-
Sanford Resurrected in Carolina
April 3, 2013 | 140 comments
-
Bostic and Sanford Battle in Charleston
March 29, 2013 | 16 comments
-
South Carolina Showdown
March 26, 2013 | 39 comments
-
The Liberal Media Lie About CPAC
March 18, 2013 | 35 comments
-
The Hottest Ticket in Town
March 14, 2013 | 28 comments
Campaign Crawlers
Fear and Loathing in Ohio
The long campaign approaches its conclusion in the Buckeye State.
BLUE ASH, Ohio — Tens of thousands of Republicans were jammed into a Friday night rally in the Cincinnati suburb of West Chester, and Ron Sokol leaned over the crowd-control barricade to talk about what he’s witnessed during his door-to-door canvassing expeditions.
“Between now and 2008, I see a world of difference,” Sokol said, explaining how much more enthusiasm there is for GOP nominee Mitt Romney — and how much less for Barack Obama. Sokol also mentioned that Republican get-out-the-vote operations here in Butler County have been bolstered by an influx of volunteers from around the country. “I see people from Tennessee, Texas, Indiana — everywhere.”
Eyewitness accounts like Sokol’s are routinely dismissed by analysts as mere anecdotes and, even though it is proverbial that the plural of “anecdote” is data, such tales don’t count for much among the gurus, soothsayers, and other savants who arrogate to themselves the mantle of political expertise. But why bring up Nate Silver at this late stage of the campaign?
The statistical wizard of the New York Times has gone so far out on a limb with his prediction of an Obama victory that Silver might as well pull a Joe Namath and guarantee it. Late Saturday, he peered into his vaunted “Forecasting Model” and raised the likelihood of the president’s election to 85.1 percent, the one-tenth of a percentage point being the gimmick by which Silver provides his guesstimate with the illusion of scientific precision. Whatever his qualifications as a political analyst, Silver may be the most successful public-relations man since Eddie Bernays. His self-created aura of infallibility has made Silver a vital bulwark of the Obama campaign, which fed him their internal polling data (and signed him to a confidentiality agreement) in 2008 when he was openly advocating the Democrat’s candidacy on his own blog.
These days, as Mike Flynn of Breitbart.com says, Silver has become “the patron saint of confirmation bias,” providing statistics that support the liberal True Believer’s faith in the ultimate triumph of Obama. Silver has never projected Obama’s chances at worse than 60 percent and in early September was already rating the president’s re-election chances at 4-to-1 (see my Sept. 10 column, “Omens of Doom?”). Before Romney’s one-sided romp in the first debate Oct. 3, Silver had raised Obama’s chances to precisely 87.1 percent (nearly 7-to-1), but after a nine-day tumble that took the Democrat’s number down to 61.1 percent — still more than a 20-point favorite over Romney — Silver announced that the Republican’s momentum had stopped. This was, perhaps not coincidentally, the message being trumpeted simultaneously from Obama HQ in Chicago, and Silver has since then relentlessly raised the odds in the president’s favor.
This gives hope to the Obamaphiles, although there are frequent indications that Silver’s fair-sky forecasts haven’t calmed the jitters among Democrats. For example, The Nation has already started claiming “voter suppression” (a favorite theme of the Left since the contested 2000 election) because Ohio’s Republican Secretary of State, Jon Husted, issued a directive that might have the effect of disqualifying some incorrectly filed provisional ballots. Regardless of the merits of the case, for the Left to begin playing the “stolen election” card two days ahead of Election Day suggests a lack of confidence in claims that Obama is sailing to an easy win in Ohio. One recent poll, showing Obama ahead by 6 points, had a survey sample composed of 38 percent Democrats and 29 percent Republicans — a D+9 oversample that actually exceeds the Democrat advantage in partisan ID reported by 2008 exit polls, when Ohio went to Obama by a 5-point margin, 52-47, over John McCain. Such implausible oversampling of Democrats has become routine in polls this year. A CNN national poll released Sunday had the race tied at 49 percent each for Obama and Romney, but with a D+11 sample that prompted my Republican operative friend Ali Akbar to remark, “They might as well be polling San Francisco.”
Akbar stayed up all night Saturday poring over Ohio early-voting totals, comparing them to previous elections, studying recent Buckeye State polls, and crunching the numbers before waking me up before 8 a.m. Sunday to declare, “We’ve got Ohio.” His analysis of the early-vote numbers and his interpretation of the latest Columbus Dispatch poll as bad news for Obama quickly inspired an online buzz among Republicans who have been worried sick over Ohio. Even at the mid-October apex of Romney’s surge, the Republican never led the Real Clear Politics average of polls in this crucial battleground state. Although Obama’s lead has never been large — as of Sunday, he led the RCP Ohio average by 2.8 points — it has been remarkably persistent, prompting much theorizing about the factors behind it. The economy in Ohio hasn’t been quite as hard-hit as some other states; unemployment is only 7 percent. Ads from the Obama campaign have hit Romney hard for his opposition to the GM and Chrysler bailout, a reasonably popular measure in Ohio, where auto manufacturing jobs are a vital part of the state’s economy.
Despite the deluge of attack ads and the worrisome polls, Romney approaches Election Day within reach of victory in Ohio. The most recent Rasmussen poll shows the state a dead heat at 49 each for Romney and Obama, which means that a strong turnout effort by Republicans could provide the margin of victory. And the GOP and its allies have organized a get-out-the-vote blitz of unprecedented vigor in the Buckeye State this year. In addition to the usual barrage of pre-recorded “robo-calls” and extensive live phone-banking, the Romney campaign has done more door-to-door canvassing here than in any Republican campaign in recent memory. Romney’s Ohio field director told the New York Times that they have been “knocking on 19 times as many doors as Senator John McCain’s campaign did four years ago.” (This rather important bit of news was buried in the 57th paragraph of the Times article.) The official Republican campaign operation is bolstered by similar efforts from a number of outside groups, among them Americans for Prosperity, which made more than 23,000 door-to-door contacts statewide Thursday through Saturday and expected to make thousands more in the final days of the campaign.
Early Sunday morning, an AFP van pulled up to a motel here in the Butler County suburbs of Cincinnati. The van driver waited to load up volunteers for another day of door-knocking. The six passengers had hit a total of 800 doors Saturday, half of them in affluent West Chester, the other half in blue-collar Middletown. One of the teenage volunteers displayed a cellphone photo he had taken of the front door of a house in a particular rough section of Middletown. A sign on the door read, “Is there life after death? Trespass here and find out.”
Was this homeowner a “likely voter”? Is he a Republican or Democrat? Did Gallup ever call him? How do the sentiments of such people figure into the calculus of Nate Silver and all the other political wizards who tell us what’s going to happen on Election Day?
Questions like that multiply endlessly in the waning hours of a long campaign. Within 48 hours, we’ll know the answer to the big question, no doubt to the great relief of the much-harassed citizens of Ohio.
About the Author
Robert Stacy McCain is co-author (with Lynn Vincent) of Donkey Cons: Sex, Crime, and Corruption in the Democratic Party (Nelson Current). He blogs at The Other McCain.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (136) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Robert Stacy McCain
More Articles From Campaign Crawlers
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/11/05/fear-and-loathing-in-ohio
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Aristocat| 11.5.12 @ 6:19AM
Romney will carry Ohio and win the election.
TLP| 11.5.12 @ 7:46AM
In a sane world, having the following comments out in print via Obama’s racist books would have knocked him out of the running for president of the United States.(they would have crucified a white candidate for far less)
From Dreams from My Father,“ I FOUND A SOLACE IN NURSING A PERVASIVE SENSE OF GRIEVANCE AND ANIMOSITY AGAINST MY MOTHER’S RACE”. Barack Hussein Obama
From ‘Dreams from my Father’,The emotion between the races could never be pure, even love was tarnished by the desire to find in the other some element that was missing in ourselves. Whether we sought out our demons or salvation, THE OTHER RACE (WHITE) WOULD ALWAYS REMAIN JUST THAT: MENACING, ALIEN, AND APART.” Barack Hussein Obama
From Dreams from My Father:“THAT HATE HADN’T GONE” he wrote, BLAMING “WHITE PEOPLE — some CRUEL, some IGNORANT, sometimes a single face, sometimes just a faceless image of a system claiming power over our lives.” Barack Hussein Obama.
TLP| 11.5.12 @ 7:47AM
From ‘Dreams from My Father’,“There were enough of us on campus to constitute a tribe, and when it came to hanging out many of us chose to function like a tribe, staying close together, traveling in packs,” he wrote.“It remained necessary to prove which side you were on,to show your LOYALTY TO THE BLACK MASSES, TO STRIKE OUT and name names” Barack Hussein Obama
“Dreams From My Father,” page 101 (paperback, ISBN 978-1-4000-8277-3)
Dreams From My Father: To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists“Dreams From My Father,” pages 99-100
Then there is his love of Islam:
Quote from Barack Obama’s book, Dreams Of My Father:
“THE PERSON WHO MADE ME PROUDEST OF ALL, THOUGH, WAS MY [half brother], ROY..HE CONVERTED TO ISLAM”.
From ‘Dreams of my Father’,“IN INDONESIA, I SPEND TWO YEARS AT A MUSLIM SCHOOL”“..I STUDIED THE KORAN..”
From ‘Audacity of Hope:“LOLO (Obama’s step father) FOLLOWED ISLAM....”I LOOKED TO LOLO FOR GUIDANCE”.
From ‘The Audacity Of Hope,“I WILL STAND WITH THEM (MUSLIMS) SHOULD THE POLITICAL WINDS OF WAR SHIFT IN AN UGLY DIRECTION..”.From The Audacity Of Hope,“WE ARE NO LONGER JUST A CHRISTIAN NATION, we are also a Jewish nation, a MUSLIM NATION, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.”
Cat Shot| 11.5.12 @ 8:59AM
TLP - The time you devoted to reading Obama's dreck is time you'll never get back. Thanks for taking one for the team.
zukatesta| 11.5.12 @ 1:57PM
No one disputes this: the first amendment, protecting free speech, means that all must defend a person's right to say out loud even that with which we completely, vehemently disagree.
Now, apply it to religion. I am sorry there are those in the world that do not follow your Christian beliefs. Freedom of religion protects them, and their right to believe whatever they want.
Muslims are not the extremists responsible for the USS Cole, the World Trade Center (both times), the Pentagon, Benghazi, and so forth. Hatred for 1.6 billion peace loving individuals, for the acts of a few heathens who claim to believe in the same faith, is the height of ignorance.
chuck| 11.5.12 @ 3:33PM
Then Muslims need to police their own. The "peaceful" Muslims need to put an end to the Muslim terrorists. They know who they are, they need to stop them.
Time to put up, or shut up.
BTW, the extremists responsible for 9/11, the Cole, Benghazi, and all the other acts of terrorism around the world are MUSLIMS!
zukatesta| 11.5.12 @ 5:33PM
It's that easy, then?
You're aware 10 libyans died alongside 4 americans in Benghazi, trying to protect our consulate?
You're considering all the men, women and money we expended in Afghanistan and bordering countries, and what we accomplished?
And still you think it's that easy?
chuck| 11.5.12 @ 8:11PM
Yes, if the terrorists are a tiny minority like you say they are, AND the "peaceful" muslims, who must outnumber them, what......100-1?, really wanted to.
zukatesta| 11.7.12 @ 10:05AM
If there are 1600 extremists, they would outnumber them 1 million to one. That's not even close to the point. Trillions have been spent trying to hunt down and kill these extremists, with only partial success. Your alternative is to let their neighbors go hit them with a frying pan. You might want to think a little harder on this.
TLP| 11.5.12 @ 3:35PM
Actually, Muslims ARE RESPONSIBLE for the USS Cole, 911, The Khobar Towers Bombing, the First World Trade Center Bombing, the Destruction of the Two Embassies in Africa in the 1990's, the Killings at Fort Hood, the Attempt to Bomb Times Square, the Attempt to Murder Soldiers at Fort Dix, the Attempt to Blow Up the Jet Fuel Pipelines in New York, the Cairo Embassy Takeover, and the Murder of 4 Americans in Beghazi.
So, why don't you STFU, go Hump your Prettiest Goat, go Kill your Daughters, and GTF Outta my Country, and go back to the Festering Arab Hellhole, that you obviously Crawled out of.
And GFYourself, for good measure.
zukatesta| 11.5.12 @ 5:41PM
I've got a great idea. We can have a massive party, at like Dave & Busters or something, and we can invite the whole 1.6B lot of em. We'll serve free goat, or camel or whatever the hell, and promise everyone a virgin or something. Once we're sure we got everyone in there, every single man, woman and child, we can set off a nuke! Instant gentrification of every affront to America!
Archie| 11.5.12 @ 4:27PM
When was the last time you stood up, in your mosque, on Friday, in the USA, and said loudly for all to hear, what you just typed? You and the majority of the 1.6B you cite, seem to be mute, in the face of the extemists in your religion.
Awaiting your response.
zukatesta| 11.5.12 @ 5:30PM
I would like to reply, but I don't understand at what you are getting. I'm also Catholic, but that's irrelevant.
It would seem to me that if Muslims had a problem with America, we'd be up a creek. They outnumber us 5 to 1, they have nuclear capability, and apparently they have no concerns over collateral damage.
Fortunately, it is not Muslims, but extremists that do things in the name of Allah.
TLP| 11.5.12 @ 5:34PM
Extremist MUSLIMS, you Stupid Bastard.
zukatesta| 11.5.12 @ 5:43PM
"In the name of Allah."
You are apparently too dense to understand what I am saying. And fond of insults.
Bob Grant| 11.5.12 @ 8:41PM
testa,
Could you expand on your thoughts because you seem to be rambling and incoherent.
I have no idea what your point is.
I am trying to be fair.
Perhaps this TLP character is frustrated with you as well because generally his postings are very polite and respectful.
Expand please.
A. C. Santore| 11.5.12 @ 11:22AM
Have you hit upon the answer, perhaps, to the questions of voting for "revenge" against whom and for what.
Rational| 11.6.12 @ 1:21AM
Look that was a play on "living well is the best revenge". Clearly this has been a bitter election and both men despise each other. The crowd was chanting something and Obama responded. You want to make it about more than it is? Go ahead. Given what I am reading on this page, I find it hard to believe that the feelings on the right aren't as bitter as those on the left.
zukatesta| 11.5.12 @ 3:58PM
You do not understand the meaning of the word "racist." To be racist is to treat someone differently based on their race. It is not to acknowledge and consider the emotions and reactions that arise from issues of race. Everyone shares racists thoughts and tendencies. Some explore them in the attempt to understand and better themselves. Others try and suppress them, ultimately trying to live their lives in bubbles where race can't intervene. But of course, in this country, race will always intervene.
Talking about one's issues with racism does not make one racist, no more so than does talking about issues with faith makes one Godless.
Archie| 11.5.12 @ 4:45PM
Baloney. To be racist is to make observations about the culture and behavior of certain groups, and make generalizations based on those observations. Every one does it; it's human nature. I bet even you do it.
zukatesta| 11.5.12 @ 4:56PM
I wrote in the very same post to which you replied, "Everyone shares racists thoughts and tendencies."
Your definition of racist is accurate. The evil connotation of racism has a different definition. There is nothing evil in Obama's writings, and the author of the comment clearly implied there was, by writing, "In a sane world, having the following comments out in print via Obama’s racist books would have knocked him out of the running for president of the United States."
I'm pointing out that to acknowledge one's own racist inclinations is not a big deal, to do so can imply maturity and lead to greater awareness, and I am more concerned with those that try to hide racist thoughts and live in a racism-free bubble world. It sounds like you agree with me.
Archie| 11.5.12 @ 5:16PM
Your definition of racist, in your original post was incorrect, although it is commonly accepted.
"To be racist is to treat someone differently based on their race."
To be racist has little to do with race, and more to do with culture and behavior.
zukatesta| 11.5.12 @ 5:21PM
You're right. It was badly worded.
TLP| 11.5.12 @ 5:36PM
It was badly worder, because you're a Dumbass.
zukatesta| 11.5.12 @ 5:52PM
In reading your comments to this blog post, I've come to the realization that I should be insulted if you called me anything else.
Bob Grant| 11.5.12 @ 8:46PM
Um, yes,
And Muslims never, ever, ever live in bubbles, separating themselves from the rest of society, imposing laws that run counter to the ones by the countries in which they reside.
Rational| 11.6.12 @ 1:03AM
I agree that it would be insane for a white person to say equivalent things. But many officials have. Strom Thurmon, Bull Conner, Ross Barnett, George Wallace. I know Obama was not directly on the receiving end of that vicious racism, but you are kidding yourself if you don't think the color of his skin was a factor in his life.
He was talking about the past, not the present.
markenoff| 11.6.12 @ 9:57AM
"Rational" at 0103 06 Nov 12
Yes, Obama's skin color is a factor in his life. It is the only reason he ever became President. If he was white it would be President Hillary Clinton running for re-election.
It's also the only reason he, the most anti-life President in history, was invited to speak at Notre Dame. If Hillary or Biden had been elected instead they never would have been invited.
Who knows what other advantages have accrued to Obama based on the color of his skin.
Rational| 11.6.12 @ 1:14PM
First off, you are probably right that in Obama's recent history, his skin color was an asset. So was his timing. Obviously he is still anathema in the old confederacy.. I, too, was born with a physical disability which caused me much grief but also opened doors. In the end it is a wash.
I would like to ask you a question without rancor. You call Obama anti-life. I see him as pro Family Planning. It seems to me that pro-life primarily values fetuses and the terminally ill. I accept that anti-poverty programs have a mixed record, but don't we owe something to babies born to the poor? If I am terminally ill, and my religious beliefs allow, do I not have a right to assisted suicide?
What about Capital Punishment? We know to a certainty that innocent people have been on death row. There is good reason to believe an innocent person was executed in Texas. Rick Perry quashed a scientific investigation by a duly constituted state commission of the arson evidence. http://www.newyorker.com/repor.....fact_grann
Shouldn't these be pro-life issues?
vtwin| 11.5.12 @ 10:50AM
Wrong, Romney will loss Ohio just over the three (3) auto bailouts; the Auto Bailout Romney opposed, the Auto Bailout Romney took credit for, the Auto Bailout Romney claims failed.
janetd| 11.5.12 @ 6:25AM
Here in Michigan it is a tie, but my gut feeling is that Romney will lose Michigan (too many union deadheads), win Ohio and win the election.
Alan| 11.5.12 @ 7:20AM
Latest survey had Romney up 1 in Michigan.
Al Adab| 11.5.12 @ 8:30AM
Read Quin Hillier.
Romney needs to carry every McCain state, which he will and that equals 180. To that add IN for a total of 191. Then the big four of FL, NC, VA and Ohio with their 75 takes the total ton 266.
Any one of IA, WI, NH or CO delivers the election to Romney. Without FL he would need to add PA and IA just to stay even. Without Ohio it takes Co and WI make up the number. Either candidate is within about one state of winning.
Al Adab| 11.5.12 @ 8:34AM
My apology, that should be: Quin Hillyer
SUBVET| 11.5.12 @ 1:05PM
Survey's are for idiots................they play you like the idiot you are.
bl3ss3dwithlif3| 11.5.12 @ 10:02AM
I am in Michigan also and while I see tons and tons of Romney signs and think it will be close, I think Obama will take it because of the union. My husband is a teamster (against his will, he was one of 8 who tried to vote it out this last time but now its looking like another 5 year contract). We want a *Teamsters for Romney* sign lol He was going to ask the union steward if he has any on hand... We get so much propaganda in the mail from them that you really wouldnt know what to believe if you werent looking at the other side !
MikeBee| 11.5.12 @ 10:23AM
Bl3ss3d,
I am in Michigan, too, and my wife is a union member. We're both voting for Romney, against the advice of her union. Unlike in 2008, she is seeing NO excitement for Obama this time around, even among union members and blacks. Michigan may just barely edge Romney over Obama. Romney being from Michigan and having intimate knowledge of the auto industry may help him, also.
Jacob McCandles| 11.5.12 @ 10:06AM
An informal poll of my buddies in Michigan this past summer revealed that not only will they not vote for Mr. Obama, they have quite negative feelings about him as a person and president. If I quoted some of them here, I would probably be banned from posting. Most of them work for the big 3 or secondary auto industry.
Appleby| 11.5.12 @ 6:37AM
I am praying for a Romney win; that is all I can do at this point. Canada is praying for an Obama win because he's a socialist and fits better with their "We're Not America" mantra. You'd be amazed if you were here.
chuck| 11.5.12 @ 7:36AM
Misery loves company.
Tom Kyba| 11.5.12 @ 10:06AM
Not only that Appleby, but we have our own two-bit Camelot developing with silver spoon snot Trudeau surprisingly(?) changing his prissy little mind and running for the lib leadershiop. We've already heard how he's well versed in social issues and has a group of "experts" helping him bone up on economic issues. Prepare to be sickened.
Will| 11.5.12 @ 6:47AM
If Nate Silver and all the pollsters want Obama to win, why are they telling everybody that he'll almost definitely win? Surely this perception will lead to some democrat voters staying home on election day because they think its a forgone conclusion. If they really wanted him to win, they would be calling it a 50/50.
markenoff| 11.6.12 @ 9:59AM
They are trying to dampen Republican enthusiasm and votes.
jothepro| 11.5.12 @ 6:56AM
Here in central Michigan, the Obama yard signs are way down from 2008. Don't know how much this matters, but it is a positive trend...
The Avenger| 11.5.12 @ 7:03AM
I have noticed that also. I too live in central Michigan, and I see very little enthusiasm for Obama. The union vote will go for him big time however and will probably carry the day.
Alan| 11.5.12 @ 7:46AM
Same here in SE Michigan, in 08 there were Kenyan Muslomarxist/"dead brain" Joe posters all over the place, now virtually none. They caught a truck full of Union goons with a crapload of Romney posters they had stolen off of property in Toledo yesterday. I remember when we were juveniles that did those kind of stupid stunts for kicks but supposedly mature adults driving around in trucks stealing political posters shows desperation, but for brainless union members its par for the coarse.
bl3ss3dwithlif3| 11.5.12 @ 10:13AM
I am in SE Michigan and my neighbor had their Romney sign up for 2 days before someone stole it!
Von Mises Jr| 11.5.12 @ 7:00AM
The rats are fleeing the sinking ship. This communist adviser in the campaign may be still peddling the bullshit (I guess it is acceptable now to use this word at least until we get a respectable President).
But some eleven newspapers that endorsed Obama in 2008 just flipped to Romney. With newspapers already sucking hind teat with the proliferation of the internet, Obama is like a millstone around their necks. Time to cut the anchor rope or sink to the bottom of the abyss.
CJW| 11.5.12 @ 7:51AM
Von
Glad to see you back, hope you came throught Sandy ok.
Joe Pippi made a good comment. The winner will have over 300 electoral votes, not a close election. If the Romney model of voter turnout holds, we will win, but if the Obama 2008 voter turnout happens, then obama wins. 2008 was a fluke, now voters know the real Obama. Romney will win.
Von Mises Jr| 11.5.12 @ 8:12AM
Our electricity was out three days and internet for five, but we all pulled together, my friend. I know several of the people whom comment are from the area. I hope they and you are doing well.
I know we will be doing well by Wednesday except perhaps the poor souls that still can't be reached on the Coast.
woodsman1st| 11.5.12 @ 9:13AM
For the very future of our country; for the future of freedom throughout the entire world; I urge everyone to vote tomorrow for Mitt Romney.
We simply cannot afford to have even one Romney supporter sit on his/her couch tomorrow and fail to vote. Each of us has heard our entire lives that "every vote matters"; in this election, that old saying might just be the difference between freedom, liberty, the future of America, and the very bleak prospects of an Obama world that we may never be able to change....not ever!
woodsman1st| 11.5.12 @ 9:13AM
For the very future of our country; for the future of freedom throughout the entire world; I urge everyone to vote tomorrow for Mitt Romney.
We simply cannot afford to have even one Romney supporter sit on his/her couch tomorrow and fail to vote. Each of us has heard our entire lives that "every vote matters"; in this election, that old saying might just be the difference between freedom, liberty, the future of America, and the very bleak prospects of an Obama world that we may never be able to change....not ever!
Vic| 11.5.12 @ 10:28AM
Every man, woman and child get out there and vote for Romney. Ensure he carries Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Minnisota, Iowa, Missouri, NH, Virginia, South Carolina, Florida, Colorado, NM and Nevada.
Commander Kelly | 11.5.12 @ 9:52AM
Great News from OH! I hope that Robert is correct.
Perhaps the latest Endorsement of Romney by Queen Elizabeth II will push Mitt over the top? See my post "Queen Elizabeth endorses Romney" only here...http://americanconservativeinlondon.blogspot.co.uk/
doctorfixit| 11.5.12 @ 10:49AM
If it isn't close, they can't cheat.
Ball Buster| 11.5.12 @ 11:04AM
You guys are, I am afraid, totally wrong. Obama's going to win with 300+ EVs and the Dems will get a small pick up in the Senate. It's just not Nate Silver who's projecting an Obama win based on poll aggregration Many others are too.
There are virtually no sites aggregating all the poll data and projecting a Romney victory. The same goes for all the on-line betting markets. None of them have Romney winning.
For Romney to win, the polls would have to fail systemically. This is not likely to happen. I will back in 48 hours to see who's right. Fair enough?
zukatesta| 11.5.12 @ 12:40PM
This. Anyone who actually reads Silver's blog would find this very, very hard to dispute. The 14.9% that's out there for Romney is in fact what the model calculates to be a systematical error with the third-party polling. There isn't a single objective analysis anywhere that can explain a Romney win tomorrow (but Silver allows it can happen, we just won't understand how the polls were improperly designed until after the fact).
TLP| 11.5.12 @ 3:45PM
Who the Fck is Nate Silver?
I'll tell ya who he is.
He's NOBODY.
zukatesta| 11.5.12 @ 5:17PM
I'll tell you who he is: the subject of this article. To have something intelligent to say on the topic, you kind of have to know that.
TLP| 11.5.12 @ 5:38PM
Just because he's on Frightface's Column, doesn't make him a Somebody.
You're here, and you're a POS.
SUBVET| 11.5.12 @ 1:10PM
Like I said polls are for idiots...............and have you ever seen the movie "The Sting"....oh by the way don't bother comming back in 48 hrs.
chuck| 11.5.12 @ 3:36PM
CNN had to use Dems +11 just to make it even. That is twice the margin that occurred in 2008.
Does that qualify for a poll failing systemically?
TLP| 11.5.12 @ 3:46PM
Stop busting his balls.
KennesawJack| 11.5.12 @ 6:16PM
Not.
Nightwinger| 11.5.12 @ 12:03PM
Bashing Nate Silver is a foolish bet. In the previous election cycle, he correctly predicted the outcome in 49 out of 50 states. So, if his stats model is equally accurate this time around, the President will be probably be re-elected.
Drunken Sailor| 11.5.12 @ 12:21PM
My the trolls are working overtime today! Not a peep out of them for almost 2 weeks and then suddenly today brand new trolls (ok, most likely just new names) pop out of the woodwork proclaiming the race is over and Obama wins.
Sniff, Sniff, I smell fear on them.
zukatesta| 11.5.12 @ 12:35PM
"Late Saturday, he peered into his vaunted "Forecasting Model" and raised the likelihood of the president's election to 85.1 percent, the one-tenth of a percentage point being the gimmick by which Silver provides his guesstimate with the illusion of scientific precision. Whatever his qualifications as a political analyst, Silver may be the most successful public-relations man since Eddie Bernays. "
There is no gimmick, what Silver does is done with scientific precision, and "whatever his qualifications" actually boils down to being among the most freakishly accurate statistical modelers alive today (whether it be politics, baseball, or whatnot). This lazy, ultra-biased paragraph belies you as a likely anti-intellectual with a phobia for numbers. Woe be you if ever you had to meet and exchange verbal arguments with Nate Silver, lest your ignorance be completely revealed.
But hey, I get you. If you can't dispute with facts and reasoning, then dispute with slurs and insults.
Drunken Sailor| 11.5.12 @ 12:53PM
Is that the same Nate Silver that gave Republicans a 30% chance of winning over 60 seats in 2010 only to see them get 64?
zukatesta| 11.5.12 @ 1:38PM
Cherry pick much?
http://www.quora.com/Nate-Silv.....rs-in-2010
Dave Williams| 11.5.12 @ 12:50PM
I live (against my will) in Ohio, and if the yard signs are any gauge, Romney's got this locked up. Still, I will be biting my nails all night long tomorrow...please, please, PLEASE, let there be enough sane responsible adults in this country to counterbalance the hordes of whiny, lazy sucking-on-the-government-teat Obamabots.....
TLP| 11.5.12 @ 3:50PM
The Governor is a Republican, as is the State Legislature.
What more do you need?
In 2010 we had a Republican LANDSLIDE of Epic Proportion.
With that in mind: Are things in the Country better now?
Or, are they WORSE?
What does that tell you?
PolishKnight| 11.5.12 @ 1:21PM
I'm reminded of the classic SNL skit "Da Bears" where die-hard Bears fans estimate the scores of Bears games in hypothetical situations: Bears reduced in size to 5 inches tall versus 100 ft tall Giants? "Da Bears" wins 52 to 6. (Other guys at the table scream that he's being too optimistic to the Giants by letting them score a TD.)
On leftist blogs, they're past denial and going into outrage/anger mode and preparing protests that the election is being "stolen" by the right. That kid who threw away 8 ballots from a REPUBLICAN registration drive? That's PROOF that the Republicans are stealing the election!
Their histrionics is comforting news that they don't see Obama doing too well. "Da Bears" are preparing to blame their upcoming loss. Da Bears!
zukatesta| 11.5.12 @ 2:11PM
Interesting. Of course, in that skit, there would be mountains of evidence that would refute the prognostications of the bear fans, which they would hilariously ignore in favor of their subjective views.
Kind of like how all the evidence indicates Obama is a roughly 6-to-1 favorite in the electoral college (despite being a mere 13-to-12 favorite for the general election), which the Romney fan must ignore to predict victory.
I'm sure there are plenty of anti-Limbaugh, anti-Hannity nut jobs saying equally crazy things on "leftist" blogs. I try to avoid them with nearly the same vigor I do the far right garbage. The difference is this: there are quite a few actually elected officials from the right acting like nut jobs themselves, passing legislation that is poorly veiled to suppress voting rights of democratic leaning demographics. How can an American not be embarrassed by a law that would've denied voters with legal, government-issued military ID the right to vote, while allowing others to vote with a gun permit? How can anyone who values freedom above all not feel horribly wronged by this, from an elected official? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuOT1bRYdK8
TLP| 11.5.12 @ 5:40PM
And yet, you didn't come to The Contest.
Patrick in Michigan | 11.5.12 @ 1:23PM
God I hope we win this!
*biting nails*
jasond| 11.5.12 @ 1:48PM
Good article but way to complicated and Nate Silver is simply searching for data to support his desired outcome.
My method is simple and fool proof. Which ever side has the most po'ed voters will win. Po'ed people are more likely to act on their feelings than the non-po'ed. This year the Republicans and a large % of Independents are very po'ed and therefore more motivated to act than this year's couch potato Democrats. By this infallible logic the next President of the United States will be Mitt Romney.
zukatesta| 11.5.12 @ 2:17PM
That's infallible? Have you considered these po'ed people?
* women
* veterans
* immigrants
* union workers
* college students
* homosexuals
* single parents
* seniors on medicare
* those close to medicare age
* those who have been impacted by Bain
This list seems light. How about just anyone other than old white guys?
No, I am an old, white guy, and I am pretty po'ed, too. I get that way when someone tries to con me.
chuck| 11.5.12 @ 3:41PM
So what are all these supposed people pissed about? "The One, The Messiah, The One we've all been waiting for, The lowerer of the oceans, and the Healer of the Planet", as been ruling for 4 years! Seems to me they should all be fat and happy!
TLP| 11.5.12 @ 3:52PM
I smell a Purp.
zukatesta| 11.5.12 @ 5:03PM
They're po'ed about the ethically bankrupt, shape-shifting venture capitalist your party had the audacity to nominate.
Interesting your comment chooses to criticize Obama for not being Jesus. I think many people that voted for him actually understood he is not the son of God. I criticize Romney for not being a decent human being; for being a man that has profited by harming countless others. You really want to debate this on moral grounds?
I'll tell you who's really po'ed. People in Massachusetts got both these guys, and they're voting for Obama 2-to-1. What does that tell you?
TLP| 11.5.12 @ 5:42PM
It tells us that they're called - MASSHOLES - for good reason.
zukatesta| 11.5.12 @ 5:57PM
That's clever. You do have a name for everyone, don't you?
It's ironic that yours was the comment regarding racism. One thing that's true is people with lots of labels tend to believe in stereotypes. People who believe in stereotypes are often highly prejudice.
I don't know you, but I do know what words you choose, and they say more about you than you think.
Bob Grant| 11.5.12 @ 8:54PM
You wrote "shape-shifting" which is THE talking point description of Governor Romney. The memo went out to dupes like yourself to describe Governor Romney as a "shape-shifter"
You are nothing more than a garden-variety seminar blogger.
How much are they paying you 8, 9, 10 per hour?
Free pack of condoms?
A six pack of Schlitz?
You are so busted!
KennesawJack| 11.5.12 @ 11:17PM
Good get, Bob. Thanks.
jasond| 11.5.12 @ 7:20PM
"...I am pretty po'ed, too. I get that way when someone tries to con me."
You were conned by Obama. Direct your anger at him and vote Romney.
zukatesta| 11.5.12 @ 8:20PM
I have not been conned. I've been cheated by a spiteful, petulant Senate minority. The American Jobs Act is a perfect example of a bipartisan bill that should've passed Congress, if not for the not-so-hidden obstructionist agenda of the Republican minority. Really, any conversation pertaining to this issue is a non-starter unless one cares to admit just how reprehensible and damning were Mitch McConnell's statements on the priorities of the Republican members of Congress. It is this treasonous pact that holds hostage bipartisan legislation that would help millions, for the sake of its political gain.
These comments are in public. The actions completely align with the words. How do you not acknowledge this deceit? Obama's the confidence man? No, the Republican party is perpetrating the long con on America.
markenoff| 11.6.12 @ 10:09AM
The Democrats controlled both houses of Congress for two years and passed every single bill they wanted to including a $787,000,000,000 dollar stimulus bill that was supposed to go for "shovel ready jobs" that turned out to not be so shovel ready by BO's own admission. How many more jobs bills do we need?
If BO is so interested in jobs other than keeping his own why hasn't he met with his jobs council all year?
BTW, for $130,000,000,000 we could build 10 new aircraft carriers and the necessary aircraft to outfit them. That would have provided lots of good paying American jobs and would have been spending money in an area that is actually the function of the federal government.
zukatesta| 11.7.12 @ 10:10AM
The American Jobs Act is a net-zero jobs bill sponsored by bipartisan leaders of Congress. It is a no-brainer: costs nothing, expected to produce 5 million jobs. Google it and read up on it.
Once you've done that, try and defend the Republican opposition to this bill, without acknowledging their not-so-secret and not-so-patriotic alternative agenda.
Simon Templar| 11.5.12 @ 2:28PM
The trolls out here will say anything, truth, facts, contrary data, other opinions are irrelevant. They are leftist, how many times does this have to be pointed out.
Every single statistical fundamental touted by both parties and analyst have Romney ahead. Everything from approval ratings, independent voters, to the magic 50 percent. Every fuc&^%n poll these trolls hold up have D+8 or higher samples! they are still doing it now with D+11 in the CNN poll just released yesterday.
My point is this. What the hell is wrong with conservatives? Win or lose why in the hell do you have a penchant for accepting liberal narratives, polls, accusations, propaganda, and their double standards. Liberals are like smart mouthed delinquent children. Conservatives act like good but soft bellied children spooked by every sound in the dark made by the delinquent children.
Shut up, vote, drag people there, and stand up like men and women, win or lose.
kurthunt| 11.5.12 @ 3:33PM
What a bizarre, rambling bunch of nonsense. You predict a Romney win based on the number of yard signs you see rather than ALL of the polling data?!?!? You do realize that Nate Silver doesn't conduct polls, he analyses them. Even polls conducted by the WSJ, Gallup and Rasmussen. You must also realize that nobody has anything to gain by predicting a win that is not there. This includes you. And some people, like Silver, have their reputation to lose (this does not include you). You're guided by the most child-like passions, and you've completely thrown all objective out the window. I pitty you.
TLP| 11.5.12 @ 3:55PM
Nate Silver vs Rassmussen.
Please.
Any body without his head up Nate Silver's Ass, can clearly see a Romney Trend in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania.
IF they didn't have their heads up Nate Silver's Ass.
Drunken Sailor| 11.5.12 @ 4:43PM
So your saying he analyses data. That means if he starts with bad numbers in the polls using unrealistic ratios of dems, then the end result is wrong as well.
Garbage in / Garabe out.
zukatesta| 11.5.12 @ 5:05PM
Yes, so you do get it. That is why it's not 100%: there's about a 15% chance of garbage in.
Flavius Ocatavius| 11.5.12 @ 10:54PM
Unfortunately, it's you who clearly doesn't get it, zukatesta.
Let's go over it again:
When garbage is inserted into any model it always results in ... wait for it ... garbage! Every damn time.
For the low-IQ leftists in the room (sorry to be redundant), that means even if the-soon-to-be-completely-discredited Silver said Obama had a 100% chance of winning, it would still be garbage because his inputs are based on ... garbage. See how that works?
My God, the unmitigated arrogance of the left truly is breathtaking.
zukatesta| 11.7.12 @ 10:11AM
Sorry, what were you saying?
Butch| 11.5.12 @ 3:51PM
Let's see if I can post now; I haven't been able to. Some troll above mentioned that polls are objective. If done right, yet; however, their weighting and oversampling is completely subjective. The same troll mentioned that it would take "systematic failure" for the polls to be wrong. I think that systematic poll failure is a real possibility tomorrow. If that is true, then political polls will be reduced to just another political propaganda vehicle, for all but a few.
zukatesta| 11.5.12 @ 5:13PM
Your comment assumes this is the first time Nate Silver is doing this. With that assumption, you're doing real well, although you'd still have to ignore the possibility that Silver might be some sort of mathematical genius, as they do exist.
But then, your assumption would be wrong, as Silver has a reputation of alarmingly accurate modeling (note: these are not 'predictions,' the distinction being subtle but still existing) over multiple election cycles. As another comment mentioned, he also has a reputation to uphold, and allowing subjective arguments into his model would cost him credibility, and ultimately money (while offering nothing in return).
All one has to do is read the 538 blog to understand this is not at all subjective. Silver readily admits all of the best arguments made in this post, while debunking all of those that are nonsense. He's several steps ahead of Mr. McCain, and if the two ever debated the topic, McCain would come away looking utterly foolish.
Paul McGrath| 11.5.12 @ 5:21PM
Historically, people have always been divided in this country, with about 40 percent on one side, 40 percent on the other, and 20 percent undecided. The remaining 20 percent generally side with those who they perceive are going to be the victors. Even during the Revolutionary War it was like this. It wasn't until Washington won two daring, decisive battles in New Jersey that the general population began to be in favor of independence.
This is why polls are so important. If the average jerk thinks Obama is ahead, the average jerk is going to vote for him. Why not? Everybody else is, right? Even though things don't seem to be going so well, Obama must be doing something right if everyone else is voting for him. Right?
Limbaugh once famously said that polls aren't designed to tell you what people are thinking, they are designed to tell you what to think. The left is frantically trying to tell people what to think with their bullshit polls.
Looking for a big Romney win tomorrow. All the indications are there.
Simon Templar| 11.5.12 @ 5:50PM
Paul,
I say this with all sincerity, that was probably one of the most insightful comments I have read out here.
Simon Templar
Paul McGrath| 11.5.12 @ 6:47PM
Coming from you, Simon, that is some kind of a major compliment. Thanks.
zukatesta| 11.5.12 @ 6:01PM
What indications are those?
Polls are designed, in essence, to sell advertising. You can do that by entertaining or informing. There are media outlets that do either, but those that portend to inform while actually merely entertain are ripe for ridicule (see Fox News or MSNBC).
Those reputable polling outlets are well aware of this, and avoid confusing information with entertainment. Tilting their polls would do nothing by hurt their credibility, readership, and eventually, advertising sales.
KennesawJack| 11.5.12 @ 6:36PM
You seem to not consider the intangibles that exist in every election. In 2008 it was the enthusiasm for Obamarx. No one suggested his win would be as massive as it was. In 2012 it is both the enthusiasm for Romney and the disappointment with Obamarx. Those two cannot be objectively measured nor accurately weighted. We all have our own "sense" as to how it will go. Mine is that Romney wins, narrowly. No reputable poll that I've seen has it anything but close. As to the indications Paul speaks of, I believe he is addressing the very, very large crowds Romney and Ryan are drawing as opposed to Obamarx and Biden and the obvious inability of the Obamarx camp to lock up states that should have been a walk for him. We'll see tomorrow but I think you lefties will be a bit downtrodden at the end of the day. You also say you're Catholic. I'm curious as to whether you share in the Eucharist and, if so, how do you square support for Obamarx with the doctrine of your Church?
zukatesta| 11.5.12 @ 7:01PM
"No one suggested his win would be as massive as it was"
Actually, Nate Silver, subject of this article, nailed it. But don't feel bad. The author of this article apparently doesn't know that either.
KennesawJack| 11.5.12 @ 7:13PM
And your answer to my last question is.........
zukatesta| 11.5.12 @ 8:05PM
My church doesn't want people to use contraceptives, or have abortions. But they also don't want to pass legislation that outlaw either. My church believes in free will.
Last I looked, Obama wasn't lining people up and forcing them to abort babies. You don't need a law to prevent abortion. You only need a supportive faith system.
KennesawJack| 11.5.12 @ 8:14PM
But he was lining Catholic institutions up and making them fund abortifacients against their will forcing your leaders to file suit in Federal Court to force the government to desist. So, your answer to my last question is......
zukatesta| 11.5.12 @ 8:29PM
Catholic hospitals should not and will not choose what legal, medical care they can provide American citizens. Hospitals are not purely a free enterprise. They provide an essential public service, and as such have a duty to the American people to uphold the level of care to the highest standards.
Again, no one is forcing anyone to take contraceptives or have abortions. The catholic institutions are free to provide whatever sorts of counseling or alternatives they like. Freedom of religion is inclusive of freedom FROM religion.
It's a founding principle of the country for goodness sake. My religious views are not yours or theirs. No one's religious views should ever be made law for another. Should we put people in jail for using contraceptives? Should we have community service for not keeping the sabbath, or the death penalty for adultery?
I have my own struggles with my faith. Goodness knows I don't need to be cramming it onto others.
KennesawJack| 11.5.12 @ 8:43PM
I found your penultimate paragraph vacuous. Your first paragraph displays a rather obvious straw man argument and is equally vacuous. It seems to me the Catholic Church includes the protection of unborn life as "upholding the level of care to the highest standard". I don't think you really have struggles with your faith, rather it is obvious to me you reject it.
CJW| 11.5.12 @ 9:00PM
KJack
This new z may be a Pelosi/Biden/Cuomo/Kennedy Catholic where they are Dems first and Catholics second or third. Notice he avoids the issue of abortion and goes on and on about contraceptives, adultery, community service, the sabbath, and avoids abortion. He is trying to make abortion on the same moral plane as the others.
It is a basic tenet of the Catholic faith that abortion in intrinsically evil. It is the taking of innocent life. If they cannot make this simple direct statement then what they say is BS.
KennesawJack| 11.5.12 @ 9:10PM
CJ, Agreed. I think you may see the Catholic Church, after this election, begin to hold their people to a stricter discipline in terms of their faith. Wonder what happens if the Church denies the Eucharist to Pelosi/Biden/Cuomo, et al. Interesting to see if they surrender to their God or to their ideology.
Bob Grant| 11.5.12 @ 9:22PM
Jack:
Cuomo is most egregious offender. Every Easter and Christmas he and his live in squeeze (that ditz on the Food Channel - her name escapes me and I don't care enough to pull up another IE page to find out) sit on the front row at St. Patrick's Cathedral so a television camera will capture them receiving communion.
It's disgusting how those people use the Catholic Church for political purposes. And it's lost on far too many Northeastern Catholics.
zukatesta| 11.5.12 @ 9:14PM
I don't have to argue that. Adultery is also evil. So are divorce, euthanasia, and homosexuality.
Is it our goal to legislate away evil?
And what about other religions? The United States is a land of religious freedom. If we legislate away abortion because it is not in line with the Catholic church, do we outlaw hamburgers because cows are sacred among Hindus? Is pork sufficiently evil among Jews?
The day our country forces people to abort babies, ala China, is the day your argument makes sense. In the land of freedom of religion, one religion's views on evil is a subject for debate for another, and not a reason for legislation. Freedom of religion means precisely freedom to choose to keep a baby because of your own beliefs.
KennesawJack| 11.5.12 @ 9:21PM
The first sentence of your last paragraph is EXACTLY what the Obamarx administration is doing to Catholic institutions, you idiot! Sebelius is FORCING THE CATHOLIC CHURCH TO PROVIDE THE MEANS TO ABORT BABIES. Damn! If you're come to this site and castigate TLP for his views and style, at least have the courtesy to be intellectually honest. I have no interest in anything else you have to say, sycophant.
CJW| 11.5.12 @ 10:19PM
Z
This may come as a shock to you, but in Pennsylvania, as in most other states, there is a crime titled "Homicide of an unborn child." It is a crime to kill an unborn child, except for abortion. It is not the Catholic Church that passed this law, it is the elected legislature of Pa.
This may come as another shock to you, but euthanasia is also illegal. I cannot kill you because you are sick and I think it is in your best interest to kil you.
As for divorce, homosexuality, and adultery, you cannot compare them to the taking of innocent life, so your argument is weak and illogical.
zukatesta| 11.5.12 @ 9:04PM
Oh, I see. You are more pious that me, and therefore worthy to judge me. Of course.
I hear all the same hypocrisy from your Republican co-conspirators. Government is an intrusion into our lives, and should be limited at all costs, for the sake of freedom.
Unless those limits should infringe upon the will on the One True God, then by all means we should legislate precisely the manner in which we marry, have children, and conduct our lives.
Fortunate are we that the Republican party is here to show us the light. Fortunate are we that old, white men like myself so know the will of God (even in those unfortunate circumstances such as rape).
KennesawJack| 11.5.12 @ 9:14PM
I don't recall mentioning piety. I merely asked you how you reconciled your political beliefs with your faith. Obviously, you proclamation of faith is more a disguise than a belief. As to your last parenthetical remark, why is rape the fault of the unborn child and why should that child suffer for an act it had nothing to do with? I don't judge you. I feel sorry for you.
zukatesta| 11.5.12 @ 9:26PM
So you ascribe to 'true' belief as somehow more relevant than my tortured belief? It is a guise because I do not impishly accept the teachings of my church, and instead question the hypocrisy and irrelevance of modern religion? Don't pity me; it is prideful--a deadly sin.
But more importantly, don't try to legislate my world with the same views that believe an ark once carried two of every species of life, the universe revolves around the earth, and dinosaurs are a hoax. In this land of freedom, I have every right to choose what I believe, and I choose to reject you. Let's hope that your beloved Mitt Romney doesn't get the chance to take his own burning bush to the Constitution, lest my daughters need to be ruled by the likes of someone like you.
KennesawJack| 11.5.12 @ 9:32PM
You reject your faith, as well.
KennesawJack| 11.5.12 @ 9:34PM
Forgot to ask you how often you've had that conversation with your Priest.
Bob Grant| 11.5.12 @ 9:53PM
Let's see, he's claims to be no fan of religion yet he chooses to join one of the largest in the World.
Oh, and as a "proud" Catholic, he cherry picks the rules he wishes to follow.
Unless he has plans to become a democratic politician, he has no business being a Catholic.
zukatesta| 11.5.12 @ 11:19PM
It is the pursuit of faith that is significant, and incredibly personal. There is no book nor man alive that has even the slightest clue about our journey. The stories in the bible, torah, koran, are all just that--stories written, read, and interpreted by people. The instruct and guide faith, but do not define it, no more so then they define science. It is to do with what you will, so that you might become enlightened, and find meaning for your own life.
It is shameful that people of purported faith would not be respectful of the pursuit of personal enlightenment, over what is in essence petty details. That misses the entire point of religion. I denounce cultish subservience that obscures personal spirituality, as I first did during my formative Catholic schooling years. The priest that married me counseled us about family planning at pre-cana. The priest that baptized my son counseled our plans to guide his faith. I did not choose Catholicism, it chose me. I do not serve it, it serves me. Don't you have the audacity to judge me; I am secure in my conviction, while your sheepish disapproval and sanctimonious bile belies the insecurity of your own.
The least you can do is keep your narrow world view away from my laws. I do not need laws to tell me what is moral, and I do not need my morality to be force-fed by the likes of you. I am anti-abortion, but I am pro-choice, and this is a perfectly reasonable position for a person of faith in a state of free people.
Bob Grant| 11.6.12 @ 12:26AM
Do you receive communion?
Bob Grant| 11.6.12 @ 12:27AM
To Zukatesta,
Do you receive Communion?
Alej| 11.5.12 @ 9:38PM
This pedantic asshole just showed up... bet we don't hear from it 24 hours from now.
Mentioned being white three times.
Have another bite of watermelon.
zukatesta| 11.5.12 @ 11:20PM
"Have another bite of watermelon" might as well be your epitaph.
Bob Grant| 11.5.12 @ 9:05PM
Who are you going to believe him or Cardinal Timothy Dolan?
Along with being a seminar blogging hack, he's a Cafeteria Catholic ala Nancy Pelosi/John Kerry/(insert your favorite Kennedy).
KennesawJack| 11.5.12 @ 9:15PM
Kinda pathetic, isn't it?
markenoff| 11.6.12 @ 10:18AM
Assume you are referring to Trenton (Americans - We'll kill you in your sleep on Christmas Day) and Princeton both fought during the Ten Crucial Days, late December 1776-early January 1777. Although those battles helped Washington keep the Continental Army in being they did not sway the "general population" in favor of independence. Much of the population, particularly in the south, still favored reconciliation with the British.
If your theory was right then the defeats suffered by the Continental Army during the succeeding years would have swayed the same "general population" back to the British.
Rational| 11.6.12 @ 1:09AM
Silver will live or die with his model. He is not predicting a blowout, just a 90% chance that Obama will get a majority of the EV.
Both sides are providing alibis. Cons are claiming the polls of systematically biased. If true, Romney wins. There is no history of that. be true.
Democrats complain about suppression. In NY, we vote on 1 day. I have voted every election since Nixon/McGovern. I have never waited more than a few minutes. Why the extraordinary lines in Florid? Why did a Republicans cut voting hours?
I live in NY My dad's id expired. He is 91. I drove 2 hours to pick him up. I gathered his documentation and drove another hour to the DMV. I paid for parking. An hour for an examiner. I paid a license fee. Total round trip on a work day: 7 hours. Cost: approx $100. Not everyone has a son who can do that. You want to disenfranchise the poor and the old. Fine. But don't give me b.s. on why you want to do it.
Silver was out front about his model. He did validate internal polls. But those polls played no part in his model.
I am confident that Obama will win. But I do read sites like this. So I am also worried. The 2 are not mutually exclusive.
Stop the ad hominem attacks. Nobody on the left gives a damn when you call Obama a muslim socialist communist nazi kenyan. It would be funny, if it wasn't so pathetic.
Nightwinger| 11.6.12 @ 3:34AM
We can safely predict that Romney will carry the Cayman Islands vote.
Ball Buster| 11.7.12 @ 3:19AM
I said I'd be back and I am.
Well, the statistical wizards were right and Robert was wrong . The wizards said Romney would lose and he did. They said he would lose badly and he did.
So what was everyone here seeing that the wizards missed?
zukatesta| 11.7.12 @ 10:27AM
You know the answer to that, I suspect. They assumed the wizards (actually, wizard--Nate Silver) to be biased.
Nate Silver is biased. Everyone is. But it does him no good to permit his biases to invade his statistical modeling. Practically 90% of his blog posts contained some sort of commentary as to how he purposely avoids such folly.
Nate's above the fray. If Marco Rubio is beating Hilary Clinton in 2016, he'll say so.
JODO| 11.7.12 @ 7:10AM
Mr Romney made a graceful and classy concession spech last night.
Do you (RSMcC) have anything to say to Mr Silver today?
JOD
zukatesta| 11.7.12 @ 10:22AM
He was. Good for him. He'd actually make a nice cabinet appointment, as all that experience could come in handy. Of course, more in a "How would you look to exploit this legislation, Mitt?" sort of way than anything else, but valuable nonetheless.
I will say this, though: he repeatedly used the words (during the campaign, not the concession speech) "I know how to," followed by various things related to the economy. People here probably believe this to be true, still, in this concession speech, there were no offers of collaboration, no suggestion that Romney might offer some of that secret sauce. If he has secret sauce, give it up already!
Nightwinger| 11.7.12 @ 10:53AM
I think Romney knew he was gonna lose. Whatever his personality shortcomings may be, he IS after all a "numbers guy." So no doubt he realized the math was not going his way.
BuckeyeFan| 11.9.12 @ 7:27PM
All I can say is HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
I am a moderate, democrat leaning independent. I would vote for a Republican. Hell - I like Mitt Romney. But this was the most ridiculous article I read in the lead up to the election. So much so that I saved this site so I could come back and gloat. I hope this election reminds far right conversatives that they can't just talk among themselves. Your predictions were ridiculous and self serving. I hope you ate a healthy dose of crow.