Poll Analysis: Obama gains, race has stabilized

ObamaRomney
93.0% probability of winning 7.0% probability of winning
Mean of 299 electoral votesMean of 239 electoral votes

Electoral College Map

AlabamaAlaskaArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndianaIowaKansasKentuckyLousianaMaineMarylandMassachusettesMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraskaNevadaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNew YorkNorth CarolinaNorth DakotaOhioOklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVermontVirginiaD.C.WashingtonWest VirginiaWisconsinWyoming

Electoral College Map

GeorgiaAlaskaArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColoradoDelawareConnecticutFloridaMississippiAlabamaHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndianaIowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMissouriMontanaNebraskaNevadaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNew YorkNorth CarolinaNorth DakotaOhioOklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVermontVirginiaD.C.WashingtonWest VirginiaWisconsinWyoming

[Note: This analysis was completed this morning, but publication was delayed for the two previous posts. New polls are probably out by now...they will be included in my next analysis.]

The previous analysis showed President Barack Obama leading Governor Mitt Romney by 292 to 246 electoral votes. The Monte Carlo analysis give Obama a 93.4% and Romney a 6.6% probability of winning an election held now.

There was a boatload of new polls released in the past couple of days. But before discussing them, I should point out, that I am now using a ten-day “current poll” window. This means the analysis works with polls taken within the past ten days whenever possible. Next Tuesday, if enough polls are being released, I’ll shrink the window down to one week. After some poll talk, I’ll discuss the effect on the results of shrinking the window.

startendsample%%%
stpolldatedatesizeMOEORdiff
ARAR Poll09-Oct14-Oct6424.03158R+27
CTRasmussen21-Oct21-Oct5004.55245O+7
CTQuinnipiac19-Oct22-Oct14122.65541O+14
CTSurveyUSA19-Oct21-Oct5754.253.439.5O+13.9
CTMason-Dixon15-Oct17-Oct6264.04942O+7
FLPharos19-Oct21-Oct7593.646.846.6O+0.2
FLMellman Group18-Oct21-Oct8003.44747tie
INPharos19-Oct21-Oct7543.638.351.5R+13.2
MAWBUR21-Oct22-Oct5164.45636O+20
MIBaydoun22-Oct23-Oct11222.946.946.6O+0.3
MNRasmussen21-Oct21-Oct5004.55146O+5
MTPharos19-Oct21-Oct8283.441.347.5R+6.2
NEPharos19-Oct21-Oct7833.531.442.9R+11.5
NVPPP22-Oct24-Oct6363.95147O+4
NVRasmussen23-Oct23-Oct5004.55048O+2
NVARG19-Oct22-Oct6004.04947O+2
NHRasmussen23-Oct23-Oct5004.54850R+2
NHARG19-Oct22-Oct6004.04749R+2
NHLake18-Oct22-Oct4004.94845O+3
NYMarist18-Oct21-Oct5654.16135O+26
NDPharos19-Oct21-Oct8073.439.349.4R+10.1
NDRasmussen17-Oct18-Oct6004.04054R+14
NDEssman12-Oct15-Oct5004.432.456.8R+24.4
OHRasmussen23-Oct23-Oct7504.04848tie
OHTime22-Oct23-Oct7423.049.343.7O+5.7
OHLake20-Oct23-Oct6004644O+2
OHSUSA20-Oct22-Oct6094.147.244.2O+3.0
OHPharos19-Oct21-Oct8103.449.945.2O+4.7
PAPharos19-Oct21-Oct7603.649.545.5O+4.0
VAPPP23-Oct24-Oct7223.65146O+5
VAMellman Group18-Oct21-Oct8003.54645O+1
WAStrategies 36017-Oct20-Oct5004.45239O+13
WIMason-Dixon15-Oct17-Oct6254.04846O+2

Two new Florida polls both have the candidates tied. Still, Romney takes four of the seven current polls, giving Romney a thin +1.4% lead in “votes” and a 77% probability of winning an election held now.

Indiana polls are notable because they are relatively rare. This new poll confirms that Romney has a good lock on the state.

Michigan turns in a squeaker…essentially a tie, with Obama up by +0.3%. With one other current poll giving Obama a +6%, Obama holds a 79% probability of winning the state.

The new poll in Minnesota is the only current poll for the state. With Obama up by a thin +5%, his probability of winning the state is 79%.

We get a new Nebraska poll showing Romney up by +11.5%. Unfortunately, we don’t get the breakout of the Nebraska congressional districts. Mid-September was the last time we had a poll for NE-2, and that showed a 44%–44% split. Obama won NE-2 in 2008 by +1.2%, so in the event of close race, NE-2 could end up being kingmaker.

Three new Nevada polls all go to Obama by quite small margins (+4%, +2% and +2%). In total, we have six current polls and they all favor Obama, giving him a 96% probability of winning now. The last three months of polling in the state tell a story of a small, but stable, lead:

ObamaRomney25Sep12-25Oct12Nevada

Three new New Hampshire polls go 2:1 for Romney. In fact, the candidates split the six current polls. Obama comes out +1.4% ahead in the “votes”, largely on the strength of one University of New Hampshire poll.

Three North Dakota polls in one week? Go figure! But, no doubts, either. Romney is double-digit solid there.

Five new polls come in for Ohio. Romney takes exactly zero of them, although the Rasmussen poll is a tie, and Obama’s leads are pretty small. The current polls support a small lead for Obama, and jointly give him a 96% probability of winning right now. The past month of polling in this race shows a race that has been stable with, on average, a small advantage for Obama:

ObamaRomney25Sep12-25Oct12Ohio

Pennsylvania supports Obama over Romney by +4.0%. The three current polls give Obama a +4% advantage that translates into a 90% probability of winning the state now.

Two new Virginia polls give Obama a +5% and +1% edge over Romney. With three of four current polls in Obama’s column, Virginia turns blue. Obama’s lead is tenuous, however, and he has only a 67% probability of winning the state now.

In the new Washington poll, Obama gets a solid double-digit lead.

Obama gets a narrow lead in the new Wisconsin poll. With all three current polls giving him a small lead, Obama gets a 90% probability of winning an election now in the state.

After 100,000 simulated elections, Obama wins 93,023 times and Romney wins 6,977 times (including the 611 ties). Obama received (on average) 299 (+7) to Romney’s 239 (-7) electoral votes. In an election held now, Obama would have a 93.0% (-0.4) probability of winning and Romney would have a 7.0% (+0.4) probability of winning.

The large batch of new polls, combined with the ten-day “current poll” window, has increased Obama’s expectation for electoral votes by +7, but slightly reduced the probability of winning. The reduced probability reflects the fact that the smaller window results in a smaller number of polls and, therefore, polled individuals. And a smaller sample of “voters” increases uncertainty in the outcome. Essentially the ten-day window throws out older evidence. That way, if the race is undergoing shorter changes in the weeks before the election, the analysis will more likely pick them up.

The time series graph (from elections simulated every 7 days using polls from 25 Oct 2011 to 25 Oct 2012 [FAQ]), it looks like Romney’s post-first-debate gains peaked a week or two ago. The race has, at least, stabilized, and Obama’s slight gain may be a sign of the trend reversing. It’s too early to claim that Obama has the momentum, however.

