.
I?m feeling a 5 to 7 point popular vote victory. The polls say it will be close, the polls are wrong. They are badly skewed towards Democrats. Quite simply they are over-polling Democratic voters and assuming a turnout that looks like 2008, when record numbers of Democrats came out for Obama.
My contention is a 1 point Romney lead in those Democrat-skewed polls is really a comfortable 5 to 7 point Romney lead on election day.
There are several specific reasons I predict a comfortable Romney victory on election day:
1.The news media is ignoring signs of mass revulsion towards President Obama. In the West Virginia Democrat primary, a felon got 40% of the vote versus Obama. Several recent polls even show Romney competitive in Illinois… Obama?s home state.
2.In 2008 Democrats overwhelmingly controlled the majority of governorships. Today Republicans control the majority of Governorships. Presidential elections are always steered in each state by the governor, arguably the most powerful force in state politics.
3.After the 2010 census, electoral votes were added to states that lean Republican in elections: Texas, Florida, Arizona, Nevada, Georgia, South Carolina, and Utah. Deep blue Democrat states like New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, and Massachusetts lost electoral votes.
4.Follow the money. Yes, Obama is raising plenty of money, although potentially from questionable illegal foreign contributors. But ignoring that. What matters is that in 2008 Obama overwhelmed McCain by out-spending him 10 to 1 down the stretch. That won?t happen in 2012. Romney is even, or can out-spend Obama, in the last 2 weeks of the election. That makes a huge difference in the outcome.
-
Christians. They will turn out in record numbers this year. Obama has offended Christians again and again. Last election 20 million evangelical Christians did not vote. They will turn out in record numbers in 2012 to defeat the most anti-Christian President in US history. How motivated are Christians? Did you see the long lines around the country to support Chick-fil-A this summer? You?ll see those same lines on election day.
-
Voter rolls have been purged in 2012 of felons and illegals in many states, particularly Florida and Ohio. Turnout of Democrats will be nothing like 2008
-
The ?Enthusiasm Factor? for Romney is huge. Conservatives are focused, intense, motivated, and enthusiastic. Democrats turned out for Obama in record numbers in 2008. Today they are demoralized. A big edge goes to Romney on Election Day as conservatives, white voters, middle class voters and independents turn out in record numbers for Romney.
-
Finally, history suggests that a majority of undecided voters break for the challenger. Romney will take most of the undecided voters on election day
[/quote]
Pollsters like Gallup and Rasmussen are not over polling democrats. Take that out and I tend to agree with most of what you’ve written.