![]() |
| Prediction: Mitt & Ann Romney will be in White House come Jan. 2013. |
Throughout the primary season, T-Bladel supported Rick Perry for President. It was not that Perry was further to the right than everyone else—in fact, the Texas governor’s views on the dream act put him somewhere in the middle on that issue, among others. The view of this site was that Perry was a pragmatic conservative who could help court Latino voters.
Romney’s move to the right in the primaries has harmed him
with Latino voters. However, that Romney
is not the real one. The Romney that has
been a successful executive and governor of a heavy blue state is the one that
is possibly going to be president of the United States.
Yes! Romney alters
his political views to court various factions of the Republican Party (What winning
politician has not done that before).
This was not the problem with Perry.
However, Perry turned out to have a problem speaking in front of live
audiences. This is not a problem with
Romney. Romney was able to tear apart
every straw man argument that President Obama used during the first
presidential debate in early October. Throughout the entire Republican Primary, everyone was worried about finding a candidate that could stand toe-to-toe with the president during the debates. The Republicans found more than that with Romney. The way Romney came out prepared for the debate shows a person who is able to take on tough challenges. America faces some tough challenges today. President Obama has shown himself unable to solve the challenges that we face.
Romney is known for working across the isle. There will be plenty of moderate Democrats that will work with Romney to take on the tough challenges. The same aspect that made Romney want to please the various factions, will push him to want to leave a legacy as a man who fixed a hurt economy and set the nation on a path to fiscal responsibility.
Romney will not want to go down in history as a right wing ideologue. Were Obama wanted to accomplish the liberal utopian wish list. Romney will look at the data and find what works. It will not matter to him in the end if what is needed falls in line with a ideological argument. He will understand that his reelection hinges on whether he accomplishes the job.
This is why T-Bladel is endorsing Mitt Romney for President.
Additionally, we predict Romney will win on Nov. 6.
The reason we believe this is quite simple. President Obama is running an ugly campaign
that shows extreme desperation. The kind
of campaign the president is running reeks of desperation. Chicago is putting out ads that do not come
out from winning campaigns.
Ed Morrissey wrote this:
"First, it says something that these groups can’t make an argument for the incumbent. In the final week, voters usually want a positive argument about why they should vote for a candidate, or at least contrast ads based on policies and records. Democrats simply don’t have those arguments to make.
"Even more to the point, Democrats have already used these arguments for months. They ran ads all summer when they had the broadcast airwaves mostly to themselves, and swamped voters with this messaging. It didn’t work even when they had a money advantage, and they don’t even have that any longer. People already know about Romney’s wealth; Obama even brought it up a few times in the debates, only to have his straw men dismantled by Romney in real time. The Bain attacks ended up flopping, as the polling surge for Romney in October proved."You can hear the worry when Obama's surrogates defend their view that Romney is losing. If there is a week left in the campaign, and the Obama campaign is purposing new ideas like a "Secretary of Business," the campaign is looking for a new spark. You do not need a new spark if you think you are winning. The Obama campaign just released an embarrassing ad comparing voting for Obama to a girl losing her virginity. This is degrading for a president to have to stoop to methods like this. Would Obama want his daughters to hear this add?
Michael Graham of the Boston Herald said that, "These are the juvenile stunts of a second-tier congressional race, not the campaign of an incumbent president. Then again, has any other president posted a picture of his opponent in a dunce cap? Or called his opponent a 'Bullsh***er'n the record?' Obama’s done both."Another aspect that we must note is what Gallup is showing in its polls. Right now Gallup has Romney at or above 50% in its likely voter 7-day rolling average daily trackingpoll. Romney is sitting at 51% and Obama is at 46%. That is a five-point spread. Romney has been above 50% for 14 consecutive days. No candidate that is above 50% at this point has ever lost the presidential race. That means history is on Romney’s side here. It is hard to believe that people will find a reason to swing back to Obama in the little time before Election Day—even though a week is a long time in politics.
In 2008, Rasmussen was the top polling firm on accuracy. The left will not admit that Rasmussen is the most accurate. Objective poll watchers know this. Pew comes in second. Right now Pew has the race tied. It is not just Gallup—even though they are widely considered
the most reliable by both sides.
The Battleground Poll model shows Obama losing 52 percent to
47 percent. Rasmussen daily tracking has
Obama losing 49 percent to 47 percent. Pew
has him tied: 47 percent to 47 percent.
The Democrats have been pointing towards early voting as the
reason Romney’s poll numbers do not matter.
Halloween week four years ago, Gallup released a poll they conducted to
see who was winning the early voting battle.
Obama was beating John McCain by 15 points. However, this Halloween Week, Gallup has Mitt
Romney beating Obama 52% to 45%. This is
a swing of 22 points.
Key Gallup indicators of voter turnout, collected are
suggesting that voter turnout will fall short of what it was in 2004 0r 2008. This could have a huge impact. Considering that, Obama is winning the
registered voter polls, but Romney is winning the likely voter polls. If only those that are diehard politic
watchers show up, Romney will have the advantage. Romney will likely win the voters that are
most informed on the issues. Although
this is a guess by me, and not a scientific poll done my T-Bladel.
Additionally, Obama has to wage a defensive campaign by visiting states he won in 2008. Romney is aggressively trying to peel off blue states, why Obama has no hope of gaining any red states. One such state is Pennsylvania. Romney Super Pac Restore Our Future is running ads in the state forcing Obama to as well. The Obama campaign had to send Bill Clinton to Minnesota to protect that blue state.
The funny part here is the
Obama Campaign’s David Axelrod and Jim Messina argued that the fact that Romney is competing in these blue states is actually bad news for him. This from Messina:
‘“The reason why they need to expand the map is because they’re down in the places where they need to win to get 270 electoral votes,” Messina said.
He was recalling when Bush attempted to compete in California and Hawaii during the 2000 and 2004 campaigns. However, this is a strange point to make, because Bush won both of those races even though he lost both states. If it is such a bad idea for Romney to compete in blue states, then why did the Obama campaign tout the fact they may get to compete in red states.
Even Wisconsin is in play, which until the last few years would have been unthinkable. Obama is defending states he likely never thought he would. Even though the campaign is putting on a confident front, spending resources in blue states, especially with only a week to go, is not something they wanted to do. If this were happening to Romney, the media would be all over it saying he is in trouble.
A week is not long enough for Obama to change the trajectory of this race. This makes confidently predicting a Romney win much easier. However, I say this with one thing in mind. Obama may not be able to change the election outcome, but if Republicans get overconfident and do not come out to vote, then that will change. As long as the Republican base shows up to vote, Romney will be President this January 2013.

Love the new post Tim!
ReplyDeleteI hope you are right. It looks like Obama will lose. I never put anything pass these Chicago Crooks.
ReplyDelete"In 2008, Rasmussen was the top polling firm on accuracy. The left will not admit that Rasmussen is the most accurate."
ReplyDeleteThe right will not stop clinging to the outdated and invalid Fordham "Initial Report" which was compiled in the hours following the election, long before all ballots had been tallied. This preliminary report, which showed Rasmussen and Pew tied for most accurate pollster, was based on an ESTIMATE of a "current 6.15-point popular vote lead" for Obama. Too bad for Rasmussen and Pew that Obama ACTUALLY won by 7.28 points.
Fordham later released a complete analysis based on the official popular vote outcome. Eight pollsters were more accurate than Rasmussen. This final report has been available since 2009. When will the right finally see the light and let the "Initial Report" go?
Final Fordham Report: http://www.fordham.edu/images/academics/graduate_schools/gsas/elections_and_campaign_/2008%20poll%20accuracy%20panagopoulos.pdf
You making stuff up bud. Besides, I care little about debating who is more accurate. Really! I don't give a damn. There is a difference between poll averages and individual polls. You should know this. Give me a break would you. If Rasmussen is off by one point this year, Obama will lose. Rasmussen is a daily tracking poll. Rasmussen also caught the 2010 wave before anyone else. What matters is Obama will lose--he knows this, you can tell by the lack of hope and the change to Mr. Fear monger-Obama. No way if he thought he was going to win that he would be running the campaign he is. There is a movement about. They got to see Obama unfiltered. No media screen to cover his, ah ah ah, deficiencies. The left push to hard for the utopia. 2008 was supposed to be the progressive utopia awakening. 20 years of liberal dominance. Now all you have is blaming this on laws asking voters to prove who they are.
ReplyDeleteSomeone who claims not to give a damn would not have made the statement "In 2008, Rasmussen was the top polling firm on accuracy.” Someone who doesn’t give a damn would not have provided a link to an article about the Fordham “Initial Report.” Someone who doesn’t give a damn would not have written “The left will not admit that Rasmussen is the most accurate."
ReplyDeleteAnd how dare you accuse me of making stuff up! Here is the direct url to the Fordham Initial Report you cited. http://www.fordham.edu/images/academics/graduate_schools/gsas/elections_and_campaign_/poll%20accuracy%20in%20the%202008%20presidential%20election.pdf
Look at the date on the Initial Report: November 5th, just hours after the election. It takes weeks to count every ballot and come up with the final popular vote total. Any numbers available on November 5th would have been estimates. The Initial Report in fact states that “the current estimate of a 6.15-point Obama margin” was used in the calculations.
Now compare these numbers to those in Table 1 of the second Fordham report, available at http://www.fordham.edu/images/academics/graduate_schools/gsas/elections_and_campaign_/2008%20poll%20accuracy%20panagopoulos.pdf
The spread used this time is 7.2, which agrees with the official Federal Elections Commission report for 2008. See page 5 at http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2008/federalelections2008.pdf
It’s actually quite simple.
Obama won by 7.2 points: 52.9% to 45.7%.
Rasmussen predicted a 6-point win: 52% to 46%
CNN & Ipsos predicted a 7-point win: 53% to 46%
7 is closer to 7.2 than 6 is.
53 is closer to 52.9 than 52 is.
CNN & Ipsos (and 6 other pollsters) were more accurate than Rasmussen.
Why will conservatives not admit that Rasmussen is not the most accurate?
You are cracking me up. You trying to get me to argue about one minor detail in my entire analysis. Take the sentence out, I will still come to the same conclusion. I don't use Fordham Initial reports. Thank you for telling me where I got my information, but you are wrong. You are using flawed data. I am not going to waist my time explaining it to you. You wont believe it. You are stuck in some alternate universe.
DeleteIn my analysis, I make it clear that Obama can win, but only if Republicans do not turn out. Romney is winning Independents. Plus, Rasmussen also caught the 2010 REPUBLICAN WAVE before anyone else. My main point was not to make the argument for Rasmussen--even though I've seen data that conflicts yours--it was to say that Romney is going to win.
No one knows what the voter identification will look like. Data suggest that it will be much different than 2008. Early voting is down in almost all states for Democrats. Romney has increased his. He is winning independents is almost every poll, except those that use 2008 models. Argue about the data, because honestly, I did not do the analysis of the polls like pew and others did. I care little about it. Rasmussen can be the worse of them all, it does not change my analysis. I wonder how many more times I am going to have to say this. Do you get it yet?
CNN & Ipsos will not be close this time around. I suspect they have mangled their models.
Delete