Printable View
I was watching O'Reilly on one of the TVs at my gym last week. Dick Morris was on, talking Senate races. He was predicting Republican sweeps of every tossup race, and was even talking about how Michigan and Pennsylvania's Senate seats were now in play for the Republicans. I was waiting for him to start talking about how Bernie Sanders is in trouble. In Dick Morris' world, President Romney will win 400 electoral votes and will be greeted in Washington by twelve new Senate Republicans.
on this page he seems to assert that 100% of the undecideds will vote for Romney.Quote:
Originally Posted by mountmccabe
http://www.dickmorris.com/a-romney-landslide/
Quote:
As discussed in previous columns, a study of the undecided voters in the past eight elections in which incumbents sought a second term as president reveals that only Bush-43 gained any of the undecided vote. Johnson in ’64, Nixon in ’72, Ford in ’76, Carter in ’80, Reagan in ’84, Bush in ’92 and Clinton in ’96 all failed to pick up a single undecided vote.
So when polls show President Obama at 45 percent of the vote, they are really reflecting a likely 55-45 Romney victory, at the very least.
Via Nate Silver, here's what has actually happened historically. Purple is the incumbent party:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/...w2-blog480.jpg
What happened in 1948?
Dewey defeated Truman.
1960 and 2000 were the only other times a shift meant a change in the election results. Huh.
And 1960 was the year of that famous debate. That was probably the shift.
Also, voting irregularities in both 1960 and 2000.
Right, but what happened in 45 days to cause such a shift from Dewey to Truman. I suppose I can Google, but I like conversing with you gents.Quote:
Originally Posted by TomAz
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you and/or the chart, but wouldn't 1948 also fall into that category? That appears to be the biggest shift that swung from one candidate to the other. That's why I asked about the events surrounding it.Quote:
Originally Posted by mountmccabe
Three hundered and seventy-nine pages of shite.
Hence the "other." But Truman wasn't an overly popular candidate. It sounds like, from the limited reading I've done, he ran a very effective campaign and really hit the road at the end to turn the vote in his favor.Quote:
Originally Posted by HotHamWater
The story I learned in school was that the polls were flawed.. telephone surveys in an era when not everyone had a phone and this introduced a Republican bias into the sample.Quote:
Originally Posted by HotHamWater
@GovWalker: After catching a few hours of sleep, the #Packers game is still just as painful. #Returntherealrefs
ahahhaha that's some rich irony.
If Mitt Romney wins this thing I will literally shit. Not even because I find it so offensive that people would elect him (although I do), but just because if all this media coverage of a man who displays absolutely zero likeability still results in a Republican victory then the system is officially broken in more ways than I already knew.
i really liked bill maher's bit about undecided voters. how the fuck is anyone still undecided and why does the media talk about them so much?
I'm still undecided, but not about Obama/Romney.
SNL's bit about undecideds was pretty good. Honestly, if you're still undecided at this point it means one of two things: (a) you pay no attention to this shit whatsoever and will be making a completely uninformed decision or more likely (b) you're not going to vote anyway because you probably have no clue when the election is.
news flash: you're gonna shit anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by RotationSlimWang
Or you're just undecided about whether or not you want to use your vote on a 3rd-party candidate, or a candidate from one of the two major parties.Quote:
Originally Posted by RotationSlimWang
we've had over a year of campaigning. man up and decide!
Is the election today?
i understand not casting a vote until election day because technically anything could happen before then that could majorly change my opinion of the candidates, but it's not likely. for example mitt's home videos is a bomb, but can't be a surprise to anyone paying attention.
i guess to me the landscape is so extremely polarized, what sort of issues are still being decided? legitimate question.
This may be true with Obama and Romney, but it's a little more muddy when trying to decide between Obama and Gary Johnson.Quote:
Originally Posted by chairmenmeow47
i've voted third-party in almost every election for one thing or another. but gary johnson is against obama's biggest accomplishment, the affordable care act. seems less muddy to me i guess.
the probability of winning has to play a big role in the decision too, at it does for least for me. when you vote third party for president, you pretty much know they're not going to win, no matter how right for the job they are.
if obama has michigan locked down, i'm voting for jill stein.
Yeah, that's a huge part of it. You helped answer your own question.Quote:
Originally Posted by chairmenmeow47
I'm not as big of a fan of the Affordable Care Act as you are, I guess.
no pre-existing conditions, eh? also you won't benefit from the well-woman provisions i suppose.
i wish we took third parties more seriously.
I don't dislike it, it just doesn't carry as much weight with me. I won't be voting primarily based on that one thing.
I agree. I wish people took other parties more seriously. The "go team" mentality of hardcore Democrats and Republicans is very off-putting. This isn't sports where people can just blindly follow everything about one side without any real consequences. Honestly, I'm leaning toward Gary Johnson right now. If he miraculously won the Republican nomination, I'd probably be voting for a Republican for president. That was never going to happen, though, because he doesn't strictly fit in with the party platform that has been established. The question is do I "waste" my vote and go with Johnson, or do I vote for a candidate that has a chance of winning? That's what is making me an undecided voter.