Why Romney will win. Dick Morris talks polls: “…when a poll shows an Obama lead among likely voters of, say 47-45, it is based on an assumption that blacks will cast 13 percent of the vote. But the lack of enthusiasm among Obama’s base for his candidacy and their doubts about the economy make an 11 percent black turnout more likely. In this event, Romney would actually win in this sample by 46-45.” It’s a whiff of fresh air in the MSM’s toxic fog.
This post was last modified on November 10, 2021
View Comments (47)
Just an aside here. Actually back on topic if you will...take what Dick Morris says with a grain of salt. He also said McCain would beat oblama. In fact I can't remember when Dick Morris was right on anything. Oh I'm sure somebody will point out some blatantly obvious thing he lucked in to but I quit taking him seriously years ago
OK you guys, for fun I just put this page link on my calendar reminders so it pops up Nov. 7, see you then.
Good idea Ghost, I just did the same.
I'm just praying Kick is right.
Anyone thinking Romney coasts is in for rude awakening.. This thing is going to be scary close.
Another wave election. 2010 redux. Book it.
I have to agree with Alien here. It's not going to be a cakewalk which is why it's important for all of us to do our best to convince people we know to not vote Obama.
I don't think its possible.. Dem voting participation was really bad in 2010.. You have to realize, so many of them thought Obama would just take care of everything. Lazy. I don't see their output being suppressed like that this time around
Suppressed? I stand by my prediction. Doesn't mean that Romney stops working and campaigning but it does mean that other than the left wing faithful, white guilt liberals, and freeloaders, BHO has lost a lot of support. Most polls are garbage the weigh they are weighted.
Just because they aren't voting for Obama doesn't mean they are voting for Romney. Many disillusioned will not vote at all.
This is not going to be a shoe in. Obama will see to that.
I shouldn't say suppressed.. that sounds like external agency at work. 2010 dem turnout was depressed. It won't be like that again. There are social media in place hooking up volunteers with voters who need ID. I expect something more like 2004 then 2010
Well, sir, let's wait and see. In either case Romney wins and that is the key. If BHO should win, then we are truly effed as a country and it galls me that otherwise intelligent people support this bastard and his feel-good utopian platitudes. Partisanship should not trump reason.
The WAY they are weighed that is.
Romney will win because he is NOT Obumma.
Dont feed the troll he is too stupid to understand just TDMO
Except it's not trolling if it's been proven that Ron Paul was cheated out of having a chance at the convention.
WOW! RON PAUL HAD NO CHANCE AT THE CONVENTION! No speech, no additional vote, no holding people at gunpoint would have gotten him the nomination! GET OVER IT!
It has also been proven that you don't support the things that Ron Paul does . . . that is usually about the time you leave the thread.
BOO FUCKIN' HOO!!
He lost!
He had no chance of getting any extra delegates, and he had nothing constructive to add to the convention.
Now STFU and go back to masturbating in mommy's basement.
They could probably make a horror movie about his mother's basement. Or maybe just a remake of that movie "The Blob".
Um, he was down about 1000 delegates. He did't win one primary. I like the guy and admire his gumption, but HE LOST!!!!!!!!!!! Seriously, get over it!
Harry Reid? I heard somewhere that he is a pederast.
Show me proof. I want credible sources. You are not Harry Reid.
Because he stole the nomination from Paul?
Come on, John. Paul was in every debate. His name was on every ballot. He had tons of money, the second most after Romney. He had so much money he was running anti-Santorum and anti-Gingrich ads. He wasn't going to change the delegates' minds by a speech at the convention. I was for Santorum. He won about a dozen contests but he lost. Paul lost.
I admired both Santorum and Paul for what seemed unwavering adherence to their principles. Not a waffle between them, if I can recall. In general i prefer aspects of Paul's libertarianism
I have to say, I respect Ron Paul and I like a lot of what he had to say, but when I voted in the Illinois primary, I had to go Romney. I couldn't stomach Santorum (most striaght men aren't THAT concernes about what gay people do in their own bedrooms) and while I like Paul, I feel his foreign policies are too reckless. If he hadn't come off so anti Isreal, I probably would have voted for him, but I'm not about to let our best ally twist in the wind surrounded by monsters.
You can't explain things to a moron.
Tell me about it.
I'm not sure why anyone here engages this asshat. He's no better than a liberal and in many ways worse.
Go back to bitching about Corporate Greed. That was at least amusing in a sad sort of way.
Perhaps engagement leads to rapproachment?
And if you call me names, I have a Illudium PU-36 Space Modulator in my cartoon-y pocket and I'll use it
Corporate Greed is the reason why Ron Paul's votes and delegates were cancelled. Those in power at the RNC knew Paul didn't fit the model candidate for their manipulative ways, which is why they would not even let him give a speech.
WHere the hell do you think Paul got his backing? He had corporate money behind him all along. HE IS PART OF THE CORPORATE MACHINE! Surprise!
TD,..........MO.
You just know I'm right and with the recent Ron Paul delegate issue, I have proof that I was right all along.
TURDS!!!
It's going to be a good day.
@PJ49
I'm starting the think he likes the taste of turds. I guess it is true. You are what you eat.
I will type this real slow, so that even YOU can understand it.
RON PAUL NEVER STOOD A FUCKING CHANCE YOU MORON!
Is it clear enough for you, or do I need to dumb it down even more?
He was never given a chance. If he posed no threat to Romney as you say then why was he not allowed to at least give one last speech?
Because it was a waste of time? Because the entire convention was already running late due to the hurricane? Because he did not have a chance in hell of making any difference? Because his crazy followers like you would have made a scene that the Dems would have used against Romney into eternity? If no one comes to the Convention with enough delgates, speeches by the candidates to try and aquire saiddelegates is proper. When the Nomination was clenched weeks before the convention, there is no need to pull in another candidate. The people have made their desires known and are not going to change their zillion minds over one speech. Please, God, grow a brain!
First, because the Libertarian platform has too many social agenda similarities to socialism and because it's too narrow and secondly, because he never had the kind of support he needed to make a real go of his bid for the presidency. The GOP may have been on his ass, but it was he who did himself in...he's just not that interesting of a guy and there's more to life than just a financial plank in the floor of your party's platform, oh, and isolationism is out of the question. The Gold standard is too difficult to explain, in fifteen second sound bites, to people who think money grows on trees...somewhere near 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
He's all for small government so how is he in anyway like socialism? And like I already said, he had the minimum requirements to be considered at the convention so he had enough support even if it wasn't as much as Romney.
Jphn - HE LOST! He LOST! You have to accept it and move on. That is the way our election process works. RON PAUL LOST! And it wasn't even close enough that you can wonder if cheating was involved. HE LOST! And all of your wishing and whining will not change that. He could have been the best president that we would have ever seen, but it doesn't matter - he lost.
Note to the grownups: See why it's not a good idea to give every kid on the crappiest baseball team a shiny trophy? They never learn the concept of winning and losing.
Valid question.. not seeing the libertarian-socialist connection
Find out what the Libertarian stance is on things like legalizing drug use, on the issue of abortion, on the issue of stem cell research and in particular fetal stem cell research and cloning and tell me if they differ significantly from any statist, proglodyte stance. These are bell-weather issues for me. There's more to life than cheaper taxes and smaller government. Don't get me wrong, I too think that Ron Paul would have been a better candidate than Mitt Romney, but this is WAR and one needs to soldier up and move on. Thumb sucking and whining is what kids do...MAN UP jcrowley1985!
Legalizing drugs is socialist?
Yet cheating was involved and it was proven.
I've always fealt that it's Romney's race to lose and sometimes it looks to me like he's trying to lose on purpose. At his point in time I'll vote for a f***ing spoon before I give a vote to O. Romney, the GOP and all the RINO pundits need to understand that very many Americans feel as I do. I'm not voting for Romney because he's my guy...frankly, I can't stand him and I don't trust him. I'm voting for him because it'll give the conservative movement some much needed breathing room before we take on the real issues that face this nation, namely, the goddless, feckless proglodytes that turn everything they touch into shit!