Predictions
-
I secretly want a tie 269-269. to watch everyone's head explode trying to figure out what to do next.
-
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepoliticalsystem/a/electiontie.htm this is what would happen....
-
Oh come on Heck.
It hasn't been that long since every single liberal pundit was badgering every single Republican to defend the phony charges of racism in the tea party.
That's 1 of the oldest tricks in the book, insisting somebody defend something like that.
Just to keep them on the defensitive.
By the way I'm not much interested in parsing the election results before hand. Suffice it to say that I'd put money on Obama winning the whole thing if I was forced to bet.
For reasons I've listed often times before.
WSS
Oh come on Heck.
It hasn't been that long since every single liberal pundit was badgering every single Republican to defend the phony charges of racism in the tea party.
That's 1 of the oldest tricks in the book, insisting somebody defend something like that.
Just to keep them on the defensitive.
By the way I'm not much interested in parsing the election results before hand. Suffice it to say that I'd put money on Obama winning the whole thing if I was forced to bet.
For reasons I've listed often times before.
WSS
Yes, you're right, Steve. If this were a Romney canvasser in Colorado this would be the top story on the evening news.
And there is no racism in the Republican Party. Zero. None.
-
Yes heck it would have been a big story.
WSS
-
And we do not see one liberal on this board refute the evidence, to be silent and vote for Obama is a Vote that will place the blood of 4 dead Americans on your hands
-
Yes heck it would have been a big story.
WSS
Yes heck it would have been a big story.
WSS
God, you've become such a wingnut. You have Obamao disease worse than Cal.
You really need a break.
-
It's really all about Ohio. If Romney can't win Ohio, here are his paths:
Carry Florida and Virginia, where he's even and losing, plus Wisconsin, where Obama is winning fairly comfortably.
Carry Florida and Virginia, plus Colorado, Iowa, Nevada, and New Hampshire. He's not ahead in any of those four states.
Not impossible, but he's probably got to have Ohio. And the state polls say he doesn't have it.
-
Here's one plum for you Republicans: heading into Ohio in 2004, the polls had Kerry up by .8 points about 10 days before the election. He ended up losing by 2.1% So nobody really knows.
The bad news for Republicans? Right before the election the polls quickly shifted to Bush and the average of polls had him up by 2.1% - and that's exactly the margin he won by.
Right now the average of the most recent polls has Obama up 2.4%.
Here's Nate Silver's look at Ohio:
Ohio
FIVETHIRTYEIGHT PROJECTIONS DEM REP MARGIN
Polling average 48.2 45.8 Obama +2.4
Adjusted polling average 48.3 45.4 Obama +2.9
State fundamentals 46.9 47.4 Romney +0.5
Now-cast 48.2 45.6 Obama +2.6
Projected vote share ±3.1 50.7 48.0 Obama +2.7
Chance of winning 80% 20%
-
I'm changing mine to:
Obama: 303
Romney: 235
Obama wins national vote by .9%.
-
Romney will win.
And this computer is NOT coal fired.
It's a woodburner.
BTW, heckbunker wants to bet our farm?
Typical corrupt, stupid liberal - take other people's property
because "you don't really own that".
And, I might be Amish - I had a large amelet this morning for breakfast.
-
I'm changing mine to:
Obama: 303
Romney: 235
Obama wins national vote by .9%.
I'm changing mine to:
Obama: 303
Romney: 235
Obama wins national vote by .9%.
Final: 290 to 244. I'm giving Romney Colorado now.
-
-
Yes, a Romney victory would crush and demoralize liberals, who would left to wonder what the hell happened, why the polls were wrong, why their voters didn't come out, etc.
And an Obama victory will make the Republican base even crazier because they've been told by Fox and Drudge and talk radio that Romney's going to win for the last month, and a surprisingly large swatch of them will actually believe the election was stolen.
Different types of pain, but pain indeed.
-
Come now.
Are you suggesting your guys haven't got their hymnals open to The Voter Intimidation Blues just in case?
