Winner Of The Presidential Election is....

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
781

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

We’re now at the point where either Obama wins the electoral college OR (and not unlikely) the vast majority of the polls have been systematically biased, turn out to have been wrong, and Romney wins.

I still can’t really call this. When I look at the electoral prediction maps it certainly looks like Obama has the clear edge. But it just doesn’t “feel” that way and it hasn’t since Denver (but really since about June 2009). And the poll bias/enthusiasm arguments are compelling.

Are people around here feeling nervous/confident at this point? I can’t imagine either side being too happy about going into election day with this sort of picture.[/quote]

I said from day 1 it will be very difficult to beat an incumbent President who has the main stream liberal media in his back pocket.

Now let’s take a look how it has helped him:

Every one of the four debates (one VP) there was a left wing commentator. Did it help Obama? It did in 3 of the 4 debates.

Debate 1 Thank God Mitt Romney talked over Jim Lehere and soudly defeated Obama

Debate 2 Candy Crowely took the side of Obama giving him closing remarks 5 times to Romney’s 2. And at a crucial times interrupted Romney claiming Obama was correct. She later recanted her words but of course it was too late.

Debate 3 Bob Schieffer was far more subtle than Crowely but still interrupted Romney on three occasions and also allowed Obama to close more times.

VP Debate This commentator attended Obama’s wedding so they are long time friends. She too allowed Biden to close more times and basically behave quite badly. Fortunately, this backfired on the democrats. Most think Joe Biden is senile.

And of course we have every late night “comedian” and left wing hack taking shots at Romney 24/7. Yeah they’re only jokes…but guess what? After the first 100 or so people start thinking that Romney is a bad guy. For those of you with no business experience that’s how advertising works.

And let’s not forget the Benghazi incident. If GW Bush were President and this happened on his watch the main stream liberal media would be camped outside his door waiting for answers. I can hear it now:

“You said it was a video that sparked this attack when in fact YOU KNEW ALL ALONG that it was a terrorist strike! And your people actually watched this happen from a camera in a drone. AND YOU DID NOTHING TO HELP the Ambassador or the Navy Seals that died!”

That would pretty much be the end of any reelection efforts right there. The challenger would go up about 10 pts. in the polls.

Throw all of that in with the kid gloves handling that the main stream liberal media gives him on a regular basis through the previous four years and you have a very difficult challenge beating him.

And even under those odds Romney was still ahead. And then came hurricane Sandy! A chance for Obama to look Presidential. Oh he didn’t do anything but walk around with Governor fatty for a few hours, but it looked mighty good to the weak minded people who are not quite sure if Obama is horrible yet. I think they might need another four years before they can be absolutely sure.

Romney is up against it for sure!

However, even with all of that against him he still has a good chance to defeat obama. But only if the voter turnout for Romney is off the charts great!

782

Interesting tid-bit. Apparently some think Gary Johnson is pulling votes from Obama in CO where he has been campaigning and where pot is on the ballot.

783

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

Interesting tid-bit. Apparently some think Gary Johnson is pulling votes from Obama in CO where he has been campaigning and where pot is on the ballot.

http://www.businessinsider.com/gary-johnsons-anti-drone-anti-ndaa-platform-may-take-out-obama-in-colorado-2012-11[/quote]

Johnson is a very odd guy but that’s beside the point. Anyone who votes for a third party candidate is basically throwing their vote away and helps the eventual winner of the real contest. Now most adults know better than to do this, at least the smart ones. That’s why third party candidates are mostly supported by the 18-24 age group. AND…that’s why he pulls votes from Obama where ever his name is on the ballot.

784

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

Interesting tid-bit. Apparently some think Gary Johnson is pulling votes from Obama in CO where he has been campaigning and where pot is on the ballot.

http://www.businessinsider.com/gary-johnsons-anti-drone-anti-ndaa-platform-may-take-out-obama-in-colorado-2012-11[/quote]

Johnson is a very odd guy but that’s beside the point. Anyone who votes for a third party candidate is basically throwing their vote away and helps the eventual winner of the real contest. Now most adults know better than to do this, at least the smart ones. That’s why third party candidates are mostly supported by the 18-24 age group. AND…that’s why he pulls votes from Obama where ever his name is on the ballot.[/quote]

Voting for a “D” or an “R” every time they try and stuff a shit-sandwhich candidate down your throat is throwing your vote away. Most adults, at least the smart one, don’t know any better, however.

785

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

Interesting tid-bit. Apparently some think Gary Johnson is pulling votes from Obama in CO where he has been campaigning and where pot is on the ballot.

http://www.businessinsider.com/gary-johnsons-anti-drone-anti-ndaa-platform-may-take-out-obama-in-colorado-2012-11[/quote]

Johnson is a very odd guy but that’s beside the point. Anyone who votes for a third party candidate is basically throwing their vote away and helps the eventual winner of the real contest. Now most adults know better than to do this, at least the smart ones. That’s why third party candidates are mostly supported by the 18-24 age group. AND…that’s why he pulls votes from Obama where ever his name is on the ballot.[/quote]

Voting for a “D” or an “R” every time they try and stuff a shit-sandwhich candidate down your throat is throwing your vote away. Most adults, at least the smart one, don’t know any better, however. [/quote]

LOL…clown.

786

Interesting info about Christie for those bashing him now

787

[quote]kevinm1 wrote:

Interesting info about Christie for those bashing him now[/quote]

That rumor (Christie was being considered as VP) was buzzing around after Christie’s horrible key note speech at the RNC. In it he only mentioned Romney twice while bragging about what a great Governor he is.

Whether it is true or not, I think it’s obvious at this point that the fat one has plans of his own in four years and Romney, if elected to the Presidency, would have gotten in the way. But unfortunately for Christie while he understands NJ politics quite well he just showed that he understands nothing about national politics. The man’s political career in the republican party is over with the end of his term as Governor.

Any bets?

788

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]kevinm1 wrote:

Interesting info about Christie for those bashing him now[/quote]

That rumor (Christie was being considered as VP) was buzzing around after Christie’s horrible key note speech at the RNC. In it he only mentioned Romney twice while bragging about what a great Governor he is.

Whether it is true or not, I think it’s obvious at this point that the fat one has plans of his own in four years and Romney, if elected to the Presidency, would have gotten in the way. But unfortunately for Christie while he understands NJ politics quite well he just showed that he understands nothing about national politics. The man’s political career in the republican party is over with the end of his term as Governor.

Any bets?[/quote]

Do you think he was ACTIVELY sabotaging Romney while brown nosing Obama ? As in consciously I mean, not just attention whoring in the worst way possible? Not that the end effect isn’t the same , just that the intent may very well be the decisive factor on whether his career is toast or not. Cos he’s fairly young so could run in 20…if he doesn’t keel over of a heart attack in the interim.

789

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

We’re now at the point where either Obama wins the electoral college OR (and not unlikely) the vast majority of the polls have been systematically biased, turn out to have been wrong, and Romney wins.

I still can’t really call this. When I look at the electoral prediction maps it certainly looks like Obama has the clear edge. But it just doesn’t “feel” that way and it hasn’t since Denver (but really since about June 2009). And the poll bias/enthusiasm arguments are compelling.

Are people around here feeling nervous/confident at this point? I can’t imagine either side being too happy about going into election day with this sort of picture.[/quote]

Agreed-I can’t imagine either side really feeling like they have a slam dunk here. Personally, while I see a squeaker victory for Obama, I definitely would not (obviously depending on the distribution of electoral votes) be surprised to see a Romney victory. While I think turnout will end up somewhere between the great for Dems in 2008 and the great for Reps predicted by many here, there really is no way to tell. At the end of the day, a huge extreme either way could push things that direction.

I’m pretty interested to see how the pollers respond to the results. Some of them are bound to be wrong if they disagree. I already know Silver will point to the fact he’s giving Obama a 83.7% chance of winning means Romney could still win, etc etc and the others have their own explanations in place, but it will be interesting to see the post-election analysis/explanations on their ends.

