Obama and Romney Hit Final Stretch Part 3

[estesbob]

191 is ridiculous, even real clear politics with their groups of polls of which many oversample democrats has Romney higher than Obama in electoral votes

Polls I have seen, VA, NC, FL and likely CO are not tossups, safe Romney

The election will called for Romney by 10:30 PM. CST tomorrow. Prepare to hear these words lot in the next few days:

Bradley
Racist
Bigot
Fraud
Disenfranchise
temper tantrum
Selfish

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Just got off 24 hour shift this morning. Three auto dialer calls so far. I got to hang up on Bill Clinton and Clint Eastwood…Make my day!

Edited to add: They both sounded a lot alike.

 

[epan]

191 is ridiculous, even real clear politics with their groups of polls of which many oversample democrats has Romney higher than Obama in electoral votes

Polls I have seen, VA, NC, FL and likely CO are not tossups, safe Romney

Jackman is a political sciences professor. I don’t understand his methods exactly, but he averages all available polls, but weights them by historic accuracy, sample size, expected margin of error, etc… I don’t know what methods others use.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

Jackman is a political sciences professor. I don’t understand his methods exactly, but he averages all available polls, but weights them by historic accuracy, sample size, expected margin of error, etc… I don’t know what methods others use.

The others use the correct methods, as they show Romney winning.

 

[epan]

Non-affordability of SOME government services is just a question of fact, and ideology doesn’t change it one way or the other. After years of seeing the predictions of Medicare’s and SS’s bankruptcy not too far down the road, and knowing that the SS “trust fund” is just IOUs from the taxpayers like all other debts, it does not seem to me that there can be much question that some entitlements are unaffordable. If the chief actuary for Medicare is right, Medicare will before long be so impoverished by Obamacare that it will pay less than Medicaid.

And, of course, the CBO has estimated that Obamacare will reduce the GDP by 1.5%. It’s not much above that now, and Obamacare might cause a “double dip” all by itself.

And even with the money taken from Medicare, Obamacare still isn’t fully funded, and Obama’s “tax the people with $200,00+ incomes” won’t fix it either.

So, the facts are not looking very good unless some kind of change is made. Ryan’s plan for SS and Medicare, of course, provides for lower benefits based on income. In other words, rich people will have to pay more and expect the public to pay less. Why that is offensive to liberals is something I have difficulty comprehending.

I am just saying that military people have seen their benefits cut with Medicare reductions. You can wax on theoretically all you want about the merits of any politician’s plan. Military people perceive themselves as not overpaid. Many enlisted have to use food stamps to make ends meet. So, when medical benefits for dependents are cut, and they feel that they might not get care for their families, they tend to think that it is not in their interest to vote for a politician. I’m talking more about real life in the present, and paying the bills today, than arm chair predictions of something in the future.

 

[epan]

The others use the correct methods, as they show Romney winning.

Ahhh… thanks for clarifying that.

 

[CrimsonFox]

That’s why they’re trying to disenfranchise people in the military.

As opposed to the disenfranchising going on in FLorida and Ohio? The terrible manipulating of instructions, and voting times? Telling people they can’t vote? It’s all around us and it is terrible. NOt just in one place. Everyone’s vote should count. Period.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Jackman is a political sciences professor. I don’t understand his methods exactly, but he averages all available polls, but weights them by historic accuracy, sample size, expected margin of error, etc… I don’t know what methods others use.

What does he say for enthusiasm for republicans and democrats; who is leading with independents, is he using polls which are oversampling democrats?

Updated election forecasting model still points to Romney win, University of Colorado study says

The state-by-state economic data used in their model have been available since 1980. When these data were applied retroactively to each election year, the model correctly classifies all presidential election winners, including the two years when independent candidates ran strongly: 1980 and 1992. It also correctly estimates the outcome in 2000, when Al Gore won the popular vote but George W. Bush won the election through the Electoral College

 

[epan]

What does he say for enthusiasm for republicans and democrats; who is leading with independents, is he using polls which are oversampling democrats?

Updated election forecasting model still points to Romney win, University of Colorado study says

You sound extremely biased. Extremely.

I have no idea who is going to win. I am not promoting an agenda in that sense. I don’t like either candidate, for different reasons. I have an interest in the polls, but I am content to wait for the election results. Most of the reason I have posted reasonable and seemingly well created polling results which contradict the Rabid Romney Mania on this site, is to show how absurd all this is. Things are too close to call.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Romney to visit Ohio — and Pennsylvania — tomorrow

Romney’s Path to 270

Romney officials tell National Review Online that the campaign is focused on two key states as Election Day nears: Ohio and Pennsylvania. They believe that they are competitive in Ohio, but should it drift away, they’re looking at Pennsylvania and its 20 electoral votes as a possible substitute for the Buckeye State. “We have got to win one of those two states and do well everywhere else,” a Romney adviser says. “We’re still pushing in Ohio, but it’s unpredictable. Pennsylvania, however, is really in play.”

