User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out! |
Page rendered in 0.7707 seconds
50 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
(One of the great pranks on wrestling journalist Dave Meltzer was when he was asked whether "Bret Hart ever sold that mansion he bought from Montgomery Burns." ANYWAY.)
EDIT: Coke to GregD's #4197
So, that whole Suez Canal thing, urban myth?
Well, according to Slate magazine anyway. Others, not so much
Agreed. Although there's something to be said about 19% of respondents having a Pavlovian response to Leon Panetta.
RCP electoral college "no toss ups" 281-257 Obama
Nate 538: 289-249 Obama
Pollster: 253-191 Obama with 94 tossups (of the "toss-up" states, Obama actually leads by 1-2 points in states worth 50, and Romney leads by 1-2 points in states worth 44, so no toss-ups is 303-235 Obama)
Princeton Election Consortium is 290-248 Obama...
Election Projection has Obama 281-257
"PollyVote" has Obama up 51.25 to 48.75 (Pollyvote aggregates aggregators instead of polls)
TPM has Obama up 47.6 to 47.1
Election Projection has the Dems GAINING one Senate seat (net), and gaining just 1 house seat... I don't see how that combination can work out- most everyone else has the Dems losing 1-2 Senate Seats (net) and gaining 10 or so House seats...
Not really, Leon Panetta is sort of the definition of a competent bureaucrat -- he's relatively apolitical, he's basically a centrist Democrat -- in short, he's just a model of unexciting competence... IIRC, he's now serving in his 3rd administration (Clinton, Bush II, Obama), and I'd be willing to bet dollars to donuts that if Romney wins, he'll be the token "Democrat" in some cabinet position.
First, having the best model doesn't mean you're out on a limb.
Second, RCP doesn't have a model that forecasts probabilities of election outcomes. Silver's saying that if you replaced his state polling averages with RCP's, you'd get a similar end result with his model. Basically, the fact that Obama leads by a couple points in Ohio isn't some illusion conjured up by 538's model--it's the basic fact of the polling there.
Third, why do you say it "doesn't sound like he's not out on a limb to me?" Do you think any of his state projections are out on a limb? Or do you just think the 70% that the model spits out is out on a limb? If Obama leads in Ohio by ~2 points, as pretty much everyone seems to agree he does, what do you think his chances of winning Ohio are?
It's more like the difference between ZiPS projections and Marcels.
Wow, David Brooks wrote that?
When's he going to get started on this "journalism" thing?
what he's offering that no one else* is are ODDs
So someone is "leading" 51-49 with 2 weeks to go? What does that mean? 51% chance of winning? 60%, 70%?
*Princeton Election Consortium also gives odds- sometimes, but you have to hunt through articles to find them
Well, on the Senate side -- there are some things that just haven't worked out for the GOP... Todd Akin has all but eliminated what should have been a gimme putt in MO, the Brown/Warren race no longer looks like a tossup, Nelson seems to be cruising in FL, and the Dems have had at least one seemingly goner retirement that now looks like a slim hold (Heidi Heitkamp). They'll still lose NE - no great loss - but Tester has fought back to toss-up in MT, Kaine seems to be holding a narrow but steady lead in VA, and the Maine twin retirement actually looks like a pickup (if King caucuses with the Dems, as expected).
The Dems just had a terrible recruiting cycle in a lot of places (NY and PA in particular) and got really hurt by losing state legislatures in places like PA and NC, which should more than offset the gains they got in IL and NY redistricting.
The Dems don't have a lot of endangered house incumbents, but a number of vulnerable GOP freshmen either got redistricted into safer seats, or, the Dems failed to recruit well.
Personally, it wouldn't surprise me at all if the Senate turned out better for the Dems than the House.
Obama won the popular vote in 2008 by 52.87 to 45.60. Rasmussen called it 52-46. That's rather close, and only 5 of the 15 polls listed at RCP did better, and only by small margins ranging from 1% (3) to .7% (2). Pretty sure any pollster will be happy if they call 2012 as accurately as Rasmussen did 2008.
"The 105 polls released in Senate and gubernatorial races by Rasmussen Reports and its subsidiary, Pulse Opinion Research, missed the final margin between the candidates by 5.8 points, a considerably higher figure than that achieved by most other pollsters. Some 13 of its polls missed by 10 or more points, including one in the Hawaii Senate race that missed the final margin between the candidates by 40 points, the largest error ever recorded in a general election in FiveThirtyEight’s database, which includes all polls conducted since 1998.
Moreover, Rasmussen’s polls were quite biased, overestimating the standing of the Republican candidate by almost 4 points on average. In just 12 cases, Rasmussen’s polls overestimated the margin for the Democrat by 3 or more points. But it did so for the Republican candidate in 55 cases — that is, in more than half of the polls that it issued."
link
Except - you'll notice Rass trended towards that 'accuracy' -- and we're still looking at Rass polls 2-3 weeks out.
Polls are snapshots, not predictors, yada yada --- but Rass has a rather nifty way of drifting back towards the mean the closer to the election they get.
See, to me that makes it more ridiculous that someone would immediately agree or disagree with him on name recognition alone.
I don't know - if you're not a partisan/ideological warrior - isn't base level centrist competence what you're looking for?
Or you'd get people who think it's the Simpson-Bowles plan and vote accordingly. (Not that anyone gives much of a crap about that either.)
Now that I mention it, people would undoubtedly think the Scorpio-Burns plan was the Simpson-Bowles plan. Maybe have, like, five people in the fake plan. Or ask about your opinion of Obama's promise in the last debate to introduce the Lizard People Amendment. I'll stop now.
I'm looking at laughing at people having an opinion on something that doesn't exist. Let's not lose sight of this.
My recollection was that Ras was very accurate in 2004/06, a little better than average in 2008 and terrible in 2010
the thing is- I suspect you will find that with just about any polling outfit over several election cycles- some years they will be very good, some very bad and some (most) about average.
What I've noticed is that for several years it's been almost an article of faith on the right that Ras is the most accurate, since 2008 the left has gravitated top Silver 538 (nevermind that he's not a pollster), and the you have the older set who haven't been paying attention who think accurate polls consist solely of Gallup...
Anyway looking at RCP, their final 2008 average was Obama +7.6, and Obama won +7.3 - the spread was 9: Obama +11 Reuters/Zogby* and +2 Battleground
Right now on RCP's current average the spread is 10, from Romney +6 to Obama +4
*Zogby, there was a time that Zogby was being touted as the most accurate and a successor to Gallup... and their poll results trended further and further away from actual election results over time... personally I think Ras may be following the Zogby path, but they haven't gone over the cliff yet.
But how did Rasmussen do in its state polls? He had Ohio tied and McCain ahead in Florida and Virginia. Overall, they were right around average. And in 2010, they were both awful and biased.
Lots of people have opinions on Paul Ryan's budget plan, even though the numbers on that don't exist.
Touché.
This question is listed right after the Bowles-Simpson question on their poll results page (I assume they were asked in that order too?), so respondents shouldn't have gotten confused. Although it could have implied that Panetta-Burns is some kind of alternative, opposing proposal.
Note that both the real plan and the fake one had about the same level of disapproval (~10%) -- I'm guessing that's a segment of the population who will be opposed to any government "plan". The remaining 5-9% might be the more interesting respondents, although they too might be the segment that supports just about any effort to reform the current government/policies.
An interesting concept -- just not sure what fake question would be best, though.
That's probably a pretty good analogy.
If DwayneFromME is a poster here I think he should be suspended.
Having read this thread and now the thing on wiki, I'd be absolutely shocked if it wasn't a poster here. I've let Jim know what's going on so he can investigate (on BTF's end).
Glad I don't live there.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/
Just out of curiosity, what exactly would "DwayneFromME" have done _wrong_ in this process?
As an outsider looking in, I'm pulling for Obama, but even I don't believe it's going to be that big an EC victory.
I'm pretty sure that Florida ends up (by around 11pm) in the Romney camp, but that Obama still squeaks it out.
I'm thinking 285-253 (or maybe 295-243) EC for Obama.
" Given the fact that an incumbent president is stuck at 47 percent nationwide, the odds might not be in Obama’s favor, and they certainly aren’t in his favor by a 67–33 margin."
I mean, really. That kind of stupid seems to be manifest among pundits of a certain political persuasion
Yeah, that is out on a limb. Most other pollsters have Romney moving ahead in Florida. In fact, the esteemed Nate Silver even had a column discussing whether Obama should give up on Florida. Virgnia is also looking better for Romney. Seems like Ohio is most likely to be the key.
...
...Look, I love reading the Dish. I think Andrew Sullivan is an exceptionally gifted writer with a knack for tapping a certain vein of Beltway thought. But he is grasping for straws here. Romney is an active Mormon, but afaik, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to insinuate that he is in any way, shape or form a racist. This is a simple religious test. While Sullivan is right to point out the ridiculousness of Obama's Jeremiah Wright mishmosh, there is no more reason to hone in on Romney's Mormonism.
Um, who gives a fig? Joe created his very own wiki page to either boost his ego or to market himself better. He got into a alias/coward war at BTF so someone informed on him to the hall monitor at wiki. But so what? If I steal a cookie from the cookie jar and then get into a fight with my sister over what channel to watch and she tells mom that I stole a cookie does the fact that she told on me because I wouldn't let her get her way with the remote control change the fact that I stole a cookie?
Investigate? Over Joe's Wiki page and who informed on his self-aggrandizement? Please.
I agree with this.
So ME is Maine, huh. Two letter abbreviations for states can be so confusing. I liked the three letter abbreviations so much better. Of course as I say that I realize that I have no idea what Maine's three letter abbreviation was.
Well after you're dead you'll be baptized a Mormon too, so that's just your self-interest speaking.
I looked at the TOS (IANAL and I am not the dude who went to Wiki land) and the closest I found was
So if it was part of a "conflict" and Joe wanted it resolved somethign might happen. Other than that the TOS is all about posting here, and obviously not behavior in other parts of the intertubes.
I find both the Wiki page (which I have not yet looked at) and the attempt to get it deleted both more than a little tacky, but there is no law against tacky I suppose.
Speaking of tacky, Mormons doing that sort of thing is very very tacky.
What do you mean by 'most'?
What's missing?
I'm willing toss out Zogby as an outlier (48-42 Obama)... but I see a couple of good polls for Romney last week, but a drift back with the most recent - even discounting Zogby.
In a litany of stupid #### you've said, this is probably the stupidest. I've spent the majority of my "political posts" this week on Facebook insulting liberals who keep posting #### about Mitt's secret Mormon rituals. But hey, just make #### up if you like. It works well for Szymborski, right?
Hey, don't bash religious freedom you communist. Just come over and join my religion, we posthumously baptize Mormons as well. Our prophet demands that we only use our own urine, though, so have a Coors before you come over.
someone here was angered at Joe and struck out at Joe, not here in writing on this site, but somewhere else- something that is perhaps associated with Joe's livelihood- you want to post on a board where some other user may feel compelled to take a dispute "off the board" like that?
I would agree... I have friends who spent the early aughts cursing Sullivan daily who now constantly send me links to him.
I mean, I guess he's a decent enough writer and occasionally interesting -- but I put him on the same shelf I keep the Halperins, Kleins, etc...
I am bashing the religion, not the freedom - and that's Socialist not Communist, you Fascist!
Not how I would define interesting, but to each their own.
Oh well enough of that, back to work.
I believe it was always just "Me." Were there separate official three-letter abbreviations at some point? Lots of states used to just be two letters; some were four ("Mass.")
Speaking of being interested in minutiae, that metadiscussion over at Wikipedia is a strange brew of acronyms and desperate high seriousness. For a phenomenon that is basically every reference book every 10-year-old kid ever wanted for Christmas, Wikipedia can sometimes come across as a mix of the Encyclopedia of Philosophy and a Byzantine theological synod. I've contributed a couple of articles and lots of corrections to Wikipedia, but I hope I never learn what all the acronyms mean.
I can't stand Sullivan, and I hate how much of the left has embraced him, but that's a pretty ridiculous characterization of support for gay marriage.
I find it an interesting example of how bias can leak into other parts of your brain. He starts out conservative. But gay. The Republicans are anti-gay; this naturally is offensive to him. But rather than just become a conservative guy who opposes the Republican party because it's anti-gay - which mind you, is where he begins his transformation - the antipathy towards the Republicans leaks into his other thought; he just "finds" himself supporting the Democratic party on many issues. And yada yada, he ends up as he is now, a raging roots-for-the-laundry ideologue, even though, IMO, if you read a lot of what he writes the underlying zeitgeist is still clearly right-of-center.
Thing is -
I'm not so sure it's even gay marriage... my take on Sullivan is that the thought he was a neocon, had reality smack him upside the head and ask "Are you really that ####### stupid and crazy?", and went looking for another ideology that offered a more humble exceptionalism without the batshit insane fabric of hegemony.
Sullivan is very clearly a Coalition-loving Tory (maybe the last in existence, actually.) He's written about this a lot. He's a moderate Northeast-ish Republican in a party that's abandoned his species.
I don't think Sullivan was ever a neocon. He was a usual, british style "con".
Because that's what my church does.
Great, me too. So are, you know, millions of folks in the Northeast US. And none of us are staunch supporters of the national republican candidate - hell, plenty of us defected to Obama in 2008. But there's a huge hole - acres of daylight - between "I'm a moderate right-of-center guy, fisc con, soc. lib, so I'm enthusastic about nothing" and becoming so partisan that you produce vile bigotry like today's anti-mormon screed.
Maybe David Brooks threatened him into keeping his limey hands off the US right-center moderate market...
What do you mean by 'most'?
What's missing?
I'm willing toss out Zogby as an outlier (48-42 Obama)... but I see a couple of good polls for Romney last week, but a drift back with the most recent - even discounting Zogby.
There are a couple of seemingly obscure/partisan polls in your group; I was going by
the Real Clear Politics list of Florida Polls which has Romney up 1.8%. And Nate Silver did have an article discussing whether Obama should give up on Florida.
Of course bringing up the indisputable historic racism of the Mormon Church in the context of this campaign is stupid and trollish, but that's only because there's no evidence that aside from maintaining his membership in it, Romney was ever swayed by its racist teachings.
But that said, the point that Sullivan implicitly raises is rather unanswerable. To put it in outline form:
1A. Jeremiah Wright is a pastor whose views on race and a lot of other things about America are way outside the realms of contemporary opinion.
1B. Nevertheless, Obama remained in Wright's congregation for many years without any visible sign of protest.
2A. The Mormon Church was a blatantly racist organization for the entire history of its existence until sometime well after Mitt Romney passed into his adult years.
2B. Nevertheless, in full cognizance of that, Romney remained an active Mormon for well over a decade, without any visible sign of protest against his church's racism. In fact, he even ducked the draft in order to proselytize on its behalf.
3. The media made Obama's lack of protest a major story for a good part of the 2008 campaign.
4. The media have almost completely ignored Romney's ongoing membership and active participation in a church that was far more racist than Reverend Wright's.**
All the above is just simple fact. What's not hard to infer is that the difference is that while black demagogues like Wright set off all kinds of alarms among the white media, ordinary racism in the form of institutions like the Mormon Church were so much a part of the fabric of American life for so long that it barely even gets noticed, and in fact it almost seems indecent to mention it in polite company. They're such "good folks", after all.
Again, this doesn't mean that Romney should ever have been browbeaten about his Mormonism. He was born into his faith, and there's no evidence that its racism ever affected his worldview, any more than there was ever any evidence that Reverend Wright's incendiary views ever shaped Obama's thinking in any significant way. Both of these men joined their respective churches for reasons that had nothing to do with anything much more than the desire to belong to a community of worshippers, and maybe because it's always good political form to be a visible believer. But the double standard fairly screams nevertheless.
**Wright's congregation, unlike Romney's before 1978, was and is interracial.
Looking at RCP, Romney up 1.8 in Florida (polls taken 10/17 to 10/18)
but the polls taken 10/8 to 10/14 average out to Romney + 3.2
:-)
Seriously it looks like Obama had a +3.0 lead on or about 9/30, that collapsed overnight, reaching Romney +3.2, and slowly regressing to even since then...
There should be a new wave of results out the end of this week so we'll see
It's a relatively common situation that someone's reasoning for taking a controversial action is that their religion tells them to. I don't think that's a real reason, but hey, that's why I'm not religious. Most Americans are, and think that that logic makes sense. There's no realistic way to touch the issue without sounding like you're insulting the religion. Kinda like drones (to make a strange comparison), it's not going to be an issue because neither side wants it to be one.
Ohio
Polls: Obama +2.5
Actual: Obama +4.6
Nevada
Polls: Obama +6.5
Actual: Obama +12.5
Colorado
Polls: Obama +5.5
Actual: Obama +9.0
Virginia
Polls: Obama +4.4
Actual: Obama +6.3
Florida
Polls: Obama +1.8
Actual: Obama +2.8
North Carolina
Polls: McCain +0.4
Actual: Obama +0.3
Wisconsin
Polls: Obama +11.0
Actual: Obama +13.9
Pennsylvania
Polls: Obama +7.3
Actual: Obama +10.3
It would have made sense to ask Romney about why he remained in the Church before it renounced its explicitly racist doctrine. Just as it made sense to ask Obama about his membership in Reverend Wright's congregation. Both of these are perfectly logical questions to ask.
What isn't logical is to keep browbeating either of them once they explained why they joined, especially when there's zero evidence that any of those nasty views rubbed off on either of them. There's a big difference between honest questioning and simple trolling.
Nate's point seems to be as much based on Florida's slide down to 9th so far as 'tipping point' states - i.e., while it's now a Romney favorite, the idea that Obama really doesn't need it, so maybe he ought to instead make sure to lock down Ohio and keep the rest of the Kerry states intact.
On one level, this makes sense, of course... If Obama wins Florida, it's probably just as over as if he wins Ohio...
But - I personally go back to the posts I linked from Chait/TPM... there's a narrative about 'momentum' afoot - it's why Team Romney trumpeted the fact that they were 'pulling out of NC', despite the fact that all they really did was shift one single staffer from NC to elsewhere... Frankly, it's one reason why as wrong as she was for contradicting McCain in 2008 -- it wasn't entirely stupid of Sarah Palin to complain about pulling out of Michigan. 'Losing is a disease'...
Perhaps Obama may want to consider places other than FL when it comes to campaign stops -- let surrogates or Biden go to Florida -- but Obama is at least near money parity with Romney, it's far too late to get much worthwhile from shifting staff (and Team Obama has staff up the wazoo in most states already anyway)... assuming the money tank isn't much emptier than thought, there's nothing to be gained by pulling out of Florida.
Romney almost certainly MUST have Florida... even if it's fallen to a 1 in 3 shot - and given that the Dems are hitting the Ryan budget/vouchers so hard, I can't imagine it worse than that - it's still a good investment, I think.
Why shouldn't he get asked about that stuff? Every time a black person in America does something stupid or controversial, Obama gets asked about that.
He didn't overperform against Poll averages in 2008
He won by 7.3
RCP's final average was Obama +7.6
The final Pollster average was Obama +7.6
The final 538.com number was Obama +6.1 (But Nate admitted the polls showed a larger lead: "his lead is slightly larger than that in the polls now, but our model accounts for the fact that candidates with large leads in the polls typically underperform their numbers by a small margin on Election Day.")
I see no evidence that Obama "overperformed" his polling numbers to any significant degree in 2008.
Sullivan is, as pointed out previously, a Tory in America. He's basically so far up David Cameron's ass his husband should probably be jealous. Except he recognizes the insanity of Cameron's "austerity" during a recession, so the has that going for him. Anyway. Sullivan is many things, some of them good, some of them bad, some of them indifferent. He's clearly a conservative of the English persuasion, which means he's put off by the reactionaries that call themselves "conservatives" in America. He's also very chastised by his own mistakes in supporting the Iraq war.
He has not been so cleanly chastised for his role in pushing "The Bell Curve" and Charles Murray, etc, but that's his other soft spot. He really likes the idea that he's the guy who will publish "things other people won't." Which is why he wrote up the Mormon bit. It's not a screed, any more than publishing Murray was a screed, I suppose.
Sullivan is famously high strung, but he has strong instincts as to what is happening politically, and he was so far ahead of the curve on gay equality, pushing gay marriage in the 1980s when it was the gays and lesbians who were calling him names, that you have to give him credit where due.
He did in swing states, which is what i was trying to convey by the list of swing states where he overperformed against polling averages. Should have been clearer.
Republicans are crowing about this right now because these numbers are a fair amount closer than they were four years ago. And maybe they're right. But four years ago, the average middle of the road voter was more likely to vote in the contested Dem primary between Clinton and Obama than in the Republican primary (which would make them holders of a Democratic ballot in the general). There were over 1.1 million more votes in the Dem primary than the Rep primary. In 2012, looking at the Sec of State's page, there were 655,815 more Republican voters in the primary (1,203,403 R vs. 655,815 D)**, primarily because the Republican race was contested while Obama ran unopposed. So compared to 2008, there's not only a greater pool of Republican ballots, but a much smaller pool of Democratic ballots.
There's reason to believe those numbers aren't as close as they look. That's not to say Ohio is a lost cause from Republicans, because Democrats tend to vote in much higher numbers during the early period. Which, of course, is why the Republicans in Ohio have been working as hard as they possibly can to restrict early voting...for democracy or something. I'm sure it has nothing to do with depressing the Democratic vote, nosiree.
**Edit: Note that those were votes for President. Apparently there were more than 1MM Dem voters in the primary, many of whom presumably didn't vote for President, probably because it didn't mean anything. The margins are different, but the larger points (2) remain. (1) A dem or rep ballot does not necessarily mean a dem or rep vote. (2) Comparing 2012 to 2008 is apples and oranges.
Sullivan has a well known tendency to indulge in obsessions (Trig Palin) and histrionics (his reaction to the first debate.) While I agree completely about today's post, I think there's a path for a clear eyed Tory to being an Obamacon. Sullivan (I think rightly) sees Obama as a Torya himself. Sullivan, like Obama, favors a Grand Bargain and a marriage of short-term stimulus and debt reduction. Sullivan is clearly repulsed by Romney's politics and personality.
TL;DR: It's totally reasonable for a Tory to support Obama over Romney, and perhaps even with gusto. The path from Obamacon to troll probably has more to do with Sullivan's inherent excitability.
True story: I saw Taylor Swift this morning.
* * *
I don't know... I'm inclined to agree with Spike (of course, I'm partisan, yada yada...)
I think everyone would have to agree that Obama had THE best ground game - on either side - throughout the 2008 cycle... they outhustled - and built infrastructure and devoted resources wisely in the 2008 primaries, and as Spike notes -- they outperformed polling in virtually all the 2008 toss-ups in the GE, even while hitting the national polling averages on the nose.
It's a truism that everyone likes to claim that their ground game is superior... but Team Obama's ground game has a proven track record. The entire team is back... and speaking from experience as a volunteer with Dean in 2004, Kerry in the 2004 GE, and Obama in 2008 and 2012 -- it's night and day. They're organized, they don't waste time or resources, and whether you're in on a canvas or phonebanking or whatever - you feel like you're actually doing something besides hitting on the single ladies...
Does Romney have a ground game? I don't think we really know - he kept knocking back whichever of the munchkins challenged him in the primary, but he was carpet bombing. Obama is no Santorum and he's not warchest hamstrung like Gingrich. I do know that I've actually gotten a Romney call and a fairly steady stream of mailings from them. I highly, highly suspect this is simply because I voted in the 2012 GOP primary... but I'm in Chicago... I show up all over FEC lists as donating exclusively to Democrats... Primary registration is a really, really crappy list to start from -- and I know for a fact that this is NOT how Team Obama built their GOTV lists, while indications are that it's what Team Romney has at least used pretty extensively.
I might well be just partisan overconfidant.... but if I would take straight-up bets on any state where the polling shows a tie (let's say +/- 1%).
It's another reason why Obama isn't -- and I think, is wise not to -- take Nate's suggestion under advisement... if it's within 1 pt, then I think they can make that up in teh ground game.
I'm looking at Nate's 2008 stuff
and his 3 polls for NC show +1, +4 and -0.4 for Obama, averaging out to +1.5 for Obama
depending on whose polls you look at or which aggregator you use you, he over performed or underperformed, I don't see a systemic pattern
Until shown otherwise, I take it as given that Obama's ground game is better than Romney's. Ground game is what Team O does better than any other pol that I can recall, and why he is currently the POTUS.
I still think the "we're ahead in early voting!" catcalls are about 99% noise.
Plus Mormonism is, you know, a wacko cult. I don't see why it should receive special deference over Scientologists or any other fringe scam designed to fleece the rubes. Oh, no, wait. It looks like Mormonism has been delisted as a Satanic cult by America's most devout man, spiritual adviser to Presidents, etc. etc.
And isn't Romney some sort of high-ranking church official? I don't think the Papists have ever had a cardinal run for president.
Don't worry, if Romney loses they will quietly re-list it as a cult...
If Romney wins and as President turns back into Mass. Governor Romney, they will re-list it as a cult in time for the 2016 primaries...
He also had a lot more money to spend than Clinton and (especially) McCain. That's not the case against Romney.
Well, did you let her finish?
I agree with this. I think that it is helpful to make Romney spend lots of money on Florida, because it limits the amount of money he can spend on Ohio. Probably one of OH or FL wins the election for Obama. Romney likely needs both. Given that, why not make him work hard in FL?
Most assuredly. The president does however, maintain a "boots on the ground" advantage - 73 Florida field offices to 28, for example. 32 in Colorado to Romneys' 10. I don't claim to know how to quantify it, but it's worth something, and is definitely an Obama advantage in critical places.
Yeah - but money is generally ads... boots on the ground are a lot cheaper than market point ad buys. I doubt they're laying off any volunteers and I doubt Romney is spending much to hire any.
Yeah. You hammer the body blows to FL even if you plan on delivering the knock-out hook to OH.
This is a big chunk in my Obama confidence.
Why has it never occurred to me (like seriously never) that political volunteering is a great way to meet single women? I am a dumb mouse. Sheesh.
They keep sending me stuff. Dudes I have been a registered Dem forever. I vote and donate every election and it is not to your team. But hey keep wasting money ending me these really slick mailers I guess.
Amazing how divine revelation works, ain't it?
So if Mormonism is no longer a Satanic cult (as of this month), does that mean "Christians" should get cracking on reading those brand-new revelations transcribed from the golden tablets? I mean, if you can believe in their divine authority and still be considered under the "Christian" penumbra, you wouldn't want to be missing out on the infinite wisdom of Indian Jesus. it isn't like Satan could get away with duping millions with a phony addendum to the bible!
Of course it's worth noting that not ever renowned theologian agrees with Brother Graham's sudden vacillation. Noted evangelist Jack Chick certainly disagrees.
I kid, I kid, everyone knows it's considered inappropriate to question the theology of white conservative candidates.
meh
most parties see a surge in enthusiasm as the election draws near and is reasonably close.
2010 was unusual in that the Reps had something of an off-year uber-surge
2008 had a bit more 20 somethings and minorities voting than usual...
I'd like to think that this is a case of an epiphany (!!!) that geeyaknow, this election actually presents as clear-cut a choice for Democrats as there's been since 1964, and that geeyaknow, we might not want to see a repeat of 2000 just because Obama's not the perfect candidate.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main