The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: thundley4 on July 18, 2012, 07:27:03 PM
-
cali (71,960 posts)
Of course dems could lose in November
Of course the repulsive Mitt could win the Presidency. It's sticking your head in the sand to deny that those are distinct possibilities. We do not have a well informed electorate. People are fickle. Race is an ugly but real piece of this whole thing. The media wants a horse race. Republicans are doing everything they can to disenfranchise dem leaning voters. And Mitt is going to have a significant $$$ advantage.
Yeah, Mitt's had a lousy past 10 days but so far the polls don't reflect any damage to him- and that includes dem leading polls like PPP which just issued a poll for NM showing the President losing a lot of ground to Mitt and the same thing is reflected in a WMUR poll out of NH.
Now you can just call all polls you don't like bullshit, but that's not going to change reality.
Republicans could win it all in November and we're going to have to fight like hell to prevent it.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002971832
pnwmom (38,896 posts)
1. And of course we can't assume that election fraud won't play a huge role
in this election, as it did in 2000 and 2004.
:whatever:
mazzarro (2,628 posts)
2. You are right
And I think that PTB democrats are to blame for allowing the rePIGs to regain their footings after the 2008 election. The economy is going to be a big drag on the democrats since I don't think that Federal Reserve will do anything to help the economy which will be against the will of the rePIGs. The only way will for Obama to win will be the slug-fest that we presently seeing. The Obama team better have a bag full of issues to throw out into the arena.
Why not suggest that Obama start pointing out his "stellar" record of accomplishments?
Motown_Johnny (13,383 posts)
4. Possible, but Mitt winning is unlikely
Any electoral map shows President Obama with a huge advantage. I don't see Rmoney being a strong enough candidate to overcome that disadvantage.
Unless some event beyond our control becomes an overwhelming factor, Greece collapsing or an attack on Iran by Israel, President Obama should be able to reach 270.
Greece collapsing is a given, a matter of when, not if. Let's go Bibi, show Obama how a real "warrior" reacts to national threats.
KaryninMiami (2,491 posts)
5. Repeat after me - If we don't have a landslide we loose
Between the rigged machines and the massive disenfranchisement - purging, Photo IDs, less time for voting, etc. if we are not ahead by more then 4 points- possibly 5- we loose.
And I am still not convinced yet that the number of people who hate President Obama that will vote for whomever the candidate is actually less then the number who are either in support of Obama or are on the fence enough to vote for him anyway, knowing what a dick Romney is. I worry that the Obama haters are so fired up and that we lost a ton of momentum from 08 due to a variety of reasons (disappointment, lack of interest, frustration, etc.).
So yes you are correct. There is still a very good chance that Romney will be the next president.
It's time for all hand on deck.
Without the illegal votes, Obama is toast.
-
<snip>
Dick Romney
<snip>
Someone let the VRWC Geneticworks cat out of the bag, didn't they ? Oh.. Wait. I misread that. Nevermind.
-
Drudge has a CBS/NYT poll link on their page which has Romney up 1, 47-46.
-
pnwmom (38,896 posts)
1. And of course we can't assume that election fraud won't play a huge role
in this election, as it did in 2000 and 2004.
Look out, Dangler, the DUmmies are on to you.
-
Yeah, Mitt's had a lousy past 10 days but so far the polls don't reflect any damage to him- and that includes dem leading polls like PPP which just issued a poll for NM showing the President losing a lot of ground to Mitt and the same thing is reflected in a WMUR poll out of NH.
Sort of sucks when bullshit attacks don`t work isn`t it?
The fact is that way too early O has thrown in the kitchen sink and stupidly,he has basically told voters there is no reason to vote for me other then I am saying the other guy is a poopy head.
He is in deep trouble and knows it.
-
pnwmom (38,896 posts)
1. And of course we can't assume that election fraud won't play a huge role
in this election, as it did in 2000 and 2004.
And it didn't in 2008? Does Acorn ring bell? How about Miss Piggy, Kermit the Frog, Mickey Mouse, dead people and family pets? You stupid doucebag.
-
(http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y131/Foam_Kitty/7a0ef545.jpg)
-
(http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y131/Foam_Kitty/4c4f10ec.jpg)
-
Sort of sucks when bullshit attacks don`t work isn`t it?
The fact is that way too early O has thrown in the kitchen sink and stupidly,he has basically told voters there is no reason to vote for me other then I am saying the other guy is a poopy head.
He is in deep trouble and knows it.
Hi5. That struck me too.
-
Sort of sucks when bullshit attacks don`t work isn`t it?
The fact is that way too early O has thrown in the kitchen sink and stupidly,he has basically told voters there is no reason to vote for me other then I am saying the other guy is a poopy head.
He is in deep trouble and knows it.
He's going to end up shooting his whole wad before Oct.
Cindie
-
He's going to end up shooting his whole wad before Oct.
Cindie
Try the convention. He's gonna stand there at Bank of America, whoops--PANTHERS Field, foam rubber Roman columns and all, and say, "**** it. I got nuthin."
Well, there's gonna be about 4000 "me, my, I's" in there, and it'll drone on for about an hour and a half, but you get the idea.
-
I hope they don't forget the Greek columns this time. :hyper:
-
Bill O'reilly is going to have the poll comparison between Carter and Reagan for around this time tomorrow evening on his show. If my memory serves me right, which I was pretty young at the time. Carter was ahead in the polls?
-
OP talked about a horserace, hu? Well my money's on "Mittens." I wouldn't pick "Big Ears" to save my life. I'll even go out on a limb, and say he'll win by a massive margin.
Make no mistake DUmmies, he may be called "Mittens" in your world, but it will be PRESIDENT Mittens to you come November.
Jack holes!
