Well, Democrats ARE very biblical people. For example:

“Should you help the wicked and love those who hate the LORD? Because of this, wrath has gone out against you from the LORD” – 2 Chronicles 19:2

A wise man’s heart directs him toward the right, but the foolish man’s heart directs him toward the left. — Ecclesiastes 10:2

You love evil more than good, Falsehood more than speaking what is right. — Psalm 52:3

But he who sins against Me injures himself; all those who hate Me love death — Proverbs 8:36

Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! — Isaiah 5:20

You who hate good and love evil, Who tear off their skin from them And their flesh from their bones — Micah 3:2

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools – Romans 1:22

For God’s wrath is being revealed from heaven against all the ungodliness and wickedness of those who in their wickedness suppress the truth – Romans 1:18

In their case, the god of this world has blinded the minds of those who do not believe to keep them from seeing the light of the glorious gospel of the Messiah, who is the image of God. — 2 Corinthians 4:4

Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron — 1 Timothy 4:2

For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. — 2 Tim 4:3-4

My prayers are fairly simple: I’m praying that God will give Romney and Ryan wisdom and discernment, that He will EXPOSE Obama, and that He will give the American people the wisdom to vote for the man who AINT Obama.

If you mean by “spiritual cleansing” an “exorcism” where they go in and chase all the demons out, I completely agree.

I, of course, was hoping Romney would tear the throat out of Obama, and found myself rather frustrated that Romney (who proved he could in the first debate) declined to spike a lot of balls in Obama’s face. But a lot of talking heads are saying that Romney was hoping to attract more women – who for some mysterious reason don’t like pissy jerks (such as the way Obama acted most of the night).

I’ll just take a moment to mock you.

First, YOU DON’T THINK YOU DON’T SCREAM TO THE WHOLE FREAKING PLANET HOW BIASED YOU ARE?!?! And yet you clearly think it’s just an awful thing that I might be biased. Because in addition to your being biased, you are a complete hypocrite.

As to being an idiot, the fact that you’re rooting for Obama ALONE is all I need to know that you are a pathologically stupid dumbass.

And as to who is going to win and who is going to lose, I can’t say. But things are very much looking Romney’s way, particularly when you realize that when you have polls such as 47-47 in Ohio, those 6% undecideds historically go heavily against the incumbant.
http://www.pollingreport.com/incumbent.htm:

With most current presidential polls of likely voters showing 9 percent to 10 percent undecided, the question of where the undecided votes go becomes of paramount importance.

To answer this question, I compared the final Gallup polls with the actual results in every race in which an incumbent president was opposing an insurgent since 1964. This included the Johnson-Goldwater race of 1964, the Nixon-McGovern race of 1972, the Carter-Ford race of 1976, the Reagan-Carter-Anderson race of 1980, the Reagan-Mondale race of 1984, the Clinton-Bush-Perot race of 1992, the Clinton-Dole race of 1996 and the Bush-Kerry race of 2004.

In these races, the undecided vote went heavily for the insurgent and the incumbent lost vote share between the final poll and the election, even when the incumbent was winning the contest easily overall. Six of eight presidents seeking reelection performed worse than the final Gallup poll predicted, while one finished the same (Reagan in 1984) and one gained votes (Bush in 2004). Seven of the nine insurgent candidates did better than the final Gallup survey predicted.

• In 1964, Johnson lost 3 points to Goldwater at the end.

• In 1972, Nixon lost 1 point to a third-party candidate.

• In 1976, there was a 4-point swing to Carter.

• In 1980, there was a 3-point swing to Reagan or Anderson.

• In 1984, there was no change between the final poll and the results.

• In 1992, there was a 1-point shift away from Bush. In that contest, there was also a 5-point swing away from Clinton to Perot at the end.

• In 1996, there was a 5-point swing away from Clinton and to Dole or Perot.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/2012/04/18/undecideds_usually_break_against_the_incumbent_277921.html:

our analysis of 155 polls reveals that, in races that include an incumbent, the traditional answers are wrong. Over 80% of the time, most or all of the undecideds voted for the challenger.

The 155 polls we collected and analyzed were the final polls conducted in each particular race; most were completed within two weeks of election day. They cover both general and primary elections, and Democratic and Republican incumbents. They are predominantly from statewide races, with a few U.S. House, mayoral and countywide contests thrown in. Most are from the 1986 and 1988 elections, although a few stretch back to the 1970s.

The polls we studied included our own surveys, polls provided to us directly by CBS, Gallup, Gordon S. Black Corp., Market Opinion Research, Tarrance Associates, and Mason-Dixon Opinion Research, as well as polls that appeared in The Polling Report.

In 127 cases out of 155, most or all of the undecideds went for the challenger:

http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2010/09/democrats_arent.php:
a staggeringly high number of Democratic incumbents are … sitting below that magic 50 percent number.

That number should send shivers down the spines of Democratic strategists. In 2008, when Democrats coasted to victory across the board, 32 House Republican incumbents were under the 50 percent mark in the last poll of the cycle, and 14 of them lost — a 44 percent mortality rate.

What’s fascinating about the last three articles is they were all written in October 2010 and predicted doom for the Democrats. They were RIGHT; the Democrats saw the worst defeat in over seventy years in 2010.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/10/07/the_democrats_dead_cat_bounce_107476.html:

When dealing with incumbents, it is much more important to look at the incumbents’ number than the challengers’ number, since undecideds usually break against the incumbent.

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/democrats-259908-percent-republican.html:

An incumbent running below 50 percent is considered potentially in trouble; an incumbent running behind a challenger is considered in deep doo-doo.

Unlike Obama, Mitt Romney has actually crossed the 50% threshold. No one who has crossed that threshold this late in a presidential race has EVER lost.

But, hey, dumbass, you don’t obviously don’t need facts or anything; you’ve got your worthless dumbass opinion instead.