It wasn't easy for Anne to tear down those Tiger Beat posters of Christie off her walls.

Now this tweet made me laugh.

Bill Maher:

This might be very cynical, but maybe Christie is just mad at Romney for not being picked as Veep, hence his fox news comment. Wasn't he considered as a running mate?

Be consistent. You can't say Romney going to PA is proof he gave up on OH then when I point out Clinton is spending lots of time in OH, you go back to quoting polls.

What are we doing Lou? Looking at polls or looking at stops the campaigns make to determine where they think they are weak?

I give up.

Christie has always claimed he had no interest in VP. Personally, I think Christie never wanted Romney to win in the first place. It's no secret around here that Christie has his eyes on the White House. If Romney won, he'd have to wait until 2020, then fight Ryan for the nomination if Romney serves 2 terms. If Obama wins, Christie is probably still the favorite to win the nomination despite his bro-fest with Obama this week.

Guys, just imagine if Willard had picked Christie. (Or Christie had accepted it.)

This past week's political narrative would've been a whole lot different. Probably.

I can't even imagine how it would have played out. Would CC and Obama be flying around on Marine One together? Would CC still lay on the heavy praise for President Obama? I think the polls in PA and Ohio would be a lot different.

My cynical gut would say the political narrative around that disaster would've been even more nasty and even border on the tasteless. I could see both still touring, with some people quipping the GOP nominated the wrong guy on top of the ticket.

Definitely not. Republicans had no problem getting what they wanted from Obama and still spit in his face. What Christie did was punch in Romney's gut.

It would have been the ultimate in awkwardness. After months of Christie playing attack dog against Obama, he'd be forced to appear with Obama and at least give him lukewarm praise.

Isn't the vice presidential nominee supposed to resign his previous office? Would Christie still be governor?

Nope. In fact Biden got "re-elected" for another Senate term in '08, when he got elected VP. Nixon was still California Senator when he was elected VP.

And so forth, so forth.

I don't think there is anything to make a candidate resign as Governor to run as VP. If he became VP, obviously he'd have to resign. Paul Ryan is still running for re-election in Wisconsin. ...And from the amount of money his campaign is spending, he must think he's going to need the job next year.

Oh, well. Stewart showed a clip of Christie previously saying that Obama can't find a light switch in the room. From what I know from GOP side, they wouldn't give the other side praise, unless there's Machiavellian motivation.

It should be mentioned (if not already) that Christie was this year's RNC Keynote Speaker, a prestigious offer usually given by the nominee. So I guess that's why we were surprised when a media tycoon like Murdoch outright threatened him. (Why not just phone tap him like you do everybody else, Rupert?)

If Hearst was alive and tweeting, well no I can't compare him to Murdoch. Hearst was American at least.

You'll see Wednesday that PA, WI and OH were all within margin of error.

LOL @ Christie being VP or even thinking he can be a candidate for President.

He's a 400 pound blowhard from the north. Americans hate people from up north, Italian in particular, and see us Italians as corrupt violent ethnics who take pride in people like John Gotti and behave like the cast of Jersey Shore or Mob Wives.

That's why such shows are popular. America sees these shows as a window into the world of Italian-Americans.

Well, this is not really surprising to me. Christie giving Obama praise is surprising, but this isn't. That's how GOP operates. That's how democratic agendas are in a deadlock in the House. They never compromise or work with dems, let alone praise them.

Just to be clear, what do "toss up" or "in play" mean to you? To me it means the margin of victory ends up being 3% points or less.

Flashback:

Tracking polls show independent voters are moving back to Obama?

http://t.co/2MrunykP

Assuming that we get re-election this week, care if we look at the crystal ball for '16?

No no don't worry, I won't be posting a "Election 2016" thread. Dear lord we all need a breather from this last cycle. But you know, there is no harm in speculation.

Biden would be the presumptive favorite for his party as Vice-President, but he'll be 73. It'll be Ego vs Age since he twice ran unsuccessfully for the top prize, would he be able to turn down this closest shot he'll ever get of winning the Oval Office for himself?

(God knows President Biden would be a goldmine for comedy wrtiers.)

Then one name that keeps popping up, regardless of who wins this week, is Cuomo. But let me throw out a crazy conspiracy theory.

What if...Hillary? What if she takes a breather after quitting as Secretary of State, then for the '14 mid-terms she comes back politically to campaign for state candidates, setting the stage for a possible 2nd national run in '16? She would have her claims to the retiring Obama's Presidency, but also if some bad shit happens in the 2nd term (Just ask Bubba), she could distance herself directly away from it. Of course she'll be 69, so there's that.

But regardless I think unless the economy really really kicks major ass in the 2nd term and not just slow but steady recovery, I think the '16 GOP nominee will be the favorite to win. If only because it's very hard to win 3 national elections in a row. Not impossible of course, but the odds are just against you.

Hear the Fiercest Campaign Speeches of ’12 (That’s 1912)

http://blog.aarp.org/2012/11/01/who-are-...n-Speeches-of-?

FMWB just released a poll this morning showing Romeny with a one point lead in MI 47-46

Pitt Tribune has the race tied this morning at 47-47

Rasmussens last Ohio poll has the race tied at 49-49 (he's the only pollster not using a D+5 to D+7 skew in turnout and is therefore the most accurate)

Most elections show late breaking voters go to the challenger when an incumbent is running.

Every poll show Romney leading among independents.

Romney still has an edge at this point. And while I think they both have a shot at winning, you're incorrect in assuming that the Romney campaign can't win in Ohio, Pennsylvania or Wisconsin. I'll repeat what I've been saying: this will be close and no one is running away with it.

Tuesday cant come soon enough.

Here's what doesn't make sense Dap. The fact that the race is pretty much tied. But Obama has a slam dunk in the electoral college race. You got your statisitics from the Huffington Post: the only other website/blog just as liberal as NBC, and please don't try to tell me they aren't. Where are they based? New York City, otherwise known as the most liberal place on the planet.

Any accurate polling (such as Rasmussen) does not have Obama leading in swing states rather it has Romney up by four percent. Because NBC and Huff think that the Democratic turnout will be the same. It will not. This race is closer than ever.

NYC is not the most Liberal place in the world. Rasmussen is well-known to lean-Republican, they even host GOP fundraisers for Christ's sake.

LOL, are you serious? These are polls of polls! That means that they look at EVERY single poll from both sides (see above) and average them out to get a percentage for each candidate. Polling has nothing to do with the number of people who turned out last time, it is about likely voters now. Stats and probability, somebody I am very well-versed in both which I took numerous classes in Business school.

For the record this is from 538 and Huff post which are both Polls of polls! This is the most overall accurate picture. You can choose to ignore it but the facts speak for themselves, even the GOP happy Fox news has the race tied.

This is ridiculous, I am not going to debate the veracity of polls that are a survey of various polls put together. I cant wait till this is over.

Let's just hold on tight till Tuesday and look at the final results.

I never thought it as a what if. It pretty much is going to happen.

//

I don't think this race is that close. Frankly, I'm not sure why even people consider anyone from GOP side, I remember Ronnie saying that anyone from GOP side would be buried by the consequences of GWB's era, economy collapse of 2009 and Iraq war for years to come. And yet, here we are, 4 years after all that and some think it's a good idea to put someone in the White House that says would give tax breaks to the rich and would reduce the national debt. As if that's mathematically possible.

I agree. We clearly have different viewpoints on this and they won't change. All we can do is wait.

Some possible candidates on both sides for 2016 IMO include

Hillary Clinton
Chris Christie
Andrew Cuomo
Paul Ryan (depends if Romney wins in 2012 or not)
Condi Rice..?


anybody else?