Time to Lay Down Your Cards

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

You're crazy. Obama spends his days doodling "I heart Stalin" on the Oval office desk and Romney wants to feed poor people with own babies.

crap - that MORE info that I didn't have

now I'm really conflicted - I don't like either of those things. No sirree. not one bit

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[matthewcline 0]

Quote

So when you said that ending the war in Iraq and increasing oil producton didn't count, what you meant to say was that those things are bad?

I think he wants the SOFA, then, President Bush signed for the Iraq withdraw to be, Bush's, and end it at that.

President Obama could have moved the withdraw dates left or right, but went with the proposed timeline. But there would be no political "win win" if he did.

Matt

An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!

[wmw999 2,123]

Oh, it's a clear win for Romney. He's feeding the poor, and Obama can't spell.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[kallend 1,625]

Quote

Americans will get the goverment they deserve....

Skydivers are not the only dysfunctional family around

PS - Obama --> 300-305 with a Republican Congress and a Democratic Senate.

Whatever the result, remember that fully half of the electorate has below average IQ.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[quade 3]

Quote

Quote

Americans will get the goverment they deserve....
Skydivers are not the only dysfunctional family around
PS - Obama --> 300-305 with a Republican Congress and a Democratic Senate.

Whatever the result, remember that fully half of the electorate has below average IQ.

Is that possible voters or likely voters?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kallend 1,625]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Americans will get the goverment they deserve....
Skydivers are not the only dysfunctional family around
PS - Obama --> 300-305 with a Republican Congress and a Democratic Senate.

Whatever the result, remember that fully half of the electorate has below average IQ.

Is that possible voters or likely voters?

Yes.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

So, here is more of what I am reading

what do you base your position on?

From biggov.com by the way

Quote

According to Twitter's invaluable NumbersMuncher, Rasmussen correctly predicted 2008 would be a D+7 election and incorrectly predicted 2010 would be D+3. (2010 was D+0, or even, so Rasmussen gave an edge to Democrats they didn't have.)

If the 2012 race is D+2, Romney's probably going to win. If the race is R+6, Romney's going to enjoy a landslide.

The most important piece of information in this poll, though, is that Rasmussen's sample is a monstrous 15,000 likely voter. Moreover, Rasmussen's Party ID results match similar results found by Gallup and Pew.

Again, if Rasmussen is anywhere near as correct as he's been in the past, all of these polls showing Obama holding small leads, are dead wrong. They're under-sampling Republicans in a major way; predicting an electorate that looks like 2008.


Now Gallup is in the game, and the numbers are brutal. In 2008, the Democrats had a 39-29 (D+10) advantage in hard party ID, and a 54-42 (D+12) advantage with leaners. In 2012 though, we’re in the post-TEA party era. Republicans now show a 36-35 (R+1) hard party ID advantage, and a 49-46 (R+3) lead with leaners. This gives us a range of party ID swings from 2008, from R+11 to R+15.

If the electorate is 49-43% as Gallup predicts -- or R+3 -- Romney wins in a landslide

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>>Recovery from a recession
>Not really

Yep, really. GDP up, unemployment down.

>End of war in Iraq
>>I guess so but that was on Bush's shcedule

OK. If you need to tell yourself that to accept it that's fine. Still a good thing.

>Increase in domestic oil production
>>Happened despite Obama

Again, tell yourself anything you want about why the good stuff happened. The important thing is that you support the country in continuing those things.

\

And you can keep telling youself all is coming up roses

For your consideration

Quote

The most recent jobs report released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) contains some disheartening statistics, reflecting just why Obama’s campaign is so off kilter. As usual, the media have chosen to focus on the two items most familiar to the general public, the monthly jobs number and the unemployment rate.
Left unmentioned in all the political crossfire is the post-World War II record the Obama administration is about to set on employment levels, and it isn’t a good one.

Each month, the BLS releases a host of extensive data on the health of the labor market. One of these is the “employment level” – or the total number employed in the United States over 16 years of age. A simple screen of the monthly employment level is available online, dating all the way back to 1948.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/11/04/Employment-Level-Growth-Under-Obama-Sets-a-Post-World-War-II-Low

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[quade 3]

Quote

what do you base your position on?

Math and the knowledge of how the electoral college works. I don't have to read some jackass pundit to know Romney has practically no chance of getting 300 electoral votes.

IF you had said 270, I could have maybe been persuaded you had a chance at being correct, but over 300? No way.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

what do you base your position on?

Math and the knowledge of how the electoral college works. I don't have to read some jackass pundit to know Romney has practically no chance of getting 300 electoral votes.

I sorry

I forgot you think yourself too smart to discuss anything civily

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,400]

>Math and the knowledge of how the electoral college works.

That's not the point of the sort of articles that Rush posted. The objective there is to try to spur GOP voter turnout by making it look like Romney has a chance. The GOP has been doing this for months now - claiming that most polls are "skewed," using only conservative poll numbers, altering poll numbers in their favor and reposting them etc.

[matthewcline 0]

Quote

>Math and the knowledge of how the electoral college works.

That's not the point of the sort of articles that Rush posted. The objective there is to try to spur GOP voter turnout by making it look like Romney has a chance. The GOP has been doing this for months now - claiming that most polls are "skewed," using only conservative poll numbers, altering poll numbers in their favor and reposting them etc.

That isn't a tactic of both sides?

Matt

An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>Math and the knowledge of how the electoral college works.

That's not the point of the sort of articles that Rush posted. The objective there is to try to spur GOP voter turnout by making it look like Romney has a chance. The GOP has been doing this for months now - claiming that most polls are "skewed," using only conservative poll numbers, altering poll numbers in their favor and reposting them etc.

So do you think the actual vote numbers will match the polls numbers (IE, where Democrats are usually over sampled because that is what the pollers think the turnout will be)

If so why?

It does not make sense to me given the numbers in 08

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

>Math and the knowledge of how the electoral college works.

That's not the point of the sort of articles that Rush posted. The objective there is to try to spur GOP voter turnout by making it look like Romney has a chance. The GOP has been doing this for months now - claiming that most polls are "skewed," using only conservative poll numbers, altering poll numbers in their favor and reposting them etc.

That isn't a tactic of both sides?

Matt

Most of what I have seen is looking at the poll internals and then comparing back to 08 and 04. Pollers used 04 numbere in the 08 polls and were shown to be wrong.

Now they continue to use 04 numbers (ratios) but still show republican enthusiasm as much higher (which is and indicator of turnout as it was in 04 for Obama) and ingnore differences seen in 08

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

I agree with Paul. It ain't going to happen. Obama may get up to 310, but he's got a much larger margin for loss than Romney. Romney, if he pulls it off, will win by a hair and be declared in the next couple of months.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

I agree with Paul. It ain't going to happen. Obama may get up to 310, but he's got a much larger margin for loss than Romney. Romney, if he pulls it off, will win by a hair and be declared in the next couple of months.

In the end I think Romney will win

and the margin will be greater than many here believe is even possible

300 or over for Romney may be a stretch, maybe

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[quade 3]

Quote

Quote

I agree with Paul. It ain't going to happen. Obama may get up to 310, but he's got a much larger margin for loss than Romney. Romney, if he pulls it off, will win by a hair and be declared in the next couple of months.

In the end I think Romney will win

and the margin will be greater than many here believe is even possible

300 or over for Romney may be a stretch, maybe

There are a total of 538 electoral votes. By just about every account, Obama has 237 of those locked in. In order for your dream to come true, Romney has to win virtually every other electoral vote.

That's not going to happen.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I agree with Paul. It ain't going to happen. Obama may get up to 310, but he's got a much larger margin for loss than Romney. Romney, if he pulls it off, will win by a hair and be declared in the next couple of months.

In the end I think Romney will win

and the margin will be greater than many here believe is even possible

300 or over for Romney may be a stretch, maybe

There are a total of 538 electoral votes. By just about every account, Obama has 237 of those locked in. In order for your dream to come true, Romney has to win virtually every other electoral vote.

That's not going to happen.

With toss ups

The RCP map shows him with only 201

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

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[champu 1]

Quote

Gays have all the same rights today

Marrige is not a right

Most people do not care if they (gays) have civil unions and are recognized as couples under the law. I certainly do not care

But the left has to invent rights to make an argument

There are more than just "perks" or "contractual conveniences" that are conveyed to married couples, and are thus denied to gay couples.

Quote

Most people do not care if they (gays) have civil unions and are recognized as couples under the law. I certainly do not care

I've pointed out my problem with this argument previously (Mar 2011)^

[Anvilbrother 0]

When will we know who is president 100%? Wednesday, next week, next month? Not counting lawsuits.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[rushmc 18]

Quote

When will we know who is president 100%? Wednesday, next week, next month? Not counting lawsuits.

I think that will depend on how close the numbers are

If they are really close it is anybodies guess

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

I don't see Pennsylvania and Michigan as tossups. Romney stands maybe a 10% chance of taking both.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

I don't see Pennsylvania and Michigan as tossups. Romney stands maybe a 10% chance of taking both.

RCP is not known as leaning either way

It takes all the polls and averages them

If anything, I would think it would lean Obama overall

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Channman 2]

Quote

I don't see Pennsylvania and Michigan as tossups. Romney stands maybe a 10% chance of taking both.

Just when I was starting to get a warm fuzzy feeling running up my leg, I read your post

[livendive 8]

Quote

I think Obama will take it with about 290 electoral votes. He's going to take Ohio and Wisconsin to cancel out Florida for Romney.

This looks about right to me. He can win it without Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, or Virginia, but just barely. Any one of those would give him enough insurance to lose a Colorado, New Mexico, Iowa, or Wisconsin and still prevail. Ohio would let him lose two or three of those.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)