Hmm, well Gallup now has it 52-45 Romney. Approaching Obama-like margins in 2008...

jmog;1298406 wrote:38 EVs is not a runaway.

4 years ago it was a runaway (385 to 173)
Clinton had a runaway from Dole and from Bush I

Landslides are like Bush I vs Dukakis and Reagan vs Mondale and Reagan vs Carter.

30ish EVs is not "running away" by anymeans, that's basically 1 battle ground state (FL).

I gave FL to Romney.. Obama cruises with Florida

isadore;1298408 wrote:to find the perpetrators.

So, how does lying to everyone help to find the perpetrators?

se-alum;1298518 wrote:So, how does lying to everyone help to find the perpetrators?

until they are dead and rotting in hell. he does a good job of sending terrorists to hell.

gut;1298397 wrote:A hell of a lot more than Obama, absolutely. Obama spends like 90% of his time attacking Romney's plans... sooooooo Q.E.D.

Or let's put it this way...If I told you one of those two on stage had been a professor, you would never in a million years guess it to be Obama.

I would have. We disagree that Romney had more substance.

jmog;1298406 wrote:38 EVs is not a runaway.

4 years ago it was a runaway (385 to 173)
Clinton had a runaway from Dole and from Bush I

Landslides are like Bush I vs Dukakis and Reagan vs Mondale and Reagan vs Carter.

30ish EVs is not "running away" by anymeans, that's basically 1 battle ground state (FL).

If anyone looks at the current polls (the ones that matter IE: battleground polls not national) and thinks this is going to be a runaway or landslide I'd have to assume they're really partisan for one side or the other.

I Wear Pants;1298541 wrote:I would have. We disagree that Romney had more substance.

Ehhh, that's fair on some issues. But in comparison to Obama, BO has no plan. He has nothing, really. And he doesn't, generally, even attack Romney's plans with substance.

You can always move the bar far enough to say there's not enough substance, particularly true when evaluated against 2 minutes to make the case. I don't need the gaps filled in because I see and understand how it works, but I can see how people from different backgrounds are left wanting.

And not saying your guilty of this, but I think there's also expectation for Romney to say what he's going to push thru Congress. That's both unfair and unrealistic.

Perhaps "plan" and "substance" is a bit of semantics. I think Romney has provided a very clear philosophy and approach, at least in regard to economic/fiscal - I feel pretty well informed on how he intends to shape policy. Obama, if he has a direction, appears to be stay the course. And I've already commented plenty on that.

I Wear Pants;1298541 wrote: If anyone looks at the current polls (the ones that matter IE: battleground polls not national) and thinks this is going to be a runaway or landslide I'd have to assume they're really partisan for one side or the other.

I think there's such a huge margin of error in the polls (I'm talking model error, not the typical respondent/sample size error reported) that a landslide either way is not unthinkable.

+/- 5pts, just to make-up a number, for turnout to either side in the battleground states could result in something of a landslide. How many states are toss-up or leaning closer that 5pts?

Just saying, banks and hedge funds have some of the best modelers in the business (with far superior data and sophistication), and they've been uniformly wrong in big ways more than once. I see the sort of environment/conditions where these polling models can be just as bad.

gut;1298553 wrote:I think there's such a huge margin of error in the polls (I'm talking model error, not the typical respondent/sample size error reported) that a landslide either way is not unthinkable.

+/- 5pts, just to make-up a number, for turnout to either side in the battleground states could result in something of a landslide. How many states are toss-up or leaning closer that 5pts?

Just saying, banks and hedge funds have some of the best modelers in the business (with far superior data and sophistication), and they've been uniformly wrong in big ways more than once. I see the sort of environment/conditions where these polling models can be just as bad.

This is true. But to look at the polls (the only data we have right now besides past elections) and assume a landslide given what the polls say now and think "Obama will win massively" or "Romney is gonna win big" you have to be making some massive assumptions.

Your argument is much better than what I usually hear from people who complain about polls. Voter turnout is difficult to predict which is a pretty significant variable.

I Wear Pants;1298554 wrote: Your argument is much better than what I usually hear from people who complain about polls. Voter turnout is difficult to predict which is a pretty significant variable.

Turnout is THE variable. We could sit here and come up with a lot of reasons, on both sides, that turnout is going to swing dramatically. And, given the margins, that could result in a landslide.

I'm not really sure what constitutes a landslide, but I could see Romney winning big. Historically this sort of economic mess is very difficult on an incumbent. Maybe Romney isn't all that, but when you look at those key variables, he's KILLING Obama. We're talking like Reagan/Carter in that regard (I'd guess). However, maybe voters think that about Romney, but still blame the Repubs and so can't vote for him (that's about the only way I can explain some of these results). 2010 might (might, because the Tea Party was not, at the time, the same Repubs). contradict that.

Short of some dramatic and surprising development in turnout, I still think people are going to vote with their wallet, and I've seen nothing to indicate a close race in that regard.

And let me just go on record to say, as much as I think Obama is an abject failure, Harry Reid is probably public enemy #1.

gut;1298564 wrote:Turnout is THE variable. We could sit here and come up with a lot of reasons, on both sides, that turnout is going to swing dramatically. And, given the margins, that could result in a landslide.

I'm not really sure what constitutes a landslide, but I could see Romney winning big. Historically this sort of economic mess is very difficult on an incumbent. Maybe Romney isn't all that, but when you look at those key variables, he's KILLING Obama. We're talking like Reagan/Carter in that regard (I'd guess). However, maybe voters think that about Romney, but still blame the Repubs and so can't vote for him (that's about the only way I can explain some of these results). 2010 might (might, because the Tea Party was not, at the time, the same Repubs). contradict that.

Short of some dramatic and surprising development in turnout, I still think people are going to vote with their wallet, and I've seen nothing to indicate a close race in that regard.

I think that only matters in the key states though. Because most of the others we pretty well know how they're going to vote. So Ohio, Florida, Virginia, etc. And in Ohio there's a pretty large conservative base as evidenced by all of the posters on this forum but there's also a bunch of people in the auto industry that probably remember that Romney would have let their jobs disappear (whether that would have been the correct move is a thread in itself so lets ignore that issue for now) and might vote on that. Ohio is really interesting this time around.

I Wear Pants;1298773 wrote: Romney would have let their jobs disappear (whether that would have been the correct move is a thread in itself so lets ignore that issue for now) and might vote on that. Ohio is really interesting this time around.

Mularkey. Romney wanted the bankruptcy process to have it's chance to proceed as normal - that's what he advocated, he did not advocate just letting the jobs go poof. We could debate if buyers would have stepped-up (the lack thereof which would have necessitated the govt as the creditor of last resort), but we'll never know because the Obama administration did a cramdown.

Personally I don't think the buyers were out there. But that would not have prevented a govt bailout if it the buyers did not materialize. We'll never know, because Obama came sailing in to pay-off his union cronies.

But you're right about the perception and what will drive some votes.

gut;1298780 wrote:Mularkey. Romney wanted the bankruptcy process to have it's chance to proceed as normal - that's what he advocated, he did not advocate just letting the jobs go poof. We could debate if buyers would have stepped-up (the lack thereof which would have necessitated the govt as the creditor of last resort), but we'll never know because the Obama administration did a cramdown.

Personally I don't think the buyers were out there. But that would not have prevented a govt bailout if it the buyers did not materialize. We'll never know, because Obama came sailing in to pay-off his union cronies.

But you're right about the perception and what will drive some votes.

There would not have been a private creditor or buyer. No one was lending, especially not that kind of cash for that damaged of assets, because all the banks were also failing.

I Wear Pants;1298783 wrote:There would not have been a private creditor or buyer. No one was lending, especially not that kind of cash for that damaged of assets, because all the banks were also failing.

Conventional wisdom. I don't really disagree, but the assets had productive value. The place was not going to be shuttered. The price would have been lower - a.k.a. what Obama really facilitated was a transfer of money from the taxpayer (and investors) to the union.

gut;1298789 wrote:Conventional wisdom. I don't really disagree, but the assets had productive value. The place was not going to be shuttered. The price would have been lower - a.k.a. what Obama really facilitated was a transfer of money from the taxpayer (and investors) to the union.

Simply because there was some productive value doesn't mean the companies would exist today or at least not as they do.

I Wear Pants;1298847 wrote:Simply because there was some productive value doesn't mean the companies would exist today or at least not as they do.

I would guarantee it (capitalism, guarantees it). A company that size is not shuttered. Too much value in the assets that have far more productive value than scrap/firesale. That is absolutely not in debate. People don't sit on their thumbs (and there was still money/credit available from overseas banks and creditors) with that much free money laying around.

I Wear Pants;1298541 wrote:If anyone looks at the current polls (the ones that matter IE: battleground polls not national) and thinks this is going to be a runaway or landslide I'd have to assume they're really partisan for one side or the other.

This. I think it'll end up being pretty close, largely depending on how FL/OH go. Two months ago, Romney looked dead, but he has since narrowed the gap, largely buttressed by his performance in the first debate. In the 2nd, he lost overall (by a relatively small margin) but voters said he won on economy/debt. I don't think the 2nd debate likely made much of a difference, so the key will be turnout in a few swing states. Weather might play a factor in how things go.

"I would guarantee it (capitalism, guarantees it). A company that size is not shuttered."

That's only a bit of the proverbial equation.

What will remain to be seen re the GM pre-package bankruptcy is how labor contracts are constructed going forward. Whether GM will remain a viable institution (I'm not so sure it will) remains to be seen, but how will a lender fund any enterprise knowing that if the labor group is politically more powerful it will trump contract and bankruptcy law?

Then again, perhaps GM is an isolated example.

Manhattan Buckeye;1299006 wrote:"I would guarantee it (capitalism, guarantees it). A company that size is not shuttered."

That's only a bit of the proverbial equation.

What will remain to be seen re the GM pre-package bankruptcy is how labor contracts are constructed going forward. Whether GM will remain a viable institution (I'm not so sure it will) remains to be seen, but how will a lender fund any enterprise knowing that if the labor group is politically more powerful it will trump contract and bankruptcy law?

Then again, perhaps GM is an isolated example.

That's a much broader question, and you allude to a few consequences that Obama may or may not have considered (or simply doesn't care). Of course, the govt didn't have to actually takeover GM. They could have just played banker and provided capital with few strings attached, not unlike they did with Wall Street. But that wasn't going to pay off the union cronies.

But, yeah, once the govt signaled an interest and willingness to bail-out GM I doubt any investors wasted another minute on the deal.

I Wear Pants;1298554 wrote:This is true. But to look at the polls (the only data we have right now besides past elections) and assume a landslide given what the polls say now and think "Obama will win massively" or "Romney is gonna win big" you have to be making some massive assumptions.

Your argument is much better than what I usually hear from people who complain about polls. Voter turnout is difficult to predict which is a pretty significant variable.

Yeah. There are two people on here (one for each side of the aisle) who are looking at polls daily, it seems, and excited because they feel there will be a landslide. Obvious. Missing. Chromosomes. There.

I Wear Pants;1298541 wrote: If anyone looks at the current polls (the ones that matter IE: battleground polls not national) and thinks this is going to be a runaway or landslide I'd have to assume they're really partisan for one side or the other.

Spot on. There's literally no scenario where either guy breaks 320-325 EVs. It's highly likely that the winner will have 285 or less.