Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

Varchild2008 (85.29)

How Mitt Romney is FAR ahead of Obama

Recs

13

September 17, 2012 – Comments (28)

Mitt Romney already has the 270 electoral votes to win this November as our next President of the United States.

You won't hear that from NPR, CNN, PBS, MSNBC, FOX NEWS, NYT, ABC, CBS, NBC, etc.

You'll hear it from me.....with the following break down of states Mitt Romney winning:


1)  Alabama (9)                                          8)  Alaska (3)

2)  Arkansas (6)                                         9)  Idaho (4)
 
3)  Kansas (6)                                           10) Kentucky (8)
 
4)  Louisiana (8)                                        11) Mississippi (6)

5)  Nebraska (5)                                        12) Oklahoma (7)

6)  Utah (6)                                                13) West Virginia (5)

7)  Wyoming   (3)                                       14) Montana  (3)

15) North Dakota (3)                                  22) Missouri (10)

16) South Dakota (3)                                 23) South Carolina (9)

17) Tennessee (11)                                  *24) North Carolina (15)

18)  Texas (38)                                         *25) Florida  (29)

19)  Arizona (11)                                      *26)  Iowa  (6)

20)  Georgia (16)                                      *27) Virginia (13)

21)  Indiana (11)                                       *28) Wisconsin (10)

*29) Colorado (9)

145 EVs +  128 EVs = 273

Total needed to win? 270

Notice what's missing?  OHIO!   Not necessary to win the Presidency this year.

The ASTERISK states that I claim ROMNEY is winning are entirely based on RIGHT-LEANING pollsters latest data from Real Clear Politics.

Taking out the LEFT-LEANING pollsters data you get the following States in the ROMNEY column
this way:

1) Virginia = Romney +4

2) Florida = Romney +1 (Survey USA + PPP + NBC/WSJ/Marist taking out of the equation)

3) Wisconsin = Romney +1 (Leaving only Rasmussen's poll in this case)

4) North Carolina = Romney + 4.8 (Leading 4.8 regardless if you strip out PPP (D) and ELON UNIV.)

5) Colorado = Romney +0.5 (keeping only Rasmussen and Gravis Marketing)

6) Iowa = Romney +2 (Taking only Rasmussen's poll)

Of course this means having to have an awful lot of FAITH in Rasmussen + Gravis Marketing
+ AIF/McLaughlin (R) that the polling data is correct and distorted.

But do you see what is going on right now?

I can easily paint a picture of ROMNEY leading every single state right now that he needs
to lead in to win the Presidency simply by picking and chosing which ever Polling Firm leans
to the RIGHT or is considered more friendly to the RIGHT.

Right now Romney is behind in OHIO. Romney is closer in New Hampshire and Nevada.
A Victory in both of those states, but a loss in OHIO, would also help to offset OHIO.
So, Romney is ahead to begin with and here we see plenty of OPTIONS for ROMNEY to run up the score.

But seriously? Out of all of the states listed above the worst state for Romney taking all of the polls into consideration that Realclear Politics does leaves you with an OBAMA +3 or better for ROMNEY.

So when planning out your portfolio investments.....You dang right you'd better start thinking about a ROMNEY victory.  Can you say "DEFENSE SECTOR RALLY?" 

28 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On September 17, 2012 at 6:02 PM, Varchild2008 (85.29) wrote:

if Romney wins OHIO + Nevada + New Hampshire you have a 301 Electoral College Vote landslide.

In those 3 interesting states that Romney doesn't even need to win you have the following from RIGHT LEANING pollsters:

1)  OHIO  =  OBAMA + 3    (With Rasumussen + Gravis)

2)  NEW HAMPSHIRE = OBAMA +5  (Just Rasmussen kept but notice how DATED the Rasmussen poll is)

3)  NEVADA = OBAMA +5   (Again, Just Kept Rassmussen's Poll but that poll again is super out dated)

Bottom line.....It is anyone's guess here what is really the truth with the Electoral College Maps everyone has.....

So many want to argue OBAMA in the lead.....I just don't see it that way.

Report this comment
#2) On September 17, 2012 at 8:10 PM, awallejr (83.92) wrote:

I think I will wait until after the debates at least.  Polls are unimportant to me.  Final result is what counts.  Ask Truman and Dewey.

Report this comment
#3) On September 18, 2012 at 10:50 AM, Turfscape (45.91) wrote:

>>You dang right you'd better start thinking about a ROMNEY victory.  Can you say "DEFENSE SECTOR RALLY?" <<

Yep...nothing like an increase in government spending to spur a rally.

Report this comment
#4) On September 18, 2012 at 11:01 AM, edwjm (99.87) wrote:

The big uncertainty in your list is Florida.  Northern Florida will go heavily for Romney, but southern Florida will go heavily for Obama.  Which will have the greater turnout?

Report this comment
#5) On September 18, 2012 at 11:02 AM, CluckChicken (34.91) wrote:

"I can easily paint a picture of ROMNEY leading every single state right now that he needs
to lead in to win the Presidency simply by picking and chosing which ever..... "

Well I can easily paint a picture that shows that you are wrong by simply picking and chosing any statement by any user saying you are wrong.

"Yep...nothing like an increase in government spending to spur a rally"

 But but but Romney keeps telling me government spending is bad. Oooooohhhh sarcasim

Report this comment
#6) On September 18, 2012 at 11:10 AM, edwjm (99.87) wrote:

@ CluckChicken: 

Romney says domestic government spending is bad except spending on the military-industrial complex (Eisenhauer's term) is good.

Report this comment
#7) On September 18, 2012 at 11:20 AM, CluckChicken (34.91) wrote:

@ edwjm

I know what Romney says. Just not sure why so many thing spending more money on the military (a group that has actually been asking for less money) is better then spending money on roads, bridges, keeping people feed, making sure people are healthy.

Report this comment
#8) On September 18, 2012 at 12:46 PM, 5thand7th (< 20) wrote:

It's not Gov't job to keep people fed and healthy.  It is YOUR and MY job to help people, and our job to keep ourselves healthy.

Report this comment
#9) On September 18, 2012 at 1:10 PM, Turfscape (45.91) wrote:

>>It's not Gov't job to keep people fed and healthy.  It is YOUR and MY job to help people, and our job to keep ourselves healthy.<<</p>

That's ultimately a matter of opinion, just as it's opinion that it's not the government's job to insure peace in other countries or end dictatorships in other parts of the world.

Report this comment
#10) On September 18, 2012 at 2:55 PM, Mary953 (73.63) wrote:

I have always believed that the checks and balances meant that a single person (i.e. a President) could not destroy this land.  For the first time, I doubt that.  

Obama ignores laws he doesn't want enforced, has left this land without a budget for 3 years, has encouraged unrest in the hot spots of the world and projected a sense of weakness instead of strength internationally. We have proof that that is dangerous.  An attack on the sovereign ground of an embassy is an act of War and yet we have had several such attacks, including the killing of an ambassador and the following of the embassy staff from the ransacked embassy to a safe house which was then bombed.    Obama's cabinet apologized for the first attack (WHAT??) and has not changed his plans to cut the military back to WWI levels.  

This is the forum that has taught me how he has hacked away at our economic structure.  I already knew that to bring a petroleum based, industrialized society down, the easiest way was to raise gas/oil prices and create oil dependence.  Yet this president has no energy policy.  He has speeches, but no plan.  A plan requires goals, action items, accountability, follow-up, milestones - all missing from the energy speeches and 'ideas.'  The result - $5 per gallon gas is not an 'if' but a 'when' proposition.

It is a first, but the man actually frightens me and this blog is the best news I have seen anywhere.

Thanks, Varchild.  I really needed to see this. 

Report this comment
#11) On September 18, 2012 at 3:29 PM, CluckChicken (34.91) wrote:

"Obama ignores laws he doesn't want enforced," - Other then the defense of marrage act, what are the major laws he has told the DoJ to not enforce?

"has left this land without a budget for 3 years" - The President does not write the budget, this is Congress's job. The fault of this lies with one group that is unwilling to compromise on anything.

"has encouraged unrest in the hot spots of the world and projected a sense of weakness instead of strength internationally" - This is probably the single most idiotic statement that the GOP is throwing around right now. This administration has killed more high level terrorist in 3.5 years then the Bush admin did during 7+ including basically invading a nation to kill Bin Ladin.  This administration helped the Lybian rebals with military support an act the GOP was clearly against and now the GOP wants to invade Syria, Iran and apparently a dozen other places because our embassies have been threatened. Wait the GOP wants out of Afghanistan because our soldiers are being killed.  From what I can tell the GOP's idea of projecting strength is to spend billions on a military, use them only is situations in which no harm can come to them while using blinders in order to avoid having to think about to conciquences of using the military.

"Yet this president has no energy policy." - This administration does have an energy policy and they have been trying to work, in some areas they have, in others they have been clearly blocked by the GOP. Of course I can see how the GOP thinks the adminstration doesn't have a poilicy because it is not called 'Drill baby drill'.  Hey let us ignore the fact that the US currently produces more oil then at any point during the Bush years.

Report this comment
#12) On September 18, 2012 at 3:48 PM, Zankudo (< 20) wrote:

Romney is a draft dodging little rich kid who was never in business which implies risk. He risked nothing. You do not have to be a rocket science to see which way the election will go after the miserable gaffes and stupid comments by Romney in the last two weeks. He is going down daily. He has no empathy or at least to pretends to have none. Hard to say since his core is situational or non-existent. So whether his ridiculous comments about 47% being moochers or Obama fomented the death of the ambassador was what he really thought is difficult to say. What isn't difficult to say is that he is a light-weight on about the scale of a Quayle. So sift your tea leaves and try to conjure up a win for the guy. Stick a fork in him. He's done. Obama will eat him alive on the debate stage cause like Philly there is no there there.

Report this comment
#13) On September 18, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Turfscape (45.91) wrote:

>>I have always believed that the checks and balances meant that a single person (i.e. a President) could not destroy this land.  For the first time, I doubt that.<<</p>

The same has been said of Presidents going back as far as my (deceased) grandparents could remember. They were wrong then. You are wrong now.

Chicken Little may be screaming a lot louder, but the sky is still in the same place it's always been.

Report this comment
#14) On September 18, 2012 at 4:08 PM, Turfscape (45.91) wrote:

>>You do not have to be a rocket science to see which way the election will go after the miserable gaffes and stupid comments by Romney in the last two weeks. He is going down daily.<<</p>

Perhaps you aren't aware of President Obama's predecessor...he did not lack for gaffes and stupid comments. He won two terms in office.

>>What isn't difficult to say is that he is a light-weight on about the scale of a Quayle.<<</p>

Bush/Quayle defeated Dukakis/Bentsen. So, I wouldn't necessarily declare this thing to be over yet.

A general election really comes down to the mood of the nation in the weeks leading up to voting. The hard right will always shout for the right...the hard left will always shout for the left. Those in the middle, the quiet group that despises your divisive politicking and partisanship, they are the group that will determine the outcome of this election.

Report this comment
#15) On September 18, 2012 at 4:09 PM, rofgile (99.30) wrote:

Romney as president = no reforms for the financial sectors or big banks.

At least with Obama and a change of congress, there is a potential for action on that front.

 -Rof 

Report this comment
#16) On September 18, 2012 at 4:26 PM, Mary953 (73.63) wrote:

The President creates the budget then it goes to Congress for its approval. It approves of it by passing a law adopting it.

Energy policy - Even if I did not know so many people who work in the energy industry, this information is from the retired CEO of Shell Oil - a Democrat.

As to the embassies, in the Middle East especially, kindness and mercy are seen as weakness.  Strength is essential.  Were you alive during the Carter administration when Iran took our embassy hostage?  Carter did nothing.  The hostages were not released until Reagan took office.  

Other laws - try the immigrants, or the idea of sending guns across the Mexican border with known felons to find where they ended up (Hint: they ended up with the Attorney General up on criminal charges and the President claiming executive privilege which ONLY applies if the Pres is part of the discussion) 

Chicken, I am not going to argue this with you any more.    

