2012 Electoral Math -- Obama's Bounce
The last time we took a look at the electoral math was just before convention season was about to get underway. Since it's now been over a week since the end of the Democratic National Convention, the effects of both parties' conventions are beginning to show up in the state-level polling. The news for the Obama team is good, almost across the board, as Romney showed little or no "bounce" from his convention, while Obama gained a significant bump after the Democrats' big party.
We'll get to specifics in a minute, but first here's the overview of how the race stands. Obama's electoral votes (henceforth "EV") start from the bottom and are measured in blue, and Romney's start from the top and are in red (ties are white, in the middle). If the polls are correct and the election were held today, here's how it would break down:
[Click on any of theses graphs to see larger-scale versions.]
Obama is staying pretty consistently above 60 percent on this chart, and even briefly spiked to 64.5 percent -- which would represent a two-to-one majority in the Electoral College. This is a marked improvement since the last time we took a look.
As the conventions rolled onwards, the amount of state-level polling increased, and from this point on the numbers should start coming fast and steady for the rest of the race (from the battleground states, at least). There was a lot of movement in the past few weeks, with a total of thirteen states moving around within the categories. Seven of these wobbled from one category to another, but wound up where they started (Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia). Barack Obama lost ground in one state he held (Nevada) and gained ground in four (Florida, Iowa, Michigan, and Pennsylvania). Mitt Romney lost ground in one state he held (Arizona), and improved his position in none. Just on numbers alone, Obama saw a much better and bigger bounce than Romney, it's plain to see.
But let's do more than just scratch the surface, and delve into each candidate's standings. We begin with Mitt Romney's chart.
[Definition of terms: "Strong" means 10% or better in the polls,
"Weak" means 5% or better, and "Barely" is under five percent.]
From the previous vertical line (which marks when the last of these columns ran), Mitt's chart lines have been more lively than ever. He started this period off by losing Florida to Obama (the big falloff in the upper pink line), while gaining ground in Montana and Missouri. But then came the loss of Iowa to Obama's column, and Romney mostly stayed stable overall for the rest of this period. After briefly losing (and then regaining) North Carolina during the Charlotte Democratic convention, Romney appeared to strengthen his standing among the states in his column (when his "Barely" numbers disappeared). But this was soon followed by a weakening in both Arizona and Montana, dropping his "Strong" numbers at the end.
By the numbers, Romney started out the period with a total of 241 EV. By the end of the period, he was down to 206 EV (mostly due to losing Florida's 29 EV). In the crucial "Strong Plus Weak" number, Romney started at 181 EV, and then rose slowly to 206 (from his own convention bounce, small as it was). This is only the second time in the whole race Romney's topped 200 EV here, it should be mentioned. After Obama's bounce, however, this faded away and Romney ended up with the same 181 EV that he started with in "Strong Plus Weak." But even this was weaker, since Romney's Strong numbers fell from 139 EV to 128 EV.
Which brings us to Obama's chart:
Obama's chart shows a slightly mixed picture, but one that is measurably more positive than before. Starting with our previous benchmark, Obama picked up Florida and Iowa, and briefly held North Carolina before it slipped back into Romney's column. Michigan briefly weakened for Obama, leading to a dip in the graph for Obama, but subsequently strengthened back up. Ohio and Virginia moved from Barely Obama to Weak Obama, but then moved back again. New Mexico and Minnesota moved from Weak to Strong, but also fell back again. Nevada fell back from Weak to Barely and stayed there. But the best news was at the end, when Michigan and Pennsylvania (and their total of 36 EV) moved from Weak Obama to Strong Obama, which shows up in the spike in the dark blue line, above.
Obama's total over this period rose from an already-impressive 297 EV all the way up to 347 EV -- a gain of 50 EV -- before falling back a bit to close at 332 EV. Bear in mind, he only needs 270 to win. Obama's Strong numbers also showed an impressive bounce, climbing from 172 EV at the start to finish at 208 EV. To put this in perspective, Obama now has more votes from states where he leads by over ten percentage points than all of Romney's votes combined. That's a pretty good place to be, less than two months from election day. The only place Obama didn't show a convention bounce was in the Strong Plus Weak category, where he started at 247 EV, fell to 225, climbed to 259, only to slip back at the end to 241 EV -- six fewer than he started with. This translated to a drop in Obama's lead over Romney in the Strong Plus Weak numbers from 66 EV down to 60 EV.
If Obama's bounce dissipates, his numbers may fall back a bit next time around. But if Obama can build on his success, he could quite conceivably move a few battleground states from Barely to Weak, and improve his chances for success so drastically as to put the magic 270 EV number out of reach of the Romney team. It's still far too early to call the outcome in this fashion, but things are indeed looking good for Team Obama at this point.
My Picks
My picks rely more on gut feeling than on hard poll numbers, although this time around this is only really evident in the states which are very close right now. As always, we use slightly different category names here, to avoid confusion with the charts above. Full lists of the states in each category are provided at the end of the column.
Likely States -- Obama
Safe Obama (14 states, 179 EV)
No changes here, this time around. These 14 states are going to surprise nobody by voting for Obama this November.
Probable Obama (6 states, 62 EV)
One change here, which is about the only negative change for Obama. Nevada showed one weak poll, so I felt it was only fair to move it down from "Probable Obama" to "Lean Obama." I still think it'll firm up over time, so I would expect it to move back up here after a few more solid polls appear.
Likely States -- Romney
Safe Romney (17 states, 137 EV)
Romney loses one state from this category this time around, due to a weak poll in Arizona. However, the poll wasn't that weak, so Arizona only moves down to "Probable Romney" for now.
Probable Romney (5 states, 44 EV)
One addition here, as Arizona moves down. The other four states stayed stable for Romney.
Tossup States
Lean Obama (7 states, 91 EV)
This is where the action really was, in the past few weeks. Starting with the bad news, Nevada moved down here from Probable Obama, and Colorado and Ohio stayed put. Ohio could conceivably be on its way up to at least Probable Obama, as it seems to be slipping away from Romney's grasp, but I don't feel that level of confidence quite yet, so it spends another week being merely Lean Obama for now. The good news was four states moving up from "Too Close To Call" -- Florida, Iowa, Virginia, and Wisconsin. Now, as always, these states may move around again in future columns, but all four have shown consistently good (note: not "great," but "good") polling for Obama. Romney hasn't made inroads in any of them for quite a while, so all of them can now be seen as Lean Obama rather than true tossups.
Lean Romney (1 state, 10 EV)
Romney actually loses a state here, as North Carolina has to been seen as Too Close To Call at this point. Whether holding the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte will be enough to give Obama a shot here or not has yet to be seen, but it has been wavering away from Romney's camp enough to be seen as a real tossup at this point. Missouri should have been firmly in Romney's column by now, but the whole Akin controversy has kept the state remarkably soft for Romney, so it still can only be seen as Lean Romney, and nothing stronger.
Too Close To Call (1 state, 15 EV)
This category was all but cleaned out this time around, as Florida, Iowa, Virginia, and Wisconsin all moved up to Lean Obama. If North Carolina hadn't moved down from Lean Romney, the Too Close To Call category would be empty, in fact.
Final Tally
Adding up my picks shows how Obama's bounce may translate into an overwhelming advantage the closer we get to the election. Obama has 241 EV in the states he will likely win in November, while Mitt Romney only holds 181 EV. That's a pretty big edge right there. Out of the 116 EV in the Tossup states, Barack Obama needs 29 EV to push him over the finish line. Mitt Romney needs 89 EV to accomplish the same feat.
To put this in perspective, if Obama wins all his safe seats, all he needs is Florida to win a second term. Or, if he loses Florida, he can waltz back into office with only Virginia and Ohio. In either of these scenarios, it would not matter who won the following states: Colorado, Iowa, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, and Wisconsin. Romney, on the other hand, has to win all but a few of these battlegrounds in order to win the race. It's not an impossible task, but it certainly is much more of an uphill climb than what Obama faces at this point.
The big question in the next few weeks will be if Obama's impressive convention bounce will hold or fade away. This will set the stage for the first presidential debate, which could prove to be decisive. Since the race is speeding up, we will be looking at the electoral math much more frequently here, right up until the election itself.
[Electoral Vote Data:]
(State electoral votes are in parenthesis following each state's name. Washington D.C. is counted as a state)
Barack Obama Likely Easy Wins -- 20 States -- 241 Electoral Votes:
Safe States -- 14 States -- 179 Electoral Votes
California (55), Delaware (3), Hawaii (4), Illinois (20), Maine (4), Maryland (10), Massachusetts (11), New Jersey (14), New York (29), Oregon (7), Rhode Island (4), Vermont (3), Washington D.C. (3), Washington (12)
Probable States -- 6 States -- 62 Electoral Votes
Connecticut (7), Michigan (16), Minnesota (10), New Hampshire (4), New Mexico (5), Pennsylvania (20)
Mitt Romney Likely Easy Wins -- 22 States -- 181 Electoral Votes:
Safe States -- 17 States -- 137 Electoral Votes
Alabama (9), Alaska (3), Arkansas (6), Idaho (4), Kansas (6), Kentucky (8), Louisiana (8), Mississippi (6), Nebraska (5), North Dakota (3), Oklahoma (7), South Carolina (9), Tennessee (11), Texas (38), Utah (6), West Virginia (5), Wyoming (3)
Probable States -- 5 States -- 44 Electoral Votes
Arizona (11), Georgia (16), Indiana (11), Montana (3), South Dakota (3)
Tossup States -- 9 States -- 116 Electoral Votes:
Tossup States Leaning Obama -- 7 States -- 91 Electoral Votes
Colorado (9), Florida (29), Iowa (6), Nevada (6), Ohio (18), Virginia (13), Wisconsin (10)
Tossup States Leaning Romney -- 1 State -- 10 Electoral Votes
Missouri (10)
Too Close To Call -- 1 State -- 15 Electoral Votes
North Carolina (15)
Polled, but no polling data since the primaries:
(States which have not been polled since the beginning of June, with the dates of their last poll)
Maryland (5/21), Nebraska (5/16), Rhode Island (2/22), South Carolina (1/13), Tennessee (5/9), and Texas (5/13).
No polling data at all, yet:
(States which have not been polled so far this year)
Alaska, Arkansas, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Washington D.C., Wyoming
Electoral Math Column Series Archive:
[Aug 22] [Aug 8] [Jul 18] [Jun 25]
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at Business Insider
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
CW
Any chance of really pushing the boat and adding a % chance to win to your analysis ;)? Most analysis I have seen is similar to yours - i.e. North Carolina and Missouri are likely Romney wins but everything other battleground to Obama as things stand. Everything I see says around a 20-30% chance that Romney wins.
Having said that, Missouri isn't totally lost as there is a new round of 'rape comment controversy' today regarding Mr Akin's wife...
Paraphrasing Romney on the violent protests outside of the US embassy in Cairo, before and after the killing of Ambassador Stevens in Libya:
It is disgraceful that the first response of the Obama administration was to sympathize with the terrorists.
Romney/Ryan on how their budget plan proposes to eliminate the deficit and reduce the national debt:
Sorry, we can't tell you that - not because we don't know but because if we told you the chances that you would vote for us would be greatly diminished.
Why does Romney want to repeal the Dodd-Frank Act which puts in place sound financial regulatory reforms and consumer protection practices?
Now there is a good question that the majority of Americans need to ask themselves and of the Romney campaign in view of the fact that the Great recession and global financial meltdown of 2007/08 occurred as a direct result of ineffective or non-existent financial regulation.
Bottom line: This election has no business being as close as it is.
Elizabeth -
I don't think it is all that close. You've got to learn to ignore the national polling...
:-)
-CW
two things we have not yet seen:
1. will the candidates' numbers change as a result of their responses to the labor dispute in the chicago public schools? it's essentially a democrat vs. democrat fight. how many votes will this conflict impact, whose votes will they be, and how will they change?
2. what will be the impact of all the campaign cash that romney has stored up for use in october? obama's media buys have been consistent over time. romney's on the other hand seem to have been geared toward a last month ad blitz.
~joshua
I find it amazing, bordering on suspicious, that Obama is polling so well..
Ya'all are on record as stating how well the MSM can skew their reporting to favor conservatives..
Yet it's impossible that the MSM can skew results to favor Obama???
Bias much???
Michale....
Liz,
Bottom line: This election has no business being as close as it is.
I have pointed this out before.. You are dead on ballz accurate. This election SHOULD NOT be as close as it is..
There are only TWO possible explanations as to why it IS this close.
1. Obama is not as good as everyone claims.
2. Romney is not as bad as everyone claims.
I know I have mentioned this before, but I'll likely continue to do so until it's addressed :D
Joshua,
1. will the candidates' numbers change as a result of their responses to the labor dispute in the chicago public schools? it's essentially a democrat vs. democrat fight. how many votes will this conflict impact, whose votes will they be, and how will they change?
Not only is it a -D on -D fight, but it's also taking place in Obama's home, so to speak...
But, as we have seen, NOTHING seems to upset Obama's poll numbers... Al Qaeda could plant a flag above the White House and nuke Arlington, and Obama's poll numbers wouldn't change...
Michale.....
Chris,
Ignore the polls!? I'll try.
Having email problems? Inquiring minds would like to know? :)
Michale,
Do you think this election is as close as the media and polls suggest that it is?
Liz,
No I don't, but that could just be cynicism talking..
I have learned that the MSM will not let facts stand in the way, when they want to push a specific agenda..
That's why I usually only believe the "facts" that have several different sources of verification...
As for the polls?? My attitude towards polls is well known... In and of themselves, they are useless...
Here is a perfect example of why no one should place any value in polls...
http://sjfm.us/temp/pressproblem1.jpg
But, of course around here, everyone LOVES the polls that are Pro-Obama and ignores/attacks any polls that don't put Obama in a good light...
So, call me cynical, but I firmly believe that 90% of the info we get from the MSM is the 3 Bs.
Biased, Bigoted and Bullshit..
And you really have to dig for that 10% that isn't...
Michale.....
Michale,
I really don't think that the MSM as a group are smart enough to push any agenda.
I really don't think that the MSM as a group are smart enough to push any agenda.
"The greatest success that Satan has ever enjoyed was convincing the world he didn't exist"
-Old Christian Proverb That I Just Made Up
:D
Michale....
Liz
Even the polls are not as close as you think when you remove the outliers run by Republicans (cough Steve Rasmussen - the only pollster in existence who thinks Romney is ahead and also, strangely enough, that Government is bad). Most models are showing Obama at 80%+ to win from this point.
Consider this fact: Romney has never held a lead in 2012 in the RCP average of national polls. The closest he got was 'tied' during the RNC.
Obama has been ahead for 98% of 2012 (tied the other 2%)! The only way he doesn't get re-elected is:
- Something crazy happens, like a massive market crash
- Romney money blitz gets through (less likely as Obama can match them money-wise).
I agree though, it is shocking the election is so close. But both are spending massive amounts of money and I'd hazard a guess that's why it's so close.
Maybe today's leaked Romney video about how he hates 47% of YOU PEOPLE will finally push Obama to the point at which Romney's backers stop giving him money. Once that point arrives the election will indeed be over. I don't think it's that far away...
Maybe today's leaked Romney video about how he hates 47% of YOU PEOPLE will finally push Obama to the point at which Romney's backers stop giving him money.
The problem with your theory is that the other 53% AGREE with what Romney said.. :D
Michale.....
The problem with your theory is that the other 53% AGREE with what Romney said.. :D
Yes, that's pretty hilarious, Michale ... or what I call a very cruel irony.
The problem with your theory is that the other 53% AGREE with what Romney said.. :D
Lol very funny. But in all seriousness, the problem with my theory is that, if what Romney said about the 47% were true, Obama would be easily re-elected. Unfortunately, Romney will get a much, much larger chunk of the 47%'s vote than Obama will. Which makes it all the more hilarious to see him denigrate them. Although I guess he thought he was denigrating them behind closed doors, so that made it ok...
Unfortunately, Romney will get a much, much larger chunk of the 47%'s vote than Obama will.
Just to be clear that I'm not spouting some rhetoric. Here are the 50 States (plus DC) ranked by how much they pay in taxes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_tax_revenue_by_state
In terms of taxes paid per State:
- 9/10 of the TOP 10 tax paying States voted Democrat in 2008
- 7/10 of the BOTTOM 10 tax paying States voted Republican in 2008.
If you look at in in terms of tax paid per capita it is ever worse:
- 9/10 of the TOP 10 States in tax paid per capita voted Democrat in 2008
- 8/10 of the BOTTOM 10 States in tax paid per capital voted Republican in 2008.
And, for the record, Liz is as much "you people" as you are... :D
Michale.....
Although I guess he thought he was denigrating them behind closed doors, so that made it ok...
You mean like when the open mic caught Obama pledging his undying devotion to Putin?? :D
Michale.....
Michale
Yes definitely comparable to insulting half of America lol. Do you think this video will be the final nail in the coffin for the Romney campaign? I'd love to hear your thoughts on it...
Yes definitely comparable to insulting half of America lol.
Yer absolutely right. Treason doesn't really compare to stating the obvious...
Do you think this video will be the final nail in the coffin for the Romney campaign?
I wasn't being facetious when I said that 53% of the country agrees with Romney..
I can say with complete confidence that Independents and NPAs feel EXACTLY as Romney does, though I will admit that few would articulate it..
Contrary to your claim, I think this will actually give Romney a boost..
It's the one thing that you simply refuse to understand.
We're a Center-RIGHT country....
Michale.....
Further, Obama has made some comments that alienated more than half the country on more than one occasion...
Didn't hear the peanut gallery say much then, eh?? :D
Michale.....
Michale,
The difference is that what Obama said is true and what Romney said is not.
"Just say something that's true!"
What movie is that from?
Yes, that's pretty hilarious, Michale ... or what I call a very cruel irony.
Yes to both...
Think of the run-up to the ObamaCare ruling.. The media had built up all the hype, all but assuring the public that ObamaCare was toast...
Then remember the collective jaw-drop from ALL OVER the country.....
I think that's what's going to happen on 6 Nov. Except this time, it's going to happen to the Left..
The MSM will build up all the hype portraying Obama as invincible...
And then... WHHHHAAAAAAMMMMMMM
Say hello to President-Elect Romney....
You heard it here first.....
Michale.....
The difference is that what Obama said is true and what Romney said is not.
"Archeology is the search for FACTS, not truth. If you want 'truth' Professor Tyree's philosophy class is down the hall."
-Indiana, Indiana Jones And The Last Crusade
Further, what Obama said was NOT true... At any time..
What Romney said is close enough...
"Just say something that's true!"
What movie is that from?
I had to google it, so ya stumped me. :D But, to be fair, it's a relatively new movie..
Michale......
What Romney said is close enough
Lolololol amazing. You are so lost to reality.
I can say with complete confidence that Independents and NPAs feel EXACTLY as Romney does, though I will admit that few would articulate it..
This is the thing YOU don't get. His comment will actually appeal to crazy far-right, Obama-haters like you; but sensible independents or the vast majority of people on the fence they will be appalled by it. The same with his 'apology' comments.
And it isn't so much about the comment, it is about Romney clarifying how he feels about half of America - he doesn't care for them and never will. What a great President he will make! Lol. Obama's team were already trying to build this image of him, but they've just been handed this clip as an early Xmas present (not to mention the other comments in this clip, including the line "Frankly, I was born with a silver spoon").
For example, I'm sure all the elderly, who have just been told they are free-loaders that Romney doesn't care about since they don't pay income tax, are going to LOVE this comment. Vote Romney, who doesn't care about us and wants to give us a voucher instead of Medicare. Yup, I'm sure that will go down well.
In one foul swoop Romney has made it abundantly clear that his priorities lie in looking after the wealthy - the rest of American, well frankly he doesn't give a damn about them. WE already knew this, because we follow politics, but Romney has made it clear from his own mouth for the rest of America to now know.
Maybe today's leaked Romney video about how he hates 47% of YOU PEOPLE will finally push Obama to the point at which Romney's backers stop giving him money.
How utterly ironic..
AND predictable..
A couple days ago, you were lamenting on how cowardly it was that a conservative would us a hidden camera to catch liberals saying stupid stuff..
And what was my response?? Something along the lines of "If it were a liberal doing it, you would applaud them.."
And here we are, a couple days later.....
Michale is proven right once again.... :D
Michale.....
But don't tell me.. I can guess..
"That's different"....
Right??? :D
Like I said.. So predictable...
Michale.....
Michty,
Most models are showing Obama at 80%+ to win from this point.
It's important to remember, though, that it's not enough that Obama win if the Democrats don't have effective control of both houses of Congress.
I'm not exactly looking forward to another four years of the kind of dangerous and destructive Republican behavior that marked Obama's first term.
*49% of all Americans pay no fed income tax
*47% receive a check from the government of which more than half are means tested welfare checks (Medicaid, welfare, food stamps, etc.)
*36% of all Americans of working age are either not working or looking for work.
Once again, the FACTS are hard to argue with...
But I am sure ya'all will attempt it anyways....
Michale....
I'm not exactly looking forward to another four years of the kind of dangerous and destructive Republican behavior that marked Obama's first term.
Then you should be hoping for a Romney win.. :D
Michale.....
Michale
A couple days ago, you were lamenting on how cowardly it was that a conservative would us a hidden camera to catch liberals saying stupid stuff
How predictable, when faced with comments that you can't deny you just make stuff up. You really are a true Republican in 2012.
Once again, the FACTS are hard to argue with
Yup, I presented the facts in post [16] which, as you usually do when someone makes a case against you and you can't counter it, you chose to conveniently ignore. As I said, if the '47%' did all vote for Obama he would win every single State. But you ignored this, as usual. Yawn.
I'm not exactly looking forward to another four years of the kind of dangerous and destructive Republican behavior that marked Obama's first term
Yeh the forecasts are not good for this. It is very unlikely Democrats will take the House (although Mitt/Paul are trying their hardest to push the election this way) and the Senate is basically a coin flip just now, leaning slightly Dem - probably 60%ish chance it stays Dem.
The good news is that RnR are making such a mess for the R's these are subject to tilt more Dem.
However, I am pretty sure Republicans will just obstruct anyway regardless if they have the House or Senate. Obama might get a budget through Reconciliation but the reality is that it's very likely he will still face hateful obstruction...
How predictable, when faced with comments that you can't deny you just make stuff up. You really are a true Republican in 2012.
How predictable. When faced with the hypocrisy of your own words, you resort to inane and childish personal attacks.. :D
Michale.....
How predictable. When faced with the hypocrisy of your own words, you resort to inane and childish personal attacks
Lol that's because they're not my words and you just made it up. Why just yesterday you said 'I love Obama and am going to vote for him'. See I can make up stuff too.
"Also Michale what do you think about the fact that the guy who released the video did so under a pseudonym and possibly even tricked the actors/actresses into appearing in the video (they were unaware what it was)? What a complete and utter coward."
-michty
http://www.chrisweigant.com/2012/09/10/romneys-new-health-care-plan/#comment-26707
You were saying??? :D
Do you REALLY want to have a battle of quotes with me, mich???
:D
Michale.....
Michale
http://www.gallup.com/poll/150743/Obama-Romney.aspx
Looks like Obama is losing ground fast...
IF you believe in polls, that is.. :D
Michale
Michale
My God I should invent a play-book for you. Every single day you do this: linking to an article or quoting a comment that has nothing to do with the issue claiming it is 'evidence'! Every day you do this.
What on earth has my comment got to do with secretly taping anyone?? Lololol you are amazing. You are the American Karl Pilkington...
Michale
Obama's polling looks pretty steady to me. Solid 3 point lead in the RCP average for over a week now. Romney at 32% on In-Trade Michale. I wonder how much he'll drop in the wake of this video. Could be below 30 in a couple of days...
Here are the facts, michty...
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/09/18/the-data-behind-romneys-47-comments/
Of course, these are the facts of the REAL world, not MichtyLand....
Michale.....
Michale
I know the facts. I work in finance remember. Like I know that 80%+ of people pay tax in America. I also know:
In terms of taxes paid per State:
- 9/10 of the TOP 10 tax paying States voted Democrat in 2008
- 7/10 of the BOTTOM 10 tax paying States voted Republican in 2008.
If you look at in in terms of tax paid per capita it is ever worse:
- 9/10 of the TOP 10 States in tax paid per capita voted Democrat in 2008
- 8/10 of the BOTTOM 10 States in tax paid per capital voted Republican in 2008.
But I expect you to continue to ignore this since it doesn't fit into your crazy right-wing Obama-is-increasing-dependency, Obama-is-an-evil usurper world.
I know the facts. I work in finance remember.
You work in finance in the UK... We're the USA... You are also biased for Obama which skews all that you say...
The simple fact is, Romney was dead on ballz accurate in what he said...
You and the Left trying to make a big deal out of it will fail, just as Hillary and The Right failed when they tried to make a big deal out of Obama saying that people cling to guns and religion...
You'll realize this in 48 days, 6 hours, 28 minutes..
Michale....
The simple fact is, Romney was dead on ballz accurate in what he said
Lololol. Ah Michale-world. I'd love to see it. Of course you continue to ignore the facts I presented as to why his comment is 'dead on ballz' complete and utter nonsense. I expect no less from you. Facts are evil in Michale-world.
I hope Romney does go with this idea though. I can see his campaign ad:
Poor? FU you don't pay income tax
Old? FU you don't pay income tax
Student? FU you don't pay income tax
Have kids? FU you don't pay income tax
Serving in Afghanistan? FU you don't pay income tax
Unemployed? FU you don't pay income tax
Received a tax rebate? FU you moocher
Received any benefits from the Government? FU you moocher (unless you're a bank/energy company etc then you're ok…)
Besides, Romney's point is not the percentages but rather the fact that those who ARE on Government aid will want to STAY on government aid and will, therefore, will vote Obama...
Basically, the losers of society who think that the world owes them a living, who think that Obama will pay their mortgage and pay their bills are the ones who are going to vote for Obama...
Those are the people Romney is talking about. And, like I said, the Independents and NPAs (who DECIDE elections) are pretty much on the same page...
This election is about one thing...
Recapturing the former glory and prestige of this country (Romney) or going the way of Greece (Obama)...
It's a very easy decision for me...
Michale.....
Of course you continue to ignore the facts I presented
You presented facts!??? Since when!???
