Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 24, 2014, 04:12:02 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Don't forget to get your 2013 Gubernatorial Endorsements and Predictions in!

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 38
26  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: Romney Pathways to Victory - Best strategy? (Romney supporters only please!) on: October 19, 2012, 10:45:11 am

I don't think Obama can hold Ohio without neglecting NH, WI, and VA.  likewise if he defends NH, WI and VA he probably can't hang on to Ohio.  Interesting gambit. 

Why do you think he isn't capable of advertising and campaigning in four states over the next few weeks? He also has literally hundreds of campaign offices buzzing in those states and others.

He's being outmaneuvered, momentum is fighting him, and he's competing on ground that is shifting against him (the midwest).  The only way to fight all that is an overwhelming advantage in focus, ads, messaging, personal visits, operatives, etc.  Obviously, you can't be overwhelming if you are spread too thin.       
27  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: Romney Pathways to Victory - Best strategy? (Romney supporters only please!) on: October 19, 2012, 08:40:10 am
looks like team Romney is confident they 'have' NC, thus are redeploying NC assets elsewhere.  I would probably move them into Virginia and Ohio.  

I don't think Obama can hold Ohio without neglecting NH, WI, and VA.  likewise if he defends NH, WI and VA he probably can't hang on to Ohio.  Interesting gambit. 
28  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: Are Republicans seriously claiming Romney was right on Obama's Libya comment on: October 19, 2012, 07:42:35 am


If Obama called the Benghazi attack an “act of terror” in his Rose Garden speech, then he also said the victims of that attack were buried in the “hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery” and that he had visited them at Walter Reed — other comments in that speech not specifically referring to the Benghazi attack.


You are guilty of wishful thinking shadow.  My guess is you want Obama to have been right (even though it really doesn't explain why he than flipped to being wrong again for 14 days) so you are willing to believe this unbelievable lie he told yesterday.   

That's an interesting interpretation of the statement, since Obama clearly mentions it is the troops who served in Iraq and Afghanistan who are buried in Arlington and whom he visited at Walter Reed.  Here, I even highlighted it for you. 

"Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks. We mourn with the families who were lost on that day. I visited the graves of troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery, and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed. And then last night we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi.

As Americans let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those, both civilian and military, who represent us around the globe.

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for."
 

Don't see how it's a lie when its right there in the transcript that the Benghazi attack is being compared to 9/11.


LOL, he didn't specifically say Libya was a terrorist attack.  He goes on to say it was a protest of a youtube video for the next 13 days.  He attempted to completely manipulate the speech (and reality), thus it is fair for me to completely manipulate the speech in order to expose his manipulation.  Turnabout is fair play.  'If, than' statements aren't that hard to understand.  IF: Obama wasn't being misleading in claiming he said it was a terror attack in the Rose Garden speech,
THAN: He also said the victims of that attack were buried in the “hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery” and that he had visited them at Walter Reed
BECAUSE: those are all comments in that speech specifically NOT referring to the Benghazi attack.   

Leave it to Obama to take himself out of context.

I'll let Charles explain it to you:     
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YMwY5zIc4s&feature=g-all-u
29  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: Romney Pathways to Victory - Best strategy? (Romney supporters only please!) on: October 19, 2012, 07:28:13 am
[quote author=AmericanNation link=topic=161932.msg3472271#msg3472271

apparently Romney is closing in PA like a freight train!  WI hasn't went R since 84 and PA hasn't since 88... realignment?
 

Bad polls from 3rd rate polling organizations seems like a better bet to me Smiley

But it is nice to dream!
[/quote]

In PA probably a bad poll. 
In WI probably a good poll. (Best public poll in WI is usually Marquette law school) 
30  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: Romney Pathways to Victory - Best strategy? (Romney supporters only please!) on: October 18, 2012, 09:34:57 pm
Like I said in the other thread, if Romney doesn't win both Ohio and Virginia, he's done.  Those two combined have the most electoral votes. He should still throw money into CO/FL to keep them in his column.

He doesn't need VA. He needs OH, FL, IA, NH, IN, NC, CO and NE-2 to win. Worst case scenario, he loses IA and NH but wins WI, and he wins. There's a lot of ways he could win this. Plus, nobody's talking but PA, but it's still very much in play.

apparently Romney is closing in PA like a freight train!  WI hasn't went R since 84 and PA hasn't since 88... realignment? 
31  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: Two Guesses on: October 18, 2012, 08:38:01 pm
This would all indicate a trend back to where there are both cultural liberals and conservatives in both parties and an end of the New Deal. Basically 2020 could be the anti-1960...basically a socially liberal Gilded Age where the Republican party is basically the Federal Party...and unless the Democrats coalesce in a particular reigion (this is an unless argument and not given because of the Senate goes R its because the Republicans were winners in every party of the country), the Republicans will eventually be up against reigional opposition parties. Maybe the Green Party in the West coast, The Libertarian Party in the West and Northeast and maybe some American party in the South and Midwest. Basically, that's what the Gilded Age basically was. The Democrats had a lock on the south, were very weak anywhere else and various "Not Republicans" were a semi-viable alternative outside of the South.   
That is plausible. 

I've been trying to think of ways the dems could transform into a viable party if it abandoned it's twisted policies/constituents or was finally faced with perpetual defeat.  Regional opposition makes a lot of sense.  They could try to split the electoral college 4 or 5 ways if they ever had a coalition in the house.     
32  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: The Debate Bounce on: October 18, 2012, 07:31:54 pm
Colorado: Obama 50%, Romney 47% (Public Policy Polling)

Iowa: Obama 51%, Romney 43% (NBC News/Marist)

Wisconsin: Obama 51%, Romney 43% (NBC News/Marist)

The Colorado poll is more favorable to President Obama if Third-Party candidates are included.

It looks much as things were before the first debate, which was very much a do-or-die situation for any chance for Romney.

Romney is even in Wisconsin, so that poll is only off a minimum of 7 points. 
33  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: Close Election - Obama Victory on: October 18, 2012, 07:15:57 pm
Romney is going to win Wisconsin, Ohio and probably Iowa, but maybe not NV. 
34  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: The Debate Bounce on: October 18, 2012, 07:13:34 pm

Romney might stop gaining at 50-51
Obama might gain a point or two off his 45-46
OR
Romney hits 52+ territory.

0 to -2.


Gallup: -1
Ras: -1
IBD: -1




It is still early.

yes but state polls and ppp confirm that...

Those are still early polls and most of them are pre debate.  Calm down everyone.
It seems my "shameless" prediction is looking pretty good.   
35  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: Are Republicans seriously claiming Romney was right on Obama's Libya comment on: October 17, 2012, 11:55:02 pm
I figure by noon tomorrow Candy will have to walkback her walkback of her walkback.
It's a weird position, by all professional standards she should be fired, but here peers aren't exactly beyond hackery.  So she probably both wants to apologize and claim she did the right thing.   
36  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: Are Republicans seriously claiming Romney was right on Obama's Libya comment on: October 17, 2012, 11:49:25 pm
Yes, it's called the plane of 'Reality'.

I'll repost my previous statement.

Let's look at that section of the transcript, shall we. 

"Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks. We mourn with the families who were lost on that day. I visited the graves of troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery, and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed. And then last night we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi.

As Americans let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those, both civilian and military, who represent us around the globe.

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for."
 

Used Fox so no one can accuse me of only using liberal sources or something.  Also, the link was on hand cause a Facebook friend had it, but let's get into it.   

In the transcript, Obama clearly refers to the attack in Benghazi in the same paragraph as 9/11.  He talks about 9/11 and says "AND THEN last night we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi."  He tied 9/11 back to Benghazi in the very text of the transcript.  The "acts of terror" line applies to the attack on Benghazi just as much as 9/11.

Are you really going to try and argue that line only refers to 9/11 when he brought Benghazi up in the same paragraph in a clear comparison to 9/11 and doesn't switch the topic back to 9/11 before referring to "acts of terror?" 

Is referencing the text of the transcript to show Obama DID refer to the Benghazi attack as an "act of terror" a good enough dose of reality for you?

If Obama called the Benghazi attack an “act of terror” in his Rose Garden speech, then he also said the victims of that attack were buried in the “hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery” and that he had visited them at Walter Reed — other comments in that speech not specifically referring to the Benghazi attack.


You are guilty of wishful thinking shadow.  My guess is you want Obama to have been right (even though it really doesn't explain why he than flipped to being wrong again for 14 days) so you are willing to believe this unbelievable lie he told yesterday.   
37  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: Romney Pathways to Victory - Best strategy? (Romney supporters only please!) on: October 17, 2012, 11:29:37 pm
If Romney is going to win Colorado, than Ohio and Wisconsin are where you go.  That gets you there.  VA and NH are the 'back up Ohio' -- 17(combined) and 18 EVs respectively.  Iowa and NV would be icing, but probably aren't the deciders this year.  Wisconsin is key, it would make things simple for Mitt.  Iowa only works with Ohio and another state, which is a complicated thread of the needle, so Iowa and NH are the 'back up wisconsin' that requires Ohio.  Let the Mitzkrieg of ads begin.      


Most of this fits with Obama’s New Firewall: Ohio, Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada
http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/330793/obamas-new-firewall-ohio-iowa-new-hampshire-and-nevada

Is Team Obama blind to dead heat Wisconsin? 
38  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: The Debate Bounce on: October 17, 2012, 11:12:28 pm

He's going to get a negative bounce from winning a debate? You people are shameless, aren't you?

You dems really don't know anything.  The president came in behind, lost on the substance of every important issue, failed to outline a vision or a reason to reelect him, failed to rebut the challengers case that he is a failed president with no plan(specifically on the economy, the #1 issue), committed a major gaff with the Libya thing (Again).  He may have won on points(by being overly aggressive and annoying people), but Romney will win votes and Obama will lose votes, which is kinda the point.   

Exactly what would he have to say that would count as a "vision for a second term" to you?  

You can parse the word "vision" a couple different ways.  Clearly Obama has no PLAN and no reason for a second term, but even his objectives of "more teachers" and "moving forward"  are so weak that I can't say that meets the threshold of "vision".  Bush campaigned for reelection on transforming social security into a permanently solvent system and fostering conditions for pro-american democracy to spread throughout the middle east.  Like those positions or not, they are no doubt 'visionary'.  Obama wants to raise taxes and implement his unpopular healthcare reform. Two things already poised to happen if nothing is done.  Maybe he should "pass a budget" a completely new concept I heard about once.  He just doesn't approach the threshold. 

Krauthammer outlines this in reaction to the acceptance speech. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmZh6mV6M08         

39  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: The Debate Bounce on: October 17, 2012, 04:43:04 pm

He's going to get a negative bounce from winning a debate? You people are shameless, aren't you?

You dems really don't know anything.  The president came in behind, lost on the substance of every important issue, failed to outline a vision or a reason to reelect him, failed to rebut the challengers case that he is a failed president with no plan(specifically on the economy, the #1 issue), committed a major gaff with the Libya thing (Again).  He may have won on points(by being overly aggressive and annoying people), but Romney will win votes and Obama will lose votes, which is kinda the point.   
40  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: Can Mitt Romney recover? on: October 17, 2012, 04:21:13 pm
Guys, Romney better keep gaining, because he hasn't gained enough yet - Obama's still at a 277 victory:

OH, WI, IA, NV are basically within a point.  Romney's campaign is basically just starting in WI and (I believe NV).  The traction Romney has finally picked up in OH points to him probably winning there.  I can see VA possibly holding close as an Obama firewall.  So Romney is probably at 266 with 25 in play.  Boy, we go through all this and we will probably just end up with a Bush map (maybe flipping 1 or 2 states).  Although it wouldn't be surprising for Mitt to win those 25 in play (if he wins by 4 nationally), giving him 301.       



No, no.  There hasn't been nearly enough traction in Ohio to put it as going for Romney in your map, that's just wishful thinking.. and he's down 2-3 points in all of the rest: Iowa, Wisconsin, or Nevada.  The swing states where he seems to be winning (only by a point or two outside of North Carolina) Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, New Hampshire, and Colorado - just don't get him there.

Here's the real state of the race:



And here's how it goes if we include the slight leans:



A 277 Obama win.   

Romney is up to 51% in one of the trackers.  Obama isn't sitting on 277 trailing by 6 to a guy above 50.
41  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: Can Mitt Romney recover? on: October 17, 2012, 12:03:30 pm
Obama/Biden is sitting on A devastating loss and two Pyrrhic "victories", so the question is:  Can Obama recover? 
42  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: Is it possible to be "cool" and support Mitt Romney? on: October 17, 2012, 12:00:39 pm
In Canada, you are assumed to love Barack Obama, and if you don't, you're nuts.

That's the entire rest of the world, not just Canada.  And it wouldn't necessarily be Barack Obama, but rather any Democratic presidential nominee.

The US is certainly a strange and unique place.

exceptional. 
43  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: Are Republicans seriously claiming Romney was right on Obama's Libya comment on: October 17, 2012, 11:56:27 am
Quote
In a completely non-political sense, it is just fascinating to me how Republicans live in a completely different reality than everyone else.

Yes, it's called the plane of 'Reality'.


"you can't win but there are alternatives to fighting"

It's like dems all know this deep down and will never (overwhelmingly) engage in logic or facts or reality.  They are always reaching for an alternative to truth.   
44  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: Is it possible to be "cool" and support Mitt Romney? on: October 17, 2012, 11:11:46 am
It's hard to like someone who's super serious about supporting BO because typically they have no logical basis to do so.

