I'm calling the election - Obama will win

[Big Smoothy]

Well today is September 29th, and with 4 weeks and a couple days to go, the data is too consistent and solid in the states that now matter.

Obama will win.

The debates will not change anything as the questions are given weeks in advance, both prepare and practice with debate partners and nothing new will come of them be it good or bad.

Whether one likes it or not, Obama will win this.

This is not really an opinion, but it's based on data.


Some of you will celebrate; others will be sanguine; others will not care much as it's just business as usual.


Discuss.....

 

[Standard Donkey]

what is this "data" that you speak of?

 

[dogsoldier]

It ain't over 'till its over.

 

[Nyid]

Lol sadly I agree. Too many idiots here in the states so they probably will vote him back in. He's leading in electoral college as well

 

[Big Smoothy]

what is this "data" that you speak of?

Real Clear which is an amalgam of several different polling companies.

Also, Politico.

There are 7 toss-up states (including FL, but I now do not consider Florida to be a toss-up state).

Romney needs all 7 toss-ups and more.

It's a done deal at this point. The spread has always been there and it's solidifying.

 

[Standard Donkey]

romney is gunna have to whip his cock out during the debates to wake up the american people

 

[Big Smoothy]

romney is gunna have to whip his cock out during the debates to wake up the american people

The debates are pretty much meaningless, except for the minute percentage of lively voters that are 1. undecided and 2. vote in (about 6) states.

As noted, the questions for all 3 Presidential and the 1 VP debate were given to both candidates weeks ago.

There will be no surprises.

Both candidates and campaigns, have researched, rehearsed, practiced, and have collected their soundbytes and one-line zinger in case the opportunity arises to use one or more of them.

The debate will provide no new information.

 

[Standard Donkey]

there has been talk of the polls being flawed and inaccurate.. seriously hope that talk is right

 

[Big Smoothy]

there has been talk of the polls being flawed and inaccurate.. seriously hope that talk is right

I've read this also - but what I do not understand is that there are several polling companies and the number point towards Obama.

Some variation and at times it can be from 1-3% percentage points with Rassmussen always seeming to lean away from BO and to Romney.

The problem with Rassmussen is that they got 9 states wrong in the previous election (iirrcc).

When polling is done properly, it is a science.

When you take an amalgam of several different polls, put them together with averages (including the + and -) you really cannot go wrong.

As I stated, this election is done.

 

[theCaptn']

I've read this also - but what I do not understand is that there are several polling companies and the number point towards Obama.

Some variation and at times it can be from 1-3% percentage points with Rassmussen always seeming to lean away from BO and to Romney.

The problem with Rassmussen is that they got 9 states wrong in the previous election (iirrcc).

When polling is done properly, it is a science.

When you take an amalgam of several different polls, put them together with averages (including the + and -) you really cannot go wrong.

As I stated, this election is done.

LAM says you're wrong Jew

 

[Big Smoothy]

LAM says you're wrong Jew

Hey pal, I would never lead LAM nor you astray.

I'll take the Pepsi challenge anyday.

Obama is a c*ck. He sux.

But I'm calling the election - I did on Sept. 29th.

If Obama loses, I will not post here for 6 months.

This is now on the record.

 

[hoyle21]

People will be voting more against Romney than for Obama but I agree that Obama wins.

Romney is a cocksucker. He's an elitist who was born with a silver spoon and feels he is entitled.

Let's see what happens with the house and senate.

 

[Standard Donkey]

People will be voting more against Romney than for Obama but I agree that Obama wins.

Romney is a cocksucker. He's an elitist who was born with a silver spoon and feels he is entitled.

Let's see what happens with the house and senate.

allofmywut

 

[dirtbiker666]

Bama given out free cell phones Ima vote for him !

 

[ALBOB]

Rassmussen always seeming to lean away from BO and to Romney.

Rassmussen was the most accurate in '08.

The reason the others lean so heavily for BO is that they oversample Dems. For the other pols to be correct this year the Dem turnout would have to be larger than in '08. I haven't heard a single "reliable" source who thinks that's gonna happen.

 

[dirtbiker666]

Original Obamaphone Lady: Obama Voter Says Vote for Obama because he gives a free Phone - YouTube

 

[Standard Donkey]

Duh ho-bama pho!

 

[FUZO]

Ramussen has it dead even and thats not good for Barry.The tv news liberal media is making him look like he's winning in all the polls but he's not and its going to be a 7-10 point victory for Romney.If you democrats think Barry is winning with the last 4 years going to shit and nothing is better your kidding yourself .Barry cannot run on his 4 years and this time the american people know it they feel it bad this time.So this bigsmoothy guy see ya in 6 months dude.The turn out this time wont be like in o8 it will be less for Barry and it will be more for Romney because this is are life now if we get this wrong we will turn into a socialist greece nation and say goodby to what AMERICA has acheived.This is the most Important election of our lifetime if not the most Important.Its a must that a Republican gets into office

 

[GearsMcGilf]

I agree. Obama is going to win. People simply can't stand Romney. They see him as the quintessential arrogant, greedy, rich wall street insider fat cat. People aren't as fired up about Barry as they were in '08, but enough people hate Romney that Barry seems to have this wrapped up.

This time, I actually have mixed feelings. On the one hand, Barry seems to be an impotent president with no real leadsership abilities at all. Romney does have leadership qualities and real world private sector success and the ability to fix problems. He understands business and economics, as does Ryan. But, his talk about tax cuts and deregulation make me nervous as fuck, considering that this is what got us into trouble, starting in back in the 80s. Then, enter Bush; more tax cuts and artificially low interest rates (Greenspan's fault more than Bush) and we had an artificial boom based on borrowed money rapidly changing hands. When the music stopped, the house of cards came crashing down and we almost ended up in another great depression. All this makes me not even want to vote this time around. There doesn't seem like a descent candidate on the ballot this time, just as there wasn't last time.

 

[GearsMcGilf]

I actually think that a longer, protracted recovery based on a natural correction in the economy may be better for us in the long run than another artificially stimulated boom based on deregulation and further tax cuts that may put us back in the same predicament in 5 years. I hate to agree with LAM, but an ineffective president who sits back and lets shit happen just might be better than one who gets govt too involved and causes another bubble. Not saying I'm gonna pull the lever for Barry, but this isn't a time to be voting on social issues like abortion, ghey marriage, and flag burning.

 

[LAM]

Romney does have leadership qualities and real world private sector success and the ability to fix problems. He understands business and economics, as does Ryan. But, his talk about tax cuts and deregulation make me nervous as fuck, considering that this is what got us into trouble, starting in back in the 80s.

the only way to fix what has been done to labor over the past 30 years is to undue the legislation that was passed and that ain't happening. that would mean to take from the top and "give back" to the bottom. that is the exact opposite of Ryan's reverse robin hood budget which would only result in the utter devastation of the middle class.

being a businessman has no value in being president. look at the increase in GDP over the past 30 years yet 70% of the country is being paid low wages. same thing with many of the high GDP states in the south they rank in the bottom 50% of per capita income because the majority of that is being made by large firms not local economy's so there is no benefit to the local areas with the exception of some small numbers of employment.

we are reaping the effects of 30 years of neo-liberal economic policy right now and there is nothing than can fix it as the entire nature of the US economy is not the same in 2012 as it was in the 80's. small firms can not compete with large firms most markets so there is not much in profits to be made. only a small percentage of the workers at each small business make decent wages. they might employee people but the wages are not sufficient to consume beyond the bare essentials with out going into debt.

 

[Gissurjon]

romney is gunna have to whip his cock out during the debates to wake up the american people

I doubt it is big enough to reach through underwear+pants, no homo. He might have to pull his pants down and provide audience with those old school theater binoculars.

My cousin's aunt's 3rd husband heard that the same trainer that used to molest his wife's horse also handled the insemination due to lack of penis. Might not be true, but probably is since at least 3 people I know say it is.

 

[Big Smoothy]

Bama given out free cell phones Ima vote for him !

Oops dirbiker666,

That is a hoax. The fact that some GOP fringers are doing this show that they are in a hurting position. (Again, Obama sux.)

GOP debunked: 'Obama phone' does not exist, program started in 2008 under Bush

The Obama phone does not exist.

A video has surfaced of a woman at an Obama rally in Cleveland, Ohio who claims she was given a free mobile phone, which she called an "Obama phone."

The video was originally featured on DrudgeReport.com, a right leaning publication. Naturally republicans nationwide jumped at the chance to use this video as evidence against President Obama's policies in an attempt to discredit him. It might have worked, except the "Obama phone" does not exist.

This matter is resurfacing now, but it was originally debunked back in 2009 by Factcheck.org. Presently thinkprogress.org has taken the lead charge in debunking this myth.

As it happens the "Obama phone" actually was signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2008. The program is called "SafeLink Wireless." An article from August 2008 confirms this.

How could it be an "Obama phone" when, at that time, the president had barely won the nomination two months prior?

Once again the GOP has reacted without having the facts, and once again they are holding an empty sack.

Video of this incident is attached on the left side.

Source: GOP debunked: 'Obama phone' does not exist, program started in 2008 under Bush - Detroit liberal | Examiner.com

 

[Big Smoothy]

Ramussen has it dead even and thats not good for Barry.

FUZO,

National polls mean absolutely nothing.

 

[Imens]

I agree to! He will win

 

[cshea2]

OP, you're really go out on a limb there, eh?

Obama leads in key battleground states OH, VA, even MI Romney's home state. I guess the electorates in those key states could vote Romney in, but I doubt it.

 

[GearsMcGilf]

the only way to fix what has been done to labor over the past 30 years is to undue the legislation that was passed and that ain't happening. that would mean to take from the top and "give back" to the bottom. that is the exact opposite of Ryan's reverse robin hood budget which would only result in the utter devastation of the middle class.

being a businessman has no value in being president. look at the increase in GDP over the past 30 years yet 70% of the country is being paid low wages. same thing with many of the high GDP states in the south they rank in the bottom 50% of per capita income because the majority of that is being made by large firms not local economy's so there is no benefit to the local areas with the exception of some small numbers of employment.

we are reaping the effects of 30 years of neo-liberal economic policy right now and there is nothing than can fix it as the entire nature of the US economy is not the same in 2012 as it was in the 80's. small firms can not compete with large firms most markets so there is not much in profits to be made. only a small percentage of the workers at each small business make decent wages. they might employee people but the wages are not sufficient to consume beyond the bare essentials with out going into debt.

Yes, small firms can't compete with big box firms. I remember when video rental stores were all mom & pop shops before you had the Blockbusters, netflix, etc. Even Blockbuster couldn't survive when Netfix came on the scene. But, that's just capitalism/survival of the fittest. I don't see anything wrong with that. Businesses have to adapt as technology emerges and markets change. I'm sure horse and bugy manufacturers were upset when Henry Ford came on the scene. That's life. But, I think "free trade" has fucked the middle class and working class over the last 25 years far more than neo-con economic policies. An American worker being paid $15-$20/hr plus insurance and 401K, union or non union, can't compete with a Chinese, Vietnamese, or Mexican worker who's being paid $1/hr with no benefits. The Chinese are fucking us. Any foreign product you buy in China will have at least a 20% mark-up, whether it's a car or a Polo shirt. It's bullshit and our masters look the other way and pretend like it's not happening.

 

[LAM]

Yes, small firms can't compete with big box firms. I remember when video rental stores were all mom & pop shops before you had the Blockbusters, netflix, etc. Even Blockbuster couldn't survive when Netfix came on the scene. But, that's just capitalism/survival of the fittest. I don't see anything wrong with that. Businesses have to adapt as technology emerges and markets change.

there is only so much change certain sectors of the economy can make and the benefits of advancements in technology are not shared across all markets.

and it is not simply survival of the fittest not when large firms have direct access to lawmakers via lobbyists and special interest groups that small firms do not have simply because they do not generate the revenues and can not afford it. year after year legislation is passed which only benefits the large firms so how can small firms ever possibly compete in all sectors? they can't and the revenues of most US small firms show that. how does a small firm compete with say a Wallmart when they require their buyers to come in at 5% less year after year? in many cases that requires certain buyers to constantly look for a cheaper and cheaper source of labor to manufacturer their goods, etc. and we see the direct effect of this top of policy with clothing manufactures as they constantly shift production from country to country in SE Asia. as wages rise to high in one place the work is relocated to another country with a lower standard of living, etc.

there are numerous study's that show that too many large firms have a negative effect on local economy's because the profits generated by them are basically extracted from that economy with the only return being the wages paid to the workers it employees. so to simply say it's just survival of the fittest is fine but it does not address the negative economic effects that large firms may have on local economy's. think of all the retailers that have closed over the years, nothing has replaced them so then where do those people go to find employment? everyone can't work in the low wage service sector in retail and fast food selling clothes, etc. and crap food to each other.

reports from Congress in the 70's clearly state a lack of jobs in most metro areas then we have outsourcing go into effect several decades later which means even more jobs lost which paid moderate wages. I don't understand how people can come to a logical conclusion that these problems resolve themselves.

 

[Big Smoothy]

OP, you're really go out on a limb there, eh?

Obama leads in key battleground states OH, VA, even MI Romney's home state. I guess the electorates in those key states could vote Romney in, but I doubt it.

I do not know if OH and VA would get Obama to 270, but the list of "toss-ups" and leans do get him over 270.

Did I go out on a limb? Not really (but think you're joking.)

I think this election had Obama winning about 3 weeks ago for sure. Even more solidified now.

 

[GearsMcGilf]

there is only so much change certain sectors of the economy can make and the benefits of advancements in technology are not shared across all markets.

and it is not simply survival of the fittest not when large firms have direct access to lawmakers via lobbyists and special interest groups that small firms do not have simply because they do not generate the revenues and can not afford it. year after year legislation is passed which only benefits the large firms so how can small firms ever possibly compete in all sectors? they can't and the revenues of most US small firms show that. how does a small firm compete with say a Wallmart when they require their buyers to come in at 5% less year after year? in many cases that requires certain buyers to constantly look for a cheaper and cheaper source of labor to manufacturer their goods, etc. and we see the direct effect of this top of policy with clothing manufactures as they constantly shift production from country to country in SE Asia. as wages rise to high in one place the work is relocated to another country with a lower standard of living, etc.

there are numerous study's that show that too many large firms have a negative effect on local economy's because the profits generated by them are basically extracted from that economy with the only return being the wages paid to the workers it employees. so to simply say it's just survival of the fittest is fine but it does not address the negative economic effects that large firms may have on local economy's. think of all the retailers that have closed over the years, nothing has replaced them so then where do those people go to find employment? everyone can't work in the low wage service sector in retail and fast food selling clothes, etc. and crap food to each other.

reports from Congress in the 70's clearly state a lack of jobs in most metro areas then we have outsourcing go into effect several decades later which means even more jobs lost which paid moderate wages. I don't understand how people can come to a logical conclusion that these problems resolve themselves.

Yes, not saying it's fair. But, I still say it's survival of the fittest. Even Wal Mart started out as a one store mom & pop shop in the beginning. But, Sam Walton built it into an empire because he figured out how to do retail better and more efficiently than anyone else. It just is what it is. There are also two sides. I hate outsourcing also. It fucks the US worker who can't compete with cheap Chinese labor. On the flipside, it creates jobs and prosperity in poor parts of the world. Although, I'm more concerned about the factories that close and move overseas than I am with bringing jobs to remote Chinese villages. On the positive side, western products are insanely popular in China nowadays and as the middle class continues to grow in China, I think we'll see the trade deficit closing significantly over the next 10-20 years.