Shared publicly  - 
 
The poll shows President Obama leading his GOP challenger, Mitt Romney, 48 percent to 45 percent among likely voters. The poll was conducted after Superstorm Sandy hit the U.S. East Coast. Pew also found that Romney supporters are more committed to voting than are Obama's supporters.
73
6
Phil Coolberth's profile photoJulio Velasco's profile photoPep Cearnal's profile photoJewels Bentley's profile photo
69 comments
Mike Martin
+
19
20
19
 
Could it be that Sandy made it clear who's the leader and who's the panderer?
 
It could just be that people will vote Romney!!
 
This year's October surprise came from Mother Nature.  
 
It 's now all about the ground game. 
 
Of course we're committed. We've been waiting for this day for 4 years
 
if they are still over-polling democrats by 5 to 10 points as they have been all along, it's not going to even be close.  It will be a Romney landslide.
 
does any other counry's health care system treat the poor different?   if you are poor...obamacare gives the poor whatever benefits are available in the medicaid program offered in the state where you live (known as medical in california).   different benefits by state.   If your state opts out (per supreme court decision)...how do the poor get health care?     change obamacare....it punishes the poor.
 
Yes, Obama care, a compromise deal made with the industry and modeled after the Republican plan, needs to be revised.  That is step 2.  

The public by 75% wanted the choice of a public option.  That would be the first thing to add, even if only at the state level (that is how Canada got its excellent system (at half the price)).

Of course single payer, Medicare for ALL, is the proven best system in all 35 advanced nations.  Other nations all get better health results (Iive longer, less sickness, lower childhood mortality) at half the cost (as in Canada,Austrailia, Japan, and Europe) and in some places (with the best results and the freest economies, according to the WSJ  Index) at 1/3 the cost.     We waste about 500 billion a year on private health insurance, which adds zero to either health or healthcare.

The best systems have single payer (govt administers at 2-5% overhead, compared to 15-40% overhead for private insurance, including 100 million salaries for top CEO's) and either have government (and private) doctors and hospitals, as in the UK or the VA or use private doctors and hospitals, as Medicare does.

But so long as the wealthy corporations control government, single payer, proven over 6 decades in 35 rich nations and many poor nations, as the cheapest and most effective system, will be "off the table."

The US rates just below Costa Rica and Cuba in average healthcare results, based on objective criteria (longevity, infant mortality, etc).

We rank 47th, tho we pay 100 to 200% more than ALL other nations with universal, comprehensive systems.   

High healthcare costs costs jobs, as auto assembly is moved across the bridge from Detroit to Windsor, Canada because, given equal wages, cars can be built for $1500 less in Windsor, due to the cheaper healthcare costs of their national system.  Also, with universal coverage under single payer, business is spared the huge expense of workers comp, as an injured worker is treated with his prepaid med card as the only qualification.   This increases profits for business.

It's like we know the answer, we have the solution, but the 1% are in control and have brainwashed the public into thinking that the American system is "the best."  It isn't.  It's terrible: it costs twice as much and leads to poor results.  But it is good for the 100th of 1% who pull down the millions for administering a program at a rate 300-1000% more expensive than government programs like Medicaid, which spends 98% on healthcare, not the 60-85% that the private insurance corps pay.

Also, single payer cuts costs by preventive medicine, early detection and early treatment, which saves hundreds of billions and improves health and worker productivity and thus profits for business.

Healthcare, according to the UN, the Catholic Church, all 35 peer nations, and many very poor nations, is a human right.   Does an injured child whose parents have no money have the right to medical treatment.  If you say no, you are a monster; if you say yes, you are affirming that healthcare is a right.  That said, wouldn't it be smart to 
pay 6- 9% of GDP, as in all other nations, instead of the 18% that the US pays, leaving 50 million uncovered, and with lower life expectancy than Slovenia and Cuba, and 3 times more dead babies than the other nations?  Where are the pro-lifers on this?   It's one thing to abort an embryo; it's another to have 3 times more infant mortality than France or Japan or Hong Kong.  Pro-lifers!   National healthcare programs save tens of thousands of children's lives by providing timely medical attention.   Join the rest of the human race!
 
+John Capra No non-christian leader has ever lead a nation to a good ending?   The mind boggles.   Are we only looking at leaders of nations with predominant christian populations or all the world's nations?
 
Obama was a community organizer for years before getting into the political game. The storm simply allowed him to display his strongest talent: working 1-on-1 to get problems solved for everyday people. He genuinely cares about the direction of this country for every American. And that's not something that can be market-tested and duplicated by the Romney campaign. I listened to both arguments, but Romney's came across smug, inconsistent, extreme and full of contempt for the working class, minorities and women. The only logical choice is Obama (my guess is by 294-244)
 
Obama has won....its statistically less and less likely. Silver is telling Romney now has around a 16% chance of beating Obama.
 
My bad...meant to say that currents polls from numerous sources show statistically Obama has an 84% chance of winning and Romney a 16% chance. Its going to sway based in a error a little from that but the race is over basically. Obama has win this....
 
Mitch get off this discussion you don't quote your sources- go make-believe with your B.O. team
 
Mitch clearly stated he was quoting from Nate Silver's blog. Silver uses all polls and weighs them based on record of reliability.  So stop acting like a bully.  
 
Dale I didn't see a quote you never post your sources either and you're a liberal coward that hides in the forums as well- fuck you 
 
+Mitch Stokely thank you, now I know what you are referencing and what context your percentages are being stated in.  

+Abe Cano What are you so angry about?
 
How the hell did you pull an 86% advantage out of these polls?  CNN has them tied- are you stupid or just hoping no one will call you out on your bull shit?
 
+Abe Cano Take a breath, count to 10, read the link, think mathematically and statistically.   You'll figure it out or you won't.   
 
+Michael Bradley He's not going to figure it out because the methodology being used is more complex than any angry internet armchair politician is going to read in one sitting, then understand.
 
Mr. Stokely should rephrase his synopsis on what it means to lead in a poll, does not mean Obama has an 86% chance and Romney has a 16% chance-- Michael Bradley you take a breath and figure out how to explain what he said and I'll eat crow. I get mad when people read spin articles and they get all hyper about it and regurgitate it in a stupid way
 
Abe, Mitch said his source was Silver; Silver's sources are all polls, weighed for reliability.
You can find at NY Times.  I am a new poster. I didn't know that was a crime worthy of a vicious fascist slur (Hitler called the liberals cowards and persecuted them)

You seem really sick in the head, Abe.   My source that Mitch's source was Silver is Mitch's post.   

You need psychiatric treatment for  your irrational hatred.  I always post my sources at least once. So go ahead, apologize for being a dickhead; I forgive you.  Your hatred will kill you: it destroys the immune system and the mind and heart.  It rots the brain and poisons the spirit: the first victim of hatred is the bearer. 
 
+Abe Cano based on the averages and analysis of all the poll data and other indicators it is Mr. Silver's opinion that Obama has a 85.5% chance of winning the election.  Mr. Silver is not stating that Obama will capture 85.5% of the votes or 85.5% of the electoral college.  

How much stock you put in Mr. Silver's assessment is up to you. But I don't think anything posted on here by others or in Mr. Silver's opinions warrant your "flying off the handle."  

If you disagree that's great, but telling people "fuck you" or to leave the conversation (that is posted in a public forum) isn't the sign of a rational and reasonable person attempting to engage in a meaningful discussion.
 
+Abe Cano If you read the article you might be able to answer your own question. But I forgot, you people dont read. Just shoot from the hip. Drama queens one and all...
 
Michael Bradley I want some weight put on people's assessment of raw polling data, there are too many giggling school girls that run with these "outcomes" like Silver. 
Silver to me is like George Stephanopoulos-- 
Mitch Stokely you're an idiot tagging along with two guys like Dale Ruff and Michael Bradley who know at least how to explain their preposition-- 
I'm a drama queen? Okay, enlighten me, explain what Silver means by leading by 85.5%-- do you even know what that means?

Michael or Dale I don't need to hear either of your input- I think Mitch should answer for himself, he posted it, let him finish it-- I want to hear this
 
Abe Lincoln, I work with statistics all day long. Silver is saying that Obama has an 85% chance if winning the election based on the probability of winning the electoral college if both men tied in the national election vote count. Its widely know that this is a simulation based on averages of polls. Thats why CNN and many others announce winners in close races before votes are counted.... the probability of an outcome is high enough that its a very likely event.
 
Right now for Romney to win he would have to win Florida, North Carolina, Virgina. Then he would have to win either Ohio with 18 and one of Obamas blue states or Colorado which is tied and two of Obamas blue states. Its very very hard based on current averages if polls. Obama is winning in Ohio and tied in Colorado and Virginia and so Romney has to to go 3-2-1 to win. It aint happening....sorry
 
Ahh thanks Mitch, did Dale private message you the answers?

I'm going to say that it's just a (little) presumptuous to base those
probabilities on the electoral college-- especially when it's in question--
let's not get into conspiracy theories and dems voting early and repubs
voting on one day in Ohio

Let's just say the battle ground is not as red and blue as it was in '08.

PA is up for grabs-- shouldn't even be

I think it's lofty to even calculate sliding scale polls on a race this
tight
 
Go look at the data yourself. Dont trust a ignorant libtard communist like me :)
 
"Which guy is going to take my bribes" - faceless billionaire 
 
Someone just refuses to accept a prediction based on data. It's just a number. It's not an actual vote count.
 
