Latest Polling Information Reveals....

[quote]smh23 wrote:

Zeb: I did suspect that you were going in the direction “of politicians have done some very scumbag things in the past,” which is a good point and I don’t take it as an ad hominem or as an insult, which is why I returned fire with a joke.[/quote]

Oh it was a joke…No no it was funny…

But YOU are not running for President. And YOU are not surrounded by people who want to keep power.

Just enough for Obama to win would be the strategy I suspect.

How many times have we all read about stories of others in high places cheating? And for what? How much did Martha Stewart make with her inside information? A hundred grand or so? I don’t remmeber, but I do remember thinking at the time that it was a minuscule amount compared to her total net worth.

Why I said you were naive is because you fail to see, before your very eye’s, people in and out of power, rich, poor and everyone in between cheating to get ahead. Obama is surrounded by Chicago political slime! Even if you think he is the greatest person who ever lived he is under pressure to win. I’ve been involved in political races from Mayor to Governor at a fairly high level and I can assure you that cheating is always just one quick decision away for most campaigns. For the Obama people it is always an option. So get the rose colored glasses off if Obama thinks he can cheat his way to reelection and get away with it, he’ll do it!

One more point, It does not have to be anything as blatant as playing with the economic numbers (which he’ll do if he thinks he can get away with it). It can be something like gunning down terrorists in the name of revenge for 9-11. It could be virtually anything! I assure you that if the numbers stay with Romney leading and very close in swing states something will happen in the final week, or there abouts, which will be a concocted October surprise in an effort to push Obama’s numbers up.

YYou only need to read more history and stop thinking Obama is somehow above it all…he’s not!

[quote]smh23 wrote:
By the way, the liberal media–yes, I’m using that term–is going apeshit in an attempt to tie the rape controversy around Romney’s neck, and it’s pretty disgusting.

I went on Huffpo Politics because I was considering submitting an opinion piece I wrote this morning and I clicked out immediately. It’s pretty shameless.[/quote]

I’m sooooo surprised!

My friends, listen to my governor clear it up for you…

[quote]smh23 wrote:
By the way, the liberal media–yes, I’m using that term–is going apeshit in an attempt to tie the rape controversy around Romney’s neck, and it’s pretty disgusting.

I went on Huffpo Politics because I was considering submitting an opinion piece I wrote this morning and I clicked out immediately. It’s pretty shameless.[/quote]

I’m hoping this pathetic stuff is only working with the base.

Gallop, 50-47 romney. O’s approval takes a 4 point dive overnight.

As for the October Surprise… I think if obama could knock romney off his game and put him into attack mode, he could pull away. Romney seems to be in full on closing statement mode (Rove wrote as much in the WSJ today) and obama is still trying the “he’s worse than me” approach.

Obama needs something that makes romney bury himself.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Gallop, 50-47 romney. O’s approval takes a 4 point dive overnight.

As for the October Surprise… I think if obama could knock romney off his game and put him into attack mode, he could pull away. Romney seems to be in full on closing statement mode (Rove wrote as much in the WSJ today) and obama is still trying the “he’s worse than me” approach.

Obama needs something that makes romney bury himself.[/quote]

The fact that the Boston Globe and Allred are mucking around in the 20 something year old divorce of someone else, in which Romney gave testimony (almost certainly related to the husband’s business valuation), and in which the Globe says the nature of the testimony is (or was) unclear–i.e., we’re simply fishing–says to me is there is no October surprise planned. At least not centering around Romney himself.

Oh, and having just read the Globes article about the testimony they’ve been dying to get their hands on, where they don’t even know if there’s anything remotely interesting in it or not…Well, Trump doesn’t look at all that bad for offering to donate $5 million to Obama’s charity of choice in exchange for a public viewing of his academic records.

That 1991 testimony, in someone else’s divorce proceedings, is being released to the media today. Yeah, because “a primer about the early development of Staples” is going to save Obama.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-10-24/romney-gave-information-in-staples-founder-divorce-lawyer-says

Edit: As a side note: The Romney campaign gave their a-ok for the release.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
That 1991 testimony, in someone else’s divorce proceedings, is being released to the media today. Yeah, because “a primer about the early development of Staples” is going to save Obama.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-10-24/romney-gave-information-in-staples-founder-divorce-lawyer-says

Edit: As a side note: The Romney campaign gave their a-ok for the release.[/quote]

If i had to guess, I’m going with the bitter X-Wife is looking to slander Romney in a bunch of unfounded fluff. But she faced serious loss of funds if she talks too much. The testimony was a cover to get the lid peeled off the whole mess. The fact the divorce is still sealed ruins her chance to drag his name through the mud.

Here is the thing about valuations: they are really hard to do. In the situation Staples was in, it is very hard to say what it will be worth. I see a “times revenue” model used more often than not, and even then, you kinda have to wonder when you see the numbers come through.

I have a feeling it will be too complex to use, mainly because all they will be able to spin to the general public is “he lied to cheat the wife, he hates women”. Well, they have played that card a lot and it isn’t seeming to matter.

In other news: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/10/24/dems-begin-the-post-obama-blame-game-clinton-obama/

This made me laugh

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
By the way, the liberal media–yes, I’m using that term–is going apeshit in an attempt to tie the rape controversy around Romney’s neck, and it’s pretty disgusting.

I went on Huffpo Politics because I was considering submitting an opinion piece I wrote this morning and I clicked out immediately. It’s pretty shameless.[/quote]

I’m hoping this pathetic stuff is only working with the base.

[/quote]

It’s absolutely not working with the independents, women or undecideds as they look down on this stuff for what it is. Desperation!

[quote]Sloth wrote:
That 1991 testimony, in someone else’s divorce proceedings, is being released to the media today. Yeah, because “a primer about the early development of Staples” is going to save Obama.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-10-24/romney-gave-information-in-staples-founder-divorce-lawyer-says

Edit: As a side note: The Romney campaign gave their a-ok for the release.[/quote]

They are hoping to get a bump with women on this one. If Romney says that the man is only making x amount of dollars and the judge ended up not giving x amount in alimony they are hoping it looks bad for Romney with women.

Quite a reach but then again after you’ve unloaded your gun on Superman and he keeps coming…you throw the gun at him.

[quote]ZEB wrote:

Quite a reach but then again after you’ve unloaded your gun on Superman and he keeps coming…you throw the gun at him.[/quote]

I lol’ed

Real Clear Politics - every poll with a sample over 1000k has romeny ahead. But only at 50% in Gallop and Ras. All but one with the sample size under 1000k has obama winning.

Think one explains the other?

Obama calls Romney a bullshitter in Rolling Stone Magazine interview…

"I was reminded of this incident when our interview with the president ended. As we left the Oval Office, executive editor Eric Bates told Obama that he had asked his six-year-old if there was anything she wanted him to say to the president. After a thoughtful pause, she said, “Tell him: You can do it.”

Obama grinned. “That’s the only advice I need,” he said. “I do very well, by the way, in that demographic. Ages six to 12? I’m a killer.”

“Thought about lowering the voting age?” Bates joked.

“You know, kids have good instincts,” Obama offered. “They look at the other guy and say, ‘Well, that’s a bullshitter, I can tell.’”

Page 2 of the article

www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/obama-and-the-road-ahead-the-rolling-stone-interview-20121025#ixzz2ALkKmHyN

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Obama calls Romney a bullshitter in Rolling Stone Magazine interview…

"I was reminded of this incident when our interview with the president ended. As we left the Oval Office, executive editor Eric Bates told Obama that he had asked his six-year-old if there was anything she wanted him to say to the president. After a thoughtful pause, she said, “Tell him: You can do it.”

Obama grinned. “That’s the only advice I need,” he said. “I do very well, by the way, in that demographic. Ages six to 12? I’m a killer.”

“Thought about lowering the voting age?” Bates joked.

“You know, kids have good instincts,” Obama offered. “They look at the other guy and say, ‘Well, that’s a bullshitter, I can tell.’”

Page 2 of the article

www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/obama-and-the-road-ahead-the-rolling-stone-interview-20121025#ixzz2ALkKmHyN
[/quote]

Yeah, well, when even Letterman can’t stomach your manure, it’s best to be silent.

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Obama calls Romney a bullshitter in Rolling Stone Magazine interview…

"I was reminded of this incident when our interview with the president ended. As we left the Oval Office, executive editor Eric Bates told Obama that he had asked his six-year-old if there was anything she wanted him to say to the president. After a thoughtful pause, she said, “Tell him: You can do it.”

Obama grinned. “That’s the only advice I need,” he said. “I do very well, by the way, in that demographic. Ages six to 12? I’m a killer.”

“Thought about lowering the voting age?” Bates joked.

“You know, kids have good instincts,” Obama offered. “They look at the other guy and say, ‘Well, that’s a bullshitter, I can tell.’”

Page 2 of the article

www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/obama-and-the-road-ahead-the-rolling-stone-interview-20121025#ixzz2ALkKmHyN
[/quote]

Meh. That doesn’t really bother me. That sounds like something I would say off the cuff as a joke, not a serious attack on a candidate. I think that’s a pretty good exchange right there actually. Besides, how many people in politics refer to opponents as something similar or much worse when in private–or public for that matter?

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Obama calls Romney a bullshitter in Rolling Stone Magazine interview…

"I was reminded of this incident when our interview with the president ended. As we left the Oval Office, executive editor Eric Bates told Obama that he had asked his six-year-old if there was anything she wanted him to say to the president. After a thoughtful pause, she said, “Tell him: You can do it.”

Obama grinned. “That’s the only advice I need,” he said. “I do very well, by the way, in that demographic. Ages six to 12? I’m a killer.”

“Thought about lowering the voting age?” Bates joked.

“You know, kids have good instincts,” Obama offered. “They look at the other guy and say, ‘Well, that’s a bullshitter, I can tell.’”

Page 2 of the article

www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/obama-and-the-road-ahead-the-rolling-stone-interview-20121025#ixzz2ALkKmHyN
[/quote]

Meh. That doesn’t really bother me. That sounds like something I would say off the cuff as a joke, not a serious attack on a candidate. I think that’s a pretty good exchange right there actually. Besides, how many people in politics refer to opponents as something similar or much worse when in private–or public for that matter?
[/quote]

I agree, but had Romney (or any other GOP guy) called a Democrat “a bullshitter”, the media would be demanding he surrender his hood and noose.

It seems that poking fun at a Republican is “cool,” but do it to a Liberal and you’re a race-ass.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map_no_toss_ups.html

The only thing that matters.

Question: if the map holds as is over the course of the next two weeks, who wins? Does turnout change the race on election day in way that polls can’t predict?

I didn’t think Romney’s post-denver gain would have been oddly understated in the swing states, and consequently I predicted a Romney win in that week. Now I’m not sure. With all the big “events” out of the way–conventions and debates–there seem to be fewer and fewer opportunities to substantially change the map. It’s also pretty clear that the polls aren’t in a state of great flux at the moment. And, most vexingly for Romney, Ohio, Iowa, and Wisconsin are still in the blue column–narrowly.

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

This is why American’s watch FOX, and why the other networks are getting smoked, and why no one cares what the NYT prints anymore.

