Obama just needs Nevada, where Romney has never led in a poll, to clinch.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/...e_map.html

This is like porn for you, isn't it?

Anyone else notice Maxi believes polls determine the winner?

(09-26-2012 11:38 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  Anyone else notice Maxi believes polls determine the winner?

Step 1) Denial.



I learned the hard way when they show you losing by more than ~5-6 pts you're screwed. There's time for the polls to change ... but if the status quo holds this won't be close for Mittens.

In all fairness, I'm not seeing Romney come out strong and try to win this election.

Makes me wonder why.

Also should make dems wonder why it's still so close.

Anyway, I have noticed that dems live vicariously through elections. They don't believe in the possibility of their own success, so they live for these little skirmishes that make them feel like they're on the winning side.

10 points even makes me question the accuracy of the poll.

They absolutely positively have to find a way to keep the faith among the GOP. This could have disastrous down ticket ramifications if the GOP frontrunners stay home.

(09-26-2012 11:43 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  In all fairness, I'm not seeing Romney come out strong and try to win this election.

Makes me wonder why.

Also should make dems wonder why it's still so close.

Anyway, I have noticed that dems live vicariously through elections. They don't believe in the possibility of their own success, so they live for these little skirmishes that make them feel like they're on the winning side.

This is not an Democrat victory at this point ... it is a Mittens repudiation. If this were some grand Democrat victory they wouldn't be losing the Senate and not making any ground back in the House. I can deal with an Obama Presidency and a GOP Senate and House. Getting nothing done would be the best 4 years we've had in quite some time.

(09-26-2012 11:42 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(09-26-2012 11:38 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  Anyone else notice Maxi believes polls determine the winner?

Step 1) Denial.

I'm not in denial GTS. I'm just not as quick as you and Maxi to declare elections over 6 weeks out and before the debates. History has taught us such things are fairly moronic to do.

Quote:I learned the hard way when they show you losing by more than ~5-6 pts you're screwed. There's time for the polls to change ... but if the status quo holds this won't be close for Mittens.

When polls that estimate a Dem advantage as equal to or greater than 08 show you losing, you're right to question it.

Yes, if the dem advantage is equal or greater than 08, which is what every poll that shows Obama with a big lead do, then yes, Romney will lose and lose big. The question is it reasonable to assume that will be the case?

It it reasonable to assume Obama has these huge leads when he is losing or virtually tied with Romney among independents? And that's in most every poll.

These are wave election numbers, yet the dems aren't showing strong in picking up a bunch of senate seats. They aren't projected to pick up a bunch of governorships. They aren't projected to take back the House.

I learned a long time ago not to fall prey to the media narrative of any election. I also learned, because I spent the first part of my career doing polling, that weighting matters. Assumptions made in polls matter.

(09-26-2012 11:45 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(09-26-2012 11:43 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  In all fairness, I'm not seeing Romney come out strong and try to win this election.

Makes me wonder why.

Also should make dems wonder why it's still so close.

Anyway, I have noticed that dems live vicariously through elections. They don't believe in the possibility of their own success, so they live for these little skirmishes that make them feel like they're on the winning side.

This is not an Democrat victory at this point ... it is a Mittens repudiation. If this were some grand Democrat victory they wouldn't be losing the Senate and not making any ground back in the House. I can deal with an Obama Presidency and a GOP Senate and House. Getting nothing done would be the best 4 years we've had in quite some time.

Yahoo is predicting Dems make ground on the senate, so they're drumming that up. But I'm not suggesting that Obama is doing well...I'm suggesting Dems want to pretend he is.

You can call it a Mittens repudiation, and of course I believe that too. However, he's not doing much to campaign. Frankly, I don't know how popular he could be b/c he's not trying.

And I'll say it again, why are both of these guys trying to duck the job? What exactly do they know is going to happen in the next four years?

(09-26-2012 12:02 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  Yahoo is predicting Dems make ground on the senate, so they're drumming that up. But I'm not suggesting that Obama is doing well...I'm suggesting Dems want to pretend he is.

Yes. And they want to continue to believe the weighting in these polls makes no sense.

In '08 Ohio was 2.6% under Obama's overall national win. In '04 it was the same as Bush's national win. These polls say now it's 1.6% over Obama's 08 win? In a bad economy, a ME in flames, total lack of support for his policies and him losing independents in most polls?

This isn't about partisanship. The numbers simply don't make sense to any objective observer.

(09-26-2012 11:45 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(09-26-2012 11:43 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  In all fairness, I'm not seeing Romney come out strong and try to win this election.

Makes me wonder why.

Also should make dems wonder why it's still so close.

Anyway, I have noticed that dems live vicariously through elections. They don't believe in the possibility of their own success, so they live for these little skirmishes that make them feel like they're on the winning side.

This is not an Democrat victory at this point ... it is a Mittens repudiation. If this were some grand Democrat victory they wouldn't be losing the Senate and not making any ground back in the House. I can deal with an Obama Presidency and a GOP Senate and House. Getting nothing done would be the best 4 years we've had in quite some time.

Yes. THat would be great more of the same do nothing crap we have had the last 2+ years. THat will solve all our country's problems.

As opposed to issuing a blank check to Barack Obama?

Damn right.

(09-26-2012 12:58 PM)Smaug Wrote:  As opposed to issuing a blank check to Barack Obama?

Damn right.

Who said that is what would happen(I mean besides you tea bagger types)? Why not just let him implement his plan? If it fails like you think it will, you tea baggers will gain public support and win the next presidency. Of course, we know why you don't want that. You know he will be successful and if he is successful, that would destroy the tea party once and for all.

(09-26-2012 01:04 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(09-26-2012 12:58 PM)Smaug Wrote:  As opposed to issuing a blank check to Barack Obama?

Damn right.

Who said that is what would happen(I mean besides you tea bagger types)? Why not just let him implement his plan? If it fails like you think it will, you tea baggers will gain public support and win the next presidency. Of course, we know why you don't want that. You know he will be successful and if he is successful, that would destroy the tea party once and for all.

He did implement is plans. For two straight years he got virtually all he ever wanted cause he had an overwhelming majority in the House and a fillibuster proof Senate.

He got what he wanted, and it failed.

(09-26-2012 01:06 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(09-26-2012 01:04 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(09-26-2012 12:58 PM)Smaug Wrote:  As opposed to issuing a blank check to Barack Obama?

Damn right.

Who said that is what would happen(I mean besides you tea bagger types)? Why not just let him implement his plan? If it fails like you think it will, you tea baggers will gain public support and win the next presidency. Of course, we know why you don't want that. You know he will be successful and if he is successful, that would destroy the tea party once and for all.

He did implement is plans. For two straight years he got virtually all he ever wanted cause he had an overwhelming majority in the House and a fillibuster proof Senate.

He got what he wanted, and it failed.

Keep on believing that.

(09-26-2012 01:07 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(09-26-2012 01:06 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(09-26-2012 01:04 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(09-26-2012 12:58 PM)Smaug Wrote:  As opposed to issuing a blank check to Barack Obama?

Damn right.

Who said that is what would happen(I mean besides you tea bagger types)? Why not just let him implement his plan? If it fails like you think it will, you tea baggers will gain public support and win the next presidency. Of course, we know why you don't want that. You know he will be successful and if he is successful, that would destroy the tea party once and for all.

He did implement is plans. For two straight years he got virtually all he ever wanted cause he had an overwhelming majority in the House and a fillibuster proof Senate.

He got what he wanted, and it failed.

Keep on believing that.

I always believe the facts. You don't understand or recognize them. You believe what Obama tells you. I just hope he gives you the blue kool-aid soon.

(09-26-2012 01:08 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(09-26-2012 01:07 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(09-26-2012 01:06 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(09-26-2012 01:04 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(09-26-2012 12:58 PM)Smaug Wrote:  As opposed to issuing a blank check to Barack Obama?

Damn right.

Who said that is what would happen(I mean besides you tea bagger types)? Why not just let him implement his plan? If it fails like you think it will, you tea baggers will gain public support and win the next presidency. Of course, we know why you don't want that. You know he will be successful and if he is successful, that would destroy the tea party once and for all.

He did implement is plans. For two straight years he got virtually all he ever wanted cause he had an overwhelming majority in the House and a fillibuster proof Senate.

He got what he wanted, and it failed.

Keep on believing that.

I always believe the facts. You don't understand or recognize them. You believe what Obama tells you. I just hope he gives you the blue kool-aid soon.

Fox "facts".

(09-26-2012 01:04 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(09-26-2012 12:58 PM)Smaug Wrote:  As opposed to issuing a blank check to Barack Obama?

Damn right.

Who said that is what would happen(I mean besides you tea bagger types)? Why not just let him implement his plan? If it fails like you think it will, you tea baggers will gain public support and win the next presidency. Of course, we know why you don't want that. You know he will be successful and if he is successful, that would destroy the tea party once and for all.

bull****.

If I thought implimenting his plan would be good for this country, I'd have voted for him, genius.

How can I, you, or anyone else know if he'd be successful?

Don't the last 4 years count for anything?

Next thing is, you'll bring up the meanies in Congress and blame them, when even Obama has acknowledged he was responsible "to a degree".

(09-26-2012 01:20 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(09-26-2012 01:04 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(09-26-2012 12:58 PM)Smaug Wrote:  As opposed to issuing a blank check to Barack Obama?

Damn right.

Who said that is what would happen(I mean besides you tea bagger types)? Why not just let him implement his plan? If it fails like you think it will, you tea baggers will gain public support and win the next presidency. Of course, we know why you don't want that. You know he will be successful and if he is successful, that would destroy the tea party once and for all.

bull****.

If I thought implimenting his plan would be good for this country, I'd have voted for him, genius.

How can I, you, or anyone else know if he'd be successful?

Don't the last 4 years count for anything?

Next thing is, you'll bring up the meanies in Congress and blame them, when even Obama has acknowledged he was responsible "to a degree".

I never said it would be successful. My belief is it would be but that doesn't mean it will be. If it isn't successful, you tea bagger types would regain power and implement your plan and instead of the Republican party being on the way out, they would be relevant and the Democrats would be on the way out.

As for why you won't vote for him, I understand you don't believe his economic policies. I know you believe that top down works better than bottom/middle up. So if you believe in trickle down, of course you wouldn't vote for someone who doesn't believe in that.