WSS
-
Of course, I wouldn't equate something that's real and rather obvious (Republican efforts to tamp down Democratic voter turnout) with something that's a GOP fantasy (widespread voter fraud), so no.
As Steve Schmidt said this morning: "I think that all of this stuff that has transpired over the last two years is in search of a solution to a problem, voting fraud, that doesn’t really exist when you look deeply at the question. It’s part of the mythology now in the Republican Party that there’s widespread voter fraud across the country. In fact, there’s not. Both sides are lawyered up to the nth degree and they’ll all posture back and forth on it but it probably won’t come down to lawyers."
But what does Steve Schmidt know? He's only run Republican campaigns for two decades.
Sorry, bud. It really isn't an issue. It's just cover (that you believe!) used for political gamesmanship. There is no issue with in-person voter fraud. It simply doesn't exist, and we know this. Voter ID laws only combat in-person voter fraud. Yet Republicans all over the country pushed for them.
Now that you've fallen off the turnip truck, dust yourself off and see if you can figure out why. Then we can move on to why they've also pushed for limiting the early voting periods. I don't want to blow your mind or anything, but it's because certain Democratic constituencies tend to vote early.
-
Ha.
I guess that sounds better to the base than the truth which is lots of Democratic voters haven't got their shit together well enough to do something as simple as voting.
WSS
-
-
Of course, I wouldn't equate something that's real and rather obvious (Republican efforts to tamp down Democratic voter turnout) with something that's a GOP fantasy (widespread voter fraud), so no.
As Steve Schmidt said this morning: "I think that all of this stuff that has transpired over the last two years is in search of a solution to a problem, voting fraud, that doesn’t really exist when you look deeply at the question. It’s part of the mythology now in the Republican Party that there’s widespread voter fraud across the country. In fact, there’s not. Both sides are lawyered up to the nth degree and they’ll all posture back and forth on it but it probably won’t come down to lawyers."
But what does Steve Schmidt know? He's only run Republican campaigns for two decades.
Sorry, bud. It really isn't an issue. It's just cover (that you believe!) used for political gamesmanship. There is no issue with in-person voter fraud. It simply doesn't exist, and we know this. Voter ID laws only combat in-person voter fraud. Yet Republicans all over the country pushed for them.
Now that you've fallen off the turnip truck, dust yourself off and see if you can figure out why. Then we can move on to why they've also pushed for limiting the early voting periods. I don't want to blow your mind or anything, but it's because certain Democratic constituencies tend to vote early.
Of course, I wouldn't equate something that's real and rather obvious (Republican efforts to tamp down Democratic voter turnout) with something that's a GOP fantasy (widespread voter fraud), so no.
As Steve Schmidt said this morning: "I think that all of this stuff that has transpired over the last two years is in search of a solution to a problem, voting fraud, that doesn't really exist when you look deeply at the question. It's part of the mythology now in the Republican Party that there's widespread voter fraud across the country. In fact, there's not. Both sides are lawyered up to the nth degree and they'll all posture back and forth on it but it probably won't come down to lawyers."
But what does Steve Schmidt know? He's only run Republican campaigns for two decades.
Sorry, bud. It really isn't an issue. It's just cover (that you believe!) used for political gamesmanship. There is no issue with in-person voter fraud. It simply doesn't exist, and we know this. Voter ID laws only combat in-person voter fraud. Yet Republicans all over the country pushed for them.
Now that you've fallen off the turnip truck, dust yourself off and see if you can figure out why. Then we can move on to why they've also pushed for limiting the early voting periods. I don't want to blow your mind or anything, but it's because certain Democratic constituencies tend to vote early.
Get off your high horse. Requiring proof of citizenship to vote is the right thing to do. Period. End of story. People have all the time in the world to get proof before an election.
-
Ha.
I guess that sounds better to the base than the truth which is lots of Democratic voters haven't got their shit together well enough to do something as simple as voting.
WSS
Ha.
I guess that sounds better to the base than the truth which is lots of Democratic voters haven't got their shit together well enough to do something as simple as voting.
WSS
Yeah, that's not an answer. Also wrong-headed. ...So about what I expect.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login