I’m also really hoping there is no sort of ugly voter fraud accusation storyline afterwards. With such a close election and with polls showing love to both sides, I’m afraid that if an “unexpected” result pops up, people will jump automatically to fraud…more than likely a false accusation and ugly look for either side…

790

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]kevinm1 wrote:

Interesting info about Christie for those bashing him now[/quote]

That rumor (Christie was being considered as VP) was buzzing around after Christie’s horrible key note speech at the RNC. In it he only mentioned Romney twice while bragging about what a great Governor he is.

Whether it is true or not, I think it’s obvious at this point that the fat one has plans of his own in four years and Romney, if elected to the Presidency, would have gotten in the way. But unfortunately for Christie while he understands NJ politics quite well he just showed that he understands nothing about national politics. The man’s political career in the republican party is over with the end of his term as Governor.

Any bets?[/quote]

Do you think he was ACTIVELY sabotaging Romney while brown nosing Obama ? As in consciously I mean, not just attention whoring in the worst way possible? Not that the end effect isn’t the same , just that the intent may very well be the decisive factor on whether his career is toast or not. Cos he’s fairly young so could run in 20…if he doesn’t keel over of a heart attack in the interim.
[/quote]

The man is a former prosecutor and very sharp indeed. But in this case he was too smart for his own good. He was most certainly trying to undermine Mitt Romney. If he was not as soon as he realized how he was coming off he would have gotten on the air and reinforce his support for Mitt Romney, but that didn’t happen. He cast his lot with the evil one kicking Romney to the curb and hoping for his defeat.

791

[quote]CornSprint wrote:

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

We’re now at the point where either Obama wins the electoral college OR (and not unlikely) the vast majority of the polls have been systematically biased, turn out to have been wrong, and Romney wins.

I still can’t really call this. When I look at the electoral prediction maps it certainly looks like Obama has the clear edge. But it just doesn’t “feel” that way and it hasn’t since Denver (but really since about June 2009). And the poll bias/enthusiasm arguments are compelling.

Are people around here feeling nervous/confident at this point? I can’t imagine either side being too happy about going into election day with this sort of picture.[/quote]

Agreed-I can’t imagine either side really feeling like they have a slam dunk here. Personally, while I see a squeaker victory for Obama, I definitely would not (obviously depending on the distribution of electoral votes) be surprised to see a Romney victory. While I think turnout will end up somewhere between the great for Dems in 2008 and the great for Reps predicted by many here, there really is no way to tell. At the end of the day, a huge extreme either way could push things that direction.

I’m pretty interested to see how the pollers respond to the results. Some of them are bound to be wrong if they disagree. I already know Silver will point to the fact he’s giving Obama a 83.7% chance of winning means Romney could still win, etc etc and the others have their own explanations in place, but it will be interesting to see the post-election analysis/explanations on their ends.

I’m also really hoping there is no sort of ugly voter fraud accusation storyline afterwards. With such a close election and with polls showing love to both sides, I’m afraid that if an “unexpected” result pops up, people will jump automatically to fraud…more than likely a false accusation and ugly look for either side…[/quote]

Good point regarding voter fraud. But quite honestly the country is so divided right now that I doubt that an accusation of voter fraud will make it any worse.

792

.

793

As an old-fashioned type of guy who is sick and tired of this new trend of pollsters running our lives, I sincerely hope that the results, whatever they may be!!!, belie the polls. So I guess I’m hoping that it is a blowout one way or the other.

794

[quote]CornSprint wrote:

I’m also really hoping there is no sort of ugly voter fraud accusation storyline afterwards. With such a close election and with polls showing love to both sides, I’m afraid that if an “unexpected” result pops up, people will jump automatically to fraud…more than likely a false accusation and ugly look for either side…[/quote]

This is already happening, by both sides. Lol

795

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Goddamit, pay your hooker ![/quote]

Its just common courtesy. [/quote]

What sort of hooker doesn’t demand payment before the act?[/quote]

The naive ones or the ones that trust you.[/quote]

Wives.

796

smh:

Back to this question you asked:

“…Are people around here feeling nervous/confident at this point? I can’t imagine either side being too happy about going into election day with this sort of picture…”

On this Forum certainly…and among many I run into…there is a HELLUVA’ lot of “Bet Hedging” going on; with people ready and willing with guns loaded to blame all kinds of external forces for the loss of the candidate they support.

While there may be some external forces that affect the outcome…I am of the feeling that they will not the “cause”. As any good Coach can tell you, it’s not that last second kick that “wins” or “loses” the game…it’s the total sum of the mistakes and miscues that happen in the entirety of the game.

And both these candidates and their followers should be able to point to PLENTY of those. (If they choose to).

Mufasa

797

Rove’s SuperPac and a few others just started running Obama attack ads in WA state. I saw some last night. I can’t believe this state is in play, but maybe they know something I don’t or just need to burn some cash.

798

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
Rove’s SuperPac and a few others just started running Obama attack ads in WA state. I saw some last night. I can’t believe this state is in play, but maybe they know something I don’t or just need to burn some cash. [/quote]

That is mighty odd jack. If they just wanted to burn some cash why not throw the whole pile in PA? Both Crossroads and the Romney campaign have thrown money in PA over the past 10 days. If they think that state is in play why not add more funds there? Or, better yet put the money in a state like Virginia which is very close and practically a “must have” for Romney? Obama beat McCain by 57% to 40% in the state of Washington. It’s difficult for me to believe that Rove thinks that Washington’s 13 electoral votes could possibly go to Romney.

If it is true this one has me stumped.

799

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
Rove’s SuperPac and a few others just started running Obama attack ads in WA state. I saw some last night. I can’t believe this state is in play, but maybe they know something I don’t or just need to burn some cash. [/quote]

That is mighty odd jack. If they just wanted to burn some cash why not throw the whole pile in PA? Both Crossroads and the Romney campaign have thrown money in PA over the past 10 days. If they think that state is in play why not add more funds there? Or, better yet put the money in a state like Virginia which is very close and practically a “must have” for Romney? Obama beat McCain by 57% to 40% in the state of Washington. It’s difficult for me to believe that Rove thinks that Washington’s 13 electoral votes could possibly go to Romney.

If it is true this one has me stumped.[/quote]

The governor’s race is supposedly very close here despite Obama’s lead in the polls in the presidential race. I am wondering if they are hoping for some downstream effect. Seriously, this is the first time I’ve seen presidential ads in Washington since I moved back here.

http://www.king5.com/news/politics/KING-5-Poll-Governors-race-a-dead-heat-176770651.html

800

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
Rove’s SuperPac and a few others just started running Obama attack ads in WA state. I saw some last night. I can’t believe this state is in play, but maybe they know something I don’t or just need to burn some cash. [/quote]

That is mighty odd jack. If they just wanted to burn some cash why not throw the whole pile in PA? Both Crossroads and the Romney campaign have thrown money in PA over the past 10 days. If they think that state is in play why not add more funds there? Or, better yet put the money in a state like Virginia which is very close and practically a “must have” for Romney? Obama beat McCain by 57% to 40% in the state of Washington. It’s difficult for me to believe that Rove thinks that Washington’s 13 electoral votes could possibly go to Romney.

If it is true this one has me stumped.[/quote]

The governor’s race is supposedly very close here despite Obama’s lead in the polls in the presidential race. I am wondering if they are hoping for some downstream effect. Seriously, this is the first time I’ve seen presidential ads in Washington since I moved back here.

http://www.king5.com/news/politics/KING-5-Poll-Governors-race-a-dead-heat-176770651.html

[/quote]

There is only one reason that I can think of to throw dollars into the state of Washington. They are so far ahead (in their internal polling) that they are trying to run the board. This would also explain money being spent in PA and Minnesota.

For those who would take the other side and say it is a desperation move, why wouldn’t they place those millions in states that are (according to legitimate pollsters) close?

For example, Romney and Obama are virtually tied in Colorado, Virginia, Iowa, Ohio and Wisconsin. Why not more money in any of those three states? If you are concerned about losing it only makes sense to shore up the core swing states that you need to win. You wouldn’t throw your hands up a week or so before the election, walk away from those states and throw money on a long shot, right? When its’ close you keep fighting in that specific state.

What am I missing here?