Why Obama Loses: By The Numbers

[NYcarbineer]

I predict Romney will carry Wisconsin this year, just like Scott Walker did. You dems were also overly confident Walker would lose.

The day before yesterday the Democrats in Wisconsin officially took over the WI state Senate.

That's how the recalls came out.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The election may be closer. So?

Obama had 94 more electoral votes than he needed the last time.

There's a shitload of 'closer' in that number before it gets to Romney.

 

[bobcollum]

POlitical Chic, that was all good news and very factual. I enjoyed reading all of it. Thanks for the hard work!

I see you are impressed by the copy/paste method.

 

[NYcarbineer]

7. Historically, how many Presidents have run for re-election and won with smaller percentages of the electorate?
None.

.

3 minutes research to prove that's a lie.

Roosevelt won in '36 with 60.8% of the vote, and won re-election in '40 with 54.7%

You're an idiot.

 

[Stephanie]

POlitical Chic, that was all good news and very factual. I enjoyed reading all of it. Thanks for the hard work!

I see you are impressed by the copy/paste method.

oh brother..

 

[NYcarbineer]

POlitical Chic, that was all good news and very factual. I enjoyed reading all of it. Thanks for the hard work!

It's factual up until the point you factcheck it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

POlitical Chic, that was all good news and very factual. I enjoyed reading all of it. Thanks for the hard work!

I see you are impressed by the copy/paste method.

For a person incapable of an original thought, idea, or argument, copying and pasting would be the ideal vocation.

 

[del]

" he will loose"

He didn't say that, he said it would be closer.

Stop lying, and last I saw obama is up in swing states.

Obama currently has over 300 electoral votes on the realclear state by state averages.

president dewey was in the same position in 1948.

 

[ladyliberal]

As NYcarbineer points out, your claim is factually false: Presidents have been reelected with a lower percentage of the electorate than they received when they were elected. In addition to FDR, Grover Cleveland was reelected with a lower percentage of the electorate (though Cleveland was not a sitting president when he was reelected).

More to the point, comparing Obama's projected vote share to his vote share in 2008 is a truly awful metric for predicting an election. It penalizes him for doing well in 2008, and it relies on knowing Obama's vote share, which is essentially deterministic by itself. And even if FDR and Cleveland hadn't won relatively narrow reelections there would be no reason to suppose that such a thing couldn't happen.

Of much more predictive power are the swing-state polls you cite. They actually have Obama up
in the swing states. Is the champagne you suggest Republicans drink meant to console them?

 

[ConservaDerrps]

As NYcarbineer points out, your claim is factually false: Presidents have been reelected with a lower percentage of the electorate than they received when they were elected. In addition to FDR, Grover Cleveland was reelected with a lower percentage of the electorate (though Cleveland was not a sitting president when he was reelected).

More to the point, comparing Obama's projected vote share to his vote share in 2008 is a truly awful metric for predicting an election. It penalizes him for doing well in 2008, and it relies on knowing Obama's vote share, which is essentially deterministic by itself. And even if FDR and Cleveland hadn't won relatively narrow reelections there would be no reason to suppose that such a thing couldn't happen.

Of much more predictive power are the swing-state polls you cite. They actually have Obama up
in the swing states. Is the champagne you suggest Republicans drink meant to console them?

 

[Jackson]

As NYcarbineer points out, your claim is factually false: Presidents have been reelected with a lower percentage of the electorate than they received when they were elected. In addition to FDR, Grover Cleveland was reelected with a lower percentage of the electorate (though Cleveland was not a sitting president when he was reelected).

More to the point, comparing Obama's projected vote share to his vote share in 2008 is a truly awful metric for predicting an election. It penalizes him for doing well in 2008, and it relies on knowing Obama's vote share, which is essentially deterministic by itself. And even if FDR and Cleveland hadn't won relatively narrow reelections there would be no reason to suppose that such a thing couldn't happen.

Of much more predictive power are the swing-state polls you cite. They actually have Obama up
in the swing states. Is the champagne you suggest Republicans drink meant to console them?

Romney us up in 5 of the swing states and tied in two.

 

[copsnrobbers]

If you're a communist do us a favor. Don't vote for Obama.. Just move to China and leave us alone.

 

[Black_Label]

If you're a communist do us a favor. Don't vote for Obama.. Just move to China and leave us alone.

The GOP keeps sending our jobs there like crazy,..sounds like the GOP is the new communist party that I agree should move there.

