PDA

View Full Version : Mitt Romney set to win, maybe by a mile




Libertarian_Renaissance
10-31-2012, 02:59 PM
One week from today, the Boston Herald’s front page will either read “Obama Pulls Out Victory” Or “Romney Wins.” (Actually, given that this is the Herald the headline will be something clever like, “He’s Barack In Charge!” or “Sweet Mitt-ory!”)

I predict the latter. One week from today, Mitt wins.

I’ll even go a step farther. I’ll ask the question poll watchers across America are thinking but afraid to ask: Is this election over?


If your source of news is MSNBC or the Boston Globe-Democrat, obviously not. If anything, you think President Obama is on the verge of a massive sweep from North Carolina to Nevada.

But if you’ve been watching the polls and the campaigns at all objectively, you’re starting to see a picture develop. One where Romney’s the winner well before bedtime.

I believe we’re on the verge of a solid Romney win for two reasons. One is the objective evidence. The other is the ugly desperation of the Obama campaign in its final days.

First the numbers. And let’s start with the big one: Before Gallup suspended polling due to Hurricane Sandy, Mitt Romney was at or above 50 percent among likely voters for 14 consecutive days. No candidate above 50 percent at this point has ever lost the presidential race.

Ever.

The president, on the other hand, has peaked at 47 percent. The Battleground Poll model shows Obama losing 52 percent to 47 percent. Rasmussen daily tracking has Obama losing 49 percent to 47 percent. Pew has him tied: 47 percent to 47 percent. But more important, all the polls show Obama sliding or stuck. None show any upward movement.

Obama supporters are quick to tell you “the only poll that matters is the one on Election Day.” Two things: a) that’s what candidates who are behind always say; b) this is election day.

Thanks to early voting, millions of votes have already been cast. Four years ago on this day — Halloweek — Gallup released a poll of folks who’d already voted and found Obama was beating John McCain by 15 points.

This year? He’s losing to Mitt Romney 52 percent to 45 percent — a set swing of 22 points. The wrong way.

But who cares if Obama loses the popular vote (and he will, by the way)? All that matters is winning the Electoral College vote in the “swing states!” That’s Obama’s path to victory!

OK. But what is a swing state? Forget Virginia and Ohio. Obama’s lost so much ground he’s been forced to send Joe Biden to Pennsylvania and Bill Clinton to Minnesota — a state so blue Ronald Reagan never carried it.

The president, on the other hand, is only up by 6 among the loony-left granola-crunchers of Oregon.

Those are the numbers. The campaign Obama’s running looks even worse.


Between desperate, last-second proposals for a “Secretary of Business” and embarrassing ads comparing voting for Obama to a girl losing her virginity, you can smell the desperation from the Obama camp.

These are the juvenile stunts of a second-tier congressional race, not the campaign of an incumbent president. Then again, has any other president posted a picture of his opponent in a dunce cap? Or called his opponent a “bullsh***er” on the record? Obama’s done both.

The Obama campaign is angry, it’s negative and it acts like — to quote Bill Clinton — its feelings are hurt. In a word: Losing.


More and more people sense it. Ben Domenech wrote at RealClearPoli tics.com about an “undertow” that seems to be pulling Obama’s support away. It’s not that Obama’s supporters have turned on him. They’ve just abandoned him. They’ve drifted away. Like so many of us, they’re just done with Obama.

If I’m wrong, I’m counting on you to mock me for it mercilessly next Wednesday. But I’m not wrong.

And isn’t it interesting how many people already seem to know it.

http://bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view.bg?&articleid=1061171462&format=&page=2&listingType=opi#articleFull

rpfocus
10-31-2012, 03:16 PM
Sorry, but this reads like a Drudge Report fluff piece. Personally, I think you're merely seeing what you want to see. I'm writing in Paul, so Romney winning or losing the polls means zero, although the black-eye I received from the GOP as a Paul supporter still stings. I'd suggest you post each state you believe Romney will win based on the sites you received your poll data from, then revisit this post after the election just so you know the value of these polls.

dannno
10-31-2012, 03:21 PM
What about the fact that Hurricane Sandy just crashed into half the blue states?

Libertarian_Renaissance
10-31-2012, 03:23 PM
Sorry, but this reads like a Drudge Report fluff piece. Personally, I think you're merely seeing what you want to see. I'm writing in Paul, so Romney winning or losing the polls means zero, although the black-eye I received from the GOP as a Paul supporter still stings. I'd suggest you post each state you believe Romney will win based on the sites you received your poll data from, then revisit this post after the election just so you know the value of these polls.


What? All this article does is reference polls.

Lucille
10-31-2012, 03:23 PM
That was a Boston Herald OpEd saying that, not the OP.

I think he's wrong, but I won't bother mocking him mercilessly. The statist press has no shame, and either Welfare-Warfare-Police Statist is fine by them.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/28/Deweytruman12.jpg

One thing's for sure, George W. Obamney will win, and the American people will lose.

devil21
10-31-2012, 03:31 PM
What? All this article does is reference polls.

When is the cut-off for when poll data actually starts counting toward a polling firms reliability rankings? Ive seen it mentioned that there's a cut off for when a polling firm's data becomes "ranked" and one should ignore data up until that point. I want to say it's a week before an election but I don't remember specifically. If that's the case then only new polling data from today on would actually be relevant. No running averages, no previous data, no partisan leaning firms (PPP for the left, Rasmussen for the right, for example), etc. I will pay attention to new poll data from today on unless I'm informed otherwise.

matt0611
10-31-2012, 03:36 PM
What about the fact that Hurricane Sandy just crashed into half the blue states?

What of it? I don't see it affecting much at all.

I agree with Graham, I think the media is seeing what they want to see. I think Romney will end up winning. The enthusiasm for Obama is gone.

rpfocus
10-31-2012, 04:10 PM
One thing's for sure, George W. Obamney will win, and the American people will lose.

Hehe George W. Obamney. Nice!

ninepointfive
10-31-2012, 04:12 PM
looking forward to the riots!

NoOneButPaul
10-31-2012, 05:38 PM
What about the fact that Hurricane Sandy just crashed into half the blue states?

So what, New York isn't going Obama now? The fact most of these states were already automatic blue wins makes the damage irrelevant.

What about the fact that Obama now has a crisis to milk and Romney can't even attack him right now because "this isn't a time for politics."

Even Chris Christie is on the Obama bandwagon right now because he has to be.

Romney is fucked and the hurricane drove a nail into his coffin.

dannno
10-31-2012, 06:05 PM
What of it? I don't see it affecting much at all.

I agree with Graham, I think the media is seeing what they want to see. I think Romney will end up winning. The enthusiasm for Obama is gone.


So what, New York isn't going Obama now? The fact most of these states were already automatic blue wins makes the damage irrelevant.
.


I was going in the opposite direction with that.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?394054-Will-Democrats-Blame-The-Obama-Loss-on-Hurricane-Sandy

Uriah
10-31-2012, 06:15 PM
What about the fact that Hurricane Sandy just crashed into half the blue states?

Obama will still win these states. It may hurt is popular vote total but won't change his electoral vote.


Edit: Disregard ^^that^^. I read your other thread. This could cause Obama to lose the popular vote yet win the electoral vote. Hmm... I smell trouble and her name is Sandy aka "National Popular Vote".

PauliticsPolitics
10-31-2012, 06:34 PM
What about the fact that Hurricane Sandy just crashed into half the blue states?

The hurricane only directly demolished a few areas. It's not like the entire North East, or even an entire state is in chaos. However, I see the hurricane affecting some factors, albeit slightly:

Perhaps voter turnout will be slightly lower in the region as people are instead dealing with real-life issues. Also public transportation will be diminished in certain areas, so that could prevent some people from voting.
However, in the hardest hit areas, I am sure they will set up emergency voting booths in the rescue/concentration camps. So, theoretically, that may increase turnout in those areas.
The above factors will not be enough to turn any of the hardest hit states (NJ, NY) into a Romney win.
Because of the relief effort, Obama will get a lot more TV time and will mostly be portrayed positively. I assume this may sway some middle-ground undecideds his way - because they see him as the nice guy helping the drowning people. This could be a slight net positive for Obama, but not a positive that is concentrated in any swing state. Just an overall slight bump. It is hard to say if that bump will make a material difference, and even if it does, it will be very hard to specifically attribute any outcome to the hurricane mindset (yet I imagine people will try to).

Anti Federalist
10-31-2012, 06:55 PM
RCP is showing Obamney tied in national polling.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html

RCP is also showing Ohio back in Obama's column.

This is a "no toss up" state map indicating a win for each state that the candidate is leading in the polls.

http://i.imgur.com/YohVR.png

MozoVote
10-31-2012, 07:18 PM
Incumbent presidents *usually* win. There have been various write-ups describing this race as close, but nobody has been seriously claiming Obama has ground to make up to remain competitive.

devil21
10-31-2012, 11:29 PM
Christie gladhanding, touring with and complimenting Obama is probably the worst thing for Romney right now. It's gratuitous. Christie says its not political and I believe him but the rest of the country is still very political.

MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2
11-01-2012, 12:01 AM
So what, New York isn't going Obama now? The fact most of these states were already automatic blue wins makes the damage irrelevant.

What about the fact that Obama now has a crisis to milk and Romney can't even attack him right now because "this isn't a time for politics."

Even Chris Christie is on the Obama bandwagon right now because he has to be.

Romney is fucked and the hurricane drove a nail into his coffin.


We're the ones that are fucked. He's a really rich puppet who will just go back to being really rich.

devil21
11-01-2012, 01:03 AM
We're the ones that are fucked. He's a really rich puppet who will just go back to being really rich.

Losing is very lucrative when it comes to Presidential elections. Romney will get much richer upon losing.

TheTexan
11-01-2012, 01:23 AM
Incumbent presidents *usually* win. There have been various write-ups describing this race as close, but nobody has been seriously claiming Obama has ground to make up to remain competitive.

They're just doing their job; putting on a good show

Lovecraftian4Paul
11-01-2012, 01:57 AM
I click on threads like these and just can't bring myself to care. I do not care which one of these puppets wins. There's absolutely no difference.

I'll vote third party and liberty R. next week, but I won't be waiting on the electoral votes with excitement in my eyes. Wake me up when it's over. Presidential politics is meaningless until another liberty candidate has a shot like Ron Paul.

MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2
11-01-2012, 01:58 AM
Losing is very lucrative when it comes to Presidential elections. Romney will get much richer upon losing.


Well, either way, I wouldn't call him fucked. Not that I would want to be president anyway... but if I were Romney, I REALLY wouldn't want to be president.