T
Tampa_Dave
Guest
I cannot be so cavalier in expressing unequivocal support for both candidates. I consider an Obama second term an unmitigated nightmare.
- Status
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
For the poor; religious liberty; the unborn; marriage, Obama reelection would be an unmitigated nightmare
T
Tampa_Dave
Guest
Why Romney Doesn’t Need a Poll Lead in Ohio
By Josh Jordan (National Review Online) October 26, 2012 7:00 A.M.
The race for Ohio is slowly tightening, but Mitt Romney does not hold a lead in a single poll in the current Real Clear Politics average (he is tied in two). Two polls from Time and CBS/Quinnipiac have grabbed headlines by showing Obama a five-point lead in each. Romney is chipping away at Obama’s poll lead, but the Democratic advantage in party-ID has increased across these polls. When looking at the polls in Ohio, it is becoming entirely possible that Mitt Romney should be able to win Ohio without ever showing a consistent lead in the polls, or any lead at all.
…
The polls give Democrats a better turnout advantage than they had in 2008: As I explained in my last Ohio post, in 2008 Democrats beat Republicans in turnout by five points. The current polls show an average of D+6.6. A D+5 turnout in 2008 gave Obama a 4.5-point victory, while he is currently leading by only 2.1 points on an even greater D+6.6 turnout. Again, we know it should be very difficult for Democrats to match their 2008 turnout, let alone increase it.
History suggests late deciders will break against the incumbent: This is a rule that always receives some skepticism, but it’s very likely to benefit Romney at least some on Election Day. In 2004, late deciders broke against George W. Bush heavily, even though he was a wartime president. John Kerry beat Bush by 25 points among voters who decided in the last month, 28 points among voters that decided in the three days prior to Election Day, and 22 points among day-of deciders. Those voters were 20 percent of the Ohio electorate; while this year there are expected to be fewer late deciders, Obama cannot afford to lose among by those margins and still win.
In Ohio, Republicans tend to outperform their share of the national vote: In the last nine elections, the GOP has outperformed in Ohio. With Romney currently running just ahead of Obama nationally, it seems much more likely that Obama’s lead in Ohio has more to do with the higher party-ID advantage than a dramatic shift in Ohio from the past nine elections.
Strength with crossover voters in Ohio: In addition to Romney’s strength with independents, in the past two elections the GOP candidate has won over more Democrat votes than he’s lost Republican ones. Obama’s Ohio win in 2008 was based entirely on his strength with independents and the wave turnout, both of which are highly unlikely to be repeated in 2012. If Romney wins with independents by anywhere near the current average he has and takes more crossover voters than Obama does, Obama would need to exceed 2008 turnout greatly to win.
So, with less than two weeks until Election Day we will all know the results soon enough, but as more Ohio polls come in, it is important to remember that the picture for Romney in Ohio is better than many pundits would have us believe. It only takes a quick look at Romney’s rallies to remind us it’s not 2008 anymore, as Republicans have reclaimed the enthusiasm advantage that led to such sweeping 2008 victories for Democrats. That GOP enthusiasm has become contagious since the debates, and it is exactly what has Team Obama so afraid these days. All they have left to hang their hopes on is a slim lead in the polls, and even that might not be enough on Election Day.*
By Josh Jordan (National Review Online) October 26, 2012 7:00 A.M.
The race for Ohio is slowly tightening, but Mitt Romney does not hold a lead in a single poll in the current Real Clear Politics average (he is tied in two). Two polls from Time and CBS/Quinnipiac have grabbed headlines by showing Obama a five-point lead in each. Romney is chipping away at Obama’s poll lead, but the Democratic advantage in party-ID has increased across these polls. When looking at the polls in Ohio, it is becoming entirely possible that Mitt Romney should be able to win Ohio without ever showing a consistent lead in the polls, or any lead at all.
…
- is increasingly difficult for Romney to show an lead in the Ohio polls. But even with Obama currently enjoying a 2.1 point lead, Romney is still in great shape to win Ohio on Election Day. Here are some of the reasons for the optimism coming from Boston these days:
The polls give Democrats a better turnout advantage than they had in 2008: As I explained in my last Ohio post, in 2008 Democrats beat Republicans in turnout by five points. The current polls show an average of D+6.6. A D+5 turnout in 2008 gave Obama a 4.5-point victory, while he is currently leading by only 2.1 points on an even greater D+6.6 turnout. Again, we know it should be very difficult for Democrats to match their 2008 turnout, let alone increase it.
History suggests late deciders will break against the incumbent: This is a rule that always receives some skepticism, but it’s very likely to benefit Romney at least some on Election Day. In 2004, late deciders broke against George W. Bush heavily, even though he was a wartime president. John Kerry beat Bush by 25 points among voters who decided in the last month, 28 points among voters that decided in the three days prior to Election Day, and 22 points among day-of deciders. Those voters were 20 percent of the Ohio electorate; while this year there are expected to be fewer late deciders, Obama cannot afford to lose among by those margins and still win.
In Ohio, Republicans tend to outperform their share of the national vote: In the last nine elections, the GOP has outperformed in Ohio. With Romney currently running just ahead of Obama nationally, it seems much more likely that Obama’s lead in Ohio has more to do with the higher party-ID advantage than a dramatic shift in Ohio from the past nine elections.
Strength with crossover voters in Ohio: In addition to Romney’s strength with independents, in the past two elections the GOP candidate has won over more Democrat votes than he’s lost Republican ones. Obama’s Ohio win in 2008 was based entirely on his strength with independents and the wave turnout, both of which are highly unlikely to be repeated in 2012. If Romney wins with independents by anywhere near the current average he has and takes more crossover voters than Obama does, Obama would need to exceed 2008 turnout greatly to win.
So, with less than two weeks until Election Day we will all know the results soon enough, but as more Ohio polls come in, it is important to remember that the picture for Romney in Ohio is better than many pundits would have us believe. It only takes a quick look at Romney’s rallies to remind us it’s not 2008 anymore, as Republicans have reclaimed the enthusiasm advantage that led to such sweeping 2008 victories for Democrats. That GOP enthusiasm has become contagious since the debates, and it is exactly what has Team Obama so afraid these days. All they have left to hang their hopes on is a slim lead in the polls, and even that might not be enough on Election Day.*
T
Tampa_Dave
Guest
I’m very concerned about my Ohio brethren these days, particularly given a few recent polls showing Obama with a 5 point lead in the Buckeye State. I happened across an article from National Review Online, re-printed in part in my post above, which gave me some consolation. I was born and raised in Ohio. The vast majority of Ohio’s 88 counties are solidly Republican, but Democrats have held impressive strongholds in major cities like Cincinnati, Columbus and Cleveland. Given the divisiveness of Obama’s presidency, the weak economy, size of the national debt, rising annual federal deficits, and my personal familiarity with the good people of Ohio, I find it hard to believe that Obama is outperforming Romney by the stated 5% margin in my home state. To any Buckeyes reading this post, I implore you to consider strongly the consequences of your vote for the nation and the Catholic Church. May God bless you and enlighten you before you enter the voting booth.
C
cayahoo08
Guest
Please explain this ??? Are you saying that government should be policing morality ?Nicer still would be if poiticians did more than make proposals, but put our social teaching into our laws. Talk is cheap.
F
Fone_Bone_2001
Guest
Yeah, tell that to the children and civilian families in Pakistan whom we’re blowing up and terrorizing day and night:
livingunderdrones.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Stanford_NYU_LIVING_UNDER_DRONES.pdf
The ones who live will grow up hating us, and I won’t blame them. Obama is a war criminal.
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
T
TexCatholic4JMJ
Guest
To poster Emperor Napoleon,
Re: Obama not a warmonger.
Spoke to someone last evening whose son-in-law is an independent contractor working with the military in Afganistan. He was shocked at the lack of security so evident now versus
when Bush was in office. He says it has declined severely and in the camp he was in,
witnessed the death of several marines. He was scheduled to return in December but will
not do so. I have been saddened to see that the deaths occurring in Afganistan have not
been prominent in the news, especially since it involves so many of our military.
So, you believe that Obama is not a “warmonger” but he was sworn in to “protect and
defend” and he is not doing so, especially with the military and our embassies in “hot spots”
around the world. This is even worse that being a “warmonger”, even though I disagree that that definition applies to either candidate.
Re: Obama not a warmonger.
Spoke to someone last evening whose son-in-law is an independent contractor working with the military in Afganistan. He was shocked at the lack of security so evident now versus
when Bush was in office. He says it has declined severely and in the camp he was in,
witnessed the death of several marines. He was scheduled to return in December but will
not do so. I have been saddened to see that the deaths occurring in Afganistan have not
been prominent in the news, especially since it involves so many of our military.
So, you believe that Obama is not a “warmonger” but he was sworn in to “protect and
defend” and he is not doing so, especially with the military and our embassies in “hot spots”
around the world. This is even worse that being a “warmonger”, even though I disagree that that definition applies to either candidate.
C
cayahoo08
Guest
Did Obama continue a war to have it the longest war in U.S. History ?
Did Obama take credit for Killing Osama ?
Did Obama call for more troops to keep a war going ?
Has Obama signed documents related to keeping a war going ?
Did Obama take credit for Killing Osama ?
Did Obama call for more troops to keep a war going ?
Has Obama signed documents related to keeping a war going ?
C
CatholicGuy22
Guest
You hypocrites! You say your pro-life but you support a candidate who will cut programs that help the poor! And also a candidate who does not respect the dignity of all people included the undocumented! It’s awesome you want to support anti-abortion candidate but for those calling Catholics who vote for Obama heretics should look at themselves in the mirror first. The Church calls us to vote by a formed conscience. You don’t have to be Republican to be a good Catholic!
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
okay…
E
estesbob
Guest
Translation-“I vote Democrat”
L
Luigi_Daniele
Guest
The life issues come first. End of. A Catholic can not vote for Obama. Really is as simple as that.
C
CatholicGuy22
Guest
So the life a poor person and undocumented is not as important?
C
CatholicGuy22
Guest
Is there anything wrong with that?
S
St_Francis
Guest
Right now, only 27 cents of every dollar people earn and pay to the government in income taxes aside from payroll taxes gets to an actual poor person–the government uses the other 73 cents in “admin costs.” Suppose we said that like a good charity, 90% or more of the money should get to actual poor people instead? Suppose we *halved *the allocation to poverty-fighting programs and limited the administrative costs to 10%? *The poor would get more money!!! *
So by all means, let’s cut the amount we give to the programs and give the poor *more *money.
As people so often say about the Republicans with regard to abortion: what have the Democrats done on this issue? they have done *much less *than the Republicans have done for ridding this nation of the scourge of abortion.
For just a few days under 2 years, Obama, a Democrat president, enjoyed a *super-majority *in the House *and *Senate. did he do anything about immigration then? No!
When Bush suggested alleviation for illegal immigrants, who worked against his idea and proposed nothing different? The Democrats!!!
The Church calls certain things *intrinsic evils. *They are the more important issues. They are the ones that the Democrats not just ignore but *actively promote! *
Yes, it is true that we should help the poor. But we cannot help the poor if they are *killed in their mothers’ wombs, *can we? But once they are born, it doesn’t need the government to help the poor, either. We can go out and help the poor aside from what the government does, can we not?
But the Democrats want to force even Catholic institutions to pay for abortifacient drugs, and we cannot ignore that. The Democrats want to force people to pay for other people’s abortions, and we cannot ignore that. The Democrats want to *export *the abortion mentality all over the world, and we cannot ignore that.
No, you don’t have to be a Republican to be a good Catholic. But I cannot understand how a good Catholic could possibly enable the abortion-supporting Democrats *at all. *
S
scipio337
Guest
I was unaware of the GOP platform position of “strongly and unequivocally” supporting the right to kill poor people.
C
cayahoo08
Guest
Please explain, I’d like to understand your point of view on this.
L
livnlern
Guest
CG, unborn babies are poor and weak. How can we support a candidate that openly supports abortion, the killing of the poorest and weakest among us? What do you mean by respecting “the dignity of all people including the undocumented”?
R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
If it were all that simple, we wouldn’t have sincere Catholics wrestling with the various issues and wondering why the Church became a one issue church. My :twocents:
- Status