Big Poll Shifts Now Happening

[mundame]

Whoa --- The RealClearPolitics No Toss-Up map has been 294 for Obama and 244 for Romney forever, weeks --- tonight I checked in and FOUR STATES have suddenly shifted from Obama to Romney: Virginia, New Hampshire, Colorado, and Florida. They could still shift back, but yow, this is big, I think. It's now 277 Obama to 261 Romney, which is VERY close. 270 wins.

You realize that this happened several days AFTER the second debate. Which is not a good sign for Obama: it's the same time frame that things started shifting toward Romney after the first debate. There's a few days delay as they take the polls and report them and so on.

I think we've got one of those big mo shifts, like during the last few weeks with Carter/Reagan.

[mundame]

I went back and looked at the 12 battleground states on RCP. For weeks it's been only two or three states going for Romney, and this week four for Romney and eight for Obama: but tonight it has suddenly shifted to 6 Romney and 6 Obama, counting one tie.

Since the Electoral College is actually all that matters, yep, that's a big shift. Let's see, 2 1/2 weeks to go. I bet the Obama campaign is seriously panicked.

[aboutime]

Keep track, if you will. Of the number of SHIFTS that will take place, almost daily. Until election day.

Both sides want all of us to vote for their man. And, like we saw in 2008. The same people who DO NOT KNOW ANY BETTER. Will vote again, and be unable to explain WHY.

[gabosaurus]

I think we've got one of those big mo shifts, like during the last few weeks with Carter/Reagan.

You think Romney is going to negotiate an arms for hostages deal someplace?

[mundame]

You think Romney is going to negotiate an arms for hostages deal someplace?


You seem to be implying that Reagan got the hostages free by negotiating an arms deal with Iran.

I don't believe that. I'm of the school that thinks they realized Reagan was winning and so gave up the hostages quickly for fear of the entire Persian empire becoming a little black grease spot in the desert if they didn't.

[Trigg]

Romney has done very well in the last 2 debates. People are lealizing tha he knows what he's talking about in regards to the economy. He may not be as smooth as bambam or exciting to the younger voters. But none of that matters in the present economy. People are getting sick and tired of the so called "recovery"

[Abbey Marie]

Just saw a headline on Yahoo that Romney has more electoral votes than Obama.

:dance:

[tailfins]

You think Romney is going to negotiate an arms for hostages deal someplace?

That's been done already in this election cycle: It's called Fast and Furious and was implemented by Obama.

[Robert A Whit]

You seem to be implying that Reagan got the hostages free by negotiating an arms deal with Iran.

I don't believe that. I'm of the school that thinks they realized Reagan was winning and so gave up the hostages quickly for fear of the entire Persian empire becoming a little black grease spot in the desert if they didn't.

RR had nothing to do with the release of the hostages other than he gave Jimmy Carter the keys to AF 1 so he should get the full credit.

For some strange but unknown reason, democrats are fond of taking the credit away from Jimmy and giving it to Reagan.

I do expect the leaders in Iran felt they got as much out of the hostages as could be obtained. Carter sure did not scare them.

Maybe they did fear Reagan but his team played no role at all in what happened.

[aboutime]

Here's an update for everyone who has been watching the BIG POLL Shifts....

Click to enlarge, and read...and Copy for your records:

4008

I call it OBAMA BINGO....a different talking point to remember.

[mundame]

Here's another big poll shift!

Today Sunday morning the Wall Street Journal poll has come out dead even: 47% to 47%.

With Romney ahead when only likely voters are considered rather than registered voters. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203630604578070354133512978.html


Well, I will say I did not expect this sudden shift in momentum. I have thought all along that it was a "sacrificial lamb" election with Romney as the lamb, because people just wouldn't unelect an affirmative action president, the First Black President HAD to serve a full two terms just to show, just to show...oh, whatever. Usual racial stuff.


However, it's looking as though I might have been wrong......

The economy figures, all of them, are THE WORST of any LOSING incumbent who tried for re-election, and lost, since WWII. He's below all the losers on the economy. Well, maybe that finally got through to voters.

[mundame]

Two possibilities to watch out for:

1. Romney does bad in tomorrow's debate and the Big Mo shifts right back to Obama.

2. ANOTHER hung election: too even to trust, recounts everywhere; or Electoral College one way and popular vote another; another hung-up state and the election going into the (Republican) House of Representatives.

[red states rule]

Two possibilities to watch out for:

1. Romney does bad in tomorrow's debate and the Big Mo shifts right back to Obama.

2. ANOTHER hung election: too even to trust, recounts everywhere; or Electoral College one way and popular vote another; another hung-up state and the election going into the (Republican) House of Representatives.

Or how about Obama is unable to explain his gross incompetence and Mitt puts the finishing touches on his election win

The odds in another 2000 is the same as tossing a coin in the air and it lands on its side

[mundame]

Or how about Obama is unable to explain his gross incompetence and Mitt puts the finishing touches on his election win

The odds in another 2000 is the same as tossing a coin in the air and it lands on its side


Oh, sure ---- Mitt continuing his Big Mo is actually the default possibility at this point, I think.

You are saying the 2000 election hang-up was just pure chance?

There have been very close, problematic elections at least four times: the Rutherford Hayes one went into the House of Representatives and there were riots in the streets, IIRC.

I don't think the 2000 election problems were chance at all but resulted from a very close election. What we need is a clear landslide ---- otherwise we have problems, and counting the absentee ballots (in a landslide they don't bother because it wouldn't matter -- a lot of people don't know that), and recounts, and accusations of cheating, and long-delayed concessions, and rioting.


No, I definitely don't want to see another close election. Not that I have a choice.

[red states rule]

Oh, sure ---- Mitt continuing his Big Mo is actually the default possibility at this point, I think.

You are saying the 2000 election hang-up was just pure chance?

There have been very close, problematic elections at least four times: the Rutherford Hayes one went into the House of Representatives and there were riots in the streets, IIRC.

I don't think the 2000 election problems were chance at all but resulted from a very close election. What we need is a clear landslide ---- otherwise we have problems, and counting the absentee ballots (in a landslide they don't bother because it wouldn't matter -- a lot of people don't know that), and recounts, and accusations of cheating, and long-delayed concessions, and rioting.


No, I definitely don't want to see another close election. Not that I have a choice.

The reason FL was close in 2000 was because libs were to stupid to fill out a ballot correctly. Also the liberal media did their own recount and it was proven Bush won by more than 500 votes

and you will get your landslide. Women and Latinos are moving toward Mitt and Obama contnues to offer nothing but lame jokes and attacks on Mitt. He has offered nothing on what he will do in another term except continue the insane spending and raise taxes

Is it any wonder the election is slipping away?

And you do not have a choice because you have admitted you will not vote for Mitt beciause of his religion and not his policies. Your bigotry is preventing you from having a choice Mundame