2012 US Election -- Round 2

[Coito ergo sum]

Huh.. I don't recall seeing it before. The Colorado study was referenced in an article -- dated today -- that I read today. That's why I posted it.

It's the exact same one you started this thread with. The links you posted in both the OP and today's take you to the same article.

Wow -- you're right. My apologies. I linked through a news site and thought it was a new article. I had just plain forgot all about the Colorado study. Criminy.

Except that apparently those factors have been pretty good at predicting who would be getting the actual votes. 8 in a row correct is not bad.

I'm sure there are other correlations that have held true for multiple consecutive elections. That doesn't make them predictive.

Sure enough. But, it's still relevant to discuss relative to the election, and there is certainly nothing "wrong" with posting the information.

[Coito ergo sum]

Rasmussen Reports (considered conservative leaning) shows Romney up 48% to 45% over Obama in national polling. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... cking_poll

Obviously, national polling is not as relevant as state-by-state analyses, but it may indicate a slight change in zeitgeist.

[Ian]

Here's some zeitgeist for ya:

[Coito ergo sum]

A new advertisement in the works targeting the Jewish vote -- http://freebeacon.com/whose-democratic-party/

[Coito ergo sum]

Here's some zeitgeist for ya:

That's o.k. - not being a "true conservative" is a plus, in my view. I want a pragmatist, and one who doesn't shove religion down our throats (at least as much as possible). Romney is a Mormon, and as such has to be very neutral about religion, or all the other Christians will rebel. He basically has to keep mum about it, which suits me fine. Also, he isn't really big-time pro-Life, which means that won't be a centerpiece of his administration. He was pro-choice, and became proLife, and my guess is that he views it pragmatically, being personally against it but acknowledging the reality that it is necessary and here to stay. Good. I just want those kind of social issues to be very secondary to the economic issues. I think there is no room for an extreme ideologue like Ron Paul, and so I am comfortable with a moderate pragmatist who leans in favor of free market solutions and against social justice redistributions and whatnot.

[Gerald McGrew]

Rasmussen Reports (considered conservative leaning) shows Romney up 48% to 45% over Obama in national polling. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... cking_poll

Obviously, national polling is not as relevant as state-by-state analyses, but it may indicate a slight change in zeitgeist.

Rasmussen is, and has always been, a poll that is strongly biased towards republicans. That's why most polling analysis sites throw their results out (they're always an outlier, and always skewed to the right).

Some of the other polls released today show Romney's chance of winning is shrinking fast.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... ml?hpid=z2

Obama now has strong leads in Ohio, Florida, and Virginia, and as the article points out, the field in play for Romney is shrinking (he's essentially conceded Pennsylvania and Michigan now). His recent screw up on the embassy thing isn't going to do him any favors either. And now he says to ABC that he expects President Obama to lie in the debates? I honestly wonder who the hell is running this clown car of a campaign.

Unless there's a real game-changer in the debates (which almost never happens), or the GOP voter suppression efforts keep enough poor people and minorities from voting, it's looking very, very much like Obama gets 4 more years. And that's surprising, given that by most other measures, he should be a very vulnerable, weak incumbent.

[Ian]

560383_468307123200555_1047426132_n.jpg (29.99 KiB) Viewed 857 times

Ultimately, this is the biggest reason why Obama is going to win. Because few on the other side actually care about Mitt Romney winning as much as Obama losing. It's a shitty attitude.

[Coito ergo sum]

560383_468307123200555_1047426132_n.jpg

Ultimately, this is the biggest reason why Obama is going to win. Because few on the other side actually care about Mitt Romney winning as much as Obama losing. It's a shitty attitude.

In part, that is true. But, that's true in many elections. The party out of power doesn't like what the party in power is doing, and even if the alternative is not the best candidate one might hope for, it's better than who is there now.

[Ian]

Indeed. But it seems to be especially true this year, I'd say even more than in 2004.

[Coito ergo sum]

Indeed. But it seems to be especially true this year, I'd say even more than in 2004.

Well, in 2004, the economy was doing good, the Iraq War was still young and mostly successful, and things were looking good. The Democrats were railing against 4.7% unemployment because the Department of Labor was "cooking the books" and it "really" was more like 8% (which was totally unacceptable, of course). Looking back, those were some glory days compared to what we have now.

Now, of course, the Department of Labor is no longer cooking the books, and unemployment really is "only" 8.3% (or whatever it is right now) and it isn't "really" 16% and all that.... and a 1.7% GDP growth rate is pretty good, and a $1.3 trillion deficit in 2012 is still George Bush's fault.

But, I can definitely understand an "anybody but Obama" sentiment. I am close to that. Not all the way. I think I mentioned in previous discussions that I would not vote for Perry, Palin, Bachman, or Santorum, for sure. So, it's not "anybody" but Obama, but it's "a lot of people before Obama...." for me, probably including Elmer Fudd.

[Ian]

Wow, that's a lot of snide defensiveness and hyperbole.

[Coito ergo sum]

Wow, that's a lot of snide defensiveness and hyperbole.

Sorry, I'm anxious for beer-thirty. And, I'm procrastinating finishing a document I'm working on.

I am also a bit overwhelmed with all the Mussulman nonsense going on around the world again. Something is going on, and that dumb-ass movie trailer has nothing to do with it, other than perhaps as a cattle prod to enrage some Rage Boys out there....

It seems feels as if we're losing ground in the overall struggle.

[Gerald McGrew]

The Romney campaign is starting to crack.

First, they've apparently given up on convincing undecided/independent voters, and are instead trying to energize their base. http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins/ro ... urns-right

"VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. — Mitt Romney's campaign has concluded that the 2012 election will not be decided by elusive, much-targeted undecided voters — but by the motivated partisans of the Republican base."

So he's effectively conceded some key swing states (Pennsylvania, Michigan, Minnesota) and now he's conceding undecided voters? Maybe he's counting on voter suppression to give him the election?

And now, word is leaking out from inside the campaign that things aren't going well. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81280.html

"Romney’s convention stumbles have provoked weeks of public griping and internal sniping about not only Romney but also his mercurial campaign muse, Stevens. Viewed warily by conservatives, known for his impulsiveness and described by a colleague as a “tortured artist,” Stevens has become the leading staff scapegoat for a campaign that suddenly is behind in a race that had been expected to stay neck and neck through Nov. 6..."

Clint Eastwood losing a debate with an empty chair continues to haunt...

"Stevens and his team loved the idea of the tough-talking American icon greeting the millions of viewers tuning in to the main event. But Eastwood, unlike every other speaker at the tightly controlled convention, had free rein to say or do whatever he wanted without the campaign’s approval. Eastwood has said just minutes before going live, he was handed a chair to sit on, which he promptly decided should become a prop in his speech.

Many in the Romney high command watched in fury. Later, a poll by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press found that for many voters — especially independents and casual viewers, exactly the ones convention organizers hoped to reach — the Eastwood skit, not Romney’s speech, was the highlight of the convention."

And the result?

"As mishaps have piled up, Stevens has taken the brunt of the blame for an unwieldy campaign structure that, as the joke goes among frustrated Republicans, badly needs a consultant from Bain & Co. to straighten it out.

“You design a campaign to reinforce the guy that you’ve got,” said a longtime Romney friend. “The campaign has utterly failed to switch from a primary mind-set to a general-election mind-set, and did not come up with a compelling, policy-backed argument for credible change.”"

I'm already hearing conservative radio talking heads working on their excuses for a Romney loss (of course coupled with dire predictions of doom and gloom for a second Obama term). So I don't know what they're expecting from the debates, but unless Obama screws up completely (highly doubtful) or Romney gets a personality transplant, I don't expect much to change.

[Gerald McGrew]

Perhaps some of the problems the Romney campaign are having are rooted in the fact that they're trying to sell almost the exact same message Republican presidential candidates have been peddling for years.

http://www.nextnewdeal.net/rortybomb/ro ... -2006-2004

Drill for more oil, free trade, school choice, more pollution, tax cuts for corporations, and lower gov't spending (which they never actually do)...wash, rinse, repeat.

[Ian]

I used to be indifferent about Romney. I honestly didn't know what to think of him, because he wouldn't let himself be defined as anything in particular. But after picking Ryan for his VP, after last week's Libya flap and now after this stupidness (see video), I think I've come to genuinely hate this man. What a despicable piece of shit.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 ... fundraiser

Some of the more cool-headed backlash against this bastard: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezr ... e/?hpid=z2