CO: Public Policy Polling: Obama up 7

[You kip if you want to...]

The other side of the coin is that President Obama could pick up some voters who voted for John McCain because they were scared of a black man doing things that he now shows no signs of doing. Such voters went for Carter in 1976 and Clinton in the 1990s. That could not be enough to win any states other than Arizona and Missouri. Such is itself a stretch.
 

LOOOOL! Did you really write that??

No one who didn't vote for Barack Obama in 2008 is more likely to vote for him in 2012!

No kidding that's one hell of a stretch!

Pretty ambitious use of "no one" there.

[hopper]

If the GOP gives up CO indefinitely, they have better chances in other states. Its pointless to try hard and win this state anymore.

The problem, though, is that if they only focus on FL/OH/VA/NC, they won't have enough EVs to reach 270. They need CO, or NV or NH or IA.

Yeah the GOP needs  to keep CO in the toss-up status. They gave the Dems the Northeast in the 90's. The National GOP or CO State GOP needs to change(i.e. moderate) their platform a bit is what I was getting or trying to get at in my last post in this thread in order to continue to keep the Dems honest in CO. They gave up CA  and look what happened and now its Solid D. The state party GOP in CA has been a joke in recent years although I think that might be waking up of late.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The other side of the coin is that President Obama could pick up some voters who voted for John McCain because they were scared of a black man doing things that he now shows no signs of doing. Such voters went for Carter in 1976 and Clinton in the 1990s. That could not be enough to win any states other than Arizona and Missouri. Such is itself a stretch.
 

LOOOOL! Did you really write that??

No one who didn't vote for Barack Obama in 2008 is more likely to vote for him in 2012!

No kidding that's one hell of a stretch!

That's not true.  I can easily see voters whose top priority is military or foreign policy who chose McCain over Obama preferring Obama over Romney.  There won't be many of those, but there will be some.

[pbrower2a]

The other side of the coin is that President Obama could pick up some voters who voted for John McCain because they were scared of a black man doing things that he now shows no signs of doing. Such voters went for Carter in 1976 and Clinton in the 1990s. That could not be enough to win any states other than Arizona and Missouri. Such is itself a stretch.
 

LOOOOL! Did you really write that??

No one who didn't vote for Barack Obama in 2008 is more likely to vote for him in 2012!

No kidding that's one hell of a stretch!

Yes. I did. I suspect that many people saw a candidate who would achieve their fears of a black man who would use welfare and government jobs as patronage to black voters at the expense of white people, that he would use quotas to give black people the advantage in private industry by fiat, that he would be soft on crime, and that he would inflict a foreign policy in which weakness and guilt would prevail.

It didn't happen, did it? Did anyone fear that? Do you think that everyone made a 100% rational choice for President? 

Note that I also recognized that the effect of such improvement could affect only two states -- Arizona and Missouri.

[Fuzzybigfoot]

The other side of the coin is that President Obama could pick up some voters who voted for John McCain because they were scared of a black man doing things that he now shows no signs of doing. Such voters went for Carter in 1976 and Clinton in the 1990s. That could not be enough to win any states other than Arizona and Missouri. Such is itself a stretch.
 

LOOOOL! Did you really write that??

No one who didn't vote for Barack Obama in 2008 is more likely to vote for him in 2012!

No kidding that's one hell of a stretch!

He didn't say all of them, silly.  Some people on both sides end up switching their votes, no matter what the change is nationally.

[mondale84]

The other side of the coin is that President Obama could pick up some voters who voted for John McCain because they were scared of a black man doing things that he now shows no signs of doing. Such voters went for Carter in 1976 and Clinton in the 1990s. That could not be enough to win any states other than Arizona and Missouri. Such is itself a stretch.
 

Case in point: I was at the grocery store the other day and saw a car with a McCain bumper sticker (from 08) and an Obama 2012 bumper sticker...

LOOOOL! Did you really write that??

No one who didn't vote for Barack Obama in 2008 is more likely to vote for him in 2012!

No kidding that's one hell of a stretch!

That's not true.  I can easily see voters whose top priority is military or foreign policy who chose McCain over Obama preferring Obama over Romney.  There won't be many of those, but there will be some.

[ajb]

The other side of the coin is that President Obama could pick up some voters who voted for John McCain because they were scared of a black man doing things that he now shows no signs of doing. Such voters went for Carter in 1976 and Clinton in the 1990s. That could not be enough to win any states other than Arizona and Missouri. Such is itself a stretch.
 

LOOOOL! Did you really write that??

No one who didn't vote for Barack Obama in 2008 is more likely to vote for him in 2012!

No kidding that's one hell of a stretch!

How about supporters of a health insurance mandate?  There are lots of other areas where Republican orthodoxy of 2008 is now Republican anathema -- and Democratic policy.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

PPP has overstated Democrat numbers so much in their most recent polling and are now polling for the DailyKos, so I have trouble trusting or believing anything they put out now.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

PPP has overstated Democrat numbers so much in their most recent polling and are now polling for the DailyKos, so I have trouble trusting or believing anything they put out now.

Eh, they have a bias that's possible to measure and account for. It's roughly similar to Rasmussen's but in the opposite direction. We're probably looking at about O+4 or O+5 here.