June 14, 2012
— Ace Sorry to throw another horserace/poll post at you, but this one is special.
ConArt critic has been making the case that blue states are in play; I personally have been questioning the conventional ill-wisdom that "it's going to be close." It's often not close at all, and yet every election prediction is "it's going to be close."
Well, if that's the eternal prediction, and yet never takes into account that sometimes it's not close at all, then that's not really a prediction. That's just something people say, because it sounds safe.
Two posts about this, the possibility of the race not being particularly close.
First, Henrik Temp wonders why every analysis begins with the 2008 election as the baseline. The 2010 election was more recent, and conditions have not significantly changed since 2010.
So what happens if you begin your analysis with the expectation that 2012 will be more like 2010 than 2008? That's the 338 - 200 electoral vote prediction.
Personally I've been splitting the difference myself, assuming that 2012 will be about halfway between 2010 and 2008.
But Michael Barone does some digging into his own almanac and discovers something interesting.
t seems to be a standard rule in assessing the prospects of Barack Obama and Mitt Romney in particular states to use the November 2008 numbers as a benchmark. However, as I have pointed out, in the last three presidential elections, the winning candidate has won a percentage of the popular vote identical to or within 1% of the percentage of the popular vote for the House of Representatives in the election held two years before. In this case, the November 2010 results are very different from 2008. In 2008 Obama won 53% of the popular vote. In 2010 House Democrats won 45% of the popular vote.
Thus, while most seem to discount the midterms as predictive -- and most seem to almost completely ignore 2010 as if it's an obvious aberration -- in fact, at least over the past three cycles, the midterms have been highly predictive. They've predicted the presidential vote to within 1%.
Given that circumstances from 2010 have not improved -- indeed, it seems likely Obama's position has deteriorated -- why would we expect 2012 to break this pattern?
Because Obama's on the ballot, officially, now? But he urged his supporters to treat voting for Democrats in 2010 as a proxy for voting for him. He nationalized the election, or tried to. (Then again, individual Democrats had a different idea, and tried to localize it.)
Barone charts out Obama's current support levels in the swing states versus the Democratic vote share in 2010.
The first thing to note is that ObamaÂ’s current percentage is closer to the 2010 Democratic percentage than to ObamaÂ’s 2008 percentage in every state but three. The exceptions are Nevada and Arizona, where the current Obama percentage is right in the middle of the two, and Florida, where the Democratic percentage in 2010 was very low because Democrats failed to contest three of the then 25 districts and because the Republican districting plan then in effect left few target seats for Democrats to seriously contest.Second, itÂ’s worth noting that in only four states is Obama at 50% or 51%. It should be added that he leads Romney by double digits in New Jersey, New Mexico and Minnesota; for the moment, at least, those look pretty safe for Obama.
Barone finds that if the indicator of 2010 does predict 2012 within 1%, the vote count will be similar to that predicted by Temp.
Posted by: Ace at
11:54 AM
| Comments (306)
Post contains 608 words, total size 4 kb.
Posted by: soothsayer's anger management courses available online now at June 14, 2012 11:55 AM (9Q7Nu)
Posted by: Larsen E. Whipsnade at June 14, 2012 11:56 AM (6BgmB)
Posted by: soothsayer's anger management courses available online now at June 14, 2012 11:57 AM (9Q7Nu)
-------
Winning means never having to say you're sorry.
Posted by: mama winger at June 14, 2012 11:58 AM (P6QsQ)
But my calendar says 2012 will be after 2010.
Posted by: Joe Biden at June 14, 2012 11:59 AM (QKKT0)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at June 14, 2012 12:00 PM (8y9MW)
Posted by: nickless at June 14, 2012 12:00 PM (MMC8r)
but this one is special
****
Special? I know special my friend and let me tell you...this is indeed SPECIAL!!
Posted by: Corky at June 14, 2012 12:00 PM (eavT+)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at June 14, 2012 12:00 PM (05RcU)
Posted by: Lemon Party Candidate at June 14, 2012 12:00 PM (MMC8r)
♫ Pass the dutchie on the left hand side! ♫
Posted by: President Baraka Choom at June 14, 2012 12:01 PM (MBmtt)
Posted by: Barky O'Dogeater at June 14, 2012 12:01 PM (QKKT0)
Posted by: Ed Anger Issues at June 14, 2012 12:01 PM (7+pP9)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet at June 14, 2012 12:01 PM (9TTOe)
Today, I was driving through one of the safe, small Detroit area suburbs, and saw a few women (one was black) in front of a sign that said, "IMPEACH Obama.." Might have been part of a "restoring America" event.
Was shocked, shocked, shocked. I've seen Obama '12 bumper stickers here, so to see that, and manned by at least one woman of color stunned me.
Posted by: shibumi at June 14, 2012 12:01 PM (z63Tr)
Posted by: Cicero at June 14, 2012 12:02 PM (QKKT0)
Ohio: Romney Campaign Bus Drives Circles Around Obama Speech Site Honking Its Horn
HAHAHAH !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: The Jackhole at June 14, 2012 12:02 PM (nTgAI)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet at June 14, 2012 12:02 PM (9TTOe)
Posted by: Barack OhO.J. at June 14, 2012 12:03 PM (MBmtt)
Posted by: The Mega Independent at June 14, 2012 12:04 PM (zrw7c)
Romney is campaigning as the anti-RINOESTABLISHMENTARIAN. He is nowhere near the tepid, nice campaigning of previous dolts.
You are correct in your premise but I don't think Romney is going to do it wrong.
Posted by: GW McLintock at June 14, 2012 12:04 PM (h/9ML)
Posted by: jwest at June 14, 2012 12:05 PM (ZDsRL)
So much is gonna happen between now and November.
Five major events that will shape Mitt's candidacy:
1. The Court's ruling is gonna have a huge impact, and that's coming in the next two weeks.
2. Then we have a veep pick and our convention.
3. And then we have all the monthly jobs data until November.
4. Gas prices.
5. Another debt/budget battle in Congress.
Posted by: soothsayer's anger management courses available online now at June 14, 2012 12:05 PM (9Q7Nu)
Posted by: Mjölnir the banhammer at June 14, 2012 12:05 PM (Jls4P)
HAHAHAH !!!!!!!!!!!!"
===============
Thish ish an outrage, my friendsh. When I wash running for Preshident, we knew how to comport ourshelves with dignity.
Ishn't that right, Meghan, honey?
Meghan? Meghan! Put down the rack of lamb, Meghan!
