Obama vs Romney

[Soul Crusher]

LMFAO!!!!!

Romney is running a RUTHLESS camapign against the obamunist. 

OBAMA AD OF 2008

ROMNEY AD OF 2012

[ Invalid YouTube link ]

[Soul Crusher]

Rasmussen: Romney 269, Obama 243


Jeffrey H. Anderson

June 14, 2012 1:40 PM





We’re a long way from November 6 (145 days for those who are keeping score at home), but Rasmussen’s latest polling of likely voters in states across the land shows Mitt Romney currently leading President Barack Obama in the quest for electoral votes.  In fact, if the 9 key swing states were each to go according to Rasmussen’s latest polling, and if the 41 other states (plus Washington, D.C.) were each to go as they would be expected to go in a tight race, Obama would have 243 electoral votes and Romney 269 — enough for a tie (and an almost inevitable victory in the House of Representatives, where the 50 state delegations would each cast one vote to determine the president).   
 
Among the 9 key swing states, Rasmussen’s polling shows Romney winning in Florida (46 to 45 percent), Ohio (46-44), Wisconsin (47-44), and Iowa (47-46).  It shows Obama winning in Pennsylvania (47-41) and Nevada (52-44).  It shows ties in Virginia (47-47) and Colorado (45-45). (Rasmussen hasn’t yet released any polling from New Hampshire.) 

Romney leads by very narrow margins in some of these states, and some of Rasmussen’s statewide polls are more current than others. Still, it’s interesting to see how the candidates stack up in the latest tallies from the only national polling outfit that’s currently screening for likely voters. 

Aside from the obvious importance of Florida and Ohio, the thing that stands out in these tallies is the importance of Wisconsin. It’s the only Democratic-leaning state in which Romney is currently leading, and it pushes his tally to 269 despite merely being tied with Obama in GOP-leaning Virginia. 

Over the years, the Badger State has been far more volatile than Pennsylvania, and hence far more likely to swing to the right of the national popular vote (something Pennsylvania has never done in the TV era). In a tight race, Wisconsin is clearly Romney’s best bet to swing a state with double-digit electoral votes from Obama’s column into his own. As such, it’s the state that can most likely ease the pressure of his otherwise pretty much having to hold every single GOP-leaning state.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Subscribe now to The Weekly Standard!

Get more from The Weekly Standard: Follow WeeklyStandard.com on RSS and sign-up for our free Newsletter.

Copyright 2012 Weekly Standard LLC.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Source URL: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/rasmussen-romney-269-obama-243_647240.html







LANDSLIDE COMING 

[240 is Back]

Rasmussen: Romney 269, Obama 243

You consider that a landslide?  lol

[Soul Crusher]

Rasmussen: Romney 269, Obama 243

You consider that a landslide?  lol

Yes - the trend is speeding to Romney by the day.   

As obamacare goes down, as the jobs reports each month worsen, obama is going to get landslided. 

And yes - I plan on rubbing it in your face and telling you I told you so many times. 

[Soul Crusher]

http://weaselzippers.us/2012/06/14/romney-campaign-bus-drives-circles-around-obama-speech-site-honking-its-horn



FNG AWESOME! ! ! ! ! 


GAYBAMA AND AXELROD NEVER PREPARED FOR THIS OWNING. 

[MCWAY]

http://weaselzippers.us/2012/06/14/romney-campaign-bus-drives-circles-around-obama-speech-site-honking-its-horn



FNG AWESOME! ! ! ! ! 


GAYBAMA AND AXELROD NEVER PREPARED FOR THIS OWNING. 

Off with the gloves, on with the brass knuckles!!

[Soul Crusher]

Off with the gloves, on with the brass knuckles!!

The best thing is that this is like patton reading Rommels' book and knowing the tactics romel was going to use and using against him. 

Gaybama, Axelrod, and the likes of 180, straw, blackass, benny, et al have no idea whats coming and its great. 

They NEVER imagined having to run for re-election under these conditions and they are simply not prepared for this. 

   

[Soul Crusher]

Romney on Obama’s economic speech: ‘Talk is cheap’
 Yahoo ^ | June 14, 2012 | Holly Bailey



As President Barack Obama prepared to deliver a major economic speech in Cleveland, Ohio, Mitt Romney was on the opposite side of the state, trashing Obama's talk on the economy as "cheap" and urging Americans to judge the president by his "actions" not his words.

"If you think things are going swimmingly … then he's the guy to vote for," Romney told supporters at an aluminum factory in Cincinnati.

But the Republican nominee argued that Obama hasn't delivered on his 2008 promise to turn the economy around and insisted that "almost everything" his administration has done has instead made it harder for businesses to create jobs.

"Talk is cheap," Romney said. "But actions speak very loud. If you want to see the results of his economic policies, look at Ohio and look around the country. … What he says and what he's done are not always the same exact thing."

Romney's remarks weren't dramatically new. With a few minor exceptions, the GOP candidate stuck largely to his regular stump speech. But the optics around his Ohio event were clearly aimed at stealing some of Obama's thunder, as the president prepared to deliver what the White House described as a major economic address.

While Romney's speech was originally set to begin five minutes after Obama took the stage in Cleveland, his campaign moved up the start time by 15 minutes, in hopes of getting more television coverage.

Romney, who spoke without a teleprompter, argued that when judging the impact of Obama's policies, all Americans have to do is ask businesses around the country if they are better off than they were when the president took office.

"Go check on that," Romney instructed. "Go talk to small employers and big employers in your community. … Talk to the people you know."


(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...

[240 is Back]

yeah, track records are what matters.

romneycare, assault weapons ban... these are the kinds of legislative achievements romney shoudl be talkin about.

[MCWAY]

yeah, track records are what matters.

romneycare, assault weapons ban... these are the kinds of legislative achievements romney shoudl be talkin about.

At least the people of Massachusetts wanted Romneycare at the time it was being crafted and implemented. The same CANNOT be said for ObamaCare. And, unlike Obama with the federal Constitution, Romney had few, if any, state constitutional issues.

When you have a track record of 8% for 40 straight months and 9% for over 30 months, you're not exactly in a position to run your mouth about track records.

[240 is Back]

At least the people of Massachusetts wanted Romneycare at the time it was being crafted and implemented. The same CANNOT be said for ObamaCare. And, unlike Obama with the federal Constitution, Romney had few, if any, state constitutional issues.

When you have a track record of 8% for 40 straight months and 9% for over 30 months, you're not exactly in a position to run your mouth about track records.

did 100% of the people in Mass want it?

Or is it okay if 51% of a population wants something that is unconstitutional?  I mean, I'm sure at one point, 51% of voters supported slavery.  Didn't make it right.

[Shockwave]

did 100% of the people in Mass want it?

Or is it okay if 51% of a population wants something that is unconstitutional?  I mean, I'm sure at one point, 51% of voters supported slavery.  Didn't make it right.

Wait... you just compared enslaving a race of people to individual mandate healthcare?
Epic.

[Dos Equis]

Carville all over Obama. 

http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/Carville-Obama-economicgrowth/2012/06/13/id/442218

[240 is Back]

Wait... you just compared enslaving a race of people to individual mandate healthcare?
Epic.

i'm saying just because 51% of mass is okay with something unconstitutional, the other 49% shouldn't have to suffer.

"The majority" often supports a lot of bullshit.  Doesn't make it right for the minority.

[MCWAY]

did 100% of the people in Mass want it?

Or is it okay if 51% of a population wants something that is unconstitutional?  I mean, I'm sure at one point, 51% of voters supported slavery.  Didn't make it right.

Based won what? What is the right and wrong factor here?

As for Romney's healthcare bill, at least he can claim that his state constitution allowed for the law, along with the majority of the citizens.

Obama can make no such claim.

Wait... you just compared enslaving a race of people to individual mandate healthcare?
Epic.

What do you expect, from the TK crew, who keep trying to prop up their fallen idol?

[240 is Back]

romney forced americans to buy something.  because the majority of ppl wanted it.

I suppose obamacare would be cool if 50.1% of americans support it?

[Grape Ape]

romney forced americans to buy something.  because the majority of ppl wanted it.

I suppose obamacare would be cool if 50.1% of americans support it?

Geez already.

Read this:

http://www.calldrmatt.com/Romney-Care_Is_Constitutional_Obama-Care_Is_Not.htm

[avxo]

romney forced americans to buy something.  because the majority of ppl wanted it.

I suppose obamacare would be cool if 50.1% of americans support it?

Apples and oranges. Just because it's ok for a State to do X doesn't mean it's ok for the federal government to do X. The Federal Government is a government of powers that are enumerated and explicitly enumerated (well, except for the ridiculous expansion of the commerce clause powers by the Supremes in cases like Wrightwood Dairy and Filburn, a trend which continues today).

[tu_holmes]

I get that we are being all "constitutional" about it and saying this, but really, if it's ok for a state to force me to do some shit, why isn't it ok for the Fed?

In my mind, none of them should be able to force you to buy any of this, but yet we allow it anyway.

I shouldn't have to have a passport to leave the country or why do I have to be licensed to drive?

It's all bullshit and just an excuse to make you pay them money.

[avxo]

I get that we are being all "constitutional" about it and saying this, but really, if it's ok for a state to force me to do some shit, why isn't it ok for the Fed?

Because the U.S. Constitution limits the powers of the Federal Government and reserves the rights not explicitly granted to the Federal Government to the States and to the People. Which means that the States can do things the Federal Government cannot.

In my mind, none of them should be able to force you to buy any of this, but yet we allow it anyway.

If you don't like it, try to amend your State's Constitution under whatever processes it offers for amendments.

I shouldn't have to have a passport to leave the country or why do I have to be licensed to drive?

Passport: because the Government, like any Sovereign, has a legitimate and compelling interest in monitoring the ingress and egress of people from its domain, arguments about its failure to do so vis-à-vis illegal immigration  notwithstanding.

Driver's License: because (a) the Government can impose whatever requirements it wants to allow you to operate a vehicle on its roads; and (b) because there's a compelling Government interest to ensure that people who are driving know the rules of the road and have a certain minimum level of proficiency.

[tu_holmes]

Because the U.S. Constitution limits the powers of the Federal Government and reserves the rights not explicitly granted to the Federal Government to the States and to the People. Which means that the States can do things the Federal Government cannot.


If you don't like it, try to amend your State's Constitution under whatever processes it offers for amendments.


Passport: because the Government, like any Sovereign, has a legitimate and compelling interest in monitoring the ingress and egress of people from its domain, arguments about its failure to do so vis-à-vis illegal immigration  notwithstanding.

Driver's License: because (a) the Government can impose whatever requirements it wants to allow you to operate a vehicle on its roads; and (b) because there's a compelling Government interest to ensure that people who are driving know the rules of the road and have a certain minimum level of proficiency.

Lots of shit I could reply to, but I don't really care to. None the less, the drivers license thing is especially of issue to me as people didn't need one 70 years ago in many states and drivers are not "better" due to licensing than they were before.

[240 is Back]

Apples and oranges. Just because it's ok for a State to do X

People who lived in Mass were deprived of their right to spend their $ any way they wanted.

They were deprived of their right.  Because 51% of the population said it was okay?

What happens when 51% of the people who live in the state say we should deprive ppl of other rights?


I just LOVE how suddenly romneycare is okay now.  It sucked back then, it sucks now.

[MCWAY]

People who lived in Mass were deprived of their right to spend their $ any way they wanted.

They were deprived of their right.  Because 51% of the population said it was okay?

What happens when 51% of the people who live in the state say we should deprive ppl of other rights?


I just LOVE how suddenly romneycare is okay now.  It sucked back then, it sucks now.

I don't think RomneyCare is OK. Then again, I don't live in Massachusetts. They apparently like it or they wouldn't have given the OK for Romney and crew to approve it.

Of course, Obama was told, point-blank, that the American people of ALL STATES don't want ObamaCare. He and the Dems went with it anyway and they got DESTROYED at the 2010 midterms.

And the Supreme Court will likely put the dagger in the heart of ObamaCare.

Obviously, RomneyCare is yet another issue that the left has tried to use to chop down Romney, to no avail.

[240 is Back]

I don't think RomneyCare is OK. Then again, I don't live in Massachusetts. They apparently like it

"THEY" = less than 100% of the population.

There was something between 1 and 49% of people who lived there who didn't want the govt to force them to buy something.

I love how repubs scream 'states rights!' yet are willing to give up far more of their rights because "well, the majority of my state says so..."

I can understand everyone rallying around ROmney, but for everyone to start saying romneycare was what the people wanted - it's still an individual mandate that was imposed on people who opposed it.  it's still bullshit, just like obamacare.

Obamacare is romneycare in all 50 states.  It's wrong to force americans to buy anything cause their neighbors outnumber them.

[Shockwave]

"THEY" = less than 100% of the population.

There was something between 1 and 49% of people who lived there who didn't want the govt to force them to buy something.

I love how repubs scream 'states rights!' yet are willing to give up far more of their rights because "well, the majority of my state says so...

You are really on a roll for idiotic statements today. Jesus. Its like someone set you to full retard.