PPP (D) Tracking Poll: R 49%, 0, 47% [+6% Democrat, 55% women]

PPP ^

[Arthurio]

PPP (D) Tracking Poll: R 49%, 0, 47% [+6% Democrat, 55% women]

This covers 10-20 to 10-22, but prior to debate

[NYRepublican72]

I think your analysis is spot on. You can’t be up 2 or so nationally and down 2 in Ohio. Ohio has patterned the national numbers within a point or two dating back to like Carter/Ford.

I think FL, CO and NC are near-locks and VA is strongly trending Romney.

NH and IA are slight leans.

Obama pretty much needs to sweep the remaining board to win. Romney takes Ohio and it’s over.

There was a reason Romney mentioned Pennsylvania and Wisconsin when personalizing to questions to voters today. Those states are true battleground states. As they should be when an incumbent can’t break 50% with two weeks left in an election cycle,

[Factfinder]

“Halfway through the debate when it became abundantly clear what Obama was doing, it occurred to me that Romney is protecting a lead. That means that Romney does not think he is one or two points behind in Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa, it means that Romney’s internal polling is telling him that he is ahead. One does not play it safe if one is behind or if one is tied. Tied is not enough too coast with because it is too risky when one faces the power of the president’s incumbency.

Romney’s internal polling gave him the confidence to debate the way he did. All Romney wanted to do was make tonight a non event. Only a winner passes up an opportunity. A winner says, why take the risk?

I have no doubt that Romney knows he is sitting on a bankable lead at least in Ohio and probably as a backup in Wisconsin and Iowa and he gets over-the-top either way because he has already sewn up Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, New Hampshire, and Colorado.

If these assumptions about the subsidiary states Florida North Carolina Virginia New Hampshire and Colorado are true, Obama is not in a position to stop Romney with just one state because Romney has 261 electoral college votes, he must run the board. He must win Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and one of either Nevada or Iowa. Considered in this light, Obama’s task is daunting indeed, especially for someone who is feet are stuck in tar and cannot get above 47%.

Consider in the light of geography, Romney’s strategy is more than reasonable.”

EXCELLENT ANALYSIS. Worth repeating in full. Well put, nathanbedford.

[Wpin]

Excellent analysis Nathanbedford! Best critique of strategic analysis I have read thus far. Obama appeared to me to be extremely stressed. He had almost a look of being deranged in his eyes. There is definite panic and uncertainty going on there. I think his claim that China is an adversary in the same sentence with Iran when discussing America’s biggest great was a hug gaffe. Romney caught it and handled it beautifully, I wonder if the media will pick up on it...

[radpolis]

I agree with your analysis.

You have been more spot on with these debates than any of the talking heads in the media.

Romney played the 3rd debate as if he has a sizeable lead.

Despite the debate, you can tell Romney is winning by how the Obama campaign acts, how the liberal media media acts, and how liberals are acting around the internet.

By the publicized numbers, the race is close statistically— nationally and in the battlegrounds— and the only people in a panic are liberals.

When you see the Romney campaign, Fox News, and Free Republic calm, cool and collected and the Obama campaign and the liberal media in hysterics, you know the jig is up.

[fortheDeclaration]

Well said.

[Lacey2]

Thought you all would find this interesting:

William J. H. Boetcker was a motivational speaker and is the source of many of the snippets we hear today by politicians and media types. As you read them consider which Party is guilty of doing just what Mr. Boetcker condemns

There are several minor variants of the pamphlet in circulation, but the most commonly-accepted version appears below:

You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.

You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.

You cannot help little men by tearing down big men.

You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.

You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.

You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money.

You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting
class hatred.

You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn

You cannot build character and courage by destroying men’s initiative and independence.

And you cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they can and should do for themselves.

Also this:

Boetcker also spoke of the “Seven National Crimes”

I don’t think.
I don’t know.
I don’t care.
I am too busy.
I leave well enough alone.
I have no time to read and find out.
I am not interested.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._H._Boetcker

[Roses0508]

Bookmark

[Wpin]

Ping