Obama Likely To Win Another Presidential Term: Gallup Poll

[bendejo]

Montrose, Colo. - Today, four days before the election, Paul Ryan told a crowd assembled on an airport tarmac that he could "smell success." And the crowd roared.

The smell, in fact, was that of cow manure, or something that smelled an awful lot like it. The tarmac is nestled in the mountains here, and as it became more and more overpowering, and as Ryan was more and more intently describing his running mate's business credentials, the VP contender paused, took a deep whiff and said, "I can smell success right now."

"That's the smell of success isn't it? That's the smell of progress. I love that smell, it makes me feel at home," Ryan said.

http://news.yahoo.com/paul-ryan-smell-success-220037132--abc-news-politics.html

Which begs the age-old question: who farted?

Can this boy discern the smell of sh_t from Shinola?

[chiangmaikelly]

Barone: Going out on a limb: Romney beats Obama, handily

http://washingtonexaminer.com/barone-going-out-on-a-limb-romney-wins-handily/article/2512470#.UJTqKHbI9ok

[Jingthing]

Barone: Going out on a limb: Romney beats Obama, handily

http://washingtonexa...70#.UJTqKHbI9ok

And y'all can enjoy that pipe dream fantasy for a few more days.

Mitt who?

Mitt does have sons.

One wonders if they'll decide third time is the charm, because Grandad failed, and so will Daddy.

I wasn't really aware of the Washington Examiner.

On February 1, 2005, the paper's name changed to the Washington Examiner, and it adopted a logo and format similar to that of another newspaper owned by Anschutz, the San Francisco Examiner.^[3] Politico described the paper as "a megaphone for [Anschutz's] right-wing views on taxes, national security and President Barack Obama."

wiki

OK, sure, it is possible for Romney to win narrowly, but a blowout? No chance.

Edited November 3, 2012 by Jingthing

[maidu]

[quo I don't agree this thread is scary. Lots of discussions of issues (does that scare you?). I mentioned budgets a few posts earlier: Admittedly, Obama spends too much, but appears to really want to lower the budget deficit.

No does not scare me but the lack of it as I said does. Yours is a classic example... "Obama Appears to really want"??? No I mean plans concrete plans. From both I might add as I have mentioned before I think neither is good for the US. I do not mean as in "If it were me" As it is not you running for Office

Ok, here's a concrete comparisons of plans re; one of the biggest segments for the US budget is military. Do we agree on that? Two wars in the Middle East are winding down. Obama wants to take the savings (from not fighting two wars) and either use it to pay down the Nat'l debt or simply lessen the overwrought budget. In contrast, Romney wants to take the money saved from not fighting wars - to plow back to military, even tho the military is not asking for it! Is that concrete enough for you? Indeed, Romney and Ryan want to increase the military budget even further - so as to buy two or three added aircraft carrier groups. The reason: to show military muscle to the rest of the world. The US already has the strongest military, by far, of any nation. Does it need to bloat it ever larger? Much of the added expenses are for manned weapons, when it's clear that unmanned weapons (drones, etc) are the wave of the future (Romney and Ryan don't know that. They're still stuck in a Cold War outlook and mentality, thinking Russia is the big baddie on the world stage).

[SteeleJoe]

Barone: Going out on a limb: Romney beats Obama, handily

http://washingtonexa...70#.UJTqKHbI9ok

Barone: Going out on a limb: Romney beats Obama, handily

http://washingtonexa...70#.UJTqKHbI9ok

Again with the Washington Examiner.

You do realize the function of that newspaper is regarded by many observers to be to represent the views of it owner Philp Anschutz? You know the multi-billionaire Christian conservative?

Michael Barone (formerly of Fox News and selected like all his colleagues, on the paper for his conservative Republican credentials) might be right but..."consider the source".

[Baloo22]

Another endorsement for Mitt Romney. This endorsement by a newspaper, The Des Moines (Iowa) Register, that has consistently endorsed the Democrat candidate for more than twenty years.

Des Moines Register: “Mitt Romney Offers A Fresh Economic Vision”

"American voters are deeply divided about this race. The Register’s editorial board, as it should, had a vigorous debate over this endorsement. Our discussion repeatedly circled back to the nation’s single most important challenge: pulling the economy out of the doldrums, getting more Americans back in the workforce in meaningful jobs with promising futures, and getting the federal government on a track to balance the budget in a bipartisan manner that the country demands.

Which candidate could forge the compromises in Congress to achieve these goals? When the question is framed in those terms, Mitt Romney emerges the stronger candidate.

The former governor and business executive has a strong record of achievement in both the private and the public sectors. He was an accomplished governor in a liberal state. He founded and ran a successful business that turned around failing companies. He successfully managed the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City."

[SteeleJoe]

Quoting "The Des Moines Register"?! Well...wait...uhmmm...

I have no complaint about that.

Edited November 3, 2012 by SteeleJoe

[jdinasia]

Quoting "The Des Moines Register"?! Well...wait...uhmmm...

I have no complaint about that.

"It was a little surprising to read that editorial, because it didn't seem to be based at all in reality, not just in the president's record, but in Mitt Romney's record. It says that he'd reach across the aisle, which he'd do the exact opposite. It's the exact opposite of what he did in Massachusetts," she said.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/28/des-moines-register-endorsement-obama_n_2032003.html

[mania]

[quo I don't agree this thread is scary. Lots of discussions of issues (does that scare you?). I mentioned budgets a few posts earlier: Admittedly, Obama spends too much, but appears to really want to lower the budget deficit.

No does not scare me but the lack of it as I said does. Yours is a classic example... "Obama Appears to really want"??? No I mean plans concrete plans. From both I might add as I have mentioned before I think neither is good for the US. I do not mean as in "If it were me" As it is not you running for Office

Ok, here's a concrete comparisons of plans re; one of the biggest segments for the US budget is military. Do we agree on that? Two wars in the Middle East are winding down. Obama wants to take the savings (from not fighting two wars) and either use it to pay down the Nat'l debt or simply lessen the overwrought budget. In contrast, Romney wants to take the money saved from not fighting wars - to plow back to military, even tho the military is not asking for it! Is that concrete enough for you? Indeed, Romney and Ryan want to increase the military budget even further - so as to buy two or three added aircraft carrier groups. The reason: to show military muscle to the rest of the world. The US already has the strongest military, by far, of any nation. Does it need to bloat it ever larger? Much of the added expenses are for manned weapons, when it's clear that unmanned weapons (drones, etc) are the wave of the future (Romney and Ryan don't know that. They're still stuck in a Cold War outlook and mentality, thinking Russia is the big baddie on the world stage).

No that is more vaporware

Afghanistan is *his* war really

Secondly what they say & what they do are two different things.

Like when he said no troops will set boot in Libya so instead he sent in SAD & Contractors?

They dont work for free you know?

Drones? Glad you brought that up. As a "CIA" run OP we have no idea of costs

unfunded wars

Yes I have heard the other guy wants to increase Defense Offense spending.

As I said neither of these guys are good for America.

But that herring aside because all it really amounts to is one is claiming not to build up further

Yet when the election is over we will see what new emergency recalls that promise also.

but more so what about reality of collapsing America & its dollar?

The current one cannot even pass a budget because it is so insane even his own people will not vote for it.

Again I do not think either one is good for America. But if Romney gets in it is due to the same thing

that got Obama in on, Hope & Change

yet neither has a decent plan nor will face the elephant in the room probably because neither is allowed to.

Debts versus revenues are insanely through the roof.

Anything either has mentioned so far will nick it at best.

But as they say folks get the government they deserve even now. Instead of real issues most

will talk about What religion they may be, Where where they born, Do they drive with a dog on their roof etc etc etc

Bottom line? Obama did nothing of note & the one thing claimed to be of note can never be paid for as such it is

unsustainable. When it comes to crunching number he cannot even rally his own troops.

How does that suggest another 4 years will change that? Has he been educated recently in new techniques?

During the financial crisis did he come down hard on the perpetrators? At all?

Is his Treasury Secretary ex Goldman Sachs?

Personally I do not see any hope for this one & if re-elected I do not see any hope for 4 more years.

If the other one is elected? I cannot say I know but I dont think anyone else can either.

This is why I said early on in the other thread that these days folks do not vote someone in.

They vote someone out or vote to keep someone out.

This election will be no different & I do not see any winners here no matter how pleased the fan base may be initially.

Edited November 3, 2012 by mania

[thaibeachlovers]

Even if Obama wins it will be the shortest presidency in history when everything behind the Benghazi attack is revealed

You mean the Republican attack dogs will still be trying to make political hay out of a tragic overseas event? It they want to politicize tragedy, why not look to the hundreds of uniformed Americans who were killed in Lebanon during Prez Reagan's time in office.

I question the relevance but if we're going to discuss that -- and what I've always felt was Reagan's horrific failure (and which Osama bin Laden later confirmed) -- then you shouldn't forget the 79 people killed in the bombings of the US Embassy (including American diplomatic staff, American CIA employees and US Marines).

Has at least as much relevance as Clinton and the blue dress.

Reagan isn't trying to become President now.

[thaibeachlovers]

[quo I don't agree this thread is scary. Lots of discussions of issues (does that scare you?). I mentioned budgets a few posts earlier: Admittedly, Obama spends too much, but appears to really want to lower the budget deficit.

No does not scare me but the lack of it as I said does. Yours is a classic example... "Obama Appears to really want"??? No I mean plans concrete plans. From both I might add as I have mentioned before I think neither is good for the US. I do not mean as in "If it were me" As it is not you running for Office

Ok, here's a concrete comparisons of plans re; one of the biggest segments for the US budget is military. Do we agree on that? Two wars in the Middle East are winding down. Obama wants to take the savings (from not fighting two wars) and either use it to pay down the Nat'l debt or simply lessen the overwrought budget. In contrast, Romney wants to take the money saved from not fighting wars - to plow back to military, even tho the military is not asking for it! Is that concrete enough for you? Indeed, Romney and Ryan want to increase the military budget even further - so as to buy two or three added aircraft carrier groups. The reason: to show military muscle to the rest of the world. The US already has the strongest military, by far, of any nation. Does it need to bloat it ever larger? Much of the added expenses are for manned weapons, when it's clear that unmanned weapons (drones, etc) are the wave of the future (Romney and Ryan don't know that. They're still stuck in a Cold War outlook and mentality, thinking Russia is the big baddie on the world stage).

How can anyone use the "savings" from stopping the wars when they're/ were being fought on borrowed money?

[SteeleJoe]

Quoting "The Des Moines Register"?! Well...wait...uhmmm...

I have no complaint about that.

"It was a little surprising to read that editorial, because it didn't seem to be based at all in reality, not just in the president's record, but in Mitt Romney's record. It says that he'd reach across the aisle, which he'd do the exact opposite. It's the exact opposite of what he did in Massachusetts," she said.

http://www.huffingto..._n_2032003.html

You've missed my point, methinks. I wasn't commenting on the content of the editorial -- I haven't even read it yet. I was poking fun at myself in that I am among the first to jump on people for using a dodgy or egregiously biased source -- as I had done in the post before my last. In this case I could find no real fault with the source (ie the newspaper itself) and in the interest of even-handedness acknowledging that.

Huffington, by the way...

[Chicog]

You've missed my point, methinks. I wasn't commenting on the content of the editorial -- I haven't even read it yet. I was poking fun at myself in that I am among the first to jump on people for using a dodgy or egregiously biased source -- as I had done in the post before my last. In this case I could find no real fault with the source (ie the newspaper itself) and in the interest of even-handedness acknowledging that.

It didn't go unnoticed by everyone, I had a little chuckle.

[SteeleJoe]

Even if Obama wins it will be the shortest presidency in history when everything behind the Benghazi attack is revealed

You mean the Republican attack dogs will still be trying to make political hay out of a tragic overseas event? It they want to politicize tragedy, why not look to the hundreds of uniformed Americans who were killed in Lebanon during Prez Reagan's time in office.

I question the relevance but if we're going to discuss that -- and what I've always felt was Reagan's horrific failure (and which Osama bin Laden later confirmed) -- then you shouldn't forget the 79 people killed in the bombings of the US Embassy (including American diplomatic staff, American CIA employees and US Marines).

Has at least as much relevance as Clinton and the blue dress.

Reagan isn't trying to become President now.

No argument from me. I didn't bring Reagan into it. (Though I think the comparison with the blue dress pretty dam_n unseemly the death of all those Americans serving their country and the Lebanese citizens...somewhat less trivial than Pres. Clinton's inability to keep his tool in the box)

[thaibeachlovers]

The most extreme and important example of Romney's toxic and cynical flip games is the entire history of Romneycare-Obamacare. Most offensively, he has now blatantly lied that he approves of the preexisting conditions feature of Obamacare but when you check his official campaign positions he does not. The preexisting conditions feature of Obamacare which the public DOES overwhelmingly like needs the MANDATE feature (again: this was Romney's idea but now he wants to kill Obamacare) to make that fiscally possible. Romney does not want the public to think he is a meanie on this now, but he is. His actual position is very clear, he does NOT support insurance companies having to accept people with preexisting conditions UNLESS they have had continuous coverage (that is ALREADY national law before Obamacare!). That is absolutely nothing like actual Obamacare policy on preexisting conditions, yet he is trying to fool low information voters that it is. It's idiotic really. How can everyone be covered if there is not a finance aspect? (Mandates.) Which is made even more disgusting because really no politician on earth knows that better than Romney because Romneycare MANDATES was his program! How can you trust a man like that? Character is a big issue in choosing presidents and he is a big fail. I think there is no way to trust him. He doesn't even deserve basic respect I would give to an honest working man like a trash collecter in my view and I would tell him that to his face.

There are so many other examples that anyone with a first grader's googling skills can find in one second. Don't expect people to write long essays when the examples are easily there for everyone. Even his own campaign insider bragged about Etch-A-Sketch.

Another kind of amusing one is Romney's flip on gay rights. When running for governor and there is video to prove it he said he is more pro gay rights than Ted Kennedy. Then when in office he went out of his way to damage the future lives of BABIES born to LEGALLY joined same sex couples by legally challenging ALL of their birth certificated (an odious example of blatant discrimination, yes I am sorry he IS a meanie). Now he is on public record supporting an anti-gay civil rights constitutional amendment.

< Romney's flip on gay rights > Methinks thou art the kettle calling the pot black!

What about Obama's flip flops on homosexual marriage?

At the end of the day, Romney actually ran a business and the Olympics successfully, balanced the budget in Massachusetts, while Obama has spent 6 TRILLION $ that the US does not have, more than GW in both terms.

[SteeleJoe]

You've missed my point, methinks. I wasn't commenting on the content of the editorial -- I haven't even read it yet. I was poking fun at myself in that I am among the first to jump on people for using a dodgy or egregiously biased source -- as I had done in the post before my last. In this case I could find no real fault with the source (ie the newspaper itself) and in the interest of even-handedness acknowledging that.

It didn't go unnoticed by everyone, I had a little chuckle.

I'm gratified. I generally only attempt to amuse myself but I'm always pleasantly surprised on the probably rare occasion I manage to amuse anyone else even a bit.

Edited November 3, 2012 by SteeleJoe

[Baloo22]

30,000 plus attend Romney-Ryan Rally in West Chester, Ohio. "Path to victory cuts through Ohio"

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

More photos from Cincinnati.com Photo Gallery:Romney West Chester rally

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Meanwhile, Obama draws 3800 at his event in Lima, Ohio. "President Barack Obama wraps up campaign swing in Lima"

[SteeleJoe]

30,000 plus attend Romney-Ryan Rally in West Chester, Ohio. "Path to victory cuts through Ohio"

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

More photos from Cincinnati.com Photo Gallery:Romney West Chester rally

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Meanwhile, Obama draws 3800 at his event in Lima, Ohio. "President Barack Obama wraps up campaign swing in Lima"

And?

Surely you aren't implying that the relative numbers at two events proves or even indicates anything of any significance at all?

Edited November 3, 2012 by Scott
photo edited out

[jdinasia]

You've missed my point, methinks. I wasn't commenting on the content of the editorial -- I haven't even read it yet. I was poking fun at myself in that I am among the first to jump on people for using a dodgy or egregiously biased source -- as I had done in the post before my last. In this case I could find no real fault with the source (ie the newspaper itself) and in the interest of even-handedness acknowledging that.

Huffington, by the way...

Huffington was quoting from an ABC weekly Sunday political show

[SteeleJoe]

You've missed my point, methinks. I wasn't commenting on the content of the editorial -- I haven't even read it yet. I was poking fun at myself in that I am among the first to jump on people for using a dodgy or egregiously biased source -- as I had done in the post before my last. In this case I could find no real fault with the source (ie the newspaper itself) and in the interest of even-handedness acknowledging that.

Huffington, by the way...

Huffington was quoting from an ABC weekly Sunday political show

Ack! Caught out again -- haven't read the link. Again, just a little jest. Me and my zany hi-jinks...

[Neurath]

It's now time that Republicans stop forwarding arguments or talking points on why people should vote for their candidate and start coming up with reasons/talking points as to why the Election win is illegitimate and the winner devoid of mandate. It's the only way to be properly prepared and safe from reality's bruising consequence.

[maidu]

Reagan isn't trying to become President now.

That's debatable. Romney to some extent, and Ryan for sure love to compare themselves to Reagan. The irony of that is not lost on some of us, as Reagan was a tax-raising (18 times), debt limit raising (11 times) president who convinced us that Star Wars was a great way to spend a trillion dollars we didn't have. Now we know (I knew back then) that Star Wars was voodoo hoodoo, but it make Reagan's friends Cheney and Regan and many other right-wingers millions of dollars. That's the same sort of mind-set the US will get with Romney Ryan.

How can anyone use the "savings" from stopping the wars when they're/ were being fought on borrowed money?

Ok, perhaps it's semantics. What do you call money not spent? For example, imagine if your wife insisted on buying two Ferraris (two concurrent wars) and had payments totalling a billion dollars a day. If later, she decided to no longer continue to insist you (her husband/the American taxpayer) pay for the Ferraris and indeed, she would bring them back to the dealer. What would you call that billion dollars a day you no longer had to pay? You might call it savings. If that Ferrari-loving woman was Obama's wife, he would take that billion $$'s NOT BEING SPENT, and use if for something more useful and/or pay down the national debt. If that woman was Romney's wife, he would take that billion dollars per day and give it to back to the Ferrari dealer for a different pair of newer cars, plus he'd borrow more money to buy yet more fancy cars (yes, it's all borrowed money with wicked % payments, we know that).

When asked how he's going to pay for all that excess, Romney would say with a confident grin; "hey, you and me are all going to get better jobs and make a lot more money. No problem senor."

Edited November 3, 2012 by maidu

[thaibeachlovers]

Reagan isn't trying to become President now.

That's debatable. Romney to some extent, and Ryan for sure love to compare themselves to Reagan. The irony of that is not lost on some of us, as Reagan was a tax-raising (18 times), debt limit raising (11 times) president who convinced us that Star Wars was a great way to spend a trillion dollars we didn't have. Now we know (I knew back then) that Star Wars was voodoo hoodoo, but it make Reagan's friends Cheney and Regan and many other right-wingers millions of dollars. That's the same sort of mind-set the US will get with Romney Ryan.

How can anyone use the "savings" from stopping the wars when they're/ were being fought on borrowed money?

Ok, perhaps it's semantics. What do you call money not spent? For example, imagine if your wife insisted on buying two Ferraris (two concurrent wars) and had payments totalling a billion dollars a day. If later, she decided to no longer continue to insist you (her husband/the American taxpayer) pay for the Ferraris and indeed, she would bring them back to the dealer. What would you call that billion dollars a day you no longer had to pay? You might call it savings. If that Ferrari-loving woman was Obama's wife, he would take that billion $$'s NOT BEING SPENT, and use if for something more useful and/or pay down the national debt. If that woman was Romney's wife, he would take that billion dollars per day and give it to back to the Ferrari dealer for a different pair of newer cars, plus he'd borrow more money to buy yet more fancy cars (yes, it's all borrowed money with wicked % payments, we know that).

When asked how he's going to pay for all that excess, Romney would say with a confident grin; "hey, you and me are all going to get better jobs and make a lot more money. No problem senor."

Well, Romney only spends his own money on extravagence, while Obama uses taxpayer money to set up his cronies in failed businesses like Solynra. Chevy Volt anyone?

[Baloo22]

Finally some honesty happens to flow out of Joe Biden's mouth! It's about time!

Joe Biden says "There's Never Been A Day In The Last Four Years I've Been Proud To Be His Vice President"

http://youtu.be/TOp2ncxDGhA

[keemapoot]

Anybody who has any doubts about the high probability of an Obama win should really take the time to read Nate Silver's blog and importantly, accompanying comments, many by statistical experts. And, you don't have to be a mathamatician to understand it. Silver takes you through the simplest formula through to all the other scenarios, including those who are advancing the idea that Romney will win. He has been demonized by the right, as would be expected. It's really just all about probabilities and math and the more likely outcome based on the data. A must read...

Any way you cut it, Obama is a clear favorite and more likely than Romney to win.

What I find confounding about this is that the argument we’re making is exceedingly simple. Here it is:

Obama’s ahead in Ohio.

A somewhat-more-complicated version:

Mr. Obama is leading in the polls of Ohio and other states that would suffice for him to win 270 electoral votes, and by a margin that has historically translated into victory a fairly high percentage of the time.

http://fivethirtyeig...he-favorite/?hp

[jbrain]

Finally some honesty happens to flow out of Joe Biden's mouth! It's about time!

Joe Biden says "There's Never Been A Day In The Last Four Years I've Been Proud To Be His Vice President"

http://youtu.be/TOp2ncxDGhA

Now I understand why we haven't heard much about Biden in the past four years. With so much gaffe's they probably kept him behind closed doors with reason.

[thaibeachlovers]

Anybody who has any doubts about the high probability of an Obama win should really take the time to read Nate Silver's blog and importantly, accompanying comments, many by statistical experts. And, you don't have to be a mathamatician to understand it. Silver takes you through the simplest formula through to all the other scenarios, including those who are advancing the idea that Romney will win. He has been demonized by the right, as would be expected. It's really just all about probabilities and math and the more likely outcome based on the data. A must read...

Any way you cut it, Obama is a clear favorite and more likely than Romney to win.

What I find confounding about this is that the argument we’re making is exceedingly simple. Here it is:

Obama’s ahead in Ohio.

A somewhat-more-complicated version:

Mr. Obama is leading in the polls of Ohio and other states that would suffice for him to win 270 electoral votes, and by a margin that has historically translated into victory a fairly high percentage of the time.

http://fivethirtyeig...he-favorite/?hp

Well, the only poll that counts is the one in 4 days. The rest and all the theories are worthless on the big day.

BTW, according to some polls, they are level or within the margin of error in Ohio.

[Asiantravel]

this is stunning !

Obamanomics Explained

[keemapoot]

Anybody who has any doubts about the high probability of an Obama win should really take the time to read Nate Silver's blog and importantly, accompanying comments, many by statistical experts. And, you don't have to be a mathamatician to understand it. Silver takes you through the simplest formula through to all the other scenarios, including those who are advancing the idea that Romney will win. He has been demonized by the right, as would be expected. It's really just all about probabilities and math and the more likely outcome based on the data. A must read...

Any way you cut it, Obama is a clear favorite and more likely than Romney to win.

What I find confounding about this is that the argument we’re making is exceedingly simple. Here it is:

Obama’s ahead in Ohio.

A somewhat-more-complicated version:

Mr. Obama is leading in the polls of Ohio and other states that would suffice for him to win 270 electoral votes, and by a margin that has historically translated into victory a fairly high percentage of the time.

http://fivethirtyeig...he-favorite/?hp

Well, the only poll that counts is the one in 4 days. The rest and all the theories are worthless on the big day.

BTW, according to some polls, they are level or within the margin of error in Ohio.

Maybe this comment by some guy in Sao Paulo might help explain it:

Well, the "simplest case for saying Obama is the favorite" is the (updated by recent polls) probability that he will win:

81.9% , against 17% for Romney and 1,1% for a 269-tie.

(Nate´s numbers are pretty much the same: 80,9%, against

18,8% and 0,3% for a tie). The most probable number of votes

Obama will get at the Electoral College is 306 (303 under Nate´s model).

Of course, nobody would board a plane having a 17% chance of crash, but 82% for Obama does make him a favorite. To say the least,

there is no dead heat race in the Electoral College at this moment.

Romney might win up there, but he his not the favorite.

Never mind the popular vote race and notwithstanding the "close"

race (ie the overlap of confidence intervals) at most competitive states

[hearditallbefore]

Obama will lose. Obama WAS the worst President in history.