Nice!

1) There is no way you can determine Romney is up 44% - 40% based off of that information.

2) "Relative to this time in the 2008 election, Democrats trailed Republicans by 16 percentage points in voted absentee ballots. That lead has been cut to 4 percentage points this year." You interestingly enough left that part out.

3) There is a thread stickied for stuff like this.

PPP has a slight D lean, so I'd expect to be slightly better for Romney.  His only possible southern win is in VA. 

He should pull out here as well and concentrate on VA and OH.  Maybe just OH.

Horrible idea.

The probable media narrative would negate any benefit that would have if Obama did what you're suggesting. The MSM would go on and on about how Obama is collapsing, and it would only feed into this current defeatist hysteria that, to the annoyance of many, seems to have gripped some Democrats.

They will anyhow. 

Obama is good at throwing things under buses; NC and FL are no exceptions. 

Regardless, Obama and Co. have already investing millions of dollars in building campaign infrastructure (field offices, staff, GOTV) that it's impossible to now just throw that all away. Obama probably wouldn't gain much of anything by reallocating resources from NC and FL to OH, anyways. Look at Romney in Ohio. You can only spend so much money in one state and expect results. He's throwing tens of millions of dollars a week into the state and it's barely moving the needle.

PPP has a slight D lean, so I'd expect to be slightly better for Romney.  His only possible southern win is in VA. 

He should pull out here as well and concentrate on VA and OH.  Maybe just OH.

Horrible idea.

The probable media narrative would negate any benefit that would have if Obama did what you're suggesting. The MSM would go on and on about how Obama is collapsing, and it would only feed into this current defeatist hysteria that, to the annoyance of many, seems to have gripped some Democrats.

Perhaps by virtue of a lot more people dying, yes.

Plus a lot of the bloat in the programs would be gone. Doctors would order fewer tests etc, if the patients were footing the bill.

Uh, no. Doctor's do the same thing with private insurance plans (actually some HMO-managed Medicaid plans are actually less likely to reimburse medical professionals for unwarranted tests and procedures then private insurance plans are...) What you're describing isn't a symptom of public insurance. It's spawned from something else entirely.

Just Tweeted. Romney up over Obama 49-47%. It's a two point gain for Romney from two weeks ago.

Most of Obama's post-debate erosion of support has been with white voters, so the effect isn't as strong in really racially diverse states

Romney's gains in NC and VA since the debate- 2 pts in each- smaller than most other states due to large nonwhite population

This is actually better for Obama than I was expecting. I was thinking Mitt would be 50%+. Guess not.

Back in September, Obama was leading Romney 50.2% to 45.5%.  This means Obama's lead in this poll shrank by 1.8% and Romney gained .5%.  Overall, Obama is hurting more.

Nice spin.

He's clearly taking after Ryan's spin about Scranton's unemployment numbers at the debate.

BTW:

Ohio voters think Biden won the debate Thursday night 46-37, including 44-32 with independents

PublicPolicyPolling ‏@ppppolls

Barack Obama was a lot stronger in our Saturday Ohio polling than Friday night. We'll have the final results soon

[Obama's parents died relatively young]

I've shook hands with both, and Obama is much skinnier and shorter in-person than you would suspect (I still doubt he's 6'1 and feel like he's 5'11, maybe 6'). Romney has a more masculine build, is probably about 6'2 or 6'2.5, and I suspect would clock Obama in a fist fight.

As for this poll, I'd suggest doing it again after the debates to see what happens.

Fun fact after doing a quick search on Romney's reported height (6'2):

"Since 1789, the taller candidates have triumphed in 58 percent of U.S. presidential elections, and what’s more, they’ve won the popular vote 67 percent of the time. There’s even a term for this phenomenon: “the Presidential height index.”"

Source: http://newsone.com/2015729/how-tall-is-romney/

Disturbing.

Okay I know this thread was just supposed to be dumb fun... and your post certainly fulfilled the first part, but would you really bet on a pensioner vs a guy almost fifteen years his junior who works out?  Did you see that picture of Romney ducking the Vietnam war in France?

Romney has better genetics (e.g., Obama's parents died relatively young) and a healthier lifestyle (e.g., Obama only recently quit smoking), so I think it makes up for the age differential. If we're doing dumb fun where he contemplate a boxing tournament of the presidents, obviously we'd have to consider the hypothetical tournament being of the men in their prime (late 20s/early 30s).

Because dying in a car crash is genetically related, right?

Nice spin.

Romney is losing accept it.

Actually, except for blacks and unenlightened females, Romney has an advantage.

Uh, wow...

Is this guy for real?

I thought it was pretty awesome. She's a nice contrast to that stiff, boring and autocratic corporatist we now have as Governor.

Bill Clinton wasn't lying, was he?

RNC:

1) Condoleeza Rice
2) Marco Rubio
3) Susana Martinez
4) Chris Christie
5) Paul Ryan

DNC:

1) Bill Clinton





2) Michelle Obama
3) Julian Castro
4) Barack Obama
5) Deval Patrick

Besides the whole Jerusalem debacle, I'd say it was near perfect. 

He got the keynote slot because the Obama Campaign and the DNC are more interested in painting a narrative than assisting politicians with their own political ambitions. One thing I was amazed about while watching the RNC was how blatant the shameless self-promoting was among the big-time speakers. Romney was hardly brought up, and when he was, it was as an after-thought.

Additionally, block-granting Medicaid back to the states is effectively ending it. It shifts long-term liability to cash-strapped states and, unfortunately, no amount of "innovation" will make such an endeavor practical as long as inflation for healthcare costs continue climbing at the current pace.

With this election right now a dead heat, could foreign policy play into the game?  This election, by and large, is not about foreign policy, but Obama has a huge, rare strength in FP with the killing of Osama Bin Laden, the ouster of Hasni Mubarak, and the ouster and death of Col. Moammar Ghadafi and the imminent ouster of President Assad of Syria.

Obama gets 0 credit for Mubarak's fall. That is all the Egyptian people and their military.

Also, this isn't 2004, the debate is going to be on economic policy, not foreign.

The Obama foreign policy is the opposite of 2008. He rivals Romney in flip-floppiness.

How is that, exactly?

Invading Libya, sending more troops into Afghanistan, sending troops down into Uganda, preparing action on Iran and Syria among other things.

Obama campaigned on sending more troops to Afghanistan, we didn't "invade" Libya, we quietly assisted in resource procurement and sent temporary air support for the rebels, the Uganda forces are reported to be a grand total of 100 soldiers, and the latter is pure speculation.

Obama campaigned against large and poorly planned military excursions; not short-lengthed and limited engagements for a narrow purpose. He's performed exactly within the style of foreign policy he campaigned in, and most of his foreign policy efforts have been successful and near-perfectly planned. There are plenty of things to criticize Obama for, but his foreign policy is miles smarter than the Bush administration and a potential Romney administration.

$896 million is "quietly assist[ing] in resource procurement"?

LOL

$896 million is practically a rounding error relative to the entire DoD budget.

WTF does "kicking the can down the road" mean?  Is that some kind of idiom?

It means to procrastinate, and pushing your problems onto somebody else.

Also, why does Politico use that phrase in every one of his posts?

Because it is all Obama offers from a policy standpoint. Obama has no plan for the future. He wants young people to vote for him even though it will lead to disastrous consequences for them, both in the short-run (i.e., the jobless recovery) and the long-run (i.e., massive, crippling tax hikes down the road).

Are you paid per post or are you salaried by the Romney Campaign?

Everybody is entitled to their own opinion, not to mention fantasies of a liberal "utopia," but these are the facts:

- Medicare will go bankrupt in 2024 if we continue Obama's policy of kicking the can down the road.
- Ryan has never proposed changing anything for those who are retired or nearing retirement.
- Romney/Ryan will ensure the permanent solvency of Medicare, one of their top priorities.
- Obamacare takes $700 billion from Medicare in order to expand coverage for poor people.
- By taking from seniors to give to the poor, Obama's "brilliant" plan is robbing Peter to pay Paul.
- Seniors are not stupid. Respect your elders by being honest with them.
- Paul Ryan's mom is on Medicare in Florida.

Medicare was projected to go insolvent in 2017 before the ACA was implemented. The roughly $700 in projected spending reductions are taken from the provider-end of the health services continuum.

Ironically, these are the actual facts:

1) Romney and Ryan are criticizing Obama for cutting Medicare payments to targeted healthcare providers.
2) Ryan's "Path to Prosperity" budget plan actually keeps those cuts in place while repealing all the other elements of Obamacare.
3) Ryan is a hypocrite. 

[Yes, some form of rationing will have to exist, regardless of the system in place - as it should]

Marston, let me be more blunt. Under Obamacare regulations medical services are going to be rationed to death as it were. The basket will shrink. There is no escape.

Having said the above, it would be interesting to see what folks think the cost ramp up for Obamacare will be over time, both per its official numbers (which have lost most if not all of their credibility), and what outside analysts say. Is it more than 3%? 

Torie, medical services are already rationed via the ability to pay for those services. The Ryan-Wyden monstrosity simply exacerbates this for Medicare beneficiaries by gradually pricing them out of any semblance of a comprehensive care plan. In sum, they're taking out the 'guarantee' out of the Medicare guarantee.

Under the current status quo, the guarrantee itself as presently constituted no longer exists as a going concern in the future. That is why Wyden and Rivlin and other Democrats have embraced some form of premium support system.

I don't think anybody is advocating the status quo. The simple fact of the matter is that Medicare reform cannot be done without comprehensive systematic reform. Something must be done to address the over-utilization of health services in this country. Yes, some form of rationing will have to exist, regardless of the system in place - as it should. Also, the abhorrently high administrative costs associated with health insurance (which ironically range from 5-20% in the private health plans Ryan advocates throwing everyone in.) needs to be addressed. Medicare's administrative costs are only roughly about 2%, btw. The lack of focus on preventive medicine/care, the large uninsured population that waits to obtain care until their condition becomes acute and the fact that the U.S. Congress is PHrMa's whipping boy require a cure, as well. The list goes on and on, sadly.

Ryan is just attempting to reduce federal liability, not solve the actual problem. I thought it was obvious but perhaps not.   

That is because Ryan's plan is designed as a budget and not an all encompassing overhaul of healthcare. He doesn't chair the health, education and welfare committee.

Just like you don't think anyone is arguring for the status quo, well neither do I think that any one is seriously desiring to not address an overhaul of the Healthcare system, primarily focused on addressing those very rising costs you mention. In terms of real details this one is even more difficult to propose in an election year then a budget plan. The good thing is that with two "numbers guys" the chances are likely that both realize what the numbers are telling them have to be done and both Romney and Ryan have experience on the healthcare issue (one from expanding coverage, the other on the federal liability) to be able to tackle that problem. Romney does realize the problem to be sure, in his book he lemented that Romneycare didn't address the overal cost issue (expanding coverage is only a very small piece of solution pie here) and that most of which had to be addressed at the federal level.

Fair enough. I just doubt, given the Romney track-record of running away from anything healthcare related, except for promising to "...kill Obamacare dead on day one", that he'll seriously risk his political capital on healthcare reform given the disastrous effects it had on Obama, Pelosi, Reid and Co. during the 2010 midterms.  

Marston, let me be more blunt. Under Obamacare regulations medical services are going to be rationed to death as it were. The basket will shrink. There is no escape.

Having said the above, it would be interesting to see what folks think the cost ramp up for Obamacare will be over time, both per its official numbers (which have lost most if not all of their credibility), and what outside analysts say. Is it more than 3%? 

Torie, medical services are already rationed via the ability to pay for those services. The Ryan-Wyden monstrosity simply exacerbates this for Medicare beneficiaries by gradually pricing them out of any semblance of a comprehensive care plan. In sum, they're taking out the 'guarantee' out of the Medicare guarantee.

Just one more time - the Medicare "guarantee" is effectively dead - as it should be. And yes, of course, everybody should get some basket render in a logical and cost effective way, everybody, regardless of ability to pay. The pre Obamacare system was itself an epic fail, which deserved to die.

No, no I don't think it is. There are a plethora of mechanisms that could be implemented that could effectively extend Medicare solvency. There just isn't the political will (on either side of the aisle) to do so.

Meh, I just suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on the rest and let the chips fall where they may.

[Yes, some form of rationing will have to exist, regardless of the system in place - as it should]

Marston, let me be more blunt. Under Obamacare regulations medical services are going to be rationed to death as it were. The basket will shrink. There is no escape.

Having said the above, it would be interesting to see what folks think the cost ramp up for Obamacare will be over time, both per its official numbers (which have lost most if not all of their credibility), and what outside analysts say. Is it more than 3%? 

Torie, medical services are already rationed via the ability to pay for those services. The Ryan-Wyden monstrosity simply exacerbates this for Medicare beneficiaries by gradually pricing them out of any semblance of a comprehensive care plan. In sum, they're taking out the 'guarantee' out of the Medicare guarantee.

Under the current status quo, the guarrantee itself as presently constituted no longer exists as a going concern in the future. That is why Wyden and Rivlin and other Democrats have embraced some form of premium support system.

I don't think anybody is advocating the status quo. The simple fact of the matter is that Medicare reform cannot be done without comprehensive systematic reform. Something must be done to address the over-utilization of health services in this country. Yes, some form of rationing will have to exist, regardless of the system in place - as it should. Also, the abhorrently high administrative costs associated with health insurance (which ironically range from 5-20% in the private health plans Ryan advocates throwing everyone in.) needs to be addressed. Medicare's administrative costs are only roughly about 2%, btw. The lack of focus on preventive medicine/care, the large uninsured population that waits to obtain care until their condition becomes acute and the fact that the U.S. Congress is PHrMa's whipping boy require a cure, as well. The list goes on and on, sadly.

Ryan is just attempting to reduce federal liability, not solve the actual problem. I thought it was obvious but perhaps not.   

Marston, let me be more blunt. Under Obamacare regulations medical services are going to be rationed to death as it were. The basket will shrink. There is no escape.

Having said the above, it would be interesting to see what folks think the cost ramp up for Obamacare will be over time, both per its official numbers (which have lost most if not all of their credibility), and what outside analysts say. Is it more than 3%? 

Torie, medical services are already rationed via the ability to pay for those services. The Ryan-Wyden monstrosity simply exacerbates this for Medicare beneficiaries by gradually pricing them out of any semblance of a comprehensive care plan. In sum, they're taking out the 'guarantee' out of the Medicare guarantee.