This poll is from Rasmussen, not the Washington Post.

Mitt Romney has closed the gap with President Obama in the battleground state of Virginia, with Obama dropping over 5 points in the past month.

The latest telephone survey of Likely Voters in the Old Dominion finds Romney earning 45% support, while Obama picks up 44% of the vote. Six percent (6%) prefer some other candidate, and five percent (5%) are undecided.

While some may view this change as the two candidates are now essentially tied, if the trend continues through the summer, Romney will overwhelmingly beat Obama in November.

http://mediamatters.org/research/201011050013

4 more years, II Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> http://mediamatters.org/research/201011050013

I own Media Matters and they do what I say!!!!

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/05/poll-obama-beats-romney-in-virginia-122415.html

Nuff said...

Falsehood Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/05/poll-ob
> ama-beats-romney-in-virginia-122415.html
>
> Nuff said...


A poll that is almost 2 weeks old? Yeah, "nuff said..." LOL, dumbass.

Falsehood Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/05/poll-ob
> ama-beats-romney-in-virginia-122415.html
>
> Nuff said...

Anonymous Radiophile post.

Outright Lie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Falsehood Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/05/poll-ob
>
> > ama-beats-romney-in-virginia-122415.html
> >
> > Nuff said...
>
>
> A poll that is almost 2 weeks old? Yeah, "nuff
> said..." LOL, dumbass.


They like living in the past where they can blame Bush and people haven't yet figured out that Obama is in way over his head. lol

Falsehood Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/05/poll-ob
> ama-beats-romney-in-virginia-122415.html
>
> Nuff said...


F'ing moron. Rehashing the lame WP poll from two weeks ago. Obama's embrace of homo marriage is smashing his reelection changes into tiny, little bits.

OBAMA = teenage girl in the mall with Dad's credit card.

The National Debt has continued to increase an average of $3.95 billion per day since September 28, 2007.

The estimated population of the United States is 312,777,603
so each citizen's share of this debt is $50,258.51.

$50,000. thats more than most of you demoncats make per year.

Good luck paying that shit off.

What- me worry? I'll be retiring in Tahiti.

Rasmussen is owned by the right and last time they predicted anything was 1875

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/virginia-voters-on-obama-his-administration/2012/05/03/gIQAX0DYzT_graphic.html

most recent Obama up by 4, Virginia voters are NOT stupid enough to vote for an empty headed, corrupt, greedy, completely unlikeable, religious nut (read about the LDS- the nuttiest of all religions) OBAMA 2012

obama 2012s Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/vi
> rginia-voters-on-obama-his-administration/2012/05/
> 03/gIQAX0DYzT_graphic.html
>
> most recent Obama up by 4, Virginia voters are NOT
> stupid enough to vote for an empty headed,
> corrupt, greedy, completely unlikeable, religious
> nut (read about the LDS- the nuttiest of all
> religions) OBAMA 2012


Look up dumbass. You're living in the past. lol

Deer Poop: You make no sense, I guess it is too much trouble to write something that has some semblance of reality. The most recent poll (ending on May 2) has Obama up by 7 points (washington post) The right wing poll (Rasmussen, which is owned by Scott Rasmussen, a republican pollster)- was 23 April, so sorry, "luck up" your ass.

Speaking of old polls, the Rasmussen poll that the OP is referring to was conducted over 3 weeks ago.

Best place for polling data imho is Real Clear Politics - no polls of their own, just collecting and displaying the data from available polling information:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/va/virginia_romney_vs_obama-1774.html

Yes and most recent polls show Obama leading by various margins.

Watch Obama without a teleprompter. Enough said. 3 trillion to 15 trillion, higher unemployment-Romney time. Bring some adult leadership in please.

hide the scissors

Romney-"an adult", kidding right, Obama is the adult in the room. Romney is just a blowing in the wind abusive bully teenager, you are right tho, we certainly need an adult, and we have one, with expertise, intelligence, demonstrated leadership and YES on top of that he doesn't hate women, gays, dogs, mentally ill, poor, middle class, disabled, am I leaving anyone out that Romney hasn't declared war on???

Granted, the OP was a troll post designed to see your reactions based on a single poll.

I tend to look at poll results over time, with more value given to those who poll likely voters rather than registered voters. Unfortunately, these numbers do not reflect whether the subjects identified themselves as R, D, or I. The Washington Post, for example, acknowledges that their polls tend to over sample Democrats in Virginia because they focus on Northern Virginia.

That said, here are the polls for Virginia currently available on RCP. Interpret them as you want. My conclusion is that it is too early to tell which way Virginia will vote in November.

Poll Date Sample Obama Romney Spread

CNU/Times-Dispatch 10/3 - 10/8/11 1027 RV 42 46 Romney +4
CNU/Times-Dispatch 2/4 - 2/13/12 1018 RV 43 46 Romney +3

Mason-Dixon 1/16 - 1/18/12 625 LV 45 44 Obama +1

NBC News/Marist 2/29 - 3/2/12 1273 RV 52 35 Obama +17

PPP (D) 2/24 - 2/27/11 524 RV 48 42 Obama +6
PPP (D) 5/5 - 5/8/11 547 RV 51 40 Obama +11
PPP (D) 7/21 - 7/24/11 500 RV 47 43 Obama +4
PPP (D) 11/10 - 11/13/11 551 RV 48 43 Obama +5
PPP (D) 12/11 - 12/13/11 600 RV 48 42 Obama +6
PPP (D) 4/26 - 4/29/12 680 RV 51 43 Obama +8

Purple Strategies 4/19 - 4/23/12 600 LV 48 46 Obama +2

Quinnipiac 9/7 - 9/12/11 1368 RV 42 44 Romney +2
Quinnipiac 10/3 - 10/9/11 1459 RV 44 45 Romney +1
Quinnipiac 12/13 - 12/19/11 1135 RV 42 44 Romney +2
Quinnipiac 2/1 - 2/6/12 1544 RV 47 43 Obama +4
Quinnipiac 3/13 - 3/18/12 1034 RV 50 42 Obama +8

Rasmussen Reports 9/28 - 9/28/11 500 LV 45 46 Romney +1
Rasmussen Reports 2/21 - 2/21/12 500 LV 49 43 Obama +6
Rasmussen Reports 3/20 - 3/20/12 500 LV 51 42 Obama +9
Rasmussen Reports 4/23 - 4/23/12 500 LV 44 45 Romney +1

Roanoke College 9/6 - 9/17/11 601 LV 37 45 Romney +8
Roanoke College 2/13 - 2/26/12 607 A 42 43 Romney +1
Roanoke College 3/26 - 4/5/12 537 RV 41 46 Romney +5

Washington Post 4/28 - 5/4/11 1040 RV 50 44 Obama +6
Washington Post 4/28 - 5/2/12 964 RV 51 44 Obama +7

Poll watcher - is it really necessary to post all of the election data after some other guy already linked to the election data? I mean, congrats bro - you proved your ability to copy and paste!

Random Dude Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Speaking of old polls, the Rasmussen poll that the
> OP is referring to was conducted over 3 weeks ago.
>
>
> Best place for polling data imho is Real Clear
> Politics - no polls of their own, just collecting
> and displaying the data from available polling
> information:
>
> http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/presi
> dent/va/virginia_romney_vs_obama-1774.html



Poll Watcher Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Granted, the OP was a troll post designed to see
> your reactions based on a single poll.
>
> I tend to look at poll results over time, with
> more value given to those who poll likely voters
> rather than registered voters. Unfortunately,
> these numbers do not reflect whether the subjects
> identified themselves as R, D, or I. The
> Washington Post, for example, acknowledges that
> their polls tend to over sample Democrats in
> Virginia because they focus on Northern Virginia.
>
>
> That said, here are the polls for Virginia
> currently available on RCP. Interpret them as you
> want. My conclusion is that it is too early to
> tell which way Virginia will vote in November.
>
> Poll Date Sample Obama Romney Spread
>
> CNU/Times-Dispatch 10/3 - 10/8/11 1027
> RV 42 46 Romney +4
> CNU/Times-Dispatch 2/4 - 2/13/12 1018
> RV 43 46 Romney +3
>
> Mason-Dixon 1/16 - 1/18/12 625 LV 45 44 Obama
> +1
>
> NBC News/Marist 2/29 - 3/2/12 1273
> RV 52 35 Obama +17
>
> PPP (D) 2/24 - 2/27/11 524 RV 48 42 Obama +6
> PPP (D) 5/5 - 5/8/11 547 RV 51 40 Obama +11
> PPP (D) 7/21 - 7/24/11 500 RV 47 43 Obama +4
> PPP (D) 11/10 - 11/13/11 551 RV 48 43 Obama +5
> PPP (D) 12/11 - 12/13/11 600 RV 48 42 Obama +6
> PPP (D) 4/26 - 4/29/12 680 RV 51 43 Obama +8
>
> Purple Strategies 4/19 - 4/23/12 600
> LV 48 46 Obama +2
>
> Quinnipiac 9/7 - 9/12/11 1368 RV 42 44 Romney
> +2
> Quinnipiac 10/3 - 10/9/11 1459 RV 44 45 Romney
> +1
> Quinnipiac 12/13 - 12/19/11 1135 RV 42 44 Romney
> +2
> Quinnipiac 2/1 - 2/6/12 1544 RV 47 43 Obama +4
> Quinnipiac 3/13 - 3/18/12 1034 RV 50 42 Obama
> +8
>
> Rasmussen Reports 9/28 - 9/28/11 500
> LV 45 46 Romney +1
> Rasmussen Reports 2/21 - 2/21/12 500
> LV 49 43 Obama +6
> Rasmussen Reports 3/20 - 3/20/12 500
> LV 51 42 Obama +9
> Rasmussen Reports 4/23 - 4/23/12 500
> LV 44 45 Romney +1
>
> Roanoke College 9/6 - 9/17/11 601
> LV 37 45 Romney +8
> Roanoke College 2/13 - 2/26/12 607
> A 42 43 Romney +1
> Roanoke College 3/26 - 4/5/12 537
> RV 41 46 Romney +5
>
> Washington Post 4/28 - 5/4/11 1040
> RV 50 44 Obama +6
> Washington Post 4/28 - 5/2/12 964 RV 51 44 Obama
> +7

Common sense dictates that these states will go back to Romney, provided no fuck ups by Romney. Obama's already doing that well enough by himself.


1. Virginia
2. NC
3. Indiana
4. Iowa
5. Florida

Toss ups: Colorado, Nevada, New Hampshire

Obama is one and done. Like Bill Clinton said years ago, "Its the economy stupid." Obama's only increased unemployment and the debt in his time in office. One termer.

NRA 75 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> One termer.

Oh.

Okay.

Dude, Seriously? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Poll watcher - is it really necessary to post all
> of the election data after some other guy already
> linked to the election data?

Is it really necessary to copy so many lines in your reply?

Seriously, though, I sorted the data by poll to display here, something few do.

I wouldnt vote for romney if i had a gun to my head

LIBERTY 2012 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I wouldnt vote for romney if i had a gun to my
> head


Here's a .45, knock yourself out.

4 more years, II Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> NRA 75 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > One termer.
>
> Oh.
>
> Okay.


That's a very compelling response. Can you come up with something, with a bit more relevant than that please? Thanks. Anything in particular about Obama's record you want to mention? Oh that's right, nothing :)

NRA 75 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Common sense dictates that these states will go
> back to Romney, provided no fuck ups by Romney.
> Obama's already doing that well enough by
> himself.
>
>
> 1. Virginia
> 2. NC
> 3. Indiana
> 4. Iowa
> 5. Florida
>
> Toss ups: Colorado, Nevada, New Hampshire
>
> Obama is one and done. Like Bill Clinton said
> years ago, "Its the economy stupid." Obama's only
> increased unemployment and the debt in his time in
> office. One termer.


Ok based on your prediction, and lets day Romney takes NV and NH, and CO should go Obama. Obama still wins.

NRA 75 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Common sense dictates that these states will go
> back to Romney, provided no fuck ups by Romney.
> Obama's already doing that well enough by
> himself.
>
>
> 1. Virginia
> 2. NC
> 3. Indiana
> 4. Iowa
> 5. Florida
>
> Toss ups: Colorado, Nevada, New Hampshire
>
> Obama is one and done. Like Bill Clinton said
> years ago, "Its the economy stupid." Obama's only
> increased unemployment and the debt in his time in
> office. One termer.

As already said

Romney needs to win your 1-5 AND all your toss ups, in order to win. That is going to be a tough road to hoe. I see NH, Iowa and Colorado going to Obama at a minimum.

wutlol Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> NRA 75 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Common sense dictates that these states will go
> > back to Romney, provided no fuck ups by Romney.
> > Obama's already doing that well enough by
> > himself.
> >
> >
> > 1. Virginia
> > 2. NC
> > 3. Indiana
> > 4. Iowa
> > 5. Florida
> >
> > Toss ups: Colorado, Nevada, New Hampshire
> >
> > Obama is one and done. Like Bill Clinton said
> > years ago, "Its the economy stupid." Obama's
> only
> > increased unemployment and the debt in his time
> in
> > office. One termer.
>
>
> Ok based on your prediction, and lets day Romney
> takes NV and NH, and CO should go Obama. Obama
> still wins.


277 for Romney, less than the magic # for Obama. Sorry.

NRA 75 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That's a very compelling response.

I was trying to match the content of that to which I was responding.

NRA 75 Wrote:

>
> 277 for Romney, less than the magic # for Obama.
> Sorry.


Wut? 270 is the magic number for everyone! 270 and you win.

Play with this and learn.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/obama_vs_romney_create_your_own_electoral_college_map.html

FYI- most recent poll: FOX, thats the right wing mouthpiece, has Obama up 7 over Romney nationally

erte Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> FYI- most recent poll: FOX, thats the right wing
> mouthpiece, has Obama up 7 over Romney nationally


National polls are less significant than state-by-state polls though due to the electoral college. Check out the elections of 1824, 1876, 1888, and 2000.

If there is one national number that will have a significant impact on the election, it will be the unemployment rate. If the unemployment rate has fallen below 7.8% (where it was when Obama was inagurated) when the debates start, it would be a huge boost to the Obama campaign.

Interesting coincedence - When Reagan took office in '81 the unemployment rate was 7.5%. Unemployment then jumped to over 10% before falling back to 7.2% on election day (Nov '84). Not saying this is anything more than a coincedence, although CNN would have a field day with this on election day if it looks like Obama is going to win.

wutlol Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> NRA 75 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Common sense dictates that these states will go
> > back to Romney, provided no fuck ups by Romney.
> > Obama's already doing that well enough by
> > himself.
> >
> >
> > 1. Virginia
> > 2. NC
> > 3. Indiana
> > 4. Iowa
> > 5. Florida
> >
> > Toss ups: Colorado, Nevada, New Hampshire
> >
> > Obama is one and done. Like Bill Clinton said
> > years ago, "Its the economy stupid." Obama's
> only
> > increased unemployment and the debt in his time
> in
> > office. One termer.
>
>
> Ok based on your prediction, and lets day Romney
> takes NV and NH, and CO should go Obama. Obama
> still wins.

No he doesnt. If Romeny takes NV and NH as well its done.

Obama isnt sweeping Wisconsin, OH, and Penn. Colorado is very debateable too. Romney would only need 1 of those 4 states to win.

Random Dude Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> If there is one national number that will have a
> significant impact on the election, it will be the
> unemployment rate. If the unemployment rate has
> fallen below 7.8% (where it was when Obama was
> inagurated) when the debates start, it would be a
> huge boost to the Obama campaign.
>

The so-called real unemployment rate is getting a lot of press lately. The theory is that so many people have given up any hope of getting a job that they are no longer counted.

Still Working Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Random Dude Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > If there is one national number that will have
> a
> > significant impact on the election, it will be
> the
> > unemployment rate. If the unemployment rate has
> > fallen below 7.8% (where it was when Obama was
> > inagurated) when the debates start, it would be
> a
> > huge boost to the Obama campaign.
> >
>
> The so-called real unemployment rate is getting a
> lot of press lately. The theory is that so many
> people have given up any hope of getting a job
> that they are no longer counted.


Which is true hence the smallest workforce since who knows when.

not really Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Obama isnt sweeping Wisconsin, OH, and Penn.
> Colorado is very debateable too. Romney would
> only need 1 of those 4 states to win.

If RCP is to be believed, and usually they are one of the best sources imho, the current electoral map plays out in such a way that if those states who lean Obama stay with Obama, then Obama need only win Ohio and Wisconsin at this point and he's got his 271.

If the polling data is to be believed Obama's biggest challenge this election is getting people out to the polls. In Ohio and Wisconsin in particular, Obama is consistently winning in polls that cater to registered voters. However, when it comes to "likely" voters the polls are significantly closer.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map.html

erte Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> FYI- most recent poll: FOX, thats the right wing
> mouthpiece, has Obama up 7 over Romney nationally


Prove both of your statements.

NRA 75 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> erte Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > FYI- most recent poll: FOX, thats the right
> wing
> > mouthpiece, has Obama up 7 over Romney
> nationally
>
>
> Prove both of your statements.

Here's the 7 point spread: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/16/fox-news-poll-obama-pulls-ahead-romney-as-presidential-race-heats-up/?intcmp=obnetwork

As far as FOX being a right wing mouthpiece:
http://www.businessinsider.com/leaked-fox-news-memo-reveals-news-division-told-to-echo-gop-talking-point-2010-12



NRA 75 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> erte Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > FYI- most recent poll: FOX, thats the right
> wing
> > mouthpiece, has Obama up 7 over Romney
> nationally
>
>
> Prove both of your statements.


Here's the 7 point spread: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/16/fox-news-poll-obama-pulls-ahead-romney-as-presidential-race-heats-up/?intcmp=obnetwork

As far as FOX being a right wing mouthpiece:
http://www.businessinsider.com/leaked-fox-news-memo-reveals-news-division-told-to-echo-gop-talking-point-2010-12



NRA 75 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> erte Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > FYI- most recent poll: FOX, thats the right
> wing
> > mouthpiece, has Obama up 7 over Romney
> nationally
>
>
> Prove both of your statements.


Here's the 7 point spread: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/16/fox-news-poll-obama-pulls-ahead-romney-as-presidential-race-heats-up/?intcmp=obnetwork

As far as FOX being a right wing mouthpiece:
http://www.businessinsider.com/leaked-fox-news-memo-reveals-news-division-told-to-echo-gop-talking-point-2010-12



NRA 75 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> erte Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > FYI- most recent poll: FOX, thats the right
> wing
> > mouthpiece, has Obama up 7 over Romney
> nationally
>
>
> Prove both of your statements.

The polling data is easy:

Obama up 7 nationally according to Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/16/fox-news-poll-obama-pulls-ahead-romney-as-presidential-race-heats-up/?intcmp=obnetwork

As far as the right wing mouthpiece goes, I don't know how to accurate show myself with a finger up my nose going "duuuuhhhhh" over the computer

Keep picking your nose. You'll find some brain matter, perhaps eventually. Its amazing how you use only this data #1, and #2, think that one story makes Fox News a bastion of "right wing" type individuals. Actually Fox seems to cover what CNN, Communist News Network, and PMSNBC don't. One statement doesn't change the fact, that Obama has received kid gloves treatment from the media. A complete free lunch. Lest not forget his "Special Olympics" comment. If a Republican, or even a slightly conservative Democrat had said that, shit would have hit the fan.

Rasmussen, and other polls indicate Romney with a slight edge. Its early, but I'm afraid its going to be "Nope" instead of "Hope" in 2012. Checks and balances are a bitch.

NRA 75 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> CNN, Communist News Network, and PMSNBC

Prove your statement that CNN is a communist news network and MSNBC is focused on PMS

> Lest not forget his "Special
> Olympics" comment. If a Republican, or even a
> slightly conservative Democrat had said that, shit
> would have hit the fan.

Prove your statement

> Rasmussen, and other polls indicate Romney with a
> slight edge.

Fox News and other polls indicate Obama with a slight edge. In fact, it's about 50-50 right now: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html

Not like the national poll matters anyway when it comes to the electoral college. State-by-state polls are much more telling in the leadup to the election.

NRA 75 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rasmussen

Is a known biased Republican-leaning poll.

Obama has pissed enough of our money away.... WE NEED A CHANGE... OBAMA is not the answer.. If this country needed a buzzer beater for 3 then hes our guy but this isnt bball. We need A real, intelligent, and economically experienced President.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BRING BACK CLINTON

You sure about that? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> not really Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Obama isnt sweeping Wisconsin, OH, and Penn.
> > Colorado is very debateable too. Romney would
> > only need 1 of those 4 states to win.
>
> If RCP is to be believed, and usually they are one
> of the best sources imho, the current electoral
> map plays out in such a way that if those states
> who lean Obama stay with Obama, then Obama need
> only win Ohio and Wisconsin at this point and he's
> got his 271.
>
> If the polling data is to be believed Obama's
> biggest challenge this election is getting people
> out to the polls. In Ohio and Wisconsin in
> particular, Obama is consistently winning in polls
> that cater to registered voters. However, when it
> comes to "likely" voters the polls are
> significantly closer.
>
> http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/presi
> dent/2012_elections_electoral_college_map.html

Im sure about it. If those 5 states listed above go to Romney and the NV and NH go to Romeny as well hes at 264. Even if Obama takes Colorado Ohio and Penn and Romeny wins WI thats 274 Romney and 264 Obama. Hell you can say Obama wins NH and thats still 270 Romney to 268 Obama.

With those 5 states out of play Obama has to basically have a clean sweep of OH, NV, NH, Penn, WI, Colorado.

All Romney has to do if nothing changes is win either Ohio OR Penn and he wins. He could also win NV and any one of Ohio Penn and WI and he wins as well. NH at this point doesnt really have any real affect other than to pad a lead.

Losing NC and if VA were to follow as well is a lot bigger than most people realize.

http://www.270towin.com/

If you look at You sure's comment, I believe he is saying that if RCP's electoral map stays as is (i.e. leaning states go with the current candidate they are leaning towards) then Obama need only win Ohio and Wisconsin (or Ohio and Virginia) to win the election.

not really Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You sure about that? Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > not really Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Obama isnt sweeping Wisconsin, OH, and Penn.
> > > Colorado is very debateable too. Romney
> would
> > > only need 1 of those 4 states to win.
> >
> > If RCP is to be believed, and usually they are
> one
> > of the best sources imho, the current electoral
> > map plays out in such a way that if those
> states
> > who lean Obama stay with Obama, then Obama need
> > only win Ohio and Wisconsin at this point and
> he's
> > got his 271.
> >
> > If the polling data is to be believed Obama's
> > biggest challenge this election is getting
> people
> > out to the polls. In Ohio and Wisconsin in
> > particular, Obama is consistently winning in
> polls
> > that cater to registered voters. However, when
> it
> > comes to "likely" voters the polls are
> > significantly closer.
> >
> >
> http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/presi
>
> > dent/2012_elections_electoral_college_map.html
>
> Im sure about it. If those 5 states listed above
> go to Romney and the NV and NH go to Romeny as
> well hes at 264. Even if Obama takes Colorado
> Ohio and Penn and Romeny wins WI thats 274 Romney
> and 264 Obama. Hell you can say Obama wins NH and
> thats still 270 Romney to 268 Obama.
>
> With those 5 states out of play Obama has to
> basically have a clean sweep of OH, NV, NH, Penn,
> WI, Colorado.
>
> All Romney has to do if nothing changes is win
> either Ohio OR Penn and he wins. He could also
> win NV and any one of Ohio Penn and WI and he wins
> as well. NH at this point doesnt really have any
> real affect other than to pad a lead.
>
> Losing NC and if VA were to follow as well is a
> lot bigger than most people realize.
>
> http://www.270towin.com/

Random Dude Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you look at You sure's comment, I believe he is
> saying that if RCP's electoral map stays as is
> (i.e. leaning states go with the current candidate
> they are leaning towards) then Obama need only win
> Ohio and Wisconsin (or Ohio and Virginia) to win
> the election.


That might be what he was trying to say, but that really isnt a very good map as of now. That map assumes Romney has no shot in a state he was the Govenor of and also his home state. He may well lose them but at this point we cant just count those for Obama.

Winning Ohio WI or VA will not be an easy task for Obama. Hes not very popular in those states and that map is just going off of historical trends. At best that is very dated as I dont think anyone beleieves AZ or NC is a toss up right now. At the very least they are definitely leaning Romney.

4 more years, II Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> NRA 75 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Rasmussen
>
> Is a known biased Republican-leaning poll.


Yeah, Rasmussen is GOP biased. Ok. Its not affiliated with any Super Pacs or any political organizations. Nice try.

Source? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> NRA 75 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > CNN, Communist News Network, and PMSNBC
>
> Prove your statement that CNN is a communist news
> network and MSNBC is focused on PMS
>
> > Lest not forget his "Special
> > Olympics" comment. If a Republican, or even a
> > slightly conservative Democrat had said that,
> shit
> > would have hit the fan.
>
> Prove your statement
>
All you had to do was watch anything Bush did, no matter how insignificant, and the media would be on his ass. Cheney too. With Obama, he has said so many things, such as obviously the Travon Martin case, prejudicing the jury Pool as President of the United States(ie.all people), he has broken every promise, he has a attack ad against Bain Capital tying Romney to a steel mill shut down when Romney wasn't employed there anymore.

Wake up dude. Under Obama the national debt tripled, unemployment has been rising, the media? And his rude, disparaging comments to the Special Olympics show him exactly for who he is, a disgusting, pathetic human being.

Then again, he bows down to world leaders, and is a "citizen of the world," so perhaps the international media also kiss his ass as well.

not really Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That might be what he was trying to say, but that
> really isnt a very good map as of now. That map
> assumes Romney has no shot in a state he was the
> Govenor of and also his home state. He may well
> lose them but at this point we cant just count
> those for Obama.
>
> Winning Ohio WI or VA will not be an easy task for
> Obama. Hes not very popular in those states and
> that map is just going off of historical trends.
> At best that is very dated as I dont think anyone
> beleieves AZ or NC is a toss up right now. At the
> very least they are definitely leaning Romney.

I agree that OH, WI, and VA will be tought for Obama to take, let alone 2 out of 3 that will probably be necessary to win. But RCP is basing their map on polling data, not historical trends.

That being said, a lot of that polling data is based on are registered voters rather than likely voters so they are most certainly toss up states.

In regards to the post about Romney not carrying his home state or the state he held to governorship in, it's going to be a tough climb for him to win MA or MI. Obama has a massive lead in MA in virtually every poll and has statistically significant leads in MI as well - The Glengariff group, which leans Republican, give Obama a 5 point lead in Michigan amonst likely voters.

Romney's let Detroit go bankrupt comments basically doomed any chance he has of winning Michigan in the general election.

Let's see...

Under Carter the National Debt increased by 42%
Reagan 168% .719 - .930 T
Bush 55.6% 1.029 - 2.684 T
Clinton 36% 4.536 - 5.662 T
Bush 89% 5.943 - 10.700 T
Obama 41% 12,331 - 15.126 T

Interstingly since Obama took office the first year was a 15% increase and each year after the percent increase has actually gone down ... 14% in 2010 and for 2011 was a 8% increase and Bush's last year in office was a 16% almost tripple the prior year which saw a 6% increase.

http://www.skymachines.com/US-National-Debt-Per-Capita-Percent-of-GDP-and-by-Presidental-Term.htm

Random Dude Wrote:

> I agree that OH, WI, and VA will be tought for
> Obama to take, let alone 2 out of 3 that will
> probably be necessary to win. But RCP is basing
> their map on polling data, not historical trends.
>
> That being said, a lot of that polling data is
> based on are registered voters rather than likely
> voters so they are most certainly toss up states.
>
> In regards to the post about Romney not carrying
> his home state or the state he held to
> governorship in, it's going to be a tough climb
> for him to win MA or MI. Obama has a massive lead
> in MA in virtually every poll and has
> statistically significant leads in MI as well -
> The Glengariff group, which leans Republican, give
> Obama a 5 point lead in Michigan amonst likely
> voters.
>
> Romney's let Detroit go bankrupt comments
> basically doomed any chance he has of winning
> Michigan in the general election.

Michigan is much less likely for him but he very well could take MA. Remember Obama SHOULD be up in polls right now the general has barely started and to this point its just been the GOP beating up each other for the most part.

I would disagree their map is based off of current polling data. Va you can say is a toss up because of Nova, maybe WI, but with the trends of the last election and everything thats happened I dont see how NC can be argued as a toss up. Same with AZ with the constant assault on the state by the Justice Department.

Obama is more likable than most dems, but it would still be a big turn around for them especially NC to go Dem at the moment. Nevada has a large mormon pop too so if anything that should be a toss up. Mass probably should be a leans obama, but again I have a hard time saying Romney cant win when hes won the state before and didnt leave in disgrace. Hes a moderate conservative which puts a lot of states in play other than IL CA and NY that you wouldnt think would be in play

If Obama wins itll be close, itll most likely be close either way but Romney is the type of candidate who would take a lot of the more liberal stats if things get worse close to the election

Maclay Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Let's see...
>
> Under Carter the National Debt increased by 42%
> Reagan 168% .719 - .930 T
> Bush 55.6% 1.029 - 2.684 T
> Clinton 36% 4.536 - 5.662 T
> Bush 89% 5.943 - 10.700 T
> Obama 41% 12,331 - 15.126 T
>

You're comparing 8 years versus < 4 years for Obama. At current rates it's projected to be +$22 trillion in 2016 so he'd be right up there with the rest. And that's giving the benefit of the doubt as far as assumptions go. After that it kicks up very quickly with entitlements and the AHCA. At least $26 trillion by 2020 with base assumptions.

I believe Maclay's point was less about exactly comparing apples to apples, and more about the proportionality of percentages of debt under the last 6 presidents. And clearly, Republicans are the much greater offenders.

The two "one term" democratic presidents (assuming for the moment that Obama is in this group) are at 42% and 41% respectively. The only single term Republican? 55.6%. Under the holiest of holies, the increase was a jaw dropping 168% (hence Mr. Cheney's observation years later that "Reagan proved debt doesn't matter.") Mr. Clinton, well known fellow traveler and past governor of the People's Republic of Arkansas, managed a feeble 36% increase in 8 years, while his successor, the Prince of Compassion Conservativism (as long as he was the Decider) was able to slay the beast of big government in the same amount of time and drag his trophy of an 89% increase in debt back to Reagan's shining city on the hill.

Now, how in all of this Mr. NRA 75 can spout "Under Obama the national debt tripled", defies all reason, certainly reason based in mathematics. This is all an example of Republican strategy, the Goebbelsian "Big Lie".

Look, stupidity is not a virtue. The "demoncrats", or "dumbocrats", or "democraps", or whatever puerile name Republicans gleefully concoct (make you laugh there, didn't I), are indeed the party of "tax and spend", but at least the taxes paid the bills (paying for what you want, what a concept). The Republicans are the party of "borrow and spend". Not a bad business practice that, so at least they come by it honestly. But unfortunately the note will come due, principle and interest. Praying every night that the Chinese implode in political chaos and forget how much we owe them is hardly an adult strategy. Yahweh doesn't keep that kind of cash on hand.

Next I'll ask my Republican friends here why, if government in all its forms is so bad, do you guys spend so much hard earned money to get elected and run it. And why, if government is so incompetent and useless, can a single individual, the President of the United States, singlehandedly create, or evidently in Mr. Obama's case destroy, tens of thousands of jobs. So even though you believe that government should be starved, you nonetheless ascribe to its head the amazing ability to, by him or herself, create many well paying (but not too well paying) jobs in the little podunk places you called home. Explain this to me, if you would. I had a stomach flu and was out the day this was evidently gone over in 9th grade Civics class.

I'll look for your earnest and thoughtful responses later. Now, I'm going to return to my solitary consumption of Scotch, which makes me, in a Palinesque sort of way, unAmerican I suppose. Perhaps I should switch to Bourbon and Branchwater.

Nova_Native Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I believe Maclay's point was less about exactly
> comparing apples to apples, and more about the
> proportionality of percentages of debt under the
> last 6 presidents.

Except that percentages are somewhat misleading in this context. You don't spend and have to finance and repay percentages. You spend and have to finance and repay dollars. And when measured in trillions even a small percentage increase on an already large number is huge on a relative dollar basis.

Reagan $0.211 trillion
Bush $1.655
Clinton $1.126
Bush $4.757
Obama $2.795 (for < 4 years)
Assuming the same slope to the line through 2016 Obama's would be $9.669 trillion.

Also, the numbers used above seem kind of wonky. Note that there's a gap between the ending balance for the previous president and the starting balance for the next. Not a big deal with smaller amounts but going from Bush II to Obama, it's giving the latter the benefit of a $1.631 trillion "head start" which reduces the amount attributed to him. The same in Clinton's case. Bush's ends at 2.684. Clinton's starts at 4.536. What happened to the $1.852 trillion difference that's not counted?

Only a brain dead dumbass liberal would use media matters as a source for information. At least use something that slightly reflects journalism if you use it.

WAKE UP SHEEP!!! DON'T YOU GET THIS "LEFT/RIGHT" PARADIGM IS COMPLETELY MADE UP? THEY BOTH WORK FOR THE SAME INTERESTS - THEY ARE PAID BY THE SAME PEOPLE WHO REALLY "OWN" THIS COUNTRY...

WAKE UP YOU SHEEP!!!
Attachments:

SHEEP
Attachments:

SHEEPLE
Attachments:

HERDS OF SHEEP
Attachments:

not really Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Michigan is much less likely for him but he very
> well could take MA.

Michigan is less likely only in the sense that Obama is destroying Romney in Massachusetts right now:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/mi/michigan_romney_vs_obama-1811.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/ma/massachusetts_romney_vs_obama-1804.html
It will be tough sledding in Michigan for Mitt "Let Detroit go Bankrupt" Romney


> I would disagree their map is based off of current
> polling data.

You can disagree, but you're wrong. They take the aggregate data from the last 5 polls, create their RCP average, and that is how they determine their electoral map. Other sites only use 1 or 2 recent polls or include historical trending. To say RCP's map isn't based on polling data is frankly, incorrect.


> Obama is more likable than most dems, but it would
> still be a big turn around for them especially NC
> to go Dem at the moment.

I agree. Virginia is still in play, but NC may be a lost cause for the Dems at this point.


> Nevada has a large
> mormon pop too so if anything that should be a
> toss up.

Could be. The last major poll was Rasmussen having Obama up by 8, but that was on April 30th


> Mass probably should be a leans obama,
> but again I have a hard time saying Romney cant
> win when hes won the state before and didnt leave
> in disgrace.

Umm, no. Obama is destroying Romney in Massachusetts right now. Rasmussen has him up 56-35 and the poll took place recently.

Wow, Obama leading Romney in MA. Like that's a surprise? Taxachusetts. LOL

Random Dude Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> not really Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Michigan is much less likely for him but he
> very
> > well could take MA.
>
> Michigan is less likely only in the sense that
> Obama is destroying Romney in Massachusetts right
> now:
> http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/presi
> dent/mi/michigan_romney_vs_obama-1811.html
> http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/presi
> dent/ma/massachusetts_romney_vs_obama-1804.html
> It will be tough sledding in Michigan for Mitt
> "Let Detroit go Bankrupt" Romney

Its still to far out for polls to mean much especially for Mass. None of the polls real clear is using are great and Im not taking the world of NBC/MSNBC on anything. If they had their way it would be 100 Obama 0 Romney in every state.

> > I would disagree their map is based off of
> current
> > polling data.
>
> You can disagree, but you're wrong. They take the
> aggregate data from the last 5 polls, create their
> RCP average, and that is how they determine their
> electoral map. Other sites only use 1 or 2 recent
> polls or include historical trending. To say
> RCP's map isn't based on polling data is frankly,
> incorrect.

Im not wrong several states on there trends completely disagree with what theyre saying. Telling me what someone in NC believed in Jan before the gay marriage issue and their recall of their democratic gov means far less than what the last two polls say or other trends. Voting polling is one of the few things where less data from 2 more recent polls means more than compiling polls over time. If anything you just proved my point.

> I agree. Virginia is still in play, but NC may be
> a lost cause for the Dems at this point.

Barring a major change NC is gone. VA there is only a chance cus of Nova but will still be a hard sell.

> > Nevada has a large
> > mormon pop too so if anything that should be a
> > toss up.
>
> Could be. The last major poll was Rasmussen
> having Obama up by 8, but that was on April 30th

Too early for polls to mean much. The general really hasnt even officially started yet or barely has, but the sitting president will always have an advantage early. NV isnt a dem lock like real clear is saying.

> > Mass probably should be a leans obama,
> > but again I have a hard time saying Romney cant
> > win when hes won the state before and didnt
> leave
> > in disgrace.
>
> Umm, no. Obama is destroying Romney in
> Massachusetts right now. Rasmussen has him up
> 56-35 and the poll took place recently.

Again way to early. Hes won the state before. If the election was next month or the poll says the same thing in mid to late September then it probably is a lost cause. If youve done something before you can do it again. It wouldnt be the first time he beat a dem in a state wide election there. But its not really a key state even though every state helps anyway.

Who ever wins FL will more than likely win it all

> Virginia voters are NOT stupid enough to vote for an empty headed, corrupt, greedy, completely unlikeable, religious nut

Yes they will.. regardless.

NRA 75 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 4 more years, II Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > NRA 75 Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Rasmussen
> >
> > Is a known biased Republican-leaning poll.
>
>
> Yeah, Rasmussen is GOP biased. Ok. Its not
> affiliated with any Super Pacs or any political
> organizations. Nice try.


Rasmussen isn't biased, just wrong all the time. Too many old dying republicans.

Romney probably won Virginia.

what he couldn't follow up on is voter fraud in communist parliamentary areas such as Fairfax County VA

^^ part of democrats actions were to advertise in south america for illegals to come to the area to vote democrat. no consideration of impact on communit. just and only anything it took to stay in power.

67yGc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ^^ part of democrats actions were to advertise in
> south america for illegals to come to the area to
> vote democrat. no consideration of impact on
> communit. just and only anything it took to stay
> in power.

From south america huh dumbass? Fuckin get a globe, then come here. Nobody from Peru is illegal immigrating to the VA you dumb shit.

Jade Helm