Democrats & Liberals Archives

Time For Romney Victory Is Running Out

We are two weeks from the election and while Romney’s had the upper hand on national polling this month what he has failed to do is fully erode President Obama’s electoral college advantage. Time is running out for Romney to make his move.

Using RCP numbers Obama and Romney sit neck and neck. Obama has 201 electoral votes firmly in his corner and Romney has 206. Of the 538 votes, this leaves 10 states worth 131 up for grabs. Romney has already taken Indiana and North Carolina out of play for Obama, two states the president won in 2008. They are not part of the list of 10 tossup states:

  • Colorado
  • Florida
  • Iowa
  • Michigan
  • Nevada
  • New Hampshire
  • Ohio
  • Pennsylvania
  • Virginia
  • Wisconsin

Romney will probably win Florida. That puts Romney at 235. But Obama's the favorite to win Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. That brings Obama's total from 201 to 247.

This is when you start to see how important Ohio will be. Obama currently has the lead there. If Obama wins it that puts him dangerously close with 265. That virtually guarantees that Romney must sweep the remaining five states. Obama currently holds the lead in Iowa and Nevada and either win would put him over the top.

Now consider the possibility that Romney wins Ohio. That puts Romney comfortably at 253 to Obama's 247. Iowa and Nevada only gets Obama to 259. That brings it all down to Colorado, New Hampshire and Virginia, three states too close to call right now. Romney would need to win all three virtually to get over the top.

A long shot scenario at this point is Romney losing his lead in Florida. A win in Florida combined with Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania puts the president over the top and makes Ohio meaningless. The trend is generally favorable for Obama in the state but with so little time left I've almost stopped thinking it's even in play anymore.

So I'll be keeping my eyes on Ohio and Florida in the coming days. The rest of the states are just minor players now compared to those big two. Ohio is the more important of the two though. Obama has a path to victory without Florida and Romney almost cannot win without Ohio.

It's coming down to the wire. It's very interesting and it's very close. It could be a nail biter for two weeks or it could shift in a way that makes it clear who will win. We'll see.

Posted by Adam Ducker at October 22, 2012 8:58 AM
Comments
Comment #354993

Peck, peck, peck. Chip, chip, chip.

Posted by: John Johnson at October 22, 2012 9:55 AM
Comment #354997

John Johnson-
Was that the sound of you trying to nitpick Adam’s findings? :-)

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 22, 2012 11:18 AM
Comment #355021

Good analysis. I was just wondering whether it was absolutely essential that Romney win Ohio in order to in the election,and this pretty much answers it.

Posted by: Jacquelyn Gerlach at October 22, 2012 8:21 PM
Comment #355031

Adam

One week and one day and we will know. I think I will be happier on November 7.

Posted by: C&J at October 22, 2012 9:39 PM
Comment #355033

I project Romney to win 300+ electorial votes. Which makes Obama the loser.

Posted by: Frank at October 22, 2012 10:05 PM
Comment #355041

Frank-
Do you have any real notion where he gets those 300 electoral votes? Or are you just repeating more garbage from Rush?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 22, 2012 10:57 PM
Comment #355044

I am reminded of the words from that song from “Smokey and the Bandit” - We gonna do what they said can’t be done.

Posted by: C&J at October 22, 2012 11:00 PM
Comment #355045

Stephen:

Romney could win 300 if he won every toss-up state. Easy right? Specially if you think the polls are skewed and biased.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at October 22, 2012 11:01 PM
Comment #355048

Adam Ducker; what do you say we continue to watch the skewed polls move toward Romney? You know…where the Rasmussen polls have been all along?

For someone who is supposed to be a poll expert…Oh well, I won’t compare you to Stephen Daugherty. You guys on the left have enough to worry about…

Posted by: Frank at October 22, 2012 11:12 PM
Comment #355051

“Frank-
Do you have any real notion where he gets those 300 electoral votes? Or are you just repeating more garbage from Rush?”

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 22, 2012 10:57 PM

Stephen, I am going to love discussing this with you in 3 weeks. In fact, we may see you and your Obama worshipping friends go MIA for a while.

Posted by: Frank at October 22, 2012 11:15 PM
Comment #355067

Frank-
Look, I just read Michelle Malking saying that letting himself get his ass kicked was being kind and gentle to the poor retarded kid.

That’s a special level of denial, and Republicans have become prone to it.

By the way, I looked at a map, concerning Iran’s route to the sea through Syia, and found a couple of problems.

One is that Iran needs no route to the sea, it’s got beachfront property on the Persian Gulf (odd how that works), The Gulf of Oman, and the Indian Ocean. Two is that there’s this little country between them and Syria. Real small one called Iraq.

Not sure how a Commander in Chief misses that kind of detail.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 23, 2012 1:26 AM
Comment #355068

Adam

Wisconsin has twice elected Walker, and by a larger margin in the recall. IMO Romney will win Wis. I believe he will also win Ohio. We elected Kasich, and threw out Strickland. That sentiment IMO has not changed here.

Posted by: dbs at October 23, 2012 5:36 AM
Comment #355074

Dbs:

Maybe. It’s close for sure, but Romney has only ever lost ground in the state in the last three weeks. He needs it to go the other way. The only reason they’re competing is all is because of Ryan but that probably isn’t enough at this point. It went 14% for Obama in 2008 and his RCP average is 2.8% right now.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at October 23, 2012 7:54 AM
Comment #355075

Dbs:

I think Romney has a higher chance of eeking out a victory in Ohio that Wisconsin.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at October 23, 2012 7:57 AM
Comment #355078

Adam, as an expert on polling, I am surprised that you continually use RPC averages. Averages mean that RCP uses all polls; those that are extremely high as well as those that are more in line with the truth. The result…not accurate. The polls that are extremely high are inaccurate because of several reasons: a disproportionate number of Democrats are polled, the pollsters use 2008 percentages instead of 2010 (Democrats turnout will not be the same in 2012 as it was in 2008), and registered voters are polled rather than likely voters.

