Winner Of The Presidential Election is....

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
721

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I’m seeing a lot of cocky talk from the Dems, and numbers spinning from the repubs…

I think O is gonna take this still.

Oh well, it was a good run, and exciting while it lasted…

Christie 2016![/quote]

What makes you say this now ? [/quote]

Well I’ll be honest, 5 things have made me feel much better than I did this morning.

  1. No one on the right is politicizing the storm like the left, good sign, no panic

  2. An interview on the Michael Graham show about polls. Wasn’t spin, it was rational thought, and it is good news for romney

  3. I heard a god damn romney add on a boston radio station. Not a PAC, a romney ad. Boston. Did you hear me? Boston. Now this station leaks into southern New Hampshire, but New Hampshire has been in play for weeks… The ad ran once in the hour drive home, but still Boston media market and romney is buying ads…

  4. My son lied to my wife about trick-or-treat, and the fallout over Halloweengate has provided amazing amounts of entertainment.

  5. This storm may swing a few independents, but romney can afford to lose a couple there and it shouldn’t be more than a point, 2 tops. Turnout favors romney still.

Gallop needs to come out romney +4/5 and above 50 and I’ll feel like they are tied up again.

722

CB:

Not true.

I don’t remember talking shit about the Tea Party.

What quote(s) are you referring to?

Mufasa

723

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Damnation! I’m out of it for a little while and everybody 180s their mood and predictions. WHAT. HAPPENED? I mean, I know the storm hit, but damn beans, you sound depressed buddy :). Is there any movement in the poll numbers to back up this vibe? Where’s this coming from ZEB, beans? [/quote]

I have not seen any movement in the polls yet but that means little. After Christie praising Obama in the media on Tuesday and then Obama appearing with Christie today you won’t see that reflected in the polls until Thursday or Friday. But more important is that the focus on Obama’s failed record over the past four years was pushed off the radar screen because of the storm. That alone is enough to change things in a tight race.

In my opinion Obama will get a slight bump from the storm/Christie incident. Exactly how much is anyones guess.

The question now is can the entire Romney team return the focus back on Obama over the next 5 days? And if so will it be enough to prevent the storm/Christie bump from mattering? In other words can Romney return this election to where it was just before the storm hit?

If he can he will win, if not four more years of Obama.

This stuff is far better than any movie.

:wink:

724

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Damnation! I’m out of it for a little while and everybody 180s their mood and predictions. WHAT. HAPPENED? I mean, I know the storm hit, but damn beans, you sound depressed buddy :). Is there any movement in the poll numbers to back up this vibe? Where’s this coming from ZEB, beans? [/quote]

I’m wondering the same thing. It may actually give the edge in Pennsylvania and Ohio because it’ll make it harder to vote and cancels some early voting for some parts of those states. Especially for the poor who would more likely vote Obama. [/quote]

Here is why I felt like I do:

  1. Axelrod - I can’t read him for shit on camera, and his spin worked on me this morning
  2. Gallop is still delayed.
  3. Obama isn’t stumping… And the media is politicizing the every living shit out of this storm. Confident men don’t stump, they lead…
  4. Twitter talk of “romney can win without Ohio”
  5. I pay a lot of attention to “base” info sites and social media pages. The left is all over this storm and spin about romney and FEMA
  6. ZEB’s post got me at the right moment
725

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Damnation! I’m out of it for a little while and everybody 180s their mood and predictions. WHAT. HAPPENED? I mean, I know the storm hit, but damn beans, you sound depressed buddy :). Is there any movement in the poll numbers to back up this vibe? Where’s this coming from ZEB, beans? [/quote]

I’m wondering the same thing. It may actually give the edge in Pennsylvania and Ohio because it’ll make it harder to vote and cancels some early voting for some parts of those states. Especially for the poor who would more likely vote Obama. [/quote]

Excellent point Fletch!

As I said yesterday if there is enough property damage (not that I wish that on anyone I DO NOT) done to those who would normally vote for Obama they will have bigger things (in their personal lives) to worry about than taking a drive to the polls.

While it will not sway the New York elecoral vote as Obama beat McCain by 62% to 36% in 08, and Romney is not even close in New York. It may however give Romney a chance to win PA as Obama only won by about 10 points there in 08’ AND Romney is only trailing by 4 or 5 points in the latest reliable poll.

It depends on how hard Philly was hit. Philadelphia is a bastion of liberalism and will turn out for Obama by probably over 2-1. In fact if you remove Philly from PA Romney wins it in a walk. Pittsburgh while another democratic stronghold is much more evenly split. About 1.4 million Philadelphia residents voted for Obama in 08’. If we can peel away 100,000 votes from Obama who is already expected to have a lower turnout than in 08, Romney could possibly walk away with all 20 of PA’s electoral votes. This is nothing that I’d bet on but it is the only silver lining (for Romney) to the cloud called hurricane Sandy that disrupted the Romney campaign.

726

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
CB:

Not true.

I don’t remember talking shit about the Tea Party.

What quote(s) are you referring to?

Mufasa[/quote]

I’m busting your balls man.

Although I do read a negative tone in your posts when you type about them, not because of you, but because of the massive beating they have taken in the press.

In other news:

This is more of what the Republican party needs. Branding folks, it matters.

727

Fucking Drudge… Teasing a sex scandal?

Based on the last flop video he teased I’m thinking he is going to interview Paula Jones. Media Matters will then implode.

728

You know it’s all good, CB!

Now…if you want to talk about “Occupy”? THAT is a head-scratcher! (What exactly is an “idea” as in "Occupy is an “idea”?)

Oh, well…

This election…

I’m beginning to think that his election will not only be talked about for months, even years, to come…the “whys” and “hows” will be argued about for just as long. Sandy will certainly be in the mix…but so will many pivotal points (like the First Debate).

Mufasa

729

This makes me feel better as well. Calm confidence v bravado from Axelrod

730

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Fucking Drudge… Teasing a sex scandal?

Based on the last flop video he teased I’m thinking he is going to interview Paula Jones. Media Matters will then implode.[/quote]

Rumors are it is a Senator and Drudge’s sources are the hookers…

From Ace of Spades:

[i]I’ve heard the story, but I don’t want to say what it is because, well, I have no idea if it’s true.

But in the interests of sparing you 1 heart attacks and 2 overly optimistic guesses: What it’s about, rumors say, is a Senator.

I have no idea if this is true, though. But that’s the chatter.

It really bothers me that that that Drudgetaposition is so bang-on. Not only does he have a picture of Obama, but specifically a picture of Obama with his wedding ring in forefront of the picture.

One of the cobs pointed that out. Man, is that a sweet hint.

But, alas, the hint is inaccurate, if what I’ve been tipped is true.

Well… As Drudge is now saying it’s a Senator, I feel that my rumors might be more than rumors.

Here’s what I’m hearing. And bear in mind, I’m merely hearing it.

The story involves a Senator flying down to a big donor’s place in the Caribbean for orgies. Hookers are involved.

The One Big Snag in the story is that the story comes from hookers – a couple of them, I hear – and their credibility is, well. They’re hookers. It’s not Gold Standard.

Well, I guess I shouldn’t call them “hookers.” Let’s say “escorts.”

Escorts, for your penis.

They’re miffed because they didn’t get fully paid for services rendered.

[b]Always pay your foreign hookers for services rendered at big donor sex orgies.

Always pay your foreign hookers for services rendered at big donor sex orgies.[/b]

Don’t they teach nobody nothin’ no more?[/i]

731

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Fucking Drudge… Teasing a sex scandal?

Based on the last flop video he teased I’m thinking he is going to interview Paula Jones. Media Matters will then implode.[/quote]

Rumors are it is a Senator and Drudge’s sources are the hookers…

From Ace of Spades:

[i]I’ve heard the story, but I don’t want to say what it is because, well, I have no idea if it’s true.

But in the interests of sparing you 1 heart attacks and 2 overly optimistic guesses: What it’s about, rumors say, is a Senator.

I have no idea if this is true, though. But that’s the chatter.

It really bothers me that that that Drudgetaposition is so bang-on. Not only does he have a picture of Obama, but specifically a picture of Obama with his wedding ring in forefront of the picture.

One of the cobs pointed that out. Man, is that a sweet hint.

But, alas, the hint is inaccurate, if what I’ve been tipped is true.

Well… As Drudge is now saying it’s a Senator, I feel that my rumors might be more than rumors.

Here’s what I’m hearing. And bear in mind, I’m merely hearing it.

The story involves a Senator flying down to a big donor’s place in the Caribbean for orgies. Hookers are involved.

The One Big Snag in the story is that the story comes from hookers – a couple of them, I hear – and their credibility is, well. They’re hookers. It’s not Gold Standard.

Well, I guess I shouldn’t call them “hookers.” Let’s say “escorts.”

Escorts, for your penis.

They’re miffed because they didn’t get fully paid for services rendered.

[b]Always pay your foreign hookers for services rendered at big donor sex orgies.

Always pay your foreign hookers for services rendered at big donor sex orgies.[/b]

Don’t they teach nobody nothin’ no more?[/i][/quote]

Make sure the Secret Service reads the last part of this post, all it took was a cheap hooker to make them look bad.

732

You don’t pay hookers for sex, you pay them to leave and keep their fucking mouths shut. Anyone who doesn’t understand how this works isn’t qualified to be a Senator.

733

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
You don’t pay hookers for sex, you pay them to leave and keep their fucking mouths shut. Anyone who doesn’t understand how this works isn’t qualified to be a Senator.
[/quote]

Ahahahaha…so true.

734

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
You don’t pay hookers for sex, you pay them to leave and keep their fucking mouths shut. Anyone who doesn’t understand how this works isn’t qualified to be a Senator.
[/quote]

Ahahahaha…so true.[/quote]

hahaha Agreed as well.

735

How do you think seeing this during his NJ fly over made the Ego in Chief feel?

736

Who knows how it will play out, but a few things:

  1. I think too many Romney supporters were getting daily sugar highs from good daily news in the polls, and with the halt of poll reporting because of the storm, there’s no sugar fix, and they’ve come off their high for Romney, and think something has elementally changed because of the storm.

I could be wrong, I don’t think Obama’s efforts during the storm changes that many votes. Now the primary issue is turnout.

  1. I take everything said by either campaign’s spokespersons with a grain of salt, but in particular, you can’t believe a word out of the mouths of Stephanie Cutter or David Axelrod, who don’t report facts - they state things as they want them to be and hope for a self-fulfilling prophecy to materialize. Their modus operandi has always been to stage this as a campaign of the inevitable, and they will not acknowledge any weakness in any polling.

  2. If Chris Christie is shallow enough to be using the storm as early seed-sowing for 2016, that doesn’t say very much about a once promising governor with national aspirations.

737

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

I could be wrong, I don’t think Obama’s efforts during the storm changes that many votes. Now the primary issue is turnout.

.[/quote]

I want to say I see the left trying so hard to manufacture this storm and Christie into an October suprise as weakness, and not going to play out, but I can’t tell if that is my bias speaking or not.

I think Christie is the following:

  1. Honestly more concerned for NJ than the election
  2. Seeing this as a good play to keep his job in 2013 in the blue state of NJ
  3. fully convinced O is going to win next week, storm or no storm.
738

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

I want to say I see the left trying so hard to manufacture this storm and Christie into an October suprise as weakness, and not going to play out, but I can’t tell if that is my bias speaking or not.

I think Christie is the following:

  1. Honestly more concerned for NJ than the election
  2. Seeing this as a good play to keep his job in 2013 in the blue state of NJ
  3. fully convinced O is going to win next week, storm or no storm.[/quote]

Agreed. I thought of the alternative - Christie, the governor of deep-blue New Jersey with national aspirations, and who cannot afford to lose his job if he has higher aspirations, comes out and treats Obama coldly, or worse, acts like a jerk. Where is the upside?

If Christie acts like a jerk, it reflects poorly on Christie, and on Romney, and creates a larger talking point for the Axelrods of the world that the GOP can’t put politics aside even when a natural disaster strikes.

The Romney campaign has taken the high ground on seeking bi-partisanship versus a bitterly partisan president - no reason to forfeit that now, especially in connection with a natural disaster, when partisanship must take a back seat.

And political optics aside, if Obama did a good job, then it’s ok to say so, in my view. Some things are simply bigger than politics, and while Christie may have been too effusive in praise for some people, his first job is to govern the people of New Jersey during a tough event, and if he is happy with the federal government’s response, that is not a bad thing to say.

739

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

I want to say I see the left trying so hard to manufacture this storm and Christie into an October suprise as weakness, and not going to play out, but I can’t tell if that is my bias speaking or not.

I think Christie is the following:

  1. Honestly more concerned for NJ than the election
  2. Seeing this as a good play to keep his job in 2013 in the blue state of NJ
  3. fully convinced O is going to win next week, storm or no storm.[/quote]

Agreed. I thought of the alternative - Christie, the governor of deep-blue New Jersey with national aspirations, and who cannot afford to lose his job if he has higher aspirations, comes out and treats Obama coldly, or worse, acts like a jerk. Where is the upside?

If Christie acts like a jerk, it reflects poorly on Christie, and on Romney, and creates a larger talking point for the Axelrods of the world that the GOP can’t put politics aside even when a natural disaster strikes.

The Romney campaign has taken the high ground on seeking bi-partisanship versus a bitterly partisan president - no reason to forfeit that now, especially in connection with a natural disaster, when partisanship must take a back seat.

And political optics aside, if Obama did a good job, then it’s ok to say so, in my view. Some things are simply bigger than politics, and while Christie may have been too effusive in praise for some people, his first job is to govern the people of New Jersey during a tough event, and if he is happy with the federal government’s response, that is not a bad thing to say.[/quote]

Christie could certainly have made a play to keep his job without all the fawning over Obama. He was way over the top. MSNBC has played that tape forward backwards, in slow motion, fast forward and basically had a field day with it.

What’s wrong with taking the middle ground?

“As you all know I am a big supporter of Mitt Romney for President, but this tragedy supersedes politics and I call on our President to do the right thing as I’m sure he will…bla bla bla”

There you go, he has supported Romney and not even mentioned Obama’s name. You could even rewrite it and make it more friendly to Obama. But what Christie did is unforgivable!

Also if it’s all about the victims of the hurricane then what kept Christie from mentioning Romney’s name only twice during his republican national convention key note speech? Christie talked endlessly not about how Romney reached across the isle as a republican Governor of Massachusetts, but how he himself has worked well with democrats. He used the stage that night to look past this current election and onto 2016 FOR HIMSELF!

In short Christie is a rat. And should Romney win Christie should be treated like the rat that he is and be isolated. And from what I’m hearing from fellow republicans in fairly high places that is exactly what is going to happen.

740

[quote]ZEB wrote:

In short Christie is a rat. And should Romney win Christie should be treated like the rat that he is and be isolated. And from what I’m hearing from fellow republicans in fairly high places that is exactly what is going to happen. [/quote]

Yeah, Christie will have a better shot nationally if he switched parties as of today.

A lot of comments I’ve read are echoing ZEB’s here.