Sure you are. (You proved it in post #56, re: Virgil Goode & Tom Hoefling: ...either of them is that they can't win. Demonstrate to me that a vote for either of them is anything other than one less vote Obama needs to win, and I'll reconsider.
I mean what do you want me to do? Post the '08 Obama results for those 15 blue states? Show you the 2012 Summer polls for those 15 blue states?
When it comes to Romney's chances of winning a blue state, you don't seemingly want to deal with the electoral reality of state by state corporate results. Instead, you just want to focus on some fantasy "I'll-pull-this-out-of-nowhere" illusion popular vote scheme & break everything down vote by vote in those blue states.
Yet when it come to measuring Goode or Hoefling's chances of winning, you do take it for granted that they won't win a blue state like Oregon.
Let me give you "breaking news": Mitt Romney won't win Oregon. Virgil Goode, who's on the ballot in Oregon, won't win Oregon, either. NEITHER WILL WIN OREGON. You want to inconsistently take it for granted that Goode won't win Oregon; but not take it for granted that Romney won't win Oregon.
You look with your eyes wide open @ Virgil Goode's chances in Oregon; but when it comes to analyzing Mitt Romney's chances in Oregon, you close them & conclude, "Nope. Not taking the obvious for granted."
That is called exercising a selective fantasy. (You are simply inconsistent)
I mean what do you want me to do? Post the '08 Obama results for those 15 blue states? Show you the 2012 Summer polls for those 15 blue states?
None of that would prove anything, but you already know that. What I want to see is some sign that either of their campaigns is making headway in getting their candidate to a point where they can win this thing, such as national support on a scale of what Obama can count on. Can you include something like that in your next post?
When it comes to Romney's chances of winning a blue state, you don't seemingly want to deal with the electoral reality of state by state corporate results. Instead, you just want to focus on some fantasy "I'll-pull-this-out-of-nowhere" illusion popular vote scheme & break everything down vote by vote in those blue states.
Anyone who checks the post you're replying to will find nothing like that in it. I made myself clear in my reply to you, but I'll repeat. Many of those "liberal" states may become "too close to call" states by November if things don't improve. If that happens, then our votes could very much be in play in those states, so I'm not taking an automatic win for Obama for granted in any of them, including mine.
Yet when it come to measuring Goode or Hoefling's chances of winning, you do take it for granted that they won't win a blue state like Oregon.
OK, demonstrate for me that either of them can win in any state, even the most Conservative.
Let me give you "breaking news": Mitt Romney won't win Oregon.
Let me give you an English lesson. "Mitt Romney won't win Oregon." is a prediction, not "breaking news".
Virgil Goode, who's on the ballot in Oregon, won't win Oregon, either. NEITHER WILL WIN OREGON. You want to inconsistently take it for granted that Goode won't win Oregon; but not take it for granted that Romney won't win Oregon.
Because if things take a turn for the worse in Oregon and many voters decide they want to change course, who do you think those voters will vote for? Goode? Hoefling?
You look with your eyes wide open @ Virgil Goode's chances in Oregon; but when it comes to analyzing Mitt Romney's chances in Oregon, you close them & conclude, "Nope. Not taking the obvious for granted."
Goode doesn't have a chance, Romney does.
That is called exercising a selective fantasy. (You are simply inconsistent)
Romney has a chance of winning the election. The only other candidate that can be said of is Obama. Demonstrate to me that a Conservative alternative can win, and I'm in. Otherwise, your choices are Romney and Obama, so choose your poison.