At What Point will USMB libs admit Obama will lose?

[Liability]

Similar question: At what point will the USMB Cons admit that Romney could lose?

As for me, at this point either outcome is possible. The race has gotten too close to call after Obama blew the first debate. The problem Romney has though is that he can't open up a lead (or any lead at all) in States like Nevada or Wisconsin where he has some pretty serious advantages, and for the love of God I can't figure out why. Add to that the fact he can't seem to go up in Ohio by even a razor thin margin and he's really screwed in the Electoral college.

Romney can win, but he has got to flip Nevada, Wisconsin, and/or Ohio.

COULD? Most Republicans and conservatives have been acknowledging as much for a long time.

I am an outlying statistic on that score. I confess that I DENY that Mitt can lose.

Seriously, if we discount successful voter fraud (bring out your dead) and manipulated and rigged voting machines, the outcome is already as good as carved into stone.

The ONE term proposition's prediction will prove to be correct. Pres. Obama will NOT be getting a second term.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Obama currently leads Romney and there is no reason to think that the President will lose. This is unlikely to change right up till election day.

If Romney were to take Florida and Ohio, I would concede that Romney will probably win. However, if the President takes either Florida or Ohio....I expect an easy victory

Right now.......Obama 303 Romney 235 with the election basically over by 10PM eastern

It's going to be closer than that. I don't see Obama taking Virginia, North Carolina, or Florida. They're lost to him. Romney has zero chance of taking Michigan or Pennsylvania.

I'd give Romney decent odds of taking Iowa and Colorado.

The race is coming down to Ohio, Wisconsin, Nevada, all of which are states that Obama has enjoyed leads, sometimes razor thin, but still leads in since nearly the start of the election with no real evidence that Romney can pull ahead even by razor thin margins. But who knows, both parties will probably invest in a ground game in those states and that WILL matter here.

 

[Liability]

Oh my, how original. Let's not forget your last prediction, CAIN IS ABLE!

The assertion "CAIN is ABLE" is not a "prediction."

I realize that neither you nor your puppet mistress has any facility for the actual meaning of words, but maybe if she can get her hand out of your colon for a while, Raving Dumbshit can look up the word in the dictionary before hitting "submit."

I laugh at your Ravi obsession. You got it bad, darf!




You predicted Cain was able to win the primary and the Presidency...did you not?

You got it real bad. I adopted a campaign motto. Cain is Able. And he could have won the nomination but for the successful sordid personal attacks which were almost entirely fictional.

But the latter is not the point.

My acceptance of the motto CAIN is ABLE was predicated on the notion that he was perfectly capable of being a solid President.

You are free to try to spin it any way you want to, sockie-pooh. But your problem remains: you can't back up your bullshit.

 

[jillian]

Im sure that most will admit it on election day. I know i wouldnt admit Romney lost before then (He's not going to but still).

But then there will be some who will continue to claim he did win even when he loses. Take Kerrywonohio for example. Look at all the lefties who cannot admit George W Bush won Florida in 2000.

look i admit it on the day. i have admitted romney front runner so bit unfair to say we all in denial.

Concern troll: defintion: a concern troll is someone who is on
one side of the discussion, but pretends to be a supporter of the other

Urban Dictionary: concern troll

 

[jillian]

I'll believe it when I see it.

I don't think it's going to happen, and no I don't want to make a bet...

Valerie has spoken.

Or HAS Ravi?

hmmmm... i thought we had a new rule, passed because of the whining bedwetter, that said we can't imply people are socks.

just sayin', if it's good enough for connie... oops... i mean baretta.. it should be good enough for ravi and val.

particularly when i KNOW they aren't the same person.

 

[Liability]

Im sure that most will admit it on election day. I know i wouldnt admit Romney lost before then (He's not going to but still).

But then there will be some who will continue to claim he did win even when he loses. Take Kerrywonohio for example. Look at all the lefties who cannot admit George W Bush won Florida in 2000.

look i admit it on the day. i have admitted romney front runner so bit unfair to say we all in denial.

Concern troll: defintion: a concern troll is someone who is on
one side of the discussion, but pretends to be a supporter of the other

Urban Dictionary: concern troll

That is one possibility.

But what if your guess is wrong?

What if he actually does prefer The ONE Term Proposition (for some silly reason) and actually IS concerned that The ONE cannot seal the deal?

 

[Dr.Traveler]

The ONE term proposition's prediction will prove to be correct. Pres. Obama will NOT be getting a second term.

Eh. I can live with Romney. His record is fairly moderate to liberal leaning. He doesn't differ at all in foreign policy from Bush or Obama. Plus, he's going to face a fairly fierce resistance in the Senate as it's unlikely the GOP will take the Senate. Though if they do, they won't hit the magic 60 number, so we'll see filibusterers just like we did under Bush and Obama.

Should Romney win (and he can at this point if his ground game is good in Ohio), the upside for me is that it effectively kills the careers of quite a few Republicans that I'd like to see stay trapped at the State and local level. Plus, it means the Tea Party gets exposed that the GOP's bitches, so, there's that.

Obama's been a fairly weak leader. So I can't honestly say he deserves a second term at this point. The only reason I'll be voting for him is that I'd rather not see the GOP return to power at this point either. Divided government for the win.

 

[Valerie]

The assertion "CAIN is ABLE" is not a "prediction."

I realize that neither you nor your puppet mistress has any facility for the actual meaning of words, but maybe if she can get her hand out of your colon for a while, Raving Dumbshit can look up the word in the dictionary before hitting "submit."

I laugh at your Ravi obsession. You got it bad, darf!




You predicted Cain was able to win the primary and the Presidency...did you not?

You got it real bad. I adopted a campaign motto. Cain is Able. And he could have won the nomination but for the successful sordid personal attacks which were almost entirely fictional.

But the latter is not the point.

My acceptance of the motto CAIN is ABLE was predicated on the notion that he was perfectly capable of being a solid President.

You are free to try to spin it any way you want to, sockie-pooh. But your problem remains: you can't back up your bullshit.

What bullshit is that, angry fratboi?



Cain is a buffoon and you thought he was ABLE to win. FACT.

Therefore, your political insights are a laughing stock...

 

[decker]

look i admit it on the day. i have admitted romney front runner so bit unfair to say we all in denial.

Concern troll: defintion: a concern troll is someone who is on
one side of the discussion, but pretends to be a supporter of the other

Urban Dictionary: concern troll

That is one possibility.

But what if your guess is wrong?

What if he actually does prefer The ONE Term Proposition (for some silly reason) and actually IS concerned that The ONE cannot seal the deal?

i am not a concern troll. i am worried president won,t win and therefore am honest in my views

this is bollocks from the left on here because i am not making out obama going to win. Right attack me for liking obama while left attack me for being negative of his chances to win

i defend myself either way. i don,t follow the crowd on that and i am glad on it.

 

[decker]

The ONE term proposition's prediction will prove to be correct. Pres. Obama will NOT be getting a second term.

Eh. I can live with Romney. His record is fairly moderate to liberal leaning. He doesn't differ at all in foreign policy from Bush or Obama. Plus, he's going to face a fairly fierce resistance in the Senate as it's unlikely the GOP will take the Senate. Though if they do, they won't hit the magic 60 number, so we'll see filibusterers just like we did under Bush and Obama.

Should Romney win (and he can at this point if his ground game is good in Ohio), the upside for me is that it effectively kills the careers of quite a few Republicans that I'd like to see stay trapped at the State and local level. Plus, it means the Tea Party gets exposed that the GOP's bitches, so, there's that.

Obama's been a fairly weak leader. So I can't honestly say he deserves a second term at this point. The only reason I'll be voting for him is that I'd rather not see the GOP return to power at this point either. Divided government for the win.

agree that obama i perfer to win. i am worried romney will go to right wing more of tea party as he might give in to their deminds. so thats a worry.

