Skip to comments.
Axelrod: We may not need to win swing-state independents
Green Room ^
| 10-31-2012
| Ed Morrissey
Posted on 10/31/2012 8:58:17 AM PDT by Sir Napsalot
(snip) daveweigel ✔@daveweigel
Axelrod on independents in swing states: "We may not win these voters but we may not have to win these voters."
31 Oct 12
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
TOPICS: Campaign News
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-24 next last
To: Sir Napsalot
Keep thinking that Axelrod.
2
posted on
10/31/2012 8:59:58 AM PDT
by
ConservativeInPA
(In a previous life I was ...)
To: Sir Napsalot
typical double speak, you don’t win the election by losing independents, it just does not happen.
3
posted on
10/31/2012 9:00:14 AM PDT
by
sunmars
To: Sir Napsalot
AxleShaft giving up on 47% of America?
4
posted on
10/31/2012 9:00:25 AM PDT
by
Paladin2
To: Sir Napsalot
Axelrod acknowledging they may lose independents -
Quoting Biden:
“This is a BFD!”
5
posted on
10/31/2012 9:01:56 AM PDT
by
Sir Napsalot
(Pravda + Useful Idiots = CCCP; JournOList + Useful Idiots = DopeyChangey!)
To: Sir Napsalot
"We may not win these voters but we may not have to win these voters."He must know they have enough dead voters and enough illegal voters in place.
6
posted on
10/31/2012 9:04:45 AM PDT
by
Spunky
(Those)
To: Sir Napsalot
they still REALLY think they can cobble together a winning coalition of minorities, government employees, welfare takers and union hacks, eh?
To: Sir Napsalot
They can still count on dead people and illegal aliens, the Democrats’ most reliable voting blocks.
8
posted on
10/31/2012 9:06:10 AM PDT
by
Bubba_Leroy
(The Obamanation Continues)
To: Sir Napsalot
People who are winning don’t talk like this.
9
posted on
10/31/2012 9:06:11 AM PDT
by
Shadow44
To: Sir Napsalot
He’s figuring voter fraud may be able to pick up the slack.
To: Sir Napsalot
Keep telling yourself that Ahole-rod
11
posted on
10/31/2012 9:07:10 AM PDT
by
V_TWIN
(obama=where there's smoke, there's mirrors)
To: Sir Napsalot
Have they already “found” enough votes to overcome the loss of the Indies? Keep a sharp eye out for these thugs, you poll watchers in the swing states.
To: Sir Napsalot
The only way Obama can win without independents is if they get massive Democrat turnout and the GOP largely stays home. However nothing shown by any of the pollsters show this happening. In fact just the opposite is what is being seen.
13
posted on
10/31/2012 9:08:24 AM PDT
by
GonzoGOP
(There are millions of paranoid people in the world and they are all out to get me.)
To: LS; Ravi
14
posted on
10/31/2012 9:08:45 AM PDT
by
Tennessean4Bush
(An optimist believes we live in the best of all possible worlds. A pessimist fears this is true.)
To: Sir Napsalot
Like his boss, Axelrod can’t do math either. The breakdown in most of the swing states is around one-third each for democrats, republicans, and independents. Assuming that zero republicans will vote for the Hero of Benghazi, the dems need to get more than half of the independents to break 50%. Of course, the percentages vary somewhat among the various swing states, but it is almost impossible for either side to prevail without a majority of the independents.
15
posted on
10/31/2012 9:09:57 AM PDT
by
TruthShallSetYouFree
(Benghazi murders due to spontaneous riot over a video. Or terrorism. Depends on the day.)
To: ConservativeInPA
No, he's correct.
What do you need when you're hopelessly the loser ?
see ?
16
posted on
10/31/2012 9:17:28 AM PDT
by
knarf
(I say things that are true ... I have no proof ... but they're true)
To: sunmars
Pretty sure Bush lost independents in 2000.
17
posted on
10/31/2012 9:18:40 AM PDT
by
Reagan79
(Today, I consider myself the wisest Latina Woman on the face of the earth.)
To: Sir Napsalot
Given the dramatic drop in D participation in absentees in OH, that's just silly beyond all reason.
If Romney wins so much as 1% of the Is in OH, CT, WI, and IA he wins. If he carries indies by 5-6, he likely carries PA and MI and if he wins indies by 12-15, he takes OR
18
posted on
10/31/2012 9:22:39 AM PDT
by
LS
("Castles Made of Sand, Fall in the Sea . . . Eventually (Hendrix))
To: Reagan79
I think I found that he had 48% and Gore had 46%.
19
posted on
10/31/2012 9:29:31 AM PDT
by
paul544
To: Sir Napsalot
They are going to need RAT turnout to be +5 or greater to pull it off.
I guess it is possible, but given our enthusiasm and our lead with Indies, I find it very hard to believe.
Oh well. At least Obama can still be President of Quinnipiac.
20
posted on
10/31/2012 9:55:42 AM PDT
by
comebacknewt
(Newt (sigh) what could have been . . .)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-24 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson