Ty Webb;1304967 wrote:GNN (gibby news network) had Obama +4 in Ohio

Also has him hitting 50%

Fify

This pretty much sums up what Gut has been saying about the polls in Ohio: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/331593/why-romney-doesnt-need-poll-lead-ohio-josh-jordan#

Crimson streak;1304970 wrote:Fify

Well played sir

like_that;1304974 wrote:This pretty much sums up what Gut has been saying about the polls in Ohio: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/331593/why-romney-doesnt-need-poll-lead-ohio-josh-jordan#

And I'm the one posting partisan stuff??

National Review?? Really

Ty Webb;1304978 wrote:And I'm the one posting partisan stuff??

National Review?? Really

It's just facts. It really doesn't matter what you post though, it will all be decided on the 6th. Not sure what you are trying to accomplish by posting polls lol. Self therapy?

like_that;1304979 wrote:It's just facts. It really doesn't matter what you post though, it will all be decided on the 6th. Not sure what you are trying to accomplish by posting polls lol. Self therapy?

Nope....just letting you see a preview of November 6th

Ty Webb;1304986 wrote:Nope....just letting you see a preview of November 6th

Ok? And what are you going to do if Obama wins? Talk shit? lolfail.

As I have said before, you are exactly what is wrong with this divided country.

Ty Webb;1304986 wrote:Nope....just letting you see a preview of November 6th

C'mon Gibby, admit that you get a daily email blast with marching orders to spread the propaganda to keep the base enthused and to discourage the opposition. What's noteable is that this daily propaganda appears to be coming later and later each day, with its case getting weaker and weaker, also.

Reality is Obama won OH in 2008 by 4.6pts. So a 2.3 pt slide toward Romney means Obama loses Ohio. And ignoring that turnout will already likely wipe that out, he has declined even more significantly among key demographics, particularly independents. Barring 2008-type turnout (which I think extremely unlikely), Obama is losing OH.

like_that;1304990 wrote:Ok? And what are you going to do if Obama wins? Talk shit? lolfail.

As I have said before, you are exactly what is wrong with this divided country.

He and Quaker are two sides of the same coin in that regard.

Ty Webb;1304926 wrote:Every Ohio poll in the last week had the President up 2-3. If that holds..Obama wins Ohio. He wins Ohio...he wins the election. Simple as that

Rasmussen had them tied. You can't discount the most accurate poll out there.

gut;1304992 wrote:C'mon Gibby, admit that you get a daily email blast with marching orders to spread the propaganda to keep the base enthused and to discourage the opposition. What's noteable is that this daily propaganda appears to be coming later and later each day, with its case getting weaker and weaker, also.

Reality is Obama won OH in 2008 by 4.6pts. So a 2.3 pt slide toward Romney means Obama loses Ohio. And ignoring that turnout will already likely wipe that out, he has declined even more significantly among key demographics, particularly independents. Barring 2008-type turnout (which I think extremely unlikely), Obama is losing OH.

I can't take you serious when you say Romney is winning Ohio....because he isn't

There are going to be alot of disappointed people here November 6th

Ty Webb;1305022 wrote:I can't take you serious when you say Romney is winning Ohio....because he isn't

There are going to be alot of disappointed people here November 6th

LOL, you say that as fact when Rasmussen has them tied. Either the polls are and have been mostly junk, or Romney is continuing to gain in the polls. Any way you slice it, it doesn't look good for Obama at all, certainly not to the degree of confidence you have. The candidates are trolling OH like it is very much a toss-up.

gut;1305037 wrote:LOL, you say that as fact when Rasmussen has them tied. Either the polls are and have been mostly junk, or Romney is continuing to gain in the polls. Any way you slice it, it doesn't look good for Obama at all, certainly not to the degree of confidence you have. The candidates are trolling OH like it is very much a toss-up.

You say Romney's winning Ohio like its fact..,.when 99 percent of polls show the opposite.

Considering President Obama is winning Ohio,Nevada.Wisconsin,Iowa,PA,and Michigan...I'd say it looks pretty damn good for him

Ty Webb;1305042 wrote:You say Romney's winning Ohio like its fact..,.when 99 percent of polls show the opposite.

Considering President Obama is winning Ohio,Nevada.Wisconsin,Iowa,PA,and Michigan...I'd say it looks pretty damn good for him

How about we make a deal. If Romney wins, you aren't allowed to post for 2 months. If Obama wins, I'll do the same. Deal?

Ty Webb;1305042 wrote:You say Romney's winning Ohio like its fact..,.when 99 percent of polls show the opposite.

Considering President Obama is winning Ohio,Nevada.Wisconsin,Iowa,PA,and Michigan...I'd say it looks pretty damn good for him

We've been over this. For starters, most of those are within the margin of error, something you don't appear to understand. 2nd, it's been discussed that the 2008 baseline almost certainly overstates turnout, likely significantly, which tilts "toss-up" toward Romney.

Obama isnt campaigning like a madman, and begging for additional contributions, because he has anything more than razor thin margins (if even that).

If you think your campaign HQ would take anything less than a "glass full, competely full" perspective in its "internal" communications with its volunteers then you truly are clueless. They will acknowledge reality only to the extent they think they need to to maintain some semblance of credibility.

elitesmithie05;1305044 wrote:How about we make a deal. If Romney wins, you aren't allowed to post for 2 months. If Obama wins, I'll do the same. Deal?

Deal

gut;1305045 wrote:We've been over this. For starters, most of those are within the margin of error, something you don't appear to understand. 2nd, it's been discussed that the 2008 baseline almost certainly overstates turnout, likely significantly, which tilts "toss-up" toward Romney.

Really? Turnout won't be close to 08? Gallup has an article up today about how the 2012 electorate will be almost identical to 2008

Ty Webb;1305050 wrote:Really? Turnout won't be close to 08? Gallup has an article up today about how the 2012 electorate will be almost identical to 2008

So we are to believe that article, but not Gallup showing a 6pt Romney advantage nationally? I wonder if this article was written before or after getting a call from Axelrod?

C'mon Ty, put on your thinking cap instead of blindly grasping onto whatever poll supports what you are so desperate to believe. Obama's ONLY path to victory is turnout like 2008, and most Dems don't even believe that will happen. And if you look at voter registrations, it's not even possible to achieve the turnout number unless Repubs stay home MORE than they did in 2008. It's not happening, that's why the Obama campaign is trying desperately to get people to the polls and move them from "likely" into the "voted" column.

Heretic;1305006 wrote:He and Quaker are two sides of the same coin in that regard.

It def goes both ways, no argument here. Never understood people like Gibby and Quaker.

Whoever is selected as president will serve everyone regardless of who we voted for. If the president is successful we all win, if not we all lose. That concept seems to go way over Gibby's gigantic, but hallow head.

Honestly if campaign managers are telling volunteers like Gibby to spew the bullshit he is spewing I can see it working against the democrats lol.

And, Ty, you really should read the whole article. From your Gallup article:

"Today 49 percent of likely voters identify as Republican or lean that way, while just 46 percent of likely voters polled said they planned on voting for a Democrat. That is a major swing since 2008 when Gallup predicted 54 percent of voters would cast ballots for Obama."

That's what people mean when they are talking about turnout. It's not about demographics, it's about the split between Dem and Repubs - a.k.a "base" (and we know what direction the independents are practically herding).

like_that;1305057 wrote:Honestly if campaign managers are telling volunteers like Gibby to spew the bull**** he is spewing I can see it working against the democrats lol.

He completely mischaracterized that Gallup article. Either that or he doesn't understand what turnout means.

Ty Webb;1305050 wrote:Really? Turnout won't be close to 08? Gallup has an article up today about how the 2012 electorate will be almost identical to 2008

Dude...like gut just said, try actually reading the article. :rolleyes:

http://m.cnbc.com/us_news/49573577/2

40% of 2012 votes will be cast early.

Ohio and Iowa voting at bigger rate than '08

Obama up 54-39 among early voters

People who do not read and only base their decisions on what they hear on the daily show I'd what's wrong with people today. Most younger people who are voting have no real grasp of why they are voting the way they are. Voters need to educate themselves and make a informed choice.