The best thing that could happen for guys like Rush and Glenn Beck is Obama's reelection.
PhoenixDark's avatar is more important than America
Yeah that's never a good trendline for the establishment Repub. Hell Christine O'Donnell never lead in a single poll and she still beat Mike Castle in DE-SEN 2010.eznark said:
I heard Fitzgerald isn't really campaigning and is only in the race to split the conservative vote and let Thompson win. Don't know if that's just a dailykos conspiracy theory or what.
Well, he's only at 9% anyway. He can't have too much influence.
Ah crap, isn't this the same kind of thing that happened leading up to the midterms in 2010? More Independents, more uncertainty, more noise in general that really ended up benefitting the GOP.Not true. Many are 'agnostic' or weak when it comes to presidential elections. Just because they live in a district/state that encourages them to vote a certain way, doesn't mean they apply that to their choice in a President.
As the overall numbers of independents grow, the uncertainty they represent grows with it.
Right. To castigate Obama for failing to act decisively ignores the political and practical constraints. Perhaps they could have displayed more strategic foresight on other consequential matters; e.g., Federal Reserve appointments or eliminating the statutory debt limit. And the composition of the ARRA was amiss. Still, it's a bit much to aimlessly propose various policies as a realistic alternative.
Afghanistan may have potential, although it's been exaggerated. But the presence of mineral wealth is probably not the impetus. For a few reasons, the mineral wealth is inconsequential for at least the mid-term. Rather, the impetus stems from the erroneous notion that Afghanistan is of strategic import for national security; I suspect the potential mineral wealth is a negligible facet. The policy is necessitated by a desire to maintain a strong operational link while reducing our physical presence.
That's a point I've iterated, and it's valid response to those who disregard national polls. States are idiosyncratic to an extent, but they are also subject to national trends. And although the magnitude of the trend may vary by state, they aren't independent. Further, the data does not warrant certitude in Obama's victory. It suggests he's a moderate favorite.You can talk about more paths and such all you want, but there's an important aspect that's missed if you just say "statistics lol": the state-by-state results are not independent variables. If things go Romney's way in Ohio, it's also far more likely they'll go his way in Florida et al.
I'll note that I do agree with you on the outcome--I think Mint goes home crying. Just be careful with odds in cases like this.
Oh, and PD isn't uninformed, just bizarrely invested in a Romney victory.
Independents are one of the more annoying chimeras in American politics. The influence and number of genuine independents are terribly inflated.
When in doubt on what word to use on GAF, I just use some variation of "fuck."
No, thanks. Also, Yes.
Fuck is a beautiful word in the appropriate context. Otherwise, it's become trite.
Well he's up 50-42 in Virginia, so tough noogies there I guess.
I'd still give it to Obama. He'd need 2% more of the vote, while Romney would need 6%. Undecideds aren't that lopsided.
Yeah, Obama seems to be fucked. It looks like the trend from 2010 is holding firm. "Obama will get re-elected because he's up just enough in most of the swing states" is the new "Dems will hold the House."
Do you not remember the last midterm elections?
Wait, you exclaimed that last month was when the polls really counted. Yet now you're retreating to "it's still summer" to justify your despondency?
I feel validated.
