Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

Elephant Watcher: Romney and Obama

1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2012 12:58:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
So here is EW's current full analysis of the two candidates. Major third parties may also be included if there ever becomes one.

First, the incumbent:

Barack Obama's Strengths:
1. As the incumbent president, Obama is the "default" option. The most basic question--whether Obama is qualified and capable of being president--has already been litigated.
2. Voters generally approve of Obama's handling of foreign policy and national security: Preventing terrorist attacks, the strike against Osama bin Laden, avoiding a quagmire in Libya, disengaging from rather than engaging in wars, etc.
3. No longer the historic candidate of 2008, Obama is still the first black president. Turnout among black voters will be elevated. Obama supporters will continue to dismiss all criticism as racist.
4. Though the economy is stagnant, Obama can at least claim it is not in the state of free-fall that it was when he first took office.

These are the president's strengths and what he can use to help him win, but what about his weaknesses? Elephant Watcher sees 4 weaknesses to his 4 strengths:

1. For most voters, the economy of the last four years has been the worst of their lives. Obama has not been able to produce any "signal achievements" for which he can get credit for repairing the economy.
2. Much of Obama's liberal agenda (cap and trade, tax increases on the rich, etc.) was proposed, but failed to pass. This disappointed voters on the left, while simultaneously alienating voters on the right.
3. Obamacare, Obama's most famous legislative accomplishment, proved to be enduringly unpopular. Its constitutionality is being considered by the Supreme Court.
4. The eloquence and novelty that gave Obama his win in 2008 has largely been sapped by time.

Strategy: Obama must focus on making his challenger, Mitt Romney, appear unacceptable to voters. Obama can tout some achievements, reminding voters of his foreign policy accomplishments and how the economy was pulled from the brink of disaster. But voters are generally dissatisfied with the status quo and the direction of the country. Therefore, it's not enough for Obama to run for reelection on his record alone. Instead, he must present a negative enough picture of Romney so that voters return to Obama as the safe, "default" choice.

Now for the challenger. What are Mitt Romney's strengths? See here:

1. Realizing that the economy is likely to be voters' main concern in 2012, and with a long career in business, Romney has focused his campaign and cultivated the image of a business expert.
2. Romney looks and sounds like a president. He appears intelligent and well-informed.
3. Romney's campaign staff is well-organized and well-financed. Romney appears to be much more determined to win than most Republican presidential candidates.
4. Understanding the importance of debates, Romney has put in the effort necessary to become an effective debater.
5. The Romney family's prominence in the Mormon community dates back to the early years of the religion. Many Mormons believe the election of a Mormon president would be a unique opportunity to raise awareness and acceptance of their faith. Their enthusiastic support may give Romney a boost in some Western swing states.

For his 5 strengths, there are 4 weaknesses:

1. Though competent, Romney tends to lack the passion, sincerity, and charisma that energizes voters.
2. Romney's privileged background makes him vulnerable to criticism that he is out of touch with the common man.
3. Romney's history of changing his political positions will add to his burden of explaining where he stands on the issues.
4. Many voters find tenants of the Mormon faith baffling or offensive. It is unclear how their concerns about Romney's religion will impact the election.

Strategy: Romney must persuade voters that Barack Obama handled the economy poorly, and that he will do a better job. Romney can point to areas of weakness in the economy and how they negatively affect the average American. In doing so, he will also deflect one of his main weaknesses--the idea that he is out of touch with the common man. Romney claims to be an expert on business and the economy, and he must demonstrate this by providing specific prescriptions on how he will fix the problems he identifies. The more specific (rather than generalized and trite) his solutions, the more convincing his expertise will appear.

Elephant Watcher only picks the polls considered reliable, while RCP puts in both reliable and unreliable. Here are the polls:

Poll Average: R + 1.4

05/29 R+0 Obama 45, Romney 45 (Rasmussen)
05/29 R+3 Obama 46, Romney 46 (Gallup*)
05/20 R+0 Obama 49, Romney 46 (ABC/Wash Post*)
05/20 O+1 Obama 47, Romney 43 (NBC/WSJ*)
05/16 R+0 Obama 43, Romney 40 (IBD/CSM*)
05/15 O+4 Obama 46, Romney 39 (Fox News*)
05/14 R+3 Obama 44, Romney 47 (Mason-Dixon)
05/13 R+6 Obama 43, Romney 46 (CBS/NYT*)
05/12 R+1 Obama 43, Romney 44 (Wash Times)
05/09 R+6 Obama 44, Romney 47 (Gallup*)
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2012 1:03:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
What are your thoughts? Do you think there is anything else that should be added?
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2012 1:57:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
They are using national polls. In my analysis I used state polls and trends http://the-dp-is-good-always.blogspot.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2012 1:58:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/1/2012 1:57:11 PM, 16kadams wrote:
They are using national polls. In my analysis I used state polls and trends http://the-dp-is-good-always.blogspot.com...

Yeah, but national polls are more important.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2012 2:00:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/1/2012 1:58:21 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 6/1/2012 1:57:11 PM, 16kadams wrote:
They are using national polls. In my analysis I used state polls and trends http://the-dp-is-good-always.blogspot.com...

Yeah, but national polls are more important.

No, state trends (state by state) accurate show the states leanings and who they will vote for and where their electoral votes will go. National polls only show overall support not electoral college support.

In my analysis I get Obama winning by 50.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2012 2:09:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/1/2012 2:00:07 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 6/1/2012 1:58:21 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 6/1/2012 1:57:11 PM, 16kadams wrote:
They are using national polls. In my analysis I used state polls and trends http://the-dp-is-good-always.blogspot.com...

Yeah, but national polls are more important.

No, state trends (state by state) accurate show the states leanings and who they will vote for and where their electoral votes will go. National polls only show overall support not electoral college support.

In my analysis I get Obama winning by 50.

Then prepare to get bombed by Elephant Watcher:

"THURSDAY, MAY 31, 2012

Why National Polls Are More Important Than State Polls in a General Election

Now that Elephant Watcher's coverage of the general election has begun, the Polls page has been added, listing and averaging the most recent polls. But the Polls page only includes national polls, not polls of individual states. Those who followed the Republican primary would have noticed that the opposite was true then, when Elephant Watcher continually provided polling data for the early state contests (e.g. Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina), but not national primary polls. Why the difference?

As we explained last year, state polls are more useful during a primary. That's because states vote one after the other during a primary, with the outcome of early contests influencing the outcome of later contests. Also, candidates only campaign in the early states (at first), and early state voters pay attention to the race earlier. None of these factors apply in a general election, since the entire country has the same voting day--this year, on November 6th.

For the general election, there are many reasons why state polls are actually much less useful than national polls, even if the state being polled is a swing state. First, state polls tend to be less accurate than national polls. Most pollsters are geared toward polling the country; they do not have as much experience polling one state, and they may not have very good infrastructure in place for it. State polls are less frequent--and it's better to rely on multiple polls rather than a single poll. The infrequency of state polling also leads to the use of out-of-date polls: A newspaper column may categorize a state as being a "swing state" or a "safe Democratic state" based on a poll from a few months ago, simply because there aren't any recent polls there. In addition, desperation for state polling can result in less-reputable pollsters getting their state poll widely published, while national polls are generally reported only if the pollster is well-established.

Even when state polls are frequent and accurate, there are other problems to consider. No one state decides the outcome of a general election. The electoral college total for each candidate is determined by the outcome of all 50 states (and the District of Columbia). If one's focus is narrowed to the swing states, there are still always multiple combinations that can result in the same winner. Thus, cobbling together an electoral college prediction will depend not only on good polling for one state, but for many states. Moreover, when states are very competitive, the uncertainty increases. For example, if polls show a dead heat in several states, one would need to create electoral college projections that somehow manage to call each race accurately.

All of this means that judging the state of the presidential race is far more difficult using state polls than simply using national polls. But what about the fact that the winner is determined by the electoral college rather than the popular vote? For all practical purposes, it doesn't matter. History demonstrates that if a candidate wins the popular vote by at least one point, he is virtually guaranteed to win the electoral college. Even in the 2000 race, where Al Gore won the popular vote by half a point, he was a few hundred votes from victory in Florida. The difference in the popular vote in that race was largely due to low voter turnout in the solid red states of the South where George W. Bush was guaranteed to win; Republican get-out-the-vote efforts in those areas increased in subsequent elections to prevent another mismatch between the popular vote and electoral college winner.

In other words, it's extremely unlikely that the winner of the popular vote will fail to win the presidency, even in a very close race. Since state polls are less accurate, and since electoral college projections rely on calling multiple races, it makes far more sense to follow national polls."

