Skip to comments.Why Obama Will Lose
Posted on 07/08/2012 3:33:41 PM PDT by djone
Understanding history, today I am even more convinced of a resounding Romney victory. 32 years ago at this moment in time, Reagan was losing by 9 points to Carter. Romney is right now running even in polls. So why do most pollsters give Obama the edge?
First, most pollsters are missing one ingredient- common sense. Here is my gut instinct. Not one American who voted for McCain 4 years ago will switch to Obama. Not one in all the land. But many millions of people who voted for an unknown Obama 4 years ago are angry, disillusioned, turned off, or scared about the future. Voters know Obama now- and that is a bad harbinger. Now to an analysis of the voting blocks that matter in U.S. politics:
*Black voters. Obama has nowhere to go but down among this group. His endorsement of gay marriage has alienated many black church-going Christians. He may get 88% of their vote instead of the 96% he got in 2008. This is not good news for Obama.
*Hispanic voters. Obama has nowhere to go but down among this group. If Romney picks Rubio as his VP running-mate the GOP may pick up an extra 10% to 15% of Hispanic voters (plus lock down Florida). This is not good news for Obama.
*Jewish voters. Obama has been weak in his support of Israel. Many Jewish voters and big donors are angry and disappointed. I predict Obama's Jewish support drops from 78% in 2008 to the low 60s. This is not good news for Obama.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
*Catholic voters. Obama won a majority of Catholics in 2008. That wont happen again. Out of desperation to please women, Obama went to war with the Catholic Church over contraception. Now he is being sued by the Catholic Church. Majority lost. This is not good news for Obama.
*Small Business owners. Because I ran for Vice President last time around, and I'm a small businessman myself, I know literally thousands of small business owners. At least 40% of them in my circle of friends, fans and supporters voted for Obama 4 years ago to give someone different a chance. I warned them that he would pursue a war on capitalism and demonize anyone who owned a business...that hed support unions over the private sector in a big way...that he'd overwhelm the economy with spending and debt. My friends didnt listen. Four years later, I can't find one person in my circle of small business owner friends voting for Obama. Not one. This is not good news for Obama.
*Blue collar working class whites. Do I need to say a thing? White working class voters are about as happy with Obama as Boston Red Sox fans feel about the New York Yankees. This is not good news for Obama.
*Suburban moms. The issue isnt contraception its having a job to pay for contraception. Obamas economy frightens these moms. They are worried about putting food on the table. They fear for their childrens future. This is not good news for Obama.
*Military Veterans. McCain won this group by 10 points. Romney is winning by 24 points. The more our military vets got to see of Obama, the more they disliked him. This is not good news for Obama.
Add it up. Is there one major group where Obama has gained since 2008? Will anyone in America wake up on election day saying I didnt vote for Obama 4 years ago. But hes done such a fantastic job, I cant wait to vote for him today. Does anyone feel that a vote for Obama makes their job more secure?
Forget the polls. My gut instincts as a Vegas oddsmaker and common sense small businessman tell me this will be a historic landslide and a world-class repudiation of Obamas radical and risky socialist agenda. It's Reagan-Carter all over again.
Would be Reagan Carter over again, if we actually had a candidate that would fight back against Obama and espouse Conservatism instead of moderation.
“Why Obama Will Lose”
Obama Campaign Gears Up For Massive Voter Fraud
The first two replies cover my main concerns.
Obama is more ruthless than the writer thinks.
Romney is more squishy than the writer thinks.
These two factors may spell disaster.
Give this man a second term and he'll TAKE a third. I can hear his campaign speech four years from today when he runs for his third term...
I can hear it now:
"The republicans make no secret about it," Obama would say running for his third term. "They want to go back to the day when a two hundred fifty year old out-of date piece of paper written by a bunch of slave-owners is consulted before anything in america can move forward."
"Their philosophy is simple: if it's not on the paper then you are on your own. If you're a Latino who just happens to be on the wrong side of the border without documentation, tough luck. You don't get to vote" Obama would say. "You don't have health care, you're on your own and if you're living in Europe, Africa or South America where your economy is directly influenced by what goes on here in the united states. Too Bad. They'll tell you that you have no say who leads this nation. They'll just tell you there in Germany or Greece that if it's not in their outdated manual, you have no right to vote!"
>> Not one American who voted for McCain 4 years ago will switch to Obama. Not one in all the land. <<
Browse Free Republic — way more than one. And yes, many are match challenged.
Barack Hussein will win.
Other than Teachers and Government workers, I don’t see anyone as better off with Odinga’s cousin.
Textbook example of a missed opportunity. The best we can hope for is a Conservative running mate.
Romney is no Reagan, and this isn’t 1980. And if this author thinks Hussein will only take 88% of the black vote, I want some of what he’s smoking.
Those who have no intentions of working at all.
Between the 3 groups shown that already covers over 50% of the popular vote.
Assuming the new poor are happy on government assistance, assuming nobody on assistance is a retiree that votes GOP, etc.
I've yet to see one FReeper indicate they're voting for Obungler Not one. You must be saying if one doesn't vote for Romney, one is voting for Obungler.
Do I have that correct?
FDR was supposed to lose resoundingly to Alf Landon in 1936, too. After all, the polling data taken from telephone interviews, was overwhelmingly in favor of the GOP candidate, and was probably a factor in the Landon Campaign working less assiduously than they might have.
The huge flaw in that polling? The large majority of Americans then did not have access to a home phone, and were never polled as a result. So a large underground of anti-GOP sentiment went unreported.
Perception is everything. Reality doesn’t even come a close second.
>>You must be saying if one doesn’t vote for Romney, one is voting for Obungler.
Do I have that correct?<<
Yes. Arithmetic is funny that way. Elections are a zero-sum game.
1. The Devil doesn’t lose.
2. In order for him to even have a chance at losing, he would first need to have an opponent, which he does not have.
McPain himself might vote for Obama if he didn’t in 2008.
They can only cheat if it is close, this won’t be.
I will simply say this: Obama has not lost until he has lost. This man and the people around him are playing for keeps.
Romney just has to stay on message about what this race is about, the nation cannot survive another Obama term
Obama voters who are turned off (youth voters in particular) will likely not turn out in large numbers, which will also effect other offices as well.
No, he will not.
The % may be higher, but with fewer voters.
Moreover, whenever Obamacare has been an issue (as it will be in this election), it has lost big.
And you are not factoring in those who voted for Obama who will stay home or vote 3rd Party as well.
The Devil always loses.
Oh, forgot to add...don't you mean "binary?" One or the other?
>>Oh, forgot to add...don’t you mean “binary?” One or the other?<<
No, I meant what I said.
HOWEVER, Elections are held in the Real World so a 3rd Party Candidate has a pretty close to zero probability of winning. Especially when such a candidate does not exist 4 months before the election.
Look at 1992: bill clinton won with a mere plurality: 43% Bush got 37.5, Perot 18.9%. Had there been no Perot, Bush would have won and we would not have had clinton, which means we would not have had 9/11 (among the many long-term evils he visited on our country).
Similar math applies this cycle, but the difference will be razor thin. A tiny % sent away from Romney will give obozo the election.
A vote for a 3rd party (or no vote at all) is a vote for obozo.
>>And you are not factoring in those who voted for Obama who will stay home or vote 3rd Party as well.<<
They are voting for Romney, which we should take advantage of. When the enemy is making a mistake, do not copy him.
Mathematically speaking, it’s half-vote for Obungle. But I hear you.
It is racist to oppose voter fraud, don’cha know?
>>They might not vote for Romney, but they aren’t voting for Obama.<<
That is the net effect of their votes. The result is the same as if they had dropped the lever for barry.
You obviously took public school arithmetic - or public school logic. A McCain voter who stays home or votes third party or votes only the down ballot races is not the same thing mathematically as a McCain voter who switches and votes for Obama.
Not that hard, really. Zero sum, maybe, but there is a one vote swing and a two vote swing. A switch is a two vote swing. A stay at home is only one.
>>Not that hard, really. Zero sum, maybe, but there is a one vote swing and a two vote swing. A switch is a two vote swing. A stay at home is only one.<<
It is still a vote for him. The net effect of a complete swing is indeed 2 votes, but that doesn’t change the fact it is a vote for him. But that is a Schroedinger’s cat type analysis.
The net is only half what a true switch would be mathematically. Both help Obama, but one helps twice what the other does. That’s a mathematical and logical and undeniable fact, period.
Perhaps in Heaven, but how about here?
Wishful drinkin’ !
Try and explain baseball statistics to him/her. I’d love to pop corn and watch the fun....
God is simply using him as a tool.
It isn't a vote for anyone else.
Well, I have to say that I do believe that, but I have some apprehension, I can’t lie about that.
Not only does the Devil appear to be winning at this time, he is wrecking face.
Jesus Christ, please help us.
In fact, I think more Obama voters will be 'nonvoters' then former McCain voters.
So, overall, the fact remains, McCain voters aren't switching to Obama, but many Obama voters are going to vote GOP.
We don’t have the internal polls that Romney & Obama have so it’s best, over the next several weeks, to watch which states they go to, and where they are spending their money.
Right now Obama is flooding Iowa with over five million dollars in TV & radio money & yet he is still running behind Romney by several points. I believe he beat McCain by 10 points there in 2008.
Read the Book of Revelation-we win!
Yes. Arithmetic is funny that way. Elections are a zero-sum game.
Wrong -- feelings such as anger and frustration are funny in how they pervert arithmetic.
And when Dumb says "election sare a zero-sum game," he's partly grasping, but not fully, the reality that in the voting booth, it is materially and mathematically impossible to vote "against" anything; you may only cast a ballot FOR something, even when it comes to propositions. You don't vote "against" a proposition -- you vote FOR passing it, or you vote FOR nixing it. As for candidates, you cannot vote "against" a candidate; you can only vote FOR a different candidate to prevent the candidate you dislike from winning. Not quite a "zero sum game," but Dumb is apparently built too low to the ground to catch that particular ball.
Dumb, mathematically and materially, there is only ONE WAY you can vote for Obama, and that is to mark his name on your ballot. Arithmetic is very straightforward that way.
What's "funny" is overhearing one Democrat telling another, "I'm voting third party this time -- screw Obama," and his pal says, "That's the same as a vote for Romney!" -- and then coming on here to see folks like Dumb saying that this poor stupid bastard Democrat doesn't even know he's voting for Obama anyway because "arithmetic is funny that way."
But actually, feelings and emotions like anger and frustration are "funny" in how they provoke people to bastardize plain arithmetic.
... and his mandate was thus so weak -- a full 57% of the popular vote opposed him -- that he got his ass kicked in the mid terms and we had the Republican Revolution. Republicans would probably never have been able to storm Congress if Clinton had gotten a majority or if HWB had been re-elected.
Cyber, Dumb is full of crap when it comes to his pet theories and fuzzy math with regard to what a third party vote is worth. His handle is extremely appropriate. I am going to vote third party not because I think the candidate I vote for will win, but because I know it will contribute to decreasing the popular vote mandate of the bastard I know WILL win, Obama or Romney. Voting to deny a popular mandate for whichever bastard it ends up being, is the only way I can vote at the top of the ticket in a way that will help the conservaties I'll be voting for down-ticket.
And Dumbo, because he is angry and frustrated, continues to foment the mathematical fallacy that A vote for a 3rd party (or no vote at all) is a vote for obozo. It is Dumbo's version of pure entitlement thinking -- he thinks Romney is entitled to any conservative's vote and that not voting for him "is a vote for Obama" EXACTLY the same way that politicians think that holding to the same budget as last year rather than increasing it as scheduled, is a "budget cut."
Again, here is what you KNOW is true: Mathematically and materially, there is only ONE WAY for you to vote for Obama, and that is to mark his name on your ballot.
There is also only ONE WAY to vote for government tyranny -- and a whole helluva lot of good but frightened conservatives are on the verge of doing it.
Cripes. You've got your election math scrambled six ways to Sunday.
"Voting against" and "half votes" are both sophistries.
For heaven's sake, get a grip and lose the emotion-fueled mathematical rationalizing in order to demonize those who refuse to vote the same as you.
There's only one way to vote for a candidate, and that's to mark his name on your ballot; there's only one way to vote for authoritarian tyranny, and that is to vote for a politician who promotes it.
It is SIMPLE ARITHMETIC.