Romney VP

[Kung Wu]

Maybe this clears up what trends I'm looking at.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]413[/ATTACH]

The duration on that downward trend is no longer in duration then the downward trend in any other previous peak cycle. In fact it's barely a week long!? In fact, it hasn't even gone down as much as the other random peaks.

Yet collectively Romney is still trending up and Obama is way, WAY down. Furthermore, over this one week of data, without him even announcing Veep, you have concluded "Romney knows he not going to win, so he is ultimately trying to position himself for 2016 and he's not going take somebody as his VP who will be a competitor."

Would you like a glass of water while you think over your analysis?

In the mean time, I think I'll stick with the professional analysis out there.

Also, that horribly hand-drawn trend line appears to over-sample Romney and/or under sample Obama. Either use a computer to calculate or just use crayons to be more transparent next time.

Romney moving from 43% to 45%, while Obama has slipped from 49% to 47%, is most certainly an indication that Romney is being embraced. There is only a 2% difference with over 3 months to go -- and Veep selection still not announced giving even greater momentum (possibly) when it counts.

[SB Shock]

The duration on that downward trend is no longer in duration then the downward trend in any other previous peak cycle. In fact it's barely a week long!? In fact, it hasn't even gone down as much as the other random peaks.

Yet collectively Romney is still trending up and Obama is way, WAY down. Furthermore, over this one week of data, without him even announcing Veep, you have concluded "Romney knows he not going to win, so he is ultimately trying to position himself for 2016 and he's not going take somebody as his VP who will be a competitor."

Would you like a glass of water while you think over your analysis?

In the mean time, I think I'll stick with the professional analysis out there.

Also, that horribly hand-drawn trend line appears to over-sample Romney and/or under sample Obama. Either use a computer to calculate or just use crayons to be more transparent next time.

Romney moving from 43% to 45%, while Obama has slipped from 49% to 47%, is most certainly an indication that Romney is being embraced. There is only a 2% difference with over 3 months to go -- and Veep selection still not announced giving even greater momentum (possibly) when it counts.

You can quibble all you want, but Romney has never had a lead, and any momentum he might had is gone. All the news is unfavorable to Romney as his negative continue to go up, and yes the selection of VP might bring some favorable attention, but this is not a race to elect a VP, but a president. You can say "he can make it up" all you want - but what is going to be that mechanism. Romney is not a person who inspires or leads anybody.

[shoxplode]

How did Rasmussen do in 2000, 2004, 2010?

Also what catches my attention is Pew and Rasmussen final polls were perfect. Wonder how much of change was there between their previous polls in the runup.

Rasmussen results from previous elections:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2010/election_night/election_2010_how_did_we_do

[Rocky Mountain Shock]

Finally, if Obama is re-elected it just shows that we've crossed the threshold and that the majority of our population has decided that public handouts, welfare, food stamps and selective success depending on your political affiliation are more desired than hard work, determination and individual self responsibility which has made our country exceptional.

I know relatively quite a few people who share this sentiment. I honestly don't understand why. Being honest here: since I first started following politics in the early 90s when I was getting to voting age, neither party has seemed to establish (or live up to) a reputation of being the champion of individual responsibility and liberty. I mean, for God's sakes, Republicans seem intent on stripping us of our individual decision of who we can marry and how women should treat their bodies, and seem intent on imposing some kind of quasi-religious agenda on everyone in this country regardless of our own individual beliefs. Then there's that gem of a law called the USA Patriot Act, passed with bipartison support but championed by the most recent Republican president. I consider myself strongly in support of states rights and individual liberty, and I cannot reconcile this with the current Republican platform. Republicans are all about tax cuts, but these only seem to curtail government revenues in a period when the country is struggling to pay its bills--and then in the same breath they spend ridiculous amounts of money on wars and the military. Their entire platform, from start to finish, seems hypocritical.

And the Dems aren't innocent. They seem to think money grows on trees, but at least they don't promise to cut back Government revenue to make the situation worse. The money they aren't willing to spend on wars and defense--I'm sure they will find something else to spend it on. I don't see a Democratic platform that pushes public handouts and welfare over hard work and determination, but this might not have always been the case. I'm pretty sure welfare itself was probably signed into law by a Democratic president years ago, though it took the prior Democratic president to put a "work" requirement to it.

Anyway, I'm rambling, but my point is I just don't get it. If the Presidents and Congresses since the early 90s are any indication (which they may not be), the "reputations" of the political parties seem to be opposite of what is actually true.

[SB Shock]

Rasmussen results from previous elections:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ..._how_did_we_do

2000 - Poor
2004 - Strong
2006 - Strong
2008 - Average
2010 - Poor

Here is 2010

polls_rasmussen.JPG

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/04/rasmussen-polls-were-biased-and-inaccurate-quinnipiac-surveyusa-performed-strongly/

The new republic talk about some of the perceived biases

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/75161/the-rasmussen-problem

Just be clear I'm not saying Rasmussen is a bad poller, because obviously they have had some some good year, but some misses. Their model maybe is right on, but when they are the only poll showing Romney leading Obama - you just wonder if there is something wrong in their assumptions.

CNN +7 Obama
Fox + 9 Obama
Rasmussen +4 Romney
Gallup +2 Obama
REuters +7 Obama
Democracy Corps +4 Obama
Pew +10 Obama

[Kung Wu]

You can quibble all you want, but Romney has never had a lead, and any momentum he might had is gone. All the news is unfavorable to Romney as his negative continue to go up, and yes the selection of VP might bring some favorable attention, but this is not a race to elect a VP, but a president. You can say "he can make it up" all you want - but what is going to be that mechanism. Romney is not a person who inspires or leads anybody.

He doesn't need to "make it up". He only needs to continue doing what he is doing. Continue out raising Obama, continue out strategizing him on the campaign trail, and continue his upward trend.

Don't forget these key events are still on the horizon and will make a huge impact for both candidates:

1) Romney VP selection -- ton of press (lots of negative press for Romney regardless who he selects, but even bad press will help Romney).

2) THE DEBATES -- Whether you like or dislike Romney's perceived lack of conservatism, you have to admit he is extremely savvy. a) He's the former CEO of Bain, b) former Governor of Massachusetts, c) former President and CEO of the Salt Lake City Olympics. Obama is not running against a quirky-ass McCain this time. Obama's up against a pro that is likely to bring to light his total lack of experience and competence. If Obama is not careful he's gonna be a one-legged man in an ass-kicking contest. Unlike McCain, Romney will fight back and be very prepared.

[Kung Wu]

Allen West is a stud. Had no idea he was a Lt. Col. until I watched this and it peaked my interest to go read more about him:

[SubGod22]

Col. West is one I have my eye on for 2016. I really like the guy.

[60Shock]

Adam West would make a very interesting choice for VP. He is extremely articulate, a most dynamic speaker, flat out kicks ass, and would be all over NOBAMA. He would make mince meat (but who wouldn't) out of Biden in the debate. But he would probably be most effective hammering home the total ineffectiveness and the disasterous road the present incubent is taking this country down.

[MoValley John]

Adam West would make a very interesting choice for VP. He is extremely articulate, a most dynamic speaker, flat out kicks ass, and would be all over NOBAMA. He would make mince meat (but who wouldn't) out of Biden in the debate. But he would probably be most effective hammering home the total ineffectiveness and the disasterous road the present incubent is taking this country down.

Wasn't Adam West Robin? Oh wait! Burt Ward was Robin, Adam West was Batman! Picture this, Freaking Batman as the Vice President!!!

Never mind, Batman would never settle for second fiddle, Batman is President or nothing!

[SubGod22]

I went through and watched a number of videos that were shown at the end of the clips. This one stood out to me after watching 5 or so.

[MoValley John]

tumblr_lbvrz98lw61qa3wqso1_400.jpg
Burt Ward

aw040512.jpg
Adam West

After further review, Adam West IS Batman!

[Kung Wu]

I went through and watched a number of videos that were shown at the end of the clips. This one stood out to me after watching 5 or so.

Stud. There's our veep right there.

[SubGod22]

And then there's this one.

[1979Shocker]

It looks like we'll know the answer tomorrow morning.

Mitt Romney VP Pick Imminent

Mitt Romney is expected to name his choice for his vice presidential running mate on Saturday morning in Norfolk, Virginia.

The Republican hopeful will make the announcement at the Nauticus Museum at 8:45 a.m. ET.