Obama up 1 in Politico/GWU poll

posted at 10:01 am on October 29, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Barack Obama has taken a one-point lead, with a three-day, three-point swing in his favor, in today’s Politico/GWU Battleground tracking poll – but once again, the internals tell a different tale.  Eight days out from the election, independents still favor Mitt Romney, and the gender gap is still neutralized.  James Hohmann reports on the topline:

With eight days to go until the election, President Barack Obama has recaptured a narrow national lead over Mitt Romney, riding increased support from women and an edge in early voting.

A new POLITICO/George Washington University Battleground Tracking Poll of 1,000 likely voters — taken from last Monday through Thursday — shows Obama ahead of Romney by 1 percent, 49 to 48 percent. That represents a 3-point swing in Obama’s direction from a week ago but reflects a race that remains statistically tied.

Obama leads by 8 points among those who have already voted, 53 to 45 percent. These early voters represent 15 percent of the electorate, with many more expected to vote in the next few days — though Hurricane Sandy could change that.

But the GOP nominee maintains a potentially pivotal advantage in intensity among his supporters. Sixty percent of those who support Obama say they are “extremely likely” to vote, compared to 73 percent who back Romney. Among this group, Romney leads Obama by 9 points, 53 to 44 percent.

By any measure, the race is neck-and-neck: 43 percent say they will “definitely” vote Romney, compared to 42 percent who say the same of the president.

The sample in this case is a little better than the earlier WaPo/ABC tracking poll, but still questionable.  The D/R/I is 35/31/33 for a D+4, an arguable case, but one which considers a lower Republican turnout than even 2008.  The topline looks even more odd when looking at the internals, however.

For instance, Romney wins independents by 10 points, 50/40.  When broken down into soft/hard partisan and ticket-splitter categories, Romney’s lead increases to 16 among ticket-splitters, 50/34.  Romney also has neutralized the gender gap in this poll, winning men by 12 (55/43) while losing women by 11 (43/54).

There’s something interesting in the age demos, too. Romney wins all of the age demos above 34 years of age by majorities, albeit thin until one gets to seniors (55/42).  But the sample of likely voters has more respondents below 34 years of age (218) than seniors (217).  That did happen in 2008, according to exit polls, but it’s not likely to happen this time around, not with the enthusiasm levels rising among seniors and dropping among younger voters all year long.

Ed Goeas gives a cheerful prediction of a five-point Romney win based on this data:

In sum, this data indicates this election remains very close on the surface, but the political environment and the composition of the likely electorate favor Governor Romney.  These factors come into play with our “vote election model” – which takes into account variables like vote intensity, voters who say they are definite in their vote, and demographics like age and education.  In that snapshot of today’s vote model, Mitt Romney leads Barack Obama by five-points – 52% to 47%.  While that gap can certainly be closed by the ground game of the Democrats, reports from the field would indicate that not to be the case, and Mitt Romney may well be heading to a decisive victory.

If Romney wins independents by 10 and keeps a virtual tie in the gender gap — a consistent finding in all of these polls — then that’s what I see coming, too.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Can you prove that?

SWalker on October 29, 2012 at 10:37 AM

You post to a rumor that has no facts, no “proof”, and when someone call you out, you ask for “proof”?

Pal, how it works is, you post as accurately as you can, than back it up…not create some fairy tale and then ask someone to “disprove” it, that’s a liberal trick.

right2bright on October 29, 2012 at 10:42 AM

So, in other words, NO, you cannot. All you can do, is post opinionated assertions. Thank you, you may sit down now.

SWalker on October 29, 2012 at 10:42 AM

Your a a pedophile…
You say you are not? Prove it…see how that works? You pedophile!

right2bright on October 29, 2012 at 10:43 AM

Can you prove that?

SWalker on October 29, 2012 at 10:37 AM

You post to a rumor that has no facts, no “proof”, and when someone call you out, you ask for “proof”?

Pal, how it works is, you post as accurately as you can, than back it up…not create some fairy tale and then ask someone to “disprove” it, that’s a liberal trick.

right2bright on October 29, 2012 at 10:42 AM

Did you read the article, or are you just talking out your ass again?

SWalker on October 29, 2012 at 10:43 AM

Sorry – Romney went from +2 to +10 in BG states from a week ago.

And went from -2 to +10 with indies.

Yet lost 3 points overall.

Garbage.

Chuck Schick on October 29, 2012 at 10:43 AM

but one which considers a lower Republican turnout than even 2008. The topline looks even more odd when looking at the internals, however.

Yeah, that ain’t gonna happen.

Mitt Romney may well be heading to a decisive victory.

It will be EPIC. Obama is cratering. Meanwhile Skippy’s fanboi’s cheerfully delude themselves.

dogsoldier on October 29, 2012 at 10:44 AM

Turtle317 on October 29, 2012 at 10:24 AM

I’d be surprised if Romney loses Wisc, especially after the whole Scott Walker kerfuffle. But that’s not the serious issue on table.

The sad thing is: Romney can’t win by a lot, like Reagan back in the 80′s, that would feed into the the “RACISM! STOLEN ELECTION” playbook that the MSM/Obama supports will be dusting off even as we speak now,

Romney needs to win by at least 50%, but IMHO, if it’s over 75% or more, get ready for at least 6-8 months of that crap we dealt with in 2000 Election cycle…lawsuits and SCOTUS galore.

