Romney Takes Lead in Ohio as Obama Campaign Panics

McCain would have won by a landslide if the Dems didn't crash the economy a month before the election (and naturally blame republicans).

 

The actual poll shows Obama +1. The number you cite comes from the poll's "vote-projection model", and mostly revolves around guessing what voter turnout will be. I'd be rather skeptical of such a fuzzy prediction.

 

Now, this is the best spin I've heard in the last 4 years! The DEMS crashed the economy?

What planet do you live on. . .or are you just locked in a space station that receives news only from Fox and Limbaugh?

 

Guess it was all a big coincidence.

 

It was.

http://bcshort.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/us-housing-prices.jpg

 

No spin there, democrats pushed housing for minorities and others that could never afford it.

The housing bubble was Bill Clinton inspired, democrat executed bubble.

Now democrats are talking free college for everyone, as if the housing bubble never happened.

 

Cite the law please.

 

That's supposed to be the internal polling number that keeps coming up for both camps since the last debate, according to my ********* brother in law who used to be a GOP lobbyist here in CA, so it may be true...or not

 

Even liberal rag time magazine accused Clinton of causing the housing mess.

Time - "In 1995 Clinton loosened housing rules by rewriting the Community Reinvestment Act, which put added pressure on banks to lend in low-income neighborhoods. It is the subject of heated political and scholarly debate whether any of these moves are to blame for our troubles, but they certainly played a role in creating a permissive lending environment."

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1877351_1877350_1877322,00.html #ixzz2Aj19NZTl

 

Wow, you're one of the few people I've run into who aren't aware of Bill Clinton signing the repeal of Glass Steagall into law in 1999.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs...of-glass-steagall-caused-the-financial-crisis

 

There is a Romney surge in the most recent battle ground state polls and it looks like Romney will beat Obama narrowly by 275-263 on November 6.

(CNN) – A new poll released Monday indicates Mitt Romney has a narrow edge over President Barack Obama in Colorado, a little more than a week before Election Day. Forty-eight percent of likely voters in the state back the GOP presidential nominee, compared to 47% who support the president, according to the American Research Group survey.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/29/colorado-poll-romney-48-obama-47/

 

All the CRA did was outlaw redlining -- the illegal practice of refusing to do any lending in entire neighborhoods, regardless of individual creditworthiness.

It did not cause the housing bubble or "crash the economy."

 

Romney will not significantly, if at all, cut spending. He might come down on welfare. That's it. He won't cut medicaid, medicare, he's gonna increase defense, and he'll probably take us to war with Iran.

 

It is true, The Democrats held the Senate, Nancy Pelosi was at the plate, and Bush allowed them too, and obama is way worse over six trillion and only four years in office...It has to stop...

 

It certainly did, foreclosure rates were higher among minorities in this crash.

http://www.thehartfordguardian.com/...losure-rate-higher-among-minority-homeowners/

Or are you suggesting minorities are just careless and unable to balance their checkbooks?

 

It is. The deficit fell a record $207 billion last year, Obama has been the first president in 60 years to actually cut spending, twice, and overall spending is now prortionately the same or less than it was during half of Reagan's years.

If this trend continues the debt as a percent of GDP should start shrinking within 2-3 years.

That is, if we don't (*)(*)(*)(*) it up and put another tax cutter/defense spending in the WH to blow the deficit again.

 

Blatant liberal lie with no proof.

 

Just a few more remarks in the previous post from the party of the Ignorant and Uninformed....... Obama's beaten Jimmy Carter for the title of "Worst President in History"......JH in Va.

 

Which had nothing to do with the CRA.

The CRA just said banks couldn't turn down *qualified* borrowers simply because of where they lived.

It did *not* force banks to make interest-only loans, "declared income" loans, balloon loans, etc. Banks did that all by themselves.

 

Another "sammy softball".

You mean Rush and Sean and the good folks at the RNC didn't tell you about these facts?

Sammy, how can you be so sure of your convictions when you've been shown the facts upone which you premise them have been proved so wrong, so often?

"Obama has been the first president in 60 years to actually cut spending, twice"

Year - Outlays - Diff. from prior
1953 76.1 8.4
1954 70.9 -5.2
1955 68.4 -2.4
1956 70.6 2.2
1957 76.6 5.9
1958 82.4 5.8
1959 92.1 9.7
1960 92.2 0.1
1961 97.7 5.5
1962 106.8 9.1
1963 111.3 4.5
1964 118.5 7.2
1965 118.2 -0.3
1966 134.5 16.3
1967 157.5 23.0
1968 178.1 20.6
1969 183.6 5.5
1970 195.6 12.0
1971 210.2 14.6
1972 230.7 20.5
1973 245.7 15.0
1974 269.4 23.7
1975 332.3 62.9
1976 371.8 39.5
1977 409.2 37.4
1978 458.7 49.5
1979 504.0 45.3
1980 590.9 86.9
1981 678.2 87.3
1982 745.7 67.5
1983 808.4 62.7
1984 851.9 43.5
1985 946.4 94.5
1986 990.4 44.0
1987 1,004.1 13.7
1988 1,064.5 60.4
1989 1,143.6 79.1
1990 1,253.2 109.6
1991 1,324.4 71.2
1992 1,381.7 57.3
1993 1,409.5 27.8
1994 1,461.9 52.4
1995 1,515.8 53.9
1996 1,560.5 44.7
1997 1,601.3 40.8
1998 1,652.6 51.3
1999 1,701.9 49.3
2000 1,789.0 87.1
2001 1,862.9 73.9
2002 2,010.9 148.0
2003 2,159.9 149.0
2004 2,292.2 132.3
2005 2,472.2 180.0
2006 2,655.1 182.9
2007 2,728.7 73.6
2008 2,982.5 253.8
2009 3,517.7 535.1
2010 3,456.2 -61.5
2011 3,598.1 141.9
2012 3,540.0 -58.1

Source data: CBO.gov.


"...and overall spending is now prortionately the same or less than it was during half of Reagan's years."

Year - Outlays - % of GDP
1981 678.2 21.7%
1982 745.7 22.9%
1983 808.4 22.9%
1984 851.9 21.7%
1985 946.4 22.4%
1986 990.4 22.2%
1987 1,004.1 21.2%
1988 1,064.5 20.9%

2012 3,540.0 22.4%

Sources: CBO.gov (outlays) BEA.gov (GDP)

 

As I thought, your own stats prove your blatant lie.

Note how spending outlays increase significantly under Obama.

This is just one reason Romney is gonna be the next president.
People are sick of Obama's out of control spending.

2001 1,862.9 73.9
2002 2,010.9 148.0
2003 2,159.9 149.0
2004 2,292.2 132.3
2005 2,472.2 180.0
2006 2,655.1 182.9
2007 2,728.7 73.6
2008 2,982.5 253.8
2009 3,517.7 535.1
2010 3,456.2 -61.5
2011 3,598.1 141.9
2012 3,540.0 -58.1

Iriemon, take off the Obama blinders.
You can never find any fault with Obama, as you are
just biased.

 

Please explain.

So what. How does that prove my statement is a lie, since you've made the accusation?

That data proves that spending actually decreased twice, in 2010 and 2012, which the rest of the table shows was the first time that has happened in 60 years.

Baseless accusation of lying by Sammy. Same thing we see with numerous other conservatives when they've boxed themselves into a corner. I wish I could say it was an anomoly here.

 

Very easily and simply.

The spending outlays in 2001 till 2008 under Bush (avg ~2300) were all far lower than those under Obama (avg ~3500) .

Obama spent more dollars than any other president in history by far, it wasn't even close.
Obama mad Bush look thrifty by your own stats.

I have to wonder if you can compare big numbers?

I can see why Obama fools you, you have no math sense.

 

That is not true. The polling statistics were pretty much within the margin of error. What essentially happened is till August Kerry had a lead but not significant, it started trending toward Bush after the swift boat ads, then stabilized after the debates because Bush didn't do all that great in the debates.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/03/gallup.poll/index.html

Right like how you stated Kerry's lead was "evaporated" by August. A sampling rate of millions always trumps a sampling rate of thousands, like a sampling rate of thousands is always better then 100's. Statistics is only as accurate the the number of samples. Because the detail is only as good as the resolution of the statistics. More *usually* equates to more resolution thus more accuracy and it decreases the margin of error. And the sampling needs to to be done more frequently in high density areas.


"Study statistis" , right, I'm an engineer who works with math on a daily basis. Thanks for the condescending replies Mr.Science.

Put the crack pipe down.

 

I don't think so, where is your factual evidence? don't see that you have supported your statement Dorothy... nice try though...

Have a good day :}