Wilber Posted November 5, 2012 Report Share Posted November 5, 2012 Sooooo, RECORD highs should be overlooked simply for political reasons.... The guy messed up..... And no they are no where near the prices when Bush was in.... So Romney will cut gas prices by more than half. You heard it here first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted November 5, 2012 Report Share Posted November 5, 2012 (edited) Obama 290 to Romney 248 (Popular Vote Obama +2%) I see a tight race unfolding as Obama 272 to Romney 266 (Popular Vote Obama +1%) A stronger Obama victory, imo, would be Obama 303 to Romney 235 (Popular Vote Obama +3%) (This is closer to what Nate Silver predicts) I don't see any realistic situations where Romney wins, although there's a slim possibility. Edited November 5, 2012 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted November 5, 2012 Report Share Posted November 5, 2012 Good....now let's put it all together: I can't believe that the 2012 U.S. presidential election will be won by a landslide. I'll second that. That's my prediction, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted November 5, 2012 Report Share Posted November 5, 2012 ya always be suspect of polls...I read earlier today the Rassmusen poll only contacts landlines, if that's true they're reaching an older demographic than polls that include celphone users... Well, they would be stupid if they didn't fudge the numbers based on demographics but you're already into a dangerous game there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted November 5, 2012 Report Share Posted November 5, 2012 Rasmussen was very accurate in the past, but even 4 years ago more people had landlines than they do today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BC_chick Posted November 5, 2012 Report Share Posted November 5, 2012 (edited) ? ?? Excuse me? Oops, I quoted the wrong post. I meant to quote the one where GH addressed BC's post to me. You're no troll, you're a superstar poster! Edited November 5, 2012 by BC_chick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 5, 2012 Report Share Posted November 5, 2012 Oops, I quoted the wrong post. I meant to quote the one where GH addressed BC's post to me. You're no troll, you're a superstar poster! Thank you.....I know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted November 5, 2012 Report Share Posted November 5, 2012 Rasmussen was very accurate in the past, but even 4 years ago more people had landlines than they do today. I have a landline still, it's a rare day that I answer it, mrs wyly wants to keep it even though she rarely answers it either, and my kids won't even move toward if it rings, "you answer it, it's not for me I have my cel !"... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted November 5, 2012 Report Share Posted November 5, 2012 (edited) I have a landline still, it's a rare day that I answer it, mrs wyly wants to keep it even though she rarely answers it either, and my kids won't even move toward if it rings, "you answer it, it's not for me I have my cel !"... 4 years ago we had a landline too. However, in the last couple of years we started talking about getting rid of it because we both have cellphones for work. Finally, we got rid of the landline this year. I don't think it will be very long (10 years?) before companies stop offering home landlines. Edited November 5, 2012 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribblet Posted November 5, 2012 Report Share Posted November 5, 2012 Hope not, we have a landline and no cell phones. Don't forget there are many areas in Canada without cell phone service, we don't have any in the Bancroft area so have a seasonal land line there. Not likely to get cell up there any time soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-TSS- Posted November 5, 2012 Report Share Posted November 5, 2012 The secret services must be hoping for Obama to win just to avoid protecting five former presidents besides an incumbent one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted November 5, 2012 Report Share Posted November 5, 2012 The secret services must be hoping for Obama to win just to avoid protecting five former presidents besides an incumbent one. I doubt that a concern, but if it where, and the stories are true, it sounds like they might not have to worry about Bush the elder for much longer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BC_chick Posted November 6, 2012 Report Share Posted November 6, 2012 (edited) Good....now let's put it all together: I can't believe that the 2012 U.S. presidential election will be won by a landslide. I'll entertain you for a second. Alright, let's say the expressions "I can't believe" and "winning by a landslide" are exclusive to the exotic faraway land of Canada and you are not trolling by playing literal semantics. What you're saying then, is that you're so obtuse to the usage of idiomatic expressions in the English language that you actually thought I literally can't believe Romeny has support and that the polls are complete lies, his rallies are filled with actors and Fox News is a figment of my imagination? Or that I think Obama is going to win his victory by descending down a piece of land? Seriously? Edited November 6, 2012 by BC_chick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 6, 2012 Report Share Posted November 6, 2012 The secret services must be hoping for Obama to win just to avoid protecting five former presidents besides an incumbent one. The U.S. Secret Service already provides protection for major party candidates and spouses within 120 days of the election. http://www.secretser...rotection.shtml Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 6, 2012 Report Share Posted November 6, 2012 I'll entertain you for a second. ... Seriously? Yes...seriously. Anybody following these politics threads or the American 2012 election in general would know why Governor Romney has support (and lots of it), as well as the improbability of a landslide victory by popular vote or Electoral College. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted November 6, 2012 Report Share Posted November 6, 2012 Hope not, we have a landline and no cell phones. Don't forget there are many areas in Canada without cell phone service, we don't have any in the Bancroft area so have a seasonal land line there. Not likely to get cell up there any time soon. Lots of Vancouver Island doesn't have cell coverage and it would take many, many towers to service the west coast and northern Vancouver Island. Even some towns have significant gaps in cell coverage! The infrastructure is already there, so landlines will continue for many years yet. Plus, we may find out about health effects of cellular in the coming years.... wonder what would happen then...??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted November 6, 2012 Report Share Posted November 6, 2012 Landlines are going the way of CDs and video rental shops. You can count on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BC_chick Posted November 6, 2012 Report Share Posted November 6, 2012 Yes...seriously. Anybody following these politics threads or the American 2012 election in general would know why Governor Romney has support (and lots of it), as well as the improbability of a landslide victory by popular vote or Electoral College. So, you admit that you're trolling by playing literal semantics? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted November 6, 2012 Report Share Posted November 6, 2012 So, you admit that you're trolling by playing literal semantics? Don't say he's trolling. He hates that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 6, 2012 Report Share Posted November 6, 2012 So, you admit that you're trolling by playing literal semantics? No, I am responding to forum posts just like other members. That's what we do here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPCFTW Posted November 6, 2012 Report Share Posted November 6, 2012 (edited) So, you admit that you're trolling by playing literal semantics? You seem confused. He's just saying that the election will be too close to be won by a landslide. Reading comprehension is obviously not your strong suit. Edited November 6, 2012 by CPCFTW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BC_chick Posted November 6, 2012 Report Share Posted November 6, 2012 You seem confused. He's just saying that the election will be too close to be won by a landslide. Reading comprehension is obviously not your strong suit. No, he's not. As he did on another thread, he is playing semantics by implying that my usage of certain words are a "Canadian" interpretation of things. I was talking about Obama winning Florida in addition to all the currently predicted Obama wins when I mentioned landslide. If you want to defend trolls that's up to you, but you might want to try following the discussion first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted November 6, 2012 Report Share Posted November 6, 2012 (edited) Romney will win. Monday, November 5, 2012 Gallup: Obama's approval on economy is -14% http://gop12.thehill.com/ Edited November 6, 2012 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleipnir Posted November 6, 2012 Report Share Posted November 6, 2012 Romney will win. Wanna bet? :] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted November 6, 2012 Report Share Posted November 6, 2012 The republicans created this mess and have worked for most of Obama's term to sabotage any progress without any regard for the people of the country. Romney is promising to get the country out of the mess the Republicans created by offering a vague plan that has little hope of success... at least for the non millionaires. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.