And, I wouldn’t put it past this crowd to instigate a few “small” riots in the urban areas, just so they can relive their glory days of the 60′s.

BlaxPac on October 29, 2012 at 10:44 AM

This isn’t an election; it is an, I.Q. Test.
Romney/Ryan 2012

nimrod on October 29, 2012 at 10:42 AM

True DAT!

Cleombrotus on October 29, 2012 at 10:44 AM

So, in other words, NO, you cannot. All you can do, is post opinionated assertions. Thank you, you may sit down now.

SWalker on October 29, 2012 at 10:42 AM

Your a a pedophile…
You say you are not? Prove it…see how that works? You pedophile!

right2bright on October 29, 2012 at 10:43 AM

I guess that answers the question of whether you are talking out your ass or not.

SWalker on October 29, 2012 at 10:44 AM

“This is a garbage poll.”

Wow, I can understand ranting about those PPP healthcare=group polls, but Battleground is very well respected by both sides. It sounds pretty desperate to be trashing them.

But I get to look forward to collecting my 100.00 in a little over a week.

gumbyandpokey on October 29, 2012 at 10:45 AM

Rural and Urban negate each other, making this suburban warfare.

…and as BG shows, Romney is carrying the suburbs. Which is why PA is in tight.

And Romney being locked into OH since Friday because of Sandy, is a blessing in disguise. His turnout has been 10K+ every stop.

budfox on October 29, 2012 at 10:42 AM

Which is why PA is of particular interest to me. I still don’t think R/R can get PA, but the probability is intriguing.

Turtle317 on October 29, 2012 at 10:46 AM

A few days ago, the polling had me a little concerned. Now it’s become quite obvious that liberal pollsters are skewing the results. If they reported honestly then it would show Romney winning a decisive victory.

They don’t want to accept their ‘chosen one’ Odouchebag is going to get what he deserves-to be kicked out of office. I hope he’s also charged over Benghazi. Romney better clean out the Muslim Brotherhood operatives in the gov’t and other traitors that Obama hired who’ve been subverting and working to destroy the nation from within.

Anyways now I’m much more relieved that Romney has this pretty much in the bag, barring any unforeseen circumstances and that Gallup/Rasmussen and other polls showing Romney ahead, have been right all along. Thanks for the analyses Hotair.

thinkagain on October 29, 2012 at 10:46 AM

Sorry trolls, but that poll was very bad news for the president:
http://images.politico.com/global/2012/10/goeasbattlegroundmemooct28.pdf

Among those most likely to vote – the combination of those saying they have already voted (15% of the Electorate) and those who say that they are extremely likely to vote (67% of the Electorate) – Romney has a five-point advantage (51%-46%). Obama has an eight-point advantage (53%-45%) among those who have already voted while Romney has a nine-point advantage (53%-44%) among those who say they are extremely likely to
vote.
Two key points on this data. First, let’s focus on the eight-point advantage Obama has on the early vote. Four years ago on that same data point within our Battleground Poll, Candidate Barack Obama had a fifteen-point advantage with early voters, nearly double that of his current vote margin (matching with reports from the ground that the
traditional early vote advantage of the Democrats has been largely minimized, as in states like Ohio and Virginia, if not reversed, as in states like Colorado and Florida). Secondly, we have found the combination of those who have already voted and those who are extremely likely to vote, to be the best quick look at the probable participants (i.e. actual voters) in an upcoming election. In the 2008 election, the combination of those two voter groups – those who have already voted and these who were extremely likely to vote – were within a half of a point of the final results.

Among other high propensity-voting blocs, Romney is receiving majority support from seniors (55%), college graduates (50%), married voters (58%), weekly church attendees (58%), white Evangelicals (72%), and gun owner households (65%). Romney is also getting strong support from typical swing demographic groups like Independents (50% to 40%) and Catholics (55% to 42%). Most important, over the last week Mitt Romney continued to increase his vote advantage with three key voter blocks we have been tracking throughout the last six weeks of polling – middle class voters which Romney has a 52% to 45% lead, middle class families which Romney now leads by 58% to 39%, and the all important “Pocketbook” voters which Romney now leads by 56% to 41%.

strictnein on October 29, 2012 at 10:46 AM

So, in other words, NO, you cannot. All you can do, is post opinionated assertions. Thank you, you may sit down now.

SWalker on October 29, 2012 at 10:42 AM

Jus’ tryin’ to help ya’ out darlin’. I researched it thoroughly. Look it up in the QOTD, or not.

But what the heck…run with a goofy rumor. You will be helping 0bama to obfuscate the whole cluster fluke affair.

cozmo on October 29, 2012 at 10:46 AM

Anyone else read the WSJ story on the Headlines area? Look at the list on the left. Some good bills were crushed by harry reid. :(

kcd on October 29, 2012 at 10:47 AM

ZippyZ on October 29, 2012 at 10:38 AM

Betting and polls are two different animals…betting purpose is to “balance” the bets, so an equal amount of people are betting on the same two people, that way the book doesn’t lose money it exchanges money and makes a profit from the cut.

That’s why when something like sporting events are often so lopsided, more people will always select Green Bay, so they have to increase the odds to balance out, even if Green Bay is a weaker team…same with Ohio, Nebraska, etc.

European’s are thrilled with Obama, so they have up the odds on Romney so they “break even”, it has nothing to do with who is favored…

right2bright on October 29, 2012 at 10:49 AM

I just want to highlight this point again, from the supposedly “awesome news for Obama!” poll:

matching with reports from the ground that the
traditional early vote advantage of the Democrats has been largely minimized
, as in states like Ohio and Virginia, if not reversed, as in states like Colorado and Florida

strictnein on October 29, 2012 at 10:50 AM

NumbersMuncher ‏@NumbersMuncher

Most stunning #s in Ras OH are from the issues: R +12 on economy, +8 jobs, +10 nat’l security, 8 energy. Inflated early voter #s saving O.

NumbersMuncher ‏@NumbersMuncher

Rasmussen national tightens to 2, Romney up 49-47. Romney doing better with crossovers, but independents have tightened over weekend

Resist We Much on October 29, 2012 at 10:51 AM

Mokeytoe

I agree with most of that. Romney was cautious because he’s a due diligence guy.

Wonder why he didn’t hammer Benghazi? Because he know Obama has intel he doesn’t.

That what financial analysts do, and that’s really what he is, at the end of the day.

So, he’s going to be very cautious on things we will want him to be out on the charge with. But, it’s better for the country as a whole to take things gradually, than what we’ve had for the past 12 years, which was “gut instinct” insanity.

As for his campaign, hindsight is 20/20 for all of us.

I think it’s a safe bet that, win or lose, Rubio as veep would have ended this race after the veep debate, if the Denver debate had the same outcome.

A lot of tossup states would be unquestionably Romney.

He went with Ryan because he knows the numbers and the congressional game, plus he reminds him of one of his sons.

I’m also guessing Ryan sold him on making Wisconsin a swing state, which has turned out true.

budfox on October 29, 2012 at 10:52 AM

I guess that answers the question of whether you are talking out your ass or not.

SWalker on October 29, 2012 at 10:44 AM

I guess this shows that you think you can throw out a rumor, and then challenge someone to prove it’s wrong, without you proving it’s right…you little pedophile, how do you like those little boys??

Now prove that you are not one…otherwise, you should be banned from this site…pedophiles should be banned from any reputable blog…now prove that you are not…

I guess that analogy was too close to home? Now do you see how rumors without facts are wrong to propagate…or are they? We will find out when you show us “proof”…

right2bright on October 29, 2012 at 10:53 AM

So, in other words, NO, you cannot. All you can do, is post opinionated assertions. Thank you, you may sit down now.

SWalker on October 29, 2012 at 10:42 AM

Jus’ tryin’ to help ya’ out darlin’. I researched it thoroughly. Look it up in the QOTD, or not.

But what the heck…run with a goofy rumor. You will be helping 0bama to obfuscate the whole cluster fluke affair.

cozmo on October 29, 2012 at 10:46 AM

I’m sure you will get a Pulitzer prize for your research. So, are you going to make your depositions available online? I trust that you at the very minimum have put your interviews of the principal witnesses up on youtube, you will provide a link, right?

Oh, wait, you didn’t actually do “THAT” kind of research did you. You read blogs and websites and read other peoples opinions. Short on actual facts, but very long on, and I stress… OPINIONS.

Furthermore, I really must ask, did you even bother to read the article I linked to? Or did you just read the title and assume you knew what the article said?

Demanding answers on events that resulted in peoples deaths is never obfuscating an issue.

SWalker on October 29, 2012 at 10:54 AM

A few days ago, the polling had me a little concerned. Now it’s become quite obvious that liberal pollsters are skewing the results. If they reported honestly then it would show Romney winning a decisive victory.

thinkagain on October 29, 2012 at 10:46 AM

I think that we are going to see a lot of polls with samples that have higher D identification and predicated on higher D turnout than in 2008 over the next 4-5 days. Most polling outfits will make adjustments over the weekend to reflect more realistic id and turnout. They’ll do this unless they wish to Zogby themselves.

Resist We Much on October 29, 2012 at 10:55 AM

Turtle317 on October 29, 2012 at 10:46 AM

If he flips the King of Prussia areas, which were Reagan strongholds, Barry better watch the F out.

budfox on October 29, 2012 at 10:55 AM

Rasmussen national tightens to 2, Romney up 49-47. Romney doing better with crossovers, but independents have tightened over weekend

Yeah, from 12 points to 10 points in Mitt’s favor…if the country is evenly divided, as the dems have claimed for decades, and their claim that independents make the difference, I would say the writing is on the wall…based on the dems insistence that independents control the election.

Or is this the one election they decide to abandon their theory…I wonder why???

right2bright on October 29, 2012 at 10:56 AM

gumbyandpokey on October 29, 2012 at 10:08 AM

Congrats on getting out so early this time! I do hope you are still on the loose on November 7th but you will most likely be back in the institution for stronger meds again.

katablog.com on October 29, 2012 at 10:57 AM

SWalker on October 29, 2012 at 10:44 AM

I guess this shows that you think you can throw out a rumor, and then challenge someone to prove it’s wrong, without you proving it’s right…you little pedophile, how do you like those little boys??