[/quote]

The first thing that the TV news producers do in the morning–and this absolutely includes the people at Fox–is read the NYT. It has been driving the news for decades and it still does. Obviously, different spins are going to be put on at different organizations, but you can almost invariably trace most hard news back to the Grey Lady and its bureaus. Its people are as pompous and condescending as they come, but there’s a reason for that.[/quote]

Okay, “no one cares” is a bit much, fine… But the idea that a newspaper who’s stock price has been on stead decline since the early 2000’s and is trading at 1995 levels today is somehow this amazing powerhouse that everyone looks to as the sole source of what is or isn’t news isn’t rational either.

I know stock price isn’t the end-all-be-all but “the paper of record” is bias factory these days. [/quote]

Oh yes, the business of the paper (and pretty much every other) is in shambles, and people have been grumbling for a long time about it’s downfall.

But setting that aside, it is BY FAR the most important news outlet there is, in that other organizations lean on it to a remarkable degree. It’s a newspaper but it is very often playing the part of wire agency.

It’s important to keep in mind, though, that I’m talking about the news pages, not the editorial pages, which are decidedly liberal.[/quote]

Just in case anybody is interested in this little side story about newspapers and etc.–

That’s why the NYT is the top dog, even for people who think its editorials are bullshit (they often are). Nobody else has the resources to pull that kind of thing off. The amount of time Barboza must have spent going through pages of Chinese government records makes my head hurt. Pretty crazy story too–we talk about income inequality here, but these Party insiders in China live like French kings before Robespierre.

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Obama calls Romney a bullshitter in Rolling Stone Magazine interview…

"I was reminded of this incident when our interview with the president ended. As we left the Oval Office, executive editor Eric Bates told Obama that he had asked his six-year-old if there was anything she wanted him to say to the president. After a thoughtful pause, she said, “Tell him: You can do it.”

Obama grinned. “That’s the only advice I need,” he said. “I do very well, by the way, in that demographic. Ages six to 12? I’m a killer.”

“Thought about lowering the voting age?” Bates joked.

“You know, kids have good instincts,” Obama offered. “They look at the other guy and say, ‘Well, that’s a bullshitter, I can tell.’”

Page 2 of the article

www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/obama-and-the-road-ahead-the-rolling-stone-interview-20121025#ixzz2ALkKmHyN
[/quote]

Meh. That doesn’t really bother me. That sounds like something I would say off the cuff as a joke, not a serious attack on a candidate. I think that’s a pretty good exchange right there actually. Besides, how many people in politics refer to opponents as something similar or much worse when in private–or public for that matter?
[/quote]

It doesn’t have to bother you or me. The important part is that it bothers the typical midwestern female voter who heard about it.

It used to be that the President of the United States was supposed to honor the office in everything he does and says.

Little known fact, when George H. Bush was running for reelection in 1992 against Bill Clinton and he said this:

“The only foreign policy experience that guy (Clinton) has is visiting the International House of Pancakes…he’s a bozo…”

The next day the press was down on his so badly that he had to apologize for this comments.

Now let’s watch and see how long it takes the MSLM to bear its mighty weight down on Obama before he apologizes…oh wait that’s right the MSLM is in Obama’s hip pocket so there won’t be any apology coming.

[i]Implications

Thus, given the relatively similar demographic composition of the 2012 and 2008 electorates, the election’s outcome may hinge more on how groups vote rather than to what extent they will vote. And most groups are currently less likely to support Obama now than they were in 2008. However, Obama’s seven-point margin of victory in the 2008 election leaves him considerable breathing room to lose electoral support yet still win the election.

At this point, though, Gallup Daily tracking of likely voter preferences suggests Obama has lost more support than he could afford to, given his current 50% to 47% deficit to his Republican challenger, Mitt Romney. To close that gap in the final weeks of the campaign, Obama would need to have subgroups favorable to him, such as blacks or young adults, turn out at rates that match or exceed those of groups less favorable to him, or to increase his support among key subgroups even if their turnout remains the same.
[/i]

[quote]smh23 wrote:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map_no_toss_ups.html

The only thing that matters.