Unless they're not rich.
 
I'm not sure what your point is.  "Only rich people are Republicans?"  
Dems are the party of the super rich and powerful and they try to "buy" the cheapest/easiest votes they can in order to keep/use power to preserve/improve their power structure.  
That being the case, I can't make out your point.    

The point is obvious - it is rational for the non-rich to vote Democratic (or socialist if only they had that option).  It is only logical for the rich to vote Republican.
Only if you define the middle class as "the rich".  The entrenched super rich class owns the democrats.   They try to build a winning coalition as cheap and 'radical' as they can because you can mold 'untethered people' more easily to do/support what you want.  It's like giving candy to children.  Here's a free phone, here's free birth control, here's a racial quota, let's "go after" the 'rich' and make things 'fair', here's a government contract, here's a grant, here's a regulation to make you feel better...  It's literally throwing candy around treating everyone like children, but don't pay attention to what I'm doing over here, and never mind how we messed that up, THEY WANT TO TAKE THE CANDY AWAY!!!         
45  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: Is it possible to be "cool" and support Mitt Romney? on: October 17, 2012, 10:08:54 am
You left out Clint Eastwood, John Wayne, Jimmy Stewart, Ronald Regan, etc. etc.
46  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: DEVELOPING: Candy Crowley admits Romney was correct on Libya on: October 17, 2012, 09:51:13 am
While I'm hurt by your intellectual superiority... you haven't made a comment that discredits the president's story.

The president referred to Libya as 'an act of terror', but if you don't realise that there is a huge difference between 'an act of terror' and a planned act undertaken by a specific organised terrorist cell. An act of terror doesn't have to be undertaken by an organised terrorist cell.

It took 14 days to confirm it as a clear act perpetrated by a terrorist cell, as opposed to what they mistakenly thought was an act of terror brought about by incitement from the video and related to the video....

They are different...

The administration might adopt that story today, I don't know they've changed 20 times in the last month.  They might change to something else before the day is over. 

It will be very easy for Obama to make an ad of this clip from the debate, and of the clip from him clearly labeling it an act of terror in the Rose Garden.  Too easy almost.

Actually that would be extremely hard to do and will draw attention to this disaster for the president that I'm sure they want to "just go away". 
The truth writes ads much more easily:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFf0dUH3OtU&feature=related

47  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: Who won the debate? on: October 17, 2012, 09:38:01 am
At least the moderator was sexy.
Careful, some people are into that sort of thing.   
48  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: Who won the debate? on: October 17, 2012, 09:32:35 am
Obama, convincingly. Romney did about the same as last time, but it wasn't enough to win at all.

That Libya exchange is going to go up there with Ford in 1976 and Dukakis in 1988 - it's a defining moment of the election.

How can Obama win while, as you say, making a historic "election defining" gaff ? ? ?
49  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: Can Mitt Romney recover? on: October 17, 2012, 09:28:12 am
I wouldn't be surprised if Romney made gains from this.  When it came down to all of the specific questions on CNN and such, they all tended to favour Romney [who would run the economy better, etc...].  

This.  Like Biden, Obama can claim "victory" as he loses votes across the country.  Alienating woman and losing every important issues is a damning cocktail.  Also, having no plan, vision, or reason to reelect you is a major problem.    

Guys, Romney better keep gaining, because he hasn't gained enough yet - Obama's still at a 277 victory:


OH, WI, IA, NV are basically within a point.  Romney's campaign is basically just starting in WI and (I believe NV).  The traction Romney has finally picked up in OH points to him probably winning there.  I can see VA possibly holding close as an Obama firewall.  So Romney is probably at 266 with 25 in play.  Boy, we go through all this and we will probably just end up with a Bush map (maybe flipping 1 or 2 states).  Although it wouldn't be surprising for Mitt to win those 25 in play (if he wins by 4 nationally), giving him 301.       



OH is not in Mitt's column.  If it ever is, VA will already be there.  Are you worried about Obama winning with 47% there because of Goode?
Right, I think OH will move into Mitt's column shortly, he finally has traction and will continue to move that state hi way. 

I think VA will probably be there for Mitt, but I see a plausible scenario where he loses close because Obama has a large immovable constituency for him there and that could be enough to build a firewall (win by a sliver).  Obama could lose ground everywhere and gain ground in VA if he focused his efforts theoretically, so I keep that possibility open. 

 
50  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: The Debate Bounce on: October 17, 2012, 09:15:18 am

Romney might stop gaining at 50-51
Obama might gain a point or two off his 45-46
OR
Romney hits 52+ territory.

0 to -2.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 38


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines