I wasn’t suggesting otherwise.
I see. So Romney admits his campaign is based on lies? He admits his budget makes no sense whatsoever and that he flip-flops constantly, lying about his own campaign and his record?
Yeah people seem to think MOE just goes in one direction. If Obama is up 51-49 with a 3.5% MOE does not mean it is 50/50, it means we cannot say it is not 50/50. We also cannot say it is 54.5-45.5 which is a blowout. To call something within the MOE toss-up is as much a misnomer as would calling it a blowout.
That’s too complicated! Just say it’s tied.
To be honest, what we have here, partisan crap aside, is rock solid evidence Obama did, in fact, have a huge, difficult-to-surmount lead.
Romney is at best tied, and according to the best projection model we know to exist is still likely to lose the election, and that’s after he won one of the most lopsided Presidential debates of the last twenty years. Thik about that; Romney had to have a debate where even die hard Democrats admitted Romney won easily just for Romney to go from “very small chance” to “moderate underdog.”
What that tells me is that the pre-debate polling analysis was correct, despite the weird hoops jumped through by many Romney supporters about how somehow Romney was winning because this poll over here said he was winning amoung independents, or whatever the hell it was. A close race AFTER Romney had a terrific debate suggests Romney was losing badly before. It’s the baseball equivalent of losing 7-1 and then putting up a five-run inning; great inning, pal, but that just pulled you back into the game.
IMHO, Romney is still up against it for that very reason. We’re now seeing the polls evening out after the worst performance imaginable for Obama in Debate 1. For Romney to win, the debate boost has to continue - in other words, he’s got to pound Obama again in Rounds 2 and 3. (I don’t think the VP debate really matters.) If they didnèt have any more debates my suspicion, an OCtober Surprise aside, is that the boost would recede a little, and Obama would win by a margin somewhere between his post-convention high and the current post-debate low. He’d lose Florida and SC, and maybe Virginia, but would win Ohio, Colorado, Nevada, Iowa, and the election.
The odds of Romney pulling off two more big debate wins… well, I don’t think they’re spectacular. It’s possible, of course, but I would not bet my own money on it.
I am beginning to think it was all a carefully crafted scheme to lull Republicans into a false sense of security, before springing the October surprise on them. You think the 47% video was the only arrow in their quiver?
Why do you think this? What if debates 2 & 3 are a wash and have no further effect on the race? Right now Romney’s slightly ahead in the polls. He doesn’t need to gain another 3 - 4 points and have Obama drop another couple of points like has happened over the last couple of weeks (although I’m sure he wouldn’t mind if it happened). Where he’s at now should be sufficient for a win. He just needs to stand pat over the next four weeks and maintain his slim lead and he’ll be President Romney next year.
From the same site as your link, the RCP electoral map suggests otherwise. You can do the math on how many more electoral college votes Romney needs than Obama.
Not 50% or better. Maybe 30%. Certainly a real possibility.
It would be hilarious.
Romney actually needs one less electoral college vote than Obama to win (269 vs 270) ;-P’
In all seriousness though: 269-181 = 88. Romney needs to win 88 of the 140 electoral votes in the “Toss Up” category (that’s 63%). Obama’s # is 53 (38%).
If Romney wins the popular vote by a point (his current lead in the RCP average of general election polls) or more, he’ll almost certainly win the electoral college as well. That was my point. All the discussion of the electoral college really only matters if the popular vote margin is razor thin. Look at 2000, it was 48.4% to 47.9%.
I disagree. The infection of the Party by those who would turn the USA into a theocratic plutocracy is a done deal. The Party must ultimately be obliterated, and the cancer removed from the body politic. The political philosophy of “smallest government necessary to adequately perform legitimate functions of government” must be handed off to a new political party, one that doesn’t have the cancer that now infects the Republican Party.
Once this has been achieved, it will be safe to turn a similar cleansing fire upon the Democratic Party. It’s simply not practicable to replace both at the same time, and getting rid of the Democratic Party first would spell disaster for the nation, and possibly the world.
Frankly, wish to work toward an America where theocrats, plutocrats, or theocratic plutocrats have no political safe haven, just as I don’t want Lyndon Larouche, the KKK or the erstwhile members of the White Aryan Resistance to have one. I believe that all of these individuals, have a fundamental hatred for what America stands for.
I don’t know how broadly or narrowly you define “theocrat,” but given that Christians* outnumber atheists more than 5-to-1, you’ve got your work cut out for you.
- I’m lumping in “Protestant/Other Christian” “Catholic” and (at the risk of triggering a firestorm) “Mormon”
Most Christians are not theocrats.
Most Christians want the Talibornagains to go to hell.
I thought I saw a Pew Survey this week that claims that 20% of Americans profess “no religion”?
shrug 15%, 20%, whatever. It’s a distinct minority.
Fear Itself, how do you define “theocrat”? Can you give me some examples?
Mike Huckabee is a theocrat:
Most Christians recognize the separation of church and state.
Do you think anyone who would support banning abortions (in most cases) or homosexual marriage (I assume Huckabee was talking about one or the other) is a “theocrat”?
Well, the main arguments against both are almost entirely, if not entirely, based on religious beliefs…
Romney is doing what politicians do: vague promises, touting his strengths while not talking much about his weaknesses. Obama’s campaign is no different. The real question is why you employ a double standard.