http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-2 ... tions.html

What a wonderful person you Romney supporters are voting for.

For Money, God and Country

td11 wrote:sry for blowing up threat but,

kind of a bizzarro laurel and hardy

I kind of seriously wonder if Christie has made the evaluation that Obama will win next week and is now positioning himself to run in 2016.

I can't imagine jh (and other Republicans) is/are too happy with Christie's conspicuous praise of the President at this moment.

Then again, it's just as likely that this is all meaningless, except within the context of, "This was a really big storm, and this really sucks."

At times Christie seems very calculating, at other times an emotional reactionary. That's why I'm having a tough time reading this situation.

Apparently my sage observation brought this entire thread to a halt.

Finally

MI President - Don't think Romney's gonna win MI, but it seems to be something pretty well within the realm of possibility

jerseyhoya wrote:MI President - Don't think Romney's gonna win MI, but it seems to be something pretty well within the realm of possibility

It has a better chance of going Romney than Utah has of going Obama. I'll give you that. But I'll assume that 21 straight Obama winning polls suggest a trend.

Better than in 2008. We're doing it.

honestly, unless the republican abandon the pro-big business, supply side economic model they will never win again.

In the space of about 20 minutes just now, I worked myself (again) into a panic about the election after reading a Douthat column which linked to a well-argued redstate.com post arguing that Romney is a sure thing. Then I worked myself back down after realizing that its argument is grounded in the same contention as every other (non-dumbassed) case that Silver's take is off: that Gallup's guess about the composition of the electorate (more Rs voting than Ds) is right and most everyone else's is wrong, to the extent that even if Obama runs better in swing states than he does nationally, it won't be enough. IOW, this might well be the case, but it's not a new analysis.

It really does come down to turnout. It seems clear the Obama campaign has a good system here, though it's probably fair to argue that the evangelical community goes a long way toward closing whatever organization gap exists.

jerseyhoya wrote:Obama's going up on TV now in PA, MI and MN

PA seems like a waste of time and money. Bush couldn't win here.

dajafi wrote:In the space of about 20 minutes just now, I worked myself (again) into a panic about the election after reading a Douthat column which linked to a well-argued redstate.com post arguing that Romney is a sure thing. Then I worked myself back down after realizing that its argument is grounded in the same contention as every other (non-dumbassed) case that Silver's take is off: that Gallup's guess about the composition of the electorate (more Rs voting than Ds) is right and most everyone else's is wrong, to the extent that even if Obama runs better in swing states than he does nationally, it won't be enough. IOW, this might well be the case, but it's not a new analysis.

It really does come down to turnout. It seems clear the Obama campaign has a good system here, though it's probably fair to argue that the evangelical community goes a long way toward closing whatever organization gap exists.

The entire debate really is about the composition of the electorate. Can Obama win if it's 74% or more white? Can Romney win if it's D+4 or more in Ohio...or nationally?

The post you're referring to I'm guessing is the one by Dan McLaughlin. It's a nice piece. He's @baseballcrank on twitter, whom I've referenced before on here, and I'm sure some of you follow him. Huge Mets fan, into sabermetrics, civil but willing to engage in arguments on twitter. He was always a favorite of mine back when I posted regularly at RedState, but he really earned my respect when Crashburn blocked him on twitter after they had a perfectly normal political discussion a while back and then he expressed shock that Crashburn blocked him.

Gallup seems to have the electorate as being too white. I think personally most of the public Ohio polls are too Democratic. Extending out from that narrow point, I think a lot of the state polling is particularly awful, and Nate's model suffers from building out so much from state polls. I guess we'll have our answer in seven days who is right and who is wrong.

I keep going through peaks and valleys of confidence. Sandy was really not so good. Dunno if it's all the tension in my folks' place the past few days or some rational assessment that Obama is likely to benefit from the change in topic, but I've been rather depressed about Romney's chances since Sunday.

pacino wrote:they asked for canned goods...in ohio

I wouldn't give him too much grief over that. although you'd think someone on staff would have at least contacted the RC first.

Actually, it kinda reminds me of that WKRP in Cincinnati Thanksgiving episode.

Since jh responded to me and somewhat alluded to this in said response (and I referred to it in my original), I should note that I was thinking earlier today about how the world would be a better place if more partisan Republicans did what he does vis-a-vis Silver: make a rational case for why he might be wrong rather than mindlessly allege bias on his part. That I strongly suspect Silver would respond, "yeah, maybe" to jh's critique--which is really not of Nate so much as the polls he's using--is to both their credit.

Quinnipiac lays down another line of the same. Ohio O+5, VA O+2, FL O+1. Their state polls (along with Marist) have consistently had the largest pro-Obama lean, moreso even than PPP. I mean ffs, almost 90% of adults - not registered voters, adults - made it through their likely voter screen in all three states. If you're modeling a state with 90% turnout, I think you're doing it wrong. All polls at least as Dem if not moreso than 2008's electorate.

I mean, they could very well be right about all this. They've certainly been consistent. But I'm pretty sure they're not right. And if they're not right, some pretty big questions oughta be asked of them (and the NYT and CBS) after the fact. If they are right we're gonna be able to get to bed early on election night.

http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/ro ... 0/30/52648

What a guy.

I'm starting to get worried, not because I think Pres. Obama will win re-election, but because I'm starting to think it is inevitable. Anytime I feel this confident about an outcome in sports I end up being wrong and devastated. I feel my confidence in the matter will end up being a curse, and I will be disappointed a week from today with a lame duck President.

I hope my confidence is right, and the creeping feeling of doom is wrong.

Soren wrote:http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/romney-donating-sandy-supplies-only-to-gop-swing-states-not-nj-or-ny/politics/2012/10/30/52648

What a guy.

See, this is what I've been saying about the guy. He doesn't give a shit about people who are in trouble or are helpless. He only cares about bettering his own standing in whatever he's doing. Everyone in the country should know about this because it basically sums up who he is.