Posted by: John McCain at June 14, 2012 12:05 PM (MBmtt)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at June 14, 2012 12:05 PM (8y9MW)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at June 14, 2012 12:05 PM (05RcU)
Posted by: ace at June 14, 2012 12:06 PM (aw5Tx)
Posted by: cheetah at June 14, 2012 12:06 PM (zXhtZ)
Posted by: red sweater at June 14, 2012 12:06 PM (Xwgt3)
Posted by: Mikey NTH - feelin' groovy at June 14, 2012 12:07 PM (hLRSq)
Remember, the better it looks for Mitt, the more itÂ’s possible that Barry will fold and let Hillary take over.
Posted by: jwest at June 14, 2012 12:08 PM (ZDsRL)
Posted by: The Mega Independent at June 14, 2012 12:08 PM (zrw7c)
Posted by: dananjcon at June 14, 2012 12:08 PM (eavT+)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at June 14, 2012 12:08 PM (05RcU)
Posted by: nickless at June 14, 2012 12:08 PM (MMC8r)
The best thing Mitt has going for him right now is that Obama 2012 is a re-run of Obama 2008.
In short, "It's old" is what people will say about Obama's campaign this time around.
Posted by: soothsayer's anger management courses available online now at June 14, 2012 12:08 PM (9Q7Nu)
Posted by: wierd flunky at June 14, 2012 12:09 PM (X+nFp)
Posted by: Yoda at June 14, 2012 12:09 PM (QupBk)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at June 14, 2012 12:09 PM (05RcU)
There are possibilities of black swan events, as always, but in general, most black swans would hurt Obama. It's hard to think of a "good" black swan for him --
****
I don't know how an Israeli strike on Iran would play.
Posted by: WalrusRex at June 14, 2012 12:10 PM (jUZRg)
Posted by: nickless at June 14, 2012 04:08 PM (MMC8r)
He probably hears beeping, but that's just the most beautiful and poised woman ever backing up.
Posted by: The Mega Independent at June 14, 2012 12:10 PM (zrw7c)
old
"its gonna be close"
new and more accurate
"Its gonna be ugly"
The left will not go quietly.
Posted by: Shiggz RocketSurgeon at June 14, 2012 12:11 PM (RfvTE)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet at June 14, 2012 12:11 PM (9TTOe)
Not happening. He's a malignant narcissist. Also, I think he's figured out by now that the Clintons hate his guts.
Posted by: Ian S. at June 14, 2012 12:11 PM (tqwMN)
Here's another question. If the country is so evenly divided, as we are told, and which leads to the obvious reason for concluding that the election will be close, then why was Obama able to win so easily in 2008 with well over 300 votes? Obviously, in extrodinary elections, extraordinary results occur. Now maybe we will have two extraordinary elections in a row - or maybe the Bush wins were the extraordinary ones in that there really wasn't much of a difference in the two parties. Now there is much more a difference between the parties and where and how they want to lead this country. That was not evident in 2000 or 2004, at least in terms of policies at home. The winner usually gets over the 300 vote threshold. There is no reason why it can't be Romney.
Posted by: SH at June 14, 2012 12:11 PM (gmeXX)
I thought you meant a horse race, horse race.
I was gonna get my running shoes.
Posted by: Sarah Jessica Parker at June 14, 2012 12:12 PM (tXEHy)
Posted by: BurtTC at June 14, 2012 12:12 PM (W9+9d)
Posted by: navycopjoe at June 14, 2012 12:13 PM (3gUvw)
Posted by: Al at June 14, 2012 12:13 PM (MzQOZ)
Posted by: jwest at June 14, 2012 04:08 PM (ZDsRL)
This is the event that I think has a possibility... call me crazy but, you guys are talking black swans here. I don't think this would classify as a true black swan, but it would definitely be an unexpected event.
Posted by: The Jackhole at June 14, 2012 12:13 PM (nTgAI)
For all those celebrating ObamaÂ’s sinking poll numbers, remember itÂ’s too early.
I predicted months ago that Obama would be looking at the internal polls in late June and determine that he doesn’t want to be the next Jimmy Carter. Instead of going down in a landslide election, he will say that the country “was just not ready for a black president” and pull out of the running. He will take a few hundred million in campaign donations for a future run when “racism and republican obstructionism isn’t so prevalent”.
Hillary will step in by acclamation at the convention and it will be a tight race, with a reenergized dem base and the “historic” aspect of a woman president.
Posted by: jwest at June 14, 2012 12:13 PM (ZDsRL)
Posted by: Retread at June 14, 2012 12:14 PM (I2fq9)
--------------------
Doubtful. See, you're thinking logically. Democrats can't, or at least don't, do that.
Posted by: mediumheadboy at June 14, 2012 12:15 PM (x2CNJ)
Ace
What I keep stressing is that if Romney is going to win, it will be evident in the "blue" states we barely lost the last go-around where we flipped.
And we are seeing that very clearly in the upper midwest.
Everyone freaks about Virginia turning blue. Guess what? Federal govt jobs are doing that. New England went pretty hard blue after 1992. Did we win in 2000 and 2004? We gained the southern half of the mississippi river region and boomed in Appalachia. Regions change, quite frequently over the years. The opportunities presented to the GOP in the midwest, in Maine, in Pennsylvania, etc meant these states were definitely in play with the right campaign and if Obama started flailing. Even if Obama can brag about New Mexico, Nevada and Virginia, he isn't bragging about Pennsylvania, Michigan or Wisconsin, three states with twice the electoral votes.
Posted by: CAC at June 14, 2012 12:15 PM (YIsuU)
Posted by: Brian at June 14, 2012 12:15 PM (wTSvK)
ObamaÂ’s DNA is sequenced to look out for Obama. He has a thin skin and doesnÂ’t take humiliation too well.
If it comes down to a choice between going down in history as one of the biggest losers or stepping aside while simultaneously blaming republicans/racists, heÂ’ll opt for the latter.
Posted by: jwest at June 14, 2012 12:15 PM (ZDsRL)
Isn't Intrade just a political betting site? Doesn't it operate like a sportsbook? If so, it is not surprising they have Obama winning, because it is just a reflection no how the public is betting. You have to set the line to entice bets, it doesn't always make sense when studying the teams. Or am I wrong in how Intrade operates?
Posted by: SH at June 14, 2012 12:15 PM (gmeXX)
Posted by: Intercepted! at June 14, 2012 12:16 PM (96M6e)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at June 14, 2012 12:16 PM (05RcU)
===============
Evacuate!?! At my moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances!
Posted by: Barack Moff Tarkin at June 14, 2012 12:16 PM (MBmtt)
Thank you to maetenloch for throwing the keys thru the bars where I could reach them
Posted by: Jones in CO at June 14, 2012 12:16 PM (8sCoq)
Posted by: Crying guy in WI at June 14, 2012 12:17 PM (cQCm/)
“And under no imaginable circumstances will Obama step aside.”
You guys are forgetting Michelle. She wouldnÂ’t take the possibility of an overwhelming loss with a lot of grace. Being voted out like that would be too much like an eviction.
Plus, having the use of a few hundred million in campaign money helps to maintain the lifestyle she’s become accustom to. You don’t go from Air Force 1 to commercial jets without major withdrawal. The new “campaign” could easily afford a very nice plane to ferry her and Barry around the world for years.
Posted by: jwest at June 14, 2012 12:17 PM (ZDsRL)
No it won't. The problem with pandering to the pot heads is that they're pot heads. The likelihood of them getting off the couch in any great numbers is somewhere between slim and none.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at June 14, 2012 12:17 PM (8y9MW)
Posted by: wierd flunky at June 14, 2012 12:17 PM (X+nFp)
I considered the possibility for a while that the Dems would try to pull a Torricelli, but I don't think that they can anymore. I don't think Obama would allow it to happen. He'll cut back on expenses as much as possible in the final months of the election in order to save up that campaign cash for future use elsewhere. Clinton would need time to rehabilitate her image after working for this merry band of fucks, so running in 2012 isn't likely a winner.
Posted by: Alex at June 14, 2012 12:18 PM (sy0Uv)
Romney is going to win? ....Good. I didn't want to have bother with going to vote, anyway.
I've got better things to do.
Posted by: lazy low-info voter at June 14, 2012 12:18 PM (M2JTb)
Posted by: cheetah at June 14, 2012 12:18 PM (zXhtZ)
...still loving the new nickname.
Posted by: Sgt. York at June 14, 2012 12:18 PM (pqW4Y)
Posted by: Truck Monkey at June 14, 2012 12:18 PM (jucos)
Posted by: joncelli, heartless Con and all around unpleasant guy at June 14, 2012 12:18 PM (RD7QR)
Posted by: navycopjoe at June 14, 2012 12:18 PM (QULDk)
There are possibilities of black swan events, as always, but in general, most black swans would hurt Obama. It's hard to think of a "good" black swan for him --
****
I don't know how an Israeli strike on Iran would play.
***
Or, for that matter, an assasination attempt on Obama, possibly a false flag assasination attempt.
Posted by: WalrusRex at June 14, 2012 12:19 PM (jUZRg)
Bill Clinton would be just the guy to "toricelli" Baraka, although I'm not sure that the Democrat Party would have the stomach for shoving the Second First Black President under the bus. Even so, maybe its best that Mittens doesn't get too far ahead of Obama in early polling.
Peoples' memories are short. The Flying Hag would have a much better shot at defeating Mittens than the Dogeater-in-Chief.
Posted by: Cicero at June 14, 2012 12:19 PM (QKKT0)
Will Never Happen Posted by: Nevergiveup
Agreed.
Posted by: weft cut-loop [/i] [/b] at June 14, 2012 12:19 PM (famk3)
-------------------
Meh. I still say Democrats refuse to accept the possibility of an overwhelming loss, or a loss at all.
Posted by: mediumheadboy at June 14, 2012 12:19 PM (x2CNJ)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet at June 14, 2012 12:19 PM (9TTOe)
If Greg comes in here and hems and haws about PA, three questions for him:
Why is Obama actively advertising in NE PA and W PA?
Why has Romney targeted the Philadelphia burbs?
What is the overall trend in the SWPA/NEPA region?
The reasons for the first two are simple: Obama will lose NEPA and WPA combined, the first Democrat to do so since 1972. The burbs are fertile ground for moderate Republicans who saw a boom back into congress in 2010.
The third, the overall trend, has been towards the Republicans. The fact that we as a party failed utterly to exploit the collapse of Democrats in the traditionally union-heavy regions of the state, while abandoning the Philly burbs, is disgraceful, but we have a really solid chance of fixing that this year and making the eternal cocktease that is the Keystone state finally put out.
Posted by: CAC at June 14, 2012 12:19 PM (YIsuU)
Posted by: Anna Puma at June 14, 2012 12:19 PM (eo6ex)
Posted by: BurtTC at June 14, 2012 12:19 PM (W9+9d)
But you're out of your flipping gourd. It ain't gonna happen.
Posted by: Kensington at June 14, 2012 12:19 PM (MBmtt)
------------
SHHHHH! Don't give them any ideas.
Posted by: mediumheadboy at June 14, 2012 12:20 PM (x2CNJ)
You're not just pandering to pot heads.
There's a legit fiscal argument to be made with legalizing dope.
Posted by: soothsayer's anger management courses available online now at June 14, 2012 12:20 PM (9Q7Nu)
Posted by: toby928© at June 14, 2012 12:20 PM (QupBk)
No it won't. The problem with pandering to the pot heads is that they're pot heads. The likelihood of them getting off the couch in any great numbers is somewhere between slim and none.
My thoughts exactly. In fact, they think they are chooming philosophers so they've decided that Politics don't matter, dude.
I like this because it essentially give ME, dagny, 3 votes. Mine and my idiot 20 year old and smart 18 year old who both vote to make me happy, er, less bitchy.
Posted by: dagny at June 14, 2012 12:20 PM (WCAIB)
Posted by: SH at June 14, 2012 12:20 PM (gmeXX)
"Malignant narcissists"
That is exactly why Obama would look seriously at skipping out early with 200 million. He can say heÂ’s starting his campaign that very day for a presidential election in the future when the country is ready. Until then, he will visit real Americans and world leaders to maintain the leadership heÂ’s exhibited so far.
“Hello, Boeing?, one BBJ please.”
Plane, staff, expenses, wardrobeÂ…. Just about everything you need to live pretty well without dipping into your personal funds.
Posted by: jwest at June 14, 2012 12:20 PM (ZDsRL)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at June 14, 2012 12:21 PM (05RcU)
Posted by: Al at June 14, 2012 12:21 PM (MzQOZ)
Posted by: Y-not at June 14, 2012 12:21 PM (5H6zj)
----
Depends on if Our President orders our F15's to shoot down the Israelis or not.
Posted by: fixerupper at June 14, 2012 12:21 PM (C8hzL)
Posted by: joncelli, heartless Con and all around unpleasant guy at June 14, 2012 04:18 PM (RD7QR)
There is no evidence whatsoever of a repeat of Obamaha besides PPP's push earlier this year, and they dropped the ball on two consecutive special elections and are off wildly from the averages on the swing states so far.
Also the R's made NE2 more republican, so fat chance of that happening.
If NH goes, I will dress like a girl scout and sing show tunes if NE2 goes blue.
