Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Hill)   While it seems like the election will be close, the swing states tell a different story   (thehill.com ) divider line
    More: Interesting, President Obama, swing states, Mark McKinnon, swing vote, economic statistics, electoral college, presidential debates  
•       •       •

7489 clicks; posted to Politics » on 30 Jul 2012 at 2:37 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Funniest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-07-30 02:50:12 PM  
4 votes:
You know what really gives Obama the edge?

Not being Mitt Romney.
2012-07-30 02:41:37 PM  
3 votes:
So you're saying there's a chance?

www.jeremyrhammond.com
2012-07-30 08:58:23 PM  
2 votes:

WombatControl: Romney won in the primaries because he let his opponents take the lead, get cocky, and then self-destruct when faced with his superior organization and discipline


I realize I'm walking into the middle of a fairly regular political internet trolling amongst practiced individuals who are never going to admit a single ounce of wrong or delusion, and I am merely a spectator who watched the primaries intently and have no experience trolling the populace with misinformation and I'm not particularly having a hard-on for either Romney or Obama, but

are you f*cking kidding me? Did you even watch the primaries? The only reason Mitt Romney was not laughed out of the primaries like EVERYONE ELSE was because the man has yet to state a single thing about his vision or his plan for anyone to pick apart. He has, as you said yourself, yet to define himself, which is just a nice way of saying he has put forward absolutely ZERO plan for doing anything to fix the economy except to say he knows Obama is wrong when Obama's actions pretty much kept the economy from spiraling into the worst depression the United States has ever seen, practically singlehandedly preventing everyone from knowing the full crushing weight of what the policies of a largely Republican controlled three branches of government managed to do in eight short years.

The man has nothing, because he can't list his own positive accomplishments as Governor AND attack Obama's accomplishments as president because he's been doing things on a state level that look exactly like what Obama is trying to do on a federal level. He could have perhaps tried applauding Obama for his work and say "it isn't enough, I can do better" and lay out how to create job growth, but we know this isn't going to happen. He's going to suggest putting as much money in the hands of the richest folks in America as possible. He's going to imply that making rich people richer will eventually help everyone, and all the temporarily embarrassed millionaires (read: poor people Republicans manage to convince to continue voting against their own interests) will eat it up because when they finally hit the Lotto, they'll want their money protected from all the lazy welfare recipients.

I think what you're missing about what happened in 2008 is, Obama came out against George Bush, campaigned against George Bush, didn't even bother using McCain's name most of the time. He didn't need to, because the thing about Obama was, he has made his plans public. He has laid out the specifics of how he's going to make it work. He said "we'll do this and things will get better" and they are, even if too slowly for your taste, which was horribly inflated by the irresponsible Bush years. John McCain had no discernible, workable plan. Mitt Romney has no discernible, workable plan (that he's showcased).

He's not sitting back because he's a master strategist. He's sitting back because he has nothing to offer except derision for whatever Obama has to say, even if it echoes things Romney himself has said or done.

You can't win in politics when your entire campaign is based on the fact that the other guy is 100% wrong, so therefore vote for me. You need a substantive alternative.

Basically, right now, Obama, Mitt Romney, and several voters are in a car, driving to go get dinner.

Obama's like "lets go to Taco Bell. We eat, hunger solved, we go home"

Voters are like "that sounds good"

Romney's like "whoa whoa whoa. no. Taco Bell sucks. we're giving money to illegals and getting gas for our trouble."

Obama frowns and says "okay - McDonalds, then. cheap, easy, dem fries. nom"

Romney says "whoa whoa whoa. no. absolutely not. First and only time I went to McDonalds, I ordered a chicken sandwich and they made me go park to wait for it. Romney waits for no man, and we're still contributing to the welfare of illegals"

Obama's getting a smidge frustrated, says "okay, Subway, then. Pricier, generally run by white kids, and you don't even have to feel like the healthy part of the menu was tacked on."

Romney says "I'm not getting out of the car to order and I don't trust you to get my order right. He'll leave the olives off and you won't care. Sorry, Obummer, I take pride in my sandwiches."

Voter A says, "dudes, can we just eat please?"

Romney laughs and says "I know, right? Why are we even letting this clown drive?"

Obama says "Rommers, you haven't named one damn place you'd be okay with eating so far"

"Here's what I see, Obama. You driving the car and us not eating."

Voters B and C nod and say "Yeah - let Romney drive!"

Obama shakes his head and says "well, okay."

They get out and switch.

Romney buckles his seat belt and says "Christ. I'd have had us seated at Spago forty five minutes ago"

"Uh, dude," Voter A says, "I can't afford to eat at Spago."

Romney turns up the radio and pretends not to hear him.
2012-07-30 03:31:20 PM  
2 votes:

Dog Welder: verbaltoxin: qorkfiend: in b4 WombatControl

It was amusing how this point was hammered into his head all morning while he went, "Nu-uh! Nu-uh!"

But, according to him, the Bain attack ads aren't working at all. Nope. Not in the least.

A few months ago both Ohio and Florida were favoring Romney.

They're now solidly in favor of Obama.

But the ads had no effect.


Something will change between now and election day. What that something is, or how it would affect the election, I can't tell you. All I know in my heart of hearts is that everything will change by election day, and Romney will win.
2012-07-30 06:15:26 PM  
1 vote:

Dog Welder: Once again, from the cheap seats:

NATIONAL POLLS DO NOT MATTER IN A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.


YES THEY DO

How many times has a candidate won the popular vote but lost the Electoral College? (Hint: it's between 1 and 3). So a candidate who wins the national popular vote is almost certainly going to win in the Electoral College.

More on that later:

Right now, in likely Electoral College voting based on state-by-state polling, Romney is getting his clock cleaned:

Hey, look, a source!
Link


And guess what - state-by-state polling in July has virtually no bearing on what the outcome of the election will be.

That's what the Open-Minded and Tolerant Fark Liberals™ stubbornly refuse to understand or admit. Yes, Obama's head in a hypothetical Electoral College count right now. But that and $5 will get him a latte at Starbucks.

How many recent polls are there in a crucial state like Ohio? What are the likely voter models being used, and how well do they correlate to what the actual turnout will be.

Here's the folly that the Democrats are engaging in right now: they're pretending like a series of state polls now mean something. They don't. For one, there's a small sample of polls in the swing states - no more than a handful. You can't draw firm conclusions based on a handful of polls. Yes, you get a sense of what the trend is, but that's only of limited help.

Even if national polling DID matter, the fact that Romney has thus far been unable to budge the numbers suggest that even in a slowly-recovering economy that he is having problems with his image. If he wants to win in November, he needs to fix this. Quickly.

No, he doesn't. It makes very little sense to play the field right now. People are on vacation or paying more attention to the Olympics than the campaign. That's why Romney is taking an international whirlwind tour right now - because this is a period of time in which voters aren't paying that much attention.

And that's true in any race - the dog days of summer are always a low point in a political campaign. What matters is what happens in late August/early September when voters actually start paying attention.

Again, if Romney's numbers are not moving in states like Ohio by early September, he's going to be in real trouble. But trying to argue that a handful of polls in July mean a damn thing is pure spin.

And to your assertion that the economy still sucks...you're correct, the economy still sucks...but IT'S STILL BETTER THAN IT WAS when Bush left office. Those numbers are all over this page today, but you seem to be dead set on ignoring them.

No, what I'm saying is that Bush left office when the economy was in a tailspin. Short of deliberately trying to sink the economy, just having things get marginally better is not an achievement. The economy was not going to decline in real terms for four straight years. Trying to spin what amounts to a stagnant economy into something to be proud of is rather desperate.

It seems like people think that because Nate Silver's model has Obama at 60% now that's the same as if he were at 60% in the polls - those are two very different things.
2012-07-30 06:03:21 PM  
1 vote:

verbaltoxin: Once more.

The NarrativeTM.

It's a thing. It's totally a thing.


History will absolve him, you know...
2012-07-30 05:56:33 PM  
1 vote:

qorkfiend: WombatControl: qorkfiend: WombatControl: But I'm not putting my money on the current status quo continuing past the conventions.

Something will happen in the future, and that will change EVERYTHING. Really. It'll just happen out of the blue, sometime between now and election day. Really. Why aren't you taking me seriously? I'm totally serious that something is going to happen.

Yes, because nothing ever happens between July and Election Day in a Presidential campaign. Why everyone knows that the polls in July are perfectly determinative of the ultimate outcome.

In fact, why do candidates even bother running ads, campaigning, or having debates in the fall? It's all totally wasted effort - because it's the polls at the end of the July that really matter.

Seriously, you're going to make the argument that absolutely nothing is going to happen between now and November that could alter the election results?

No, but I am going to laugh at people who make useless statements like "The election will be turned entirely on its head between now and election day, somehow."


Seriously, though. I am worried about the debates. As a progressive, I've long been willing to overlook the fact that Obama only knows how to read from a teleprompter.

But the simple fact is, Mitt the Machine has demonstrated an ability the chew up and spit out even master debaters like Newt Gingrich. Unless the Obama campaign can come up with a teleprompter as fast on its feet as Mitt, I fear WombatControl may be right.

The only upside to the situation is that Romney really has to win crushing victories in all three debates. Can you imagine being so dumb you can't even out-debate a guy who can only read from a teleprompter? A defeat of any kind would be fatal to his election chances for sure.

Still, given everything I've seen, it looks like Mitt the Machine will pull it off. It's just something to be wary of this fall. The whole momentum of the race could change over the course of a few days.
2012-07-30 05:37:26 PM  
1 vote:

WombatControl: qorkfiend: WombatControl: But I'm not putting my money on the current status quo continuing past the conventions.

Something will happen in the future, and that will change EVERYTHING. Really. It'll just happen out of the blue, sometime between now and election day. Really. Why aren't you taking me seriously? I'm totally serious that something is going to happen.

Yes, because nothing ever happens between July and Election Day in a Presidential campaign. Why everyone knows that the polls in July are perfectly determinative of the ultimate outcome.

In fact, why do candidates even bother running ads, campaigning, or having debates in the fall? It's all totally wasted effort - because it's the polls at the end of the July that really matter.

Seriously, you're going to make the argument that absolutely nothing is going to happen between now and November that could alter the election results?


No, but I am going to laugh at people who make useless statements like "The election will be turned entirely on its head between now and election day, somehow."
2012-07-30 05:30:15 PM  
1 vote:

qorkfiend: WombatControl: But I'm not putting my money on the current status quo continuing past the conventions.

Something will happen in the future, and that will change EVERYTHING. Really. It'll just happen out of the blue, sometime between now and election day. Really. Why aren't you taking me seriously? I'm totally serious that something is going to happen.


Yes, because nothing ever happens between July and Election Day in a Presidential campaign. Why everyone knows that the polls in July are perfectly determinative of the ultimate outcome.

In fact, why do candidates even bother running ads, campaigning, or having debates in the fall? It's all totally wasted effort - because it's the polls at the end of the July that really matter.

Seriously, you're going to make the argument that absolutely nothing is going to happen between now and November that could alter the election results?
2012-07-30 05:25:24 PM  
1 vote:
verbaltoxin: You can repeat the talking points all you want, but just repeating the same lines over and over again isn't going to make the facts change.

Again, look at the polls. I referred to the fundamentals before, and as liberals always do when they counter information contrary to their beliefs, they responded with drive-by snark. (Which is how you know when you're raising a point they haven't or won't bothered to understand.)

But here are the fundamentals:

- Unemployment is at 8.2%
- GDP growth is at 1.5%
- The chances of the economy getting substantially better before Election Day are slim to zero, and the chances of things getting worse are substantial.
- The American people overwhelmingly think the country is on the wrong track.
- Obama's job approval ratings are where they have been for some time - in the upper 40s. Not enough to be fatal to his reelection chances, but in the range where reelection is no better than a 50-50 shot.
- Despite spending over $100 million on a barrage of attack ads, Romney's approval ratings have gone up (albeit slightly).
- Romney cannot spend for the general election until after the convention, and his fundraising has been solid.
- Obama is spending more than he's bringing in.
- The polls show that Americans give Romney the edge on handling the economy.
- The polls also show that the economy is the issue that matters the most to the electorate.

And finally, if you want to argue that because Obama is ahead in polls of swing states months before Election Day, fine. But that's simply wrong: the polls are not static. It's not like being ahead in the polls in July gives Obama points towards November. It's not like Romney is going to sit around and ignore Ohio until November - he's going to be hitting that state hard and doing a ton of campaigning there.

Now, if this were September and all the swing state polls were leaning this far in favor of Obama, that would be another thing. But trying to argue that Obama's got this in the bag now is just silly. And saying it more than once doesn't make it any less silly.
2012-07-30 05:14:16 PM  
1 vote:

WombatControl: But I'm not putting my money on the current status quo continuing past the conventions.


Something will happen in the future, and that will change EVERYTHING. Really. It'll just happen out of the blue, sometime between now and election day. Really. Why aren't you taking me seriously? I'm totally serious that something is going to happen.
2012-07-30 04:50:53 PM  
1 vote:

NateGrey: Hey Wombat, why dont you address hugrams fact filled post?


Oh, how could I ever dispute such obvious facts! I mean it's so clear to me know that the economy is doing just wonderfully. By carefully manipulating the data collecting only the most relevant data points, it's clear that we should all be totally grateful that Obama has delivered us from economic ruination and brought us into the bright new day!

(Here's a hint: when your adversary is in the process of shooting themselves in the foot, let them.)

verbaltoxin: .See if you were intellectually honest yourself, you would admit this and state, "We need to work harder and overcome Romney's problems, and sell him as the stronger canddiate in swing states." Not bother us with national polls, or bore us with details about regions that are already in the bag for one side or the other.


Go back and carefully and thoughtfully read what I wrote: because I said exactly that. Romney can't spend his general election funds until after the convention. Obama is spending more than he takes in right now, which puts him at a disadvantage in the fall.

The polls show that Obama's attacks are not gaining him any traction, and may be hurting him. So if you're Romney, why not let Obama spend all his cash early?

As I've said before, Romney must define himself to the voters if he wants to win: and had Obama's attacks gained traction that would have significantly hurt Romney. Romney has a virtually impossible hill to climb if he can't get Ohio on his side - but it's July.

If this status quo continues into September, Romney's probably done for. But I'm not putting my money on the current status quo continuing past the conventions.

Your candidate has an image of a weak-willed upper management supervisor, born rich and with no real hardships, and who regularly panders to whoever shows the slightest interest in him. It's clear to all he won the nomination because a) You offered Rick f*cking Santorum and Michelle Bachmann as alternatives, and b) the party establishment deemed it was his turn.

Here's the problem: that's how the left-wing echo chamber sees Romney, that's not how the electorate does.

Again, go back and look at that polls - anyone can spew talking points, but that doesn't count for a farking thing. What matters is what voters actually think, and they're not buying Obama's anti-Romney narrative.

Yes, Romney needs to sell himself, but he hasn't started that yet, and it makes no sense to do so before it's necessary.

Romney won in the primaries because he let his opponents take the lead, get cocky, and then self-destruct when faced with his superior organization and discipline. Which is a pattern that looks to be repeating itself.
2012-07-30 04:40:43 PM  
1 vote:

WombatControl: But hey, why muddy the waters with facts. I'm sure that Obama will win all 57 states plus Cuba, Saskatchewan, and Germany and Romney will be forced to work in a call center in India - why, because the left-wing echo chamber says it must be so. They have tons of data in support of that conclu... OK, so they're ignoring the data and only seeing what confirms their insular worldview, but what they lack in logical reasoning and critical thinking they make up for in zealotry...


You're a mean and stupid person. Has anyone had the opportunity to inform you of the fact, or am I the first who gets the pleasure of telling you that you suck?

/anyone who brings up 57 states sucks. Period.
2012-07-30 04:36:50 PM  
1 vote:

qorkfiend: WombatControl: Hell, even veteran Democratic pollsters have told Obama that line doesn't sell with people who voted for Obama in 2008 - in fact, it makes them less likely to vote for Obama this cycle. I've quoted that report time and time again,

Indeed. You say it all the time, and yet, when the poll numbers move, they move in Obama's favor. Perhaps there are other factors in play.


Except for the little fact that the polls aren't moving in Obama's favor. The polls are scarcely moving at all, and where they do move it's generally within the same general range.

But hey, why muddy the waters with facts. I'm sure that Obama will win all 57 states plus Cuba, Saskatchewan, and Germany and Romney will be forced to work in a call center in India - why, because the left-wing echo chamber says it must be so. They have tons of data in support of that conclu... OK, so they're ignoring the data and only seeing what confirms their insular worldview, but what they lack in logical reasoning and critical thinking they make up for in zealotry...
MFL
2012-07-30 04:30:14 PM  
1 vote:
James Carville: 'We're Gonna Have to Go Through Hell and High-Water to Win this Damn Thing'...

You folks should listen to him.

Kevin72: Obama will only give back Indiana, North Carolina, Omaha, and possibly Florida. If Florida goes to Romney, Obama still has 303 electoral votes. If Florida goes to Obama, he has 332 EVs. Any mention of how close the horserace is, is not news it is fark.

DeltaPunch I'm not sure what you mean by Omaha, but another Democrat-leaning state that Obama could lose is Virginia. In fact he has a better chance of winning OH, IA, CO, NV than he does VA, as it stands. So 13 more electoral votes for Romney, and it's still 290 for Obama.

There's obviously a lot more campaigning ahead, VP pick, debates, etc., but right now one could say that Obama has a rather comfortable lead, actually.


What you have to remember is not everyone that is polled actually votes. Likely voters is a much better barometer of where this thing is going to go. RIght now it's a toss up even with the electoral college.

Obama Safe 180
Romney Safe 160

Leaning Obama MI PA, NH (40 votes)
Leaning Romney IN, MO, NC (36 votes)

Up for grabs NV, CO, FL, OH, IA, WI, VA (91 votes)

The reality is if any state is within 5 to 7 points it's up for grabs and we all have no idea how it's going to play out. It's too early.
2012-07-30 04:15:53 PM  
1 vote:
Most important point FTFA:

"Awarding Obama only the states in which he now leads by 3 percentage points or more in the polling averages still sees him safely home."

It's not completely impossible for Romney, but at this point he has a lot of work to do. Better start lining up a dead girl or live boy!
2012-07-30 04:13:15 PM  
1 vote:

The Homer Tax: WombatControl: Well, things have not gotten better.

From when he got into office? Things have absolutely gotten better.

The entire basis of your narrative is false. All the wall of text in the world doesn't change that.


Of course - try and convince everyone how great it is that Obama fixed the economy. 8.2% unemployment - why that's fantastic news! 1.5% GDP growth - we should all be grateful that Dear Leader brought us to such great heights!

Bullshiat.

That's not a recovery - we're not hitting the numbers we need to hit for this country to do much more than tread water.

If the Democrats want to argue that it's all due to Obama's great leadership that we have an economy that's just treading water, I sure as hell hope they make that argument. Because that's such an arrogant and stupid argument that Romney will have no trouble ripping Obama to shreds on it.

Hell, even veteran Democratic pollsters have told Obama that line doesn't sell with people who voted for Obama in 2008 - in fact, it makes them less likely to vote for Obama this cycle. I've quoted that report time and time again, but the good little cheerleaders keep making that same stupid argument over and over again.

Instead of spouting bullshiat, maybe you should look at the polls. See how many people think this country's on the right track and how many people think what Obama has done has worked for the economy. Then see if your little argument holds any water.
2012-07-30 03:58:58 PM  
1 vote:

WombatControl: Well, things have not gotten better. Unemployment is still stuck at 8.2%, and GDP growth is a tepid 1.5%. If you start adding in the workers who have given up looking for jobs those unemployment numbers start hitting the double digits. Obama can keep tooting his own horn on how great the economy is recovering, but that argument is not going to fly when people are worried sick about their financial futures.


Things haven't gotten better, except for lower unemployment, and a growing GDP. If you use a different calculation than everyone else, you start to see that OMG THINGS ARE TERRIBLE.
2012-07-30 03:56:35 PM  
1 vote:

The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: What about the stasticals?


Between the fundamentals, the statisticals, and the silent majority, this is bad news...for Obama.
2012-07-30 03:52:34 PM  
1 vote:
verbaltoxin:

And once again we get a calvalcade of talking points, few of which are even true. Now watch as the same talking points get repeated over and over again, in the vain hope that maybe they'll become true by repetition...

1.) Yes, I have. Remember how I said that Romney can't spend general election funds for another six weeks? Because we can't -- and that matters because he has a huge campaign war chest to draw upon right when it matters. He can barrage the airwaves with ads that get his side of the message across - Romney has yet to tell his side of the story, and the Democrats have tried and failed to define him. If you look at Romney's strategy during the primaries you'd see the same general strategy playing out now.

2.) The enthusiasm gap goes the other way:

Here's what Gallup has found:

Democrats are significantly less likely now (39%) than they were in the summers of 2004 and 2008 to say they are "more enthusiastic about voting than usual" in the coming presidential election. Republicans are more enthusiastic now than in 2008, and the same as in 2004.

These results are based on a July 19-22 USA Today/Gallup poll. They suggest a shift in Republicans' and Democrats' orientation to voting in the coming presidential election compared with the last two, with Republicans expressing more voting enthusiasm. The current 51% to 39% Republican advantage in voter enthusiasm is slightly larger than the 53% to 45% GOP advantage Gallup measured in February of this year.


That is consistent with the findings in the last CBS/NYT poll:

Meantime, three and a half months before election day, Republican enthusiasm about voting this year has shot up since Mitt Romney clinched the nomination in April, from 36 percent of Republicans saying they were more enthusiastic in March to 49 percent now.

President Obama was helped to election in 2008 by a wave of voter enthusiasm among Democrats, however this year, Democratic enthusiasm is down a bit since March. Twenty-seven percent of Democrats said they were more enthusiastic about voting this year than they were in past elections, compared to 30 percent four months ago. And 48 percent of Democrats say their enthusiasm this year is the same as past elections, compared to 39 percent who answered the same question in March.


Now, you can say that more Democrats are voting because of their support for Obama than Republicans are voting because of their support for Romney. The problem with that analysis is that it doesn't matter - what matters is who votes, not why.

3.) No, Bush didn't win because of his likability. Go back and read William Galston's piece in The New Republic:

The real story of the 2004 isn't that attacks disqualified Kerry as a potential president-they didn't-but rather that in the two months from Labor Day until the election, the incumbent persuaded just enough people that his record warranted reelection. (His unwavering support of the war in Iraq temporarily halted the erosion of public support for his decision, despite its unexpectedly difficult aftermath.) During that period, the right track/wrong track numbers moved up, and the public's assessment of Bush's record on foreign policy, the war in Iraq, and the economy all improved. On the eve of the election, his overall job approval averaged about 50 percent, up from less than 48 percent in mid-summer and closely predicting the 50.7 percent share of the popular vote that he received.


4.) Again, look at the polls. Every poll shows that the issue that the voters care about first and foremost is the economy. And now look at the right track/wrong track numbers. Let's take a look tthat CBS/NYT poll again:

Fifty-four percent of registered voters cite the economy and jobs as "extremely" important in their presidential vote, more than any other issue. Here Romney has the edge: 49 percent of registered voters say he would do a better job handling the economy and jobs, while 41 percent cite Mr. Obama.


You really want to argue that the state of the economy doesn't matter unless the economy is in a free-fall? Because that's just a silly argument.

5.) And here we go with the same old talking points, over and over again. Yes, I know that if you spend all your time stewing in the left-wing echo chamber of Fark, TPM, Daily Kos, and the HuffPo you'd think that all Republicans are evil troglodytes who want to chop up orphans and sell their organs to billionaires. But the rest of the country doesn't think like a left-wing zealot.

They voted for Barack Obama in 2008 because he promised them that he would be someone above petty politics. That he was smart, capable, and open minded and that he would fix things. He even said that if the economy didn't get better, his administration would be a "one-term proposition."

Well, things have not gotten better. Unemployment is still stuck at 8.2%, and GDP growth is a tepid 1.5%. If you start adding in the workers who have given up looking for jobs those unemployment numbers start hitting the double digits. Obama can keep tooting his own horn on how great the economy is recovering, but that argument is not going to fly when people are worried sick about their financial futures.

For those voters who don't live in the echo chambers on either the left or the right, they are going to look at where we've been in the last four years and decide whether they want more of the same or they want a chance at something better. Romney still has to make his case, and if he fails at that, it's likely he'll lose.

But yes, this is a horse race, and trying to convince yourself that Obama is a shoe-in might feel good, but it isn't being intellectually honest.
2012-07-30 03:41:55 PM  
1 vote:

Kevin72: Obama will only give back Indiana, North Carolina, Omaha, and possibly Florida. If Florida goes to Romney, Obama still has 303 electoral votes. If Florida goes to Obama, he has 332 EVs. Any mention of how close the horserace is, is not news it is fark.


"leading" by less than the margin of error...does not mean he is leading.

/margin of error, how does that work.

those states that has him leading by more than the margin of error is only 290, lose a state or two, then it is close.

0bama will win, the real question is the senate. does it turn or just lose a couple more seats?
2012-07-30 03:38:29 PM  
1 vote:

WombatControl: Ah, I remember this time back in 2010 - when the same bunch of people were saying how it was totally implausible that the Republicans would pick up more than 36 House seats. Remember how that turned out?

And I remember back in 2004 at this time when there were plenty of Farkers who were convinced that Bush was going to lose and lose big - and we all remember how well that turned out for them.

One would think that after a while the liberals and Fark would start realizing that proclaiming assured victory in July when the election wasn't until November would be a fool's errand - but that would apparently not be the case.

Yes, I'll grant that as of right now, Obama has the edge, especially in swing state polling. But the fundamentals are arrayed against him - and if the economy slows down between now and November, the state of the race could change dramatically.


You sound concerned... that the economy is not tanking.
2012-07-30 03:28:13 PM  
1 vote:

verbaltoxin: qorkfiend: in b4 WombatControl

It was amusing how this point was hammered into his head all morning while he went, "Nu-uh! Nu-uh!"


But, according to him, the Bain attack ads aren't working at all. Nope. Not in the least.

A few months ago both Ohio and Florida were favoring Romney.

They're now solidly in favor of Obama.

But the ads had no effect.
2012-07-30 03:17:33 PM  
1 vote:

The Homer Tax: ®


verbaltoxin: TM.


Sometimes I feel sorry for the "opposition" here.

All that ammo against Obama and they can't even get their point across...
2012-07-30 03:16:59 PM  
1 vote:

WombatControl: But the fundamentals are arrayed against him


Why won't someone think about The Fundamentals!
2012-07-30 03:09:19 PM  
1 vote:
Ah, I remember this time back in 2010 - when the same bunch of people were saying how it was totally implausible that the Republicans would pick up more than 36 House seats. Remember how that turned out?

And I remember back in 2004 at this time when there were plenty of Farkers who were convinced that Bush was going to lose and lose big - and we all remember how well that turned out for them.

One would think that after a while the liberals and Fark would start realizing that proclaiming assured victory in July when the election wasn't until November would be a fool's errand - but that would apparently not be the case.

Yes, I'll grant that as of right now, Obama has the edge, especially in swing state polling. But the fundamentals are arrayed against him - and if the economy slows down between now and November, the state of the race could change dramatically.
2012-07-30 02:53:42 PM  
1 vote:
Fark Cons have it on better authority, polls and statistics are for stupid libs, a Cons gut is the true indicator of how an entire nation is feeling.

/Vote Republican
2012-07-30 02:53:20 PM  
1 vote:
SWiNG VOtAR SWwWING VOTaR SWwWWWWwWING VoTAR!!!
2012-07-30 02:51:32 PM  
1 vote:
I see the daily talking point has been distributed and fully embraced...

Yes, as of this moment Obama is ahead in the swing states (except for Missouri and Indiana, which are basically lost causes to Obama unless circumstances change). And the Romney team had better be thinking of ways to improve their standing in Ohio, or Romney's chances of winning go down to just about zero.

But again, the assumption that state-level polling in late July matters a hell of a lot as a predictor is just false. You have 1.) fewer polls and 2.) less accurate samples this far out.

If in September Romney is still behind by more than 1-2 points in the swing states, it's probably going to be an Obama win. But if the electoral map changes (and it will), then the predictions will change accordingly.

So yeah, crow all you want about how the fact that Obama is ahead in the swing states now means that Obama is totally going to win. Never mind the fact that Romney's campaign can't even spend general election funds for another six weeks, it's totally in the bag for Obama and everyone should just go home. The Obama Cheerleading Brigade® said it was so.
2012-07-30 02:39:43 PM  
1 vote:
in b4 WombatControl
2012-07-30 02:38:50 PM  
1 vote:

DamnYankees: Even if it words in his favor, I still think its psychotic that we live in a system where someone can get more votes and lose.


What are you talking about? 5 is always more than 4.
 
Displayed 31 of 31 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report