Updated U of Col. Prediction Model: Romney Wins

[Pendragon]

Originally Posted by deacon blues

You call it fear mongering. That's your assessment. I believe Obama will be extremely wrong for this country as president...

LIKE button clicked.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by deacon blues

You call it fear mongering. That's your assessment. I believe Obama will be extremely wrong for this country as president. ...

You scoff at the "lesser of two evils" argument. Truth is, EVERY election gives us the choice of the lesser of two evils,...

Politics is the art of the possible. It is not a decision about whether to murder someone or not. It is a question of moving the ball in the right direction. So I have three quarterbacks vying for my vote. Obama absolutely will move the ball far in the wrong direction. Romney will move it a bit in the wrong direction, a bit in the right direction, and the net will be a small but significant move towards my goal. Or at the very least prevention of a huge net move in the wrong direction. The third, Ron Paul or Gary Johnson or whoever claims that he will instantly make a touchdown. But there is one big problem: Ron, Gary or whoever does not actually belong to either team on the field. So Ron, Gary or whoever must score this promised touchdown in spite of three fatal roadblocks: (A) every player on the field will be trying to take..Ron, Gary or whoever down; and (B) no player on the field will run defense for..Ron, Gary or whoever and (C) most of the people in the stands will boo and throw things at..Ron, Gary or whoever. So in the end, Ron, Gary or whoever will accomplish nothing, because this is a Republic and not a dictatorship...

For example, in this election, third-party candidates know that the two-party candidates differ very sharply on the issue of abortion. Barack Obama is a pro-abortion extremist who has aggressively used his office to promote the abortion culture. Given another term he will appoint solidly pro-abortion Supreme Court Justices for life...

Mitt Romney has the support of leading pro-life activists and organizations, and picked 100% pro-life Paul Ryan as his running mate....

I, for one, want to make a difference, not a gesture ("sending a message"). I don't know if there has ever been a more stark nor consequential choice in my lifetime, even more so than 2008. One candidate, Mitt Romney, is a pro-life convert—which we like and want to encourage, right?—and he picked an even more ardently and dependable pro-life running-mate.

The other, Barack Obama, is solidly pro-abortion, even in the most gruesome procedures imaginable. Obama believes preserving abortion is one of the most important things he can do. ...


Me? I'll feel better if I keep the pro-infanticide position out of the White House. That suits my conscience just fine. The "message" I want to send is that the abortion issue is critical in a Presidential election. I'll support a man who is less than my ideal, because he's basically on the right side of the life question. Otherwise, if I vote for a non-player the only "message" I send is "Don't worry about me. I'm irrelevant. I won't help the pro-lifer, and I won't hinder the pro-deather. Ignore me."

As the 2008 election already did, this election will have a huge impact on the state of abortion law. Obama is no doubt the most liberal President in history when it comes to abortion. We've made progress in abortion over the years, and it's made a difference. Thanks to President Bush's appointments, some restrictions have been cleared by the Supreme Court. Now there are 2-3 justices who are about 90 years old who are holding on for a liberal president. You let Obama continue to load the SCOTUS and other benches, and you will set the pro-life cause back legally for years. You will hurt every aspect of its public face. And in my opinion if you do not vote for Mitt Romney, you are helping Barack Obama and his abortion agenda.

and, Romney/Paul are much better, in my opinion, on financial issues and foreign policy.

[CC1]

Originally Posted by deacon blues

And you think Gary Johnson, Ron Paul, the Constitution Party, Libertarian Party, et al are any different? You think this is about winning and getting my guy in there? Romney isn't "my guy". You've been missing the point this whole election. I don't have the strength to go over it all again. I know you won't be convinced. But I refuse to let you call me a Nazi or a little Nazi just because I'm not sore that my guy, Santorum, didn't get the nomination.

All we can do is pray, vote our conscience and keep looking to Jesus. But we can hope to get a best case scenario. And in this case avoiding the worst case scenario.

Ditto me for this post (although we have told PO this countless times she just refuses to listen.)

There is no justification in the world for sitting this one out or throwing your vote away voting for some fringe candidate and insuring Obama is reelected.

[MawMaw]

Originally Posted by CC1

Ditto me for this post (although we have told PO this countless times she just refuses to listen.)

There is no justification in the world for sitting this one out or throwing your vote away voting for some fringe candidate and insuring Obama is reelected.

Brother, you are so very right!

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by deacon blues

You call it fear mongering. That's your assessment. I believe Obama will be extremely wrong for this country as president. I thought he would be the first time. I have a right to my opinion and I have a right to express that as I wish, pastor or no. This is no charade for me. I believe Obama's election will be gravely troubling for the US. I have issues with Romney but nothing close to the degree that I have with Obama. You see them as two peas in a pod. That's your opinion, one that I disagree with. You believe the answer is to break up the two party system. Along with many, many Americans, I disagree with your solution.

I agree that you have a right to your opinion as a citizen and as a pastor.

It's a little funny that you would post a thread quoting Mark Levin, "If the GOP fails to produce -- apparently this is a big issue today, I think I've been talking about this if not months, for years. I believe a third party will form."

A poll at the 33 mark of the last debate has 35% voting for Romney, 18% voting for Obama and 47% voting for neither candidate.

Greta VanSusteren had a recent poll asking, "Could you vote for a candidate NOT in your party if you thought the candidate did a great job?" 93.6% said YES!

You also have a HUGE block of people who were dissed during the primaries and Convention who will be voting for Obama, writing in Ron Paul or voting for Gary Johnson.

The attorney who filed the delegate lawsuit has been working on another suit filed with states who don't allow write-ins and has won in several areas, such as New York. Point, the Revolution is still on going even if the media isn't following the story.

The idea of a third party is out there and we now stand at having more independent voters than there are Republicans and Democrats.


1990 What would you call yourself
31% Republicans
33% Democrats
29% Independents

2012 What would you call yourself
24% Republicans
32% Democrats
38% Independents

You scoff at the "lesser of two evils" argument. Truth is, EVERY election gives us the choice of the lesser of two evils, if Romans 3:23 means anything. Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, EVERYONE running for president is a sinner. It doesn't matter who your candidate is! He is at best a redeemed and finite sinner. He is..limited intellectually, spiritually, morally, and dynamically. He will not always know the right thing to do nor the right way to do it. Even when he does know, he will not always do it. Even when he tries, he will not always succeed. So if you're going to think this through like a Christian, you must make your decision on some other basis.

I am not viewing the "lesser of two evils" in the same way that you are presenting here. I view it in the vein of political science.

Politics is the art of the possible. It is not a decision about whether to murder someone or not. It is a question of moving the ball in the right direction. So I have three quarterbacks vying for my vote. Obama absolutely will move the ball far in the wrong direction. Romney will move it a bit in the wrong direction, a bit in the right direction, and the net will be a small but significant move towards my goal. Or at the very least prevention of a huge net move in the wrong direction. The third, Ron Paul or Gary Johnson or whoever claims that he will instantly make a touchdown. But there is one big problem: Ron, Gary or whoever does not actually belong to either team on the field. So Ron, Gary or whoever must score this promised touchdown in spite of three fatal roadblocks: (A) every player on the field will be trying to take..Ron, Gary or whoever down; and (B) no player on the field will run defense for..Ron, Gary or whoever and (C) most of the people in the stands will boo and throw things at..Ron, Gary or whoever. So in the end, Ron, Gary or whoever will accomplish nothing, because this is a Republic and not a dictatorship.

This is the truth of your whole paradigm. You can't see past a two party system and I don't share that view.

Fact is, ALL third-party candidates will accomplish NOTHING of what they promise. Why not? Well, for starters, there are two kinds of people in the world: (1) those who think a third-party candidate has any realistic chance of winning the election, and (2)..rational..people. You can't keep any promises if you don't win office, and THEY CAN'T WIN!

That's your opinion. When we moved to this area over 20 years ago, we had no challenging parties on the ballot. We only had the two party choice. NOW, we have Independent candidates running for every office, save a couple.

Next, even if that circle could be squared, they would have no constituency in Congress. Remember American civics class? You know what that means? That means---NOBODY will present their legislation. NOBODY will..craft their bills. NOBODY will..argue for them. NOBODY in either house of Congress will..vote for them. They'd have to be dictators or tyrants.

This is where you are wrong. Both Virgil Goode and Gary Johnson have been asked how they would get anything done in Congress. They both answered that they will use the Budget as leverage. Because the President approves any future bills that Congress proposes, Congress is usually very reluctant to ignore any of the President's policy priorities.

In my opinion, third-party candidates are immature, and/or fools, and/or they are liars...Isn't that a minus? Isn't that a disqualifier? These are nothing if not fatal flaws in leadership qualities. How can I support this claim? Because there are only two possibilities. First, these wannabes..know they cannot win, and are misleading and misdirecting their supporters. They are deliberately wasting their supporter's money, and deliberately distracting them from supporting a serious player. These are not admirable qualities.

The..second possibility is that..they do not know that they cannot win. If that is the case, they are hopelessly out-of-touch fools who are unfit to lead and undeserving of support.

Absurd assumption, but typical of a two-party pundit. The part in bold sounds pretty immature and foolish of you compared to any interview given by Goode or Johnson who focus on the Constitution.

For example, in this election, third-party candidates know that the two-party candidates differ very sharply on the issue of abortion. Barack Obama is a pro-abortion extremist who has aggressively used his office to promote the abortion culture. Given another term he will appoint solidly pro-abortion Supreme Court Justices for life...

Mitt Romney has the support of leading pro-life activists and organizations, and picked 100% pro-life Paul Ryan as his running mate. So followers who also oppose abortion would naturally vote for Mitt Romney if they had only two choices. But,..recklessly..and egomaniacally, third-party candidates mislead their followers into thinking that there is a viable third choice. They take the vote that would naturally go to the one pro-life candidate, Mitt Romney, and turn it into at best an empty gesture—which benefits Barack Obama, the candidate who adores abortion and views his grandchildren as "punishments." Thus third-party candidates and their supporters further the cause of abortion—which they abhor. So they actually help score a touchdown for the pro-abortion side. Brilliant.

I, for one, want to make a difference, not a gesture ("sending a message"). I don't know if there has ever been a more stark nor consequential choice in my lifetime, even more so than 2008. One candidate, Mitt Romney, is a pro-life convert—which we like and want to encourage, right?—and he picked an even more ardently and dependable pro-life running-mate.

The other, Barack Obama, is solidly pro-abortion, even in the most gruesome procedures imaginable. Obama believes preserving abortion is one of the most important things he can do.

As a Christian, I agree with the pro-life position, and I have nothing but disdain for Obama's position. If I do not actively help the one viable pro-life ticket, I help the other pro-abortion ticket. It is just as simple as that. I've read much about and listened to third-partiers. While I share many of their goals, it's all about them (as you said earlier "its all about YOU") and not the issues that they are failing to support. It's about making themselves feel better about themselves, in the name of "conscience."

Me? I'll feel better if I keep the pro-infanticide position out of the White House. That suits my conscience just fine. The "message" I want to send is that the abortion issue is critical in a Presidential election. I'll support a man who is less than my ideal, because he's basically on the right side of the life question. Otherwise, if I vote for a non-player the only "message" I send is "Don't worry about me. I'm irrelevant. I won't help the pro-lifer, and I won't hinder the pro-deather. Ignore me."

As the 2008 election already did, this election will have a huge impact on the state of abortion law. Obama is no doubt the most liberal President in history when it comes to abortion. We've made progress in abortion over the years, and it's made a difference. Thanks to President Bush's appointments, some restrictions have been cleared by the Supreme Court. Now there are 2-3 justices who are about 90 years old who are holding on for a liberal president. You let Obama continue to load the SCOTUS and other benches, and you will set the pro-life cause back legally for years. You will hurt every aspect of its public face. And in my opinion if you do not vote for Mitt Romney, you are helping Barack Obama and his abortion agenda.

Virgil Goode, with the Constitution Party, is totally pro-life and against abortion. Gary Johnson, as a Libertarian, believes in citizens choosing for themselves, but would never allow the Federal Government to step in, leaving the issue to be decided by the 10th Amendment, state's rights.

Now, you can continue your conversation that I am a sore loser over Gingrich being ousted, but that is not my issue. I understood from the very beginning of the primaries that Romney was the GOP pick. I understood that the first time I heard Brit Hume talking about the election when the primaries began. All interviews and talking points geared the audience to that view and the nation followed along.

My major angst and why I left the party is because Speaker Newt Gingrich, who along with Ron Paul were robbed of their opportunities to be considered at the convention by the illegal and immoral actions of Romney and his cohorts including Boehner. Why would anyone want to reward this terrible behavior?

And I take notice that neither you, nor CC1, along with many others do not particularly care that rules were violated, during the primaries and Convention because you wanted your candidate to win. So, you are not much different than the dishonesty you speak of in the Democratic party. As long as your candidate wins, you don't give a flying rip how it is done. Again I ask, why in the world would anyone want to reward this terrible behavior in a political party? I refuse to support the steam rolling.

[RandyWayne]

Originally Posted by CC1

Ditto me for this post (although we have told PO this countless times she just refuses to listen.)

There is no justification in the world for sitting this one out or throwing your vote away voting for some fringe candidate and insuring Obama is reelected.

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by deacon blues

You call it fear mongering. That's your assessment. I believe Obama will be extremely wrong for this country as president. I thought he would be the first time. I have a right to my opinion and I have a right to express that as I wish, pastor or no. This is no charade for me. I believe Obama's election will be gravely troubling for the US. I have issues with Romney but nothing close to the degree that I have with Obama. You see them as two peas in a pod. That's your opinion, one that I disagree with. You believe the answer is to break up the two party system. Along with many, many Americans, I disagree with your solution.

You scoff at the "lesser of two evils" argument. Truth is, EVERY election gives us the choice of the lesser of two evils, if Romans 3:23 means anything. Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, EVERYONE running for president is a sinner. It doesn't matter who your candidate is! He is at best a redeemed and finite sinner. He is..limited intellectually, spiritually, morally, and dynamically. He will not always know the right thing to do nor the right way to do it. Even when he does know, he will not always do it. Even when he tries, he will not always succeed. So if you're going to think this through like a Christian, you must make your decision on some other basis.

Politics is the art of the possible. It is not a decision about whether to murder someone or not. It is a question of moving the ball in the right direction. So I have three quarterbacks vying for my vote. Obama absolutely will move the ball far in the wrong direction. Romney will move it a bit in the wrong direction, a bit in the right direction, and the net will be a small but significant move towards my goal. Or at the very least prevention of a huge net move in the wrong direction. The third, Ron Paul or Gary Johnson or whoever claims that he will instantly make a touchdown. But there is one big problem: Ron, Gary or whoever does not actually belong to either team on the field. So Ron, Gary or whoever must score this promised touchdown in spite of three fatal roadblocks: (A) every player on the field will be trying to take..Ron, Gary or whoever down; and (B) no player on the field will run defense for..Ron, Gary or whoever and (C) most of the people in the stands will boo and throw things at..Ron, Gary or whoever. So in the end, Ron, Gary or whoever will accomplish nothing, because this is a Republic and not a dictatorship.

Fact is, ALL third-party candidates will accomplish NOTHING of what they promise. Why not? Well, for starters, there are two kinds of people in the world: (1) those who think a third-party candidate has any realistic chance of winning the election, and (2)..rational..people. You can't keep any promises if you don't win office, and THEY CAN'T WIN!

Next, even if that circle could be squared, they would have no constituency in Congress. Remember American civics class? You know what that means? That means---NOBODY will present their legislation. NOBODY will..craft their bills. NOBODY will..argue for them. NOBODY in either house of Congress will..vote for them. They'd have to be dictators or tyrants.

In my opinion, third-party candidates are immature, and/or fools, and/or they are liars...Isn't that a minus? Isn't that a disqualifier? These are nothing if not fatal flaws in leadership qualities. How can I support this claim? Because there are only two possibilities. First, these wannabes..know they cannot win, and are misleading and misdirecting their supporters. They are deliberately wasting their supporter's money, and deliberately distracting them from supporting a serious player. These are not admirable qualities.

The..second possibility is that..they do not know that they cannot win. If that is the case, they are hopelessly out-of-touch fools who are unfit to lead and undeserving of support.

For example, in this election, third-party candidates know that the two-party candidates differ very sharply on the issue of abortion. Barack Obama is a pro-abortion extremist who has aggressively used his office to promote the abortion culture. Given another term he will appoint solidly pro-abortion Supreme Court Justices for life...

Mitt Romney has the support of leading pro-life activists and organizations, and picked 100% pro-life Paul Ryan as his running mate. So followers who also oppose abortion would naturally vote for Mitt Romney if they had only two choices. But,..recklessly..and egomaniacally, third-party candidates mislead their followers into thinking that there is a viable third choice. They take the vote that would naturally go to the one pro-life candidate, Mitt Romney, and turn it into at best an empty gesture—which benefits Barack Obama, the candidate who adores abortion and views his grandchildren as "punishments." Thus third-party candidates and their supporters further the cause of abortion—which they abhor. So they actually help score a touchdown for the pro-abortion side. Brilliant.

I, for one, want to make a difference, not a gesture ("sending a message"). I don't know if there has ever been a more stark nor consequential choice in my lifetime, even more so than 2008. One candidate, Mitt Romney, is a pro-life convert—which we like and want to encourage, right?—and he picked an even more ardently and dependable pro-life running-mate.

The other, Barack Obama, is solidly pro-abortion, even in the most gruesome procedures imaginable. Obama believes preserving abortion is one of the most important things he can do.

As a Christian, I agree with the pro-life position, and I have nothing but disdain for Obama's position. If I do not actively help the one viable pro-life ticket, I help the other pro-abortion ticket. It is just as simple as that. I've read much about and listened to third-partiers. While I share many of their goals, it's all about them (as you said earlier "its all about YOU") and not the issues that they are failing to support. It's about making themselves feel better about themselves, in the name of "conscience."

Me? I'll feel better if I keep the pro-infanticide position out of the White House. That suits my conscience just fine. The "message" I want to send is that the abortion issue is critical in a Presidential election. I'll support a man who is less than my ideal, because he's basically on the right side of the life question. Otherwise, if I vote for a non-player the only "message" I send is "Don't worry about me. I'm irrelevant. I won't help the pro-lifer, and I won't hinder the pro-deather. Ignore me."

As the 2008 election already did, this election will have a huge impact on the state of abortion law. Obama is no doubt the most liberal President in history when it comes to abortion. We've made progress in abortion over the years, and it's made a difference. Thanks to President Bush's appointments, some restrictions have been cleared by the Supreme Court. Now there are 2-3 justices who are about 90 years old who are holding on for a liberal president. You let Obama continue to load the SCOTUS and other benches, and you will set the pro-life cause back legally for years. You will hurt every aspect of its public face. And in my opinion if you do not vote for Mitt Romney, you are helping Barack Obama and his abortion agenda.

You have presented why I support Mitt, better than I could have myself!!!!

Besides, I believe he is actually much more conservative than he has been able to govern, he is a realist, and knew that if he was not elected in Mass, as governor he could have little to no influence. Now, he knows, that unless he is elected, he cannot effectively help the country. "...wise as a serpent, and harmless as a dove..." comes to mind. Jesus encouraged leaders to do exactly this type of action for influence. Wisdom goes deeper than just screaming ones values, which is similar to "...casting pearls before swine...!

[deacon blues]

Obama's history and exposure to very radical elements throughout his lifetime from his mother to the card carrying Communist mentor in his formative years, the radical professor from Brazil at Harvard, Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dorn, Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan from his Chicago days, etc. create a stark contrast to Romney.

Romney protested the protectors of the Vietnam War back at Stanford. His dad was considered a moderate in the GOP and ran for president against Goldwater and Nixon. He was to the left of them but he supported our troops in the Vietnam War. Romney's dad was an executive in the car industry in Detroit before turning to politics. His history is capitalism, strong national defense, pro business economics. Yes he was more liberal, more than makes me comfortable, as a Mass governor, but Obama is from another world politically. At least Romney is in the ballpark with me---left field maybe, but someone I can live with especially since his VP is a true blue conservative.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by crakjak

You have presented why I support Mitt, better than I could have myself!!!!

Besides, I believe he is actually much more conservative than he has been able to govern, he is a realist, and knew that if he was not elected in Mass, as governor he could have little to no influence. Now, he knows, that unless he is elected, he cannot effectively help the country. "...wise as a serpent, and harmless as a dove..." comes to mind. Jesus encouraged leaders to do exactly this type of action for influence. Wisdom goes deeper than just screaming ones values, which is similar to "...casting pearls before swine...!

He just flip-flopped on his abortion stance, yesterday, while trying to get the Des Moines Register's endorsement.

"there is no legislation with regards to abortion that I'm familiar with that would become part of my agenda."

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch...t-of-my-agenda

He gets the nomination and then tacks to the center - typical.

During the campaign he vowed to appoint Supreme Court judges who would oppose Roe v. Wade. How is he NOT going to have this legislation on his agenda if this was his plan for Supreme Court Judges being appointed.

National Right to Life has 23 bills in Congress. What are his plans with that if he doesn't have pro-life as his agenda that he campaigned on during the primaries? He says he is not "familiar" with any legislation, but nine of the bills have 100 sponsors. Three of the bills have 218 sponsors.

I have no idea what this man is going to do once elected.

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

He just flip-flopped on his abortion stance, yesterday, while trying to get the Des Moines Register's endorsement.



He gets the nomination and then tacks to the center - typical.

During the campaign he vowed to appoint Supreme Court judges who would oppose Roe v. Wade. How is he NOT going to have this legislation on his agenda if this was his plan for Supreme Court Judges being appointed.

National Right to Life has 23 bills in Congress. What are his plans with that if he doesn't have pro-life as his agenda that he campaigned on during the primaries? He says he is not "familiar" with any legislation, but nine of the bills have 100 sponsors. Three of the bills have 218 sponsors.

I have no idea what this man is going to do once elected.

Well, at least you know what you'll be getting with Obama.