No he didn't. Gingrich has consistently called it for Romney. On this we agree. No way it would happen. Hell I bet if he was dumb enough to even think it out loud the people around him would pull out the 25th Amendment and tell him to read section 4.
My mistake - an email from a Gingrich newsletter was sent out saying that Obama was a sure in to win in 2012, but upon further investigation it was sent by a 3rd party that was supposed to be blacklisted. That being said, Obama is kicking his ass in state battleground polling. Republicans have to hope for a 'Dewey defeats Truman' moment. Obama won 19 of 22 state polls in battlegrounds on Friday, 2 were a tie. The only battleground state not polled was NC. There has to be huge polling bias against Romney for him to win.
Can't afford a $100, how about $50 donation to the charity of the other's choice. From you if Romney wins and from me if Romney loses.
Eh, I have a strong feeling that while Indiana is Romney's, Ohio is going to Obama. It will be a tenuous hold, but I believe it will happen.
Just thought I'd mention Obama's spending Monday in Madison Wisconsin. He's desperately struggling to hold Blue states he won by large margins in 2008. This election is not going to be close, far from it Romney is going win big on Tuesday.
For those predicting a Romney landslide please tell us [-]where you get your weed[/-] what retarded ass blogs you are getting this bullshit from. That way we can not only mock you mercilessly, but can dismiss anything from said sources in the future. For fairness sake, I got my info from fivethirtyeight. If it turns out there is a Romney blowout win, I will not trust Nate Silver in the future. Will you do the same for your sources?
I'm betting tards like Sandbagger are getting their nonsense from "unskewedpolls" which is a complete and total laughing stock with even Fox saying they're just wishful thinking and break just about ever rule of statics. It basically amounts to "I don't like the scientific poll results so I'll just make shit up which makes me feel better."
My own analysis based on hours of reading and studying as much information as possible from the legacy media and new media. And observation of the present political landscape in light of past history and my own understanding of human nature. Simply put Obama has not delivered on his promises. He has failed both his base and independents. The electorate sent him a huge message in 2010 and he ignored it and in fact he was defiant in its face. That sealed his electoral doom. Obama has bet that there are enough people looking for him to give them a handout to put him back in the White House. He thinks all the people on food stamps and SSDI and what not want to be there. He's wrong a lot of them are angry about being placed in that position he promised a robust economy. He promised jobs. He's delivered a life on a government stipend, and they are going to make their anger about that failure and all his other failures known come Tuesday. No. Only been there once. I thought their methodology was questionable. Truth be told the bulk of my information comes from the NYT, WaPo, the AP, and Reuters. You just have to know how to read them. And of course interacting with people who don't follow politics at all. When they start discussing politics I pay attention. And what I've heard from them does not bode well for Obama.
What's got me scratching my head is Michael Barone and George Will. These guys have predicted a Romney blowout. Are they just getting old and want to flame out or what? Seems irresponsible for them to do this.
I'm not surprised by Barone. I've seen him as a partisan hack for a few election cycles now. His "analysis" that points to a Romney blowout consists of listing the swing states, and saying, "the polls have Obama ahead, but I disagree, I give this one to Romney." I haven't read what Will has to say on the matter, but my working assumption on all these guys is that they are trying to counter the tendency for people to stay home if they don't think their guy is going to win.
George Will actually predicted that Romney would win Minnesota. Even pseudo-intellectuals like George Will are falling victim to the delusions of the far right.
1 - The only poll that matters is the one on Election Day. 2 - Obama will win easily. I think it won't even be close.
It does to me, at least on the social side of things. I want same sex marriage to be legal, and abortions to remain legal. With a Republican President in office, and a majority Republican House of Representatives, some of them batshit fundamentalists who somehow have the ear of the GOP, it would be a distinct possibility that both would be made illegal.
That basically all boils down to you saying you don't like the guy, so expect the numbers to work out in your favour.
I have to grudgingly agree. Until the GOP drops the religious wacko stance against gay marriage and abortion, they will never get my vote. But then neither will the Dems. So it's third party all the way.
Wrong. See John's post about social issues. While it is true that on many issues it is hard to discern much difference between the two, there are many fringe issues on which they differ significantly. If any of these matter to you, then it matters who wins. And keep in mind that Presidents make life time judicial appointments, often based upon how they see these same fringe issues. It matters, sometimes quite a bit.
If you want homos to marry, why are you worried about abortions? Does someone still need the "where do babies come from" talk?
The huge advantage of incumbancy. The fact that the vast majority of American voters (people who actually vote, that is) appear to be complete freakin' retards who simply pull the lever for the guy with the right letter next to his name without paying the least bit of attention to what his record might be. The fact that, four years in and with his disastrous record plain for all to see, lots and lots of people still think Obama is "hope and change." That, and Mitt Romney is one weak-ass candidate.
