Of Electability and Swing States

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

As you know, due to our selection of President by Electoral College, only a few swing states will realistically tip the balance. Thus, I've always been surprised that so many pollsters conduct nationwide polls instead of just focusing on only the states that matter.

But now USA Today and Gallup have released a poll that is limited to registered voters of 12 swing states: Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Virginia, and Wisconsin. In head-to-head matchups with Obama:
- Romney 48%, Obama 47%
- Obama 54%, Gingrich 40%
- Obama 50%, Paul 43%
- Obama 51%, Santorum 44%

The only way this poll could be more relevant is if it screened for "likely" voters (like Rasmussen, and why the hell doesn't Rasmussen do a poll like this?)

Now, The GOP is being dragged down a bit during this ugly primary fight, so any GOP candidate will likely get a bounce after securing the nomination, but the point remains: Romney continues to be the candidate with the best chance to defeat President Obama. It isn't even close.

Unfortunately, there appears to be a strong faction of the Republican party that does not have an ounce of pragmatism and will not support Romney (at least, they say they won't). These people need to understand a few things: (1) Gingrich is not Reagan, even if he channels him in the debates, (2) Gingrich is not electable, (3) not only is Gingrich  not electable, his toxicity will work its way down the chain to House and Senate races, (4) Romney will do a far better job of working with a Republican legislature to advance conservative causes than another 4 years of Obama.

I love the Tea Party but, dammit, a lot of these people wouldn't know pragmatism if it hit them in the face.

[felix rex]

Yep

[Dr Rick Daris]

when i want to talk politics, the first place to talk it that comes to mind is the goEMAW.com dunning-kruger dome. honey come to bed. sorry can't right now. gotta hammer out a few more politics posts in the dkd. wow is life great.

[Pete]

As you know, due to our selection of President by Electoral College, only a few swing states will realistically tip the balance. Thus, I've always been surprised that so many pollsters conduct nationwide polls instead of just focusing on only the states that matter.

But now USA Today and Gallup have released a poll that is limited to registered voters of 12 swing states: Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Virginia, and Wisconsin. In head-to-head matchups with Obama:
- Romney 48%, Obama 47%
- Obama 54%, Gingrich 40%
- Obama 50%, Paul 43%
- Obama 51%, Santorum 44%

The only way this poll could be more relevant is if it screened for "likely" voters (like Rasmussen, and why the hell doesn't Rasmussen do a poll like this?)

Now, The GOP is being dragged down a bit during this ugly primary fight, so any GOP candidate will likely get a bounce after securing the nomination, but the point remains: Romney continues to be the candidate with the best chance to defeat President Obama. It isn't even close.

Unfortunately, there appears to be a strong faction of the Republican party that does not have an ounce of pragmatism and will not support Romney (at least, they say they won't). These people need to understand a few things: (1) Gingrich is not Reagan, even if he channels him in the debates, (2) Gingrich is not electable, (3) not only is Gingrich  not electable, his toxicity will work its way down the chain to House and Senate races, (4) Romney will do a far better job of working with a Republican legislature to advance conservative causes than another 4 years of Obama.

I love the Tea Party but, dammit, a lot of these people wouldn't know pragmatism if it hit them in the face.

How do you feel about the mormony stuff?    I mean, he was a bishop in the joint, for crying out loud.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

As you know, due to our selection of President by Electoral College, only a few swing states will realistically tip the balance. Thus, I've always been surprised that so many pollsters conduct nationwide polls instead of just focusing on only the states that matter.

But now USA Today and Gallup have released a poll that is limited to registered voters of 12 swing states: Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Virginia, and Wisconsin. In head-to-head matchups with Obama:
- Romney 48%, Obama 47%
- Obama 54%, Gingrich 40%
- Obama 50%, Paul 43%
- Obama 51%, Santorum 44%

The only way this poll could be more relevant is if it screened for "likely" voters (like Rasmussen, and why the hell doesn't Rasmussen do a poll like this?)

Now, The GOP is being dragged down a bit during this ugly primary fight, so any GOP candidate will likely get a bounce after securing the nomination, but the point remains: Romney continues to be the candidate with the best chance to defeat President Obama. It isn't even close.

Unfortunately, there appears to be a strong faction of the Republican party that does not have an ounce of pragmatism and will not support Romney (at least, they say they won't). These people need to understand a few things: (1) Gingrich is not Reagan, even if he channels him in the debates, (2) Gingrich is not electable, (3) not only is Gingrich  not electable, his toxicity will work its way down the chain to House and Senate races, (4) Romney will do a far better job of working with a Republican legislature to advance conservative causes than another 4 years of Obama.

I love the Tea Party but, dammit, a lot of these people wouldn't know pragmatism if it hit them in the face.

How do you feel about the mormony stuff?    I mean, he was a bishop in the joint, for crying out loud.

only bigots worry about that stuff

[Pete]

As you know, due to our selection of President by Electoral College, only a few swing states will realistically tip the balance. Thus, I've always been surprised that so many pollsters conduct nationwide polls instead of just focusing on only the states that matter.

But now USA Today and Gallup have released a poll that is limited to registered voters of 12 swing states: Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Virginia, and Wisconsin. In head-to-head matchups with Obama:
- Romney 48%, Obama 47%
- Obama 54%, Gingrich 40%
- Obama 50%, Paul 43%
- Obama 51%, Santorum 44%

The only way this poll could be more relevant is if it screened for "likely" voters (like Rasmussen, and why the hell doesn't Rasmussen do a poll like this?)

Now, The GOP is being dragged down a bit during this ugly primary fight, so any GOP candidate will likely get a bounce after securing the nomination, but the point remains: Romney continues to be the candidate with the best chance to defeat President Obama. It isn't even close.

Unfortunately, there appears to be a strong faction of the Republican party that does not have an ounce of pragmatism and will not support Romney (at least, they say they won't). These people need to understand a few things: (1) Gingrich is not Reagan, even if he channels him in the debates, (2) Gingrich is not electable, (3) not only is Gingrich  not electable, his toxicity will work its way down the chain to House and Senate races, (4) Romney will do a far better job of working with a Republican legislature to advance conservative causes than another 4 years of Obama.

I love the Tea Party but, dammit, a lot of these people wouldn't know pragmatism if it hit them in the face.

How do you feel about the mormony stuff?    I mean, he was a bishop in the joint, for crying out loud.

only bigots worry about that stuff

According to reports a sizable portion of the GOP is very worried about that.  So, I suppose I will agree with you that bigots DO worry about that.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

As you know, due to our selection of President by Electoral College, only a few swing states will realistically tip the balance. Thus, I've always been surprised that so many pollsters conduct nationwide polls instead of just focusing on only the states that matter.

But now USA Today and Gallup have released a poll that is limited to registered voters of 12 swing states: Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Virginia, and Wisconsin. In head-to-head matchups with Obama:
- Romney 48%, Obama 47%
- Obama 54%, Gingrich 40%
- Obama 50%, Paul 43%
- Obama 51%, Santorum 44%

The only way this poll could be more relevant is if it screened for "likely" voters (like Rasmussen, and why the hell doesn't Rasmussen do a poll like this?)

Now, The GOP is being dragged down a bit during this ugly primary fight, so any GOP candidate will likely get a bounce after securing the nomination, but the point remains: Romney continues to be the candidate with the best chance to defeat President Obama. It isn't even close.

Unfortunately, there appears to be a strong faction of the Republican party that does not have an ounce of pragmatism and will not support Romney (at least, they say they won't). These people need to understand a few things: (1) Gingrich is not Reagan, even if he channels him in the debates, (2) Gingrich is not electable, (3) not only is Gingrich  not electable, his toxicity will work its way down the chain to House and Senate races, (4) Romney will do a far better job of working with a Republican legislature to advance conservative causes than another 4 years of Obama.

I love the Tea Party but, dammit, a lot of these people wouldn't know pragmatism if it hit them in the face.

How do you feel about the mormony stuff?    I mean, he was a bishop in the joint, for crying out loud.

only bigots worry about that stuff

According to reports a sizable portion of the GOP is very worried about that.  So, I suppose I will agree with you that bigots DO worry about that.

looking forward to the left's smear campaign on Romney's religion

Keep telling yourself that the left isn't a bunch of bigots, they're the worst

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

why do the democrats hate civil liberties?

[Trim]

when i want to talk politics, the first place to talk it that comes to mind is the goEMAW.com dunning-kruger dome. honey come to bed. sorry can't right now. gotta hammer out a few more politics posts in the dkd. wow is life great.

Chat?

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

How do you feel about the mormony stuff?    I mean, he was a bishop in the joint, for crying out loud.

I think it's pretty much a non-issue. In a choice between a conservative Mormon or a liberal atheist, I think 99% of the evangelical Christians will suck it up and vote for Romney.

[Dugout DickStone]

How do you feel about the mormony stuff?    I mean, he was a bishop in the joint, for crying out loud.

I think it's pretty much a non-issue. In a choice between a conservative Mormon or a liberal atheist, I think 99% of the evangelical Christians will suck it up and vote for Romney.

Isn't he a pro-abortion conservative Mormon?

[06wildcat]

How do you feel about the mormony stuff?    I mean, he was a bishop in the joint, for crying out loud.

I think it's pretty much a non-issue. In a choice between a conservative Mormon or a liberal atheist, I think 99% of the evangelical Christians will suck it up and vote for Romney.

Isn't he a pro-abortion conservative Mormon?

That was last week. He's pro-life now.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

How do you feel about the mormony stuff?    I mean, he was a bishop in the joint, for crying out loud.

I think it's pretty much a non-issue. In a choice between a conservative Mormon or a liberal atheist, I think 99% of the evangelical Christians will suck it up and vote for Romney.

Isn't he a pro-abortion conservative Mormon?

That was last week. He's pro-life now.

After wallowing around in the slime of sick and twisted Mass politics, he changed his mind.

[Pete]

How do you feel about the mormony stuff?    I mean, he was a bishop in the joint, for crying out loud.

I think it's pretty much a non-issue. In a choice between a conservative Mormon or a liberal atheist, I think 99% of the evangelical Christians will suck it up and vote for Romney.

Please identify the liberal atheist he'll be running against. TIA

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

How do you feel about the mormony stuff?    I mean, he was a bishop in the joint, for crying out loud.

I think it's pretty much a non-issue. In a choice between a conservative Mormon or a liberal atheist, I think 99% of the evangelical Christians will suck it up and vote for Romney.

Please identify the liberal atheist he'll be running against. TIA

Obama. Bill Maher agrees. And even if Obama is not an atheist and actually believes in "Black Liberation Theology," that is no closer to Christianity than Mormonism, in my opinion.

[Dugout DickStone]

How do you feel about the mormony stuff?    I mean, he was a bishop in the joint, for crying out loud.

I think it's pretty much a non-issue. In a choice between a conservative Mormon or a liberal atheist, I think 99% of the evangelical Christians will suck it up and vote for Romney.

Isn't he a pro-abortion conservative Mormon?

That was last week. He's pro-life now.

After wallowing around in the slime of sick and twisted Mass politics, he changed his mind.

I wonder when he will change it back?

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

How do you feel about the mormony stuff?    I mean, he was a bishop in the joint, for crying out loud.

I think it's pretty much a non-issue. In a choice between a conservative Mormon or a liberal atheist, I think 99% of the evangelical Christians will suck it up and vote for Romney.

Isn't he a pro-abortion conservative Mormon?

That was last week. He's pro-life now.

After wallowing around in the slime of sick and twisted Mass politics, he changed his mind.

I wonder when he will change it back?

I know you're just trying to stir the pot, but in all seriousness, why would he "change it back"? Even if, as critics claim, he switched his position for political expediency, it would not be politically advantageous to change again. If elected president, he will be at least somewhat beholden to the (conservative) constituency that elected him. More importantly, the issue of abortion is now a 50/50 proposition in the national electorate, with the momentum apparently in favor of pro-life.

[Dugout DickStone]

How do you feel about the mormony stuff?    I mean, he was a bishop in the joint, for crying out loud.

I think it's pretty much a non-issue. In a choice between a conservative Mormon or a liberal atheist, I think 99% of the evangelical Christians will suck it up and vote for Romney.

Isn't he a pro-abortion conservative Mormon?

That was last week. He's pro-life now.

After wallowing around in the slime of sick and twisted Mass politics, he changed his mind.

I wonder when he will change it back?

I know you're just trying to stir the pot, but in all seriousness, why would he "change it back"? Even if, as critics claim, he switched his position for political expediency, it would not be politically advantageous to change again. If elected president, he will be at least somewhat beholden to the (conservative) constituency that elected him. More importantly, the issue of abortion is now a 50/50 proposition in the national electorate, with the momentum apparently in favor of pro-life.

But what if it swings 40/60 pro-choice?

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

How do you feel about the mormony stuff?    I mean, he was a bishop in the joint, for crying out loud.

I think it's pretty much a non-issue. In a choice between a conservative Mormon or a liberal atheist, I think 99% of the evangelical Christians will suck it up and vote for Romney.

Isn't he a pro-abortion conservative Mormon?

That was last week. He's pro-life now.

After wallowing around in the slime of sick and twisted Mass politics, he changed his mind.

I wonder when he will change it back?

I know you're just trying to stir the pot, but in all seriousness, why would he "change it back"? Even if, as critics claim, he switched his position for political expediency, it would not be politically advantageous to change again. If elected president, he will be at least somewhat beholden to the (conservative) constituency that elected him. More importantly, the issue of abortion is now a 50/50 proposition in the national electorate, with the momentum apparently in favor of pro-life.

But what if it swings 40/60 pro-choice?

It won't. Ironically, the advancement of science has been the greatest enemy of the pro-choice movement. It has "humanized" the fetus more and more, both through earlier viability and more advanced in-utero imagery (a baby sucking its thumb at 10 weeks is difficult to ignore). Generations from now, people will look back and shudder at the barbarity of abortion on demand.

[Dugout DickStone]

How do you feel about the mormony stuff?    I mean, he was a bishop in the joint, for crying out loud.

I think it's pretty much a non-issue. In a choice between a conservative Mormon or a liberal atheist, I think 99% of the evangelical Christians will suck it up and vote for Romney.

Isn't he a pro-abortion conservative Mormon?

That was last week. He's pro-life now.

After wallowing around in the slime of sick and twisted Mass politics, he changed his mind.

I wonder when he will change it back?

I know you're just trying to stir the pot, but in all seriousness, why would he "change it back"? Even if, as critics claim, he switched his position for political expediency, it would not be politically advantageous to change again. If elected president, he will be at least somewhat beholden to the (conservative) constituency that elected him. More importantly, the issue of abortion is now a 50/50 proposition in the national electorate, with the momentum apparently in favor of pro-life.

But what if it swings 40/60 pro-choice?

It won't. Ironically, the advancement of science has been the greatest enemy of the pro-choice movement. It has "humanized" the fetus more and more, both through earlier viability and in-utero imagery. Generations from now, people will look back and shudder at the barbarism of abortion on demand.

45/55?  I think Mitt would switch back for that kind of number.

[Rage Against the McKee]

How do you feel about the mormony stuff?    I mean, he was a bishop in the joint, for crying out loud.

I think it's pretty much a non-issue. In a choice between a conservative Mormon or a liberal atheist, I think 99% of the evangelical Christians will suck it up and vote for Romney.

Isn't he a pro-abortion conservative Mormon?

That was last week. He's pro-life now.

After wallowing around in the slime of sick and twisted Mass politics, he changed his mind.

I wonder when he will change it back?

I know you're just trying to stir the pot, but in all seriousness, why would he "change it back"? Even if, as critics claim, he switched his position for political expediency, it would not be politically advantageous to change again. If elected president, he will be at least somewhat beholden to the (conservative) constituency that elected him. More importantly, the issue of abortion is now a 50/50 proposition in the national electorate, with the momentum apparently in favor of pro-life.

But what if it swings 40/60 pro-choice?

It won't. Ironically, the advancement of science has been the greatest enemy of the pro-choice movement. It has "humanized" the fetus more and more, both through earlier viability and in-utero imagery. Generations from now, people will look back and shudder at the barbarism of abortion on demand.

45/55?  I think Mitt would switch back for that kind of number.

I think Mitt is smart enough to look at the numbers on likely voters. Many of that 55% won't vote.

[Dugout DickStone]

How do you feel about the mormony stuff?    I mean, he was a bishop in the joint, for crying out loud.

I think it's pretty much a non-issue. In a choice between a conservative Mormon or a liberal atheist, I think 99% of the evangelical Christians will suck it up and vote for Romney.

Isn't he a pro-abortion conservative Mormon?

That was last week. He's pro-life now.

After wallowing around in the slime of sick and twisted Mass politics, he changed his mind.

I wonder when he will change it back?

I know you're just trying to stir the pot, but in all seriousness, why would he "change it back"? Even if, as critics claim, he switched his position for political expediency, it would not be politically advantageous to change again. If elected president, he will be at least somewhat beholden to the (conservative) constituency that elected him. More importantly, the issue of abortion is now a 50/50 proposition in the national electorate, with the momentum apparently in favor of pro-life.

But what if it swings 40/60 pro-choice?

It won't. Ironically, the advancement of science has been the greatest enemy of the pro-choice movement. It has "humanized" the fetus more and more, both through earlier viability and in-utero imagery. Generations from now, people will look back and shudder at the barbarism of abortion on demand.

45/55?  I think Mitt would switch back for that kind of number.

I think Mitt is smart enough to look at the numbers on likely voters. Many of that 55% won't vote.

Totally agree that he will base his position on abortion on winning the election. 

[Pete]

How do you feel about the mormony stuff?    I mean, he was a bishop in the joint, for crying out loud.

I think it's pretty much a non-issue. In a choice between a conservative Mormon or a liberal atheist, I think 99% of the evangelical Christians will suck it up and vote for Romney.

Please identify the liberal atheist he'll be running against. TIA

Obama. Bill Maher agrees. And even if Obama is not an atheist and actually believes in "Black Liberation Theology," that is no closer to Christianity than Mormonism, in my opinion.

Do you believe the crap that you type?

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

How do you feel about the mormony stuff?    I mean, he was a bishop in the joint, for crying out loud.

I think it's pretty much a non-issue. In a choice between a conservative Mormon or a liberal atheist, I think 99% of the evangelical Christians will suck it up and vote for Romney.

Please identify the liberal atheist he'll be running against. TIA

Obama. Bill Maher agrees. And even if Obama is not an atheist and actually believes in "Black Liberation Theology," that is no closer to Christianity than Mormonism, in my opinion.

Do you believe the crap that you type?

Sure do.

[Dr Rick Daris]

some bros wanted to get together last night and hangout and play poker and watch the pro bowl but i was like too bad bros, i've got to some politics to discuss? where did i go discuss politics you ask? why goEMAW.com of course. far and away my favorite place for when i want to get into great discussions about national politics.