Posted by: CAC at June 14, 2012 12:21 PM (YIsuU)
Posted by: dagny at June 14, 2012 12:21 PM (WCAIB)
Posted by: buzzion at June 14, 2012 12:21 PM (RFrCB)
I considered the possibility for a while that the Dems would try to pull a Torricelli, but I don't think that they can anymore. I don't think Obama would allow it to happen. He'll cut back on expenses as much as possible in the final months of the election in order to save up that campaign cash for future use elsewhere. Clinton would need time to rehabilitate her image after working for this merry band of fucks, so running in 2012 isn't likely a winner.
***
And the Donks would lose a lot of the black vote so it's a loser for them. And I don't exactly see a groundswell of support for Hillary out there.
Posted by: WalrusRex at June 14, 2012 12:21 PM (jUZRg)
Dang it!
Though, really, you're not the first person I've heard that from, and more than one of them have actually been serious.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at June 14, 2012 12:22 PM (8y9MW)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at June 14, 2012 12:22 PM (05RcU)
I'm just impressed he didn't wedge another Palin reference in there somewhere.
Posted by: weft cut-loop [/i] [/b] at June 14, 2012 12:22 PM (famk3)
Do they have Cheetos at the pools?
Posted by: Pot Heads at June 14, 2012 12:22 PM (tqwMN)
they're pot heads. The likelihood of them getting off the couch in any
great numbers is somewhere between slim and none.
-----------------------------------------
Anyway, doesn't Luap Nor pretty much have the "legalize it" vote sewn up?
Posted by: mediumheadboy at June 14, 2012 12:22 PM (x2CNJ)
Posted by: Baraka O'Blamey at June 14, 2012 12:23 PM (AzwZn)
No it won't. The problem with pandering to the pot heads is that they're pot heads.
THIS-- even if they got out of bed before noon on Election Day, something would distract them between the bedroom and the front door- mainly, the refrigerator, the couch, and the TV remote, in that order
Posted by: Jones in CO at June 14, 2012 12:23 PM (8sCoq)
Posted by: Jeff B. at June 14, 2012 12:23 PM (FCfv5)
Posted by: Blob Shrum (and coke) at June 14, 2012 12:23 PM (BVkEs)
Posted by: Romney's Campaign Bus at June 14, 2012 12:23 PM (c3mby)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet at June 14, 2012 12:23 PM (9TTOe)
Posted by: dagny at June 14, 2012 12:24 PM (WCAIB)
Posted by: Pot Heads at June 14, 2012 04:22 PM (tqwMN)
yes but the water gets all yellow
Posted by: Jones in CO at June 14, 2012 12:24 PM (8sCoq)
*Maybe* he dumps Slo Joe for someone
***
Joe is really not needed now. What with the Polish death camps, Michelle blow job joke, and just fine, Obama has the gaffe job covered.
Posted by: WalrusRex at June 14, 2012 12:24 PM (jUZRg)
Posted by: jakeman at June 14, 2012 12:24 PM (96M6e)
Posted by: navycopjoe at June 14, 2012 12:24 PM (QULDk)
Posted by: Adam Smith's Invisible Pimp Hand at June 14, 2012 12:24 PM (tKFT6)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at June 14, 2012 12:25 PM (05RcU)
Hate to break it to you, but that's not from the Cheetos.
Posted by: mediumheadboy at June 14, 2012 12:25 PM (x2CNJ)
If Hillary had wanted to challenge Obama, she would have left her Sec of State post in 2010 and helped Dem candidates. It would have built up goodwill towards her and given her time to prepare herself as an outsider to the administration.
Posted by: Alex at June 14, 2012 12:25 PM (sy0Uv)
No, you're pretty much right. There are some details you're off on, but they don't make any difference.
Basically, it's a zero-sum betting game, where the house isn't taking any of the action. The "line" is set by the bettors, and what each side is willing to pay the other, and adjusts based on the action.
Posted by: Meiczyslaw at June 14, 2012 12:25 PM (bjRNS)
Posted by: BurtTC at June 14, 2012 12:26 PM (W9+9d)
Posted by: exdem13 at June 14, 2012 12:26 PM (1GunI)
Posted by: Y-not at June 14, 2012 12:26 PM (5H6zj)
And some of the She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named-Bots are really, really annoying. And they think they argue far better than they actually argue.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at June 14, 2012 12:26 PM (8y9MW)
Posted by: dagny at June 14, 2012 12:26 PM (WCAIB)
Posted by: WalrusRex at June 14, 2012 04:19 PM (jUZRg)
The Secret Service would move to protect the SCoaMF if Michelle buckled on the Fister 3000 strap-on.
Posted by: Larsen E. Whipsnade at June 14, 2012 12:26 PM (6BgmB)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet at June 14, 2012 12:27 PM (9TTOe)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at June 14, 2012 12:27 PM (05RcU)
HAH! ...not a chance.
Posted by: weft cut-loop [/i] [/b] at June 14, 2012 12:27 PM (famk3)
I can't see SCOAMF stepping aside for anyone, afterall he's the smartest guy in the room, by his own admission. I especially can't see him stepping aside for a Clinton, nor a woman.
Posted by: Retread at June 14, 2012 12:28 PM (I2fq9)
Why has Romney targeted the Philadelphia burbs?
***
Because it is the mother lode. In more ways than one...Ann Romney needs to come out to Delco and Montco and shcmooze the soccer moms.
Posted by: kallisto at June 14, 2012 12:28 PM (jm/9g)
Posted by: Wilkins at June 14, 2012 12:29 PM (cgOkw)
Posted by: SalvucciFumbles at June 14, 2012 12:29 PM (g0qBn)
I think it is more likely that Barky would create some big 'crisis' for him to get in front of.....than step out of the race.
I dunno what that big 'crisis' would be......but he's got people who are experts at creating fake crises, so I'm sure they could come up with something.
Posted by: wheatie at June 14, 2012 12:29 PM (M2JTb)
Oh Lordy, election night gonna be something. I'm gonna spray down the walls with ..........well...........gratitude. I'm gonna watch MSNBC for hope of seeing live and in color wrist slitting on national TV. I'm gonna sit back, close my eyes, and wank while imagining the look on Moocehlle's twisted and grimaced pus.
Yeah, gonna be great....
Posted by: maddogg at June 14, 2012 12:29 PM (OlN4e)
Posted by: ace at June 14, 2012 12:29 PM (aw5Tx)
Posted by: Commander-In-Choom! at June 14, 2012 12:29 PM (AzwZn)
And this is one.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at June 14, 2012 12:29 PM (8y9MW)
You're not just pandering to pot heads.
There's a legit fiscal argument to be made with legalizing dope.
Posted by: soothsayer's anger management courses available online now at June 14, 2012 04:20 PM (9Q7Nu)
I think legalizing weed would swing SOME people -- libertarians might swing to the Dems -- but probably not enough in any given state. I think it would be nice to legalize (an argument for another day) but it's not in the top 10 for people who are out of a job and struggling to pay the mortgage.
