How Selfish Can Omama Be

[bigrun]

Who's the boss?

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by Riot

Swing states are states that are not "safe" for a candidate. Illinois is obviously "safe Obama" and Texas is "safe Romney".

There are 10 swing states, now only eight. The eight left, that will determine the election, are OH, NH, FL, PA, NC, IA, NV, CO. All those states are now leaning Obama in aggregate polling except NC, which should be pretty sure for Romney.

Obama started with more "safe Obama" states than Romney had "safe Romney" states. Obama was always over 270 electoral votes. Romney was always in the position of having to win votes to get to 270, and still is.

Obama only had to win 1 or 2 swing states to assure victory. Romney always had to win virtually all of them to win.

Florida has had overwhelming (greater than 2008 numbers) early turnout, nearly all Democratic.

TPM.com has a good polling page, where they aggregate the polls, and an excellent reputation for accuracy. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/ click on "polls" in the header

Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight.com page also has excellent, accurate analysis of swing states. www.fivethirtyeight.com

You've been touting this as though it was a fact for some time. It isn't true. I don't know what you have to gain by continuing to spout this. Furthermore, to echo Anti's point, any state that is +/- 2 or less points is hardly "likely" or "leaning" either direction.

Obama has always had no more than 259 EC votes. When he lost FL, he has been hovering around 235. He's currently 237.

This is the fact:

Florida is in "likely Obama" column.

Oh, I see. It's your delusions.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

with Romney donating his own money and asking for donations from his supporters for the Red Cross while Obama ate his free sandwich from the Red Cross and donating taxpayer money today made my point!

Do you know what most liberals think? I'm not making this up. I am serious. Granted I'm talking in general. It's not true for all liberals but in general liberals think that they don't need to give money to charity. They think that simply voting democrat is enough. They feel like they have done their part by voting democrat. They think that if they vote democrat that makes them a good person and no further action is necessary. It's actually kind of funny. They think that if they vote democrat and are vocal about how evil they think republicans are, this makes them a good person and no further good deeds are necessary.

I bet I could do a great job on this site of predicting which people are the least generous when it comes to donating money to charity. I'm not going to mention any names but I would say that in general, if you look at the most outspoken and angry liberals, it would be a safe bet to say that these people gave little or no money to charity.

[alysheba4]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Do you know what most liberals think? I'm not making this up. I am serious. What I'm about to say is a generalization. It's not true for all liberals but in general liberals think that they don't need to give money to charity. They think that simply voting democrat is enough. They feel like they have done their part by voting democrat. They think that if they vote democrat that makes them a good person and no further action is necessary.

I bet I could do a great job on this site of predicting which people are the least generous when it comes to donating money to charity. I'm not going to mention any names but I would say that in general, if you look at the most outspoken and angry liberals, it would be a safe bet to say that these people gave little or no money to charity.

.....they are complete fcking whack jobs.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Do you know what most liberals think? I'm not making this up. I am serious. What I'm about to say is a generalization. It's not true for all liberals but in general liberals think that they don't need to give money to charity. They think that simply voting democrat is enough. They feel like they have done their part by voting democrat. They think that if they vote democrat that makes them a good person and no further action is necessary.

I bet I could do a great job on this site of predicting which people are the least generous when it comes to donating money to charity. I'm not going to mention any names but I would say that in general, if you look at the most outspoken and angry liberals, it would be a safe bet to say that these people gave little or no money to charity.

Clinton wrote off used underwear.

Biden gave less than $500 on $500K

And Riot is looking for someone to subsidize her insurance.

Of course she cares so much about womens' right to abortion and contraceptive coverage she ignores the lifetime ramifications of a gang rape by saying 'she'll be OK!'

Generally they are the epitomy of hypocrites no doubt!

[hoovesupsideyourhead]

hes saving his money to fix the mug on that dog ugly wife of his..

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by hoovesupsideyourhead

hes saving his money to fix the mug on that dog ugly wife of his..

She'll leave him.

BTW He's on the down low. That's why Bubba can't stand him.

[bigrun]

SALON today..

Blue states of Michigan, Minnesota and Pennsylvania. On a conference call today David Axelrod promised to shave his moustache of 40 years if Obama lost any of those states, and while he wouldn’t quite go that far on the question of Virginia, he said he was “confident” the president would carry that swing state, too...


and i'll shave my beard if he loses...somebody loan me a straight razor?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by bigrun

SALON today..

Blue states of Michigan, Minnesota and Pennsylvania. On a conference call today David Axelrod promised to shave his moustache of 40 years if Obama lost any of those states, and while he wouldn’t quite go that far on the question of Virginia, he said he was “confident” the president would carry that swing state, too...


and i'll shave my beard if he loses...somebody loan me a straight razor?

From everything I'm seeing, I'm thinking Romney will win Florida, Virginia, and Colorado, but will probably lose Ohio. If he wins those 3 states but loses Ohio, will he have to win a few of the other swing states to win? I think Romney is a solid underdog in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota but I think there is a small chance he could win one of those.

I think he has a legitimate upset chance in Iowa.

Assuming Romney wins Florida, Virginia, and Colorado, which of the other states would he need to win to win the election? This question is for anyone who can answer this.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

You've been touting this as though it was a fact for some time. It isn't true. I don't know what you have to gain by continuing to spout this

Nothing. It's just the truth. I'm quoting Nate Silver's long-term electoral college voting chart, which aggregates multiple national polls and state polls (the big guys and the little guys), which never shows Obama below 270 electoral votes.

You can see it, here: www.fivethirtyeight.com

See that top graph? Electoral college vote since June? See the black line down the middle at 270 votes? Obama always above that line, Romney always below that line.

You, on the other hand, appear to be quoting only one poll, not an aggregate of all of them.

What poll are you quoting? You didn't reference who the poll was from, or the date it was taken.

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

From everything I'm seeing, I'm thinking Romney will win Florida, Virginia, and Colorado, but will probably lose Ohio. If he wins those 3 states but loses Ohio, will he have to win a few of the other swing states to win? I think Romney is a solid underdog in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota but I think there is a small chance he could win one of those.

I think he has a legitimate upset chance in Iowa.

Assuming Romney wins Florida, Virginia, and Colorado, which of the other states would he need to win to win the election? This question is for anyone who can answer this.

I posted the latest Rasmussen projections a few post back in this thread. Romney could lose OH and still win, but would have to carry NV, a state which he as never statistically had a lead in, but has always been within 2-3 points of with the same % of undecideds.
OH is critical at this point in that whoever carries it, will most likely take the EC.

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by Riot

Nothing. It's just the truth. I'm quoting Nate Silver's long-term electoral college voting chart, which aggregates multiple national polls and state polls, which never shows Obama below 270 electoral votes.

You can see it, here: www.fivethirtyeight.com

You, on the other hand, appear to be quoting only one poll, not an aggregate of all of them.

What poll are you quoting? You didn't reference who the poll was from, or the date it was taken.

Oh I see, you post the two most left leaning polls in existence as judge others. Got it. You are screwed and you know it.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Do you know what most liberals think? I'm not making this up. I am serious. Granted I'm talking in general. It's not true for all liberals but in general liberals think that they don't need to give money to charity. They think that simply voting democrat is enough. They feel like they have done their part by voting democrat. They think that if they vote democrat that makes them a good person and no further action is necessary. It's actually kind of funny. They think that if they vote democrat and are vocal about how evil they think republicans are, this makes them a good person and no further good deeds are necessary.

I bet I could do a great job on this site of predicting which people are the least generous when it comes to donating money to charity. I'm not going to mention any names but I would say that in general, if you look at the most outspoken and angry liberals, it would be a safe bet to say that these people gave little or no money to charity.

quite scientific. And you know this how? all of your worldly travels? all of your liberal friends that make up an accurate cross section?

I know conservatives that are extremely generous and i know liberals that are extremely generous. This isn't quite as stupid as your quote about keeping a baby when you are raped by someone you know but it is still pretty dumb.

How old are you anyway?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

Oh I see, you post the two most left leaning polls in existence as judge others. Got it. You are screwed and you know it.

Get a grip on reality. Those are not "left leaning polls", they are aggregators. They don't do polling.

Duh.

If you don't understand what "aggregator" means, you'd probably be best to stop commenting and looking silly.

By the way - who did the poll you posted, and what date was it taken? You haven't fessed up yet.

I have put my money where my mouth was, Rude. Obama wins, easily, via electoral vote. Want to bet on it, like Pants and Hooves have?

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

I posted the latest Rasmussen projections a few post back in this thread. Romney could lose OH and still win, but would have to carry NV, a state which he as never statistically had a lead in, but has always been within 2-3 points of with the same % of undecideds.
OH is critical at this point in that whoever carries it, will most likely take the EC.

Exactly Elvis. it really comes down to Ohio. Plain and Simple.

[Rudeboyelvis]

6 more days. Attack people you don't agree with. Classy.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Exactly Elvis. it really comes down to Ohio. Plain and Simple.

Actually, no - If Romney wins Ohio, he still has to virtually run the board in the eight swings to get to 270.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

6 more days. Attack people you don't agree with. Classy.

Nobody is "attacking" anybody. Get a grip. You posted one poll. I posted the most reliable aggregator of polls in the business.

Who is your pollster, and what day was it taken? Likely voters, or registered voters? Third time I've asked you - are you simply refusing to answer?

PS - you might look at the colors on the chart you posted - see all the "tossup" states blue? That means they are going Obama. And North Carolina, long thought to go Romney, is even blue via your anonymous pollster

Have you seen the polls released today? Did you look at the 538 site? What is your comment on the aggregation of Obama as being over 270 votes since June? He's gone way up and way down, but always been over 270.

Other than your dismissal of the information as a "left leaning pollster" when the guy doesn't even do any polling.

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Exactly Elvis. it really comes down to Ohio. Plain and Simple.

Not according to Queen Aggregator. Obama doesn't even need to show up

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by Riot

Nobody is "attacking" anybody. Get a grip. You posted one poll. I posted the most reliable aggregator of polls in the business.

Who is your pollster, and what day was it taken? Likely voters, or registered voters? Third time I've asked you - are you simply refusing to answer?

Have you seen the polls released today? Did you look at the 538 site? What is your comment on the aggregation of Obama as being over 270 votes since June?

Other than "left leaning pollster" when the guy doesn't even do any polling.

Buh Bye