Of course npr is gonna say Obama is leading...when Romney gets elected there won't be an npr....lol
 
+Abe Cano is the portrait of the angry republican that does not believe in factual information. I feel sorry for these fox-news, blog educated, misinformed minions.
 
+Jeff Riewer But if NPR wanted Obama to win, how would saying he's leading help that to happen? If anything, it would make lazy Obama voters to think they don't need to bother. If I were NPR and I wanted Obama to win, I'd be saying that it's neck and neck, or that Romney may be ahead due to higher committed voters. That would be the rallying call to those who would vote Obama but aren't sure if they can be bothered to.
 
What I dont understand is with all the info that has come to light about Mitt Romney and people still want to vote for him blows me away......someone who will literally be ostrasized by his church for supporting a womens right to choose and gay rights isnt someone who will be objective because he is already stated what comes first, his church.


If our politics are supposed to be seperate from church and state why does everyone keep bringing religion into the mix. I dont believe in every religion but I do beleive that we all have rights no matter what our belief system is if you have a lot you should give a lot if you have none the ones who do show you how to and we work together to benifit everyone and our society so everyone can be happy and get to the business of living :) namaste
 
+Wendy Lewis Simple - Fox News is all the Romney voters watch, and they put a spin on anything that's found.
 
Don't care what the polls say as long as the electoral college results show Romney as the winner!
 
+ Wendy Lewis do you think BO can get the deficit back to surplus like Clinton, the only difference is Clinton sexed his way to that surplus and BO is actually faithful to his wife.  Colorado had a business man help keep out of deficit/debt so being rich does not always mean a bad president.  Staying faithful now that is a fine balancing act in politics.
 
+Lisa Berry I'm afraid that you may need to learn to live with disappointment because the electoral college in this election is not going to be Romney's friend.  He has to win one of the rust-belt states in order to win and none of them are moving enough in his direction right now for that to happen.  It is possible that all of the polls are wrong, but that is a small possibility (16% or so).  I he does win, more power to him, he certainly overcame big odds.  But right now it doesn't look like it.  
 
I still wonder how come NPR guys waste public money by taking partisian stands. NPR is mostly liberal and always pounds on Republicans. Govt has to stop its aid to these guys. Media will be decimated  tomorrow. 
 
America doesn't need a new president yet.continue going forward with the driver who already knows the curves and humps on the road and a man who knows how to slowdown on uneven roads of history and picks his speed up in clear and smooth ways to progress.OMO(OneMoreObama).
 
If anyone payed attention in Econ class it takes any modern society to recover from major fiscal damage at least 10 years....hello.

Why would I want someone who has shown to bankrupt coorperations (this is fact people) and ruin companies and wear magic underwear isnt the person I want anywhere near a missile....


Plus he changes his story.....though Barak isnt perfect he stopped the stock market from totally diving he has pulled most of our troops out while helping with Bin Laden and he hasnt his anything or been weird.

No one is perfect and I believe we can make a difference when we hold people in office to a higher standard we can achieve by leading by example ;) go vote it does matter :)
 
+Abe Cano - Lose the Army uniform in your profile pic if you wish to engage in partisan politics.  I doubt the military has changed that much since I retired from the Air Force.
 
+Radhika Katluri There has been a common meme in this election by Republicans who seem to attribute any bad news about their candidate or his campaign to liberal media bias.

If Romney loses this election, as it currently appears that he will, it is NOT NPR's fault.  They do their best to report the news in probably a more balanced way than most.

Romney had the best issue of any Republican running against an incumbent since Reagan - the slow economic recovery.

If Romney wins, more power to him.  He has overcome big odds and deserves a chance to prove that he can deliver on all of his promises.

If he loses it will be because he failed to convince enough voters that he can be trusted.  Stop crying and blaming the media.  Man up.  Look in the mirror and take some responsibility.  Pick a better candidate next time that has more character and backbone and work harder to get them elected.
 
Gary Johnson will pull at least 3% and probably a lot of Ron Paul supporters.
 
No real difference -- Trinda martin wolfe -- you may as well live in Florida as Alaska -- no real difference there are MacDonald's in both states -- GOP controlled by Tea want to control women but let polluters run free Dems don't I could go down a long list - 
 
Pardon the interruption, but I just feel the need to bring a comment some more attention, by +Cally Goddard:
"the only difference is Clinton sexed his way to that surplus"

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean, or who it's for or against, but I love it wholeheartedly. Please, keep talking, +Cally Goddard.
 
Americans will never ever ever elect a Libertarian for president.....never!

But Gary Johnson seems like a nice fellow.....he should consider a Republican ticket.
 
Libertarians won't ever really have a home within the GOP so long as the GOP is dominated by the religious right.  
 
Maybe if the Republican party splits up, we can have more national parties and take some power from these too powerful organizations.
 
For what its worth...

The GOP appears to be ready to splinter into three distinct groups:

1. Traditional social moderates, but fiscal conservatives
2. The religious right that has come to be the face and identity of the GOP, (ala Mitt Romney's transformation during the GOP primary races and re-transformation during the presidential debates.)
3. The more libertarian, small-government, limited Federal powers group.  


Some people from Group 1 may find a home in the DNC assuming the DNC is not pulled too much to the left by its own fringe elements and voices.  What we have seen is a full shift to the right in the political arena which puts the DNC more in the center while the GOP drifts further and further to the right.  

I fully expect the people of Group 2 to increase and become an even greater driver of the GOP.  This shift has been happening since the 70s with the GOP courting Falwell and his Moral Majority.   If Romney wins and their policies have even minimal success they will see it as a mandate to push even further.  If Romney wins and they don't see any success for their platform, Romney sold them out and is a RINO.  If Romney loses, they'll double down and rally their troops.  This base is large, well organized and not to be underestimated.  

The libertarian party may or may not pick up more people from Group 3.  I think it will depend on how these people self-identify and how sold they are on the complete libertarian package.  Regardless of the outcome of the election I would expect them to be a thorn in the side of the regular GOP for a few more cycles and then drift back to obscurity.   Similar to Ross Perot's and Ralph Nader's temporary pull and influence in the past.  
 
Yea Republicans will splinter for sure....its their fault for allowing radicals outside mainstream America from entering. Its like a bunch crazy pentecostal snake charmers all standing up and screaming, praying in church while a few quiet Methodists sit in the back and pray quietly.
 
Real choice should not be choosing a radical right wing Republican or a REALLY radical right wing anti-government libertarian that wants to dismantle public education, police officers, teachers, and medicare. Thats not reality.....thats fantasy land.

What we need is the Republican Party to reject radical libertarians and tea party and religious fanatics and move to the middle.
 
Unless we undertake a major overhaul (see what I did there) of our political system's representative form of democracy, third parties will always be relegated to single and/or fringe issues not being addressed by the two major parties. If a third party does happen to champion a popular platform that platform is typically absorbed to some large extent into one of the major parties' platform.  

We've seen this with the DNC taking more of a stand on environmental issues.  Sure the Green Party would say the DNC is barely environmental or not at all, but the mainstream average Joe does see the DNC as more environmental minded than the GOP.  

The sure way to give strength and a larger voice to multiple parties in a political system is to adopt a parliamentary system where coalitions must be formed, and well, that's just two damn European and foreign sounding for most US citizens to stomach.  
 
Be prepared to ammend the Consitution as thats not what representational government as it was set by the founding fathers.
 
How can we realistically do away with parties?  Like minded folk are always going to collect together into groups.  It's human nature.   I can't think of any system of governance where some type of sub-groups don't form, be they called parties or not.  A political party by any other name is still a political party.  
 
+Wendy Lewis You do realize that your statements regarding Romney's religion are a little bit hypocritical in regards to stating that you think that prospective presidential candidates shouldn't have freedom thereof, while claiming to support religious freedom? If that seems a little confusing, trust me, I tried. You really didn't give me much to work with there. I'm sure you've probably called him a "flip-flopper" at some point, too. Fortunately, you aren't at any risk of being a "flip-flopper", you apparently live in a universe where it is completely rational to hold two very conflicting views at once. Good luck with that.:)
 
+Michael Bradley It seems pretty easy to me. Don't think like everybody else. Tell the emperor he has no clothes on. (This really means not to pretend to think like everybody else, which is what we are CONDITIONED to do.) Learned behavior is not "human nature".
 
+Eric White If you happen to agree with 99 other people about the how, why, what and when of telling the emperor he has no clothes on and your little group of 100 have a better chance of being heard and taken more serious than 100 separate individuals isn't there a good chance that some type of political group will form around that platform?

We are social creatures and we tend to cluster into groups.  Some form of collective governance of the group will form.  History is replete with a variety of examples.  

Even if we outlaw political parties in this country, people will still find ways to organize around a candidate, an issue, or both and divert time and resources to promoting or opposing the same.  

Current technology is only making it easier for us to connect with people who share our views, or at least we think they share our views. 

How do you not think like at least one other person in a world filled with so many people?  Odds are someone else is reaching the same conclusions you are about some political issue or candidate.

Will you change your viewpoint just because it isn't unique, or will force others to change theirs so you can be unique?
 
+Michael Bradley I don't think we should make political parties illegal. What we should do end the official U.S. Government recognisition of the two major ones. I will say this, though, a lot of people align with parties because they are too lazy to seek the facts themselves. We are not social creatures to the extent that we lack individuality, stupid people are just cattle.
Add a comment...