Political & Elections

winchester · Guru

RE: Polls and the media

winchester · Guru

Final numbers from Rasmussen

The final Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll of Election 2012 shows Mitt Romney attracting support from 49% of voters nationwide, while President Obama earns the vote from 48%. Two percent (2%) prefer some other candidate.
Both candidates are viewed favorably by 50% of voters nationwide.

When it comes to the economy, 50% trust Romney more, while 47% have more confidence in the president.

Seventy-seven percent (77%) of voters are now excited about the choice between Romney and Obama. Just 21% still say they will be voting for the lesser of two evils.

Fifty-two percent (52%) believe the president will be reelected, while 38% think Romney will win.

The Rasmussen Reports Electoral College projections now show the president with 237 Electoral Votes and Romney with 206. The magic number needed to win the White House is 270. Eight states with 95 Electoral College votes remain Toss-ups: Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, Virginia and Wisconsin.

Rasmussen Reports figures include both those who have already voted and those likely to vote. Among those who have already voted, 43% are Democrats and 33% Republican. Among those expected to vote today, 39% are Republican and 37% Democrat. Overall, 39% of voters are projected to be Democrats and 37% Republicans. Both candidates do well within their own party, while Romney has a double-digit advantage among unaffiliated voters.

One key to the outcome on Election Day will be the racial and ethnic mix of the electorate. In 2008, approximately 74% of voters were white. Among those who have already voted, 67% are white. Among those expected to vote today, 77% are white. The actual turnout by various racial and ethnic groups is significant in terms of projecting a winner because Romney attracts 58% of the white vote, while Obama has a huge lead among non-white voters.

Note that of the 8 states Rasmussen lists as toss up, six lean Romney, one leans Obama, and one is tied.

Colorado: Romney 50%, Obama 47%
Florida: Romney 50%, Obama 48%
Iowa: Romney 49%, Obama 48%
Nevada: Obama 50%, Romney 48%
New Hampshire: Obama 50%, Romney 48%
Ohio: Romney 49%, Obama 49%
Virginia: Romney 50%, Obama 48%
Wisconsin: Obama 49%, Romney 49%

-- Edited by winchester on Tuesday 6th of November 2012 06:45:15 AM

pima · Guru

http://washingtonexaminer.com/romney-winning-independents-59-35/article/2512610#.UJgjSG_A_N2

Team Romney is drawing satisfaction and a growing sense of confidence from a new CNN poll that, while over-weighting Democrats, shows that Mitt Romney is running away with independents, the Big Kahuna in Tuesday's presidential election.

According to a new CNN poll, Romney is beating President Obama 59 percent to 35 percent among independents even when third party candidates are included. The poll has the race deadlocked at 49 percent, but the sample includes 11 percent more Democrats than Republicans, 41 percent to 30 percent, a bigger gap than recent elections have witnessed.

What's more, the poll found a slight edge for Romney when it came to those who call themselves "very enthusiastic" about voting. In that category, Romney beats Obama 42 percent to 37 percent.

"We are winning with independents and enthusiasm goes to us," said a Romney associate, who also pointed to the huge, 20,000-30,000 strong crowd that greeted Romney in Pennsylvania Sunday night as proof the Republican had regained momentum.

Add in male voters, and D's not thrilled, you might be looking at a very long night or days.

winchester · Guru

I tend to agree, Pima.

R base will be stronger than in 08, D base will be weaker. Independents will break for Romney.

pima · Guru

As far as polling goes, I still go by the yelling in the yard polls...lawn placards and bumper stickers.

I have seen a grand total of 3 Obama bumper stickers and 1 yard sign in a 10 mile radii, but probably 3 dozen MR stickers and about the same amount of yard signs (3 doz). I didn't see that 4 yrs ago. 4 yrs ago it was the exact opposite.

I am not implying that it won't be close, but I think the R base is going to show up no matter what tomorrow. NY, NJ still out of electricity really won't play an impact because it was always going to go to PBO. It is other states that matter like VA.

TutuTaxi · Veteran Member

Interesting article on media bias:

http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/11/media-blackout-on-black-chicago-protesters-marching-against-obama/

Media blackout of black Chicago protesters marching against Obama

"Black Chicagoans from the south and west sides took their message to what they say is the source of the problem when they converged outside of a fundraiser held by Mayor Emanuel for Barack Obama and then marched to the studios of ABC News.

Their message, “let us work in our own community,” was made all the more poignant as the ABC News crew ignored the news event outside their very studios. Not one camera was sent to cover the news that was, literally, placed at their doorstep."

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

It is as close a race as I have ever seen. Funny how the CNN poll anticipates that there is more enthusiasm for Obama this time around. Really?

john doe · Guru

The big question is will Mitt give a conciliatory concession speech?

winchester · Guru

One of New York’s most influential and traditionally Democratic media organizations pulled a stunner Sunday when it reversed its 2008 endorsement of Barack Obama to join the New York Post in endorsing Mitt Romney.

...

The Daily News joins nearly a dozen other major U.S. newspapers in switching endorsements from Obama to Romney, according to the University of California, Santa Barbara’s American Presidency Project.

...
The 11 papers, according the study, that also switched to Romney are:

The New York Daily News

Long Island Newsday

Houston Chronicle

Fort Worth Star-Telegram

Orlando Sentinel

Ft. Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel

Nashville Tennessean

Des Moines Register

Illinois Daily Herald

Los Angeles Daily News

Los Angeles Press-Telegram

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/04/new-york-daily-paper-with-long-democratic-history-switches-endorsement-to/

One can only hope that these endorsements DO make a difference.

catahoula · Guru

RCP has two interesting pieces, one from the National Journal saying polling puts expected Obama support from whites around 35-36%, and one from Gallup forecasting lower turnout this year.

You could read that a couple of ways but I'm inclined to think, if both of the above are true, that Axlerod's pea-strainer's coming off, live on TV.

geeps20 · Senior Member

Obama HAS to win Ohio..not Romney. Funny how the left media is mum on this.

winchester · Guru

Rasmussen's list as of 10/29,

Changes, in bold, all swing toward Romney.

Colorado: Romney 50, Obama 46, 10/22
Iowa: Romney 48, Obama 48, 10/21
Nevada: Obama 50, Romney 48, 10/24
New Hampshire: Romney 50, Obama 48 10/24
Ohio: Romney 50, Obama 48, 10/29
Virginia: Romney 50, Obama 48, 10/25
Wisconsin: Romney 49, Obama 49, 10/26
Florida: Romney 50, Obama 48, 10/26

winchester · Guru

President Obama has a problem with independents. And it’s not a small problem.

In the last three releases of the tracking poll conducted by The Washington Post and ABC News, Obama has trailed former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney among independent voters by between 16 and 20 percentage points.

That’s a striking reversal from 2008, when Obama won independent voters, who made up 29 percent of the electorate, by eight points over Sen. John McCain of Arizona.

And if Romney’s large margin among independents holds, it will be a break not just from 2008 but also from 2000 and 2004. In 2000, Texas Gov. George W. Bush won independents by 47 percent to 45 percent over Vice President Al Gore. Four years later, Bush and Sen. John F. Kerry of Massachusetts essentially split unaffiliated voters, according to exit polls — 48 percent for Bush to 49 percent for Kerry. (Independents made up 27 percent of the vote in 2000 and 26 percent in 2004.)

Chris Cillizza, The Washington Post

pima · Guru

Here is my problem with MSM and polling.

Currently all we hear is that no R has ever won without OH. 4 yrs ago it was whatever way VA went so did the Presidency. 2000 it was all about not winning popular vote compared to electoral (FL)...Bush won electoral if you recall, Gore won popular.

The fact is for 3 of these 4 elections, rules/old theories were broken 75% of the time. MSM just look like arses at the end of the day. They also are illustrating to me how they warp facts each and every time to defend their story.

My prediction in 16 it will be all about how small states like NH will be the topic for the election.

winchester · Guru

The Rasmussen Reports Electoral College projections show the president with 237 Electoral Votes and Romney 235. The magic number needed to win the White House is 270. Seven states with 66 Electoral College votes remain Toss-ups:

Colorado, (Romney 50%, Obama 46%) 10/22/12

Iowa, (Romney 48%, Obama 48%) 10/21/12

Nevada, (Obama 50%, Romney 48%) 10/24/12

New Hampshire, (Romney 50%, Obama 48%) 10/24/12

Ohio, (Romney 48%, Obama 48%) 10/24/12

Virginia, (Romney 48%, Obama 48%) 10/19/12

Wisconsin (Obama 50%, Romney 48%). 10/19/12

New data will be released later today (10/25/12) for Virginia along with updates from Pennsylvania and North Carolina.

pima · Guru

I can say recount, and I can also say voter fraud.

My question is can you say 2000?

winchester · Guru

Latest from Rasmussen:

Ohio: Obama 48%, Romney 48%.

Can you say "Recount?"

longprime · Guru

I kinda liked, Beck, Like I like Gingrich. They are more pure compared to flipflopping MR.

pima · Guru

He has to be related to the deer lady. I actually heard about deer lady on wmal,com, so I checked it out. Seriously if you listen to the whole thing you are smirking the whole time. Chris Plante played it on his show and as an R, he said how much you want to bet Donna is voting for Obama?

Back on Chris Matthews, I don't wonder about him, I wonder about MSNBC leadership and more importantly NBC leadership regarding their News organization. He is a loon like the right sees Glenn Beck. At least Fox had the sense to cut Beck loose. Matthews is becoming the new Olbermann. Yrs and yrs of their tilt has left that with the same results, no viewer increase. The fact that Fox killed them, and everyone is saying it is neck and neck, illustrates that even the D's aren't tuning in.

