Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
OT : Latest Prez Election Odds
197 views
Skip to first unread message
Roger Ford
Oct 19, 2012, 2:05:43 PM10/19/12
to
Here's the latest odds on the US Prez race (courtesy PaddyPower)
---after the second TV debate this week---that observers over here
judged Obama to have shaded
Obama 4/11
Romney 2/1
ROGER FORD
-----------------------
"Spam Free Zone" - to combat unwanted automatic spamming I have added
an extra "b" in my e-mail address (mari...@bblueyonder.co.uk).
Please delete same before responding.Thank you!
---after the second TV debate this week---that observers over here
judged Obama to have shaded
Obama 4/11
Romney 2/1
ROGER FORD
-----------------------
"Spam Free Zone" - to combat unwanted automatic spamming I have added
an extra "b" in my e-mail address (mari...@bblueyonder.co.uk).
Please delete same before responding.Thank you!
The Bloomfield Buddy
Oct 19, 2012, 2:19:18 PM10/19/12
to
On Oct 19, 2:05 pm, maria...@bblueyonder.co.uk (Roger Ford) wrote:
> Here's the latest odds on the US Prez race (courtesy PaddyPower)
> ---after the second TV debate this week---that observers over here
> judged Obama to have shaded
>
> Obama 4/11
>
> Romney 2/1
So Obama is back up to 70% to win. He was down to 59% when I checked
> Here's the latest odds on the US Prez race (courtesy PaddyPower)
> ---after the second TV debate this week---that observers over here
> judged Obama to have shaded
>
> Obama 4/11
>
> Romney 2/1
the other day.
Roger Ford
Oct 19, 2012, 2:39:40 PM10/19/12
to
On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 11:19:18 -0700 (PDT), The Bloomfield Buddy
<Sav...@aol.com> wrote:
But according to the UK paper I read Govenor Romney is leading in at
least one opinion poll there right?
<Sav...@aol.com> wrote:
least one opinion poll there right?
The Bloomfield Buddy
Oct 19, 2012, 2:50:06 PM10/19/12
to
On Oct 19, 2:39 pm, maria...@bblueyonder.co.uk (Roger Ford) wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 11:19:18 -0700 (PDT), The Bloomfield Buddy
>
> On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 11:19:18 -0700 (PDT), The Bloomfield Buddy
>
> <Savo...@aol.com> wrote:
> >On Oct 19, 2:05=A0pm, maria...@bblueyonder.co.uk (Roger Ford) wrote:
> >> Here's the latest odds on the US Prez race (courtesy PaddyPower)
> >> ---after the second TV debate this week---that observers over here
> >> judged Obama to have shaded
>
> >> Obama 4/11
>
> >> Romney 2/1
>
> >So Obama is back up to 70% to win. He was down to 59% when I checked
> >the other day.
>
> But according to the UK paper I read Govenor Romney is leading in at
> least one opinion poll there right?
Not sure, but because of the way the electoral college works Romney
> >On Oct 19, 2:05=A0pm, maria...@bblueyonder.co.uk (Roger Ford) wrote:
> >> Here's the latest odds on the US Prez race (courtesy PaddyPower)
> >> ---after the second TV debate this week---that observers over here
> >> judged Obama to have shaded
>
> >> Obama 4/11
>
> >> Romney 2/1
>
> >So Obama is back up to 70% to win. He was down to 59% when I checked
> >the other day.
>
> But according to the UK paper I read Govenor Romney is leading in at
> least one opinion poll there right?
can (pretty much) only win the election if he can win Ohio, and he's
trailing there something like 48.5 to 46.
No Republican has ever won the presidency without winning Ohio.
http://www.policymic.com/articles/16909/latest-presidential-polls-obama-winning-in-key-swing-states-as-romney-steps-up-spending
Obama leads in 7 or 8 of the 10 states that are up for grabs:
According to RCP if the race were to end today Obama would win with a
projected 294 electoral votes to Romney’s 244.
Jim Colegrove
Oct 19, 2012, 7:56:16 PM10/19/12
to
On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 18:39:40 GMT, mari...@bblueyonder.co.uk (Roger
Ford) wrote:
>On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 11:19:18 -0700 (PDT), The Bloomfield Buddy
><Sav...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>On Oct 19, 2:05=A0pm, maria...@bblueyonder.co.uk (Roger Ford) wrote:
>>> Here's the latest odds on the US Prez race (courtesy PaddyPower)
>>> ---after the second TV debate this week---that observers over here
>>> judged Obama to have shaded
>>>
>>> Obama 4/11
>>>
>>> Romney 2/1
>>
>>So Obama is back up to 70% to win. He was down to 59% when I checked
>>the other day.
>
>But according to the UK paper I read Govenor Romney is leading in at
>least one opinion poll there right?
>
Yes. That would be the one that counts 80-90% white people.
Ford) wrote:
>On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 11:19:18 -0700 (PDT), The Bloomfield Buddy
><Sav...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>On Oct 19, 2:05=A0pm, maria...@bblueyonder.co.uk (Roger Ford) wrote:
>>> Here's the latest odds on the US Prez race (courtesy PaddyPower)
>>> ---after the second TV debate this week---that observers over here
>>> judged Obama to have shaded
>>>
>>> Obama 4/11
>>>
>>> Romney 2/1
>>
>>So Obama is back up to 70% to win. He was down to 59% when I checked
>>the other day.
>
>But according to the UK paper I read Govenor Romney is leading in at
>least one opinion poll there right?
>
Jim Colegrove
www.thecoolgroove.com
The Bloomfield Buddy
Oct 19, 2012, 9:58:06 PM10/19/12
to
On Oct 19, 7:56 pm, Jim Colegrove <co...@thecoolgroove.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 18:39:40 GMT, maria...@bblueyonder.co.uk (Roger
Romney will win the white vote and the male vote, but will get killed
in the non-white votes. The question is how bad will he lose the
female vote.
> On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 18:39:40 GMT, maria...@bblueyonder.co.uk (Roger
in the non-white votes. The question is how bad will he lose the
female vote.
Dean F.
Oct 19, 2012, 10:35:41 PM10/19/12
to
I will be so-o-o fucking glad when this election is over! No matter who wins it.
My attitude is not only about the presidential election, either. Here in Connecticut, we also have a nasty senate race between incumbent Chris Murphy and Linda McMahon, the CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment - who has spent tens of millions of her own money on this year's race, apparently undeterred by the crushing defeat she suffered at the hands of CT's Attorney General (and now Senator), Dick Blumenthal, in 2010.
McMahon and her husband Vince want to expand their wrestling empire overseas, but the law currently prevents them from doing so. But she insists that her reason for wanting to go to Washington has nothing to do with that; perish the thought! Rather, Mrs. McMahon is very concerned about Connecticut's future. And if you buy into that line of bullshit, I'll bet you also think that wrestling's not fake!
Rule of thumb: when a CEO runs for public office, it's because they want to look out for their own financial interests. And that's *all* they give a damn about, folks!
My attitude is not only about the presidential election, either. Here in Connecticut, we also have a nasty senate race between incumbent Chris Murphy and Linda McMahon, the CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment - who has spent tens of millions of her own money on this year's race, apparently undeterred by the crushing defeat she suffered at the hands of CT's Attorney General (and now Senator), Dick Blumenthal, in 2010.
McMahon and her husband Vince want to expand their wrestling empire overseas, but the law currently prevents them from doing so. But she insists that her reason for wanting to go to Washington has nothing to do with that; perish the thought! Rather, Mrs. McMahon is very concerned about Connecticut's future. And if you buy into that line of bullshit, I'll bet you also think that wrestling's not fake!
Rule of thumb: when a CEO runs for public office, it's because they want to look out for their own financial interests. And that's *all* they give a damn about, folks!
Roger Ford
Oct 20, 2012, 12:58:34 AM10/20/12
to
On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 19:35:41 -0700 (PDT), "Dean F."
<soule...@gmail.com> wrote:
>McMahon and her husband Vince want to expand their wrestling empire oversea=
shows pull in big audiences,they constantly tour here with their live
extravaganzas,their biggest stars are household names here and of
course there's that all important bottom line---they manage to sell a
goodly amount of their merchandise here.
<soule...@gmail.com> wrote:
>McMahon and her husband Vince want to expand their wrestling empire oversea=
>s, but the law currently prevents them from doing so.
They certainly have a presence here in Britain. Their WWE wrestling TV
shows pull in big audiences,they constantly tour here with their live
extravaganzas,their biggest stars are household names here and of
course there's that all important bottom line---they manage to sell a
goodly amount of their merchandise here.
Michael Pendragon
Oct 20, 2012, 3:13:19 AM10/20/12
to
On Oct 19, 10:35 pm, "Dean F." <soulexpr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I will be so-o-o fucking glad when this election is over! No matter who wins it.
>
> My attitude is not only about the presidential election, either. Here in Connecticut, we also have a nasty senate race between incumbent Chris Murphy and Linda McMahon, the CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment - who has spent tens of millions of her own money on this year's race, apparently undeterred by the crushing defeat she suffered at the hands of CT's Attorney General (and now Senator), Dick Blumenthal, in 2010.
>
> McMahon and her husband Vince want to expand their wrestling empire overseas, but the law currently prevents them from doing so. But she insists that her reason for wanting to go to Washington has nothing to do with that; perish the thought! Rather, Mrs. McMahon is very concerned about Connecticut's future. And if you buy into that line of bullshit, I'll bet you also think that wrestling's not fake!
