or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Mitt Romney is Going to Win
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Mitt Romney is Going to Win - Page 17

post #641 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Fivethirtyeight shows Obama's chances of winning climbing again after the drop in early October.

 

He now has a 79% chance of winning.  Fivethirtyeight is showing him with 300 electoral votes.

 

 

Obama's performance during Sandy has received almost 80% approval.  Christie, who is usually full of bile for Obama, praised the President strongly.  

 

Mittens scores around 43% favorable; he held a paid-for donation drive of sorts at a pre-arranged campaign stop.  Really?  Oh, now he likes FEMA.  Right.

 

Oh my god!!!  Fivethirtyeight shows Obama winning the election?!?!?  Stop the presses!  Nobody could possibly have foreseen that one of the most left-leaning major outlets in the country would analyze things to show that their guy is winning.  Yeah, we should just give up now.  If you're a Republican, don't even bother to vote.  Fivethirtyeight has called the election for Obama.

 

Seriously, and Karl Rove has an analysis showing Romney winning with over 300 electoral college votes and 6 Senate seat pickups for the Republicans.  If you were going to source an opinion piece that is giving Obama the edge, you might have a bit of credibility if you were to use something a little less biased.  It's not like that would be hard to find.  In fact, the only thing that would be less credible MIGHT be the Huffington Post, but that's really a toss up.  Obama is only up by 4 or more points in 2 battleground states according to RealClearPolitics which provides an average of numerous polls.  The extremely narrow margins there are most likely to swing in the direction of Romney.  If the actual voter turnout is closer to the Gallup prediction of +1 for Republicans as opposed to the historic +8 for Democrats that most of the polls are based upon, Romney wins.  In fact, if the Gallup model is correct, Romney wins huge.  If things follow the 2008 turnout model, then Romney doesn't have a prayer.

 

Right now RCP shows it as an Obama win, but this is all going to depend on who shows up at the polls.  The early voting and absentee ballot requests are certainly looking more like the Gallup prediction those as opposed to the 2008 turnout model.  Thankfully we only have about 5 days left before it's all over.

post #642 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by svnipp View Post

 

Oh my god!!!  Fivethirtyeight shows Obama winning the election?!?!?  Stop the presses!  Nobody could possibly have foreseen that one of the most left-leaning major outlets in the country would analyze things to show that their guy is winning.  Yeah, we should just give up now.  If you're a Republican, don't even bother to vote.  Fivethirtyeight has called the election for Obama.

 

 

Really, really, really looking forward to next week, coming back here, and rubbing your nose in this. It's going to be hilarious.

post #643 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harald II View Post

Really, really, really looking forward to next week, coming back here, and rubbing your nose in this. It's going to be hilarious.

 

I'm sure it will be. I only hope the right wingers/conservatives/republicans here show more dignity than you have already confessed you will show.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #644 of 1062

Obama campaign to begin advertising in Michigan

 

I'm sure that's a positive indicator.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #645 of 1062

And here's another:

 

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/Decoder-Wire/2012/1101/Obama-vs.-Romney-What-do-their-schedules-say-about-presidential-race

 

 

Quote:
On Thursday, Mr. Obama will be in Wisconsin, Nevada, and Colorado. Friday, he’s campaigning in Ohio. Saturday is Ohio, Wisconsin again, then Iowa and Virginia. Sunday is New Hampshire, Florida, a return to Ohio, and another stop in Colorado. Monday is (whew!) Wisconsin, Ohio, and Iowa.

 

Wisconsin has typically been safe for Democrats. They are clearly concerned about it and about Ohio, et al.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #646 of 1062

I don't understand this line of thinking, or why it's worth pointing out.

 

Of course the Democrats are worried about winning those swing states, as are Republicans. Why it's a surprise that any state with any marginal chance of not being won receives attention from a candidate is beyond me.

post #647 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harald II View Post

I don't understand this line of thinking, or why it's worth pointing out.

 

Of course the Democrats are worried about winning those swing states, as are Republicans. Why it's a surprise that any state with any marginal chance of not being won receives attention from a candidate is beyond me.

 

Well I'm not sure I'd call Michigan or Wisconsin typical swing states. These have been fairly safe for Obama...but maybe not as much now. That's what's interesting.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #648 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

And here's another:

 

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/Decoder-Wire/2012/1101/Obama-vs.-Romney-What-do-their-schedules-say-about-presidential-race

 

 

 

Wisconsin has typically been safe for Democrats. They are clearly concerned about it and about Ohio, et al.

mj I know you're fisting for Romney, but you said that you thought the final debate would decide this election. Well guess what? Obama won that debate hands down.  

We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #649 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

mj I know you're fisting for Romney  

 

I don't even know what that statement means. 1confused.gif

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

you said that you thought the final debate would decide this election

 

Yes I did. I was wrong. I expected the debate to create a decisive break one way or the other. It doesn't appear to have done that. So, I was wrong in my prediction.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Well guess what? Obama won that debate hands down.  

 

Yes, I understand that some people believe that.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #650 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

mj I know you're fisting for Romney, but you said that you thought the final debate would decide this election. Well guess what? Obama won that debate hands down.  
Posts such as these remind me why I had you on ignore before. Maybe I should rethink my decision to not ignore you anymore...
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #651 of 1062

Fisting.  Pumping one's fist in the air.  Cheering.  Get your mind out of the gutter, Noah.  Baby Jesus is watching and shaking his head.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #652 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Fisting.  Pumping one's fist in the air.  Cheering.  Get your mind out of the gutter, Noah.  Baby Jesus is watching and shaking his head.
Around here you can not be sure what people mean. I have never heard that term used like that. Glad it did not mean what I thought.

Of course I just did a web search for that term and not one hit for the way you describe it. So I am puzzled at this new way to use this term. Glad you have a cheerier and less disgusting meaning for it. Too bad nobody else does it seems.

Anyone else care to search for "fisting for romney" on google and find a site that backs up BR... I want to believe him.
Edited by NoahJ - 11/1/12 at 10:50pm
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #653 of 1062

Any excuse to do an unfiltered google image search, eh Noah?  Dude, what you do in the privacy of your own home is your own business.  You don't need to make excuses here.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #654 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

Posts such as these remind me why I had you on ignore before. Maybe I should rethink my decision to not ignore you anymore...
"
"Fisting" means more than you seem to think it means. Perhaps in the past you've made the same kind of incorrect assumptions about my posts?
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #655 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Any excuse to do an unfiltered google image search, eh Noah?  Dude, what you do in the privacy of your own home is your own business.  You don't need to make excuses here.

1biggrin.gif I'm not sure I'd want to even do a safe search for "fisting for Romney"!
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #656 of 1062

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #657 of 1062

Karl Rove are you kidding???
 

post #658 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by Humpty Von Sabl View Post

 

Well, naturally, only the blindest, most blinkered partisan spazmo would trust stupid Nate Silver and his gigantic poll aggregation when the perfectly neutral KARL ROVE has an analysis.

 

You seem to miss the point.  Nate Silver is about as perfectly neutral as Karl Rove.  Silver is associated with both the New York Times and MSNBC, two obvious bastions of political neutrality.  These associations are going to make his analysis suspect by default.  His track record based upon the 2008 elections is shallow at best, and I don't think it took a real brilliant intellect to read the tea leaves that Dems were going to do extremely well in that particular cycle.

 

I never said anything at all about Karl Rove being neutral.  I was actually juxtaposing Karl Rove to Nate Silver in terms of political bias.  I fully agree that Karl Rove is anything but neutral, but his political analysis is still a worthwhile interpretation of the numbers.  Nate Silver and Karl Rove equally represent wishful (or hopeful) thinking for the left and the right respectively.

post #659 of 1062

So, literally an ad hominem attack on Nate Silver.  

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #660 of 1062

Rove usually has a good grasp on the numbers. You can't win a close election without a sober look at real numbers.

post #661 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

"Fisting" means more than you seem to think it means.

 

Regardless of whatever meaning you intended, I'm not doing it for Romney, so I don't know what you meant to imply with your post to me.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #662 of 1062

Nate now says Obama gets 303 votes and has an 80.9% chance of winning, taking just over 50% of the popular. 

 

If I had the time, I would sit back and read his site and delve into his data.  It is quite interesting and he is pretty close every time.  He also tries hard to explain stuff.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #663 of 1062
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harald II View Post

It wouldn't be a miracle.

 

It would be what the polls are predicting — or at least, an incredibly tight race. Obama is ahead, just, in the swing states. I could go into the details of why, and all that, but I know it'll make no difference to your POV. I mean, there are some who can look at the data and evidence in support of evolution and anthropogenic climate change and chose to believe in what their faith says instead. There's no point arguing with people for whom facts mean nothing.

 

I'm *really* looking forward to coming back here then and laughing at you. I know it's bad, I know, I know, but it's going to be such fun.

 

Obama is not ahead in the majority of swing states when correctly sampled polls are used.  It's just that simple.  Now, who knows...the "correct" polls could turn out to be wrong.  There might be a wave of Dem support on election day.  But early voting and historically reliable and neutral polling shows Obama losing, badly.  

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Nate now says Obama gets 303 votes and has an 80.9% chance of winning, taking just over 50% of the popular. 

 

If I had the time, I would sit back and read his site and delve into his data.  It is quite interesting and he is pretty close every time.  He also tries hard to explain stuff.

 

Nate Silver is about to have trouble ever finding another job.  He certainly hasn't been "pretty close every time."  He was very close ONE time...in 2008.   

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #664 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by Humpty Von Sabl View Post

 

Nate Silver is a professional statistician whose reputation is based on the thorough evaluation of figures and depends on the continued accuracy of his forecasts (which are forensic and demonstrably neutral.)

 

Karl Rove's principle job is to win elections for Republicans.

 

It is because you can't tell the difference between these two people, and it is because you've convinced yourself that Nate Sllver's figures are wrong, that on November the 6th you're going to be sad and you're not going to know why you lost.

 

Silver admitted to voting "for Democratic candidates the majority of the time", and back in 2008 he was "a supporter of Barack Obama".  How exactly does this gel with your position that his is so very "demonstrably neutral"?

 

IF Obama wins on November 6th, I'll know exactly why Romney lost, and that would be turnout was dramatically different than I expect it to be.  In all honesty, this election could go either way and it depends entirely on who's turnout model is correct.  From what I have read as well as what I think/feel is going to happen, I think that the turnout is going to be even or positive for the Republicans.  If this is the case, then Romney wins and it could be a big win.  If the turnout goes the other way with larger Democratic turnout and high minority turnout then it's going to be really close with Obama possibly winning.  I don't think there is any possibility of Obama winning big though.

post #665 of 1062
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

Rove usually has a good grasp on the numbers. You can't win a close election without a sober look at real numbers.

 

He does, as does Dick Morris.  Both are predicting Romney wins, and wins by a sizable margin.   Let's look at this one more time: 

 

  • Correctly sampled national polls show Romney with a 2-5 point lead consistently.  
  • Correctly sampled state polls show that Romney leads or is tied in nearly all major swing states (exception:  Michigan).
  • Romney and his allies are dumping $11 million into PA, with both candidates coming to the state this weekend.  That's no distraction or bluff.  
  • Two PA polls using Dem+5 turnout models (probably accurate this year) showed recently that Romney was leading by 4.  
  • Dem early vote turnout in Florida is down 70% vs. 2008. 
  • Dem early voting is off big in OH, Republican voting way up.  
  • In 2008, Obama won nationwide early voting by 15 points.  Romney is leading the national early vote by 7 points this year.  That's a 22 point swing.  
  • Earlier this week, Rasmussen showed Romney up 50-48 in OH.
  • No candidate at 50% or bette (Gallup) in October has ever lost.  

 

 

That's just a few points.  There are dozens of others showing Romney wins.  Berg, Harald, Hands, BR et al...what do you have?  Nate Silver?  A laughably absurd NYT poll with sampling that exceeds even 2008's turnout?  Ignoring Republican enthusiasm and ground game efforts?  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #666 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Nate Silver is about to have trouble ever finding another job.  He certainly hasn't been "pretty close every time."  He was very close ONE time...in 2008.   

 

I'm curious how he did in 2010?  I honestly don't know and don't really have the time to try and hunt this down.

 

I do see a serious potential flaw in his analysis though...  He is aggregating the polls, and virtually all of those polls are over sampling Democrats by somewhere between +5 to +10.  If the Gallup turnout prediction of +1 for Republicans turns out to be true, Nate is going to be on the wrong side of this one in a HUGE way.  As I've been saying for days now, it will all come down to the turnout.  The good news is that early voting and absentee ballots support what Gallup is predicting.

post #667 of 1062
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Humpty Von Sabl View Post

 

Yes.

 

We have Nate Silver. You have Dick Morris and Karl Rove.

 

That's exactly right.

 

LOL.   Look at the data and tell me that it shows Obama winning.  Look at the real data, not the absurdly stupid NYT/CBS poll.  Look at Gallup, Rasmussen, the University of Colorado Study, the bipartisan Battleground Poll.  Look at anecdotal evidence like crowd sizes.  Look at where the money is going. Look at voter motivation.  Look at early voting differences from 2008.  You can't honestly tell me you think Obama is going to win.  I'm not saying he can't win, mind you.  But how do you look at the data and tell me you'd predict he wins?  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #668 of 1062

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #669 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

 

LOL.   Look at the data and tell me that it shows Obama winning.  Look at the real data, not the absurdly stupid NYT/CBS poll.  Look at Gallup, Rasmussen, the University of Colorado Study, the bipartisan Battleground Poll.  Look at anecdotal evidence like crowd sizes.  Look at where the money is going. Look at voter motivation.  Look at early voting differences from 2008.  You can't honestly tell me you think Obama is going to win.  I'm not saying he can't win, mind you.  But how do you look at the data and tell me you'd predict he wins?  

 

What the heck are we going to talk about after next week?!?!  :)

post #670 of 1062
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Humpty Von Sabl View Post

 

  • "On reflection, it's pretty unrealistic that every single polling company in the country apart from Gallup and Rasmussen was oversampling Democrats."
  • "How can the Republican party save itself from its new status as a minority political force?"
  • “Perhaps we should consider the possibility that evidence we disagree with might be right, even though we disagree with it?”

 

Or, more realistically:

 

  • "Are we really a communist country now, much like Sweden, Canada and Stalin's Soviet Union?"
  • "How did Barack Obama steal the election?"
  • "Where is Barack Obama's college application form?"

 

 

1.  It's not "every single polling company."   The ones that use correct samples show much more strength for Romney.  Example:  Susquehanna Poll.  There are many polls in addition to Gallup and Rasmussen that are correct.  It's just that the media tends to find the absurd ones, like NYT, PPP, etc.  

 

2.  We'll see who wins. 

 

3.  You don't seem willing to do that.  That's the entire point.  I am pointing to objective, almost inarguable flaws in certain polls, like predicting Dem turnout will best 2008.   

 

4.  No. 

 

5.  How?  By being a Chicago Democrat?  

 

6.  Good question.  I'd like to see it.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #671 of 1062
 

What in the world is a "rethug"?

 

More importantly, what does this post have to do with anything?

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #672 of 1062
On that matter, does any college keep decades-old applications? Is it even a realistic expectation to archive possibly hundreds of thousands of applications for decades? At some point, it just becomes a liability in too many senses of the word, a waste of time and space, even if converted to microfilm or digitized. How many people hold onto copies of their own applications? I think someone demanding to see someone else's ancient college application should be able produce their own just to show us they're not expecting of others what they can't do themselves. I do know that if I have copies, it's buried in storage boxes such that it's not worth the time to find them. I just don't see it as anything other than a distraction on the part of a hollywood entertainer.
Edited by JeffDM - 11/2/12 at 9:44pm
post #673 of 1062

Rupert Murdoch thinks Romney might lose and it will be all Chris Christie's fault:

 

Christie must "re-declare" for Romney or take blame.  

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/03/rupert-murdoch-chris-christie-romney_n_2068630.html

 

 

It almost make you wonder: If these republicans hate non-republicans so much, why don't they just leave and start a new country somewhere?

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #674 of 1062

Good concept let Romney and his friend Ryan go to the moon and be a leader from there and take along some of the idiots from his party like Cantor and MM.
 

post #675 of 1062

I'm going to write this as a list of questions:

 

 

The Romneys benefitted from the auto bailout?

 

25,000 jobs moved to China?

 

Blackmailing?

 

Hiding something in his taxes?

 

 

The Nation claims the Romney's made over $15 million from the bailout.

 

 

http://www.thenation.com/print/article/170644/mitt-romneys-bailout-bonanza

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #676 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

Good concept let Romney and his friend Ryan go to the moon and be a leader from there and take along some of the idiots from his party like Cantor and MM.
 

Why in the world would we do that?!?!  It's the liberals and Democrats who want to "fundamantally change" the country.  How about you leave our country alone and go find one yourself?

post #677 of 1062

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/10/20/romney-family-investment-ties-to-voting-machine-company-that-could-decide-the-election-causes-concern/

 

 

"Romney Family Investment Ties To Voting Machine Company That Could Decide The Election Causing Concern"

 

 

Sure, it's an opinion piece, but it is worrying.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #678 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Rupert Murdoch thinks Romney might lose and it will be all Chris Christie's fault:

 

Christie must "re-declare" for Romney or take blame.  

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/03/rupert-murdoch-chris-christie-romney_n_2068630.html

 

 

It almost make you wonder: If these republicans hate non-republicans so much, why don't they just leave and start a new country somewhere?

On my side of the fence we're wondering if Bill Clinton is for Obama or against him.

post #679 of 1062
Thread Starter 

Ah, the newest attacks.  Now Romney is tied to voter fraud.  So in summary: 

 

He hates women

 

He hates the poor

 

He hates the middle class

 

He's a white guy

 

He's a murderer

 

He outsources jobs to China

 

He doesn't pay any taxes 

 

He's a right wing nut job 

 

He's a warmonger 

 

 

 

This is sounding an awful lot like what the Left said about Reagan.  And this election is looking a lot like 1980.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #680 of 1062

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Mitt Romney is Going to Win