Because I love lording it over you.

Kinda like George W. Bush invading Iraq...

Sure, keep whistling past the graveyard. In your heart of hearts, you all know that Romney is toast.

Sorry, but there's a big difference between using someone's name to characterize something else (e.g., Obamacare) and refusing to call someone by their given name. (e.g. Mitt Bomney or something). I don't imagine such subtleties can be appreciated by the Republican brain.

is there anything more infantile than this constant modification of the President's name (and those of every other Democrat that might happen to grab your attention). Is the average mental age of Republicans 10? Judging by this video, one might well come to that conclusion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nY0M7IdNl7U

Does that mean that you'll accept that the Democrats do represent the people when Obama wins? Or does "the proof" only go one way (i.e., we represent the people whether we win or lose)?

Which of the figures (which are simply transcribed from other polls) do you dispute?

Yeah, except he's not going to win CO, WI, OH, NH, IA or VA. Does that change your calculations any?

Which of these did Willard say: 1) "Government doesn't create jobs." 2) "I'm going to create 12 million jobs." 3) Both 1. and 2.

Will do. And that's a promise.

I gather that those of you who accept the premise of this article are pretty much impervious to any data from polling. You think it's all biased (even where you don't have any good reason to believe that other than your desire for Romney to win). OK, fine. You need to get acquainted with this little interactive device: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/11/02/us/politics/paths-to-the-white-house.html Play with it for a while and then tell me how that Romney win is going to happen. Oh, I know!: he's going to win Minnesota and Pennsylvania!