Patterico's Pontifications

DING!

Patterico (cc3bd9) — 10/8/2012 @ 5:58 pm

Thank God

Dustin (73fead) — 10/8/2012 @ 6:01 pm

Racists

JD (7ddc11) — 10/8/2012 @ 6:02 pm

Please donate to Romney-Ryan if you haven’t already done so. One last surge will help change the course of this country!

Colonel Haiku (b56e4c) — 10/8/2012 @ 6:05 pm

What’s the D/R/I weighting on this poll? I like what I see, but would be wary if Republicans were oversampled.

the bhead (f98d8a) — 10/8/2012 @ 6:21 pm

bhead, oversampling Republicans would be hilarious after all the Dem oversampling that’s been done to date.

SPQR (768505) — 10/8/2012 @ 6:22 pm

I don’t answer calls that are from numbers I don’t know or have reason to believe are “real”, and I figure if someone from DC or wherever really did want to talk to me they would leave a message on my voice mail…

I wonder if there is any info about who will answer a phone to do a poll, or if it is just assumed that looking at the D/R/I breakdown overcomes any tendencies for one group of people over another to do a poll.

I will not believe anything until after the election.

MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 10/8/2012 @ 6:31 pm

It seems to me that in one way almost every election is a “turnout” election.

MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 10/8/2012 @ 6:32 pm

Andrew Sullivan has his panties in a serious twist over the latest polling. I take it as a good sign.

The Pew poll is devastating, just devastating. Before the debate, Obama had a 51 – 43 lead; now, Romney has a 49 – 45 lead. That’s a simply unprecedented reversal for a candidate in October. Before Obama had leads on every policy issue and personal characteristic; now Romney leads in all of them. Obama’s performance gave Romney a 12 point swing! I repeat: a 12 point swing.

Seriously: has that kind of swing ever happened this late in a campaign? Has any candidate lost 18 points among women voters in one night ever? And we are told that when Obama left the stage that night, he was feeling good. That’s terrifying. On every single issue, Obama has instantly plummeted into near-oblivion. He still has some personal advantages over Romney – even though they are all much diminished. Obama still has an edge on Medicare, scores much higher on relating to ordinary people, is ahead on foreign policy, and on being moderate, consistent and honest (only 14 percent of swing voters believe Romney is honest). But on the core issues of the economy and the deficit, Romney is now kicking the president’s ass…

Dana (292dcf) — 10/8/2012 @ 6:49 pm

5. I think Registered its R+1, dead locked fingers on the ballot R+3. Nationally.

The sanity cross check is Willard is ahead an extry notch in the ‘toss ups’ like one would expect rather than the MSM insanity of Obamanable running away with that contest while nationally inside the margin of error.

Accuracy rankings of the notables, Razzie #1, Pew #2, Gallup #18, Mpls Star Tribune whatever last is.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/8/2012 @ 6:55 pm

9. Yes, Uterine Detective, Carter was up 10 inside two weeks, up 6 week of.

Schadenfreude is sweet.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/8/2012 @ 7:05 pm

I’d be worried ‘cept Debil’s power and influence is entirely between men’s ears:

http://israelmatzav.blogspot.com/2012/10/obamas-deal-with-devil.html

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/8/2012 @ 7:14 pm

All (R), vote early, vote often. Get a friend too.

Rodney King's Spirit (9ce6d4) — 10/8/2012 @ 7:15 pm

Milky loads gunna pop a few melatonin and push one out just to get to sleep.

Rodney King's Spirit (9ce6d4) — 10/8/2012 @ 7:17 pm

I think it’s much more than the debate. I think the administration’s lack of responsible crisis leadership and obvious Benghazi lies are also a significant factor in the recent poll turnaround. Everybody–I mean basically everybody in America– knew that the BS about the Mohamed video being the cause of the murders in Libya was a lie from day one. The Obama team has been spinning and BSing for four years– but the Benghazi business was so horrific and so ham-handed and so blatant that even a third grader (and much of the media) could figure it out. I think the public in general is just finding it harder and harder to look away. There’s been a sloooow but real awakening to the emergence of a clear pattern of deception and subterfuge from the WH on several issues. America is insulted that Obama (and Clinton) think they can get away with it.

elissa (da1bf0) — 10/8/2012 @ 7:30 pm

The election campaign is going to be like the NBA season: only the last four weeks are going to matter.

The Sanity Inspector (93bc4f) — 10/8/2012 @ 7:32 pm

Heh.

Democrats are now becoming poll deniers?

Ironic.

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/8/2012 @ 7:46 pm

I don’t think that anyone is getting a sudden realization that Obama is a failure. I think that Romney’s debate performance just allowed more people to realize that it was OK to dump the pretense that they were going to vote for Obama.

SPQR (768505) — 10/8/2012 @ 7:52 pm

elissa,

I think you’re right. I also think it was tragically remarkable and fortuitous that the Benghazi debacle occurred right before such a critical debate. I realize there is a crassness to pointing this out, however, as those few weeks unfolded and suspicions of a cover-up mounted and then were confirmed (to a great degree), I think voters sat up a bit straighter and were more open to seeing what this Mitt Romney candidate was all about. The exposed dishonesty of the administration really helped paved the way for Mitt to make an ever more powerful impact. And remember, Benghazi came on the heels of Fast and Furious. Too much suspicion, doubt, denial and obfuscation for any reasonable person to not have doubts.

Dana (292dcf) — 10/8/2012 @ 7:56 pm

polltruthers!

Colonel Haiku (2fdf4b) — 10/8/2012 @ 8:00 pm

I suspect that not that large a percentage of the population even heard of the Benghazi incident much less that the Obama admin lied to the American people about it.

I really think that Obama has always been this far behind and that his debate performance, and media reaction, allow the shifting voters to admit that they were not going to vote for Obama all along.

SPQR (768505) — 10/8/2012 @ 8:00 pm

Part of the shift is that people are getting serious about the stakes. They are realizing they have a say over whether we remain in this malaise for four more years. The closer we get to election day, the more people are realizing that we just can’t afford more of the same.

But Romney’s debate performance, or more honestly Obama’s debate failure, is helping a lot. We can do better.

Dustin (73fead) — 10/8/2012 @ 8:01 pm

SPQR,

I think that because the attack happened on 9/11, it received much wider coverage had it not, and as a result more people than usual heard/read about it. My hope is that enough of them were so horrified by the tragedy that they were subsequently interested in discovering exactly how it happened, what went wrong, and what answers has this administration provided.

Do you think that CNN’s coverage reached more people and lent more credibility to the story (ironic, I know) and to a public who perhaps are not news junkies?

Dana (292dcf) — 10/8/2012 @ 8:08 pm

Poll sample according to Hot Air: Among registered voters, it’s 34.7R/34D/31.3I; among likelies, it’s probably a few points more Republican than that.

Note that Pew was roundly criticized last month for a giant +D.

Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 10/8/2012 @ 8:08 pm

But Romney’s debate performance, or more honestly Obama’s debate failure, is helping a lot. We can do better.

I disagree. It doesn’t have to be one or the other. Both a terrific debate by an engaged and energized Romney and whatever the Hell that was that 0bama did were factors. And we’ll need more to beat the incumbent.

Colonel Haiku (2fdf4b) — 10/8/2012 @ 8:09 pm

Have seen several Barcky ads here in Utah. Not one Romney ad.

JD (7ddc11) — 10/8/2012 @ 8:11 pm

pissy petulant
teh ManChild could not look teh
Challenger in eye

Colonel Haiku (2fdf4b) — 10/8/2012 @ 8:12 pm

The most interesting poll is the Battleground poll at the site-that-shall-not-be named, in that you can get hold of full cross-tabs.

Among other things, they have Romney up by two in battleground states, same as last month, but they also have Republican interest on the rise.

Only 73 percent who support Obama say they are “extremely likely” to vote, compared to 86 percent who back Romney. Likewise, 84 percent of Republicans say they are extremely likely to vote, compared to 76 percent of Democrats.

Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 10/8/2012 @ 8:12 pm

where in Utah are you, JD?

Colonel Haiku (2fdf4b) — 10/8/2012 @ 8:12 pm

SLC?

Colonel Haiku (2fdf4b) — 10/8/2012 @ 8:13 pm

Have seen several Barcky ads here in Utah. Not one Romney ad.

Those must be independent ads; can’t see Obama contesting Utah.

Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 10/8/2012 @ 8:14 pm

The ads they are running is the “Romney is a liar and if you can’t trust him about taxes and deficits in a debate nonsense” …. How brazen of liars can Team Barcky be?! Does he really want to talk taxes and deficits? Lets go.

JD (7ddc11) — 10/8/2012 @ 8:14 pm

Col – Park City

JD (7ddc11) — 10/8/2012 @ 8:14 pm

Same “trust” ad I saw in Indiana. Why would Team Barcky, or his “independent” super PAC be wasting their money?

JD (7ddc11) — 10/8/2012 @ 8:16 pm

NYT… “Mr. Obama does not like debates to begin with, aides have long said, viewing them as media-driven gamesmanship. He did not do all that well in 2008 but benefited from Senator John McCain’s grumpy performances. Mr. Obama made clear to advisers that he was not happy about debating Mr. Romney, whom he views with disdain. It was something to endure, rather than an opportunity, aides said.”

Teh sh*theel has an excuse for everything. If there is a God, this proud clown will fall and he’ll fall big-time.

Colonel Haiku (2fdf4b) — 10/8/2012 @ 8:16 pm

Both a terrific debate by an engaged and energized Romney and whatever the Hell that was that 0bama did were factors

Fair enough. I do think Romney put in a great performance and Obama put in a terrible performance.

Filtered through my biases, it’s Obama’s awful performance that is more important. People are out there, hurting, realizing that all these excuses they’ve been hearing for years might be meant to protect this guy who is actually inept, and they start to become more alarmed at the idea of four more years of this.

But for that to matter, obviously Romney had to show us he was the more competent one (which he did).

we’ll need more to beat the incumbent.

It has been an uphill battle and it would be foolish to rest until it’s over. Republicans have to be enthusiastic about beating Obama, or we won’t win.

Dustin (73fead) — 10/8/2012 @ 8:18 pm

Love that place, JD. Much of my extended family lives in the Utah Valley area and I spent many a wonderful Summer in my yute riding horses, trout fishing, baling hay, etc.. The Heber Valley is a beautiful part of the western U.S.

Colonel Haiku (2fdf4b) — 10/8/2012 @ 8:19 pm

Note that Pew was roundly criticized last month for a giant +D.

I think that as the election day closes in, pollsters get more serious about their work, and polls get more accurate so that reputations are preserved.

Hence a lot of the weird dem oversampling wishcasting starts to wane as November approaches.

Dustin (73fead) — 10/8/2012 @ 8:19 pm

Does he really want to talk taxes and deficits?

No kidding. Every time I see an ad moan about ‘the Romney plan’ or the ‘Obama plan’ I remember that we haven’t had a budget since Michael Jackson was alive.

Dustin (73fead) — 10/8/2012 @ 8:21 pm

Why would Team Barcky, or his “independent” super PAC be wasting their money?

Comment by JD

cuz he spends Chinese campaign contributions like he pisses away the money he borrows from the same people?

Colonel Haiku (2fdf4b) — 10/8/2012 @ 8:22 pm

Been getting some good bike riding in the foothills, which are mountains to me. Going up to the yurt in the Heber area to get the snowmobiles up there before the snow comes.

I don’t like Jon Huntsman, but the Huntsman Cancer Institute is an outstanding facility

JD (7ddc11) — 10/8/2012 @ 8:28 pm

Awww.

About 300 New York Times staffers have staged a walkout to protest management’s position on contract negotiations.

The staffers, members of the Newspaper Guild of New York, are collectively walking out of the New York Times building in Manhattan.

The staffers are calling the paper’s demands “untenable and destructive” as the latest offer from Times negotiators “insisted on major cuts to our wages and benefits.”

According to glassdoor, the average salary for a New York Times staff editor in New York City is $93,571. Who knew the grey lady still even had editors?

http://www.businessinsider.com/new-york-times-staffers-walk-out-2012-10

elissa (da1bf0) — 10/8/2012 @ 8:40 pm

_________________________________________

About 300 New York Times staffers have staged a walkout to protest management’s position on contract negotiations.

Limousine liberals versus latte liberals.

“Let them eat cake,” says one side.

“Let them eat cake,” says the other side.

But their hearts are in the right place.

[Excuse me while I try to hold back my tears]

nationalreview.com via drudgereport.com: On June 6th, the [New York] Times wrote an editorial that claimed, “Labor, so long in decline in the private sector, is also losing its clout in states and cities, unable to match or withstand the unfettered bank accounts of industry.” Indeed.

Mark (6d5e0d) — 10/8/2012 @ 8:50 pm

I think that as the election day closes in, pollsters get more serious about their work, and polls get more accurate so that reputations are preserved.

Well, yes, but the respondents also lie. When the Dem is winning and people are voting for the Dem, they may say they’re Dems when in fact their independents. Same with the Rs. Sometimes it is hard to say whether the result is predicted by the partisan split, or vice versa.

Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 10/8/2012 @ 8:54 pm

*they’re. grr.

Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 10/8/2012 @ 8:54 pm

__________________________________________

Andrew Sullivan has his panties in a serious twist over the latest polling.

Sullivan is generally of the left, but he’s not an ultra-liberal, or flaming liberal. Therefore, people like him are more puzzling to me. They should have less of a visceral sympathy to Obama or less of a gut antipathy to Romney. Even more so in light of things like the Libyan consulate murders, or all the lapses in ethics that cast a shadow over the current White House, or just the radical “goddamn America” background of Obama in general. And also even more so since it’s not like his opponent is a rabid rightwinger.

That’s why I think people who still feel so warm and fuzzy about Obama at this late date either are amazingly ignorant (or dumb) about who he really is, or they’re ultra-liberals in their own right.

