Off-Topic

You hate Obama! You hated Bush! You hated Clinton! You hated Reagan! You called Taft fat! You called Cleveland fat!

nm

Romney's up 13 with Independents in the latest Fox poll (the most recent one that had any detailed crosstabs). I love how that translates into an Obama landslide and a "good old fashioned ass kicking."

Obama is up some 15% with women who make up over 50% of the total vote, he's up 30+% with hispanics which is about 13% of the vote and has 90+% of the black vote. So Obama is losing by 13% to Romney with what amounts to 10% of the vote. I like Obama's chances.

Fox poll is quite the outlier in this last week's worth of polls. And PPP publishes their crosstabs as well (and had Obama up 6, I believe), a standard all pollster should follow if they wish to be taken seriously.

Yeah, PPP has good crosstabs. I didn't include them since their last poll was about 2 weeks ago (although not too much changed in the past two weeks).

PPP had Obama up 9 with Independents actually.

The Fox poll had Romney and Obama tied and PPP had Obama up 3, so a 22 point swing in Independents between the two polls translated into just a 3 point swing overall. D and R numbers were relatively close between the two. That just shows how fucked all of these models are at this point.

Have to thank BO for telling me that Mitts wouldn't have gotten OBL. Wow, now he's a mind-reader and crystal ball reader; looking for a second career?

LA Times sayin Portman "a done deal."

Mitt Romney can go exciting and splashy with his vice presidential pick, or boring and safe. Apparently, the “smart money” is on the latter, and Sen. Rob Portman fits that bill perfectly.

Doyle McManus, an opinion writer for the Los Angeles Times, writes this morning that the choice of Portman, R-Ohio, is essentially a done deal, even as the political class in Washington continues to chatter about other, more sparkling alternatives.

“I hate to spoil the fun, but every Republican strategist I surveyed this week had the same answer: Romney’s almost certain to opt for the most boring, conventional choice possible, Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio,” McManus writes.

The reason? Call it the Palin lesson.

“Four years ago, a Republican nominee chose an exciting, fresh face for his running mate, and she promptly landed the campaign on Saturday Night Live,” McManus notes. “This year, the no-drama Romney campaign, so buttoned up that it makes Team Obama look like an improv troupe, wants to avoid a rerun of the Sarah Palin Experience.”

Probably the most insightful post you have ever made!

This decision is not a done deal. But Portman of Ohio and Rubio of Florida are imo the only two candidates. I can see someone has done a history lesson and seen no candidate has won the Presidency without winning Ohio. Portman would certainly help that, but Rubio is a two-fer, being from important swing State, Florida, and being Hispanic.

Like I said, it is very unlikely this call has been made. Besides it is very doubtful a liberal rag like the LA Times has any credible insider info on Romney's actual thought process, other then being suckered into a planted story just to trial balloon the idea of Portman so this idea can be polled nationally.

Pretty much the average WaPo column....on any subject.

I think it's going to be Portman because he's one of those guys who won't turn off a certain demographic of the party. Rubio is a risky choice (see Dan Quayle, but I'm not comparing the two) and so is Ryan, but I don't think anyone can find fault with Portman.

I think the GOP is going to make a big play for the Midwest this cycle, and use guys like Portman, Pawlenty and Daniels to do it.