"Oh, so now you SHARE credit.."
-Jeannie Miller, STARGATE: ATLANTIS, McKay & Mrs Miller
:D
Michale.....
Besides, Romney's point is not the percentages but rather the fact that those who ARE on Government aid will want to STAY on government aid and will, therefore, will vote Obama
asically, the losers of society who think that the world owes them a living, who think that Obama will pay their mortgage and pay their bills are the ones who are going to vote for Obama...
Those are the people Romney is talking about. And, like I said, the Independents and NPAs (who DECIDE elections) are pretty much on the same page.
Again - nope. Look at the facts I presented above. Some more to drill it home:
- Of the 10 poorest States (by GDP per capita), 9 voted Republican in 2008 (Idaho, South Carolina, Alabama, New Mexico, Montana, Kentucky, Arkansas, West Virginia, Mississippi) - the exception is Michigan.
- Of the 10 States with the lowest incomes per capita, ALL 10 voted Republican in 2008 (Idaho,
North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, New Mexico, Montana, Louisiana, Arkansas, West Virginia, Mississippi)
I could go on but you'll just ignore me anyway because you're completely and utterly blind to the facts and you're living in Michale-far-right-Obama-is-evil world...
I could go on but you'll just ignore me anyway
Yea, pretty much.... :D
See, we CAN agree on some things!! :D
But, we'll know who's is the REAL world in 48 days and some odd hours... :D
Michale.....
But, we'll know who's is the REAL world in 48 days and some odd hours
Ah the classic Michale line when you have nothing to say because facts are very clearly against you ;)
PS. Liz - turns out I was wrong, Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight put out his Senate forecast today and is predicting 70% chance of Democrats holding it (51+ or 50/50 with the Presidency). His model is pretty good - one of the better ones I follow...
No, it's the classic line I use when I realize yer on yer Obama-Koolaid bender and beyond reason... :D
Michale.....
Actually I'm on a facts-kool-aid. That's bad news for you/Romney's extremist views which do not stand up well in face of facts. Ah well, Romney can always just put out his welfare lie adverts and try to detract from the very bad image he now has...
Romney has such a "bad" image, yet the race is neck and neck..
How do you explain that??? Fairies and pixie dust??? :D
Michale.....
From the Torygraph of all papers!
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/iainmartin1/100181520/the-spectacular-implosion-of-mitt-romney-means-a-no-choice-us-election/
Several months ago I wrote a column for The Daily Telegraph saying that, on balance, it was preferable for Mitt Romney to win the looming US Presidential election. Since it was written, a video and certain statements by Mr Romney have come to light which suggest that my original argument suffered from severe design flaws. I am now issuing a product recall.
Romney has such a "bad" image, yet the race is neck and neck..
How do you explain that??? Fairies and pixie dust??? :D
Lol Michale the race is far from neck and neck. Romney has never had a single lead in the RCP average in 2012. Not once. Even McCain had a lead for several weeks back in 2008. So he is actually doing worse than McCain.
But your right-wing media sources want to pretend that the race is close because they know that if they don't pretend it is close, Romney's big money backers would be gone faster than you can say 'I don't care about half the American population'... So they send out Rasmussen to show that actually it's close - no-one points out that of the last 13 national vote pollsters, ONLY 1 (Rasmussen) has Romney anywhere near winning. Shock, horror!
But it's all probably a liberal media conspiracy, don't worry. We might not live in Michale world but we understand how it works...
Yes, michty.... The race is all clinched up...
Yes, michty... Romney might as well concede now..
Yes, michty... Here is some more Obama koolaid for you....
Jeeze, it's almost going to be child abuse on 7 Nov.....
Michale.....
Michale, Romney is at 32% on In-Trade. Wow you could make a killing since, in Michale-world, Romney is 89% certain to win. That's a 57% edge! BET THE HOUSE!
So they send out Rasmussen to show that actually it's close - no-one points out that of the last 13 national vote pollsters, ONLY 1 (Rasmussen) has Romney anywhere near winning. Shock, horror!
Of course, you ignore the FACT that Rasmussen called it dead on ballz accurate in 2008...
There are no facts in michtyland that aren't Pro-Obama facts...
Michale.....
Of course, you ignore the FACT that Rasmussen called it dead on ballz accurate in 2008.
It's almost as if they put out Republican leaning polls in the build up to the election to try and garner support for McCain then, right before the election, adjusted their polls to be in line with reality.
But nah, that isn't possible right? There is no way Scott Rasmussen, a declared Conservative, can be biased when he has written such un-biased articles on his site as:
- 'Let Individuals, Not Politicians, Make Health Care Decisions'
- 'Government Has No Business Dabbling in Business'
Of the last 13 polls Rasmussen is the ONLY one to show Romney in a lead. Rasmussen is consistently redder than all other pollsters.
But nah, these facts are meaningless. They're probably not biased.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/09/17/rasmussen-the-gops-cure-for-the-common-poll/?print=1
One thing I have read Michale is that Romney's comments are likely to divide the GOP into the crazy/non-crazy segments. Unfortunately you've made it pretty clear on this page which side you fall into.
http://www.samefacts.com/2012/09/watching-conservatives/litmus-test/
Yes, micthy..
Anything that speaks against Obama is right wing propaganda...
Yes mitchy..
Anything that speaks against Romney is dead on ballz accurate facts...
Yes mitchy... it's OK...
here's a nice soothing glass of Obama kool-aid.. Drink up now...
Yes.. mitchy.. It's OK.. Obama will win the election. Yeeess.. That's good... settle down now..
You're safe and sound in MitchyLand....
Michale.....
Once again, the "facts" are astounding..
Everything good and right comes from Obama..
Everything evil and bad comes from the Right..
What an AWESOME track record this is.....
Michale.....
Lol Michale. You just can't have a debate without making it a 'left vs right' thing and that one side must be 'evil' and one side must be 'always wrong', 'always right' etc etc. I'd love to see how you talk to your wife!
You also can't concede a very simple point: that what Romney said is not only nonsense but likely to be very bad for him. But then all you see is hatred for Obama so that doesn't surprise me.
Btw Rush agrees with Romney and thinks he should make these pesky moochers front and centre of his campaign. I completely agree with Rush. I really do think Romney should do this, it would be amazing!
Lol Michale. You just can't have a debate without making it a 'left vs right' thing and that one side must be 'evil' and one side must be 'always wrong', 'always right' etc etc. I'd love to see how you talk to your wife!
You are so desperate that you REALLY have to go there???
That's just sad.....
Michale.....
Well, so much for O's bounce. Gallup's got him right back at 47% again, in the same ol' dead heat with Romney, and with Rasmussen showing a dead heat as well. When's the first debate? This race is just plain tediously boring.
Obama campaign responds with video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWVxI6XZAuE
;)
*49% of all Americans pay no fed income tax
*47% receive a check from the government of which more than half are means tested welfare checks (Medicaid, welfare, food stamps, etc.)
*36% of all Americans of working age are either not working or looking for work.
How many of those people do you suppose are Republcand and Independents who intend to vote for Mitt Romney?
According to Mitt Romney, all of these people are Democrats, not matter what, and safely in the bag for Obama. Is it possible to be more out of touch with reality than that!?
Michale,
Just of be clear, the above comment was meant for you!
And, no ... I'm not drunk ... I just can't see. :)
You typed all that without being able to see?? Impressive!
Heh.
The Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi was in fact "a terrorist attack" and the U.S. government has indications that members of al Qaeda were directly involved, a top Obama administration official said Wednesday morning.
"I would say yes, they were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy," Matt Olsen, the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, said Wednesday at a hearing of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, in response to questioning from Chairman Joe Lieberman (I-CT) about the attack that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/09/19/obama_official_benghazi_was_a_terrorist_attack
Someone owes me 20,000 Quatloos! :D
Michale.....
Tax penalty to hit nearly 6 million uninsured people
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/national_world/2012/09/19/tax-penalty-to-hit-nearly-6m-uninsured-people.html
"READ MY LIPS... NO NEW TAXES!!!"
How many of those people do you suppose are Republcand and Independents who intend to vote for Mitt Romney?
Considering the above.....
I'de say quite a few of them, now... :D
Michale.....
Michale you are the King of selective reading.
What I can tell you is that, as I said last week, as ... our ambassador to the United Nations said on Sunday and as I said the other day, based on what we know now and knew at the time, we have no evidence of a preplanned or premeditated attack
Tax penalty to hit nearly 6 million uninsured people
Lolol.
Free-loaders in healthcare = totally fine.
Free-loaders in federal income tax = bunch of bums that I don't give a shit about.
What I can tell you is that, as I said last week, as ... our ambassador to the United Nations said on Sunday and as I said the other day, based on what we know now and knew at the time, we have no evidence of a preplanned or premeditated attack
Like I said.. You pick the ONE paragraph out of the entire article that somewhat supports your fantasy..
Let me lay a little bit of reality on you, michty...
Speaking from great experience...
You have an attack on a consulate... Per SOP, security forces move our HVT to a secure location. Often times it's a "panic room" within the embassy that can be held under siege until friendly forces arrive..
Being that this was a consulate, it's likely that no such provisions were available. In such cases, a safe house is designated and security forces move our HVT to said safe house by a randomly chosen route..
Now, let's apply what we have just learned to the Benghazi....
We will use YOUR fantasy demonstration.. Well as much as we can...
A protest demonstration over an obscure YouTube video begins at the Benghazi Consulate. Al Qaeda terrorists, on the spur of the moment, brings in heavy weapons and RPGs in an attempt to assassinate our Ambassador...
Security forces, following SOP move HVT to the safe house..
This is where your scenario completely falls apart.
A SECOND terrorist team is lying in wait for the security team with the HVT to show up. ANOTHER attack ensues AT THE SAFE HOUSE and security forces with the HVT are killed..
Now.. YOUR reasoning that this was a random spontaneous extension of the protest/demonstration completely fails..
If this WASN'T a planned attack, if this WAS a spontaneous extension of the protest, a target of opportunity, how do you explain the pre-planning??
I can assure you with complete authority that you simply CANNOT pull a TWO-PRONGED, WELL TIMED attack against a FORTIFIED PRE-WARNED security force out of your ass at a moments notice...
It is simply NOT within the realm of possibility...
Given these FACTS, there is simply NO POSSIBLE way that the assault on the Benghazi Consulate was ANYTHING other than a well-planned and well-executed terrorist attack..
Give it up, michty.
You were wrong...
Obama was wrong...
Accept it gracefully and move on....
Michale.....
What I can tell you is that, as I said last week, as ... our ambassador to the United Nations said on Sunday and as I said the other day, based on what we know now and knew at the time, we have no evidence of a preplanned or premeditated attack
For the record, THAT ^^^^ bonehead statement comes from Obama's PRESS Secretary..
What the hell do you THINK he would say???
Of COURSE he is going to toe the Obama line.. A line, I might add, that NO ONE with more than two brain-cells to rub together would EVER take seriously...
Cue michty..... :D
Michale.....
For the record, THAT ^^^^ bonehead statement comes from Obama's PRESS Secretary..
For the record, Baghdad Bob has more credibility than Jay Carney.....
Michale....
Honestly it's like the DNC weather thing all over again. You make a bunch of statements, claim they are facts and then jump to your biased, bigoted, crazy, concocted conclusion! In that argument even when the guy who runs this very site told you he had first hand experience to prove you were wrong you still couldn't believe it. The guys who perpetrated it could come on TV tomorrow and announce it was a spontaneous attack and you would still deny it. That's how blindly bigoted you are...
Michale,
Are you (deliberately) forgetting the David Martin pieces I linked to for you from CBS Evening News? David Martin was reporting from Pentagon sources THE DAY AFTER THE ATTACKS that they thought it was an offshoot of Al Qaeda. In the time since then, they have been confirming/ruling out initial findings. This is called an "investigation."
It still remains true (as was reported in the beginning) that this was an attack that took advantage of an opportunity when there were protesters at the embassy.
I don't even understand what your point is with this stuff? Are you trying to say that the Obama Administration is falling down on the job when it comes to national security? If so, I would still say this incident is far less substantial than the one the Republican administration missed on their watch. You might remember it...you know...that one in New York City, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania on a late summer/early fall day. When was that? If only someone could "Never Forget"...
Obama's own Director of the National CounterTerrorism Center stated that this was a terrorist attack...
You claim to be all about the facts, but per your usual MO, you simply deny the facts that PROVE you are a liar...
The revelation comes on the same day a top Obama administration official called last week's deadly assault a "terrorist attack" -- the first time the attack has been described that way by the administration after claims it had been a "spontaneous" act.
"Yes, they were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy," Matt Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, said during a Senate hearing Wednesday.
At least you have proven beyond ANY doubt that you simply ignore the facts that don't fit your Obama-Koolaid binge driven fantasies....
Once again, michty..
You are wrong. This is FACT...
Obama was wrong. This is fact....
Obama's propaganda minister was wrong. This is fact..
When I said that the Obama Administration would change their story within 24 hours, I was right...
Deal with it...
Michale.....
Ninjaf,
It still remains true (as was reported in the beginning) that this was an attack that took advantage of an opportunity when there were protesters at the embassy.
Once again, this simply doesn't fit the facts. It was a terrorist op, pure and simple.
You think that the terrorists just HAPPENED to have TWO TEAMS, just HAPPENED to have positioned them in exactly the right spots, just HAPPENED to know the location of the safe house and just HAPPENED to know the Security team's route to the safe house??
Basically, what you are saying is akin to claiming that, on 11 Sep 2001, the terrorists just happened to notice that airport security was lax and so took advantage of it to fly planes into the WTC and the Pentagon.
Your opinion is borne out of complete and utter ignorance of the field and your complete and utter devotion to the Obama Administration..
Your's and mitchy's theories are simply IMPOSSIBLE and do not line up with the facts in any way, shape or form...
Yer wrong.. No two ways about it.. Yer wrong.. Period..
As far as CBS news???
Bush National Guard papers..
'nuff said...
Michale.....
Michale,
I didn't say that the attack was not planned. I said the riots were used to distract from the attacks. You need to work on your reading comprehension. Slow down. Take a deep breath. And read ALL of the words in the sentences people post.
Ninjaf,
I can read just fine. You might have a problem with getting what you mean across...
"It still remains true (as was reported in the beginning) that this was an attack that took advantage of an opportunity when there were protesters at the embassy."
-ninjaf
This statement of yours implies that the terrorist attack was happenstance, based on the protest. In essence you are saying that if there wasn't a protest, there wouldn't have been an attack.
Now, that may not be what you MEANT, but it IS what you said..
And such a supposition is moose poop...
Do you honestly believe that terrorists would arm themselves with heavy weapons, set up a two prong attack which would betray their inside knowledge of security procedures and then sit idly by *HOPING* for a protest??
I know for a FACT that you are not that obtuse... After all, we agree on 60% of the issues. :D
The protest/demonstration, if it even existed at all, was likely part of the terrorist plan.
Ergo, it was NOT a spontaneous demonstration/protest as the Obama Administration clearly stated it was.
I realize it's hard for ya'all to concede when I am right. But I am...
I realize it's harder still for ya'all to concede that the Obama Administration was wrong. But it was...
Ya'all sure have no problem jumping up and down and crowing when I am wrong. Which I admit it DOES happen occasionally.
It sure would be nice, though, if you would show a little integrity and concede when I am right..
Yea, I know, I know... Ya'all (with a few exceptions) would rather swallow hot glass than do that...
Michale.....
Ergo, it was NOT a spontaneous demonstration/protest as the Obama Administration clearly stated it was.
And it sure as hell wasn't because of some obscure video that has been in circulation for months..
Michale.....
on't even understand what your point is with this stuff? Are you trying to say that the Obama Administration is falling down on the job when it comes to national security?
No, I am simply saying that the Obama administration lied for political gain...
Ya'all are really big on lies when it's a GOP adminstration.. But you give a DEM administration a free pass..
Once again proving that really the ONLY thing that matters is the '-D' or the '-R' after the name..
Michale.....
Ninjaf,
You're wasting your time. There could be full comprehensive video of the entire attack proving that it was spontaneous and Michale would not change his mind. And even if there was he'd find a way to blame Obama since this evil Kenyan usurper is responsible for everything everywhere (in Michale world). He is so far biased he is blind to reality. I had the same issue when he was blindly arguing that the DNC moved Obama's speech inside because they couldn't fill the stadium - even when the owner of this site provided personal experience that this was not true Michale wouldn't change his mind. He is blind to reality and lives in this right-wing fantasy world where the Satanist over-lord Obama runs riot...
Michale,
It's hilarious that you call yourself a NPA/Independent/Whatever-phrase-to-try-and-justify-your-bias. Ninjaf or I are not even arguing that it WASN'T a planned terrorist attack - we are saying that as things stand there is no compelling evidence to suggest it was. This is a far more neutral or independent position than you are ever capable of achieving because of your own blind bias. Regardless of what the administration said about the attack you'd have jumped to the opposite conclusion because you are completely bigoted against them.
Perhaps I am not being clear so let me state I am saying that, from the beginning, there have been news reports that this was a planned attack that took advantage of a spontaneous protest. There has never been a cover up of this. There has been an ongoing investigation to confirm these reports. That is why the further away we get from the incident there are now official statements — on the record — stating this. It was not some conspiracy to make this look like something other than it was, but rather prudent examining of facts and evidence to discover what happened before going on the record.
Michale,
Do I think that Al Qaeda was waiting for a protest to launch their attack? I don't know that. I don't know what they were waiting for. However, they have shown themselves to be very patient and opportunistic when trying to attack. There is even the phrase "sleeper cell" that has entered into our lexicon for that very reason. And I do think that those protests happening on the anniversary of 9/11 provided exactly what they wanted.
So, to mock me for it seeming reasonable that they could have planned the attack and then waited to execute it when it would make the biggest splash shows either situational ignorance or a long term memory issue. You may want to see your physician for an exam. At your age, memory issues can be a sign of dementia and it is best to catch it as early as possible. ;-)
Now, you keep saying that this video was obscure and had been out there for months — but you seem unaware that the weekend before these protests started a Coptic Chritian television show host in Egypt played the video on his tv show. This obscure video was not just floating around on YouTube all by its little lonesome. The only place I have seen this information was on Rachel Maddow's very excellent bit about this turmoil (notice my lack of calling this a cover up conspiracy of the Right), which also explains why you wouldn't know it exists. I am going to try to find the info and post it here.
I can't find the video right now, and I have spent the last half hour trying to find it. It is going to have to wait until later.
We obviously are living in two separate realities here..
In the michty/ninjaf reality, Al Qaeda will setup up a terrorist attack, plan it to the nth detail, complete with a two pronged attack using top secret intel, everything planned to the most exquisite detail possible and THEN.....
They'll wait around for a "spontaneous" protest to develop so that the can launch their attack. They'll be ALL set up on 8 Sep and.... "OK boys, no protest today. Pack it up and we'll set it all up again for tomorrow...
Com'on... I am positive that you (ninjaf) are NOT that stoopid.. Mitchy?? Jury's still out on that one..
This was a planned terrorist attack. This is documented as fact. Knowing the terrorist mentality as I do, I am certain that the protest/demonstration (if there even was one. There are conflicting eyewitness reports on that point) the alleged protest/demonstration was initiated by the attacking force...
There is absolutely NO evidence to support the Obama administrations claim that this was a "spontaneous" demonstration...
Let me say that again for the cheap seats...
There is absolutely NO evidence to support the Obama administration's claim that this was a "spontaneous" demonstration...
None.. Zero.. Zilch.. Nada..
This discussion does have one good aspect. It has proven beyond ANY doubt that Michty and "Facts" are not even on the same planet....
As an aside to ninjaf...
First CBS News and the Rachael Maddow??
WOW, ya got some unbiased sources there, eh!? :D
So, if I post FNC and Breitbart sources, you'll be totally on board with them right?? :D
Michale.....
Overall, this whole incident has proven how wussified this planet has become..
Now, I am a Law And Order kinda guy.. So maybe I am biased..
JUDGE: "How could you gun down dozens of people and rape and burn and pillage!!? I am going to sentence you to a million years in jail!!!"
Radical Muslim: "Because someone on the other side of the planet offended my religion."
JUDGE: "Oh! I didn't know!! My sincerest and humblest apologies! You are free to go."
THAT is the state of this planet...
Since when do we, as a CIVILIZED SOCIETY, allow, validate and condone rape and murder simply because someone was offended??
Michale.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGMlnBkUztM&feature=player_embedded
"Witnesses tell CBS NEWS that there was *never* an anti-American protest outside of the consulate."
Now, since CBS News reports has been introduced as evidence, there shouldn't be ANY problem in accepting this report...
Right????
Once again...
There was NO protest/demonstration outside the US Consulate in Benghazi..
I was right. Ya'all and Obama et al were wrong.
The Obama Administration began changing their story, *12 HOURS* just as I predicted they would...
Com'on guys.. Show a little maturity and just admit it....
Ya'all were wrong...
Michale.....
I warned you to give up Ninjaf. This is the sort of nonsensical statement that you're dealing with:
This was a planned terrorist attack. This is documented as fact.
Don't you realise that when Michale states something it instantly becomes fact!?
Michty,
Your evidence that is CURRENT, is NOT from your lord god, Obama and shows there WAS a protest????
......{{{chhhrrriiiiiiippppp}}} {{{chirrrrpppp}}}
That's what I thought...
I have to give you credit, though.. Your ability to deny reality is breathtaking.. Breathtakingly moronic, but breathtaking, nonetheless...
:D
Michale.....
Yes in Michale-world all is clear: the evil Kenyan Muslim usurper is undergoing one of his massive conspiracy cover-ups and only Michale is around to see the real facts. Everyone who doesn't live in Michale world is in denial of this reality.
Yes in Michale-world all is clear: the evil Kenyan Muslim usurper is undergoing one of his massive conspiracy cover-ups and only Michale is around to see the real facts. Everyone who doesn't live in Michale world is in denial of this reality.
TRANSLATION: I have no facts to back up my position, but I have to cover my embarrassment by childish and immature accusations...
's OK, michty.. You did give me a decent run, I'll grant you....
But your biggest mistake was trying to match me on a subject that I am an expert in...
Michale.....
I can't match you in any subject. Here is your answer to any subject: it's Obama's fault, Obama is evil, Obama is responsible, Obama is covering it up, anything that supports Obama is a lie, anything against Obama is the total truth. Yawn.
If you want a snow-balls chance in hell of matching me in a debate, stick to economics... :D
Michale.....
it's Obama's fault, Obama is evil, Obama is responsible, Obama is covering it up, anything that supports Obama is a lie, anything against Obama is the total truth. Yawn.
Even if that were true (it isn't) it's simply the converse of your arguments
it's the Republicans' fault, Republicans are evil, Republicans are responsible, Republicans are covering it up, anything that supports Republicans is a lie, anything against Republicans is the total truth. Yawn.
You are the one who worships the almighty -D... I am a registered NPA and I have the paperwork to prove it. :D
Michale.....
Lol I can easily disprove your nonsense by pointing out that I have neither supported Obama, condemned Obama, condemned Republicans or jumped to any conclusion about this whole incident. The only criticism I have made is about Romney turning it into political rhetoric whilst an American embassy was literally still under attack (and on 9/11).
It is you who then went off on a completely biased/bigoted rant about the nature of the attack. All I have merely done is point out that the evidence says one thing and you are completely bigoted and biased - a conclusion that becomes more apparent with every post you write.
'Registered NPA' means absolutely nothing when you are as biased/bigoted as you. Heck you have even posted a link showing that you took a survey which showed you agreed 95% with Mitt Romney. Hardly NPA. I could join the Republican party if I wanted to, but that wouldn't make me a Republican. You are about as much an NPA as Mitt Romney is.
'Registered NPA' means absolutely nothing when you are as biased/bigoted as you. Heck you have even posted a link showing that you took a survey which showed you agreed 95% with Mitt Romney. Hardly NPA.
Once again, you ignore the inconvenient facts..
That survey ALSO showed that I was 46% in agreement with Obama...
You lost, michty. Accept it gracefully...
Michale.....
That survey ALSO showed that I was 46% in agreement with Obama...
But your comments do not show that.
And your video from CBS does not answer the question but says there are eyewitnesses saying there were no protests. So, we have eyewitnesses who say there were protests. And we have eyewitnesses saying there were no protests. Hey! Let's do an investigation!
As for my sources, I am not going to get into debating legitimacy of the FACTS they present. CBS News does not have a liberal bias — they have a factual bias. And, yes, Rachel Maddow makes no bones about her political leanings. But knowing that and viewing the FACTS presented with that knowledge does not negate whether or not the facts are TRUE.
Fox News does not get the same benefit of the doubt because they deny their bias. If they lie about their political agenda, why would they even hesitate to cherry pick and distort the information they are offering up as fact?
Just wait Ninjaf, Michale will start denying that there was even a video soon. Mark my words - you heard it here first.
But your comments do not show that.
They would IF we discussed something FROM that 46%... :D
As for my sources, I am not going to get into debating legitimacy of the FACTS they present. CBS News does not have a liberal bias — they have a factual bias
Bush National Guard papers..
'nuff said.. :D
And, yes, Rachel Maddow makes no bones about her political leanings. But knowing that and viewing the FACTS presented with that knowledge does not negate whether or not the facts are TRUE.
Fox News does not get the same benefit of the doubt because they deny their bias. If they lie about their political agenda, why would they even hesitate to cherry pick and distort the information they are offering up as fact?
Everything you say against FNC is true of Rachael Maddow, CBS and all the other Left Wing MSM outlets.
Of course, you deny this because you AGREE with their bias...
Such is the case with political ideologues.. The ones that swear fealty and allegiance to one Party or another..
It's not a malady that I suffer from.. I am free to castigate either Party as I see fit...
Ya'all fail to remember that when you label me biased. For your label to be accurate, you would have to ignore 30%-40% of my posts.
Of course, ignoring facts is what michty does best..
Apparently, he is a bad influence on you.. :D
Michale...
michty,
"Ned, I would love to stay here and chat with you. Buuut I'm not gonna..."
-Bill Murray, GROUNDHOG DAY
:D
Michale.....
So, we have eyewitnesses who say there were protests. And we have eyewitnesses saying there were no protests. Hey! Let's do an investigation!
Something, apparently, the Obama Administration DID NOT DO, before they started spouting off about alleged protests and demonstrations..
True or False??
Michale.....
Michale,
Bush National Guard papers..
'nuff said.. :D
Dan Rather is now at HDNET/AXS TV as a result of those papers — the facts of which have never been denied by GWB. Your argument of bias holds no merit.
Ya'all fail to remember that when you label me biased. For your label to be accurate, you would have to ignore 30%-40% of my posts.
Well, I guess it is accurate for me because I already ignore at least 30-40% of your posts because they are repetitive and factually incorrect.
Something, apparently, the Obama Administration DID NOT DO, before they started spouting off about alleged protests and demonstrations..
True or False??
I have provided several links showing this to be false. FWIW, so have you.
Ninjaf,
Don't be silly there is clearly no need for an investigation - Michale has already figured it out!
If only the intelligence community had Michale's amazing ability to apply completely unbiased logic to every situation they wouldn't even need the expense of appointing an independent body to investigate this attack. But, alas, they do not have someone with the internet-investigative capabilities of Michale, and his amazing ability to read and repeat Fox News, so they're going to waste so much time and effort on this investigation.
Hoo boy, looks like I've got some answerin' to do...
First, a general comment to Michale -
Haven't heard much about how Obama is "so divisive" recently, have we? Guess both sides "divide" America up, eh?
LizM [7] -
I know, I've got about 500 email messages to dig through, I'll get to it... finally feeling 100% again, and during being sick I did indeed just ignore email for a while. Mea culpa!
michty6 [16] -
These are facts worth bringing up over and over again. Good job! The "welfare states" are the GOP stronghold -- maybe the Dems should propose a "end welfare states" bill, eh?
Michale [18] -
Pure fantasy. His quote wasn't even close to what you claim.
michty6 [25] -
OK, I have to admit, "one foul swoop" was pretty catchy! Well done!
:-)
Michale [35] -
From the polls I see, Obama's doing just fine. His job approval number is even approaching 50% -- first time that's happened since Bin Laden was killed. O's "bounce" seems pretty solid at this point.
Michale [42] -
So is a wounded vet a "loser of society who thinks government owes him a living"? Do tell, since they're part of that 47%...
Chris1962 [62] -
National polling is all but meaningless. In the states -- where it counts -- the race is nowhere near as as close. O's shown a solid lead the entire race. I guess that qualifies as "tediously boring"...
Heh. I already asked you "worried yet?" over at HuffPost, so I will refrain from doing so here.
:-)
LizM [66] -
Reminds me of a friend who would decide every once in a while that he "had an eye problem... just can't SEE going in to work today." Heh.
OK, the rest of these comments isn't worth commenting on, for the most part. Gotta get back to work...
-CW
CW,
Thought ya got eaten by a Mugato!! :D
Haven't heard much about how Obama is "so divisive" recently, have we? Guess both sides "divide" America up, eh?
Yea, well... Obama started it!! :D
Ninjaf,
Since you are at least being reasonable about things, let's look at this from a different angle..
We have eyewitness reports that there wasn't a protest/demonstration and we have eyewitness reports that there WAS a protest/demonstration..
So, the existence or non-existent of the protest/demonstration is not hard fact. A conclusion could be drawn for either position..
But here's the question that no one has answered yet.
What evidence is there to show that the protest/demonstration (IF it existed) was "spontaneous"??
There has been absolutely NO EVIDENCE to support the Obama Administration's initial conclusion. The conclusion that they ran with, even before the smoke had cleared from Benghazi...
What is the evidence that supports a "spontaneous" protest???
It's well-established and beyond doubt or debate that the attack on the Consulate and Safe House was a planned attack...
Given my expertise in the field, it's easy for me to forumlate a plan where the initial steps would include a pre-made, ready-to-go Anti-American demonstration.
So here's the question. Is there ANY *evidence* to support the conclusion that this was a "SPONTANEOUS" protest/demonstration and not the opening salvo of the attack??
I am not being facetious here. If there IS evidence, I would like to examine it. See if it fits...
But until such evidence surfaces, it appears that the Obama Admin simply lied to pursue a political agenda..
And I know how much ya'all just HATE when a President does that, right??? :D
Michale.....
So here's the question. Is there ANY *evidence* to support the conclusion that this was a "SPONTANEOUS" protest/demonstration and not the opening salvo of the attack??
Apparently not. :D
The Prosecution rests.. :D
Michale...
National polling is all but meaningless.
Can I quote you on that?? :D
Because it seems a LOT of people here in Weigantia like to (vis a vis the Presidential Race) quote national polls when the national polls say what they want to hear and then ignore the national polls when the national polls say something they don't like..
I'm just sayin' :D
Michale.....
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/ig-white-house-made-it-impossible-pursue-lead-fast-and-furious-probe
Most transparent Administration, my left arse cheek!!!
Michale.....
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/09/20/republican_senators_decry_useless_worthless_clinton_briefing_on_libya_attack
The most clueless Foreign Policy Administration ever...
OK, OK.. Maybe a stretch. But it is undeniable.. Obama really scroooed the pooch on this Libya fiasco...
No wonder his foreign policy numbers have plummeted..
Michale.....
Michale....
This question seems to have gotten lost in all the brouhaahaa...
Since when do we, as a CIVILIZED SOCIETY allow, validate and condone rape and murder simply because someone was offended??
"It is, I think, self evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack. Our embassy was attacked violently and the result was four deaths of American officials. That is self evident. ... Had this happened on any day of the week on any month, this would have been a terrorist attack. This was an assault on our embassy, a violent attack, rather, on our diplomatic facility there that resulted in the death of four Americans."
-Jay Carney, White House Press Secretary...
:D It's rough being correct all the time.. :D
On the other hand, I guess Obama didn't get the memo.. He's still blaming the video...
Michale.....
Michale,
Out of curiosity, because I'm intrigued to see how far down the rabbit hole you've gone, do you believe that this video exists? If so, do you believe that protests in Africa/Asia happened as a result of this video?
I'm genuinely curious as I think I might know what the answer is...
Michty,
Sure there's a video. And, sure, other protests were likely caused by that video.
But we're not talking about other protests.
We're discussing what went down in Benghazi.. Now, if you want to concede that discussion and move on to the protests and the video, I am all for it.
BELIEVE ME, I *want* to have that discussion. :D
But let's finish Benghazi first....
Michale....
Sure let's 'concede' the Benghazi discussion and move on. There is no point discussing further since Ninjaf and I are awaiting the official investigation and you've already made your mind up (regardless of what this investigation says)...
Sure let's 'concede' the Benghazi discussion and move on. There is no point discussing further since Ninjaf and I are awaiting the official investigation and you've already made your mind up (regardless of what this investigation says)...
That's an evasion, not a concession.
Based on the available evidence, was there a terrorist attack??
Yes or no..
Based on the available evidence, was the attack pre-planned??
Yes or no..
Until you can answer, you haven't conceded anything...
since Ninjaf and I are awaiting the official investigation
Ya'all weren't waiting on the official investigation when ya'all swore up and down that, like the Obama Administration said, that it was a "spontaneous demonstration"..
Only when the facts against your opinion started piling up, then and ONLY then, did you want to "wait for the official investigation"..
I can see right thru you.. :D
Once you concede the points, we can move on.. :D
Michale.....
As Carney labels Libya strike terrorism, Obama continues to cite anti-Islam film
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/20/carney-elf-evident-benghazi-attack-was-terrorism/#ixzz277AMo8z8
Jesus h christ!! Talk about a dysfunctional administration!!!
Michale....
Lol Michale. Ok I'll play along:
Based on the available evidence, was there a terrorist attack??
Based on most definitions of 'terrorist attack', then clearly yes:
Terrorist attack: NOUN. A surprise attack involving the deliberate use of violence against civilians in the hope of attaining political or religious aims
Based on the available evidence, was the attack pre-planned??
So far the evidence says no, but an investigation should get to the bottom of this. So my answer is: don't know since the evidence available isn't enough and is subject to media bias.
You forgot:
Based on the available evidence, was there a protest before the terrorist attack
To which my answer is yes. Almost all evidence clearly points to this conclusion.
It's Jimmy Carter all over again....
Michale.....
Based on most definitions of 'terrorist attack', then clearly yes:
Terrorist attack: NOUN. A surprise attack involving the deliberate use of violence against civilians in the hope of attaining political or religious aims
Would you like to discuss what the definition of "IS" is???
Jeesus.... This is the problem discussing things with Lefties. When they facts are against them, they argue semantics...
So far the evidence says no, but an investigation should get to the bottom of this. So my answer is: don't know since the evidence available isn't enough and is subject to media bias.
So, in other words, you lied above when you said you were conceding the point..
There is PLENTY of evidence to show this was a planned attack.. You just refuse to acknowledge..
Do you know of any other "spontaneous protest" that people bring rocket launchers and top secret intel???
Yer REALLY reaching here, michty. As I am sure most everyone here would say, if they weren't so scared of being seen agreeing with He Who Shall Not Be Named... :D
To which my answer is yes. Almost all evidence clearly points to this conclusion.
EXCEPT for the evidence that doesn't.. :D Once again, you prove you simply ignore evidence that doesn't support your fantasy..
There is as much evidence to support the conclusion that there WASN'T any demonstration at all.. Even Ninjaf conceded that point..
So, I guess you are not ready to concede the Benghazi point..
Michale.....
Lol Michale I'd love to spend a day in your world. Everything is so clear: Obama is evil, everything his administration says is a lie, the evil usurper is attacking America. There is no need to investigate anything because these Michale-world-rules are applied to everything. You should write them a strongly worded letter asking why they are appointing an independent body to investigate when the evidence (in Michale-world) is so clear...
Michale: Romney's down to 28% on In-Trade. You now have a 61% edge! Bet the house!
"Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others."
-President Obama
Hear that, Lefties?? No more denigrating, ridiculing, mocking or attacking ANY religion..
Emperor Barack The First has decreed....
Michale.....
Michale: Romney's down to 28% on In-Trade. You now have a 61% edge! Bet the house!
"Laugh it up, fuzzball"
-Han Solo
:D
By all means.. It's simply going to make MY laugh on 7 Nov so much sweeter :D
Michale.....
http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2012/09/21/administration-creates-ad-appease-pakistanis/
Looks like Obama is more committed to appeasement than he is to the First Amendment...
I wish I could say I was surprised...
It's amazing how silent Liberals are on this...
Simply AMAZING....
Michale.....
I'm not silent. I think the ad is a good idea. They should clarify that some nut-jobs film does not represent the views of the administration to encourage people to stop attacking US embassies. I have no idea why you think this could be wrong? Do you think people attacking US embassies is a good thing? Is there a better way to stop the attacks? Should he have released a video saying 'FU Muslims'??
I have no idea why you think this could be wrong?
Simple... It's appeasement to muslims and says absolutely NOTHING to our 1st Amendment..
It shows that Obama cares more for the feelings of brutal savages then he does about Americans.
Let me ask you this...
Do you think that the violence that has resulted in this video is excusable or justified or mitigated???
Michale..
Let me ask another question.
What do you think is more ridiculous..
A religion that teaches that man walked with dinosaurs?
Or a religion that teaches it's OK to cut off someone's head if someone else draws a picture of god??
Michale.....
What do you think is more ridiculous..
A religion that teaches that man walked with dinosaurs?
Or a religion that teaches it's OK to cut off someone's head if someone else draws a picture of god??
Careful with this one. It might be a 'trick' question.... :D
Michale.....
CW,
If you are still watching this thread...
Lemme ask you something...
If I posted a picture of the muslim god ALLAH on your website, would you take it down??
Michale.....
Simple... It's appeasement to muslims and says absolutely NOTHING to our 1st Amendment..
It shows that Obama cares more for the feelings of brutal savages then he does about Americans.
Loloololol. Amazing. I would love to know how your logic works. Yes Obama released a video saying how the administration had nothing to do with the moronic film and Michale logic dictates this means he loves terrorists and hates America lololol. Must have been the part where he said "There is absolutely no justification to this senseless violence. None." Yup he is backing the savages for sure (in Michale world).
Do you think that the violence that has resulted in this video is excusable or justified or mitigated?
I agree with Obama's statement in his ad: There is absolutely no justification to this senseless violence. None. On the scale of moronic craziness there are sensible people (level 1), this video maker (level 2) and the violent protestors/terrorists (level 1000)
A religion that teaches that man walked with dinosaurs?
Or a religion that teaches it's OK to cut off someone's head if someone else draws a picture of god?
I think they are both ridiculous but the latter is definitely waaay worse of course. I'd love to know precisely what religion this is? Because there are none that teach this as far as I'm aware.
michty,
Is there a better way to stop the attacks?
There are several ways to stop the attacks..
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/09/21/muhammad-cartoon-day/
That's one...
My preferred way is to simply answer their level of violence with OUR own level of violence..
Savages start burning and pillaging, we start cuffin' and stuffin'...
They start raping and murdering, we start gunning them down..
You would think that YOU, being a Briton, would understand that appeasement NEVER works...
All appeasement does is invite more and escalating violence...
Michale.....
I agree with Obama's statement in his ad: There is absolutely no justification to this senseless violence. None
If that were true, then Obama (and you) would stop right there..
But, mentioning the video alongside the violence Obama (and you) are equating the two.. Obama (and you) are saying that one is equally bad as the other.
By even ADDRESSING the video in the same context of the rioting, Obama (and you) are condoning and justifying the violence..
I think they are both ridiculous but the latter is definitely waaay worse of course. I'd love to know precisely what religion this is? Because there are none that teach this as far as I'm aware.
Ask Daniel Pearl what religion it is.
Ask Nicholas Berg what religion it is..
Up until now, you have been amusing..
Now, you're just disgusting...
Michale.....
CW,
If you are still watching this thread...
Lemme ask you something...
If I posted a picture of the muslim god ALLAH on your website, would you take it down??
Don't worry, I won't..
But I was curious as to what your reaction to be.
I am sure I can guess pretty close your ideals on censorship and freedom of expression and the like..
So, I was just curious as to how you would approach such an issue...
Michale.....
I'm sure there are other American responses. This ad is part of those.
And I'm still lost. I'd love to know what this moronic religion is that preaches violence? Al-Quedaism?
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_US_LIBYA_CLINTON?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-09-21-13-45-17
Apparently, Obama is the only one in the Obama Administration who DOESN'T know that Libya was a terrorist attack....
:^/
Michale...
Lol yes Micahle Obama doesn't think it was a terrorist attack, that's probably why he called it an "act of terror". It's probably just a cover-up for his responsibility in the attack as everyone (in Michale world) knows that this evil Kenyan usurper is on the terrorists side...
Lol yes Micahle Obama doesn't think it was a terrorist attack, that's probably why he called it an "act of terror". It's probably just a cover-up for his responsibility in the attack as everyone (in Michale world) knows that this evil Kenyan usurper is on the terrorists side...
How hilarious...
A few hours ago, you were arguing JUST the opposite!! :D
Like I said, you have your head so far up Obama's ass, it's impossible to know where you end and he begins.. :D
Michale......
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81470.html?hp=t1_3
Yesterday evening Obama was still saying the attacks were the result of the video...
Like I said, apparently he's the ONLY one in his Administration who still thinks the video is responsible...
Michale.....
http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/wh-silent-over-demands-to-denounce-piss-christ-artwork.html
Apparently, it's perfectly acceptable to the White House to mock, ridicule and denigrate Christian beliefs...
But post a picture of Allah?? The White House spends 70K of tax payer money to apologize for it...
Gods, I can't wait til this clown is out of the White House...
Michale.....
A few hours ago, you were arguing JUST the opposite
You mean when I said yes it was a terrorist attack is evidence of me saying it wasn't a terrorist attack?!? Lololol. You are amazing! I haven't once said it wasn't a terrorist attack. The only thing we're arguing about is whether or not it was a spontaneous or planned terrorist attack/based on a protest or not...
You need to get your head out of Fox News ass and start reading a wider range of news. Almost every single thing you've quoted in this thread has been from Fox...
Almost every single thing you've quoted in this thread has been from Fox...
You REALLY are slow today, aren't you??
Here's been my links posted in this thread..
sjfm.us
chrisweigant.com
gallup.com
blogs.wsj.com
foreignpolicy.com
dispatch.com
politico.com
ap.org
whitehousedossieur.com
and THREE foxnews.com links..
This is why it's impossible to have a legitimate conversation with you..
When you're wrong (which is pretty much all the time) you simply make shit up...
Michale.....
Sorry you are right I didn't phrase that properly. Let me rephrase: almost every single thing you've quoted to support your view that this was a planned terrorist attack/nothing to do with the video is from Fox.
Yes, everything I have posted supported the FACT that the Benghazi attack was a terrorist attack.
Up until very recently, you refused to concede that it was, indeed, a terrorist attack..
Hence, all the supporting evidence...
Jesus, I feel like I am lecturing a JEEP....
Michale.....
Up until very recently, you refused to concede that it was, indeed, a terrorist attack
Lol nope. I don't know who you were arguing with in Michale-world but at no point have I denied that it was a terrorist attack. You really need to brush up on your reading skills. It's like debating a 5 year old who is just learning to read...
HA!!!!
Even the animals don't like Obama!!!! :D
hehehehehehehehehehe
How funny is that!!??? :D
Michale
Lol well played
but at no point have I denied that it was a terrorist attack.
Now I know you are whacked....
You have been denying it was a terrorist attack SINCE the attack...
Put down the crack pipe, michty.. You've had too much already....
Michale......
Lol you are lost. I think you don't understand the definition of 'terrorist attack' - maybe you should re-read my post above.