Well, since I have no intention to vote for the guy, he is categorically not my candidate. But when you have predictions of a +9 to +19 advantage for the Dems when they only pulled a +8 in 2008, their fucking year, there is some serious oversampling going on.

Not necessarily that he had to move to the right per se, but that he had to act that way. He seemed uncomfortable with what he had to, and who he had to be. Election McCain didn't jive with pre-election McCain, and a lot of people (those who were aware of pre-election McCain, anyway) seemed to notice the difference.

McCain was very quick to be sharp and cranky against his own but wasn't comfortable going full bore against a Dem. He really prided himself on that work-across-the-aisle, maverick bullshit. Obama is a seriously dirty and vicious campaigner, whereas McCain is just kind of an honorable old fool who took Jeremiah Wright completely off the table and seemed genuinely disappointed when Obama decided to forego public financing. I'm sure the fact that he was surprised and hurt that the New York Times and Andrew Sullivans of the world had sucked his dick all these years just to dump him for the new hotness only added to his befuddledness.

It's uniquely difficult for a big government conservative to run against a big government liberal. "I think we should do everything this guy wants to do, only less so" just isn't much of a message. Add in the fact that Obama was a pop culture phenomenon on par with the Macarena, and McCain had no chance whether or not he ran such a shitty campaign or picked Sarah Palin for his running mate or whatever.

Yeah, Romney and Kerry seem to have a lot in common. They both seem to fall in that category where they clearly aren't who their party wanted, but were picked because they were the "safe" candidate. Kerry wasn't the loudmouth lunatic that the media portrayed Howard Dean as and Romney isn't the libertarian who wants to end the drug war and close down military bases around the world like Ron Paul. Also, as a safe candidate, Kerry was a war vet and Iraq at the time seemed like another Vietnam. He was running against a President who never fought in a war, so that made him an obvious choice. Romney on the other hand was an experienced businessman who is running against a President who has never managed a company, which made him an obvious choice. However, their actions came back to haunt them. Kerry's controversial actions (and lies) about Vietnam portrayed him as anti-American at a time when the country was in a patriotic mood. Romney on the other hand did things that made him seem like your average evil corporate businessman that Americans have come to hate after the 2008 financial crisis.

I think the results will be the same too. The President will win. Kerry and now Romney are too safe for their own good, meaning that any faults found in the safe guy will hurt his chances of winning the White House. After this election, Republicans better wise up. Ron Paul, despite his age seems to communicate with the youth of America in a way that no other Republican has been able to do in a long time. I think for those of us who were born towards the end of the Cold War, or after the Cold War tend to think that we inherited the problems we face today and that the Cold War generations are to blame. Wether you agree with him or not, Ron Paul seems to suggest new and radical ideas that are way out of the mainstream and I feel that the youth of America feels that doing things the way their parents and grandparents form of politics isn't the solution for the current problems facing the USA.

In 2011 Gallup polling found that 31% of Americans identified as Democrats, and 27% identified as Republicans; and in June of 2012 Rassmussen found 35% identified as Republicans and 34% identified as Democrats. Last Friday the New York Times and CBS produced a poll that assumed the Democrats had a D+13 advantage and had Obama leading by 8%. Being that the best the Democrats ever did was in 2010 and got a D+7 it is unlikely they will see D+13.

If it was one or two polls I wouldn't think twice about it, but it seems like every poll has an unexplained extreme skew in favour of the Democrats.

I do check Fivethirtyeight but all they do is aggregate polls, and the flaws of the underlying polls are still persisted.

I wouldn't care that much about it but I have seen several elections in the last few years where public opinion polling has been dramatically wrong; and the media has claimed that the cause of this was a last minute change in opinion, or problems polling in the modern age, where I'm starting to think that polls are being produced today to fit the narrative the media wants to portray.

Personally, as long as Obama wins, I don't care by how much or how close it was.

Obama is doomed and the poll above merely points out the level of self-delusion of the people voting on it.

Listen to me:

No president has ever won re-election with:

*Mass unemployment (more like 16% than the farcical, politicized, over-8%).
*Net worth of the middle class down 40% (!!!) in 5-years.
*Pushing through grossly unpopular legislation (Ocare) against the vast majority of peoples' wishes.
*Gas prices surging to all-time highs just in time for election day.
*Voter registration is now lopsidedly R because of Obama.
*Etc.

By all means continue to live in a dreamworld where Obama can win, but it's just that--a dreamworld populated by unicorns and sentient, anthropomorphic, kittens that re-elect the guy who, against all reason, has performed terribly on the job. (Take off your political blinders and ask yourself this: would a single one of you *re-hire* an employee that failed to do what is believed to be his most important duty, i.e. geting the economy back on its feet? If so, you should never, ever, run a business. Ever.)

(I"m sure that most of you saying this is going to be Kerry II also thought the Ds weren't going to be epically crushed in 2010, but let's not let reality get in the way!)

Bingo. All you need to do to understand what Mr.Gnome posted is to actually read the metrics of the polls in question*. If they have more Dems than Reps in a year when R voter regristraitons vastly outnumber D voter registraations, there is a serious, serious oversampling problem. Even if it's within 5% points of that, it's still grossly oversampled. Those of you that are puting stock in the polls are setting yourselves up for massive disappointment.

*Funny how nobody ever actually reads the methodology when it buttresses their biases, eh?

The constitution doesn't say anything about the separation of church and state. You may want to learn more about the government before you post.

The First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

aka. Congress should make no law because of religion.

Article VI, Section III articulates the principle of separation of church and state by banning religious tests for holding public office. It states that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

Aka. Religion should not be a factor in a congressman.

I can give you more proof if you want? :)