Posted by: joncelli, heartless Con and all around unpleasant guy at June 14, 2012 12:29 PM (RD7QR)
*puff, puff, COFF, COFF, HACK!*
"Dude you still want to, like, go vote for Obama and shit?"
"Naw, fuck that shit. Let's play some disc golf. I got some dank last night. Let's get baked."
Posted by: ErikW at June 14, 2012 12:30 PM (kMZNm)
"If Obama stepped down and Hillary took the spot, the black community would sit the election out..."
Actually, it would energize the black vote. They would see it as the white, devil slave master republicans unfairly blaming Obama for Bush's depression and the only thing Barry can do is skate with the campaign cash until the country isn't so racist.
Dems wouldn't complain about Obama keeping the money. If they wanted to maintain the advantage they have with black voters, they wouldn’t even mention it – or they would say it’s exactly what he should do. A reenergized dem base would give Hillary everything she needs to put on a two month race.
Posted by: jwest at June 14, 2012 12:30 PM (ZDsRL)
Is this true??
Of the 2000 casualties in Afghanistan, almost 1400 of them occurred under Obama's watch?
That's more than double the rate under President Bush.
Posted by: soothsayer's anger management courses available online now at June 14, 2012 12:31 PM (9Q7Nu)
Posted by: joncelli, heartless Con and all around unpleasant guy at June 14, 2012 04:18 PM (RD7QR)
A 269-269 tie would be awesome. It's unlikely the Dems will win the House in a landslide, so the result would still be that Obama loses (it's a vote by state, not by representative) when it goes to the House. With the extra added bonus of maximum Democrat tears.
I can barely imagine the white-hot plasma outrage that the Dems would let loose if the House elected Romney in an electoral tie.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at June 14, 2012 12:31 PM (SY2Kh)
Posted by: wierd flunky at June 14, 2012 12:31 PM (X+nFp)
Heh.
No, I was actually referring to the C4P folks who came trolling early in Primary Season. I seem to recall that had a penchant for continuing arguments in dead threads, presumably so they could "win" when you didn't respond.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at June 14, 2012 12:31 PM (8y9MW)
Posted by: Soona - banned for life, it appears at June 14, 2012 12:32 PM (cQCm/)
If it gets that bad for him, he'll be leaving in a body bag. Oh, they'll say it was 'natural causes', due to the 'unimaginable stresses of a historic presidency', but quietly, folks will get paid never to say what the tox report really says.
And the folks who pull the strings will slink back to the shadows, to wait a generation before trying again. I can't even work up the strength to reach for the tinfoil now, so there it is.
Posted by: Brother Cavil presents at June 14, 2012 12:32 PM (GBXon)
Posted by: Lincolntf at June 14, 2012 12:32 PM (HethX)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet at June 14, 2012 12:32 PM (9TTOe)
Posted by: Margarita DeVille at June 14, 2012 12:32 PM (C8mVl)
Posted by: toby928© at June 14, 2012 12:32 PM (QupBk)
Posted by: dagny at June 14, 2012 12:33 PM (WCAIB)
Posted by: SH at June 14, 2012 12:33 PM (gmeXX)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at June 14, 2012 12:34 PM (05RcU)
Posted by: BurtTC at June 14, 2012 12:34 PM (W9+9d)
Posted by: soothsayer's anger management courses available online now at June 14, 2012 12:34 PM (9Q7Nu)
Posted by: Buzzsaw90 at June 14, 2012 12:34 PM (SO2Q8)
Posted by: dagny at June 14, 2012 12:35 PM (WCAIB)
Posted by: navycopjoe at June 14, 2012 12:35 PM (XrMeG)
I imagined it as self-inflicted, not outside source. The man never went to rehab for his addictions--that trajectory with this personality type never ends well.
But I can understand the objections to the speculation, so it goes back in the box.
Posted by: Brother Cavil presents at June 14, 2012 12:35 PM (GBXon)
This chit - chat about Hilary stepping in saving the day reminded me something.
When bubba was president everybody loved him not so much Hilary especially when she tried an unsuccessful attempt to ram "Hilary care" down our throats. I don't think there that kind enthusiasm for her across the country.
Posted by: Sarah Jessica Parker at June 14, 2012 12:36 PM (tXEHy)
Posted by: SH at June 14, 2012 12:36 PM (gmeXX)
Promise to end all operations in Afghanistan immediately. That, I think, would go over big with voters. And it's the right thing to do.
Posted by: soothsayer's anger management courses available online now at June 14, 2012 12:36 PM (9Q7Nu)
Posted by: dagny at June 14, 2012 12:37 PM (WCAIB)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at June 14, 2012 12:37 PM (MCDCp)
Put those dicks down, gentlemen.
Posted by: Winston Wolf at June 14, 2012 12:37 PM (8sCoq)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at June 14, 2012 12:38 PM (05RcU)
Posted by: soothsayer's"
I could get behind that.
Posted by: Hobbitopoly at June 14, 2012 12:38 PM (3346+)
Posted by: dagny at June 14, 2012 12:38 PM (WCAIB)
Posted by: trying to stay cynically calm at June 14, 2012 12:38 PM (HOOye)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at June 14, 2012 12:39 PM (05RcU)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet at June 14, 2012 12:39 PM (9TTOe)
Posted by: Baracka Wolf at June 14, 2012 12:39 PM (G76AD)
Posted by: wierd flunky at June 14, 2012 12:40 PM (X+nFp)
I'm actually expecting that. Reid kills the repeal and all other reforms in the Senate, Mitt gets the blame.
Posted by: HeatherRadish™ at June 14, 2012 12:40 PM (ZKzrr)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at June 14, 2012 12:40 PM (8y9MW)
Posted by: Winston Wolf at June 14, 2012 12:40 PM (8sCoq)
Posted by: SH at June 14, 2012 12:40 PM (gmeXX)
> Unfortunetaly it is not as easy as that
It's easy to promise.
Posted by: Wilkins at June 14, 2012 12:41 PM (cgOkw)
Posted by: Dr. Varno at June 14, 2012 12:41 PM (hDhNv)
Posted by: BlackOrchid at June 14, 2012 12:41 PM (SB0V2)
Posted by: trying to stay cynically calm at June 14, 2012 12:41 PM (HOOye)
Posted by: Jones in CO at June 14, 2012 12:41 PM (8sCoq)
Clinton did a whisper campaign about 'gonna legalize pot', too...back in 1996.
Maybe Barky's team figures that tactic will work again.
Posted by: wheatie at June 14, 2012 12:42 PM (M2JTb)
Posted by: BurtTC at June 14, 2012 12:42 PM (W9+9d)
We've spent almost 11 years taking half-measures in Afghanistan and here we are.
Either go full scale or leave.
