Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire What's your confidence level Obama will NOT get re-elected?

Again,you have no support whatsoever for your comments and a even larger misunderstanding of both the swing states and their current polling numbers.

When are you going to tell us who's going to beat Obama?

Gingrich is the front-runner that conservatives could hold their noses and vote for. Gingrich would energize some of the conservative base, perhaps enough to win. I think Santorum would have been able to energize the conservative base, but he has been effectively painted as on the lunatic fringe by the MSM. If Cain or Perry had had their acts together, they could have won like Reagan did in 1980. However, they're both out, and we're left with the dregs.

A couple things about the current polls:
1. As someone posted previous in the thread, January polls are not reliable predictors of presidential elections.
2. Perhaps an even bigger issue is that the polls aren't accounting for Dem voter fraud. Don't forget that nearly every state decides their electoral votes by state-wide popular vote. Thus, high rates of voter fraud in areas that are very blue (e.g., Philadelphia, PA), especially through extra voting, could easily put a toss-up state in Obama's column.

The Republican candidate isn't going to be able to win by getting 50.1% of the legitimate vote in most swing states. In fact, this go-around, I think the Repub candidate would have to get at least a full 51% of the vote to win a swing state, and he might need even more than that. Most swing states have areas where Dems control, and they can get outrageous numbers in those areas. I have no doubt that there will be at least 1% of the vote fraudulently cast in some states.

A candidate that doesn't energize the conservative base (e.g., Romney) isn't going to have the margin needed to overcome the voter fraud.

unfortunately, I am not optimistic he will get tossed from office I am guessing about 60/40 chance. DEAR GOD, PLEASE PROVE ME WRONG!

The Pennsylvania polling data I just looked at had Obama's lead over Romney increasing. That's right, Obama leads Romney by 3 to 5% in an important swing state, and those numbers don't even consider voter fraud.

The latest poll I've seen had Obama leading Romney in South Carolina by 3% (45 to 42%). How long has it been since South Carolina voted for a Dem for president???

Here's a tidbit to ponder and chew on. Obama is leading Romney 45 to 42% in most recent South Carolina poll I'm aware of (12/11/2011 NBC News/Marist).

quote:
-------------------------
South Carolina was one of only six states to vote for Barry Goldwater in 1964 and has voted Republican since, except in 1976 when it voted for fellow southerner Jimmy Carter. In 2008, John McCain defeated Barack Obama 54% to 45%.
-------------------------
South Carolina info

You put a over-abundant emphasis on voter fraud. Romney is thumping Obama in Florida and ahead in Va,Indiana and Ohio. If Obama loses Ohio and Florida,it's over.

I'd love to see this SC poll you speak of. I don't believe any credible poll has such a tally. Plus,it's a entire new ballgame when it's a one and one race. Polling now reflects the multiple candidates and those numbers will change once the GOP candidate is selected while Obama's will remain basically the same.

And I agree with Beck when he stated Romney will kill Obama in the debates. The Georgia fiasco and Obama's failure to disclose any records are going to come back and bite him in the ass,big time.

See my post from 20 seconds before your last post.

Mitts Grand Cayman accounts aren't likely to help him...just sayin'

===============

PPP has Romney beating Obama by 15 points in SC. It's ranged from 6-15 points.

Find another poll that corroborates the one you found then maybe I'll focus a bit more on it.

=============

I truly hope Obama is foolish enough to bring it up.

don't worry I'm not going to edit

If Obama is beating Romney in South Carolina, the voter fraud would just be gravy for Obama.

You can downplay voter fraud, but here's one example for you.
Voter fraud is real and can be significant

quote:-----------------
For instance, after the 1982 gubernatorial elections,
widespread allegations of fraud in
Chicago led to almost sixty convictions and
caused a civil grand jury to conclude that
100,000 illegal ballots had been cast (although
one former state election administrator cautioned
us that the 100,000 figure might have
been overblown for political reasons).32 When
similar allegations surfaced after the 1987
Chicago primary, the then-chairman of the
Chicago Board of Election Commissioners estimated
that between 36,000 and 52,000 votes
had been cast by unregistered voters.33
------------------------------------------

There were between 3.6 and 3.7 million votes cast in the 1982 Illinois gubernatorial election, so 100,000 votes would represent more than 2.5% of the total votes, and if the large majority of those fraudulent votes went for one candidate, the fraudulent votes would represent more than 5% of that candidate's total. That might be an extreme case, but it is not unrealistic to expect that as much as 1% of the votes in some states, particularly in Dem areas of swing states, will be fraudulent votes.

Living in california and seeing what i and others here see every day, my confidence level in the balance of the american people is ZERO

It's 2012 now. Dems have and still are being sent to jail for voter fraud in NY. Indiana is all over safeguards after dem voter fraud in that state. Same with Minnesota. We'll see where the SC ID fight lands and it's impact on the rest of the country.

Voter fraud won't be a significant concern,imo. Plus,as you'll come to see, the GOP win in November will be rather significant. Folks keep forgetting that once we get past our primaries and select a candidate,Obama will be immediately on the defensive. And,once his record is the talk of the day rather than GOP in-house bickering,it will get ugly for him,especially after the SC smacks down his signature Health Bill.

That is a darned good question.

My sense is that many of the people who voted for Obama did it because they had a sense that "they were making history!!!"

And, while in principle, they would gladly do it again...you can only make history being first, once.

The 'miracle' of Obama is that he got Republican turn-out rates from the other end of the bell-shaped curve. That will not happen again.

If I were a Republican strategy wonk, I would strongly agitate the Occupy movement in some of the states that still might entertain the fantasy that the Federal Gov will ride to their rescue...(California, Illinois, Nevada, Florida)...force the issue and make Obama admit that he is not their savior. Hell hath no fury like a 'ho that is scorned. Stated another way, the entitlement crowd goes cannibalistic against those puncture the collective fantasy.

When is the last time the PPP poll you referenced was taken? I don't see any Romney v. Obama in the data currently listed on PPP's website for South Carolina. You care to provide a link?

Thats backwards.
baby bushie screwed the pooch bigtime and turned off middle independant voters that voted in large numbers for the raghead.
Run someone to far to the left or right, loose the middle and loose the election.
Romney and McCain have nothing in commen at all.

dave

You've bought into the MSM's lie.

If Romney is the nominee, Romney and McCain will have one very significant thing in common when election day rolls around - they'll both have been beated by Obama.