Has Bruce Kreeger lost weight? Since when did he become a Democrat?

Ut oh Kevin, Romney leads with independents by 19points!

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/331174/romney-leads-nationally-has-19-point-lead-among-independents-katrina-trinko#

Talking to you is like talking to a 2 year old. You can't look at a single poll. Here is the RCP average for CO:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/co/colorado_romney_vs_obama-2023.html

The poll you cited isn't even included in the mix because it is so irrelevant.

Nor does Nate Silver include it in his analysis, which by the way gives the President a 57% chance of winning CO. It's close, but its not a tie.

Blah...Blah...Blah....

More like you don't want me to laugh!

Tom,

You cite one right wing leading poll and you expect credibility?

Based on all polling in Ohio, who would you rather be right now?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/oh/ohio_romney_vs_obama-1860.html

Nate Silver's analysis (which includes the poll you cited) has the President's chances of winning Ohio at 76%.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/26/oct-25-the-state-of-the-states/

Also you need to stop telling this half-truth about Rassmussen being the most accurate pollster in 2008. They were deemed one of the most accurate in their FINAL poll before the election. DUH! This isn't a big deal given EVERONE knew Obama was going to blow McCain out of the water.

Two years later, Rasmussen was at the bottom of the heap when it came to predicting the mid-term elections.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/04/rasmussen-polls-were-biased-and-inaccurate-quinnipiac-surveyusa-performed-strongly/

Lastly, the President's chances of winning are increasing.

I still maintain a residence and pay property taxes in NJ. STFU!

If you are rooting for Romney, I guess Silver's predictions are not "insightful". Here is his latest:

"The FiveThirtyEight forecast model has found the past several days of battleground state polling to be reasonably strong for Barack Obama, with his chances of winning the Electoral College increasing as a result. The intuition behind this ought to be very simple: Mr. Obama is maintaining leads in the polls in Ohio and other states that are sufficient for him to win 270 electoral votes."

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/27/oct-26-state-poll-averages-usually-call-election-right/

By now you'll have noted that your childish commandments have zero impact on my ability to smack down your pathetic puffery.

P.S. Where are you planning to vote?

Already voted. Where isn't any of your business.

Actually, it is. That's why voter registration and voting history (when, not how) are publicly available. Hope you didn't violate any laws, like voting TWICE!

I only voted once. Perhaps now you can sleep.

Are you at a point where your property taxes cover all the outlays the town and school district puts out for you and your family? Or are you essentially part of the "47 percent" Romney spoke of in his infamous video?

To be fair, you'd have to total up your property taxes AND income taxes, since the state takes the later and uses it to support 40% of public school education costs statewide. Unfortunately, the vast majority of that money never comes back to the suburban school districts because the Dems in Trenton want the money to fund the patronage mills in their districts.

Even if you add what little Tom pays in state income taxes into the mix (you also have to subtract the cost of the services the state provides his family) he is still a net burden to society and thus clearly qualifies as one of Romney's "47 percent."

Sounds like you're on the edge. And rightfully so, the race is a dead heat in Ohio.
Obama 49% 49%
http://www.13wmaz.com/news/topstories/article/201906/175/Ohio-Poll-Romney-Obama-Tied-Among-Likely-Voters

You should have gone to the source - http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20121028/NEWS010601/310280047&Ref=AR?nclick_check=1

The +/- 3.1 percent margin of error is standard MOE for most organizations. Go back and check the Time poll you first noted.

No one is winning Ohio right now, and it will come down to who has the better ground game and lawyers (to argue about the upcoming recounts that will happen in two or three states).

One other interesting thing to note - If Obama wins, he will go into a second term with the weakest "mandate" in more than a century. His percentage of the vote and number of electors will be down significantly from 2008. With a Republican House, he will be a severely lame duck on November 7.

The Time poll I cited has a MOE of +/- 3 points. The toll you and Tom cited has a MOE of +/- 7.5 points. The Time poll has less of a MOE, so exactly is your point?

According to RCP, Nate Silver, and anyone other credible source, the President is ahead in Ohio.

Reread the fine print under the first graphic. It clearly says +/- 3.1%. There is no "credible" source on interpreting polling results that are that close.

The poll you cited was conducted Oct 18 thru Oct 23. The Time poll was conducted Oct 22 thru October 23. Which poll do you think better reflects the race as it now stands?

All polls are yesterday's news. You keep cherry-picking the ones that make your point, we'll pick the ones that counter. Both are equally right, and wrong.

I do note that you stopped the silly my MOE is better than yours. I guess that even someone with an MBA has problems reading every once in a while. ;)

Yes, all polls reflect the sentiments of voters at a given point in time, which occurred in the past. But given what we know of THESE TWO POLLS, which would you say has the higher probability of better predicting where the race in Ohio now stands? I realize you don't have an MBA from a top business school, nor do you have an undergrad degree from a school worth mentioning, but a middle schooler can answer this question.

"tom and kevin your are both idiots."

A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

You're both clueless. Do you think anyone is going to change their minds because of the storm? If anything; the problems as a result of the storm will galvanize a wave of support for Romney.

Clueless? Try posting your reply against the proper message.

I agree!

Nate Silver tends to agree Hook.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/29/impact-of-hurricane-sandy-on-election-is-uncertain/

Based on polling, I think we can safely say Sandy hasn't hurt the President. An argument can be made the image of the President and Governor Christie is a powerful one that may have an impact with some voters who value bipartisanship.

Kevin, by virtue of his support for Obama supports the 47% of people who receive a Gov. check. and is supporting Obama's call for MORE taxes to support more social welfare programs that will surely bankrupt our nation.

However, Kevin is confused, he considers anyone who pays less taxes than he does part of the 47%. FYI Kevin, that makes no sense. People with less of a tax liability than you are not part of the 47% of the nation who receive a gov. check.
(Consider yourself educated on this Kevin.)

This sounds so dumb for a man who posts he has a college education every time he posts on the Patch. In reality Kevin does not like to pay taxes and is jealous of anyone who has less of a tax liability.
The question to Kevin is; Instead of trying to keep up with the Joneses why don't you unload your over leveraged house and reduce your tax liability and stop groaning about it?

Kevin, keep posting your embarrassing confusing positions on the issues, it's fun watching a train wreck.

Tom, you are mistaken. The 47 % Romney was referring to are those who don't pay taxes, not necessarily people who receive a government check. They may not pay taxes simply because they don't make enough to fall into the minimum bracket. For example, let's say your son or daughter works part time while they are in school. They would mostly likely fall below the minimum bracket, and not owe any taxes on this earned income. And even if they receive no government support at all, they fall into that 47 %, which Romney describes as people who; "....are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it".

Tom,

A few responses to your pathetic posting:

1. My house is worth more than I owe, so by definition it can't be "over leveraged". Unlike you and your mentor, I am handling my financial obligations just fine.

2. I never said people who pay less taxes than me are part of the 47% Mitt disparaged in his infamous video. I was specifically talking about how YOU represent a net loss to the township, state, and nation as the taxes you pay (federal, state, local) are far less than the services you and your family consume in education, protection, etc.

It's official: Romney's status as a liar who will say anything to get elected has been upgraded, if that's even possible.

http://thehill.com/blogs/transportation-report/automobiles/264315-chrysler-refutes-romney-claim-jeep-production-moving-to-china

Not sure which ones you think are some guy named Greg Jones, but I am not, nor am I any of the other idiots you typically spar with from LV.

St. Nate is just another guy trying to read the Tea Leaves. But if you like his odds, you should start looking for people who like Romney and will give you even odds on the election.

Sure...whatever you say!

Heresy!

Silver's latest update has the President's chances increasing to 80.8% with a projected 303.2 EC votes.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/01/in-nevada-obama-ryan-and-signs-of-a-new-democratic-leaning-normal/

Also, it seems the Nate bashing continues:

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2012/10/31/mitt-romneys-electoral-problem-and-the-war-on-nate-silver

However, Nate has a great comeback for one of his detractors:

http://news.yahoo.com/nate-silver-joe-scarborough-wanna-bet-113615600.html

You should just drive over to his house and ask him out on a date.

As for his "projections," they're just an algorithm he worked up (i.e, a guess) with "input" from a whole lot of polling data (i.e., another set of guesses), so you are left with "guess squared."

Most of his columns deal with explaining away why the data that doesn't support his theory (i.e., that Obama is way ahead), and why the stuff that does is Dead On.

Every election cycle some poll reading guru happens to hit the jackpot and guess correctly, which makes him the flavor of the year four years hence. Whoop-dee freakin doo. 2008 was Nate's year. We'll see what 2012 brings.

Rex,

Thanks for the simple minded interlude.

For those who pride themselves on thought and rigor, check out Nate's take on the correlation between job numbers and the predicted outcome of next week's election:

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/02/revisiting-our-february-jobs-prediction/

No, I don't agree. Given the unforeseen (at the time) depth of the recession, no administration would have the unemployment figure down to 5.5% by this time.

So the question for us now is simple. Have voters seen enough of a trend to have confidence this president will keep up on the current path of positive job growth, which over time will continue to drive down unemployment? We will have out answer on Tuesday. My bet is the President will win with 300+ EC votes. Until then, here is a great article that goes further into detail and analysis.

http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-unemployment-chart-2012-7

The only thing that is "embarrassing," is your relentless humping of Silver's column and his supposed clairvoyance.

And here's a liberal's take on why he isn't as sanguine about Obama's chances in Ohio - http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/in-a-twist-obama-the-democrat-is-depending-on-ohio-20121101

The President now has a 6 point lead in Ohio (according to tonight's WSJ/NBC poll) and is up by 2 in FL.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203707604578095161409849422.html

Romney's ship is sinking fast. No wonder he is making a desperate, trifling play for PA, a state where he absolutely has no chance of winning.

Nate's updated model (with the WSJ/NBC results) now has Mitt's chances reduced to 16.3%.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

Can you end your reply with a fancy word that is beyond embarrassing?

Really Tom?

Who gives a rat's behind about a former Hillary aide? I mean really come on, it that the best you can come up with?

Rome continues to burn for Romney:

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/03/nov-2-for-romney-to-win-state-polls-must-be-statistically-biased/

As long as all the polling is 100% correct, he's right. But given the margins of error involved, and the closeness of the polling numbers, that's a very big IF. Could be another Dewey beats Truman moment.

One note - If Obam does win, he should fly back to NJ and give Christie a big, wet kiss. Bush had Blanco and Nagin (two useless Dems) for Katrin, Obama had Chrisite for Sandy. Just proof that the local government officals make all the difference in the world. FEMA (i.e., the Feds) will be along later to hand out checks.

The polls dont have to be 100% correct. They could be off to some degree. But they won't be off to the degree to move the President below 270 EC votes.

Mitt is toast.

No,,,,Bush had Brownie. Who had this to say last week:

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/264845-bushs-brownie-criticizes-obama-on-sandy

What a moron!

Wrong, since most of the polls are within the Margin of Error (2 - 3%), that's how small a mistake could swing the result in the other direction - i.e., Obama is Toast.

As I've noted before, this is a guess based on an imprecise collection of data. Could just as easily be President Romney on January 20/21. Keep you Anger Meds handy.

Brownie was (and still is) a joke and Bush took all the heat, but the real villains in Katrina were the governor and mayor, both useless Dems.

The President is going to win re-election. You are more than welcome to keep hoping he won't.

Dude, you are way more invested in Obama than I am in Romney. You are also absolutely, freakin certain that it's over, whereas I just believe the odds of Romney winning aren't 4 or 5 to 1. So if Obama loses, I can picture you going out of the highest building in Honolulu.

You can picture what you want. Like the campaign, we know who is going to win. I look forward to Mitt slithering back into his hole and Ann crying her eyes out while mumbling "but it was suppose to be our turn!"

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/04/romney-tells-obama-to-start-packing-in-abc-news-exclusive-interview/

Fairly certain that if Romney loses, he and his wife will accept defeat with grace. Not so sure about Mrs. "I've never been prouder to be an American" Obama if BHO loses. One would have to assume her response would be, "I've never been more embarassed to be an American."

I doubt that. The First Lady has been the epitome of grace and class, as reflected by her 69% approval rating.

It's easy to appear gracious when your stationary read, FLOTUS, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., WDC, 20500.

We'll see how things are when she's just the spouse of a bitter, unemployed lawyer who got dumped by his client, the US of A.

Well according to my new BFF Nate, the odds on that happining are down to 8.6%.

As my grandmother would say, "Mitt's world is going from sugar to Sierria Hotel India Tango!"

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

Funny!

I would be so certain that my sunrise on Wednesday morning that you can be certain who will be taking the oath of office in January. This could easily be 2000 Redux.

I am certain Barack Hussein Obama will take the oath of office on January 21, 2013.

I am certain that one day we will all die. Everything else is just a possibility, with probabilities that range from .00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 to 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999%

Too bad the probability you will die tomorrow isn't 100%.

Assume you were hoping that would happen BEFORE I vote.

On a serious note, it's nice to see the "tolerant" Liberals once again spewing their message of hate towards anyone who dares to question their wisdom or "messiah."

P.S. Just heard that Nate SIlver is raising Obama's chances to 99.999999%, and has just take a bet of his $1,000,000 against $1, because he's just that certain that his guy, Obama, is going to triumph.

I hope you vote. Voting for losers fits you.

As for Mr. Silver, his detractors are funny to watch, as are you.

Hey, did your boy Nate price in the Bradley Effect?

Per Nate's blog:

"Several states in the upland South, like Kentucky and Tennessee, where polls have sometimes shown Mr. Obama running ahead of his 2008 numbers. This is a region of the country where a higher-than-average number of voters said in exit polls that the race of the candidates played a role in their voting decision. It is possible that some of these racial effects have abated as Mr. Obama has become more of a familiar presence. It is also possible that this is a region of the country where polls still exaggerate the standing of African-American candidates. (This phenomenon, termed the Bradley Effect, no longer seems to hold in most parts of the country.)"

Last time I checked, the term, the Bradley Effect, was coined about the unwillingness of voters in a much Bluer state to admit they wouldn't be voting for an African-American. It really wasn't about Racism, just white liberal guilt.

From the glossary on Nate's Blog:

Bradley Effect: The Bradley effect is named after Tom Bradley, the first black mayor of Los Angeles who ran for governor in California in 1982. Leading up to Election Day, Mr. Bradley was polling ahead of his Republican opponent, George Deukmejian, who is white, but Mr. Bradley lost the election. Afterward, pollsters theorized that voters had told pollsters that they were planning to vote for Mr. Bradley (or that they were undecided) when, in fact, they were planning to vote for Mr. Deukmejian. As a type of social desirability bias, the Bradley effect underscores the idea that some voters, fearful of being perceived as racist or racially motivated, express their support for a black candidate in polls, but then vote for the white candidate in the election.

In short, Social Desirability Bias = Liberal White Guilt.

The poll results are what's downgrading Mitt. Don't shoot the messenger.

What swing states are you predicting in Mitt's quest to 270? This time, don't screw up and post under your real name and remove it, because the email is still on file.

I'm picking WDC, Hawaii & California. It doesn't matter which states you win or lose, as long as the electoral votes add up to TwoSeventy.

As for the delete, I just edited my own post. Feel free to fill your hard drive with my musings. Rest assured, I delete yours as soon as they arrive.

In other words, you can't name a plausible set of swing states for Mitt. Enough said.

Mitt's chances on Intrade are dropping like a rock. He is now BELOW 30%:

http://www.intrade.com/v4/misc/scoreboard/

Stacy,

We don't have to be anything. With all due respect, if you are offended, I suggest you click your mouse on another thread.

The Fat Lady is crying, thinking about four more years of the liberal policies and economic malaise we can expect. Obama Has Won, America Has Lost.

As for St. Nate, before give him gold star we'll have to see if Obama gets to Nate's electoral and popular vote count margins. Election looks a bit closer than he was projecting.

P.S. If the economy is still in the tank in 2016, will Obama still be blaming Bush??

BTW, Christie is already on the phone lining up support for 2016!! Next time it will be the Fat Man singing . . . with Bruce, his new BFF.

Greg (Stig),

Your man lost!

Both you and Mitt need to bend over and take it like men.

Had an English muffin and a cup-o-joe. Not sure what aisle in the grocery store has boxes of STFU.

Life goes on, and I'll have four more years to point out what a BIG mistake the 2% of the people in a couple of states who could have voted for the alternative, but instead chose BHO, have made.

Glad to see that winning hasn't made you less of an insufferable PITA.

What is foolish about questioning the slavish devotion to a guy who is applying his "formulas" to a series of polls, which are, at best, a rough estimate of how people would vote if the election was held at that moment in time.

Months ago you were certain that it was over. Even your boy Nate had Romney closing fast in the second week of October. One never knows how things will work out until all the votes are counted. That's why we have elections, not marketplace surveys.

You aren't a fool because you doubted Mr. Silver. You are a fool because you had access to the same information I did and you sided with a loser who:

1. Couldn't win a his home state
2. Lost every swing state except one
3. Lost the EC by over 120 votes
4. Lost the fastest growing section of the population by over 35 points
5. Like you had no idea it was coming

Lol!