MSNBC has to thank God they are paid for by NBC. In the real world they would be considered a tax shelter due to the fact that I can't see them making a profit at all.

Chris might have been riled up already because of his colleague, Chuck Todd's opinions, that Obama is in real trouble. He is leaving NC. VA is is tilting MR. CO is in MR's column, getting to the magic number is not as easy as once thought a month ago. How dare an MSNBC anchor abandon ship!

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

Maybe Chris Matthews is related to the deer lady in the other post.

He can't really have said that comment out loud, could he? Wow. After seeing the video you have to wonder about his critical thinking skills.

pima · Guru

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

Other than brief convention bounces, this is the first time either candidate has led by more than three points in months. See daily tracking history.

Romney attracts support from 89% of Republican voters. The president earns the vote from 82% of Democrats. Among those not affiliated with either major party, the GOP challenger leads by nine.

Here's the problem for PBO, his base is not as much in his corner as MR's. Than add into the I's where Obama is 9 pts behind, they have to be concerned.

In the Rasmussen Reports Electoral College projections, the president has 237 Electoral Votes and Romney 235. The magic number needed to win the White House is 270. Seven states with 66 Electoral College votes remain Toss-ups: Ohio, Virginia, Wisconsin, Colorado, Iowa, Nevada and New Hampshire.

As a Virginian I have to say last night I saw my 1st Obama lawn sign. I did chuckle because the homes to left right, across the street, including diagonally all have had Romney signs for about a month now. I can't see him winning VA, but of course there will be voters that believe him regarding this issue, forgetting after election day it will become a lame duck session, which rarely ever gets crap done since there is no motivation.

pima · Guru

Why voters are distrusting the media.

http://redalertpolitics.com/2012/10/22/chris-matthews-interrupts-audience-member-says-libya-was-all-about-the-video/

Chris Matthews went to the crowd for opinions Monday night before the debate on Hardball with Chris Matthews, and didn’t get the answers he expected to hear.

He asked the eager audience members the reason why they were excited for this debate and their hopes for the election.

One young man answered that he hoped Mitt Romney would win the election because he was discouraged by Obama’s mistake on Libya.

“Obama said it was all about the [anti-islam] video,” the commenter said, adding that he thought that the President had failed to respond appropriately to the Benghazi attack.

Matthews shut him up immediately saying, “It was all about the video, read the newspaper,” and cut directly to commercials.

However, the young supporter is right that the President blamed an American-made anti-Islam video for the attack multiple times, including in his speech to the United Nations speech that took place two weeks after the attack.

But since then, the President has all but recanted his claim that the video was the cause of the Libya attack and has confirmed that it was instead an act of terrorism. The Obama for America campaign and his administration have defended him, calling it “a complicated situation” and denying that Obama ever blamed it on the video.

Another one from Chris:

http://www.examiner.com/article/chris-matthews-support-for-romney-driven-by-racial-hatred-of-obama

According to MSNBC's Chris Matthews, Republican support for Mitt Romney is driven by racial hatred of Obama, Newsbustersreported Tuesday.

Matthews also said that Republicans "hate" Obama more than al Qaeda.

"I think they're more political than either you or I – I think they hate Obama," Matthews said after Monday's final debate between the two presidential contenders.

"They want him out of the White House more than they want to destroy al Qaeda. Their number one enemy in the world right now, on the right, is their hatred – hatred for Obama. We can go into that about the white working class in the south and looking at these numbers we’re getting about racial hatred in many cases," he added.

Am I the only one that sees Chris Matthews as biased?

If MSNBC is wondering why Fox is beating them and CNN combined it could be because of their anchors.

Here's Soledad O'brien who is like a cat with 9 lives, she keeps getting relegated to no man's land and brought back again.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82703.html?hp=r4

CNN host Soledad O’Brien and Rudy Giuliani clashed on Monday, with the the former New York City mayor accusing O’Brien of trying to blame George W. Bush for the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.
While interviewing Giuliani, O’Brien played a clip of former Bush adviser Matthew Dowd comparing Benghazi to the invasion of Iraq, arguing it was possible for the intelligence to be initially wrong on Benghazi, just as intelligence indicating Iraq had weapons of mass destruction turned out to be false.

