Romney opens 5 point lead over Obama

[CosmicBills]

Not that that's been at all difficult, given the soft-shoe treatment the media gives them...

To be fair, Tom, the media has been focused on the really important stuff.

 

Like this:

http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_t3#/video/us/2012/09/21/dnt-woman-driven-on-front-of-car.wsb

 

Had the woman been a dog, they would have blamed Romney.

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

http://news.yahoo.com/republicans-look-voter-fraud-little-172327169--election.html

 

DENVER (AP) — Republican election officials who promised to root out voter fraud so far are finding little evidence of a widespread problem.

 

State officials in key presidential battleground states have found only a tiny fraction of the illegal voters they initially suspected existed. Searches in Colorado and Florida have yielded numbers that amount to less than one-tenth of 1 percent of all registered voters in either state.

 

Where's FOX News on this story?

[DC Tom]

To be fair, Tom, the media has been focused on the really important stuff.

 

Like this:

http://www.cnn.com/v...ront-of-car.wsb

 

Had the woman been a dog, they would have blamed Romney.

 

Fox must've had a field day with that story.

 

Big deal...he was speeding with someone on the hood. It's slamming the brakes REALLY hard that's dangerous...

[B-Man]

 

This is from Mitt Romney's rally in Colorado last night, where the crowd of 7,000 underscored Romney's superb campaign in that battleground state.

 

 

Obama In Trouble: "To Some Degree"

 

FTA:

First, there are the two big tracking polls, with Rasmussen on Monday showing Obama 1 and Gallup's Sunday figure at Obama 2. Two weeks ago, after the Democratic convention and before Romney's allegedly disasetrous press conference on the Cairo appeasement announcement and the campaign-killing "47%" video, the Obama lead was 5% in Rasmussen and 7% in Gallup.................... Extrapolate that trend and see where it takes you.

 

What matters more than the polling breaking towards Romney, however, is the sign of President Obama breaking period.

The president has made three appearances in the past few days --Letterman, Univision and last night on 60 Minutes. Each included pratfalls, and each was worse than the one before. Last night's CBS turn by the president not only deepened his problem with supporters of Israel --he referred to Israel as just one of our allies in the region and to the concerns over Iran's nuclear program voiced by Prime Minister Netanyahu as "noise"-- but it also included the second "biggest disappointment" in three days and an astonishing quote about responsibility: "[A]s President I bear responsibility for everything, to some degree..."

 

 

 

.

[OCinBuffalo]

You are talking with a man who calls this "Muslim culture on display." You are more foolish than him.

Ask yourself: If there was a gay nuclear scientist who demanded that every single Mullah in Iran serviced him....and in return, he'd give them the tech they needed...would they do it?

 

Of course not? Of course they wouldn't...they kill people for that right? They'd have to find another way, right?

 

Looks like you have some reading to do. Perhaps googling....oh well...how about all Muslin invasions of Europe? I don't normally do google searches for people. I just tell them they are unfamiliar with the material being discussed and leave it to them to educate themselves. However, in this case, there is plenty of journalism being done to expose exactly what is happening, and, it is pure kryptonite to the liberal media:

 

"After praising Allah, the sheikh's fatwa began by declaring that sodomy is forbidden in Islam,

However, jihad comes first, for it is the pinnacle of Islam, and if

the pinnacle of Islam can only be achieved through sodomy, then there is no wrong in it.

For the overarching rule of [islamic] jurisprudence asserts that "necessity makes permissible the prohibited." And if obligatory matters can only be achieved by performing the prohibited, then it becomes obligatory to perform the prohibited, and there is no greater duty than jihad. After he sodomizes you, you must ask Allah for forgiveness and praise him all the more. And know that Allah will reward the jihadis on the Day of Resurrection, according to their intentions—and your intention, Allah willing, is for the victory of Islam, and we ask that Allah accept it of you.

"

 

http://www.gatestone...58/islam-sodomy

 

Now, ask yourself again: If there was a gay nuclear scientist who demanded that every single Mullah in Iran serviced him....and in return, he'd give them the tech they needed...would they do it?

