Romney Campaign Exaggerates Size Of Nevada Event With Altered Image http://www.buzzfeed.com/zekejmiller/romney-campaign-appears-to-exaggerate-size-of-neva
You do know that the media likes bright, shiny new toys (re: Obama 2008; Romney 2012) and likes to play up the "close race" thing, as it is good for ratings/site hits? Hell, Romney's big-deal speech in Iowa was in front of 2,000 people. 2,000 people is nothing. NOTHING. Maybe on Samoa it'd be great,but in a metro area of 300,000 people?
I've seen some Obama ads for a few weeks now in MN and pro-Romney super pac ads. One thing to keep in mind is that the Twin Cities market extends into Western Wisconsin and Southern MN media markets cover Northern IA.
That's interesting, but it doesn't change the general perception that the Obama campaign is going all out for votes that should have been already cast for him, and that Romney is winning ground that Obama was thought to have had locked up 2 months ago. There's nothing ideological about my opinion. I don't think there's a dime's worth of difference between Romney and Obama. And it goes against my opinion on how Republicans should fight national elections. I called Romney dead in the water the day he was nominated, and he's clearly not. He's probably going to win the popular vote, and could win the presidency, despite running a rather unremarkable campaign. This is a pretty horrible collapse for Obama.
Come on weslinder; all credible sources still give Obama a 2/3rds chance of winning. The polls have stabilized with 10 days to go and are trending towards the President. Romney is not gaining any ground in the battleground states.
I'd disagree with your characterization of the race. First, any half-decent Republican candidate should have been able to win this election given the current economic situation. (I'd argue that Obama has done a very good job on the economy given the the depth of the recession and Republican sabotage, but we are where we are.) However, Romney, overall, has been a horrible, craptacular, candidate. He lost practically ever news cycle from the weeks before the Republican convention up to the first debate. Going into the first debate, Obama was sitting on a modest, but stable lead, and on the way to a comfortable win. Giving Romney credit, he did what he needed to do in the first debate to shake up the race. Obama played defense and it cost him. Post-debate Romney had significant momentum that lasted until the VP debate, where it stalled. He led in the popular vote, but Obama was still leading in the electoral college. Obama regained modest momentum in the popular vote and electoral college after the second debate and that has been the trajectory of the race since. There is no ongoing Obama collapse. Uploaded with ImageShack.us
buzzfeed is a crock, but, that aside, no one that is predicting a Romney victory is counting on NV. so your post is irrelevant.
when Romney wins, he will, by definition, have run a remarkable campaign. there's a lot we're (most of us) are not seeing right now, and which will only become apparent in retrospect.
Has this been posted yet? http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/d...handedly-dismantling-the-myth-of-mitt-mentum/ Four more years of progress on the way!
Pass the dutchie, homey. I want some of your ultra-powerful 'dro, because you are hallucinating in a major way.
At least the article predicted your response: In fact, Silver is proving so damaging to their chances that Republican’s are drawing up a strategy for countering him. “Nate Silver continues to lead the Democrat Graveyard whistling choir”, Republican blogger Robert Stacy McCain wrote on Tuesday. National Review decried “Nate Silver’s Flawed Model”. “Everyone but Nate Silver thinks Obama’s lead is evaporating fast”, said Business Insider. Here’s a prediction. As the election clock continues to tick down, and the momentum narrative continues to melt away, the attacks on Silver will intensify. We should expect a Fox News feature. More negative blogs. Maybe even a smear or two. But the numbers don’t lie.
Nate Silver is great and I'm glad so many people have now hopped on the bandwagon. I've used him as my primary "poll-watcher" for many year. But the idiot UK writer states he is actually damaging Romney's chances, which is complete nonsense. Whoever wins, one major development from this election is the massive spin-doctoring of polls and momentum. Not only is it difficult to have an intelligent discussion of issues, that isn't even the most important thing. The constant yattering back-and-forth over what the polls mean has taken over. Poll debates are nothing new, but it's ridiculous now.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>Rasmussen has Romney up 4, 50-46 today. Romney up 23 points among independents. D+4 sample.</p>— NumbersMuncher (@NumbersMuncher) <a href="https://twitter.com/NumbersMuncher/status/262185264682770432" data-datetime="2012-10-27T13:33:32+00:00">October 27, 2012</a></blockquote> <script src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
One thing we should clearly learn from this election. Who is full of **** and will have zero credibility in future races - Rasmussen or Nate Silver?
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>Rasmussen swing state poll (7-day) has Romney +6, 51-45. Rom up 15 w/ independents. It's Romney's biggest lead (6%) and day (51%) yet.</p>— NumbersMuncher (@NumbersMuncher) <a href="https://twitter.com/NumbersMuncher/status/262193116247912448" data-datetime="2012-10-27T14:04:44+00:00">October 27, 2012</a></blockquote> <script src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> looking like a landslide, how u?
My prediction: After the election, Nate Silver will figure out that his formula was "a little off" because the 2012 polls were too skewed based on the outlier turnout of the 2008 election being used as the model for the 2012 polling. This is not going to be a D+10 election turnout. Now post your obligatory Dwight Howard pics, kiddos.
