Obama should have mandate

[Arkie]

Originally Posted by houghtam

You have to demonstrate you'll get a significant portion of the vote to get included in the debate, a la Perot.

Perot demonstrated in '92 that he belonged by getting 20% of the popular vote. Then they excluded from debates in '96, and he still received 8% of the popular vote. In hindsight, he would have been the best choice.

[bowtown]

Originally Posted by Arkie

Perot demonstrated in '92 that he belonged by getting 20% of the popular vote. Then they excluded from debates in '96, and he still received 8% of the popular vote. In hindsight, he would have been the best choice.

Yeah. **** sure sucked under Clinton. A crazy old man would have been way better.

[houghtam]

Originally Posted by bowtown

Yeah. **** sure sucked under Clinton. A crazy old man would have been way better.

But...but...cigar...blowjob...Monica...slick Willie...

But...

[Rohirrim]

Obama doesn't have a mandate because Charles Krauthammer says he doesn't have a mandate. And we all know how smart he is.

[TonyR]

Here's a good roundup of election predictions from the cocoon:


"Here comes the landslide… The result was that the presidential race reached a tipping point. Reasonable voters saw that the voice of hope and optimism and positivism was Romney while the president was only a nitpicking, quarrelsome, negative figure. The contrast does not work in Obama’s favor," - Dick Morris, The Hill.

"There is no denying the Republicans have the passion now, the enthusiasm. The Democrats do not. Independents are breaking for Romney. And there’s the thing about the yard signs. In Florida a few weeks ago I saw Romney signs, not Obama ones. From Ohio I hear the same. From tony Northwest Washington, D.C., I hear the same. Is it possible this whole thing is playing out before our eyes and we’re not really noticing because we’re too busy looking at data on paper instead of what’s in front of us? Maybe that’s the real distortion of the polls this year: They left us discounting the world around us," - Peggy Noonan, WSJ.

"In addition to the data, the anecdotal and intangible evidence—from crowd sizes to each side's closing arguments—give the sense that the odds favor Mr. Romney. They do. My prediction: Sometime after the cock crows on the morning of Nov. 7, Mitt Romney will be declared America's 45th president. Let's call it 51%-48%, with Mr. Romney carrying at least 279 Electoral College votes, probably more," - Karl Rove, WSJ.

"Bottom line: Romney 315, Obama 223. That sounds high for Romney. But he could drop Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and still win the election. Fundamentals," - Michael Barone, Washington Examiner.

"Both political science and the political polls too often imply a scientific precision that I no longer think actually exists in American politics. I have slowly learned that politics is a lot more art than science than I once believed. Accordingly, what follows is a prediction based on my interpretation of the lay of the land. I know others see it differently--and they could very well be right, and I could be wrong. I think Mitt Romney is likely to win next Tuesday," - Jay Cost, Weekly Standard.

"Feels like 1980 to me: Same failed president, same crisis-plagued globe, same upbeat GOP nominee written off four years ago who won the key debate, same chance to get the Senate. Romney is the president-elect on Wednesday, with Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Iowa, and Colorado. Senate tied 50–50 after Ohio brings in Josh Mandel. Let the rebuilding begin," - Hugh Hewitt, National Review.

"Despite the pattern of skewed polls, most of the commissioned by the mainstream media, the overall electoral landscape is looking more and more favorable for Romney. But many others in the media project very favorable maps and projections for Obama but those doing so fail to realize or accept how heavily-skewed polls distort any average or analysis that relies on them,"- Dean Chambers, UnSkewedPolls.com.

"I'm projecting Minnesota to go for Romney. Now, that's the only state in the union, because Mondale held it -- native son Mondale held it when Romney was -- when Reagan was getting 49 states -- the only state that's voted Democratic in nine consecutive elections. But this year, there's a marriage amendment on the ballot that will bring out the evangelicals and I think could make the difference. Romney: 321 Obama: 217," - George Will, Washington Post.

"Romney wins the Electoral College with room to spare — somewhere around 300 electors. All four marriage votes in the deepest of blue states (Washington, Maryland, Minnesota, and Maine) will be won by traditional-marriage supporters. This will happen even though supporters of same-sex marriage have outspent us by gargantuan amounts. … In Minnesota and Iowa, Mitt Romney will defy expectations and score truly historic wins. A state with longest track record of voting for Democratic presidential candidates — nine election cycles — will vote for a Republican. The marriage amendment will be part of the reason" - Brian S. Brown, National Organization For Marriage.

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast....awardgasm.html

[Odysseus]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

Obama doesn't have a mandate because Charles Krauthammer says he doesn't have a mandate. And we all know how smart he is.

That is one muppet headed turd we all would be better off without.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by TonyR

Here's a good roundup of election predictions from the cocoon:


Dick Morris, The Hill.

Peggy Noonan, WSJ.

Karl Rove, WSJ.

Michael Barone, Washington Examiner.

Jay Cost, Weekly Standard.

Hugh Hewitt, National Review.

Dean Chambers, UnSkewedPolls.com.

George Will, Washington Post.

Brian S. Brown, National Organization For Marriage.

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast....awardgasm.html

Like LABF's cartoon showed, if Romney won by 321, it would have been a landslide and an unshakable mandate. Obama wins by 332 and it doesn't mean ****.