 

Every single fact about this culture shows that it's primary goal is a return to 700 AD. Gaining power, is the only way to do that. This is about their power and them gaining more of it, and if sodomy is a vehicle, or murder, rape, cheating, lying, whatever is necessary, so be it.

 

This is not about your sensibilities.

Edited September 25, 2012 by OCinBuffalo

[UConn James]

Guys, this is a presidential polling thread, not one about Islamic terrorism. Let's stay on track here please.

[OCinBuffalo]

Ask your question in English please

 

As I a Ron Paul supporter, I'll step up and respond

I'll go out on a limb and assume that you're asking what free trade in this scenario do to both America and Libyans

For Americans, we can choose to take our business elsewhere. Kind of like Dish TV not offering AMC. At the end of your contractual obiligations you are free to subscribe to a different provider and start watching Breaking Bad, Mad Men, Walking Dead, and Hell on Wheels

For Libyans, after the trade dollars and American food (we do kinda feed the world) stop pouring in their regime will start to feel the heat. They can either reform and play nice, or be dicks with no money nor food

How can "Free trade" be a solution to things...if it is taken elsewhere?

 

It's simple really, Ron/HypnoNOT: The absence of Free Trade is not a solution for preventing the sodomizing of dead people, any more than the existence of Free Trade is.

 

Think about what it would take for you do this act....or something of similar depravity. Just for 5 seconds, try to imagine yourself actually doing something this depraved. It's gross, isn't it? Now consider: If you really had the capacity for this behavior, and also felt compelled to do it, and this was something that you felt was necessary...do you really thing you'd be dissuaded by not getting the new iPhone?

 

Guys, this is a presidential polling thread, not one about Islamic terrorism. Let's stay on track here please.

Shh dammit. I'm doing something. Don't ruin it.

[Juror#8]

Ask yourself: If there was a gay nuclear scientist who demanded that every single Mullah in Iran serviced him....and in return, he'd give them the tech they needed...would they do it?

 

Of course not? Of course they wouldn't...they kill people for that right? They'd have to find another way, right?

 

Looks like you have some reading to do. Perhaps googling....oh well...how about all Muslin invasions of Europe? I don't normally do google searches for people. I just tell them they are unfamiliar with the material being discussed and leave it to them to educate themselves. However, in this case, there is plenty of journalism being done to expose exactly what is happening, and, it is pure kryptonite to the liberal media:

 

"After praising Allah, the sheikh's fatwa began by declaring that sodomy is forbidden in Islam,

 

 

However, jihad comes first, for it is the pinnacle of Islam, and if

the pinnacle of Islam can only be achieved through sodomy, then there is no wrong in it.

For the overarching rule of [islamic] jurisprudence asserts that "necessity makes permissible the prohibited." And if obligatory matters can only be achieved by performing the prohibited, then it becomes obligatory to perform the prohibited, and there is no greater duty than jihad. After he sodomizes you, you must ask Allah for forgiveness and praise him all the more. And know that Allah will reward the jihadis on the Day of Resurrection, according to their intentions—and your intention, Allah willing, is for the victory of Islam, and we ask that Allah accept it of you.

"

 

http://www.gatestone...58/islam-sodomy

 

Now, ask yourself again: If there was a gay nuclear scientist who demanded that every single Mullah in Iran serviced him....and in return, he'd give them the tech they needed...would they do it?

 

Every single fact about this culture shows that it's primary goal is a return to 700 AD. Gaining power, is the only way to do that. This is about their power and them gaining more of it, and if sodomy is a vehicle, or murder, rape, cheating, lying, whatever is necessary, so be it.

 

This is not about your sensibilities.

 

Does this angst also apply to Alexis Texas, Jenna Presley, or Kayden Kross?

 

I mean...I'm just sayin.

Edited September 25, 2012 by Juror#8

[OCinBuffalo]

Does this angst also apply to Alexis Texas, Jenna Presley, or Kayden Kross?

 

I mean...I'm just sayin.

Well I don't know....I suppose it depends on why they have their anuses widened, and what, if anything, they plan on carrying in there, doesn't it?