Mark (6d5e0d) — 10/8/2012 @ 9:04 pm

The left and media are just setting up the big comeback for the President and Biden.

If Biden comes to the debate drunk and falls off the stage, the fellow travelers will criticize Ryan for not helping an old man up.

Ag80 (b2c81f) — 10/8/2012 @ 9:37 pm

Whatever. Hope Romney can do better if he wins. Be hard to do worse – but if anyone can do it, it’s Mitt Romney.

Too bad we structurally handicap third parties, isn’t it? Maybe we could get some leaders that were worth a sh*t.

Leviticus (17b7a5) — 10/8/2012 @ 9:48 pm

“Too bad we structurally handicap third parties, isn’t it? Maybe we could get some leaders that were worth a sh*t.”

Leviticus – Excuses, excuses. If they were worthy leaders, they would garner some votes or work within the existing two party system to achieve their goals.

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/8/2012 @ 9:54 pm

Well, if Romney proves a turkey or gets captured by DC, we may finally see an independent bid work out with the Tea Party. Perot actually had a chance in 1992 until he went off the rails (and he STILL got 19% from people who didn’t mind crazy given the choices).

Be fun seeing VP Ryan running on the Tea Party ticket against Romney, or primarying him as a Republican.

Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 10/8/2012 @ 10:07 pm

daleyrocks – good point. If only Gary Johnson were willing to work as hard as all those European third party guys…

Libertarians are just systematically lazier and stupider than moderate Republicans, I guess.

Leviticus (17b7a5) — 10/8/2012 @ 10:26 pm

Kevin M,

Everyone knows our electorate doesn’t have enough ‘fun’ !
Rather than the President merely appearing on ‘The View,’ or on the Jimmy Fallon Show to show off his singing skills, you recommend a sitting VP resign his seat to run as an Independent against the President who tapped him to be his VP.

What could possibly go ~~right~~ wrong ?

Elephant Stone (65d289) — 10/8/2012 @ 10:37 pm

Kevin M

There will be no Tea Party Ticket and Ryan has been apart of the government since he left college.

I’m under no illusion that Romney will be a vast improvement over Obama’s rampant socialism or collectivism.

Mitts run towards taxing the rich has left me with a – why should I bother with either situation.

The problems in the middle east make it much easier to vote for mitt – but I fear for 8 years of basically runaway spending by a man who has no clue following a socialist boob.

I will vote for Mitt, but thinking the good people of the tea party are going to magically bail us out is a comforting feeling – but that’s just it – a feeling

EPWJ (8a4ca7) — 10/8/2012 @ 10:49 pm

JD, do you suppose the reason you are seeing ads in Utah is because those stations bleed over into western Colorado and eastern Nevada, two swing states? Otherwise I can’t understand why the Obama campaign would bother.

JVW (f5695c) — 10/8/2012 @ 11:02 pm

“Libertarians are just systematically lazier and stupider than moderate Republicans, I guess.”

Leviticus – It not necessarily laziness, just a philosophy that lacks a core that appeals to enough people to win votes. Whine on.

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/8/2012 @ 11:39 pm

Please, no prevent defense.

Stay on offense.

Doing so will not only take Romney to the WH, but could bury the progressive movement for another 20 years.

scott (3375c8) — 10/9/2012 @ 4:08 am

Dims and Dhimmis will break up over SMOD.

“Go figure that after a summer of ads depicting him as a corporate pirate turned tax cheat and the most radically right-wing nominee since Goldwater, the public was pleasantly surprised to find that he’s a genial technocrat who knows his stuff better than Obama does. The Democrats set the bar low and Romney cleared it by 20 feet. That’s why his favorables have inflated.”

Without a purse to pay the factions Leviticus will get his chance, just not the one he was hoping for.

Rage, rage against the light.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/9/2012 @ 4:41 am

daleyrocks,

Buy into your servitude if you want. I refuse to do the same. We call ourselves a self-governing people, and yet are “represented” by people who think nothing like us, whatsoever. What kind of self-governance is that, again?

Leviticus (17b7a5) — 10/9/2012 @ 6:51 am

Iowahawk is at it again, “Outbreak of Scrutonium”.

I think I stained my LCD with coffee spit, laughing. Again.

rtrski (b47753) — 10/9/2012 @ 6:58 am

Leviticus–one need not buy into the “servitude” to still try and seek out the best outcome possible with whatever the available political choices are at any moment in time. That’s just being realistic. It sounds like non- participation in the process is perhaps your personal way of dealing–but to many others of us it just sounds like a cop out so that whomever wins the presidency or the congress you can later say “well it’s your fault– I didn’t vote for ’em.

Believe me. Having once lived in the city of Chicago I understand fully the feeling that “these people” (in my case liberal Democrats) don’t know the first thing about me, or how I think, and most certainly don’t represent me. Still, in each primary there were almost always choices to be made among the Dem candidates and one of them was going to win. Clearly some of them were more honest and competent and worthy of holding office than others.

You’re going to pay a lot of taxes to various government entities over your lifetime, particularly because of the profession you have chosen. Please consider that fact as you decide how to handle the complexities and personal frustrations you see in election 2012.

elissa (806e04) — 10/9/2012 @ 7:19 am

“It sounds like non- participation in the process is perhaps your personal way of dealing–but to many others of us it just sounds like a cop out so that whomever wins the presidency or the congress you can later say “well it’s your fault– I didn’t vote for ‘em.”

– elissa

I’m certainly going to participate in the process – I’m certainly going to vote, but not for a two-party candidate. It’s not nihilism: what if 50 million people turned up at the polls and decided that they were gonna vote for Gary Johnson?

Hint: he’d be president. We’re stay subjugated by our system because we buy into the idea that a vote expressing true preference is a vote wasted. What kind of f*cked up system is that?

Leviticus (f12861) — 10/9/2012 @ 7:29 am

“Buy into your servitude if you want. I refuse to do the same.”

Leviticus – Circular reasoning. Point out these leaders you think are so great and explain to me why you believe they can’t garner votes to win elected positions. Start with reality and work forward.

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/9/2012 @ 7:46 am

Leviticus@ 7:29 am

Have at it, dude. But your voting third party out of “principle” is as useless and wasted this November as had I voted for a Republican for local elections in Chicago on “principle”. The result—NO representation. Either Obama or Romney is going to win in a month. It might be nice as a citizen to have some stake in the policies and outcome of the next four years while at the same time continuing to work your third party evolution/revolution for future elections.

It’s your vote, though, and it’s also a priceless gift which I wonder if you fully appreciate. I promise I won’t sermonize any more about this.

elissa (806e04) — 10/9/2012 @ 7:56 am

Re: 61, I’ve thought that for a 3 or more candidate race to be viable, there has to be a change of the way we vote: each citizen gets one vote as now, but that can be cast either FOR or AGAINST one candidate. A vote AGAINST a candidate cancels a vote FOR that same candidate in the final tally.

In a 2-candidate contest the only difference is the final tally – you could conceivably even have one candidate with negative net votes, but the result is the same (although the data now tells you a bit more whether it was a ‘referendum’ or a ‘choice’ type vote, doesn’t it?)

Right now, if you vote for a 3rd party because he’s the one you want most, nothing has changed. You’ve cast the vote for the candidate you wanted. If you really don’t like one guy, and are waffling between the other two, you fall in a category of people whose votes are being split between those two in your choice (assuming you don’t get dejected by not wanting to vote ‘for’ anyone, and skip the vote entirely) – and may possibly give the win to the guy you definitely DIDN’T want result. The Perot effect.

But if you could cancel out one vote “for” the guy you really really couldn’t stand, then the 3rd party candidates you don’t mind aren’t spoilers anymore. Those with a strong preference ‘for’ one or the other can make that decision.

Just a weird thought. Haven’t truly gamed it out completely (numerically), but seems like it would make sense. Perhaps introduce a 2stage process with a weedout like I describe for 3 or more candidates, followed by a runoff between the last two, just to prevent their being some election where one guy gets zero votes and the other gets -4% (meaning 48% voted ‘for’ him and 52% ‘against’). Then again…if you add a requirement of a minimum % of positive votes remaining, or throw them both out and start again, what I described above might be a way to stop having bad candidates foisted upon us.

I can dream, can’t I? (And for the record, in this case, I don’t think of Romney as a bad candidate, IMO. He won me over picking Ryan instead of making the safer, political, pandering-to-a-demographic choice, much as Rubio seems like a very sharp cookie and a promising young politician.

rtrski (e79fcd) — 10/9/2012 @ 8:04 am

“It’s your vote, though, and it’s also a priceless gift which I wonder if you fully appreciate. I promise I won’t sermonize any more about this.”

– elissa

I don’t mean this as a slight, and I’m glad to be talking to you, but I think I appreciate it a hell of a lot more than you do.

My vote is my voice, my chance to tell the government who I am and what I stand for. I refuse to tell it that I’m its lackey.

What’s your vote mean to you?

Leviticus (f12861) — 10/9/2012 @ 8:07 am

So my vote is only “useless” if you stipulate that it only has one particular use.

Leviticus (f12861) — 10/9/2012 @ 8:09 am

It’s your vote, though, and it’s also a priceless gift which I wonder if you fully appreciate. I promise I won’t sermonize any more about this.

Comment by elissa — 10/9/2012 @ 7:56 am

You do realize we have two progressives still running correct? One who is an nincompoop socialist and another of is a social butterfly totally as incapable of running the country as the one he hopes to replace.

WE should have realized this in the primary all this hand wringing about Obama is soon going to be replaced by hand wringing about Romney.

I would if I were you start making plans for another terrible 8 years

EPWJ (8a4ca7) — 10/9/2012 @ 8:15 am

And now I’m curious as to what you think that use is.

Leviticus (f12861) — 10/9/2012 @ 8:17 am

Leviticus–I really don’t think I can discuss this without sermonizing and I promised I would quit sermonizing. So I’ll just add this and then leave it there: In our secret ballot system I doubt your individual vote for a third party tells “the government” anything about who you are and what you stand for and whether or not you’re its lackey.

elissa (76bb09) — 10/9/2012 @ 8:30 am

My vote is my voice, my chance to tell the government who I am and what I stand for. I refuse to tell it that I’m its lackey.

— Since when does your vote “tell the government” anything?

Icy (20d2de) — 10/9/2012 @ 8:32 am

The listener doesn’t have to know the speaker to know that he’s been told something by the speaker.

Don’t worry about sermonizing. We can swap sermons.

Leviticus (f12861) — 10/9/2012 @ 8:32 am

What would a Ross Perot victory (say, 60 million votes) have told the two parties?

So, what does one step toward a third-party victory (say, 1 vote) tell the two parties?

Leviticus (f12861) — 10/9/2012 @ 8:34 am

BTW, it’s interesting to note both Leviticus (despite his kvetching) and The Emperor coming out post-debate and saying ‘things won’t be that bad if Mitt’s elected’.

Icy (20d2de) — 10/9/2012 @ 8:36 am

I didn’t say that. I said I hope he can do a better job if he wins, and that it would be hard to do worse but if anyone could do it it was him.

Mitt Romney is a f*cking joke, and his election would be one more in a string of total embarrassments that we present to the world as our leader.

Leviticus (f12861) — 10/9/2012 @ 8:54 am

___________________________________________

Mitt Romney is a f*cking joke, and his election would be one more in a string of total embarrassments that we present to the world as our leader.

I have to laugh when a liberal groans about some politician being a “joke,” or corrupt, or certainly lacking common sense (assuming anyone on the left even considers that a problem).

However, I will wholeheartedly agree with you if you think left-leaning impulses in Mitt Romney will screw him up. That’s my greatest fear. After all, almost every big blunder of a Republican president over the past 70 years has been when they allowed their liberal side to get the better of them. That includes Reagan’s Iran-Contra mess, Bush Sr’s “read my lips, Bush Jr’s “compassionate conservatism” (which morphed into bloated budgets, etc), Nixon from A to Z, Hoover’s tax-and-spend (which helped make the Great Depression truly great).

Mark (6d5e0d) — 10/9/2012 @ 9:08 am

So, what does one step toward a third-party victory (say, 1 vote) tell the two parties?

One thing it might do is tell the GOP that it can earn your support under certain conditions.

But I’m not sure. What are you asking for in a candidate? Romney is the most moderate GOP candidate we’ve ever had, and he’s an experienced leader.

It seems to me that all but liberal voters should prefer Romney to Obama. And I guess you agree that you prefer Romney to Obama.

What specifically does Romney need to be for you to support him?

In the primaries, we discussed many of Romney’s defects, and I preferred the most fiscally conservative and qualified leader I could find (as I do now with Romney… I’m consistent that way). All politicians have defects… most have a lot.

What i’m trying to say is that it’s unrealistic to just turn your nose up at all candidates and insist on protest voting until you get someone who satisfies you. That tells the two major parties that you can be written off.

Unfortunately, the GOP has learned that the moderate Republicans are a more reliable and powerful voting block. They win all the presidential primaries because the libertarians and the conservatives tend to reject even their best bets. In this primary, they were fickle, finding reasons to reject all the more conservative or libertarian candidates, knowing full well the moderates would hold strong.

That’s a lesson for conservatives heading into 2016, but Romney’s shown some signs that he’ll be a good enough president that perhaps that won’t be necessary.

I hope you go ahead and support Romney because the stakes of another four years of Obama are enough that ANY reasonable voter, liberal or conservative or otherwise, should put aside a lot and make a vote that has the best chance of ending this screwed up administration.

But I tend to think you’re voting against the two party system rather than voting against the candidates. Would your vote be different had the GOP nominated Newt, Perry, Cain, etc?

Dustin (73fead) — 10/9/2012 @ 9:23 am

Mitt Romney is a f*cking joke, and his election would be one more in a string of total embarrassments that we present to the world as our leader.

The next president will be either Romney or Obama, and Romney presents the world with a much better leader because Romney would seek to promote his country and not be ashamed of it.

Dustin (73fead) — 10/9/2012 @ 9:25 am

Leviticus, our current President is successfully ridiculed with an empty chair. Explain how Romney would be as much or more of a “joke”.

You can’t.

SPQR (768505) — 10/9/2012 @ 9:31 am

What would a Ross Perot victory (say, 60 million votes) have told the two parties?

Ross Perot winning 19% told them pretty clearly they had to do something about the deficit. Which they did. Clinton jacked up taxes as Democrats are wont to do, and then lost the midterm and had to deal with Republicans wanting to cut spending. They had balanced the budget faster than one would expect, although some of that was the dot-com cap gains windfall that did not last.

But they did address the issue for a while. The question is whether the Tea Party can follow in Perot’s footsteps and force the issue again, or will dissipate with a Romney win and ignore the budget like folks did under Bush.

Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 10/9/2012 @ 9:50 am

Mitt Romney is a f*cking joke, and his election would be one more in a string of total embarrassments that we present to the world as our leader.

I don’t care for Romney, but I don’t see how he would be a facking joke, or an embarrassment.

JD (4cf319) — 10/9/2012 @ 9:58 am

Romney now up +2 in Gallup likely voter poll.

49-47

Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 10/9/2012 @ 10:04 am

They oversampled White over-50 male republicans.

Can’t wait to see Mr. Fatass Republican Unskewed Polls “correct” that one….LOL.

P. Tillman (fcbc8b) — 10/9/2012 @ 10:05 am

Illman complaining about sampling is effin hysterical.

JD (4cf319) — 10/9/2012 @ 10:07 am

P.Tillman, your whine is hilarious given past polling favoring Obama.

Your trolling is getting even more ridiculous.

SPQR (768505) — 10/9/2012 @ 10:08 am

ARG – Romney lead
Kos – Romney lead
Rasmussen – Romney lead
Pew – Romney lead

Oversampling !!!!!!!!!!

JD (4cf319) — 10/9/2012 @ 10:12 am

Illman complaining about sampling is effin hysterical.

Comment by JD — 10/9/2012

He just repeats whatever talking point he’s given. A sign of creativity and intelligence, to be sure.

Dustin (73fead) — 10/9/2012 @ 10:12 am

The poll underrepresented false voter registrations and phony credit card donations, oversampling likely voters!

Dustin (73fead) — 10/9/2012 @ 10:13 am

Losing polling is devastating to Team O’s narrative. Watch for them to just start unloading SQUIRRELS

JD (4cf319) — 10/9/2012 @ 10:17 am

‘oversampling’?
With Tillman it’s more a case of being overdrawn at the memory bank.

Icy (20d2de) — 10/9/2012 @ 10:17 am

Big squirrels, JD, with oversize teeth.

SPQR (768505) — 10/9/2012 @ 10:23 am

“My vote is my voice, my chance to tell the government who I am and what I stand for.”

Leviticus – How many votes do you think The Humungus, aka Ayatollah of Rock-n-rolla, would receive in a run for Congress or Senate? How many people share your beliefs, such as they are?

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/9/2012 @ 10:30 am

“Losing polling is devastating to Team O’s narrative. Watch for them to just start unloading SQUIRRELS”

JD – The implosion of their big talking point about Romney’s coming tax increases for the middle class, endlessly hyped for months and months, is also credibility destroying.

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/9/2012 @ 10:34 am

“My vote is my voice, my chance to tell the government who I am and what I stand for.”

Or it’s your chance to promote your preference among options. You shouldn’t make this into existentialism. No politician at the highest level really captures who any of us are, do they?

Voting third party is an expression of dissatisfaction with the two parties (or the two party system), and I think if THAT expression is more important to you than taking your best shot at ending the Obama administration, you should reconsider.

Dustin (73fead) — 10/9/2012 @ 10:36 am

“My vote is my voice, my chance to tell the government who I am and what I stand for.”

Leviticus – I thought voting was anonymous.

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/9/2012 @ 10:39 am

We’re having a new water heater installed today. I noticed the plumber had Rush’s program playing on his portable radio and the subject was polls and sampling. Hmmmm. I guess not all union guys are Dems.

elissa (76bb09) — 10/9/2012 @ 10:55 am

It’s starting to look that 320 EC votes will be a floor.
What was that?
Did I just hear a Tsunami Warning?

AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92) — 10/9/2012 @ 10:55 am

I don’t want to stir anything up, but I think Dustin’s point is spot on. And I think that some of the “a pox upon both their houses” approach is philosophical. Me, I have never voted happily for any candidate. I have always held my nose and voted for the “least bad” candidate.

My parents in 1992 were a great example of this—they detested Clinton, but were disappointed in GHWB. So they “sent a message” by voting Perot. Unfortunately, this had two results: (i) no message was received by the RNC, and (ii) that vote allowed eight years of Clinton.

So every time my parents would rail about Clinton, I would simply point out that their vote helped make that possible. Unfair? Not really. They wanted to vote third party, and also complain about the winner….when they, to be brutal, helped him win.

This election isn’t about anything different. Remember that the President is on “good behavior” now, going toward election. Imagine what he’ll do without being concerned with re-election.

I’m not trying to snark at anyone, or given anyone a bad time. But I do think Santayana was spot on.

Simon Jester (c8876d) — 10/9/2012 @ 10:58 am

92. “You shouldn’t make this into existentialism.”

IMHO, Leviticus, a point worth listening to, and one that attempts to bridge a gulf.

Having started from a congruent position regarding this GOP, insofar as our ideals were not being addressed–whatever your’s might in fact be–some significant goals I had in mind were addressed.

Speaking for myself, had I not established a minimum price for my vote and general accord with the ‘opposition’ would I not just be an effete cynic? Going to the wall for my ideals but in the end to no useful purpose.

Not saying you haven’t gone to the work of establishing goals and a minimum measure of progress toward them, just putting it out there.

Picking Ryan not only was a visible accomodation he is a mole on the inside. What I want for the future of Amerikkka isn’t perfectly represented by the WI GOP but it is inarguably a significant step toward those goals. Willard on several occasions made States Rights noises and uttered 1Oth amendment shibboleths.

I am given continuing evidence that Ryan was not a one-off and have reason to hope to be proven wrong in sum or in part about this candidate.

If you cannot visualize your self at that juncture then consider whether it is possible at all or whether you just like feeling the martyr.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/9/2012 @ 11:01 am

Leviticus,

I also detest men* who wish power over the lives and property of other men. I might detest it more, had I not heard it from one king talking to another king.

*Women are a different matter. 😉

nk (875f57) — 10/9/2012 @ 11:06 am

Picking Ryan not only was a visible accomodation he is a mole on the inside. What I want for the future of Amerikkka isn’t perfectly represented by the WI GOP but it is inarguably a significant step toward those goals. Willard on several occasions made States Rights noises and uttered 1Oth amendment shibboleths.

He’s surprised me with a lot of these points. If Romney turns out to be a conservative president, I will be delighted with all the egg on my face. And I’m willing to express hope that this is a possibility.

But it’s not hope that Romney will be a better president than Obama. That point is obvious. Many of Obama’s failures come from being a weak leader who doesn’t have our interests at heart, but rather is transforming our country for his idea of what the world needs. Romney won’t do that, and he’s a far more experienced leader. And he has met a payroll or two.

Remember that the President is on “good behavior” now, going toward election. Imagine what he’ll do without being concerned with re-election.

Simon, that’s a big point too. This is the president who lapses into arguing “I won” if he thinks he can get away with it. he will rely on executive fiat and Obamacare will fully kick in.

And his argument for why we should let him: He likes Big Bird the most.

Dustin (73fead) — 10/9/2012 @ 11:11 am

94. Agreed, Michgan doesn’t seem ready to fall into line, e.g., Stabenow out to a daunting lead, but I see no reason they shouldn’t reject Down Low.

Michgan battery plant just furloughed its workers. Why Dims with anything to do on a Tuesday would show for Urkel is beyond me.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/9/2012 @ 11:38 am

I have been reading many sites to see how many are digesting the first pres debate. I finally read something at a site other than this one that did not cause me indigestion.

From Buzz Bissinger: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/08/buzz-bissinger-why-i-m-voting-for-mitt-romney.html

“The tipping point toward a candidate is perhaps the greatest act of individuality in our unique democracy, although in this day and age of unprecedented political divide, telling somebody who you are voting for has no upside: There is no respect for your right as a citizen, but outright hatred from those who do not agree with you.”

My being an independant affords me no slack.

Felipe (3243af) — 10/9/2012 @ 1:39 pm

There is no respect for your right as a citizen, but outright hatred from those who do not agree with you.

I think those who are hateful are simply shouting so loudly, and those who respect your freedom are often not really saying much about it.

For example, I respect Leviticus’s disagreement on who to vote for. I show that respect by trying to persuade him the way I would want someone to try to persuade me.

Dustin (73fead) — 10/9/2012 @ 3:27 pm

Stacy Dash is Teh Awesome.

JD (4cf319) — 10/9/2012 @ 4:45 pm

Most people do not hate each other. I exchange smiles, “please” and “thank you”, with the people I meet walking down the street.

nk (875f57) — 10/9/2012 @ 5:03 pm

Some of them are darker than I am.

nk (875f57) — 10/9/2012 @ 5:04 pm

10/8/2012

Pew: Romney 49, Obama 45

106 Responses to “Pew: Romney 49, Obama 45”

Favorite Sites

Links

Patterico Sells Out