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.

 

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.

Obama campaign to begin advertising in Michigan

 

I'm sure that's a positive indicator.

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.

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.

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.  

 

I don't even know what that statement means. 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Yes, I understand that some people believe that.

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.  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

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.

"
"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?

I'm not sure I'd want to even do a safe search for "fisting for Romney"!

CNN just posted op-eds by the Obama and Romney.  Both are "My vision for America".

 

 

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/11/02/opinion/obama-vision-for-america/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/11/02/opinion/romney-vision-for-america/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

Karl Rove are you kidding???
 

 

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.

So, literally an ad hominem attack on Nate Silver.  

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

 

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.

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.

 

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.

 

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.

Let your vote be heard as to who you think will win the election:

 

http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/154000/who-do-you-think-will-win-the-us-presidential-election#post_2225581

 

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

What in the world is a "rethug"?

 

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

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.

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?

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.
 

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

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?

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.

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

Interesting timing.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/02/us/politics/matt-romney-goes-to-russia-for-business.html

 

 

Passing notes to the #1 enemy?

 

 

- - - - - -

 

Christie has so many friends!

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/03/chris-christie-praise-obama-romney_n_2068836.html