 

[Liability]

The ONE term proposition's prediction will prove to be correct. Pres. Obama will NOT be getting a second term.

Eh. I can live with Romney. His record is fairly moderate to liberal leaning. He doesn't differ at all in foreign policy from Bush or Obama. Plus, he's going to face a fairly fierce resistance in the Senate as it's unlikely the GOP will take the Senate. Though if they do, they won't hit the magic 60 number, so we'll see filibusterers just like we did under Bush and Obama.

Should Romney win (and he can at this point if his ground game is good in Ohio), the upside for me is that it effectively kills the careers of quite a few Republicans that I'd like to see stay trapped at the State and local level. Plus, it means the Tea Party gets exposed that the GOP's bitches, so, there's that.

Obama's been a fairly weak leader. So I can't honestly say he deserves a second term at this point. The only reason I'll be voting for him is that I'd rather not see the GOP return to power at this point either. Divided government for the win.

Eh.

There is still a decent prospect (maybe a tad lower than 50-50) that the senate will go GOP. Even a SPLIT Senate will suffice. Granted, the misuse and abuse of the filibuster will be problematical, but there ARE ways to reign in those schmucks if they go that route.

And Mitt has been (in the past) been a bit too liberal/"moderate." HOWEVER, he seems to have been open minded enough to recognize the failure inherent in the liberal/socialist philosophy of the liberal Democrat Parody. He will be monitored quite closely. I see him DOING what the conservative base has been insisting upon.

Pres. Obama has been a truly horrendously weak "leader."

Be candid. Beh honest. Give him some props for authorizing the action that took out bin Laden. But other than that, his record is purely one of fail upon fail. His legislative claim to success is Obamacare. It's going to get rescinded. His place in history will be that of a place marker.

The new President has a huge job to do. Limit the damage of the past four years and turn the ship of State the fuck AROUND.

 

[decker]

Similar question: At what point will the USMB Cons admit that Romney could lose?

As for me, at this point either outcome is possible. The race has gotten too close to call after Obama blew the first debate. The problem Romney has though is that he can't open up a lead (or any lead at all) in States like Nevada or Wisconsin where he has some pretty serious advantages, and for the love of God I can't figure out why. Add to that the fact he can't seem to go up in Ohio by even a razor thin margin and he's really screwed in the Electoral college.

Romney can win, but he has got to flip Nevada, Wisconsin, and/or Ohio.

well he does not need nv though man. he only need really wi or ohio to win really.

 

[Liability]

I laugh at your Ravi obsession. You got it bad, darf!




You predicted Cain was able to win the primary and the Presidency...did you not?

You got it real bad. I adopted a campaign motto. Cain is Able. And he could have won the nomination but for the successful sordid personal attacks which were almost entirely fictional.

But the latter is not the point.

My acceptance of the motto CAIN is ABLE was predicated on the notion that he was perfectly capable of being a solid President.

You are free to try to spin it any way you want to, sockie-pooh. But your problem remains: you can't back up your bullshit.

What bullshit is that, angry fratboi?



Cain is a buffoon and you thought he was ABLE to win. FACT.

Therefore, your political insights are a laughing stock...

The bullshit you just repeated.

Your baseless supposition is wrong, but also -- what's the word? -- ah yes: Baseless.

It would be absurd to worry at all about the assessment of Ravi's stinky sock.

I value nothing about you, Ravi.

Cain got denied, but he would still have been a vastly superior choice to the moron in chief, Pres. Obama. He's a galactic fail and you, therefore, want to go down on him and gargle his jism.

Credibility is not an attribute you will EVER be known for.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

well he does not need nv though man. he only need really wi or ohio to win really.

Actually, if Romney takes Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Iowa, and Colorado he only needs one of the three states I listed. Any one will do. That's why it's possible Romney will win. Obama has led, and continues to lead, in those states, but Nevada and Wisconsin in particular are states where Romney has some huge advantages.

