Oct. 26: State Poll Averages Usually Call Election Right

http://t.co/hZMMgK2k

Nate The Great is not a very impartial source for election coverage. He's as left-wing as Hannity is right-wing.

Obama is in New Hampshire today. Why? That state should be locked up. Biden in Wisconsin? Obama won that state by more than 10 points in 2008. Iowa is another state Obama is fiercely defending.

I think you really have to look at where the candidates go in the next week to get a feel for where they think the state can go either way.

I seen on the local news yesterday that Biden & Romney cancelled the trip here cuz of Sandy.

I wouldnt even open the junk mail,I would trash it immediately.

Obama is in Florida tomorrow.

The difference (well one of them) is Nate's actually good at his job. I'm sorry you don't like that his numbers aren't going your way. God knows I'm certain if they were, you wouldn't shy from trumping them up without any sense of irony.

Was it you who was complaining a long time ago about some Al Sharpton radio show the rest of us had good sense to not bother listening to?



Make Mittens spend time/money outside of Ohio and Florida? As I said before, Ohio is the psychological battleground. If Mittens more or less admit he can't win and pool that cash elsewhere, that'll really demoralize his people. He won't, but it might cost him resources elsewhere.



Remember in '04 shortly before the election when Cheney went to Hawaii, a state Dubya had no chance of winning?

Some of what you're saying is legitimate, but we must remember both sides try to deploy head games against each other. Besides it's Biden. I'm sure if he stayed in Florida for too long, Big O would lose any chance of winning it. He's alot like Larry the CAble Guy: A little bit goes a long way.

Nate has been around one election cycle. 2008. He is a solidly blue and Breitbart was red. So you always have to consider that when reading his NY Times column.

I said Obama 275 Romney 263 and will stick to it.

It's one thing to be biased (we all are despite kidding ourselves otherwise), its another if said bias taints your overall work like a dirty diaper left in your house. I always liked George Will for example because even with his open bias, he's not a hack. He has good points, he's intelligent, and he doesn't insult mine when I read him.

Silver to me has always came off solid with his methodology. One must remember his "75% chance of winning" or whatever is based off his simulations where in say 75% of them, they came out as such. He really is one of those baseball stat nerds who came upon a career goldmine for himself with political polls. Good for him. I've never once found such a "dirty diaper" with his work. So far at least. I can't compare him at all with Breibart.

I'm reminded in contrast with Dick Morris, who really I quit listening to in general after the last election when he kept insisting that Tennessee was leaning Obama. (If he meant leaning like being behind by 10-15 points, then yeah it would be "leaning" towards him. LOL)

Remember that book Morris wrote that the 2008 election was going to be between Hillary Clinton and Condi Rice?

Speaking of the NYT, I'm still trying to figure out why my liberal friends think them endorsing Obama actually matters. (Now a New York Post endorsement? Wouldn't matter either, but dammit but it would be entertaining.)

If Nate Silver makes accurate predictions on 11/5 I'll take him seriously. For now, he's just another pundit who has made predictions in only one Presidential election, 2008. He still needs a few more under his belt IMO.

Just read that Biden is going to PA on 11/1. Location TBD. I have no idea why Biden is going to PA just six days before the election, in a state that should be solid blue.

Morris is an embittered ex-staffer who is usually wrong. What's worse is that he doesn't acknowledge that he's wrong.

Fact is no matter what people say on the left and right this is going to be a close election. Obama won't run away with this but I'm certainly not calling a Romney victory. It's all about who shows up to the polls on the sixth

Funny that such an evil socialist is calling for even lower corporate tax rates. (At they historically low already?)

Obama Has Released A 27-Point Plan For His Second Term, And It's A Doozy

http://www.businessinsider.com/obamas-pl...288381481237582



"Joe, go home."

"Yes sir!"

I will say Obama has laid out more specifics than Romney. But four years ago he promised this and we are still in a bad position. Plus you could point out flaws in his plan. Anyone can twist anything to make it sound good, Obamas been doing that for years. whether or not he can make it a reality is another thing.

Btw Ronnie, you're a good man and intelligent poster but you gotta stop with the "mittens" thing. It's funny once, but when you do it over and over again it really doesn't tickle the gut. Calling him Romney would do fine

I find it interesting that for all the things going against him, Dubya won in '04. Why? Probably because among other things, people perceived that he had some sort of plan (flawed as it might be), Kerry's was simply "I'm not him!" Will history repeat itself?



No.

If I do that, then I'll have to do the same with every other politician. You think me and Pizzaboy want to quit calling Clinton "Bubba"? Nah.

BTW since I'm pretty cynical, how long before Team Romney (just this once Joe) calls the WH response to the Frakenstorm Sandy inadequate?

How long before the mainstream media praise Obama for his great response to the storm? They're probably working on it already.

I think it's easy for a man who's been in office for four years to have some sort of plan as opposed to the guy who's running against him, but we will see. I still haven't really decided yet. I want to believe Obama but after what's happened so far that's hard for me. Same goes for 'Mittens' as you call him.

And very good point on Clinton hahaha. But Bubba sounds funnier than 'Mittens' (to me anyway)

Obama has to be extremely careful the next few day during his speeches. He's gonna need to tone down the attacks and sarcastic comments towards Romney, when the east coats is getting pounded with a hurricane. He could turn off a lot of people if he doesn't.
Same goes for Romney too.

Well, Obama is smart he's not going to pull a GW Bush with Hurricane Katrina.

Will this storm decide the outcome of the election?

Obama was supposed to be in Florida, a state that seems to go for Romney, with his most valuable asset Bill Clinton. Romney, on the other hand, did go to Ohio, a state he needs in order to win the election.

Doesn't look good for Obama.

Agree/disagree?

Too early to tell. The American people could view the even handed leadership the President might exhibit during the crisis as positive and that will translate into more support at the polls. I think Romney needs to be careful if he decides to criticize the handling of the crisis by the President if it isn't really warranted, he could face backlash.

No, the storm won't determine anything. Especially since it's hitting mostly blue states that are going to go for Obama anyway.

Obama is in big trouble. I think he'll barely hold on to Ohio, because of the strong union presence there, and win it all. Either way, a victory won't be good enough. We'll hear for years how racism nearly cost him the election and how divided this country is.

The President has shown how capable he is during times of crisis. He has nothing to prove in that regard.

In NY and NJ, notice that orders of evacuation are coming from the Governors and local mayors, not the President. Governors are also the ones calling on National Guard for assistance.

So you agree with me that Romney could benefit from the storm?

Like I said, Obama had to cancel a crucial meeting in Florida in an effort to get more votes. Romney on the other hand didn't need to cancel his meeting in Ohio, which is of even more importance.

The meeting in Orlando? I guess. Not sure it matters at this point. Rally and meeting still took place with Clinton AFAIK.

Unless I misunderstood, Mittens cancelled his events today too after the President cancelled that Florida event.

It might hurt Willard more in that the news is about this super storm, not the election. That is a day, maybe two at the least lost National TV coverage for him. Who'll be on TV alot? The President, a perk of incumbency. (Think of people's paternal reactions to national emergencies.) After Katrina, no President or national candidate ever wants to be accused of not doing enough or be seen as not being actively involved enough with any hurricane or such disasters. And Willard can't really complain otherwise he'll be criticized for politicizing a natural disaster. It's a media narrative neither side can dictate or control.

This can't be side about their proxys. Like this religious yahoo from the right-wing:

Sandy is God punishing America

http://defendproclaimthefaith.org/blog/?p=2984

Whenever there's a flood or something in the UK one of our crazy Archbishops come out and say it's Gods punishment for homosexuality . Let's hope the Westboro Baptist Church get caught in the storm

God would get my fat ass back in church if he threw a lightning bolt at every single asshole on the planet who do bad things in his name.

(Interestingly that same whacko's piece, he complained about the storm's path going through his home which might break up his Bible study group.)

Chris Cristie commended the President's handling of the crisis on twitter.

I know its my fault for bringing up Sandy in this thread, even if I was just being in the cynical mood last night. I'll quit merging the two together because it's in bad taste considering the grim early reports we're getting. Elections come and go, lives don't.