Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 3
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7523
Reputation: 301Reputation: 301
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Tue Aug 14, 2012 1:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:
My main point, though, is that you are trusting this published data -- often collected to fool the public rather than enlighten them -- instead of the data the political organizations themselves are collecting for their own uses, and which are more rigorous and objective than what they do for newspapers and cable television. You don't seem to think that it makes any difference.


And if I was weighing every poll equally then I would fully agree with you.
However I'm not.

If you truly believe that if an election was held tomorrow that Romney would be elected President then there really isnt anything I can say to you till the day after election day.

As I said above and elsewhere, till we see an instance where "creditable" pollsters are way off in their numbers on a US federal election then the argument that they "could" be way off is interesting but not enough to convince me that Romney is ahead in enough States to secure a victory.

Bugs wrote:
Combine these results with a media that is overwhelmingly pro-Democrat, and it can stand in the way of the genuine 'will of the people' from expressing itself. You say, "Stop your sniveling, I'm just numbers guy facing facts. You (meaning me) are just a Republican cheer-leader."


I wouldn't say that you are a Republican cheerleader or anything degrading to that effect I think your arguments are apt, I just don't agree with all of them.

The problem with the "polls are all wrong" and "media is all bias" approach is that you don't tackle the problem you need to in order to win.

In 2007 in Ontario, everyone hated McGunity, he was a liar the polls were wrong, and Tory was going to win, however we knew for months that Tory was trailing needed more appeal in rural Ontario and needed to stop focusing on social policy and focus on fiscal.

However they didn't and you got another four years of McGuinty, same can be said for 2011.

Hudak was losing the 905's and 416's for months leading up to the election, and unfortunately that's where most of the seats were, even when he was ahead the polling data made it clear he would still lose the seats battle,

Yet he opted to spend more time outside of the areas he needed to win,

The same thing can be said for the 2012 Presidential Election,
I want a Republican Senate and a Republican White House.

However spending millions of dollars on attack ads of the President rather then contrast ads of Policy has resulted in Romney risking States he needs to win.

I am a numbers guy because they are normally a very reliable "indicators" and I am of the mindset that I would sooner qwash areas of weakness rather then simply hope that every polling agency is wrong.

My concern has more to do with wanting to win rather then conceding defeat.

Bugs wrote:
But my point is simply that yours is an inaccurate picture. Michigan, for instance, has been a big recipient of patronage, in the form of the auto-bailout, as well as huge piles of money poured into the reconstruction of Detroit. Ohio has been another beneficiary, as has Pennsylvania. That's what's being stressed in the ads in those states. In addition, the auto unions in all those states have been the beneficiaries of some political lawlessness having to do with the rape of the bond-holders for the benefit of the UAW.

Even so, those states are all still 'battleground states'. Doesn't that say something?


It only becomes inaccurate if I'm wrong.
I hope I am, but we will find on election day if their isn't a seismic shift before then.

Ohio, Penn, and Michigan are all outside the MoE generally speaking.
The fact that Indiana, Colorado, North Carolina and Virginia may go GOP is great news, but as I said, you need to get to 260.

Bugs wrote:
How about Florida? Dems seem overjoyed at Ryan's nomination, not because of poll results, but because they see an opening to attack Romney, based on their ability to use their friends in the media to stir up the fears of people on social security. That's the system in action. All the polls do is tell the parties where their opponents are vulnerable, and if their strategies are working or not.

You have to also figure on the costs of all of this. The most telling thing is that not only is the powerful Democratic machine losing the fund-raising race, but they are spending more money to less effect than the Republicans. The television wars are huge, in battleground states like Wisconsin, but in Illinois, you wouldn't even know an election was happening. That's what we don't see, in these polls.


The fundraising is impressive, as in 2008 Obama spent basically $10.94 a vote whereas McCain spent $5.97.

However money is effective only when used correctly;
Its entirely possible that Romney's plan was to keep the powder dry and target the big States in September onward,

However the Democrats have done an effective job branding the GOP candidate and that is a hard stink to get off you, he may do something that is historically a first by rushing ahead in the months to come,

But as I said in the last post;
It comes down to 97 Electoral votes Romney/Ryan need to win.

If we assume every MoE race is taken by the campaign:
Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, North Carolina, and Virgina gets you to 81.

Which puts you a Wisconsin and a Nevada away from the White House, or just a Michigan or Ohio

Its possible to do so, however those last 20 or so seats are the ones where rubber is going to need to meet the road and soon.

(I am including Missouri, I am assuming that Romney retains anything McCain won)

Bugs wrote:
This election campaign, despite appearances, has only started, and there is every sign that the Democrats are spending huge to stay even or appear ahead, while the Republicans are keeping some of their powder dry for when it really counts. This, also, is an election where the Tea Party is an invisible player, and it gives the Republicans a 'ground game' they have lacked previously.


The first part I agree with;
The campaign is about to get dirty in a hurry, but historically save for 1992 there isnt a tremendous amount of change from Gallup's State wide polling, States within the MoE go either way, but my concern is the bigger states you need to win that are outside the MoE
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7523
Reputation: 301Reputation: 301
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2012 9:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wisconsin has now officially entered the realm of being "In play" for a GOP Senate pick up;

Quote:
Former Gov. Tommy Thompson took a major step in his political comeback Tuesday, winning a four-way Republican primary for an open U.S. Senate seat and setting up a sure-to-be nationally showcased November battle with Democrat Tammy Baldwin.


http://articles.chicagotribune.....mary-votes

Thompson unlike Eric Hovde is a household name in Wisconsin, he was also a very popular Governor for 14 years.

The first collection of polls after the election of Thompson are showing him ahead or tied with Tammy Baldwin.
Dolphin





Joined: 30 Sep 2007
Posts: 31
Reputation: 61
Location: California, USA

PostPosted: Sun Aug 19, 2012 5:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

For the Presidential race Romney needs to win all the McCain states and:
1. Indiana
2. North Carolina
3. Virginia
4. Florida
5. Ohio
and one more state with at least 4 electoral votes.

Romney has Indiana and North Carolina in the bag.
Virginia and Florida are close, Ohio is a little less close but winnable.

Before I would have thought the sixth state would be Nevada but Obama has a modest lead that doesn't seem to go away, but I still think it's winnable.
But Iowa, Colorado are in play and New Hampshire is close. Wisconsin is also probably in play now. It has gotten closer with Ryan on the ticket.
All Romney needs to do is capture the first five states and one of the others mentioned and he wins.


For the Senate:
Republicans will lose Maine and probably Massachusetts. But you never know, Scott Brown might pull an upset. But assuming he doesn't.
Republicans need six seats to win the Senate, five if Romney wins.

1. Nebraska
2. Missouri
3. North Dakota
4. Montana
These will probably all go Republican, the first two almost certainly, the others a little less certain but still likely.
With the Primary in Wisconsin (5.) decided and Tommy Thompson having won that will likely go Republican as well.
So Republicans need to look at
6. Florida
7. Virginia
8. Ohio
All of these are in play, even though the Dem is probably slightly favored.

There are also chances in:
9. New Mexico
10. Michigan
11. Pennsylvania
These are not likely to go Republican but it is possible.

The Republicans also need to keep and eye on Nevada, the Republican is ahead but Obama's been consistently ahead there and it has gotten close at times.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4385
Reputation: 245.5
votes: 8

PostPosted: Sun Aug 19, 2012 3:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Of course, the pattern has been that, as this campaign proceeds, more and more states enter the 'battleground' category from the 'leaning Obama' category ... Now Iowa is in play, and Obama is having to spend three days in a state that has six electoral votes. He has less than 80 days left, as I write this ...

Which of the poll-watchers would have guessed, a week ago, that the Republicans would win the debate over medicare? Now it seems likely. The result, already palpable, is panic and confusion in Democrat HQ.

The thing is, a true conservative has entered the race, and is not apologetic about his 'conservatism'... I speak of Paul Ryan. He uses the language of the common sense American, and is succeeding, as we watch, in turning the rhetoric around against the Obama juggernaut, now fizzling in the slow lane.

The welfare state itself that is being exposed for the fiscal failure it has always been ... social security never had a trust-box, for example, as people thought, and as lying politicians led them to believe. Those 'premiums' were a tax, used to pay for things that were not part of social security. Now an over-extended socialist state cannot repay the debts it holds in the name of its own population.

And that would be the case even without the costs of the military, and of former wars.

Admittedly, this is an unusual election, but it appears that a majority of the American electorate can see that going further down an unsustainable path makes no sense, economically or socially. As much as much of the American electorate despises the Republicans, a Republican landslide is shaping up, for those who have eyes to see.
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7523
Reputation: 301Reputation: 301
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Mon Aug 20, 2012 3:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:
I speak of Paul Ryan. He uses the language of the common sense American, and is succeeding, as we watch, in turning the rhetoric around against the Obama juggernaut, now fizzling in the slow lane.


That I can agree with;
Paul Ryan brought his mom to a rally this weekend for goodness sake;

How "down home" is that?

Half the battle in US politics is "likeability" and Ryan is suppose to be this big bad evil Conservative who will eat your baby, yet he brings his mom to a campaign rally?

It makes the Democrats look petty;
And it makes Ryan look like a genius.

Part of selling your message is having someone the masses will want to listen to, and so far Ryan has been VERY effective in the week on the job.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4385
Reputation: 245.5
votes: 8

PostPosted: Tue Aug 21, 2012 9:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Not only that ... his mother is a FLORIDA SENIOR!!!!

Bill Whittle asks a good question -- why is he the ONLY member of Congress, in either the Senate or the House, to offer an alternative to the Obama plan to restore the economy?

Yet, when this lonely guy gets out in front of the public, there is almost a chemical reaction. People feel electrified because, at last, someone is ignoring the polls, and showing the courage to offer some real substance.

Some say it's because he's young, or that he looks good. In my mind, that's incidental. It's because he gives voice to what a lot of people are feeling ...

The constituency is out there, working voicelessly to change things. They used to be called the Tea Party, but the media tell us they are no more. They seem invisible to us. Even so, local groups of Americans are creating an alternative that wants to restore fiscal sanity mostly by reducing the size and scale of government.

I expect a tidal wave in the 2010 election, and it's my belief that their work is on-going, using the Constitution the way the Founders meant it to be used ...

My feeling is that there is a groundswell forming out there, and where we, you and I, Cosmo, have our one big disagreement -- that is, that the technicians of electoral politics will be pushed aside as the heat rises. They are not 'in control' of events, once again fooling the people.

This is a watershed election, an election that will put America on a new course. The new government may succeed or they may fail, but a big part of the electorate are alienated from both the old-line parties. This is the group that is going to determine the results of this election. Implicitly, they are rejecting the programs that that Democrats have used to get power ever since Roosevelt. Less obvious, perhaps, they are also rejecting the programs that the Republicans have used since Reagan.

Watch for a movement towards a radically reduced scale of government!
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7523
Reputation: 301Reputation: 301
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2012 8:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It appears Claire McCaskill's political life appears to have been saved as Todd Akin has gone from leading outside the MoE to trailing by basically double digits.

Missouri appears to now be a D - Hold.

However, Linda McMahon has been a steamroller since August 15th.
She appears to be ahead in Connecticut closing what was an impressive gap.

Wisconsin with the nomination of Tommy Thompson appears to have put that States Senate Seat pretty firmly with the - R
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7523
Reputation: 301Reputation: 301
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2012 10:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

As we are less then two months away the Senate races appear to be a little clearer;

Current Senate Make-Up:

Dem: 49
GOP: 47
IND: 2 (Both Caucus with Dem)

Likely GOP Gains:
Nebraska (From Dem)
North Dakota (From Dem)
Wisconsin (From Dem)

Likely GOP losses:
Maine (to IND)

In Play:
Potential GOP Gains:

Montana (from Dem)
Virginia (From Dem)
Connecticut (From IND)

Potential Dem Gains:

Massachusetts (From GOP)
Connecticut (From IND)

Ohio, Florida, and potentially Missouri appeared to be in the cross hairs, but have rapidly slipped back into safe dem range.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4385
Reputation: 245.5
votes: 8

PostPosted: Wed Sep 26, 2012 12:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

A gain of five senate seats would be a HUGE rebuke to Obama and the Democrats. It would deliver control of the Senate to the Republicans.

And if that Elizabeth Warren woman can win, I'd be amazed.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4385
Reputation: 245.5
votes: 8

PostPosted: Sun Oct 14, 2012 12:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Three weeks later ... and the prospects have changed.

Both Gallup and Rasmussen have Romney narrowly in the lead nationally, by 2% and 1% respectively.

Obama still has a substantial lead in Ohio, Arizona, Michigan, but Romney now leads in Virginia, Florida, New Hampshire, Nevada and Colorado. And Missouri!

In the electoral college, the count now stands at 201 to 191 in Obama's favour, but the gap has narrowed considerably. (This is without considering the toss-up states.)

[All this comes from realclearpolitics.com]


Last edited by Bugs on Sun Oct 14, 2012 9:36 am; edited 1 time in total
Dolphin





Joined: 30 Sep 2007
Posts: 31
Reputation: 61
Location: California, USA

PostPosted: Sun Oct 14, 2012 3:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Only one poll had Obama up in Arizona and Obama's lead in Ohio has diminished.
Romney is up in Virginia, Florida and some polls have him up in New Hampshire and Colorado, but haven't seen him up in any poll in Nevada, yet at least. But it seems to be narrowing.

This is all great news if you're a Romney supporter, which I am, but I wouldn't count Obama out yet.
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7523
Reputation: 301Reputation: 301
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2012 9:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dolphin wrote:

This is all great news if you're a Romney supporter, which I am, but I wouldn't count Obama out yet.


If Romney can hold his own on Tuesday, I think it will be hard to stop the momentum and it will make for an interesting November.
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7523
Reputation: 301Reputation: 301
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 11:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Walking into the final stretch this is where we stand with Senate Seats:

Likely GOP Gains:
Nebraska (From Dem)
North Dakota (From Dem)

Potential GOP Gains
Wisconsin (From Dem)
Montana (From Dem)

TCTC
Virginia (From Dem)
Missouri (From Dem)

Likely Dem Gains:
Connecticut (From IND)

Potential Dem Gains:
Massachusetts (From GOP)

TCTC
Indiana (From GOP)

Likely IND Gains:
Maine (From GOP)

Assuming Senate Seats Change Hands:
The current breakdown of Democrats(51) Republicans(47) Independents(2)

If all likely change hands: DEM 50 GOP 48 IND 2
If all potential change hands: GOP 49 DEM 49 IND 2

Basically to win the Senate;
With the certain loss of Maine, the GOP needs Nebraska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Montana, with one other and maintain Indiana and Massachusetts or lose one of the two and add both Virginia and Missouri.

GOP 51, DEM 47, IND 2
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7523
Reputation: 301Reputation: 301
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Mon Nov 05, 2012 11:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It appears that Montana is firming up and may likely end up a GOP pick-up.
This along with Nebraska and North Dakota is a good step in the right direction.

However, Indiana is not looking as good as it was even a week ago.

Indiana or Massachusetts needs to be retained, and Virginia needs to be picked up.
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7523
Reputation: 301Reputation: 301
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Wed Nov 07, 2012 10:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

What a night!
Surprised that North Dakota will likely go Democrat, however if I had to pick one Democrat it would be Heidi Heitkamp who actively campaigned against the President.

The Democrats were under-polled apparently, and won every likely and TCTC battle in the Senate.

If I can draw one conclusion in this postmortem its that the Tea Party has now cost the GOP four Senate seats.

Dick Lugar moderate or otherwise would have retained Indiana without question, and replacing him with a more "apt" candidate has once again proven to be a losing strategy.

Ken Buck shouldn't have been representing the GOP in Colorado;
Christine O'Donnell shouldn't have been representing the GOP in Delaware;
and perhaps most important Sharron Angle shouldn't have been representing the GOP in Nevada as a victory over Harry Reid would have been the most significant GOP victory since Bush in 2004.

Sooner or later the choice between principal and electability is going to have to be made.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 3

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


2012 US Senate Election

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB