dayman Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 And from what I heard, Obama's down 250K votes from this point in 2008 in Ohio. This could well be a Dewey v. Truman moment for some of you who are so overconfident. Not that I will ever say Mitt has no shot, but you guys are all in with these blogs and conservative confidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 This could well be a Dewey v. Truman moment for some of you who are so overconfident. Not that I will ever say Mitt has no shot, but you guys are all in with these blogs and conservative confidence. We shall see. If the MSM had even a shred of credibility, this election would be a landslide for Romney. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 This could well be a Dewey v. Truman moment for some of you who are so overconfident. Not that I will ever say Mitt has no shot, but you guys are all in with these blogs and conservative confidence. Similar argument could be made that it's Dewey vs Truman moment for Obama. Electoral map has always favored Obama and it's been his race to lose But we're on a football board, so let's for a football analogy and the New York Giants. The election will either be: Last week's Giants @ Cowboys game. Giants (Obama) got so far ahead of the Cowboys (Romney) that America's Game of the Week was over before halftime. Change the channel and see what else is on. Then all of a sudden a game broke out. Romney pulls ahead for awhile but Obama eventually retakes the lead. Romney gets one last shot at the end and loses by a fignertip. Or... Super Bowl XLII. The New England Patriots* (Obama), a team of destiny vs some average nobody (Romney). The outcome is never in doubt and the game is a mere formality before enshrinement among the Pantheon of Legends. But the team of destiny believes their own hype and forgets to show up to the game until the 4th quarter, meanwhile the nobody that doesn't belong on the field with such legendary talent won't give up. The team of destiny gets one last shot to prove their worth, but in the end Randy Moss is sitting there on his arse with a confuzzled WTF look on his face Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 Well if we are confined to those examples I would have to take the first given that Obama was hardly the team of destiny, had the early lead, then got close, and the rest is uncertain.... In any event, I think Dewey v. Truman is a good analogy from the conservative view. Obviously it's not the same as Obama is not a huge underdog incumbent from the masses point of view, if anything it's close and he's a slight favorite. However, the parallels are there in the conservative bloc. Gross overconfidence, can't imagine how a campaign promising to repeal a liberal agenda amidst a less than booming economy can fail, and then...a loss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 (edited) Well if we are confined to those examples I would have to take the first given that Obama was hardly the team of destiny, had the early lead, then got close, and the rest is uncertain.... In any event, I think Dewey v. Truman is a good analogy from the conservative view. Obviously it's not the same as Obama is not a huge underdog incumbent from the masses point of view, if anything it's close and he's a slight favorite. However, the parallels are there in the conservative bloc. Gross overconfidence, can't imagine how a campaign promising to repeal a liberal agenda amidst a less than booming economy can fail, and then...a loss. Since you libs have all the media in your pocket this headline might read Obama Defeats Romney and have as much validity as: Edited November 1, 2012 by 3rdnlng Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinga Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 Pols can be skewed, but even more fun, are approve/disprove polls.. And right now, PBO is failing terribly on both the economy and Lybia.... I think this is a forgotten part of the polling crap we read. Read the other data folks.... While it's certainly possible, I doubt many people are voting PBO that disagree on his handling of the economy, and/or foreign affairs... Well if we are confined to those examples I would have to take the first given that Obama was hardly the team of destiny, had the early lead, then got close, and the rest is uncertain.... In any event, I think Dewey v. Truman is a good analogy from the conservative view. Obviously it's not the same as Obama is not a huge underdog incumbent from the masses point of view, if anything it's close and he's a slight favorite. However, the parallels are there in the conservative bloc. Gross overconfidence, can't imagine how a campaign promising to repeal a liberal agenda amidst a less than booming economy can fail, and then...a loss. Dewey/Truman is a ridiculous analogy. based on the speed of news media today, and blogs where people can get alternative views... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 Pols can be skewed, but even more fun, are approve/disprove polls.. And right now, PBO is failing terribly on both the economy and Lybia.... I think this is a forgotten part of the polling crap we read. Read the other data folks.... While it's certainly possible, I doubt many people are voting PBO that disagree on his handling of the economy, and/or foreign affairs... Dewey/Truman is a ridiculous analogy. based on the speed of news media today, and blogs where people can get alternative views... Is that the latest front in the war against Women? Have feminist renounced the tyranny of the "a" for the more empowered sometimes vowel "y"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 3 things: 1. If I was suffering under the delusion of David Axelrod's demographic assumptions, and since I worked in that WH, I would have to be; or if I saw things clearly but, I wanted to keep my job, I'd be going along with them. Either way, I'd be quietly confident too. If I'm delusional, I have nothing to fear. If not, I have nothing to lose. In less than a week, if they lose, nobody will care that I was telling them to be afraid. If they win, I'm fired. If I'm deluded, I'll probably get promoted. Ask your brother, to ask his guy, to ask his guy whether he truly believes that this electorate = 2008. That answer, gives you the answer. For fun, ask your brother too. That will give you a whole other answer. 2. The Ohio and VA thing flies in the face of the data we have. Especially the early vote in Ohio. But, again, if you use Axelrod's demo/turnout models, the race is, at best, close. If Axelrod is wrong...and even if this is a 2004(never mind 2010, 2006, or 2000), turnout? Well? Ouch. The good news is this WH guy will have a fine "used to work for Obama, remember him?" career ahead, as a FOX News contributor. That's where all "we got smoked" D political consultants go to "die". Maybe, in a few years, that's where Axelrod will end up. 3. Dev/null football analogies are interesting...but he forgot one. IF you apply PROPER demographic data, and then average the turnouts of 2000, 2004, 2006, and 2010, and treat 2008 like the outlier that it is, and apply that averaged turnout to 2012? Then the analogy is Bears/Pats in 1986. Or, more likely, 49ers/Dolphins 1985 = Democrats will score some points because they had a decent ground/air game, but the outcome will never be in doubt. The Dolphins D, like the Democrats, just can't defend...their record, and the 49er offense, supposedly the inferior one, just like the Rs, was undersold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted November 1, 2012 Author Share Posted November 1, 2012 3 things: 1. If I was suffering under the delusion of David Axelrod's demographic assumptions, and since I worked in that WH, I would have to be; or if I saw things clearly but, I wanted to keep my job, I'd be going along with them. Either way, I'd be quietly confident too. If I'm delusional, I have nothing to fear. If not, I have nothing to lose. In less than a week, if they lose, nobody will care that I was telling them to be afraid. If they win, I'm fired. If I'm deluded, I'll probably get promoted. Ask your brother, to ask his guy, to ask his guy whether he truly believes that this electorate = 2008. That answer, gives you the answer. For fun, ask your brother too. That will give you a whole other answer. 2. The Ohio and VA thing flies in the face of the data we have. Especially the early vote in Ohio. But, again, if you use Axelrod's demo/turnout models, the race is, at best, close. If Axelrod is wrong...and even if this is a 2004(never mind 2010, 2006, or 2000), turnout? Well? Ouch. The good news is this WH guy will have a fine "used to work for Obama, remember him?" career ahead, as a FOX News contributor. That's where all "we got smoked" D political consultants go to "die". Maybe, in a few years, that's where Axelrod will end up. 3. Dev/null football analogies are interesting...but he forgot one. IF you apply PROPER demographic data, and then average the turnouts of 2000, 2004, 2006, and 2010, and treat 2008 like the outlier that it is, and apply that averaged turnout to 2012? Then the analogy is Bears/Pats in 1986. Or, more likely, 49ers/Dolphins 1985 = Democrats will score some points because they had a decent ground/air game, but the outcome will never be in doubt. The Dolphins D, like the Democrats, just can't defend...their record, and the 49er offense, supposedly the inferior one, just like the Rs, was undersold. So it fair to assume that you're calling the race for Romney and feel that Ohio and VA is firmly in Romney's pocket? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted November 1, 2012 Author Share Posted November 1, 2012 (edited) Concern troll is very concerned. No dog in this race my ass. Great...another one of the "if you don't like Romney, you're for Obama" dolts. You're a dolt. Since you're late to the party, let's catch you up - I don't like Romney; I think that he is an equivocating lout. That doesn't mean that I want Obama to win. I do, though, happen to personally like the president....for reasons that your feral self couldn't possibly comprehend or even allow yourself to appreciate. But just to clarify for you: 1. You can dislike one candidate personally without supporting the other. 2. You can like one candidate personally without supporting their policies. These concepts may be foreign to you since the entirety of your political ethos starts and stops with Mitt and Romney. But to some, there is a bit more sophistication in our political universe. When I read your post, I was immediately reminded of that Brad Pitt/Matt Damon exchange from "Ocean's 11." You (and some other's here) are the decidedly less interesting, and considerably less talented, version of Matt Damon. I'm Brad Pitt. Please skip to 35 seconds into the video and stop it right around 41 seconds: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7VTkceSsEw That 6 seconds is the extent of your value to the political universe. You're Mr. "Smash and Grab." Yep, that's you, you pea-brained jackass - still trying to understand the world through soundbytes, and really cognize the contours of this nation through a sepia tone lense. Edited November 1, 2012 by Juror#8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 Great...another one of the "if you don't like Romney, you're for Obama" dolts. You're a dolt. ..for reasons that your feral self couldn't possibly comprehend or even allow yourself to appreciate. These concepts may be foreign to you That 6 seconds is the extent of your value to the political universe. Typical condescending liberal, with your faux intelligence and enlightenment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted November 1, 2012 Author Share Posted November 1, 2012 Typical condescending liberal, with your faux intelligence and enlightenment. That's really deep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 That's really deep. Almost as deep as the BS you are spewing. The libs are already talking about what to do when BO loses. http://news.yahoo.com/tell-black-child-obama-loses-070000457.html My favorite line: Not only does Obama benefit from a near-unanimous black vote, but also from the many whites who voted for Obama because of his race. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, D-Mo., chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, explained in 2008: "This is (their) chance to demonstrate that we have been able to get this boogeyman called race behind us. And so they are going to vote for him, whether he has credentials or not, whether he has any experience." Reinforces my stance that BO is the first affirmative action POTUS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 So it fair to assume that you're calling the race for Romney and feel that Ohio and VA is firmly in Romney's pocket? No way in hell man. All I am saying is that we are rapidly approaching the final day, and the early voting margin for Obama isn't what it was in 2008. In fact it's almost wiped out completely. What does that mean? Nothing other than: it's one more piece of evidence that this electorate '= 2008, and that Nate Silver is a moron. Here's what I am calling: Nate Silver uses an "ideology score" for candidates, and this piece of data is going to be the source of much fun in threads for the next few days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
\GoBillsInDallas/ Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 http://blogs.denverp...resident/85190/ http://www.breitbart...Lead-Down-In-FL http://blog.syracuse...ulation_fr.html Too many words to read - Ooh, Hot Pockets DING! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 Almost as deep as the BS you are spewing. The libs are already talking about what to do when BO loses. http://news.yahoo.co...-070000457.html My favorite line: Not only does Obama benefit from a near-unanimous black vote, but also from the many whites who voted for Obama because of his race. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, D-Mo., chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, explained in 2008: "This is (their) chance to demonstrate that we have been able to get this boogeyman called race behind us. And so they are going to vote for him, whether he has credentials or not, whether he has any experience." Reinforces my stance that BO is the first affirmative action POTUS. I love Larry Elder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 I love Larry Elder. Oh yeah, well umm. Larry Elder must be a Racist®! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 Oh yeah, well umm. Larry Elder must be a Racist®! Sarcasm is hard to detect online but Larry is black. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 Just read that Elder article. What do you tell your kids if Barry loses, Larry? Tell them that a black person could realistically aspire to become president of the United States. But then tell them that you need to do a good job to stay president, or in whatever job you do get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts