Obama and Romney Hit Final Stretch Part 3

[didymus]

First we had the “Vote like you lady parts depended on it” followed by Lisa Dunham’s “First time” commercial.
Now Planned Parenthood raises the ante with this:

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/s480x480/223709_519950438015034_610531999_n.jpg

Question for women: aren’t ads like this insulting even if you are pro-choice?

 

[_Abyssinia]

Turnout will tell whether Obama or Romney wins Pennsylvania
Political science professor Lara Brown

"[Democrats] have to pull out their 2008 numbers in Philly, because Republicans are going to pull out [their] 2010 numbers in the west.

“Democrats will get their people out to vote,” she said, “I’m just not sure it will be enough due to the temperamental swings in the collar counties [surrounding Philadelphia] and the [GOP] enthusiasm” in parts of western Pennsylvania.

PA has 1.1 million more democrats than republicans

Enthusiasm is key in Ohio ground game

Can the Democrat put his finger on the difference in energy in 2012?

“It’s hard to quantify, but there is significantly less enthusiasm,” said Roan. “I think there’s sort of grim determination on the part of some people, more than enthusiasm. … And it shows up in our volunteers. … We don’t have the number of young people volunteering like we did last time.”

TCJ Research Ohio: Mitt Romney- 51%, Barack Obama- 48%

Sample 34% Democrats, 34% Republican, 32% Unaffiliated. Democrat had plus 5 advantage in 2008. What will the turn out be?

TCJ Research Virginia: Mitt Romney- 51%, Barack Obama- 48%

TCJ Research Wisconsin: Mitt Romney- 50%, Barack Obama- 48%

Romney leads 5 with independents WI

TCJ Research National Tracking: Mitt Romney- 51%, Barack Obama- 48%

 

[didymus]

Check out this interactive chart from the NY Times. It shows “pathways to victory” (combinations of states).
According to the chart the President has 431 ways to win, Gov Romney has 76 ways to win and 5 combinations result in an electoral college tie.

 

[_Abyssinia]

First we had the “Vote like you lady parts depended on it” followed by Lisa Dunham’s “First time” commercial.
Now Planned Parenthood raises the ante with this:

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/s480x480/223709_519950438015034_610531999_n.jpg

Question for women: aren’t ads like this insulting even if you are pro-choice?

Bored of abortion advocates using the words womens health to describe abortion legality and access

 

[_Abyssinia]

Check out this interactive chart from the NY Times. It shows “pathways to victory” (combinations of states).
According to the chart the President has 431 ways to win, Gov Romney has 76 ways to win and 5 combinations result in an electoral college tie.

76 or 431 ways to win?

Romney will carry the states McCain carried which is 179. Adding NC and IN are 25. Romney is ahead in NC, VI and FLA, that brings Romney to 255. Romney needs 15 more. OH 18, WI 10, IA 6, MN 10, Pennsylvania, 20. Romney needs to win PA or OH, MN and WI, IA and WI or IA and MN

 

[gilliam]

Check out this interactive chart from the NY Times. It shows “pathways to victory” (combinations of states).
According to the chart the President has 431 ways to win, Gov Romney has 76 ways to win and 5 combinations result in an electoral college tie.

Note that the NYT omits PA. If you enter PA into the equation, Romney’s paths to victory increase exponentually.

 

[He_Man]

According to the statistician Nate Silver Obama has an 85.5% chance of winning the election.

Silver’s flaw (as I see), is not reviewing historic trends county by county, day by day, and looking at where we are in relation to recent history. Also, not addressing the registration numbers and population numbers on a county by county basis.

That’s why I always favor Michael Barone. He isn’t just performing calculations. Silver is fine if conditions are known and predictable.

nationalreview.com/articles/332377/prediction-romney-beats-obama-handily-michael-barone#

He also said Obama was going to win big last time, and nailed the Senate in 2008 and 2010.

 

[He_Man]

Do you drink?

DO you or anyone on your side have ANYTHING to offer as an explanation for why people see Ohio going red? I.e., the dramatic drop in early voting for Dems, the 14% or so decrease in Cuyahoga COunty, or the huge increase in early voting for the Republicans since 2008?

All I hear when actual numbers come up is essentially “you’re crazy.”

I’d like someone on the left to actually explain why those numbers are wrong. Al I see are predictions that don’t address actual numbers so far this election cycle. Maybe i am not reading the right experts. Even the left’ beloved nate SIlver has yet to explain (that I have seen) the early voting trends in CUyahoga and other prominent counties).

 

[He_Man]

Tone-deaf: Colorado Sen. Udall hopes Romney runs into “hurricane”

Does that mean we can blame him for Gabby Giffords getting shot?

May I never hear whining about civility and tone from the left ever again.

And yet, we will.

 

[He_Man]

First we had the “Vote like you lady parts depended on it” followed by Lisa Dunham’s “First time” commercial.
Now Planned Parenthood raises the ante with this:

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/s480x480/223709_519950438015034_610531999_n.jpg

Question for women: aren’t ads like this insulting even if you are pro-choice?

And women of this ilk think they have come a long way in the last 50 years? How sad. The dignity of these women has come a long way; it has spiraled to an all-time low.

 

[He_Man]

Bored of abortion advocates using the words womens health to describe abortion legality and access

It’s like calling capital punishment a “societal health issue.”

Torture is an “intelligence health issue.”

What a bunch of frauds these men and women are.

 

[oldcelt]

DO you or anyone on your side have ANYTHING to offer as an explanation for why people see Ohio going red? I.e., the dramatic drop in early voting for Dems, the 14% or so decrease in Cuyahoga COunty, or the huge increase in early voting for the Republicans since 2008?

All I hear when actual numbers come up is essentially “you’re crazy.”

I’d like someone on the left to actually explain why those numbers are wrong. Al I see are predictions that don’t address actual numbers so far this election cycle. Maybe i am not reading the right experts. Even the left’ beloved nate SIlver has yet to explain (that I have seen) the early voting trends in CUyahoga and other prominent counties).

I think it is very difficult to judge early voting in Ohio since they don’t register by party, as I understand. What we have now are essentially exit polls, which are notoriously inaccurate. I heard one giving the D a 2 to 1 advantage…I don’t believe it, but there it is.

Remember, the President had a substantial (for Ohio) win in 2008. Mr. Romney has a fair amount to make up if he is to win.

So, to conclude, I don’t see Ohio going red. I think the President will pull out a narrow win there and nationally.

John

 

[Ridgerunner]

That’s is speculation.

Now it’s different, we know that almost half, or more, Catholics voted for Obama. Many have said it was at the peril of those voter’s souls. If that were true, wouldn’t the voter’s guide have changed, or the Pope spoken out? Christ gave a parable about one lost sheep, and we’re discussing millions. Surely we cannot speculate that because it is possible the Pope would have been ignored, he chooses not to speak correction of any sorts?

The Pope and a number of bishops have, indeed,spoken out, in terms that make it quite clear. Lots of people won’t listen, of course, and many will find a way to rationalize voting for abortion and homosexual “marriage”.

Requiring the Pope and bishops to endorse a particular candidate is an easy way to rationalize voting for evil, because they never endorse particular candidates.

 

[He_Man]

I think it is very difficult to judge early voting in Ohio since they don’t register by party, as I understand. What we have now are essentially exit polls, which are notoriously inaccurate. I heard one giving the D a 2 to 1 advantage…I don’t believe it, but there it is.

Remember, the President had a substantial (for Ohio) win in 2008. Mr. Romney has a fair amount to make up if he is to win.

So, to conclude, I don’t see Ohio going red. I think the President will pull out a narrow win there and nationally.

John

That’s the point. His win in Ohio has been wiped out by early voting. A 2 to 1 edge is hardly enough.

Granted, we will find out tomorrow, and I appreciate you taking a stab, but I’d love for someone to explain why ROve is wrong on his numbers here:
Adrian Gray, who oversaw the Bush 2004 voter-contact operation and is now a policy analyst for a New York investment firm, makes the point that as of Tuesday, 530,813 Ohio Democrats had voted early or had requested or cast an absentee ballot. That’s down 181,275 from four years ago. But 448,357 Ohio Republicans had voted early or had requested or cast an absentee ballot, up 75,858 from the last presidential election.

That 257,133-vote swing almost wipes out Mr. Obama’s 2008 Ohio victory margin of 262,224. Since most observers expect Republicans to win Election Day turnout, these early vote numbers point toward a Romney victory in Ohio. They are also evidence that Scott Jennings, my former White House colleague and now Romney Ohio campaign director, was accurate when he told me that the Buckeye GOP effort is larger than the massive Bush 2004 get-out-the-vote operation.
Democrats explain away those numbers by saying that they are turning out new young Ohio voters. But I asked Kelly Nallen, the America Crossroads data maven, about this. She points out that there are 12,612 GOP “millennials” (voters aged 18-29) who’ve voted early compared with 9,501 Democratic millennials.

Are Democrats bringing out episodic voters who might not otherwise turn out? Not according to Ms. Nallen. She says that about 90% of each party’s early voters so far had also voted in three of the past four Ohio elections.
Now of the Republicans don;t turn out on election day, it’s a win for Obama. But that isn’t what is expected by either side.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Goode isn’t prefect, nobody is, BUT he doesn’t support intrinsically evil policies. Torture, like capital punishment, isn’t intrinsically evil. Abortion and gay adoption are intrinsically evil.

This is incorrect, Pork Roll. Torture is an intrinsic evil, like abortion (CCC 2297).

 

[bellasbane]

Long lines and confusion during early voting in Florida and Ohio are already showing that the efforts of Republican lawmakers to make it harder for people to vote are paying off. As we hit the final stretch in a close election, the question is whether it will be enough to put Mitt Romney over the edge. If it does, how can the GOP continue to claim they believe in the American values of freedom and democracy?

The early-voting debacle in the Sunshine State is deliberate. To treat this as the unfortunate result of ineptitude is to miss the point – Florida Republicans designed the system to work this way.

GOP policymakers want long lines; they want to make it very difficult for voters to participate in their own democracy; they want Americans to get discouraged and walk away. As one Republican state lawmaker argued after the 2010 election, “I want the people in the State of Florida to want to vote as bad as that person in Africa who is willing to walk 200 miles for that opportunity he’s never had before in his life. This should not be easy.”

maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/11/05/14940915-a-feature-not-a-bug?lite

Kudos to Rachel Maddow for covering this story in depth and for playing this clip of Paul Weyrich to provide some historical context to why conservatives traditionally want to make it harder for people to vote:

Paul Weyrich, “father” of the right-wing movement and co-founder of the Heritage Foundation, Moral Majority and various other groups tells his flock that he doesn’t want people to vote. He complains that fellow Christians have “Goo-Goo Syndrome”: Good Government. Classic clip from 1980. This guy still gives weekly strategy sessions to Republicans nowadays. The entire dialog from the clip:

“Now many of our Christians have what I call the goo-goo syndrome — good government. They want everybody to vote. I don’t want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of people, they never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down.”

youtube.com/watch?v=8GBAsFwPglw

Catholics win by winning over people’s hearts and minds. We need to differentiate ourselves from Christians who would use other tactics to impose their will on the American people. To do otherwise is to support tyranny. It is as simple as that.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The Pope and a number of bishops have, indeed,spoken out, in terms that make it quite clear. Lots of people won’t listen, of course, and many will find a way to rationalize voting for abortion and homosexual “marriage”.

Requiring the Pope and bishops to endorse a particular candidate is an easy way to rationalize voting for evil, because they never endorse particular candidates.

I’m not trying to argue, but want to explain a little better.

If Catholics are truly to vote for one candidate only, ignoring any social, economical, or personal interests, as proportionate to abortion, why wouldn’t the Church plainly speak so there was no question and name a party, or candidate?

I and, I would imagine, many other Catholics would listen. I have seen very few actually state support for abortion or homosexual rights, and seriously doubt those are reasons some vote differently.

What reason is there for the Pope, and Bishops, to avoid plainly stating a party, or candidate? Is it also a rationalization to say they have spoken clearly, but not gone so far as to name a party or candidate?

Surely it’s not a tax exempt status. That would be an economic reason, over the important issues. Some argue it’s because the Church cannot place itself in a position of having supported a candidate that truly proved to be evil after an election. Each person is a member of the body of Christ, which is the Church. Why would it be different for individual members of the body of Christ to be guided into placing themselves in a position of having supported a candidate that later proved to be truly evil?

To say, ‘they won’t listen,’ is speculation since we have not seen a specific party, or candidate, named to remove any assumed ‘rationalization.’ Would the Church stand by and let millions of souls be endangered, as some have said, because ‘they won’t listen,’ when we don’t know if they will listen to a clearly spoken guidance, so as to remove any possibility of one standing on ‘rationalization?’

Again, I’m not trying to argue, but these are valid questions, in my honest opinion. Questions that are not being addressed in the clear message some say exists.

 

[stinkcat_14]

I’m not trying to argue, but want to explain a little better.

If Catholics are truly to vote for one candidate only, ignoring any social, economical, or personal interests, as proportionate to abortion, why wouldn’t the Church plainly speak so there was no question and name a party, or candidate?

The reason is very simple, while Obama may be unacceptable, the Church does not have the authority to tell people to vote for Romney, since there are other acceptable candidates. If a bishop were to say to vote for Romney he would be clearly overstepping his bounds.

 

[JustaServant]

Goode isn’t prefect, nobody is, BUT he doesn’t support intrinsically evil policies. Torture, like capital punishment, isn’t intrinsically evil. Abortion and gay adoption are intrinsically evil.

Incredible.
Absolutely incredible.
:nope:

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The reason is very simple, while Obama may be unacceptable, the Church does not have the authority to tell people to vote for Romney, since there are other acceptable candidates. If a bishop were to say to vote for Romney he would be clearly overstepping his bounds.

When someone states they are voting for other acceptable candidates, many will say, ‘…throwing away a vote,’ or ‘…essentially a vote for Obama.’ Some go so far as to say the reason is to covertly support Obama. Some respond by stating the evils of supporting Obama, and teachings of the Church, even though there was no support stated.