Powered by TypePad

« Saturday AM | Main | After Petraeus »

November 12, 2012

Comments

LouP

Want some hints about why Romney lost?

From Philly (similar results elsewhere):

In 59 Philadelphia voting divisions, Mitt Romney got zero votes.

Not a single one of them accidently voted for the wrong person. So you see, the voters in Philly are much more able to use the voting machines than those stupid Florida voters of 12 years ago. /snark

And the Dems know what got them there:

Axelrod's Next Project: Inspiring Young People to Become 'Journalists'

Extraneus

The family man schtick is a loser, Jimmy. We'll do better with a smouldering man of danger, who everyone suspects isn't sleeping with his wife.

"Put some ice on that."

Extraneus

Well, unless they nominate someone who wouldn't require that level of masculinity.

Threadkiller

Back to fun with numbers.

" The probability that the “birth certificate” and other Obama identity documents are genuine is just 1 in 75 sextillion."

http://www.wnd.com/2012/11/win-or-lose-obama-was-not-and-is-not-the-president/

1 in 75,000,000,000,000,000,000,000?

The odds of throwing 28 6-sided dice and them all having the same number is 1 in 6,140,942,214,460,000,256,224.

Janet

What do AlGore & Sandra Fluke's boyfriend have in common?

Danube of Thought

I think Lord Monckton needs a new sport.

I'd say the probability that Obama was and is the president is exactly 1.0.

tommy mc donnell

maureen dowd is a racist sexist.

moxieman

Mandates.

Makes for interesting reading, for those who don't move their lips when doing so, anyway.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/11/presidential-mandates

Patrick Tyson

Rick,

My best guess is that it'll be between 58% and 58.5% of 220 million.

My recollection from 2008 is that I even made a few spreadsheet adjustments based on the official results and I followed the count closely in the intervening months as, when it was complete, I posted a number of long comments at Nate Silver's pre-Times site on the performance of his model, of the pollsters and of the aggregators. I was something of a critic back then.

Regards.

FeFe

http://www.vdare.com/articles/slippery-six-mid-west-states-doom-romney-because-of-low-white-share
It took a couple of months of Michelle Malkin, myself and others pointing out that Edison’s celebrated report of Bush taking 44 percent of the Hispanic vote didn’t jibe with the actual votes before Edison finally retracted that guesstimate in early 2005. By then, it had become an apparently unkillable myth.

FeFe

http://www.vdare.com/articles/the-fulford-file-mitt-romney-was-an-immigration-wimp-dammit
But George W. Bush’s candidacy achieved, at most, 38 percent of the Hispanic vote. John McAmnesty achieved 31 percent. Romney got 28.3%.

moxieman

"Rasmussen explains:

"Our final daily presidential tracking poll showed Romney at 49% and Obama at 48%. Instead, the president got 50% of the vote and Romney 48%. We were disappointed that our final results were not as close to the final result as they had been in preceding elections. There was a similar pattern in the state polls. For example, in Ohio we projected a tie at 49% but the president reached 50% of the vote and the challenger got just 48%. Although every individual result in the battleground states was within the margin of error, the numbers we projected were consistently a bit more favorable for Romney than the actual results."

Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. The New York Times blogger called it right on the money. Bottom line: only the wilfully delusional will cite to Raz. NOT a reliable source.

jorod

If the Democrat supporters could read and write, they would know who passed those Jim Crow laws and who supported the institution of slavery. It's amazing how the dems have revised history.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame