All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > Obama loses again.
10/20/2012 3:11 PM (edited)
Posted by moy23 on 10/19/2012 7:26:00 AM (view original):
Posted by seamar_116 on 10/19/2012 4:33:00 AM (view original):
<<A You know of course that everyone said that in fact Romeny was right and Obama was wrong. So if it wasnt for the inappropriate actions of Crowly Romney would have expalined it. Candy worked pretty hard all night protecting her boyfroend.>>


"Acts of terror" = terrorist attacks. Come on Swamp...hold your mancrush for just a minute...Romney was wrong, thought he was right and ran into the "wall" like Wile E. Coyote running into a painted tunnel. And then getting hit by the truck coming out of the painted tunnel. "Please. Proceed."

What does "acts of terror" mean, if not "terrorist acts"?

Really, Obama is Crowley's boyfriend? If the Romney team is so stupid to allow that to happen, then he clearly does not deserve to be president!
I did not see it that way.... and interestingly enough Gallup and Rasmussen polls continue to have the momentum in mitts corner. Especially for independents. Ohio, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina polling has come out since the 2nd debate. Ohio remained the same 49 Obama, 48 Mitt.... new Hampshire and Nevada tightened up for mitt.... nc is pulling ahead for mitt. Gallup just had mitt up 7% among likely voters.

I would think if mitt blundered as much as you suggest the opposite results would be occurring right now. Just sayin.
Repost for stinenavy.... another lib that can't comprehend what he reads.

That's more than just 1 Missouri poll.... and if mitt blundered so badly with binders full of women etc.... then even that Missouri poll would start to swing somewhat towards Obama, one would think, right? What i am discussing has nothing to do with electoral politics.
10/20/2012 3:11 PM
Posted by stinenavy on 10/20/2012 2:53:00 PM (view original):
I'd question your knowledge of electoral politics with your citing of a Missouri poll being of importance.
See above^^
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
10/20/2012 7:38 PM
You owe me money *****. Pay up.
10/20/2012 7:57 PM
10/20/2012 8:00 PM
And the best joke would be a tie and the House gets to decide...And Romney wins.

The Democrats would be calling that a "Stolen" election forever just like 2000!
10/20/2012 8:12 PM
Posted by moy23 on 10/20/2012 2:04:00 PM (view original):
Posted by antonsirius on 10/20/2012 1:30:00 PM (view original):
Posted by moy23 on 10/19/2012 11:20:00 AM (view original):
Posted by jvford on 10/19/2012 7:55:00 AM (view original):
I don't think there's anything out there yet that includes very much post debate polling.
Missouri - 54 Romney, 43 Obama. Virginia - 50 Romney, 47 Obama. Both from Rasmussen. Both show increasing romney leads after the 2nd debate. Both indicate mitts gaffes that were pointed out in this thread were not nearly as bad as being portrayed by some here
Cherry-picking polls doesn't get Romney any closer to the White House, moy. He's got to run the table in the swing states, he's still behind in most of them, and his post-first debate momentum has already subsided.
No... but a little reading comprehension might get you closer to what I was discussing.... The left here claiming mitts gaffes hugely impacted the race. Mitt still has momentum even after those 'gaffes'. That's what those polls show.

As to what you are referring to... Mitt will win. I'm not too worried about that. Different discussion .
Those specific cherry-picked polls maybe show continued Romney momentum. All polls in aggregate taken since the second debate don't show continued momentum for Romney in the least, unless you decide to unskew them into submission.

Also, early voting numbers in states that allow it have been favoring Dems by a not insignificant margin. Mitt may have re-ignited GOP enthusiasm with his first debate performance, but they haven't bothered getting off the couch yet.

I also must have missed the multiple posts from "the left" in this thread that claimed Mitt's second debate performance would have a "huge" impact. Could you point them out?
10/20/2012 8:29 PM
Posted by antoncresten on 10/19/2012 11:30:00 AM (view original):
RASMUSSEN IS ****

OBAMA- 343 WILLARD- 195
No way Obama gets to 300...
10/20/2012 8:51 PM
Posted by antonsirius on 10/20/2012 8:12:00 PM (view original):
Posted by moy23 on 10/20/2012 2:04:00 PM (view original):
Posted by antonsirius on 10/20/2012 1:30:00 PM (view original):
Posted by moy23 on 10/19/2012 11:20:00 AM (view original):
Posted by jvford on 10/19/2012 7:55:00 AM (view original):
I don't think there's anything out there yet that includes very much post debate polling.
Missouri - 54 Romney, 43 Obama. Virginia - 50 Romney, 47 Obama. Both from Rasmussen. Both show increasing romney leads after the 2nd debate. Both indicate mitts gaffes that were pointed out in this thread were not nearly as bad as being portrayed by some here
Cherry-picking polls doesn't get Romney any closer to the White House, moy. He's got to run the table in the swing states, he's still behind in most of them, and his post-first debate momentum has already subsided.
No... but a little reading comprehension might get you closer to what I was discussing.... The left here claiming mitts gaffes hugely impacted the race. Mitt still has momentum even after those 'gaffes'. That's what those polls show.

As to what you are referring to... Mitt will win. I'm not too worried about that. Different discussion .
Those specific cherry-picked polls maybe show continued Romney momentum. All polls in aggregate taken since the second debate don't show continued momentum for Romney in the least, unless you decide to unskew them into submission.

Also, early voting numbers in states that allow it have been favoring Dems by a not insignificant margin. Mitt may have re-ignited GOP enthusiasm with his first debate performance, but they haven't bothered getting off the couch yet.

I also must have missed the multiple posts from "the left" in this thread that claimed Mitt's second debate performance would have a "huge" impact. Could you point them out?
You are wrong.... and I'm not getting suckered into a fools debate. I'm not arguing with you cause you never can stay w/in the context of the debate. You nitpick one word, or line, in order to avoid the issue that is actually being discussed.... just like you singled out the Missouri poll.
10/20/2012 9:08 PM
I'm not singling out any specific poll or polls, moy. That's my entire point. But you clearly already know you've lost this exchange, so if you need to run away and salve your ego by claiming I'm the one avoiding the issue go right ahead.
10/20/2012 9:14 PM
Most political experts that I have heard over the last week since the debate have said they believe that the 2nd debate has slowed the momentum of Romney and stabilized the president's slide.

The first debate was huge for Romney not only because it was the first time many Americans got to actually hear the man for themselves (without the bias and spin), but also because there were TWO weeks between the 1st and the 2nd debate (and the chance for Obama to stop the bleeding and have a chance to slow the surge).

The general feeling is that unless the 3rd debate is drastically effective for one or the other candidate, either Obama wins a tight race, or Romney gets 300+.

10/20/2012 9:16 PM
Posted by antonsirius on 10/20/2012 9:08:00 PM (view original):
I'm not singling out any specific poll or polls, moy. That's my entire point. But you clearly already know you've lost this exchange, so if you need to run away and salve your ego by claiming I'm the one avoiding the issue go right ahead.
You win. Congratulations.

10/20/2012 10:18 PM (edited)
Posted by gregsimon on 10/20/2012 9:14:00 PM (view original):
Most political experts that I have heard over the last week since the debate have said they believe that the 2nd debate has slowed the momentum of Romney and stabilized the president's slide.

The first debate was huge for Romney not only because it was the first time many Americans got to actually hear the man for themselves (without the bias and spin), but also because there were TWO weeks between the 1st and the 2nd debate (and the chance for Obama to stop the bleeding and have a chance to slow the surge).

The general feeling is that unless the 3rd debate is drastically effective for one or the other candidate, either Obama wins a tight race, or Romney gets 300+.

I'd agree with this assessment. I thought Obama won the 2nd debate from an overall standpoint. Mitt started out well and a big piece of that was jobs, economy, and energy... where Romney excelled. That's why those 'gaffes' didn't really hurt him much IMO...since those are key voting issues in this election.
10/21/2012 3:36 PM
Posted by seamar_116 on 10/20/2012 3:05:00 AM (view original):
bheid  <<Bama had a full Democratic Congress for the first 2 years and yet he blames the Repugs and GeorgeW for everything wrong.... Not taking responsibility is poor leadership.>>

But the rules of the Senate, (and the death of Ted Kennedy early in the term), made it possible for the Republican minority to dig their heels in. I still am amazed that Mitch McConnell said "Our priority is to make Obama a one term president." Not help the American people, try and restore the economy, etc. Let me ask you. What if Romney wins and Harry Reid says that the first day of Congress? What if the Democrats refused to go along with any legislation? How would you respond to that? The reality is Obama had about 6 months to get anything though Congress, and it obviously takes time for new members of Congress to get up to speed.
The reoccuring theme here is that it's not Obamas fault....... for anything. Yet he is willing to take credit for things such as the successful bailout of the auto industry and the killing of Bin Laden, when it was Bush that started the bailout and started the process of getting Bin Laden. Why is it ok to cherry pick the things you want to take credit for and not take the blame for the things that you have not accomplished, such as cutting the deficit in half, which is something he said he'd do. I'm just making a WILD guess, that wasn't his fault!
10/21/2012 10:27 PM
Posted by seamar_116 on 10/20/2012 3:05:00 AM (view original):
bheid  <<Bama had a full Democratic Congress for the first 2 years and yet he blames the Repugs and GeorgeW for everything wrong.... Not taking responsibility is poor leadership.>>

But the rules of the Senate, (and the death of Ted Kennedy early in the term), made it possible for the Republican minority to dig their heels in. I still am amazed that Mitch McConnell said "Our priority is to make Obama a one term president." Not help the American people, try and restore the economy, etc. Let me ask you. What if Romney wins and Harry Reid says that the first day of Congress? What if the Democrats refused to go along with any legislation? How would you respond to that? The reality is Obama had about 6 months to get anything though Congress, and it obviously takes time for new members of Congress to get up to speed.
What will happen is Romney will adjust and make a deal to make things happen. Like Bush, Clinton, Reagan and every President BEFORE Obama did.

There is no magic control over Congressmen. If you amke something attracitve to their state they go for it.

Romney will not allow tax increases, but everything else is on the table.

Maybe someone should give Obama a copy of Dale Carnegie's book on winning friends and influencing people. For a genius he seems to lack people skills.
of 12
All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > Obama loses again.

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.