RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

Doll Is Mine wrote:Paul Ryan: "The method of conception doesn't change the definition of life."



This is some scary #$!&@.

Although I fundamentally disagree with the notion that women should be denied first-term abortions for any reason, this is the intellectually correct position for conservatives who believe that live begins at conception. Any social conservative who espouses that belief while permitting abortions in the cases of rape and incest is either a lying, pandering hypocrite or valuing the mother's emotional well-being over the unborn life--and therefore a pandering hypocrite.

allentown wrote:

mozartpc27 wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:obama up 51-47 in colorado according to ppp.

all of their polls had large democratic samples today, so who knows.

They're doing their part to generate the narrative

It will be interesting to see if Nate treats them separately or if he lets them pull his model even further from the most likely outcome

Welp, Nate now has Obama up to a 73.1% chance of winning, 294 EVs, +1.5% in the popular vote. I suppose you think this is "even further from the most likely outcome."

So, if Obama loses, we can conclude that advanced or even intermediate stats are useless and the old-schoolers are right to just focus on BA, HR, RBI and the good face.

td11 wrote:Washington Post poll ‏@postpolls
Post-ABC tracking poll: National contest is back at 49% for Romney and 48%; was 50%-47% Romney-Obama yesterday

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

td11 wrote:more norah o'donnell plz

allentown wrote:

gr wrote:If Obama loses somehow, I assume he runs again in 4 years? Unless the party totally forgets about him in that time. I'm fascinated by what he'd do post-one-term since he's pretty young. I'm not hoping for that, mind you.

That's not going to happen. If Obama loses, Hilary is a likelier choice -- despite all the denials, in 2016 than Obama is. I'm trying to think when the Dems brought back a loser, post-FDR, as Republicans did with Nixon.

CalvinBall wrote:Where do Rasmussen and gravis normally trend? Rasmussen has Casey only up one over smith. That can't be right.

jerseyhoya wrote:She went to Gtown, as did her younger sister who was in my year. One night sophomore year Mary O'Donnell convinced two of my roommates - one of whom was sure he was going to get to sleep with her at the end of the evening - to go with her and a few of her friends to a gay strip club. Neither got laid.

allentown wrote:

gr wrote:If Obama loses somehow, I assume he runs again in 4 years? Unless the party totally forgets about him in that time. I'm fascinated by what he'd do post-one-term since he's pretty young. I'm not hoping for that, mind you.

That's not going to happen. If Obama loses, Hilary is a likelier choice -- despite all the denials, in 2016 than Obama is. I'm trying to think when the Dems brought back a loser, post-FDR, as Republicans did with Nixon.

jerseyhoya wrote:

td11 wrote:Washington Post poll ‏@postpolls
Post-ABC tracking poll: National contest is back at 49% for Romney and 48%; was 50%-47% Romney-Obama yesterday

Kinda weird they say Romney is +18 among men and -13 among women. Would think that would point toward holding at 50-47%. Rounding is a hell of a thing. (both at the subgroup level and the topline)

gr wrote:Norah Odonnell? Bleh. I think she took 5th place in a Lauren Holley lookalike contest once.

I have a special story about an MSNBC anchor but you guys will make fun of me.

gr wrote:

allentown wrote:

gr wrote:If Obama loses somehow, I assume he runs again in 4 years? Unless the party totally forgets about him in that time. I'm fascinated by what he'd do post-one-term since he's pretty young. I'm not hoping for that, mind you.

That's not going to happen. If Obama loses, Hilary is a likelier choice -- despite all the denials, in 2016 than Obama is. I'm trying to think when the Dems brought back a loser, post-FDR, as Republicans did with Nixon.

No way. She'll be almost 70. And out of a job as well. I'll take that bet.

If he loses, it will be by the slimmest of margins and I think you'd agree, Obama would be a unique candidate in a number of ways (race, age, experience, etc).

TenuredVulture wrote:

gr wrote:Norah Odonnell? Bleh. I think she took 5th place in a Lauren Holley lookalike contest once.

I have a special story about an MSNBC anchor but you guys will make fun of me.

You hit on Rachel Maddow?

Houshphandzadeh wrote:

Doll Is Mine wrote:Paul Ryan: "The method of conception doesn't change the definition of life."



This is some scary #$!&@.

I know we just talked about this and all , but I don't see how it's scary at all

if you think fetuses are people/"life" then you shouldn't care how they're conceived

please tell me how that statement is incorrect: "The method of conception doesn't change the definition of life."

traderdave wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:

gr wrote:Norah Odonnell? Bleh. I think she took 5th place in a Lauren Holley lookalike contest once.

I have a special story about an MSNBC anchor but you guys will make fun of me.

You hit on Rachel Maddow?

Maddow hit on GR.

Polar Bear Phan wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:Where do Rasmussen and gravis normally trend? Rasmussen has Casey only up one over smith. That can't be right.

Pretty sure the perception is that Rasmussen trends Republican, but it also has been the most accurate pollster in some recent electoral cycles.

Based on what I saw a week or two ago, I'd assume Gravis trends a bit Democratic.

traderdave wrote:

gr wrote:

allentown wrote:

gr wrote:If Obama loses somehow, I assume he runs again in 4 years? Unless the party totally forgets about him in that time. I'm fascinated by what he'd do post-one-term since he's pretty young. I'm not hoping for that, mind you.

That's not going to happen. If Obama loses, Hilary is a likelier choice -- despite all the denials, in 2016 than Obama is. I'm trying to think when the Dems brought back a loser, post-FDR, as Republicans did with Nixon.

No way. She'll be almost 70. And out of a job as well. I'll take that bet.

If he loses, it will be by the slimmest of margins and I think you'd agree, Obama would be a unique candidate in a number of ways (race, age, experience, etc).

IDK, Obama would have lost because people thought he did a shitty job the first time around? Why would they be willing to give him a third chance? Also, another part of the reason he would have lost in re-election is BECAUSE of his race. We would never be able to put an accurate number on it but, I think you would acknowledge, there will be a not-insignificant number of people who are going to vote for Romney (or other) simply because he is not black.