If you believe that Obama will win handily, you haven't been paying attention

[cali]

Obama may win but it's foolish to believe he'll win a decisive victory.

And he may not win. Romney may actually be VOTED in.

This is a closely divided electorate in a country where the economy absolutely sucks and many are desperate to try another way. They have their doubts about Romney and Ryan but they have their doubts about the President even if they like him more. That may just not be enough. Every day that gas prices rise is a day that's good for Romney.


All the self-congratulatory stuff around here about how the RNC was a disaster and the President is headed for an easy victory, and the polls are manufactured and it's not really close, makes me really nervous.

I'm not quite where Michael Moore is regarding the outcome of the election, but I certainly won't be shocked if on November 7, it's President-Elect Romney.

[AverageJoe90]

1. No rec from me, Cali. Not this time.

Yes, this election may not be decisive. But it won't be because of the economy, or high gas prices, that's for sure(look around you, people are finally waking up!). It will be because the GOP will try to manipulate the vote as much as they can, whether thru indirect methods like robocalling scams(like what happened in Wisconsin.) these highly discriminatory voter ID laws that've been flogged around for months now, or thru just outright theft.

And the polls being manufactured? It's not 'self-congratulation', Cali, it's pretty observable, not at all hard to find; same thing for the RNC convention as well. Truth is, we needed all that good news after months of largely nothing but setback after setback; and the fact that an increasing number of right-leaning indies are either staying home; or voting for a third party, or even *gasp*, Obama, we'll take it, and run with it, as we've been doing.

Complacency is never a good thing, but, TBH, neither is being overly pessimistic(without good cause). That kind of attitude WILL convince people to stay home: "Why vote at all if the pollsters say it's a horse race? It's hopeless!".

[cali]

3. yes, those are items of concern and a factor

but it's totally ostrich like to pretend that the economy- which sucks hugely- isn't a factor in this economy. It is, even if the the major share of blame doesn't belong to the administration.

This is a close election and there's a lot of denial about it.

[AverageJoe90]

9. It maybe be a factor, but not nearly as much of one as some may think.....

...even though there are indeed a lot of idiots who do blame Obama for rising gas prices, etc.(but most of them are Repubs so it's expected!)

This isn't 1980. Carter was likable, but he had a lot of baggage and Reagan actually had a fair share of charm & charisma to go around; even without the October Surprise, TBH, Ronnie still could have won.

Now, though, it's somewhat switched: Obama's the guy with the wit & charisma, and Romney not only has plenty of baggage, but has none of Reagan's charisma OR Obama's wit.

[randome]

32. You have it precisely right, IMO.

[CoffeeCat]

86. We need to realize the reality...

... That all of the factors outlined by you and Cali--could result in a Romney presidency. The crazy voter ID laws, suppression -- as you said, are threats. And Cali is correct too. Economic factors could persuade some to try something new and vote for Romney.

Obama has a tougher challenge now. He was new in 08. He's not now. There was unprecedented Dem voter registration and voter turnout in 08 as well. Some of the excitement for Obama has waned. Some in the base are unhappy. Most will surely not vote for Romney, but the pivotal question is--Will they be motivated enough to go out and vote for Obama?

Conversely, the Reptblicans are highly, highly motivated to vote out Obama. Most tea-partiers hate Romney. However, they want Obama out and they'll vote come hell
Or high water. Republicans have spent enormous amounts of time and energy thwarting all of Obama's efforts to make him look bad.

These are the things working against us. Yes, we have many things in our favor, but this is a thread about the threats that could result in Romney winning.

It is essential to winning that every last Democrat realize and accept how very serious this situation is. Anyone who accuses Cali or you or others of being a party pooper is treading on dangerous denial. Facing these harsh realities motivates us to get the base enthused, to encourage people to volunteer and make phone calls. The campaign needs money as well, as Romney has more funds than Obama due to the very wealthy corporate and elitist donors who are pouring money into Romney's campaign. Give $5...whatever you can.

There's a lot to be excited about. However, we should have our heads down, plowing to that finish line. We need to get our people to the polls. If turnout is lackluster on our side they win.

And I think ANY amount of help is important. Posting anti-Romney/pro-Obama posts on Facebook and twitter helps. Counter the bullshit that Republicans write in article comment sections. Educate people. Get your friends and neighbors to the polls.

If Romney wins and we're going to war with Iran. Medicare becomes a voucher system and Obamacare is gone forever.

We can do this.

[AverageJoe90]

117. Partly agreed, but there are a few things I need to say.

As I outlined before, there are indeed some truly misinformed idiots who blame Obama for the economy. But this doesn't take into account the fact that a large number of people, even some moderate Republicans, have been able to come to terms with the fact that the majority of our problems have been thanks to Congressional gridlock, and vast amounts of corruption.
Honestly, the only reason some people outside the wingnuts on the right and the few truly hopelessly misinformed people out there believe that the economy will be a really important factor, is, quite frankly, becausee it's a talking point pushed out by the MSM heads to not only make things look like a horse race(which it certainly isn't), but also, it's becoming obvious that they're trying to distract us from the real issues. And, what really worries me is what may happen if enough people buy into the propaganda.....self-fulfilling prophecies, anyone?

Turnout won't be lackluster if we keep fighting the Establishment propaganda, and yes, that does include the "Gas Prices and the economy will sink Obama" crap(which sadly, some still believe!).

Cali is treading a thin line between being cautious and hopelessly pessimistic........and I, on the other hand, am certainly the former; I know darn well what's at stake. But I'm not giving up, either, and frankly, there's many, many. more who share my viewpoint: we are doing a lot better than the MSM says we are, but we WILL lose our advantage if we don't keep fighting on, and that means, educating people about what really does matter in this election season, and, of course, combatting voter suppression, possibly the most important issue of all today.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

2. I honestly don't know anyone who believes that...

And I live in a very BLUE state! People are just having a bit of fun and banter.

Rather than the defeatist message, why not emphasize how crucial it is for all of us to get out and work very hard for the President, as well as congressional Democrats?

All the defeatist talk from Moore and people like you do nothing but demoralize the electorate.

Yes. Let's not be naive and apathetic. Yes. Let's get people registered and do all we can. No. Let's not demoralize our side with defeatist rhetoric. That's the last thing we need.

[cali]

10. take a look around GD.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

78. I hear what you're saying but I don't see anyone

suggesting that we just sit back and rest on our laurels. If they are then they're either idiots or naive. We can't rest! I live in Maryland but devote every Saturday to canvassing in Virginia. I know that it's not going to be easy there this time around but I'm happy to see a fair number of Obama volunteers on the ground and working the phones, registering people, etc. things will pick up more when we get to the final weeks.

[AverageJoe90]

120. Yep, I see it the same way.

BTW, keep up the good fight.

[GallopingGhost]

76. I agree!!

This week I'm going to an event to make phone calls and yard signs, and am also helping register people to vote.

A good motto here is, "I have yet begun to fight!"

A defeatist attitude will get us where?

[LongTomH]

104. I endorse what Liberal_Stalwary71 is saying about working very hard!

Whatever you believe, get out and work: Canvass, phonebank, register people to vote. Voter registration and Get-Out-The-Vote drives are of prime importance this election cycle. A massive turnout is what kept the Repukes from stealing 2006 and 2008.

[flamingdem]

4. College students often don't get around to registering - send them gottaregister.com

https://gottaregister.com/

[AnotherMcIntosh]

5. What do you suggest that any of us do? The 2010 losses, we were told, was a "wake-up call."

Was it?

Eric I-prosecute-state-approved-medical-marijuana-dispensers Holder still seems to have no serious interest in going after banksters. Or openly admitted war criminals.

Rahm where-else-are-liberals-going-to-go Emanuel has left the White House but he is now in the process of privatizing Chicago public assets with the assistance of Steve Koch from Credit Suisse.

Arne I-think-that-the-privatization-of-school-systems-is-a-good-idea Duncan is still on the job as the Secretary of Education.

More examples with other officials, of course, could be given.

Then there is this pending economic disaster for what is left of the middle-class:

Trans-Pacific negotiations have been taking place throughout the Obama presidency. The deal is strongly supported by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the top lobbying group for American corporations. Obama's Republican opponent in the 2012 presidential elections, Mitt Romney, has urged the U.S. to finalize the deal as soon as possible.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/13/obama-trade-document-leak_n_1592593.html

Sure, someone will again post "The List." And we'll hear stories about how someone, or two, is happy that they now have medical insurance for themselves or a loved one. But is that going to be enough? And is it enough to point out that Rmoney is worse? Or that he made his money while taking advantage of the earlier job-transferring "free-trade" agreements?

It seems that the basis for winning or losing the upcoming election has already been established.

If you have a suggestion or two, it would be worthwhile to hear them.

[woo me with science]

13. Outstanding post. Thank you.

[emulatorloo]

63. Just another "Invisible Obama" act

It is getting old already.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

20. So, you don't like Obama's appointees. Why post this now? Are you staying home or voting Rmoney?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

82. "Are you staying home or voting Rmoney?"

Seriously, what is your solution? Do you have anything more than a Rahm-Emanuel-type response, ie, "Where else are they going to go?"

I actually think that Obama is going to be re-elected, although it may be closer than what it should be.

If you have no solution but just want to throw out insults - such as suggesting that I am not going to vote for Obama - why not expand and adopt additional responses that some seemed to like before?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

93. Vote for Obama and then work to improve the situation if you don't like him. Or ...

Or vote for a third party.

Or write in a candidate. Is Dennis Kucinich more your style?

What is your solution? You keep asking others to propose, and they do, but you don't propose anything realistic yourself.

You accuse others in your bingo card of "Poutrage", but you get all insulted when it is suggested to you that you use your vote to vote against the man you don't like (Obama) or to stay home as a protest on election day.

If Obama is so evil and vile and just plain bad as you say, then what are you here for? (Rinky-dink bingo cards notwithstanding)

[one_voice]

119. Ya know I get so sick of seeing this...

Obama apologist shit. Then you whine when you're called an Obama hater.

You know when this shit started? Not with us, the ones that voted for Obama, no, uh-huh. It started long ago, with all those good ole Democrats that crossed over and voted in Reagan. That's when the country started on the rightward slant.

By the way I was in high school then, thanks to all that handed me that bullshit.

Y'all like to come on here and tell us how un-liberal we are. Hell we're damn near republicans. Well where the hell were you when they were voting in these fuckwads? huh? Were you absent those years?

That ball has been rolling down hill for many years, and now you want to blame it on Obama voters. Get the fuck outta here. For real!

[KoKo]

59. Dems out there know more than some folks here and the

Democratic Operatives who do the TP's out on the blogs, think they do. The Rham Emmanuel, Third Way think that voting Dems don't keep up with the financial news or are aware of how our party cut it's progressives off at the knees and the lack of prosecutions by Holder of the Banksters and the other issues you state.

Those who are older and who consistently vote will show up as usual....but it's the Youth Vote for Obama that will need to get out on election day. They were the ones that were absent in 2010 and not the Progressives and older voters who were blamed for 2010 Mid-term losses. Youth don't vote in Mid-terms traditonally and keeping the enthusiasm going for Local Candidates after Obama's impressive win was always going to be hard to do.

It will hinge on the youth vote and if the "Social Issues" matter enough for them to turn out. Then there's the Voter ID and the corrupted voted machines which will be a big factor in this election. Our Dem Party establishment has done little about either the machines or getting onto the Voter ID when it was rammed through state legislatures by ALEC.

This won't be an easy win for either candidate because of what you say and these other problems. We Dems have to hope the "party faithful" and hold....and that the youth vote will come out with the enthusiasm they did in '08.

[frazzled]

84. A deluded post

You seem to think the preponderance of opposition to Obama comes from his not being far enough to the left. Talk about myopia. Sorry, but none of the things you mention--from marijuana to education to the sad-and-tired Rahm Emanuel as bogey man shtick--are at issue to 99.9 percent of American voters.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

87. Your tag line indicates ""I have no enemies and no hatred. Hatred can rot away ..." Yet you post

this.

You use words such as "A deluded post," "myopia," "Sorry, but none of the things you mention." Is this consistent with your tag line? Are you just having a bad morning? Or is this how you usually respond? Is this how you want to live your life?

You are somewhat close to what I said (but somewhat off) when you say, "You seem to think the preponderance of opposition to Obama comes from his not being far enough to the left." Since you refer to what I "seem to think," I'll rephrase what I said to eliminate any unclarity in your mind. I think that the 2010 election indicates how this election might go. I think that some people who voted for Obama in 2008 stayed home in 2010. I think that there are those who stayed home in 2010 genuinely wanted a liberal or progressive in the White House and were disappointed when they did not see that.

I do not think that "the preponderance of opposition to Obama comes from his not being far enough to the left."

The preponderance of opposition to Obama, in my view, does not come from liberals and progressives but from right-wing nuts.

When I hear someone say or imply that liberals and progressives are too far to the left, I am reminded of a Harry Truman quote: “Whenever a fellow tells me he's bipartisan, I know he's going to vote against me.”

http://www.famousquotes.com/show/1711989/

[frazzled]

97. Voters always sit out midterms, especially the younger ones

You can't compare a presidential election to a midterm election ... which consists mostly of what might be termed local races in many cases (when there is no Senate race in the state that year or gubernatorial race--the case for many states). According to your restatement, you appear to believe this widespread apathy was the fault of disappointment in Obama (from the left) and that it will be repeated in the general election. That is pretty much what I criticized your original post for. So I stand by what I originally said. No true person of the left will sit out this election. If there is apathy, it's among the wishy-washy low-information voter, by and large: you know, the ones who always like to say "all politicians are just hacks, and there's no difference, and no one is going to help." That's not the left.

Finally, to equate criticism of the content of your post (deluded about the actual facts on the ground) with "hate" shows a great deal of self-importance: so if anyone disagrees with you they are hateful? Or are you just having a bad day?

"Hate" in posts abounds on this board. In the past few days I've seen Democrats called "shitstains" (with no one protesting that this term might be a tad overwrought), and seen whole threads devoted to wishing that a terminally ill man suffer in extreme pain and die a horrible death. That's hate.

It seems to me, you simply hate to be contradicted.

[jonthebru]

103. Believe it or not...

It doesn't matter about specifics as you have written.
The right is working to consolidate power. They want to create a Corporatist controlled Theocracy. That is the truth.
Barack Obama's second term if he gets it will have one or two Supreme Court nominees to put forward.
It is very important to keep our eyes on the prize and keep our end of the deal. In an ideal outcome there would be a Democratically controlled House, Senate and Presidency.
If the Citizen's United decision is not overturned we can kiss our Democracy good bye. That is the Truth.

[coalition_unwilling]

115. I am one who is far worse off now than I was four years ago (through no fault of

Obama's whatsoever, I might add). Here's what I would suggest that all of us do:

VOTE AGAINST FASCISM

Romney is a fascist. Whenever anyone has a chance in his or her lifetime to vote against fascism and does not take it, he or she has failed his or her duty as a member of the human race.

All the rest of this is just hipster elitist decadence. If you vote for anyone other than Obama in November, you are in effect voting for fascism.

A VOTE FOR OBAMA IS A VOTE AGAINST FASCISM.

I don't know how to put it any more plainly than that.

[Biafran]

6. Obama will win

except if democrats don't want him to.

[calimary]

128. Welcome to DU! And DO NOT get complacent!

We need you!





Now get to work.

[DrDan]

7. absolutely agree - I think it will be a nail-biter

and the romney big money is just beginning to flow

[KharmaTrain]

8. It's Not A Win...

...if its just President Obama winning and the Democrats not only don't retake the House but lose the Senate...and that's my biggest concern right now.

Yes, Rmoney and his ilk can win...especially if Democrats think that this election is in the bag. There needs to be a very big push from here on out for ALL Democratic candidates. An Obama victory with a rushpublican house/senate would be a real disaster for all of us...almost as much as Bishop Mittens winning...

[AverageJoe90]

11. I've come to view things slightly differently.

Yes, Romney can indeed win; but only if we stop acting on voter suppression and if we convince ourselves to give up because of horse races in the polls, and that an economy that has an even slightly less than perfect recovery will surely sink the President, etc. THAT'S what'll sink us for sure.

Luckily, I'm not seeing much of that this year; so unlike 2010-11, when there was a shitload of hand-wringing hopelessness(understandable, TBH); even I was kinda guilty of that to a small extent.

But I've observed a fire & passion from many people who are sick and tired of GOP bullshit and want the gridlock in Congress to end....and it's not just registered Dems, either. I've even seen a number of moderate Republicans not only turning against their former party, but becoming Democrats themselves!

[Drunken Irishman]

12. Oh look, another 'let's dispirit Obama voters!' post.

You don't know the outcome of this election anymore than everyone else, cali, so stop pretending that you've somehow got inside information on the outcome. To believe in a positive result today is no worse than expecting, or suggesting, the worst potential result ... and don't act like it isn't.

You are not the authority on all things this election and the matter-of-fact tone of your post is insulting to those who have invested a lot of energy into trying to get Obama reelected. Trust us, I don't think anyone believes this election is a given - or that Obama will win in a landslide. However, believing, as the polls currently show, that Obama will win a decisive victory in the electoral college is not foolish. In fact, it's pretty mainstream according to people like Nate Silver & other major election models.

Bottom line, your post reeks of 'give up, we're fucked' and I'm tired of this bullshit. I am tired of Democrats moping around like we're going to get our teeth kicked in, even when we lead. You know, you might be trying to combat overconfidence (but I suspect that isn't the case because at no point in your post did you say, "so we need to work extra hard this go around&quot , but you're actually promoting defeatism and that is just as dangerous as overconfidence & apathy. When voters think their candidate might very well lose, they don't see the need to really support him and all you have to do is ask every losing candidate ever, or anyone who's ever worked on a losing campaign.

So, if you're going to lecture me on how to feel, you're barking up the wrong tree and the value you bring to the debate is depressingly low. I don't need you to be the buzzkill or the reality check you think you are. I know this election is going to be hard, but I also have faith and believe Obama will win and there is nothing wrong with that. Your post trying to plant seeds of doubt in DUer's heads is nothing more than a distraction.

And again, stop acting like you've got more information on the election and a definitive understanding than the rest of us. That type of logic is foolish.

[SemperEadem]

22. rec +1,000,000

the fact is the thinking people of this country, who outnumber the numbnuts to thought miitiot and the thugs did a great job last week, are not going to vote anyone into office who is so far afield of reality and truth.

I'm not about to give up and no one else I know who has working brain cells is going to give up either/ and on the tail of the rnc and before the dnc makes their pitch? That's just nothing more than pearl clutching silliness.

[davidpdx]

28. DI, I fully understand what Cali is saying. I respectfully ask you to listen to my reasoning...

I'll give you an example. On another thread a person made the conflated argument that Obama was going to win 409 electoral votes (I'll be happy to PM you the exact link, but I won't post it here, but IS indeed happening). It is those people running around screaming it is going to be landslide that need to be cautious. That is what Cali is talking about and I agree with him.

I personally think Obama WILL win. At the same time you have to factor in all the ridiculous stuff the Republicans will do to try to steal the election. It's not just paranoia. We know for a fact they have done this before and are more than capable of doing it again. High voter turnout in 2008 gave Obama a large EC margin. The truth is the margin may not be as large this time.

I am not working against Obama and neither is Cali. I have donated money to the campaign and do what I can from abroad to help get Obama reelected.

[Drunken Irishman]

31. That's fine. I didn't get that at all from cali's tone...

I got...

Look, anyone who thinks Obama is going to win this thing by a comfortable margin is foolish and we should anticipate for not only a close election ... but an Obama loss. I'm right and you need to trust me ... things are not good. I'm not quite at the level of 'OMG we're gonna lose!', but I'm damn close. People need to start preparing themselves for a loss...

Sorry, but this post doesn't do it for me. It's not even about being cautious or telling us not to get overconfident. It's entirely about dispiriting supporters who work their butt off to make sure this election is not only an Obama win, but a comfortable Obama win.

Telling us we're foolish for expecting a sizable electoral college victory is an abrasive, negative tone and I'm not buying it. This post not once mentioned the need to work harder to make sure Obama wins ... it essentially just said, 'don't expect victory and if he does win, it will be by a very narrow margin'. What kind of message is that? What positives should I take from this post except to come away thinking we're most likely doomed?

Negative posts like this don't ground Obama supporters in reality or wake them up to the possibility we need to work harder to get him elected ... it deflates us. That does no one any good.

Being a Democrat in Utah, I have worked on a lot of losing campaigns and I can tell you the first thing these campaigns work to change is the mindset they're not going to win. Once the voters believe you're going to lose, or have a good chance of losing, they abandon your campaign because voters don't like supporting losing candidates. They just don't. If they sense even the slightest hole in your ship, they will jump and either not vote, or vote for the other guy and then you're fucked.

This post is no better than the posts that say, unquestionably, Obama will win in a landslide. This post doesn't indicate what we can do to fight for Obama, how we need to work harder to get Obama reelected, that we need to not get overconfident, no, this post is telling us, "hey, guys, we might be screwed" and that mindset is going to kill you. It will kill you in any election - from city council to the President.