Here is the distribution of electoral votes [FAQ] from the simulations:

Ten most probable electoral vote outcomes for Obama (full distribution here):

  • 294 electoral votes with a 3.10% probability
  • 303 electoral votes with a 2.81% probability
  • 304 electoral votes with a 2.77% probability
  • 295 electoral votes with a 2.71% probability
  • 290 electoral votes with a 2.46% probability
  • 291 electoral votes with a 2.18% probability
  • 319 electoral votes with a 2.16% probability
  • 287 electoral votes with a 2.15% probability
  • 305 electoral votes with a 2.14% probability
  • 299 electoral votes with a 2.13% probability

After 100,000 simulations:

  • Obama wins 93.0%, Romney wins 7.0%.
  • Average (SE) EC votes for Obama: 298.9 (20.9)
  • Average (SE) EC votes for Romney: 239.1 (20.9)
  • Median (95% CI) EC votes for Obama: 298 (259, 342)
  • Median (95% CI) EC votes for Romney: 240 (196, 279)

Each column of this table shows the electoral vote total aggregated by different criteria for the probability of winning a state (Safe=100%, Strong=90%+, Leans=60%+, Weak=50%+):

ThresholdSafe+ Strong+ Leans+ Weak
Safe Obama151
Strong Obama73224
Leans Obama7070294
Weak Obama101010304
Weak Romney000234
Leans Romney4545234
Strong Romney101189
Safe Romney88

This table summarizes results by state. Click on the poll count to see the individual polls included for the state.

00EC#Total%%ObamaRomney
84VotespollsVotesObamaRomney% wins% wins
AL91*404 39.6 60.4 0.2 99.9
AK30*(0)(100)
AZ114*1936 47.1 52.9 3.5 96.5
AR61*571 34.9 65.1 0.0100.0
CA553*1680 59.8 40.2100.0 0.0
CO943052 50.2 49.8 55.2 44.8
CT753930 55.7 44.3100.0 0.0
DE30(100)(0)
DC31*1173 91.6 8.4100.0 0.0
FL2975217 49.3 50.7 23.4 76.6
GA161*664 45.8 54.2 7.3 92.7
HI41*1549 67.4 32.6100.0 0.0
ID41*563 30.0 70.0 0.0100.0
IL201*637 60.4 39.6100.0 0.0
IN111677 42.7 57.3 0.2 99.8
IA654450 51.5 48.5 91.3 8.7
KS62*1143 39.4 60.6 0.0100.0
KY81*557 42.4 57.6 0.5 99.5
LA81*2548 37.9 62.1 0.0100.0
ME25*2886 58.4 41.6100.0 0.0
ME112*588 62.2 37.8100.0 0.0
ME212*538 54.6 45.4 93.4 6.6
MD101*809 62.5 37.5100.0 0.0
MA1121156 59.9 40.1100.0 0.0
MI1621833 51.4 48.6 79.2 20.8
MN101485 52.6 47.4 78.8 21.2
MS61*717 40.0 60.0 0.0100.0
MO1021056 45.7 54.3 2.5 97.5
MT321509 45.7 54.3 0.8 99.2
NE21582 42.3 57.7 0.3 99.7
NE111*389 45.5 54.5 11.1 88.9
NE211*352 50.0 50.0 50.2 49.8
NE311*284 35.9 64.1 0.0100.0
NV663203 52.3 47.7 96.2 3.8
NH463657 50.7 49.3 74.6 25.4
NJ1421277 57.9 42.1100.0 0.0
NM54*2259 55.4 44.6100.0 0.0
NY291543 63.5 36.5100.0 0.0
NC152945 49.2 50.8 37.9 62.1
ND321280 43.5 56.5 0.0100.0
OH18119382 51.2 48.8 96.0 4.0
OK71*431 33.4 66.6 0.0100.0
OR71528 53.6 46.4 88.0 12.0
PA2031969 52.0 48.0 89.5 10.5
RI42*900 63.9 36.1100.0 0.0
SC93*4199 48.2 51.8 4.8 95.2
SD31*706 44.3 55.7 1.8 98.2
TN111*654 46.0 54.0 7.7 92.3
TX382*2090 41.1 58.9 0.0100.0
UT61*195 22.1 77.9 0.0100.0
VT31*415 71.3 28.7100.0 0.0
VA1342635 50.6 49.4 66.9 33.1
WA1221000 54.7 45.3 98.2 1.8
WV51*361 42.1 57.9 2.1 97.9
WI1032051 52.0 48.0 90.2 9.8
WY30(0)(100)

* An older poll was used (i.e. no recent polls exist).

Details of the methods are given in the FAQ.

The most recent analysis in this match-up can be found from this page.

Comments

  1. 1

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    The only thing that has really changed on Darryl’s map is moving Florida from light-blue (Obama) to light-red (Romney). Skeptics, trolls, and nervous nellies might be a bit less optimistic about Wisconsin, Colorado, and Virginia; but Romney would have to win all three of those states in addition to Florida to get to 270. It seems clear that Obama, not Romney, is still favored to win this election — notwithstanding all the self-congratulatory bloviating by Cereal Bob in recent comment threads. Sorry, Bob. If the pain is too much for you on Nov. 7, you can take the whole bottle of pain bottles instead of just one pill. (But we don’t want you to do that, because then we wouldn’t be able to kick you around anymore, and kicking you around is FUN!).

  2. 2

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    Retired 4-star general Colin Powell, who knows a thing or two about foreign policy and military strategy, endorsed Obama today.

    And Sen. John McCain, an expert at crashing government-owned airplanes and getting captured, diminished himself today by personally attacking Powell.

    Sorry, John, but Gen. Powell outranks you.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....d=webmail1

  3. 3

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    More on Colin Powell:

    Powell specifically criticized Romney’s flip-flopping: “One day he has a certain strong view about staying in Afghanistan, but then on Monday night he agrees with the withdrawal. Same thing in Iraq. On every issue that was discussed on Monday night, Gov. Romney agreed with the president …. But this is quite a different set of foreign policy views than he had earlier in the campaign.”

    (same link as above)

    Roger Rabbit Commentary: Who is the real Mitt Romney? The Mitt who repeatedly mouthed the word “peace” in Monday night’s debate in an effort to woo women voters, or the chest-pounding and drum-beating Romney who told Tea Party voters last spring that we aren’t blowing up enough villages or creating enough widows and orphans? I posted what I think is the answer a couple days ago, when I linked to an opinion piece in The Economist that basically says Mitt Romney did what neocon warmongers told him to do, namely, sell himself as a peace candidate in the debate so the warmongers can get back into power and do their thing. This guy is not to be trusted under any circumstances.

  4. 4

    No Time for Fascists spews:

    @3 This is the real romney

    Mitt Romney blocked routine birth certificates for children of gay parents

    Romney rejected new birth certificates for gay parents

    It seemed like a minor adjustment. To comply with the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling that legalized gay marriage in 2003, the state Registry of Vital Records and Statistics said it needed to revise its birth certificate forms for babies born to same-sex couples. The box for “father” would be relabeled “father or second parent,”’ reflecting the new law.

    But to then-Governor Mitt Romney, who opposed child-rearing by gay couples, the proposal symbolized unacceptable changes in traditional family structures.

    He rejected the Registry of Vital Records plan and insisted that his top legal staff individually review the circumstances of every birth to same-sex parents. Only after winning approval from Romney’s lawyers could hospital officials and town clerks across the state be permitted to [change the birth certificate.]

    http://bostonglobe.com/news/po.....story.html

    This is the kind of behavior I expect from the federal government if romney wins. A level of bureaucratic nastiness to toward gay, women, minorities, basically anyone who doesn’t have power to stop them. (Reminds me of SerCon’s attitudes.)

    http://i239.photobucket.com/al.....6728_n.jpg

  5. 5

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    Okay, I’m having a problem with WordPress, so I’ll try posting my next comment in fragments to see if I can isolate the word(s) or phrase(s) that WordPress doesn’t like.

  6. 6

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    Fragment 1

    CNBC published an article today talking about Federal Reserve policies from the viewpoint of savers and retirees, who generally speaking are getting hurt by artificially low interest rates and low investment returns.

    http://www.cnbc.com/id/49551392

    This is a conversation we need to have, and not just from the standpoint of savers and investors like me, who obviously don’t like getting paid next to nothing for their life savings.

  7. 7

    czechsaaz spews:

    Wasn’t someone bleating on Monday night about how the Navy would swing VA to Rom-yan? Right. Cause they agree, having 50 extra WWII design Cruisers to staff and maintain would totally be better than the Virginia class Subs currently under construction. “I’ll tell you what, instead of issuing each of you an M-16 and having some of you carry AMPADS, I’m gonna make sure you each get 10 Lugar’s.” Military Genius Willard ‘Mitt’ Romney, or words to that effect.

  8. 8

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    Fragment 2

    There are a couple of larger issues here. One is whether government efforts to manipulate the economic behavior of companies and individuals just prolong the agony and the economy would heal faster if market forces were given free rein. The other is whether it’s a good idea to promote borrowing-and-spending to get us out of this economic contraction when it was excessive borrowing-and-spending that got us into it in the first place.

    And that’s apart from the issue of “moral hazard.” Current Fed policies reward borrowers and spenders, while punishing thrift and prudent financial behavior.

    Conservatives complain that government interference in free markets, whether through tax policy or monetary fiddling, creates market distortions. This is generally true, but the real issue is whether the benefits of intervention outweigh the costs of the distortions. That’s really a case-by-case question, because you have to consider what benefit you get from the policy versus its negative side-effects. It’s a whole lot like deciding whether to prescribe a certain medication. Most people understand that it’s a bad idea, for example, to take big pain pills for little aches; or for hypochondriacs to take medications for ailments they don’t have except in their dysfunctional minds.

    In the case of tinkering with the economy, you can argue that it takes professional economists to figure out what the ailment is, what medicine will effectively treat it, and whether the benefits of treatment outweigh the side-effects. Trouble is, professional economists don’t agree on this stuff. Hell, even the Federal Reserve bank presidents and members of the Fed’s policymaing open market committee (FOMC) don’t agree on this stuff.

    Conservatives tend to handle this stuff the same way they handle everything else: They answer all questions according to rote ideology. To me, that suggests they’re either too lazy to work out the answers to complex problems, or too stupid to be able to. Whatever the reason, I don’t accept their M.O. of seeing everything in black-white terms as an effective way of dealing with problems; it isn’t. Most issues confronting us in this world are nuanced in shades of gray.

  9. 9

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    Fragment 3

    “Moral hazard” shouldn’t necessarily be an ironclad litmus test, but I think it should be a guiding principle, and it sticks in my craw that people who lived it up on credit are being rewarded for their reckless behavior at my expense. But more important than that, nearly all economic commentators with any credentials and credibility are telling us that the Fed’s interventions have become less and less effective as we’ve progressed through QE1, QE2, Twist, and QE3, even as the ill effects of this tinkering grow and grow.

    I can easily live with the part of a Romney victory that consists of replacing Ben Bernanke. I think Bernanke did yeoman’s work in the early stages of the Great Recession, and is more responsible than any other American policymaker for preventing another Great Depression, but I also think he has outlived his usefulness. But he’s leaving in any case — he said this week he doesn’t want to be reappointed when his term expires in 2014 — so it isn’t necessary to vote for Romney in order to send him off into retirement.

    Therefore, deciding to vote for Obama or Romney comes down to choosing between the Keynesian School or the Austrian School of economics. I wonder how many average voters are qualified to figure out that one? Bobbing for apples in a barrel, anyone?

  10. 10

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    Personally, even though I’m a Democrat and trust the thinking of Keynes and Krugman far more than the economics philosophy of Ayn Rand and her lemming followers (who could have imagined that American conservatives would go all ga-ga over a Russian, for pete’s sake?), I think it’s time to back off from shoving the screwdriver into the clock springs and give markets more responsibility from here forward.

    We’ll have to do that eventually anyway, and it’ll be easier if we don’t have to deal with ever-escalating side-effects. I’m rapidly coming around to the view that it’s time to let the cold run its course, and taking pills for it is just making it worse.

  11. 11

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    Test

    (who could have imagined that American conservatives would go all ga-ga over a Russian, for pete’s sake? Did they all marry Ukrainian mail-order brides?)

  12. 12

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    WordPress doesn’t like the phrase “U***** m***-o**** b*****”. Someone at WP thinks that’s a swear word.

    It’s not my place to tell Goldy or Darryl how to run this blog, but WordPress is a pain in the cottontail.

  13. 13

    czechsaaz spews:

    I see over on Fox news they’re rooting against the
    economy again. They’re claiming that California ‘fixed’ their unemployment numbers in previous reports because this weeks California number is higher than normal.

    O.K.

    So to make sure we’re clear, California sneaking in the old numbers this week combined with a pretty substantial drop in unemployment claims would indicate that while jobless claims might not have been so great as the last few reports show, what’s clear is this weeks number should be even bigger. In other words, this economic indicator should be MORE positive today than the already pretty good number shows.

    Right Fox? Stands to reason that if you put California’s inflated number this week back into the weeks the conspiracy holds they weren’t included orriginally thereby subtracting them from this week…MATH! It hurts the Cavuto brain.

  14. 16

    Richard Pope spews:

    No Time @ 4

    I don’t quite see it the same way. Romney may be opposed to same-sex marriage, but his policy about birth certificates to child supposedly “born” to same-sex married couples does not appear to be discriminatory, but instead based upon ensuring the required facts are correct.

    First of all, it is impossible to be biologically “born” to two same-sex parents. Biological birth requires an egg from a woman and sperm from a man. A child can only be legally “born” or legally “adopted” to two same-sex parents.

    If the spouses are both women, then one of them can become pregnant and deliver the child. To be legally valid, and avoid possible complication, the sperm comes from a sperm bank. The male sperm donor will never legally be the father of a child, regardless of who the sperm is donated to. The other female spouse legally becomes the mother of the pregnant spouse’s child by signing notarized consent to the artificial insemination. This is a legal document, which is supposed to be recorded with the state vital statistics office in conjunction with the birth certificate.

    If both spouses are men, neither one of them can biologically deliver a child. They must adopt a child who was born to someone else, namely a woman. Adoption is a court process, requiring a court order to complete. In fact, the biological woman (regardless of what the surrogacy or other contract says), can withdraw consent to adopt out the child, until the child is born. To issue a birth certificate to the two male adoptive fathers, the court order adoption decree is supposed to be filed with the state.

    So why should the governor of Massachusetts, or any other state, dispense with the requirement to file papers, such as the artificial insemination consent agreement or the court adoption decree, just so that same-sex married couples can get birth certificates without further ado?