Question: if the map holds as is over the course of the next two weeks, who wins? Does turnout change the race on election day in way that polls can’t predict?

I didn’t think Romney’s post-denver gain would have been oddly understated in the swing states, and consequently I predicted a Romney win in that week. Now I’m not sure. With all the big “events” out of the way–conventions and debates–there seem to be fewer and fewer opportunities to substantially change the map. It’s also pretty clear that the polls aren’t in a state of great flux at the moment. And, most vexingly for Romney, Ohio, Iowa, and Wisconsin are still in the blue column–narrowly.[/quote]

You’re spreading democrat propaganda smh. Every now and then you slip from being a reliable poster to wanting badly to sit on Obama’s lap and have him tell you that everything is going to be okay.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/polls/263583-gallup-poll-romney-leads-obama-51-46-among-likely-voters

#1

Now where do the undecideds ALWAYS move to on election day? To the challenger.

#2

#3

In addition to that battle ground states of North Carolina, Virginia and Florida are all but lost for Obama.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/polls/263583-gallup-poll-romney-leads-obama-51-46-among-likely-voters

Once again, anything can happen in a Presidential race with 11 days to go. But to suggest that the Romney momentum has stopped is wrong minded. Those of you who are too young (oops reference to age again, but it does matter) to remember how these things wash out should read some history. Momentum in a Presidential election is not like momentum in say a football game. Politics is a slow moving game. People change their minds slowly and it some even longer to do the same thing. This happens across the country over a period of time. For Romney to close the gap that Obama had and move the ball down the field as well as he has is incredible. Romney went from being down about 9 nationally to being up about 3, as of today, in about three weeks time. That is a move of 12 points in 21 days or so. That is not an easy task. If the momentum keeps up (and we don’t know if it will) he will peak by or around election day.

He’s already locked in several battle ground states that used to be toss ups.

Look at it this way, Romney has 191 electoral votes locked in. These are states like Texas for example where no political advertising is needed. He then only needs another 79 electoral votes.

Romney is ahead in

Florida -29
New Hampshire-4
Virginia-13
North Carolina-15
Colorado-9

Total = 70

His grand total at this point is 261

That means he needs to pick up another 9 electoral votes. And he can get them from several places:

Toss Up States

Ohio-18
Iowa-6
Wisconsin-10
Nevada-6

Plenty of ways for Romney to win:

261 plus Iowa and Nevada

261 plus Ohio

261 plus Wisconsin

261 plus Iowa and Wisconsin

You get the idea. And this is assuming Obama keeps Michigan and PA and the race is tightening in both states!

Now if your argument is that the states leaning Romney are not “locked in” I agree. But that means that Obama over the course of the next 11 days has to wash away Romney’s lead in those states and take the lead himself by at least 2pts. In some of these states that means a 5 to 7 point swing in the final 11 days of the election. And those who understand Presidential elections know that it is more difficult to move someone in the final few days compared to say before a the debate season. Sure that could happen, but history tells us that the odds are against it we know how slowly the election momentum moves Obama has to actually reverse that momentum and then get it moving his way. As we look at things right now, if the election were held at this very moment Romney wins.

Keep in mind as I’ve already told you in previous posts there are three things that will help Romney on election day:

  1. Undecideds on election day always Break for the challenger.

  2. The anti Obama vote is strong, hence they will turn out.

  3. The pro Obama support is not nearly where it was in 08 thus poorer turn out.

That means in these critical swing states Obama must be ahead by about 2 points for him to be assured a win in those states.

One more time, anything can happen on election day. And David Axlerod knows this. If Obama convinces enough people that his little blue 20 page pamphlet is really cool he can win this thing. If Obama convinces a majority that Romney is a bullshitter he can win. What else is there? He cannot win it by telling people that Romney is a evil rich guy who kills people and cheats on his taxes, he tried that dirt bag approach and it failed.

How many arrows does he have left in the quiver?

October surprise!

And there will be one.