-
Drudge has a CBS/NYT poll link on their page which has Romney up 1, 47-46.
Yep and that was with +6 democrat party advantage. Reminder donks ended the wave of 08 at +7.
The 0bama negative ads against Romney started last night in KALIFORNIA! This is July 18th and 0bama is spending money on ads out here in the solid moonbat state of kalifornia. The internals must look awful. Still sticking with Romney 356/182 and 54/45. What was purple will be red. What was light blue will be red. What was deep blue will be purple. It will be a great Tuesday night.
-
The polsters & the press have to keep it neck & neck as long as possible to keep the money coming in. Nothing has changed for the better for Dems. since 2010. It's neat to watch it starting to sink in at the DUmp. Lots of delicious pain to feed on over the next 5-6 months.
-
Folks have been calling Barry's administration the "Carter II" presidency, due to the similarities and results from his economic policies.
His re-election campaign will have similar results as well. :lmao:
November is going to be FUn! :lmao:
-
With all these rigged voting machines everywhere, how are ANY democrats in office? Come one people, get with the program.
-
Rev, I love your sig pic which the RNC needs to use. Saw one of their ads last night and while I am no critic, I thouht it could be much better.
(http://i1040.photobucket.com/albums/b403/gavinfan22/PoorObama.png)
The voice over line would be "it doesn't have to happen" or "don't let this happen again" " Vote for real change not choom change of this pipe dream liberal."
-
Drudge has a CBS/NYT poll link on their page which has Romney up 1, 47-46.
The important thing is that this one, I believe, is a "Likely voters" poll, not just a "Registered voters" poll like the ones showing Obama with a lead. There's all the difference in the world between the two.
-
The important thing is that this one, I believe, is a "Likely voters" poll, not just a "Registered voters" poll like the ones showing Obama with a lead. There's all the difference in the world between the two.
Yeah there is. Newt was on Jay Leno last night and even he said that the polls that are showing obama ahead are from likely voters (He said that they are people who probably won't vote). So we will have to see what happens.
-
Yeah there is. Newt was on Jay Leno last night and even he said that the polls that are showing obama ahead are from likely voters (He said that they are people who probably won't vote). So we will have to see what happens.
You mean "registered voters," right, Kyle? :???:
-
You mean "registered voters," right, Kyle? :???:
The samples are also heavily slanted blue/independent in most polls.
-
You mean "registered voters," right, Kyle? :???:
No, he said likely. Meaning people who could vote, but from what he said wouldn't. He said that the registered voters poll has them tied. Unless I misunderstood what he said, which is quite possible.
I did some more looking last night for the comparison between now and 1980. The polls then were way off. So I am not following anymore polls this year until after the elections. As they could be way off as well.
-
I did some more looking last night for the comparison between now and 1980. The polls then were way off. So I am not following anymore polls this year until after the elections. As they could be way off as well.
That's a guarantee. Take any poll and look at the percentages of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents polled. They are all wrong on their numbers. Out of them all, Rasmussen seems to have the closest to the correct percentages.
And unlike primitives will tell you, Rasmussen isn't a Republican - He was a Democrat, but now claims he is an Independent voter because he really doesn't trust any politician, conservative or liberal -which I believe is the secret to his success- he carries water for nobody.
-
No, he said likely. Meaning people who could vote, but from what he said wouldn't. He said that the registered voters poll has them tied. Unless I misunderstood what he said, which is quite possible.
I did some more looking last night for the comparison between now and 1980. The polls then were way off. So I am not following anymore polls this year until after the elections. As they could be way off as well.
I'm afraid you misunderstood me, my point was that the "Likely voters" poll was the important one, and it showed Romney a point up. Most of the polls that show Obama with a substantial lead are just "Registered voters" polls, which are garbage, since only one-third to two-thirds of the merely-registered voters will actually end up casting a ballot.
-
I'm afraid you misunderstood me, my point was that the "Likely voters" poll was the important one, and it showed Romney a point up. Most of the polls that show Obama with a substantial lead are just "Registered voters" polls, which are garbage, since only one-third to two-thirds of the merely-registered voters will actually end up casting a ballot.
And a few other points--a lot of other polls are also showing adults, they're telephone polls (landline, not cell), and a lot of these polls are conducted during the week.
Draw your own conclusions from there.
-
I'm afraid you misunderstood me, my point was that the "Likely voters" poll was the important one, and it showed Romney a point up. Most of the polls that show Obama with a substantial lead are just "Registered voters" polls, which are garbage, since only one-third to two-thirds of the merely-registered voters will actually end up casting a ballot.
And a few other points--a lot of other polls are also showing adults, they're telephone polls (landline, not cell), and a lot of these polls are conducted during the week.
Draw your own conclusions from there.
I must have the likely voters and registered voters confused then. I thought likely voters were people who probably wouldn't vote, and registered voters are the ones that would.
-
I must have the likely voters and registered voters confused then. I thought likely voters were people who probably wouldn't vote, and registered voters are the ones that would.
Yep, you have it turned around. "Likely voters" is a subset of "Registered voters," consisting of those who are not only registered but who are also more likely to actually vote based on having actually shown up to vote in recent previous elections, based on precinct records.
-
Yep and that was with +6 democrat party advantage. Reminder donks ended the wave of 08 at +7.
The 0bama negative ads against Romney started last night in KALIFORNIA! This is July 18th and 0bama is spending money on ads out here in the solid moonbat state of kalifornia. The internals must look awful. Still sticking with Romney 356/182 and 54/45. What was purple will be red. What was light blue will be red. What was deep blue will be purple. It will be a great Tuesday night.
Stop it. You're giving me a Schadenboner.
If you say "retake the Senate with a filibuster-proof majority", I will quickly need a cigarette.
H5