Electoral College Guess

• mucalum49

  

  Ty Webb;1298436 wrote:I'm not trying to start trouble here...but I honestly don't see a path to victory for Romney here in Ohio. I'll tell you guys...I'm an intern for the Obama campaign and I have access to internal polls,and I just don't see how Romney can win Ohio
  
  And gut....I could same the same for you,but replace Mathews with Hannity,and me with Quaker

  http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/18/republicans-point-to-early-vote-gains-in-ohio/
  
  To gut's point the 2008 model is already being thrown out based on early balloting in Ohio.
  

  Four years ago, Democrats made up about 42% of the early and absentee vote while Republicans made up 22% - a dismal 20-point deficit that contributed to Sen. John McCain's defeat in Ohio.
  Through Wednesday, however, the margin has narrowed: Democrats account for 36% of the early and absentee vote while Republicans make up for 29%.

  The article goes on to give RNC stats which I'll take with a grain of salt because it comes from a party invested in the result. But if the early voting margin shows a narrowed advantage to Democrats and a more enthusiastic turnout on election day it's not impossible to imagine. Difficult? Yes but it's heading the right direction, pun somewhat intended.
• like_that

  

  Ty Webb;1298436 wrote:I'm not trying to start trouble here...but I honestly don't see a path to victory for Romney here in Ohio. I'll tell you guys...I'm an intern for the Obama campaign and I have access to internal polls,and I just don't see how Romney can win Ohio
  
  And gut....I could same the same for you,but replace Mathews with Hannity,and me with Quaker

  If this were true, Romney easily will win in a landslide.
• Ty Webb

  

  gut;1298458 wrote:Says the guy who doesn't realize he's a schill for the Obama propaganda.
  
  I nailed it, didn't I? Must be pretty sobering to come to the realization how you'e being used, and how disappointed and shocked you will be in a few weeks.

  Not even close....
• Ty Webb

  

  Obama up 9 with Colorado Indys.....Romney only up three with whites
  
  President Obama leads 50-47
• sleeper

  

  I have inside sources from the Romney campaign that Romney will win Ohio. Won't even be close.
• gut

  I Wear Pants;1298445 wrote: It's possible to think the country isn't doing wonderfully and also think that Obama is the better choice between the two major candidates.

  I don't think anyone supports Obama because they think he is better. They support the Democratic party or believe in the liberal platform. I've said repeatedly liberals ignore the journey and transition for what they think is a better end game. So for them the choice of a proven failure vs. a potential failure is irrelevant. Their path forward is a liberal, no matter how much damage it causes in the interim.
  
  I mean, Obama is an unequivocal failure who has put forward no plan for turning things around. And, by the way, he took office as the economy was stabilizing and bottoming, with record low interest rates, accomodative monetary policy, record deficit spending and the results are STILL worse than mediocre.
• I Wear Pants

  ZWICK 4 PREZ;1298455 wrote:and Colorado

  I gave states that were tied or close and which don't have strong recent histories of voting for Dems to Romney because he does appear to still have more momentum though it's drastically slowed since the 2nd debate. Slowed but not stopped.
• gut

  Ty Webb;1298461 wrote:Not even close....

  Where did I get it wrong? You just make up a lot of these poll results, is that it? Because I'm shocked they'd be so decentralized. I would have expected more detail than just a broad outline of talking points. Given the debates, I suppose I should not be surprised.
• I Wear Pants

  gut;1298453 wrote:And what is the point, really, of constantly hammering people with polling data? Why would anyone skew a poll or ignore bias? Why do these new polls from sources unknown pop-up all the time?
  
  The only thing they hope to accomplish is to discourage or demoralize potential voters for the opposition. That's why Ty Webb is on here on a nearly daily basis with marching orders to promote the latest favorable Obama poll. He's a volunteer schill.

  As opposed to the Republican method of trying to make it so people literally cannot vote. I mean I literally cannot think of a reason why Husted would try to pull the shit he did outside of trying to block Dem voters from voting. And even if he were blocking voters from his own party it would have been stupid and wrong.
• ZWICK 4 PREZ

  

  I vote Republican b/c I think privatizing everything is a really great idea with no risks whatsoever.
  
  Especially since no ones investments tanked 4 years ago.
• QuakerOats

  gut;1298413 wrote:Anyway, on election night:
  
  11:35pm CNN calls it for Romney
  11:36pm Chris Matthews commits suicide.
  11:38pm Ty posts a poll predicting an Obama landslide.

  
  Exceedingly prescient.
• Ty Webb

  

  gut;1298467 wrote:I don't think anyone supports Obama because they think he is better. They support the Democratic party or believe in the liberal platform. I've said repeatedly liberals ignore the journey and transition for what they think is a better end game. So for them the choice of a proven failure vs. a potential failure is irrelevant. Their path forward is a liberal, no matter how much damage it causes in the interim.
  
  I mean, Obama is an unequivocal failure who has put forward no plan for turning things around. And, by the way, he took office as the economy was stabilizing and bottoming, with record low interest rates, accomodative monetary policy, record deficit spending and the results are STILL worse than mediocre.

  
  You have now become the most clueless poster here...you have overtaken Quaker...
• I Wear Pants

  gut;1298467 wrote:I don't think anyone supports Obama because they think he is better. They support the Democratic party or believe in the liberal platform. I've said repeatedly liberals ignore the journey and transition for what they think is a better end game. So for them the choice of a proven failure vs. a potential failure is irrelevant. Their path forward is a liberal, no matter how much damage it causes in the interim.
  