“We’re going to blame this on Bush, too?” Giuliani said.
“You’ve got to stop putting words in my mouth, sir,” O’Brien retorted. “Let me finish, because every time I ask you a question, let me finish my point — every time I ask you a question, you like to push back like the question I’m asking you is unfair. It’s not. I’m a journalist, you said some things. I’m trying to get accurate responses from you. You are welcome to answer.”
“OK, here’s the answer: It sounds like we’re trying to blame Benghazi on Bush,” Giuliani responded. “It’s absurd to blame Benghazi on Bush. All [President Barack Obama] needs to do is answer a simple question: Did he know about the consulate attacks that took place before Sept. 11, 2012? There were two of them, one of which blew a hole in the embassy wall. Also, did he know the British consulate, which was basically next door, that they moved out because of the tremendous amount of risk to that consulate?”
The attack on the consulate in Benghazi killed four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador to Libya. Republicans have criticized Obama for an initially muddled response and Giuliani has suggested the administration was trying to cover up the attacks.
O’Brien pressed Giuliani to directly respond to Dowd’s point about the murkiness of intelligence.
“He has a point about some parts of this incident,” Giuliani said. “He does not have a point about the part of the incident that refers to what was the president’s knowledge, did the president take steps to protect our ambassador and the other people there.”
O’Brien has made a habit of clashing with surrogates for Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign in recent weeks, having earlier argued with Giuliani, and battling John Sununu, Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus, Bay Buchannan and Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell since mid-September.
On MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” Obama spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter linked the release of documents outing American informants in Libya to Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign, arguing the former Massachusetts governor gave other Republicans license to politicize the Benghazi attacks.
“Dumping that out the Friday before a foreign policy debate was really all about politics,” Cutter said. “And the politics were set by Mitt Romney on the day of that tragedy when he came out, and shot from the hip and before he had any facts, blamed the United States and blamed the president. And you know, he set the tone for his party, he said: ‘OK, go ahead and play politics with this.’ As a result, those documents that were released had important information, revealed names of Libyans on the ground that are helping us, that are helping us stay secure. So we’re putting lives at risk because we’re playing politics, and we’re making the country less secure.”
On Friday, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee released documents showing diplomats in Libya requesting additional security, but Democrats said the document dump also endangered the lives of Libyan informants. Committee chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) disputed that, and argued the informants were already publicly linked to the United States.

Let's not also ignore CNN has hired Van Jones (aka ACORN guy fired by Obama administration) as a political analyst. Yep, sure, I think Van is as qualified as Carville and Matlin...NOT! The guy was caught up in a scandal.

Maybe it is just me, but I expect more from people who are supposedly unbiased when they are reporting news.

OBTW, yes, Fox is just as bad, with people like Dick Morris, Malkin and their own ilk, but if ratings are saying anything, they are saying between the 3 cable networks, they aren't as apparent in their bias. CNN was turning a corner and I was respecting them as the least biased organization until lately which appears they have thrown in the towel, and are now trying to put MSNBC out of business.

-- Edited by pima on Tuesday 23rd of October 2012 08:24:28 AM

pima · Guru

I saw that today too about CO.

I am not shocked by it because many of the RR wing talk radio pundits are talking about sequestration. Pueblo AFB, FT. Collins and the AFA are all in spitting distance of Denver. Jobs are on the line. It is their economy that will take a hit if the DOD budget is cut. An avg military base employs thousands of people, nothing scares a town faster that relies on the military for employment than hearing the DOD will cut jobs, and Obama is okay with cutting another 500 MN. Additionally, with military bases come military retirees. Again because of sequestration retirees are looking at higher healthcare costs.

CO being so close to Utah, MR being a Mormon isn't as big of an issue as it is NC or NY.

Voters vote according to their checkbooks.

I am not sure why MO, but I get FL, NC and CO. A lot of their constituents have some tie to the military. Look at how many military bases are in these 3 states, than look at how 66% of the military is voting Romney and you can see why Romney is surging.

It is like VA, Romney was behind, but now he is ahead. He is leading by a couple of points because the amount of jobs tied to the military in the state. Every time PBO says MR wants to spend more money than the DOD wants, he loses these states, because to them this is a positive for these voters. It says your job is safe with MR, not with me.

winchester · Guru

An article National Review's blog disects two new Ohio polls.

The first poll is by Gravis Marketing:

The poll from Gravis Marketing shows Obama and Romney tied at 47 percent. But that’s as good as it gets for Obama. Among the most interesting tidbits from the poll:

Romney leads Obama by 19 percent among independents, 52–33, and holds 92 percent of his base compared to Obama’s 87 percent. Obama is underwater in job approval, 44–50, and independents disapprove of him overwhelmingly, 31–58. And the poll has a Democratic advantage of 9 percent, which is a 4 percent jump from 2008 — no one believes that Democrats can match their 2008 turnout advantage, let alone almost double it.