Now prove that you are not one…otherwise, you should be banned from this site…pedophiles should be banned from any reputable blog…now prove that you are not…

I guess that analogy was too close to home? Now do you see how rumors without facts are wrong to propagate…or are they? We will find out when you show us “proof”…

right2bright on October 29, 2012 at 10:53 AM

You GUESS, is that the best you can do, to GUESS? Like I said, you’re obviously talking right straight out of your ass. Clearly you can’t be bothered to read the article, or if you did, then comprehension is obviously not something you are any long capable of.

Then you jump to calling me a pedophile, why is it you are still allowed to post here?

SWalker on October 29, 2012 at 10:58 AM

Demanding answers on events that resulted in peoples deaths is never obfuscating an issue.

SWalker on October 29, 2012 at 10:54 AM

When the rumor turns out to be wrong, it does.

Why are you so hot for this rumor?

The site you linked even wants folks to go easy on this.

cozmo on October 29, 2012 at 10:58 AM

Oh, wait, you didn’t actually do “THAT” kind of research did you. You read blogs and websites and read other peoples opinions. Short on actual facts, but very long on, and I stress… OPINIONS.

SWalker on October 29, 2012 at 10:54 AM

Let’s look at those 3 links again, and see how viable they are…a campus newspaper, and two betting sites…yeah, looks real solid to me.

You read blogs and websites and read other peoples opinions.

What were those three links? An online campus newsletter and two betting sites, offshore??

Solid research, yep, absolutely solid, nice job Sherlock, you should get the Pulitzer prize for research….HAHAHAHHAHAHA!!!

right2bright on October 29, 2012 at 11:00 AM

Or is this the one election they decide to abandon their theory…I wonder why???

right2bright on October 29, 2012 at 10:56 AM

If so, they are in for a rude awakening. While it is possible to win and narrowly lose Indies, it is impossible to win if you lose them by high single or double-digits. In 2004, Kerry won Indies by 2 and lost. Obama cannot win if he loses Independents by 10. Hell, he can’t win if he loses then by 5.

Resist We Much on October 29, 2012 at 11:02 AM

You GUESS, is that the best you can do, to GUESS? Like I said, you’re obviously talking right straight out of your ass. Clearly you can’t be bothered to read the article, or if you did, then comprehension is obviously not something you are any long capable of.

Then you jump to calling me a pedophile, why is it you are still allowed to post here?

SWalker on October 29, 2012 at 10:58 AM

If you are not one, prove it…that is what you are saying to us who think your rumors are a farce…you are asking us to prove your rumors as being false…now do you get it? No, you don’t…

And just to show how great you are at analyzing….
The opening words from my post of “Guess” mimics and makes fun of your post:

I guess that answers the question…

SWalker on October 29, 2012 at 10:44 AM

Not too bright are you??

right2bright on October 29, 2012 at 11:03 AM

If so, they are in for a rude awakening. While it is possible to win and narrowly lose Indies, it is impossible to win if you lose them by high single or double-digits. In 2004, Kerry won Indies by 2 and lost. Obama cannot win if he loses Independents by 10. Hell, he can’t win if he loses then by 5.

Resist We Much on October 29, 2012 at 11:02 AM

Exactly, but the dems are burying this fact…indies are in Romney’s corner big time…dems can’t win without them.

right2bright on October 29, 2012 at 11:04 AM

budfox on October 29, 2012 at 10:52 AM

I don’t disagree with you – but that all adds up to a lousy campaign. He should be up above the MoE in most polls, including battleground states based solely on the state of the economy and the unpopularity of Obama’s policies. It is a function of the campaign he ran that he isn’t.

Which means, that he likely also cost us 2 – 4 Senate seats we could have picked up if he had coat-tails.

And, if god forbid he does end up losing – he lost a race we should have easily won.

So, yes, hindsight is 20/20 – except I can pull up posts of mine from during the primaries where I made the argument that this is exactly what was going to happen. It wasn’t difficult to see that Romney would be too cautious by far and that he would sit back and simply hope Obama loses the race.

It also makes me wonder if he will be too cautious as President. I don’t want a rash, reckless president, but at the same time it will take some boldness to accomplish things like entitlement reform.

Monkeytoe on October 29, 2012 at 11:09 AM

Demanding answers on events that resulted in peoples deaths is never obfuscating an issue.

SWalker on October 29, 2012 at 10:54 AM

When the rumor turns out to be wrong, it does.

Why are you so hot for this rumor?

The site you linked even wants folks to go easy on this.

cozmo on October 29, 2012 at 10:58 AM

NEW FLASH that’s my blog, and I wrote that. Are you getting it yet? I’m not claiming or asserting that the rumor is true, quite the opposite, I am pointing out that that is exactly what this is, a RUMOR, that’s why I am getting hot about this. Because people are jumping to assine assumptions without knowing anything.

Ask questions, yes, there are serious questions that need to be asked. But don’t assume anything until you have hard evidence. Discussions on blogs do not constitute hard evidence, no matter what those involved in the discussion wish to believe.

When I asked you, do you have proof, it was not to challenge you to a debate. It was a straight forward request for incontrovertible proof that this “RUMOR” and been legitimately debunked. Instead of providing that evidence, you sited, opinions posted on a blog.

SWalker on October 29, 2012 at 11:12 AM

Monkeytoe on October 29, 2012 at 11:09 AM

Yes, Romney will have his hands full with the obstructionist in the senate. Did you read the WSJ story on the HotAir headlines? We could certainly use some help there.

kcd on October 29, 2012 at 11:14 AM

Then you jump to calling me a pedophile, why is it you are still allowed to post here?

SWalker on October 29, 2012 at 10:58 AM

If you are not one, prove it…that is what you are saying to us who think your rumors are a farce…you are asking us to prove your rumors as being false…now do you get it? No, you don’t…

And just to show how great you are at analyzing….
The opening words from my post of “Guess” mimics and makes fun of your post:

I guess that answers the question…

SWalker on October 29, 2012 at 10:44 AM

Not too bright are you??

right2bright on October 29, 2012 at 11:03 AM

Lets see what management here thinks about you accusing people of pedophilia.

SWalker on October 29, 2012 at 11:14 AM

NEW FLASH that’s my blog, and I wrote that.

SWalker on October 29, 2012 at 11:12 AM

Maybe you should research more.

And definitely not be so thin skinned when you write something you haven’t researched.

Try here

You should know her, and bookmark her. Heck, she would make a great addition to HA.

cozmo on October 29, 2012 at 11:15 AM

SWalker on October 29, 2012 at 11:12 AM

Maybe you should research more.

And definitely not be so thin skinned when you write something you haven’t researched.

Try here

You should know her, and bookmark her. Heck, she would make a great addition to HA.

cozmo on October 29, 2012 at 11:15 AM

So, are we still having a reading comprehension problem, or just a reverse gear problem?

SWalker on October 29, 2012 at 11:19 AM

New Projection: Romney 52, Obama 47

The bipartisan Battleground Poll, in its “vote election model,” is projecting that Mitt Romney will defeat President Obama 52 percent to 47 percent. The poll also found that Romney has an even greater advantage among middle class voters, 52 percent to 45 percent.

katablog.com on October 29, 2012 at 11:20 AM

Just wanted to mention that pic (originally used in the Des Moines Register’s “Obama sharpens criticism” “Romney expresses optimism” side by side) just captures Obama’s essence, doesn’t it?

Carry on with the squabbling…

Fallon on October 29, 2012 at 11:22 AM

So, are we still having a reading comprehension problem, or just a reverse gear problem?

SWalker on October 29, 2012 at 11:19 AM

None of those. Just a problem with your advertising.

cozmo on October 29, 2012 at 11:23 AM

You know one of the best things about Obama’s poll numbers slipping? We don’t have to look at that close up picture of his grinning mug that used to be so prevalent on this site.

natasha333 on October 29, 2012 at 11:24 AM

Lets see what management here thinks about you accusing people of pedophilia.

SWalker on October 29, 2012 at 11:14 AM

Good idea…be sure and post all of the posts, I have no problem they will get the understand far better than you…I have used that analogy for years, and they have seen people like you who make unfounded claims, and when challenged, pull the “you have to prove I’m wrong” card…

You propagate a rumor, unfounded, than demand people prove you are wrong…

I make a rumor about you, and I demand you prove me wrong…

Get it?? Now do you get it??…no you don’t, so go whine to “management”…and also when you go to them, prove to them you are not…

right2bright on October 29, 2012 at 11:27 AM

So, are we still having a reading comprehension problem, or just a reverse gear problem?

SWalker on October 29, 2012 at 11:19 AM

None of those. Just a problem with your advertising.

cozmo on October 29, 2012 at 11:23 AM

Really, given the tone of your “argument” I’m inclined to believe you read the title of the article, jumped to a conclusion with regard to the nature of the article, made some pretty aggressive assertions, only to discover that rather than support the rumor, the article actually mocked the rumor and now you are having trouble backing away from your previous assertions.

Yes cozmo, that article is a sardonic mockery of the rumor. Would you like to step back and admit you have been Bishoped yet?

SWalker on October 29, 2012 at 11:30 AM

SWalker on October 29, 2012 at 11:14 AM

Good idea…be sure and post all of the posts, I have no problem they will get the understand far better than you…I have used that analogy for years, and they have seen people like you who make unfounded claims, and when challenged, pull the “you have to prove I’m wrong” card…

You propagate a rumor, unfounded, than demand people prove you are wrong…

I make a rumor about you, and I demand you prove me wrong…

Get it?? Now do you get it??…no you don’t, so go whine to “management”…and also when you go to them, prove to them you are not…

right2bright on October 29, 2012 at 11:27 AM

You apparently have little to no reading comprehension ability. As I asked before, did you even read the article in question, or just the article title. I did not propagate a unfounded rumor, I MOCKED a unfounded rumor. But you obviously aren’t half as bright as your nic proclaims.

SWalker on October 29, 2012 at 11:33 AM

Yes cozmo, that article is a sardonic mockery of the rumor. Would you like to step back and admit you have been Bishoped yet?

SWalker on October 29, 2012 at 11:30 AM

No

Did Obama really fire a General who tried to send help to Ambassador Stevens?

SWalker on October 29, 2012 at 10:30 AM

cozmo on October 29, 2012 at 11:34 AM

Yes cozmo, that article is a sardonic mockery of the rumor. Would you like to step back and admit you have been Bishoped yet?

SWalker on October 29, 2012 at 11:30 AM

No

Did Obama really fire a General who tried to send help to Ambassador Stevens?

SWalker on October 29, 2012 at 10:30 AM

cozmo on October 29, 2012 at 11:34 AM

That is the Title, nothing more, not the article.

I honestly wish I could put this one in the conspiracy theory file and write it off as hysterical ranting by the right.

Those are some pretty crazy accusation to make about any POTUS, accusations probably nobody would have though even remotely possible before the grizzly details of Benghazi started getting out. The problem is, what we have been slowly finding out, despite the Fifth Column Treasonous Media’s best efforts to deceive us and keep us in the dark.

This is called sardonic mockery, please see Mark Antony’s praise of Brutus in Shakespeare “Julius Caesar” for a example of sardonic mockery. But Brutus is an Honorable man…

SWalker on October 29, 2012 at 11:43 AM

You apparently have little to no reading comprehension ability. As I asked before, did you even read the article in question, or just the article title. I did not propagate a unfounded rumor, I MOCKED a unfounded rumor. But you obviously aren’t half as bright as your nic proclaims.

SWalker on October 29, 2012 at 11:33 AM

I don’t read amateur bloggers who link to their site to self promote…but looks like you are trying to back away from what you posted, since you were sure defending it as being fact…I just have to go by what you post on this site. And on HotAir you were defending and challenging people to prove your “rumor” as being wrong…but nice try backtracking.

You guys don’t get it…better to just say “oops, I posted wrong, I apologize”, than to continue defending your foolishness…but then, we have a president doing the same…gee, I wonder how Obama ever got elected, who would ever think like him….

Did you get that report into HotAir management yet? Do you need links?

right2bright on October 29, 2012 at 11:43 AM

SWalker on October 29, 2012 at 11:33 AM

I don’t read amateur bloggers
right2bright on October 29, 2012 at 11:43 AM

So in other words you admit that you were talking out your ass without knowing what you were talking about, funny I honestly didn’t expect you to be that honest. And yes, I did forward the offending quote to management.

SWalker on October 29, 2012 at 11:48 AM

And on HotAir you were defending and challenging people to prove your “rumor” as being wrong…but nice try backtracking.

right2bright on October 29, 2012 at 11:43 AM

Again, really not very bright at all are you. Asking for incontrovertible proof that something has been debunked is not the same as defending that something. You jumped to conclusions without any supporting information. right2bright, no, more like not2bright.

SWalker on October 29, 2012 at 11:51 AM

That is the Title, nothing more, not the article.

SWalker on October 29, 2012 at 11:43 AM

That is the title used to draw traffic.

A link that most people will not follow, like you assumed of me.

When obama blamed Romney for an editorial he wrote for the NYT, 0bama relied on an inflammatory title to make Romney out to be for something he wasn’t.

It was the fault of the NYT when it made something to look like it wasn’t.

You cannot claim that. Are you looking for the kind of reputation the NYT currently has?

cozmo on October 29, 2012 at 11:51 AM

SWalker on October 29, 2012 at 11:43 AM

That is the title used to draw traffic.

A link that most people will not follow, like you assumed of me.

When obama blamed Romney for an editorial he wrote for the NYT, 0bama relied on an inflammatory title to make Romney out to be for something he wasn’t.

It was the fault of the NYT when it made something to look like it wasn’t.

You cannot claim that. Are you looking for the kind of reputation the NYT currently has?

cozmo on October 29, 2012 at 11:51 AM

Maybe you should read the Title a little more carefully. Here, allow me to help you out since you seem to be having trouble with it.

Did Obama really fire a General who tried to send help to Ambassador Stevens?

SWalker on October 29, 2012 at 11:55 AM

cozmo on October 29, 2012 at 11:51 AM

Maybe you should read the Title a little more carefully. Here, allow me to help you out since you seem to be having trouble with it.

Did Obama really fire a General who tried to send help to Ambassador Stevens?

SWalker on October 29, 2012 at 11:55 AM

Oh, and just in case you’re still not getting it, that’s called a rhetorically incredulous statement. You do know what that means, right?

SWalker on October 29, 2012 at 11:58 AM

SWalker on October 29, 2012 at 11:55 AM

SWalker on October 29, 2012 at 11:58 AM

I know all of that. I’m not exactly ignorant of this “writin’ stuff”.

You were feeding the fears of the people who already believe these rumors, the entire piece didn’t exactly shut down those fears for the people who went to your link and by retelling the rumor, you give aid and comfort for those you claim to skewer.

cozmo on October 29, 2012 at 12:04 PM

Obama up 1 in Politico/GWU poll

…But down 10 among independents?

Once again, this makes absolutely perfect sense — if you assume that Democrat turnout will be twice what it was in 2008.

logis on October 29, 2012 at 12:09 PM

So in other words you admit that you were talking out your ass without knowing what you were talking about, funny I honestly didn’t expect you to be that honest. And yes, I did forward the offending quote to management.

SWalker on October 29, 2012 at 11:48 AM

Are you really that stupid…Really?

