Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
#1 DC's "News Radio" says it's a statistical dead heat.
Big swing in the women's polls. I guess maybe Mitt didn't scare them as much as 0's ads about Romney.
Regardless of his personal feelings, Mitt could not overturn Roe v. Wade - that takes a vote of Congress.
Only The One can rule without the Congress! "Valerie! Which one of my Czars can fix this for me?"
Posted by Bobby 2012-10-09 05:59||
#2 World tuned in sand saw a digferent Romney and a different Obama than the ones theyd been told about. I suspect trust im the media took a dive st the same time as the worst was confirmed.
Posted by Rjschwarz 2012-10-09 07:36||
#3 Regardless of his personal feelings, Mitt could not overturn Roe v. Wade - that takes a vote of Congress. Posted by: Bobby
The above (Roe vs Wade) may certainly be a major factor, but I believe the curse of the "old white man" is much in play as well. Decades of teevee viewing depicting caucasian men as bumbling, out of touch idiots, misogynists, and racists is taking it's toll. Deference to age and acquired knowlegdge in the digital age is definately in decline. Provided the battery is fully charged, all people need to know today can be found in the palm of their hand.
Posted by Besoeker 2012-10-09 08:00||
#4 The election must be soon.
Posted by Nimble Spemble 2012-10-09 08:42||
#5 I think that was a factor before the debates. But after the debates the stodgy cheap banker Romney image and the competant cool Obama image were both crushed.
What we had was someone that looked like they could fix things and wanted to fix things against someone who wanted to be elsewhere.
Obama can't wait to be an ex-President but he thinks he needs 4 more years to cement in his legacy first. Thus mixed feelings. That's my read.
Posted by rjschwarz 2012-10-09 08:45||
#6 That's a 12-point turnaround from last month.
You really think there was a 12 point swing?
Or maybe, it's been there all along and the debate gave the pollsters their out to start talking real numbers to cover their asses and not be caught on election day with explaining why their numbers failed so miserably against the actual and real vote. Playing the 'bandwagon' propaganda machine for one party or the other only works till your credibility tanks royally. Staying in business has got to last beyond one day in November.
Posted by Procopius2k 2012-10-09 09:01||
#7 I agree with what besoeker said above about the influence of "decades of teevee viewing depicting caucasian men as bumbling, out of touch idiots, misogynists, and racists."
And I'd add to that the effects of decades of the media portraying corporations and the businessmen who run them as greedy, corrupt, cold, uncaring, inhuman and as all-around evil enemies of the common man.
Dishonesty, thy name is Liberal.
Posted by Knuckles McCoy1911 2012-10-09 09:01||
#8 P2K - prolly largely on the money. Also a combination of Bradley Effect and Zero's bumbling has made it OK to go for competence (AKA - Eastwoods' "you gotta let em go")
Posted by Frank G 2012-10-09 09:25||
#9 Forget the poll numbers: gimmie the R/D/I breakdowns used to "adjust" those poll numbers. 2008? 2010?
Posted by Ptah 2012-10-09 11:36||
#10 Not even Congress can overturn Roe v. Wade. It will take a Constitutional amendment.
Posted by Rambler in Virginia 2012-10-09 11:44||
#11 Roe V Wade won't be overturned. The battle has moved to the insistance/avoidance of ultrasounds. The ultrasounds are getting so clear these days that most people who see one no longer see lumps of tissue, they see a baby and the abortion option seems less desirable.
Shows how insane the dems are on the issue because they are fighting mandatory ultrasounds and still trying to be the champion of women. Unfortunately the right hasn't hammered them on that.
Posted by rjschwarz 2012-10-09 14:30||
#12 It will take a Constitutional amendment.
That's one way.
The other is what all the fight is over SCOTUS appointments. You change the composition of the courts, you reverse decisions.
Actually the original RvW written by Justice White stipulated three trimesters. The first of which the court said government had no say, the last of which it did [as premies were at the time viable] and said the middle third was a gray area [because of anticipated advances in medical science which was the basis for the position on the third]. The first step would be a return to the original decision.
Posted by Procopius2k 2012-10-09 18:07||
#13 Forget the poll numbers: gimmie the R/D/I breakdowns used to "adjust" those poll numbers. 2008? 2010
Pew said they oversampled Rs by 5%, the reason reported as "that's what the people being polled identified themselves as".
Posted by Pappy 2012-10-09 21:03||
#14 IIRC FOX NEWS this AM > POTUS Bammer would likely still be elected oer "Mittens" iff the election were held today, but Mitten's popularity is now par wid the Bammer despite slight edge [MOE +/- 4%].
IIRC II, KRAUTHAMMER = opined that the Bammer has NO REAL PLAN, SOLUTION, OR AGENDUM FOR ANYTHING OTHER THAN POL REACTIONARISM, BY-N-FOR FOR THE SAKE OF POL REACTIONISM, + INCREASING THE SIZE OR SCALE OF [already] BIG GOVERNMENT + GOVT-CENTRIC REGULATION???
Posted by JosephMendiola 2012-10-09 22:00||
#15 Ssee also FREEREPUBLIC, DEFENCE.PK/FORUMS > RON PAUL WOULD HAVE CRUSHED OBAMA [+ also Romney?] IN THE PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE.
* SAME > THE END OF WASP-DOMINATED POLITICS IN US | THE END OF WASP-DOMINATED POLITICS: ITS ALL POLITICS: NPR.
Posted by JosephMendiola 2012-10-09 23:53||