Obama and Romney Hit Final Stretch Part 3

  • Thread starter Thread starter qui_est_ce
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
jwinch2 said:
You can tell a great deal about someone by who they choose to surround themselves with, and who they rely on for guidance. We can easily see who President Obama surrounds himself with, time and time again.
Click to expand...
Originally Posted by Valarie Jarrett
“After we win this election, it’s our turn. Payback time. Everyone not with us is against us and they better be ready because we don’t forget. The ones who helped us will be rewarded, the ones who opposed us will get what they deserve. There is going to be hell to pay. Congress won’t be a problem for us this time. No election to worry about after this is over and we have two judges ready to go.”

Did she really say that? Where? When? Surely, even liberals must find this distasteful.
 
 
From Abyssinia’s “Parsing the Polls” article:

*Gallup uncovered one very significant shift in this year’s voting electorate. There has been a remarkable movement toward the Republican party. As Gallup reports:

The largest changes in the composition of the electorate compared with the last presidential election concern the partisan affiliation of voters. Currently, 46% of likely voters identify as Democrats or lean Democratic, compared with 54% in 2008. But in 2008, Democrats enjoyed a wide 12-point advantage in party affiliation among national adults, the largest Gallup had seen in at least two decades. More recently, Americans have been about as likely to identify as or lean Republican as to identify as or lean Democratic. Consequently, the electorate has also become less Democratic and more Republican in its political orientation than in 2008. In fact, the party composition of the electorate this year looks more similar to the electorate in 2004 than 2008.
…
To be sure, the most recent spate of national polls include more Republicans than did the surveys conducted earlier in October. Nevertheless, they still give more advantage to the Democrats than Gallup’s aggregate data suggest should be the case. ABC/Wall Street Journal’s most recent poll, for example, includes 34 percent Democrats and 30 percent Republicans, the Investors Business Daily poll sets the Democrats’ advantage at seven points (38 percent to 31 percent), and an Associated Press survey comes in two percentage points more Democratic than Republican.

Correcting these polls so that there was a Republican edge in the sample of voters consistent with Gallup’s finding would hand Romney a lead between five to ten points. Imagine the run on smelling salts at Mother Jones and MSNBC if that were to happen?*

This is encouraging.🙂
 
Tampa_Dave said:
From Abyssinia’s “Parsing the Polls” article:

*Gallup uncovered one very significant shift in this year’s voting electorate. There has been a remarkable movement toward the Republican party. As Gallup reports:

The largest changes in the composition of the electorate compared with the last presidential election concern the partisan affiliation of voters. Currently, 46% of likely voters identify as Democrats or lean Democratic, compared with 54% in 2008. But in 2008, Democrats enjoyed a wide 12-point advantage in party affiliation among national adults, the largest Gallup had seen in at least two decades. More recently, Americans have been about as likely to identify as or lean Republican as to identify as or lean Democratic.* Consequently, the electorate has also become less Democratic and more Republican in its political orientation than in 2008. In fact, the party composition of the electorate this year looks more similar to the electorate in 2004 than 2008.
…
To be sure, the most recent spate of national polls include more Republicans than did the surveys conducted earlier in October. Nevertheless, they still give more advantage to the Democrats than Gallup’s aggregate data suggest should be the case. ABC/Wall Street Journal’s most recent poll, for example, includes 34 percent Democrats and 30 percent Republicans, the Investors Business Daily poll sets the Democrats’ advantage at seven points (38 percent to 31 percent), and an Associated Press survey comes in two percentage points more Democratic than Republican.

Correcting these polls so that there was a Republican edge in the sample of voters consistent with Gallup’s finding would hand Romney a lead between five to ten points. Imagine the run on smelling salts at Mother Jones and MSNBC if that were to happen?

This is encouraging.🙂
Click to expand...
Encouraging indeed.

Several analysts have been suggesting since about mid week that it is really going to come down to who can get their base to the polling stations and who is motivated to vote. At this point, with the closeness of the polls, I am inclined to agree with that opinion.
 
Nov. 2: For Romney to Win, State Polls Must Be Statistically Biased
By NATE SILVER
Click to expand...
President Obama is now better than a 4-in-5 favorite to win the Electoral College, according to the FiveThirtyEight forecast. His chances of winning it increased to 83.7 percent on Friday, his highest figure since the Denver debate and improved from 80.8 percent on Thursday.
Click to expand...
At least Pakistan will be upset if Obama wins.
 
I visited the Lake County News Herald website, where they have video on Obama’s visit to Mentor (Ohio). There were 5 comments by local citizens responding to the Obama visit. Check out the last guys response:
Code: 
***Susan**
The people who support Obama must be brain dead. Can't they see what havoc he has wreaked on this country and where he has us going?
8 people liked this.
	
**Lake Co. taxpayer** 
SUSAN ~ Thank u for your comment. ALL I have to say is that, "BRIGHT MINDS THINK ALIKE !"
	
**Typical** 
Oh calm down, people are entitled to vote for whichever candidate they want without the need for people like you to play troll.
** jim**
don"t you read the paper,things are going FORWARDS
Code: 
**Ricochet **
I don't think The 30,000 that Romney just had in Ohio would fit in there.
 
Tampa_Dave said:
From Abyssinia’s “Parsing the Polls” article:

*Gallup uncovered one very significant shift in this year’s voting electorate. There has been a remarkable movement toward the Republican party. As Gallup reports:

The largest changes in the composition of the electorate compared with the last presidential election concern the partisan affiliation of voters. Currently, 46% of likely voters identify as Democrats or lean Democratic, compared with 54% in 2008. But in 2008, Democrats enjoyed a wide 12-point advantage in party affiliation among national adults, the largest Gallup had seen in at least two decades. More recently, Americans have been about as likely to identify as or lean Republican as to identify as or lean Democratic.* Consequently, the electorate has also become less Democratic and more Republican in its political orientation than in 2008. In fact, the party composition of the electorate this year looks more similar to the electorate in 2004 than 2008.
…
To be sure, the most recent spate of national polls include more Republicans than did the surveys conducted earlier in October. Nevertheless, they still give more advantage to the Democrats than Gallup’s aggregate data suggest should be the case. ABC/Wall Street Journal’s most recent poll, for example, includes 34 percent Democrats and 30 percent Republicans, the Investors Business Daily poll sets the Democrats’ advantage at seven points (38 percent to 31 percent), and an Associated Press survey comes in two percentage points more Democratic than Republican.

Correcting these polls so that there was a Republican edge in the sample of voters consistent with Gallup’s finding would hand Romney a lead between five to ten points. Imagine the run on smelling salts at Mother Jones and MSNBC if that were to happen?

This is encouraging.🙂
Click to expand...
What’s really interesting is that Gallup has suspended polling for the first time in decades, and just before a presidential election too. The putative excuse is that the voters are disrupted in NJ and NY, but they didn’t suspend polls in LA for Katrina, you notice. Nor are NJ or NY in question. Everyone knows that they are going to go blue. So what’s the deal? Are they worried about REVENGE?
 
Obama was in Mentor, Ohio, for a campaign event: *“I’ll work with any party to make this country move forward,” he said. "If you want to break the gridlock of Congress vote for me."

www.foxnews.com

Obama, Romney blaze across battlegrounds, seeking remaining undecided voters

Mitt Romney and President Obama blazed across the country Saturday, hitting key battleground states where both candidates vowed partisan compromise if elected and urged supporters to help them win over the remaining undecided voters.
www.foxnews.com www.foxnews.com

Does anyone give any credence to such a statement?
 
_Abyssinia said:
Great news from Pennsylvania

Media blackout of black Chicago protesters marching against Obama

Parsing the Polls

Why young voters aren’t feeling Obama-mania this time

Edward Niedermeyer: Romney’s Plan Would Also Have ‘Saved’ Detroit

WaPo: GOP may add to 2010 house gains

Why Romney Will Win Ohio
Click to expand...
With regard to PA, Rachel Maddow pointed out that Republicans always claim they will win PA, but haven’t done so since 1988. George H.W. Bush was in PA toward the end of the campaign in 1992 and claimed victory there; so did Bob Dole in 1996, GWB in 2000 and 2004, and John McCain in 2008. They all stated the polls predicted victory in PA and they were all wrong. In 1968, however, PA was one of the decisive states that put Nixon in the White House instead of Humphrey.
 
Tampa_Dave said:
Obama was in Mentor, Ohio, for a campaign event: "I’ll work with any party to make this country move forward," he said. "If you want to break the gridlock of Congress vote for me."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...reminder-vote-for-love-country/#ixzz2BCI9GHgY
Click to expand...
Does anyone give any credence to such a statement?

Absolutely…and Mitch McConnell will no longer has his and the GOPs primary goal as defeating the President. It will be irrelevant. They can actually be concerned for the people.

John
 
oldcelt said:
Absolutely…and Mitch McConnell will no longer has his and the GOPs primary goal as defeating the President. It will be irrelevant. They can actually be concerned for the people.

John
Click to expand...
Do you really believe that? Are you implying that Obama has a history of bipartisanship with the Congress?
 
Tampa_Dave said:
Do you really believe that? Are you implying that Obama has a history of bipartisanship with the Congress?
Click to expand...
During the last budget crisis he tried compromise…the GOP held the entire nation hostage for the 1% and the President gave in for the good of all. So, yes.

John
 
oldcelt said:
During the last budget crisis he tried compromise…the GOP held the entire nation hostage for the 1% and the President gave in for the good of all. So, yes.

John
Click to expand...
No, Obama changed the terms of the agreement at the last moment.
 
George Weigel, writing in National Review Online:
*Catholics who are still pondering their presidential vote will have heard, endlessly, that no political party fully embodies the social doctrine of the Catholic Church. That is certainly true. And it is also largely irrelevant. For the choice in 2012 is not between two parties that, in relative degrees, inadequately embody the Catholic vision of the free and virtuous society. The choice is between a party that inadequately embodies that vision and a party that holds that vision in contempt, as it has made clear in everything from the “HHS mandate” through the Charlotte convention votes against God to the Lena Dunham ad. Catholics who do not like their Church, or their vote, or themselves to be held in contempt could make the decisive difference in 2012 — not so much as a “Catholic vote” bloc, but as a community of American citizens determined to restore the decencies to public life and American culture.*
 
Tampa_Dave said:
George Weigel, writing in National Review Online:
Code: 
*Catholics who are still pondering their presidential vote will have heard, endlessly, that no political party fully embodies the social doctrine of the Catholic Church. That is certainly true. And it is also largely irrelevant. For the choice in 2012 is not between two parties that, in relative degrees, inadequately embody the Catholic vision of the free and virtuous society. The choice is between a party that inadequately embodies that vision and a party that holds that vision in contempt, as it has made clear in everything from the “HHS mandate” through the Charlotte convention votes against God to the Lena Dunham ad. Catholics who do not like their Church, or their vote, or themselves to be held in contempt could make the decisive difference in 2012 — not so much as a “Catholic vote” bloc, but as a community of American citizens determined to restore the decencies to public life and American culture.*
Click to expand...
He’s absolutely right. This is basically a choice between freedom and oppression, not “this candidate most closely embraces Catholic social doctrine”.
 
meltzerboy said:
With regard to PA, Rachel Maddow pointed out that Republicans always claim they will win PA, but haven’t done so since 1988. George H.W. Bush was in PA toward the end of the campaign in 1992 and claimed victory there; so did Bob Dole in 1996, GWB in 2000 and 2004, and John McCain in 2008. They all stated the polls predicted victory in PA and they were all wrong. In 1968, however, PA was one of the decisive states that put Nixon in the White House instead of Humphrey.
Click to expand...
Restore our future, pro Romney super pac and the Romney campaign are putting millions of dollars in to PA, there must be a reason for that. Polls have shown Romney gaining and with in reach. If PA is safe for Obama why have Biden and Bill Clinton been to PA in the last few days?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top