Jesse Ventura did alright as Minnesota's Governor.
> I will be so-o-o fucking glad when this election is over! No matter who wins it.
>
> My attitude is not only about the presidential election, either. Here in Connecticut, we also have a nasty senate race between incumbent Chris Murphy and Linda McMahon, the CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment - who has spent tens of millions of her own money on this year's race, apparently undeterred by the crushing defeat she suffered at the hands of CT's Attorney General (and now Senator), Dick Blumenthal, in 2010.
>
> McMahon and her husband Vince want to expand their wrestling empire overseas, but the law currently prevents them from doing so. But she insists that her reason for wanting to go to Washington has nothing to do with that; perish the thought! Rather, Mrs. McMahon is very concerned about Connecticut's future. And if you buy into that line of bullshit, I'll bet you also think that wrestling's not fake!
Roger Ford
Oct 20, 2012, 5:05:07 AM10/20/12
to
>McMahon and her husband Vince want to expand their wrestling empire oversea=
>s, but the law currently prevents them from doing so. But she insists that =
>her reason for wanting to go to Washington has nothing to do with that; per=
>ish the thought! Rather, Mrs. McMahon is very concerned about Connecticut's=
> future. And if you buy into that line of bullshit, I'll bet you also think=
>s, but the law currently prevents them from doing so. But she insists that =
>her reason for wanting to go to Washington has nothing to do with that; per=
>ish the thought! Rather, Mrs. McMahon is very concerned about Connecticut's=
> future. And if you buy into that line of bullshit, I'll bet you also think=
> that wrestling's not fake!
>
Beth Phoenix can come and fake for me anytime!
>
F R
Oct 20, 2012, 7:46:04 AM10/20/12
to
The BB>
One poll has Mitt very close to Barack with the women's vote. Hard to
believe.
It's also "claimed" that the turnout in the black and hispanic community
will be less than in 2008.
Romney will win the white vote and the male vote, but will get killed in
the non-white votes. The question is how bad will he lose the female
vote.
-------------------------
the non-white votes. The question is how bad will he lose the female
vote.
One poll has Mitt very close to Barack with the women's vote. Hard to
believe.
It's also "claimed" that the turnout in the black and hispanic community
will be less than in 2008.
F R
Oct 20, 2012, 7:59:24 AM10/20/12
to
Dean>
The WWE has dozens of dates overseas...Europe and Asia so not sure what
current law prevents this.
All, I repeat ALL politicians care more about their re-election than
serving the American people.
Here's an example:
About 6-8 months ago Obama was meeting with Putin (on foreign trade I
think) and unfortunately got caught on an open mic telling Putin to give
him some time, he has a re-election coming up.
I ain't picking on Obama as I'm sure every president has or would do the
same thing. He just got caught on the open mic.
The only solution is term limits. One 4 year term for president. This
way, s/he is a lame duck the second the swearing in takes place. The
only thing left is their legacy, not getting a second term. This way
they know in advance they will not be re-elected and can actually
concentrate on what's best for the American people.
When a president says s/he needs time because of an election coming up,
it proves where their priorities really are.
Name one politician of either party who leaves D.C. poorer than when
they first arrived.
A POX ON BOTH THEIR HOUSES.
McMahon and her husband Vince want to expand their wrestling empire
overseas, but the law currently prevents them from doing so. But she
insists that her reason for wanting to go to Washington has nothing to
do with that; perish the thought! Rather, Mrs. McMahon is very concerned
about Connecticut's future. And if you buy into that line of bullshit,
I'll bet you also think that wrestling's not fake!
Rule of thumb: when a CEO runs for public office, it's because they want
to look out for their own financial interests. And that's *all* they
give a damn about, folks!
-----------------------
overseas, but the law currently prevents them from doing so. But she
insists that her reason for wanting to go to Washington has nothing to
do with that; perish the thought! Rather, Mrs. McMahon is very concerned
about Connecticut's future. And if you buy into that line of bullshit,
I'll bet you also think that wrestling's not fake!
Rule of thumb: when a CEO runs for public office, it's because they want
to look out for their own financial interests. And that's *all* they
give a damn about, folks!
The WWE has dozens of dates overseas...Europe and Asia so not sure what
current law prevents this.
All, I repeat ALL politicians care more about their re-election than
serving the American people.
Here's an example:
About 6-8 months ago Obama was meeting with Putin (on foreign trade I
think) and unfortunately got caught on an open mic telling Putin to give
him some time, he has a re-election coming up.
I ain't picking on Obama as I'm sure every president has or would do the
same thing. He just got caught on the open mic.
The only solution is term limits. One 4 year term for president. This
way, s/he is a lame duck the second the swearing in takes place. The
only thing left is their legacy, not getting a second term. This way
they know in advance they will not be re-elected and can actually
concentrate on what's best for the American people.
When a president says s/he needs time because of an election coming up,
it proves where their priorities really are.
Name one politician of either party who leaves D.C. poorer than when
they first arrived.
A POX ON BOTH THEIR HOUSES.
DCartrow
Oct 20, 2012, 9:44:00 AM10/20/12
to
I wonder if when Linda is being bested on the taling points, would Vince come up from behind the guy and waffle him with a folding chair!!!
xpen...@gmail.com
Oct 20, 2012, 5:36:53 PM10/20/12
to
Motors is alive? Did you see the last debate. How did you like Obama's
reply to the Black guy who told him how his life has sucked the last
for the last four years?
Roger Ford
Oct 21, 2012, 9:11:00 AM10/21/12
to
On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 18:05:43 GMT, mari...@bblueyonder.co.uk (Roger
Ford) wrote:
>Here's the latest odds on the US Prez race (courtesy PaddyPower)
>---after the second TV debate this week---that observers over here
>judged Obama to have shaded
>
>Obama 4/11
>
>Romney 2/1
>
As of today (21/10/12)
Ford) wrote:
>Here's the latest odds on the US Prez race (courtesy PaddyPower)
>---after the second TV debate this week---that observers over here
>judged Obama to have shaded
>
>Obama 4/11
>
>Romney 2/1
>
Obama 2/5
Romney 15/8
The Bloomfield Buddy
Oct 21, 2012, 9:27:42 AM10/21/12
to
On Oct 21, 9:10 am, maria...@bblueyonder.co.uk (Roger Ford) wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 18:05:43 GMT, maria...@bblueyonder.co.uk (Roger
> On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 18:05:43 GMT, maria...@bblueyonder.co.uk (Roger
>
> Ford) wrote:
> >Here's the latest odds on the US Prez race (courtesy PaddyPower)
> >---after the second TV debate this week---that observers over here
> >judged Obama to have shaded
>
> >Obama 4/11
>
> >Romney 2/1
>
> As of today (21/10/12)
>
> Obama 2/5
>
> Romney 15/8
So, minus the vig they have Obama now at 68% to win.
> Ford) wrote:
> >Here's the latest odds on the US Prez race (courtesy PaddyPower)
> >---after the second TV debate this week---that observers over here
> >judged Obama to have shaded
>
> >Obama 4/11
>
> >Romney 2/1
>
> As of today (21/10/12)
>
> Obama 2/5
>
> Romney 15/8
The Bloomfield Buddy
Oct 21, 2012, 11:30:38 PM10/21/12
to
The Bloomfield Buddy
Oct 23, 2012, 10:16:40 AM10/23/12
to Dian...@aol.com
> As of today (21/10/12)
>
> Obama 2/5
>
> Romney 15/8
These have not changed yet. In Las Vegas these same lines would be
>
> Obama 2/5
>
> Romney 15/8
listed like this...
Obama -250
Romney +187
That means if you want to win $100 on Obama you have to risk $250. If
you win you get back your $250 + $100.
If you risk $100 on Romney and he wins you win $187. You get back your
$100 + $187.
The midpoint between 250 and 187 is 218.5. That removes the
bookmaker's vig. To see what the real odds are, divide 218.5 by 318.5
and that gives you .686, or 69%.
Paddy Power is rating Obama to be 69% to win the elction.
The Bloomfield Buddy
Oct 23, 2012, 9:51:37 PM10/23/12
to
They moved the line again:
Obama 4/9
Romney 7/4
Take away the vig and the line is 8/4 or 2/1 in Obama's favor.
So they've dropped Obama from 69% to 67%
In the US casinos it would be...
Obama -225
Romney +175
Bet 225 to win 100 on Obama
Bet 100 to win 175 on Romney
Obama 4/9
Romney 7/4
Take away the vig and the line is 8/4 or 2/1 in Obama's favor.
So they've dropped Obama from 69% to 67%
In the US casinos it would be...
Obama -225
Romney +175
Bet 225 to win 100 on Obama
Bet 100 to win 175 on Romney
Michael Pendragon
Oct 24, 2012, 12:06:19 AM10/24/12
to
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/10/22/post-abc-tracking-poll-obama-49-percent-romney-48-percent/
Bob Roman
Oct 24, 2012, 12:24:53 AM10/24/12
to
On Oct 24, 12:06 am, Michael Pendragon
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/10/22/post-abc-tr...
I don't see any betting odds in that link.
--
BR
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/10/22/post-abc-tr...
I don't see any betting odds in that link.
--
BR
Bruno
Oct 24, 2012, 12:42:29 AM10/24/12
to
than that. If the winner needs 270 of the 538 electoral college votes
does the 69% suggest that Obama will get 360 of them?
We're hearing that it all depends on Ohio which I think is 18 votes, so
arent we looking at say 278/260 which would be 51.67%?
Roger Ford
Oct 24, 2012, 12:52:33 AM10/24/12
to
suggest. In fact several newspapers report that Romney may just edge
it on polling day
The Bloomfield Buddy
Oct 24, 2012, 8:43:58 AM10/24/12
to
On Oct 24, 12:42 am, Bruno <brun05...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 24/10/2012 12:21 PM, The Bloomfield Buddy wrote:
>
>
>
> > They moved the line again:
>
> > Obama 4/9
> > Romney 7/4
>
> > Take away the vig and the line is 8/4 or 2/1 in Obama's favor.
>
> > So they've dropped Obama from 69% to 67%
>
> > In the US casinos it would be...
>
> > Obama -225
> > Romney +175
>
> > Bet 225 to win 100 on Obama
> > Bet 100 to win 175 on Romney
>
> What am I missing in all this. Over here they are saying its much closer
> than that. If the winner needs 270 of the 538 electoral college votes
> does the 69% suggest that Obama will get 360 of them?
No, it just means that Obama is now 67% to get to 270 electoral votes
> On 24/10/2012 12:21 PM, The Bloomfield Buddy wrote:
>
>
>
> > They moved the line again:
>
> > Obama 4/9
> > Romney 7/4
>
> > Take away the vig and the line is 8/4 or 2/1 in Obama's favor.
>
> > So they've dropped Obama from 69% to 67%
>
> > In the US casinos it would be...
>
> > Obama -225
> > Romney +175
>
> > Bet 225 to win 100 on Obama
> > Bet 100 to win 175 on Romney
>
> What am I missing in all this. Over here they are saying its much closer
> than that. If the winner needs 270 of the 538 electoral college votes
> does the 69% suggest that Obama will get 360 of them?
and win the election. If a baseball team is 3 to 1 to win a particular
game, and they only win it by one run, they still win the game, and
the bet. The odds say nothing about how much they will win by.
There are separate odds on how many electoral votes Obama will get,
The over/under on Obama's electoral votes is 290.5. You have to lay 6
to 5 on either side of this bet.
The Bloomfield Buddy
Oct 24, 2012, 8:58:14 AM10/24/12
to
The Bloomfield Buddy
Oct 24, 2012, 12:06:18 PM10/24/12
to
Odds changed again.
Obama 8/15
Romney 6/4
Transferred to USA lines....
Obama -187
Romney +150
Take away the vig and Obama is now down to .6279 (63%) to win.
Obama 8/15
Romney 6/4
Transferred to USA lines....
Obama -187
Romney +150
Take away the vig and Obama is now down to .6279 (63%) to win.
Roger Ford
Oct 24, 2012, 12:17:00 PM10/24/12
to
The Bloomfield Buddy
Oct 24, 2012, 12:20:34 PM10/24/12
to
On Oct 24, 12:16 pm, maria...@bblueyonder.co.uk (Roger Ford) wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 09:06:18 -0700 (PDT), The Bloomfield Buddy
>
> On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 09:06:18 -0700 (PDT), The Bloomfield Buddy
>
> <Savo...@aol.com> wrote:
> >Odds changed again.
>
> >Obama 8/15
> >Romney 6/4
>
> >Transferred to USA lines....
>
> >Obama -187
> >Romney +150
>
> >Take away the vig and Obama is now down to .6279 (63%) to win.
>
> President Romney has something of a ring to it,no? :)
Not as much of a ring as romnesia.
> >Odds changed again.
>
> >Obama 8/15
> >Romney 6/4
>
> >Transferred to USA lines....
>
> >Obama -187
> >Romney +150
>
> >Take away the vig and Obama is now down to .6279 (63%) to win.
>
> President Romney has something of a ring to it,no? :)
Roger Ford
Oct 24, 2012, 12:30:29 PM10/24/12
to
On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 09:20:34 -0700 (PDT), The Bloomfield Buddy
<Sav...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Oct 24, 12:16=A0pm, maria...@bblueyonder.co.uk (Roger Ford) wrote:
>> On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 09:06:18 -0700 (PDT), The Bloomfield Buddy
>>
>> <Savo...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >Odds changed again.
>>
>> >Obama 8/15
>> >Romney 6/4
>>
>> >Transferred to USA lines....
>>
>> >Obama =A0-187
<Sav...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Oct 24, 12:16=A0pm, maria...@bblueyonder.co.uk (Roger Ford) wrote:
>> On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 09:06:18 -0700 (PDT), The Bloomfield Buddy
>>
>> <Savo...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >Odds changed again.
>>
>> >Obama 8/15
>> >Romney 6/4
>>
>> >Transferred to USA lines....
>>
>> >Romney +150
>>
>> >Take away the vig and Obama is now down to .6279 (63%) to win.
>>
>> President Romney has something of a ring to it,no? :)
>
>Not as much of a ring as romnesia.
I have this gut feeling you guys might just have to get used to it
>>
>> >Take away the vig and Obama is now down to .6279 (63%) to win.
>>
>> President Romney has something of a ring to it,no? :)
>
>Not as much of a ring as romnesia.
Jim Colegrove
Oct 24, 2012, 10:59:51 PM10/24/12
to
Laxitive. The quality is not gauranteed. It gives comforatable,
conscience-free forgetfulness, instant relief from memories and
contains pure Mittnesium Bullsthiixide 47% by volume. It is
intelligence and ethics free.
Jim Colegrove
www.thecoolgroove.com
Jim Colegrove
Oct 24, 2012, 11:00:36 PM10/24/12
to
On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 16:30:29 GMT, mari...@bblueyonder.co.uk (Roger
Jim Colegrove
www.thecoolgroove.com
Ford) wrote:
>On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 09:20:34 -0700 (PDT), The Bloomfield Buddy
><Sav...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>On Oct 24, 12:16=A0pm, maria...@bblueyonder.co.uk (Roger Ford) wrote:
>>> On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 09:06:18 -0700 (PDT), The Bloomfield Buddy
>>>
>>> <Savo...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> >Odds changed again.
>>>
>>> >Obama 8/15
>>> >Romney 6/4
>>>
>>> >Transferred to USA lines....
>>>
>>> >Obama =A0-187
>>> >Romney +150
>>>
>>> >Take away the vig and Obama is now down to .6279 (63%) to win.
>>>
>>> President Romney has something of a ring to it,no? :)
>>
>>Not as much of a ring as romnesia.
>
>I have this gut feeling you guys might just have to get used to it
>
We might have to live with it. But we'll never get used to it.
>On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 09:20:34 -0700 (PDT), The Bloomfield Buddy
><Sav...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>On Oct 24, 12:16=A0pm, maria...@bblueyonder.co.uk (Roger Ford) wrote:
>>> On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 09:06:18 -0700 (PDT), The Bloomfield Buddy
>>>
>>> <Savo...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> >Odds changed again.
>>>
>>> >Obama 8/15
>>> >Romney 6/4
>>>
>>> >Transferred to USA lines....
>>>
>>> >Obama =A0-187
>>> >Romney +150
>>>
>>> >Take away the vig and Obama is now down to .6279 (63%) to win.
>>>
>>> President Romney has something of a ring to it,no? :)
>>
>>Not as much of a ring as romnesia.
>
>I have this gut feeling you guys might just have to get used to it
>
Jim Colegrove
www.thecoolgroove.com
Michael Pendragon
Oct 24, 2012, 11:37:28 PM10/24/12
to
On Oct 24, 11:00 pm, Jim Colegrove <co...@thecoolgroove.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 16:30:29 GMT, maria...@bblueyonder.co.uk (Roger
btw the candidates.
Republicat vs Republicat.
> On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 16:30:29 GMT, maria...@bblueyonder.co.uk (Roger
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Ford) wrote:
> >On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 09:20:34 -0700 (PDT), The Bloomfield Buddy
> ><Savo...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >>On Oct 24, 12:16=A0pm, maria...@bblueyonder.co.uk (Roger Ford) wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 09:06:18 -0700 (PDT), The Bloomfield Buddy
>
> >>> <Savo...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> >Odds changed again.
>
> >>> >Obama 8/15
> >>> >Romney 6/4
>
> >>> >Transferred to USA lines....
>
> >>> >Obama =A0-187
> >>> >Romney +150
>
> >>> >Take away the vig and Obama is now down to .6279 (63%) to win.
>
> >>> President Romney has something of a ring to it,no? :)
>
> >>Not as much of a ring as romnesia.
>
> >I have this gut feeling you guys might just have to get used to it
>
> We might have to live with it. But we'll never get used to it.
I watched most of the last debate ... and couldn't see much difference
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Ford) wrote:
> >On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 09:20:34 -0700 (PDT), The Bloomfield Buddy
> ><Savo...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >>On Oct 24, 12:16=A0pm, maria...@bblueyonder.co.uk (Roger Ford) wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 09:06:18 -0700 (PDT), The Bloomfield Buddy
>
> >>> <Savo...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> >Odds changed again.
>
> >>> >Obama 8/15
> >>> >Romney 6/4
>
> >>> >Transferred to USA lines....
>
> >>> >Obama =A0-187
> >>> >Romney +150
>
> >>> >Take away the vig and Obama is now down to .6279 (63%) to win.
>
> >>> President Romney has something of a ring to it,no? :)
>
> >>Not as much of a ring as romnesia.
>
> >I have this gut feeling you guys might just have to get used to it
>
> We might have to live with it. But we'll never get used to it.
btw the candidates.
Republicat vs Republicat.
Michael Pendragon
Oct 25, 2012, 12:16:33 AM10/25/12
to
On Oct 24, 11:37 pm, Michael Pendragon
Make that Republicrat. :-P
The Bloomfield Buddy
Oct 25, 2012, 12:16:49 AM10/25/12
to
Odds just changed again, this time Obama's way:
Obama 2/5
Romney 7/4
Converted to USA style...
Obama -250
Romney +175
Obama back up to 68%
Maybe we won't have to get used to Romney.
Obama 2/5
Romney 7/4
Converted to USA style...
Obama -250
Romney +175
Obama back up to 68%
Maybe we won't have to get used to Romney.
Roger Ford
Oct 25, 2012, 8:50:35 AM10/25/12
to
Ministers over here when the public vote didn't go my way
Jim Colegrove
Oct 25, 2012, 9:06:40 AM10/25/12
to
On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 12:50:35 GMT, mari...@bblueyonder.co.uk (Roger
politics. It goes far deeper than you know.
Jim Colegrove
www.thecoolgroove.com
Ford) wrote:
>On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 22:00:36 -0500, Jim Colegrove
><co...@thecoolgroove.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 16:30:29 GMT, mari...@bblueyonder.co.uk (Roger
>>Ford) wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 09:20:34 -0700 (PDT), The Bloomfield Buddy
>>><Sav...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Oct 24, 12:16=A0pm, maria...@bblueyonder.co.uk (Roger Ford) wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 09:06:18 -0700 (PDT), The Bloomfield Buddy
>>>>>
>>>>> <Savo...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>> >Odds changed again.
>>>>>
>>>>> >Obama 8/15
>>>>> >Romney 6/4
>>>>>
>>>>> >Transferred to USA lines....
>>>>>
>>>>> >Obama =A0-187
>>>>> >Romney +150
>>>>>
>>>>> >Take away the vig and Obama is now down to .6279 (63%) to win.
>>>>>
>>>>> President Romney has something of a ring to it,no? :)
>>>>
>>>>Not as much of a ring as romnesia.
>>>
>>>I have this gut feeling you guys might just have to get used to it
>>>
>>
>>We might have to live with it. But we'll never get used to it.
>>
>Of course you'd get used to it same way as I did with left wing Prime
>Ministers over here when the public vote didn't go my way
>
Apparantly you don't understand the state of the polarization in U.S.
>On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 22:00:36 -0500, Jim Colegrove
><co...@thecoolgroove.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 16:30:29 GMT, mari...@bblueyonder.co.uk (Roger
>>Ford) wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 09:20:34 -0700 (PDT), The Bloomfield Buddy
>>><Sav...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Oct 24, 12:16=A0pm, maria...@bblueyonder.co.uk (Roger Ford) wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 09:06:18 -0700 (PDT), The Bloomfield Buddy
>>>>>
>>>>> <Savo...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>> >Odds changed again.
>>>>>
>>>>> >Obama 8/15
>>>>> >Romney 6/4
>>>>>
>>>>> >Transferred to USA lines....
>>>>>
>>>>> >Obama =A0-187
>>>>> >Romney +150
>>>>>
>>>>> >Take away the vig and Obama is now down to .6279 (63%) to win.
>>>>>
>>>>> President Romney has something of a ring to it,no? :)
>>>>
>>>>Not as much of a ring as romnesia.
>>>
>>>I have this gut feeling you guys might just have to get used to it
>>>
>>
>>We might have to live with it. But we'll never get used to it.
>>
>Of course you'd get used to it same way as I did with left wing Prime
>Ministers over here when the public vote didn't go my way
>
politics. It goes far deeper than you know.
Jim Colegrove
www.thecoolgroove.com
The Bloomfield Buddy
Oct 25, 2012, 10:18:55 AM10/25/12
to
now on Romney....
Obama 2/5
Romney 15/8
Obama -250
Romney +187
That makes Obama .686 (69%).
Roger Ford
Oct 25, 2012, 1:14:30 PM10/25/12
to
On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 08:06:40 -0500, Jim Colegrove
We invented polarization
Jim Colegrove
Oct 25, 2012, 1:54:52 PM10/25/12
to
On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 17:14:30 GMT, mari...@bblueyonder.co.uk (Roger
We perfected it.
Jim Colegrove
http://www.jukejumpers.com
Jim Colegrove
http://www.jukejumpers.com
Roger Ford
Oct 25, 2012, 2:24:18 PM10/25/12
to
On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 12:54:52 -0500, Jim Colegrove
Touche! :)
xpen...@gmail.com
Oct 25, 2012, 2:40:01 PM10/25/12
to
On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 12:50:35 GMT, mari...@bblueyonder.co.uk (Roger
Michigan is now in play and Romney has been endorsed by the Detroit
News.
Ford) wrote:
>On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 22:00:36 -0500, Jim Colegrove
><co...@thecoolgroove.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 16:30:29 GMT, mari...@bblueyonder.co.uk (Roger
>>Ford) wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 09:20:34 -0700 (PDT), The Bloomfield Buddy
>>><Sav...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Oct 24, 12:16=A0pm, maria...@bblueyonder.co.uk (Roger Ford) wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 09:06:18 -0700 (PDT), The Bloomfield Buddy
>>>>>
>>>>> <Savo...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>> >Odds changed again.
>>>>>
>>>>> >Obama 8/15
>>>>> >Romney 6/4
>>>>>
>>>>> >Transferred to USA lines....
>>>>>
>>>>> >Obama =A0-187
>>>>> >Romney +150
>>>>>
>>>>> >Take away the vig and Obama is now down to .6279 (63%) to win.
>>>>>
>>>>> President Romney has something of a ring to it,no? :)
>>>>
>>>>Not as much of a ring as romnesia.
>>>
>>>I have this gut feeling you guys might just have to get used to it
>>>
>>
>>We might have to live with it. But we'll never get used to it.
>>
>Of course you'd get used to it same way as I did with left wing Prime
>Ministers over here when the public vote didn't go my way
>
Bruce needs to take a look at the way the Swing states are swinging.
>On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 22:00:36 -0500, Jim Colegrove
><co...@thecoolgroove.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 16:30:29 GMT, mari...@bblueyonder.co.uk (Roger
>>Ford) wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 09:20:34 -0700 (PDT), The Bloomfield Buddy
>>><Sav...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Oct 24, 12:16=A0pm, maria...@bblueyonder.co.uk (Roger Ford) wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 09:06:18 -0700 (PDT), The Bloomfield Buddy
>>>>>
>>>>> <Savo...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>> >Odds changed again.
>>>>>
>>>>> >Obama 8/15
>>>>> >Romney 6/4
>>>>>
>>>>> >Transferred to USA lines....
>>>>>
>>>>> >Obama =A0-187
>>>>> >Romney +150
>>>>>
>>>>> >Take away the vig and Obama is now down to .6279 (63%) to win.
>>>>>
>>>>> President Romney has something of a ring to it,no? :)
>>>>
>>>>Not as much of a ring as romnesia.
>>>
>>>I have this gut feeling you guys might just have to get used to it
>>>
>>
>>We might have to live with it. But we'll never get used to it.
>>
>Of course you'd get used to it same way as I did with left wing Prime
>Ministers over here when the public vote didn't go my way
>
Michigan is now in play and Romney has been endorsed by the Detroit
News.
xpen...@gmail.com
Oct 25, 2012, 2:41:26 PM10/25/12
to
On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 08:06:40 -0500, Jim Colegrove
You're the perfect example.
Jim Colegrove
Oct 25, 2012, 2:50:30 PM10/25/12
to
Jim Colegrove
Oct 25, 2012, 3:01:19 PM10/25/12
to
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/25/oct-24-in-polls-romneys-momentum-seems-to-have-stopped/
The accuracy of his November 2008 presidential election
predictions--he correctly predicted the winner of 49 of the 50
states--won Silver further attention and commendation. The only state
he missed was Indiana, which went for Barack Obama by 1%. He also
correctly predicted the winner of all 35 Senate races that year.
Jim Colegrove
http://www.jukejumpers.com
PStoller
Oct 25, 2012, 4:27:57 PM10/25/12
to
On Thursday, October 25, 2012 11:39:54 AM UTC-7, xpen...@gmail.com wrote:
> Michigan is now in play and Romney has been
> endorsed by the Detroit News.
Predicting Michigan on the basis of an endorsement in the Detroit News is like predicting California on the basis of an endorsement in the Orange County Register.
> Michigan is now in play and Romney has been
> endorsed by the Detroit News.
Jim's Nate Silver link shows the best polling analyst in the business putting the probability of Obama carrying MI at around 90%. The other top poll aggregator, Real Clear Politics, is less emphatic, but still gives Obama a 4-point lead in MI. Of course, every state is technically "in play," but MI isn't looking likely for Romney. (More to the real point, neither is Ohio.)
Dean F.
Oct 25, 2012, 5:05:35 PM10/25/12
to
I just saw an amusing bumper sticker:
REPUBLICANS WANT LESS GOVERNMENT FOR THE SAME REASON CRIMINALS WANT FEWER COPS.
REPUBLICANS WANT LESS GOVERNMENT FOR THE SAME REASON CRIMINALS WANT FEWER COPS.
Bob Roman
Oct 25, 2012, 9:14:04 PM10/25/12
to
On Oct 25, 4:27 pm, PStoller <afcpet...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, October 25, 2012 11:39:54 AM UTC-7, xpen...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Michigan is now in play and Romney has been
> > endorsed by the Detroit News.
>
> Predicting Michigan on the basis of an endorsement in the Detroit News is like
> predicting California on the basis of an endorsement in the Orange County Register.
Or predicting Utah on the basis of an endorsement in the Salt Lake
> On Thursday, October 25, 2012 11:39:54 AM UTC-7, xpen...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Michigan is now in play and Romney has been
> > endorsed by the Detroit News.
>
> Predicting Michigan on the basis of an endorsement in the Detroit News is like
> predicting California on the basis of an endorsement in the Orange County Register.
Tribune:
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/55019844-82/endorsement-romney-obama-president.html.csp
--
BR
The Bloomfield Buddy
Oct 25, 2012, 9:35:04 PM10/25/12
to
Paddy Power also has lines on every state:
http://www.paddypower.com/bet/politics/other-politics/us-politics?ev_oc_grp_ids=684226
MICHIGAN
Obama 1/12
Romney 11/2
OHIO
Obama 4/11
Romney 15/8
http://www.paddypower.com/bet/politics/other-politics/us-politics?ev_oc_grp_ids=684226
MICHIGAN
Obama 1/12
Romney 11/2
OHIO
Obama 4/11
Romney 15/8
The Bloomfield Buddy
Oct 26, 2012, 10:59:53 AM10/26/12
to
On Oct 19, 2:19 pm, The Bloomfield Buddy <Savo...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Oct 19, 2:05 pm, maria...@bblueyonder.co.uk (Roger Ford) wrote:
>
> > Here's the latest odds on the US Prez race (courtesy PaddyPower)
> > ---after the second TV debate this week---that observers over here
> > judged Obama to have shaded
>
> > Obama 4/11
>
> > Romney 2/1
>
> So Obama is back up to 70% to win. He was down to 59% when I checked
> the other day.
The odds are now back where they were when Roger started this thread:
Obama 4/11
Romney 2/1
Back up to 70% for Obama.
> On Oct 19, 2:05 pm, maria...@bblueyonder.co.uk (Roger Ford) wrote:
>
> > Here's the latest odds on the US Prez race (courtesy PaddyPower)
> > ---after the second TV debate this week---that observers over here
> > judged Obama to have shaded
>
> > Obama 4/11
>
> > Romney 2/1
>
> So Obama is back up to 70% to win. He was down to 59% when I checked
> the other day.
The odds are now back where they were when Roger started this thread:
Obama 4/11
Romney 2/1
Back up to 70% for Obama.
Roger Ford
Oct 26, 2012, 12:05:16 PM10/26/12
to
On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 07:59:53 -0700 (PDT), The Bloomfield Buddy
<Sav...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Oct 19, 2:19=A0pm, The Bloomfield Buddy <Savo...@aol.com> wrote:
here to actually win the Presidency?
<Sav...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Oct 19, 2:19=A0pm, The Bloomfield Buddy <Savo...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 19, 2:05=A0pm, maria...@bblueyonder.co.uk (Roger Ford) wrote:
>>
>> > Here's the latest odds on the US Prez race (courtesy PaddyPower)
>> > ---after the second TV debate this week---that observers over here
>> > judged Obama to have shaded
>>
>> > Obama 4/11
>>
>> > Romney 2/1
>>
>> So Obama is back up to 70% to win. He was down to 59% when I checked
>> the other day.
>
>The odds are now back where they were when Roger started this thread:
>
>Obama 4/11
>Romney 2/1
>
>Back up to 70% for Obama.
How many times has an "underdog" candidate come from Romney's position
>>
>> > Here's the latest odds on the US Prez race (courtesy PaddyPower)
>> > ---after the second TV debate this week---that observers over here
>> > judged Obama to have shaded
>>
>> > Obama 4/11
>>
>> > Romney 2/1
>>
>> So Obama is back up to 70% to win. He was down to 59% when I checked
>> the other day.
>
>The odds are now back where they were when Roger started this thread:
>
>Obama 4/11
>Romney 2/1
>
>Back up to 70% for Obama.
here to actually win the Presidency?
The Bloomfield Buddy
Oct 26, 2012, 1:29:06 PM10/26/12
to
On Oct 26, 12:05 pm, maria...@bblueyonder.co.uk (Roger Ford) wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 07:59:53 -0700 (PDT), The Bloomfield Buddy
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 07:59:53 -0700 (PDT), The Bloomfield Buddy
>
>
>
>
>
> <Savo...@aol.com> wrote:
> >On Oct 19, 2:19=A0pm, The Bloomfield Buddy <Savo...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> On Oct 19, 2:05=A0pm, maria...@bblueyonder.co.uk (Roger Ford) wrote:
>
> >> > Here's the latest odds on the US Prez race (courtesy PaddyPower)
> >> > ---after the second TV debate this week---that observers over here
> >> > judged Obama to have shaded
>
> >> > Obama 4/11
>
> >> > Romney 2/1
>
> >> So Obama is back up to 70% to win. He was down to 59% when I checked
> >> the other day.
>
> >The odds are now back where they were when Roger started this thread:
>
> >Obama 4/11
> >Romney 2/1
>
> >Back up to 70% for Obama.
>
> How many times has an "underdog" candidate come from Romney's position
> here to actually win the Presidency?
Not sure, as before the last 60 years or so the polls were not all
> >On Oct 19, 2:19=A0pm, The Bloomfield Buddy <Savo...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> On Oct 19, 2:05=A0pm, maria...@bblueyonder.co.uk (Roger Ford) wrote:
>
> >> > Here's the latest odds on the US Prez race (courtesy PaddyPower)
> >> > ---after the second TV debate this week---that observers over here
> >> > judged Obama to have shaded
>
> >> > Obama 4/11
>
> >> > Romney 2/1
>
> >> So Obama is back up to 70% to win. He was down to 59% when I checked
> >> the other day.
>
> >The odds are now back where they were when Roger started this thread:
>
> >Obama 4/11
> >Romney 2/1
>
> >Back up to 70% for Obama.
>
> How many times has an "underdog" candidate come from Romney's position
> here to actually win the Presidency?
that good so it was hard to really know who the underdogs were and how
much they trailed by.
Carter had a big lead on Reagan until the one and only debate that
year when people then saw Reagan as a viable replacement.
xpen...@gmail.com
Oct 26, 2012, 2:41:11 PM10/26/12
to
On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 13:27:57 -0700 (PDT), PStoller <afcp...@aol.com>
wrote:
>On Thursday, October 25, 2012 11:39:54 AM UTC-7, xpen...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Michigan is now in play and Romney has been
>> endorsed by the Detroit News.
>
>Predicting Michigan on the basis of an endorsement in the Detroit News is like predicting California on the basis of an endorsement in the Orange County Register.
I'm not predicting Michigan on the DN endorsement but saying that it
appears that Michigan is coming into play based on polling results.
only has a four point in a state that he carried by double digits in
2008 says lots. IMO Pat Cadell and Doug Schoen both Democrat pollsters
have a better insight into what's happening than some NYT hack.
That RCP since it is an average between 10-9 - 10-23 doesn't reflect
the reality of how things are today in MI. The Baydoun/Foster taken
10/22 - 10/23 says its a 47 - 47 tie. Unless something major happens
IMO a larger portion of the undecideds will go for Romney.
Rasmussen was the most accurate pollester in the last Presidental
election says it's 48 -48 in Ohio
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/ohio/election_2012_ohio_president
wrote:
>On Thursday, October 25, 2012 11:39:54 AM UTC-7, xpen...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Michigan is now in play and Romney has been
>> endorsed by the Detroit News.
>
>Predicting Michigan on the basis of an endorsement in the Detroit News is like predicting California on the basis of an endorsement in the Orange County Register.
appears that Michigan is coming into play based on polling results.
>
>Jim's Nate Silver link shows the best polling analyst in the business putting the probability of Obama carrying MI at around 90%. The other top poll aggregator, Real Clear Politics, is less emphatic, but still gives Obama a 4-point lead in MI. Of course, every state is technically "in play," but MI isn't looking likely for Romney. (More to the real point, neither is Ohio.)
WTF is Nate Silver? Oh, he's a NYT guy. That at this point that Obama
>Jim's Nate Silver link shows the best polling analyst in the business putting the probability of Obama carrying MI at around 90%. The other top poll aggregator, Real Clear Politics, is less emphatic, but still gives Obama a 4-point lead in MI. Of course, every state is technically "in play," but MI isn't looking likely for Romney. (More to the real point, neither is Ohio.)
only has a four point in a state that he carried by double digits in
2008 says lots. IMO Pat Cadell and Doug Schoen both Democrat pollsters
have a better insight into what's happening than some NYT hack.
That RCP since it is an average between 10-9 - 10-23 doesn't reflect
the reality of how things are today in MI. The Baydoun/Foster taken
10/22 - 10/23 says its a 47 - 47 tie. Unless something major happens
IMO a larger portion of the undecideds will go for Romney.
Rasmussen was the most accurate pollester in the last Presidental
election says it's 48 -48 in Ohio
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/ohio/election_2012_ohio_president
xpen...@gmail.com
Oct 26, 2012, 2:49:31 PM10/26/12
to
come out and endorsed Romney. The fact is Romney is in the same mold
as Governor Synder that is getting our State in order after eight
years of Granholm.
xpen...@gmail.com
Oct 26, 2012, 2:52:45 PM10/26/12
to
On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 14:01:19 -0500, Jim Colegrove
Where are said predictions to be seeen?
>
>Jim Colegrove
>http://www.jukejumpers.com
>
>Jim Colegrove
>http://www.jukejumpers.com
PStoller
Oct 26, 2012, 3:22:48 PM10/26/12
to
On Friday, October 26, 2012 11:41:03 AM UTC-7, xpen...@gmail.com wrote:
> WTF is Nate Silver? Oh, he's a NYT guy.
He operates the FiveThirtyEight polling analysis website. The NYT only hired him in 2010 after he had proved himself as an independent political poll analyst in the prior two years, including the 2008 Presidential election.
> WTF is Nate Silver? Oh, he's a NYT guy.
> Rasmussen was the most accurate pollester in the last Presidental
> election says it's 48 -48 in Ohio
Silver's analysis of Rasmussen's 2010 polling found @ 4-point Republican bias. If I were a betting man, I'd take Silver's predictions for Ohio over Rasmussen's.
Jim Colegrove
Oct 26, 2012, 7:43:16 PM10/26/12
to
your own.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/03/rove-nate-silver-maps-pre_n_140752.html
Jim Colegrove
www.thecoolgroove.com
Jim Colegrove
Oct 26, 2012, 7:45:36 PM10/26/12
to
F R
Oct 26, 2012, 9:39:26 PM10/26/12
to
How many times has an "underdog" candidate come from Romney's position
here to actually win the Presidency?
ROGER FORD
----------------------------
here to actually win the Presidency?
ROGER FORD
The polls in '48 obviously weren't too great, as the Chicago Trib
was so certain it went to press early with DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN".
It's possible that the electoral college vote can wind up a 269-269 tie.
If that's the case, the Rep controlled House would choose Romney as
president and the Dem controlled Senate, Biden as veep.
A better "tie breaker" would be whoever go more popular votes wins. In
fact, strong arguments are always being made for that to be the system
and drop the electoral college altogether.
One thing you can count on..... both sides will be screaming about voter
fraud before the polls even close and IMHO, they'll BOTH be correct.
Dems and Reps will cheat wherever and whenever they can.
Stop the insanity!! One term for president and out, Period Exclamation
point.!
The Bloomfield Buddy
Oct 27, 2012, 9:53:46 AM10/27/12
to
Another change:
Obama 2/5
Romney 15/8
Obama 2/5
Romney 15/8
xpen...@gmail.com
Oct 27, 2012, 10:52:01 AM10/27/12
to
On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 12:22:48 -0700 (PDT), PStoller <afcp...@aol.com>
wrote:
>On Friday, October 26, 2012 11:41:03 AM UTC-7, xpen...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> WTF is Nate Silver? Oh, he's a NYT guy.
>
>He operates the FiveThirtyEight polling analysis website. The NYT only hired him in 2010 after he had proved himself as an independent political poll analyst in the prior two years, including the 2008 Presidential election.
>
That the NYT would hire an independent analyst is only sliver more
believable than that they report news stories.
three CSPANs etc. and I've never heard NS mentioned even once. How do
you explain that? I do see that Schoen former Clinton's pollster and
Cadell former Carter pollster who IIRC got his start with McGovern are
closely in agreement with Rasmussen.
wrote:
>On Friday, October 26, 2012 11:41:03 AM UTC-7, xpen...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> WTF is Nate Silver? Oh, he's a NYT guy.
>
>He operates the FiveThirtyEight polling analysis website. The NYT only hired him in 2010 after he had proved himself as an independent political poll analyst in the prior two years, including the 2008 Presidential election.
>
believable than that they report news stories.
>> Rasmussen was the most accurate pollester in the last Presidental
>> election says it's 48 -48 in Ohio
>
>On a state-by-state basis, Silver was more accurate than Rasmussen in the last Presidential election. But, it remains to be seen whether his system can predict consistently well, and the last election was much easier to predict than this one.
>
>Silver's analysis of Rasmussen's 2010 polling found @ 4-point Republican bias. If I were a betting man, I'd take Silver's predictions for Ohio over Rasmussen's.
I watch and listen to loads of political stations Fox, MSNBC, CNN, the
>> election says it's 48 -48 in Ohio
>
>On a state-by-state basis, Silver was more accurate than Rasmussen in the last Presidential election. But, it remains to be seen whether his system can predict consistently well, and the last election was much easier to predict than this one.
>
>Silver's analysis of Rasmussen's 2010 polling found @ 4-point Republican bias. If I were a betting man, I'd take Silver's predictions for Ohio over Rasmussen's.
three CSPANs etc. and I've never heard NS mentioned even once. How do
you explain that? I do see that Schoen former Clinton's pollster and
Cadell former Carter pollster who IIRC got his start with McGovern are
closely in agreement with Rasmussen.
xpen...@gmail.com
Oct 27, 2012, 11:04:38 AM10/27/12
to
On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 18:43:16 -0500, Jim Colegrove
THanks for pointing me to this truly unbiased source. LMAO
>
>Jim Colegrove
>www.thecoolgroove.com
>
>Jim Colegrove
>www.thecoolgroove.com
xpen...@gmail.com
Oct 27, 2012, 11:07:27 AM10/27/12
to
political persuasion still referred to as Yellow Dog Democrats?
>
>
>Jim Colegrove
>www.thecoolgroove.com
Jim Colegrove
Oct 27, 2012, 1:02:38 PM10/27/12
to
balanaced." Feel free to do your own reasearch on the subject.
Jim Colegrove
www.thecoolgroove.com
Jim Colegrove
Oct 27, 2012, 1:04:50 PM10/27/12
to
Jim Colegrove
www.thecoolgroove.com
PStoller
Oct 27, 2012, 8:00:17 PM10/27/12
to
On Saturday, October 27, 2012 7:52:00 AM UTC-7, xpen...@gmail.com wrote:
> That the NYT would hire an independent analyst is only sliver more
> believable than that they report news stories.
They did; and they do. If you consider an apparent political bias to render the reporting of events as something other than news, then you have nowhere to turn: there are no unbiased sources of news. There is only the perception of no bias when a news organization's bias matches one's own.
> That the NYT would hire an independent analyst is only sliver more
> believable than that they report news stories.
> I watch and listen to loads of political stations Fox, MSNBC, CNN, the
> three CSPANs etc. and I've never heard NS mentioned even once. How do
> you explain that?
> I do see that Schoen former Clinton's pollster and Cadell former Carter
> pollster who IIRC got his start with McGovern are closely in agreement
> with Rasmussen.
But, all this is moot. Polling is primarily a way for campaigns (political or commercial) to determine how best to shape their message by tracking how certain types of events and propaganda sway public sentiment in the short term. Secondarily, speculation based on polling drives media ad revenue (and inexpensively fills gaps that might otherwise have to be occupied by actual news).
Purely as a crystal ball, polling is virtually valueless other than to bookmakers, since what will happen will happen, poll or no; and as soon as polling attempts to directly influence outcomes, its already limited predictive value utterly disappears. The real value of polling is to predict what will happen *if* certain conditions over which one has control apply. That's what people with big money will pay for; and that's why Silver, Rasmussen, et al. should care more about calling it right than favoring their preferred candidates.
F R
Oct 27, 2012, 8:06:11 PM10/27/12
to
THanks for pointing me to this truly unbiased source. LMAO
--------------------------
Karl Rove's name was mentioned so I thought it might be "fair and
balanaced." Feel free to do your own reasearch on the subject.
----------------------------
balanaced." Feel free to do your own reasearch on the subject.
And there lies one of the problems. I cannot name one political website
that actually is fair and balanced. People want affirmation about their
own beliefs be they left or right... so they go to a liberal or
conservative site to read all the bad stuff about the other side.
Matt Drudge, while he is obviously a Rep, provides links to lots of
liberal sites and/or columnists, so you can pick and choose. On any
issue like Benghazi, I read at least two dem spins and two rep spins to
try and reach my own opinion. The trouble is, they are both either
trying to minimize the aftermath of how we reacted, as the Dems are with
this one (IMO), or trying to overblow the event as the Reps are (IMO).
If Bush was president, you'd find with 100% certainty, the politicians
and commentators would be doing so many 180° spins the earth would
actually rotate faster.
Sites like factcheck.org are not necessarily wrong, but their "fact
checkers" spend 95% of the time looking for errors of only one political
party.
A POX ON BOTH THEIR HOUSES
Bob Roman
Oct 27, 2012, 9:25:00 PM10/27/12
to
On Oct 27, 10:52 am, xpene...@gmail.com wrote:
> I watch and listen to loads of political stations Fox, MSNBC, CNN, the
> three CSPANs etc. and I've never heard NS mentioned even once. How do
> you explain that?
I can't. He's very well known.
> I watch and listen to loads of political stations Fox, MSNBC, CNN, the
> three CSPANs etc. and I've never heard NS mentioned even once. How do
> you explain that?
This is from his website FAQ:
Q. Are your results biased toward your preferred candidates?
A. I hope not, but that is for you to decide. I have tried to disclose
as much about my methodology as possible.
--
BR
The Bloomfield Buddy
Oct 27, 2012, 10:04:56 PM10/27/12
to
On Oct 27, 9:25 pm, Bob Roman <robertjro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 27, 10:52 am, xpene...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > I watch and listen to loads of political stations Fox, MSNBC, CNN, the
> > three CSPANs etc. and I've never heard NS mentioned even once. How do
> > you explain that?
>
> I can't. He's very well known.
He was the last guest on Bill Maher last night.
> On Oct 27, 10:52 am, xpene...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > I watch and listen to loads of political stations Fox, MSNBC, CNN, the
> > three CSPANs etc. and I've never heard NS mentioned even once. How do
> > you explain that?
>
> I can't. He's very well known.
xpen...@gmail.com
Oct 28, 2012, 10:54:48 AM10/28/12
to
On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 18:25:00 -0700 (PDT), Bob Roman
<robert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Oct 27, 10:52 am, xpene...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> I watch and listen to loads of political stations Fox, MSNBC, CNN, the
>> three CSPANs etc. and I've never heard NS mentioned even once. How do
>> you explain that?
>
>I can't. He's very well known.
In all my years of watching and listening to the above stations,
<robert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Oct 27, 10:52 am, xpene...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> I watch and listen to loads of political stations Fox, MSNBC, CNN, the
>> three CSPANs etc. and I've never heard NS mentioned even once. How do
>> you explain that?
>
>I can't. He's very well known.
left, right and center, NS has never ben mentioned once. Yet you claim
he is very well known?
>
>This is from his website FAQ:
>
>Q. Are your results biased toward your preferred candidates?
>A. I hope not, but that is for you to decide. I have tried to disclose
>as much about my methodology as possible.
You expected him claim otherwise?
>This is from his website FAQ:
>
>Q. Are your results biased toward your preferred candidates?
>A. I hope not, but that is for you to decide. I have tried to disclose
>as much about my methodology as possible.
xpen...@gmail.com
Oct 28, 2012, 11:03:26 AM10/28/12
to
I've voted McGovern (Dem), McCarthy, Anderson and Perot (Third Party)
and Bush Republican
Bob Roman
Oct 28, 2012, 8:51:31 PM10/28/12
to
On Oct 28, 10:54 am, xpene...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 18:25:00 -0700 (PDT), Bob Roman
>
> On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 18:25:00 -0700 (PDT), Bob Roman
>
> <robertjro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Oct 27, 10:52 am, xpene...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >> I watch and listen to loads of political stations Fox, MSNBC, CNN, the
> >> three CSPANs etc. and I've never heard NS mentioned even once. How do
> >> you explain that?
>
> >I can't. He's very well known.
>
> In all my years of watching and listening to the above stations,
> left, right and center, NS has never ben mentioned once. Yet you claim
> he is very well known?
He's not that old, but his reputation is growing fast.
> >On Oct 27, 10:52 am, xpene...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >> I watch and listen to loads of political stations Fox, MSNBC, CNN, the
> >> three CSPANs etc. and I've never heard NS mentioned even once. How do
> >> you explain that?
>
> >I can't. He's very well known.
>
> In all my years of watching and listening to the above stations,
> left, right and center, NS has never ben mentioned once. Yet you claim
> he is very well known?
> >This is from his website FAQ:
>
> >Q. Are your results biased toward your preferred candidates?
> >A. I hope not, but that is for you to decide. I have tried to disclose
> >as much about my methodology as possible.
>
> You expected him claim otherwise?
methodology is transparent.
--
BR
The Bloomfield Buddy
Oct 28, 2012, 8:54:28 PM10/28/12
to
Mitt was in Findlay, Ohio. today, a town of 40,000 or so that is 93%
white. Fox showed him at a rally there and then they claimed that Mitt
has draw dead even in Ohio.
white. Fox showed him at a rally there and then they claimed that Mitt
has draw dead even in Ohio.
Michael Pendragon
Oct 28, 2012, 10:55:23 PM10/28/12
to
1984: Ronald Reagan
1988: George Bush I
1992: Ross Perot
1996: Ross Perot
2000: Ralph Nader
2004: George Bush II
2008: John McCain
2012: Mitt Romney
xpen...@gmail.com
Oct 29, 2012, 8:22:34 AM10/29/12
to
election. BFD.
xpen...@gmail.com
Oct 29, 2012, 8:56:54 AM10/29/12
to
Jim Colegrove
Oct 29, 2012, 9:01:34 AM10/29/12
to
voted for Barry Goldwater, Republican and I voted for Ed Clark,
Libertarian.
Jim Colegrove
www.thecoolgroove.com
xpen...@gmail.com
Oct 29, 2012, 4:57:30 PM10/29/12
to
On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 08:01:34 -0500, Jim Colegrove
ago. BTW libertarianism is "low tax liberalism."Then voted for
Dukassis, Clinton, Gore, Kerry and Obama.who symbolize the antithesis
of libertarian principles.
<co...@thecoolgroove.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 08:22:34 -0400, xpen...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 12:04:50 -0500, Jim Colegrove
>><co...@thecoolgroove.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Actually, I have voted both Republican and Libertarian in the past.
>>>
>>>Jim Colegrove
>>>www.thecoolgroove.com
>>
>>So you voted for a Republican or Libertarian in a local or state
>>election. BFD.
>
>
>As you want to know who I voted for in a Presidential election, I
>voted for Barry Goldwater, Republican and I voted for Ed Clark,
>Libertarian.
>
>Jim Colegrove
>www.thecoolgroove.com
So you voted for a Republican 58 years ago and a Libertarian 32 years
>On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 08:22:34 -0400, xpen...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 12:04:50 -0500, Jim Colegrove
>><co...@thecoolgroove.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Actually, I have voted both Republican and Libertarian in the past.
>>>
>>>Jim Colegrove
>>>www.thecoolgroove.com
>>
>>So you voted for a Republican or Libertarian in a local or state
>>election. BFD.
>
>
>As you want to know who I voted for in a Presidential election, I
>voted for Barry Goldwater, Republican and I voted for Ed Clark,
>Libertarian.
>
>Jim Colegrove
>www.thecoolgroove.com
ago. BTW libertarianism is "low tax liberalism."Then voted for
Dukassis, Clinton, Gore, Kerry and Obama.who symbolize the antithesis
of libertarian principles.
Jim Colegrove
Oct 29, 2012, 7:28:14 PM10/29/12
to
they don't get down on their knees in front of the American Taliban
party--that is the "religious" right.
Barrry had no use for them and would be considered a liberal by the
Grand nO Party party these days.
Jim Colegrove
www.thecoolgroove.com
DianeE
Oct 29, 2012, 8:53:04 PM10/29/12
to
<xpen...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:snqt8892o7joav8gr...@4ax.com...
> ....BTW libertarianism is "low tax liberalism."
-----------------
I can't make sense of that remark, unless you're referring to Ron Paul's
anti-war stance?
DianeE
Marc Dashevsky
Oct 30, 2012, 1:32:37 AM10/30/12
to
In article <utOdneUBys5vuRLN...@giganews.com>, Tired...@SorryFolks.com says...
It really looks like he's boiled things dow to "us" and "them". True-believers
on the far right consider someone hopelessly liberal if they hold even one belief
that diverges from far right orthodoxy. Yes, Libertarians belief in small
government but the also accept that government doesn't belong in the bedroom.
on the far right consider someone hopelessly liberal if they hold even one belief
that diverges from far right orthodoxy. Yes, Libertarians belief in small
government but the also accept that government doesn't belong in the bedroom.
DianeE
Oct 30, 2012, 6:54:49 AM10/30/12
to
"Marc Dashevsky" <use...@MarcDashevsky.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.2af922704...@news.supernews.com...
Ah, I see. And the legalize drugs thing too, I suppose.
DianeE
The Bloomfield Buddy
Oct 30, 2012, 11:41:31 AM10/30/12
to
Another change:
Obama 1/3
Romney 11/5
Obama up to 72%
Converted to USA casino lines....
Obama -300
Romney +220
Obama 1/3
Romney 11/5
Obama up to 72%
Converted to USA casino lines....
Obama -300
Romney +220
Roger Ford
Oct 30, 2012, 2:07:29 PM10/30/12
to
depending how these guys (especially the incumbent) react to the
situation in the next few days
ROGER FORD
-----------------------
"Spam Free Zone" - to combat unwanted automatic spamming I have added
an extra "b" in my e-mail address (mari...@bblueyonder.co.uk).
Please delete same before responding.Thank you!
F R
Oct 30, 2012, 2:25:28 PM10/30/12
to
As bad as Sandy was for the northeast and parts south and west, can you
imagine if it arrived next week on election day?
They must have provisions in place to allow another day, or the second
day after for people to vote.
imagine if it arrived next week on election day?
They must have provisions in place to allow another day, or the second
day after for people to vote.
The Bloomfield Buddy
Oct 30, 2012, 2:32:03 PM10/30/12
to
On Oct 30, 2:07 pm, maria...@bblueyonder.co.uk (Roger Ford) wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 08:41:31 -0700 (PDT), The Bloomfield Buddy
>
> On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 08:41:31 -0700 (PDT), The Bloomfield Buddy
>
> <Savo...@aol.com> wrote:
> >Another change:
>
> >Obama 1/3
> >Romney 11/5
>
> >Obama up to 72%
>
> >Converted to USA casino lines....
>
> >Obama -300
> >Romney +220
>
> I'd imagine the Sandy storm disaster may prove a game changer
> depending how these guys (especially the incumbent) react to the
> situation in the next few days
So far Obama is winning this battle. I just saw Chris Christie
> >Another change:
>
> >Obama 1/3
> >Romney 11/5
>
> >Obama up to 72%
>
> >Converted to USA casino lines....
>
> >Obama -300
> >Romney +220
>
> I'd imagine the Sandy storm disaster may prove a game changer
> depending how these guys (especially the incumbent) react to the
> situation in the next few days
praising how good Obama has been in helping NJ with the crisis.
Meanwhile Romney only called the governors of states who were affected
if the governor was a Republican. Obama had a big conference call
today with all governors and many mayors who were affected, and he's
leaving now to go to the Red Cross. Meanwhile Romney is in a state
that was not affected, Ohio, supposedly putting together a relief
effort for the storm.
xpen...@gmail.com
Oct 30, 2012, 3:04:28 PM10/30/12
to
>
PStoller
Oct 30, 2012, 3:08:22 PM10/30/12
to
On Tuesday, October 30, 2012 11:32:03 AM UTC-7, The Bloomfield Buddy wrote:
> So far Obama is winning this battle. I just saw Chris Christie
> praising how good Obama has been in helping NJ with the crisis.
> Meanwhile Romney only called the governors of states who were affected
> if the governor was a Republican. Obama had a big conference call
> today with all governors and many mayors who were affected, and he's
> leaving now to go to the Red Cross. Meanwhile Romney is in a state
> that was not affected, Ohio, supposedly putting together a relief
> effort for the storm.
Romney's relief effort began with showing a biographical campaign video touting his leadership skills, and has consisted largely of collecting food and clothing that the Red Cross and state relief agencies (including Romney's own state of MA) say are more likely to hinder than help actual relief operations. They need cash, not goods. And Romney's keeping pretty quiet about his statement in the debates that FEMA should be allowed to go bankrupt and that the best way to handle disaster relief is via the private sector.
> So far Obama is winning this battle. I just saw Chris Christie
> praising how good Obama has been in helping NJ with the crisis.
> Meanwhile Romney only called the governors of states who were affected
> if the governor was a Republican. Obama had a big conference call
> today with all governors and many mayors who were affected, and he's
> leaving now to go to the Red Cross. Meanwhile Romney is in a state
> that was not affected, Ohio, supposedly putting together a relief
> effort for the storm.
The Bloomfield Buddy
Oct 30, 2012, 3:19:28 PM10/30/12
to
On Oct 30, 3:08 pm, PStoller <afcpet...@aol.com> wrote:
>Romney's keeping pretty quiet about his statement in the debates that FEMA should be allowed to go bankrupt and that the best way to handle disaster relief is via the private sector.
I don't think his fat friend in NJ agrees with that. Christie is
>Romney's keeping pretty quiet about his statement in the debates that FEMA should be allowed to go bankrupt and that the best way to handle disaster relief is via the private sector.
already touting major FEMA involvement here, and Obama is gonna tour
NJ tomorrow with the governor.
The Bloomfield Buddy
Oct 30, 2012, 3:20:31 PM10/30/12
to
the election.
Dean F.
Oct 30, 2012, 7:14:52 PM10/30/12
to
> > ....BTW libertarianism is "low tax liberalism."
> -----------------
>
> I can't make sense of that remark, unless you're referring to Ron Paul's
> anti-war stance?
I've heard it said that Libertarians are just Republicans who smoke pot.
> -----------------
>
> I can't make sense of that remark, unless you're referring to Ron Paul's
> anti-war stance?
Dean F.
Oct 30, 2012, 7:21:44 PM10/30/12
to co...@thecoolgroove.com
On Monday, October 29, 2012 7:28:11 PM UTC-4, Jim Colegrove wrote:
> Barrry had no use for them and would be considered a liberal by the
> Grand nO Party party these days.
I have a hell of a lot more respect for a politician like Goldwater than I have for 90% of today's congressional Democrats - and, it should go without saying, 100% of today's congressional Republicans.
> Barrry had no use for them and would be considered a liberal by the
> Grand nO Party party these days.
Len Blanks
Oct 30, 2012, 10:36:44 PM10/30/12
to
with his policies.
--
Len
The Bible is a wonderful source of inspiration for those who don't
understand it. -- George Santayana
The Bloomfield Buddy
Oct 31, 2012, 10:34:51 AM10/31/12
to
Another change.
Obama 1/3
Romney 9/4
That's
Obama -300
Romney +225
Obama at 72%
Obama 1/3
Romney 9/4
That's
Obama -300
Romney +225
Obama at 72%
xpen...@gmail.com
Oct 31, 2012, 12:35:59 PM10/31/12
to
On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 18:28:14 -0500, Jim Colegrove
<co...@thecoolgroove.com> wrote:
>I don't find them as attractive as you want to believe but at least
>they don't get down on their knees in front of the American Taliban
>party--that is the "religious" right.
As Roger would say I'm spot on with your politics. You're obviously
<co...@thecoolgroove.com> wrote:
>I don't find them as attractive as you want to believe but at least
>they don't get down on their knees in front of the American Taliban
>party--that is the "religious" right.
part of the Pelosi, Frank etc wing of the party. Was that you in the
ad that Michael Moore created for MoveOn.org? IMO the country would be
in better shape of more people adhered to the values of the "American
Taliban." Certainly 50+ white and 70+ black babies wouldn't be born to
single mothers et al. When I came back to Detroit and began selling
insurance in the late 70s I met a girl by the Juanita Marion, She was
in her early 20s with four kids with nary a husband. By the time I
quit selling she had had numerous abortions along with another kid.by
another guy. While she ran around doing what ever she did, she never
had a job, she for all intents and purposes let her oldest daughter
raise the kids. Years later I was told by friends her sons were all in
trouble with the law. Gee what a surprise.
>
>Barrry had no use for them and would be considered a liberal by the
>Grand nO Party party these days.
Goldwater wasn't as conservative in the end but certainly wouldn't be
>Barrry had no use for them and would be considered a liberal by the
>Grand nO Party party these days.
consider a liberal by any stretch of the imagination by the party
today. Now if JFK were alive today he'd be thrown out of the Democrat
Party.
>
>
>Jim Colegrove
>www.thecoolgroove.com
xpen...@gmail.com
Oct 31, 2012, 12:49:14 PM10/31/12
to
Jim Colegrove
Oct 31, 2012, 5:36:11 PM10/31/12
to
film.
Let's let this go with "we disagree." We aren't going to change each
others minds here. In case you haven't seen the documentary on
Goldwater that his granddaughter did on him about 6 years ago you
might find it interesting. It's called "Mr. Conservative:Goldwater on
Goldwater." You might have missed or forgotten some of his positions
on the religious right. Even Roger, I believe, agrees about religion.
IMO it's the cause of much of the suffering in the world throughout
history.
Jim Colegrove
http://www.jukejumpers.com
F R
Oct 31, 2012, 7:14:50 PM10/31/12
to
Just another reason why politicians suck:
Ed Rendell, long time Pennsylvania politician said on Chris Matthew's
show, when speaking of NJ governor Christie:
Paraphrasing,
"Sometimes we have to put partisan politics on the back burner and do
what's right for our citizens"
--------------------
Gee, thanks Mr. Rendell. Nice to know that you and your brethren from
both sides of the aisle can spare us a few moments now and then.
Ed Rendell, long time Pennsylvania politician said on Chris Matthew's
show, when speaking of NJ governor Christie:
Paraphrasing,
"Sometimes we have to put partisan politics on the back burner and do
what's right for our citizens"
--------------------
Gee, thanks Mr. Rendell. Nice to know that you and your brethren from
both sides of the aisle can spare us a few moments now and then.
The Bloomfield Buddy
Nov 1, 2012, 12:33:54 AM11/1/12
to
Another change:
Obama 2/7
Romney 5/2
or
Obama -350
Romney +250
Obama up to 75%
Obama 2/7
Romney 5/2
or
Obama -350
Romney +250
Obama up to 75%
Dean F.
Nov 1, 2012, 5:00:25 AM11/1/12
to
On Thursday, November 1, 2012 12:33:55 AM UTC-4, The Bloomfield Buddy wrote:
> Obama up to 75%
I'm guessing it's because Mr. Obama has displayed competent, take-charge leadership in the immediate aftermath of a natural disaster. Unlike his predecessor, who did nothing as New Orleans drowned.
> Obama up to 75%
I'm guessing it's because Mr. Obama has displayed competent, take-charge leadership in the immediate aftermath of a natural disaster. Unlike his predecessor, who did nothing as New Orleans drowned.
The Bloomfield Buddy
Nov 1, 2012, 8:56:58 AM11/1/12
to
AND, he taking all kinds of shit for the bullshit ad about jeeps.
And, just the hurricane in general has made people whink about whether
we want a president who thinks that everybody should be on their own.
Romeny said in one of the GOP debates that he wants to get rid of FEMA
and let the states, or better yet, private industry, respond to
disasters.
It's amazing that this used car salesman/carnival barker has gotten
this close to the presidency.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages