No, it's keen analysis, guy.
"Independents" is an artificial construct anyway. I call myself an "independent", but I've voted Republican in every Presidential election since 1980. (Almost voted for Perot in 1992, though.) Fact is, Neither party ever dips below 45% of the electorate in a two way race. So you are really talking about less than 10% of the electorate that is maleable.
Romney comes to the table with a whole lot of strikes. Weird religion, sleazy business practices, cold and robotic campaigner. Key constiuencies the GOP needs- Evangelicals, Women, Hispanics- won't vote for him at the rates they voted for McCain.
McCain lost by 10 million votes. So in order to win, ROmney has to get everyone who voted for McCain to vote for him, and then get 5 million Obama voters to switch. (And some of us only voted for McCain to get the nomination so Romney wouldn't get it.) A tougher cookie to crack because McCain's demographic skewed older while Obama's skewed younger. That means some of those McCain voters died of old age. (Which means they can't vote outside of Chicago.)
So where does he pick up those 5 million votes? Frankly, can't see it.
Absolute nonsense. And pollsters know it. Pollsters have identified moderates as economically conservative and socially liberal. It is that cohort that decides elections, not conservatives and certainly not liberals.
.
I do want to note you didn't address any point I made. Now why is that?
The pollsters show Obama running even with Romney or a little ahead of him.
The RCP average shows that Obama leads Romney in 5 polls, is tied with him in two and is behind him in two.
With as fouled up as this country is, Romney should be mopping the floor with the guy. And he's running behind? Really?
This is before the sympathetic media who keeps telling us he's the only credible candidate turns on him when they threaten their messiah. It's like you people learned absolutely nothing from the whole McCain experience.
As far as people describing themselves as "moderate", well, yeah, given how the mass media describes conservative and liberal as pejoratives, that's not to be unexpected.
As for you being an analytical guy, you are a reasonable and intelligent poster, except when it comes to Mormonism. On that issue, you are one of the least objective person here. Keeping lists of Mormons so you won't buy from them is your right but is more than a little over the top, and demonstrates a deep seated bias which almost certainly makes objectivity impossible, which you've repeatedly demonstrated here. You are as objective as rdean
Actually, I think I'm the only one who sees them for what they are. And it's understandable, the LDS spend millions trying to convince people they are every bit as normal as everyone else. So again, I'm not surprised you are getting fooled.
Keeping a list is sensible. For instance, Glen Larson produced the original Battlestar Galactica in the 1970's. But he snuck in a whole bunch of Mormon propaganda under the radar when no one was looking. (also the show was mind-numbingly awful.) This is what they do. Or you can take Prop 8, where the Church was 70% of the pro-8 donations when LDS only make up 2% of California's population. In short, they want to influence the country and leave no fingerprints. Well, I'm dusting for fingerprints, dammit.
Now, the evangelicals are trying to get things across, too. but they are straightfoward that is what they are doing. If it's all above board, we can have an honest discussion.