    I will point out that same-sex married couples are not the only class of parents that has to go through additional legal or paperwork hurdles to have birth certificates issued for their children.

    If an opposite-sex married couple (i.e. husband and wife) want to adopt a child, they have to get the same type court adoption decree that a same-sex male couple would require for their adopted child.

    And an unmarried opposite sex couple (i.e. man and woman not married to each other) faces the same (or in some cases, a much greater hurdle) to get the biological father on the birth certificate, than the same-sex female couple faces in getting the non-biological mother spouse on the birth certificate.

    To place the biological father on the birth certificate, if he is not married to the mother, both the mother and the biological father have to sign notarized paternity affidavits, which are filed with the birth certificate paperwork.

    And if the mother happens to be legally married to someone other than the biological father (this happens a lot!), the mother’s husband also has to sign a non-paternity affidavit, stating that he is not the biological father, before the biological father is placed on the birth certificate.

    And if all the required parties don’t sign the proper notarized affidavits relating to paternity, then there is the nasty thing called a paternity lawsuit — something that same-sex couples rarely have to be concerned about.

    So it would seem entirely appropriate for Romney to insist that the proper legal paperwork be filed to issue birth certificate to children of same-sex parents. And for this legal paperwork to be reviewed by state vital statistics staff — just as they have to review adoption court orders and artificial insemination agreements for opposite-sex married couples, and paternity affidavits and paternity court orders for opposite-sex unmarried parents.

  15. 17

    Richard Pope spews:

    No Time @ 4

    As for the labels for parents on same-sex couples birth certificates, I don’t exactly understand the controversy, or what Romney’s position was supposed to be on this.

    Birth certificates these days are printed out with computers, including the official state agency seal. The computer can very easily be programmed to print “MOTHER” for each parent when both of them are women, and “FATHER” for each parent when both of them are men.

    What is this nonsense about “SECOND PARENT”? Why should any lawful parent of a child be called “SECOND PARENT”? If the parent is a man, he is the FATHER, and if the parent is a woman, she is the MOTHER. It doesn’t matter whether the parent is married or not, whether the parent is married to the same or opposite gender, or what the parent’s preference (or lack of preference) in a partner might be. Is someone called “SECOND PARENT” simply because they are not the one who is a biological parent? How ridiculous!

    And you also misquote the cited article, in an attempt to make Romney look ridiculous [or more ridiculous]. The actual language of a key sentence (where you replaced the exact language, with bracketed words saying something quite different) was:

    Only after winning approval from Romney’s lawyers could hospital officials and town clerks across the state be permitted to cross out by hand the word “father’’ on individual birth certificates, and then write in “second parent,’’ in ink.

    You changed the bolded words instead to: [change the birth certificate.]

    So why should the biological mother’s wife/female spouse/same-sex spouse be listed as “second parent”, instead of “mother”? If she is legally the parent of the child, then she should be listed as “mother”. If she is not legally the parent of her female spouse’s child (a result which is quite possible, if she did not sign the artificial insemination agreement, or if the insemination was done naturally), then she should not be listed on the birth certificate at all.

    I can certainly see why Romney would want to have lawyers review things before something ridiculous like “second parent” can be put on a birth certificate. But he would have done better to require that “mother” be placed when legal parenthood is established by the biological mother’s wife, and leaving it blank when (or until) such legal parenthood is established.

  16. 18

    Jerry spews:

    According to Darryl’s current analysis and many other recent National Polls, we could be headed for a situation where Romney wins the National Popular Vote and Obama wins what counts, the Electoral Vote. Here are some recent National Polls, all showing Romney up-

    Rasmussen Reports 10/22 – 10/24 1500 LV 3.0 50 47 Romney +3
    ABC News/Wash Post 10/21 – 10/24 1386 LV 3.0 50 47 Romney +3
    Gallup 10/18 – 10/24 2700 LV 2.0 50 47 Romney +3
    Associated Press/GfK 10/19 – 10/23 839 LV 4.2 47 45 Romney +2
    Monmouth/SurveyUSA/Braun 10/18 – 10/21 1402 LV 2.6 48 45 Romney +3

  17. 19

    Jerry spews:

    However, as Darryl would acknowledge, the number of State Polls is still lagging some in key swing states. As I’ve said repeatedly, Romney pretty much has to win Ohio and it’s an uphill battle. However, if Romney can take Wisconsin, Colorado & NH…along with Fl, Va & NC….he makes it.
    Obviously Ohio plus one other state is the mcuh easier road.

  18. 20

    Jerry spews:

    I will concede that if Obama were running for President of the World, he would defeat Romney. I think Obama would like that title more than US.

  19. 21

    Politically Incorrect - free minds, free markets, free people spews:

    The problem with Keynesian economics is that the politicians never want the party to end when it comes to government spending. Sooner or later, they always run out of other peoples’ money, and that’s when the shit hits the fan.

    Neither Democrats or Republicans really, really want to shrink the size of government or reduce its scope and control. They all realize that SHRINKING GOVERNMENT MEANS LOTS OF PEOPLE WILL LOSE THEIR JOBS. Even though it’s exactly what we need, the politicos of both parties dare not shrink government because it would mean the distict possibiltiy that they, the politicos, would not get re-elected. They also won’t reduce the scope of government because it would threaten their power and perks.

    Democrat or Republican – they’re both self-serving and elitist assholes.

  20. 22

    No Time for Fascists spews:

    I shorten it so my quote wouldn’t be so long
    Should I also have quoted…

    In 2005, the state’s association of town clerks garnered some attention when it complained publicly about the absence of updated forms, calling handwritten changes inappropriate.

    or

    “The children of America have the right to have a father and a mother,’’ Romney said in his prepared remarks. “What should be the ideal for raising a child? Not a village, not ‘parent A’ and ‘parent B,’ but a mother and a father.’’

  21. 23

    MikeBoyScout spews:

    @21 Usually Incorrect,

    Forgetting for the moment your unsupported view about exactly needs to be done, do you want to go back and correct your comment and include the last time the size of the government was shrunk?

    Or would you prefer I publicly spank you with facts?

  22. 24

    No Time for Fascists spews:

    @16. This is a legal document, which is supposed to be recorded with the state vital statistics office in conjunction with the birth certificate.
    Exactly. This a LEGAL document saying that Jim and Steve are the child’s PARENTS.
    No where in your ramble did you address how the mother father fields should be filled out for same sex couples, who are now the child’s parents.

    We did exactly what you talked about. We went through the process, and adopted our child. And we flipped a coin to see who was going to be listed in the “mother” field because the state our child was born didn’t want to make it easy for same sex couples.

  23. 25

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    @21 The question of shrinking (or not shrinking) government ought to rest on what government services we would lose and whether they’re important enough to keep paying for them.

    The whole conservative meme of government “confiscating” (via taxes) “your” money is a red herring. There has never been a government that didn’t tax its citizens, and there has never been a society that didn’t demand something of its members. If you live in this society, it’s a given that you owe something to the greater good, and the debate is over how much and for what.

    Which takes us into the realm of philosophical differences. I don’t want to pay for Republican wars. For that matter, I don’t want my nation to be a militarist nation that kills foreigners in their own lands to advance some perceived selfish interest of ours. Republicans, on the other hand, don’t want to pay for the safety net that I think is a hallmark of civilized society (and a reasonable tradeoff for putting up with the vicissitudes of a capitalist economic system).

