Romney Is (Just Barely) Leading the National Polls, But Obama Is Still the Favorite to Win

Mitt Romney has a had a great month. On September 30th, the RealClearPolitics presidential polling average showed him losing to President Obama by 4 points. Now it shows him ahead. At just 0.7 points, it's not a big lead. But he's led the president in RCP's average for the last two weeks. And his rise is confirmed by other polling analyses: Pollster.com's aggregate poll number shows a similar rise over the past several weeks, and also currently has him in the lead, albeit by just a single tenth of a point. 

Yet despite the tight race, Obama remains the slight favorite to win on election day. That's because even though Romney seems to be holding a very small lead in the national polls, Obama has a solid Electoral College advantage. This has obvious implications for the race. It's also going to shape the way the next president governs.

Polling in battleground states, as well as various election-prediction models, all suggest that President Obama will have a somewhat easier path to Electoral College victory than Mitt Romney. Most analyses suggest that there is a very strong chance that the election will hinge on Ohio. If Mitt Romney loses Ohio, he'll have to come very close to sweeping the table in the rest of the swing states. And right now, most polls show that Obama has a narrow but consistent lead in the Buckeye state. Of the three Ohio presidential polls published yesterday, Obama led in two (Time and SurveyUSA) and was tied with Romney in one (Rasmussen).

I would say we'll have to wait until election day to find out, but we might not even know then. As ABC News reports, if it does come down to Ohio, and the race there is quite close, it may take a week or more to sort of the final tally:

The year, Ohio's Secretary of State office decided not to wait for people to request absentee ballots and instead sent the applications to 6.9 million of the state's 7.9 million registered voters. So far, more than 1.4 million voters have requested absentee ballots and more are expected to be received before the Nov. 3, deadline.

So far, 618,861 absentee ballots have been cast. That number will of course increase as election day nears, but more than 800,000 ballots are still at-large.

If voters have been sent an absentee ballot, but don't return it by Nov. 5, they can still go to the polls and vote on election day, but they'll be given a provisional ballot. And under state law, these ballots cannot be counted until Nov. 17.

In 2008, there were more than 200,000 provisional ballots to be counted.

The other reason for a potential delay in Ohio is a function of the calendar. Ohio's absentee ballots must be postmarked by Nov. 5, but they can arrive as late as Nov. 16 and still be counted. This means that votes will likely still continue to trickle in after Election Night, and if the results are very close, those ballots could also shift the outcome. 

The closeness of the race suggests some intriguing possibilities. It's possible, for example, that we'll end up with an Electoral College tie. It's also possible that, as in 2000, the candidate who wins the popular vote will not win the Electoral College vote. Both of these would inevitably complicate the next administration's ability to pursue its own agenda. 

But even if the candidate who wins the popular vote also wins enough electors to take the White House, it's going to be very, very close unless something unexpected happens. Indeed, it may be so close that the actual outcome of the election is decided by Ohio college football teams. Which means that the next president isn't going to be able to easily claim to have a mandate, a clear stamp of public approval on his policy agenda. Instead, he'll have eked out a huge victory on a tiny margin, with roughly half the public having voted for his opponent, and, judging by most reports, his own supporters more relieved that the other guy didn't win than thrilled about their candidate taking the prize. For now, in other words, it's a political horse race. But pretty soon it's going to be a governing complication.

Comments

[Rich]

Obama has a solid Electoral College advantage.

Perhaps. But this is fun.

[grrizzly]

I will go out on a limb and predict that the election won't be that close. By November 7th we'll know the winner.

[Cytotoxic]

This push by Romney feels like the surge by Capriles in Venezuela. It was significant but not enough. 'Significant but not enough' should be Romney's political epitaph, after he loses the election.

[PapayaSF]

No, I don't think so. Months ago, I never understood why Democrats thought Obama was a lock. Now, Romney has shown he's an acceptable alternative, and that's all many, many people need to see in order to vote for him and against Obama.

Many of these polls assume that party turnout will be like 2008. Um, no: that was an atypical year, great for Dems and bad for Reps. Then we had the Tea Party blowout of 2010, and since then things have gotten better for Reps, not worse. They are up in self-identification, and win the generic Congressional ballot question, which is very unusual.

Another weird thing about the polls: Romney wins men, is tied with women, and wins independents by a huge amount, and yet the race is "close"? I think the only reason it's reported as "close" is because they are counting on proportionately more Dems than will actually vote.

Reports from all over the country are that enthusiasm for Obama is way, way down. (Even in SF, Obama 2012 stickers are pretty rare.)

A preference cascade has begun. Romney is looking like a winner, and Obama is looking like a struggling and disgruntled loser, and those perceptions will only enhance Romney's lead in the last two weeks. He'll win, maybe by a surprising amount.

[Lord Humungus]

Reason won't let me link to it since it's flagged by spam, but I suggest reading the Bob Krumm posts about voter turnout. He's a Democratic pollster and is suggesting a Romney win. A squeaker, but a win.

see
http://www.nationalreview.com/.....undecideds

for a link

Notice that the polls with the three largest sample sizes are not media-affiliated polls. Gallup, Rasmussen, and SurveyUSA are polling for the sake of polling. All of the other polls are conducted at the behest of a media organization, and in 2012 that means a media organization that is on a very tight budget.

I contend that it is not media bias that drives these differing results, but is instead cheapness. Good polling is very expensive. To get a sample that is representative of the voting population means that you have to make many times more calls than you need actual respondents. The best polling organizations ask about your voting history and from that they determine your likelihood of voting.

[Tulpa (LAOL-PA)]

Sample size affects the variance, not the mean. If the problem was low sample sizes, you'd just see polls vacillating all over the place randomly from day to day, with errors in both directions. It's not an explanation for the results being skewed in one direction.

[Nephilium]

I'm here in Kucinich's old district in Ohio, which has been a solid D for more then a decade. Driving around, I'm seeing more Romney/Ryan signs then I am Obama/Biden signs.

Considering the Obama signs were in almost every single yard back in 2008 makes me thing that Romney may win this thing.

[Drake]

If we are going by signs, Romney is a lock for New Jersey too. I guess it depends on how many people without yards vote.

[Syd Henderson]

If you're going by signs, Obama will carry Oklahoma.

[R C Dean]

I think the only reason it's reported as "close" is because they are counting on proportionately more Dems than will actually vote.

I think it will be close, and Obama might actually win, because critical swing states (Ohio, Indiana, Wisconsin) have Dem vote factories in their unionized urban centers.

And by vote factories, I mean places where votes are manufactured by processing outdated voter rolls. If those states are close, then a few tens of thousands of "votes" could swing them.

[Honeyboy Wilson]

Sea kelp.

[GILMORE]

Is that Romney doing his Nick Nolte impression?

And Obama is about to do his Godfather-Brando thing..

[cavalier973]

That picture of Romney cracks me up. Has there been a picture before of Romney with messed up hair?

[BarryD]

If you compare the NYT color map with Rasmussen, who I believe still has the best track record out there, you'll find that they agree, except that the NYT map has a consistent thumb on the scale, in Obama's favor.

Like the NYT has, in general, for 5 years or more...

It sure looks like an electoral tie right now, to me, when I look at polls.

Who knows what's going to happen? I sure don't. But I do know that the New York Times has ceased being a trustworthy source of information.

[Dr. Frankenstein]

If you win, you do what you want mandate or not.

[BarryD]

Really? You don't remember all the Presidents over the past few decades frequently saying, "Well, I only got 48% of the popular vote, so I'm going to ask the other party what THEY want me to do!"?

Oh yeah. Me neither.

[Tulpa (LAOL-PA)]

Clinton never got a majority of the popular vote.

[robc]

He barely broke 40% in 1992.

What did he have 42?

[BarryD]

Exactly.

And when he took office in 1992, did he have a meeting with the GOP leadership and ask them what he should do now? I don't recall that he did...

[Tulpa (LAOL-PA)]

I believe Frankenstein was saying the same thing you are.

[Tulpa (LAOL-PA)]

And of course, the Dems controlled both houses of Congress in 1993.

[Paul.]

Not for long...

[Tulpa (LAOL-PA)]

Of course. But if you look at Clinton's record in office, it looks nothing like what his agenda was on 1/20/1993.

[Pro Libertate]

If there's hope, it's in the idiots in Congress. It's amazing, but it's true. 1994 really hammered that lesson home, and those fools, who kept to their reform agenda for maybe a year, may have staved off the statist decline for a little while.

Sadly, things went way south when the GOP took total power, getting even worse when Obama was elected.

[Paul.]

Sadly, things went way south when the GOP took total power, getting even worse when Obama was elected.

National Greatness Conservatism. *shudder*

[Tulpa (LAOL-PA)]

Don't forget the GOP leadership was ready to embrace the socialist agenda in 2009 before the TP slapped them (and the Dems) silly. Something perfectionist libertarians can only dream of doing.

[ant1sthenes]

Too bad it was the sort of slap that precedes angry makeup sex.

[Tulpa (LAOL-PA)]

The thing about an Electoral College advantage is that it can evaporate in a minute. A shift of 0.5% of the national popular vote could swing every swing state in Romney's favor.

[Drake]

I think that may be happening. I suspect Romney is going to win some states that weren't supposed to be in play. Maine, New Hampshire and PA wouldn't surprise me at all.

[Syd Henderson]

Maine and Pennsylvania aren't in play. New Hampshire, maybe.

[Tulpa (LAOL-PA)]

Sure PA isn't in play. BO's lead is down to four points after being up by double digits a month ago.

[robc]

Maine-2 is absolutely in play. Only 1 EC vote, but in a close race, that could matter.

[Drake]

Maine has a Republican Governor, a Republican legislature, 2 (kind of) Republican Senators, and an terrible economy.

Why wouldn't it be in play?

[Pippers]

Because, Obama has a lead of over 6 points averages on all polls. No one has ever won a state that has polled over 3.5% for the other side. (Clinton had 3.5% lead over Bush in Texas in 1992 and lost it to Bush)

For more detailed explanations Nate Silver has an excellent write up on this: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.n.....ion-right/

[0x90]

Were these pictures taken in some sort of presidential centrifuge?

[General Butt Naked]

I like that idea. Like the thing they put chicken parts in to make McNuggets.

VOTE PINK PASTE '12!

[Paul.]

You wanna know one reason why I want Romney to lose (and feel free to pile on the hate, Romney supporters, you-- and we-- know who you are)? Because if he wins, the GOP's tactics against Ron Paul, the methodology to pick a middle-of-the-road candidate, the belief in politics for politic's sake will be enshrined in the GOP leadership. Whereas if Romney loses, it will send a message to the GOP that might cause a seismic shift in their thinking. A shift that might make them stand up and take notice of the smaller government ideas of Gary Johnson and Ron Paul.

But if Romney wins, every focus-group, calculated political decision the GOP made will be validated.

[BC]

With all due respect, you're kidding yourself. Sure, there are going to be epic recriminations if Romney loses, but the likelihood of the GOP settling on an, "If only we had nominated Ron Paul," explanation is nonexistent.

[Paul.]

but the likelihood of the GOP settling on an, "If only we had nominated Ron Paul," explanation is nonexistent.

I'm not suggesting anything so simplistic. I'm suggesting that (and giving a nod to Tulpa's comment below) that the lesson they might come away with is that by ignoring any fealty to smaller government ideals, they underwhelmed their base and found that the lack of enthusiasm over Romney was the core reason for their defeat. So they need to get a candidate less likely to grow the government, but grow it the GOP way, and get one who might actually make wholesale cuts.

[BC]

I reckon that the likeliest GOP takeaways from a Romney loss will be along the following lines:

(1) We need someone who is less compromised on issues where the Democrat is vulnerable (i.e., "It was a mistake to nominate the architect of Masscare to challenge the architect of Obamacare.")

(2) We need someone who can speak the language of modern conservatism more naturally (i.e, "Romney was not a True Believer, and he oftentimes struggled to argue the case for conservatism.")

(3) We need someone who is better at retail politics, (i.e., "Romney was too stiff.")

(4) We need someone who is willing and able to rhetorically slit the throat of a dissembling Democrat in a national debate. (I.e., "Romney was good in the first debate, but after that he let Obama get away with lying his ass off.")

You'll note that all of those explanations deal with Romney's inadequacies as a candidate, and none of them have anything to do with the GOP being insufficiently attractive to small-government types.

[Tulpa (LAOL-PA)]

When the "moderator" is backing up Obama's lies, there's very little Romney could have done about it.

[BC]

No argument. But I don't think that detail is going to register with Republicans looking to lay blame.

[Pippers]

The moderator was just pointing out that Romney was wrong. The entire world got to see that speech on the news cycles the moment it happened. Romney got caught listening to Limbaugh as truth and failed to realize the Administration has always said it was terrorist related.

[Sudden]

And the 2016 GOP Presidential Nominee: Rick Santorum *shudder*.

Seriously, I want Romney to win just to confirm that Rick Santorum never makes the general election ballot.

[Francisco d Anconia]

x10

[Tulpa (LAOL-PA)]

The supposed pattern of GOP nominees is said to be in effect even when the Republican wins the general election. (Bush I, Dole, McCain)

Of course, the "pattern" excludes one data point (Bush II) and selectively counts candidates running against incumbent GOP presidents (Reagan's finish behind President Ford in 1976 counts, but Buchanan's finish behind President Bush in '92 doesn't). So it's not much of a pattern.

[John C. Randolph]

How about:

5) we need someone who's not just a John Kerry clone with an (R) after his name.

6) we need someone who's not such an obvious liar.

7) we need someone who isn't another brain-dead Keynesian Orthodox believer.

-jcr

[Tulpa (LAOL-PA)]

Whereas if Romney loses, it will send a message to the GOP that might cause a seismic shift in their thinking. A shift that might make them stand up and take notice of the smaller government ideas of Gary Johnson and Ron Paul.

If Romney loses, it won't be because he was insufficiently supportive of slashing government. So no, they're not going to get that message. The message they'll get is they have to promise more free shit to the 47%.

[Paul.]

And this I cannot deny.

[triclops]

Never expect either party to learn the appropriate lesson from a loss or a victory.

Both parties can only learn two lessons; our candidate needed to be more charismatic, and/or more conservative (if an R), or liberal (if a D).
Seriously, that is the lesson they both learn from every single election (though the charisma thing is the most important thing for winning).

[Paul.]

Both parties can only learn two lessons; our candidate needed to be more charismatic, and/or more conservative (if an R), or liberal (if a D).

If by 'conservative' you mean, smaller, less intrusive government with a very liberal approach to the economy vis a vis free trade and unregulated markets, then yes, the Rs could be a little more conservative.

If by 'more conservative' you mean fixated on overturning Roe V Wade, prosecuting the Wars on Terror and Drugs more vigorously, a plenary police and law enforcement state, refusal to recognize gay marriage or other social issues du jour, then that would be bad.

[Killazontherun]

Four years is a long time to expect a lesson to not be burned away from the synapses in DC. Unless there is some form of gain in personal glory in being libertarian, the winner of that race, assuming Mitt loses, will not be a libertarian. He will mouth the platitudes only to the extent it helps his professional career. You can't expect anything more out of someone who chooses politics as a profession. He will be libertarian to the extent that it is the will of the people he is courting for votes minus the extent it hurts the entrenched interest that got him where he is.

[Redefiler]

Without any due respect... Fuck Ron Paul.

If he's such a good Libertarian and champion of libertarian ideology why is he even in the Republican party? I think because he's a 100% insincere, attention whore. He'll never be the top jeezoid on team R, and he's not freaky enough to standout on team D, so he gets his kicks being just weird enough to be a black sheep on team R. Ditto for Rand, who is just inheriting Daddy's gig. Its a cheap, shitty act and I'm disheartened that people fall for it, investing any hope in the Paul clowns.

Libertarians still lack leadership. Johnson is a great guy, better than Ron Paul, but he's only a libertarian of convenience because team R wouldn't back him. I think Johnson is an example of a great Republican who has a great record, its a shame they failed to recognize it. That doesn't mean he's a great Libertarian. However without serious charisma AND sound ideology, were going to be stuck with D & R for a lot longer.

[Cytotoxic]

How dare the Pauls be even slightly successful! How unlibertarian!

[John C. Randolph]

Fuck Ron Paul.

No, sparky, fuck YOU.

why is he even in the Republican party?

Maybe because he tried running as a Libertarian once, and found out that the Ruling Party has stacked the deck to the extent that the only possible way to change things is to take over one of the Ruling Party brands.

Libertarians still lack leadership.

Leadership, my ass. Free men don't need leaders.

-jcr

[Moe Effingood]

The party of Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum have put in enough rules in place that it is hard for an alternative to simply just get on the ballot. So yes, if you can't beat them you join them and then try to change them from the inside. That's more realistic than hoping for easing ballot access and getting IRV in elections.

[Oso Politico]

Looking at those photos I keep wondering where the other 5 dwarfs are...

[Joe M]

with roughly half the public having voted for his opponent

No, roughly half the people who bothered to vote, which actually only amounts to about 25% of the population.

[protefeed]

Instead, he'll have eked out a huge victory on a tiny margin, with roughly half the public having voted for his opponent

The majority of the public will not vote for either version of Obamney. "Voters" =/= "public"

[HazelMeade]

My advice to Republicans (and Libertarians who really can't stand Obama) living in the Western half of the country:

Even if it looks like Obama is going to win the electoral college, keep voting, to deny him a popular vote victory.

If Obama wins the EC and losed the popular vote, he'll be a lame duck. I'd much rather have a lame duck Obama than one who doesn't care if he'll be reelected in 4 years.

[Paul.]

While this is certainly something I'd personally take satisfaction in (Obama losing the popular vote ala Clinton in 92), I'm not convinced Obama cares about lame duck status.

[HazelMeade]

Well if he loses the popular vote the Republicans will be less likely to cave and go along with whatever he proposes.

Partticularly with regard to the deficit. We're more likely to get more spending cuts and fewer tax increases if the Republicans have the balls of knowing they won the House and Obama lost the popular vote.

I'm especially thinking of the lame duck session after the election. What happens to the sequestration cuts will depend on the outcome of the election. If Obama wins and had a legitimate mandate, the whole thing is going to be repealed.

[Drake]

We are also more likely to get daily Executive Orders that are blatantly Unconstitutional. And the Court won't stop them because he'll probably get two more Supreme Court picks.

[Pippers]

Like they would along with him regardless?

[protefeed]

The polls used by both Rasmussen and 538 have a huge margin of error, because no one really knows how to fix these problems with the models:

1) how to count people who refuse to respond to pollsters

2) how to count people who can't be reached by pollsters because they don't have phones, or are too busy to answer calls from people they don't know

3) who will actually turn out

4) how much fraud will occur

5) other relevant stuff I haven't thought of

[Pro Libertate]

I'm one of those. I refused to participate in a phone poll, only realizing afterwards that I missed a chance to skew things somehow. Though I doubt they were going to give me the option of choosing Johnson.

[Paul.]

"On a scale from 7 to 10, rate the President's job performance, 7 being pretty damned good, 10 being over the moon kick ass"

[Sudden]

In truth, agreeing to be polled probably swings election results far more than actually voting (people jump on the winners bandwagon, etc).

[Pippers]

Rasmussen is a polling agency, 538 is a polling aggregation site. They are not related. 538s job is to put in variables that make "huge margins of error" into something that translates into real would results.

This is something Nate Silver is very very good at. When he did baseball, it basically ruining the game, and make a lot of people very very rich.

[Pro Libertate]

I'm just going to say it: No fucking way Obama wins. I bet it's not even very close.

And losing big to Romney is like losing best breakfast to a Spam omelet, where the eggs are actually scrambled tofu.

[Fatty Bolger]

Not to worry, Romney will win.

Oh, right. Worry.

[Fatty Bolger]

Oops, that was supposed to be in the main thread.

[Paul.]

*Takes position across the room*

[HazelMeade]

One thing I learned from the iraq war: denial is not a strategy.

[Ayn Random Variation]

This is my feeling.
Like what someone said above, if Romney is winning males and independents and tied with women, how is he tied overall?

Going with Ayn and her contradictions logic, I am thinking they are not tied and the pollsters are picking up too many Dems, and thus are underestimating how pissed off the right is with Obama.

Also, aren't the "47%"/free shit types more likely to take part in a poll? I think so.

[FD]

I think the polling is much more scientific now. It's increasingly more accurate every year.
I remember when Carter and Reagan were running neck and neck in the polls. Everyone thought it would go to the wire. So I went to the library on election night, intolerant of talking heads who would babble for hours. I walked back into the house at 8:30 Eastern. (Back then they weren't afraid to show results early, even though some other time zones were still voting.). They were calling the race before the Mountain time and Pacific time folks were leaving work! The polls were worthless, not even close.
But since then, much has changed and it seems they are good predictors. I don't see any repeat of 30+ years ago.
And as bad as O is, he's not even close to the broken shell that poor Jimmy was at the end

[Paul.]

And as bad as O is, he's not even close to the broken shell that poor Jimmy was at the end

You're correct on this. Obama is a completely intact shell of a candidate.

[Sudden]

is like losing best breakfast to a Spam omelet,

You are clearly not Hawaiian.

[ant1sthenes]

Well, he probably won't win legitimately, I'll grant you that.

[Francisco d Anconia]

I'm just going to say it: No fucking way Obama wins. I bet it's not even very close.

I agree. I will go WAY THE FUCK out on a limb here and predict a landslide for Romney. Aren't most of these polls using like a D+9 predicted turnout? That's higher than 08. That's fucking insane. This is one of the most hated presidents in recent memory. The economy/recovery is a fucking disaster. Americans are stupid, but I don't think they are THAT stupid. I'm not buying the polls.

[Cytotoxic]

Americans are stupid, but I don't think they are THAT stupid.

*Makes hissing noise, bites fist*

[Sudden]

A buddy of mine is predicting Romney to take 337 electoral votes.

I think he's insane and deluded. But he is a TEAM RED sycophant. Although he did flirt with libertarianism in the 2010 Tea Party craze.

[T o n y]

Party ID is determined in the process of of taking the survey itself in most of the reputable polls, and is relatively fluid. They don't make assumptions, they report what they learn from people they poll.

[Ayn Random Variation]

If Romney wins the pop. vote and Obama wins the electoral vote, I will finally respect the lefties for making a principled stand when they come out in favor of dumping the electoral college in favor of the popular vote.

[PapayaSF]

No, the electoral college has an important function in firewalling fraud at the state level. Without it, tens of millions of dead people in Chicago and Philadelphia and Baltimore will give every presidential election to the Democrat.

[ant1sthenes]

Exactly, which is why they will never support it.

[Cytotoxic]

Without it, tens of millions of dead people in Chicago and Philadelphia and Baltimore will give every presidential election to the Democrat.

That is fiction my friend.

[Enyap]

The electoral college makes it so the dems can steal a presidental election just by stuffing the ballot box in Cleveland. The millions of dead people that would be required to swing the overall popular vote would be alot harder to pull off without notice.

I don't get the love so many libertarian have for the winner takes all electoral college system, that traps us with a two party duopoly and makes fruad easy.

[Susan Anthony]

The current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes maximizes the incentive and opportunity for fraud, coercion, intimidation, confusion, and voter suppression. A very few people can change the national outcome by adding, changing, or suppressing a small number of votes in one closely divided battleground state. With the current system all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who receives a bare plurality of the votes in each state. The sheer magnitude of the national popular vote number, compared to individual state vote totals, is much more robust against manipulation.

National Popular Vote would limit the benefits to be gained by fraud or voter suppression. One suppressed vote would be one less vote. One fraudulent vote would only win one vote in the return. In the current electoral system, one fraudulent vote could mean 55 electoral votes, or just enough electoral votes to win the presidency without having the most popular votes in the country.

[FD]

LOL,and much appreciated after a very depressing article and series of comments.

[FD]

I feel ill when I even consider turning my back on Johnson, compared to these bozos. And I even think Gary is not hardcore enough.
But one thing motivates me to consider Romney. (I said consider, though I'll chicken out in the end and pull the lever for libertarianism.). That is the business perspective. When somebody proves they're a screw up, they need to be fired. Period. End of discussion. Especially when they are a murdering screw up. None of this second chance b.s. "Fool me once....." as the saying goes.
For all Mitt's faults, he didn't murder innocent people. Maybe he would have. Maybe he will. But he hasn't yet.
He didn't curtail civil liberties, as Obama the liar has done.
He hasn't embarked on this Keynesianism gone mad. And this policy, or lack thereof, is truly madder than a March hare.
Obama has done all of this and more.
"Well, if Romney gets in...."
Yuh, maybe he will. I don't have prescience like all these other folks must have, predicting the future like Nostradamus.
Obama had his chance. He was a despicable failure.
And people want to reward this kind of evil?
Who do I hope will win (knowing it won't be Gary)? Romney, of course. His hands aren't covered in blood.
And if he won it, then four years from now, if I'm alive, I'll be hoping for the Democratic challenger.
None of these bums ever deserve to be rewarded with another term.

[Sudden]

One of our wise commenters noted last week an observation which I particularly agree with and have quoted several times over since:

All presidents deserve two terms. One in office, and another in prison.

[FD]

Amen to that.

[robc]

A vote for Johnson is a vote to fire Obama.

[Lyle]

Libertarians are going to give America four more years of Obama and progressive economic policy. Whoopee! Whoopee!

The blue model will live!!! Yay!!!

[Ted S.]

I live in New York. It's going for Obama even if every Johnson voter votes for Romney. So I can vote my conscience without worry.

[Lyle]

Fair enough. It's crossed my mind to vote Johnson for the same reason, but Johnson is so not presidential I can't do it.

I like Johnson, but he'd be a horrible President.

[Francisco d Anconia]

I don't think you need to worry about GJ not being presidential enough.

[Keith3D]

It's not like New Mexico fell off the earth or something with Johnson in charge. He also successfully ran a business.

[Calidissident]

WTF does presidential even mean? And if Johnson would be considered a horrible president, then Romney would be atrociously awful

[robc]

WTF?

8 years as governor and a damn good job.

20? 30? years running a business.

He has executive experience out the wazoo.

He is as presidential as they come.

[Calidissident]

Libertarians are voting for Obama? Your proof of this is ... ?

[Paleo-ConAvenger]

Posted this earlier on the DailyPaultard. Romney will win Ohio by 4-7 points, you heard it here first.

Romney will likely win in a few weeks, which I think will be good for the short to medium term. I know this because I live in the most bellweather, even somewhat liberal part of Ohio (Northern Suburbs of Columbus), and the Romney signs are everywhere. I would definitely say that there are 4 Romney signs for every 1 Obama signs. Even at households that support local tax levies (ugh), there's usually a Romney sign for every 2 Obama signs.

I may be one of the few here on the DP that really hopes that Romney beats Obama. There is a difference between them-not on Foreign Policy, but on general attitudes and policies towards economic freedom. I also think that Rand will get a good deal of his budget signed into law, bringing stability to the markets and economy...hopefully.

If Romney does nothing or hurts stuff even more, then the worst that will happen is a third party will arise. And if Obama wins, who will definitely ,without a doubt, make things worse. Conservatives and Libertarians will continue to get the blame of the the socialist policies enacted by Obama, just like the four years

[Paul.]

If Romney does nothing or hurts stuff even more, then the worst that will happen is a third party will arise

I feel the exact opposite will happen. If Romney gets elected, the Democrats will be able to bang the 'see, we told you' drum and the struggle will remain between Red and Blue.

But if Obama gets his second term, there will be no question where the fault lies and maybe, maybe the third party will rise in 2016. Republicans will be able to give the GOP leadership the finger for pushing Obama Lite and go full small-government. Dems will be so disheartened by the failure that was Obama that they'll never be able to utter "Spend ourselves to prosperity" in public again without getting a rhetorical beatdown.

[Gladstone]

Dems will be so disheartened by the failure that was Obama that they'll never be able to utter "Spend ourselves to prosperity" in public again without getting a rhetorical beatdown.

I think you are being way too optimistic alas.

[Paul.]

You're right. I'll now return to my normal evenings of crying myself to sleep.

[Cytotoxic]

WE'VE ALREADY DONE THAT.

[Ayn Random Variation]

"But if Obama gets his second term, there will be no question where the fault lies and maybe,..."

I wish, but you know the drill. They will just blame the Republicans in Congress and/or say they just didn't spend enough, and it took Bush 8 years to screw it up so it will take 12 to fix, blah blah blah.

[Gladstone]

This post is rather stupid. Obama is going to be as concerned about his popular vote percentage as Bill Clinton was. You know not at all.

[Cameroon]

The electoral college makes it so the dems can steal a presidental election just by stuffing the ballot box in Cleveland. The millions of dead people that would be required to swing the overall popular vote would be alot harder to pull off without notice.coach outlet I agree. I will go WAY THE FUCK out on a limb here and predict a landslide for Romney. Aren't most of these polls using like a D+9 predicted turnout? That's higher than 08. That's fucking insane. This is one of the most hated presidents in recent memory. The economy/recovery is a fucking disaster. Americans are stupid, but I don't think they are THAT stupid. I'm not buying the polls.

[Stormy Dragon]

Removing the electoral college would just mean they steal it by stuffing the ballot box in New Jersey, California, Massachusettes, etc.

[Susan Anthony]

The closest popular-vote election in American history (in 1960), had a nationwide margin of more than 100,000 popular votes. The closest electoral-vote election in American history (in 2000) was determined by 537 votes, all in one state, when there was a lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide.

For a national popular vote election to be as easy to switch as 2000, it would have to be two hundred times closer than the 1960 election--and, in popular-vote terms, forty times closer than 2000 itself.

Which system offers vote suppressors or fraudulent voters a better shot at success for a smaller effort?

[Paul.]

The song of the day: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVHQNGzPbOI

[Emmerson Biggins]

I though of something shitty. If Obama wins it will be because he wins Ohio. If he wins Ohio it'll be because of the Sovietization of GM. Talk about vote buying. That just sucks.

[cavalier973]

I think Romney will win, but it won't help, since Romney is clearly an ignorant man when it comes to economics, however successful a businessman he was. His China-bashing is teeth-gnashingly embarrassing, especially when he promises to label China a "currency manipulator" without any hint of irony.

If Obama wins, then the liberty movement has a chance to shake people out of this "Presidency worship", by getting friends and neighbors to focus on the 10th amendment solutions; having state governments nullify Federal laws. That would be better even than having a President Ron Paul with a veto-proof majority on his side.

[Stormy Dragon]

however successful a businessman he was

Indeed, it's never been explained to me how any of his business success has resulted from actual skill on his part, rather than just cashing in on his Father's political connections to rig the game in his favor.

[T o n y]

I'm glad I came here. I was craving some delusion for breakfast.

[Raistlin Majere]

Well you are what you eat, after all.

[Honeyboy Wilson]

"Which means that the next president isn't going to be able to easily claim to have a mandate ..."

You don't seem to be up-to-date on the rules: A Democratic victory can never be a mandate, regardless of the size of the win; a 1-vote Republican victory is always a mandate.

[DreasMommy]

" But pretty soon it's going to be a governing complication."

If Obama wins, I completely agree. However, Romney has experience working across the isle; he's not an ideologue, he's a realist, and I think he's more accomplished in the art of compromise than the current President. The hurdle I see for Romney, should he become President, is, I wouldn't put it past the Democratic party to "take their ball and go home" under the leadership of Pelosi and Reid. Obviously, it remains to be seen, but my prediction is Romney wins the election, the House remains Republican and the Senate remains Democrat, although I think it will be by a slimmer margin.

[nike001]

I did not care for him, is expected from this situation, I did not really say, fell from the capital. Even if there http://www.cheapuggsbootsforwomen.org/ was a gun in the hand must not mean Doude Guo Zhang Yan. Thought this, I saw the boss Zhang nodded. Heroes do not eat immediate loss anyway, now she brings those things that I did not need Senate combined.

[Discount Coach Outle]

You can be addressed as a successful football coach only if you are able to bring the potential out of your players and good coach outlet hot sale enable them to perform well during the football tournaments, There could be nothing worse than being unprepared for a coaching session. You can be addressed as a successful football coach only if you are able to bring the potential out of your players and enable them to perform well during the football best Air Jordan Shoes loved by many people tournaments, There could be nothing worse than being unprepared for a coaching session.