In the Rasmussen daily presidential tracking poll. If you push undecideds and get an answer — that is, you include "leaners" — the Obama number stays the same, and Romney goes up to 48%.
It's amazing that with all the events of the last couple weeks, especially the shift of focus to terrorism but also the media's constant pounding on Romney, that that candidates stay locked in a tie. Is there some inherent balancing mechanism in the American electorate? It must drive the politicos bonkers. It relaxes and amuses me — me, one of the undecideds.
I won't even lean. Go ahead push me. I won't turn into a "leaner" that can be included on one side or the other. I have the American inherent balancing mechanism.
२६ सप्टेंबर, २०१२
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१४१ टिप्पण्या:
You're still undecided? Seriously? I'm sorry but that's just fucking staggering to me. shrug..
Hmmm, it used to be the leaners split 2 to 1 for Zero, now they all go to the Romster.
Is it the stress of foreign affairs or all the slips Dear Leader has been making?
PS I thought that doll was going to turn out to be a matrushka.
PPS Why do I have a hard time believing Ann is undecided?
Or is it just the cruel neutrality?
Un
De
Cided?
Jesus kee-rist on roller skates.
She's an academic, Steve. She gets a paycheck no matter how bad the economy becomes. She's looking at this from a -money for public institutions- point of view.
Those of us that actually produce something tangible are scared shitless at another four years of our current fiasco.
Again, Rasmussen and Gallup continue to show a tie race, while the mainstream media polls which use D+7 ++ samples (aka 2008) show Obama in a lead. But, I have heard all morning on the radio the reporting on some new MSM poll stating that Obama is winning by 8 points in Ohio, but nothing about the fact that they are tied in the professional polls
I heard a commentator from the MSM state that they beleive their turnout ratios for 2012 are correct because of what they perceive as "demographic changes" in the democrats favor. But these are all just guesses, and are not based on any real data other than the 2008 turnout numbers. So we will continue to get the skewed polls from the MSM and will have to wait until election day to find out if they are correct.
Meanwhile, the U.S. government is printing money at a rate it has never done in the past... yet the polls are tied? What sense does that make?
Undecided? As in you haven't decided to vote first thing in the morning or after work? That's gotta be what you mean.
I have the American inherent balancing mechanism.
Represented by a Russian --- RUSSIAN --- roly-poly doll!
Works in academia!
Lives in Madison!
Uses a Russian Roly-poly as symbolic of our great country!
I think what we've got here is perfectly clear: You're undecided between the Socialist Workers Party & the Spartacist League!
Come clean, you goddamn Bolshie!
(note to Lefty lurkers -- it's a joke, people....)
PPS Why do I have a hard time believing Ann is undecided?
I always give our hostess the benefit of the doubt that she is being honest with us.
"It relaxes and amuses me — me, one of the undecideds."
Less vortex, more candor, should be the watchword of the day (and while you're at it, a little atonement for the sins of 4 years ago would not be out of place on this day of all days). As it was in the beginning (when you first started paying attention to these things), and is now: this election is a choice, not an echo. Plus, the company you'd be keeping with the 'undecideds' -- too low-energy to figure anything out, too vacuous even to pay attention, hell, they don't even know what a blog is -- is not likely to be all that appealing.
So choose, already.
the balancing mechanism is the productive vs. the unproductive. you must be semi-productive.
The electorate doesn't really know Romney yet.
My interpretation. Everybody's fed up with Obama, but they aren't convinced Romney is any better.
And, everybody's still pissed off at the Republicans because Bush aided and abetted the Bank Scam of 2008.
So, Americans want to know if Romney is just more of the same. Romney has to separate himself from the Bush legacy and show people that he is trustworthy and smart at the debates.
Sloanasaurus said...
Again, Rasmussen and Gallup continue to show a tie race, while the mainstream media polls which use D+7 ++ samples (aka 2008) show Obama in a lead. But, I have heard all morning on the radio the reporting on some new MSM poll stating that Obama is winning by 8 points in Ohio, but nothing about the fact that they are tied in the professional polls
Balance that with the one where Barry is up by 1 with a skew of D +10.
I heard a commentator from the MSM state that they beleive their turnout ratios for 2012 are correct because of what they perceive as "demographic changes" in the democrats favor. But these are all just guesses, and are not based on any real data other than the 2008 turnout numbers. So we will continue to get the skewed polls from the MSM and will have to wait until election day to find out if they are correct.
They're not even guesses. Barry's losing heavily in almost all demographics - Catholics, independents, etc., so this is just more FUD.
Balancing - to move a balancer left, put something out even further left.
Althouse is the 4%! Cruelly neutral, Undecided Voters.
AA said It's amazing that with all the events of the last couple weeks, especially the shift of focus to terrorism but also the media's constant pounding on Romney, that that candidates stay locked in a tie. Is there some inherent balancing mechanism in the American electorate? It must drive the politicos bonkers. It relaxes and amuses me — me, one of the undecideds.
If you remain undecided (that is, they stay locked in a tie in your mind, as well), then why does it surprise you that that would be the case for others, as well?
Glad you're still undecided, given the last four years.
Time to stop reading this blog, and do something more productive.
"If you push undecideds and get an answer — that is, you include "leaners" — the Obama number stays the same, and Romney goes up to 48%."
No incumbent president consistently polling under 50% (as this president has for 18 months now) has ever won reelection.
Not a single one.
Obama, of course, could be the first president to do so, but that would hinge on the American electorate having become increasingly stupid - which, sadly, the election of '08 suggests is very much a probability.
My suspicion--suspicion, mind you--is that Romney and team are going to really kick it into gear in October, and especially late October.
They have whole lot of money to spend, and have been mostly restrained except when significant issues happen that deserve comment. Meanwhile, the bad news domestically and globally has meant the Obama campaign has had to release the distractions early, like the 47% comment.
Momentum right now is meaningless--and getting ahead right now could very well mean losing the momentum by November, as the McCain campaign found.
Why decide before the debates?
Why decide until you see what's happening in world events?
Look at 2008 and that financial crash. Things happen.
The press is trying HARD to depress conservative turnout. Much like they worked hard to portrayd McCain as being even remotely competitive to keep up the Obama turnout in 2008.
Balance that with the one where Barry is up by 1 with a skew of D +10.
If it's D+10, Obama could lose independents by like 30 points and still win (D:40/R:30/I:30).
The objective of the MSM and the basis for much of the polling bias, such as it is, is at best, wishful thinking, and most likely playing the only card left. That is to create the image of Gaffe Romney, Failed Campaigner Romney, Out of Touch Romney, all of who are behind in the polls and destined to lose---give up hope---don't bother voting.
They are unable to talk about actual positive reasons to vote for Obama.
Its also true that state polls tend to lag behind national polls. Give them a week.
it's D+10, Obama could lose independents by like 30 points and still win (D:40/R:30/I:30).
But Ohio is not a D+10 state.
Not even close.
And, everybody's still pissed off at the Republicans because Bush aided and abetted the Bank Scam of 2008.
Let's be honest --- if Bush were President, there would have been a lot of criminal prosecutions. Bush had few qualms slamming the perpetrators of accounting fraud in 2000 to the wall.
Only Democrats are perverse enough to protect Wall St criminals --- and then claim Republicans are in their back pocket.
Heck, Enron's management were all tried (and convicted). How many trials have occurred involving the bank scandal of 2008? Any? Hell, Corzine can't even get INDICTED and he stole over a billion.
Kevin said...
"Glad you're still undecided, given the last four years."
Obama voters, having decided an obvious lack of experience was no bar to office, now seem wedded to the idea that having failed in office is no bar to reelection.
Some would call this stubbornness; but in simple fact, it is just stupidity, consistently applied.
Which, if one knows anything about the stupid, is no surprise. The stupid are shockingly immune to learning from experience.
Obama will get at least 90% of the people who voted for him last time. Will that be enough?
I've decided not to decide until I have to decide.
I'm quite decisive. I make decisions just in time.
I don't put energy into early decisionmaking that might require rethinking.
I am an efficient decisionmaker, not someone who has trouble making decisions. I'm just fine at it.
I prefer to make my decision while walking to the polling place on election day.
Gives me something to do while walking.
I can walk and make a decision at the same time. I don't need all this advance planning you other folks seem to require.
I think what we have here for the undecideds is Carter/Reagan all over again. In the debates, Reagan showed that he was an avuncular kind of guy who most probably wouldn't nuke anyone two weeks after his swearing in, an image at odds with the portrayal of him by the Carter Campaign.
If Romney can show he's a decent, reasonable kind of guy who doesn't want to sell our children for spare parts to his aging rich friends, then he'll probably win.
Personally, I think the Biden/Ryan debate will be much more interesting, policy-wise.
New York Times/CBS/Quinnipiac University shows ten point leads in Ohio, FL, and PA. Ouch. If that holds it's sayonara.
I wish they would poll Ryan's House seat race with Rob Zerban. Democrats refuse to lift a finger for the guy and it's completely dumbfounding.
"Come clean, you goddamn Bolshie!"
That doll was called "Anastasia." Are you saying Anastasia was a communist?
"Look at 2008 and that financial crash. Things happen."
Sure.
Things happen.
Obama erasing all of his failures, or suddenly learning how to be president, within six weeks of the election, is an extraordinarily foolish expectation, hope, possibility, or whatever one chooses to call the nearly impossible chance "it could happen."
Doubling down on failure is a losing strategy. It never works out.
"New York Times/CBS/Quinnipiac University shows ten point leads in Ohio, FL, and PA. Ouch. If that holds it's sayonara."
How have they weighted it in favor of Democrats? What's the percentage used to get the percentage they (wanted to) report?
I need to know to what extent it's propaganda. Do you? Or are you into the propaganda use of "polls"?
Considering the evidence available, I find it difficult to believe an honest and rational person can't render a judgment - regardless of preference.
Is there some inherent balancing mechanism in the American electorate?
It's called a "bullsh*t detector" and it flashes red every time one sees a story by a DNC operative with a byline about some poll with 2008 turnout sampling.
...that she is being honest with us.
Our bloghostess is teasing us.
"Doubling down on failure is a losing strategy. It never works out."
But thinking things are bad so let's do the next other thing that becomes available... that's not guaranteed either.
It's a conservative impulse to stay with what we have now and to be skeptical of the value of change.
"Personally, I think the Biden/Ryan debate will be much more interesting, policy-wise."
Interesting, in the way a cat plays with a mouse before killing it?
Biden is an incoherent fool. The chances of him saying anything interesting (that isn't a gaffe, that is) is about the same as Obama being a success in a second term:
Zero.
Althouse, if you're so obsessed :-P w/cruel neutrality, why do you only post Rasmussen propaganda? Rhetorical.
Indeed, Scotty "fixednoise pundit" Ras does stand out as a daily outlier to be sure lol.
Keep hope alive!
"I've decided not to decide until I have to decide."
Sorry Ann, that's not good enough. If the mind-boggling Presidential incompetence of the last four years isn't enough, and if the fact that the graduates of your university find it almost impossible to find jobs isn't enough, I really don't know what to say to you.
If you can't figure out at this point that a random person picked off the street would do a better job as President than Barrack Hussein Obama, there isn't really much point continuing to follow your blog.
Willful ignorance in 2008 was an excuse for supporting Obama (if not a particularly good one).
There is no excuse now.
New York Times/CBS/Quinnipiac University shows ten point leads in Ohio, FL, and PA. Ouch. If that holds it's sayonara.
If D+10 shows up in these states, then yeah, Obama is going to win there. But, Obama didn't even get that in 2008.
The Generic ballot polls show tied races or Republicans up right now. In 2008 at this time, Dems were up +8 or even bigger on the Generic polls. How can Obama expect to get +10 in this kind of environment.
I feel like this is the first time that I've heard nearly this much talk about polls being "weighed in favor of" one party or the other (and it's always Dems). Has this always been the case with past polling, or is it different this election?
That doll was called "Anastasia." Are you saying Anastasia was a communist?
That's not a doll of the princess, that's a image from life of Anastasia Mikoyan, wife of the inventor of the Mig fighter and famed winner of the "Beauty of Soviet Labor" award in 1951. She really did wobble like that. It was a fashion at the time...
That doll was called "Anastasia."
a marketing ploy of some asian importer of Russian trinkets
If the polls say the O and R are tied, Romney has it locked up.
1. undecided always break away from the incumbent by a large margin
2. There is a serious Bradley factor. I bet even, or especially in a town like Madison, everybody thinks that Obama has a lot more votes than he will get in the ballot box.
PS: be prepared for a lot of Dem trama when the Polls say Obama is going to win and even the exit polls say he won, yet the ballot results go for Romney.
it is ertain to be a "stolen elevtion" whine, I think by the dems
"It's a conservative impulse to stay with what we have now and to be skeptical of the value of change."
The ship is sinking rapidly, but the life vests are untested; what a dilemna!
Sorry Ann, that's not good enough.
Don't agree.
I've been commenting for months that a divided government would be an acceptable outcome, too... that is an Obama re-election, with the Republicans taking full control of Congress.
I'd rather see a Romney win because he would inspire confidence in the business sector.
An Obama victory would offer the advantage of satisfying black voters, and it would probably lead long term to the shattering of black demands for preferences and quotas, and an end to black block voting as the natural conservatism of black society asserts itself.
A Republican Congress would keep Obama in check with regard to borrowing and spending.
Both parties are just about in agreement over foreign policy.
A vote for Obama is also a vote for Reid and Pelosi.
On Sept 26, 2008, Obama had a 50-45 or +5 lead on McCain in the Rasmussen poll. Now in 2012, the race is tied and Obama only gets 46.
Obama kept that +5 lead and increased it to +6 to +8 or 51-52% up to the election. Obama won with 53%.
Rasmussen starts reporting only leaners in a week. If Obama isn't getting 50% with the leaners, he isn't likely to prevail in the election. It's hard to imagine that undecideds will break to Obama.
"It's a conservative impulse to stay with what we have now and to be skeptical of the value of change."
Yes, in a behavioral sense, but "change" in this case is hardly radical, except in that Romney has proven himself competent as an executive, and Obama has proven himself incompetent as one.
Sure, electing Romney shifts the direction of state toward the right, but it won't nearly be equal to the lurch to the left that electing Obama was.
So while it may be "conservative," it would also be highly irresponsible. In modern times (since the Truman Administration) the second terms were markedly less successful than the first term. This is unlikely to change; for Obama, it would mean "failure" becomes "miserable failure."
Some may think there's enough tire on the tread to coast through four more years of trillion dollar deficits, 8+% unemployment, erosion of family wealth, dissolution in the Middle-East, crony capitalism, entrenching the looming failure of Obama-care, but there is not.
If you think what we have now, and the way things are trending is good, or at least tolerable, then yeah, Obama is your man.
I hope most Americans, like they did with Jimmy Carter before, decide this is unacceptable, and realize Obama has no chance, no hope of fixing it.
There's nothing in his history, his ideology, to suggest he is at all capable of responding appropriately to these problems. He hasn't the previous four years - why would he now?
@Lyssa,
The "liberals" have never been this desperate before. They've been to the mountaintop and have seen the Promised Land, and it is hard to be told they can't enter but must go back for another 40 years in the desert.
"The ship is sinking rapidly, but the life vests are untested; what a dilemna!"
Yes, but in this case, we know the "life-vests" (Romney) have actually worked before.
No dilemma; plenty of delusion.
The huge lead Romney has in middle-class households (+14% I believe) has got to have Team O a bit concerned.
An Obama victory would offer the advantage of satisfying black voters, and it would probably lead long term to the shattering of black demands for preferences and quotas, and an end to black block voting as the natural conservatism of black society asserts itself.
There is nothing in the past four years that would lead one to believe this would be coming in the next four years.
More likely, Obama would continue to paint himself as the victim of intransigent Republicans who talk about him like he's a dog.
He could use his secretaries to issue waivers, as he has done these past four years, to continue to financially favor his preferred groups.
The financial problems could wait another four years, for the next guy.
If you think I'm wrong, look at how long the City of Detroit has been in a death spiral without awakening the natural conservatism of the inhabitants, and without thinking the problems really need to be solved.
If you think I'm wrong, look at how long the City of Detroit has been in a death spiral without awakening the natural conservatism of the inhabitants, and without thinking the problems really need to be solved.
That certainly has to be considered.
What's the proportion now of American blacks who come from southern roots and more recent immigrant blacks from Africa and the Caribbean?
The big question is will QE3 be enough to save Obama from the timing of the upcoming market downturn. It is pretty obvious that most of the world is in or is going into recession. But, the market has remained up mostly because of the expected and now annouced money printing. Money printing wasn't just annouced here, but also in Japan and Europe. Stock market traders are betting that the money printing will go into stocks, or they are hoping that people will believe it is going into stocks... What happens if this turns out not to be the case. We may find out in a few weeks.
Either way we are all messed up in the long run. Howe can the government possibly pay 5% interest on $20 trillion of debt. Its just not posssible. The only outcome will be lots of inflation.
Look at 2008 and that financial crash.
And you naively believe that the government or President could really do anything about it.
Do I think things will be better eventually under Romney? Sure. But he's not a lightworker, like the fabulist-in-chief. In another four years, we will probably be having similar discussions.
"An Obama victory would offer the advantage of satisfying black voters, and it would probably lead long term to the shattering of black demands for preferences and quotas, and an end to black block voting as the natural conservatism of black society asserts itself."
Expecting this three-bank shot is has hopeful as expecting Obama to be better in his second-term than he was in his first.
Black voters won't be "satisfied." Peggy Joseph still wants her mortgage and bills paid.
It won't lead to shattering preferences and quotas: two generations have come to expect that as birthright - it is the same as telling all Americans they will no longer enjoy the Social Security or Medicare. Dependency takes make forms, and is hard to break voluntarily in individuals, more probably impossible for social cohorts.
Black voting blocks will rally around government benefits, not public policies oriented toward "natural conservatism of black society."
You can't cash a check against gay marriage.
It's a conservative impulse to stay with what we have now
...if it's proven to work or, at least, not lead toward total disaster. What you claim is a conservative impulse is only partially correct.
""It's a conservative impulse to stay with what we have now and to be skeptical of the value of change."
That explains Obama vote #2, not #1.
Maybe it's too late already. The medical clinics and hospitals are planning for a big shitstorm in the next 2 years. It's gonna get very ugly. It's unclear whether anything can stop it. Patients are already angry about limited access, especially the elderly.
No doubt the press will find it all wonderful, by D +20 or so.
But thinking things are bad so let's do the next other thing that becomes available... that's not guaranteed either.
Isn't that what pretty much what you said was the main reason you voted for Obama? Obama's record contradicted most of what he said, but his "promise" was so much better than the alternative which was so status quo. Isn't that what you said?
How have they weighted it in favor of Democrats? What's the percentage used to get the percentage they (wanted to) report?
So you believe there is a national conspiracy between all the pollsters aside from Rasmussen to show Obama winning? That's tin foil stuff.
it is ertain to be a "stolen elevtion" whine, I think by the dems
You got soda under your "c" key.
I prefer to make my decision while walking to the polling place on election day.
Ok, but you've always voted for the Democrat for president, right?
Very clever to couch your consistent Democrat vote as the conservative impulse.
That's tin foil stuff.
Why not just answer the question as posed?
It's the potential slander of Mohammed in a Romney Administration, that's what keeps Althouse undecided.
So you believe there is a national conspiracy between all the pollsters aside from Rasmussen to show Obama winning? That's tin foil stuff.
"Conspiracy" is your word for it, garage.
The liberal media doesn't need to conspire to unanimously come to the same conclusions.
They do it weekly with their "Romney just lost the election with that gaffe!" story.
They don't have to call one another or consult to produce that result.
They are naturally of one mind.
Alt is being rather childish. She knows what a disaster Obama has been, yet still plays this undecided game. Rather unbecoming of a law professor.
Well then, Prof. I won't try to sway you. On the other hand, as one who prides herself, justifiably, on having a keen ability to analyze problems from a legal point of view, I now have at least colorable reason to doubt your ability to weigh evidence and come to a just and fair decision based on that evidence, and your justifiable pride is no longer quite so justifiable.
This ain't legal crap, my dear professor, it may well be the survival of our constitutional republic in the balance. This is not just one third-tier practicing attorney's opinion. Some of your professional peers (blog wise as well) believe the same thing.
The reason why it stays that way is confirmation bias. The pollsters make their models to confirm their bias. Their bias is not in favor of Romney, but they keep biasing the polls to help Obama. Romney wins by 5% nationally.
The liberal media doesn't need to conspire to unanimously come to the same conclusions.
These are pollsters that do this for a living, and their reputations are on the line. Anything is possible I guess, but I highly doubt they all got together and colluded on releasing poll results that are wildly off.
"It's a conservative impulse to stay with what we have now and to be skeptical of the value of change."
Voting for a 2nd term of Obama is voting for radical change: locking in, permanently, radical change that hasn't fully kicked in yet (Obamacare). And we're sure to experience much more 2nd term "flexibility."
A 2nd term of Obama isn't "staying with what we have now." In a 2nd term, Obama (no longer concerned about re-election) will go further doing what he promised-- to "fundamentally transform America."
garage mahal said...
New York Times/CBS/Quinnipiac University shows ten point leads in Ohio, FL, and PA.
Why not say Obama is going to get 60% of the vote?
It has just as much validity as those polls.
Ann Althouse said...
I've decided not to decide until I have to decide.
I'm quite decisive. I make decisions just in time.
I don't put energy into early decisionmaking that might require rethinking.
So how is it difficult to understand most people who hadn't made up their minds a week ago feel basically the same. Most Americans feel this way.
This isn't reflected in the polls because for most Americans there really isn't a decision being made. Most Americans, if they're honest, know today which party's candidate they're going to vote for in 2016. Maybe 15% of Americans can even remotely be considered swing voters.
You're still undecided? Seriously?
I think quite a few of the female electorate view Obama as their fantasy boyfriend and like many of their real life boyfriends have sorely disappointed them. The ladies nevertheless always seem to find some reason, no matter how trivial or absurd, to give that disappointing fella one more chance.
QED
Ann Althouse said...
How have they weighted it in favor of Democrats? What's the percentage used to get the percentage they (wanted to) report?
Oh Ann, they weighted them as follows:
Ohio 2008 exits: 39% Democrat, 31% Republican, 30% Independent.
Ohio New York Times/Quinnipiac 2012 sample: 35% Democrat, 26% Republican, 35% Independent.
And:
Pennsylvania 2008 exits: 44% Democrat, 37% Republican, 18% Independent.
Pennsylvania New York Times/Quinnipiac 2012 sample: 39% Democrat, 28% Republican, 27% Independent.
And:
Florida 2008 exits: 37% Democrat, 34% Republican, 29% Independent.
Florida New York Times/Quinnipiac 2012 sample: 36% Democrat, 27% Republican, 33% Independent.
So in other words, if you believe these polls, you believe Democrats will exceed their 2008 turnout.
These are pollsters that do this for a living,and their reputationsare on the line.
Funny, they said the same thing about credit rating agencies too.
Althouse said,
"Why decide before the debates?
Why decide until you see what's happening in world events?
Look at 2008 and that financial crash. Things happen."
9/26/12 10:11 AM
Wise woman, plus it's fun seeing folks here squirm.
Althouse said,
"Why decide before the debates?
Why decide until you see what's happening in world events?
Look at 2008 and that financial crash. Things happen."
9/26/12 10:11 AM
Indeed, why decide before we see who has the deeper, more resonant voice and who can spout the most reasonable line of bullshit? Who cares about the last four years? Let's just hear Barry's golden throat again.
Wise woman, plus it's fun seeing folks here squirm.
It isn't wise. It's profoundly trivial.
And I don't care who Althouse votes for. It won't affect me one way or another. But if she does vote for Little Black Jesus again, she deserves everything - good or (almost to a certainty) bad - that happens as a result of that decision.
Garage,
"So you believe there is a national conspiracy between all the pollsters aside from Rasmussen to show Obama winning? That's tin foil stuff."
Do you believe Obama will out perform 2008 this year, that the electorate is more D than it was four years ago or not?
This does not require a "conspiracy," it is just a straight forward question, because if the turnout on election day is not D +10, but perhaps D + 3 or 4, or even 0, the polls are junk.
I've decided not to decide until I have to decide.
...
I prefer to make my decision while walking to the polling place on election day.
If someone believes that this country is worth so little that the only effort they are willing to exert is just enough to cast an informed vote, then your strategy makes sense.
If someone truly appreciates this country, and all that it offers them, then I would expect them to determine if the country would be noticeably better off under one candidate or the other, and if so, use their influence to persuade others to vote the same way.
Kevin - If you can't figure out at this point that a random person picked off the street would do a better job as President than Barrack Hussein Obama, there isn't really much point continuing to follow your blog.
Buh bye, Kevin!!
If you haven't figured out half the country thinks Obama is better for them than the Republicans, half do not, you have not been very cognitive the last year.....
and following Althouses blog, even NFL scores is a waste of time because nothing really sinks in.
There are quite intelligent people that look at their lives...perhaps they are government employees or disabled and benefiting from government programs....that consider Obama a rational choice.
Conversely, a coal company management employee will think his whole life and career is at risk under Obama/
Sometimes the country is united by all being effected by miserable failure. Jimmy Carters 21% inflation hit everyone, George Bush's inattention to economic and fiscal affairs while he focused on the Heroes Helping the Noble Iraqi Freedom Lovers.
But with Obama, there have been winners, and there have been losers.
All I need to know about what the actual state of the race is where the campaigns are sending the candidates/candidate surrogates and where they are spending money.
Obama is campaigning in areas he won in 2008. Romney is campaigning in areas Obama won in 2008.
Obama is in northern (not southern) Ohio speaking at college campuses (not suburban venues).
Romney is speaking in Cleveland and in Toledo. In blue-collar inner-ring suburbs with lots of white union voters.
Watch what they do, not what they say. Always.
When the 2008 crash happened, I thought how much we could use a President Romney.
I still think that.
I have to question the polls mainly because there is far less enthusiasim for Obama this round, the GOP ticket this time is far better than the 2008 joke that was put up, the economy is tettering on the brink, foreign policy is a shambles and somehow Obama is up 10 in three battleground states? Sorry that doesn't pass the smell test.
Case in point, the embassy attacks, our Libyan ambassador murdered, a devastating loss in Afghanistan yet the media is largely silent on it yet they found plenty of time to air Romney's 47% 'gaffe'.
Incidentally, how's that Scott Walker indictment coming, anyway? I heard it was any day now.
Any. Day. Now.
I'm sure the wall-to-wall Obama ads in Philly and in Scranton-Wilkes-Barre are a sign of his overwhelming dominance in Pennsylvania.
When Obama restricts his Wisconsin campaigning to just Milwaukee and Madison, I count on our liberal brethren assuring us it's because his "appeal has just become more selective."
Blogger Shouting Thomas said...
" If you think I'm wrong, look at how long the City of Detroit has been in a death spiral without awakening the natural conservatism of the inhabitants, and without thinking the problems really need to be solved.
That certainly has to be considered."
Have you heard the Howard Stern interviews ? Tell me how that works with a perceived black natural conservatism.
When I was a child, I knew blacks who were only one generation from, or had been born in the south. They had a natural conservatism but that was 70 years ago.
"My suspicion--suspicion, mind you--is that Romney and team are going to really kick it into gear in October, and especially late October."
If there's anything to be learned from the GOP Primary, it's that an early lead is not a good thing.
"I am an efficient decisionmaker, not someone who has trouble making decisions. I'm just fine at it."
I can appreciate that. But I find it also consumes mental resources to remain indeterminate. I can always revisit my decision later, if something unexpected happens. It would have to be very, very unexpected at this point to make me vote for Obama.
She isn't leaning. Anne has already decided to vote for Obama again, but is pretending otherwise so that she can appear all heart-achey when she posts about her choice.
I am also undecided, but my only two plausible choices are Romney or staying home.
There are quite intelligent people that look at their lives...perhaps they are government employees or disabled and benefiting from government programs....that consider Obama a rational choice.
How the Tea Party Could Cost Republicans the Senate, Again
Case in point. Moderate Republican Tommy Thompson runs with the Tea Party crowd to curry favor, has to say a bunch of unpopular shit to win the primary. When will these guys realize that ending Medicare/Medicaid and screwing with Social Security isn't even that popular with rank and file Republicans?
Thanks Tea Party, for making this much easier than it has to be.
Ann Althouse said...
"Doubling down on failure is a losing strategy. It never works out."
But thinking things are bad so let's do the next other thing that becomes available... that's not guaranteed either.
It's a conservative impulse to stay with what we have now and to be skeptical of the value of change.
Aw jeeze.
If past behavior is an indication of future performance, what in the world makes you think continuing this national nightmare that is the Obama administration is going to improve?
Doing the same thing over and expecting different results ...................
What is it you want four more years of, Ann? What has Obama promised that makes you think his next four years will be a success? Woodward said Reagan or even Clinton would have gotten the debt deal done. What makes you think that Obama has suddenly developed more of an ability to work with congress? What has changed in him and when exactly did that change take place?
The only one to trust:
The FiveThirtyEight forecast...
Oh, and maybe you can name a President who had a more successful second term than his first.
"learned from the GOP Primary,"
"We learned train wreck, unlikable to cons, Willard was less irritating/painful than the other more frightening train wrecks Newt/Santo/Cain/Perry/Bachmann/Paul.
ie Willard won by default having more $$$ ie able to run 99% negative attacks against his woeful competition.
The only lesson from the discombobulated Rep primary where at some pt. in time Trump, Cain, Perry, Bachmann, Santo led the con traveling circus!
blessings
"I've decided not to decide until I have to decide."
You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice
If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill
I will choose a path that's clear - I will choose free will
Seriously Ann, this isn't jury duty. You don't have to wait until closing remarks are over with.
When will these guys realize that ending Medicare/Medicaid and screwing with Social Security isn't even that popular with rank and file Republicans?
I wonder when these guys realize Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security will end by themselves because there isn't enough money to pay for them?
Ryan-Ryan-Ryan...no wait...Romney-Ryan...Romney-Ryan...
surreal...
In 2008 there wasn't an incumbent. There wasn't an established cabinet and policies - all that would change with the winner.
In 2012 there is an incumbent. There is an established cabinet.
Firing Obama also means firing his cabinet and other administration officials. We get rid of Obama we get rid of Clinton, Geithner, Napolitano, Sebelius, LaHood (we have to ban cell phones in cars completely! It's for the children!!!1111!!11!), Holder, Vilsack, Lisa Jackson at EPA, Susan Rice at UN, Jay Carney, and more...
It's not just a choice between two men.
This weekend we will ring up our fourth consecutive trillion dollar deficit. Medicare/Medicaid and SS account for 40% of Federal spending, estimated to grow to 50% in a decade.
When I get a "public opinion" polling call (not infrequent), I just tell them I have no "public" opinions. Since my opinion is not included, the polls are obviously invalid.
I wonder when these guys realize Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security will end by themselves because there isn't enough money to pay for them?
They've been hearing that for 40 years from Republicans.
garage mahal said...
They've been hearing that for 40 years from Republicans
Or, you could read the report from the Medicare Actuary and see when he says it all ends.
Idiot.
They've been hearing that for 40 years from Republicans.
And based upon the math, they would be correct.
I've read and heard the explanations for why the newspaper/TV polls sprinkle in more Democrats to match turnout models. I've worked with polls professionally so I even understand what they are saying, the jargon they are using.
But I still don't get it. It seems like a flawed process at best. If you're going to rebalance demographic factors, shouldn't the balancing be against a constant value, not one that literally goes up and down like a window-blind from election to election?
You can't guess the next number in the series if you're starting from the turnout differential in 04, 06, 08, and 10. It bounces crazily from a strictly numerical point of view. But these pollsters think they can guess and further are insisting their guess is correct. But they never convincingly explain why they think their guess is correct.
Garage, you are aware we have a $16 trillion federal debt and are currently adding $1 trillion to that per year, yes?
Letting the tax cuts expire knock that $1 trillion down to about $900 billion that we have to borrow. Is that sustainable?
Latest Poll:
Romney Ahead in Presidential Race, Say Replacement Refs...
Garage, you are aware we have a $16 trillion federal debt and are currently adding $1 trillion to that per year, yes?
Letting the tax cuts expire knock that $1 trillion down to about $900 billion that we have to borrow. Is that sustainable?
Don't bother with Garage, Colonel. He's swallowed more Kool-Aid than the folks at Jonestown. It's Bush's fault. It's always Bush's fault. Or just the generic "Republican."
Thanks Tea Party, for making this much easier than it has to be.
Get back to us on November 7, garage. Unless you run away again.
Garage, you are aware we have a $16 trillion federal debt and are currently adding $1 trillion to that per year, yes?
Romney/Ryan will do.....what? Wishing it was different doesn't sway anyone to your side.
Well at least emergency rooms still offer free health care....oh wait...
Romney/Ryan will do.....what?
My mistake, I was under the impression you felt our entitlement programs were inviolable despite the math.
You haven't given any math. Perhaps that's why voters aren't inclined to believe it? Whatever the math is, it's really stupid politically to just say "we'll end Medicare as we know it because we think it's going under anyway".
I knew it! If you ignore the propaganda polls, Romney is WINNING!
Which is why no one has said that.
Can I get the contract for supplying you with straw for your strawman arguments? Must be worth millions.
garage mahal said...
New York Times/CBS/Quinnipiac University shows ten point leads in Ohio, FL, and PA. Ouch. If that holds it's sayonara.
If it holds, don't worry because the Mayan prophecy is also true.
Since Q-pac is skewing things in double digits, garage may want to practice his seppuku (since we're going all Dai Nippon here).
shiloh said...
Althouse, if you're so obsessed :-P w/cruel neutrality, why do you only post Rasmussen propaganda? Rhetorical.
))))))))Stupid.(((((((
She's had posts quoting Gallup and others. The little weasel was just in hiding at the time
fixednoise Scotty Ras mittens Dutch cons
lol lol lol lol
!@ :$ ;(
PS Here in NE OH, we're starting to see Romney signs and bumper stickers. Nothing for Zero that isn't left over from 4 years ago, however.
This is why Zero feels obliged to campaign in Akron.
Math for Libtards
We have $220 Trillion in unfunded liabilites. For a sense of scale:
1 million seconds = 11.5 days ago
1 billion seconds = 31.7 years ago
1 trillion seconds = 31,709 years ago, humans began to draw on the walls of caves
220 trillion seconds = 6,975,980 years ago, the first primates began to walk on two feet
You haven't given any math.
Actually, I did and you simply chose to ignore it, or just believe we haven't hit our fourth consecutive trillion dollar annual deficit.
If you Google Medicare Trustee report 2012, you will see they state Medicare and SS are not sustainable under current conditions and modifications to the programs are necessary. If that's ending Medicare as we know it, then so be it. The Trustee report reads as if Ryan had written it.
It's a shame that some folks still don't understand, or choose to ignore, the relationship between national tracking polls of the potential popular vote and electoral college strategy. Polls are trending in Obama's favor. Most polls, and polling averages, show Obama ahead in the "battle ground" States, except for North Carolina. Even there, however, three of the most rrecent polls show Obama ahead of Romney in North Carolina (+2, +4, +4), and a fourth (YouGov) show Obama moving into a tie (46% vs. 46%). Only Rasmussen has Obama trailing, and that poll is stale (from 9/13).
If that's ending Medicare as we know it, then so be it.
Good luck with that, as they say.
Refering to the linked video and the statement I have the American inherent balancing mechanism.
Pear-shaped women have bad memories
My dear lady!
We all know that you be voting for the President in this election.
It is the only way you can keep your liberal library card valid. Despite fools who claim you are a conservative it has long been clear that you are as liberal as any other Madison resident.
@Baron Zemo
But she is liberal on her own terms, and eschews the Madison hive mind, and they hate her for it.
Not so my friend.
I am afraid that as unpleasant as shiloh may be.....he does have a point.
The dear lady takes a stance here and there to keep her fanboys happy but she is a liberal without any real conservative impluses. Pro abortion. Pro gay marriage and every part of the gay agenda not matter how out there.
Face it. A liberal is a liberal.
Her stances that differ are merely to draw hits and comments. It is that simple.
Good luck with that, as they say.
Well I see the numbers don't mean anything to you so I'll concede the fact that partisan loyalty trumps reality in your case. I guess if siding with the party of Nothing to See Here helps you sleep at night, who am I to question.
"PS Here in NE OH, we're starting to see Romney signs and bumper stickers.
campaign in Akron."
Actually, Obama's appearing at Kent State at 5:30. btw, Kent is where I grew up ~ tin soldiers and Nixon comin' ah, the memories ...
bumper stickers lol. Re: Ohio ~ It's Over ~ Go Home ~ Go!
And yes, it's true as Althouse #1 trained seal and myself are both from NE Ohio.
I'm not from NE OH, I'm from the Main Line outside Philadelphia.
Another thing the little weasel can't get straight.
And, if all he has is a clip from an annhh movie to tell what's going on here, he's going to be in hiding until sometime in the 2020s.
btw, Kent is where I grew up
That explains a lot.
"PS Here in NE OH, we're starting to see"
ok, Althouse #1 trained seal currently resides in NE Ohio. Sorta like Kasich, who's also from PA.
EMD, I grew up in a middle class neighborhood which was 90/10 conservative, like this blog. But as mentioned, I'm quite independent. Just ask the nun's at St. Patrick's.
blessings
The dear lady takes a stance here and there to keep her fanboys happy but she is a liberal without any real conservative impluses. Pro abortion. Pro gay marriage and every part of the gay agenda not matter how out there.
Face it. A liberal is a liberal.
Her stances that differ are merely to draw hits and comments. It is that simple.
Or maybe it’s just that Althouse really, really doesn’t want to go with a loser, and right now she’s more than a little shaky on who’s going to win. So, what the hell, why not wait until the walk to the polling place to decide.
Dishonest and pathetic, but, hey.
Jo muses: Or maybe it’s just that Althouse really, really doesn’t want to go with a loser,...
Are suggesting that Althouse always backs the stronger whores?
shiloh said...
EMD, I grew up in a middle class neighborhood which was 90/10 conservative, like this blog. But as mentioned, I'm quite independent. Just ask the nun's at St. Patrick's.
Not independent, just another useless idiot in the thrall of the Left.
If he were independent, he'd come up with better material.
PS Just to ruin the little weasel's day, a little admission from one of the worst polls, Quinnipiac Pollster Admits It’s Unlikely Election Will See Massive Democratic Skew.
Happy trails.
What is it you want four more years of, Ann?
Knowing that she bravely took a stand against Racism, Sexism and Homophobia.
What is it you want four more years of, Ann?
Feeling proud that she took a stand against racism, sexism and homophobia.
I cannot believe you could even consider voting for BO again. The economy, the jobless rate, the total lack of foreign policy while the world burns. Not to mention he is trying to suppress the Catholic Church with the HHS mandate. I am absolutely done with your blog and using your portal for Amazon. You really are a lib, and I do not like nor read lib blogs, ever.
"It relaxes and amuses me — me, one of the undecideds."
LOL...life in the bubble, insulated from reality...a fool's fool and proud of it...only in a life on the public dole!
Mel, don't your ears hurt living in echo chambers?
The polls show Romney and Obama in a dead heat and you guys are surprised a moderate voter is still undecided between them?
There are some people dumb enough to think she's a conservative, and others dumb enough to think she's a liberal, but everything about her voting history and blog commentary says "independent". You just tend to forget, because (a) she lives in an extremely left-wing city and (b) the current President is extremely left-wing as well. So most of her current comments come from the right of the person she's talking about.
If that's ending Medicare as we know it, then so be it.
Good luck with that, as they say.
That Medicare will have to change is a mathematical certainty. The only question is how bad we let things get before we address it.
All of these posts yapping about the "tied" race were posted on a day when Gallup had Romney 44% and Obama 50%. Real Clear has Obama up 4, Intrade has Obama at 75.4% chance of winning and FiveThirtyEight's projection is 81.9%.
It's not a conspiracy.... get over it
If @edutcher can't rally a win for Romney in Ohio then Mitt needs to win both North Carolina and Florida to have a chance at victory. Florida isn't looking so hot for Mitt right now, but could swing in his favor in the end. North Carolina looks to Mitt's to lose right now, but the most recent polls show NC as with a slight edge in Obama's favor. edutcher needs to get on the telephones.
Hmm. From Sept 17, 2008
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2012/09/romney-47-obama-45.html
Also Rasmussen
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा