View Full Version : WHO WINS
I'll take Romney under suspicion of voter fraud in Ohio
and God help us all.
Doggcow
10-24-2012, 07:18 PM
FWIW People DO REALIZE the MIDDLE CLASS is the 1% right?
The wealthiest people in the country don't make money, it's all in stocks and bonds. Their income isn't taxable...
Btw, I'm lower-middle class. I'm not sure whom I'm voting for just yet.
I trend conservative and don't consider myself a comrad yet.
Unfortunately, don't love Romney but Obama is trying to take us off a cliff and radically change our country to something it is not. Romney wins.
Vegas_Bronco
10-24-2012, 08:38 PM
2 Mannings 1 cup...wait, wrong thread.
If Obama wins I think I'll return then the States for a few yours ( I've been feeling home sick for my own culture) With Obama, while not good, at least we can expect to only slip a little further into the abyss.
If Romney wins I'm staying put for at least a year. We don't know what the hell we got with this guy (War? more allowing Big Bis. to rip off all the rest of us consumers.
What a crazy upside down world it is when I actually want Obama to win another 4 years.
Well at least with Romney we could be spared a slow painful decent.
This is definitely not the time in history to put an unknown into the WH.
He is just enough of an empty suit to think it might be cool to have a war.
pricejj
10-24-2012, 09:21 PM
If Obama wins I think I'll return then the States for a few yours ( I've been feeling home sick for my own culture) With Obama, while not good, at least we can expect to only slip a little further into the abyss.
If Romney wins I'm staying put for at least a year. We don't know what the hell we got with this guy (War? more allowing Big Bis. to rip off all the rest of us consumers.
What a crazy upside down world it is when I actually want Obama to win another 4 years.
Well at least with Romney we could be spared a slow painful decent.
This is definitely not the time in history to put an unknown into the WH.
He is just enough of an empty suit to think it might be cool to have a war.
You are completely wrong, btw. The attempt at logic that you present is the lamest I've ever seen. At least the Socialists display conviction for holding onto their government jobs and handouts. You literally have nothing...except fear of the unknown. Weak.
myMind
10-24-2012, 09:54 PM
FWIW People DO REALIZE the MIDDLE CLASS is the 1% right?
The wealthiest people in the country don't make money, it's all in stocks and bonds.
Da **** you say?
SoCalBronco
10-24-2012, 09:56 PM
Too early to tell. Depends on the turnout models.
Romney wins if partisan turnout is anywhere from even to D+2. It's a true tossup at D+3-4. Obama small win at D+5. D+6 or more Obama win by 3 points or more.
manchambo
10-24-2012, 09:59 PM
Obama still seems to have a slight edge due to his fairly persistent lead in Ohio.
SoCalBronco
10-24-2012, 10:03 PM
Obama still seems to have a slight edge due to his fairly persistent lead in Ohio.
You have to dig deeper into each poll. What is most important is the turnout model and the independent share.
There was a poll that came out today which showed Obama up by 5 in Ohio. It also included Romney winning independents by double digits, but Obama was ahead overall because they used a D+9.6 sample, which exceeds the Ohio turnout even at his zenith of popular support in 2008 (D+8). In 2004, the turnout was R+4.
I think its likely to be somewhere in between, perhaps D+3 or so. Any poll around D+3 in Ohio is prolly a good poll, anything swinging wildly in any direction past it is probably not.
myMind
10-24-2012, 10:11 PM
You have to dig deeper into each poll. What is most important is the turnout model and the independent share.
There was a poll that came out today which showed Obama up by 5 in Ohio. It also included Romney winning independents by double digits, but Obama was ahead overall because they used a D+9.6 sample, which exceeds the Ohio turnout even at his zenith of popular support in 2008 (D+8). In 2004, the turnout was R+4.
I think its likely to be somewhere in between, perhaps D+3 or so. Any poll around D+3 in Ohio is prolly a good poll, anything swinging wildly in any direction past it is probably not.
Your avatar is quite ironic in regard to your assumed knowledge of how election cycles will play out. Not that you're wrong, just chuckle inducing. If Romney wins I could very well see him being another Nixon. Woe is we.
(O-2)(Rd+D2) / (4x+9)(4x-9) = Lisfranc ^ 4 / 4.2 x 10 ^ 69
SoCalBronco
10-24-2012, 10:16 PM
Your avatar is quite ironic in regard to your assumed knowledge of how election cycles will play out. Not that youre wrong, just chuckle inducing. If Romney wins I could very well see him being another Nixon. Woe is we.
That would be tremendous. I would be thrilled if Romney could achieve half as much as Nixon did. Unfortunately, Romney is not a special talent, and has comparatively few political or policy related gifts. There isn't a grand design for foreign affairs there, or anything particularly innovative or groundbreaking in domestic affairs (with the exception of his Medicare proposals). Very little about Romney suggests he has particularly great potential.
myMind
10-24-2012, 10:30 PM
That would be tremendous. I would be thrilled if Romney could achieve half as much as Nixon did. Unfortunately, Romney is not a special talent, and has comparatively few political or policy related gifts. There isn't a grand design for foreign affairs there, or anything particularly innovative or groundbreaking in domestic affairs (with the exception of his Medicare proposals). Very little about Romney suggests he has particularly great potential.
Obviously Romney would(as of now) be a tremendous failure in terms of foreign policy. I was saying that I could easily see him being exposed down the road as a responsible party behind some form of "business" organized illegal activity. Much like that " I am not a crook" fellow.
Harvitz81
10-24-2012, 10:51 PM
What is missing from the polls is third party effect. If Johnson takes 10% of Ohio than that swings things considerably, and don't think he can't as they were very pro Ron Paul in the primaries. All the polls are basically garbage without accounting for this.
I think I saw a poll recently where Johnson was included in Nevada and it was a 3 point swing where Obama's numbers were hurt more (i.e. pretty much evening out Romney vs Obama there). I get the feeling we won't know the true outcome immediately as there will be a couple states having to do recounts.
You are completely wrong, btw. The attempt at logic that you present is the lamest I've ever seen. At least the Socialists display conviction for holding onto their government jobs and handouts. You literally have nothing...except fear of the unknown. Weak.
Not totally unknown He (Mittens) will keep the tax cuts for the rich. He is a sabor rattler (where that goes who knows) he is pro big bis. he doesn't give a hoot about the urgent needs of the returning vets. But mostley he doesn't stand for anything. He is Jello - fits any mold.
BowlenBall
10-24-2012, 11:29 PM
If Obama takes Ohio, he wins.
If Romney takes Ohio, he probably wins (but needs one or two more states to swing his way as well).
Ohio is the linchpin.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
10-25-2012, 05:16 AM
I would be thrilled if Romney could achieve half as much as Nixon did.
I'd be thrilled if the top tax rate went back to what it was under Nixon.
Even with Tricky Dick at the helm, America was a saner place prior to the "live now - pay later" era ushered in by Red Ink Ron.
Most Americans who have no recollection of life in America before the Reagan Revolution don't realize that the top rate that was in place during the Nixon era was generally accepted as fair and reasonable by both Democrats and Republicans.
Then, along came "greed is good," and it's been a downward spiral ever since...
Rohirrim
10-25-2012, 06:12 AM
Politically, this is the weirdest America has ever been, IMO. This extremist movement on the Right has really torn a hole in the cohesion of the American fabric. It's not much different from the Red Scare of the 50s. They take a center-right president and paint him as some kind of fire-snorting, radical Trotskyite. Every issue is a reason to panic anew over the collapse of the Republic. It's a movement that lives in terror of the future, using old superstitions as a shield against new knowledge while engaging in hysteria over the present. They keep forwarding the same old tired economic and foreign policy ideologies that have already dismally failed, and wrecked the country, and yet they believe in their doctrine still, with the fervor of religious devotees. While the rest of the world strives to catch up with the speed of advancing mathematics and science, and keep their children caught up, America is throttled down by a movement that wants Christian creationism taught in schools and would rather its tax dollars go to an already obscenely bloated military rather than invest in their own children and the future. They would rather their wealth went into the offshore accounts of the wealthy rather than build the infrastructure of the future that will enhance the nation's prosperity for years to come. Instead of innovation and research, they want to retrench into some mythical fantasy world of a past that never existed. They're so terrified that they don't even care if they put forth a candidate who has never espoused their radical agenda; Who is a complete cipher, who three months ago they derided as not radical enough. Not extreme enough. A candidate who basically believes in nothing, or everything, or whatever is convenient at the moment. Just as long as he is not that terrifying, black boogeyman that currently occupies the WH.
Doggcow
10-25-2012, 06:33 AM
Da **** you say?
The 1% of income earners are not the same people that are the wealthiest 1% in the country. Newsflash.
pricejj
10-25-2012, 07:27 AM
Politically, this is the weirdest America has ever been, IMO. This extremist movement on the Right blah blah blah.
Riiiight. The Socialist-In-Chief has driven government spending to unprecedented levels (24%-25% of GDP), has had >$1T record deficits for 4 straight years, orchestrated a neo-liberal government takeover of healthcare with his henchpersons Pelosi and Reid, which amounts to the biggest tax hike on the middle-class in history, he has taken over the auto industry, and provided government "investment" into failed private companies across the spectrum, etc. ad nauseam.
Of course you know this, and are attempting to demonize opposition to a complete Socialist takeover of the U.S.
DenverBrit
10-25-2012, 08:12 AM
Pretty good analysis of the deficit spending during Obama's 4 years from Fact Checkers.
Obama’s Spending: ‘Inferno’ or Not?
Spending is high by historical standards -- but rising slowly. And revenues are low.
Is President Obama’s spending an “inferno,” as Mitt Romney claims, or a binge that “never happened” as an analysis touted by the White House concluded? We judge that both of those claims are wrong on the facts.
The truth is that the nearly 18 percent spike in spending in fiscal 2009 — for which the president is sometimes blamed entirely — was mostly due to appropriations and policies that were already in place when Obama took office.
That includes spending for the bank bailout legislation approved by President Bush. Annual increases in amounts actually spent since fiscal 2009 have been relatively modest. In fact, spending for the first seven months of the current fiscal year is running slightly below the same period last year, and below projections.
http://cdn.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/2012/06/Federal_Spending_Bush_Vs_Obama.png
Since pictures can convey information more efficiently than words, we’ll sum up the official spending figures in this chart. It also reflects our finding that Obama increased fiscal 2009 spending by at most $203 billion, accounting for well under half the huge increase that year.
So if current spending is an “inferno,” it’s one that Bush (and Congress) is mostly responsible for starting. But it’s also true that Obama has done little to put it out.
Much more.
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-spending-inferno-or-not/
Crushaholic
10-25-2012, 08:22 AM
It's going to be a LONG night, whatever the outcome. I have a co-worker who listens to nothing but Rush and Sean Hannity. It seems one of them has her convinced that Romney is going to win, by a LANDSLIDE....Ha!
nyuk nyuk
10-25-2012, 08:23 AM
Obama due to media fellatio.
nyuk nyuk
10-25-2012, 08:25 AM
It's going to be a LONG night, whatever the outcome. I have a co-worker who listens to nothing but Rush and Sean Hannity. It seems one of them has her convinced that Romney is going to win, by a LANDSLIDE....Ha!
You can't expect totally honest projections from such places. They'll rally the troops and all that, but I wouldn't expect them to admit they'd probably lose. That's what polling is for, I go for the most two accurate from 2008: Rasmussen and Pew.
nyuk nyuk
10-25-2012, 08:26 AM
http://cdn.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/2012/06/Federal_Spending_Bush_Vs_Obama.png
Awesome. Thanks for showing us the endless liberal criticism I've heard that Bush was a bigger spender than Obama is false.
DenverBrit
10-25-2012, 08:58 AM
Awesome. Thanks for showing us the endless liberal criticism I've heard that Bush was a bigger spender than Obama is false.
Don't get all puffed up. There were words as well as a graph.
So if current spending is an “inferno,” it’s one that Bush (and Congress) is mostly responsible for starting. But it’s also true that Obama has done little to put it out.
Rohirrim
10-25-2012, 09:05 AM
Awesome. Thanks for showing us the endless liberal criticism I've heard that Bush was a bigger spender than Obama is false.
Let's take that last column of Bush's regime, 2009. Congress determines federal spending, not the president. Now, Obama comes into office and we can see his blue sliver added to the top. Of course the Right credits him with blame for the entire column. Here's the reality: If Obama came into office and went to Congress and said, "I don't want to be associated with all that spending of my out-of-control predecessor. I want all that spending that he did to be cut. I want a blank slate. Let me start from there and judge me from that point."
Wouldn't that be fair, and just? Do you think Congress would say, "You know. The president is right. Let's cut down all that spending."
If you believe that, you're living in a magical world.
I'm guessing that if went back to that graph and continued to put in red all the spending that was started under Bush and that Obama has no control over, the rest of the columns would look pretty much like 2009. Hell, Bush started two wars that he didn't even add to the books. Why isn't the Right going crazy over that? Why did they never utter a peep when he did that? Why? Because they only remember their fiscal conservatism when a Dem becomes president.
Truth: Would this House, under Boehner, cooperate with the president under any scenario whatsoever, other than a complete capitulation to their demands?
myMind
10-25-2012, 11:28 AM
The 1% of income earners are not the same people that are the wealthiest 1% in the country. Newsflash.
Maybe you should explain what you mean and use sources. I might be misreading you, but it seems like you're saying that average joe middleclass man makes more money than CEO 1% moneybags.
Blart
10-25-2012, 11:31 AM
FWIW People DO REALIZE the MIDDLE CLASS is the 1% right?
The wealthiest people in the country don't make money, it's all in stocks and bonds. Their income isn't taxable...
Btw, I'm lower-middle class. I'm not sure whom I'm voting for just yet.
I'm not sure I understand you. To be in the 1% your income has to be over 550k+ a year.
Durango
10-25-2012, 11:39 AM
Ohio is the key, and it appears that Obama has a fairly solid/steady lead there. The trend of women toward Romney could drop a dynamic in the equation no-one seemed to anticipate at this stage, so no matter what, it's going to be a tight squeeze barring voter fraud from either side.
My wife and I decided to just cancel out each others vote, one taking Romney and the other Obama. That way the bed stays warm and the couch remains the dogs perch.
Crushaholic
10-25-2012, 11:52 AM
You can't expect totally honest projections from such places. They'll rally the troops and all that, but I wouldn't expect them to admit they'd probably lose. That's what polling is for, I go for the most two accurate from 2008: Rasmussen and Pew.
That's exactly the point. This is going to be a VERY close election. Eventually, I grew tired of her not looking at more objective projection data, and I stopped discussing this with her....