Romney isn't taking this election seriously At All.
So, is this race over? Democratic pollsters working in top races across the country say they don't expect Obama to run up the score like he did in 2008, but Romney's window is closing quickly.
"Post conventions polling bounces can be temporary, but the fact is Romney's difficult Electoral College math leaves him little margin for error," said Florida-based Democratic pollster Bryan Dooley.
"Just as he needs to run the table in swing states, he needs to run the table in the October debates." That's a lot of tables.
Romney pulled his ads in Michigan and Pennsylvania, so he has to win nearly every remaining swing state, and, says Democratic pollster Hankin, "he is behind in all of these states right now. The fat lady is not singing but she is warming up, and outside of Obama bombing the first debate in a way that we have never seen before, Romney is running out of ways to change the trajectory of this thing."
Let's assume that we're now looking at a 52-48 race instead of a 50-50 tie.
That marginal difference could "foreshadow a very dire 2012 for Republicans," says Zac McCrary, an Alabama-based pollster.
"If Obama can indeed win by 4-5 points, toss-up Senate races in states like Virginia, Missouri, Massachusetts, Nevada and others probably tilt Democratic.
And for every point in the Obama margin, there are probably another 6-8 toss-up House seats that shift into the Democratic column," said McCrary.
If that's true, then the House is in play.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jason-...b_1874305.html
Romney isn't taking this election seriously At All.
No. He's not. He spent last week boating.
Well, if you don't think so, then I guess it doesn't.
I don't know what you're doing, or attempting, or whatever - but I'm not participating.
It's worth remembering that at this point in the 1980 election, Carter was leading Reagan. Granted, we didn't have the social media or the polarization of today, but still... polls are not an accurate measure. Most national polling is conducted by media outlets owned by liberals, and the polls are compiled by liberals, and they discovered a couple decades ago, they can actually sway the vote by presenting bogus polls and making people think someone is winning, who isn't really winning. I think that actually helped Clinton get elected.
Obama didn't beat McCain by a whole lot, I know liberals like to think it was a 'landslide' but it really wasn't. McCain was an awful candidate, and Romney isn't a lot better, but he is running against Obama who now has a 4-year record of failure, instead of the message of "hope and change." If the polling I've seen on independent voters is true, Romney will win by a narrow margin. I predicted Romney by double digits, and I still believe this is possible, just not as likely as I once believed. He will certainly need to turn up the heat and start punching back. Romney needs to ditch the boxing gloves and get some brass knuckles like Obama, if he expects to win big. Otherwise, it will be a squeaker, and if the election is like Bush/Gore, I expect the Demos will prevail this time, they just know how to cheat better, especially the ones from Chicago.
WATERMARK, GREATEST OF THE TRINITY, ON CHIK-FIL-A
www.gunsbeerfreedom.blogspot.com
www.gunsbeerfreedom.blogspot.com
Unk (09-12-2012)
LOL, so when I call BS on unsubstantiated claims, the board drunk says it's "trolling".
How many different definitions do you losers have?
It's over, all but the second coronation. Obama wins!
Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.
This is known as “bad luck.” - Robert Heinlein
Bookmarks