The second poll is by PPP

PPP (a Democratic firm) released their new poll yesterday showing Obama only up one point, 49 to 48. Just a week ago PPP had the race at 51–46 for Obama. But the four-point gain for Romney is even more impressive when you look at the poll’s findings:

This week’s poll has a Democrat sample advantage of 8 percent; last week’s advantage was 4. Romney gained four points on Obama in a week despite the sample’s having four percentage points more Democrats. Romney leads with independents by 7 percent, up from a 5 percent last week. Obama’s approval is underwater at 48–50, and independents disapprove of him by a 41–54 margin. Last week Obama was in positive approval ground at 50–48, and independents disapproved by a much smaller 45–50 margin. Romney’s favorability has gone from a minus-6 margin last week (45–51) to a plus-2 this week (49–47). Trust on the economy went from Obama plus-5 last week (51–46) to plus-4 in Romney’s direction this week (51–47). Independents jumped from Romney plus-5 last week to Romney plus-15 this week.

If the blog analysis is correct then Ohio can possibly be added to the list of swing states Rasmussen Reports has already shown swinging toward Romney:

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Colorado Voters finds Romney with 50% support to Obama’s 46%.

Still, Colorado remains a Toss-Up in the Rasmussen Reports Electoral College Projections. But Colorado is the fourth swing state that has moved in Romney’s direction in the past week. Florida, Missouri and North Carolina have now shifted from Toss-Up to Leans Romney.

winchester · Guru

The problem is it will still come down to voter turn out

I think voters dissatisfied with Obama and looking for change are much more motivated to turn out than those who think everything is hunky dory enough for him to deserve a second term.

pima · Guru

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map.html

Obama according to them has 201, Romney has 206.

First time he has taken a lead.

That is besides these other organizations
http://www.gallup.com/poll/157817/election-2012-likely-voters-trial-heat-obama-romney.aspx

Romney 52, Obama 45

http://www.campusreform.org/blog/?ID=4435

77% likelihood Romney wins popular...they have predicted correctly for the last 8 elections.

The problem is it will still come down to voter turn out and if Obama gets his base, Romney doesn't, Obama will win.

winchester · Guru

Registered voters’ preferences for president are evenly split in the first three days of Gallup tracking since last Wednesday’s presidential debate. In the three days prior to the debate, Barack Obama had a five-percentage-point edge among registered voters.

There are a number of reasons why this is horrible for Obama rather than Romney:

First and foremost, udecideds break 65-85% for the challenger as elections draw to a close absent a disqualifying event for the challenger. Here is a study by lefty blog MyDD showing 72% of Undecideds break for the challenger in prior Presidential elections. Here was their view in October 2004:

There have been four incumbent presidential elections in the past quarter-century. If we take an average of the final surveys conducted by the three major networks and their partners, we find that in three of these the incumbent fell short of or merely matched his final poll number, while exceeding it only once, and then by just a single point (Ronald Reagan). On average, the incumbent comes in half a point below his final poll result.

Year Incumbent Final Poll % Actual Vote %
1996 Clinton 51 49
1992 Bush 37 37
1984 Reagan 58 59
1980 Carter 42 41

The numbers for challengers look quite different. In every case, the challenger(s) — I include Ross Perot in 1992 and 1996 — exceed their final poll result by at least 2 points, and the average gain is 4 points. In 1980, Ronald Reagan received 51 percent, fully 6 percentage points above his final poll results. Looking at just Gallup, Mystery Pollster delivers even more bad news for incumbent Presidents:[T]he final Gallup projections (sans undecided) show an intriguing pattern: In the presidential elections since 1956 that featured an incumbent, Gallup’s final projection of the incumbent’s vote exceeded the incumbent’s actual vote six of eight times. The only exceptions were Ronald Reagan in 1984 and George H.W. Bush in 1992, and then by only 0.2% and 0.7% respectively. On average, Gallup’s projection of the incumbent’s vote has averaged 1.3 percentage points greater than the actual result.

http://battlegroundwatch.com/2012/10/08/gallup-national-poll-tied-at-47-and-how-undecideds-will-vote/

catahoula · Guru

You're not seriously buying into the meme of the "Obama phone" are you? Bi-partisan phone program that goes back the 1930s, with a boost from the sainted President Reagan.

You know, after reading the Elspeth piece, I can't see how you can't.

That the program dates from the '30's and got some sort of nod from republicans somewhere in the past (republicans signing off any "it takes a village" kind of thing, can't be compared to anything to gold, btw - little gems that won't ever tarnish and they keep the all the bling democrats pile on off-limits as far as good taste is concerned) isn't a surprise. Assistance programs always tend to morph into something their mothers wouldn't recognize, given enough time.

