October 27, 2012

Swing state tracking poll: Romney 51%, Obama 45%

Romney's up 6 in today's Rasmussen swing-state poll. The last time anyone was up 6 in this poll, it was October 4 and Obama. That means Romney has gained 12 points in 3 weeks.

Romney is up 4 in the regular tracking poll. You might think that because Romney is further ahead in swing states that he does not have a problem with the Electoral College, but he does:
The Rasmussen Reports Electoral College projections now show the president with 237 Electoral Votes and Romney 206. The magic number needed to win the White House is 270. Eight states with 95 Electoral College votes remain Toss-ups. In addition to Florida, the battleground states are Colorado, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, Virginia, and Wisconsin.
There are 8 state's Rasmussen is calling toss-ups, but the swing state poll covers 11 states. The additional states are Pennsylvania, Michigan, and North Carolina.

I hope we don't get another misalignment between the popular vote and the Electoral College, and I hope the election produces a clear winner, so we don't need to feel that the outcome might have been affected by fraud or vote suppression of any kind. Or do you think that it's better for the winner to know he barely made it and needs to be more appeasing/compromising/reaching-across-the-aisle with the other side? Or is your answer to that last question yes only if your guy loses?

I really wonder why Obama has been able to keep it as close as it is. With the economy so bad, the unpopularity of Obamacare, and what happened in Libya, he should have fallen far behind by now. If the American people don't see fit to reject him soundly, we will either have 4 more years of Obama or a Romney administration with a paltry mandate.

130 comments:

marshall2twr said...

Obama has a solid 47% that will vote for him no matter the circumstances.

Now where have I heard that number before?

BDNYC said...

Lingering racial guilt leading people to lie and say they will vote for the black president?

Maguro said...

The "paltry mandate" thing only applies to Republicans, Althouse. You should know that.

If a Democrat wins, the size of the victory matters not.

Andy R. said...

Isn't 47% the number that Romney used when he referred to retired veterans as a bunch of moochers?

Shouting Thomas said...

Obama's campaign style seems to be hurting him. Unfortunately for him, I think that the angry personal attacks, and the attempts to paint Romney as a vampire capitalist are all he's got.

I don't have an overall preferred outcome, although I think that divided government is best. So, yeah, a close result in the Electoral College isn't such a bad thing.

The economy is going to recover no matter who is president. I think it will recover more quickly under Romney.

The most dangerous thing about Obama is that the press is not vetting him because he's black. That is very dangerous, indeed.

Pierre said...

Well Ann no one is better than you to explain why they would vote for the marxist. I don't see how...but I didn't see how after I did the smallest amount of investigation after his coming out speech in 04. But I am just a dumb southern boy...you smart yankees have a special sort of intelligence...that allows you to believe that rainbows fly out of his ass.

EDH said...

"The last time anyone was up 6 in this poll, it was October 4 and Obama. That means Romney has gained 12 points in 3 weeks," in a sudden and severe outbreak of swing state racism, according to Chris Matthews.

Question: "I really wonder why Obama has been able to keep it as close as it is. With the economy so bad, the unpopularity of Obamacare, and what happened in Libya, he should have fallen far behind by now."

Answer: The media, which would have drubbed a Republican with those issues and more.

Andy R. said...

Also, Ohio isn't a toss-up. Romney is a plutocrat that advocated destroying the American auto industry. He's going to lose Ohio.

Bill said...

There seems to be a fundamental disconnect between almost all of the polls and almost all of the secondary, anecdotal data. The various arguments for why the polls are crap and are underreporting Romney's support are all very persuasive but my gut tells me that even malicious bias can't skew the data that consistently across that many polls. The problem is my gut also tells me that Romney's very likely to win by a pretty large margin. We'll find out soon which of my guts is correct.

Shouting Thomas said...

Romney is a plutocrat that advocated destroying the American auto industry.

Andy chimes in with his usual hysteria.

clint said...

The President has kept it this close because the media carries so much water for him.

Here in the NH advertising market, we're getting Obama ads where he claims that he's cut middle class taxes and that Romney will raise middle class taxes. ("$5 trillion tax cut for the wealthy, higher taxes for you" or something like that.)

If voters were properly informed about the records and proposals of the two candidates, such a blatantly dishonest ad wouldn't work.

Same thing with the auto bailout "bankruptcy" claims. Even David Letterman is embarrassed that Obama is still making that argument -- but how many auto workers in Ohio are paying enough attention to understand that the argument is a lie? Would you know that from the pre-dinner network news?

Rusty said...

Andy R. said...
Isn't 47% the number that Romney used when he referred to retired veterans as a bunch of moochers?

No.


People have seen him-Obama- in a crisis and he was spectacularly unimpressive.

You might say he let a crisis go to waste.

Matthew Sablan said...

I hope no one gets a poultry mandate.

john sager said...

Is a Wisconsinner a Yankee? If so, I mean, not like a New Yorker, right?

Or are you referring to the circumstances of her birth?

Hagar said...

Obama has not shown any propensity to "reach across the aisle" in his first 4 years, no matter what the situation in Congress has been. He also has repeatedly made the statement in his campaign speeches lately that this is going to be close election with "a clear choice" as to in what direction the country should go, which clearly implies that he has no intention of compromising in his second term, should he win the election, no matter by how thin the margin.

Seeing Red said...

FLA is still a battleground state?

William T. Sherman said...

Ann wonders why Obama isn't further behind than he is, considering the state of the economy, and the revelations about the 9/11 attack in Libya. But how badly can an issue like a burning embassy hurt BHO when the media is refusing to report on it? I bet the legacy talking heads are kicking themselves because they might have been able to push Jimmy Carter over the line in 1980 if only they'd refused to report on the Iranian hostage crisis.

Matthew Sablan said...

Even Letterman doesn't think Romney said what Obama thinks he said. So, you know, I'd hope that false belief was finally put to rest.

Erika said...

Or do you think that it's better for the winner to know he barely made it and needs to be more appeasing/compromising/reaching-across-the-aisle with the other side?

This question might be interesting in the abstract, but with these two particular men, we already know the answer. Romney is well able to govern in a compromising, coalition building style. Obama has utterly failed to do so. If he wins a second term--especially after this pathetic, name-calling, sophomoric, intellectually dishonest campaign--is he suddenly going to hatch the interest in and ability to respect and work with his opponents. Hardly.

Texan99 said...

"Isn't 47% the number that Romney used when he referred to retired veterans as a bunch of moochers?"

I just had a pleasant daydream about a country in which the only reason 47% of voters were receiving checks from the government was that they had risked their lives in military service for their country. I'd be very happy about how they were about to cast their votes, and I'll bet Mr. Romney would be, as well.

Big Mike said...

The economy is going to recover no matter who is president.

@Shouting Thomas, I disagree. It's been 4 years now since the September 2008 crash. If he economy was going to recover "no matter who is president" then it would have done so by now.

David L. said...

What I tell those of my friends who wonder "why Obama has been able to keep it as close as it is": "It's the culture, stupid!" For a good portion of Obama voters the election is about identity and affiliation. The dreadful economic performance and the feckless foreign policy are discounted almost entirely. They are voting to avoid the traumatic psychological injury of an Obama defeat.

edutcher said...

I thought the Mittmentum was over.

Ned Silver said so.

Andy R. said...

Isn't 47% the number that Romney used when he referred to retired veterans as a bunch of moochers?

No, he was talking about people like Hatman who expect the government to provide cradle to grave protection.

Funny how that works out.

Also, Ohio isn't a toss-up. Romney is a plutocrat that advocated destroying the American auto industry. He's going to lose Ohio.

Actually, he wanted to save the auto industry. Barry killed it.

He also tried to kill coal.

Which is why the Romster will take OH.

And PA.

Wally Ballou said...

@Magure: exactly right. If Obama wins by a whisker, even if he loses the popular vote, he will have a clear mandate to do whatever the hell he wants. If Romney wins, by a margin large or small, the establshment media will demand that he defer to Democrat priorities and deny that he has any mandate other than to keep the seat warm for the next "real" (i.e. Dem) president. Why? Because shut up. Fortunately, what the legacy media thinks means less that ever.

garage mahal said...

I really wonder why Obama has been able to keep it as close as it is

Obama is not keeping it close. He's been leading from the beginning.

Looks like Romney's path without Ohio, if any, is Florida, Virginia, North Carolina, Colorado, and New Hampshire to get to 271 electoral votes. But he needs Wisconsin. Doesn't seem like the white blue collar types like Romney in the Midwest though.

Quayle said...

And all the while, for the last 4, and possibly for the next 4, Cass Sunstein has been safely ensconced in the WH writing executive orders to chew away at the constitution and reform the nation to his long-held visions.

He can't succeed in any lasting personal relationship of his own, but he is absolutely sure he can design and implement the optimal complex relationships of society.

K in Colorado said...

Why is North Carolina back in toss-up?

Bill said...

Romney was, I suspect, correct about the 47% of the people who wouldn't vote for him no matter what. He was incorrect about the percentage of the electorate who rely on the government for so many of their benefits (it's higher) and he was incorrect about the percentage of that percentage that represents 'moochers' or 'leaches' (it's lower) and he was incorrect to conflate the two groups (lots of moochers and leaches in the 1%). He chose to disavow the whole mess rather than clarify because it was the politically expedient thing to do. Which is a shame because the 'bombshell' video really seemed to resonate. Hardcore leftists were shocked and outraged of course and most on the right shrugged but every single one of my acquaintances who could be classified as a centrist or swing voter thought he was correct. Even my left-of-center friends thought it was true, although they still hoped it would hurt him.

Matthew Sablan said...

"Obama is not keeping it close. He's been leading from the beginning."

-- Another case of leading from behind?

Curious George said...

Romney and his campaign exude confidence. Obama and his campaign act like they are swirling in the bowl. Desperation.

Wonder why?

Martin L. Shoemaker said...

Or do you think that it's better for the winner to know he barely made it and needs to be more sppeasing/compromising/reaching-across-the-aisle with the other side?

If you think that could happen in the case of President Obama, you missed the "I won" moment, as well as most of the last four years.

garage mahal said...

Maybe people really do like death panels!

Jeffrey Levin said...

You might think that because Romney is further ahead in swing states that he does not have a problem with the Electoral College, but he does:

No, I don't think he does actually. All the polling you see, even with R+3 and R+4 still has turnout models that look more like 2008 than 2004 or 1996.

Sorry, but when the dust settles, the republicans are going to turn out and turn out strong in all of these states. With a turnout that is something more along the lines of D+1 or "don't go there" D+0, this vote won't be close on a national basis nor the electoral college.

Just wait, next week the LV screens will become ever tighter and you will see R's numbers climb.

Bill said...

What Maguro and Wally Ballou said. Mandates are something the other guy gets. After the last four years I'm not in much of a mood for all this compromise fetishism. We have an adversarial system of government for a good reason. Politicians aren't supposed to acknowledge it but when you're in power you fight for everything you can get.

Kchiker said...

I do hope both sides prepare themselves for the possibility of their candidate losing so that the cognitive dissonance doesn't lead them to scream "FRAUD" or "VOTER ID" as the reason things didn't go their way. I'm sure this is a bit much to ask, though.

ricpic said...

It was the exposure of the teleprompterless Obama in the first debate that turned all the Catherine Dunhams away from a man who couldn't get it up without prompting.

ricpic said...

Oops, Lena Dunham.

exhelodrvr1 said...

Too many people don't realize how inaccurate the media's picture of Obama is. You fell for it, Ann. You should understand better than most.

Curious George said...

"garage mahal said...
But he needs Wisconsin. Doesn't seem like the white blue collar types like Romney in the Midwest though." Not sure if he needs it, but he will get it.

Ned said...

"I really wonder why Obama has been able to keep it as close as it is."

ROFLMAO! Have you forgotten a mere 2 weeks ago you were wrapped up in how obama made you FEEL?!?
The answer to your question is there are PLENTY of idiots out there voting/polling on HOW THEY FEEL.
I guess you will serve up the RATIONAL althouse from here on out...JOKE!!!

Jeffrey Levin said...

And just one more point on turnout.

Look at the early voting totals coming out of Ohio.

O is down more than 8% from 2008 at this point. R is up almost 6% from 2008.

Once again, when the dust settles the 2008 turnout model being used will shown to have been completely misguided. All the data is there alreay, look at party affiliation and likelihood of voting data from Pew, Gallup and Rasmussen and its fairly easy to see that this will not be a close race.

clint said...

"Doesn't seem like the white blue collar types like Romney in the Midwest though."

Can't speak for the midwest, but here in true blue Massachusetts, almost all the Romney stickers I've seen are on pickup trucks.

Joe Schmoe said...

The economy is going to recover no matter who is president.

@Shouting Thomas, I disagree. It's been 4 years now since the September 2008 crash. If he economy was going to recover "no matter who is president" then it would have done so by now.


I second and third Big Mike's notion. Businesses are still hesitant to hire because the growth potential isn't there at all, and Obamacare and other regulations make it more costly to bring new people on board.

Presidents can't magically make economies grow, but Obama's policy choices have certainly had a negative effect on ours.

Obama shares the thought that the economy will magically heal itself. He desperately wants to be prez when it happens. He doesn't understand that it won't recover as long as he pursues the same agenda of the last four years.

Jason Greaves said...

It is absolutely infuriating to me that Benghazi is not the page 1 story in every newspaper. There are allegations that SOMEONE in the chain of command ordered the surrender of our consulate to a bunch of terrorists. Even without the allegations, it is common sense that after almost SEVEN HOURS of fighting, with a drone in the air, the US military and intelligence knew what was going on, and someone had to make a call as to whether to send help or not. This is tremendously important, because it directly implicates whether Barack Obama is fit for command.

Does anyone remember back in 2008, during the Republican primary, there was an unsubstantiated claim that John McCain had had an affair with a staffer? That was page 1 news. The Benghazi leaks, and the questions that they raise are not?

K in Colorado said...

Why is North Carolina back in toss-up?

Big Mike said...

I knew Virginia was going big for Romney long before the polls grudgingly acknowledged it. Northern Virginia (Fairfax county and neighboring areas in Loudoun, Prince William, and Fauquier counties) are normally pretty blue, but these areas are likely to see massive layoffs if sequestration goes through, and it's a perception (because it's a reality) that Romeny and the Republicans are more interested in stopping it than Obama.

Southwest Virginia is part of Appalachia and has voted Democrat since Jefferson founded the party. But they elected a Republican by 51% to 46% in the 2010 wave and apparently he's going to hold his seat. The coal miners are strong unionists, but they also know which party is waging a war on coal.

And then there's the southeastern part of the state, home to Newport News shipyards and the Navy base at Norfolk. After the 3rd debate, the Democrats may still a lot of votes. But not enough to overcome the rest of the state.

Virginia's been over for a while.

Matthew Sablan said...

It was an alleged affair with a lobbyist, and it the reason that McCain cut off all access forever and ever, amen, to the NYT.

David said...

People are attached to the incumbent (he is the president, after all) and can more easily imagine him as president. Many people put off the decision to vote against the president as long as they can. Also (and this isn't a claim of bias) the polls consistently undercount Republican-leaning voters.

The modern election this is most similar to is 1980. At this point in the 1980 campaign, Carter was ahead in Gallup's registered voter poll (here) by 6 points. Obama and Romney are ties (there doesn't seem to be a likely voter poll from 1980). I distinctly remember everyone's assumption on election day that the 1980 election would be incredibly close and we'd be lucky to know who won before morning. In the event, of course, the election was called as soon as polls closed on the east coast, and it later came out that Carter's campaign had known for a couple of days that it would be a blow out.

traditionalguy said...

The loving smile from the sex magic man had a deep hold on many subconscious minds, and Obama knows that.

In contrast to dull the Mittens Romney Obama should be way out ahead. But he is not.

The Benghazi calamity had an effect on firming up pro-Romney resolve.

And the economy has leveled out with a high stock market and a few new home sales going again.

The answer may lie in as yet undisclosed factors from Obama's role in planning the destruction of Israel.

If my guess is right we will see a landslide for Romney.

kcom said...

"I really wonder why Obama has been able to keep it as close as it is."

Who says it's as close as it is? Recall (no pun intended) that during the Scott Walker recall fight it was supposed to be a neck-and-neck, down-to-the-wire thing. But when the smoke cleared it was a huge Walker victory. By 7 points or so. We'll only know if it's close after the election. My gut says it's not but only time will tell.

Que será será.

Tank said...

My paper covers Libya on page A9.

That's as buried as it can be and still be in the paper.

My guess is the 90% of the population has no idea what a travesty the whole affair, before, during, and after was and is.

Justin said...

Maybe if this does wind up to be a repeat of 2000 in Obama's favor - which I actually think is quite possible - we can all agree that the electoral college needs to go. The concerns that motivated its creation do not exist anymore. For all of you Romney supporters - don't you think he would win without question if he didn't have to worry about racking up the right states? Think of how different the campaign would be. Why must the whole country be hostage to Florida and Ohio.

Darcy said...

I really wonder why Obama has been able to keep it as close as it is.

It isn't close.

pm317 said...

For all the starstruck branding that went on in 2008, Obama should be having it easy and on the way to victory. He is not. That is the other side of the coin. Period.

BarryD said...

Maybe there really IS a God.

Michael K said...

" The "paltry mandate" thing only applies to Republicans, Althouse. You should know that.

If a Democrat wins, the size of the victory matters not.

10/27/12 9:19 AM
Blogger Andy R. said...

Isn't 47% the number that Romney used when he referred to retired veterans as a bunch of moochers?

"

How would you know ?

Darcy said...

I also predict that in the years to come people aren't going to admit to to having voted for Obama's reelection. It will be a source of embarrassment. Actually, a lot of Dems I know are sheepish about the original vote.

CWJ said...

I received a card in the mail highlighting the following changes from January, 2009 to now.

Americans out of work, up 1.6MM
Gas prices, up 111%
National debt,up 51&
Family income, down $4,908
Americans in poverty, up 6.9MM

If Obama keeps claiming that he inherited the worst economy since the Great depression, what will a President Romney inherit? In fact, if Obama wins, he can ironically claim that it was all his predecessor's fault.

Lyle said...

Progressives are going to throw America off a cliff.

Republicans maybe need to quickly mature on say marijuana and gay marriage. There are conservative arguments to be made to support both of these social policy changes.

Take some of the easy social policy changes away from Democrats and the Republicans will kill them on economics.

CWJ said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
JohnJ said...

“I really wonder why Obama has been able to keep it as close as it is.”

The rabid appeals to his base have kept it close, but will handicap him greatly if he manages to win. Somewhat lost in all of Obama’s adolescent/hipster nonsense is Romney—who, for the most part, has run a respectable campaign and lately has at least tried to raise the level of discourse.

I’m well beyond biased at this point, but the contrast in demeanor and attitude between the two men is telling: One has given up any notion of bringing the various political and cultural factions together, while the other has grown considerably and seems ready to assume the role of a respected leader.

We can survive four more years of Obama, but it’ll be ugly.

edutcher said...

What Jeffrey said about early voting in OH was borne out by Michael Barone last night.

If that's a harbinger, it's a bad one for Barry.

Geraldus Maximus said...

It isn't close.

Unskewed Ohio
OBAMA% 44.05 ROMNEY% 49.30 Undec/Other 6.65

Unskewed Florida
OBAMA% 45.49 ROMNEY% 49.56 Undec/Other 4.96

Michael K said...

" 10/27/12 9:21 AM
Blogger Andy R. said...

Also, Ohio isn't a toss-up. Romney is a plutocrat that advocated destroying the American auto industry. He's going to lose Ohio."

Obama destroyed the auto industry by subsidizing the union contracts with tax payer dollars. A clean bankruptcy, like Romney advised and which Bush should have done, would have seen the companies emerge leaner and with a better chance to compete. GM will never recover and Chrysler is subsidizing Fiat. There is now more discussion of GM moving more operations to China where they are making money, as opposed to Ohio and Michigan. Notice the linked story is not Fox News.

Do you actually know anything that isn't an Obama talking point ?

garage mahal said...

Unskewed Ohio

LOL

Jason said...

My 20-something sister the Obama voter just asked me "What's Benghazi?"

She's in Oregon. Not Ohio, thank goodness.

BarryD said...

"Actually, a lot of Dems I know are sheepish about the original vote."

I hope so. Whenever I see proudly-displayed Obiden stickers, I lose a little faith in humanity. I can see being a partisan, or a lesser-evil voter, but I can't see cheering for these pieces of shit.

Actually, post Benghazi, calling them "pieces of shit" is an insult to shit.

Geraldus Maximus said...

Garage,

If you are laughing on a certain Wednesday I will eat my hat. Have a lovely walk past the graveyard. Your whistling is enchanting. . .but it ain't gonna do you any good.

Michael K said...

" Think of how different the campaign would be. Why must the whole country be hostage to Florida and Ohio."

You'd prefer to have New York and California choose our president ? California has certainly done a good job choosing Jerry Brown.

kcom said...

Any discussion about where the race stands (especially if Romney wins) has to include this gem from David Axelrod spoken in late August.

"[Republicans] have this fantasy that the debates will come and the dam will break like it did in 1980,” Axelrod said. “I think they are delusional."

garage mahal said...

It's going to be a long 4 more years I'm afraid Geraldus.

But Romney has gained by running to the middle and making conservatism extremely vague to voters. Maybe that's the key for you guys moving forward? It isn't the Tea Party Mourdock's of the world I don't think. Every 30 seconds an eligible latino voter turns 18. How are you going to compete against that?

Michael K said...

" Blogger Jason said...

My 20-something sister the Obama voter just asked me "What's Benghazi?"

She's in Oregon. Not Ohio, thank goodness."

My 22 year old in Arizona knows the ambassador was killed and it was in Libya. She didn't recognize Benghazi. The news is creeping out in spite of the media's best efforts.

Geraldus Maximus said...

The assumptions I've been quoting are with an even split R vs D turnout. Gallup is saying that election day turnout will be even more favorable to Republicans.

!!!Gallup turnout estimate : R's +1, R's +3% with leaners

That would, of course, magnify the numbers to an even larger Republican victory than the numbers I'm quoting which are already blowout territory. This is likely going to be a beatdown of historic proportions.

Deirdre Mundy said...

It's close because the NYT has barely reported on Benghazi, on Google News top stories there's no Benghazi but there's an article about how we're all racist and that's keeping Obama 5% behind in the polls, and CNN and MSNBC are mute on Benghazi.

It's close because unless you have wonkish leanings, you still think it was just a mean old Coptic video that killed the ambassador.

If the bulk of the US ever wakes up and realized how the MSM coordinated to suppress Benghazi, they're going to give up on the media completely.

But how would they ever know?

Cedarford said...

The liberals and progressive jews in charge of MSM sources are hanging on for dear life to keep the Benghazi debacle covered up until after the election.

But keep an eye on them - if the Libyan Coverup suddenly is on page 1 of the jewish-liberal Washington Post and NY Times it will be a strong signal that the Puppetteers have come to a decision that Romney will win...
And it is time to cover their asses and not be on the wrong side of the White House "stonewall".

Not with a lame duck President they stand in the spotlight of whoring for as investigations proceed under Republicans.

Martin L. Shoemaker said...

Justin said...

Maybe if this does wind up to be a repeat of 2000 in Obama's favor - which I actually think is quite possible - we can all agree that the electoral college needs to go. The concerns that motivated its creation do not exist anymore.

Please expound on what, to your understanding, were the concerns that motivated its creation and why you think they do not exist anymore.

I disagree, but I'd like to understand your reasoning.

trumpetdaddy said...

It isn't close. Rasmussen's own polls are overstating Dems by 3% and are 7% out of phase with his own monthly party ID poll which states R+4, nationally.

This is all narrative management. Nothing more.

Watch what they do, not what they say. Which campaign acts like winners and which acts like losers?

We all knew McCain was acting the loser with 10 days to go. Obama is acting the loser.

Sometimes the most blind are those that will not see.

Tim said...

But RV told us (well, me, anyway) armies of non-union volunteers are canvasing South side of Madison!

Surely the swing state tracking poll is a terrible lie.

How could it possibly miss those armies of non-union Obama canvasers in South side of Madison?

They totally make the difference.

a psychiatrist who learned from veterans said...

If you look at the comments to David Brooks latest column in the NY Times on 'What it Is to be a Moderate' you'll see all Obama supporters and all self satisfied 'moderates' who advocate his policies (much of) which David has put in an immoderate position. But they aren't going to put themselves in what seems to me to be like an original sin position of voting against a black guy like a southerner or for a Jew, without the redeeming adjective, plutocrat.

tim maguire said...

However the numbers are analyzed, only a democrat can win the popular vote but lose the election. That's because of California and New York, where Obama will win big states by big margins, wasting millions of votes.

There is no Republican equivalent of this. If Romney wins the popular vote, he will win the electoral college.

Mark Tenenbaum said...

There you go again . . . cherry picking polls. There are reasons Raz isn't considered reliable. But why would you bother to read about them.

Tim said...

"Every 30 seconds an eligible latino voter turns 18. How are you going to compete against that?"

Republicans can now (assuming a Romney win in 11 days) run against Obamaism for the next three to four presidential cycles, especially if, as you and your fellow Obama-trolls assert, the most massivenesst of econcomic recoveries is "just around the corner," lol.

Thanks, Obama Voters!

Original Mike said...

"However the numbers are analyzed, only a democrat can win the popular vote but lose the election. That's because of California and New York,"

I've been asking myself this. How can a Republican win the popular vote but lose the election? Doesn't seem possible, for the reason you state.

Seeing Red said...

--But Romney has gained by running to the middle --


Who knew deep blue Kennedy Taxachusetts was so conservative?

bagoh20 said...

The thing that does not bode well for our future is that 40% of the public is absolutely impenetrable; people who refuse to help themselves and insist that everything will just work out if they simply believe in a politician. How can a nation ever be strong enough to overcome our challenges with that mentality. That always leads to stagnation at best and catastrophe quite often. Wake up people. You need to pick yourself up. There is no Obama stash - we are broke.

Paul said...

Well if we get Obama for another 4 years expect a super socialist agenda from him and he will NOT bargain with Republicans.

In other words 4 years of malaise with 'stagflation' and high joblessness.

Well Ann, you and alot of people voted for him. Lie down with dogs... (or at least those who eat them) and expect to get fleas.

Seeing Red said...

Blogger Andy R. said...

Also, Ohio isn't a toss-up. Romney is a plutocrat that advocated destroying the American auto industry. He's going to lose Ohio."





It's a real shame there wasn't enough money to put the Delphi worker ad on TV.

Coal and that one just might have done the trick.

Mary Beth said...

Andy R. said...

Isn't 47% the number that Romney used when he referred to retired veterans as a bunch of moochers?


A moocher takes without giving. I do not see how veterans fit this description.

Nathan Alexander said...

Hey, look!
Garage mahal thinks all Latinos are illegal aliens!

And he thinks they will vote, so the GOP has to pander to them like the dems do.

But voter fraud isn't a problem?

PatCA said...

"I really wonder why Obama has been able to keep it as close as it is."

The inherent unreliability of polling. When you have people responding to questions about the "First Ladies debate" as if they actually watched such a thing, you have to discount a certain percentage of answers as unreliable.

And don't forget racismophobia: some people feel queasy being negative about the first black president.

Mark Tenenbaum said...

PS - GDP is growing at 2%, up from the projection earlier this year, housing starts are up, consumer confidence is up, the unemployment headline rate is down, and that;s after inheriting a near depression. And Obama's approval rating hovers between 47% and 54% depending on the poll. That's called a recovery, and, where I live, people are actually experiencing it, well everybody except conservatives who refuse to experience economic improvement because their political objectives don't allow for that. When Obama wins, then what?

kentuckyliz said...

Another thing we're voting on in some states is a NRA bitch-slap to Obama about Second Amendment right to bear arms--an amendment to the constitution of the commonwealth of Kentucky defining a right to hunt and fish. HB 1

garage mahal said...

Still waiting. Still waiting for my baby to leave for good.

Original Mike said...

Oh, for crying out loud, Mark. We need 3% growth just to keep unemployment from growing. GDP growth has fallen from 2010 to 2011 to 2012. Your "recovery" is pathetic.

john sager said...

4 dead in Benghazi.

But none of the libs have any answer. If I were feeling untoward, I might nominate them scum. But that would be Obamaesque - and I try to better than that.

JL said...

Other than African-Americans, who are largely going to vote for Obama no matter what, a lot of the Dem. base have not been negatively affected by the recession: Fed. employees, public sector union workers, pensioners, elite professionals who benefit from the bank bailouts and QEs that grow their stock portfolios, and govt dependents who are benefitting from looser qualification standards, are not really that worse off from four years ago. Assuming they even bother to look ahead, they believe the gravy train can last forever since Obama can just print mo' money and raise taxes on the "1%".

The business owners (the "u-didn't-build-that" crowd), skilled tradesmen, the laid off who no longer qualify for unemployment insurance, and those near retirement are the ones hardest hit. Also young people who can't find work and who will be burdened with the debt, should be turning to Romney, but many won't because they've been brainwashed to believe Republicans eat babies. However they may go third party, or not bother to vote at all- and that must keep the Dems up at night.

As for Libya, The MSM not reporting on it and spinning it in Obama's favor when they are forced to, means that no one other than news junkies know that there is a controversy and coverup.

When you put that all together it is not surprising that the polls are still so close. Romney can win only if the non-partisan intellectuals and professionals that voted for him four years ago, admit to themselves that Obama's economic and foreign policies are disasters waiting to happen, and vote against him.

exiledonmainst said...

"Isn't 47% the number that Romney used when he referred to retired veterans as a bunch of moochers?"

The retired veterans I know don't seem to think Romney was referring to them because they're voting for him. And they're right - he wasn't.

Perhaps Andy should pay a visit to a VFW post and set them all straight. They'd appreciate it, I'm sure. (Oops, is "set them all straight" a homophobic dog whistle? I denounce myself.)

Issob Morocco said...

Other than these polls, how do you he is as close as you state.

Polling as scientific as it may be, still has that one variable that Socialists and Marxists despise, the individual human, making individual decisions.

The one poll that matters and will be the rendering is...

Nov 6th

Rusty said...


The economy is going to recover no matter who is president


No. Not under the current situation. If we have four more years of what we are currently undergoing we'll wind up much like Europe. Looking at a 1-2 % annual growth as if it's real progress. If that becomes the case it will take decades to recover.

Saint Croix said...

Interesting to compare the Obama campaign to the Bush campaign in 1992.

The parallels are eerie.

exiledonmainst said...

"Doesn't seem like the white blue collar types like Romney in the Midwest though."

Garage is a great expert on white blue collar types. He lives in the gritty, tough environs of Madison, where tattooed college kids labor ceaselessly to keep government bureaucrats running on mocha lattes and green tea.



CWJ said...

Mark Tenebaum @11:14

Did you even notice my comment up thread at10:17? This is what a jobless recovery looks like. Unless you've got something else, you might want to drop the "inheriting" theme.

David said...

"I really wonder why Obama has been able to keep it as close as it is."

He starts out with 12% of the vote without even trying--the African Americans. This is not because he's black but because he's a Democrat. It's a huge advantage and the reason why Democrats are so vicious in their attacks on any black conservative.

Put the mainstream press bias on top of this. Any presidential victory by a Republican is a big uphill fight.

CWJ said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
David said...

"The economy is going to recover no matter who is president."

That's the lefty mindset. The economy will prosper no matter what damage government does to it. Foolish thinking but pretty common.

garage mahal said...

Garage is a great expert on white blue collar types. He lives in the gritty, tough environs of Madison, where tattooed college kids labor ceaselessly to keep government bureaucrats running on mocha lattes and green tea.

I live in a mixed blue collar neighborhood. I'm a dirty east sider. All the pointy head faculty types live on the west side away from us grunts.

dreams said...

I hope we have a clear winner. Gore did our country a great disservice by rescinding his initial concession, remember at no time was Gore ever ahead. It caused a lot of unnecessary pain and anger and had the liberal media behaved in an unbiased way by not calling Florida for Gore before the polls had closed in the northern part of the state a lot more Bush voters would have voted. Think about it, voters are more likely to go on and vote if they think their candidate is going to win or already won than vote for a candidate who has already lost. I've read stories about Bush voters on the way to vote but after hearing that it had been called for Gore decided not to bother voting.

The liberal media behaved shamefully, I know for I'm a political junkie and I watched them call early the Gore expected to win states while they repeatedly said the Bush expected to win states were too close to call. They wanted to make it look like Gore was wining big to influence those yet to vote.

SteveR said...

At this point one has to look at turn out/ground game/enthusiasm issues, all of which tend to favor Romney. All things that favored Obama four years ago and are used to some degree to establishe polling methodologies.

An incumbant in this position is in trouble.

exiledonmainst said...

Well, garage, riddle me this: If Obama is so popular among white salt-of-the-earth working man types (aka "bitter clingers"), why does Romney have a 14 point lead with male voters:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/158354/gender-gap-election-fueled-men-women.aspx

Gee, they must all be investment bankers or oil tycoons, I guess.

SteveR said...

I guess I need to factor in the possibility of voter fraud, which to whatever extent it takes place (Sen Franken, garare mahal's trunk), we know will favor democrats. So if its close those vanloads of Somalis in Ohio could make a difference.

Kansas City said...

If you want to see something that would bust polls wide open for Romney, check out this (which most likely is a bs rumor), but would explain the post attack contortions by Obama and company:

http://www.tigerdroppings.com/rant/p/37144547/Interesting-Rumor-Concerning-General-Carter-Ham-and-Stand-Down-Order.aspx

Kelvan Kringle said...

Garage,

No way you live in a working class neighborhood. If your friends and neighbors are incapable of getting an ID, they aren't working.

Kansas City said...

By the way, here is the rumor linked to above (I'm very skeptical, but it would explain bizarre Obama behavior trying to run out the clock and repeatedly claiming it was the video):

"The information I heard today was that General Ham as head of Africom received the same e-mails the White House received requesting help/support as the attack was taking place. General Ham immediately had a rapid response unit ready and communicated to the Pentagon that he had a unit ready.

General Ham then received the order to stand down. His response was to screw it, he was going to help anyhow. Within 30 seconds to a minute after making the move to respond, his second in command apprehended General Ham and told him that he was now relieved of his command."

Original Mike said...

Obama to nominate Army Gen. Rodriguez to lead AFRICOM

Original Mike said...

Ham is out.

Big Mike said...

The mistake R/V and garage make is thinking that any part of Madison is part of the real world. Professor Althouse and MadMan at least seem to grasp that it isn't.

ricpic said...

There is no way Romney can simultaneously reach across the aisle and do the minimum required to keep America from going over the cliff, that minimum being to flatline federal government spending. Therefore, should he win decisively or by a hair's breadth he better have the backbone NOT to reach across the aisle to the marxist party that will be screaming bloody murder should the rate of increase in government spending be reduced, nevermind flatlining it.

garage mahal said...

The mistake R/V and garage make is thinking that any part of Madison is part of the real world

I don't live in Madison. Didn't grow up in Madison either. I'm a redneck from northern Wisconsin.

Alex said...

The problem for Romney is the blue-collar types in Wisconsin & Ohio have no reason to vote for him. Obama was for the auto bailout and it cynically was to wrap up these 2 states. Romney takes the principled position that the bailout shouldn't have happened and thus can't win.

IMHO, Romney has run a flawless campaign but will lose due to circumstances out of his control.

ken in sc said...

About Wisconsinites being Yankees, to Southerners, anyone from a state that fought on the Union side are Yankees. To Texans, anyone not born in Texas is a Yankee. I was born in Alabama, but I was called a Yankee in Texas.

gregq said...

Of the 8 "toss ups", Obama leads in one (NV, 6 EV), Romney leads in 4 (FL, VA, NH, CO, 55 EV), and they're tied in 3 (WI, IA, OH). They're tied at 49 in WI, 48 in the other two, 50 - 48 Obama in NV, Romney at 50, Obama at 46 - 48 in the others.

So, give each candidate the states where he's at 50, and Romney needs one of WI or OH to win. Or he needs IA and to flip NV.

IOW, the polls are breaking to Romney, and so are the States. A week ago it was "Romney has to win all this", now it's "Obama has to hold both states, Romney needs only one, and bother are pure tossups."

The election's in 10 days. Contra Silver, Romney's momentum hasn't let up: Gallup LV is at 5 pts (51 - 46), it was at 3 when Silver made that claim. Obama is continuing to tank in job approval, and is 3 pts underwater with all adults (which means its probably 5 - 6 points with likely voters). Benghazi is coming out, and while I don't expect Romney to do a lot with it, he doesn't have to. There's a lot of the rest of us who can push for the truth to come out.

Right now, the election is Romney's to win or lose. And I expect him to win it, and I don't expect it to be close. Obama has made himself small, and he is going to pay for that.

gregq said...

Andy R. said...

"Also, Ohio isn't a toss-up. Romney is a plutocrat that advocated destroying the American auto industry. He's going to lose Ohio."

That's a joke, right? You're a right-wing troll, pretending to be a lefty, yes?

News flash: GM went bankrupt under Obama. Chrysler got sold to Fiat.. And GM's still i deep trouble, because the Obama bankruptcy didn't clean up the company, the way a well-run bankruptcy would have done.

gregq said...

"However the numbers are analyzed, only a democrat can win the popular vote but lose the election. That's because of California and New York,"

Nope. Romney can cut into their totals there, and IL, w/o winning those states. Then he's the one picking up lots of extra, useless, votes.

I remember all this, from 2008, when I was convinced McCain was going to win in the EC, despite losing the national vote. So I'm having a great deal of fun watching the Dems do the same delusional things I did in 2008.

Romney is going to win, it isn't going to be close. At least 300 EVs, probably more.

Roger J. said...

Gotta say that the story that General Ham's subordinate "apprehending" him sound like Bull Shit. No subordinate in his right mind would do something like that without a direct order in writing from the SECDEF. Nor would I make too much of a new AFRICOM CINC being named. IIRC General Ham has had his command for three years or so, and sound to me like a normal rotation. Just my .02.

yashu said...

Roger J, DrewM at Ace of Spades shares your skepticism and disputes those rumors here.

Curious George said...

"garage mahal said...
I live in a mixed blue collar neighborhood. I'm a dirty east sider. All the pointy head faculty types live on the west side away from us grunts."

Hardly. The near east side of Madison is lousy with professors.

Mark said...

Purely anecdotal, but I walked past an empty storefront in Brooklyn that had been rented for training sessions for Obama campaign volunteers. It was a large space on Atlantic Avenue near the new Barclay's basketball arena; they've been advertising it as a possible sports bar, fitness center, or restaurant. Anyway, they had about 150 folding chairs set up.

I'd guess they had 50 butts in seats, tops.

The thrill is definitely gone, even in Brooklyn.

Jeffrey Levin said...

Just to update what i said earlier.

NRO has a post that details exactly what i was talking about

see here

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/331828/two-polls-have-chicago-terrified-josh-jordan

دردشة ومنتديات عراقنا said...


شات عراقنا
جات عراقنا
دردشة عراقنا
شلة عراقنا
عراقنا
شات العراق
دردشة عراقية
شات كيكه
دردشة عبدالله
جات
شات عراقنا
دردشة
منتدى دردشة عراقنا
منتدى عراقنا
منتدى شلة عراقنا

Claudio Timbers said...

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told Pentagon reporters that U.S. forces were on a heightened state of alert already because of the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington by al Qaeda New York Tax Preparation