Thread: LANDSLIDE? Hidden Vote?

I'm betting on the 6th it will go:

Early state results come in-Someone for Romney and/or "the right" claim its going to be a landslide!

Then the 8 o'clocks come in and either someone goes landslide again, or someone laughs at the early landslide, or there is 40 pages of stupid shit on why state "x" does/doesn't matter, the west will win it, or something.

That or Ohio comes in, and everyone bickers about healthcare or abortion or something because it (the election result) doesn't matter now that Ohio is in...

My question is this. What makes their polls so different from other polls that they get these results?

I feel like the guy said it himself. A third of the country only has cell phones in their home, like myself, and it is expensive to call them up and get their opinion. I'd be more inclined to believe more of the older generation have land lines in their homes than the younger.

Originally Posted by ~BigTymer~

Dick Morris the Dem pollster

Rofl!

Well, I thought I'd let this thread unfold a little before I made serious comment. It looks as though the cat's out of the bag finally as far as I'm concerned with regard to why I said (how long ago?) that Romney would win by a landslide. Only the least informed Obama voters, the ones with blinders on firmly, will be voting for President Obama.

I have a few years of life experience on most of you, and one thing I can tell you is that in my lifetime I have never seen a failure to perform or to lead like I have seen from this current President. I have said previously that President Obama was the worst President since Jimmy Carter. I don't think most of you are even old enough to understand what that means. Now that I have researched the economy even more extensively, I can easily say that President Obama has been the worst President in the modern era (post 1900), even worse than Carter.

Here are the factors that I know to be true and that guide me in my views on any election...

1. Democrats almost never win two terms. The only Democrat to serve two full terms since 1944 was Bill Clinton. For Clinton, it was a solid third party candidate in Ross Perot that won him a second term. Perot took over 8% of the vote, and Clinton won with only 49% of the popular vote. Clinton was actually doing a pretty decent job and still barely won reelection.

2. Only one President in history has gotten re-elected with unemployment numbers this high. And that was FDR.

3. President Obama is a terrible leader. Benghazi, Fast & Furious, Egypt, Iran, Syria, Pakistan, Keystone, The Middle East apology tour, an expansion of the divide between Republicans and Democrats rather than bringing them together, and Obama breaking virtually every promise he made during his 4 years in office all point to terrible leadership. This is irrefutable.

4. The voting public is much, much more sophisticated than they ever get credit for. They have woken up to the truth about this President and they have had enough. The lies aren't working any more. I have believed for a long time that this would cause voter enthusiasm to increase for Republicans and to drop for Democrats. The recent numbers are pointing to me being correct on this.

5. Independent voters almost always vote for the challenger by a 2 to 1 margin. Recent poll numbers are bearing this out as well.

This isn't rocket science guys. It's common sense.

Landslide.

Originally Posted by -Lazarus-

Well, I thought I'd let this thread unfold a little before I made serious comment. It looks as though the cat's out of the bag finally as far as I'm concerned with regard to why I said (how long ago?) that Romney would win by a landslide. Only the least informed Obama voters, the ones with blinders on firmly, will be voting for President Obama.

Lol.

Originally Posted by -Lazarus-

I have a few years of life experience on most of you, and one thing I can tell you is that in my lifetime I have never seen a failure to perform or to lead like I have seen from this current President. I have said previously that President Obama was the worst President since Jimmy Carter. I don't think most of you are even old enough to understand what that means. Now that I have researched the economy even more extensively, I can easily say that President Obama has been the worst President in the modern era (post 1900), even worse than Carter.

Did you sleep through Bush's Presidency or what? Bush gave us two unpaid wars, the PATRIOT Act and other privacy-invading acts, a massive deficit, and an economy in the shitter, the worst since the Great Depression. But yet, the recovery we've made under Obama means he's the worst ever, lol.

Originally Posted by -Lazarus-

Here are the factors that I know to be true and that guide me in my views on any election...

1. Democrats almost never win two terms. The only Democrat to serve two full terms since 1944 was Bill Clinton. For Clinton, it was a solid third party candidate in Ross Perot that won him a second term. Perot took over 8% of the vote, and Clinton won with only 49% of the popular vote. Clinton was actually doing a pretty decent job and still barely won reelection.

Lol, this is the most asinine factor you have. Clinton served two terms and so did Truman. Between them, JFK was assassinated, so he had no chance, LBJ chose not to run for reelection, and Carter lost reelection. How you can extrapolate "Democrats never win two terms" from that is crazy.

Originally Posted by -Lazarus-

2. Only one President in history has gotten re-elected with unemployment numbers this high. And that was FDR.

And this election is taking place after the worst economic disaster since, wait for it, the Great Depression. Polls show people still don't blame Obama for this mess, so this factor is moot.

Originally Posted by -Lazarus-

3. President Obama is a terrible leader. Benghazi, Fast & Furious, Egypt, Iran, Syria, Pakistan, Keystone, The Middle East apology tour, an expansion of the divide between Republicans and Democrats rather than bringing them together, and Obama breaking virtually every promise he made during his 4 years in office all point to terrible leadership. This is irrefutable.

Benghazi has been blown out of proportion and lied about by the right, same for Fast & Furious. The Middle East and the Arab Spring had nothing to do with Obama and the "apology tour" is another right wing lie. The Republicans in Congress are the ones who refused to work with Obama and were willing to hurt this country for political gain. Obama's leadership has been far superior to his predecessor. The world prefers Obama to Romney, too, by massive margins, so he must be doing something right.

Originally Posted by -Lazarus-

4. The voting public is much, much more sophisticated than they ever get credit for. They have woken up to the truth about this President and they have had enough. The lies aren't working any more. I have believed for a long time that this would cause voter enthusiasm to increase for Republicans and to drop for Democrats. The recent numbers are pointing to me being correct on this.

No, they aren't. The most recent WaPo/ABC poll had 66% very enthusiastic for Obama and 62% very enthusiastic for Romney. Source. Fox News says 92% of Obama voters will definitely vote for him versus 91% for Romney. Source. CBS/NYT has it as 59% very enthusiastic for Obama and 68% for Romney. Source. The numbers do not support the idea that the Republicans are far more enthused than Democrats. They may carry a slight advantage, but it's slight at best.

Originally Posted by -Lazarus-

5. Independent voters almost always vote for the challenger by a 2 to 1 margin. Recent poll numbers are bearing this out as well.

Wishful thinking. No President or challenger has lost independent voters by a 2 to 1 margin recently. Obama beat the incumbent party in 2008 and won the independent vote by 8%. Kerry only won the independent vote by 1% and lost the election. Bush won them in 2000 by only 2% against the incumbent party and lost the popular vote. So there is absolutely nothing here to support your belief that they go 2-to-1 to the challenger. In fact, it looks like you made that up.

Originally Posted by -Lazarus-

This isn't rocket science guys. It's common sense.

Landslide.

November 6th should be a fun day.

Originally Posted by Fovezer

Lol.



Did you sleep through Bush's Presidency or what? Bush gave us two unpaid wars, the PATRIOT Act and other privacy-invading acts, a massive deficit, and an economy in the shitter, the worst since the Great Depression. But yet, the recovery we've made under Obama means he's the worst ever, lol.



Lol, this is the most asinine factor you have. Clinton served two terms and so did Truman. Between them, JFK was assassinated, so he had no chance, LBJ chose not to run for reelection, and Carter lost reelection. How you can extrapolate "Democrats never win two terms" from that is crazy.



And this election is taking place after the worst economic disaster since, wait for it, the Great Depression. Polls show people still don't blame Obama for this mess, so this factor is moot.



Benghazi has been blown out of proportion and lied about by the right, same for Fast & Furious. The Middle East and the Arab Spring had nothing to do with Obama and the "apology tour" is another right wing lie. The Republicans in Congress are the ones who refused to work with Obama and were willing to hurt this country for political gain. Obama's leadership has been far superior to his predecessor. The world prefers Obama to Romney, too, by massive margins, so he must be doing something right.



No, they aren't. The most recent WaPo/ABC poll had 66% very enthusiastic for Obama and 62% very enthusiastic for Romney. Source. Fox News says 92% of Obama voters will definitely vote for him versus 91% for Romney. Source. CBS/NYT has it as 59% very enthusiastic for Obama and 68% for Romney. Source. The numbers do not support the idea that the Republicans are far more enthused than Democrats. They may carry a slight advantage, but it's slight at best.



Wishful thinking. No President or challenger has lost independent voters by a 2 to 1 margin recently. Obama beat the incumbent party in 2008 and won the independent vote by 8%. Kerry only won the independent vote by 1% and lost the election. Bush won them in 2000 by only 2% against the incumbent party and lost the popular vote. So there is absolutely nothing here to support your belief that they go 2-to-1 to the challenger. In fact, it looks like you made that up.



November 6th should be a fun day.

Do you take yourself seriously? The only difference between You and Laz is that your are on opposing teams. Your both way off reality.


Sent from my iPhone.

Early voting showing for Obama

Sent from my Motorola Photon Cannon!

This is what it looks like when Fov and Laz get into it...

Red vs. Blue

Originally Posted by Fovezer

Difference is I use facts to support my claims and I'm not the one proclaiming a "landslide" for one side or the other. I'm saying all the polling data we have points to an Obama victory. That is using evidence to draw a conclusion and not just going by your gut and pretending what you HOPE to be true really is. That's delusion. And who are you to make these claims? Most of the time the only way I can distinguish you two is by looking at the username. You two are remarkably similar in views.

Um yea. Sure


Sent from my iPhone.