Here's a fascinating website, a link from one of the "besides Drudge, Limbaugh, and an unspecified number of republican's being racists, anybody who laughed at the vid's probably one too" pieces:

http://obamaphone.net/

Sort of a 1-stop for staying connected and provides a quick look at what it takes to qualify:

Food Stamps or Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
Medicaid
Supplemental Security Income – commonly known as SSI
Health Benefit Coverage under Child Health Insurance Plan (CHIP)
The National School Lunch Program’s Free Lunch Program.
Low-Income Energy Assistance Program – LIHEAP
Federal Public Housing Assistance ( Section 8 )
If you are a low-income Eligible Resident of Tribal Lands
Temporary Assistance to Needy Families – TANF

The administration's seen a whole lot of people move over to the "Hey, I qualify!!" side of the page, seems to me, so I'm not surprised a lot of people feel that cell service is nothing other than a little piece of the pie and given all the class-warfare rhetoric coming from the president, why wouldn't they figure he's not only good with it but pushed it?

Personally, I'd say Sandra Fluke beaming about somebody finally covering her birth control is a sight more embarrassing than a lady who's not nearly as confused as democrats would like to pretend.

-- Edited by catahoula on Monday 1st of October 2012 07:31:18 PM

pima · Guru

I can't believe you can now download a ring tone ...Obama phone! Too funny!

Now back to the regularly scheduled topic!

OBTW now all I am hearing in my head is ring, ring OBAMA PHONE...ring, ring, OBAMA PHONE!

longprime · Guru

I think so too.

Trouble is that his politics, although "Republican", is not republican enough for the fringes. We should thank W and all those people who supported W for the Republican Party that we have now. W radicalized this Party. Let the new Party begin.

Can you imagine two seccessive Republicans who are non-drinkers. One by necessity and one by teachings.

john doe · Guru

I think if Mitt had been honest - the views he actually believes in - he may have stood a chance.

longprime · Guru

Come-on pollsters or volunteer canvasser, Call me (Blondie)

jazzy · Senior Member

I'm not predicting it, but a landslide would be nice now that you mention it.

You're not seriously buying into the meme of the "Obama phone" are you? Bi-partisan phone program that goes back the 1930s, with a boost from the sainted President Reagan.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2012/09/27/race_drudge_and_the_obama_phone.html

The Drudge Report's video, and that woman, referred to a free-phones program that's existed since before Mitt Romney was born.

The universal service program dates back at least to the Telecommunications Act of 1934. The Lifeline program specifically was started in 1984 under President Reagan and was expanded in 1996 under President Clinton to allow qualifying households to choose to apply the benefit to either a landline or a cell phone. So no, it's not an Obama handout.

Shockingly, despite the bipartisan origins of the service, the idea of an "Obama Phone" for the undeserving has existed for a long time.

catahoula · Guru

Mmm.... presidential victory laps in... September?

This is indeed a very big victory for our President, and I don't think hating on Romney and Ryan is giving him the due he deserves. No, other than the help he got from these two, he deserves full credit for what appears to have been an enormously historic re-election bid landslide.

....

RAMFNLclr-092712-teens-IBD-.jpg.cms

Good thing I voted for him myself, since I dropped that old LG I've had for years in along with the onion rings I was frying --- I'm thinking he's gonna give me at least something on the Android platform. Good stuff and free to boot -- gotta just love this country.

john doe · Guru

It is pretty devastating. A lot of Republicans are blind to what's going on. I'm a Republican and to me its obvious. Romney takes one foot out of his mouth to put the other one in or Ryan's feet in. It really is astonishing. People thought that Bush was bad, these guys are a disaster. Liberals who I've argued with for years are astonished at my change of heart. It pains me but the stuff going on in the party is just a disgrace and I cannot support them except at the local and state level.

jazzy · Senior Member

No, it's not that Democrats suddenly think the economy is "awesome." Talk about fantasy land and willful denial, if this juvenile analysis is the best the examiner can do.

Democrats are fired up and Obama is surging for two main reasons:

No. 1 is Romney, the Republican gift that keeps on giving (to the Obama campaign.) Ann, the "secret weapon," isn't helping.

No. 2 is Ryan.....turns out right-wing social engineering is not winning the country over.

http://www.tnr.com/blog/107829/47-was-bad-romney-ryan-has-been-deadly

catahoula · Guru

You're not seriously buying into the meme of the "Obama phone" are you? Bi-partisan phone program that goes back the 1930s, with a boost from the sainted President Reagan.

I thought cell phones were more recent but if Reagan was for it, I suppose I'll have to be.

That the Slate writer somehow managed to make that women believing our president responsible for her free cell phone a racist thing was pretty clever, but that she both caught and then threw back the parts of the miss-attribution angle that were inconvenient to her, was inspired.

On such things voter turnout hinges, jazzy, and I'm thinking my getting out and putting Texas in the 'D' column was worth an Iphone. At least.

-- Edited by catahoula on Saturday 29th of September 2012 04:31:55 PM

-- Edited by catahoula on Saturday 29th of September 2012 04:56:27 PM

john doe · Guru

Mitt Romney is not a contender. Longprime is right, we need a third party to bridge the gap between the two parties that are becoming more extreme. The system today does not work.

winchester · Guru

We NEED a third party.

No we don't. All they ever do is bleed votes from an actual contender.

This idea is right up there with eliminating the electoral college as top ways to make things worse, not better.

john doe · Guru

One can attribute all kinds of things to Obama leading, but the bottom line is still the race is nearly over and it will be completely over October 3rd after the first debate. I'd bet $10,000 with Romney himself that in the end, this will not be a close election.

winchester · Guru

President Obama has surged ahead of Mitt Romney nationally and in a slew of important swing states since the Democratic National Convention. His current 4 point lead over Romney in the Real Clear Politics poll average is his biggest since depths of the Republican primary this April.

But what is driving this Obama resurgence? Are Republicans losing faith? Are independents leaning to Obama? Nope. Obama’s entire bounce seems to be coming entirely from a surge in Democratic enthusiasm. Gallup, who currently shows a six point Obama lead, reports: “Voter enthusiasm in [swing] states has grown among members of both political parties; however, Democrats’ level has increased more. Thus, whereas equal percentages of Democrats and Republicans were enthusiastic in June, Democrats are now significantly more enthusiastic than Republicans, 73% vs. 64%.”

And why are Democrats so enthused? Well, apparently, they think the economy has suddenly become awesome. Gallup also reports: “Democrats’ economic confidence continues to grow in the second half of September, building on a sharp increase that coincided with the Democratic National Convention. … Democrats’ 10-point increase in economic confidence last week contributed to the overall Gallup Economic Confidence Index’s holding steady near the highest level seen this year.”

However, Republicans and Independents do not share the Democrats’ assessment of our current situation. According to Gallup, “Independents’ economic confidence dropped four percentage points in the week ending Sept. 23, tempering a sharp increase in the group’s economic confidence that also coincided with the start of the Democratic convention. At the same time, at -60, Republicans’ overall confidence in the economy declined, and is once again tied for the lowest it has been since November 2011.”

So while some Independents also experienced a brief departure from reality after the Democratic National Convention, they have since come back to earth. The Democrats, however, are still in fantasy land. Meanwhile. back in the real world, The Wall Street Journal reports:

The U.S. economy remains shaky, with threats looming at home and abroad, manufacturers mired in a slump and overall growth tepid.

The economy’s precarious position was underscored Thursday by a pair of government reports. Orders for durable goods—long-lasting manufactured products such as cars and televisions—tumbled 13% in August from July, the biggest monthly drop in more than three years.
…
The manufacturing slowdown would be less worrisome if other segments of the economy were firing on all cylinders. But another report Thursday provided a separate reminder of how weak the recovery has been. Gross domestic product, the broadest measure of all goods and services produced, grew at a 1.3% seasonally adjusted annual pace in the second quarter, the Commerce Department said, down from its previous estimate of 1.7% and slower than the first quarter’s 2% pace.

We’ll see if Democrats can ignore economic reality through election day.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/morning-examiner-democrat-delusions-driving-obama-bounce/article/2509298#.UGWfDk3A_Ls

longprime · Guru

Heard on the RADIO, 10 rules for candidates: #7, Don't be something that you are not. [paraphrased] MR is a moderate but had to look more reactionary than he really is. People saw the illusion and started to look for the tells. Now as he tries to alter his appearance, the tells are becoming more important and glaring. We have seen MR go from moderate, to a TP, to a rich TP (47% incident), to the new, old message of being PBO's fault.

The JOB blame isn't gonna to work. The traditional methods of encouraging JOB growth is against R's current thinking and PBO's programs didn't work (says the R)- . So that leaves MR to say he is going to change regulations and restrictions on the job creators-not much MR can do except-Lower the minimum wage, which will of course will make minimum and low wage earners even closer to poverty and in need of fed/state assistance

If MR had ran as a moderate, and not try to pander to the far right, he could have been a worthy contender and truly say that it is PBO novice leadership abilities that is putting USA in deeper woes.

We NEED a third party.

-- Edited by longprime on Friday 28th of September 2012 05:16:58 PM

john doe · Guru

Of course, the purpose of business is to make a profit not to make workers happy if it doesn't lead to higher profits. If necessary, a business will lay off as many people as needed to make that profit and to raise their stock price - quite different than what the goals of a country should be.

longprime · Guru

Who would think that us, who are not invited to make a big donation, get a different speech than the big donors?

MR is a business man; He gives one face to the money people and another face to the worker bees. If you ever had a company closed on you-You would know what I mean. confuse

longprime · Guru

D's within the polling samples:

You only have to ask, "Are in favor of having positive proof of ID carried at all times?" :)

you think a Cayman Island bank account #, is proof enough?

winchester · Guru

The Weekly Standard article you quoted from is an in depth exploration of your question.

It says that Obama has a...

...continued weak position with independent voters, who remain the true swing vote.

Obama’s average overall margin over Romney in these same polls is roughly 4 percent. Bottom line: You do not get a four-point lead overall with a tie among independents, unless you are squeezing substantially more votes out of your base than your opponent is. And more generally, you are not "winning" an election in any meaningful sense of the word when 3/5ths of unaffiliated voters are either undecided or against you.
…
we see a statistically significant relationship between Obama's margin and the Democratic advantage in partisan identification. In other words, there appears to be a bimodal distribution of the polls. They are not converging around a single point. Instead, some (notably Rasmussen, Purple Strategies, Survey USA, and Mason-Dixon) see Obama ahead by just 1 to 3 points in the key swing states, while others (notably the Washington Post, Fox News, PPP, and NBC News/Marist) see an Obama lead that ranges between 4 and 8 points. And the difference looks to be built around how many Democrats are included in the polling samples.

catahoula · Guru

Ah, I found it and it's not anything he's done, it's more that he just is.

But the Gallup track, which is conducted among registered voters, has a sample that looks much more like the electorate in 2010 than the voting population that is likely to turn out in 2012: only 22 percent of the Gallup survey was non-white, according to figures the organization provided to Emory University political scientist Alan Abramowitz. That was close to the non-white share of the vote in 2010 (23 percent), but in 2008, minorities comprised 26 percent of all voters, according to exit polls; the Obama campaign, and other analysts, project the minority share of the vote will increase to 28 percent in 2012. In its survey, Pew, for instance, puts the non-white share at 25 percent.

The division between the white and non-white share of the vote profoundly affects the results because all of the surveys show a racial gap between Obama and Romney that could be at least as large as 2008. In that campaign, Obama became the first candidate ever to lose whites by double-digits and still win the presidency. John McCain outpolled Obama among whites by 55 percent to 43 percent, but Obama won decisively anyway by carrying a cumulative 80 percent of minorities, including 95 percent of African-Americans and two-thirds of Hispanics. The race also produced a sharp divide within the white population: McCain amassed big margins among white men with and without a college degree, and non-college white women, the so-called waitress moms. Obama carried a majority only of white women with at least a four year degree.

And not only did Obama lose whites in 2008, he did it with a reduced turnout on their part.

-- Edited by catahoula on Wednesday 26th of September 2012 01:18:37 PM

winchester · Guru

Rasmussen Headlines

September 25, 2012

Michigan Senate: Stabenow (D) 53%, Hoekstra (R) 37%

Only 41% Expect U.S. Economy To Be Stronger In Five Years

Massachusetts Senate: Brown (R) 48%, Warren (D) 48%

48% Think Obama Better Understands Middle Class, 42% Say Romney

Swing-state Florida's Up-for-grabs

45% Think U.S.-Muslim Relations Worse Than Four Years Ago

September 24, 2012

Generic Congressional Ballot: Republicans 44%, Democrats 43%

44% Think Ryan Better Suited to Be President, 44% Say Same of Biden

Michigan: Obama 54%, Romney 42%

23% Blame Middle East Protests on Anti-Islamic Video

Most Still Favor Health Care Repeal, 42% Say It’s Likely

catahoula · Guru

And the difference looks to be built around how many Democrats are included in the polling samples.

That's the question.

What so marvelously wonderous, and to popular acclaim, (because while stroking this or that fragment of base may feel really fine to the strokee but not necessarily the majority) has been accomplished by our president over these last few years that would explain an even higher tilt toward democrats on election day?

Sorry, not much is coming to mind for me and I'm thinking this looks like a case of delusional wish fulfillment syndrome, that Pinch Sulzburger believes if he wants another pony just as fiercely as Axlerod does they'll both get one.

-- Edited by catahoula on Wednesday 26th of September 2012 07:56:24 AM

catahoula · Guru

Here are the CBS/New York Times internals. And here's the con the CBS/NYTs is attempting to pull:

Florida:

In 2004 the vote was R+4.

In 2008 the vote was D+3

CBS/NYTs is reporting that in 2012 we will see D+9.

Ohio:

In 2004 the vote was R+5

In 2008 the vote was D+8

CBS/NYTs is reporting that in 2012 we will see D+9

Pennsylvania:

In 2010 the vote was D+3

In 2008 the vote was D+7

CBS/NYTs is reporting that in 2012 we will see D+9.

Other than David Axlerod, who does this make any sense to? Is, like, every fifth or so democrat's ballot going to be counted twice or are they just going to have a coupon to get through the line again?

It has to be something like that, because it doesn't seem to be Independents breaking in droves:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/morning-jay-are-polls-tilted-toward-obama_653067.html

Obama%20Versus%20Romney%20Among%20Independents.gif

-- Edited by catahoula on Wednesday 26th of September 2012 06:50:29 AM