  I mean, Obama is an unequivocal failure who has put forward no plan for turning things around. And, by the way, he took office as the economy was stabilizing and bottoming, with record low interest rates, accomodative monetary policy, record deficit spending and the results are STILL worse than mediocre.

  Hi. I think that Obama is a better option than Romney.
• gut

  I Wear Pants;1298470 wrote:As opposed to the Republican method of trying to make it so people literally cannot vote.

  This is such a bullshit talking point. And the Dems do it to, but the liberal media only squawks when they can demonize the Repubs.
• gut

  Ty Webb;1298475 wrote:You have now become the most clueless poster here...you have overtaken Quaker...

  No, it's possible people support Obama because they are dependent on the gubmit dole, or simply clueless.
  
  No one can look objectively at what Obama has done and not conclude he's an abject failure that needs to be fired. It's not even about Romney.
• gut

  ZWICK 4 PREZ;1298471 wrote:I vote Republican b/c I think privatizing everything is a really great idea with no risks whatsoever.
  
  Especially since no ones investments tanked 4 years ago.

  Right, because a bankrupt gubmit doesn't pose any risks.
• I Wear Pants

  gut;1298478 wrote:This is such a bullshit talking point. And the Dems do it to, but the liberal media only squawks when they can demonize the Repubs.

  No it isn't. Husted literally tried to eliminate voting on days that have historically had a significant amount of Dem voters. How can you support that stuff? I'm genuinely curious what the argument is for eliminating those days.
• ZWICK 4 PREZ

  

  gut;1298481 wrote:Right, because a bankrupt gubmit doesn't pose any risks.

  How many times has the US Gov went bankrupt?
• QuakerOats

  I Wear Pants;1298476 wrote:Hi. I think that Obama is a better option than Romney.

  
  This is where the great disconnect comes in. How can that be? On the one hand we have a community activist who has no ability, no leadership qualities, and a proven terrible record over 4 years by any number of economic measures, and no real plan for the future except apparently to continue to beat on taxpayers and small businesses. On the other hand, you have a proven successful businessman who has balanced budgets for years, turned poorly operating companies around, saved a near-collapsing Olympics, and successfully ran a state wherein he was outnumbered 9-1; oh and he gives away over 30% of his income to charity and has a flawless background and exemplary personal life.
  
  Someone please fuc#$ing tell me how obama is the better option, with a straight face.
• gut

  I Wear Pants;1298484 wrote:No it isn't. Husted literally tried to eliminate voting on days that have historically had a significant amount of Dem voters. How can you support that stuff?

  Yes, a bullshit talking point. Thank you for clarifying me. The state has no obligation to provide opportunities to vote outside of election day. Inconvenience =/= disenfranchisement.
  
  For crying outloud, Church buses are capable of running on days other than Sunday.
• I Wear Pants

  QuakerOats;1298489 wrote:This is where the great disconnect comes in. How can that be? On the one hand we have a community activist who has no ability, no leadership qualities, and a proven terrible record over 4 years by any number of economic measures, and no real plan for the future except apparently to continue to beat on taxpayers and small businesses. On the other hand, you have a proven successful businessman who has balanced budgets for years, turned poorly operating companies around, saved a near-collapsing Olympics, and successfully ran a state wherein he was outnumbered 9-1; oh and he gives away over 30% of his income to charity and has a flawless background and exemplary personal life.
  
  Someone please fuc#$ing tell me how obama is the better option, with a straight face.

  Because so much of your interpretation of Romney is either debatable or complete bullshit.
• I Wear Pants

  gut;1298494 wrote:Yes, a bullshit talking point. Thank you for clarifying me. The state has no obligation to provide opportunities to vote outside of election day. Inconvenience =/= disenfranchisement.
  
  For crying outloud, Church buses are capable of running on days other than Sunday.

  Then eliminate all early voting, not just on days that your opponents traditionally benefit from.
  
  Even if I accept that it isn't disenfranchisement why are you so happy to inconvenience people. How does that benefit the electorate? What good comes from eliminating early voting?
  
  Edit: Also every court disagrees with your interpretation.
• gut

  ZWICK 4 PREZ;1298485 wrote:How many times has the US Gov went bankrupt?

  Great point. Ask Rome if there's any flaw in your logic. Ask the USSR.
  
  I can go on and on. That is a completely idiotic position for you to take. There's a lot of research out there that there is a tipping point (to which we are perilously close) where a nearly irreversible slide toward default begins.
• I Wear Pants

  gut;1298501 wrote:Great point. Ask Rome if there's any flaw in your logic. Ask the USSR.
  
  I can go on and on. That is a completely idiotic position for you to take. There's a lot of research out there that there is a tipping point (to which we are perilously close) where a nearly irreversible slide toward default begins.

  There's also mountains of data that show that austerity is a really bad way to go about things which is essentially what the GOP want to do (and Obama has and is doing but to a lesser degree). Austerity as an economic measure is really stupid to use in a struggling economy. We're seeing exactly that in Greece and other countries now and have seen exactly that in the past.
• justincredible

  

  I Wear Pants;1298443 wrote:

  Where did you make/get this?