    This antipathy to helping their fellow citizens can’t be explained in terms of Republicans simply being cheap, because they’re not systematically cheap. I have Republican friends who always insist on picking up the lunch tab. Plenty of Republicans contribute big bucks to churches and charities. And they seem willing to pay some amount of taxes for the government services they want.

    No, there’s another explanation for why they refuse to be taxed to help their fellow citizens in need, and it’s about control. They want to keep those people poor and desperate so they’ll have a ready pool of CHEAP LABOR. This is all about minimizing the labor input costs of whatever it is they produce. Cheap Labor Conservatives are all about keeping labor at a disadvantage so bosses can bargain down wages. That’s what makes rich people, well, rich.

    I won’t vote for that. My heart is with the workers — to a point. I do understand that business has to make a profit to stay in business. I’m not against profit. I’m only against rapacious profit at the expense of workers, achieved by manipulating the political system to keep workers in a condition of desperate servitude. That’s what I won’t vote for, and that’s why I can’t vote Republican, because that’s exactly the objective of all Republican politicians and their Daddy Warbucks sponsors.

  24. 26

    No Time for Fascists spews:

    So why should the governor of Massachusetts, or any other state, dispense with the requirement to file papers, such as the artificial insemination consent agreement or the court adoption decree, just so that same-sex married couples can get birth certificates without further ado?

    In re reading your ramble, you seem to think mass just gives kids away to gay couples with no vetting process like unclaimed puppies at the pet shelter, and then the state has to scramble and change the birth certificates.

    After all the other crap we have to do, to get the honor to raise kids, being hassled about changing the birth cert is just a final indignity.

  25. 27

    Piltdown Man spews:

    After all the other crap we have to do, to get the honor to raise kids, being hassled about changing the birth cert is just a final indignity.

    somebody call the waaaambulance.

    just follow the godamned rules and stop bitching.

    and what kind of sick shit is “second parent”?
    where is george orwell when you need him?

  26. 28

    Piltdown Man spews:

    RE:colin powell

    its funny, the progressives spent years throwing him under the bus, now they glom onto him when he supports obama.

    not that the conservatives wouldnt do the same thing – but its still comical to watch all the dick sucking going on.

    and FWIW, powell would make a far better president than romney or obama.

  27. 30

    rhp6033 spews:

    Every reasponsible polling and calculations therefrom end up in the result of an Obama win.

    But with races this tight, the voter intimidation campaign has already begun, and you can bet that Rove’s Minions have a few tricks up their sleaves to manipulate the vote count in the swing states.

  28. 31

    Piltdown Man spews:

    @30

    LMFAO…black helicopters!

    maybe Rove can hire some real experts at vote fraud, like the group from King County!

  29. 32

    Liberal Scientist is a Dirty Fucking Socialist Hippie spews:

    these are the type of people that need to be shot and buried in unmarked graves.

    Really? Is that what your Jesus would do?

  30. 33

    rhp6033 spews:

    Just a reminder: 19 states will not have exit polling in this year’s election, in what the major networks are calling a “cost-savings” move. Remember that in the recent Wisconsin governor’s recall election, exit polling called the election “too close to call”, until suddenly, a half-hour later, the state’s computer count announced that Walker had won by a convincing majority. The Secretary of State, a Republican, refused to authorize a comparison of the computerized vote tallys against the paper trail ballots, saying that Walker won by too big a margin to allow for a recount. So a volunteer bi-partison group has begun the tedious process of camparing the results themselves. But so far they have been frustrated by election commissioners in quite a few counties who happen to be Republicans, and are uniformly refusing to give the group access to the ballot information in any form.

  31. 34

    MikeBoyScout spews:

    Hey Usually Incorrect, noted Keynesian practitioner and Democratic President Bill Clinton’s administration alone shrank the size of the Federal Government from 2.2 million to 1.9 million, a 15% decrease.

    And the reduction started before the election and seating of the Republican congress in 1995.

    Get your nose out of that shitty Aynn Rand garbage and go look it up at Bureau of Labor Statistics site.

  32. 36

    rhp6033 spews:

    # 31: Still trying that old song? Do we need to remind you that a judge in a reliably Republican county decided that there was no voter fraud in King County, and after a long trial actually took some votes away from Rossi’s totals (felons who voted for Republicans)?

    I’m not sure you would still be chuckling if:

    * Democrats were to cull Republicans from voting lists and not tell them they had been cut, but simply mark their ballots as “provisional” and put them aside uncounted (attempted by Republicans in Ohio and other states multiple times);

    * re-arranged polling machines so that Republican precinct voters had to wait hours to vote but voters in Democrat precincts could walk in and have their choice of machines (Ohio 2004);

    * close the polling place doors in the face of long lines of Republican voters who by law are entitled to vote once they get into line before closing time (Ohio 2004);

    * arrange to use electronic voting machines which incorrectly processed the data to deliver the election to the wrong candidate two out of three times (some Florida counties in 2010); or

    * install voting machines with no hard copy which flashed the opposing candidate’s name on the screen briefly while the vote is being recorded (Florida and other locations in 2008).

    Note how often this comes up in two swing states: Ohio and Florida. Those are also states where Republicans have dumped huge sums of money into state candidates for offices which have some control over the election process.

  33. 38

    spews:

    Mr. Not Cynical @ 18,

    “Here are some recent National Polls, all showing Romney up”

    Huh…when I checked RCP a little while ago, I could have sworn that Romney was only leading in six of the ten most recent national polls. And the unweighted average had Romney up by less than +1%.

    Man, Mr. Not Cynical, you will stop at NOTHING to convince yourself Romney is doing okay!!!

  34. 39

    spews:

    Mr. Not Cynical @ 19,

    “However, as Darryl would acknowledge, the number of State Polls is still lagging some in key swing states.”

    You know, Not Cynical, I put a whole big table in each analysis for you to study, and time after time, you disappoint.

    There are no swing states that have no polls taken within the past 10 days. Well…unless you consider New Mexico and Arizona “swing states” (NM is certainly not, AZ probably not).

    And here’s the thing. See that little uptick on the time series graph? That means the state head-to-head polls have improved for Obama over the past week or two. So, any “lag” resulting from a 10 day window may well mean Obama is doing BETTER than the analysis says.

    I suggest you click you heels three times and keep telling yourself that everything is JUST FINE.

  35. 40

    MikeBoyScout spews:

    Is it a matter of trust?

    Romney vouched for low price on Staples stock

    CANTON, Mass. — Mitt Romney testified under oath in 1991 that the ex-wife of Staples founder Tom Stemberg got a fair deal in the couple’s 1988 divorce, even though the company shares Maureen Sullivan Stemberg received were valued at a tenth of Staples’ stock price on the day of its initial public offering only a year later. [snip]
    “In my opinion, that’s a good price to sell the securities at,” Romney, now the Republican nominee for president, testified in June 1991.

    But on April 28, 1989, barely a year after Sullivan Stemberg sold more than half of her shares on the premise that they were worth less than $2.50 apiece, the company made its initial public offering at $19 per share and ended its first day at $22.50.

    Gekko/Galt is the anvil
    We are the HAMMER!

    Hammer it home

  36. 41

    Puddybud spews:

    Oh my the horse manure stench is very high with rhpee6033…

    Remember that in the recent Wisconsin governor’s recall election, exit polling called the election “too close to call”, until suddenly, a half-hour later, the state’s computer count announced that Walker had won by a convincing majority.

    Who called the polls for Scott Walker and by what percentage rhpee6033? Which polling firms called it wrong rhpee6033? And who interviewed whom for their exit polling rhpee6033?

    The Prosecution Rests Your Honor… Another moronic fool here!

  37. 42

    Puddybud spews:

    Oh FlubScout@40… Yes that’s so powerful. So powerful the judge told the ex-wife you are still gagged!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

    Very telling the Boston Globe was there looking for the scoop but will not press Harvard to clarify things Elizabeth Warren has “claimed”. Yep… The Boston Globe; heads up their ASS in Obummer’s butt!

  38. 43

    Michael spews:

    The entire political right in this country has spent the all of the the last four years going after Obama. And they still can’t take him down. That kinda makes me smile.

  39. 44

    Liberal Scientist is a Dirty Fucking Socialist Hippie spews:

    @43
    It is amazing, isn’t it?

    The rich white nice looking business guy can’t beat the Kenyan Marxist Socialist Mooslum sleeper agent.

    Makes Willard look very very small.

  40. 45

    Liberal Scientist is a Dirty Fucking Socialist Hippie spews:

    @42
    HAHAHHAAHAAA … it’s a conspiracy?! And you taunt rhp about black helicopters?!

    Watching Elizabeth Warren win Nov 6 is going to be delicious…just thinking of the primal screams coming from Faux’s house.

    Delicious, just delicious.

  41. 46

    Richard Pope spews:

    MBScout @ 40

    I don’t see anything of value in Romney’s testimony whatsoever. Neither did Romney, since he didn’t seek to keep it secret when he gave it back in 1991, nor did he oppose making it public today.

    Looks like Tom Stemberg (founder of Staples) and his wife Maureen Sullivan Stemberg owned a lot of Staples stock when they divorced in July 1988. They made a property division agreement, with Tom getting 567,000 shares and Maureen getting 500,000 shares. There were other assets, including a $690,000 house (awarded to Maureen), that the couple agreed to divide.

    After the divorce, Maureen voluntarily sold 255,000 of her shares, for between $2.25 and $2.48 a piece, in the first few months of 1989.

    In April 1989, Staples went public, and the stock traded for $22.50 per share on the exchanges on the first day.

    Then Maureen sued Tom to change the property settlement right after this. Not sure whether this lawsuit had any legal basis, since property settlements are nearly impossible to modify in any event. Why should Maureen have any right to blame Tom, if she sold some of her stock at a lower price after her divorce, and then the stock increases to ten times the value a year later?

    In any event, Romney testified that Maureen selling price for the stock, after the divorce, was reasonable at the time. So what is wrong or shocking about this?

  42. 47

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    @31 If you think the GOP doesn’t have a well-organized, well-financed, and massive voter suppression effort in place, you’re the one who’s seeing black helicopters.

    Why does the GOP work so hard to convince people the Democrats “buy votes with cigarets” in Milwaukee? To distract attention away from their own massive cheating, that’s why. Republican policies benefit only a tiny minority of Americans, and they are the smaller party, so they know they can’t win a fair election. Although their base is irrational, the professionals who strategize and manage campaigns for them are all too rational, so they do the logical thing: They refuse to debate real issues, gin up ersatz issues, and above all, they cheat.

  43. 48

    Michael spews:

    @44
    The right is falling apart. Even if Willard wins this thing, the right is falling apart. After all the money that’s been spent and work that’s been done they should be well in the lead. They shouldn’t have all these Jesus Loves Rape Babies and Slavery Was A Good Thing distractions popping up right now either.

  44. 49

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    @29 Do you plan to give them fair trials first to make sure you’ve got the right people? I ask because wingnuts aren’t known for either understanding the concept of, or providing the actuality of, due process.

  45. 50

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    @40 When are women who gravitate to Republicans going to figure out they’ll get fucked twice — first in the bedroom, then in divorce court? Don’t they understand the reason these guys have so much money is because they’re good at cheating other people out of it? Do they really expect they’ll be treated any differently?

  46. 51

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    Poster @41 @ @42: Off your meds again? Take your damn pills!

    Everyone else: Anyone got a barf bag?

  47. 52

    Richard Pope spews:

    No Time @ 22, 24 & 26

    Isn’t the actual certificate printed by a computer, based upon the database maintained in the computer? At least these days? If so, simply a matter of proper computer programming.

    If something is on paper, I would assume that is the application? They could simply have check marks for mother and father, where each parent’s name is written down. Or have neither box, but simply ask for each parent’s gender. If the paper application is older, and you have to scratch out and write over something for one of the parents, that is a minor inconvenience.

    Is your child’s birth certificate issued by computer, and if so, how are the parents (two males) referred to on the birth certificate?

    How much of this has to do with the legality of same sex marriage anyway? My state (Washington) has allowed same sex couples to legally adopt children for at least two decades. Same sex couples still cannot legally marry (future depends on fate of R-74), and state recognized domestic partnerships have only been around for a few years.

    So I assume Massachusetts has allowed same sex couples to adopt for many years as well, even though marriage has only been legal since 2003. If there is a problem with the forms, the same problem would have existed prior to 2003 (also the year Romney took office as governor).

    You may think it really sucks that a couple consisting of two MEN has to rely upon a WOMAN to have a child. Whether the woman is an agreed surrogate mother, a woman with an unwanted pregnancy that chooses not to have an abortion, or a very poor mother who has the state take her child from her — you still have to rely on a WOMAN.

    This has nothing to do with your sexual orientation, and everything to do with your gender. As a fellow MALE, I have exactly the same problem you do, even though I am heterosexual. I either have to get a woman pregnant, or adopt a child through the same legal process you would use.

  48. 53

    spews:

    28: This is just one liberal/leftie’s opinion, but.. screw Colin Powell. The man literally got up in front of the world and lied his ass off, helping lead us into a pointless war that smashed an entire country to rubble and got thousands of people killed. Screw him sideways.

  49. 54

    czechsaaz spews:

    If only everybody interpreted ‘facts’ like Puddy. If only everyone watched Fox News. If only everyone could see Benghazi as a bubbling cover-up.

    You do realize it’s kind of the ONLY story being discussed by righty-talk that reaches about 8% of voters daily, voters who are already decided mostly. That’s what living in the bubble does. Every conceivable outrage is the biggest thing ever and if only they could punch through a fake overheated narrative to the ‘librul’ media…

    They’re sad little people. “But, but, but birth certificate, Jeremiah Wright, O’Keefe has amazing video, they LIED about Benghazi and didn’t equate it to terrorism for 14, er, 2, er 1 day, they’re voting twice and registering Mickey Mouse! Nancy Pelosi drinks the blood of unborn Israelis.”

    And no rational voter cares.

  50. 55

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    @53 I’m not sure whether Colin lied or was lied to. But he must have been aware of the controversies swirling within the State Department over what to include or not include in his U.N. speech. In recent years he has referred to that speech as a “blot” on his record. In any case, Bush and his buddies succeeded in destroying Powell’s political career. They probably intended to.

  51. 56

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    @54 Puddy has a lot in common with Donald Trump. They’d be great fuck buddies, just imagine the pillow talk …

  52. 57

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    If you’re interested in details of Federal Reserve personalities and politics, this article may interest you. Written by a professional money manager, it expresses a decidedly jaundiced view of a Romney victory:

    “Our forecast is that with a Republican administration, we are likely to get a rather volatile interest rate environment, as any attempt to tighten may have to be reversed rather quickly. Fasten your seatbelts, as shockwaves may be expressed in the bond market and the ‘tranquility’ investors have fled to by chasing U.S. bonds may well come to an end. Foreigners that have historically been large buyers of U.S. bonds may well reduce their appetite to finance U.S. debt, with potentially negative implications for the U.S. dollar.”

    http://seekingalpha.com/articl.....#038;ifp=0

  53. 58

    kim jong chillin spews:

    @32

    1. Go fuck yourself.

    2. Did your wife come with a smile? I bet did…you can thank me for that
    3. What makes you think I’m christian.

    4. Nice try fuckface….btw, I hand out punkslaps for free…want one?

  54. 60

    Puddybud spews:

    Bwaaaaaa haaaaaaaa haaaaaaaaaa haaaaaaaaaaa haaaaaa checkmated using Condi Rice?

    U R a buffoon checkmated!

  55. 61

    Puddybud spews:

    Roger SENILE Wabbit has much in common with the inmates of Western State. He’s as crazy and senile as they are!

  56. 62

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    @58 “1. Go fuck yourself.”

    This is anatomically impossible for most humans, but I bet a weasel like you can do it.

  57. 64

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    Even one-percenters think Romney’s agenda of cutting taxes for the rich and spending more on the military is nuts:

    “CEOs from more than 80 major U.S. companies are pressing Congress to reduce the federal deficit by raising taxes and cutting spending. …

    “The CEOs head a diverse array of corporations, including Aetna Inc., Microsoft Corp., JPMorgan Chase & Co., Time Warner Cable Inc., Merck & Co. Inc., General Electric Co., Dow Chemical Co., Verizon Communications Inc., Bank of America Corp., AT&T Inc. and Allstate Corp. …

    “The group endorses the proposals of a special bipartisan commission that called for about $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases to save around $4 trillion.”

    http://seattletimes.com/html/b.....ficit.html

    Roger Rabbit Commentary: Not exactly a group of Occupiers here. Let’s see Rmoney wriggle out of this one.

  58. 65

    czechsaaz spews:

    @60

    Pretending that the last Republican Secretary of State calling bullshit on your narrative is no big deal? Pretending that Coni might not know a little more than Hannity, Limbaugh, Bolton and all the others? She went on Fox News and told Gretta the network is full of shit. Priceless. We won’t see Condi of Fox News until at least December. She’s left the reservation.

    Have a great November. (“Oooh, if only they knew what I know Obama would be DOOOOOMED” Puddy, or words to that effect.)

  59. 66

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    Amazon.com reported a third-quarter loss today, its first quarterly loss since 2003, and said it’ll probably lose money in the fourth quarter, too.

  60. 68

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    This article paints a grim picture of the economy: What little GDP growth exists is coming from demographics-driven health care consumption; consumers are deleveraging mostly by defaulting on debt; and near-zero interest rates are merely a bailout for banks.

    http://seekingalpha.com/articl.....#038;ifp=0

    Roger Rabbit Commentary: This is a jaundiced view of the economy but contains some interesting assertions. My general view of current Fed policy is that it serves mainly to keep Uncle Sam’s borrowing costs low and is not very helpful to the average citizen. Another article on QE with interesting statistics and insights is here:

    http://seekingalpha.com/articl.....#038;ifp=0

  61. 69

    spews:

    68 – Banks should be penalized for banking excess reserves with the Fed. They’ve been getting interest on excess reserves since late 2007 from the Fed if I recall correctly. The policy makes no sense.

  62. 70

    spews:

    55: And I should belatedly note that Obama of course needs to be polite and gracious in accepting Powell’s endorsement; a peon like me can shoot all the spitballs he wants, but the President of the United States can’t burn bridges like that.

  63. 71

    Puddybud spews:

    You do realize it’s kind of the ONLY story being discussed by righty-talk that reaches about 8% of voters daily, voters who are already decided mostly.

    Uhhh checkmated, CBS News covered it Sheryl Attkisson has been all over this story.

    Now we see the lies bubbling up.

  64. 72

    Puddybud spews:

    Pretending that the last Republican Secretary of State calling bullshit on your narrative is no big deal? Pretending that Coni might not know a little more than Hannity, Limbaugh, Bolton and all the others? She went on Fox News and told Gretta the network is full of shit. Priceless. We won’t see Condi of Fox News until at least December. She’s left the reservation.

    You are a tool. You choose to use Condi when she makes a comment you like.

    WHATABUFFOON!

  65. 73

    MikeBoyScout spews:

    Puddles,
    Maybe you didn’t get the word?
    When you have somebody of your own race that you’re proud of being President of the United States you’re expected to endorse him.

    But if you want to stick with the Republican party, I’m wondering if it would be offensive to you to refer to you as Uncle Puddles?

  66. 74

    MikeBoyScout spews:

    @53 Geoduck, IMHO the Gekko/Galt campaign should go straight at the Powell endorsement. As you noted, the man has demonstrated exceedingly poor and lethal judgment. But then again Gekko/Galt can’t really do that, can they? Because the proven bad and lethal judgment Powell demonstrated 11 years ago was for the same policy prescriptions Gekko/Galt wants to impose now.

  67. 75

    Liberal Scientist is a Dirty Fucking Socialist Hippie spews:

    @74
    McCain tried to do that. He, one of the biggest hawks EVAH and a leader of the chorus in attacking Iraq, ripped into Powell yesterday about ‘having disgraced himself in front of the UN’ (or words to that effect)

    I was stunned. A knee-jerk ‘Bomb ‘em all’ jerk like McCain sliding the shiv like that – they really will say anything – and gives credence to RR’s notion above that the UN speech was a set up to destroy Powell after they had used him.

  68. 76

    Liberal Scientist is a Dirty Fucking Socialist Hippie spews:

    @58

    3. What makes you think I’m christian.

    The hate mostly.

    Tell me I’m wrong – deny your Christianity.

  69. 78

    spews:

    Money to burn:

    Pushing to expand map, Romney places television ads in Democratic-friendly Minnesota

    Republicans and Democrats who track campaign spending confirmed late Thursday that Romney will begin running ads in Minnesota over the weekend. The investment is described as a small buy that Democrats suggest is simply intended to generate media coverage and force President Barack Obama’s campaign to invest there as well.


    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/s.....TE=DEFAULT

    If Wisconsin’s a tie @ 77, a MN buy might be in areas that Wisconsinites might see.

    Or maybe Team Romney smells blood in the water there.

    Or maybe Romney has more money than he can reasonably spend in OH, PA, MI, WI, and IA.

  70. 80

    Liberal Scientist is a Dirty Fucking Socialist Hippie spews:

    Rasmussen getting ready to announce WI poll has Obama and Romney tied at 49%.

    Which means it’s more like 51-47 Obama.

    I’ll take that.

  71. 82

    kim jong chillin spews:

    @76

    Go eat a dick you clown…I don’t need to prove anything to a bigoted asshole like you.

  72. 83

    kim jong chillin spews:

    @81

    Its the new math..by our in house clown “scientist” working on his house…

  73. 84

    spews:

    Apparently Team Romney has addressed Ohio in specifics.

    The memo, dated yesterday, looked at crosstabs and pointed out D/R/I issues compared with what’s happened in other elections.

    The link below, which includes memo text and some other stuff, also looked at two other factors that haven’t been given much coverage on this blog:

    The number of independents who support Romney.

    What’s happening with early voting – ballots requested for each party and how that’s changed from 2008, and how Dems are working hard to get their most reliable voters to turn in ballots early, while GOP is working hard to get their least reliable voters to turn in ballots early.

    If I were an optimist I would assume from the GOP efforts that they know their people will be there on Election Day, and they need the ones who might not vote if they aren’t prodded.

    I read somewhere that McCain actually beat Obama in the voting booths in OH on Election Day in 2008, and Obama’s victory in that state was due to the early voting advantage he had already banked.

    Compared with 2008, Dem early voting is down and GOP early voting is up. Make of that what you will.

    October 25, 2012

    To: Interested Parties

    Fr: Rich Beeson, National Political Director, Romney for President
    Scott Jennings, Ohio State Director

    Re: State of the Ohio Presidential Campaign

    Some public polling shows the true nature of the race. Rasmussen this week showed it tied at 48%, Suffolk tied at 47%, and Angus-Reid tied at 48%. Our view is that the race is a dead heat with Romney on an unmistakable upward track.

    Other public polling continues to vastly overstate Democrat partisan advantages in Ohio. For example, the Time Magazine poll this week shows a nine-point advantage for Democrats in party identification, which would be a stronger Democratic turnout than in either of the last two presidential campaigns in the state. A reasonable look at the political climate tells us the partisan boundaries of this race will be fought somewhere between R+5 (2004) and D+8 (2008). Anything more than D+8 shows a survey to be vastly out of touch with today’s political reality – Obama isn’t as popular, his base isn’t as energized, and Mitt Romney’s supporters are poised to shatter voter contact records in Ohio.

    One thing all the public surveys have in common is that Governor Romney is winning among Independent voters. In the 19 polls released in the public realm since the first debate, Governor Romney leads among Independents in 15 of them (two did not include data among INDs). And, if you take an average of his lead among Independents in those 15 polls, the margin is 12 points (49-37).

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/a.....n-ohio.php

  74. 85

    spews:

    @ 81

    Rasmussen’s WI poll is out.

    Obama was up 2 in WI last week. Now it’s tied. This is a state Obama carried by 14 points in 2008.

    Obama has ticked down from 51% to 50% and now 49% in Rasmussen’s polls.

    Oh. This is a juicy tidbit from the link:

    Ninety-six percent (96%) of Badger State voters say they are sure to vote in this election. Romney leads 51% to 47% among these voters.

    http://www.rasmussenreports.co....._president

    Hey, Lib Sci @ 81, you were right about the 51-47. You just have the wrong candidate on top.

  75. 87

    spews:

    Gallup

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/158.....-2008.aspx

    shows the 2012 electorate composition changing significantly.

    According to its polling, Democrats have declined from 39% to 35% since 2008.

    Meanwhile, GOP has increased from 29% to 36% over the same period.

    Even when accounting for leaners, there’s a clear downward shift in the Dem column and an upward shift in the GOP column.

    …the largest changes in the composition of the electorate compared with the last presidential election concern the partisan affiliation of voters. Currently, 46% of likely voters identify as Democrats or lean Democratic, compared with 54% in 2008. But in 2008, Democrats enjoyed a wide 12-point advantage in party affiliation among national adults, the largest Gallup had seen in at least two decades. More recently, Americans have been about as likely to identify as or lean Republican as to identify as or lean Democratic. Consequently, the electorate has also become less Democratic and more Republican in its political orientation than in 2008. In fact, the party composition of the electorate this year looks more similar to the electorate in 2004 than 2008.

    Note that African American turnout is trending down 1% from 2008 while Hispanic turnout is trending upward but only by 1%. So, no overall change there.

    Meanwhile, WaPo today reported that Obama’s standing among the white electorate is trending downward in a hurry.

    To the extent that those on the right question poll results and point to crosstabs, I think there’s a reason.

    Intrade @ 86 could not be reached for comment.

  76. 88

    Jerry spews:

    85. Serial conservative spews:

    Rasmussen’s WI poll is out.

    Obama was up 2 in WI last week. Now it’s tied. This is a state Obama carried by 14 points in 2008.

    The ONLY reason Romney has a chance in WI and Thompson has a chance for the Senate Seat is because of the idiot Union Bosses and that foolish recall effort. Had they not done that, Obama and Baldwin would be slamdunk winners. The Union Bosses mobilized the Conservative GrassRoots and turned off a bunch of middle class working people with their whining and tactics.
    Thanks Union Bosses!!
    Wouldn’t it be awesome if WI decided the Presidency and Senate in favor of the R’s??

    I would be ecstatic.

  77. 89

    Puddybud spews:

    When you have somebody of your own race that you’re proud of being President of the United States you’re expected to endorse him.

    Really… So I am supposed to be a lemming? Good call FlubScout!

  78. 90

    Piltdown Man spews:

    73. MikeBoyScout spews:
    Puddles,
    Maybe you didn’t get the word?
    When you have somebody of your own race that you’re proud of being President of the United States you’re expected to endorse him.

    But if you want to stick with the Republican party, I’m wondering if it would be offensive to you to refer to you as Uncle Puddles?

    10/26/2012 AT 5:55 AM

    Shorter MikeChumpScout: Puddy needs to be a good house negro and tote the Demorat party line.

  79. 91

    Jerry spews:

    73. MikeBoyScout spews:

    Puddles,
    Maybe you didn’t get the word?
    When you have somebody of your own race that you’re proud of being President of the United States you’re expected to endorse him.

    But if you want to stick with the Republican party, I’m wondering if it would be offensive to you to refer to you as Uncle Puddles?

    Finally ol’ Mike blurts out his racist venom loud & clear. Puddy, you ain’t supposed to have a Conservative thought in your head, don’t you know that? Fat Ol’ Mike is so exploding with his whitey guilt thang, that he just spewed one of the stupidest, racist comment of all time, Wow.
    Wait until Obama loses.
    Wait until to Benghazi cover-up is revealed.
    Notice that Brian “Crooked Shnoz” Williams failed to ask Obama the single, simplest fundamental question…
    Mr. President, WHO told Susan Rice and Jay Carney what to say when they continued to say this wasn’t a terrorist attack and blamed the attack on the movie?
    WHO told them what to say?

    My guess is it’s the Devil himself..Axelrod.
    Remember how Axelrod was sweating profusely the day after the murders trying to do damage control?? The Devil Axelrod = Obama

  80. 92

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    The trolls are trying sooooo hard to believe Mitt’s gonna win, but unfortunately for them, wishing for something doesn’t make it come true.

  81. 93

    Liberal Scientist is a Dirty Fucking Socialist Hippie spews:

    @91
    Wow – what a miasma of BENGHAZI!!!!11!!, SCANDAL!, COVER-UP!!!!, WHY AREN’T PEOPLE LISTENING??!11!!!

    NO ONE thinks that that is an issue, other than the 7% of American who are so debilitated that they can’t change the channel from the FoxNews when the orderly turns it on.

    And yes, puddl is the pool boy of the right wing.

    How ’bout those Warren v. brown poll numbers, puddl?