Suffolk University Poll was dead on 3 weeks ago; when they gave FL, NC, and VA to Romney. In fact they stopped polling in these states because they said Obama had no chance of winning them. I remember some on the left on WB poo-pooing this poll as completely wrong; but it turns out they were correct. In Ohio the RCP shows Obama ahead with 1.9%. CBS News/Quinnipiac shows Obama with a 5% lead and Suffolk U. shows a dead even tie. I would accept the Suffolk U. poll before I would ever consider CBS News. Here’s the headline from CBS News, “Poll: Obama’s lead in Ohio narrows”. The previous CBS poll showed Obama leading with 53-43% lead on September 26, less than a month earlier. While on Oct. 17, Rasmussen showed Obama with 1% lead, and within the margin of error of the Suffolk U. Poll. Explain how Obama loses 10 points in less than a month. In my opinion, RCP averages mean nothing and I will stick to the polls like Suffolk U. and Rasmussen, who have a history of being correct. I stated several weeks ago that these polls showing Obama with outrageous leads would begin to move toward the accurate numbers. The goal of the MSM polls like ABC and CBS was to discourage the Romney base and fire up the Obama base. Those polls were complete lies, yet you defended them and laughed at my analysis. So here we are, 2 weeks from the election, and what do the pollsters say when the numbers shift toward Romney…”the numbers are unexpectedly moving to Romney”. These numbers are not unexpected. If any pollster wants to remain credible, the numbers will have to move toward reality by the time the election gets here. You will say your same old bullshit line that the polls will always get tighter as the election gets closer. The problem with this comment is that the accurate polls have always had the race tight and the inaccurate polls showed Obama with a large lead that seems to be dwindling.

Posted by: Frank at October 23, 2012 8:54 AM
Comment #355086

Adam is no poll expert. He is just repeating what he reads or hears.

Posted by: eyeswideopen at October 23, 2012 12:18 PM
Comment #355087

Eyeswideopen: “Adam is no poll expert. He is just repeating what he reads or hears.”

Though I think you meant it as insulting, I agree completely. I am a computer scientist, a website developer, and an amateur dog walker. It should come as no surprise to anyone that I am not a statistician, an economist, or anyone’s political adviser. Like every other author on this site, I write about these subjects because they interest and entertain me.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at October 23, 2012 12:29 PM
Comment #355089

There’s really no point in arguing at this point, accordingly to Romney supporters he already has this one in th bag. And hey, and even if he does lose they will say it was a draw. And if Romeny wins democrates will make sure they do everything they can to work against Romney and make sure he’s a 1 term president just like GWB.

Posted by: Paul at October 23, 2012 1:25 PM
Comment #355091

Computer Scientist: Geek

Website Developer: Geek

Amateur Dog Walker: Tree hugger

I wonder if Adam actually makes a living doing these things or does he depend upon his wife’s paycheck?

We know Stephen still lives with his mommy and daddy.

Tell you what boys; try building a company that hired over 100 people. In fact try building several successful businesses. Try meeting a payroll and being inundated with Federal rules, to the point it takes a CPA firm just to keep things straight. You’ve never created anything, like most liberals; just sucking off the teat of the government.

What the hell is an amateur dog walker?

Posted by: Frank at October 23, 2012 3:16 PM
Comment #355092

Hey Frank I guess you missed the whole watchblog guideline of “critic the message not messenger”. Its pretty easy to lob insults at other people and what they do for a living as you hide behind your computer. There was a time when debate on this site was conducted with at least a small amount of respect. How times have changed.

Posted by: Paul at October 23, 2012 4:22 PM
Comment #355093

I believe Mr. Romney held his own on foreign policy against a sitting president expected to do much better in that area. And, Mr. Romney again hung the poor economy around obama’s neck.

Romney played this debate very smartly by hitting hard where he had the advantage and holding his own where he didn’t have the advantage.

Unlike obama, Romney didn’t have to hit a home run which would have been nearly impossible.

Romney has the momentum now, and I see no reason why that shouldn’t continue barring some unforeseen event that might favor obama or disgrace Romney.

I see Romney trending up in the polls and obama trending down. That is really bad news for obama. A sitting president with all the incumbent advantages must be doing better than obama is to have a chance of winning.

I won’t call the race, but at this point, it looks like a Romney win.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 23, 2012 4:26 PM
Comment #355094

You wouild think if a sitting president that has done a good job on economy, jobs, and foreign policy would have at least poll numbers above 50%. With Obama’s numbers it looks pretty dismal to say the least.

Posted by: KAP at October 23, 2012 4:35 PM
Comment #355095

Royal Flush:

The trouble for Romney is still the topic of this post. He’s trending up nationally but he’s not trending up in the states he needs to win. Only four of the 10 tossup states have him trending up: Virginia, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Nevada. That accounts for 45 electoral votes. He needs about 20 more than that to not fall short of President Obama.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at October 23, 2012 4:39 PM
Comment #355096

KAP:

50% in what measurement? Approval?

Posted by: Adam Ducker at October 23, 2012 4:42 PM
Comment #355097

Adam, Ohio they are dead even except fot the liberal poll where Romney is down by only 1 point.

Posted by: KAP at October 23, 2012 4:43 PM
Comment #355098

Adam…you no doubt are basing that upon some poll or polls you have read. Others don’t agree with you. Ohio is now tied, imagine that! In a week, if obama doesn’t have a clear lead there it may well be over for him.

Florida is clearly now in the Romney column and even Michigan seems to be in play as is Conn. Wisconsin is too close to call.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 23, 2012 4:44 PM
Comment #355099

Adam, Any sitting president with poll numbers under 50 is dismal. Obama may be likeable but that dosen’t make him electable especially if you look at his record which he seems to be avoiding and what his plkans are for the next 4 yrs.

Posted by: KAP at October 23, 2012 4:48 PM
Comment #355100

Frankly, I believe the polls are not accurately measuring the true sentiments of the voters. I can’t point to just one thing that makes we write that; and why I believe this is certainly not verifiable, even for me.

Sometimes we humans just get a gut feeling about something that is difficult to justify. I read many political assessments both on the internet, in newspapers, news magazines, and watch many political programs on TV. I don’t restrict my flow of political information to just conservative or Republican, but read and watch nearly as much from liberal and democrat commentators. I am sensing some desperation on the left and more optimism on the right.

This election could provide a very surprising result, one that my leftist friends won’t like.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 23, 2012 4:54 PM
Comment #355104

Adam, I thought Romney’s recounting obama’s “apology tour” was very effective, and…was true from the fact checkers I have read. I remember this tour quite well and recall that I felt the president was clearly acting against our nation’s best interests.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 23, 2012 5:17 PM
Comment #355105

Royal Flush: “…you no doubt are basing that upon some poll or polls you have read. Others don’t agree with you.”

When you speak about trends you need more than one poll to show that. I’m going by the RCP average of multiple polls over the last week or so. This is a conservative site making conservative predictions about the election. Romney is not gaining ground in the states he needs in order to win but you could make a case that he is somehow using one or two specially selected polls. That’s not the trend.

Michigan is not that close. Connecticut is even further away for Romney. Wisconsin is close, Ohio is closer, Florida even more so.

“I am sensing some desperation on the left and more optimism on the right.”

There has always been greater optimism from the right in this election. The first debate disheartened many Democrats but if we thought Obama would waltz into a second term we were kidding ourselves. It’s going to be tough and it’s going to come down to one or two states. There’s so much invested int his election emotionally from both sides that huge disappointment for one side is inevitable the day after. At this point I’m not feeling desperation but I do understand it can go either way.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at October 23, 2012 5:20 PM
Comment #355106

I’d like to see the fact checkers that think the apology tour was true. Politifact gives talk of that a pants on fire rating. Romney has run with this forever without being challenged nationally for it until last night. It’s a lie.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at October 23, 2012 5:24 PM
Comment #355107

Well Adam…I guess I can’t believe my own eyes and ears. I saw and heard obama utter many apologies on the tour. For the left, they may have sounded like something else…but then, I would expect that.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 23, 2012 5:31 PM
Comment #355108

It’s not about liberal or conservative. If it gets a pants on fire from Politifact it’s generally a whopper of a lie.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at October 23, 2012 5:49 PM
Comment #355109

From today’s NY Times…The Caucus.

“President Obama set heads spinning on Capitol Hill when he declared on Monday night during the final presidential debate that sequestration — $1 trillion in across-the-board spending cuts over the next decade — “will not happen.”

Adam…read your link. Clearly there is disagreement among the contributors and others had to parse it to make their point. Zero points for you on this one.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 23, 2012 6:01 PM
Comment #355110

By the way Adam…I know many on the left appreciated obama’s comment about bayonets and horses. When I heard him say that I felt embarrassed for him. He showed a side of him we seldom see in public…overbearing arrogance and disrespect.

I suspect obama’s handlers thought this one up and felt it would be a perfect zinger and make Romney look foolish. It just didn’t play well and the president lost a lot of respect among independents. It makes one wonder what obama is like in private. Probably not a very nice guy judging from this display.

When Reagan was president we had a 600 ship navy. Today, we have 300. Maintenance of the ships we do have is diminishing as is the quality and readiness of the men and women serving on them.


Posted by: Royal Flush at October 23, 2012 6:23 PM
Comment #355111

Disagreement? Come on now.

* Politifact: False, Pants On Fire

* WaPo Fact Checker: False, Four Pinocchios

* FactCheck.org: False

* CNN: False

* Heritage True

Wait, if Heritage agrees with you then you must be right, right? Wrong. There was no apology tour. It never happened. Romney is lying every time he says this.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at October 23, 2012 6:25 PM
Comment #355112

Adam…I suggest you listen to the speech clips yourself and not let someone else make up your mind for you.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 23, 2012 6:34 PM
Comment #355113

Royal Flush: “He showed a side of him we seldom see in public…overbearing arrogance and disrespect.”

That’s odd. All we’ve heard from the right is how arrogant and disrespectful Obama is, has been, will be, etc. You don’t like the guy, I get it. That means everything he says or does you see in a lens of that dislike. If Romney had used the line you’d have loved it.

“When Reagan was president we had a 600 ship navy.”

This is another claim by Romney that earns him a pants on fire.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at October 23, 2012 6:45 PM
Comment #355114

Sorry Adam, your link confirmed it. Zero points on this one too.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 23, 2012 7:01 PM
Comment #355115

Royal Flush: “Sorry Adam, your link confirmed it.”

That’s fine. Obviously presenting facts to you is futile when your opinion is grounded in a gut feeling and not facts.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at October 23, 2012 7:04 PM
Comment #355116

Adam…Romney was correct on his education claims when governor and obama was wrong…again.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 23, 2012 7:06 PM
Comment #355117

Adam…my facts are correct, the parsing is what you’re using.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 23, 2012 7:07 PM
Comment #355118

Sorry, Royal. I won’t waste any more of our time since you simply pretend you have facts and you brush off the actual facts I present from multiple credible sources. This isn’t a debate you and I are having. This is you simply saying you are right over and over and refusing to see any fact counter to that.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at October 23, 2012 7:12 PM
Comment #355119

Adam…you’re beginning to sound like Mr. Daugherty…the “original” facts man. Facts are not what parsing twists them into.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 23, 2012 7:17 PM
Comment #355120

Royal Flush: “Adam…you’re beginning to sound like Mr. Daugherty…”

Thank you. Stephen argues based on facts.

“Facts are not what parsing twists them into.”

These are not facts parsed to fit my view. These are simply the facts. Take them or leave them.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at October 23, 2012 7:19 PM
Comment #355121

I’ll claim the facts and leave the parsing for you to feed on.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 23, 2012 7:22 PM
Comment #355124

Royal Flush, this is hilarious. AD, SD, and the rest of these libs on WB are having a meltdown. They are parsing the words and trying to put a good face on Obama’s sure defeat. Even the Democrat talking heads on the news are seeing the light and believe Obama won’t win.

Posted by: Frank at October 23, 2012 8:52 PM
Comment #355128

Uh, oh…breaking news. Emails now show state dept. and White House knew while Bengazi raid was taking place that it was a planned al Qaeda terrorist attack. Maybe the reason O looked so bad last night was because he was worried about this truth getting out. Hope the Obama apologists here who keep wanting to defending this lazy, inept, Chicago trained liar don’t have access to a razor blade or sharp knife.

Posted by: John Johnson at October 23, 2012 10:14 PM
Comment #355130

Chip, chip, chip. Peck, peck, peck.

Posted by: John Johnson at October 23, 2012 10:36 PM
Comment #355237

The full story on those Bengazi Raid Emails is quite a bit different than Johnson would like to claim (surprise, surprise!).

Posted by: Adrienne at October 24, 2012 3:53 AM
Comment #355240

Adrienne,

It’s not bullshit if it could be true in another dimension.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at October 24, 2012 7:14 AM
Comment #355241

John Johnson: “…and White House knew while Bengazi raid was taking place that it was a planned al Qaeda terrorist attack.”

And yet it wasn’t an a planned al Qaeda terrorist attack. I’m not sure there’s new information in this shocking revelation of yours.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at October 24, 2012 7:46 AM
Comment #355242

Rocky Marks:

I agree.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at October 24, 2012 7:48 AM
Comment #355246

The idea was brought up yesterday after the talking heads (both dem and repb) why didn’t Romney go after Obama on Benghazi, even after Obama left the door open for him several times; answer, why should he. We all knew Obama was lying and trying to cover up the attack and murders. So, just let the press do the job. The truth will always come out; in this day of instant information, nothing can be hid from prying eyes.

This problem is of the Presidents and his administration’s own creation. Why cover this up; why not come out with the truth. My guess is that his Chicago people surrounding him were playing Chicago style politics and it won’t work in DC.

Romney was one smart cookie on this one; he just let Obama be Obama.

Posted by: Frank at October 24, 2012 8:33 AM
Comment #355250

This is one of the emails sent minutes after the Bengazi attack began:
“Ansar al-Sharia claimed responsibility for the Benghazi attack on Facebook and Twitter, and has threatened to attack the Tripoli embassy.”

This is a statement made by our State Department:
“Ansar al-Sharia has been declared by the State Department to be an Al Qaeda-affiliated group.”

Were the two mini-raids weeks prior related to an unknown video?
How about the attempt on the British Ambassador’s life? Vid related or planned terrorist attacks?

Those of you in denial just keep wanting to candycoat the sorry, lazy, incompetent way this administration went about protecting our own, and how they have gone about trying to distort the facts.

It isn’t working. You guys just keep nuzzling each other’s necks and continue to whisper “It’s going to be alright” in each other’s ear.

Peck, peck, peck. Chip, chip, chip.

Posted by: John Johnson at October 24, 2012 10:19 AM
Comment #355253

John Johnson:

We’ve known almost from the start that Ansar al-Sharia in Libya claimed responsibility. I’m not sure why this is news to you. Militants fighting on the ground that night claimed affiliation with the group and said they were motivated by the video protests to launch the attack. So why do you deny the video, but now promote links to Ansar al-Sharia? You want it both ways but you can’t have it. It was a terrorist attack motivated by the video. Of course the Libya group now denies involvement in the deaths of Americans, so who knows?

The right has been trying to blur the lines between Ansar al-Sharia in Libya and al Qaeda from the start but there are no known links in the Libya group. This is a local group fighting against Western involvement in Libya and has no interest in a larger battle against the West like al Qaeda.

The confusion lies in that the name Ansar al-Sharia is generic and is used by multiple groups throughout the Middle East including in Yemen where they are just literally just another name for al Qaeda in that region.

You want this to be a coverup so you take every thing you find as new evidence of that. You swung and missed three times. You struck out but you’re still in the batters box arguing with the umpires.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at October 24, 2012 11:46 AM
Comment #355254

N.Y. Times says that the militants on the ground said that it was motivated by the video. How about the other mini attacks, were they motivated by the video also, Adam? If you ask what mini attacks then I put you in the category that Frank puts S.D. Was the attack on the British Ambassador related to the video? How about the attack on the Red Cross there?

Posted by: KAP at October 24, 2012 11:55 AM
Comment #355256

KAP:

No one is suggesting this militant group or any other group has never attacked the compound. I don’t understand the point you’re making.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at October 24, 2012 12:19 PM
Comment #355257

You are in denial Adam. You just can’t make yourself view this objectively for some reason. You simply skip over what you don’t like. Why are we having this discussion? It is because the interior minister of Libya warned our ambassador to leave the country after an attempt to kill the British ambassador and after two smaller raids on our compound which involved an IED in one. (Angry citizens don’t make IED’s). Someone in DC wanted him to stay, and wanted him to go it alone without proper protection. When the inevitable happened, the Prez and his charges keep using the word “video” over and over and over again instead of using the word “terrorist”.
The first statement out of Hillary’s mouth was more an apology rather than a condemnation. They even had the poor goofball who made the video arrested. Can you say “First Amendment rights”? Why wasn’t the true reason for the attack and the identity of those responsible announced to the world by Obama, Rice, Hillary, et al instead of using the little known video as an excuse. Prior attacks were systematic and planned in days prior and declared as retribution. Al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri called on Libyan Salafists to target Americans in order to avenge the death of his former deputy, Abu Yahya al-Libi, who was killed on June 4 by a US drone. This was known by our intelligence and state department people prior to, during and after the Bengazi attack and deaths of four men. If you want to address this line by line, please do so, but don’t just offer up more pap to make this pig prettier.


Posted by: John Johnson at October 24, 2012 12:28 PM
Comment #355258

Rocky,
Yes, I also agree.

And in that Bizarro-World dimension, it must be considered absolutely perfect that Romney came out only a short time following the attack to whine that the administration didn’t know every detail, and also say:

“It’s disgraceful that the Obama Administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.”

In Bizarro World, that would be the patriotic response.

Posted by: Adrienne at October 24, 2012 12:29 PM
Comment #355261

John Johnson: “If you want to address this line by line, please do so, but don’t just offer up more pap to make this pig prettier.”

You call it pap, I call it reality. You have a real problem with reality and you keep getting more and more offended by my grasp of these events.

What you don’t seem to notice is that I’m not denying there were previous attacks, I’m not denying that the State Department failed to give them the security they wanted, I’m not denying this was a terrorist attack, and I’m certainly not denying that Obama is ultimately responsible for this and is responsible for making sure this doesn’t happen again.

What I am saying is what we know about the events based on current reporting:

The president and his people first stated incorrectly that this was protesters. We know now it wasn’t. It was a terrorist attack carried out by a local, well-armed militant group in response to the video protests. It was not planed way in advance. It was not tied directly or even indirectly to al Qaeda. It was not tied to the anniversary of 9/11.

You can say that Obama lied, or mislead, or whatever, but the evidence does not support that simply because they made incorrect public statements based on their best knowledge at the time.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at October 24, 2012 12:46 PM
Comment #355262

Adam, The point I’m making is that the Administration DID NOT order the evacuation of our diplomats in Lybia as did Great Britain and the Red Cross evacuated personnel as tensions there escalated. Why cover this up as this administration has done? It’s all about the video, talk about people in a Bizarro World. Obama has said Bin Ladin is dead and Al Quaed is on the run???? No they are just begining, cutting off one head when there are many others does not stop them.

Posted by: KAP at October 24, 2012 12:54 PM
Comment #355263

KAP: “Why cover this up as this administration has done? It’s all about the video, talk about people in a Bizarro World.”

I don’t believe suggesting correctly that the attack was motivated by a video says anything at all about previous attacks of failures on a security level. Why do you think it does?

Posted by: Adam Ducker at October 24, 2012 12:57 PM
Comment #355268

Who is in charge of maintaining the security levels at our Embassies? I’ll tell you who, Hillary for one and ultimately Obama. If they can’t maintain levels of security in an area of know trouble, then who can? By your comments Adam I take it you have never been in the Military or been in a spot where tensions were high. How can you justify the killing of 4 people by saying over and over that it was the a spontanious assult because of a video? The video was posted months before the attack, so attackers just say hey we’ll attack and protest on 9/11 because we saw this video 2 months ago. They attack Red Cross workers and the British Ambassador because of a Video. They cause trouible months before the video is posted. Come on Adam, I know your an intellegent person.

Posted by: KAP at October 24, 2012 1:19 PM
Comment #355271

KAP: “How can you justify the killing of 4 people by saying over and over that it was the a spontanious assult because of a video?”

What part of stating the facts is justifying anything? The militants themselves said they were attacking the compound because of the video. This was not Obama, not Rice, not Carney. This was the militants themselves during the attack speaking to reporters.

“The video was posted months before the attack, so attackers just say hey we’ll attack and protest on 9/11 because we saw this video 2 months ago.”

Multiple protests in multiple countries took place on that day because of the video. The confusion at the start was whether this was a citizen protest that got violent, or was this a planned attack. The truth is it was a terrorist group who used the protests in the other countries as an opportunity to attack the compound and murder Americans.

I don’t know how many times I have to say all this and how many times I point to credible sources to back it up. Are you even reading the links I cite?

Posted by: Adam Ducker at October 24, 2012 1:56 PM
Comment #355276

Adam, IMO N.Y. Times is not the best source to quote or link especially a month after the fact, as is Huff. Post or other liberal biased outlets. I do not quote Fox because
for those same reasons. I tend to look at the facts from multiple sources and make my own decisions of the facts. So far as I can see is that Al Quead MAY have viewed the video months before and planned the protest as a deterent to their ultimate attack plan for 9/11/12. But the prior mini attacks need to play into the mix because they are before the video was posted. This brings the PLANNED theory to the forefront and the video being a scape goat. Therefore Al Quead is NOT on the run as Obama has stated in his Bin Ladin speach but is alive and well and more determined to kill where they see diminished security. They have infiltrated places as they have in Afganistan security forces and IMO have infiltrated Lybia forces because of the FACT the attackers knew exactly where to go and knew of the lack of security.

Posted by: KAP at October 24, 2012 2:32 PM
Comment #355279

“It was not planed way. It was not tied directly or even indirectly to al Qaeda. It was not tied to the anniversary of 9/11.”

Who’s saying this anymore, Adam? I think you are the only one. Maybe the news hasn’t made it to Arkansas yet. Here’s part of piece printed in The Independent, a UK publication with no dog in this fight:

“American diplomats were warned of possible violent unrest in Benghazi three days before the killings of US Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three members of his team, Libyan security officials say.
The claim came as the country’s interim President, Mohammed el-Megarif, said his government had information that the attack on the US consulate had been planned by an Islamist group with links to al-Qa’ida and with foreigners taking part.
However, the American ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, insisted that the killings had resulted from a demonstration against a film about the Prophet Mohamed, replicating protests in Cairo, which had been “hijacked” and got out of control.
The Independent has reported diplomatic sources who said that the threat of an attack against US interests in the region was known to the US administration 48 hours before it took place. The alert was issued by the State Department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security, but not made public. A State Department spokesman maintained: “We are not aware of any actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the US Mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent.”
But President Megarif told the American station National Public Radio: “We firmly believe that this was a pre-calculated, pre-planned attack that was carried out specifically to attack the US Consulate. A few of those who joined in were foreigners who had entered Libya from different directions, some of them definitely from Mali and Algeria.”
A senior official of the biggest militia in Benghazi, the February 17th Brigade, told CNN that he had warned US diplomats of a rapidly deteriorating security situation in Benghazi three days before the attack. “The situation is frightening, it scares us,” he said he had stressed during the meeting. Mr Stevens had been back in Libya for only a short time before US security officials decided it would be safe to make the journey to Benghazi during the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. The British consulate in the city was shut after an ambush of a convoy carrying Dominic Asquith, the UK ambassador, in which his bodyguard were injured. The UN and International Committee of the Red Cross offices had been bombed and there had been a spate of political assassinations.”

Deny, deny, deny.

Peck, peck, peck. Chip, chip, chip.

Posted by: John Johnson at October 24, 2012 3:21 PM
Comment #355281

KAP: “N.Y. Times is not the best source to quote or link especially a month after the fact…”

Don’t let the date fool you. This is what NY Times wrote the day after the attack, which they still stand by in more recent articles like I first cited:

Fighters involved in the assault, which was spearheaded by an Islamist brigade formed during last year’s uprising against Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, said in interviews during the battle that they were moved to attack the mission by anger over a 14-minute, American-made video that depicted the Prophet Muhammad, Islam’s founder, as a villainous, homosexual and child-molesting buffoon. Their attack followed by just a few hours the storming of the compound surrounding the United States Embassy in Cairo by an unarmed mob protesting the same video. On Wednesday, new crowds of protesters gathered outside the United States Embassies in Tunis and Cairo.

That assault was led by a brigade of Islamist fighters known as Ansar al-Sharia, or the Supporters of Islamic Law. Brigade members emphasized at the time that they were not acting alone. On Wednesday, perhaps apprehensive over Mr. Stevens’s death, the brigade said in a statement that its supporters “were not officially involved or were not ordered to be involved” in the attack.

Final details of an investigation could conflict the things we currently believe about the attacks but so far everything we know points away from what you’re saying and toward what I’m saying.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at October 24, 2012 3:37 PM
Comment #355285

Just what I thought…your total spiel is based on that NYT piece written over almost two week ago. It makes no difference that everyone else in the U.S., and world for that matter, have determined otherwise. Even some in the administration. Your credibility is shot, Adam. You are looking very foolish right now. Admit you are wrong. You, the President and Hillary are the only holdouts.

Posted by: John Johnson at October 24, 2012 3:53 PM
Comment #355288

Adam, Interviews during the battle, What kind of buffoon journalist would hold interviews during a battle? The NYT is NOT a good source and quoteing some liberal journalist who is biased to Democrats and you have to admit the NYT is biased towards Democrats to me is not creadiable. We all know the liberals and the liberal media is covering for this Administration, that is why I go to multyiple sources for info.

Posted by: KAP at October 24, 2012 4:10 PM
Comment #355291

John Johnson: “Your credibility is shot, Adam. You are looking very foolish right now. Admit you are wrong.”

Sorry you feel that way, again. The facts are the facts. You are wrong no matter how many ways you find to say otherwise.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at October 24, 2012 4:43 PM
Comment #355292

KAP: “Adam, Interviews during the battle, What kind of buffoon journalist would hold interviews during a battle?”

Are you serious with this?

“We all know the liberals and the liberal media is covering for this Administration, that is why I go to multiple sources for info.”

Indeed, that is why NYT is not the only source I cite. But at this point I’m doubting very much you read the links I gave because otherwise you couldn’t possibly still believe you are right and my story is just that of biased liberal journalism.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at October 24, 2012 4:45 PM
Comment #355293

We’ll that’s it as far as I’m concerned…I have exposed you as the narrow minded, hardheaded ideologue that you are. You only read and only quote the source that supports your position. You totally ignore virtually every other piece of evidence…even if it is statements or reports from the O administration or unbiased foreign reporters.

Don’t you feel guilty? You must. How about angry? I know I would be if I caught mysel lying to myself.

Posted by: John Johnson at October 24, 2012 5:13 PM
Comment #355295

“N.Y. Times says that the militants on the ground said that it was motivated by the video. How about the other mini attacks, were they motivated by the video also, Adam? If you ask what mini attacks then I put you in the category that Frank puts S.D. Was the attack on the British Ambassador related to the video? How about the attack on the Red Cross there?”

Posted by: KAP at October 24, 2012 11:55 AM

The idiot Alan Combs was on the Fox O’Reily show last night and when O’Reily quoted the CIA memos, Comb trid to overpower him with the facts from the NY Times. O’Reily blew off Comb’s ignorance and said we are supposed to beieve the Tomes over the CIA memos?

Trying to quote the Times is complete ignorance; since when has the NYT ever been anything but a liberal hack mouthpiece?

These Obama worshippers will defend Obama on Libya to the bitter end; even if Obama admitted it was a cover up, the libs on WB would still cover for him. At some point they look more than ignorant.

Posted by: Frank at October 24, 2012 5:37 PM
Comment #355296

Adam, I look to see who or what the source is then I decide weather to read it or not. Some sources like the Times is useless and for the most part liberal talking points. I like O’Riely prefer credible sources. By the way any journalist who would go into a battlefront to get a story is a BUFOON to put it mildly.

Posted by: KAP at October 24, 2012 5:54 PM
Comment #355297

John Johnson: “We’ll that’s it as far as I’m concerned…I have exposed you as the narrow minded, hardheaded ideologue that you are.”

Yes, if only I could expand my narrow, hard headed, ideologue mindset to allow in these right wing delusions you stand by. Sorry, I can’t do that. We can agree to disagree.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at October 24, 2012 5:55 PM
Comment #355298

“Adam, I look to see who or what the source is then I decide weather to read it or not.”

Ignoring for now that you think NY Times is engaged in a global liberal conspiracy to re-write the story of the terrorist attack only hours after it happened, if you think NYT is wrong then give me a source that says otherwise.

“By the way any journalist who would go into a battlefront to get a story is a BUFOON to put it mildly.”

I’m sure embedded journalists and other global news correspondents from the past present and future would disagree greatly with you.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at October 24, 2012 5:59 PM
Comment #355302

Adam, CIA, E Mails from Bengazi. I’m sure those same journalist would tell you they would not interview anyone during a firefight it would be a danger to them and the interviewee. Have you ever been in a firefight or shelling? I have and it isn’t fun or a place for some stupid journalist trying to get a story. No journalist in their right mind would go to the front lines to get a story durinmg a firefight.

Posted by: KAP at October 24, 2012 6:13 PM
Comment #355304

KAP:

No, I’ve never been in combat. Since you think it not sane to get an interview is that why you ignore what was said in the interview?

What do the CIA and emails say that runs counter to what I’m suggesting? Be specific.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at October 24, 2012 6:26 PM
Comment #355306

Chuck Todd, Democrat, said Tuesday morning on MSNBC, “[T]he president’s got bigger problems than trying to disqualify Mitt Romney now; the president has to re-qualify himself for a second term.”

I agree wholeheartedly.

obama will lose running on more hope…and no change.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 24, 2012 6:51 PM
Comment #355307

I call a spade a spade. You, Adam, will call a spade a shovel if it protects you ideology. You are doing so here. This incident alone will not cost O the presidency…it is just one of many. He’s a lazy, inept, egotistical, snake oil salesman. That’s all there is in that suit. I think you can stick a fork in him. He’s done.

Posted by: John Johnson at October 24, 2012 7:13 PM
Comment #355308

John Johnson wrote; “I call a spade a spade. You, Adam, will call a spade a shovel if it protects you ideology. You are doing so here.”

Very well said John…much better than I have done. Adam loves to parse facts into a pretzel.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 24, 2012 7:16 PM
Comment #355310

Adam as I stated the NYT is a mouth piece for Democrats, as is the Huff.Post, Muckraker, MSNBC, and others. If I want Biased News I listen Fox, MSNBC, and much of the MSM. I take them for face value and go to other sources. As far as the CIA they disqualify what was said in the NYT that you referred to. As does the E Mails that were brought out. So to answer your question I listen to people that were there and know first hand what is going on, not some biased journalist that is a mouth piece for the liberal Democrats. Also I agree with John Johnson you call a spade a shovel and not what it is but what you think it is. By the nway if that Journalist says he went to a battle area to get an interview I know it’s BULLSH**.

Posted by: KAP at October 24, 2012 9:46 PM
Comment #355314

John Johnson, Royal Flush, KAP:

If anything I said here is wrong then prove it. Don’t just keep telling me I’m wrong. Don’t give me your gut feelings on this. Don’t give me your opinions on this. Don’t say I’m parsing. Don’t complain about how bad you think my sources are. Prove me wrong. Cite a source. I don’t mind being wrong. Anyone who thinks otherwise doesn’t know me very well.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at October 24, 2012 10:29 PM
Comment #355315

Adam, We have, I’ve googled dates and gave them to you, it’s you who don’t want to believe Obama is a lier. We gave you things that he said at the UN. and what others have said. WTF more do you want???????????????????????

Posted by: KAP at October 24, 2012 10:46 PM
Comment #355352

I’ve cited articles, given you a publication’s name, quoted news interviews, and you just ignore the information. We have been through a scenario like the movie Groundhog Day, with you locked into an early NYT’s piece that you are hanging your hat on regardless of the conflicting reports from all sorts of other sources which proves your position to be wrong. You are a hardheaded ideologue and it is a waste of time trading words with you. I do it to show others how deeply the I Love Obama hook is lodged in your mouth and how blind and irrational you’ve become. It is a tough disease to shake.

Posted by: John Johnson at October 25, 2012 12:32 AM
Comment #355354

KAP and John Johnson:

I’m not asking you to tell me what you think you told me before. I’m asking for specifics now. Point out a claim I made about the attack and point me to information that discredits my view of it. This isn’t a gotcha, it’s an honest question. As right as you think you are and as wrong as you think I am, it should be easy to point me to something I can read that proves me wrong, right? Give me a link, cite me a paragraph, anything. I say this with all due respect: Either you provide specifics or you shut up and stop calling me or the president a liar.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at October 25, 2012 7:58 AM
Comment #355356

Hey, these are your words, Adam, aren’t they? You’ve stuck with them since day one. All indicators since have painted a much different picture. There was clearly much more evidence in the form of official emails that shows the video story to be a red herring. Statements by Libyan officials indicate planning and a tie to al Qaeda’s request for retribution to local terrorists. Pleading messages from our ambassador foretelling an attack preceded any mention of a video as the compelling factor. While watching the attack in real time for some reason officials chose to sit and do nothing. These are facts. You stick to the words below. I find that odd. BTW, I did not call you a liar. I called you hardheaded and in denial…which I stick by.

“As more and more information comes out about the attacks in Benghazi the more wrong the GOP has been shown to have been.They couldn’t have cared less though as long as what they were doing harmed President Obama. Their singular obsession with destroying the leader of our country has put them on the wrong side of reality once again.

The latest word shows the attack was carried out by militants responding to the protests in Egypt. There has been no tie found to a larger terrorist group and certainly no strong tie to al-Qaeda. There has been no evidence of long term planning in the attack. There has been no tie found to the anniversary of 9/11.

So, the early statements of Susan Rice and others have been shown to be far more correct in their assessment than Republicans give credit for.

Don’t anyone hold your breath expecting Republicans to admit they were wrong.”

Posted by: John Johnson at October 25, 2012 10:32 AM
Comment #355357

Adam, I have given you dates of previous mini attacks as far back as April of this year, We have said of the denial of Carney, that the 9/11 attack was terror related, the President at the UN, Rice at 5 different News shows. Biden said they didn’t know the Ambassador asked for more security at VP debate. the president on talk shows saying info is still being gathered. Now we find these things to be a out right LIE because we now have E Mails from Bengazi stateing they are under attack. The WH knew the day and the hour it happened that it was a terror attack and did NOTHING.

Posted by: KAP at October 25, 2012 11:09 AM
Comment #355360

John Johnson:

Again, more of your words, none of your sources. Help me believe my view of this is wrong by providing me something other than your opinion.

KAP:

Tell me what the previous attacks say about the motivation of this attack as far as it relates to the video. Show me where Carney denied this was terror related. The statements that were wrong early on represented the views of the current intelligence that was wrong, not simply lies by the Obama administration. I’m not sure I understand what knowing the attack was going on at the time means or what you think they should have done differently with that information. As far as Biden’s statements go that was true. Security was under the authority of the State Department. Requests for more security do not cross the desk of the President or Vice President. That was the point of Hillary’s statement.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at October 25, 2012 11:31 AM
Comment #355365

Adam, The WH. knew the day and the hour it happened. They got multiple E Mails. I’m not going to argue with you. The administration knew what was going on from hour 1 and is covering up from their incompetence and lieing about it to the people of this Nation. This is the last I am saying about the subject.

Posted by: KAP at October 25, 2012 12:19 PM
Comment #355366

KAP: “The WH. knew the day and the hour it happened.”

I agree. I’m just not sure what that means. You keep stating obvious facts, while implying that means something but not explaining exactly what it means. You’re essentially telling me water is wet. Yes, so what? If that is the last thing you say you’ll be leaving without explaining anything.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at October 25, 2012 12:31 PM
Comment #355368

If we were in a courtroom, your ass would be fried by facts and sources presented thus far. You just choose to ignore them.

If we were in a scheduled debate, you would be scoring lower than O did in the first one with Romney. No credibility, Ducker… Just continue to cover your ears, close your eyes and you will protect yourself from the truth.

I’m outta this one. Argue with a fool long enough and people will have a difficult time telling you apart.

Posted by: John Johnson at October 25, 2012 12:42 PM
Comment #355369

Adam if you can’t add 1+1 and come up with 2 then I don’t know what to say to you. They knew and didn’t respond and lied to the America people of what happened. They knew months before hand trouble was brewing in the area and didn’t respond. Mini mattacks as far back as April and didn’t respond. GOOGLE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: KAP at October 25, 2012 12:42 PM
Comment #355370

Where are all your friends, Adam? No one seems to be coming to support you today. Maybe it’s because they read something besides the New York Times and watch other channels besides MSNBC, and have determined that something truly is wrong with the initial story the Obama administration tried to get us to believe.

Posted by: eyeswideopen at October 25, 2012 12:48 PM
Comment #355371

John Johnson: “If we were in a courtroom, your ass would be fried by facts and sources presented thus far.”

Let the record show you presented no facts, only opinion you called fact. I asked you to re-cap any facts you presented in case I missed them but you wouldn’t. If you are as certain as you claim to be I can’t imagine why on earth you can’t show me proof to back it up.

KAP: “Adam if you can’t add 1+1 and come up with 2 then I don’t know what to say to you.”

That sounds like easy math to you but I’m not in your head so I don’t know what your point is. I’m asking you to explain yourself, present facts, and you tell me to Google it. That’s not an argument.

eyeswideopen: “…determined that something truly is wrong with the initial story the Obama administration tried to get us to believe.”

Please help Royal, KAP and John Johnson out, would you? They’re desperately in need facts to back up their opinion. They’re getting a bit testy about it.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at October 25, 2012 1:08 PM
Comment #355378

I’m afraid the court of general opinion is going against you here and outside this blog site, Adam. It appears you want a documented Al Qaeda member to stand up and confess to plotting the raid months ago, to state that he had never heard of a California video and that 9/11 was penciled in to make the most impact so there would be no doubt who was behind it. Is that what it is going to take?

Since you seem to be ignoring everything except what you read two weeks ago in the NYT and won’t respond to all the news breaking around you, why should anyone find you credible, or more to the point, reasonable?

Posted by: eyeswideopen at October 25, 2012 2:42 PM
Comment #355379

Ditto eyeswideopen, Adam can’t see past his partisian nose!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: KAP at October 25, 2012 2:53 PM
Comment #355381

eyeswideopen, KAP:

Facts. Evidence. No? Anyone?

Posted by: Adam Ducker at October 25, 2012 3:07 PM
Comment #355384

For all reasonable readers who read and post here:

Run for your lives. Do not read anyomore of Mr. Ducker’s threads. Do not be sucked into a debate with him. It is a total waste of time and effort. It is like trying to reason with a dog.

Oh…sorry, Bogie, I didn’t not mean to insult you like that.

Posted by: John Johnson at October 25, 2012 4:48 PM
Comment #355608

John Johnson, I would hope you to be the first and take your own suggestion to heart…….go away, don’t pass go, and don’t come back. You are one of the most argumentative and antagonistic trolls we’ve had on here. You’re trying to unsettle a group that has been here for quite a while.

Posted by: jane doe at October 28, 2012 10:15 PM
Comment #355916

What, then, are the characteristics that make an MSA likely to spawn successful neologisms? It’s well established that Coach Outlet Twitter has a higher rate of adoption among African Americans than other ethnic groups, and so it perhaps isn’t Coach Outlet surprising that they now find that innovation centres, as well as being highly populated, have a higher proportion of Coach Outlet African Americans, and that similarity of racial demographic can make two urban centres more likely to be linked Coach Outlet in the influence network. There is a long history of adoption of African American slang (cool, dig, rip off) in mainstream Coach Outlet Online US culture, so these findings agree with what we might expect.Not only has he been sacked, but he now risks losing his Coach Factory Online home as well, situated almost next door to his former workplace, the Papal apartments on the top floor of the Coach Outlet Online Apostolic Palace.The Gendarmerie explained that this was done to prevent Gabriele from harming himself, Coach Outlet and that he himself had asked for the light to be left on at night and was given a sleeping mask.

Posted by: Coach Outlet at October 31, 2012 4:59 AM
Comment #355943

You know you don’t mean that, Jane. You know that someone needs to serve as b.s. officer to police what is posted here and keep all you neck-nuzzling lemmings from totally following each other over the cliff. I’m here to help you.

Posted by: John Johnson at October 31, 2012 9:21 AM
Comment #357792

this pair of gold shoes photos will be hidden somewhere on the page, the contestants will get clues via Facebook will receive a code once to find photos trace, submitted to the NEO’s Facebook page have the opportunity to win the the NEO one pair of gold shoes and the opportunity to meet to Miami with Justin Bieber Oh you fans do not speed action?Billionaire Boys Club brand to celebrate the to create a clothing line do not note.

Posted by: beat by dr dre pro at November 27, 2012 11:10 PM
Comment #378781

Great blog and I love what you have to say and I think I will tweet this out to my friends so they can check it out as well. I like what you have to say Pollen and Bleu | Pollen & Bleu | Rivertrees Residences | Rivertrees | coco palms pasir ris | coco palms | coco palms condo | the rise @ oxley | the rise @ oxley residences | rise @ oxley | handbags | handbags Singapore | ladies bags excellent article.

Posted by: the rise @ oxley residences at May 25, 2014 12:49 AM
Post a comment