10.17.2012 10:11 PM

Byline, Oct. 17: Liberal love, even for Lilley

7 Comments

  1. Al in Cranbrook says:

    I think your guy is in trouble…

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/158048/romney-obama-among-likely-voters.aspx

    Oct. 17 update (post debate) among “Likely Voters” has it: Romney 51% – Obama 45%

    I have this theory.

    The unabashedly Liberal media has spent the last 6 months dumping on Romney at every turn, while cranking Obama to the moon. This massively lowered expectations for Romney, and raised them through the roof for Obama. In both debates, but especially the first, Romney hugely exceeded expectations. In the first Obama even more so underachieved, and only very marginally (depending on whom one listens to) lived up to them in the second.

    Always too cute by half, the Liberal MSM ultimately may have torpedoed their own chosen one.

    An ironic lesson? Or a lesson in irony?

    • Conservative Socialist says:

      The poll is an outlier — not even the GOP-friendly Rasmussen shows a narrower lead for Romney. But, if Gallup is ahead of the curve, then other pollsters will follow. So we’ll wait and see on that.

      I think that Romney has a puncher’s chance versus Obama, because the winning conditions for the Republicans in 2012 is much more favorable to them as compared to 2008 when their party’s name was pure mud. The momentum on his side aside, I think realistically that he has a 1 in 3 chance of pulling off the win.

      However, in spite of Romney being ahead in the polls, he can’t seem to pull ahead in the crucial state of Ohio. Without Ohio, MR would need to win areas like New Hampshire, Wisconsin to make up the difference. I actually can foresee a situation where Romney wins the popular vote, but loses the electoral college. That’s analogous to Joe Clark losing the popular vote to Trudeau in 1979, but winning a majority of seats. If Obama wins in that manner, then that means that the regions he won in were by narrower margins than Romney won the red states. Big states like California and New York have been an electoral no-man’s land for the Republicans for two decades now. Dubya had to win all of the swing (ie: persuadable) states, and he won by the bare skin of his teeth in 2000 AND 2004. Consider that if 50,000 votes went Kerry’s way in ’04 in Ohio, Kerry would have become President IN SPITE OF having lost the popular vote by 3 million.

      There was question of Bush’s legitimacy for a claim of a mandate in 2000 because he himself lost the popular vote, but the margin was by only 500,000 votes over all. But if the scenario I describe above happens (and I think there’s a strong possiblity that it might occur), there will be huge unrest among the electorate. Obama might have to be extra-conciliatory.

      The irony of course, is that the Republicans would definitely fast track the abolition of the electoral college via constitutional amendment.

      • Conservative Socialist says:

        So if Bama loses the pop. vote by let’s say, 4 million but wins the EC. Would he have to offer the V-P slot to a Republican in order to quell the manure storm that he would be about to endure?

        Interesting times.

      • Conservative Socialist says:

        Ugh, I wish there was an edit function.

        “not even the GOP-friendly Rasmussen shows a narrower lead for Romney” should read “shows such a wide lead for Romney”

        And Joe Clark didn’t win a majority of seats, but he won the most. My bad. I blame time constraints.

    • Outsider says:

      “Liberal media” … further proof of one of two things:

      *You are one of those who believe any myth, as long as it gets told enough;
      *You don’t closely monitor the U.S. media landscape.

  2. Philippe says:

    I find that guy so belligerent – not willing to engage in an intelligent debate. All he wants is to push his opinion without truly engaging. Typical of that whole network.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*