JFLNYC wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

JFLNYC wrote:Let's not be obtuse by suggesting that Romney didn't have political as well as humanitarian motives.

Of course he did. He's a politician running for president, and we're voting in 6 days.

Is Obama in NJ today for purely humanitarian reasons? He's not a scumbag; he's just doing his job, which involves photo ops. Running for president involves photo ops and public relations stuff.

Oh no Romney's doing something nice what an asshat! He's trying to look good! #$!&@ him!

Please don't attribute what others may have said to me. When it comes to things like charity and family, I suspect Mitt's a good guy. My post was in response to yours which ascribed nothing but the nest motives to him when certainly is motives were mixed.

The UNSKEWED Projection of the 2012 Presidential Race

The QStarNews projection of the 2012 presidential race sees Mitt Romney being elected the next president of the United States with 53.63 percent of the popular vote and 359 electoral votes to President Obama's 45.92 percent and 179 electoral votes.

The Nightman Cometh wrote:Interesting is the wrong word.

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

JFLNYC wrote:Let's not be obtuse by suggesting that Romney didn't have political as well as humanitarian motives.

Of course he did. He's a politician running for president, and we're voting in 6 days.

Is Obama in NJ today for purely humanitarian reasons? He's not a scumbag; he's just doing his job, which involves photo ops. Running for president involves photo ops and public relations stuff.

Oh no Romney's doing something nice what an asshole! He's trying to look good! Fuck him!

please don't bust a valve over this. Mitt's team goofed up again, no biggie

Battleground state presidential polls suggest a very close finish, but look at nearby states on the map, and national polling, and it becomes clear that late-deciding Americans are breaking hard for Romney.

In poll after poll of formerly safe blue states, the Republican is closing ground on Obama, far outpacing Republican totals from 2008:

In 2008, Connecticut went for Obama by 22 points. The latest Mason-Dixon poll has Obama up by just 7.
In 2008, Michigan went for Obama by 17 points. The latest Detroit News poll has Obama up by just 3.
In 2008, Minnesota went for Obama by 11 points. The latest Minneapolis Star Tribune poll has Obama up by just 3.
In 2008, Oregon went for Obama by 16. The latest Oregonian poll has Obama up just 6.
In 2008, Pennsylvania went for Obama by 10. The latest Morning Call poll has Obama up by just 3.

Romney, who along with his Super PAC is making a run at some of these states, will probably not win any of them. But he doesn’t need to. The simple fact that all of them are moving in his direction shows that more and more Americans are looking for a change of leadership in the White House this election year.

Before this year I had never heard of Nate Silver, but I don't read the New York Times (it's useless) and I don't have a bird or need to line a cage with the paper, nor do I waste my time reading the rantings of insane moonbats and other assorted America-hating leftists at sites like Democrat Underground or The Daily Kos. Anyone doubting that modern liberals are lunatics and America haters need only listen to this speech by Evan Sayet or read his new book about how modern liberals think. Those same modern liberals are also the ones who appear to worship Nate Silver.

Nate Silver seems to have some weird allegedly statistics-based process where he analyzes the data from polls and predicts which candidate will win a state or an election and he assigns a percent chance they will win it. I don't see any validity to it at all and certainly I don't view it as any kind of “scientific” process. It entirely seems like voodoo statistics to me and it might as well be entirely made up what he comes up with. Imperfect as it is, and it can only be imperfect, the only real way to predict the results of any political election contest is to conduct surveys and polls.

Let's look at Nate Silver's analysis of the polls in some key swing states. For Colorado his polling average shows Obama leading 47.7 percent to 46.6 percent and he projects vote share to be Obama by 49.8 percent to 49.2 percent. That is very close and clearly the state, even by this data, could be won by Romney. Real Clear Politics has Colorado tied at 47.8 percent, which leaves plenty of undecided voters to easily tip the majority of the vote in Colorado to Romney. Yet Silvers give Obama a 55 percent chance of winning the state, despite the polling data shown at RCP that proves otherwise.

Iowa is rated toss-up by RCP. Obama leads by 2.3 percent in the RCP average, which is well within the margin of error of most of the polls in the average. The most recent Rasmussen survey of Iowa shows the race tied and a recent poll by Democrat-leaning PPP shows Romney leading 49 percent to 48 percent. Clearly Romney has at least as much a chance of winning Iowa as does Obama. What does Nate Silver says? He gives Obama a 71 percent chance of winning Iowa. Ridiculous.

Recent surveys by ARG and Rasmussen show Romney winning in Republican-leaning New Hampshire. Remember Republicans had lost control of the state to liberal Democrats in 2006 and 2008 but in 2010 won more than two thirds of both houses of the state legislature and both seats on Congress. Clearly the Republican voting patterns had returned with a vengeance in New Hampshire and that will be true in 2012 too. Romney will win the state. But Nate Silver gives Obama a 70 percent chance of winning New Hampshire. Which alternative reality universe is he living in?

Recent polls show Romney leading in Ohio, yet Silver gives Obama a 73 percent change of winning the state. As close as many in the media believe this election is going to be, Nate Silver goes far off the deep end and gives 72.9 percent chance of winning the election. He's going to be proven so far off and wrong, if he stands with these numbers, when Mitt Romney is elected president next week. Will the far left stick with Nate Silver after he's discredited by the election results, or will they toss him aside like an empty Domino's Pizza box after having eaten the pizza?

Romney, who along with his Super PAC is making a run at some of these states, will probably not win any of them. But he doesn’t need to.

phdave wrote:Morning Examiner: Romney expands the map

Battleground state presidential polls suggest a very close finish, but look at nearby states on the map, and national polling, and it becomes clear that late-deciding Americans are breaking hard for Romney.

In poll after poll of formerly safe blue states, the Republican is closing ground on Obama, far outpacing Republican totals from 2008:

In 2008, Connecticut went for Obama by 22 points. The latest Mason-Dixon poll has Obama up by just 7.
In 2008, Michigan went for Obama by 17 points. The latest Detroit News poll has Obama up by just 3.
In 2008, Minnesota went for Obama by 11 points. The latest Minneapolis Star Tribune poll has Obama up by just 3.
In 2008, Oregon went for Obama by 16. The latest Oregonian poll has Obama up just 6.
In 2008, Pennsylvania went for Obama by 10. The latest Morning Call poll has Obama up by just 3.

Romney, who along with his Super PAC is making a run at some of these states, will probably not win any of them. But he doesn’t need to. The simple fact that all of them are moving in his direction shows that more and more Americans are looking for a change of leadership in the White House this election year.

Three state level polls of likely voters in Florida, Ohio and Virginia released today by CBS News/NYT/Quinnipiac are heavily skewed and show President Obama leading over Mitt Romney. The polls shows Obama leading by one percent in Florida, five percent in Ohio and two percent in Virginia. Other recent surveys, that have been far less skewed, have shown Romney leading in all three of the states, including a recent Rasmussen survey showing Romney leading 50 percent to 48 percent in Ohio.
...
That is three state-level polls skewed to show small Obama leads and unskewed, the same data reveals a more likely and plausible Romney lead that is very consistent with other more credible and less skewed polls conducted in those states. This fit the pattern of the national CBS News polls of the presidential race released today, which is skewed to show a one percent (48 percent to 47 percent) lead for President Obama while the unskewed data from that survey reveals a 49 percent to 47 percent lead for Mitt Romney.

These polls are not the only ones recently to be skewed by over-sampling Democrats to create results favorable to Barack Obama. Earlier this year, the September CNN/ORC poll was similarly skewed. Last month on the Fox News segment “Campaign Insiders” today, Democratic pollsters Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen both confirmed their belief that major polls are skewed in favor of the Democrats by over-sampling of Democratic voters when the surveys are conducted.

Why the Modern Liberal's thinking leads him to side with evil over good, wrong over right and the behaviors that lead to failure over those that lead to success. Further extrapolating on the ideas in his wildly popular viral youtube talk to the Heritage Foundation, that has received over 600k hits, Evan Sayet uses his signature wit in this new book to ask thought- provoking questions during these turbulent economic and social times. And he provides the reader with some surprising answers. Andrew Breitbart said that Evan Sayet's Heritage Foundation Speech was 'one of the five most important conservative speeches ever given.' That speech was the foundation for this book. How did the song "Imagine" by John Lennon become the perfect symbol of liberal thinking? Why does Bruce Springsteen dub "pain" as the wages of toil and hard work? What’s the Democrats’ beef with God? What do they have against the Jews of Israel? Why do they want abortion to be commonplace and frequent? Why does the Modern Liberal –the dominant force in today’s Democratic Party and in so much of today’s popular culture – seem to always side with evil over good, wrong over right and the behaviors that lead to failure over those that lead to success? Evan Sayet answers those questions and a lot more.

Why does Bruce Springsteen dub "pain" as the wages of toil and hard work?