Isn't North Carolina a battleground state?

[strollingbones]

i really dont think one can place nc in the obama column....nc is a very odd little state...we have a democratic gov...who is not running for re election after serving one term...we have a shamed senator...edwards democrat on trial...we have seen the democrats re route the educational lottery funds...

Lottery Funds Continue To Be Diverted For Unauthorized Purposes

Report: NC Should End Lottery

but enough of the lotto and the wrongs of government...did i mention nc is considered a tax hell when you compare tax rates with returns?

its not looking good for the democrats of nc....i wouldnt count any of them chickens just yet

 

[strollingbones]

and that is the rather objective view of a nc democrat

 

[Liability]

Yeah. And Wisconsin, too. Maybe they are not in the Obama column.

Freakin' voters!

BWYGD?

 

[NLT]

and that is the rather objective view of a nc democrat

Negged for being north of South Carolina..Yankee....

 

[rightwinger]

The Challenge for Romney is not that he has to to take one battleground state but that he has to take nearly all of them. North Carolina has a recent swing in a Rassmussen Poll....not time to pull out thye champaign

That too is mere fantasy predicated (largely) on the belief that the States currently deemed to be safely in the DNC column will remain so.

The belief is arrogant and may yet prove to be baseless.

It is not baseless, it is a question of probability

Romney has an uphill fight to convert blue states to red. Not that it cant be done, but it will take a significant event or "game changer" to change the tide.
Obama currently leads 257 to 170 in those nonswing states. Meaning Romney has to take 100 out of 125 swing state votes.

Romney is starting te election with two strikes against him while Obama is standing on third base. Doesnt mean Romney can't do it, it just is a lot harder

 

[Liability]

The Challenge for Romney is not that he has to to take one battleground state but that he has to take nearly all of them. North Carolina has a recent swing in a Rassmussen Poll....not time to pull out thye champaign

That too is mere fantasy predicated (largely) on the belief that the States currently deemed to be safely in the DNC column will remain so.

The belief is arrogant and may yet prove to be baseless.

It is not baseless, it is a question of probability

Romney has an uphill fight to convert blue states to red. Not that it cant be done, but it will take a significant event or "game changer" to change the tide.
Obama currently leads 257 to 170 in those nonswing states. Meaning Romney has to take 100 out of 125 swing state votes.

Romney is starting te election with two strikes against him while Obama is standing on third base. Doesnt mean Romney can't do it, it just is a lot harder

No. You are now partly right. It is a question of "probability." But that entails the prospect that the states "safely" in the Obama column will (or some of them will, anyway) fall OUT of "his" column.

And therefore, the folks who confidently tell us that the President "will" win re-election are just spouting their wishful thinking.

The fact that Wisconsin might even be "in play" OUGHT to be a warning sign to you guys, but you Obamaphile true believes are good at self-deception.

 

[candycorn]

Obama is already toast in N. Carolina--regardless of the convention. I don't know what poll you're looking at to suggest that Obama has a big lead in electoral votes????--but Obama needs to win at least 5 swing states--NC being one of them. With the economy and his gay marriage endorsement-- I don't see that happening. The democrat governor of Colorado- says Obama is going to have a hard time winning Colorado.


Battleground Blues | RNC: Republican National Committee | GOP

Please tell us what poll(s) you're looking at to suggest Obama needs to win 5 toss-up states. He has 217 without breaking a sweat. Michigan? <snicker>

He "has" 217?

No.

He might "have" 217. But then again, he might find that he's sweating quite heavily to "keep" those which are supposedly safely in his column.

When the states he has previously considered to be HIS states slowly start to become "swing" states of states in play, maybe you guys will stop making assholes of yourselves by telling us all with such pretend certainty that the President is "going" to win.

It is a sad fact that the President COULD win re-election. It is FAR from in the bag, however. Indeed, it may be moving in the opposite direction.

Very well; then the same thing COULD be said of Romney, correct?

Would you agree that Obama won the last election pretty handily? Are you willing to give Romney the same states that McCain won at least if not give Obama the same states he won?

If you are, I believe the margin is something like 86 EV's that Romney will have to make up (it's not the same margin McCain lost by because of the census).

Good luck coming up with that math unless you want to take California and New York out of Obama's column.

At some point, your skepticism needs to be tempered with a cold shower of reality, does it not?

 

[GoneBezerk]

We know....you're going to pay and bus blacks to the voting booth. You're going to sneak illegals into specific voting booths. You're going to have white college students vote multiple times like in their college town and back in their hometown.

We get it, you're going to try to steal the election because your idiot can't win on his own merit.

The key is the middle class white people and minority middle class people voting on facts, not skin color.

Election 2012: North Carolina President
North Carolina: Romney 51%, Obama 43%

Election 2012: North Carolina President - Rasmussen Reports™

Yeah yeah. It's still early. I know. I even agree. But I am SO fucking sick and tired of the lefty political pundits here (and elsewhere) telling us all so confidently that Romney's uphill battle is insurmountable.

It really isn't.

Watch and see what happens to Romney. Remember when McCain led in 2008?

Watch and learn.

 

[Liability]

Please tell us what poll(s) you're looking at to suggest Obama needs to win 5 toss-up states. He has 217 without breaking a sweat. Michigan? <snicker>

He "has" 217?

No.

He might "have" 217. But then again, he might find that he's sweating quite heavily to "keep" those which are supposedly safely in his column.

When the states he has previously considered to be HIS states slowly start to become "swing" states of states in play, maybe you guys will stop making assholes of yourselves by telling us all with such pretend certainty that the President is "going" to win.

It is a sad fact that the President COULD win re-election. It is FAR from in the bag, however. Indeed, it may be moving in the opposite direction.

Very well; then the same thing COULD be said of Romney, correct?

Would you agree that Obama won the last election pretty handily? Are you willing to give Romney the same states that McCain won at least if not give Obama the same states he won?

If you are, I believe the margin is something like 86 EV's that Romney will have to make up (it's not the same margin McCain lost by because of the census).

Good luck coming up with that math unless you want to take California and New York out of Obama's column.

At some point, your skepticism needs to be tempered with a cold shower of reality, does it not?

I have tempered MY skepticism.

What you need to do is objectively apply that advice where it's need. To yourself.

Your silly questions are unpersuasive.

Your suppressed premise makes me to laff:

If now President Obama won certain states the last time, then he will win those states again this time.

 

[rightwinger]

We know....you're going to pay and bus blacks to the voting booth. You're going to sneak illegals into specific voting booths. You're going to have white college students vote multiple times like in their college town and back in their hometown.

We get it, you're going to try to steal the election because your idiot can't win on his own merit.

The key is the middle class white people and minority middle class people voting on facts, not skin color.

Election 2012: North Carolina President - Rasmussen Reports™

Yeah yeah. It's still early. I know. I even agree. But I am SO fucking sick and tired of the lefty political pundits here (and elsewhere) telling us all so confidently that Romney's uphill battle is insurmountable.

It really isn't.

Watch and see what happens to Romney. Remember when McCain led in 2008?

Watch and learn.

Of course other than right wing propaganda radio, you have no proof that any of that ever occurred

 

[candycorn]

He "has" 217?

No.

He might "have" 217. But then again, he might find that he's sweating quite heavily to "keep" those which are supposedly safely in his column.

When the states he has previously considered to be HIS states slowly start to become "swing" states of states in play, maybe you guys will stop making assholes of yourselves by telling us all with such pretend certainty that the President is "going" to win.

It is a sad fact that the President COULD win re-election. It is FAR from in the bag, however. Indeed, it may be moving in the opposite direction.

Very well; then the same thing COULD be said of Romney, correct?

Would you agree that Obama won the last election pretty handily? Are you willing to give Romney the same states that McCain won at least if not give Obama the same states he won?

If you are, I believe the margin is something like 86 EV's that Romney will have to make up (it's not the same margin McCain lost by because of the census).

Good luck coming up with that math unless you want to take California and New York out of Obama's column.

At some point, your skepticism needs to be tempered with a cold shower of reality, does it not?

I have tempered MY skepticism.

What you need to do is objectively apply that advice where it's need. To yourself.

Your silly questions are unpersuasive.

Your suppressed premise makes me to laff:

If now President Obama won certain states the last time, then he will win those states again this time.

No, I didn't say that. Not even close. You're smarter than that. Sheesh.

Lets assume that Romney wins all of the states McCain won. Can we do that? Yes...no? I don't see Obama winning in Texas for example. Maybe you do. I dunno.

But for discussion's sake, lets set Obama to zero and give Romney all of McCain's States which I think he'll win easily. That gives Romney 180 EVs. That means he needs to get 90 EV's to get to 270. Can you tell me where he gets those from with a straight face? It's one thing to say he has a chance to win every state but he hasn't got a chance in Illinois; we both know that as much as we know Obama has no chance in Texas.

If you're going to sit there and pretend that all 50 states are in play, you can do that of course but thats pretty non-sensical.

The bottom line is that Obama needs to carry 2 "large" swing states and a flyover. Romney needs to carry, in most scenarios, 4 "large" swing states and group of flyovers. And some of those states Governor Romney needs to win haven't gone GOP much lately.

 

[candycorn]

We know....you're going to pay and bus blacks to the voting booth. You're going to sneak illegals into specific voting booths. You're going to have white college students vote multiple times like in their college town and back in their hometown.

We get it, you're going to try to steal the election because your idiot can't win on his own merit.

The key is the middle class white people and minority middle class people voting on facts, not skin color.

Watch and see what happens to Romney. Remember when McCain led in 2008?

Watch and learn.

Of course other than right wing propaganda radio, you have no proof that any of that ever occurred

I've seen videos of college kids admitting they voted more than once. Theres no reason to believe it switched the outcome of elections however. There was also no indication about whom they voted for by the way.

The excuses for Romney's imitation of Custer are beginning already I see. I LOVE IT!!!

 

[Liability]

Very well; then the same thing COULD be said of Romney, correct?

Would you agree that Obama won the last election pretty handily? Are you willing to give Romney the same states that McCain won at least if not give Obama the same states he won?

If you are, I believe the margin is something like 86 EV's that Romney will have to make up (it's not the same margin McCain lost by because of the census).

Good luck coming up with that math unless you want to take California and New York out of Obama's column.

At some point, your skepticism needs to be tempered with a cold shower of reality, does it not?

I have tempered MY skepticism.

What you need to do is objectively apply that advice where it's need. To yourself.

Your silly questions are unpersuasive.

Your suppressed premise makes me to laff:

If now President Obama won certain states the last time, then he will win those states again this time.

No, I didn't say that. Not even close. You're smarter than that. Sheesh.

Lets assume that Romney wins all of the states McCain won. Can we do that? Yes...no? I don't see Obama winning in Texas for example. Maybe you do. I dunno.

But for discussion's sake, lets set Obama to zero and give Romney all of McCain's States which I think he'll win easily. That gives Romney 180 EVs. That means he needs to get 90 EV's to get to 270. Can you tell me where he gets those from with a straight face? It's one thing to say he has a chance to win every state but he hasn't got a chance in Illinois; we both know that as much as we know Obama has no chance in Texas.

If you're going to sit there and pretend that all 50 states are in play, you can do that of course but thats pretty non-sensical.

The bottom line is that Obama needs to carry 2 "large" swing states and a flyover. Romney needs to carry, in most scenarios, 4 "large" swing states and group of flyovers. And some of those states Governor Romney needs to win haven't gone GOP much lately.

You didn't say it. That's why it's SUPPRESSED. That's how that works.

And it was an implication of your "question" about giving Romney the McCain States and the President the same ones he had previously won....

 

[candycorn]

I have tempered MY skepticism.

What you need to do is objectively apply that advice where it's need. To yourself.

Your silly questions are unpersuasive.

Your suppressed premise makes me to laff:

If now President Obama won certain states the last time, then he will win those states again this time.

No, I didn't say that. Not even close. You're smarter than that. Sheesh.

Lets assume that Romney wins all of the states McCain won. Can we do that? Yes...no? I don't see Obama winning in Texas for example. Maybe you do. I dunno.

But for discussion's sake, lets set Obama to zero and give Romney all of McCain's States which I think he'll win easily. That gives Romney 180 EVs. That means he needs to get 90 EV's to get to 270. Can you tell me where he gets those from with a straight face? It's one thing to say he has a chance to win every state but he hasn't got a chance in Illinois; we both know that as much as we know Obama has no chance in Texas.

If you're going to sit there and pretend that all 50 states are in play, you can do that of course but thats pretty non-sensical.

The bottom line is that Obama needs to carry 2 "large" swing states and a flyover. Romney needs to carry, in most scenarios, 4 "large" swing states and group of flyovers. And some of those states Governor Romney needs to win haven't gone GOP much lately.

You didn't say it. That's why it's SUPPRESSED. That's how that works.

And it was an implication of your "question" about giving Romney the McCain States and the President the same ones he had previously won....

Not sure what you mean by that but it's pretty clear you don't see a path to the Presidency for Romney either since you can't point to one in any way....

 

[Sarah G]

Election 2012: North Carolina President - Rasmussen Reports™

Yeah yeah. It's still early. I know. I even agree. But I am SO fucking sick and tired of the lefty political pundits here (and elsewhere) telling us all so confidently that Romney's uphill battle is insurmountable.

It really isn't.

Watch and see what happens to Romney. Remember when McCain led in 2008?

Watch and learn.

In 2008, this country had suffered 8 years of Bush.... no one - other than the deluded - ever thought McCain was gonna win. This time is different.... it's taken Obama half the time to annoy twice as many people.

The reason the GOP nominated McCain is because the party had already written off 4 years to the Democrats.

After Sarah Palin came on board, there was a little trepidation, I thought she was a very good speaker. It was McCain and the economy and his own confession that he was weak on that that finally did him in.

The same will happen with Romney. I see Democrats circling the wagons now.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Election 2012: North Carolina President - Rasmussen Reports™

Yeah yeah. It's still early. I know. I even agree. But I am SO fucking sick and tired of the lefty political pundits here (and elsewhere) telling us all so confidently that Romney's uphill battle is insurmountable.

It really isn't.

Watch and see what happens to Romney. Remember when McCain led in 2008?

Watch and learn.

Its 2012 things are a bit different.

Not by much.......​

White-Trash; Alive & "Well", In N.C.
​

"Residents in Reidsville, North Carolina have begun receiving fliers inviting them to a May 26 Ku Klux Klan cross burning intended for “white people only.”

Reidsville Police Department Captain Ken Hanks confirmed to Raw Story that people in several neighborhoods had reported receiving the invitations.

Asked if the fliers had broken any law, Hanks replied, “Not that I’m aware of,” and added that the matter was not being investigated."

 

[Liability]

No, I didn't say that. Not even close. You're smarter than that. Sheesh.

Lets assume that Romney wins all of the states McCain won. Can we do that? Yes...no? I don't see Obama winning in Texas for example. Maybe you do. I dunno.

But for discussion's sake, lets set Obama to zero and give Romney all of McCain's States which I think he'll win easily. That gives Romney 180 EVs. That means he needs to get 90 EV's to get to 270. Can you tell me where he gets those from with a straight face? It's one thing to say he has a chance to win every state but he hasn't got a chance in Illinois; we both know that as much as we know Obama has no chance in Texas.

If you're going to sit there and pretend that all 50 states are in play, you can do that of course but thats pretty non-sensical.

The bottom line is that Obama needs to carry 2 "large" swing states and a flyover. Romney needs to carry, in most scenarios, 4 "large" swing states and group of flyovers. And some of those states Governor Romney needs to win haven't gone GOP much lately.

You didn't say it. That's why it's SUPPRESSED. That's how that works.

And it was an implication of your "question" about giving Romney the McCain States and the President the same ones he had previously won....

Not sure what you mean by that but it's pretty clear you don't see a path to the Presidency for Romney either since you can't point to one in any way....

False.

Not only can I see the path, I have pointed to it.

And better yet, a lot of Dims are starting to get the point too.

Good.

Let the bastards sweat.

The ONE is not invincible.

Indeed, he's going down.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

You didn't say it. That's why it's SUPPRESSED. That's how that works.

And it was an implication of your "question" about giving Romney the McCain States and the President the same ones he had previously won....

Not sure what you mean by that but it's pretty clear you don't see a path to the Presidency for Romney either since you can't point to one in any way....

False.

Not only can I see the path, I have pointed to it.

And better yet, a lot of Dims are starting to get the point too.

Good.

Let the bastards sweat.

The ONE is not invincible.

Indeed, he's going down.

That's what Republicans said, in '96.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

 

[skookerasbil]

I think any poll taken before the first debate is crap.

For the most part, I agree. But when the butt rashes like Salt Peter and his liberal Democrat brothers and sisters constantly "assure" all the rest of us that the "race" is already effectively "over," I think the current mood (as reflected with some accuracy) in a present day poll MIGHT be instructive.

2012 Presidential Election Interactive Map and History of the Electoral College

CLick on NC on the interactive map of present day electoral count (a map that presupposes the races state by state come out as indicated): When it turns RED, the race has tightened up NICELY.

And FLA is always dicey, but the President happens to suck dick at his job. SO if FLA goes red, too, (try it) the race is no longer such a fucking "gimmee" for the incumbent.

I'm not assuring anyone. I'm telling you that Romney doesn't have and won't have the electoral college votes to win. He doesn't have the organization and hasn't laid the ground work to get the vote out on election day and Obama is pulling in the big cash already.

It's not my fault if you are scared and too lazy to study the topic.

See you in here on election night s0n!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

Not sure what you mean by that but it's pretty clear you don't see a path to the Presidency for Romney either since you can't point to one in any way....

False.

Not only can I see the path, I have pointed to it.

And better yet, a lot of Dims are starting to get the point too.

Good.

Let the bastards sweat.

The ONE is not invincible.

Indeed, he's going down.

That's what Republicans said, in '96.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Shaman s0n.......your posts are so consistently gay.