We don't need to be lectured by people here on DU that this election will be close and only a fool would think otherwise (remember, cali never said 'might'). That type of tone does no one any good and this 'maybe we should start to panic' mindset is only going to set ourselves up for failure.

I'm sure you've heard of a self-fulfilling prophecy, right? Well if Democrats keep telling themselves they could lose, they probably will.

It's not about saying there is no chance of Romney winning ... but we need a confident base because if your base isn't confident that you're going to win, they won't take the energy to go vote. Just ask John McCain. His voters conceded, a few weeks prior to the election, it was unlikely he would win and what do you know, he didn't. You need people believing you will win because if they believe you're going to win, they will fight harder for it. If they think you're going to lose, they'll give up and then you will lose.

It happens in sports, it happens in life and it happens in politics. Defeatism is just as troubling as overconfidence and that's what I see here. Cali might have good intentions, but this post isn't good. It's negative. It doesn't give us any reason for hope and without hope, we might as well just shut this thing down because we're going to lose.

I guarantee you the thing the Obama campaign hates almost as much as overconfidence is a lack of confidence. And that's what we're seeing here. If cali's attempt here was to humble us, to make us work harder for Obama...well, I think they failed.

Just my two cents.

[davidpdx]

55. I agree that Cali could have been more supportive in the OP

I disagree that telling people we shouldn't expect a large EC victory is abrasive. There are people on here are getting a bit cocky. The election is 9 1/2 weeks away. Instead of bloviating that Obama is going to win by a landslide, we should be working like we are 10 points down. My offer still stands to point out to you examples of posts in a private message, if you want me to you know how to reach me.

We should expect a close election and be surprise if it turns out better. We should be wary that the Republicans are going to attempt to defraud voters in states like Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania.

At the same time I don't think we should be at each other's throats as we all are on the same side. Yeah we are going to disagree. I've disagreed with you and other people tonight all over the place in other threads.

Now with a big grain of salt, I will quote Jerry Springer....

"Until next time, take care of yourselves, and each other"

[Drunken Irishman]

108. Calling anyone who believes Obama could win by a sizable margin 'foolish' is...

Cali knows no better than you and I. Nate Silver believes Obama could win by a comfortable margin ... and so does the guy at the Princeton Election Consortium. I don't think they're foolish or any less educated on the matter than cali.

My gripe is that this post does nothing but try to dispirit. If this is a rallying cry to get our troops motivated, well it failed. I don't see that at all. I see a post that is negative, dismissive and one big concession to a potential loss. I get being concerned...I don't get being nearly hopeless, especially when Obama still leads in most swing states.

[Iggy]

42. I'm Wondering How People

figure Ohio is a lock for Obama-- given he won the state in 2008 by a mere 107,000 votes-- hardly a large
margin. given we know the youth vote won't be the same this time for Obama, that margin IMHO
becomes meaningless.

[davidpdx]

49. Good question...

North Carolina and Indiana were close as well.

The better question is how someone can figure Obama will win by with more than 400 EVs?

I think people are getting a bit cocky, which was why I gave the response I did up thread.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

70. He won NC by only 14,000 votes. Our unemployment rate...

just rose to 9.6%, and Grover & The Kochsuckers have set their sights on this state. Republicans are going for the jugular.

Today's N&O had some good pieces, including coverage of the convention, if anyone is interested:

DNC: What you need to know
http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/09/01/2309670/dnc-info.html

Political pitches fail to sway NC's beleaguered middle class
http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/09/02/2311035/north-carolinas-middle-class-shows.html

[AverageJoe90]

123. I'm not at all convinced we're likely to win NC again, either.

However, though, there may be some hope: come Tuesday, guess what Charlotte's going to be hosting? That's right, none other than the D.N.C.

We may very well get VERY lucky indeed. One can hope, right?

[WorseBeforeBetter]

135. Yes one can. For instance, if Rs completely take over this state in November,

I'll be hoping my home sells relatively quickly so I can flee back north.

This *ain't* good, but we've still got two months:

Poll gives Romney small lead in NC as Democrats gather in Charlotte
http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/09/03/2312716/new-nc-poll-gives-romney-small.html#storylink=cpy

[Drunken Irishman]

109. I don't think it's a lock, but Obama won Ohio by 262,000 votes in '08...not 107,000.

That 262,000 vote margin isn't huge, but it was still good enough for a 4.6 margin overall, which was bigger than Bush's in '04 and '00. I think it's possible he could lose Ohio, but I think it's also likely he wins it. Polls continue showing him leading there by near the margins he led in '08.

[JNelson6563]

29. Our cadre of fatalists.

It's always so easy to see who actually does stuff in real world politics and who doesn't, isn't it?

I am working my ass off this election season (like all the others) and I am seeing things here in the trenches that completely contrast with this load of crap OP. I'm in a red zone of Michigan so it's not like I'm in a liberal echo chamber.

But the armchair warriors know better than us lowly foot-soldiers I guess.

lolz

Julie

[AtomicKitten]

14. The only thing I know for sure is that it's going to be ugly.

I believe President Obama will be re-elected but not without a bare knuckle brawl precinct by precinct.

[Iggy]

41. HUH?

"precinct by precinct".. in specific states??

I don't think this will be the case in soild blue states like Californina, New York, etc.

[AtomicKitten]

88. Ever heard of True The Vote?

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/08/28/maddow-tea-party-group-will-use-whites-to-question-black-voters/

They will be "monitoring" minority voting precincts, concentrating on suppressing the black vote in particular. Your point about blue states is well taken but perhaps better illustrated with red states made up of 10 people and lots of cows.

[Webster Green]

98. All the crap they are threatening to do is illegal in CA.

Observers are allowed, but they are not allowed to interfere with voters or disrupt the process. They are not allowed to take photos in the polling place.

I run a precinct in CA, and if anyone shows up and starts that stuff, they will be talking to the sheriff in no time.

[AtomicKitten]

101. It is voter intimidation pure and simple.

Thank you for manning the precinct! You are appreciated.

[Turbineguy]

15. Between

election fraud, voter suppression, millionaires who think screwing the middle class is the way to prosperity and the millions of self-destructive Fox watchers...

Romney is in with a good chance.

[KaryninMiami]

27. Agreed. And all of those items are very real.

Cali is correct as are your points. It's very possible that we could loose. And it could easily happen due to a combination of ways that will steal this-electronic machines being the first area where they will skim as many points as they can get away with - possibly up to three per district. They've already stopped countless numbers from registering here in FL and are certain to stop millions more due to voter IDs and various techniques. A two or three point lead in the polls will not result in an Obama win.

[davidpdx]

51. And you bring up a good point that no one has in this thread

In 2008 the campaign finance laws were in effect which pretty much hamstrung McCain (not to mention he was a terrible campaigner on top of that). While the limits to the campaigns still are in effect, people can give unlimited amounts to the superpacs and parties.

As Obama said himself in an email, he will be the first incumbent president in history that is outspent by a competitor.

While money isn't everything, it does buy the Republicans lots of air time to repeat their lies.

[Berlum]

16. My father in law thought Clint Eastwood was a laugh riot

He just loved the stupid schtick. The Mrs. & me kept looking at each other with whirly eyes while he talked.

So Pops loved Clint, but -- even though he has been a lifelong Republican -- he said he going to vote for Obama. He does not trust Romney. It convinced Willard is a lying tax dodger as well as a draft dodger.

[Auggie]

17. The election will be won in Ohio and Florida

[sendero]

18. I think Obama has a good chance..

.... but I agree that it is anything but a slam dunk.

If you believe the polls (and no doubt at least some of them are scientifically valid), it's still a neck in neck race and in situations like this it is either candidate's to lose.

Around here people don't seem to get it, the things that Romney and especially Ryan say or have said that we find beyond the pale many don't have a problem with at all.

And elections are always generally about the economy, if the Repubs hadn't run someone with such blatantly obvious economic negatives, Obama would be behind right now.

[Atman]

19. Your concern is duly noted

I bet you'd give a great half-time pep talk at the Super Bowl.

[Daayyummmboi]

21. I dissagree...

While this election is by no means a simple matter... Romney is working with several handicaps.

1) He serves three masters. He can't upset the Rove backers. He can"t upset the tea party, and he can't upset the far religious right wing of his party. If you notice, every time there is a newsworthy item, Romney has to take a poll to see if his answer will piss anybody off first. This will not work in swinging independents.

2) His tax returns. The is the number one reason why he has gotten clobbered in other elections that he has ran for. The DNC hammering him (with the great help of Harry Reid) has given Romney a major image issue. This combined with Bain Capital, swiss bank accounts, and outsourcing will be fertile ground in the upcoming debates.

3)The evolution of virtually every single policy he has ever had to the point where even FOX has lambasted him. He virtually has lost every demographic except angry white men. And as even the GOP has pointed out, "There is not enough of those votes for the GOP to survive."

[Iggy]

40. All Good Points, However

keep in mind millions of GOP'ers are not voting for Rmoney as much as they are voting
against Obama.

that's a powerful force.. particularly when you throw in the bigotry factor, which IMHO is huge
in our nation.

[ReasonableToo]

43. He is still strong with one demographic-

The folks that pay for the "black box" voting in this country.

He who decides which precints get enough machines and counts the votes decides the election. (unless the SCOTUS steps in)

Look into Ohio '04 voting irregularities.

[Historic NY]

23. People are out there talking but if the sit home one their hands thats a problem....

Last week auto flea market people were bantering back and forth...I listened.

How things going Joe... ah bad but no too bad....
So how are voting? Joe says well one guy thinks were all going to be rich doing this, imagine that.......he thinks he is one of us.

[malaise]

24. Obama will win decisively

That is all

[IL Lib]

96. Agreed

Romney's path to 270 electoral votes will be a difficult path. Liberals are such pessimists.

[Douglas Carpenter]

25. well, OBVIOUSLY you are right and all but the deaf, dumb and blind know it already

I think Obama will probably win. But a probably is a long way from a definitely.

[AlinPA]

26. The voter supression in PA is going to be a factor. There is no way that PA can handle the

huge number of provisional ballots that will be needed because of the ID discrepancies that will be declared. People will stay away so they don't have to face the hassle.

[MFM008]

30. I still believe

he will win though. As long as Nate Silvers numbers are good, so am I. I also think debates will be decisive.

[deutsey]

33. I think anytime you've got Rove working behind the scenes with unlimited $$$ at his disposal

you've got to be on guard.

[randome]

39. Yeah. Rove. Bah!

It amazes me why anyone thinks he's 'special'. He fucked up with Palin. He fucked up with Romney and with Akin.

On the face of it, on the evidence, it is clear that Rove is incompetent. Just because he happened to be in the right place in the right time a couple of times during Bush Jr's presidency does not mean he has the power and brains that some imagine him to have.

Whatever happened to his 'permanent GOP majority'? It's already in the crapper.

[deutsey]

50. Yeah, but we'll be digging out from the rubble of his "successes" for some time

The man's a dolt in general, but he's also a craven dirty trickster who knows how to stir up the shit. Plus he's got the wealthiest assholes in this country who believe they own America (and the rest of us) backing him with tons of money.

All I'm saying is we shouldn't take that lightly.

[randome]

54. Totally agree with you on that. Take no chances.

But it's truly looking as if money will not be the deciding factor this election. It's a strange concept after the past 30 years but we have a perfect storm this time -an intelligent, charismatic President versus a doddering, wooden opponent.

[Iggy]

34. Correct, I've Seen This Movie Before

All the self-congratulatory stuff around here about how the RNC was a disaster and the President
is headed for an easy victory, and the polls are manufactured and it's not really close, makes me really nervous.

Back in 1999-2000, when some of you were getting the crust cut off your peanut butter and jelly sammys by your
mom-- I was over at the public forum at Salon.com. the term "blog" hadn't even been invented.

There, numerous progressives were laughing and guffawing about "that nobody hick governor from Texas", and how
"Al Gore will win in a landslide victory".

Well? what happened?

what happened is Al Gore and the democratic party made several stupid mistakes.

One being they didn't let Clinton campaign for/with Gore-- which would have helped considerably in a crucial
swing state like Ohio-- which Gore lost.

Looking at what happened in 2008, Obama won Ohio-- by something like 107,000 votes; that's hardly a large
margin. in fact, IMHO, it's a meaningless margin, because part of the context is there obviously were plenty
of people willing to vote for Stumpy McCain-- in spite of the fact GOP "genius" gw bush drove us over
the cliff economically. keep this in mind when thinking about Ohio.

we already know the youth vote is not going to turn out this time for Obama.

for me, this race is too close to call.. I pay attention to little if any polling.. 538 is about it for me. if the GOP had been
smart enough to run someone like Jeb Bush-- they would be guaranteed a win. instead, they're running a
guy who is even worse than bush.

it's all about who shows up in 6-8 states; obv Ohio is one of those states.

[Art_from_Ark]

44. Gore had a reason for keeping his distance from Clinton

And that was "Clinton fatigue", namely, the incessant rambling about Whitewater, Vince Foster, Monica, impeachment, ad nauseum, in the media that tainted not only Clinton's image, but also Gore's by association.

And there is that "little" matter of Florida, where all the stops were pulled out to steal votes from Gore, including the shameful US Supreme Court decision.

[Iggy]

46. Nope, I Disagree

Clinton was hugely popular (he was elected twice, remember?) and in spite of the gigantic reich wing/GOP
campaign to have him fully impeached over the Monica baloney-- the people did not want him
impeached. all of the polling showed this.

Meh.. the Whitewater crap.. and the rest.. the voters don't care about that.. only the parasites making a big
deal out of it (for a living) do so.

I guarantee you, had Gore allowed Clinton to campaign for him, the bullcrap in FL would not have mattered.

[Art_from_Ark]

48. Clinton might have been elected twice,

but I remember well the incessant banter about "Clinton fatigue", especially the never-ending Whitewater crap, the Monica crap and the impeachment crap after Clinton's re-election, and how Gore's name was also being dragged through the mud because of that.

[Bluenorthwest]

62. You open with more characterizations of others.

Only idiots thought GW was not electable. To think that, you'd have to be either really daft or new to the game, as the Bush dynasty political machine was strong and GW himself was a good candidate. Note that Alexandra Pelosi knew GW was a serious contender and that's why she made a documentary film about his Primary campaign. Nancy' daughter. So I don't know what your fellow faceless Salon typists had to say, I do know that actual Democrats knew GW already and acted accordingly.
Being a pessimist is often just a jaded up form of ignorance. Unfounded pessimism is a form of faith based thinking. That's why it opens with 'mommy cuts your sammies for you' and crap like that rather than facts. Facts make a better argument than name calling.

[ananda]

35. Well, the nonstop barrage of rightwing media bias..

.. certainly does affect the brain.

[HereSince1628]

36. After my experience in Wisconsin, I see election prognostications darkly

and expect to convince no one of the rightness of my choice of candidate

[Dawgs]

37. Quit with the 'I know better than everyone else', bullshit. You're usually better than this.

And, you're wrong. This race is not close, and it hasn't been for months.

Look at the history of the state polls, and then look at Nate's site.

You may have a different agenda here, but you are still wrong.

[bigtree]

38. what's the purpose of this?

this isn't the first time you've lectured on the possibility of a Romney win. I'd like to say, 'no shit.'

What I'm not convinced of is the efficacy of these defeatist posts. I don't think they do a bit of good here. jmo.

[leveymg]

52. I don't think the purpose of the OP is "defeatist." It's more exhortation to greater effort.

Both parties (along with the corporate media) have a stake in the horse race narrative, and keeping it close (at least in appearance) until the final stretch when momentum seems to be everything.

[bigtree]

57. thanks for answering, leveymg

I'm, personally, not motivated by this type of appeal. Confident, optimistic folks are working just as hard as pessimistic folks.

Besides, so much of the effort of the opposition is to portray their effort as inevitable and dominant. Most of the positives folks cite are fact-based, so I'd let optimistic folks who are working hard toward this president's reelection revel in all of that and refrain from 'pissing in their wheaties' . There's quite a bit of presumption about the character and motivation of folks expressing optimism in Cali's premise. There are better ways of addressing complacency.

[fishwax]

71. You make a good point about pissing in people's wheaties

I don't think throwing the "defeatist" label at someone who says "It's going to take a lot of hard work to get out the vote in this election, or else we could be looking at a President Romney" (which is essentially what Michael Moore said) is particularly productive, either.

These threads are always amusing because of how people abstract their own reactions. You're right: "Confident, optimistic folks are working just as hard as pessimistic folks." Also: There are people who are confident and optimistic and sitting on the sidelines. There are people who are pessimistic and sitting on the sidelines. Some people are motivated (and like to/can motivate others) by the idea of a forceful victory, and like to project confidence in that possibility. That doesn't make them foolish. Some people are motivated (and like to/can motivate others) by focusing on the stakes and the threat. That doesn't make them defeatist.

[bigtree]

85. I re-read the op

I didn't really see the motivation part. I saw a slam on optimistic people:

"All the self-congratulatory stuff around here about how the RNC was a disaster . . .," and, how 'foolish' they are to believe . . .

It just has the effect of scolding. I don't personally know enough about folks here to be so presumptive about their thinking to assume that their optimism is making them lazy or something. I don't think the op does either.

I'll say this . . . I sure don't think this is a good or productive response to folks happy and confident in the wake of the republican convention. I think their foibles are opportunities and that makes me happy and motivated to work even harder. I think you have to make all sorts of negative presumptions about someone to assume the opposite. It's just icky and scolding. Ugh.

[fishwax]

94. I don't really disagree with you about the OP

I think there is an underlying exhortation there, but it's couched in language that definitely strikes a tone of a lecture or a scolding. I don't really blame people who are optimistic (for lack of a better word--I'm using the optimistic/pessimistic binary here but not endorsing it) for responding defensively in this thread.

At the same time, I also don't see anything defeatist in the OP. Nor did I see anything defeatist in what Michael Moore said, and my comments were more related towards my thoughts on that dust-up than on this OP which, while I agree with some of it in substance I disagree with in tone.

[Chorophyll]

68. I'm not really seeing that exhortation part of the OP.

I guess it's implied, but it's not there to be read.

[jimlup]

45. There are two parts we are misjudging....

When considering the legit possibility of a Romney win in November:

1. Most of the electorate - particularly the "undecided" have a very short memory and are very ignorant of politics

2. There will be a great deal of dirty corporate money in support of the Mittster.

On the other side there are a couple of key points as well:

1. Obama will win the debates by a wide margin

2. Some people will actually figure it out as it is pretty damn obvious

In the end I think we will pull this one out but it will be closer than we like and we will have to work hard to do it.

[bemildred]

47. 3.) Obama will eat Rmoney's lunch as a campaigner.

He's younger, he's smarter, he's more motivated, and he is the incumbent, just to mention a few things.

[KoKo]

60. As a campaigner yes....but getting youth to the polls....and dealing with

corruptible Voting Machines and Voter ID problems (which should have been addressed in the last four years) will be the big problem.

[randome]

67. Don't forget the demographics, either.

Everything is trending toward Progressives this election. And with Romney turning off important minority voting blocs, the actual numbers -and therefore the odds- favor Obama.

[bemildred]

69. Having watched the sea change when Raygun came in, I know it can happen.

"Past performance is no guarantee of future results."

We live in times of rapid, accelerating change, betting on the status quo is ALWAYS questionable.

[Bluenorthwest]

74. I'm deleting what I wrote I misread Reagan as Ryan...

So my comments were not applicable. Sorry...

[bemildred]

75. Well, I missed them, so we're cool. nt

[theinquisitivechad]

53. Concern noted. n/t

[WI_DEM]

56. You may not agree with what Cali is saying but don't tell a Good DUer

who has contributed a lot over the years that their 'concern noted' as if that DUer is some kind of troll or something.

[cali]

73. thanks for the kind words, WD

I had to laugh when I looked at the post count- not that we didn't all once have a low post count.

[Logical]

83. I think people are sick of the "concern" posts. Even from good duers.

[theinquisitivechad]

89. This is the credited response. n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

58. The polls, look to polls of elections past to KNOW what they are worth...which is not much.

Mike is a great guy, but his accuracy on election predictions and endorsements is far from stellar. The RNC convention was a disaster, that's not self congratulatory as we did not ruin it, they produced a huge bupke with low ratings and lower energy. To call it a disaster is to be critical of the Republicans. To be critical of Republicans is good, it is in fact part of how we will win this election. A Party that can not produce a good in house show is not likely to produce excellence in the rest of their campaign. The shambles is indicative of the state of the RNC.
What is your basis for saying gas prices up is good for Romney? I don't see it. You don't support your theory. You just declare it, and that's not enough for me. You are nervous. So? I know people who are nervous to ask for a table at a restaurant, nervous to drive at night....means zip to me that others are nervous.
To be blunt, your entire position seems to boil down to a freak out that there is an election going on which the other side will attempt to win. Of course people will vote for Willard, of course they will have moments, of course the polls will be polls. Every damn election is the same deal. Yes, to win an election requires going out and winning it, and no the rivals will never, ever concede prior to election day. So no matter what, no matter the closeness or lack of closeness in the final numbers, both sides will be saying 'we will win' no matter what.

[Tom Rinaldo]

61. Obama will probably win. Which means he might lose.

Never take anything for granted in a divided nation. Not when the Republicans have blank checks from Billionaires to spend. Not when their ethics arpund the concept of "one man (person) one vote" are questionable. Not while unemployment remains over 8%. Not when a major Obama debate gaffe can't be ruled out.

The thing is, we need to want to win this big and work to make that happe, No margin of victory can be too large. Holding onto the White House will be a victory if we manage it, but we need a blue tide. We need America to wake up to who today's Republican Party works for. We need this election to go strongly Democratic, beyond any margin of doubt or potential manipulation or basis for Supreme Court intevention. To get that we have to work for it. No time available for coasting on optimism.

[MineralMan]

64. Obama will win. Electoral votes are the only thing that counts,

not nationwide poll results. However, this election is crucial in Congress. That's why we need to do an all out GOTV effort to elect Democrats to as many House and Senate seats as we possibly can. A huge turnout is the most important thing of all. And don't forget the state legislatures. In Minnesota, for example, the Republicans hold a tiny majority in both houses of its legislature. We have a Democratic Governor. It is essential to get rid of that Republican majority. We can, and probably will do that.

Every state with a close margin in its state legislator, and every congressional district where a strong Democratic challenge to a sitting Republican exists is a crucial district. We must turn out Democrats in record numbers. If we can do that, we can regain majorities and strengthen other majorities.

I'm not concerned about President Obama's reelection. I'm concerned with every other race in the country.


GOTV 2012! Take someone with you to the polling place. Take two people with you.

[left is right]

65. I think many of the religious right will jest stay home or not vote for any president

Preachers and church leaders spent much of the 80s and 90s preaching/teaching against cults and named Mormonism as one of them. I think most fundamentalists over the age of 35 will be unable to vote for Romney because of that. Then you add in his extreme wealth--gained through predatory financial dealings, his cruelty to the family dog, and his total lack of any connection with the common man. I think that all equates to a bad taste in their mouths that will not allow them to vote for him—even if they do not admit it aloud. They may rah-rah jim right up to election day and then stay home

[Fire Walk With Me]

66. Republicans always vote. Always. They must be out-voted.

[rock]

72. I actually do feel that Obama will win handily

Whether or not he will be the declared the winner is certainly in doubt. That aside, I believe you may have a point. It is practically impossible to tell what's going on in the voter's mind with the accuracy of current polls.

[sellitman]

77. We need to double down on registering new Dem Voters

And we all need to vote! If we do both things then we will prevail.

Right now the RepubliCONS are registering more voters in the States they have targeted with these nefarious voter ID laws.

[randome]

79. The truth should always be front and center.

Not complacency and not excessive worry. The truth.

The consequences of being complacent need no explanation.

But the consequences of excessive worry do. I'm not saying that's what your post is, Cali.

Worrying too much means we may overreach and help to cause the very outcome we want to avoid. We run the risk of assigning to our enemies more power than they deserve.

It's the same thing I've said about Rove these past couple of months or so. If we continue to believe he is some criminal mastermind who pulls our puppet strings, then we have defined ourselves as puppets.

The TRUTH is that he failed to prevent Palin from making a mockery of the GOP. He failed to help get an electable candidate for this election. He failed to get Akin to quit being a nuisance to the GOP.

These are not the 'accomplishments' of a genius.

And as for today's GOP. The TRUTH, as I see it, is that they are falling to pieces, hollowed out from the inside by the Tea Party and eviscerated on the outside by ruinous candidates like Romney and Ryan.

We do not need to over-reach this election. We need to keep up the attacks and hit them where they are weakest.

But we should NEVER make the mistake of seeing things in either an optimistic or pessimistic point of view.

We should always acknowledge the truth. The truth is that we have an inventive, energetic candidate against an uninteresting, gaffe-prone wanna-be.

That's what we need to keep in mind as we attack. The Truth.

[tabasco]

80. I'd hate too see something like this on November 8

[Capt. Obvious]

81. My favorite lines here are, "pay no attention to the polls"

or, "that poll is bullshit" when a poll not favoring Obama is posted.

I also love the Warren/Brown threads here - they bring out ostriches in massive numbers.

[dionysus]

90. i disagree Cali, i think Obama will win handily.. my fear is the Senate and House...

[TNLib]

91. Recent polls are showing a tighter race so It's getting a little scary

and I do think it could be a close election. That being said I don't think the sky is falling yet.

[ProSense]

92. Electoral Vote Math: Obama 193, Romney 0

Electoral Vote Math: Obama 193, Romney 0
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021254030

That's a really good analysis, and I doubt anyone is going to become complacent regarding the 193 electoral votes let alone the other nearly 80 votes that are needed.

"All the self-congratulatory stuff around here about how the RNC was a disaster and the President is headed for an easy victory, and the polls are manufactured and it's not really close, makes me really nervous. "

The RNC was a disaster, even Republicans know it. Mitt's speech is even being criticized by the likes of Bill Kristol.

Acknowledging the failure of the RNC isn't complacency.

Also, there maybe a handful of Obama detractors and Obama supporters who believe this election is in the bag for Obama, who think all he has to do is coast, but the majority of both groups see a tough fight in a tough climate, which includes a good chunk of the media being right-wing complicit.

[AverageJoe90]

125. Good point!

TBH, though, I'm not quite as optimistic about that, because voter suppression doesn't seem to be accounted for....it's a good analysis, though.

[Safetykitten]

95. Well Cali, agree, but it will be quite a blow-out. A Carteresque type blowout.

We don't really pay attention to the stuff here that makes or breaks an election:

The economy...it's ok.
The economy...it's improving.
The economy...not such a big deal.

Well, surprise, it is the economy. It is completely the economy. And the reality? It sucks.

As predicted by me and a very few others back in the economic fiasco times after the moron left, Obama did the exact opposite of what he should of done. The banks? Fine. Wall Street? Fine. Any people go to jail? No. So now he is, and will be blamed for what he did, rightly or not, by the very same people he saved. They know that a Romney is in their best interests.

It is not going to be close election. Look for Obama to carry California, Oregon, Washington, DC, Maryland, and Illinois. That's about it.

We will know by very early election day that Rmoney will be President. And a shocked WH will wonder why.

[Poll_Blind]

99. FYI, someone tried to shut you down instead of debating you. Jury told 'em to sit and spin.

I was Juror #6, BTW.

Mail Message
At Sun Sep 2, 2012, 11:24 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Well Cali, agree, but it will be quite a blow-out. A Carteresque type blowout.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1254582

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

Predicting Obama loss: It is not going to be close election. Look for Obama to carry California, Oregon, Washington, DC, Maryland, and Illinois. That's about it.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Sep 2, 2012, 11:40 AM, and the Jury voted 1-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: a very pessimistic post, and one I strongly disagree with, but I don't think the poster is advocating a Romney win.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Just because you predict a certain outcome doesn't mean you approve of the outcome.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: So someone made a prediction-big deal. Why hide it?
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Is predicting the loss of any Democratic seat against the rules? WTF? Where is that in the Community Standards or rules? I disagree with poster that he will lose but they're spot on that Obama will be turned on by the banks and Wall Street.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Terra Alta]

100. I was Juror #1

I disagree with the post, but we can't hide every post we disagree with, or every post on DU would be hidden.

[ProSense]

105. Not a very good

sage: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021237384

[Puglover]

111. SK posts this bullshit consistently.

Predicting a loss is one thing.

"We will know by very early election day that Rmoney will be President. And a shocked WH will wonder why."

Goes way WAY beyond what should be acceptable on a Democratic board. It's asking for and wanting a loss. It's bullshit.

[frazzled]

102. A bit Gloomy Gus, don't you think?

I'm not sure where you're getting your polling facts, but let's take a look at Nate Silver's latest assessment, based on the polls (He was right on 48 out of 50 states last time). From Sept. 1:

Of the 270 electoral votes needed to win, Silver has Obama currently at 305.5 (+7.9 since August 25) and Romney at 232.5 (-7.9 since August 25).

Chances of winning: Obama 73.1% (+3.8 since August 25); Romney 26.9% (-3.8 since August 25)

Popular vote: Obama 50.9%, Romney 47.9%

For details see http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

Now, a lot can happen in the next 2 months, but it would have to be a major implosion for Obama to win only 4 states plus DC, given this scenario. I think your prediction is more of a wish than anything based in the current reality.

[Webster Green]

106. Obama is going to lose NY?

No shit?

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

118. And MA apparently. nt

[Ikonoklast]

126. Must suck for you seeing Rmoney and Ryan pissing it all away.

Bookmarked.

[NYC Liberal]

130. LOL! I am bookmarking this post to repost on election day.

We don't really pay attention to the stuff here that makes or breaks an election:

The economy...it's ok.
The economy...it's improving.
The economy...not such a big deal.

Well, surprise, it is the economy. It is completely the economy. And the reality? It sucks.

As predicted by me and a very few others back in the economic fiasco times after the moron left, Obama did the exact opposite of what he should of done. The banks? Fine. Wall Street? Fine. Any people go to jail? No. So now he is, and will be blamed for what he did, rightly or not, by the very same people he saved. They know that a Romney is in their best interests.

It is not going to be close election. Look for Obama to carry California, Oregon, Washington, DC, Maryland, and Illinois. That's about it.

We will know by very early election day that Rmoney will be President. And a shocked WH will wonder why.

So, your prediction:

Obama - 97
Romney: 441

Completely laughable. I hope you aren't really serious. In what dream world do you have Obama losing NY (he's up 62-33), VT (up 62-25), MA (up 55-39), HI (up 72-27), DE (up 62-37), NJ (up 51-37)...etc?

[cali]

134. I think you're wrong.

Look, likability is a huge factor. Why? because trust is a huge factor and people tend not to trust those they don't like. Romney is not Reagan and unlikable candidates rarely win.


and the people going to jail stuff is laughable as per its impact on how people vote.

[Alduin]

107. There's no way Romney is going to win.

I don't believe people are stupid enough to vote for him.

Well, the did (s)elect Dubya...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

110. He's A 3-2 Favorite At The Betting Sites

That seems about right to me. It is more likely than not he will be reelected but this isn't 92, 96, or 08 for our side when our candidate was a prohibitive favorite at this time.

[andym]

112. The economic numbers for August, September and October may decide it

Last edited Sun Sep 2, 2012, 07:15 PM - Edit history (1)

If unemployment falls under 8%, by election day, Obama has an excellent chance.
If unemployment rises above 8.5%, Romney will likely win.

For the other scenarios, intangible factors come into play: the debates may very well be decisive.

[goclark]

113. Hate to believe it

Cali but....it is still a real chance.

[Prism]

114. The complacency is troubling, if only because of the effects down ticket

I find DU hard to read right now, because not only do I not think this is all in hand, but there just doesn't seem to be the fire in the belly necessary to affect Congressional numbers in the way we'd like the to be affected so that a Democratic agenda can be pursued in the next two to four years.

There's definitely a different spirit here on DU compared to '08. It doesn't feel like people are working very hard. I generally skim here most days to pick up bits and pieces of policy, but instead DU is mainly photoshops and jokes and lazy "All Republicans are poopy heads!" posts.

Part of this, I think, is that partisanship has increased dramatically during election season. Partisanship is fine, but it dulls thinking. People tend to be sharper when they perceive their survival is threatened. Complacent, comfortable people get lazy.

DU's thinking right now is very dull. I hope that changes before November. I think President Obama will eke this out. But I think Congress will remain very Republican (with the Senate in serious peril), and we'll simply end up with two more years of the same shit.

[Odin2005]

116. No way they can win legitimately.

If they win it's because they stole it via disenfranchisement of minorities and rigged machines.

[Cali_Democrat]

121. We get it. You're worried, nervous and concerned. So what are you gonna do about it?

Making post after post about it on DU does what exactly? It doesn't do shit!

I'm going to be in the Las Vegas area twice before the election working my ass off just like I did in 2008....walking door to door. I'm also gonna phone bank. What are you gonna do?

Sitting on your butt and telling us you're worried and concerned won't do shit to get Obama reelected. All your doing is bringing people down to your level.

Don't be such a Debbie Downer.

[lynne]

122. I totally understand where you're coming from -

- with regards to the "self-congratulatory stuff" and such that we see on DU. But DU has never had a realistic view of politics, no matter what the economy is or what the polls say. It's almost as though some have blinders on - they see only what they want to see and some highly resent when any concern is expressed or any situation not favorable to Obama is pointed out. Then it's "kill the messenger" time.

I think it's too early to predict a winner but this is not going to be as easy as the last election. It will be much closer. I see huge differences in the area I'm in as compared to the last election. Romney yard signs in what had been strictly Democratic neighborhoods and I've lived here 27 years. Husband and I commented it was the first time we'd seen a republican sign on our road.

No cake walk this time yet I guarantee if Romney wins, the cries here will be that the election was stolen. IMO, the election hinges on the economy and I sure hope there's significant improvement before November.

[Liberal_in_LA]

124. yes, remember how sure DU was that Dems would win that Wisconsin election

[nolabels]

132. I remember how Bush stole the election a couple of times

If there is any way the crooks (billionaires supporting Rmoney) can find to steal the election they will.
Complacency is like opening up the front door for the crooks and saying "come on in"

[cali]

133. I found that so painful

It was clear that Walker was going to survive handily. It's like the Warren/Brown contest in MA. Odds are not in her favor.

I don't know what it is about politics that skews the critical thinking abilities of quite a few people.

[BeeBee]

127. One way or the other, we need every single vote! n/t

[Jack Sprat]

129. I KNOW

but we aren't happy about it. We'll do what we can to reelect the President. Most of us are like you and not overconfident at all.

[DonCoquixote]

131. Rec

Ok, let's say Obama clearly wins the popular vote, we know how that worked in 2000.

Let's say there is a clear case of crimes against a voter in Florida, let's say some democrat like myself gets shot at the polls, the GOP will not care.

Let's say there is a clear case where people get caugth stealing ballots, the media will not care.

Does this mean it is hopeless, far from it,

It means we have the chance to truly mobilize, shove our votes down the thrat of those that would degrades us, and leave them coking with a broken jaw!