On election night the first results I'll watch for are Virginia and Pennsylvania. If Romney takes Pennsylvania, that means Obama's campaign collapsed and I can go to bed. If Obama takes Virginia, that means Romney failed to make any serious in roads into Obama's gains in 2008 and I can go to bed. After that will come Wisconsin. If Romney wins there, then the race is over.

I have two kids and an 8am class I teach at the university the next day so I doubt very seriously I will be awake to see Ohio. Honestly, I expect no one will know the true winner of Ohio for a few days. But if I did know how Ohio would go, I'd be fairly comfortable calling the race.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

There is still a decent prospect (maybe a tad lower than 50-50) that the senate will go GOP. Even a SPLIT Senate will suffice. Granted, the misuse and abuse of the filibuster will be problematical, but there ARE ways to reign in those schmucks if they go that route.

It's worse than 50/50. The GOP is going to lose the Akin race in Missouri and Mourdock race in Indiana, and that would make it very difficult to carry the Senate. Note I said "difficult" and not "impossible."

I'd be very careful with messing with filibuster rules though. The GOP considered that back before 2006 when words like "Permanent Majority" were being tossed around. If they'd acted on those ideas Obama would have had two years to just run over the GOP. If you think Obamacare is bad now, without the filibuster we'd have had an immediate implementation of a single payer system. You want to leave that the heck alone.

Yeah, filibusters will be a problem for Mitt, but they were a problem for Bush and Obama. Man up and find a way to actually reach across the aisle like Mitt has promised he will do.

What I'm going to be VERY curious about, should Mitt win, is how closely the TEA Party will watch Mitt and how willing they'll be to hold him accountable. The elements that formed the TEA Party under Obama didn't give a flying **** about the debt or government entitlements under Bush. Rush and Sean couldn't carry water fast enough for the Bush White House. Do you really think anyone on the Right will hold Mitt accountable enough to actually cost him a second term if he decides to give in to his true nature and go Lib once elected?

 

[Liability]

There is still a decent prospect (maybe a tad lower than 50-50) that the senate will go GOP. Even a SPLIT Senate will suffice. Granted, the misuse and abuse of the filibuster will be problematical, but there ARE ways to reign in those schmucks if they go that route.

It's worse than 50/50. The GOP is going to lose the Akin race in Missouri and Mourdock race in Indiana, and that would make it very difficult to carry the Senate. Note I said "difficult" and not "impossible."

I'd be very careful with messing with filibuster rules though. The GOP considered that back before 2006 when words like "Permanent Majority" were being tossed around. If they'd acted on those ideas Obama would have had two years to just run over the GOP. If you think Obamacare is bad now, without the filibuster we'd have had an immediate implementation of a single payer system. You want to leave that the heck alone.

Yeah, filibusters will be a problem for Mitt, but they were a problem for Bush and Obama. Man up and find a way to actually reach across the aisle like Mitt has promised he will do.

What I'm going to be VERY curious about, should Mitt win, is how closely the TEA Party will watch Mitt and how willing they'll be to hold him accountable. The elements that formed the TEA Party under Obama didn't give a flying **** about the debt or government entitlements under Bush. Rush and Sean couldn't carry water fast enough for the Bush White House. Do you really think anyone on the Right will hold Mitt accountable enough to actually cost him a second term if he decides to give in to his true nature and go Lib once elected?

Nah. Aiken does look to be having a problem, but CT could fool ya.

And as for your generous suggestion that I (or the folks in power) should "learn" to reach across the aisle, your self-serving silly advise is just that. Self serving and silly.

You cannot deal fairly with the backstabbing humps on the far left.

We don't need "compromise." What is needed is a very sharp REVERSAL of course. And they will never "compromise" to that end. So, they need to be simply defeated.

The time has come to STOP worrying about tinkering with filibuster rules. The assholes on the left side of the Senate don't give a damn about it when THEY are busy trying to steamroll their opposition. It's time they learned the hard and bitter lesson that what goes around comes around.

More importantly, though, they need to be roundly and soundly defeated since what this Republic most urgently needs is to reverse course.


P.S. I also missed one response to a point you questioned. The Tea Party and other conservatives will keep an eye on Mitt to make sure that his move to the right wasn't simply an expedient head fake. He is going to be held accountable. A second term will be CONTINGENT on doing what he is getting elected to DO.

 

[Liability]

Mitt IS going to take FL, NC and VA.

It is possible that PA is out of reach, but OH is more than just close, it is already tilting toward Mitt. CO is going to be in the Mitt camp, too. WI is going to surprise lots of libs. Mitt is taking it. MI is likely a distinct prospect. MI is perhaps going to shock some Dims.

The election may not qualify as a "landslide" but it could be big enough to give Mitt some coat-tails. The Senate is within striking distance.

 

[thanatos144]

Mitt IS going to take FL, NC and VA.

It is possible that PA is out of reach, but OH is more than just close, it is already tilting toward Mitt. CO is going to be in the Mitt camp, too. WI is going to surprise lots of libs. Mitt is taking it. MI is likely a distinct prospect. MI is perhaps going to shock some Dims.

The election may not qualify as a "landslide" but it could be big enough to give Mitt some coat-tails. The Senate is within striking distance.

If Michigan goes for Mitt it wont just surprise the progressives LOL

 

[driveby]

Libs haven't even admitted Gore and Kerry lost.......

 

[rightwinger]

The ONE term proposition's prediction will prove to be correct. Pres. Obama will NOT be getting a second term.

Eh. I can live with Romney. His record is fairly moderate to liberal leaning. He doesn't differ at all in foreign policy from Bush or Obama. Plus, he's going to face a fairly fierce resistance in the Senate as it's unlikely the GOP will take the Senate. Though if they do, they won't hit the magic 60 number, so we'll see filibusterers just like we did under Bush and Obama.

Should Romney win (and he can at this point if his ground game is good in Ohio), the upside for me is that it effectively kills the careers of quite a few Republicans that I'd like to see stay trapped at the State and local level. Plus, it means the Tea Party gets exposed that the GOP's bitches, so, there's that.

Obama's been a fairly weak leader. So I can't honestly say he deserves a second term at this point. The only reason I'll be voting for him is that I'd rather not see the GOP return to power at this point either. Divided government for the win.

Eh.

There is still a decent prospect (maybe a tad lower than 50-50) that the senate will go GOP. Even a SPLIT Senate will suffice. Granted, the misuse and abuse of the filibuster will be problematical, but there ARE ways to reign in those schmucks if they go that route.

And Mitt has been (in the past) been a bit too liberal/"moderate." HOWEVER, he seems to have been open minded enough to recognize the failure inherent in the liberal/socialist philosophy of the liberal Democrat Parody. He will be monitored quite closely. I see him DOING what the conservative base has been insisting upon.

Pres. Obama has been a truly horrendously weak "leader."

Be candid. Beh honest. Give him some props for authorizing the action that took out bin Laden. But other than that, his record is purely one of fail upon fail. His legislative claim to success is Obamacare. It's going to get rescinded. His place in history will be that of a place marker.

The new President has a huge job to do. Limit the damage of the past four years and turn the ship of State the fuck AROUND.

Weak leader? No question

It is difficult to lead those who do not want to be led. To compromise with those who refuse to budge. Where win-win solutions are unacceptable because your side is allowed to win also
Obama has resigned himself to deal with a non-functional Congress and a hostile Republican opposition. He has dealt with it by maximizing the use of executive orders
In terms of foreign policy he has been effective in coordinating the efforts of our allies to impose strict sanctions on Iran and resolve the Egypt and Libyan revolutions without US forces on the ground

What leadership has the Republican party demonstrated in the last four years?