 

[Listening]

If you're a communist do us a favor. Don't vote for Obama.. Just move to China and leave us alone.

The GOP keeps sending our jobs there like crazy,..sounds like the GOP is the new communist party that I agree should move there.

You should move to Cuba with Franco.....

You'll raise the I.Q. of the U.S.A. significantly.

 

[ladyliberal]

As NYcarbineer points out, your claim is factually false: Presidents have been reelected with a lower percentage of the electorate than they received when they were elected. In addition to FDR, Grover Cleveland was reelected with a lower percentage of the electorate (though Cleveland was not a sitting president when he was reelected).

More to the point, comparing Obama's projected vote share to his vote share in 2008 is a truly awful metric for predicting an election. It penalizes him for doing well in 2008, and it relies on knowing Obama's vote share, which is essentially deterministic by itself. And even if FDR and Cleveland hadn't won relatively narrow reelections there would be no reason to suppose that such a thing couldn't happen.

Of much more predictive power are the swing-state polls you cite. They actually have Obama up
in the swing states. Is the champagne you suggest Republicans drink meant to console them?

Romney us up in 5 of the swing states and tied in two.

PoliticalChic's source for that is ultimately RCP, which currently gives forty more electoral college votes to Obama than Romney (RealClearPolitics - Opinion, News, Analysis, Videos and Polls). If your point is that Romney has a good chance then I certainly agree. But if you are arguing that Romney is currently favored (or certain to win, as PoliticalChic claims) then you should be aware that you are betting against the handicappers and the markets.

 

[Black_Label]

If you're a communist do us a favor. Don't vote for Obama.. Just move to China and leave us alone.

The GOP keeps sending our jobs there like crazy,..sounds like the GOP is the new communist party that I agree should move there.

You should move to Cuba with Franco.....

You'll raise the I.Q. of the U.S.A. significantly.

You should move to Iran or with your comrades in China, you would raise the IQ of the USA significantly.

 

[Jackson]

As NYcarbineer points out, your claim is factually false: Presidents have been reelected with a lower percentage of the electorate than they received when they were elected. In addition to FDR, Grover Cleveland was reelected with a lower percentage of the electorate (though Cleveland was not a sitting president when he was reelected).

More to the point, comparing Obama's projected vote share to his vote share in 2008 is a truly awful metric for predicting an election. It penalizes him for doing well in 2008, and it relies on knowing Obama's vote share, which is essentially deterministic by itself. And even if FDR and Cleveland hadn't won relatively narrow reelections there would be no reason to suppose that such a thing couldn't happen.

Of much more predictive power are the swing-state polls you cite. They actually have Obama up
in the swing states. Is the champagne you suggest Republicans drink meant to console them?

Romney us up in 5 of the swing states and tied in two.

PoliticalChic's source for that is ultimately RCP, which currently gives forty more electoral college votes to Obama than Romney (RealClearPolitics - Opinion, News, Analysis, Videos and Polls). If your point is that Romney has a good chance then I certainly agree. But if you are arguing that Romney is currently favored (or certain to win, as PoliticalChic claims) then you should be aware that you are betting against the handicappers and the markets.

There's a thread at the top of this board, Romney Leads in 5 Swing states, Ties in 2

 

[NYcarbineer]

Romney us up in 5 of the swing states and tied in two.

PoliticalChic's source for that is ultimately RCP, which currently gives forty more electoral college votes to Obama than Romney (RealClearPolitics - Opinion, News, Analysis, Videos and Polls). If your point is that Romney has a good chance then I certainly agree. But if you are arguing that Romney is currently favored (or certain to win, as PoliticalChic claims) then you should be aware that you are betting against the handicappers and the markets.

There's a thread at the top of this board, Romney Leads in 5 Swing states, Ties in 2

Which I just proved is horseshit.

 

[NYcarbineer]

" he will loose"

He didn't say that, he said it would be closer.

Stop lying, and last I saw obama is up in swing states.

Obama currently has over 300 electoral votes on the realclear state by state averages.

president dewey was in the same position in 1948.

You're calling me out for that observation and not the OP's guarantee that Obama loses??

lol

 

[NYcarbineer]

1


6. New York City three time Mayor Ed Koch, "a Democrat, will for the first time in his life vote for a Republican presidential candidate..."...Bush. Ed Koch: I’m voting for Bush

.

Ed Koch has endorsed Obama in 2012. This is 2012, you know? Don't you?