 

It also depends on whether strippers/hookers/porn stars are trying to gain political power, or nuclear weapons technology, rather than just $1 bills.

 

And, thanks for ruining my plan/joke. Jesus. Now my only hope is that NewBills doesn't scroll down.

[Gary M]

Dead heat.

 

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

[Juror#8]

Dead heat.

 

http://www.rasmussen...l_tracking_poll

 

I tend to follow realclearpolitics because they aggregate the polls. Just like anything else, it's only a snapshot; but you get a fuller picture there than anywhere else and you're not saddled with any particular poll biases.

 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/elections/

[The Big Cat]

Dead heat.

 

http://www.rasmussen...l_tracking_poll

 

Obama by a mile.

 

http://www.people-press.org/files/legacy-pdf/09-19-12%20Political%20release.pdf

 

--sarcasm aside, what does it tell you that best case scenario for Dems: Obama is crushing whereas best case scenario right now for GOP: race is close.

 

Wait, never mind, just now seeing the post where 7,000 people turned out in Colorado, that key "battleground state" and its whopping 9 electoral votes. Obama better watch out!

[UConn James]

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/09/25/how-carter-beat-reagan

 

How Carter Beat Reagan | Washington Post admits polling was "in-kind contribution", NY Times was agenda-polling

 

In a series of nine stories in 1980 on "Crucial States" -- battleground states as they are known today -- the New York Times repeatedly told readers then-President Carter was in a close and decidedly winnable race with the former California governor. And used polling data from the New York Times/CBS polls to back up its stories.

...

All of which will doubtless serve as a reminder of just how blatantly polling data is manipulated by liberal media -- used essentially as a political weapon to support the liberal of the moment, whether Jimmy Carter in 1980, Walter Mondale in 1984 -- or Barack Obama in 2012.

 

I'm sure it's sooo different today. Oh, wait. I went to J-school with some of these folks. No it isn't.

 

Polls mean jack squat.

[OCinBuffalo]

Obama by a mile.

 

http://www.people-pr...cal release.pdf

 

--sarcasm aside, what does it tell you that best case scenario for Dems: Obama is crushing whereas best case scenario right now for GOP: race is close.

 

Wait, never mind, just now seeing the post where 7,000 people turned out in Colorado, that key "battleground state" and its whopping 9 electoral votes. Obama better watch out!

All we need to know about your poll is:

 

PARTY ID RV LV

Republican 717 665

Democrat 869 803

Independent 757 661

 

And, what do we find? Shockingly....Romney down by 8 pts.....in a poll that has 8+ pts more Democrats? In fact, .825% and .828% respectively? Yeah, that's a coincidence.

 

I hope you aren't basing your feelings on polls like these....because they are likely to be hurt as a result. Don't tell yourself that this is anything other than a tie, because that's what it is. Start telling yourself that the lie is right in front of you, I have just made you aware of it. I have no reason, other than my demand for accuracy, for telling you this. What you do with this accurate info is on you.

 

Here's some more truth: There's no way that this is a +8 Democrat turnout election. No way. If anything, it's either 0...+1 D...or +2 R. That's what the turnout polls suggest.

 

But, these clowns keep insisting that Obama will get the turnout he did last time....even when their own polls show that enthusiasm for Obama in his key demographics...hell...in every demo...is down, in some cases by double digits(young voters, etc).

 

It's just not there. It's not. +8 weighting is the purest example of the wishful thinking that is dominating media/democratic pollsters. They aren't thinking at all in fact. This is pure emotion.

 

It's up to you whether you want to get wrapped up in the storybook...or deal with the reality.

[B-Man]

Here's some more truth: There's no way that this is a +8 Democrat turnout election. No way. If anything, it's either 0...+1 D...or +2 R. That's what the turnout polls suggest.

 

But, these clowns keep insisting that Obama will get the turnout he did last time....even when their own polls show that enthusiasm for Obama in his key demographics...hell...in every demo...is down, in some cases by double digits(young voters, etc).

 

It's just not there. It's not. +8 weighting is the purest example of the wishful thinking that is dominating media/democratic pollsters. They aren't thinking at all in fact. This is pure emotion.

 

It's up to you whether you want to get wrapped up in the storybook...or deal with the reality.

 

Exactly right.

 

Now, someone usually responds, well, thats national turnout, in some states dems are up by 8 or more.

 

Not in the swing states they aren't (thats why they have been swing states for the past 3 elections.....lol)

 

Those polls that are weighted significantly to dems are simply wrong.

 

 

I'll say it again....................Media polling today is done TO INFLUENCE VOTERS, not show actual snapshot projections.

 

 

 

 

.

[OCinBuffalo]

Oh....and btw...Romney is viewed favorably....by 45% unfavorable 50% in +8 D weighted poll? Hmm.

 

Uh...that's only a difference of 5%. Now, are we supposed to believe that independents account for all that? Hardly. Romney's favorables with INDs have never been that bad. So...someplace, there's likely at least 3% of Democrats in that sample...that don't see Romney as unfavorable.

 

Of course, other than Rassmussen and some of the college polls....we aren't going to get a straight answer on this.

[OCinBuffalo]

Exactly right.

 

Now, someone usually responds, well, thats national turnout, in some states dems are up by 8 or more.

 

Not in the swing states they aren't (thats why they have been swing states for the past 3 elections.....lol)

 

Those polls that are weighted significantly to dems are simply wrong.

 

 

I'll say it again....................Media polling today is done TO INFLUENCE VOTERS, not show actual snapshot projections.

 

 

 

 

.

 

Ya know what else....I love the consistency of the math.

 

Every time they overwieght by 6 pts...Romney is down by 6. As above, with 8...he's down by 8. 4 it's 4. In fact, and I haven't looked at every poll, but for the ones I have...I have yet to see one that isn't sampled exactly the same as the difference.

 

So, inadvertently, their math, taken in the aggregate...is proving that the race is a tie...by the sheer consistency of the their biases.

Edited September 25, 2012 by OCinBuffalo

[DC Tom]

So, inadvertently, their math, taken in the aggregate...is proving that the race is a tie...by the sheer consistency of the their biases.

 

No, it's proving the race is coming down to straight party affiliation, and what matters is who gets more of their base to vote.

[The Big Cat]

All we need to know about your poll is:

 

PARTY ID RV LV

Republican 717 665

Democrat 869 803

Independent 757 661

 

And, what do we find? Shockingly....Romney down by 8 pts.....in a poll that has 8+ pts more Democrats? In fact, .825% and .828% respectively? Yeah, that's a coincidence.

 

I hope you aren't basing your feelings on polls like these....because they are likely to be hurt as a result. Don't tell yourself that this is anything other than a tie, because that's what it is. Start telling yourself that the lie is right in front of you, I have just made you aware of it. I have no reason, other than my demand for accuracy, for telling you this. What you do with this accurate info is on you.

 

Here's some more truth: There's no way that this is a +8 Democrat turnout election. No way. If anything, it's either 0...+1 D...or +2 R. That's what the turnout polls suggest.

 

But, these clowns keep insisting that Obama will get the turnout he did last time....even when their own polls show that enthusiasm for Obama in his key demographics...hell...in every demo...is down, in some cases by double digits(young voters, etc).

 

It's just not there. It's not. +8 weighting is the purest example of the wishful thinking that is dominating media/democratic pollsters. They aren't thinking at all in fact. This is pure emotion.

 

It's up to you whether you want to get wrapped up in the storybook...or deal with the reality.

 

I posted that poll on purpose to show you can't take a single poll in a vacuum.

 

Spin the numbers all you want, Romney's going to lose.

 

I made a bet with someone here about a year or so ago on this topic and somebody saved the parameters. Does that person care to step forward now?

[3rdnlng]

I posted that poll on purpose to show you can't take a single poll in a vacuum.

 

Spin the numbers all you want, Romney's going to lose.

 

I made a bet with someone here about a year or so ago on this topic and somebody saved the parameters. Does that person care to step forward now?

 

 

It was BF4E, for $500.