If you have any other questions you should email them.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2012 4:48:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/1/2012 2:09:08 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 6/1/2012 2:00:07 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 6/1/2012 1:58:21 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 6/1/2012 1:57:11 PM, 16kadams wrote:
They are using national polls. In my analysis I used state polls and trends http://the-dp-is-good-always.blogspot.com...

Yeah, but national polls are more important.

No, state trends (state by state) accurate show the states leanings and who they will vote for and where their electoral votes will go. National polls only show overall support not electoral college support.

In my analysis I get Obama winning by 50.

Then prepare to get bombed by Elephant Watcher:

"THURSDAY, MAY 31, 2012

Why National Polls Are More Important Than State Polls in a General Election

Now that Elephant Watcher's coverage of the general election has begun, the Polls page has been added, listing and averaging the most recent polls. But the Polls page only includes national polls, not polls of individual states. Those who followed the Republican primary would have noticed that the opposite was true then, when Elephant Watcher continually provided polling data for the early state contests (e.g. Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina), but not national primary polls. Why the difference?

As we explained last year, state polls are more useful during a primary. That's because states vote one after the other during a primary, with the outcome of early contests influencing the outcome of later contests. Also, candidates only campaign in the early states (at first), and early state voters pay attention to the race earlier. None of these factors apply in a general election, since the entire country has the same voting day--this year, on November 6th.

For the general election, there are many reasons why state polls are actually much less useful than national polls, even if the state being polled is a swing state. First, state polls tend to be less accurate than national polls. Most pollsters are geared toward polling the country; they do not have as much experience polling one state, and they may not have very good infrastructure in place for it. State polls are less frequent--and it's better to rely on multiple polls rather than a single poll. The infrequency of state polling also leads to the use of out-of-date polls: A newspaper column may categorize a state as being a "swing state" or a "safe Democratic state" based on a poll from a few months ago, simply because there aren't any recent polls there. In addition, desperation for state polling can result in less-reputable pollsters getting their state poll widely published, while national polls are generally reported only if the pollster is well-established.

Even when state polls are frequent and accurate, there are other problems to consider. No one state decides the outcome of a general election. The electoral college total for each candidate is determined by the outcome of all 50 states (and the District of Columbia). If one's focus is narrowed to the swing states, there are still always multiple combinations that can result in the same winner. Thus, cobbling together an electoral college prediction will depend not only on good polling for one state, but for many states. Moreover, when states are very competitive, the uncertainty increases. For example, if polls show a dead heat in several states, one would need to create electoral college projections that somehow manage to call each race accurately.

All of this means that judging the state of the presidential race is far more difficult using state polls than simply using national polls. But what about the fact that the winner is determined by the electoral college rather than the popular vote? For all practical purposes, it doesn't matter. History demonstrates that if a candidate wins the popular vote by at least one point, he is virtually guaranteed to win the electoral college. Even in the 2000 race, where Al Gore won the popular vote by half a point, he was a few hundred votes from victory in Florida. The difference in the popular vote in that race was largely due to low voter turnout in the solid red states of the South where George W. Bush was guaranteed to win; Republican get-out-the-vote efforts in those areas increased in subsequent elections to prevent another mismatch between the popular vote and electoral college winner.

In other words, it's extremely unlikely that the winner of the popular vote will fail to win the presidency, even in a very close race. Since state polls are less accurate, and since electoral college projections rely on calling multiple races, it makes far more sense to follow national polls."

If you have any other questions you should email them.

watch me beat them, also I update my analysis often, I used to have romney up
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2012 4:50:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
You can win the presidency with less than 25% of the national vote. National polls alone mean little.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2012 4:50:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/1/2012 4:48:18 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 6/1/2012 2:09:08 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 6/1/2012 2:00:07 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 6/1/2012 1:58:21 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 6/1/2012 1:57:11 PM, 16kadams wrote:
They are using national polls. In my analysis I used state polls and trends http://the-dp-is-good-always.blogspot.com...

Yeah, but national polls are more important.

No, state trends (state by state) accurate show the states leanings and who they will vote for and where their electoral votes will go. National polls only show overall support not electoral college support.

In my analysis I get Obama winning by 50.

Then prepare to get bombed by Elephant Watcher:

"THURSDAY, MAY 31, 2012

Why National Polls Are More Important Than State Polls in a General Election

Now that Elephant Watcher's coverage of the general election has begun, the Polls page has been added, listing and averaging the most recent polls. But the Polls page only includes national polls, not polls of individual states. Those who followed the Republican primary would have noticed that the opposite was true then, when Elephant Watcher continually provided polling data for the early state contests (e.g. Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina), but not national primary polls. Why the difference?

As we explained last year, state polls are more useful during a primary. That's because states vote one after the other during a primary, with the outcome of early contests influencing the outcome of later contests. Also, candidates only campaign in the early states (at first), and early state voters pay attention to the race earlier. None of these factors apply in a general election, since the entire country has the same voting day--this year, on November 6th.

For the general election, there are many reasons why state polls are actually much less useful than national polls, even if the state being polled is a swing state. First, state polls tend to be less accurate than national polls. Most pollsters are geared toward polling the country; they do not have as much experience polling one state, and they may not have very good infrastructure in place for it. State polls are less frequent--and it's better to rely on multiple polls rather than a single poll. The infrequency of state polling also leads to the use of out-of-date polls: A newspaper column may categorize a state as being a "swing state" or a "safe Democratic state" based on a poll from a few months ago, simply because there aren't any recent polls there. In addition, desperation for state polling can result in less-reputable pollsters getting their state poll widely published, while national polls are generally reported only if the pollster is well-established.

Even when state polls are frequent and accurate, there are other problems to consider. No one state decides the outcome of a general election. The electoral college total for each candidate is determined by the outcome of all 50 states (and the District of Columbia). If one's focus is narrowed to the swing states, there are still always multiple combinations that can result in the same winner. Thus, cobbling together an electoral college prediction will depend not only on good polling for one state, but for many states. Moreover, when states are very competitive, the uncertainty increases. For example, if polls show a dead heat in several states, one would need to create electoral college projections that somehow manage to call each race accurately.

All of this means that judging the state of the presidential race is far more difficult using state polls than simply using national polls. But what about the fact that the winner is determined by the electoral college rather than the popular vote? For all practical purposes, it doesn't matter. History demonstrates that if a candidate wins the popular vote by at least one point, he is virtually guaranteed to win the electoral college. Even in the 2000 race, where Al Gore won the popular vote by half a point, he was a few hundred votes from victory in Florida. The difference in the popular vote in that race was largely due to low voter turnout in the solid red states of the South where George W. Bush was guaranteed to win; Republican get-out-the-vote efforts in those areas increased in subsequent elections to prevent another mismatch between the popular vote and electoral college winner.

In other words, it's extremely unlikely that the winner of the popular vote will fail to win the presidency, even in a very close race. Since state polls are less accurate, and since electoral college projections rely on calling multiple races, it makes far more sense to follow national polls."

If you have any other questions you should email them.

watch me beat them, also I update my analysis often, I used to have romney up

They update theirs to and they have never been wrong yet. Wasn't it you who thought Rick Santorum win the nomination?
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2012 5:13:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/1/2012 4:50:14 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 6/1/2012 4:48:18 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 6/1/2012 2:09:08 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 6/1/2012 2:00:07 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 6/1/2012 1:58:21 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 6/1/2012 1:57:11 PM, 16kadams wrote:
They are using national polls. In my analysis I used state polls and trends http://the-dp-is-good-always.blogspot.com...

Yeah, but national polls are more important.

No, state trends (state by state) accurate show the states leanings and who they will vote for and where their electoral votes will go. National polls only show overall support not electoral college support.

In my analysis I get Obama winning by 50.

Then prepare to get bombed by Elephant Watcher:

"THURSDAY, MAY 31, 2012

Why National Polls Are More Important Than State Polls in a General Election

Now that Elephant Watcher's coverage of the general election has begun, the Polls page has been added, listing and averaging the most recent polls. But the Polls page only includes national polls, not polls of individual states. Those who followed the Republican primary would have noticed that the opposite was true then, when Elephant Watcher continually provided polling data for the early state contests (e.g. Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina), but not national primary polls. Why the difference?

As we explained last year, state polls are more useful during a primary. That's because states vote one after the other during a primary, with the outcome of early contests influencing the outcome of later contests. Also, candidates only campaign in the early states (at first), and early state voters pay attention to the race earlier. None of these factors apply in a general election, since the entire country has the same voting day--this year, on November 6th.

For the general election, there are many reasons why state polls are actually much less useful than national polls, even if the state being polled is a swing state. First, state polls tend to be less accurate than national polls. Most pollsters are geared toward polling the country; they do not have as much experience polling one state, and they may not have very good infrastructure in place for it. State polls are less frequent--and it's better to rely on multiple polls rather than a single poll. The infrequency of state polling also leads to the use of out-of-date polls: A newspaper column may categorize a state as being a "swing state" or a "safe Democratic state" based on a poll from a few months ago, simply because there aren't any recent polls there. In addition, desperation for state polling can result in less-reputable pollsters getting their state poll widely published, while national polls are generally reported only if the pollster is well-established.

Even when state polls are frequent and accurate, there are other problems to consider. No one state decides the outcome of a general election. The electoral college total for each candidate is determined by the outcome of all 50 states (and the District of Columbia). If one's focus is narrowed to the swing states, there are still always multiple combinations that can result in the same winner. Thus, cobbling together an electoral college prediction will depend not only on good polling for one state, but for many states. Moreover, when states are very competitive, the uncertainty increases. For example, if polls show a dead heat in several states, one would need to create electoral college projections that somehow manage to call each race accurately.

All of this means that judging the state of the presidential race is far more difficult using state polls than simply using national polls. But what about the fact that the winner is determined by the electoral college rather than the popular vote? For all practical purposes, it doesn't matter. History demonstrates that if a candidate wins the popular vote by at least one point, he is virtually guaranteed to win the electoral college. Even in the 2000 race, where Al Gore won the popular vote by half a point, he was a few hundred votes from victory in Florida. The difference in the popular vote in that race was largely due to low voter turnout in the solid red states of the South where George W. Bush was guaranteed to win; Republican get-out-the-vote efforts in those areas increased in subsequent elections to prevent another mismatch between the popular vote and electoral college winner.

In other words, it's extremely unlikely that the winner of the popular vote will fail to win the presidency, even in a very close race. Since state polls are less accurate, and since electoral college projections rely on calling multiple races, it makes far more sense to follow national polls."

If you have any other questions you should email them.

watch me beat them, also I update my analysis often, I used to have romney up

They update theirs to and they have never been wrong yet. Wasn't it you who thought Rick Santorum win the nomination?

That was a hope not a prediction
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2012 5:15:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/1/2012 4:50:00 PM, mongoose wrote:
You can win the presidency with less than 25% of the national vote. National polls alone mean little.

My point exactly

My analysis on my blog used (my first one) used rove data as well as other state polls and I got an Obama victory. Using national polls I got a Romney victory. With this I think Obama will likely win.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2012 5:17:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/1/2012 4:50:00 PM, mongoose wrote:
You can win the presidency with less than 25% of the national vote. National polls alone mean little.

Wrong, Mongoose, Elephant Watcher is right.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2012 5:46:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/1/2012 5:17:04 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 6/1/2012 4:50:00 PM, mongoose wrote:
You can win the presidency with less than 25% of the national vote. National polls alone mean little.

Wrong, Mongoose, Elephant Watcher is right.

No, national polls fail to show states votes. State polls are more accurate as it shows where the electoral votes will go, national only shows the popular vote.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2012 6:12:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/1/2012 5:46:41 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 6/1/2012 5:17:04 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 6/1/2012 4:50:00 PM, mongoose wrote:
You can win the presidency with less than 25% of the national vote. National polls alone mean little.

Wrong, Mongoose, Elephant Watcher is right.

No, national polls fail to show states votes. State polls are more accurate as it shows where the electoral votes will go, national only shows the popular vote.

Believe, what you want to believe, but the end EW will prove you all wrong.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2012 6:52:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/1/2012 6:12:09 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 6/1/2012 5:46:41 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 6/1/2012 5:17:04 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 6/1/2012 4:50:00 PM, mongoose wrote:
You can win the presidency with less than 25% of the national vote. National polls alone mean little.

Wrong, Mongoose, Elephant Watcher is right.

No, national polls fail to show states votes. State polls are more accurate as it shows where the electoral votes will go, national only shows the popular vote.

Believe, what you want to believe, but the end EW will prove you all wrong.

Fine, let's have a bet.

If Obama wins in 2012, you have to put up your profile pic a picture of my choice for an entire two days. It will be appropriate.

If Romney wins in 2012, I will have to put up a profile pic of your choice for an entire two days. It will be appropriate.

Is it a deal?
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Purch
Posts: 64
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2012 6:57:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I kind of feel like until we know who Romney picks as his Vp Biden is definitly an advantage for the Obama campaign.

Just looking at his speech the other day to the veteran families who've lost their family members in war it confirms what I've thought throughout the past couple of months, Biden whether you like him or hate him connects to the averge american in a way neither Obama nor Romney can at this point.

https://www.youtube.com...
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
-Dwight D. Eisenhower

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
-Dwight D. Eisenhower
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2012 7:00:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/1/2012 6:52:39 PM, Contra wrote:
At 6/1/2012 6:12:09 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 6/1/2012 5:46:41 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 6/1/2012 5:17:04 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 6/1/2012 4:50:00 PM, mongoose wrote:
You can win the presidency with less than 25% of the national vote. National polls alone mean little.

Wrong, Mongoose, Elephant Watcher is right.

No, national polls fail to show states votes. State polls are more accurate as it shows where the electoral votes will go, national only shows the popular vote.

Believe, what you want to believe, but the end EW will prove you all wrong.

Fine, let's have a bet.

If Obama wins in 2012, you have to put up your profile pic a picture of my choice for an entire two days. It will be appropriate.

If Romney wins in 2012, I will have to put up a profile pic of your choice for an entire two days. It will be appropriate.

Is it a deal?

Sure!
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2012 7:02:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/1/2012 7:00:01 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 6/1/2012 6:52:39 PM, Contra wrote:
At 6/1/2012 6:12:09 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 6/1/2012 5:46:41 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 6/1/2012 5:17:04 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 6/1/2012 4:50:00 PM, mongoose wrote:
You can win the presidency with less than 25% of the national vote. National polls alone mean little.

Wrong, Mongoose, Elephant Watcher is right.

No, national polls fail to show states votes. State polls are more accurate as it shows where the electoral votes will go, national only shows the popular vote.

Believe, what you want to believe, but the end EW will prove you all wrong.

Fine, let's have a bet.

If Obama wins in 2012, you have to put up your profile pic a picture of my choice for an entire two days. It will be appropriate.

If Romney wins in 2012, I will have to put up a profile pic of your choice for an entire two days. It will be appropriate.

Is it a deal?

Sure!

Excellent.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2012 7:03:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/1/2012 6:57:59 PM, Purch wrote:
I kind of feel like until we know who Romney picks as his Vp Biden is definitly an advantage for the Obama campaign.

Just looking at his speech the other day to the veteran families who've lost their family members in war it confirms what I've thought throughout the past couple of months, Biden whether you like him or hate him connects to the averge american in a way neither Obama nor Romney can at this point.

https://www.youtube.com...

Biden is a joke....gimme a break.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Purch
Posts: 64
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2012 7:11:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/1/2012 7:03:45 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 6/1/2012 6:57:59 PM, Purch wrote:
I kind of feel like until we know who Romney picks as his Vp Biden is definitely an advantage for the Obama campaign.

Just looking at his speech the other day to the veteran families who've lost their family members in war it confirms what I've thought throughout the past couple of months, Biden whether you like him or hate him connects to the average American in a way neither Obama nor Romney can at this point.

https://www.youtube.com...

Biden is a joke....gimme a break.

If you're talking in terms of gaffes and being taking seriously as a contender for president then yes. However, all of his speeches and all of his gaffes seem genuine from my prospective whiles on the other hand speeches or statements coming from Romney or Obama seem more political. Biden seems more down to earth, and that's not a reason I'd support the Obama team but granted I feel he'd be able to connect to the average American no matter what party he's in.

Like I said when I got here, I don't judge politicians by their party but by what they represent and Biden happens to be one of the few politicians in Washington I actually like and listen to.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
-Dwight D. Eisenhower

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
-Dwight D. Eisenhower
cbrhawk1
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2012 7:44:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Sadly, things aren't looking good for Romney. He isn't faring well in the NE states, and that's going to crush him.

This isn't a hole he's going to dig himself unless Usurpma does something so ridiculously stupid or flops in the debates.

Romney is going to have to take Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Ohio to really have a shot at this. If he loses just one of those, you can kiss him goodbye as far as I can tell because he really doesn't have the support anywhere else, and I don't think he can read a teleprompter as well as Obama can to out speak him.

Debates, and the three key swing states I mentioned are his limited path to victory.
"All science is 'wrong.'" ~ drafterman