Obama and Romney Hit the Final Stretch PT 2

[oldcelt]

Dispatch Poll: Obama widens lead as balloting starts

A new Dispatch Poll shows him trailing President Barack Obama in bellwether Ohio by 9 points, 51 percent to 42 percent.

A surge of Democratic support for Obama has transformed the race since the first Dispatch Poll had the two dead-even at 45 percent just before the Republican National Convention in late August.

The survey is the fifth major poll — from The Washington Post to Fox News — of Ohio voters in a week to show the president ahead by 5 to 10 points. He also leads in surveys of most of the remaining swing states.

dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2012/09/30/1-dispatch-poll-shows-obama-in-lead.html

 

[Lapey]

Then why does the church say you can’t vote for a candidate who supports intrinsic evils? If everybody keeps voting for the lesser of evils, the pro-life candidate will never have a chance.

There are only two viable candidates, pick one and vote. A vote for a third party candidate is a cop out, and just as good/bad as a no vote. You are misrepresenting Church teachings on this and trying to lead people away from the pro-life candidate, i wonder why?

Do you expect Romney to say he will pass a personhood amendment to the constitution, and then he would be pro-life enough? There is no way this country will possibly go from, abortion on demand to all abortion is illegal and not revolt. The normal progression will and should be, repeal RvW and send it back to the states. Then the battle in the states begins then eventually an amendment to outlaw abortion. This is what we are heading for I pray!

Now, either get on the bus, or get out of the way!

 

[oldcelt]

Obama leads Ohio; Va. and Fla. tight

6:36AM EDT October 31. 2012 - President Obama holds a 5-point lead over Mitt Romney in Ohio, and the two candidates remain very close in Virginia and Florida, according to a new Quinnipiac University/CBS News/New York Times poll of likely voters.

Obama leads by 50%-45% in Ohio, the state many analysts believe will decide the election; that’s the same margin he had in the same poll on Oct. 22.

usatoday.com/story/theoval/2012/10/31/obama-romney-poll-ohio-florida-virginia/1670719/

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Looks about right.

Looks ‘typical’. That is anything is permissible to get a candidate elected.

It’s those type ‘hypes’ of anti-truth that cloud the issue for those who are searching for truth to make a genuine decision. In other words, it hurts your case, more than it helps it. I remember the same thing being said about GWB. This has become accepted under ‘politics as usual’ to such a degree that even Christians have bought into abusing truth for an outcome (little evil so that good may come from it). That is probably one of the reasons Christianity is viewed as hypocritical to some non believers; ‘they say they have truth, but show it’s not always necessary if advantage can be found in less…’

What would you say to discussions of ‘white horse prophecies’, ‘Kobol’ or ‘men becoming gods’? Should be permissible if all we need is an ‘element’ of truth…

 

[_Abyssinia]

Obama leads Ohio; Va. and Fla. tight

usatoday.com/story/theoval/2012/10/31/obama-romney-poll-ohio-florida-virginia/1670719/

At this time in 2008 Quinnipiac said McCain was down 9 in Ohio. Obama won the state 4.6% and this was a time when democrats were very enthused and the McCain campaign spent $14 million to Obama campaign $26 million in ads. That is not the case in 2012 and 450000, mostly democrats have been taken off the voter roll in Ohio. I find it interesting that an uninspirational candidate such as McCain only lost by less than 5 points in Ohio

 

[_Abyssinia]

Regarding cbs/qunnipiac poll, how can Romney be winning independents in Virginia by 21%, but be down overall? Does not make sense

 

[oldcelt]

Regarding the cbs/qunnipiac, how can Romney be winning indepents in Virginia by 21%, but lose the state? Does not make sense

Could it be that the poll of independents is wrong?

 

[markomalley]

This important note from the Huffington Post:Vice President Joe Biden said transgender discrimination is “the civil rights issue of our time” during a visit to a Florida field office on Tuesday, according to pool reports.

Biden was meeting with volunteers at an Obama for America office in Sarasota, Fla., when he singled out one woman “who he thought had beautiful eyes,” reads the pool report. The woman said something to Biden that was inaudible to the pool reporter, but Biden responded to her by saying it was the “civil rights issue of our time.”
Remember that this is the same Biden who, yesterday, was promoted in an ad by “Catholics for Obama” as a “practicing Catholic”

easycaptures.com/fs/uploaded/705/9265339119.jpg

I guess he must have missed that day in CCD.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Could it be that the poll of independents is wrong?

Doubt it. What poll of independents in Virginia is not showing Romney with a significant lead?

Sample for the Quinn/cbs poll is

Florida - republican 30; democrat 37; independent 29
Virginia - republican 27; democrat 35; independent 35
Ohio - republcian 29; democrat 37; independent 30

Turn out predicted for republicans is laughable

The Great Independent Debate

Quinnipiac/CBS/New York Times release new swing state polls of the big three battlegrounds – Florida, Virginia, and Ohio.

The surveys are already causing a stir, thanks to seemingly incompatible results.

For example, in the Virginia survey, Barack Obama leads Mitt Romney, 49%-47%. There’s nothing controversial about that topline number.

It’s not significantly outside the RCP average of the state, and I think – considering the demographics of the state – you have to consider Obama the slight favorite in Virginia.

But it’s just terribly difficult to somehow match that with the fact that Romney leads by 21% among independents. Obviously, that seems completely incompatible with Obama up by 2%, overall.

Of course, the answer can be found in the sampling, which suggests an 8% Democratic turnout advantage, which is 2% more than in 2008 when the entire planet was aligned for Obama.

Defenders of the predictive nature of results like this suggest that more and more Republican-minded voters are now calling themselves “independents”; thus being independent means you’re a disgruntled conservative of some sort – maybe a tea partier even.

But that doesn’t line up with the Virginia results.

Why?

Because in the same Quinnipiac poll taken just two weeks ago, Obama led among independents by 2%.

If Virginia independents were really a bunch of tea partiers or a disproportionate number of disgruntled conservatives, then Obama would have never been leading with the group two weeks ago.

So not only does the “independents are mainly Republicans by a different name” explanation fall short here, but it also runs short of understanding what the Virginia electorate is. Independents in the state are more, well, independent than in other states.

In states that have shown Romney up big with independents since the beginning, I might be able to buy that it’s just a proxy for party ID, but in Virginia – thanks to its recent polling history – it’s a bridge too far.

UPDATE: Kristen Soltis makes another good point on this, just generally (h/t Josh Kraushaar).

I have a hard time believing GOPers are even LESS likely today than 08 to call selves Reps. Ppl forget how bad 06 + 08 were.

Final CBS/NYT/Q-polls in OH, FL, VA show Obama up ….

What do the samples look like? Here’s the breakdown for each state, with 2008 and 2010 exit polling in parentheses (2009 in VA’s case):

FL: 37/30/29 (37/34/29, 36/36/29)
OH: 37/29/30 (39/31/30, 36/37/28)
VA: 35/27/35 (39/33/27, 33/37/30)

In each of these three states, the CBS/NYT/Q-poll shows Republicans at a lower percentage level of turnout than in the 2008 election. If one makes that assumption, it’s not too difficult to be guess that Obama might be ahead. However, that’s exactly the opposite of what all other polls rating enthusiasm are telling us what the electorate will look like on Tuesday. In fact, it’s not even what this poll shows, with Republican enthusiasm +16 over Democrats in Florida, +14 in Ohio, and +7 in Virginia.

http://media.hotair.com/greenroom/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/cbs-nyt-enthusiasm1.jpg

Let’s take a look at the two key demographics in this election in each of the three states and compare them to 2008. First, let’s start with independents:

FL: Romney +5, 2008: Obama +7
OH: Romney +6, 2008: Obama +8
VA: Romney +21, 2008: Obama +1
Next, let’s look at the overall gender gap in these polls and compare to 2008:

FL: Obama +1, 2008: Obama +9
OH: Obama +11, 2008: Obama +11
VA: Obama +1, 2008: Obama +11

Only in Ohio has Obama managed to maintain a significant gender gap. In all three states, he’s lost ground by double digits in the gap with independents. In all three states, Republican enthusiasm is significantly higher than Democratic enthusiasm. I’d say that the only possible way Obama could be leading under those circumstances is to seriously undercount Republicans.

 

[stinkcat_14]

There are only two viable candidates, pick one and vote. A vote for a third party candidate is a cop out, and just as good/bad as a no vote. You are misrepresenting Church teachings on this and trying to lead people away from the pro-life candidate, i wonder why?

You are absolutely 100% wrong on this. There is nothing, absolutely zero, in Church teachings that says one must vote for one of the top two candidates. A third party candidate is perfectly acceptable, subject to one’s prudential judgement. If you think I am wrong, just cite the official church teaching, which nobody ever has to prove I am wrong.

You can question the prudence, but not the morality of third party voting.

 

[_Abyssinia]

You are absolutely 100% wrong on this. There is nothing, absolutely zero, in Church teachings that says one must vote for one of the top two candidates. A third party candidate is perfectly acceptable, subject to one’s prudential judgement. If you think I am wrong, just cite the official church teaching, which nobody ever has to prove I am wrong.

You can question the prudence, but not the morality of third party voting.

Bishop Gracida wrote the following regarding the 2004 election and there was a 3rd party candidate. Consider this in the context of 2012 election

Consider the case of a Catholic voter who must choose between three candidates: candidate (A, Kerry) who is completely for abortion-on-demand, candidate (B, Bush) who is in favor of very limited abortion, i.e., in favor of greatly restricting abortion and candidate (C, Peroutka), a candidate who is completely against abortion but who is universally recognized as being unelectable.

The Catholic voter cannot vote for candidate (A, Kerry) because that would be formal cooperation in the sin of abortion if that candidate were to be elected and assist in passing legislation, which would remove restrictions on, abortion-on-demand.

The Catholic can vote for candidate (C, Peroutka) but that will probably only help ensure the election of candidate (A, Kerry).

Therefore the Catholic voter has a proportionate reason to vote for candidate (B, Bush) since his vote may help to ensure the defeat of candidate (A, Kerry) and may result in the saving of some innocent human lives if candidate (B, Bush) is elected and votes for legislation restricting abortion-on-demand. In such a case, the Catholic voter would have chosen the lesser of two evils which is morally permissible under these circumstances.

Of course, the Catholic voter could choose not to vote. But that would be a serious abdication of the Catholic voter’s civic and moral obligation to participate in the election. By not voting the Catholic voter could well be assisting in the election of candidate (A, Kerry) and while that would not carry the same guilt as formal participation in candidate (A, Kerry’s) support of abortion-on-demand it would still be sinful, even if only a sin of omission.

Those Catholic voters who love moral absolutes would have no choice but to vote for candidate (C, Peroutka), but those Catholics who recognize that in the real world it is sometimes necessary to choose the lesser of two evils in order to prevent greater harm – in this case harm to innocent unborn children would vote for candidate (B, Bush).

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=6159

 

[_Abyssinia]

New polls

Roanoke College Poll:Late deciders push Romney to narrow lead over Obama in Va.; Allen overtakes Kaine in Va. Senate race

Romney is with in margin of error with Obama in Michigan

Glengariff Group Michigan 2012 Presidential Survey

Obama 47.7%, Romney 45%

Detroit News/WDIV Local 4 - Poll: Romney closes gap on Obama in Michigan

Pic: Detroit News front page highlights Romney’s momentum in Michigan

New Poll Shows Romney With Momentum In Pennsylvania

Poll says Obama is up 4 in PA but Romney leads with independents by 16

Sample is 37 republican; 50 democrat; 13 independent

Franklin & Marshall Wastes Your Time With a Registered Voter Poll

Gop Sees Path Emerging for Romney Win in Iowa

Over the last two weeks, GOP political operatives have noted Democrats have been turning out “high-propensity voters” – or voters who normally vote on Election Day – for early voting, while Republicans have been turning “low propensity voters” – or voters who traditionally do not vote on Election Day. This means Democrats have fewer voters to draw from their universe on Election Day while Republicans have more

breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/10/30/GOP-Could-See-Tsunami-Of-Voters-On-Election-Day

Some see GOP voting tsunami coming

Morning Examiner: Romney expands the map

 

[_Abyssinia]

Catholic Bishop: Vote for Obama “Stretches the Imagination”

Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio of Brooklyn is the latest Catholic official to say that voting for pro-abortion President Barack Obama is essentially off limits for Catholic voters.

He said the Catholic Church needs to do a better job of teaching Catholic voters who gravitate towards pro-abortion candidates. In his column in the diocesan newspaper, Bishop DiMarzio wrote:

It is inconceivable to me how Catholics could support such policies. Indeed, Roman Catholics who support abortion rights and vote for a candidate because of those policies, place him/herself outside of the life of the Church. In so doing, they also place themselves in moral danger.

Is it possible to vote for somebody despite their support for these policies? To my mind, it stretches the imagination, especially when there is another option. The dignity and sanctity of human life are the foundational values upon which all other policies are built. Concern for the poor, the stranger in our midst, they are all predicated upon our belief in the dignity and sanctity of human life.

The Catholic leader is also surprised that abortion has become such a centerpiece of the campaign.

It is inconceivable to me how Catholics could support such policies. Indeed, Roman Catholics who support abortion rights and vote for a candidate because of those policies, place him/herself outside of the life of the Church. In so doing, they also place themselves in moral danger.

Is it possible to vote for somebody despite their support for these policies? To my mind, it stretches the imagination, especially when there is another option. The dignity and sanctity of human life are the foundational values upon which all other policies are built. Concern for the poor, the stranger in our midst, they are all predicated upon our belief in the dignity and sanctity of human life.

Perhaps also our primary consideration should be about terrorism and a war that has claimed several tens of thousands of lives and seems endless. For the wives and mothers of our soldiers, as well as the civilian losses, war is a women’s issue. For others, a central issue might be immigration and the plight of the 11 million undocumented people living in our country. These all seem like critically important women’s issues to me.

Why then do the President and Vice President continually speak about women’s rights in the context of abortion and contraception as well as misrepresent the impact on religious institutions? I cannot help but think it is an effort to secure only the most fanatical “pro-choice” voters at the expense of those who are people of faith.

The reality is that we as a Church have failed to teach the truths of the faith in a clear and convincing manner to the Catholic faithful. However, the issue is not what we as a Church believe but whether or not we ought to be obligated to act in a manner contrary to our own belief.

Another bishop has said anyone who votes pro-abortion jeopardizes their soul.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Bishop Gracida wrote the following regarding the 2004 election and there was a 3rd party candidate. Consider this in the context of 2012 election

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=6159

Note, he does not say that one may not vote for candidate C. Just that there may be a prudential reason to go for candidate B.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Note, he does not say that one may not vote for candidate C. Just that there may be a prudential reason to go for candidate B.

You can vote for a 3rd party candidate but there is universal recongition that none of the 3rd party candidates will win

 

[stinkcat_14]

You can vote for a 3rd party candidate but there is universal recongition that none of the 3rd party candidates will win

That may be true, but our buddy lapey suggested that it is against Church teaching to vote third party, so on that issue, we agree that he is 100% wrong.

But, suppose I live in a very blue state like Vermont, is it wrong to compromise my principles to vote for Romney when it is universally recognized that he won’t win?

 

[_Abyssinia]

That may be true, but our buddy lapey suggested that it is against Church teaching to vote third party, so on that issue, we agree that he is 100% wrong.

But, suppose I live in a very blue state like Vermont, is it wrong to compromise my principles to vote for Romney when it is universally recognized that he won’t win?

Interesting question, not sure

 

[Lapey]

There are only two viable candidates, pick one and vote. A vote for a third party candidate is a cop out, and just as good/bad as a no vote. You are misrepresenting Church teachings on this and trying to lead people away from the pro-life candidate, i wonder why?

Do you expect Romney to say he will pass a personhood amendment to the constitution, and then he would be pro-life enough? There is no way this country will possibly go from, abortion on demand to all abortion is illegal and not revolt. The normal progression will and should be, repeal RvW and send it back to the states. Then the battle in the states begins then eventually an amendment to outlaw abortion. This is what we are heading for I pray!

Now, either get on the bus, or get out of the way!

You are absolutely 100% wrong on this. There is nothing, absolutely zero, in Church teachings that says one must vote for one of the top two candidates. A third party candidate is perfectly acceptable, subject to one’s prudential judgement. If you think I am wrong, just cite the official church teaching, which nobody ever has to prove I am wrong.

You can question the prudence, but not the morality of third party voting.

I had a feeling one of you “third party-ers” would go here. Why did you not quote my entire post? We are called to place our vote where it will do the most good to stop or limit evil. How is voting third party, any candidate, or not voting accomplish this? None of them can have any say in any policy no matter if the get .5% or 1%. All they can do is take enough votes away from one who is running as a pro-life candidate to possibly allow the proven pro-abortion candidate a better chance to win. This is what I mean by “get on the bus or get out of the way”.

By the way, I did not say nor imply that the choice to go third party or not vote is immoral, that is your attempt to inflame the conversation.

Also, you have no idea what the term “prudential judgment” means. Some issues are declared by the Church as intrinsic evils, there is no “prudential judgment” allowed in these cases. Others like war and capital punishment etc. which would fit that category.

To use this term to describe choosing a third party candidate really uses it out of context. If you choose to pick outside of the viable candidates that is your choice, but in my opinion it is a choice to sit on the sidelines and not join the fight. It doesn’t mean anything until the votes take away enough from the pro-life candidate to allow the pro-abortion Obama to win. Then I can assure you, your choice will have consequences to the lives of unborn children in the future.