Report this comment
#17) On September 18, 2012 at 4:46 PM, Mary953 (73.63) wrote:

Varchild,

My apologies for turning your excellent analysis into more political drivel.  The ambassador's death has shaken me and, I suspect, has shaken the families of anyone else who has or has had such a diplomat in the family.  Because mine was in the Reagan era and in a "superpower" country, I know how desperately vital the apperance of strength is.  Again, my apologies to you and my thanks for an excellent blog. 

Report this comment
#18) On September 18, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Turfscape (45.91) wrote:

>>Carter did nothing.  The hostages were not released until Reagan took office.<<</p>

Wow....just, wow.

Report this comment
#19) On September 18, 2012 at 5:56 PM, edwjm (99.87) wrote:

@Mary953:

 Your understanding of the budget process is woefully inadequate!  The U.S. Constitution dictates that such matters must start in House of Representatives, which is currently controled by Republicans.  The President is free to send them a suggestion, but they are free to declare it Dead On Arrival, which they usually do when the President is of another party, in this case a Democrat.

Report this comment
#20) On September 18, 2012 at 6:29 PM, awallejr (83.92) wrote:

Hey let us ignore the fact that the US currently produces more oil then at any point during the Bush years.

In all fairness I don't credit President Obama with this but rather the private companies that have been spending billions of their own money building out fraking wells.

To me a hard push on an Energy program can do wonders for improving our economy.  This could have been pushed hard in 2009 coupled with a "real" infrastructure program (and not that porkbelly that was passed).

My voting intentions are to vote against any incumbent running for office that I have a right to vote on.  With respect to President I very well may vote Ron Paul.

The hard right will always shout for the right...the hard left will always shout for the left. Those in the middle, the quiet group that despises your divisive politicking and partisanship, they are the group that will determine the outcome of this election.

And that is why I so wish a viable third party would form representing that middle.

Report this comment
#21) On September 18, 2012 at 6:46 PM, Melaschasm (56.93) wrote:

I think Romney has a better chance of winning Ohio than Colorado, and probably better than Wisconsin.

That being said, the weak economy tends to favor the out of power party, so a Romney win is at least a 50/50 proposition, and there is a small chance things break towards the Republicans by a wide margin.

Report this comment
#22) On September 18, 2012 at 8:42 PM, BillZack (< 20) wrote:

CluckChicken and other Dems & Libs chimeing in on this issue. You are all entitled to your personal opinions, however Please scratch the surface of anything negative you may have heard regarding Obama and this Administration. The Mainstream Media is protecting Obama to promote their own interests. Sure, nothing new, they all do it. But what I see as an Independent is that NONE of us are being served! I say incumbents out! And for the record, Obama has propelled the Budget Deficit to the moon without a Fiscal budget for going on 4 years! He and his administration have compiled dozens of lawsuits coming from nearly half the States and Religious groups from several diochese. The DOJ has and is obstructing justice on numerous fronts and no end in sight! So please do your homework because "It's Bush's fault" and the Repubs don't want to play do not fly in my book. Obama needs to Lead as President, and in that catagory he has failed miserably!

Bill Z

Report this comment
#23) On September 18, 2012 at 10:00 PM, PainterPoker (21.45) wrote:

If you want to know the real odds of a president winning the election, you got to go to the betting sites. Who know odds better than the casinos... and guess what: Obama is a BIG favorite. If you think otherwise, bet on it.

 here are some links:

http://www.oddschecker.com/specials/politics-and-election/us-presidential-election/winner

http://www.politicalbettingodds.com/2012-us-presidential-election-odds.html

  

Report this comment
#24) On September 18, 2012 at 10:01 PM, 5thand7th (< 20) wrote:

Obama and dems controlled president, senate and HoR for two years - and no budget for now more than 3 years.  They could have raised taxes on the rich during that period also, but they didn't.  Why not?  Because there are alot of rich greedy democrats out there too.  Okay to defend your side, but be truthful.  House repubs have passed budgets - Harry Reid is the one unwilling to play ball.

Report this comment
#25) On September 18, 2012 at 10:57 PM, awallejr (83.92) wrote:

5thand7th that has been my criticism of Obama.  He had control of both houses and instead of concentrating on getting the economy going first, he wasted time on Obamacare which cost him the loss of Congress and which he could have waited until a second term to push.  His priorities were, imo, wrong.

As for Romney, he doesn't sell me.  He talks in vague generalities and it sounds like the average Joe will wind up worse under him. On the one hand I look at Obama/Biden, millionaires saying they need to be taxed more and on the other hand I see Romney/Ryan, millionaires who want to tax themselves less. I think he blew it by not choosing Condi Rice as VP.

The system is simply breaking down.  This is the first election in my life where I honestly don't want to vote for anyone.  But since I have a right to do so, I will exercise that right and not vote for any incumbent, and not vote for any Republican (until they get rid of Grover Norquist).

Report this comment
#26) On September 19, 2012 at 9:26 AM, Mary953 (73.63) wrote:

 Your understanding of the budget process is woefully inadequate! 

Okay, sorry.  I phoned that one in by doing a copy and paste from a site on the Constitution and the responsibilities of the various branches.  The back and forth process can fill half an hour in an exam room and two exam books.  Can I outline the entire process with all the back and forth?  Yes, I have had to do it which is why I know the steps and how long it takes to put them all down.  I have a degree in history and political science,  I can tell you which presidents won elections and had them stolen in the post-voting electoral college.  I know which presidents have had lasting effects, positive and negative, on this country.  I know which presidents were feared by which generations and which great statesmen were passed over for men of less than ordinary abilities.  It is why I did not think one person could cause such a drastic problem (and I have not seen 2016)

My concern is this - and it is a personal opinion based on watching through the last 3 years with an open mind.  Obama is either foolish and bumbling in a number of areas or he is a man with a very sharp mind that does not have this country's interest at heart.  I believe that this is a highly intelligent man so that does not leave me with a comfortable feeling.  It does not bother me to have a president that wants the power of the office.  We require so much of these people that to want that power seems a small price to pay.  The office and the personal attacks that go with it seem to chew them up and spit them out.  I do require that they want what is best for this country though, even if we disagree on what that is.

We have had foolish presidents (Harding), presidents that were not up to the job (Buchanan, Fillmore, etc), men who instituted some major problems (Van Buren, FDR), men who ignored the Constitution for the good of the nation (Polk, Lincoln, Jefferson), but except for Jefferson, none have truly tried to weaken the armed forces to this degree and Madison had to deal with two wars as a result (England and Tunisia.)  I don't want to see us deal with this again - this time with nuclear weapons and a "Great Satan" label on our country.

And I would love to vote for Condi Rice on ANY ticket!  I just wish she would run! 

Report this comment
#27) On September 19, 2012 at 9:41 AM, Mary953 (73.63) wrote:

FWIW, I was raised by a very conservative Republican (who worked in a Democratic run state government) and a very liberal Democrat (who was tapped by Reagan to be on a national committee) Both were there by merit.  I watch political speeches with a computer to check facts that seem too good to be true and watch C-Span so I don't have the 'talking heads' to tell me what I am listening to.  Like most of you, I prefer to make up my own mind.  Like both candidates in this race, we started out on our own (broke) - without  help from parents and have worked from there.  The majority of the "wealthy" in this country are people who have worked, scrimped, and saved for their entire lives and are looking at retirement, having run a long hard race.  They don't have time or energy to start again if they lose everything.  I urge you to be independent in your thinking and to examine the records of the last terms of Gov Romney and Pres Obama on the Internet for yourself rather than listening only to media.  And please do vote.  It is more than a right.  It is a responsibility.

Report this comment
#28) On September 19, 2012 at 5:38 PM, awallejr (83.92) wrote:

And I would love to vote for Condi Rice on ANY ticket!  I just wish she would run!

Romney would have gotten a 3-fer if he had chosen her.  Gender, race, and brilliance.  

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement