Unfortunatley I Really Think Mitt Will Win in 13 Days

[hkp]

Good analysis, Jer. Let's call the election now.

[NickTheCage]

It's weird that certain people on this site almost never actually have anything to say about Philadelphia.

It's even weirder that people post in the National politics forum and have no opinions and/or knowledge of public policy. That said; when they chime in on economics it brings the lulz.

[NickTheCage]

Good analysis, Jer. Let's call the election now.

Funny thing you should say this



Some CBS affiliate called it a few days back

[Jerry19127]

Funny thing you should say this



Some CBS affiliate called it a few days back

Judge Marilyn's calling it now...

[PASnow]

The other fact I noticed, today while driving through the burbs, 2 Obama lawn signs compared to about 100 Romney. In 08 these homes were littered with Obama signs.I can't see him winning PA.

Why yes, lawn sign samplings on 1 persons route to work surely outweighs the accuracy of nearly every major state-wide poll..

What did the people expect? They made themselves feel good that they voted in a half black person in the white house.

I think more people were excited to just get GWB OUT of office, than get a "half black person in". And really though, McCain was not the right candidate in 2008 with the economy in peril, and his choosing of that lunatic birdbrain VP choice he made solidified that. You could make the argument for Hilary, however to me that would mean we've had a Bush or a Clinton in the White House since 81 if you include VP's as Bush's dad. I felt America doesn't need dynasties and it was time to move on from that.

[NickTheCage]

F'en Ohio

I don't think Bam is winning VA
I don't think Bam is winning Fl
I don't think Romney is winning NV

It's all on Oh ... F'en Ohio again?

[Marquis]

What did the people expect? They made themselves feel good that they voted in a half black person in the white house. I guess all the horrible things that Obama wrote in his books and all the horrible people he associated with they ignored. The same thing happened in the 1930's to those who didn't read Mein Kampf or read it and ignored it.

Oh god, I love you.

[AsYouWere]

And really though, McCain was not the right candidate in 2008 with the economy in peril, and his choosing of that lunatic birdbrain VP

Yeah voting for Obama had nothing to do with Bush starting the wrong war that blew 2 trillion taxpayer dollars either.
But seriously if the last two years tell us anything it's that either chamber in Congress can stop any bill going forward into law, and I think it's more telling of the future how those races go.
Gallup says Congress only has a 21% approval rating but it's hard to figure who's getting tossed out this round.
U.S. Congress' Approval Rating at 21% Ahead of Elections

[torts]

GREATEST PUBLIC SPEAKER -- EVER

[five apples]

Oh god, I love you.

I sometimes wonder if she is a parody.

[Marquis]

I sometimes wonder if she is a parody.

Doubtful. I get a strong whiff of sincerity.

[OKT3]

I get a strong whiff of pure ****e.

[Marquis]

I get a strong whiff of pure ****e.

Thanks to the word filter, I don't know what that is, so I will assume it's something good.

[NickTheCage]

You know something is wrong when the NYTimes agrees with me ..

Obama's Aura of Defeat - NYTimes.com

Losing campaigns have a certain feel to them: They go negative hard, try out new messaging very late in the game, hype issues that only their core supporters are focused on, and try to turn non-gaffes and minor slip-ups by their opponents into massive, election-turning scandals. Think of John McCain’s desperate hope that elevating Joe the Plumber would change the shape of the 2008 race, and you have the template for how tin-eared and desperate a losing presidential campaign often sounds — and ever since the first debate cost Obama his air of inevitability, he and his surrogates have sounded more like McCain did with Joe the Plumber than like a typical incumbent president on his way to re-election. A winning presidential campaign would not normally be hyping non-issues like Big Bird and “binders full of women” in its quest for a closing argument, or rolling out a new spin on its second-term agenda with just two weeks left in the race, or pushing so many advertising chips into dishonest attacks on its rival’s position on abortion. A winning presidential campaign would typically be talking about the issues that voters cite as most important — jobs, the economy, the deficit — rather than trying to bring up Planned Parenthood and PBS at every opportunity. A winning presidential campaign would not typically have coined the term “Romnesia,” let alone worked it into their candidate’s speeches.

[Neb]

An Op-Ed columnist agrees with you. You know what an Op-Ed columnist is, don't you? You can Google it.

[supersupper]

You know something is wrong when the NYTimes agrees with me ..

Obama's Aura of Defeat - NYTimes.com

I don't normally get involved in political discussions, but I'd like to draw attention to the fact that you obviously did not read the full article with careful attention:

first sentence:

"In an argument that was echoed and amplified around the liberal twittersphere yesterday, New York’s Jonathan Chait made the case that the Romney campaign has bluffed the press into covering the last two weeks of the campaign as though Obama’s losing."

last paragraph:

"Now this is not a normal re-election campaign. When incumbent president win, they usually expand their original majorities, but barring a completely unexpected polling shift, Obama’s 2008 majority will shrink no matter what. He’s been running a heavily negative campaign from the beginning, and the late-game approach has only accentuated aspects of the White House’s strategy (the focus on social issues, the quest for “shiny objects” — hey, bayonets! — to change the subject from the economy, etc.) that have been present all along. What the press has read as signs of “Joe the Plumber”-esque desperation over the last few weeks may not be signs of an impending defeat; it may just be the way that Obama has to win, if win he does. But if so, it won’t look like the winning re-election campaigns we’ve seen in the recent past, and that reporters have grown accustomed to covering."



and so, no, The NYT does not agree with you. The writer is pointing out that people like you are not understanding things correctly.

[NickTheCage]

supersup .. you can't expect NYT is not going to put a lil spin in for 0.
Per the the piece and its main opinion ... it is exactly on point with my original post.

[jdhill]

An Op-Ed columnist agrees with you. You know what an Op-Ed columnist is, don't you? You can Google it.

Good point... then again an Op-ed columnist and a NYT columnist IS a difference without a distinction.

[NickTheCage]

Good point... then again an Op-ed columnist and a NYT columnist IS a difference without a distinction.

Obviously Douthat on a blog isn’t the NYT and obviously he wants 0 to not be losing.

But .. when the NYT headline reporters put out a title 'Aura of Defeat' in ref eference to 0, it says something.

[Politburo]

Are you really this dumb?