Originally Posted by PornMD (Post 19276942)

It's still a lot closer than I figured it would be, which tells me fewer people are buying into Obama's shit that got him elected 4 years ago. The fact that Republicans nominated someone who pretty handily lost to McCain 4 years ago who himself lost to Obama and that person actually has a chance of winning is pretty incredible.

Originally Posted by mynameisjim (Post 19276934)

I guess we'll see on election day :)

I only see one of two things happening:

1) Obama wins a close election.

2) If Romney does win, it will be a landslide nobody saw coming that leaves everyone in shock. Basically he rolls the table.

Originally Posted by DudeRick (Post 19276833)

um...


Romney record = success

better check your facts and the polls boys! :winkwink:

Originally Posted by PornMD (Post 19276942)

It's still a lot closer than I figured it would be, which tells me fewer people are buying into Obama's shit that got him elected 4 years ago. The fact that Republicans nominated someone who pretty handily lost to McCain 4 years ago who himself lost to Obama and that person actually has a chance of winning is pretty incredible.

Originally Posted by kane (Post 19276949)

What kind of shocks me is that Romney now is a completely different candidate than he was back in May. Back during the primaries he made the remark about shaking the Etch-A-Sketch and starting over with the general election and the rest of the candidates in his party savaged him over it.

Originally Posted by PornMD (Post 19276942)

The fact that Republicans nominated someone who pretty handily lost to McCain 4 years ago who himself lost to Obama and that person actually has a chance of winning is pretty incredible.

Originally Posted by Sly (Post 19276473)

Dead even.

Polls are only polls, but I would feel pretty pathetic if I were Obama and crew.

Originally Posted by crockett (Post 19277152)

Not really they do this same shit every election. The media tries to make it look like it's closer than it is. They did same shit when it was Obama vs McCain and that wasn't even close.

The only thing that matters is the electoral votes and I can't see Romney even getting close with them.

Originally Posted by bronco67 (Post 19277153)

There are too many "alternate realities" that need to happen for Romney to win the electoral college.

Originally Posted by mynameisjim (Post 19276759)

Are there any examples they give? Like I said, incumbents rarely lose close elections. Even if you go down to other non-presidential races. The close race usually goes to the incumbent because incumbency gives you about a 1% bump on election day as people just go with what they know along with a few other advantages.

Also, while Romney was wasting time in that stupid Republican primary arguing with idiots like Michelle Bachman, the incumbent is able to build up their ground game and get out the vote campaign. Not having to fight through a nomination process gives you an advantage as well to get a better turn out.

I don't have any proof of this and I'm not spinning it for Obama, but just watching elections over the years, that's how it always seems to play out. Being the incumbent gives you a built in 1 or 2 % bump on election day. So the challenger needs at least more than that lead to win

Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 19277159)

I'm not saying that incumbents don't usually win. They do.

I'm saying that undecided voters normally go to the challenger. They wouldn't be "undecided" after 4 years of a President if they were leaning his way.

Originally Posted by TampaToker (Post 19277173)

Does not sound like it will go to the challenger this time....


The composite for a prototypical undecided voter is:

Female
Single
White
Employed
18-to-29 years old
Didn't graduate from college
Low income
Union household
Identifies as Protestant but doesn't go to church
Skipped the debate.