freeman2 wrote:And how do you explain Romney getting crushed in early voting? Reuters indicates 17 percent of registered voters have already voted and Obama is leading 54-43?

On Mourdock: please. He said the baby was intended by God, not the rape. I'm in CO at the moment. I've watched lying ad after lying ad by Obama. There's one that takes no less than 5 comments by Romney out of context. Obama is desperate.

Reuters says 17 percent of registered voters have already voted? That would make it about 28% of the electorate (at 60% of RV voting)?

I say, "Beans." There is no way of proving that and I suspect that is a wildly inflated number.

I'll look forward to your whining about how wrong the polls were after the election.

Meanwhile, Biden's in Ohio . . . or is it Iowa (the man said "Iowa" twice). The idea that he is a heartbeat away is scary. The fact that Obama picked him twice disqualifies Obama on that basis alone.

Well you still have Rasmussen. Without him Romney's chances look really bad

Response rate of 3 percent and that's scientific? I am not worried about Michigan

freeman2 wrote:Well you still have Rasmussen. Without him Romney's chances look really bad

???

Did you look at the RCP average? Who's leading?

Romney.

Meaningless?

Who was leading 4 years ago?

Obama.

Hmmm.

freeman2 wrote:Response rate of 3 percent and that's scientific? I am not worried about Michigan

Fine, don't worry about it. In fact, don't worry about Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Colorado, New Hampshire or Ohio. Romney will win every one of them.

How about this wild scenario?

http://abcnews.go.com/m/blogEntry?id=17537969

I saw Democrat Bob Beckel talk about this. He said he thought Democrats in the Senate would go for Ryan to avoid the chaos.

That scenario could happen if Romney stays ahead in the popular vote, but not so far ahead that most of the swing States flip. I know it i theoretically possible that Obama could win the electoral college at 44 or 45%, but realistically, he'll probably have to be near 48% to get to a tie or win the EC. If Romney loses the popular vote, Obama will win the EC.

*Now, as an example of dishonest advertising, if you were running against me, you would cut the "Obama will win the EC," as if I was predicting it.*

Beckel...sold his soul to be the token democrat on Fox News . Why would we give up vps right to break ties and right to succession?It's not like the Vp does anything else

You have to admit it would be good television to have Biden and Romney at the table together.

freeman2 wrote:How about this wild scenario?

http://abcnews.go.com/m/blogEntry?id=17537969

In the unlikely event that the House has a split in state control and cannot agree (this could happen if the split is close and some states delegations have 50/50 splits), the Senate chooses the VP, they choose Biden who becomes President (or at least that's how I heard it on the radio this morning).

President Biden. Now that's a truly terrifying scenario.

I think in the event of a tie in the house of representatives the speaker becomes president! I'm sure that makes you feel better!

In other news, Obama up 5 pts in Ohio
http://m.upi.com/story/UPI-28191351115882/

I also heard it the way that Geo heard it. Without a chosen President, the VP rises to that position, not the Speaker of the House. However, if we have an electoral vote tie, I think that Romney will win. Aren't there many more red states than blue?

In that scenario, I could not see the Dems giving the VP to Ryan instead of Biden because Romney is chosen by the House (via the states). The currency of Washington is power, and I just cannot imagine giving that away so easily, especially in this political climate.

I do think that if the Pres and VP are split by party, there should be extra security detail on the Pres. For all we know, the fear of a Biden presidency helps keep Obama alive.

geojanes wrote:

freeman2 wrote:How about this wild scenario?

http://abcnews.go.com/m/blogEntry?id=17537969

In the unlikely event that the House has a split in state control and cannot agree (this could happen if the split is close and some states delegations have 50/50 splits), the Senate chooses the VP, they choose Biden who becomes President (or at least that's how I heard it on the radio this morning).

President Biden. Now that's a truly terrifying scenario.

Almost no chance of a 25/25 split.

Again, I ask: what do we make of KEEPING Biden as VP with regard to the President's judgment?

freeman2 wrote:I think in the event of a tie in the house of representatives the speaker becomes president! I'm sure that makes you feel better!

In other news, Obama up 5 pts in Ohio
http://m.upi.com/story/UPI-28191351115882/

I'm so scared.

Every one of these "Obama up by 5 polls," is at least D+9. Iirc, Ohio was D+8 in 2008. Anyone who thinks Democrats will have a better turnout this year is out of their mind.

Update: not even Chuck Todd takes that poll seriously. http://hotair.com/archives/2012/10/25/m ... e-in-ohio/

freeman2 wrote:Beckel...sold his soul to be the token democrat on Fox News . Why would we give up vps right to break ties and right to succession?It's not like the Vp does anything else

Funny thing about Fox: when I travel, I make a point of watching MSNBC and CNN. MSNBC is more partisan than Fox ever dreamed of being. I'm not saying that most of Fox doesn't have a bit of an edge (or an ax, like with Hannity), but MSNBC is almost entirely liberal and virulently anti-Romney. I've seen both networks and I know when even a stupid show, like Fox and Friends, is shading the truth. MSNBC is, on occasion, more honest and kind than Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.

That's like saying Boston is a bit easier to drive in than NYC.