CougarCorner

My friend is a R P zealot and Rand, in backing Romney, put him on their sh.. I mean imperfect or impure list.

nuk13 wrote:My friend is a R P zealot and Rand, in backing Romney, put him on their sh.. I mean imperfect or impure list.

sure, but what does that have to do with ryan paul, his budget, and a VP spot? Or is it Paul ryan? who are we talking about again?

Senator Rand Paul = Ron Paul's son.

It's my fault, I misread someone talking about about Paul Ryan as Rand Paul (see what happens when you CougarCorner too fast?) So that's where I came from. I believe that Ron Paul secretly wanted to his son to be the VP nominee, but after the extreme reaction that came from the RP followers that possibility died.

Sorry for any confusion!

ha, I knew what you were talking about hawk.

Just trying to muddy the water a bit more.

Why do I only hear Obama attack ads? Is the Romney camp sleeping?

BroncoBot wrote: Why do I only hear Obama attack ads? Is the Romney camp sleeping?

According to Yahoo, it's because Mit's spent his cash on a primary Obama didn't have to, once the convention is over and it's election funds he will be running more ads

Here's a great article. Obama & his Chicago attack dogs have spent $100 million dollars recently attacking Mitt - with NO effect. Ha ha ha!!!


Obama’s Remorseless Attacks Having Little Effect
by KEITH KOFFLER
JULY 19, 2012, 9:03 AM

Weeks of vicious attacks by the Obama campaign assailing Mitt Romney’s character and making questionable charges about his stewardship of Bain Capital have yielded the following result: the latest national poll, released by the New York Times, shows Romney with a slight edge.

With little record to run on, an economy mired in slow growth, and unemployment stuck above eight percent, the Obama team must face the possibility that it is unloading some of its only rhetorical ammunition without result. And after burning through $100 million of his money on campaign ads, Obama has failed to establish a lead over his rival.

The poll suggests an extraordinarily dangerous possibility for the Obama campaign: that concerns about the dismal economy trump all other issues and provide Romney with a teflon coating with which he can deflect the bullets of the grinding Obama attack machine.

The poll puts Romney slightly ahead, 45 to 43 percent. But perhaps even more serious for Obama is that only 39 percent say they approve of his handling of the economy – compared to 44 percent in April – while 55 percent say they disapprove, up from 48 percent.

http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2012/0 ... ks-effect/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ddawg wrote:The poll puts Romney slightly ahead, 45 to 43 percent.

When you have an incumbent up for re-election in a presidential campaign, here's how you evaluate polls:

1) National polls are meaningless with electoral college elections.
2) Look at the states in play, and determine how may electoral votes each needs from those to pull out the victory.
3) For the states in play (the "battleground" states), look only at the incumbent's support numbers. If the incumbent does not have at least 48%, he will not win that state as late deciders overwhelmingly go to the challenger. You can ignore the challenger's numbers.

The number 3 rule has the exception of the year Ross Perot handed Clinton the presidency with his in/out/in/out routine.

So, as of right now you can hand Obama 194 votes and Romney 101 votes, so Romney needs 169 more electoral votes. The remaining 243 votes are "in play," so that's the pool from which Romney needs to pull his 169. Obama is below 48% for 200 of those votes, indicating that, based on current polls and historical voting patterns, Romney would land at least 301 electoral votes today, and has a legitimate shot at Nevada and Wisconsin, which would get him to 317 total electoral votes. Not quite a landslide, but more than W ever got.

Your initial electoral college votes for Romney is too low. Romney won't lose any state that McCain won in 2008. So Romney is already going to win (AK, ID, UT, AZ, WY, ND, SD, NE, KS, OK, TX, MO, AR, LA, MS, KY, TN, GA, SC, WV). Those states give him 180 votes.

IN and NC are coming back to Romney. Now he's at 206.

States I think Romney can/will win: WI, MI, OH, FL. Those total 73.

I'm not sure about NV, CO, IA, VA, NH and their 38 votes, but I could see all five of them going to Romney as well.

I think there is a good chance Romney finishes with over 300 electoral college votes and could win every state but: WA, OR, CA, NM, MN, PA, NY, VT, ME, RI, CT, MA, NJ, DE, MD, DC.

I think the final tally could be 317-221. I think some Obama-leaning states like PA, NM and even OR could flip to Romney as well. Which could bring Obama to under 200 electoral votes.

ABYUFAN wrote:

BroncoBot wrote: Why do I only hear Obama attack ads? Is the Romney camp sleeping?

According to Yahoo, it's because Mit's spent his cash on a primary Obama didn't have to, once the convention is over and it's election funds he will be running more ads

I don't think that money is the reason why Obama is attacking and Romney isn't. It has more to do with timing. Romney isn't attacking now because the independents aren't paying attention right now. Look for Romney to make a move sometime after Labor Day when the general public starts to tune in. Anything Romney throws out now is not only a waste but he dilutes its effectiveness later on.

The reason Obama is attacking now is for two reasons (1) to keep the conversation off of the economy, and (2) to see if anything sticks to Romney that he can use later. Obama has nothing so he is throwing the kitchen sink in hopes that he can overcome substance with volume.