Is it really over for Romney?

September 28, 2012
It's Over
By William L. Gensert
American Thinker


Excerpt:

If anything, the closer we get to Election Day, the more apparent it is that Obama is not only losing, but losing big. The Obama campaign, and by "campaign" I mean members of the media and polling organizations, is trying to convince prospective Romney voters to believe that all is lost -- in which case, they hope, we will stay home.

But just because they say so, that doesn't make it true.

Everyone knew from the outset that Obama, with his sad record of continuous failure on almost every front, was going to air out his inner bitterness and envy, and campaign negatively. But did anyone suspect that his sole hope for victory would rest on trying to suppress the vote of his opponent with naked media bias and polling -- most of which assumes a higher Democrat turnout than in 2008, when the electorate, many Republicans included, swallowed whole Obama's vision of "hope and change"?​

Articles: It's Over


Is Gensert right?

Of course, it will be the debates that decide this election. . . .

I iz confuzed by your thread title.

U ask is it really over for ROMNEY, but then your OP addresses and article that questions if it's over for Pres. Obama.

I believe that the polls are distorted heavily to craft an appearance for the benefit of the incumbent. That's the duty, evidently, of an objective, unbiased, factually-oriented, professional news media.

:lol:
 
The Obama Administration IS a disaster.

Apparently more people disagree with you than agree with you.
So the hypothetical disaster that could lead to a Romney vistory has to be viewed as a disaster by more people than the number who agree with you now.

Not sure what you base that on.
But anyway, there are any number of scenarios possible. A steep drop in the stock market is one. Another financial crisis is another. A major default by, say, Illinois is another. A big speech by Joe Biden.

You know exactly what I'm basing that on. But all the scenarios you list are possible and could help Romney win. I agree with you about that.
 
What are you guys going to do if Obama wins and it falls right in line with the polls?

What are you going to complain about then? Will all of these threads magically get deleted?

What are you talking about . . . with this "you guys" stuff?

I merely asked if the author was right or not, and suggested that this election would be one of those occasions when the debates would decide the election, as they did in the Reagan-Carter, Bush-Dukakis and Bush-Gore races. Carter, Dukakis and Gore were all ahead at this point in their respective races before the debates. But who won these elections thereafter?

The real problem for Romney is that while the other Republicans in the above were, like him, slightly behind in the general polling before the debates, they had safe, virtually unassailable leads in the non-battleground states ideologically attuned to the Republican Party. In this election, Romney is having to expend precious resources to hold on to certain states in that block. States that he must hold. Hence He has less to spend in traditionally Democratic-leaning states that, nevertheless, cyclically swing Republican. Reagan, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. were able to contest their Democratic rivals for the latter earlier and more successfully, all the while closing on their opponents without ever once losing the gains they made. Romney was doing the same in the general polling for awhile, but then began to lose ground again. That's not good news, whether the general polling be overly weighted for democratic demographics or not.

This is worrisome if your a Republican. Romney has to come out swinging in the debates; he must perform very well or it's over.
 
Last edited:
I don't think it's over but the probability of Romney being elected President is certainly diminishing. Currently, the market thinks the odds are 23%.

US Presidential Election 2012

The largely uninformed beliefs of traders/gamblers is of no significance.

The probability of Romney defeating The ONE is closer to 100% in Romney's favor.

You should bet on it then. You'll make a fair amount of money.

I don't think I've seen so much denial, ever, as I have recently by conservatives whining and bitching about the polls and oversampling. It's possible that they might be right, and Romney may win, but I'd rather take the 40 or so polls and the markets rather than highly emotional partisans.
 
lol rabbi, I hope you are not really jewish. I actually know a lot of jews here in PA, and you know what, they are not going to be able to vote because of the ID law. its ashame the GOP wants to go back to their states rights roots of voter suppression and fraud, I thought things like this had been settled a long time ago. Sigh back to the nazi states of america if romney wins

The use of the word 'nazi' in any argument is an automatic 'you lose'. Moron.
 
I don't think it's over but the probability of Romney being elected President is certainly diminishing. Currently, the market thinks the odds are 23%.

US Presidential Election 2012

The largely uninformed beliefs of traders/gamblers is of no significance.

The probability of Romney defeating The ONE is closer to 100% in Romney's favor.

You should bet on it then. You'll make a fair amount of money.

I don't think I've seen so much denial, ever, as I have recently by conservatives whining and bitching about the polls and oversampling. It's possible that they might be right, and Romney may win, but I'd rather take the 40 or so polls and the markets rather than highly emotional partisans.

My bet is here. And I did bet.

And what you think you see is not what you say you see.

There is no whining. It is just some information to counter the effects of the barrage of misleading liberal propaganda.

If the 40 or so polls you would prefer to take seriously ALL suffer from a methodological error, then what you are REALLY doing is "going with" an error. You are perfectly free to do so.

Nonetheless, when the polls so consistently oversample Dims, the outcome of the polls has to be subject to serious doubt.

Denying that won't change it.
 
Obama is currently up by 4.3 pts in the average. Four years ago on this day he was up on McCain by 4.8 points.

They were 'oversampling' Democrats in those polls too.
 
Even Ras is getting with the program, he has Obama up 2 today in his tracking poll and 4 in the swing states.
 
DANGER!

If Romney doesn't come out swinging in the debates, the lead he has in reality, which is not reflected in the distorted poll results, could dwindle.

Don't misunderstand me. I'm talking about the pre-debate, general polling of recent history, which has always been more heavily weighted toward Democrats. I don't believe that Romney is as far behind as many of the results in the general polling are showing either. Also, Romney is confronted by a MSM, the TV networks, especially, that are more hostile to Republicans than ever before. Romeny's post-convention gaffs amount to two of any significance. His supposed gaff of criticizing the Egyptian embassy's pathetic, cowardly appeal, for example, is the very same gaff made by the White House, apparently, albeit . . . a few days later when it finally distanced itself from that bit of tripe.

So Romney was right all along! Right? No, of course not! LOL! The MSM simply played that down and went on and on with its corrupt narrative of "a bad week for Romney". The other gaff is the 47% thingy.

In the meantime, we have Obama babbling about Egypt not being an ally, but, wait a minute, it is an ally. But wait a minute, in what sense beyond the annual aid we send it as a reward for signing on to the peace accords between it and Israel worked out during Carter's administration is it an ally? Answer: it's not in any significant sense, and this is particularly true since the Muslim Brotherhood took over the government.

We have Obama making the jaw-dropping statement that Israel is merely one of our best allies in the region! LOL! Uh . . . Israel has overwhelmingly been our very best and most reliable ally in that region for decades followed by a distant Saudi Arabia, which, ironically, is Israel's only informal ally left in the region with regard to the threat of Iran with the fall of the Mubarak regime.

(Democratic presidents since Carter, especially, have a penchant for undermining Israel in the region as they double-cross the friendly regimes around her in favor of unfriendly ones.)

We have the Obama Administration's attempt to cover up the truth or mislead the American people about the nature of the assault on our Libyan consulate coupled with its on-going narrative about a formerly obscure video being the cause of the predictable collapse of a lazy foreign policy unsubstantiated by the development of any real personal relationships with leaders abroad and based on appeasement and apology.

We have: "You didn't build that!"

Just for starters.

Look, if it had been a Republican who had made foolish and dishonest statements of this magnitude, the MSM would have been all over him unrelentingly for weeks on end. Done. Put a fork in him.

But mostly only those who are going to vote for Romney anyway have taken any real notice of these seriously troubling statements or developments, as the MSM has run interference, changed the subject or underreported what would in fact be very damaging news for Obama.

Carter, who was less well-liked by the MSM, didn't get away with it like the Messianic One.

The general liberal bias of the MSM is an objectively self-evident fact of reality. Only leftist political hacks (pundits) or leftist political strategists, for their own particular reasons, leftist loons in general and the ignorant would argue that this common, every-day-walk-in-the-park observation were controversial, whiny or delusional.

It is what it is. That's all.

Here's the irony: while the MSM no longer almost exclusively control the means of information dissemination, their influence has not decreased proportionately. Why? Because in general the average intelligence of the electorate has declined as well. It remains, therefore, almost as susceptible to the MSM's misinformation and slanted reporting as it was when the MSM were virtually the only players in town. I say almost with regard to the nation's more general, nationwide domestic and foreign policy concerns, as the loss of the MSM's monopoly is part of the reason the Democratic Party has not exclusively controlled Congress since the 1980s as it once did for decades. Presidential campaigns are a different matter.

The vast majority of the Democratic Party's traditional constituency has always been, particularly since the 1960s, a mob of historically illiterate and rationally challenged dumbasses.
 
Last edited:
The largely uninformed beliefs of traders/gamblers is of no significance.

The probability of Romney defeating The ONE is closer to 100% in Romney's favor.

You should bet on it then. You'll make a fair amount of money.

I don't think I've seen so much denial, ever, as I have recently by conservatives whining and bitching about the polls and oversampling. It's possible that they might be right, and Romney may win, but I'd rather take the 40 or so polls and the markets rather than highly emotional partisans.

My bet is here. And I did bet.

And what you think you see is not what you say you see.

There is no whining. It is just some information to counter the effects of the barrage of misleading liberal propaganda.

If the 40 or so polls you would prefer to take seriously ALL suffer from a methodological error, then what you are REALLY doing is "going with" an error. You are perfectly free to do so.

Nonetheless, when the polls so consistently oversample Dims, the outcome of the polls has to be subject to serious doubt.

Denying that won't change it.

Well, I'll give you props. You're walking the talk, that's for sure.

But I highly doubt Romney is leading or tied at this moment. He might win, it's not impossible. But I'm willing to bet anyone that the RCP average is within 2% of the final vote tally. If you believe that there is oversampling, 2% is outside the margin of error for the average, and any oversampling should be outside the margin of error if complaining Republicans are right.

It's not impossible. I've seen it happen before - the 1992 British election and the 2006 Canadian election. But the polls are usually right. And I think most people who comment on polls have little or no understanding of basic statistics.
 
September 28, 2012
It's Over
By William L. Gensert
American Thinker


Excerpt:

If anything, the closer we get to Election Day, the more apparent it is that Obama is not only losing, but losing big. The Obama campaign, and by "campaign" I mean members of the media and polling organizations, is trying to convince prospective Romney voters to believe that all is lost -- in which case, they hope, we will stay home.

But just because they say so, that doesn't make it true.

Everyone knew from the outset that Obama, with his sad record of continuous failure on almost every front, was going to air out his inner bitterness and envy, and campaign negatively. But did anyone suspect that his sole hope for victory would rest on trying to suppress the vote of his opponent with naked media bias and polling -- most of which assumes a higher Democrat turnout than in 2008, when the electorate, many Republicans included, swallowed whole Obama's vision of "hope and change"?​

Articles: It's Over


Is Gensert right?

Of course, it will be the debates that decide this election. . . .

I iz confuzed by your thread title.

U ask is it really over for ROMNEY, but then your OP addresses and article that questions if it's over for Pres. Obama.

I believe that the polls are distorted heavily to craft an appearance for the benefit of the incumbent. That's the duty, evidently, of an objective, unbiased, factually-oriented, professional news media.

:lol:

I didn't ask the PERTINENT [EDIT: the term pertinent was inadvertently left out or deleted the first time.] question in the title of the thread. The author did. And it's meant to be an ironic question. I asked the question is Gensert right? Your point seems to be rather mundane.
 
Last edited:
September 28, 2012
It's Over
By William L. Gensert
American Thinker


Excerpt:

If anything, the closer we get to Election Day, the more apparent it is that Obama is not only losing, but losing big. The Obama campaign, and by "campaign" I mean members of the media and polling organizations, is trying to convince prospective Romney voters to believe that all is lost -- in which case, they hope, we will stay home.

But just because they say so, that doesn't make it true.

Everyone knew from the outset that Obama, with his sad record of continuous failure on almost every front, was going to air out his inner bitterness and envy, and campaign negatively. But did anyone suspect that his sole hope for victory would rest on trying to suppress the vote of his opponent with naked media bias and polling -- most of which assumes a higher Democrat turnout than in 2008, when the electorate, many Republicans included, swallowed whole Obama's vision of "hope and change"?​

Articles: It's Over


Is Gensert right?

Of course, it will be the debates that decide this election. . . .

I iz confuzed by your thread title.

U ask is it really over for ROMNEY, but then your OP addresses and article that questions if it's over for Pres. Obama.

I believe that the polls are distorted heavily to craft an appearance for the benefit of the incumbent. That's the duty, evidently, of an objective, unbiased, factually-oriented, professional news media.

:lol:

I didn't ask the question in the title of the thread. The author did. And it's meant to be an ironic question. I asked the question is Gensert right? Your point seems to be rather mundane.

The lack of clarity is yours. And I wasn't making a point. I was noting some confusion over your unclear post.

Is it really over for ROMNEY is your headline, but the article contends that it's over for Obama.

I think I get what you were hoping to say. But you said it

poorly.

:thup:
 
I iz confuzed by your thread title.

U ask is it really over for ROMNEY, but then your OP addresses and article that questions if it's over for Pres. Obama.

I believe that the polls are distorted heavily to craft an appearance for the benefit of the incumbent. That's the duty, evidently, of an objective, unbiased, factually-oriented, professional news media.

:lol:

I didn't ask the question in the title of the thread. The author did. And it's meant to be an ironic question. I asked the question is Gensert right? Your point seems to be rather mundane.

The lack of clarity is yours. And I wasn't making a point. I was noting some confusion over your unclear post.

Is it really over for ROMNEY is your headline, but the article contends that it's over for Obama.

I think I get what you were hoping to say. But you said it

poorly.

:thup:

Well, now I see that I wrote in the above that "I didn't ask the question in the title of the thread." I meant to write that "I didn't ask the pertinent question in the title. . . ." I inadvertently deleted or forgot to write pertinent somehow and didn't catch it.

That's all that happened there.

I'll edit it, i.e., insert the intended pertinent for future readers.

But your confusion began before the post in the above. Right? It's the very first post of the thread that caused you some confusion. Right?

Hello! There's no lack of clarity on my part there. There's merely a lack of comprehension on your part and your part alone. LOL! There is an intended irony in the title of the author's article; it's an intended double entendre to boot! The title I gave the thread merely underscores the irony of the author's double entendre. It all just went over your head. That's all.

The only real question I asked was whether or not the author is right; the question in the title is purely rhetorical.

Hence, your original point or your comment or your concern or your observation or whatever: your sharing of your confusion with us is rather mundane.

Thank you.
 
Last edited:

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top