You were defending your “rumor” at HotAir, I could care less about your self promotion…or if you are a dog “lover”, or whatever you need to prove your are not…

Funny how you like to throw out your nasty little statements, but can’t defend your foolish posts…

You were upset because someone challenged you on your rumor, and you challenged to prove that your fantasy was wrong…and then you admitted it was a “fantasy rumor”, which make it even more weird.

You were defending something you knew was not accurate against someone who was stating it was not accurate, and you wanted proof of something you knew as….omg, you are so confused it’s embarrassing.

And, on top of that, you go whining to the management because you can’t fight your own battles, with someone using your own tactics…you complain because someone did to you, what you did to others…good grief.

This thread can’t get any better than that…keep posting you are f’in brilliant…

right2bright on October 29, 2012 at 12:11 PM

SWalker on October 29, 2012 at 11:58 AM

I know all of that. I’m not exactly ignorant of this “writin’ stuff”.

You were feeding the fears of the people who already believe these rumors, the entire piece didn’t exactly shut down those fears for the people who went to your link and by retelling the rumor, you give aid and comfort for those you claim to skewer.

cozmo on October 29, 2012 at 12:04 PM

Sorry, I’m going to have to continue to disagree with you here. I do not make the assumption that the people who read Hot Air or my blog are ignorant uneducated children. I presume that they are intelligent and educated enough to grasp sardonic mockery and ridicule when they read it.

Perhaps I am giving you and others here to much credit, though I honestly doubt it. not everything has to be written as though for a 7th grader, or at least it shouldn’t have to be.

I specifically asked you for proof that this rumor had been debunked. Not to defend the rumor, but for the same reason I wrote a sardonically mocking article about it in the first place. Rather than provide that proof, all you have done is get upset that I didn’t take your assertion with any more credence than I took the original rumor.

I’m thinking, perhaps the irony of that is escaping you.

SWalker on October 29, 2012 at 12:17 PM

“Obama up 1 in Politico/GWU poll

…But down 10 among independents?

Once again, this makes absolutely perfect sense — if you assume that Democrat turnout will be twice what it was in 2008.

logis on October 29, 2012 at 12:09 PM”

Sorry, but that makes no sense. The sample in the Battleground poll is D+4, which is far, far away from twice the Dem turnout in 08.

This irrational, poll-denying nonsense is why I have to be here.

gumbyandpokey on October 29, 2012 at 12:19 PM

This irrational, poll-denying nonsense is why I have to be here.

gumbyandpokey on October 29, 2012 at 12:19 PM

Go deny Rasmussen on that thread.

Resist We Much on October 29, 2012 at 12:22 PM

Are you really that stupid…Really?

You were defending your “rumor” at HotAir, I could care less about your self promotion…or if you are a dog “lover”, or whatever you need to prove your are not…

Funny how you like to throw out your nasty little statements, but can’t defend your foolish posts…

You were upset because someone challenged you on your rumor, and you challenged to prove that your fantasy was wrong…and then you admitted it was a “fantasy rumor”, which make it even more weird.

You were defending something you knew was not accurate against someone who was stating it was not accurate, and you wanted proof of something you knew as….omg, you are so confused it’s embarrassing.

And, on top of that, you go whining to the management because you can’t fight your own battles, with someone using your own tactics…you complain because someone did to you, what you did to others…good grief.

This thread can’t get any better than that…keep posting you are f’in brilliant…

right2bright on October 29, 2012 at 12:11 PM

Oh rightie-O now here is the intellectual dishonesty I was expecting from you.

You admit that you didn’t read the article, ergo, you do not know what the article was about. You accuse me of pedophilia, while at the same time making accusations which you openly admit are based on pure ignorance and unsupported supposition on your part.

You claim I can’t fight my own battles using tactics which you falsely assert I am using. You’re really not doing so good here bud.

SWalker on October 29, 2012 at 12:25 PM

I’m thinking, perhaps the irony of that is escaping you.

SWalker on October 29, 2012 at 12:17 PM

You wouldn’t believe the amount of irony here.

Up ’til now, I have been especially delicate with you because I usually like the stuff you write, and when I don’t, its not over important things.

When you are spending more time and words defending your presentation than you are the piece, you have to realize you are doing something wrong.

Writing is really hard. You don’t know the joy I felt the first time I was published without editing (back in the days when everything was printed on dead trees).

Having used self editing, I realize the importance of an editor, or at the very least, putting on a different hat when doing it yourself.

Do you want to argue about your presentation?

Or accept the criticism for what it is and improve?

Your choice.

cozmo on October 29, 2012 at 12:30 PM

Or accept the criticism for what it is and improve?

Your choice.

cozmo on October 29, 2012 at 12:30 PM

I would be more than glad to receive your criticism, when you actually move on to, well genuine criticism. But at the moment you are not criticizing what I wrote, or even the style in which it was written.

Right now you are still being critical of what your first impression was, and the impression you falsely placed upon a request for proof which was based on your prior assumption of what the article was about. Not what the article was about or the style or substance of the article.

Now, if you want to move on to schooling me on editorial process or the actual style and substance of what I wrote, by all means please be my guest.

SWalker on October 29, 2012 at 12:40 PM

SWalker on October 29, 2012 at 12:25 PM

Well then, better send another note to Ed and tell him I am being mean to you again….wahhhhh, wahhhhhhh…

I’m thinking, perhaps the irony of that is escaping you.

SWalker on October 29, 2012 at 12:17 PM

Gee, I don’t know, maybe it’s, ummmm, you know, maybe it’s YOU!!

HAHAHHAHHA!!…ooops, going to tell Ed about this one, making fun of you….awwww, I’m sorrry…

right2bright on October 29, 2012 at 12:41 PM

SWalker on October 29, 2012 at 12:40 PM

I tried…carry on.

cozmo on October 29, 2012 at 12:42 PM

I’m sorrry…

right2bright on October 29, 2012 at 12:41 PM

Yes, you are.

SWalker on October 29, 2012 at 12:43 PM

You accuse me of pedophilia, while at the same time making accusations which you openly admit are based on pure ignorance and unsupported supposition on your part.

You claim I can’t fight my own battles using tactics which you falsely assert I am using. You’re really not doing so good here bud.

SWalker on October 29, 2012 at 12:25 PM

It was an argument that you were using…you still don’t get it, amazing….

And as far as fighting your battles, instead of correcting your errant posts, you whined to management about me using an example that you were using…

You are not too bright…oh no, another complaint to Ed about me calling you not to bright, now you are going to play the “dumb card”…

bye bye…and you never showed us proof…

right2bright on October 29, 2012 at 12:45 PM

Lol! These Hacks really can’t keep themselves from cooking the numbers can they? This is such a joke. The Obama Jihadi media is determined to lie cheat & steal this election for the Marxist Messiah. These POS’ have repeatedly committed Journalistic Malpractice to cover for President Judas and his band of chicago thugs. It’s high time they find some repercussions to deal with their Betrayal of the American People!
Bloggers are joining the fight against the Obama Jihadi media! Important Link and ADDENDUM on how to take on the Obama Jihadi media & Win: http://paratisiusa.blogspot.com/2012/09/an-open-letter-to-those-who-should-know.html?spref=tw

God Bless America!

paratisi on October 29, 2012 at 12:45 PM

Animal60 on October 29, 2012 at 10:07 AM

Thought the same thing. :)

rah1420 on October 29, 2012 at 12:54 PM

SWalker on October 29, 2012 at 12:40 PM

I tried…carry on.

cozmo on October 29, 2012 at 12:42 PM

What? OK, I’m having a bit of trouble here.

All of your criticisms so far have been based not on what I wrote, but on assumptions you made about what I wrote before you read it.

You made that false assumption that when I asked your for proof that the rumor had been debunked that I was defending the rumor. (You seem offended that I do not consider opinions posted on blogs by individuals not principal to the rumor to be definitive proof)

You offered criticism, and I responded that I would be glad to hear your criticism when you actually criticize what I DID write and not the false assumption you jumped to about it originally and your response is to act as if I am rudely blowing you off?

SWalker on October 29, 2012 at 12:57 PM

and you never showed us proof…

right2bright on October 29, 2012 at 12:45 PM

Why would I show you proof of something I don’t believe, mocked and ridiculed? Yes, not2bright is about right. As you say…Still don’t get it do you.

SWalker on October 29, 2012 at 1:00 PM

Gallup Today:

Romney: 51% (+1)

Obama: 46% (-1)

R +5

Resist We Much on October 29, 2012 at 1:03 PM

Wow, I can understand ranting about those PPP healthcare=group polls, but Battleground is very well respected by both sides. It sounds pretty desperate to be trashing them.

But I get to look forward to collecting my 100.00 in a little over a week.

gumbyandpokey on October 29, 2012 at 10:45 AM

I didn’t mean the entire poll is garbage, just this nonsensical result. Good pollsters can get bad samples all the time. If there is a 15 point surge among Democrats to counteract the 12 point Romney surge with indies, they are the only ones seeing it.

And don’t forget this poll’s data is 5 days old on average.

In more recent news, here’s Gallup from 15 minutes ago:

Romney 51
Obama 46

Chuck Schick on October 29, 2012 at 1:18 PM

Why would I show you proof of something I don’t believe, mocked and ridiculed? Yes, not2bright is about right. As you say…Still don’t get it do you.

SWalker on October 29, 2012 at 1:00 PM

HAHAHAHHA!!! You don’t get was I was asking “proof” of…as I stated “You don’t get it”…

Ed did contact me,I have to apologize…he said it was unfair to take advantage of a person like you who is mentally challenged…I showed him where I said “I’m sorrrry”, and he thanked me for being so sincere. I also promised to use small words with less syllables, those sounds that make up words, I can send you a link if you need a better description to know more.

..and I will type slower so you comprehend, oops sorry, so you can better read what I am posting.

right2bright on October 29, 2012 at 1:49 PM

Obama up 1 in Politico/GWU poll …But down 10 among independents?

Once again, this makes absolutely perfect sense — if you assume that Democrat turnout will be twice what it was in 2008.

logis on October 29, 2012 at 12:09 PM

Sorry, but that makes no sense.

gumbyandpokey on October 29, 2012 at 12:19 PM

Golly, do you really think so?

logis on October 29, 2012 at 2:00 PM

Comment pages: 1 2