Posted by: soothsayer's anger management courses available online now at June 14, 2012 12:42 PM (9Q7Nu)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at June 14, 2012 04:39 PM (05RcU)
If we leave, what do you envision will happen?
Posted by: Velvet Ambition at June 14, 2012 12:43 PM (mFxQX)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at June 14, 2012 12:43 PM (05RcU)
Posted by: Wilkins at June 14, 2012 12:43 PM (cgOkw)
Posted by: BlackOrchid at June 14, 2012 12:43 PM (SB0V2)
No it won't. The problem with pandering to the pot heads is that they're pot heads. The likelihood of them getting off the couch in any great numbers is somewhere between slim and none.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at June 14, 2012 04:17 PM (8y9MW
Didn't CA vote against both gay marriage AND choom?
Posted by: Temper Tantrum at June 14, 2012 12:43 PM (AWmfW)
I can't think of any good ones?
I think from Obama's election in 2008 if we learned anything it is he is an unconventional candidate who doesn't poll within the norms.
Advantage, and therefore more accurate results come with using the 2008 numbers. I seriously doubt that after the election anyone will be saying the "2010 convention, prior congressional spreads" still hold.
Posted by: Exile at June 14, 2012 12:43 PM (O0lVq)
Posted by: jimi ray at June 14, 2012 12:43 PM (FcOR4)
Just as 1984, written as a cautionary tale, has become a 'How To' manual for the Left...
I expect 'Wag the Dog' to be in the Obama playbook.
Think military confrontation with Russia IN Syria, with our troops in Afganistan held hostage because of the Supply line sitution...
Add in Iran, Nukes, Israel, Egyptian Islamist/Army standoff, and a Europeon Economic meltdown.
Comeing soon, to a theatre... er... country... near you...
Posted by: Romeo13 at June 14, 2012 12:44 PM (lZBBB)
Posted by: joeindc44 says choom on fuckers at June 14, 2012 12:44 PM (QxSug)
They're nuts!!! In denial like cubs fans......
Hey!!!!!!!
Don't worry. When it comes to delusional cultism, nobody has it on the Paultards. I checked out dailypaul (yes, that's the actual website name) when Paul sent an e-mail to supporters on June 6ht stating that there was no path to the nomination.
The minority of commenters who acknowledged that obvious reality were quickly branded as trolls.
One of the leading theories was that the Bilderbergers and/or Romney threatened Paul or his family forcing him to back down. Another theory was that the e-mail wasn't really sent by Paul, but a campaign staffer who was secretly trying to sabotage him.
In short- they're nuts. Batshit get these invisible spiders off me crazy.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at June 14, 2012 12:44 PM (SY2Kh)
Posted by: Grumpy the Younger at June 14, 2012 12:45 PM (jts1f)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at June 14, 2012 12:45 PM (05RcU)
I wonder if Mitt can win Colorado. The Front Range cities are stocked with dope-smoking granola-eating snowboard-crashing Whole Foods-shopping idiots, and me.
****
We've got Aspen, Telluride, and various other hippy enclaves on the Western Slope.
Posted by: WalrusRex at June 14, 2012 12:45 PM (jUZRg)
Posted by: Barry at June 14, 2012 12:45 PM (SO2Q8)
Posted by: Jones in CO at June 14, 2012 12:45 PM (8sCoq)
On repealing Obamacare, Mitt could overcome any efforts against repeal led by Reid, particularly if he wins with electoral numbers that led this post. But it may require some political capital to get done. Whether the system would crash under its own weight, I don't think so. I think it would mean that we would see more reform and less repeal. Repealing the individual mandate is easy, repealing the whole bill while it contains the individual mandate is somewhat easy, repealing the provision on pre-existing conditions is much harder. Trying to explain to the general populace the connection between that provision and the mandate - also hard. If the Court finds just the mandate unconstitutional, then I fully expect to see some sort of reform that works within the confines of Obamacare. Yikes.
Posted by: SH at June 14, 2012 12:45 PM (gmeXX)
btw, I'm suggesting that Mitt do it -- hint that he's in favor of relaxing some of the drug laws.. for common sense fiscal reasons.
It would blindside the Obama campaign.
Posted by: soothsayer's anger management courses available online now at June 14, 2012 12:45 PM (9Q7Nu)
Posted by: Truck Monkey at June 14, 2012 12:45 PM (jucos)
Posted by: joeindc44 says choom on fuckers at June 14, 2012 12:46 PM (QxSug)
Posted by: The People of Brattleboro, Vermont at June 14, 2012 12:46 PM (48wze)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet at June 14, 2012 12:47 PM (9TTOe)
Posted by: SH at June 14, 2012 12:47 PM (gmeXX)
When my Mikey Moore-loving friend said she wasn't going to vote for teh SCOAMF again, I knew it was over for him (yippee!). This was about six months ago.
And the Hildebeast and BJ will let him twist in the wind before she'll get in the race. IMHO, they want the ChiTown gang gone by 2016. Clearing away the brush, prepping the landing site, and all that.
Posted by: BackwardsBoy, feeling all extra curmudgeony today at June 14, 2012 12:47 PM (d0Tfm)
Posted by: SH at June 14, 2012 04:40 PM (gmeXX)
Bang on true. But there's no need to say that during the campaign and give the enemy hope. Romney should concentrate his election fire on the economy and handle A-stan if he wins.
Posted by: joncelli, heartless Con and all around unpleasant guy at June 14, 2012 12:47 PM (RD7QR)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at June 14, 2012 12:47 PM (05RcU)
Posted by: soothsayer's anger management courses available online now at June 14, 2012 12:48 PM (9Q7Nu)
Posted by: mediumheadboy at June 14, 2012 12:48 PM (x2CNJ)
We've got Aspen, Telluride, and various other hippy enclaves on the Western Slope.
---
So we need a few landslides BEFORE the landslide
Posted by: Buzzsaw90 at June 14, 2012 12:48 PM (SO2Q8)
No, I don't think so. Despite the NAACP and other groups, coming out as the first Gay President turned off a number of black voters. Beyond that, we're seeing evidence that they're "just tired."
Think about it: when McCain was running, weren't you "just tired" of defending him and Bush? No matter how good the arguments (and we had some good ones) there was always something else.
Well, now we're the ones who always have "something else," and they're the ones who have to defend constantly. And they don't have good arguments on their side like we did on ours.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at June 14, 2012 12:49 PM (8y9MW)
I wish Mitt would come out and say that he would cut the following departments in half - in terms of staff - the DEA, EPA, and the IRS. Who would not be in favor of that.
Posted by: SH at June 14, 2012 12:49 PM (gmeXX)
I'm actually expecting that. Reid kills the repeal and all other reforms in the Senate, Mitt gets the blame.
Posted by: HeatherRadish™ at June 14, 2012 04:40 PM (ZKzrr)
Assuming a Mitt win brings the Senate, what can be passed via reconciliation can be repealed the same way.
Posted by: Uncledave at June 14, 2012 12:49 PM (nJ32z)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at June 14, 2012 12:49 PM (MCDCp)
Posted by: weft cut-loop [/i] [/b] at June 14, 2012 12:49 PM (famk3)
---------------------
You mean besides every Democrat in Washington?
Posted by: mediumheadboy at June 14, 2012 12:50 PM (x2CNJ)
"Stay focused, man, tuna & bread,"
But right now I'm in voting bliss.
Oh man, I'm too high for this.
Posted by: The Uninvited at June 14, 2012 12:50 PM (96M6e)
Things Romney could say, to appeal to older voters....
"Do you want to keep having to support your grown children? ....Or would you like them to be able to support themselves?
"I know you love your children....but wouldn't you love to see them with a good job? ....Rather than be on foodstamps and unemployment?"
"Is this what you envisioned for you golden years? ....Still having to support your kids? ....And their kids, too?"
Posted by: wheatie at June 14, 2012 12:50 PM (M2JTb)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at June 14, 2012 12:50 PM (MCDCp)
Invoke the Slaughter rule and then watch Democrat heads explode.
---
Does that involve actual....slaughtering?
just curious. Might make for some compelling C-Span
Posted by: Buzzsaw90 at June 14, 2012 12:52 PM (SO2Q8)
OT:
Here's a scenario I'm wondering about. It's strictly hypothetical and I hope not worth SS inquiry.
What would've happened if president Bush had been assassinated by some nutjob at 7:30 Pacific Time on election day, 2004?
I understand the succession of power (Cheney would've assumed the presidency), however, Cheney was not on the ballot as president. Except for a few write ins, most people wouldn't be able to vote for Cheney and all votes for Bush would be rendered nil.
Does the Constitution directly address such a scenario? To my knowledge it doesn't.
I imagine in such a scenario the SCOTUS would have to issue some sort of immediate ruling?
Posted by: Ed Anger Issues at June 14, 2012 12:53 PM (7+pP9)
Posted by: weft cut-loop at June 14, 2012 04:49 PM (famk3)
Or try getting some red color chip samples from a hardware store and see how close you can get a match.
Posted by: Sarah Jessica Parker at June 14, 2012 12:53 PM (tXEHy)
Posted by: Soona - banned for life, it appears at June 14, 2012 12:54 PM (cQCm/)
Posted by: Guy Kibbee lookalike, Girl Scout uniform & show tunes fan at June 14, 2012 12:54 PM (gFr04)
I didn't mean just the city. Hell dc metro votes almost like DC. You can tell a slight difference as soon as you cross the beltway in any direction though and it grows from there. I'm pro-redneck btw.
Posted by: dagny at June 14, 2012 12:54 PM (WCAIB)
Posted by: The Political Hat at June 14, 2012 12:54 PM (XvHmy)
Posted by: jimi ray at June 14, 2012 04:43 PM (FcOR4)
The Black community votes will only help Obama have a bigger win in the blue states that he will already win, with the possible exception of Missouri
Posted by: Velvet Ambition at June 14, 2012 12:56 PM (mFxQX)
Then we wouldn't have anything to argue about anymore.
*AHEM*
---- Yeah, like there's even a Doubt. Now go get yer shine box
Posted by: Longbows at June 14, 2012 12:56 PM (SO2Q8)
The thing is, the tourism industry is the lifeblood for those communities. Attacking the people who drop $10k for a week vacation in Aspen isn't going to win over working class folks down valley.
Posted by: Crossbows at June 14, 2012 12:57 PM (sy0Uv)
Hmmm. Kos has done some calculatin' and figures the electoral numbers to be in the vicinity of: Obama 286, Romney 243.
Posted by: Wilkins at June 14, 2012 12:57 PM (cgOkw)
Posted by: Barackfred E. Neubama at June 14, 2012 12:57 PM (CEmuk)
Posted by: dagny at June 14, 2012 12:58 PM (WCAIB)
Posted by: BS Inc. at June 14, 2012 12:58 PM (P2Ufm)
260 My greatest fear is that I'm in a room with AngryEd while Romney is giving his acceptance speech on election night and I fail to kick AngryEd in the nuts.
Posted by: weft cut-loop at June 14, 2012 04:49 PM (famk3)
I have re-evaluated Romney and have decided to vote for the commie Rino Romneycare asshole.
Only because, unlike McCain, he's really fighting to win.
Posted by: Ed Anger Issues at June 14, 2012 12:59 PM (7+pP9)
------------------------
I think I'll ask Senator Lamont what he thinks about that. Oh wait.
Posted by: mediumheadboy at June 14, 2012 12:59 PM (x2CNJ)
Posted by: Grumpy the Younger at June 14, 2012 01:01 PM (jts1f)
Posted by: steevy at June 14, 2012 01:02 PM (Xb3hu)
Posted by: standfast24 at June 14, 2012 01:02 PM (s4wkw)
Too elaborate. I think he'll just pull up lame when he's walking up to the podium and go on the DL with a bad hamstring with "no timetable for his return". Those things never heal quickly.
The ol' Matt Kemp two-step.
Posted by: VJay at June 14, 2012 01:02 PM (q5NFp)
Posted by: dagny at June 14, 2012 01:03 PM (WCAIB)
Posted by: The Political Hat at June 14, 2012 01:09 PM (XvHmy)
What happened after the 2000 primary?
Posted by: Alex at June 14, 2012 01:14 PM (sy0Uv)
Assume for the purposes, the vote counts turn out identically.
Regardless of his newly life-challenged position, George W. Bush has been re-elected. Given his clear incapacitation, it would be within the bounds of the law to simply swear in Cheney as VP, then as President.
Backing up from that though--the D's would howl and unleash every lawyer they can to claim Kerry should be President, giving the absence of a legitimate opposing candidate. As anyone here can attest, the precedents (which they have profited from many times) do not support this, but they'll try to scream past it. So it goes to the Electoral College, and God help us all.
Which may not be any better for them, after all.
...actually, I'm having fun with this now.
Posted by: Brother Cavil presents at June 14, 2012 01:15 PM (GBXon)
Posted by: The Political Hat at June 14, 2012 01:15 PM (XvHmy)
Posted by: The Political Hat at June 14, 2012 01:19 PM (XvHmy)
Posted by: MaxMBJ at June 14, 2012 01:20 PM (deaac)
Posted by: The Political Hat at June 14, 2012 01:26 PM (XvHmy)
1. Don't get cocky.
2. Destroy then at the polls in November.
3. Bomb the rubble. Watch it bounce so pretty.
4. Badger Romney relentlessly.
Posted by: The Hamburglar at June 14, 2012 01:27 PM (4I3Uo)
It's always best to deal in reality, so here's some...
;;;;;
Obama stays in. Forget any silliness about him getting out.
;;;;
The Obama campaign machine was much better at being insurgent than it is at being incumbent.
;;;;;;
Obama's best shot is noticable improvement in the economy. Since his policies result in the opposite, he's got a problem. The economy will have to improve despite his policies. Possible, not probable.
;;;;;
Romney is not a gaffe master, and learned quickly from a couple of early missteps during the primaries.
;;;;;;
Obama can only mock Romney, he has no tools of substance against him, and no record to run on.
;;;;
Incumbency is powerful, but Americans are in a "throw the bums out" mood as demonstrated in 2010.
;;;;;
Advantage Romney, for now.
Posted by: Meremortal at June 14, 2012 01:27 PM (jTKU5)
Posted by: Long Island at June 14, 2012 01:29 PM (kzp9t)
but the days of Reagan or Nixon-like landslides are over, especially for Republicans. There's just too many people on the dole, and they know the Democrat Party is the only thing keeping their worthless ass from being homeless. If Obama held a press conference where he admitted he was a Muslim that was born in Kenya, he'd probably still get around 45% of the vote.Still, there's enough swing for the GOP to capture the White House along with the Senate and house and at least stop the bleeding. We haven't become California yet.
Posted by: Asus at June 14, 2012 01:30 PM (0kf1G)
Yeah, I don't buy the "Obama will quit" meme for a minute. First of all, it's quite obvious that the Zeros and the Clintons don't like each each other. Zero ain't steppin ' down for them or for the party.
Someone here used Hitler imagery a coupdl of days ago, which I know is frowned upon..but it's the Hitler-in-the-Bunker scenario for Obama, and I think it's perfect...he's still looking at old maps of America, giving orders to armies that have long since surrendered, shells crashing around him left and right while a few die hard sychophants cheer him on. Not saying that Zero will take the last step, but his final days in power could be, um, interesting to say the least.
Posted by: Damn Sockpuppet at June 14, 2012 01:35 PM (YmPwQ)
The other thing is that things are so close now it's hard to predict who will win. Nothing is pointing directly to one side or the other winning their landslide. That is what passes for "the race is going to be close".
I think of it more as "it was a very close-fought affair", like some Civil War battles, what when they reached a tipping point, became a rout. But before they did, it could have gone either way.
Hope that helps.
Posted by: babygiraffes at June 14, 2012 01:41 PM (h0KX8)
Tempting indeed, but as with the Mencken quote on the Masthead debated so heavily recently, I can enjoy the temptation of giving into the dark side but choose to remain in the light.
However, I have not given up on talking her into voting for Romney yet, but a lifetime of thinking democrat = "kindness for the little people" and republican = "evil fat cats exploiting the little people" is not going to be easy to overcome.Posted by: Grumpy the Younger at June 14, 2012 01:43 PM (jts1f)
Posted by: reliapundit at June 14, 2012 01:48 PM (TyO3R)
"preference cascade" http://tinyurl.com/6lnkzxm
However, still lots of time for events to change everything.Posted by: Grumpy the Younger at June 14, 2012 01:50 PM (jts1f)
Posted by: babygiraffes at June 14, 2012 05:41 PM (h0KX
;;;;
I like your take, and I think it favors Romney. I don't see how Obama moves a lot higher, but he could certainly lose appeal as the campaign wears on. Romney can move higher, the 'middles' will see him as a safe, caretaker type guy. The middles aren't really engaged yet.
;;;
Th low number of undecided is the most interesting thing about the numbers right now. I still maintain we are going to learn that Obama polls 3-4% higher than his eventual vote total.
Posted by: Meremortal at June 14, 2012 01:55 PM (jTKU5)
===============
Wow! The things we can learn on teh Intertubes.
Posted by: Kensington at June 14, 2012 01:56 PM (MBmtt)
This is a mistake. Obama's clusterfuckedness is finally starting to seep into the public consciousness. He can only go downhill.
Posted by: Purp (@PurpAv) at June 14, 2012 01:57 PM (YczI9)
What would've happened if president Bush had been assassinated by some nutjob at 7:30 Pacific Time on election day, 2004?
I understand the succession of power (Cheney would've assumed the presidency), however, Cheney was not on the ballot as president. Except for a few write ins, most people wouldn't be able to vote for Cheney and all votes for Bush would be rendered nil.
Does the Constitution directly address such a scenario? To my knowledge it doesn't.
I imagine in such a scenario the SCOTUS would have to issue some sort of immediate ruling?
The REAL election is when the electors vote in December or so. If the candidate dies, they can vote for someone else.
It has happened, just not for the winner. One year in the post Civil War era the losing candidate died after the election and the electors voted for who they felt like.
Posted by: Oldcat at June 14, 2012 01:57 PM (z1N6a)
Posted by: Heh at June 14, 2012 02:37 PM (jWvMW)
Posted by: Tsar Nicholas II at June 14, 2012 02:39 PM (f8XyF)
Posted by: Jay at June 14, 2012 03:43 PM (TzrpT)
There is another factor in the concept, "it's gonna be close". We have to assume based on past history, that there will be massive vote fraud. If we are looking at comparisons with 2008, remember the 250,000 known bogus registrations that were inserted into the voter rolls in Ohio. And the concommitant discovery that no one not a Democrat had standing to petition the courts that the law be obeyed. Or the New Black Panthers intimidating voters with legal impunity.
More recently, we had a recall election in Wisconsin. Democrat stronghold Dane County reported an election turnout of 119% of the registered voters. And no one batted an eye.
The same Democrat US Attorney General who is charged with contempt of Congress, is suing in Federal court to prevent known foreign nationals who have a record of voting illegally in our elections from being removed from the voter rolls; claiming that there is no vote fraud in this country.
If we are to win, we have to win outside the margin of fraud. And given the nature of the Democrats, even with a landslide; it will be a "close" election.
And that makes the assumption that the election goes forward, with some semblance of honesty. And there are no Black Swans favorable to Obama. Such as what 93 WalrusRex at June 14, 2012 04:19 PM (jUZRg) referred to. Or something reminiscent of Marinus van der Lubbe.
Posted by: Subotai Bahadur at June 14, 2012 04:14 PM (jJYlx)
Posted by: Arms Merchant at June 14, 2012 05:53 PM (+XVQe)
Posted by: Arms Merchant at June 14, 2012 06:02 PM (+XVQe)
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at June 15, 2012 06:07 AM (i330i)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.4196 seconds, 434 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
Posted by: Cicero at June 14, 2012 11:55 AM (QKKT0)