President Obama

[ZEB]

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

Also- the debates do not matter. The data on their overall impact suggests that they have almost 0 effect on the outcomes. And before Zeb starts spreading his lies about Reagan coming from behind after the debates with Carter, let me point out that the polling data do not support his fictional account of that election cycle.

jnd[/quote]

I don’t appreciate being called a liar. Maybe you should brush up on your history before you put yourself in such a bad position.

The first Reagan/Carter debate was held on October 28, 1980. At that point in time Jimmy Carter held a 6 to 8 point lead over Ronald Reagan. Right after that first debate Reagan took the lead and held it!

Debates DO matter and that one made the difference in the 1980 Presidential race.

[quote]Back in 1980 Gallup had Jimmy Carter up over Ronald Reagan by 4 points in mid to late Septemberâ?¦ And, Carter was up 8 points in October. In fact there was a published Gallup poll showing Carter up six among likely voters in a poll conducted Oct. 24 to 27.
[/quote]

Flashback: Gallup Had Carter Up 4 Points Over Ronald Reagan in September 1980

I am not saying that Romney will do the exact same thing when he debates Obama for the first time this coming October. However, there is that possibility based on history.

Now you can apologize for calling me a liar.

[Mufasa]

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

[quote]jnd wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
Does anyone actually think Mittens is going to beat this man?

Polls be damned I can’t see Obama losing[/quote]

I seriously do see him “not winning”, raj.

While there are posters on this site whose opinions I highly respect; in this case…I
don’t agree with them as to the power of the incumbency and “it’s not Romney’s to lose”.

Conservatives have shown over and over that Romney is far from their first choice to face the President, even being rather lukewarm about him at the Convention. But their hate and dislike of the President runs much deeper. So deep, that I predict record numbers that vote and push Romney over the top.

The only thing that could possibly alter the above scenario is that the Presidential election is not a popular vote, but one based on the Electoral College. Those numbers have to “add up” to win…and in that case the President has a chance…but it is a tricky thing to try to predict the direction of the Electoral College.

So…I’ll go on record (again) as saying:

1. This is an election for Romney, (even with lukewarm “Not Obama” support), to lose.

2. I think that Romney will win.

Note:

1)Things can really change over the next few weeks.

2. The Debates can be a “game changer” AND

3. I predicted McCain/Palin to win…so I’m not so great at these predictions!

Mufasa
[/quote]

I will go on record to say that Obama will win. He has not trailed at any point and there is nothing to suggest that he will all of the sudden sink below Romney.

Also- the debates do not matter. The data on their overall impact suggests that they have almost 0 effect on the outcomes. And before Zeb starts spreading his lies about Reagan coming from behind after the debates with Carter, let me point out that the polling data do not support his fictional account of that election cycle.

jnd[/quote]

Fair enough, jnd.

More people are seeming to suggest that with this election so close and tight, turnout will be essential to both candidates.

While the Obama supporters (for me) are hard to guage…the “Not Obama” vote is angry, motivated…and ready to vote.

I’ll go WAY out on a limb with this one…the election will not be as close as some predict, in favor of Romney.

We’ll see! (It wouldn’t be the first time I would have to eat crow!)

Mufasa[/quote]

I just think that we’ll see a “disconnect” between the pre-election Polls and the Election itself.

Mufasa

[Pigeonkak]

Counting Beans, you’re saying young people are dumb like the AARP hasn’t endorsed Obama. Why? Because the Obamacare claims the Republicans are making are out right lies! The AARP (A bunch of old people) have examined the inevitable health care reform and tax documents and found them to be in favour of the middle class and elderly people. And that’s just it isn’t it?

The Republican campaign far to readily throws these damn low blows that typically hit THE people’s constitutional rights in the nuts then allows its voting demographic to facebook share the shit out of “patently false” political myths, half truths, and stupid straw man arguments about the Dem campaign or Obama himself. Now, you don’t like Sarah Silverman. But surely you’re willing to admit that the changes made to voting ID rules is plain fekking unfair. It is actually an attempt to hamstring certain voters, who according to polls are more likely to vote for Obama.

How can you be happy with this? How can you call young people dumb, while allowing your party to undermine their voting rights. Maybe they are likely to vote for Obama because Romney is an uber rich stiff taking away their voting rights! Maybe! MAYBE!

[ZEB]

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

[quote]jnd wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
Does anyone actually think Mittens is going to beat this man?

Polls be damned I can’t see Obama losing[/quote]

I seriously do see him “not winning”, raj.

While there are posters on this site whose opinions I highly respect; in this case…I
don’t agree with them as to the power of the incumbency and “it’s not Romney’s to lose”.

Conservatives have shown over and over that Romney is far from their first choice to face the President, even being rather lukewarm about him at the Convention. But their hate and dislike of the President runs much deeper. So deep, that I predict record numbers that vote and push Romney over the top.

The only thing that could possibly alter the above scenario is that the Presidential election is not a popular vote, but one based on the Electoral College. Those numbers have to “add up” to win…and in that case the President has a chance…but it is a tricky thing to try to predict the direction of the Electoral College.

So…I’ll go on record (again) as saying:

1. This is an election for Romney, (even with lukewarm “Not Obama” support), to lose.

2. I think that Romney will win.

Note:

1)Things can really change over the next few weeks.

2. The Debates can be a “game changer” AND

3. I predicted McCain/Palin to win…so I’m not so great at these predictions!

Mufasa
[/quote]

I will go on record to say that Obama will win. He has not trailed at any point and there is nothing to suggest that he will all of the sudden sink below Romney.

Also- the debates do not matter. The data on their overall impact suggests that they have almost 0 effect on the outcomes. And before Zeb starts spreading his lies about Reagan coming from behind after the debates with Carter, let me point out that the polling data do not support his fictional account of that election cycle.

jnd[/quote]

Fair enough, jnd.

More people are seeming to suggest that with this election so close and tight, turnout will be essential to both candidates.

While the Obama supporters (for me) are hard to guage…the “Not Obama” vote is angry, motivated…and ready to vote.

I’ll go WAY out on a limb with this one…the election will not be as close as some predict, in favor of Romney.

We’ll see! (It wouldn’t be the first time I would have to eat crow!)

Mufasa[/quote]

I just think that we’ll see a “disconnect” between the pre-election Polls and the Election itself.

Mufasa[/quote]

I doubt that, polling is far to sophisticated today to be that far off. As I have proven in my link above Reagan turned it around after his first debate with Carter so it can happen.

The only way Romney wins this race is to out class Obama in that first debate. That way the people get to see this first hand without the liberal media filter. I am not saying that this will happen but it is possible.

Challengers always want to debate the incumbent as it puts them on the same stage, podium to podium and they can look as Presidential as the sitting President. If played correctly and Romney does four things he can walk away with a very favorable opinion by the masses. This may help him over the hump in the final days.

1- Compassion, we all know that he is a great business man and very successful. But women want to see more compassion from someone before they vote for him. So he needs to talk about children, single mom’s etc. Mostly fluff…but essential.

2- Wit, everyone likes humor and often the man who scores with the best one liner is considered the winner. Shallow? Hey…I’m just stating what’s worked in the past.

3- Keep the pressure on Obama. So far Obama has had everything his way when it comes to the campaign. He got to call Romney a liar, a tax cheat and one of his super PAC’s went so far as to call him a murderer. Well, the buck stops at that first debate if Romney is smart. Romney needs to get tough with the media’s love God. If he puts Obama’s back to the wall on some of the disinformation that has been put out there he’ll go a long way in pointing out the slime that is Obama’s entire campaign.

4- He needs to call out Obama on the current economy. Obama has been saying that he needs another four years to get the job done. Romney needs to talk about the job Obama has already done over the past four years. This is not candidate Obama it is President Obama he has a record and it’s a very poor one. In addition to that he can then offer up his own economic plan which must sound feasible to the American public. And part of that plan is lowering taxes for the middle class. This will score big if presented properly.

[MaximusB]

Raj,

Sarah Silverman is useless in Hollywood. She is an out of work hack, like many of them. People like this post shit like this to boost their impotent career.

What was the last thing she did in movies or TV, because I cannot even remember ?

Keep something in mind bro, the youth vote is flat. Obama won HUGE among the young people in 2008, now it’s gone, largely in part due to the local California Democrats. People hate Dems here right now, because of so much massive overspending, and the kids are watching their college tuition increase by 20% every 3-4 months.

Also, since the local youth here have no jobs available due to the massive spending, stupid Global Warming Law we passed in 2006 due to Schwarzen-failure, California has a realistic unemployment rate of over 20% right now.

The youth are seeing how Liberalism is failing, we as a state about to vote on statewide tax increases (especially taxing the rich), and even THAT is failing in the polls.

We even beat down a fucking cigarette tax, and if you cannot even pass that, you’re fucked without lube. Know what I mean ?

[Mufasa]

I admit that I am basing a lot about this election on the “feeling” I have from having a number of friends and associates at both ends of the Political Spectrum. (and the reason why you see me posting about this being an “Obama/Not Obama” election.

And Zeb is right…Polling (along with Election Night predictions) have become a fairly exact (albeit not perfect) Science. Few have recently been off that much.

With that being said; I genuinely would be surprised by an Obama win.

Mufasa

[countingbeans]

[quote]Pigeonkak wrote:
Counting Beans, you’re saying young people are dumb[/quote]

Not so much dumb as more apt to make choices based on emotion and swallow up rhetoric without looking at important things like: bias, history and vested interests.

Because the Obamacare claims the Republicans are making are out right lies!

Which claims?

The claims backed up by the CBO last week?

The AARP (A bunch of old people) have examined the inevitable health care reform and tax documents and found them to be in favour of the middle class and elderly people. And that’s just it isn’t it?

What the fuck are you talking about here?

The Republican campaign far to readily throws these damn low blows

such as?

that typically hit THE people’s constitutional rights in the nuts

What are you talking about here?

then allows its voting demographic to facebook share the shit out of “patently false” political myths, half truths, and stupid straw man arguments about the Dem campaign or Obama himself.

Go to upworthy.com. if you don’t see the point i’m making by sending you to that leftist shit hole, don’t bother coming back.

Now, you don’t like Sarah Silverman.

I never mentioned her once.

But surely you’re willing to admit that the changes made to voting ID rules is plain fekking unfair.

How on earth is asking someone to prove who they say they are unfair?

Is it unfair to ask to see ID to get on an airplane, into the DNC or buy a beer?

It is actually an attempt to hamstring certain voters, who according to polls are more likely to vote for Obama.

No, it is forcing people to play by the rules. Unless your telling me cheaters are more likely to vote Obama.

How can you be happy with this?

Because i like when people obey the law

How can you call young people dumb, while allowing your party to undermine their voting rights.

1. if your legally allowed to vote, you aren’t undermined one little bit.
2. who said I belonged to any party?

Maybe they are likely to vote for Obama because Romney is an uber rich stiff taking away their voting rights! Maybe! MAYBE!

Yeah that is it.

Kid, you need to read more, and drink less kool-ade. You have allowed yourself to be programmed.

[ZEB]

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I admit that I am basing a lot about this election on the “feeling” I have from having a number of friends and associates at both ends of the Political Spectrum. (and the reason why you see me posting about this being an “Obama/Not Obama” election.

And Zeb is right…Polling (along with Election Night predictions) have become a fairly exact (albeit not perfect) Science. Few have recently been off that much.

With that being said; I genuinely would be surprised by an Obama win.

Mufasa[/quote]

Unless the debates (or some other major event) turn this election in Romney’s favor I’d be surprised if Obama lost.

The two candidates are statistically tied nationally

When “leaners” are included in the Rasmussen presidential poll then it is a statistical tie with both Obama and Romney at 47%.

Examiner is back - Examiner.com

However, I am closely watching two states, Florida and Ohio. While it’s not impossible for Romney to win without Ohio it is very difficult to do. And he absolutely must win Florida. Right now Romney trails in Florida by 4 points and Ohio by 8 points. Those two states will most likely tell the tale.

Something significant has to change in order for Romney to win. Either the liberal media has to start telling the truth about Obama (what the hell am I saying? Ha ha that will never happen), or Romney is going to have to take it to Obama in the debates which are unfiltered by the MSLM. I highly doubt any other major factor will play into this election. We’ve had an Ambassador killed by terrorists and no significant response from the White House. The economy is in shambles with no end in sight. Basically, the people of the US are saying “we don’t much care what happens…” The Obama campaign has painted Romney as an evil rich guy and the MSLM has backed him up and it has stuck!.

And that is pretty much that unless Romney turns it around with a near flawless debate performance as I stated in a previous post. That is Romney’s last chance to impress the American people, look Presidential and win the hearts and minds of the majority of the electorate. If he cannot do this Obama will win reelection.

[MaximusB]

Pigeon,

I don’t mean to intrude on your convo with Beans, but some of what you say is just pathetic sissified bullshit.

Sorry if my bluntness comes off rough, but seriously, you need to show ID to collect public benefits, yet you whine about showing ID to vote ?! WTF ?! If you can get your poor or elderly ass out to the office to get your public benefits, you can get to a DMV. Sorry, no excuses, voting should be MUCH more respected in this country than I see. When I used to vote in Italy, it was a big Goddam deal.

If you value voting, you will do what it takes, and as a guy who earned his citizenship, I don’t see getting or showing a valid ID as a big deal.

[Carl2]

Good points on the ‘Obama flag’ thing: Uh... About That #Obama Flag? - Little Green Footballs…_About_That__Obama_Flag

[smh23]

[quote]Carl_ wrote:
Good points on the ‘Obama flag’ thing: Uh... About That #Obama Flag? - Little Green Footballs…_About_That__Obama_Flag[/quote]

A little reality never hurt anyone.

The truth is, half of the shit that partisans pretend to be furious about doesn’t really mean a thing to them. People want to hate everything about Obama or Romney, but in the real world, populated by real people, it’s tough to find a good reason to condemn every little thing that a person says or does. In fact, it’s tough not to find SOMETHING reasonable in either of their platforms or policies. So, people pretend to be terribly offended by every little thing that happens along the way, not because they actually are, but because they feel like they have to.

[jnd]

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

Also- the debates do not matter. The data on their overall impact suggests that they have almost 0 effect on the outcomes. And before Zeb starts spreading his lies about Reagan coming from behind after the debates with Carter, let me point out that the polling data do not support his fictional account of that election cycle.

jnd[/quote]

I don’t appreciate being called a liar. Maybe you should brush up on your history before you put yourself in such a bad position.

The first Reagan/Carter debate was held on October 28, 1980. At that point in time Jimmy Carter held a 6 to 8 point lead over Ronald Reagan. Right after that first debate Reagan took the lead and held it!

Debates DO matter and that one made the difference in the 1980 Presidential race.

[quote]Back in 1980 Gallup had Jimmy Carter up over Ronald Reagan by 4 points in mid to late Septemberâ?¦ And, Carter was up 8 points in October. In fact there was a published Gallup poll showing Carter up six among likely voters in a poll conducted Oct. 24 to 27.
[/quote]

Flashback: Gallup Had Carter Up 4 Points Over Ronald Reagan in September 1980

I am not saying that Romney will do the exact same thing when he debates Obama for the first time this coming October. However, there is that possibility based on history.

Now you can apologize for calling me a liar.
[/quote]

I will not apologize for calling you a liar, because you are lying.

What did ALL of the other 1980 polls say?

You have cherry-picked one poll and are willfully pretending (aka lying) that it was representative of all of the polls taken during that time. You are the one who needs to brush up on your history. Try googling it, or refer to the other post in another thread where I showed you the truth.

jnd

[ZEB]

[quote]jnd wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

Also- the debates do not matter. The data on their overall impact suggests that they have almost 0 effect on the outcomes. And before Zeb starts spreading his lies about Reagan coming from behind after the debates with Carter, let me point out that the polling data do not support his fictional account of that election cycle.

jnd[/quote]

I don’t appreciate being called a liar. Maybe you should brush up on your history before you put yourself in such a bad position.

The first Reagan/Carter debate was held on October 28, 1980. At that point in time Jimmy Carter held a 6 to 8 point lead over Ronald Reagan. Right after that first debate Reagan took the lead and held it!

Debates DO matter and that one made the difference in the 1980 Presidential race.

[quote]Back in 1980 Gallup had Jimmy Carter up over Ronald Reagan by 4 points in mid to late September�¢?�¦ And, Carter was up 8 points in October. In fact there was a published Gallup poll showing Carter up six among likely voters in a poll conducted Oct. 24 to 27.
[/quote]

Flashback: Gallup Had Carter Up 4 Points Over Ronald Reagan in September 1980

I am not saying that Romney will do the exact same thing when he debates Obama for the first time this coming October. However, there is that possibility based on history.

Now you can apologize for calling me a liar.
[/quote]

I will not apologize for calling you a liar, because you are lying.

What did ALL of the other 1980 polls say?

You have cherry-picked one poll and are willfully pretending (aka lying) that it was representative of all of the polls taken during that time. You are the one who needs to brush up on your history. Try googling it, or refer to the other post in another thread where I showed you the truth.

jnd
[/quote]

There were only a handful of trusted polling company’s in 1980. The Gallup poll was the gold standard of the 1980 election (and still widely regarded as one of, if not the most accurate today). Claiming someone is “lying” when in fact they are quoting a very highly regarding polling agency obviously puts you in a position of having to apologize for the slight. Whether you have the class to do so remains to be seen. Either way, you may disagree, but you may NOT claim that I was lying as I have posted the proof.

[countingbeans]

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Carl_ wrote:
Good points on the ‘Obama flag’ thing: Uh... About That #Obama Flag? - Little Green Footballs…_About_That__Obama_Flag[/quote]

A little reality never hurt anyone.

The truth is, half of the shit that partisans pretend to be furious about doesn’t really mean a thing to them. People want to hate everything about Obama or Romney, but in the real world, populated by real people, it’s tough to find a good reason to condemn every little thing that a person says or does. In fact, it’s tough not to find SOMETHING reasonable in either of their platforms or policies. So, people pretend to be terribly offended by every little thing that happens along the way, not because they actually are, but because they feel like they have to.[/quote]

Dude, the stripes look like the blood streaks on the walls in Libya. I don’t think dude is defacing the flag any more than anyone else, just that the picture is in poor taste.

[Pigeonkak]

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Pigeon,

I don’t mean to intrude on your convo with Beans, but some of what you say is just pathetic sissified bullshit.

Sorry if my bluntness comes off rough, but seriously, you need to show ID to collect public benefits, yet you whine about showing ID to vote ?! WTF ?! If you can get your poor or elderly ass out to the office to get your public benefits, you can get to a DMV. Sorry, no excuses, voting should be MUCH more respected in this country than I see. When I used to vote in Italy, it was a big Goddam deal.

If you value voting, you will do what it takes, and as a guy who earned his citizenship, I don’t see getting or showing a valid ID as a big deal. [/quote]

Your bluntness isn’t the problem. Blunt away. I am not asking the polling stations to just roll on in any old fart without ID. I also realise that if people are able bodied they should do their best to get that photo ID. But I argue the principle of the thing. My point is that a great deal of American citizens can expect being denied a vote in select states, but are in fact who they say they are as displayed on a normally valid ID which is now suddenly invalid. They must now prove even more than before that they are who they say they are. I mean, that a social security card still isn’t enough to prove your identity, that just screams ‘legislature with ulterior motive’. And this ruling isn’t even fair on Republican voters. My girlfriend’s abuela is a naturalised Cuban immigrant. She’s so damn republican she still thinks Obama is a Muslim. She will not be able to vote because she doesn’t have a photo ID! The ruling is undermining many people’s ability to vote on a technicality and not on the issue of citizenship.

I need to add a disclaimer here. I am not in fact naturalised yet, hence me spelling naturalised with an ‘s’. As soon as I am naturalised I promise to start adding z’s to words.

[Pigeonkak]

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Carl_ wrote:
Good points on the ‘Obama flag’ thing: Uh... About That #Obama Flag? - Little Green Footballs…_About_That__Obama_Flag[/quote]

A little reality never hurt anyone.

The truth is, half of the shit that partisans pretend to be furious about doesn’t really mean a thing to them. People want to hate everything about Obama or Romney, but in the real world, populated by real people, it’s tough to find a good reason to condemn every little thing that a person says or does. In fact, it’s tough not to find SOMETHING reasonable in either of their platforms or policies. So, people pretend to be terribly offended by every little thing that happens along the way, not because they actually are, but because they feel like they have to.[/quote]

Dude, the stripes look like the blood streaks on the walls in Libya. I don’t think dude is defacing the flag any more than anyone else, just that the picture is in poor taste. [/quote]

Actually, I think Carl hits the nail on the head. Partisans have an agenda. They want their guy to win to get what they think is good for them. It’s like none of us have any hindsight allowing us to compare the transgressions of the other candidate to the transgressions our current or previous candidates.

[countingbeans]

[quote]Pigeonkak wrote:
I am not asking the polling stations to just roll on in any old fart without ID. I also realise that if people are able bodied they should do their best to get that photo ID.[/quote]

Glad to see you can grasp why the rule isn’t what the left is trying to turn it into. You look into things AACORN and then notice the the only proof of identification you need is to tell the 300 year old woman your address and boom you can vote, and no wonder there is so few cases of voter fraud reported. They would have zero way of knowing.

My point is that a great deal of American citizens can expect being denied a vote in select states, but are in fact who they say they are as displayed on a normally valid ID which is now suddenly invalid.

What otherwise valid photo ID won’t be valid at a voting booth?

They must now prove even more than before that they are who they say they are. I mean, that a social security card still isn’t enough to prove your identity, that just screams ‘legislature with ulterior motive’.

No, that screams "I can take my son’s SS card and no one will know because I know both our numbers, both our addresses and both our names.

How would you tell who is who at the polling station?

And this ruling isn’t even fair on Republican voters.

You mean it places an equal burden on everyone?

My girlfriend’s abuela is a naturalised Cuban immigrant. She’s so damn republican she still thinks Obama is a Muslim. She will not be able to vote because she doesn’t have a photo ID!

Why not act like the man you are, and drive her down to get the ID she needs. Buy her some flowers when you pick her up too.

[countingbeans]

[quote]Pigeonkak wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Carl_ wrote:
Good points on the ‘Obama flag’ thing: Uh... About That #Obama Flag? - Little Green Footballs…_About_That__Obama_Flag[/quote]

A little reality never hurt anyone.

The truth is, half of the shit that partisans pretend to be furious about doesn’t really mean a thing to them. People want to hate everything about Obama or Romney, but in the real world, populated by real people, it’s tough to find a good reason to condemn every little thing that a person says or does. In fact, it’s tough not to find SOMETHING reasonable in either of their platforms or policies. So, people pretend to be terribly offended by every little thing that happens along the way, not because they actually are, but because they feel like they have to.[/quote]

Dude, the stripes look like the blood streaks on the walls in Libya. I don’t think dude is defacing the flag any more than anyone else, just that the picture is in poor taste. [/quote]

Actually, I think Carl hits the nail on the head. Partisans have an agenda. They want their guy to win to get what they think is good for them. It’s like none of us have any hindsight allowing us to compare the transgressions of the other candidate to the transgressions our current or previous candidates.
[/quote]

I am speaking purely for myself about the flag. Sorry that wasn’t clear.

[jnd]

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]jnd wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

Also- the debates do not matter. The data on their overall impact suggests that they have almost 0 effect on the outcomes. And before Zeb starts spreading his lies about Reagan coming from behind after the debates with Carter, let me point out that the polling data do not support his fictional account of that election cycle.

jnd[/quote]

I don’t appreciate being called a liar. Maybe you should brush up on your history before you put yourself in such a bad position.

The first Reagan/Carter debate was held on October 28, 1980. At that point in time Jimmy Carter held a 6 to 8 point lead over Ronald Reagan. Right after that first debate Reagan took the lead and held it!

Debates DO matter and that one made the difference in the 1980 Presidential race.

[quote]Back in 1980 Gallup had Jimmy Carter up over Ronald Reagan by 4 points in mid to late September�??�?�¢?�??�?�¦ And, Carter was up 8 points in October. In fact there was a published Gallup poll showing Carter up six among likely voters in a poll conducted Oct. 24 to 27.
[/quote]

Flashback: Gallup Had Carter Up 4 Points Over Ronald Reagan in September 1980

I am not saying that Romney will do the exact same thing when he debates Obama for the first time this coming October. However, there is that possibility based on history.

Now you can apologize for calling me a liar.
[/quote]

I will not apologize for calling you a liar, because you are lying.

What did ALL of the other 1980 polls say?

You have cherry-picked one poll and are willfully pretending (aka lying) that it was representative of all of the polls taken during that time. You are the one who needs to brush up on your history. Try googling it, or refer to the other post in another thread where I showed you the truth.

jnd
[/quote]

There were only a handful of trusted polling company’s in 1980. The Gallup poll was the gold standard of the 1980 election (and still widely regarded as one of, if not the most accurate today). Claiming someone is “lying” when in fact they are quoting a very highly regarding polling agency obviously puts you in a position of having to apologize for the slight. Whether you have the class to do so remains to be seen. Either way, you may disagree, but you may NOT claim that I was lying as I have posted the proof.
[/quote]

It is true there were only a handful of other trusted polling companies in 1980. And what did those other trusted polling companies report leading up to the debates? I’ll fill you in AGAIN- Reagan was ahead in all of them (except Gallup).

I am not denying you your right to be in love with Reagan. You believe he was a great POTUS, perhaps the best ever, in your mind. I am calling you out on your willful dismissal of the data clearly showing that he was not trailing and thus denying you your mythology of this nonexistent comeback.

Your decision to ignore the undeniable evidence is what makes you a liar.

You should be the one to apologize for your intellectual dishonesty about the 1980 polls.

jnd