PS. The documents are there, have been posted, and I’m sure will be posted again, and all that happens is people use one or two statements from one or more documents to support their own opinion. These documents as well as Scripture have to be taken in full context, and most of all need to be understood within the context of Church doctrine. These writings which are authoritative cannot be used to support things or people that are contrary to Church doctrine, such as Catholics who justify an Obama vote by using Cardinal Ratzinger’s writing from 2004 on worthiness to receive Communion; but many do it often and sadly mostly to feel better about voting their liberal views and party and not Church teaching.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Also, you have no idea what the term “prudential judgment” means. Some issues are declared by the Church as intrinsic evils, there is no “prudential judgment” allowed in these cases. Others like war and capital punishment etc. which would fit that category.

Gary,

I think you are the one who needs to learn what the term prudential judgement means. I never said that one can use prudential judgement in issues surrounding intrinsic evils. However, does the Church allow me to use my judgement to determine whether my vote is best cast of a pure pro-life candidate, or a pro-abortion candidate that is not as bad, the answer is clearly yes.

To use this term to describe choosing a third party candidate really uses it out of context. If you choose to pick outside of the viable candidates that is your choice, but in my opinion it is a choice to sit on the sidelines and not join the fight. It doesn’t mean anything until the votes take away enough from the pro-life candidate to allow the pro-abortion Obama to win. Then I can assure you, your choice will have consequences to the lives of unborn children in the future.

The key phrase here is “in my opinion”.

PS. The documents are there, have been posted, and I’m sure will be posted again, and all that happens is people use one or two statements from one or more documents to support their own opinion. These documents as well as Scripture have to be taken in full context, and most of all need to be understood within the context of Church doctrine. These writings which are authoritative cannot be used to support things or people that are contrary to Church doctrine, such as Catholics who justify an Obama vote by using Cardinal Ratzinger’s writing from 2004 on worthiness to receive Communion; but many do it often and sadly mostly to feel better about voting their liberal views and party and not Church teaching.

I never proposed that someone can vote for Obama, so this passage seems irrelevant.

 

[Lapey]

Bishop Gracida wrote the following regarding the 2004 election and there was a 3rd party candidate. Consider this in the context of 2012 election

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=6159

*Consider the case of a Catholic voter who must choose between three candidates: candidate (A, Kerry) who is completely for abortion-on-demand, candidate (B, Bush) who is in favor of very limited abortion, i.e., in favor of greatly restricting abortion and candidate (C, Peroutka), a candidate who is completely against abortion but who is universally recognized as being unelectable.

The Catholic voter cannot vote for candidate (A, Kerry) because that would be formal cooperation in the sin of abortion if that candidate were to be elected and assist in passing legislation, which would remove restrictions on, abortion-on-demand.

The Catholic can vote for candidate (C, Peroutka) but that will probably only help ensure the election of candidate (A, Kerry).

Therefore the Catholic voter has a proportionate reason to vote for candidate (B, Bush) since his vote may help to ensure the defeat of candidate (A, Kerry) and may result in the saving of some innocent human lives if candidate (B, Bush) is elected and votes for legislation restricting abortion-on-demand. In such a case, the Catholic voter would have chosen the lesser of two evils which is morally permissible under these circumstances.
Of course, the Catholic voter could choose not to vote. But that would be a serious abdication of the Catholic voter’s civic and moral obligation to participate in the election. By not voting the Catholic voter could well be assisting in the election of candidate (A, Kerry) and while that would not carry the same guilt as formal participation in candidate (A, Kerry’s) support of abortion-on-demand it would still be sinful, even if only a sin of omission.

Those Catholic voters who love moral absolutes would have no choice but to vote for candidate (C, Peroutka), but those Catholics who recognize that in the real world it is sometimes necessary to choose the lesser of two evils in order to prevent greater harm – in this case harm to innocent unborn children would vote for candidate (B, Bush).*

Perfectly stated, this is an incredible example of proportionate reasoning. Basically the same is present in this election. Thanks for posting this!

Facts are clear about these candidates

Candidate A = Obama - abortion on demand including on at least some levels tax payer funding for it - proof is in words and deeds. Party platform does plainly state that it supports women’s rights to abortion on demand.

Candidate B = Romney - Is against abortion in all cases except rape, incest, and life of the mother, not 100% pro-life. However, in word and deed has shown a much better record of defending life from conception to natural death than candidate A. Party platform has does not support abortion rights.

Candidate C - pick you candidate - no chance of winning, or influencing the debate. Only one possibility is to take away enough votes from candidate B to allow candidate A to win. This would be the worst of two evils and those candidate C votes would have helped this happen.

Candidate D = no vote - again if enough votes are not cast for candidate B, A will win. If all these no votes would be practicing Catholics voting by Church doctrines, abortion would not be a big topic anymore. It would be unsafe (no change because no abortion is safe, the baby always dies), rare and illegal.