Romney is the next President

[QUOTE="Guybrush_3"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]He will. When the democrats loses early voting they are finished. KC_Hokie

again, you're ignoring the fact that there is very little voting going on in most democratic portion of the country.

And I repeat. Democrats aren't out voting because their dealing with a f*cking hurricane.

The fact that you don't understand what is meant when someone is talking about "free healthcare" says alot....

LostProphetFLCL

[QUOTE="Guybrush_3"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Anyone who feels politicians are qualified to determine what percentage over 51% government should take from one group and give to another should get their head checked.KC_Hokie

can you give me a reason why it is objectively bad?

sure.

[QUOTE="Vuurk"]All governments are allowed to tax people for whatever percentage of their money they want.

super600

no

Unless you mean 'government' in the most general term encompassing evey institution of government and not just the executive/legislative bodies of government.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="Guybrush_3"]

again, you're ignoring the fact that there is very little voting going on in most democratic portion of the country.

Guybrush_3

And I repeat. Democrats aren't out voting because their dealing with a f*cking hurricane.

[QUOTE="super600"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]He will. When the democrats loses early voting they are finished. KC_Hokie

Still using history as a justification.:P

[QUOTE="Lord_Omikron666"]

[QUOTE="Vuurk"] Since it will be any different than Obama being elected right? Vuurk

[QUOTE="Vuurk"]

Everytime I read your posts, I get the impression that you are very young. (early teens). When you say things such as, "Really, I feel like we need free general healthcare already." Who do you think will pay for the costs of medicine, doctor's salaries, hospital expenses, etc? Nothing is free. Are you suggesting that the government should just pay the costs for everyone so we don't have to worry about it? With what funds will the government use to pay for this? The only money the government has is what it has taken from taxpayers or borrowed as debt. Your logic and reasoning displays a very childish and irresponsible mentality. Vuurk

The fact that you don't understand what is meant when someone is talking about "free healthcare" says alot....

LostProphetFLCL

Yes it is so childish to think that my taxes should go to good use. :roll:

The fact that people feel the health of our population is NOT something worth putting our tax money towards is disturbing...

Oh wait, but lets not forget that doing so will mean people will no longer be paying for insurance so they will be saved bills there, people will no longer be drowned in debt from medical bills (unless someone gets an elective surgery they can't pay for...), oh and that healthcare costs will go down without the middleman so it will be less of a burden. Oh and won't medicare AND medicaid funding be able to go to public healthcare instead?

The government can stand to cut military funding and if taxes need to be raised a bit so be it. This would help the entire country if people would pull their heads out of their ass for a second.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"]You know I see Republicans call Democrats "desperate" pretty much all the time. I feel like Republican guests on Fox are contractually obliged to say it at least once an appearance. But I'd like to take a moment to say: The last 4 weeks Republicans have been more desperate than a neckbeard after prom. Thank you Republicans for the free entertainment. Vuurk

[QUOTE="Vuurk"][QUOTE="Ace6301"]You know I see Republicans call Democrats "desperate" pretty much all the time. I feel like Republican guests on Fox are contractually obliged to say it at least once an appearance. But I'd like to take a moment to say: The last 4 weeks Republicans have been more desperate than a neckbeard after prom. Thank you Republicans for the free entertainment. Ace6301

[QUOTE="dave123321"][QUOTE="LostProphetFLCL"]

The fact that you don't understand what is meant when someone is talking about "free healthcare" says alot....

Vuurk

[QUOTE="rragnaar"]

National polls don't always paint a very accurate picture. Romney is surely leading in the early vote in all of the deeply red states he was likely to win in the first place, that doesn't mean he is up in battleground states that will actually win the election. That being said, Gallup's numbers have neen outliers for a while now. Reuters tells a different story about the early vote. In any case, things look close nationally, but that ignores the reality of how the electoral college is going to play out. Romney has very few combinations of states that are in play that will allow him to win the electoral college. He needs most of the swing states to break for him, and it isn't likely.

KC_Hokie

And if the democrats loses early voting they lose the election. Romney is going to win the election.

Let's look at the map of swing states:

Of the 36% of people in Ohio that have voted early, Obama is leading 63/36. He is currently polling at 51-47. Romney can't overcome that early voting gap. That means Obama's 247 votes almost assuredly becomes 265.

In Iowa 34% of the state has already voted, Obama is leading the early vote 68/32, and is polling at 49/47 in the state. Close for sure, but the early voting advantage likely puts the state in Obama's favor. IF I'm right here, admittedly an 'if', Obama has won the election with at least 271 votes.

Nevada is looking more solid in Obama's favor than Iowa. Which means that if Obama doesn't take Iowa, but does take Nevada, he is again at 271 electoral votes.

Obama is up 51/46 in Virginia. The numbers dipped a bit after the first debate, but they've climbed since. This would net him another 13 votes.

Obama is leading in New Hampshire which gets him another 4 votes.

Colorado, North Carolina and Florida are too close to call, but Obama has stayed competitive in those states. I'm not crazy about the electoral college, but it is clear that Romney's chances of winning are very slim when you look at how our country actually elects the president, rather than looking at Gallup.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="rragnaar"]

National polls don't always paint a very accurate picture. Romney is surely leading in the early vote in all of the deeply red states he was likely to win in the first place, that doesn't mean he is up in battleground states that will actually win the election. That being said, Gallup's numbers have neen outliers for a while now. Reuters tells a different story about the early vote. In any case, things look close nationally, but that ignores the reality of how the electoral college is going to play out. Romney has very few combinations of states that are in play that will allow him to win the electoral college. He needs most of the swing states to break for him, and it isn't likely.

rragnaar

And if the democrats loses early voting they lose the election. Romney is going to win the election.

Let's look at the map of swing states:

Of the 36% of people in Ohio that have voted early, Obama is leading 63/36. He is currently polling at 51-47. Romney can't overcome that early voting gap. That means Obama's 247 votes almost assuredly becomes 265.

In Iowa 34% of the state has already voted, Obama is leading the early vote 68/32, and is polling at 49/47 in the state. Close for sure, but the early voting advantage likely puts the state in Obama's favor. IF I'm right here, admittedly an 'if', Obama has won the election with at least 271 votes.

Nevada is looking more solid in Obama's favor than Iowa. Which means that if Obama doesn't take Iowa, but does take Nevada, he is again at 271 electoral votes.

Obama is up 51/46 in Virginia. The numbers dipped a bit after the first debate, but they've climbed since. This would net him another 13 votes.

Obama is leading in New Hampshire which gets him another 4 votes.

Colorado, North Carolina and Florida are too close to call, but Obama has stayed competitive in those states. I'm not crazy about the electoral college, but it is clear that Romney's chances of winning are very slim when you look at how our country actually elects the president, rather than looking at Gallup.

Inb4

All those polls are wrong and oversample democrats they also estimate voter turnout at 2008 levels.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="rragnaar"]

National polls don't always paint a very accurate picture. Romney is surely leading in the early vote in all of the deeply red states he was likely to win in the first place, that doesn't mean he is up in battleground states that will actually win the election. That being said, Gallup's numbers have neen outliers for a while now. Reuters tells a different story about the early vote. In any case, things look close nationally, but that ignores the reality of how the electoral college is going to play out. Romney has very few combinations of states that are in play that will allow him to win the electoral college. He needs most of the swing states to break for him, and it isn't likely.

rragnaar

And if the democrats loses early voting they lose the election. Romney is going to win the election.

Let's look at the map of swing states:

Of the 36% of people in Ohio that have voted early, Obama is leading 63/36. He is currently polling at 51-47. Romney can't overcome that early voting gap. That means Obama's 247 votes almost assuredly becomes 265.

In Iowa 34% of the state has already voted, Obama is leading the early vote 68/32, and is polling at 49/47 in the state. Close for sure, but the early voting advantage likely puts the state in Obama's favor. IF I'm right here, admittedly an 'if', Obama has won the election with at least 271 votes.

Nevada is looking more solid in Obama's favor than Iowa. Which means that if Obama doesn't take Iowa, but does take Nevada, he is again at 271 electoral votes.

Obama is up 51/46 in Virginia. The numbers dipped a bit after the first debate, but they've climbed since. This would net him another 13 votes.

Obama is leading in New Hampshire which gets him another 4 votes.

Colorado, North Carolina and Florida are too close to call, but Obama has stayed competitive in those states. I'm not crazy about the electoral college, but it is clear that Romney's chances of winning are very slim when you look at how our country actually elects the president, rather than looking at Gallup.

Bookmarking this thread for next week.

Romney is tied or leading in every swing state. The ties will break for the challenger.KC_Hokie

lol you literally just ignored the facts in his post and came up with your own

Bookmarking this thread for next week.

Aljosa23

I pity america :(

Bookmarking this thread for next week.

Aljosa23

In his Wet Dreams he is.

That's why only listening to one pollster is dangerous. If you convince yourself that one pollster is correct, when it has consistently been an outlier, you are ignoring all of the other data that shows a different story. Admittedly I was lazy up there by only linking to PPP, but their polls are in line with the rest of the state polling that I've seen. Traditionally if one poll is showing a very different result than the other pollsters, that pollster is wrong. I don't know for sure, but I have a feeling that Gallup's reputation is going to be damaged heavily next week.rragnaar

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Romney is tied or leading in every swing state. The ties will break for the challenger.JML897

lol you literally just ignored the facts in his post and came up with your own

[QUOTE="LostProphetFLCL"]

I have been given no reason NOT to be dismissive of the current Republican party.

They call themselves conservatives but they wouldn't know what that word meant if the definition was tattoo'd on the back of their hand....

The whole party just needs to be rebuilt. I hoped that after Bush lost that they might get their **** together but they became WAY more insane instead.

I want a Republican party who will actually be conservative when it comes to spending, not some idiots who think conservative means being the biggest asshat of a Christian you can possibly be without being a member of the WBC.

The morons want to focus on holding back peoples rights home (and yes gay marriage not being legalized is just embarassing with the amount of ignorance that is involved in keeping it that way) rather than fix our economy and our God awful healthcare system. They constantly fight AGAINST the middle and lower class yet somehow these morons out there in the general public just eat it up.

Yay more tax breaks for the rich! Yay our healthcare keeps getting more expensive while the Repubs sit there with their thumbs up their ass until of course the Dems try to do something about it then they really hop into action to completely destroy what could have been the most useful piece of legislation put forth since I have been alive.

The 5 year old behavior needs to stop in Congress as well. Just cause someone is from the other party doesn't mean you can't freaking co-operate with them. The fact that these idiots (and yes the Repubs were once again the worst in this department) put party allegiance ahead of the American people they are supposed to be helping is despicable and I feel they should all be voted out for their behavior these last few years since Obama has been in office.

The fact that people like Santorum and Ryan and even Bachman were all in the major runnings for the Republican nomination shows just how bad the party has become.

musicalmac

Romney is tied or leading in every swing state. The ties will break for the challenger.

KC_Hokie

Point 1: According to one or two polls. Each swing state has polls that show both candidates in the lead. So wishful thinking on your part.

Point 2:[citation needed] and wishful thinking.

Romney is tied or leading in every swing state. The ties will break for the challenger.KC_Hokie

[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]

Bookmarking this thread for next week.

Ace6301

[QUOTE="rragnaar"]That's why only listening to one pollster is dangerous. If you convince yourself that one pollster is correct, when it has consistently been an outlier, you are ignoring all of the other data that shows a different story. Admittedly I was lazy up there by only linking to PPP, but their polls are in line with the rest of the state polling that I've seen. Traditionally if one poll is showing a very different result than the other pollsters, that pollster is wrong. I don't know for sure, but I have a feeling that Gallup's reputation is going to be damaged heavily next week.KC_Hokie

Obamas Early Voting Strategy Flops?

now taking bets on the number of threads screaming about voter fraud in the event of an obama victory

[QUOTE="super600"]

Don;t want to turn this into a political issue, but that storm may affect the outcome of the election so I wouldn't be cheering for romney yet.

KC_Hokie

You are declaring this election over based on that article?

1) It says 55% of the vote came in the far west (primarily Oregon and Washington) - So even if Romney is winning in early votes on West Coast, he is still not winning those states and this is meaningless in regards to those states.

2) It says 40% of the vote came in the South - ROMNEY IS WINNING IN THE SOUTH??????????????????!?!?!???1one1?!!?one?

3) These aren't even actual numbers, these are from phone conversations with people who still have landlines (ie: old people mostly) questioned on their intentions to vote early and vote for who...

-----

People need to stop relying so heavily on these polls, they rely on the calling of registered voters on land lines... That might have been ok in like 1996... It is 2012... Almost every family/household I know doesn't even have a land line anymore and every member of their family just has a cell phone... I know one household of all that I know who have a landline... My grandfather who lives alone.

NPR: 8-point swing puts Romney in front

[QUOTE="rragnaar"]That's why only listening to one pollster is dangerous. If you convince yourself that one pollster is correct, when it has consistently been an outlier, you are ignoring all of the other data that shows a different story. Admittedly I was lazy up there by only linking to PPP, but their polls are in line with the rest of the state polling that I've seen. Traditionally if one poll is showing a very different result than the other pollsters, that pollster is wrong. I don't know for sure, but I have a feeling that Gallup's reputation is going to be damaged heavily next week.KC_Hokie

RCP has been right leaning for a long time. The Princeton Election Consortium and Fivethirtyeight tell a very different story. These two have been the most consistent poll aggregators of the bunch. In any case, there isn't much point in butting heads over it when we can just wait for next week and see how it all plays out.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="super600"]

Don;t want to turn this into a political issue, but that storm may affect the outcome of the election so I wouldn't be cheering for romney yet.

C2N2

You are declaring this election over based on that article?

1) It says 55% of the vote came in the far west (primarily Oregon and Washington) - So even if Romney is winning in early votes on West Coast, he is still not winning those states and this is meaningless in regards to those states.

2) It says 40% of the vote came in the South - ROMNEY IS WINNING IN THE SOUTH??????????????????!?!?!???1one1?!!?one?

3) These aren't even actual numbers, these are from phone conversations with people who still have landlines (ie: old people mostly) questioned on their intentions to vote early and vote for who...

-----

People need to stop relying so heavily on these polls, they rely on the calling of registered voters on land lines... That might have been ok in like 1996... It is 2012... Almost every family/household I know doesn't even have a land line anymore and every member of their family just has a cell phone... I know one household of all that I know who have a landline... My grandfather who lives alone.

[QUOTE="rragnaar"]That's why only listening to one pollster is dangerous. If you convince yourself that one pollster is correct, when it has consistently been an outlier, you are ignoring all of the other data that shows a different story. Admittedly I was lazy up there by only linking to PPP, but their polls are in line with the rest of the state polling that I've seen. Traditionally if one poll is showing a very different result than the other pollsters, that pollster is wrong. I don't know for sure, but I have a feeling that Gallup's reputation is going to be damaged heavily next week.KC_Hokie

From real clear politics

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map.html

now taking bets on the number of threads screaming about voter fraud in the event of an obama victory

Abbeten