Forget the National Polls, It's All about Nine States

[bigmack]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

Link?

I know some pollsters have left but I don't think they have been conceded.

Tough to find a link but when you follow the money they've pulled a pile of money out of those two states and wisely, NorthC, since the Pres debate.

NO QUESTION, FL, NC & VI are unattainable for CampBO.

They have to do it quietly though. Pulling up stakes from states is unavoidable in their situation. RUSH to the salvageable.

[GameTheory]

Yeah, suddenly the map looks pretty good for Romney. On the current "no toss up" RCP map, you only need to flip the razor-thin Obama leads in OH, VA, & NH and Romney's got 279 -- on the RCP averages Obama is up 1.3 in OH, and less than a point in the other two, and Romney is leading in all three on at least some polls...

[Tom]

Not going to be close.

[GameTheory]

Originally Posted by Tom

Not going to be close.

That's my feeling. It shouldn't be, anyway. But reality is tricky sometimes...

[wes]

Is that where the 47 percent lives?

[fast4522]

I can tell you about New Hampshire, it will go for Romney. Just about the only hot seller around NH is guns, new gun stores everywhere with sales going threw the roof. Not good for Team Obama, the motivation is not going well for the left here in general. Core belief is if your not part of the solution you have to go.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by fast4522

I can tell you about New Hampshire, it will go for Romney. Just about the only hot seller around NH is guns, new gun stores everywhere with sales going threw the roof. Not good for Team Obama, the motivation is not going well for the left here in general. Core belief is if your not part of the solution you have to go.

Where does this idea that Obama is anti-gun come from? As far as I can discover he favors no new gun laws and merely advocates enforcement of existing laws. Is Romney in favor of not enforcing the law? Where and when did Obama make any statement on this subject and exactly what did he say? Ditto Romney.

[fast4522]

Gun people, at least the law abiding ones do not vote demarcate up here.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Originally Posted by Actor

Where does this idea that Obama is anti-gun come from? As far as I can discover he favors no new gun laws and merely advocates enforcement of existing laws. Is Romney in favor of not enforcing the law? Where and when did Obama make any statement on this subject and exactly what did he say? Ditto Romney.

“The president believes we need to take common sense measures that protect the Second Amendment rights of Americans while ensuring that those who should not have guns under existing laws do not get them,” he said. “And there has been progress in that regard in terms of improving the volume and quality of information in background checks.”

The candidates’ positions on gun control, which has been a back burner issue for years now, also seem unlikely to change.

“I’m not going to take away your guns,” Obama promised in September 2008. However, he advocated closing the loophole that allows for gun purchases without background checks at gun shows and for reinstating the assault weapons ban.

...

Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney has actually been more active than Obama on gun control — albeit during his time in Massachusetts. Since leaving office, he has moved away from those positions.

While running for Senate in Massachusetts in 1994, Romney supported background checks and a ban on some assault weapons. “That’s not going to make me the hero of the NRA,” he said. Running for governor in 2002, he said, “We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts — I support them. I won’t chip away at them. I believe they help protect us, and provide for our safety.”

As governor, in 2004, signed an assault-weapons ban in the state. However, that law won support from some gun-rights advocates by making it easier to get and renew a firearms license. Romney also raised the state’s gun-registration fee from $25 to $75.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...pNyW_blog.html



Not exactly polar opposites on the subject when it comes to actually governing.

[Steve 'StatMan']

Originally Posted by Actor

Where does this idea that Obama is anti-gun come from? As far as I can discover he favors no new gun laws and merely advocates enforcement of existing laws. Is Romney in favor of not enforcing the law? Where and when did Obama make any statement on this subject and exactly what did he say? Ditto Romney.

I sure remember Obama's diisparagng remark about people clinging to their guns and bibles.

[PaceAdvantage]

This election really should NOT be close, as GT stated. There is no way Obama should win, let alone win big. That's why these overseas betting lines have shocked me all along. I just could not wrap my head around it.

You have an economy that is still shit. You can spin it anyway you'd like, blame it on the past, but it's still shit. That never favors an incumbent.

Plus, you have a President in Obama who beat McCain/Palin/Bush last time out. It was almost a gimme.

Obama won because of who he was facing and because he promised and talked about a lot of feel-good stuff. Hope and change. People bought into that nonsense.

Now they see he has brought neither hope, nor change, and essentially, has continued many of the prior administrations policies. He has even failed to come through on many of the SPECIFIC promises he made during the campaign (like Gitmo).

So why should he be reelected? He has pissed off his base by being more to the right then they expected, and he has pissed off the independents by bringing neither hope nor change.

[NJ Stinks]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

This election really should NOT be close, as GT stated. There is no way Obama should win, let alone win big. That's why these overseas betting lines have shocked me all along. I just could not wrap my head around it.

You have an economy that is still shit. You can spin it anyway you'd like, blame it on the past, but it's still shit. That never favors an incumbent.

Plus, you have a President in Obama who beat McCain/Palin/Bush last time out. It was almost a gimme.

Obama won because of who he was facing and because he promised and talked about a lot of feel-good stuff. Hope and change. People bought into that nonsense.

Now they see he has brought neither hope, nor change, and essentially, has continued many of the prior administrations policies. He has even failed to come through on many of the SPECIFIC promises he made during the campaign (like Gitmo).

So why should he be reelected? He has pissed off his base by being more to the right then they expected, and he has pissed off the independents by bringing neither hope nor change.

Thanks for the insight. I think I'll change my mind and vote for the man who can't be swayed.

I think things are improving. Sue me.

[bigmack]

Originally Posted by NJ Stinks

I think things are improving. Sue me.

I thought I figured that cerrectly. Sure enough, I went back to my records and it checked out. You Special Agent Federalies are MANDATED to hit the bricks at 57, let alone 50. What an odd thing that must be, retire at 50. But ALL SORTS of government workers do it.

IRS Special Agents are able to retire at the age of 50 given that they've provided at least 20 years of federal law enforcement service, or at any age if they've provided 25 years of such service. Mandatory provisions stipulate that all federal law enforcement personnel retire by the time they're 57 years old with at least 20 years of law enforcement service.

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by NJ Stinks

I think things are improving. Sue me.

If you don't mind me asking by what metric would you say things are improving?

[ElKabong]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

If you don't mind me asking by what metric would you say things are improving?

NJ thinks part time jobs are the greatest....