Poll: Romney by 1 in Iowa

twitter.com/GOP/status/265561629712842753

Ohio: We are over 170% of ’08 in absentee requests and early votes in strong GOP counties like Fairfield, Delaware, Licking, #1moreday

Romney Narrowly Holding Bellwether Ohio County, N.H. Towns

twitter.com/tobyharnden/status/265555775760502784

Exclusive: Romney internal polls put him OH+1, NH+3, IA+2, down in NV, tied in WI & PA dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2228359/Romney-campaign-internal-polling-puts-Republican-nominee-point-ahead-Ohio.html?ito=feeds-

 

[_Abyssinia]

You sound extremely biased. Extremely.

I have no idea who is going to win. I am not promoting an agenda in that sense. I don’t like either candidate, for different reasons. I have an interest in the polls, but I am content to wait for the election results. Most of the reason I have posted reasonable and seemingly well created polling results which contradict the Rabid Romney Mania on this site, is to show how absurd all this is. Things are too close to call.

I want Romney to win. I am questioning the Stanford professors’ analysis and I think my questions are key as to his accuracy

 

[epan]

I want Romney to win. I am questioning the Stanford professors’ analysis and I think my questions are key as to his accuracy

You can contact him, if you are interested in his methods. He is an academic, and most likely would be happy to respond. But, I imagine he might not get back to you until after the election. Your interest would have to be more academic, than to try to predict a winner.

 

[mary_bobo]

As opposed to the disenfranchising going on in FLorida and Ohio? The terrible manipulating of instructions, and voting times? Telling people they can’t vote? It’s all around us and it is terrible. NOt just in one place. Everyone’s vote should count. Period.

How are they doing that?

 

[jwinch2]

Joe Trippe, a Democratic operator made probably the best statement that I have heard on this. Obama and the majority of polls that are out at the state level are banking on similar voting demographics as were seen in the 2008 election and they have slanted their polls in that manner. If that happens, Obama probably wins.

Romney, and some pollsters on the other hand, are banking on a voter turnout which is closer to the 2000 or 2004 election and the idea that their internal polls more accurately reflect the demographics of the various battleground states. If they are right, Romney probably wins.

Early voting results suggest that the GOP is doing better in early voting then they did in 2008, in some cases by quite a bit. This bodes well for Romney. In many battle ground states, Obama has been working hard for the past 4 years to create a get out the vote machine and has had the advantages of the Presidency in doing so. This bodes well for Obama.

Historically, independents go to the challenger in a tight race, particularly when the economy is poor. This bodes well for Romney. In 2012, there are very very few true independents. This bodes well for neither.

Its going to be a close one and I would not be surprised if we did not know the results until Wed.

 

[Cliff_Jumper]

I’m not quite joining you … but you may get a boot out of this.

youtube.com/watch?v=U7pv7sO5Gng GAME ON ! :dancing:

I like the middle aged lady who plays the synthesizer in the background.

Proof positive that G-rated fun is possible!

(As long as it’s not the DECIDING vote … the wrong way … I’m glad RS will get ONE on election day!)

Thank you.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

Joe Trippe, a Democratic operator made probably the best statement that I have heard on this. Obama and the majority of polls that are out at the state level are banking on similar voting demographics as were seen in the 2008 election and they have slanted their polls in that manner. If that happens, Obama probably wins.

Romney, and some pollsters on the other hand, are banking on a voter turnout which is closer to the 2000 or 2004 election and the idea that their internal polls more accurately reflect the demographics of the various battleground states. If they are right, Romney probably wins.

Early voting results suggest that the GOP is doing better in early voting then they did in 2008, in some cases by quite a bit. This bodes well for Romney. In many battle ground states, Obama has been working hard for the past 4 years to create a get out the vote machine and has had the advantages of the Presidency in doing so. This bodes well for Obama.

Historically, independents go to the challenger in a tight race, particularly when the economy is poor. This bodes well for Romney. In 2012, there are very very few true independents. This bodes well for neither.

Its going to be a close one and I would not be surprised if we did not know the results until Wed.

Undecided always go the challenger (2004 is the exception to the rule).

The Republican early voters are 0-1 election voters (ie, they have only voted in at most 1 election in the last x elections). Democrat:3-4 (ie, they are scavenging election day voters)

 

[rlg94086]

Joe Trippe, a Democratic operator made probably the best statement that I have heard on this. Obama and the majority of polls that are out at the state level are banking on similar voting demographics as were seen in the 2008 election and they have slanted their polls in that manner. If that happens, Obama probably wins.

Romney, and some pollsters on the other hand, are banking on a voter turnout which is closer to the 2000 or 2004 election and the idea that their internal polls more accurately reflect the demographics of the various battleground states. If they are right, Romney probably wins.

Early voting results suggest that the GOP is doing better in early voting then they did in 2008, in some cases by quite a bit. This bodes well for Romney. In many battle ground states, Obama has been working hard for the past 4 years to create a get out the vote machine and has had the advantages of the Presidency in doing so. This bodes well for Obama.

Historically, independents go to the challenger in a tight race, particularly when the economy is poor. This bodes well for Romney. In 2012, there are very very few true independents. This bodes well for neither.

Its going to be a close one and I would not be surprised if we did not know the results until Wed.

We may know fairly early, if the Republican pundits are correct. If PA goes Romney, Obama is toast, and we’ll know that…or have a real good idea…by 10pm Eastern Time.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

We may know fairly early, if the Republican pundits are correct. If PA goes Romney, Obama is toast, and we’ll know that…or have a real good idea…by 10pm Eastern Time.

Yup.

OH or PA or WI+IA

 

[epan]

Joe Trippe, a Democratic operator made probably the best statement that I have heard on this. Obama and the majority of polls that are out at the state level are banking on similar voting demographics as were seen in the 2008 election and they have slanted their polls in that manner. If that happens, Obama probably wins.

Romney, and some pollsters on the other hand, are banking on a voter turnout which is closer to the 2000 or 2004 election and the idea that their internal polls more accurately reflect the demographics of the various battleground states. If they are right, Romney probably wins.

Early voting results suggest that the GOP is doing better in early voting then they did in 2008, in some cases by quite a bit. This bodes well for Romney. In many battle ground states, Obama has been working hard for the past 4 years to create a get out the vote machine and has had the advantages of the Presidency in doing so. This bodes well for Obama.

Historically, independents go to the challenger in a tight race, particularly when the economy is poor. This bodes well for Romney. In 2012, there are very very few true independents. This bodes well for neither.

Its going to be a close one and I would not be surprised if we did not know the results until Wed.

At this moment, I predict Florida will decide the race. It will be a cliff hanger, as various factions try to manipulate the result. The current governor appears to be trying to fix the election for Romney, but the Bush Machine wants Jeb to have a chance before 2024. So the battle lines will be drawn between Republican deal makers. It will be a test of the Bush Dynasty. Can they throw an election to a democrat, by using the republican election commission in Florida, with a hostile governor in office? This might be the ultimate test for GHW Bush’s creativity, and the eventual the material for a TV series, and the crazy thing is that it might be true. I will be shocked and also laughing, while terrified, if it plays out this way. And Bush’s have packed the Supreme Court, with the latest being Roberts. So, if it plays this way, then the Republicans might turn to a Bush Court, which might rule in their favor to pay tribute, as they have before. Yet, it could be that such a ruling would be exactly contrary to Bush goals, installing Romney. Incredible irony, and poetic justice.

 

[Cliff_Jumper]

Hello Cliff Jumper. I appreciate the questions you are posing and would only add the following: Romney, as president, doesn’t have any say in whether a law against abortion would allow for exceptions for rape or incest. It would be nice if Romney was 100% in line with Catholic teaching, but he is pro-life where it counts: As president, Mitt Romney could help the pro-life cause by picking supreme court justices who would be likely to overturn Roe V Wade - which prevents states from passing laws that would outlaw or severely restrict abortions. He picked pro-life Catholic Paul Ryan as his running mate, and Robert Bork as judicial advisor. He can also do things around the margins - rescind the Mexico City policy, and he can also speak out in favor of the sanctity of life.

The other thing to consider other than Romney’s stance on abortion is Obama’s: he is unapologetically pro-abortion rights and is arguably the most pro-abortion rights president we’ve ever had. He didn’t vote against outlawing partial birth abortion! That alone should be reason enough to vote effectively to ensure that he doesn’t have a chance to shape the supreme court which decides so much of all this. (by “effectively” I mean voting for the most pro-life candidate who has the best chance to defeat Obama. A write-in of course, has no chance).

Lastly, neither Santorum nor Keyes are running this time. And while you might live in a solid Romney state, you might consider this: the margin of victory of a candidate affects their mandate to govern. If they only win by a little, then there is less pressure on the opposition to work with the new president. On the other hand, if Romney gets, say, 54% of the popular vote, there would be more pressure on senators, for example, to work with the president. (keep in mind, quite a few Democrat senators are up for re-election in 2014 and might be more inclined to work with Romney if they think the country overall supports Romney). This is important because the senate has to approve any supreme court justice nomination. If you want to know how a nominee fares when Democrats are strong and bold then look no further than David Souter and Anthony Kennedy. Both justices voted to uphold Roe V Wade. If Romney has a Republican majority in the senate and/or a few Democrats who are willing to consider his judicial picks, then we might well finally see Roe V Wade overturned. That would be a huge pro-life victory.

Ishii

Thank you for your response. I do understand the powers of the president and that he/she cannot just completely outlaw abortion. However, as you said he/she does hold considerable sway over the actions of the legislative branch and the judicial branch. I just do not see Mitt Romney (given his previous record, which is all the evidence I have of his intentions and actions) being that focused on pro-life and pro-traditional marriage positions.