Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Oly15 on April 03, 2012, 08:45:33 PM
-
Who is going to win the 2012 election?
That is all.
-
Romney
I have said it before and I will say it again. If people pick this piece of crap over Romney it will be the modern political equivalent of picking Barabas over Jesus.
-
Obama.
33386 will end up in a mental institution, but that's inevitable anyway.
-
300% republican here...I have to serve this piece of sh&t in the military every day..but unfortunately, we keep shooting ourselves in the foot and he will be re-elected. If somehow we pull it off...batton the hatches because this joint will see race riots like never before.
I was listening to a show on XM Left yesterday...these guys actually have already said that the only way Obama could lose would be due to vote tampering like the election we stole with Bush...phuck me
-
A B O
-
A B O
N B O
-
N B O
Never Barack Obama - agreed
-
N B O
Why?
Do you feel comfortable re-electing a President who has illegally assassinated an American citizen, signed a bill into law granting him the power to indefinitely detain American citizens, stated that he can spend money against Congress's will, and questioned the power of the Supreme Court to review laws?
-
Who is going to win the 2012 election?
That is all.
Obama.....Romney is unelectable in the South as its been proven. He can't win without the South
-
Why?
Do you feel comfortable re-electing a President who has illegally assassinated an American citizen, signed a bill into law granting him the power to indefinitely detain American citizens, stated that he can spend money against Congress's will, and questioned the power of the Supreme Court to review laws?
Not to mention told Congress he doesnt care to seek their approval to go to war.
He basically has made it clear that congress doesnt matter.
-
Obama's gonna win.
Haters gonna hate.
Love it!
-
Obama's gonna win.
Haters gonna hate.
Love it!
It wont surprise me if he won.
I asked you in the other thread, you said you were a war vet and a liberal, what service and what was your MOS? Just curious, not a flame. Most of my enlisted friends were liberatarians/republicans upon discharge, and most of the officers I knew became die hard Conservatives.
-
It wont surprise me if he won.
I asked you in the other thread, you said you were a war vet and a liberal, what service and what was your MOS? Just curious, not a flame. Most of my enlisted friends were liberatarians/republicans upon discharge, and most of the officers I knew became die hard Conservatives.
Forgive him - he has TBI
-
It wont surprise me if he won.
I asked you in the other thread, you said you were a war vet and a liberal, what service and what was your MOS? Just curious, not a flame. Most of my enlisted friends were liberatarians/republicans upon discharge, and most of the officers I knew became die hard Conservatives.
Army, 19D, Cavalry Scout.
Yes, I was greatly outnumbered in the Army.
Nearly everyone is a conservative and, if not, rarely speak up about it.
I also met very few atheists.
-
Army, 19D, Cavalry Scout.
Yes, I was greatly outnumbered in the Army.
Nearly everyone is a conservative and, if not, rarely speak up about it.
I also met very few atheists.
Ah, I see. My brother in law was a Cav scout as well. No atheists in a foxhole ;D
-
that communist that is making the fat cats rich on wall street......wait ???
-
that communist that is making the fat cats rich on wall street......wait ???
The lenin and trotsky were funded by wall street.
-
and thats your final statement on that?
-
What happened to all the conservatives on this board saying it was a nearly a sure thing Obama was going to lose?
The GOP is in a sad state of affairs if it cant beat OB, considering how bad of president you all say he is (i believe he's as bad as you say), however, Romney? ::)
-
What happened to all the conservatives on this board saying it was a nearly a sure thing Obama was going to lose?
The GOP is in a sad state of affairs if it cant beat OB, considering how bad of president you all say he is (i believe he's as bad as you say), however, Romney? ::)
Ive never thought that Obama losing was a sure thing.
Actually quite the opposite -
1.The Republicans cant come up with a decent candidate (Most important reason)
and
2.People dont like to admit theyre wrong, many people will still vote for Obama even if he took every dime they had simply because they believed in him and they wont admit they were wrong.
-
What happened to all the conservatives on this board saying it was a nearly a sure thing Obama was going to lose?
The GOP is in a sad state of affairs if it cant beat OB, considering how bad of president you all say he is (i believe he's as bad as you say), however, Romney? ::)
I have said from day 1 that 47% of this country are going to vote for obama no matter what.
95% of blacks who are pathetic drones and sheep
Government workers
LGBT
Enviro marxists
Communists
60% of hispanics due to racial solidarity and promises of free stuff
College academics
Radical feminists who only care about free stuff everyone else
Guilt ridden white scumbags who belong on the bottom of the ocean w cement shoes.
The 240, Straw, Lurker types who are american idol type voters at best.
-
Ive never thought that Obama losing was a sure thing.
Actually quite the opposite -
1.The Republicans cant come up with a decent candidate (Most important reason)
and
2.People dont like to admit theyre wrong, many people will still vote for Obama even if he took every dime they had simply because they believed in him and they wont admit they were wrong.
Hmmm, I think they will vote for OB because the GOP candidate is a turd. Combine that with the perception that the economy is getting better and maybe gas prices easing at the right time and there you have it.
I don't think they will vote for OB because they don't want to admit they were wrong. Many will just vote party line regardless.
-
I have said from day 1 that 47% of this country are going to vote for obama no matter what.
95% of blacks who are pathetic drones and sheep
Government workers
LGBT
Enviro marxists
Communists
60% of hispanics due to racial solidarity and promises of free stuff
College academics
Radical feminists who only care about free stuff everyone else
Guilt ridden white scumbags who belong on the bottom of the ocean w cement shoes.
The 240, Straw, Lurker types who are american idol type voters at best.
I believe you have also said there's no way OB gets a second term. In fact you even went as far to predict that he would even run for a second term. Does this mean you are changing you tune?
-
Republicans idiotic war on women guarantees Obama a victory
-
Hmmm, I think they will vote for OB because the GOP candidate is a turd. Combine that with the perception that the economy is getting better and maybe gas prices easing at the right time and there you have it.
I don't think they will vote for OB because they don't want to admit they were wrong. Many will just vote party line regardless.
In other words - we have an idiot public who are wortheless sheep that can be swayed by lies from the messiah.
Most obama voters are skells and useless parasites on this society. Whoever votes for this scumbag is a traitor and a communist whether they want to admit it or not.
-
Hmmm, I think they will vote for OB because the GOP candidate is a turd. Combine that with the perception that the economy is getting better and maybe gas prices easing at the right time and there you have it.
I don't think they will vote for OB because they don't want to admit they were wrong. Many will just vote party line regardless.
Lol, this was my A. reason in the above post, and the biggest one. The other one was less common, but still there.
There is a lot of people that I personally know, that are invested with Obama SO DEEPLY that even when confronted with all the things he's botched, they falter and say "No, he's for the common person, he's the candidate for change and I dont want to go back to Bush". < --- dead serious.
They simply dont want and cannot admit that they were taken in by him, they still are stuck in his campaign fantasy land. This is something I have observed multiple times with my family and friends.
They want to believe his excuses, that its congress, that its everyone else but Obama, because they let themselves believe so deeply that he was going to bring them change. Its hard for people to admit they were taken for fools.
-
I believe you have also said there's no way OB gets a second term. In fact you even went as far to predict that he would even run for a second term. Does this mean you are changing you tune?
he also said Obama would withdraw before the election though way too much of a pussy to put any money on it
-
In other words - we have an idiot public who are wortheless sheep that can be swayed by lies from the messiah.
Most obama voters are skells and useless parasites on this society. Whoever votes for this scumbag is a traitor and a communist whether they want to admit it or not.
dude - I really hope Obamacare helps you get some desperately needed mental health treatment
-
I believe you have also said there's no way OB gets a second term. In fact you even went as far to predict that he would even run for a second term. Does this mean you are changing you tune?
Yes - I am in that after the Fluke nonsense - I have lost all hope and faith whatsoever that the so called swayable 20% in the so called "middle" have any real abilitiy to discern fact from fiction.
Our nation is now in a cult of personality w a communist street thug pimping welfare scumbag like obama that is only made possible by an economically illiterate public swayed by communists in the media seeking to push an agenda.
-
Yes - I am in that after the Fluke nonsense - I have lost all hope and faith whatsoever that the so called swayable 20% in the so called "middle" have any real abilitiy to discern fact from fiction.
Our nation is now in a cult of personality w a communist street thug pimping welfare scumbag like obama that is only made possible by an economically illiterate public swayed by communists in the media seeking to push an agenda.
Yep. Anyone who doesn't share your political views is a traitor.
-
Obama.....Romney is unelectable in the South as its been proven. He can't win without the South
How do you figure, what do you mean undetectable in the south? I live in the south south and 90% of us whites are going for romney santorum or gingrich and will vote for whoever the repub nominee is. I woukd think the south, being as racist as we are, would never vote for.ovama.
Maybe I misunderstood your post but that is my thinking and expereience.
-
How do you figure, what do you mean undetectable in the south? I live in the south south and 90% of us whites are going for romney santorum or gingrich and will vote for whoever the repub nominee is. I woukd think the south, being as racist as we are, would never vote for.ovama.
Maybe I misunderstood your post but that is my thinking and expereience.
If it was Santorum or Gingrich, it would not be an issue. However, Romney is a Mormon and the South will not vote for him as already proven with him not winning any Southern State. It didn't help that Romney mocked the South with his Cheese Grits statement.
Quite frankly, since Romney will lose a number of Southern states, he'll get defeated and very badly
-
Well I can tell you who the losers are. THE AMERICANS THAT ACTUALLY HAVE JOBS, LIVE WITHIN THEIR MEANS, THAT ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEMSELVES AND THEIR FAMILIES, AND DONT LIVE OFF OF THE GOVERNMENT.
-
If it was Santorum or Gingrich, it would not be an issue. However, Romney is a Mormon and the South will not vote for him as already proven with him not winning any Southern State. It didn't help that Romney mocked the South with his Cheese Grits statement.
Quite frankly, since Romney will lose a number of Southern states, he'll get defeated and very badly
Hardly. "The South" will not support Obama. They got fooled in 2008, like many across the country. Not going to happen this year. The people who voted for "not Romney" in the primaries are going to vote for him in November. You're dreaming if you think Republicans are going to vote for Obama this time around.
-
Hardly. "The South" will not support Obama. They got fooled in 2008, like many across the country. Not going to happen this year. The people who voted for "not Romney" in the primaries are going to vote for him in November. You're dreaming if you think Republicans are going to vote for Obama this time around.
4 more years of Obama will br four more years of total political warfare 24 7. Sounds great!
-
4 more years of Obama will br four more years of total political warfare 24 7. Sounds great!
For who? Dellusional right wing idiots who pathalogically fuel their own hate machines like yourself?
-
For who? Dellusional right wing idiots who pathalogically fuel their own hate machines like yourself?
Lol.
-
Hardly. "The South" will not support Obama. They got fooled in 2008, like many across the country. Not going to happen this year. The people who voted for "not Romney" in the primaries are going to vote for him in November. You're dreaming if you think Republicans are going to vote for Obama this time around.
Strongly agree. This was my exact thinking.
-
What happened to all the conservatives on this board saying it was a nearly a sure thing Obama was going to lose?
The GOP is in a sad state of affairs if it cant beat OB, considering how bad of president you all say he is (i believe he's as bad as you say), however, Romney? ::)
when even mitt romney admits the economy is recovering...
bin laden and kadaffi are dead...
what else can the repubs run on?
IMO, Mittens admitting things are getting better was HORRIBLE for their chances. Obama simply has to say "Do we choose my path, which even mitt admits is working, or the paul ryan plan, drastically different, which mitt has endorsed?"
Mitt's only strength was on the economy, and he surrendered this when he admitting things are improving under obama.
-
when even mitt romney admits the economy is recovering...
bin laden and kadaffi are dead...
what else can the repubs run on?
IMO, Mittens admitting things are getting better was HORRIBLE for their chances. Obama simply has to say "Do we choose my path, which even mitt admits is working, or the paul ryan plan, drastically different, which mitt has endorsed?"
Mitt's only strength was on the economy, and he surrendered this when he admitting things are improving under obama.
::) ::)
You really have become little more than a leftist hack for obama. I gave up all hope for you long ago.
-
You really have become little more than a leftist hack for obama. I gave up all hope for you long ago.
I'll accept your insult. Please, tell us though - was romney WRONG in saying the economy is getting better? Yes or no?
-
Yes! I dont give a damn what he says! You wallow in spin and shell games, while most of the regular posters on this board destroy your nonsense easily.
BY WHAT MEASURE ARE ARE THINGS GETTING BETTER?
-
Yes! I dont give a damn what he says! You wallow in spin and shell games, while most of the regular posters on this board destroy your nonsense easily.
BY WHAT MEASURE ARE ARE THINGS GETTING BETTER?
I agree things are NOT getting better. WE agree there.
My point is that the GOP nominee (and yes, he's gonna win it) disagrees with us. He thinks things are getting better. He admits it.
Now, if he is WRONG, then it completely undermines his entire platform that "I know the economy!" If he gets this simplest of items wrong - how the hell can we believe he knows anything about the economy? it's like claiming to be an expert on weather who can't tell snow from sunshine. Romney wrecks his chances saying shit like this.
-
240, the economy IS coming back because that is what economies do after a recession. But that doesnt mean Romney thinks things are great. What he is saying is that this recovery is way more tepid than it should be. And this is why Barack Obama is so pathetic and is such a loser. People called Bush's expansion tepid, but Bush had atleast some months with 300000 + jobs, and that was coming after the most mild recession in history, which means that the expansion was supposed to be tepid. Obama hasnt had 300000 + jobs yet in a single month. People blamed Bush because the economy went into recession under his watch, even though he had 4-5 % unemployment for 5 years. Well, the economy has to go into recession roughly every 7-10 years. But the economy always recovers within 1 or 2 years. NOT so under Obama!!! After a nasty downturn we are having the most tepid recovery in history!!!
-
Here's the problem.
If the Republican would overturn the patriot act, shut up about porn and abortion, get rid of government waste, balance the budget, and curb spending I would vote for him in a nanosecond.
He won't though.
Thats the problem.
Why vote for a white Obama when I have the real 1/2 black one doing the same shit already.
Question for 333336.
If Romney wins, what will he do different?
Serious question.
Because I don't believe he would do ANYTHING differently at all.
His policy history has already shown it.
-
240, the economy IS coming back because that is what economies do after a recession. But that doesnt mean Romney thinks things are great. What he is saying is that this recovery is way more tepid than it should be. And this is why Barack Obama is so pathetic and is such a loser. People called Bush's expansion tepid, but Bush had atleast some months with 300000 + jobs, and that was coming after the most mild recession in history, which means that the expansion was supposed to be tepid. Obama hasnt had 300000 + jobs yet in a single month. People blamed Bush because the economy went into recession under his watch, even though he had 4-5 % unemployment for 5 years. Well, the economy has to go into recession roughly every 7-10 years. But the economy always recovers within 1 or 2 years. NOT so under Obama!!! After a nasty downturn we are having the most tepid recovery in history!!!
Do you think 20 gives a damn? He is a leftist troll whose understanding extends only to what msnbc and Obama spoon feeds him. Garbage in garbage out.
-
Here's the problem.
If the Republican would overturn the patriot act, shut up about porn and abortion, get rid of government waste, balance the budget, and curb spending I would vote for him in a nanosecond.
He won't though.
Thats the problem.
Why vote for a white Obama when I have the real 1/2 black one doing the same shit already.
Question for 333336.
If Romney wins, what will he do different?
Serious question.
Because I don't believe he would do ANYTHING differently at all.
His policy history has already shown it.
x2
Im sick of having to choose between 2 versions of the same piece of shit for president.
-
Do you think 20 gives a damn? He is a leftist troll whose understanding extends only to what msnbc and Obama spoon feeds him. Garbage in garbage out.
You sure read a variety of sources.
Coachisright.com, for instance.
-
You sure read a variety of sources.
Coachisright.com, for instance.
India bloggers, The Globe, etc... sounds really credible.
-
India bloggers, The Globe, etc... sounds really credible.
WSJ, RCP, BI, IBD, The Hill, HP et al
All you leftists have are comedians.
-
Too bad you can't assemble what you read from the more noteworthy sites into coherent posts on here.
Meanwhile, stick with your unemployed docs torching cities bullshit.
-
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/12/fox-news-poll-romney-edges-obama-as-approval-president-drops
-
Here's the problem.
If the Republican would overturn the patriot act, shut up about porn and abortion, get rid of government waste, balance the budget, and curb spending I would vote for him in a nanosecond.
He won't though.
Thats the problem.
Why vote for a white Obama when I have the real 1/2 black one doing the same shit already.
Question for 333336.
If Romney wins, what will he do different?
Serious question.
Because I don't believe he would do ANYTHING differently at all.
His policy history has already shown it.
Are you serious? Do you have any concept of degree? Bush was WAY different than Obama and so will Romney.
There is no way the Patriot Act will be overturned. Get over it. Dont use an idiot like Santorum to paint the Republican Party with a broad stroke about porn. The porn industry boomed while Bush was president. Im sorry you think Republicans are totalitarians for trying to prevent babies from getting killed. But you only have to worry about that on the state level. What is it about a $300 billion deficit that you find so similar to a $1 trillion deficit?
Seriously, get the hell out of your funk. Or wait another 90 years for the second coming of Calvin Coolidge. You guys worship Ron Paul while bashing people like Reagan, Bush, and Romney, even though those guys have converted more of your beliefs into actual policy than Ron Paul ever has and ever will.
-
Here's the problem.
If the Republican would overturn the patriot act, shut up about porn and abortion, get rid of government waste, balance the budget, and curb spending I would vote for him in a nanosecond.
He won't though.
Thats the problem.
Why vote for a white Obama when I have the real 1/2 black one doing the same shit already.
Question for 333336.
If Romney wins, what will he do different?
Serious question.
Because I don't believe he would do ANYTHING differently at all.
His policy history has already shown it.
So True
-
Rasmussen Presidential Tracking Poll (Romney 48%, Obama 44%)
rasmussenreports.com ^ | April 13, 2012 | staff
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows that 24% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-one percent (41%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -17.
In a hypothetical Election 2012 matchup, Mitt Romney earns 48% of the vote, while President Obama attracts 44%. That's Romney's biggest advantage in over a month.
(Excerpt) Read more at rasmussenreports.com ...
-
Are you serious? Do you have any concept of degree? Bush was WAY different than Obama and so will Romney.
There is no way the Patriot Act will be overturned. Get over it. Dont use an idiot like Santorum to paint the Republican Party with a broad stroke about porn. The porn industry boomed while Bush was president. Im sorry you think Republicans are totalitarians for trying to prevent babies from getting killed. But you only have to worry about that on the state level. What is it about a $300 billion deficit that you find so similar to a $1 trillion deficit?
Seriously, get the hell out of your funk. Or wait another 90 years for the second coming of Calvin Coolidge. You guys worship Ron Paul while bashing people like Reagan, Bush, and Romney, even though those guys have converted more of your beliefs into actual policy than Ron Paul ever has and ever will.
If Bush had stayed in office or anyone else had come in, that deficit would be exactly the same.
-
If Bush had stayed in office or anyone else had come in, that deficit would be exactly the same.
Eh... I dont agree with this. It would be bad, but not THIS bad. Bush was terrible but Obama is on another level as far as "big government" goes.
-
Suddenly Mitt Romney Is Obliterating Obama In The Polls
Brett LoGiurato | 33 minutes ago | 847 | 18
He's a happy Mittens.
For only the second time in Fox News' tracking of the theoretical — and now real — matchup between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, the latter has surged to a two-point lead.
In the latest Fox News poll, Romney holds a 46 percent to 44 percent lead over Obama, though that is well within the poll's margin of error.
First, the reasons for Obama and Democrats to take a step back and put everything in perspective: The poll is an outlier of almost every other recent poll. Now you're either thinking, "See?! Fox News is the only fair and balanced one!" Or you're thinking, "See?! Fox News is lying!"
The latest Gallup poll has Obama at a 49-45 percent advantage. The latest Washington Post/ABC News poll has Obama up even more, at 50 to 41 percent.
However, as we warned with the WaPo poll (WaPoll?), Voters trust Romney to handle the economy more than Obama, by a 47 to 43 percent margin. On the No. 1 (economy) and No. 3 (deficit) issues in the upcoming election, voters trust Romney to handle them a lot more than Obama.
But this Fox News poll is important because the poll was taken after Rick Santorum dropped out of the race on Monday. This could be some sort of temporary boost for Romney, or it could be more of a sign that the Republican Party is rallying behind Romney. Indeed, 42 percent of Republicans said they were "extremely" interested in the upcoming election, compared with 32 percent of Democrats.
And in this Fox News poll, there is more bad news for Obama: First, he's losing among Independents. He trails Romney in that group by a 43 to 37 percent margin. For what it's worth, in the Gallup poll, he leads Romney by eight points.
The poll also shows that the gender gap may not be as wide as perceived in other measures. Obama leads in the women vote by 8 percentage points, but lags behind on the male vote by 14 points.
In the Gallup poll and data from the Pew Research Center earlier this month, both showed that Obama enjoyed huge leads among women, especially with young women.
The last sign of trouble: Obama's approval rating is down to 42 percent, a five-point drop from last mont. And it's not because of Republicans. Rather, Democrats are the ones changing their minds. A Gallup poll, taken over the month of March, had his approval rating at 46 percent.
The kicker:
Among voters who say the economy is "extremely” important, Romney has a 55-37 percent advantage over Obama, and a 62-29 percent edge among those who say the same of the federal deficit.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/romney-leads-poll-obama-2012-4#ixzz1rwu2uJOo
-
Eh... I dont agree with this. It would be bad, but not THIS bad. Bush was terrible but Obama is on another level as far as "big government" goes.
I disagree... especially as how seeing that the 2009 budget was Bush's, not Obamas... I think it would be basically identical.
It would be spent on different things, but still just as large.
-
I disagree... especially as how seeing that the 2009 budget was Bush's, not Obamas... I think it would be basically identical.
It would be spent on different things, but still just as large.
Watch my debt video - that is simply not true. The Stim Bill that obama passed was put in the baseline budgeting.
-
Fast and Furious Scandal Launched Into 2012 Presidential Election by Mitt Romney
Townhall.com ^ | April 13, 2012 | Katie Pavlich
GOP Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney applauded House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa and Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley for their efforts to investigate the Obama Justice Department’s lethal Operation Fast and Furious scandal today during a speech at the NRA Annual Meeting Leadership Forum in St. Louis. This is the first time any GOP presidential candidate has mentioned the Fast and Furious scandal by name in a public event speech, officially bringing the scandal into the 2012 general election with President Barack Obama. Romney also embraced the NRA’s calls for Attorney General Eric Holder to resign or be fired for his role in Fast and Furious.
"I applaud Congressman Issa and Senator Grassley for their work in exposing the “Fast and Furious” scandal. And I applaud NRA leadership for being among the first and most vocal in calling upon Attorney General Holder to resign," Romney said.
To give readers some context, out of more than 21 debates during the 2012 GOP presidential primary, Fast and Furious was mentioned once.
Update: GOP Presidential Candidate Newt Gingrich also mentioned Fast and Furious in his remarks, saying we must "get to the bottom of Operation Fast and Furious."
If mittens keeps this up - he is going to freakin landslide Obama like Reagan did mondale in 1984
obama and Holder sent back to Africa & Napolitano sent back to naples - CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN
-
General Election: Romney vs. Obama Rasmussen Tracking Obama 44, Romney 48 Romney +4
General Election: Romney vs. Obama FOX News Obama 44, Romney 46 Romney +2
North Carolina: Romney vs. Obama Rasmussen Reports Romney 46, Obama 44 Romney +2
via RCP
-
Sorry number boy but even your rapid fire postings can't help Romney one bit. Every other poll has Obama winning by almost double digits and lets face the facts
1. Romney can't argue with Obama about Obamacare......he has RomneyCare
2. Romney can't argue about Obama's religion....it will only backfire in terms that he's a Mormon
3. Romney still is just not liked by the GOP....for the past year they have been playing "anyone but Romney"
4. Romney has little chance of winning any Southern States....especially North Carolina.
Obama pretty much has got this locked up
-
I disagree... especially as how seeing that the 2009 budget was Bush's, not Obamas... I think it would be basically identical.
It would be spent on different things, but still just as large.
Not true. Over $200 billion of the stimulus package was counted in fiscal year 2009, in addition to the $400 billion omnimus package that Obama signed in 2009. Also, TARP is counted in fiscal year 2009, which Obama voted for. It is simply at best a half truth and at worst an outright lie that Bush is fully responsible for fiscal year 2009. Also, TARP was paid back in FY 2010.
Really, its been 3.5 years now and we are still getting trillion dollar deficits. The governemnt just posted its worst March on record for deficits. Lets stop the myth that Bush would have been as bad. He wasnt near as bad. My question now is this: Where the hell is the money going???? The Iraq War is over. The stimulus is fully spent. TARP is over and paid back. That right there should tell you this has nothing to do with Bush.
-
Fast and Furious Scandal Launched Into 2012 Presidential Election by Mitt Romney
Townhall.com ^ | April 13, 2012 | Katie Pavlich
GOP Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney applauded House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa and Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley for their efforts to investigate the Obama Justice Department’s lethal Operation Fast and Furious scandal today during a speech at the NRA Annual Meeting Leadership Forum in St. Louis. This is the first time any GOP presidential candidate has mentioned the Fast and Furious scandal by name in a public event speech, officially bringing the scandal into the 2012 general election with President Barack Obama. Romney also embraced the NRA’s calls for Attorney General Eric Holder to resign or be fired for his role in Fast and Furious.
"I applaud Congressman Issa and Senator Grassley for their work in exposing the “Fast and Furious” scandal. And I applaud NRA leadership for being among the first and most vocal in calling upon Attorney General Holder to resign," Romney said.
To give readers some context, out of more than 21 debates during the 2012 GOP presidential primary, Fast and Furious was mentioned once.
Update: GOP Presidential Candidate Newt Gingrich also mentioned Fast and Furious in his remarks, saying we must "get to the bottom of Operation Fast and Furious."
If mittens keeps this up - he is going to freakin landslide Obama like Reagan did mondale in 1984
obama and Holder sent back to Africa & Napolitano sent back to naples - CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN
Objection, your honor.
Copy and paste.
-
Skip to comments.
Obama calls on Romney to release tax returns: Univision
Yahoo/Reuters ^ | 14 Apr 2012
Posted on April 15, 2012 8:24:04 AM EDT by shove_it
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama called on likely Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney to release more of his tax returns, in an interview with Univision released on Saturday.
Obama's campaign has been pushing Romney, a multi-millionaire former private equity executive, to release several years of his prior tax returns to shed light on how he amassed his wealth.
In an interview conducted on Friday and released on Saturday, an anchor for the Spanish-language network noted Obama had released his tax returns for 12 years and asked him if Romney should do the same.
"Absolutely," the president replied, according to a transcript.
"I think that it's important for any candidate in public office to be as transparent as possible, to let people know who we are, what we stand for, and you know, I think that this is just carrying on a tradition that has existed throughout the modern presidency."
[...]
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Fucking speechless.
-
Skip to comments.
Obama calls on Romney to release tax returns: Univision
Yahoo/Reuters ^ | 14 Apr 2012
Posted on April 15, 2012 8:24:04 AM EDT by shove_it
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama called on likely Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney to release more of his tax returns, in an interview with Univision released on Saturday.
Obama's campaign has been pushing Romney, a multi-millionaire former private equity executive, to release several years of his prior tax returns to shed light on how he amassed his wealth.
In an interview conducted on Friday and released on Saturday, an anchor for the Spanish-language network noted Obama had released his tax returns for 12 years and asked him if Romney should do the same.
"Absolutely," the president replied, according to a transcript.
"I think that it's important for any candidate in public office to be as transparent as possible, to let people know who we are, what we stand for, and you know, I think that this is just carrying on a tradition that has existed throughout the modern presidency."
[...]
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Fucking speechless.
Oh, well. Just copy and past some more.
-
FIRST GALLUP TRACKING POLL: Mitt Romney Is Shredding Obama Among The Most Crucial Voters
Brett LoGiurato | 32 minutes ago | 658 | 4
The first Gallup daily tracking poll of the general election season is out, and here's the key number: Mitt Romney leads Barack Obama 45 percent to 39 percent among Independents. That pushes him to a 47 to 45 percent lead overall.
Gallup
Something to keep in mind: In the monthly poll released April 2, Obama led Romney 48 to 40 among Independents — and 49 to 45 percent overall.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/independents-are-now-flocking-to-mitt-romney-2012-4#ixzz1sEUmYXS7
-
Romney Tells Obama to ‘Start Packing’ in ABC News Exclusive Interview
Acting very much like the GOP nominee, Mitt Romney sent a curt message to President Obama today: “Start packing.”
The message, delivered with a chuckle, came in an exclusive interview with “World News” anchor Diane Sawyer who asked the presumptive GOP nominee if he had something to say to the president.
Romney said Obama’s “policies have not helped the American people. They have not helped get jobs, they have not helped raise incomes and they’ve added trillions of dollars of debt.”
He was backed by his wife of 43 years, Ann Romney, who told Sawyer she also had a message for Obama. “I believe it’s… Mitt’s time… It’s our turn now,” she said.
See the exclusive interview tonight at 6:30 p.m. ET on “World News With Diane Sawyer” and 11:35 p.m. ET on “Nightline.”
Last week, the Romney campaign was able to flip the Democrats’ so-called “war on women” strategy by highlighting a Democratic strategist’s attacks on Ann Romney for never holding a job. Ann Romney told a GOP fundraiser this weekend that the failed Democratic talking point had been a “birthday gift.”
“That wasn’t how I meant it,” Ann Romney told Sawyer. “It was a birthday gift to me because I love the fact that we’re talking about this.”
Following former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum’s exit from the race last week, a bruised but unbowed Romney has entered a new phase in his campaign.
So confident in his march to this summer’s convention in Tampa, Fla., Romney told Sawyer he had already taken steps toward selecting a running mate, relying on a long-trusted aide to head the search committee.
“I have selected someone who has been a counselor of mine for a number of years, Beth Myers, she was my chief of staff when I was governor,” he said.
Looking forward to the general election, Romney has both sharpened his attacks on the president and become a greater target.
Many of the attacks from the left center of Romney’s persona as an out of touch millionaire, so rich he not only owns multiple cars but is building a garage outfitted with an elevator to hold them at a home in La Jolla, Calif.
Romney dismissed a question about whether he could relate to working people, saying Americans don’t judge people based on class.
“We don’t divide America based upon success and wealth and other dimensions of that nature. We’re one nation under God …. This is a time when people of different backgrounds and different experiences need to come together. I happen to believe that I’m by far the best qualified in this race between myself and President Obama,” Romney told Sawyer.
When asked about Obama’s suggestion that Romney release 12 years of his tax returns, Romney said he had no intention of doing that.
“The president is going to try and do everything possible to divert from the attention being focused upon his record as president and the failure of his economic policies. So he’s going to try to make this campaign about the fact that I’ve been successful, that I’ve made a lot of money,” he said.
Dogged through the primary by his conservative challengers about his switch from being a pro-abortion governor to an anti-abortion presidential candidate, Romney honed his pro-life position, telling Sawyer he wanted the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade.
“I would love the Supreme Court to say, ‘Let’s send this back to the states.’ Rather than having a federal mandate through Roe v. Wade, let the states again consider this issue state by state,” he said, effectively ending the federal ban on abortion.
Abortion is just one issue in which Romney has had trouble with women voters, a bloc that polls find him trailing behind Obama.
In a lighter moment Romney admitted to watching – even setting his DVR to record – Jason Sudeikis’ impersonation of him on “Saturday Night Live.” Romney said he’d consider appearing on the show, but it would “depend on the nature of the skit.”
“I just want it be funny,” he said.
________________________ __________
Great fng tagline - START PACKING UP YOUR SHIT OBAMA!
-
Romney Tells Obama to ‘Start Packing’ in ABC News Exclusive Interview
When it comes to packing, romney knows his shit.
-
240 - I know you are on suicide watch if your dearest messiah looks like he will be losing in november, but its ok, you can go snuggle w straw, andre, blackass, and benny in your little support group.
-
240 - I know you are on suicide watch if your dearest messiah looks like he will be losing in november, but its ok, you can go snuggle w straw, andre, blackass, and benny in your little support group.
thanks. Mitt is down to 36.4% on Intrade. The people of the world have no faith in his ability to defeat obama.
But hey, i'm sure we americans watching politically motivated yellow journalism have access to more into than they do.
-
thanks. Mitt is down to 36.4% on Intrade. The people of the world have no faith in his ability to defeat obama.
But hey, i'm sure we americans watching politically motivated yellow journalism have access to more into than they do.
LOL - are you voting for obama over mittens? Don't answer - we already know.
-
These people who are so sure that Obama will win - what kind of a world are they living in? Mitt Romney only needs to win all the states that McCain won. He should be able to do that pretty easily. I dont know of a McCain voter that regrets his vote. He then needs to get North Carolina, Virginia, and Indiana back in the GOP collumn. Obama only won those states 51-49. I cant imagine Obama winning those states again. The big ones will be Florida and Ohio. The Dems got destroyed in Florida in 2010.
After that, he only needs one other swing state - I think Nevada is his best bet.
-
These people who are so sure that Obama will win - what kind of a world are they living in? Mitt Romney only needs to win all the states that McCain won. He should be able to do that pretty easily. I dont know of a McCain voter that regrets his vote. He then needs to get North Carolina, Virginia, and Indiana back in the GOP collumn. Obama only won those states 51-49. I cant imagine Obama winning those states again. The big ones will be Florida and Ohio. The Dems got destroyed in Florida in 2010.
After that, he only needs one other swing state - I think Nevada is his best bet.
Youre assuming a corruption free vote.
With the votes being dumped into an electronic server overseas owned by a company with connections to Soros and one of a former Chicagor CEO who is also a big Obama donor, and with no way to tell who voted for who once those votes are dumped into the server... well yeah.... kinda brings the whole thing into question IMHO.
The votes are going to a fucking different country, with no possibility of accountability. I wish I knew how the hell we let this happen.
-
Obama seeks to tie Romney to former President Bush’s economic policies
By Amie Parnes - 04/17/12 05:00 AM ET
www.thehill.com
President Obama and his surrogates are making repeated references to the economic policies of former President George W. Bush, seeking to tie Mitt Romney’s platform to that of the previous administration.
Team Obama argues the Romney campaign is advocating tax and economic policies that would repeat the problems that put the country into recession, exacerbate income inequality and prevent middle-class Americans from getting a “fair shot.”
At a speech last week at Florida Atlantic University, Obama—without mentioning Bush by name — sought to link tax policies put forth by Romney and other top Republicans to Bush, drawing a distinct us-versus-them contrast.
“We tried this for eight years before I took office — we tried it,” Obama said to roaring applause from the college crowd. “It’s not like we didn’t try it.”
Obama went on to explain that “at the beginning of the last decade,” with Bush at the helm, the wealthiest Americans got two huge tax cuts while financial institutions were “allowed to write their own rules or find their way around rules.”
“We were told the same thing we’re being told now — ‘This is going to lead to faster job growth,’ ” Obama continued.
“ ‘This is going to lead to greater prosperity for everybody.’ Guess what? It didn’t.”
Obama and Vice President Biden’s recent remarks on Bush come as the former president his vice president, Dick Cheney, have re-entered the political scene in recent days.
Speaking at a forum in New York last week, Bush acknowledged that he wished that his tax cuts were given a different name.
“I wish they weren’t called the Bush tax cuts,” the former president said. “If they’re called some other body’s tax cuts, they’re probably less likely to be raised.”
Separately, Cheney lambasted Obama as “an unmitigated disaster” for the country in a speech to the Wyoming Republican Party state convention.
Linking Romney to Bush has both risks and rewards for Obama, who trailed Romney 47 percent to 45 in Gallup’s first national daily tracking poll, released Monday.
Many voters continue to blame Bush for the country’s rocky economy, something reflected in an AP-Gfk poll from December that found 43 percent of voters surveyed said the former president deserved much of the blame for the country’s economic woes.
“To some, ‘Bush’ is a pejorative term and something Obama can use to rile up the base,” said Martin Sweet, a visiting assistant professor of political science at Northwestern University.
Julian Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University, said it might be helpful to connect Romney’s economic policies to Bush. “He wants to be able to say this is round 2 of George W. Bush, and that his policies support big business and wealthy Americans. And the Bush tax cuts are the clearest symbol of that.”
Yet more than three years after Bush left office, observers also warn that Obama can’t blame the previous administration for his handling of the economy.
“Obama has to be careful that it doesn’t seem like irrelevant campaign rhetoric,” Zelizer said.
Republicans say that’s exactly what they’re hearing from Obama.
Kirsten Kukowski, a press secretary for the Republican National Committee, predicted that the rhetoric will “fall flat.”
Campaigning against Bush didn’t work for Democrats in 2010, she pointed out: “I don’t see why it would work two years later.”
Still, attacks on Bush could resonate more in a presidential election than in congressional elections. And Romney has benefited from endorsements from several members of the Bush family, a fact that ties him more closely to the former president.
Obama has never been shy about criticizing Bush.
Since taking office, he has reiterated that he’s been busy cleaning up “somebody else’s mess,” taking an obvious jab at his predecessor.
“Yes, the rich got much richer, corporations made big profits,” he said of the Bush years during the speech at Florida Atlantic. “But we also had the slowest job growth in half a century. The typical American family actually saw their incomes fall by about 6 percent … healthcare premiums skyrocketed. Financial institutions started making bets with other people’s money. … And then our entire financial system collapsed. You remember that?”
In a campaign speech in New Hampshire last week in which he mentioned Bush by name six times, Biden made the Bush-bashing much more explicit.
Romney, Biden argued, comes from the upper class and so identifies with Bush’s economic policies. Biden added that the likely GOP nominee favors that the “Bush tax cuts … be made permanent for the wealthy.”
Bush-bashing was a big part of Obama’s campaign message from 2008, which focused on the change the country needed after eight years of the previous administration.
That message worked four years ago, which is why observers say Obama’s campaign is making a second go of it.
“He’s going back to the well again to see if it works again,” Sweet said. “But as the old adage goes, if you go to the well too many times, eventually, you come up empty.”
WWWTTTFFF!!!!
-
Obama campaign 2012 baby- Blame Congress 1st, blame Bush 2nd. Yes we can!
-
Obama campaign 2012 baby- Blame Congress 1st, blame Bush 2nd. Yes we can!
Still blaming Bush - how utterly ridiculous.
And what plan does this moron think he is going to get through that is going to work in the next 5 years when he has already shown he cant work w the congress?
Anyone anyone anyone????
-
Still blaming Bush - how utterly ridiculous.
And what plan does this moron think he is going to get through that is going to work in the next 5 years when he has already shown he cant work w the congress?
Anyone anyone anyone????
Like I said in the other thread - his plan is to convince the American people that we need to vote him a Democrat majority congress and re-elect him so that he can fix America, as there are to many republicans in Congress and theyre blocking him from saving us.
And I bet people will eat it up. "He's right! Is not his fault, the Republican Congress has failed him! Fuck congress, he's right! Theyre the ones blocking his greatness from being achieved!!"
-
LOL - are you voting for obama over mittens? Don't answer - we already know.
'
i'm voting for Romney over obama. This is the 2nd time I'm answering you on this Q.
-
I'm voting for Obama.
Suck it.
-
I'm voting for Obama.
Suck it.
"Strike up the band."
Another shut-in creeper who thinks people care about him on here. How droll.
-
I fought for your right to vote.
How about some respect?
-
I fought for your right to vote.
How about some respect?
I respect your service and tried giving you a lot of lee way as you endlessly trolled me. However, your service aside for which you should be thanked, you are a troll.
-
http://www.gallup.com/poll/150743/Obama-Romney.aspx
Romney 48 Obama 43
-
Axelrod: Gallup poll has 'methodological problems'
byJoel Gehrke Commentary Staff Writer
David Axelrod, President Obama's top campaign strategist, responded to Gallup polls showing Mitt Romney leading the president by criticizing the pollster.
"Gallup is saddled with some methodological problems," Axelrod tweeted today. He also directed Twitterati to a column arguing that Gallup polls showing Romney in the lead "has a sample that looks much more like the electorate in 2010 than the voting population that is likely to turn out in 2012."
Gallup released a poll this morning showing Romney leading Obama 48 percent to 43 percent. Gallup showed Obama leading Romney throughout most of March.
-
Axelrod: Gallup poll has 'methodological problems'
byJoel Gehrke Commentary Staff Writer
David Axelrod, President Obama's top campaign strategist, responded to Gallup polls showing Mitt Romney leading the president by criticizing the pollster.
"Gallup is saddled with some methodological problems," Axelrod tweeted today. He also directed Twitterati to a column arguing that Gallup polls showing Romney in the lead "has a sample that looks much more like the electorate in 2010 than the voting population that is likely to turn out in 2012."
Gallup released a poll this morning showing Romney leading Obama 48 percent to 43 percent. Gallup showed Obama leading Romney throughout most of March.
LOL, already trying to discredit poll results? Sounds worried to me.
-
I fought for your right to vote.
How about some respect?
Dont worry about respect from this retard to get it you have to suck repub dick its not worth it
-
New Polls Show Romney Surging And Then Surging More
Michael Brendan Dougherty | 25 minutes ago | 228 | 4
Just in the past week we've seen polls showing Mitt Romney get to a two and five point lead over Obama, a stunning turnaround.
Now a CNN/Orc poll finds that Romney's "favorable" rating, which just took one hit after another earlier in the year, is surging:
Forty-four percent of people questioned in the survey say they have a favorable view of the former Massachusetts governor, up 10 points from February, during some of the most heated moments of the GOP primaries and caucuses. Forty-three percent say they have an unfavorable opinion of Romney, down 11 points from February. Thirteen percent are unsure.
This is an enormous turnaround, indicative of the fact that the fractious primaries are over, Republicans who were holding onto a grudge against Romney are letting go and embracing him.
Obama still has a much higher "favorable" rating: 56 percent. But Romney is rapidly rising to the challenge.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/new-cnnorc-poll-shows-romney-surging-and-then-surging-more-2012-4#ixzz1sOiWMQut
The left is already going into meltdown on HP, DU, NYT and other sites seeing that Obama is going to go home in november and their dreams of a communist totalitarian nanny state might have been thwarted.
-
Do you set an alarm clock so that you can squeeze in 18 hours of copy and paste per day?
-
Do you set an alarm clock so that you can squeeze in 18 hours of copy and paste per day?
It seems like whenever he posts you're right behind him. Stalking from 15,000 miles away. O-b-s-e-s-s-e-d.
-
It seems like whenever he posts you're right behind him. Stalking from 15,000 miles away. O-b-s-e-s-s-e-d.
They just hate the fact that people are now just openly mocking the failed messiah.
People like gaybear, lurker, straw, blacken, etc, really believed that the election of obama was some magic, transformative, earth changing event that would usher in ponies and unicorns for everyone. Now that the reality has hit that the faux messiah is being openly mocked and laughed at for his incompetence and ignorance is too much to bear for them.
This is why i give Hugo credit. He was one of them in 2008, but he has also been very honest along the way in seeing the reality of the situation. Sadly - I don't see such honesty from the true believers who still think that fauxbama is going to deliver us to some mystical promised land.
-
Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) “Whether you’re liberal, whether you’re very conservative, you ought to be excited [about Romney] because he’s been on your side at one time or another.”
-
Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) “Whether you’re liberal, whether you’re very conservative, you ought to be excited [about Romney] because he’s been on your side at one time or another.”
-
It seems like whenever he posts you're right behind him. Stalking from 15,000 miles away. O-b-s-e-s-s-e-d.
Actually, it's pretty tough to keep up because my girl is over today and we've been having quite a bit of sex. (This is a real girl, not one that I created so people would think I was cool on the internet.)
Also, I have something called 'a job'.
Try Googling that one as it's a pretty abstract idea and I don't have time to break it down for you right now.
-
New Polls Show Romney Surging And Then Surging More
Michael Brendan Dougherty | 25 minutes ago | 228 | 4
Just in the past week we've seen polls showing Mitt Romney get to a two and five point lead over Obama, a stunning turnaround.
Now a CNN/Orc poll finds that Romney's "favorable" rating, which just took one hit after another earlier in the year, is surging:
Forty-four percent of people questioned in the survey say they have a favorable view of the former Massachusetts governor, up 10 points from February, during some of the most heated moments of the GOP primaries and caucuses. Forty-three percent say they have an unfavorable opinion of Romney, down 11 points from February. Thirteen percent are unsure.
This is an enormous turnaround, indicative of the fact that the fractious primaries are over, Republicans who were holding onto a grudge against Romney are letting go and embracing him.
Obama still has a much higher "favorable" rating: 56 percent. But Romney is rapidly rising to the challenge.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/new-cnnorc-poll-shows-romney-surging-and-then-surging-more-2012-4#ixzz1sOiWMQut
The left is already going into meltdown on HP, DU, NYT and other sites seeing that Obama is going to go home in november and their dreams of a communist totalitarian nanny state might have been thwarted.
He'll got a surge now that he's going to be the nominee and he'll get another one at the GOP convention. However, he's going to drop pretty fast. The GOP is hesitant to vote for him, the South won't vote for a Non-Christian, and ultimately I think he's going to lose very badly
-
He'll got a surge now that he's going to be the nominee and he'll get another one at the GOP convention. However, he's going to drop pretty fast. The GOP is hesitant to vote for him, the South won't vote for a Non-Christian, and ultimately I think he's going to lose very badly
You 95ers are so fucking clueless. its all about ABO - get it A B O - Obama is a disaster and is the worst president this nation has EVER had.
-
He'll got a surge now that he's going to be the nominee and he'll get another one at the GOP convention. However, he's going to drop pretty fast. The GOP is hesitant to vote for him, the South won't vote for a Non-Christian, and ultimately I think he's going to lose very badly
Bingo.
What sweet irony that the religious right, and all its associated bigotry, is so capable of imploding on itself.
-
You 95ers are so fucking clueless. its all about ABO - get it A B O - Obama is a disaster and is the worst president this nation has EVER had.
I'll be voting for Obama...
...and there's nothing you can do about it.
-
Bingo.
What sweet irony that the religious right, and all its associated bigotry, is so capable of imploding on itself.
Gay marriage failed in California in 2008 because homophobic blacks voted it down. Where were you on that gaybear?
-
I'll be voting for Obama...
...and there's nothing you can do about it.
When you go to the polling place w tears of joy voting for the messiah just remember that some ignorant, racist, regressive, guido, dago, homophobic, gun totting, teabagging, greedy, wop is canceling out your vote.
-
Actually, it's pretty tough to keep up because my girl is over today and we've been having quite a bit of sex. (This is a real girl, not one that I created so people would think I was cool on the internet.)
Also, I have something called 'a job'.
Try Googling that one as it's a pretty abstract idea and I don't have time to break it down for you right now.
I think you're the first person in the history of the human race to have sex!
How much is that little Chinese prostie costing you, "stud"?
By the way, people who brag about having sex on the internet aren't usually having it. Hope this helps.
-
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57415623-503544/obama-romney-in-dead-heat-cbs-news-new-york-times-poll-finds
Media in total meltdown that the messiah may go down.
-
When you go to the polling place w tears of joy voting for the messiah just remember that some ignorant, racist, regressive, guido, dago, homophobic, gun totting, teabagging, greedy, wop is canceling out your vote.
Are you referring to yourself?
I seriously doubt you vote, seeing as how it invlolves leaving the house and all.
-
I think you're the first person in the history of the human race to have sex!
How much is that little Chinese prostie costing you, "stud"?
By the way, people who brag about having sex on the internet aren't usually having it. Hope this helps.
No prostitutes. It was a great day.
Been getting a lot of pussy here lately.
Have fun listening to Rush and posting hate on the internet. Don't forget to defend your bigot friends today.
-
40-state sweep
April 16, 2012 by Don Surber
Two years ago today, I predicted a 51-seat gain in the House of Representatives for the Republican Party. At the time, experts gave Democrats better than even odds of maintaining the House. Given that they had a 76-seat advantage — Republicans would need to flip 39 seats to take the House — that seemed reasonable. To be sure, most voters wanted the newly enacted Obamacare repealed, but experts said voters would get over that by November, when the economy picked up.
I was wrong. Republicans had a net gain of 63 seats in the biggest rout in 60+ years.
A 40-state sweep for Mitt Romney harkens only to Reagan’s victories in 1980 and 1984, but it will do.
I base my prediction on several factors:
1. Mitt Romney did well in all the Republican primaries in blue states. This shows he has organized Republicans in those states, even though they are small in number. Judging by my experience in West Virginia, they tend to be just as conservative as the Republicans elsewhere — it is tougher to be a minority than a majority — but they are pragmatic.
2. Mitt Romney should put New England in play. Boston dominates that section of the country and the people in that area know him. He’s the Mormon Kennedy to them. He does not smoke or drink. Ah, there’s a religion that the Kennedy clan should consider.
3. Barack Obama is running scared. 4 years ago, he was a blank slate. Today his blackboard is filled with a lot of action and little results. The $787 billion stimulus did nothing. The $700 billion TARP went into bankers pockets. The GM bailout affected only 1 in 5 Americans who actually buy a GM or Chrysler. The Arab Spring backfired. He gave up on Iraq and we are being tossed out of Afghanistan.
4. Obamacare. Never has a presidential domestic policy been so despised. The Vietnam War was more popular in 1968 — and LBJ decided against another term.
The 2012 election will not be about whether Ann Romney worked a day in her life or Rush Limbaugh calling a woman a slut or whether George Zimmerman is guilty of murder in the second degree.
The 2012 election is all about Barack Obama. For such a vain narcissist, Barack Obama sure is trying to get out of the spotlight on this one. That shows how little chance he really has.
My 2010 prediction.
http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/54259
-
40-state sweep
April 16, 2012 by Don Surber
Two years ago today, I predicted a 51-seat gain in the House of Representatives for the Republican Party. At the time, experts gave Democrats better than even odds of maintaining the House. Given that they had a 76-seat advantage — Republicans would need to flip 39 seats to take the House — that seemed reasonable. To be sure, most voters wanted the newly enacted Obamacare repealed, but experts said voters would get over that by November, when the economy picked up.
I was wrong. Republicans had a net gain of 63 seats in the biggest rout in 60+ years.
A 40-state sweep for Mitt Romney harkens only to Reagan’s victories in 1980 and 1984, but it will do.
I base my prediction on several factors:
1. Mitt Romney did well in all the Republican primaries in blue states. This shows he has organized Republicans in those states, even though they are small in number. Judging by my experience in West Virginia, they tend to be just as conservative as the Republicans elsewhere — it is tougher to be a minority than a majority — but they are pragmatic.
2. Mitt Romney should put New England in play. Boston dominates that section of the country and the people in that area know him. He’s the Mormon Kennedy to them. He does not smoke or drink. Ah, there’s a religion that the Kennedy clan should consider.
3. Barack Obama is running scared. 4 years ago, he was a blank slate. Today his blackboard is filled with a lot of action and little results. The $787 billion stimulus did nothing. The $700 billion TARP went into bankers pockets. The GM bailout affected only 1 in 5 Americans who actually buy a GM or Chrysler. The Arab Spring backfired. He gave up on Iraq and we are being tossed out of Afghanistan.
4. Obamacare. Never has a presidential domestic policy been so despised. The Vietnam War was more popular in 1968 — and LBJ decided against another term.
The 2012 election will not be about whether Ann Romney worked a day in her life or Rush Limbaugh calling a woman a slut or whether George Zimmerman is guilty of murder in the second degree.
The 2012 election is all about Barack Obama. For such a vain narcissist, Barack Obama sure is trying to get out of the spotlight on this one. That shows how little chance he really has.
My 2010 prediction.
http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/54259
Interesting. Check the comments section. Those guys are even more optimistic.
-
At the rate we are going and seeing the pathetic Obama campaign so far, I think Romney is going landslide Obama.
-
Mitt Romney leads Obama in first Gallup national tracking poll
The Hill ^ | April 16, 2012 | Jonathan Easley
Posted on April 16, 2012 3:03:42 PM EDT by Free ThinkerNY
Mitt Romney leads President Obama in the first Gallup national daily tracking poll.
Romney took 47 percent support from surveyed registered voters, while Obama took 45 in a poll conducted between April 11 and April 15. Romney's edge though is within the poll's three point margin of error.
Independents tipped the scale in favor of Romney, going for the former Massachusetts governor 45 percent to 39.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
-
Bingo.
What sweet irony that the religious right, and all its associated bigotry, is so capable of imploding on itself.
Yep, they've been hyping so much on accusing Obama of being a Muslim that they are going to eat crow trying to explain why to vote for someone who REALLY ISN"T A CHRISTIAN
And then we have this....
Who the fuck does this shit while running for office?? That's why he couldn't win not one Southern state whatsoever. You don't mock the South.
Romney doesn't have any real momentum...its just temp because he's recently cleared the pack....as time goes on, it will drop very quickly.
-
Yep, they've been hyping so much on accusing Obama of being a Muslim that they are going to eat crow trying to explain why to vote for someone who REALLY ISN"T A CHRISTIAN
And then we have this....
Who the fuck does this shit while running for office?? That's why he couldn't win not one Southern state whatsoever. You don't mock the South.
Yeah, because Obama NEVER does that kind of thing.
-
These Poll Numbers Point To DISASTER For Obama
Brett LoGiurato | 9 minutes ago | 133 | 2
Can he woo Independents back?
In February, the Democratic-leaning think tank Third Way chronicled the fight for the so-called "Obama Independents" — who authors Michelle Diggles and Lanae Erickson called the "heart" of the 2012 campaign.
The gist is this:
In 2012, Independents are likely to comprise the highest proportion of the electorate since 1976, and winning them will be crucial to victory. But not all Independents are the same, and the real showdown for 2012 is over who will win the Obama Independents. If President Obama woos the vast majority of them back, he can be reelected. But if he performs among them like Democrats did in 2010, when one-quarter of the Obama Independents voted for a Republican, it’s going to be a long election night.
So despite his good fortunes with women voters, there some troubling warning signals for President Obama in the Quinnipiac poll out today. And it starts with the Independent vote.
Quinnipiac.edu
Barack Obama is losing the Independent vote by 7 percentage points — 46 percent to 39 percent. Of course, that doesn't measure the "Obama Independents," and a significant chunk — 8 percent — is still undecided.
But look at the trends from the past few days. They all point to Obama losing support among Independents, the group that handed him the election in 2008. He won 52 percent of the Independent vote vs. John McCain in the '08 election.
First, this is a marked shift from the Quinnipiac poll in February. Though that was a theoretical matchup between Obama and Romney because the Republican primaries were very much in full swing, Obama still had a 5-point lead on Romney — 46 to 41 percent.
That's a pretty significant 12-point swing with the most important group in the electorate.
Then there's the first Gallup daily tracking poll, which was among the first to signal the fact that Independents are now flocking to Romney. And a Fox News poll out last week also showed that Obama stands at a 6-point disadvantage to Romney among the Independent bloc.
And a survey performed by the Democratic think tank Third Way found that generally, so-called "swing independents" identify more with Mitt Romney's ideology. But that survey of the "swing Independents" — about 40 percent of Independents who will legitimately "swing" between parties in different elections — also found that they would vote for Obama today (44 percent to 38 percent).
Congress Is About To Pass A Bill That Restricts Traveling, Driving And International Banking
Please follow Politics on Twitter and Facebook.
Follow Brett LoGiurato on Twitter.
Ask Brett A Question > Tags: Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, 2012 Election, Election 2012
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/barack-obama-disastrous-poll-numbers-2012-4#ixzz1sVW2Bn4y
-
Election 2012 Trial Heat: Obama vs. Romney [MR +5 on 4/19/2012]
Gallup ^ | 4/19/12
These are the results when registered voters are asked: "Suppose the presidential election were held today. If Barack Obama were the Democratic Party's candidate and Mitt Romney were the Republican Party's candidate, who would you vote for Barack Obama, the Democrat or Mitt Romney, the Republican?" Those who are undecided are further asked if they lean more toward Obama or Romney and their leanings are incorporated into the results. Each five-day rolling average is based on telephone interviews with approximately 2,200 registered voters; Margin of error is ±3 percentage points.
(Excerpt) Read more at gallup.com ...
START PACKING YOUR SHIT OBAMA - YOU ARE GOING HOME!
-
Yep, they've been hyping so much on accusing Obama of being a Muslim that they are going to eat crow trying to explain why to vote for someone who REALLY ISN"T A CHRISTIAN
And then we have this....
Who the fuck does this shit while running for office?? That's why he couldn't win not one Southern state whatsoever. You don't mock the South.
Romney doesn't have any real momentum...its just temp because he's recently cleared the pack....as time goes on, it will drop very quickly.
Uh, Obama?
-
Victor Davis Hanson: Why Romney Has a Real Chance (It's more like ABO!)
National Review Online ^ | April 18, 2012 | Victor Davis Hanson
Posted on Thursday, April 19, 2012 5:35:46 PM by neverdem
The odds of defeating an incumbent president should be slim but they are in fact at least 50/50. Here are some reasons that this is true.
1) Romney is a more experienced and better candidate than he was in 2008. That often happens after a run or two. Nixon was tougher in 1968 than in 1960 in the way that Reagan was wiser in 1980 than in 1968 and 1976, and George H. W. Bush was better in 1988 than in 1980. McCain ran more effectively in the primaries in 2008 than he did in 2000. The Republican primary rough-housing sharpened Romney’s debating skills, and he seems far more comfortable than he was four years ago.
2) The old mantra that at some point the massive $5 trillion borrowing, the fed’s near-zero interest rate policies, and the natural cycle of recovery after a recession would kick in before the election increasingly appears somewhat dubious. The recovery is anemic, and seems stymied by high gas costs, fears over Obamacare, and a new feeling that lots of businesspeople with capital are strangely holding off, either scared of what more of Obama’s statist policies have in store for them, or in anger about being demonized by Obama, or in hopes Romney might win. The net result is that the recovery by November might not be as strong as was thought six months ago.
3) Romney is going to be a lot tougher on Obama than was McCain in 2008. For all the complaints against his moderation by the tea-party base, they will slowly rally to him as he makes arguments against Obama of the sort that McCain was perceived as unable or unwilling to make. So far Romney’s attitude is that he is in the arena where blows come thick and fast, and one can’t whine when being hit or hitting — a view far preferable to McCain’s lectures about what not to say or do in 2008. Left-wing preemptory charges that Romney is “swift-boating” or “going negative” will probably have slight effect on him. Just as Bill Clinton saw that Dukakis in 1988 had wanted to be liked rather than feared and so himself ran a quite different, tough 1992 race, so too Romney knows where McCain’s magnanimity got him in 2008. Romney won’t be liked by the press, knows it, and perhaps now welcomes it.
4) In 2008 Rudy Giuliani’s idea that Obama was out of the mainstream and a Chicago-style community organizer was not pressed in fear of the counter-charges that one was racialist or at least insensitive to the historic Obama candidacy. In 2012, there is a record, not an image or precedent, to vote for or against; and Romney will find it far easier to take down Obama than McCain found in 2008. That Obama did not reinvent the world as promised won’t mean that his supporters will vote for Romney, only that they won’t come out in the numbers or with the money as they did in 2008. There is no margin of error in 2012 and turnout will be everything for Obama.
5) The Republicans seem so far to have a lot more interest in defeating Obama than Democrats do in reelecting him. That enthusiasm level can change; but so far we are not going to see, I think, a lot of moderate Republicans writing about Obama’s sartorial flair and his first-class temperament, or screeds against a Republican incumbent. One meets lots of people who sheepishly confess they voted for Obama in 2008 but learned their lesson, less so those who regret that they voted for McCain and now promise to rectify that.
6) Obama is a great front-runner who can afford to talk of unity and magnanimity, but when behind he seems to revert to churlishness and petulance. The more he references Bush, the “mess” in 2008, tsunamis, and the EU meltdown, the more one wants to ask: When will he ever get a life? Them versus us is not “hope and change.”
7) Ann Romney, whether she is used in a more partisan style or more in the manner of a reticent Laura Bush, is an invaluable asset, both her narrative and her grace — a treasury really that somehow was under-appreciated in 2008 but won’t be in 2012.
8) Obama is becoming repetitive and tiring in his speechifying in a way that Carter did by late summer 1980 and George H. W. Bush did in 1992. Before he gets to the podium, Americans anticipate that he will blame someone for a current problem rather than introducing a positive solution — and they are beginning to get to the further point that they cannot only anticipate the villains of the hour, but the manner in which Obama will weave together the usual straw men, the formulaic “let me perfectly clear.” “make no mistake about it,” and the fat-cat/pay-your-fair share vocabulary. The public finally grows tired of whiners and blamers.
9) Juan Williams and others have made the argument that race explains the disenchantment of the white male working-class voter. I think that is hardly persuasive: Give that clinger voter just a year of 5 percent unemployment, $2-a-gallon gas, 4 percent GDP growth, a balanced budget, and he would gladly vote for Obama. The better point is not that race is a determinant in 2012 but that the charge has lost its currency. The minority of working-class white male voters who voted for Obama in 2008 was vastly higher than the percentage of African-Americans of all classes and both genders who voted for McCain, a moderate Republican who one would have thought might have gotten a larger percentage of the black vote than did George W. Bush. Based on percentages in 2008, I think that one could logically infer that the number of blacks who did not vote Republican as they had once done in the past was larger than the number of white male working-class voters who did not vote Democratic as they had in the past. Playing the race card in 2012 will prove a boomerang, especially if the Sharpton-Jackson nexus turns the Martin case into a reverse O. J. trial, and if Holder or Obama editorialize any more, or revert to the exhausting “stupidly,” “punish our enemies,” “cowards,” “my people,” tropes.
10) It is no longer “cool,” the thing to do, neat, or making a statement to vote for Obama. The 2008 lemming effect is over; no one believes any more that he will lower the seas or wants to believe that he can. Michelle’s lightness/darkness biblical image is hokey not moving. The fading 2008 Obama bumper stickers are no longer proof of one’s noble nature.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Barack Obama's re-election bid is already in deep trouble
Newt Gingrich may not have got the memo but the battle for the Republican nomination is over. Some in the Romney campaign were hoping for a Febuary end but others were fearing it would go on until June and a small number of Republicans even predicted a convention fight in August.
All in all, April is not a bad result for Mitt Romney - long enough to test him, short enough to allow him to focus solely on the general for the final six months.
Despite the very recent and ugly and negative primaries, Romney's struggle with conservatives and the relative difficulty he had in overcoming a lacklustre field, Republicans - who tend to fall in line more readily than Democrats - are already uniting behind him.
President Barack Obama: in deep trouble
The RealClearPolitics poll average puts President Barack Obama at 47 percent and Romney at 44.2 percent - statistically insignificant lead of 2.2 percent.
Drill down into the numbers of the latest CBS poll and there are ominous signs for Obama. Only 33 percent of Americans believe the economy is moving in the right direction. A mere 16 percent feel they are getting ahead financiallty. Some 38 percent think their situation will get worse of Obama is re-elected, 26 percent think it will get better.
A cursory look back at incumbent versus challenger presidential races does not give Obama much comfort.
In April 1976, President Gerald Ford was in about the same position as Obama is now. He lost the 1976 general election to Jimmy Carter by two points. In April 1980, President Jimmy Carter was leading Ronald Reagan by 38 points to 32 points with John Anderson on 22. In November 1980, Reagan won by three points.
In April 1992, President George H.W. Bush was on 46 percent and Bill Clinton on 26 percent. In November 1992, Clinton won by six points. In April 2004, President George W. Bush was on 50 percent and John Kerry on 44 percent. In November 2004, Bush won by two points.
We are already past the point at which it seems plausible that 2012 will be a repeat of 1996 when the incumbent (Clinton) cruised to a comfortable eight-point victory over the challenger (Bob Dole). Rather, we are probably looking at a 1992 scenario - an incumbent defeat - or a 2004 race - the incumbent (or the challenger) eking out a narrow victory.
All the signs are that Obama will try to do to Romney what Bush did to Kerry in 2004 - make the election turn on the character of the challenger rather than being a referendum on the incumbent. It was brutal, it was ugly and it was a process of grinding out a win on the basis of consolidating the Republican base and dividing the country.
The Romney campaign, which includes a number of people who helped map out and execute that strategy for Bush, is all too aware of the dangers of Romney falling into the same trap as Kerry and allowing himself to be defined by Obama.
Romney may be a wealthy, somewhat aloof blue blood from Massachusetts but he is no John Kerry. Indeed, the central part of his biography - the turnaround businessman - is almost ideally suited to this election, which is likely to be a transactional one in which voters ask: "Who can best deal with this economy?"
Just as Bush's allies turned what seemed to be Kerry's biggest strength - his Vietnam record in an election about national security - against him by a merciless "Swiftboating", Obama will seek to do the same to Romney by making his business record about pillaging from the poor.
But Americans are much less likely than Europeans to succumb to the temptations of class warfare. If he is to pull it off, Obama needs to do much better than jibing that he was not "born with a silver spoon in my mouth" and demanding Romney's tax returns.
The slow improvement in the economy thus far in 2012 might not help Obama, just as better numbers did not stop George H.W. Bush losing to Clinton in 1992. In fact, Bush's insistence that things were getting better when few in the country felt that way added insult to injury and made him seem out of touch.
Obama can't talk about the economy being bad because he would be held responsible for it. But going too far in talking it up could be just as disastrous. Politically, he has to thread the needle.
Romney's likeability numbers are anaemic at this stage but they may well not need to be. To paraphrase Obama's ill-judged snipe at Hillary Clinton in 2008, he could well be "likeable enough" already, given that the focus will in all likelihood be on Obama.
Obama will keep trying to talk about something, anything other than the economy - contraception and dogs being the most recent examples - but Romney has the relatively straightforward task of being disciplined enough to talk relentlessly about jobs and the economy.
Certainly, Romney will never win the "guy you'd like to have a beer with" test, as Bush did in 2000. But 2012 will not be about that - there's more at stake than in 2000. And as Nate Silver argues, Romney has room to grow and favourability ratings at this stage are unreliable indicators for November.
If you viewed all this solely through the prism of media coverage and listened just to Washington pundits, you'd conclude that Obama has about an 80 percent chances of victory. In reality, his chances are much closer to 50:50, perhaps even with Romney holding an advantage (though many things can and will happen in six months).
This cognitive dissonance is partly because of a liberal tilt but also because most reporters and talking heads live in bubbles of comfortable affluence insulated from the economic pain most Americans are facing.
Even without factoring in the likely negative political impact of, say, Obamacare being struck down by the Supreme Court in June, Obama's re-election bid is already in deep trouble.
Only a fool would underestimate Obama's campaign machine, his ability to raise money and the fact that he remains personally likeable to a majority of Americans despite the state of the country. Anyone who argues at this stage that Obama is doomed to defeat is deluding themselves.
But the reality of this campaign is that it is likely to be brutal, very close - and could well result in Mitt Romney becoming the 45th President of the United States next January 20th.
-
LOL @ Romney walking into swing state Penn... dissing the most popular mom & pop bakery in the state by saying it looked like cookies from 7-11.
He is going to go out of his way to keep snatching defeat from jaws of victory. Attacking cookies for no reason. Dumb shit like that. He has the ear of the people and he's saying those cookies look bland and cheap - not talking about how he'll fix america or - more importantly - asking the voters about THEMSELVES.
Clinton did great by saying "tell me YOUR story". Obama too, hugging old ladies and whatnot. Romney's brain says "hey mitt, say something negative about the food provided to you by locel peons".
-
Skip to comments.
Obama Sees Steep Dropoff in Cash From Major Donors
New York Times ^ | April 20, 2012 | NICHOLAS CONFESSORE and DEREK WILLIS
Posted on April 20, 2012 9:54:18 PM EDT by lbryce
President Obama’s re-election campaign is straining to raise the huge sums it is counting on to run against Mitt Romney, with sharp dropoffs in donations from nearly every major industry forcing it to rely more than ever on small contributions and a relative handful of major donors.
From Wall Street to Hollywood, from doctors and lawyers, the traditional big sources of campaign cash are not delivering for the Obama campaign as they did four years ago. The falloff has left his fund-raising totals running behind where they were at the same point in 2008 — though well ahead of Mr. Romney’s — and has induced growing concern among aides and supporters as they confront the prospect that Republicans and their “super PAC” allies will hold a substantial advantage this fall.
With big checks no longer flowing as quickly into his campaign, Mr. Obama is leaning harder on his grass-roots supporters, whose small contributions make up well over half of the money he raised through the end of March, according to reports filed Friday with the Federal Election Commission. And Mr. Obama is asking far more of those large donors still giving, exploiting his joint fund-raising arrangement with the Democratic National Committee to collect five-figure checks from individuals who have already given the maximum $5,000 contribution to his re-election campaign.
“They clearly are feeling the pressure,” said one major Obama fund-raiser, who asked for anonymity to characterize his conversations with campaign officials. “They’re behind where they expected to be. You have to factor in $500 million-plus in Republican super PAC money.”
With no primary to excite his base, the economy struggling to rebound, and four years of political battles with Wall Street and other industries taking their toll, Mr. Obama’s campaign raised about $196 million through March,
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
-
Skip to comments.
Obama Sees Steep Dropoff in Cash From Major Donors
New York Times ^ | April 20, 2012 | NICHOLAS CONFESSORE and DEREK WILLIS
Posted on April 20, 2012 9:54:18 PM EDT by lbryce
President Obama’s re-election campaign is straining to raise the huge sums it is counting on to run against Mitt Romney, with sharp dropoffs in donations from nearly every major industry forcing it to rely more than ever on small contributions and a relative handful of major donors.
From Wall Street to Hollywood, from doctors and lawyers, the traditional big sources of campaign cash are not delivering for the Obama campaign as they did four years ago. The falloff has left his fund-raising totals running behind where they were at the same point in 2008 — though well ahead of Mr. Romney’s — and has induced growing concern among aides and supporters as they confront the prospect that Republicans and their “super PAC” allies will hold a substantial advantage this fall.
With big checks no longer flowing as quickly into his campaign, Mr. Obama is leaning harder on his grass-roots supporters, whose small contributions make up well over half of the money he raised through the end of March, according to reports filed Friday with the Federal Election Commission. And Mr. Obama is asking far more of those large donors still giving, exploiting his joint fund-raising arrangement with the Democratic National Committee to collect five-figure checks from individuals who have already given the maximum $5,000 contribution to his re-election campaign.
“They clearly are feeling the pressure,” said one major Obama fund-raiser, who asked for anonymity to characterize his conversations with campaign officials. “They’re behind where they expected to be. You have to factor in $500 million-plus in Republican super PAC money.”
With no primary to excite his base, the economy struggling to rebound, and four years of political battles with Wall Street and other industries taking their toll, Mr. Obama’s campaign raised about $196 million through March,
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Obama's War Chest....104 Million
Mitt Romney....11.2 million
::)
-
Obama's War Chest....104 Million
Mitt Romney....11.2 million
94% of the time, the candidate with mo money wins. Romney better get to raising some cash.
SuperPACs will matter huge here too. newt's 20 mil from that one guy kept the race alive an extra month.
-
Yep, they've been hyping so much on accusing Obama of being a Muslim that they are going to eat crow trying to explain why to vote for someone who REALLY ISN"T A CHRISTIAN
And then we have this....
Who the fuck does this shit while running for office?? That's why he couldn't win not one Southern state whatsoever. You don't mock the South.
Romney doesn't have any real momentum...its just temp because he's recently cleared the pack....as time goes on, it will drop very quickly.
Im not a Romney fan but Obama is shit too so...
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-june-15-2011/west-wing-story
-
[ Invalid YouTube link ]
-
[ Invalid YouTube link ]
He's such a friggin liar.
-
the personalities and lies they tell doesn't affect us - the LEGISLATION does.
Obama hasn't signed an assault weapons ban.
-
the personalities and lies they tell doesn't affect us - the LEGISLATION does.
Obama hasn't signed an assault weapons ban.
No - his policies only killed 2 border agents and hundreds of mexicans and 1500 guns still loose.
And F you about polices - obamacare, dodd frank, stim bill, and the zillions of executive orders and mndates have crippled this nation!
-
the personalities and lies they tell doesn't affect us - the LEGISLATION does.
Obama hasn't signed an assault weapons ban.
Yeah, its just the legislation, it has nothing to do with the groundwork put in so someone down the road can capitalize on it. ::)
Dont think for a minute that just cause Obama hasnt signed an "anti-gun law", that he isnt doing everything in his power to diminish your right to own firearms. Just look at the way they tried to spin FF.
Just look at the people he appointed to his admin. All highly anti-gun. You dont appoint people with those views because they disagree with yours, especially not Obama who cant stand anybody disagreeing with his awesomeness.
-
Yeah, its just the legislation, it has nothing to do with the groundwork put in so someone down the road can capitalize on it. ::)
Dont think for a minute that just cause Obama hasnt signed an "anti-gun law", that he isnt doing everything in his power to diminish your right to own firearms. Just look at the way they tried to spin FF.
Just look at the people he appointed to his admin. All highly anti-gun. You dont appoint people with those views because they disagree with yours, especially not Obama who cant stand anybody disagreeing with his awesomeness.
240 has sold his soul to defend obama for reasons one can never really know, same as all the other idiots and morons.
Obama has not done a fucking single thing to deserve the loyalty and cult worship he receives from idiots like blackass, andre, 240, straw, et al.
-
240 has sold his soul to defend obama for reasons one can never really know, same as all the other idiots and morons.
Obama has not done a fucking single thing to deserve the loyalty and cult worship he receives from idiots like blackass, andre, 240, straw, et al.
I think its pretty clear why he defends him so vehemtly. All you have to do is look at his points directly post-election where he was praising the internet generation for changing the destiny of America by personally ensuring the right candidate got elected (or some BS like that, cant remember exactly, but he was tooting his own horn in getting Obama elected pretty hard).
He made such a big deal about Obama getting elected. Probably doesnt want to admit he helped the worst POTUS since Carter get elected, and that he bragged about it on top of that.
-
I think its pretty clear why he defends him so vehemtly. All you have to do is look at his points directly post-election where he was praising the internet generation for changing the destiny of America by personally ensuring the right candidate got elected (or some BS like that, cant remember exactly, but he was tooting his own horn in getting Obama elected pretty hard).
He made such a big deal about Obama getting elected. Probably doesnt want to admit he helped the worst POTUS since Carter get elected, and that he bragged about it on top of that.
They dont care!!! To these pieces of shit - the more damage obama does to the country - the better!
-
I think I'm gonna vote for Romney... Fuck it.
-
I think I'm gonna vote for Romney... Fuck it.
Terrifying isnt it?
What really makes me mad is that all I ever here about is "dog eating, "dog on rood", "war on women (on both sides)", and stupid rhetoric - trying to figure out Romneys actual stance on the issues is somewhat frustrating.
-
Terrifying isnt it?
What really makes me mad is that all I ever here about is "dog eating, "dog on rood", "war on women (on both sides)", and stupid rhetoric - trying to figure out Romneys actual stance on the issues is somewhat frustrating.
I am seriously crapping myself right now.
I have no idea what he actually has as far as anything goes... Plan? Ideas? Pfft... It's all a mystery.
Evil I know, or evil I don't know right?
-
I am seriously crapping myself right now.
I have no idea what he actually has as far as anything goes... Plan? Ideas? Pfft... It's all a mystery.
Evil I know, or evil I don't know right?
Exactly.
Only rationale I can come up with, is that we know what Obama is like. We know where his next 4 years is going (or worse). We know he doesnt repsect the checks and balances in our government, or the constitution, and supports taxing the fuck out the citizens to pay for his green energy bullshit and entitlement programs.
We also know he supports the UNs idea of global green taxes that would dispropotionatley tax the US, and therefor the logical conclusion is that he is ok with a foreign body collecting taxes on our country and citizens. (Which is the biggest thing for me - the whole purpose of the constitution was to make sure that no foreign power ever taxes the citizens of our country.)
Romney as least CLAIMS to be conservative, even if he's 1/100 more fiscally conservative than Obama it'd be better than the abortion of a 2nd term Obama has planned.
-
Daily Presidential Tracking Poll (Romney 48% Obama 44%)
Rasmussen ^ | 4-24-12 | Rasmussen
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that Mitt Romney earns 48% of the vote, while President Obama attracts support from 44%. Four percent (4%) would vote for a third party candidate, while another 4% are undecided.
Matchup results are updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern (sign up for free daily e-mail update). See tracking history.
As the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to hear the federal government’s challenge to Arizona’s immigration law, 59% of voters believe police officers should check the immigration status of those they stop for traffic violations. However, as Scott Rasmussen notes in a radio commentary, voter anger is not directed at the immigrants. It is directed at the federal government, employers and others who enable illegal immigration.
Most Americans believe the price of gas could reach $5 a gallon in the next few months. Forty-four percent (44%) believe government regulations are primarily to blame, while 32% point to speculators.
Three-out-of-four Americans (75%) would prefer the U.S. Postal Service cut mail delivery to five days a week rather than receive government subsidies to cover ongoing losses.
(Excerpt) Read more at rasmussenreports.com ...
-
Running Without An Agenda For The Next Four years
Townhall.com ^ | April 25, 2012 | Donald Lambro
WASHINGTON - President Obama has officially begun his 2012 campaign, telling special interest groups what the government will do for them if he is re-elected to a second term.
But the question many people are asking is, what else is he running on besides government handouts? What's his second term agenda? What is he planning to do if he wins? He doesn't say.
There is no hint of a grand plan of action dealing with the mountain of unfinished problems he's left behind in the nation's capital as he piles up frequent flyer miles in hot pursuit of his singular goal: becoming a two term president.
His campaign rhetoric thus far gives us no clue that he intends to address the big problems that still need to be fixed. He knows what they are, because polls tell us what America's primary concerns are: a lackluster, slow-growth, sub-par economy, far too few jobs; a monster $1.2 trillion budget deficit, the fourth of his big spending presidency, and a $16 trillion debt by the end of this year.
But Obama isn't talking about a mediocre economy that appears to be slowing down -- again.
And he isn't talking about jobs, or bemoaning the fact that many college grads -- who this week he promised an extension of low interest student loans -- can't find a job that will allow them to pay back the government.
As for the student loan extension Obama is pushing on the campaign trail, it's interesting to note that in 2007 then-Sen. Obama missed two pivotal Senate votes on the bill that created the program.
He's embracing it now because he needs the support of younger voters to save his presidency, but he did not vote for the original bill or on final passage, and didn't bother to sign on as a co- sponsor, according to a report Tuesday by Politico.
This week he was speaking at universities in North Carolina, Colorado and Iowa to champion extending the loan program. Maybe a student will ask him why he didn't take the time to vote for it in the first place?
But let's not trifle over small matters. He was too busy running for president in 2007 to be bothered with student loans and fulfilling his job as a senator for which he was paid $174,000 a year. Let's move on to other matters.
How about more than $5.3 trillion in four consecutive budget deficits. What deficits? The national debt? What debt? No one cares about those issues, do they?
But when the Gallup poll asked voters "what would you say worries you most about the national economy at this time?" the second most frequent response (after jobs and unemployment) was the national debt and the deficit.
Obama is dead silent on both issues, despite millions of worried Americans who fear we're plunging into a black hole of European-style debt that will engulf out economy.
Also missing from his stump speech is any mention of $4-plus gas prices that are cleaning out consumer wallets and crushing struggling small business -- and what he intends to do about it.
He could have begun by approving the Keystone XL pipeline that would have pumped enough oil down to the Gulf to drive down oil and gas prices.
Obama, who put the environmental lobby ahead of jobs, household budgets and businesses, killed the oil deal that would have created 20,000 jobs -- 13,000 in construction and 7,000 in manufacturing.
The Washington Post's economics columnist Robert J. Samuelson called his decision "an act of national insanity."
But that's yesterday's news and you won't hear the president mentioning it in his campaign speeches any time soon.
He's much too busy dividing the country, playing class warfare and bitterly attacking Mitt Romney's success, saying, "I wasn't born with a silver spoon in my mouth."
Social Security's board of trustees may have had the president in mind when they released a grim report on Tuesday that said its trust fund will be depleted by 2033 -- three years earlier than forecast.
"Never since the 1983 reforms have we come as close to the point of trust fund depletion as we are right now," warned Charles Blahous, one of the trustees for Social Security and Medicare.
Both programs are facing enormous fiscal challenges before millions of baby boomers are due to sign up for the programs in the coming decade.
Does the president have a financial reform plan to save these programs from impending collapse? No, he's too busy attacking a House Republican plan to keep Medicare solvent, and appears content for the time being to ignore Social Security's problems to our own peril.
Don't expect Obama to address either program in this election in any substantive way. You get more votes by attacking those who warn that both are headed toward a fiscal cliff.
And then there's the issue of reckless, irresponsible, government spending and the critical need to reform and restructure what the government does and how it spends money.
Annual federal spending is fast approaching $4 trillion a year, fueled by an ocean of waste, fraud, abuse and untold duplication. But the only reform Obama has put forward is to make government bigger and more costly than ever.
The General Services Administration's $823,000 Las Vegas party scandal is the tip of the iceberg. "Every time we turned over a stone, we found 50 more with all kinds of things crawling out," GSA Inspector General Brian Miller told a House investigating committee.
The Government Accountability Office, Congress's spending watchdog, says there is at least $200 billion a year in program duplication throughout the government.
Romney has suggested a top-to-bottom overhaul of the government, eliminating needless programs, merging departments, cutting payrolls, saving hundreds of billions of tax dollars.
But this is an issue about which Obama has nothing to say. He's into spending, not savings.
-
Terrifying isnt it?
What really makes me mad is that all I ever here about is "dog eating, "dog on rood", "war on women (on both sides)", and stupid rhetoric - trying to figure out Romneys actual stance on the issues is somewhat frustrating.
romney gave an obama 2008 speech yesterday.
did nothing but talk about why obama sucks (in detail)
but his own offerings were vague at best.
It's easy to say "why not" on obama. It's tougher to say "why" on romney without him getting into detail - but one he doesn't he starts alienating potential voters.
I mean, it's easy to say "i'mma trim govt pork spending!" but when you list the 50 programs you'll cut, suddenly you have 2 million people voting against you to keep their jobs. When romney says "i'm gonna cut the dept of education", it's easy to impress far-right voters who auto-vote repub anyway. But what about the people who work for the dept of education? I dont care if they hate obama, they'll vote for him just to keep their jobs lol.
-
April 25, 2012
Obama Wins Close or Loses Big
By J. Robert Smith
President Barack Obama: narrow winner or big loser in November. Presidential election history gives us indications that Mr. Obama either squeaks back into the White House or gets an undignified boot in the back of his designer trousers. In modern presidential elections, only Jerry Ford lost his re-election bid narrowly. Odds are, if Mr. Obama loses, it will probably be on the order of Hoover (1932) or Carter (1980).
If Mr. Obama wins, it's closer to George W. Bush's re-election in 2004. But the conditions are dramatically different in the country from 2004, and not to Mr. Obama's advantage.
A narrow win by Mr. Obama would be thanks to bungling by Mitt Romney and the Republicans, because based on the president's record alone, Mr. Obama has richly earned a pink slip from voters.
The Obama presidency is a big, fat failure, despite all the spin emanating from the White House, Democrat flaks, and the left's petting-zoo media. Americans are living Mr. Obama's economic failure daily; their dreary experiences (or those of family and neighbors) cut right through the liberal-manufactured smoke and fog. Campaigns of distraction distract only monetarily.
Incumbents are always about their performances, their records. A politician up for re-election is a referendum-in-the-making; an up or down vote by the electorate. That's the core strategic consideration of Romney's General Election campaign.
In a referendum election, all Mr. Romney has to do is satisfy voters that he's competent, advocates sensible remedies to the nation's economic dilemma, and plans to stop Uncle Sam's profligate spending and not raise taxes. Romney is well-suited to accomplish all three aims. Romney's character hasn't been an issue through a grueling intraparty vetting; it shouldn't be one in the General Election, despite anticipated efforts by Mr. Obama's team and the left to do so.
The heavy lift for Challenger Romney is keeping voters focused on Mr. Obama's dreadful policies. President Obama will be throwing an estimated $1 billion against Mr. Romney. Democrat and liberal allied groups and super PACs will drop some serious ching into the presidential election, too. That's daunting, but can be overcome. Losing incumbents and their allies tend to have the money edge in re-election contests.
Romney needs to underscore Mr. Obama's policy failures with the fact that the president is a committed left-winger, which contradicts Mr. Obama's stated moderation in 2008. Doing so bypasses Mr. Obama's likeability by damning the president with his own words and actions. Mr. Obama's immoderation is the central reason for the ObamaCare fiasco and a floundering economy.
Romney raising questions about Mr. Obama's inability to deliver on promises, his economic policies, his false moderation, and his evasion of constitutional checks and balances dovetails nicely with the argument that Barack Obama, lame duck, will prove more reckless and more ineffective, driving the economy further down, which spells grave trouble for the nation.
A president's likeability is much overrated. Hoover may have been unliked, but the same can't be said about incumbent losers Ford, Carter, and George H. Bush. Those presidents lost their re-elections because voters perceived them as unsuccessful in their jobs. Most voters would have gladly sat down over beers with any of those three men.
This opinion from veteran elections analyst Charlie Cook:
Some analysts mistakenly think that personal feelings and favorability ratings are the same as job-approval ratings. Although it is always better for a candidate to be liked than disliked, for an incumbent the perception of performance and effectiveness matters far more than likability. Voters didn't turn sour on President Ford in 1976; they just voted for change. Independent voters like President Obama, but the question is whether they think he has done a good job.
Indeed, Barack Obama is liked, according to polling. When push comes to shove, though, when it's about voters' jobs, homes, and financial security, likability takes a distant second place. Likeable employees are fired every day for nonperformance; they may get better severances, but off they go. Voters have historically proven to be tough employers.
National polling at this stage in the election game is interesting in that it tends to show Mr. Obama and Mitt Romney in a tight race. If Mr. Obama were cooking with gas, he'd enjoy much wider margins nationally among likely voters. Close indicates serious trouble ahead for Mr. Obama.
But national polls are chimeras, finally. Presidents are elected state-by-state. Come September, it's the state polls of likely voters that matters. Reapportionment has shifted critical electoral votes to red states, favoring Romney. Taking the states of Ohio, North Carolina, Virginia, and Florida are keys to a Romney victory (presuming he retains McCain's states from 2008, as well he should).
If voters are truly sour on the president, then other states like Michigan, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and New Mexico may well be in play after Labor Day. Indiana is already expected to swing back into the GOP column.
After Labor Day, if momentum breaks Romney's way, anticipate that he will carry independent and undecided voters in the aforementioned states. Once the tide starts shifting against an incumbent, it tends to move hugely.
Look at FDR's landslide victory in 1932 against the beleaguered Herbert Hoover. Roosevelt ran a campaign highlighting Hoover's failures. Contrary to the conventional wisdom, FDR didn't run on a bold progressive platform; a chief focus was on balancing the federal budget.
In 1980, Ronald Reagan wrapped the misery index around Jimmy Carter's neck (that and his diffident handling of the Iranian hostage crisis). Still, Carter led in the polls most of the way. But in the autumn, when voters really started to concentrate on Carter's feeble record, and decided that Reagan was no wild-eyed radical, the dam broke and Carter was swept from office.
Successful presidents don't run "Campaigns of Distraction." President Barack Obama, whose economic stimuli failed to stimulate the economy, but instead lined the pockets of powerful Democrat constituencies, needs to distract. A president -- the very same Barack Obama -- whose federal credit card spending has dug the nation into a cavernous debt hole needs distractions.
The president's signature legislative achievement, ObamaCare, never popular, now risks being overturned by the Supreme Court in late June. If the Court overturns the individual mandate or the whole enchilada, the president and his fellow Democrats are relieved of the burden of having to defend so unworkable and freedom-depriving a program.
What the president isn't off the hook on is explaining to voters why he wasted valuable time and resources pursuing a colossal dud-of-a-government-run health care program at the very time the economy was sinking. Expect Mt. McKinley-sized distractions if the Supreme Court rules against Mr. Obama's health care scheme.
This isn't to suggest complacency or smug self-assurance on the part of Republicans or conservatives... or Romney and his campaign. History illuminates but doesn't dictate. Run scared is the best advice for Mitt Romney. To win in November, run scared and keep the focus relentlessly on Mr. Obama's magnificent failures.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/04/obama_wins_close_or_loses_big.html#ixzz1t59ZotGH
-
Another Poll Of Independents Spells CATASTROPHE For Obama
Brett LoGiurato|Apr. 26, 2012, 11:28 AM|795|16
White House photo
This new Fox News poll shows a dead-heat between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, but there's an important underlier here that could be crucial as we move closer to the election in the fall.
Again, it's the Independents. Again, they are choosing Romney over Obama. But this time, there's a better measure of how concrete they are in their support of Romney over Obama.
Take a look at the following two questions from the Fox News poll. The question reads, "Which of the following best describes how you feel about voting for [Barack Obama or Mitt Romney] for president in November?"
This is Obama:
Fox News
This is Romney:
Fox News
Look at the Independent column. An astounding 54 percent of Independents would NEVER vote for Obama. That compares to just 37 percent for Romney. Also, more Independents (37 percent to 30 percent) would "definitely" vote for Romney.
This is all great news for Romney and bad news for Obama. As has been the trend, Independents trust him more on the issues they think are the most important in this election.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-independents-poll-catastrophe-2012-4#ixzz1tAkNHBJC
-
I really do think this is Romney's to lose, and Obama knows it. Why else is he engaging in this pathetic demagogic behavior
-
I really do think this is Romney's to lose, and Obama knows it. Why else is he engaging in this pathetic demagogic behavior
The funny thing to me is that you NEVEr hear obama ever talk about his record. Every day its one bogus red herring after another.
-
Great ad. FFFUUUBBBOOOO!!!!!!!
-
-
This is is a home run.
Even Morning Joke conceded this was devastating.
-
Rasmussen poll in Florida shows Romney edging Obama 46/45
Hotair ^ | 04/27/2012 | Ed Morrissey
Posted on Friday, April 27, 2012 11:07:19 AM by SeekAndFind
The election in November may come down to just three or four key states, and none of them as big as Florida. The diverse electorate and the high total of electoral votes make it a must-win for Mitt Romney and almost as important for Barack Obama, who won the state in 2008. Rasmussen’s latest Florida poll, out today, shows a virtual tie between the two, with Romney edging Obama by one point:
A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Voters in the Sunshine State finds Romney with 46% of the vote, while Obama earns 45% support. Six percent (6%) prefer some other candidate, and another three percent (3%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
In mid-March, the president held a three-point advantage over Romney, 46% to 43%. Obama led by a similar 47% to 44% margin inearly February.
Nationally, with Rick Santorum out of the Republican race and Newt Gingrich soon to quit, Romney has been running slightly ahead of the president in most daily matchups in recent weeks.
In case you’re wondering, the D/R/I of this sample is 33/33/35. In 2008, the turnout in Florida was 37/34/29 according to the CNN exit poll, but in the 2010 midterms, it was 36/36/29. In this case, Rasmussen might have slightly oversampled independents, but the relationship between Republicans and Democrats in this model looks sound.
That oversample might have helped Romney just a little, as he leads among independents 47/38, a bad sign for Obama’s chances in the Sunshine State. Obama has a wide lead among women at 55/37, but Romney has an even greater lead among men., 58/31, besting the gender gap total by nine points in the gaps. Obama wins the youth vote (18-39YOs) by only 12 points at 50/38, a surprisingly close score, while Romney wins majorities in the other two age demos, beating Obama by eight points among seniors, 52/44. Married votes support Romney 55/36, while singles back Obama 55/30. The income demos are mixed, with each candidate getting three of the six categories. Interestingly, Romney wins the under-$20K category by a wide margin, 53/40.
The rest of the poll shows bad news for Obama. Only 9% rate the economy as good, and no one calls it excellent. Fifty-two percent call it poor; 49% of independents think so, too. A narrow plurality of voters think the economy is getting worse than better, 43/37. A majority wants ObamaCare overturned, 50/35, and 59% oppose the individual mandate. Obama is slightly underwater on job approval 49/51.
However, his biggest problem in this poll is the topline number. After the bruising Republican primary, one might have thought that Obama’s re-elect number would have been much higher as the incumbent who rode above the fray. A 45% result at this stage isn’t a decisive indicator of losing the state, but it’s a bad result at this stage, with Romney just now starting to unite the GOP behind him.
-
What this thread needs is some more copy and paste.
-
What this thread needs is some more copy and paste.
What this thread needs is some more copy and paste.
What this thread needs is some more copy and paste.
What this thread needs is some more copy and paste.
What this thread needs is some more copy and paste.
What this thread needs is some more copy and paste.
What this thread needs is some more copy and paste.
-
What this thread needs is some more copy and paste.
What this thread needs is some more copy and paste.
What this thread needs is some more copy and paste.
What this thread needs is some more copy and paste.
What this thread needs is some more copy and paste.
What this thread needs is some more copy and paste.
What this thread needs is some more copy and paste.
What this thread needs is some more copy and paste.
What this thread needs is some more copy and paste.
What this thread needs is some more copy and paste.
What this thread needs is some more copy and paste.
What this thread needs is some more copy and paste.
What this thread needs is some more copy and paste.
What this thread needs is some more copy and paste.
What this thread needs is some more copy and paste.
What this thread needs is some more copy and paste.
What this thread needs is some more copy and paste.
What this thread needs is some more copy and paste.
What this thread needs is some more copy and paste.
What this thread needs is some more copy and paste.
What this thread needs is some more copy and paste.
What this thread needs is some more copy and paste.
What this thread needs is some more copy and paste.
What this thread needs is some more copy and paste.
What this thread needs is some more copy and paste.
What this thread needs is some more copy and paste.
What this thread needs is some more copy and paste.
What this thread needs is some more copy and paste.
What this thread needs is some more copy and paste.
What this thread needs is some more copy and paste.
What this thread needs is some more copy and paste.
What this thread needs is some more copy and paste.
What this thread needs is some more copy and paste.
What this thread needs is some more copy and paste.
What this thread needs is some more copy and paste.
What this thread needs is some more copy and paste.
What this thread needs is some more copy and paste.
-
Email Print 22Comments Share
April 29, 2012
The Jacksonian-Jeffersonian Vote
By Salena Zito
SOUTH PARK, PA -- John Opfar sat in the front row of a short riser at Consol Energy's South Park R&D facility just before Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney took to a makeshift stage.
Opfar, 31, is a safety inspector at Bailey Mine, 40 miles south in Greene County, in what can only be described as an engineering marvel -- the country's largest underground coal mine.
He said he likes what he hears from Romney, doesn't think Romney is at all like the descriptions in most press accounts, and cannot wait to vote for him: "He talks about what is best for the region and what is best for the country, growing our economy and creating jobs.
"That's all I need to hear."
By all accounts, this Western Pennsylvania coal miner (who could be on the cover of a Ralph Lauren catalog despite his hardhat, safety glasses and beige jumpsuit) should be supporting Barack Obama.
In spite of his working-class roots, Opfar said "that is not happening."
Two hours later, Romney was across the state in the cavernous warehouse of Stephanie "Sam" Fleetman's Chester County trucking company. Kimberly Wise, Fleetman's executive vice president, said her boss started Mustang Expediting in her parent's attic with a single phone line and, over three decades, grew it to more than 40 employees.
Wise has worked at the trucking company for 24 years. She's voted for presidential candidates of both parties but, after Romney's visit, said she is "absolutely" voting for him.
Most of the media coverage of the Fleetman event centered on whether Romney will pick U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio as his running mate after the Florida freshman joined him for a town-hall meeting in nearby Aston.
The real story, however, was the large number of women attending the event and the crowd's enthusiasm.
Romney spent time in Pennsylvania to plug holes in his demographic support: In the west, he pitched working-class Democrats and independents; in the east, he made an economic case to women, younger voters, Rockefeller Republicans and disenchanted Democrats who voted for Obama in 2008.
With Rubio, he reached out not only to Hispanics but to tea party supporters (by promoting a restoration of the American dream) and to students at Delaware County's many colleges (by saying that having half of new college graduates unemployed or underemployed is "unacceptable").
The Jacksonian-Jeffersonian voters who will swing this election in key battleground states are especially plentiful in the Keystone State and are most dissatisfied with the president's performance.
Pennsylvania tends to be a great tease for Republicans in general elections; 1988 was the last time a GOP presidential candidate won the state. Yet, because Pennsylvania is four points more Democrat than Ohio, Florida or Nevada, a close race here means those other states have left Obama.
"That is a problem," conceded Dane Strother, a Democrat strategist. "Romney sees opportunity in Pennsylvania and he is not shy about going for it."
Strother said coal country is a good story for Romney to tell and he is "absolutely" working to fill the gaps with voters of all denominations across the state.
"Look, he is not a dumb guy," Strother explained. "He knows he might not win Pennsylvania but playing there is smart. And if he can tighten the margins there, the president is in trouble."
The latest poll by Purple Strategies, conducted in 12 states that will make or break this race electorally, shows a swift tightening in those key battlegrounds, with Romney making remarkable gains on Obama in a very short time.
An interesting juxtaposition in the data shows Americans want to be optimistic (the trend line on the economy is better and people tend to think the country's best days are ahead) but they are staring reality in the face (jobs are hard to find, children won't do as well in the future), so they feel pessimistic.
Obama will blame it all on George Bush, the GOP and "fat cat" somethings, and will claim he is helping; Romney will blame it all on Democrats and Obama. Both will try to wear the "leadership for a better future" mantle.
Whichever campaign is more successful at fixing the blame, at owning the future, will probably win.
Salena Zito is a Pittsburgh Tribune-Review editorial page columnist. E-mail her at szito@tribweb.com
Email Print 22Comments Share
-
http://www.businessinsider.com/gallup-poll-romney-leads-obama-2012-4?utm_source=sailthrusuggest&utm_medium=rightrail&utm_term=&utm_content=&utm_campaign=recirc
Mittens back in the lead.
-
Nine horrendous Obama decisions Mitt Romney would never have made
Cain's Solutions Revolution ^ | April 30, 2012 | Herman Cain
Posted on April 30, 2012 1:08:43 PM EDT by sthguard
As we move into the general election campaign, with Mitt Romney facing Barack Obama in the presidential race, it’s important not to lose perspective on the very real differences between the two. That starts with the recognition that Obama has made some astonishingly ill-conceived decisions as president, and that Romney would never have done these things.
During a party’s nominating process for president – of which I was a part on the Republican side in this cycle – candidates do everything they can to differentiate themselves from each other. As the candidates focus on these differences and the media plays up the resulting conflicts, you could almost get the impression that some of us would have preferred Obama to some of our fellow Republicans.
Please!
Not only do I prefer Romney over Obama, it’s not even close. This is not to say that every proposed policy of Romney’s is exactly what I would propose. But in stepping back and looking at the big picture, you have to recognize that the next president’s task will be to fix enormous problems. You would want the new president, above all else, to be someone who would never have been so foolish as to make the decisions that a) created the problems; or b) made them worse.
Here are nine examples:
Mitt Romney would never have thrown $862 billion down a rat hole, claiming it to be “economic stimulus” that would keep unemployment from rising above 8 percent. Then, three years later when unemployment was still struggling to get back down below 8 percent, he would never be so brazen as to claim such a move had actually been successful.
Mitt Romney would never have signed ObamaCare into law. I know some think otherwise because the plan he implemented as governor of Massachusetts had some similar elements. But ObamaCare was sold to the public with blatantly dishonest numbers and hidden taxes, and rammed through Congress via a series of political giveaways that would embarrass the most shameless of con artists. Whatever your disagreements with the structure of MassCare, Romney would never have done any of that. And if an ObamaCare repeal reaches Romney’s desk, he will sign it.
Mitt Romney would never have exploded the deficit to more than $1 trillion a year, then allowed his Treasury Secretary tell the chairman of the House Budget Committee, regarding plans to fix the problem, “We don’t have a definitive solution, but we know we don’t like yours.”
Mitt Romney would not be running around claiming that businesses need to pay more in taxes. He would not try to tell CEOs what to do with their cash reserves (although he could do so much more competently than Obama, since unlike the president he actually knows a lot about business), because he knows that is not the president’s job. He understands that businesses are the ones who create jobs, and the last thing we need when the economy is struggling to create jobs is to increase the tax burden on businesses.
Mitt Romney would not attack people for being successful. He would not encourage the middle class to resent successful people, but instead would encourage them to learn from those who have been successful, and to seek opportunities from them.
Mitt Romney would never have promised the Russians he would give them what they want on missile defense as soon as he didn’t have to worry about those pesky voters anymore.
Mitt Romney would never have stonewalled efforts to make crucial energy supplies available to Americans, as Obama has done on everything from the Keystone XL pipeline to the opening of domestic oil supplies in offshore locations and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Mitt Romney would never have let Congress get away with not passing a budget at all for three years, while running up the nation’s credit card at unprecedented levels through a series of continuing resolutions that escape the light of public scrutiny.
Mitt Romney would never have blamed someone else for the continued impact of problems he was elected to fix – as Obama does endlessly.
This list could go on, but these nine are the some of the biggest things – and the big things matter most of all. Everyone involved with a primary campaign hopes their party will nominate the absolute perfect candidate, and when your guy doesn’t make it (or for some of us like me, when you don’t make it), you can fall into thinking that all is lost. There are actually people running around saying there is no difference between Romney and Obama.
People. Get a grip. The differences are huge. And it starts with understanding how many truly horrendous decisions Barack Obama has made since he took office, and recognizing that Mitt Romney is a man with solid experience and good judgment – and that he would never have made any of them.
-
Poll: Romney catches up to Obama in Florida, Ohio
Posted by
CNN's Gregory Wallace
(CNN) – Mitt Romney gained ground on President Barack Obama in the key states of Florida and Ohio over the last month, according to a poll of the battleground states released Thursday.
In Pennsylvania, which was also included in the Quinnipiac University battleground poll, Obama widened his six-point lead in March to an eight-point lead, 47% to 39%.
Romney and Obama were basically tied - 44% to 43% - in Florida, where Obama had a seven point advantage over Romney in the March 28 survey. In Ohio, Obama had 44% and Romney 42% in the state which went by six points for Obama in March.
Between the Quinnipiac surveys released in March and today, Romney's main rivals for the GOP nomination either exited the race or stepped down their criticism of the former Massachusetts governor, allowing him to focus his energy against Obama.
According to the poll, women tend towards Obama's candidacy in both Pennsylvania, where Obama leads Romney by 17%, and Ohio, where he leads by 13%. Romney has a 10-point advantage over Obama among men in Ohio, however in both Pennsylvania and Florida, men split nearly evenly.
The survey also indicated a majority of likely voters in each state say the US should not be involved in Afghanistan, where President Obama on Tuesday visited some of the 90,000 American troops stationed there.
Familiar names tied to the surveyed states top the poll's vice presidential inquiries. Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida is the pick of 40% of his home state, and Sen. Rob Portman is favored by 26% of Ohio voters. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie polled well in all three states, receiving the support of between 14% and 28% of voters.
Each of the three battleground state polls was conducted by telephone between April 25 and May 1. Each has a sampling error of plus or minus 2.9 percent.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/03/poll-romney-catches-up-to-obama-in-florida-ohio/
-
Poll: Romney catches Obama in Ohio, Florida but trails in Pa.
Chicago Tribune ^ | 03 MAY 12 | Kim Geiger
Posted on Thursday, May 03, 2012 5:20:27 PM by Drew68
WASHINGTON -- It’s been more than 50 years since a candidate has won the White House without carrying at least two of the three swing states of Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania, and a new poll shows Mitt Romney neck and neck with President Obama in two of them.
Romney, who trailed Obama 49% to 42% in Florida and 47% to 41% in Ohio in late March, is now statistically tied with the president, 44% to 43% in Florida and 42% to 44% in Ohio, according to a new Quinnipiac University poll of voters in the three states.
Obama, however, has improved on his lead in Pennsylvania, where he beats Romney 47% to 39%, up from the 45%-42% lead he enjoyed in March.
Quinnipiac surveyed 3,467 voters in the three states in interviews on cellphones and land lines from April 25 through May 1. The results of the survey, which has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.9 percentage points, led Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the university’s polling institute, to conclude that Obama is doing “slightly better” than Romney in the three states.
“What appears to be keeping Romney in the ballgame, at least in Florida and Ohio, is the perception he can better fix the economy,” Brown said.
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
-
Poll: Obama ahead of Romney in Virginia
Posted by
CNN's Ashley Killough
(CNN) - As President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney campaign in Virginia this week, a new poll shows the president with a seven point advantage over his likely opponent in the Commonwealth.
Fifty-one percent of voters said they would vote for the president if the election were held today, while 44% said Romney, according to the Washington Post poll released Thursday.
– Follow the Ticker on Twitter: @PoliticalTicker
Virginia will be crucial battleground territory this fall, as Obama attempts to capture the state as he did in 2008, with 53% of the vote. He was the first Democrat to win Virginia in a presidential election since 1964.
In the last four years, however, the state has elected a Republican governor, Bob McDonnell, and the GOP picked up the state's House of Delegates and three U.S. House seats. Some of the traditionally Democratic districts in the state especially turned out for McDonnell in 2009.
A major Senate race is also underway in Virginia between two former governors–Democrat Tim Kaine and Republican George Allen. Despite the two candidates actively campaigning for months, recent polls show the race in a dead heat.
Romney has been courting votes and money in Virginia this week, making campaign stops with McDonnell and touting an endorsement from Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann in Portsmouth on Thursday.
"Now politics is underway, it's underway again. You're going to hear it all right here in Virginia," Romney said at the Portsmouth event. "This may well be the state who decides who the next president is."
Meanwhile, Obama will officially kick off his re-election campaign with rallies in Virginia and Ohio on Saturday, with the Virginia event scheduled to be at the Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond.
The Washington Post interviewed 1,101 adults in Virginia by telephone, including 964 registered voters, between April 28 and May 2. The poll has a sampling error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/03/poll-obama-ahead-of-romney-in-virginia/
-
WAPO poll is wortheless as it over samples demo voters and goes on registered vs likely.
Gallup and RAS are still the two best
-
http://images.politico.com/global/2012/05/bg_47_questionnaire.html
Third poll today that has mittens up.
FUBO !!!!!!!
-
Politico/GWU/Battleground
4/29 - 5/3
1000 LV
47
48
Romney +1
Rasmussen Tracking
5/4 - 5/6
1500 LV
45
47
Romney +2
Gallup Tracking
5/1 - 5/5
2200 RV
45
46
Romney +1
Democracy Corps (D)
4/28 - 5/1
1000 LV
47
47
Tie
FOX News
4/22 - 4/24 915 RV 46 46 Tie
-
Battleground Poll: Obama, Romney in dead heat (Romney 48, Obama 47)
Politico ^ | 05/07/2012 | James Hohmann
A new POLITICO/George Washington University Battleground Poll finds a dead heat in the presidential race six months before the election.
Mitt Romney edged out President Barack Obama 48 percent to 47 percent among likely voters, a number well within the margin of error, as Republicans rapidly consolidate behind the likely GOP nominee.
The former Massachusetts governor has opened up a 10-point lead, 48 percent to 38 percent, among independents in a poll conducted Sunday, April 29 through Thursday, May 3 and a 6-point lead among those who describe themselves as “extremely likely” to vote in November. Obama led Romney by 9 points overall in POLITICO’s February’s poll.
But there are suggestions that these numbers are extremely fluid: Obama holds double-digit leads over the presumptive Republican nominee on issues such as who will better handle foreign policy and who will stand up for the middle class and on “sharing your values.” But enduring concern about the economy — by far the most important issue to voters — keeps the president in a tenuous position despite employment numbers that show slight but steady improvement.
While approval of Congress remains in the basement at 13 percent, the poll shows that voters aren’t inclined to throw all the bums out in another major push for change.
The GOP has taken a narrow 45 percent to 43 percent lead on the generic congressional ballot, according to the poll, and 65 percent believe Republicans will continue to control the House majority after the election. Forty-one percent believe Democrats will keep the Senate majority.
Despite the buzz about who will be Romney’s vice presidential pick, nearly two-thirds of respondents said the vice presidential nominee will not affect their vote. Of the 35 percent who said it will have an impact, just 7 percent described the veep choice as extremely important to their decision.
The president’s job approval rating stands at 48 percent, down 5 points from February and a number now equal to the percentage of voters who disapprove of Obama’s performance.
The results signal that as the general election phase of the campaign gets under way, who will win the presidency is a jump ball.
A full 91 percent of Republicans support Romney, slightly exceeding the percentage of Democrats who support Obama.
Democratic pollster Celinda Lake, who helped conduct the bipartisan poll, called it “a predictable tightening of the race.”
“You have both sides very consolidated,” she said. “There are no signs of fissures on either side, but you have the Democrats less enthusiastic than the Republicans.”
Americans are split evenly about Obama’s economic policies: Forty percent said he’s made the economy better; 39 percent said he’s made it worse; and 19 percent said he’s had no impact on it.
Republican pollster Ed Goeas of The Tarrance Group said the 19 percent who don’t think Obama has affected the economy — which split 46 percent for Romney and 44 percent for Obama — will decide the election.
“Do they break to believing the economy is better? Do they break to believing the economy is not better?” he said Sunday. “Watch that. It’s key.”
Voters have mixed feelings about the direction of the economy: Forty-two percent believe its growing; 22 percent think it’s not moving; and 34 percent believe it’s either in a recession or approaching one.
That split exists despite 59 percent of respondents saying the country is headed down the wrong track. Just one-third believe the country is moving in the right direction, a troublingly low number for any incumbent.
Most respondents have already made up their minds about how to vote in the fall: Forty-three percent said with certainty they will vote to reelect Obama, and 42 percent said they will vote to replace the president. Eleven percent said they will consider voting for someone else.
A gender gap still exists, but it appears to be narrowing. Obama leads among women by 7 percentage points, while Romney has the same lead among male voters. But among women younger than 45 , Obama leads 57 percent to 39 percent. Yet Romney leads among women older than 45, 50 percent to 45 percent. The Republican also leads among white women, 57 percent to 38 percent.
The electorate continues to overwhelmingly agree the most important issues in the election are the economy (28 percent), government spending (17 percent) and jobs (14 percent). A problem for the president: A plurality of voters disapproves of Obama’s performance in these three critical areas.
But that doesn’t mean Romney has a decisive advantage. On who specifically would better handle job creation, Obama leads Romney, 48 percent to 46 percent. On who would better guide the economy as a whole, Romney leads, 48 percent to 45 percent.
Anti-Obama sentiment continues to be more intense than pro-Obama sentiment. For example, twice as many voters strongly disapprove of the president’s handling of the economy as those who strongly approve. On the budget and spending, it’s a nearly 3-to-1 ratio.
Romney, a former Bain Capital executive, has pitched himself as a turnaround specialist who can be a strong economic steward. The Obama campaign, trying to disqualify him in the eyes of voters, is working to define him as someone more concerned with creating wealth for himself and his rich friends than with creating jobs for everyday folks.
There are signs that effort is paying dividends and that many voters don’t believe Romney feels their pain. Obama has a 10-point edge, 50 percent to 40 percent, on the question of who “sharing your values.” Obama also has an advantage, 58 percent to 35 percent, on who stands up more for the middle class.
Obama’s 10-point edge on the “sharing your values” question is significant for the president because the issue has historically correlated closely to voter preference in the fall.
“For decades, the Democrats were at a disadvantage on ‘shares our values’ because it was more a moral dimension,” Lake said. “Now it seems to be more of an economic ‘in-touch-with-my-life-economically’ dimension. That allows the Democrats to be a lot more competitive on it.”
Those numbers help explain why the Romney campaign is trying to keep the election a referendum on Obama’s job performance as much as possible, focusing specifically on his stewardship of the economy. The high command in Boston realizes that the more the election is about Romney as the alternative, the harder it will be for him to win.
The unemployment rate, which dipped to 8.1 percent in April despite a tepid number of new jobs because people have stopped looking for work, plays a large role in how voters assess the nation’s economic health. When read a list of seven indicators, 46 percent identified “the number of Americans who have a job” as the best way to judge economic strength. One-sixth cited the best indicator of economic strength as their personal ability to pay bills and have some money left over. Only 5 percent named gas prices.
The president has a 13-point edge over Romney, 51 percent to 38 percent, on who is better equipped to handle foreign policy, an area that has been the GOP’s domain. The poll was in the field during intensive coverage of the one-year anniversary of the raid that killed Osama bin Laden.
The president has a historically unusual 6-point edge over Romney on tax policy, but he must tread cautiously. Fifty percent disapprove of his handling of the issue.
While there is general support for high tax rates for millionaires, voters harbor deep suspicions about how Obama would spend the money. Seven in 10 said they want any additional revenue to help pay down the deficit, but 61 percent think the president would use it for increased domestic spending.
A good sign for Romney is that he performed just as well against Obama as a generic, unnamed Republican candidate. Coming out of the primaries, 56 percent of all voters approve of him on a personal level.
The president continues to maintain an impressive reservoir of goodwill among voters. Seventy percent have a positive personal impression of Obama. Only 25 percent disapprove of him personally. But among the one-quarter of voters who like Obama personally but don’t like the job he’s doing, 68 percent said they will vote to replace him.
The poll asked voters whether Romney’s membership in the Mormon Church will affect their vote. While 81 percent insisted it will make no difference, 16 percent acknowledged it makes them less likely to support him. This fits with other public polls.
The POLITICO/George Washington University Battleground Poll of 1,000 likely voters was conducted from April 29 to May 3 by The Tarrance Group and Lake Research Partners. The nationwide telephone survey had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points. For the first time, the poll included cellphone users. They make up a quarter of the sample.
-
ppl already know all of the negatives about obama.
they don't know much about mitt.
the thing is, some ppl campaign and people like them more. others - like rudy - decreased everywhere they went because they just weren't good with people. fred thompson was like that too.
which is mitt? will people like him?
-
Romney polling well with independents as Obama campaign kicks off
By Bill Plante .
Play CBS News Video
(CBS News) WASHINGTON - A new Politico-George Washington University poll shows Mitt Romney leading President Obama by one point, 48 to 47 percent.
In that poll, independent voters prefered Romney by a ten-point margin.
Over the weekend, meanwhile, the president formally started campaigning for another four years in office.
Unofficially, the president's re-election campaign has been under way for several months.
If you look at his speeches to large audiences in swing states, they look and sound a lot like campaign rallies.
But over the weekend, he made it official - and if you live in one of the key states he needs to carry, you're starting to see campaign ads like this: "We're coming back because America's greatness comes from a strong middle class. Because you don't quit, and neither does he."
The Obama campaign was out Monday morning with its most significant ad buy yet, in 9 states, touting the administration's accomplishments during the president's first term.
Full CBSNews.com coverage: Election 2012
It came as Mr. Obama officially launched his campaign in two key states, Ohio and Virginia.
"We are still fired up! We are still ready to go!" he told backers at one rally.
The president hit Republican rival Mitt Romney on a number of fronts.
On women, he said, "We don't need another political fight about ending a woman's right to choose, or getting rid of Planned Parenthood."
On Romney's view of big corporations: "I don't care how many ways you try to explain it: Corporations aren't people. People are people."
And he showed off his new campaign motto: "Forward."
"The question that will actually make a difference in your life and in the lives of your children," the president said, "is not just about how we're doing today. It's about how we'll be doing tomorrow."
The Romney campaign hit back, accusing the president of moving the goal posts for success to a second term, and arguing that Americans aren't better off now than they were four years ago.
Despite a brutal primary battle, polls show Romney will be competitive in the 11 battleground states where this campaign will be fought.
And former Romney rival Newt Gingrich said on the CBS' "Face the Nation" Sunday that Republicans are now united on the core issue of the election.
"The choice," Gingrich said, "is the most radical president in American history and a failed president at the economy and somebody who has a solid record on jobs and who, in fact, on basic principles, is a conservative."
"Conservative" is one of the tags Mr. Obama will try to pin on Romney, recycling Romney's attempts to appeal to tea party voters during the Republican primaries.
Meanwhile, the president may have a little work to do to boost enthusiasm among his own supporters: Even though there were 14,000 people at one of those rallies over the weekend, there were still 4,000 empty seats.
To see Bill Plante's report, click on the video in the player above.
-
http://www.businessinsider.com/mitt-romney-barack-obama-swing-state-polls-2012-5
240 is not going to be thrilled.
-
http://www.businessinsider.com/mitt-romney-barack-obama-swing-state-polls-2012-5
240 is not going to be thrilled.
i just went and adopted a baby seal that i can club later today once i click the link and grow angry.
-
i just went and adopted a baby seal that i can club later today once i click the link and grow angry.
240 - if obama loses - what do you think will be the main reason why?
-
240 - if obama loses - what do you think will be the main reason why?
people were unable to differentiate between his policies and those of Romney, so they went with something different for the hell of it.
-
240 - if obama loses - what do you think will be the main reason why?
Romney will have outspent him in a 7-to-1 ratio.
You know, the way he barely scraped by Santorum by outspending him like crazy.
-
Romney will have outspent him in a 7-to-1 ratio.
You know, the way he barely scraped by Santorum by outspending him like crazy.
So it will have nothing to do with obama's record?
-
So it will have nothing to do with obama's record?
That will be the fuel romney uses for his lukewarm "vote for me because i'm not obama" campaign.
But he's yet to deliver an alternative message. He half-ass supports that insane paul ryan plan that hands the farm to the wealthy and will sink with moderates. He just "yep yep"s his way thru interviews, saying as little as possible to avoid controversy.
He may win this way, but it's not likely. ROn Paul promised today to repeal EVERY SINGLE ONE of Obama's executive orders, on his first day of office. That's some bold stuff. Will ROmney go that route?
-
Romney will have outspent him in a 7-to-1 ratio.
You know, the way he barely scraped by Santorum by outspending him like crazy.
and that's keeping in mind that Santorum is crazier than a shit house rat
-
and that's keeping in mind that Santorum is crazier than a shit house rat
yeah, i think most people would agree romney underperformed against a very weak GOP field.
In a primary with the top republicans (Jeb, McDonnell, mitch daniels), the sideshows like cain and trump would have never gotten any traction.
Romney should have won this thing easily. Getting beat by newt in SC was sad to see. He underperformed, we can all agree there.
-
Obama Campaign Blasts Mitt Romney for Initial Silence After Supporter Says President...'Treason’
The Boston Globe ^ | Monday, May 7, 2012 | Callum Borchers
Posted on May 7, 2012 6:34:11 PM EDT by kristinn
...After Supporter Says President ‘Should be tried for treason’
The Obama campaign slammed Mitt Romney Monday for not confronting a supporter who said during a town hall event in Cleveland that the president “should be tried for treason.”
“We have a president right now that is operating outside the structure of our Constitution,” a woman said during a question-and-answer session. “And I want to know — yeah, I do agree he should be tried for treason — but I want to know what you would be able to do to restore balance between the three branches of government and what you are going to be able to do to restore our Constitution in this country.”
Romney, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, ignored the treason comment and answered her question.
“Well, as I’m sure you do, I happen to believe the Constitution was not just brilliant but probably inspired,” he said. “I happen to believe the same thing about the Declaration of Independence. I would respect the different branches of government if I am fortunate enough to become president.”
SNIP
“Time after time in this campaign, Mitt Romney has had the opportunity to show that he has the fortitude to stand up to hateful and over-the-line rhetoric and time after time, he has failed to do so,” campaign spokeswoman Lis Smith said in a statement. “If this is the ‘leadership’ he has shown on the campaign trail, what can the American people expect of him as commander-in-chief?”
Romney repeated his position shortly after the event during an interview on CNN but rejected the notion that he had a responsibility to take on the audience member.
“I don’t correct all of the questions that get asked of me.” Romney said.
(Excerpt) Read more at bostonglobe.com ...
-
Obama Campaign Blasts Mitt Romney for Initial Silence After Supporter Says President...'Treason’
The Boston Globe ^ | Monday, May 7, 2012 | Callum Borchers
Posted on May 7, 2012 6:34:11 PM EDT by kristinn
...After Supporter Says President ‘Should be tried for treason’
The Obama campaign slammed Mitt Romney Monday for not confronting a supporter who said during a town hall event in Cleveland that the president “should be tried for treason.”
“We have a president right now that is operating outside the structure of our Constitution,” a woman said during a question-and-answer session. “And I want to know — yeah, I do agree he should be tried for treason — but I want to know what you would be able to do to restore balance between the three branches of government and what you are going to be able to do to restore our Constitution in this country.”
Romney, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, ignored the treason comment and answered her question.
“Well, as I’m sure you do, I happen to believe the Constitution was not just brilliant but probably inspired,” he said. “I happen to believe the same thing about the Declaration of Independence. I would respect the different branches of government if I am fortunate enough to become president.”
SNIP
“Time after time in this campaign, Mitt Romney has had the opportunity to show that he has the fortitude to stand up to hateful and over-the-line rhetoric and time after time, he has failed to do so,” campaign spokeswoman Lis Smith said in a statement. “If this is the ‘leadership’ he has shown on the campaign trail, what can the American people expect of him as commander-in-chief?”
Romney repeated his position shortly after the event during an interview on CNN but rejected the notion that he had a responsibility to take on the audience member.
“I don’t correct all of the questions that get asked of me.” Romney said.
(Excerpt) Read more at bostonglobe.com ...
Really? Is that what everybody has thier panties in a wad over? If this is all they have, we might be seeing a Mondale style landslide.
-
Daily Presidential Tracking Poll (Romney 49; Obama 44; Ind 3; Undec 3)
Rasmussen ^ | 5-8-12 | Rasmussen
Posted on Tuesday, May 08, 2012 9:39:41 AM by Mikey_1962
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows Mitt Romney earning 49% of the vote and President Obama attracting 44% support. Three percent (3%) would vote for a third party candidate, while another three percent (3%) are undecided.
Matchup results are updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern (sign up for free daily e-mail update).
The uptick for Romney comes as investor confidence has fallen six points in the wake of last week’s disappointing jobs report. Looking ahead five years, just 44% of Americans believe the nation’s economy will be stronger than it is today. That’s the lowest level of long-term optimism ever measured.
Still, it’s important to note that the presidential race has remained very close in recent weeks. Romney has had the advantage on six of the last 12 days, and Obama has held the edge six times. It remains to be seen whether today’s results represent a lasting change or are merely statistical noise. Romney’s support has remained within three points of 46% every day for more than two months. Obama’s numbers have stayed within two points of 45% every day for nearly two months.
-
Obama, the Underdog
Ebbing enthusiasm among the president’s base points to the possibility of a decisive defeat.
Share on facebookShare on twitterShare on emailMore Sharing Services
Updated: May 9, 2012 | 6:31 a.m.
May 8, 2012 | 9:30 p.m.
AP Photo/Charles Dharapak
Brave face. Obama makes the hard sell.
This presidential election is coming down to two immutable facts that have become increasingly clear as November draws closer: President Obama will be running for a second term under a stagnant economy, and his two most significant legislative accomplishments—health care reform and a job-goosing stimulus—remain deeply unpopular. It doesn’t take a professional pundit to recognize that’s a very tough ticket for reelection.
But there is a glaring disconnect between the conventional wisdom, which still maintains that Obama has a slight edge in the electoral-map math, and the fundamentals pointing to the possibility of a decisive defeat for the president.
The three most recent national polls—Democracy Corps (D), Gallup/USA Today, and the Politico/George Washington University Battleground Poll—underscore how tough a reelection campaign Obama faces and why it’s fair to call him an underdog at this point. He’s stuck at 47 percent against Mitt Romney in all three surveys, with the small slice of undecided voters tilting against the president. His job approval ranges from 45 percent (Democracy Corps) to 48 percent (Battleground). Those numbers are hardly devastating, but given today’s polarized electorate, they’re not encouraging either.
Obama’s scores on the economy are worsening, even as voters still have mixed feelings on who’s to blame. In the Battleground survey, nearly as many voters now blame Obama for the state of the economy (39 percent) as those who don’t think it’s his fault (40 percent). In both the Battleground and Democracy Corps polls, 33 percent said the country is on the right track, with 59 percent saying it’s on the wrong track—numbers awfully similar to the state of play right before the 2010 Republican landslide. These are several leading indicators that suggest the trajectory could well get worse for the president as the election nears.
And the survey data suggest that Republicans in Congress, unlike their Newt Gingrich-led counterparts in 1996, aren’t shaping up to be the reviled opposition (yet) that the White House is hoping they’ll be. The Battleground survey found Republicans leading Democrats by 2 points on the generic congressional ballot, while Democracy Corps found Democrats in Congress with only a slightly higher approval score (43.1) than Republicans (41.2). If the public favors Hill Democrats, it’s by a narrow margin.
The other big red flag for the president is the waning enthusiasm of his base—college-age voters, African-Americans, and Hispanics. The most recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll showed that fewer than half of voters (45 percent) ages 18-34 expressed a high interest in the election, down 17 points from the same time four years ago. Democratic enthusiasm overall is down 16 points from 2008, and it now lags behind the GOP.
This is critical, because, for Obama, excitement is as important as persuasion. It’s no coincidence that Obama held his first two rallies on college campuses. Obama campaign officials have been anticipating an upward tick in the minority share of the electorate for 2012 to compensate for the expected loss of older, white voters, and they are counting on college students to organize and rally behind the president, like they did for him in 2008. Those assumptions are hardly guaranteed.
While the campaign generated loud, enthusiastic crowds in Columbus, Ohio, and Richmond, Va., it fell thousands short of packing the 18,000-seat arena at Ohio State. For most candidates, gathering thousands at any event is impressive, but for a president so dependent on that segment of his coalition, it’s a glaring shortfall. For comparison’s sake: Before the 2010 midterms, Obama drew more than 35,000 students to the Ohio State campus to rally supporters for then-Gov. Ted Strickland.
Actions speak louder than spin, and the moves of Obama’s campaign officials this past week indicate they are awfully worried about their prospects. The most recent telltale sign is that they went up with an early, expensive $25 million ad buy on Monday in nine swing states, attempting to reintroduce the president in the best possible way. This was no rinky-dink purchase; it cost nearly one-quarter of the Obama campaign’s war chest of $104 million at the beginning of April. Going up with such a significant buy so early is the equivalent of abandoning the running game in football when your team is down by a couple of touchdowns.
The ad itself is in search of a cohesive message. The first part underscores how severe the recession was, as a preemptive defense for why the economy hasn’t turned around faster. The second half argues that America is “coming back,” thanks to job growth over the past year. It’s that part that will prove to be a tough sell. Indeed, it was top Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg who advised the campaign in February that this is the type of message -- saying things are getting better when voters don’t agree -- that polls miserably “and produces disastrous results.”
But Obama’s campaign officials can’t utilize the time-tested “are you better than you were four years ago” message because it doesn’t ring true, so they have to argue things are getting a little better and the administration needs more time. It shows how limited the Obama playbook is this time around—mobilize the base, lambaste the opposition, and hope enough independents will hold their nose and vote for you. It’s hard to believe that Obama’s campaign is confident of victory, as Time’s Mark Halperin reported on Monday. More likely, campaign officials are putting on an awfully good game face in light of what promises to be a very challenging reelection.
This article appeared in the Wednesday, May 9, 2012 edition of National Journal Daily.
Want to stay ahead of the curve? Sign up for National Journal’s AM & PM Must Reads. News and analysis to ensure you don’t miss a thing.
LANDSLIDE COMING.
-
http://www.gallup.com/home.aspx
LANDSLIDE COMING
-
Carville: Wake up Democrats; you could lose
By James Carville, CNN Contributor
updated 1:34 PM EDT, Wed May 9, 2012
(CNN) -- A long time ago a great three-time governor of Louisiana, Earl Long, said about Jimmie Davis, the two-time not very good governor of Louisiana, "You couldn't wake up Jimmie Davis with an earthquake."
As I go around the country and see various Democrats and talk to them on the phone, honestly I'm beginning to think that we have become the party of Jimmie Davis.
My message is simple: WTFU. Translated -- wake the you-know-what up, there is an earthquake.
You think that Democrats around the country are going to win -- as I hear time and time again from people on the street.
Democratic fundraisers, activists, supporters, and even politicians alike have somehow collectively lapsed into the sentiment that the president is going to be reelected and that we have a good shot to take the House back while holding the Senate.
I ask: What are you smoking? What are you drinking? What are you snorting or just what in the hell are you thinking?
Look around the world -- do you see any governments or incumbents winning any elections out there? Did it happen in small elections in Germany or Britain, big elections in France and Greece or how about huge elections in the United States in 2008 and 2010? Please folks -- wake up!
The polling? Not that encouraging. The latest Democracy Corps poll was 47-47. The Real Clear Politics average of polls has the president up a whopping three-tenths of a percentage point. And I am hearing the garbage that Democratic donors are telling Democratic fundraisers ..."Obama has it in the bag."
Newsflash: Nothing is in the bag. Nothing can be taken for granted. Everybody from the precinct door-knocker, to the Chicago high command, to the White House, to the halls of Congress, to the Senate and House committees, to congressional leadership, here is a simple message: If we don't get on the offense, reconnect with the American people, talk about how the middle class is in a struggle for its very existence, hold the Republicans accountable and fight like the dickens, we are going to lose.
You can shoot five Bin Ladens, you can save 10,000 banks and 20 car companies, even pass the most sweeping legislation in modern American history; if people don't think that you are connected to their lives and are fighting for their interests they will vote your tush out of office in a nano-second. For historical reference see Winston Churchill election of 1945 and President George H.W. Bush in 1992.
So, fellow Democrats -- we've got a fight on our hands. We've got to fight in the same way that the people we care most about have fought for quite some time.
They have been crushed by high health care costs, soaring education costs, stagnant wages and financial bailouts for irresponsible firms.
Combine all of this with the fact that the Republicans are raising not millions, not tens of millions, but potentially hundreds of millions of dollars from the pollution industry as result of Citizens United v. FEC.
There is a full-fledged legislative agenda in many states to keep Democrats from even voting. We are literally being attacked from every side while simultaneously being lulled into some self-induced stupor thinking that this thing is somehow in the bag. It is not.
Oh I know what you are going to say, "Look at Mitt Romney, look how pathetic he is..." Actually pathetic is a kind word for Romney and this campaign. Mitt Romney is to presidential campaigns as the Delta House grade point average was to Faber College -- the worst in history. I mean, my God, when you hold a press conference to rebut charges that you have a Cold War mentality and then you have foreign policy "experts" talk about Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union in "contemporary" terms -- really?
I know that the Swiss and Cayman Island bank accounts drive swing voters and independents over the edge. I've gotten all of the reports from focus group moderators as to how devastating this is to Romney.
Why a man who knows he is running for president (who claims to know something about the American economy) would for any reason keep money in offshore accounts, I have no idea. And I know that we are going to take him out to the cornfield (like at the end of the movie "Casino") on the Ryan budget.
However, I fear that all of this will not be enough unless we have a real change of attitude about the difficult campaign ahead of us. It has been said that, "Nothing so focuses a man's attention as the prospect of being hanged." Look around Democrats -- Come November let's make sure that it's Mitt and his bunch at the end of that figurative rope and not us.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/08/opinion/carville-democrats-could-lose/index.html
-
.
-
.
He is so full of shit. If this ghetto street thug is FORCING ME TO PAY FOR OTHERS' BIRTH CONTROL then he is infringing on my liberty.
FUBO!!!!
-
He is so full of shit. If this ghetto street thug is FORCING ME TO PAY FOR OTHERS' BIRTH CONTROL then he is infringing on my liberty.
FUBO!!!!
You are already paying for bombs in Iraq etc so this should not really be an issue should it?
-
He is so full of shit. If this ghetto street thug is FORCING ME TO PAY FOR OTHERS' BIRTH CONTROL then he is infringing on my liberty.
FUBO!!!!
.
-
.
Pay for your own BC gaybear!
-
Pay for your own BC gaybear!
I do because I have sex.
Guess you don't have to worry about it.
-
Romney Should Win in a Landslide
By Dick Morris
If the election were held today, Mitt Romney would win by a landslide.
The published polls reflect a close race for two reasons:
1. They poll only registered voters, not likely voters. Rasmussen is the only pollster who tests likely voters, and his latest tracking poll has Romney ahead by 48-43.2. As discussed in previous columns, a study of the undecided voters in the past eight elections in which incumbents sought a second term as president reveals that only Bush-43 gained any of the undecided vote. Johnson in ’64, Nixon in ’72, Ford in ’76, Carter in ’80, Reagan in ’84, Bush in ’92 and Clinton in ’96 all failed to pick up a single undecided vote.
So when polls show President Obama at 45 percent of the vote, they are really reflecting a likely 55-45 Romney victory, at the very least.
Gallup has amassed over 150,000 interviews over all of 2011 and compared them with a like number in 2010. It finds that Obama has a better than 50 percent job approval in only 10 states and the District of Columbia. And his approval has dropped in almost every single state. Even in California, it has fallen from 55 percent in 2010 to
50.5 percent in 2011.
Over the period of May 4-6, I completed a poll of 400 likely voters in Michigan and found Romney leading by 45-43! And Michigan is one of the most pro-Democrat of the swing states.
I also found that Obama’s personal favorability, which has usually run about 10 to 20 points higher than his job approval, is now equal to his job rating. In Michigan, his personal favorability among likely voters is 47-47, while his job rating is 50-48. Romney’s favorability is 49-42.
Obama’s crashing personal favorability reflects the backlash from his recent speeches. In substance, their focus on class warfare and their bombastic, demagogic style are not playing well with the voters. They do not seem in the least presidential.
Nor does his message of attacking Big Oil seem constructive. Voters all distrust Big Oil and would rather see them get punished, but they do not see in repealing their tax breaks a way of lowering prices at the pump or of increasing the supply of oil.
Obama’s trip to Afghanistan looks like grandstanding, and his insinuation that Romney would never have launched the strike looks like a low partisan blow.
Obama cannot summon the commitment he got in 2008 by negatives or partisanship. It was precisely to change the “toxic” atmosphere in Washington that he was elected. To fan it now is not the way to regain the affection of those who have turned on him.
If the election were held today, Obama would lose by at least 10 points and would carry only about a dozen states with fewer than 150 electoral votes.
And the Republicans would keep their Senate seats in Arizona, Texas and Nevada while picking up seats in Virginia, Florida, Indiana, Nebraska, North Dakota, New Mexico, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Missouri and Montana. The GOP will also have good shots at victory in the Senate races in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and — if Chris Shays wins the primary — Connecticut. Only in Maine are their fortunes likely to dim.
The journalists in the mainstream media, who are not politicians and have never run campaigns, do not realize what is happening. The Democrats, as delusional in 2012 as they were in 2010, are too much into their own euphoria to realize it. But America is sharply and totally rejecting Obama and all he stands for and embracing Romney as a good alternative. While few are saying these words, they are the truth.
Morris, a former political adviser to Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and President Bill Clinton, is the author of "Outrage." To get all of Dick Morris’s and Eileen McGann’s columns for free by email, go to www.dickmorris.com.
LANDSLIDE COMING
ENJOY WHAT IS LEFT OF THE OBAMANATION YOU LEFTIST THUGS - ITS ALL ENDING IN A FEW MONTHS.
-
He is so full of shit. If this ghetto street thug is FORCING ME TO PAY FOR OTHERS' BIRTH CONTROL then he is infringing on my liberty.
FUBO!!!!
those sluts
-
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
LANDSLIDE AND TIDAL WAVE COMING.
-
.
-
.
50 - 42 RAS.
-
Who makes you scream at your monitor more, Barack or Michelle?
-
Romney Should Win in a Landslide
By Dick Morris
If the election were held today, Mitt Romney would win by a landslide.
The published polls reflect a close race for two reasons:
1. They poll only registered voters, not likely voters. Rasmussen is the only pollster who tests likely voters, and his latest tracking poll has Romney ahead by 48-43.2. As discussed in previous columns, a study of the undecided voters in the past eight elections in which incumbents sought a second term as president reveals that only Bush-43 gained any of the undecided vote. Johnson in ’64, Nixon in ’72, Ford in ’76, Carter in ’80, Reagan in ’84, Bush in ’92 and Clinton in ’96 all failed to pick up a single undecided vote.
So when polls show President Obama at 45 percent of the vote, they are really reflecting a likely 55-45 Romney victory, at the very least.
Gallup has amassed over 150,000 interviews over all of 2011 and compared them with a like number in 2010. It finds that Obama has a better than 50 percent job approval in only 10 states and the District of Columbia. And his approval has dropped in almost every single state. Even in California, it has fallen from 55 percent in 2010 to
50.5 percent in 2011.
Over the period of May 4-6, I completed a poll of 400 likely voters in Michigan and found Romney leading by 45-43! And Michigan is one of the most pro-Democrat of the swing states.
I also found that Obama’s personal favorability, which has usually run about 10 to 20 points higher than his job approval, is now equal to his job rating. In Michigan, his personal favorability among likely voters is 47-47, while his job rating is 50-48. Romney’s favorability is 49-42.
Obama’s crashing personal favorability reflects the backlash from his recent speeches. In substance, their focus on class warfare and their bombastic, demagogic style are not playing well with the voters. They do not seem in the least presidential.
Nor does his message of attacking Big Oil seem constructive. Voters all distrust Big Oil and would rather see them get punished, but they do not see in repealing their tax breaks a way of lowering prices at the pump or of increasing the supply of oil.
Obama’s trip to Afghanistan looks like grandstanding, and his insinuation that Romney would never have launched the strike looks like a low partisan blow.
Obama cannot summon the commitment he got in 2008 by negatives or partisanship. It was precisely to change the “toxic” atmosphere in Washington that he was elected. To fan it now is not the way to regain the affection of those who have turned on him.
If the election were held today, Obama would lose by at least 10 points and would carry only about a dozen states with fewer than 150 electoral votes.
And the Republicans would keep their Senate seats in Arizona, Texas and Nevada while picking up seats in Virginia, Florida, Indiana, Nebraska, North Dakota, New Mexico, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Missouri and Montana. The GOP will also have good shots at victory in the Senate races in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and — if Chris Shays wins the primary — Connecticut. Only in Maine are their fortunes likely to dim.
The journalists in the mainstream media, who are not politicians and have never run campaigns, do not realize what is happening. The Democrats, as delusional in 2012 as they were in 2010, are too much into their own euphoria to realize it. But America is sharply and totally rejecting Obama and all he stands for and embracing Romney as a good alternative. While few are saying these words, they are the truth.
Morris, a former political adviser to Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and President Bill Clinton, is the author of "Outrage." To get all of Dick Morris’s and Eileen McGann’s columns for free by email, go to www.dickmorris.com.
LANDSLIDE COMING
ENJOY WHAT IS LEFT OF THE OBAMANATION YOU LEFTIST THUGS - ITS ALL ENDING IN A FEW MONTHS.
SInce when does anyone take Dick Morris seriously?
-
Who's in first in the NL West?
Well, whoever it is, that's probably who will win the World Series.
Makes sense, right?
-
SInce when does anyone take Dick Morris seriously?
Since he predicted the woodshed whipping that the Dems would take two years ago, in the 2010 midterms?
-
Who's in first in the NL West?
Well, whoever it is, that's probably who will win the World Series.
Makes sense, right?
And what's Obama going to do, to catch Romney again?
Create more jobs? NOPE!!
Lower gas prices? Don't bet on it!
Pander to more homosexuals? He's doing that now, but Gallup reports that 60% of voters say Obama's so-called "evolution" will have NO EFFECT on how they vote; 26% say they're LESS LIKELY to vote for Obama, because of his gay "marriage" pandering. Only 13% say they're more likely to vote for him.
-
.
-
And what's Obama going to do, to catch Romney again?
Create more jobs? NOPE!!
Lower gas prices? Don't bet on it!
Pander to more homosexuals? He's doing that now, but Gallup reports that 60% of voters say Obama's so-called "evolution" will have NO EFFECT on how they vote; 26% say they're LESS LIKELY to vote for Obama, because of his gay "marriage" pandering. Only 13% say they're more likely to vote for him.
Nice, a net loss of 13%. Good job Obama.
-
Since he predicted the woodshed whipping that the Dems would take two years ago, in the 2010 midterms?
I hope Obama loses, but I can't take Dick Morris seriously. As for his prediction, he basically "predicted" that the sun would set in the west and rise in the east. Hardly anything to write home about.
-
I hope Obama loses, but I can't take Dick Morris seriously. As for his prediction, he basically "predicted" that the sun would set in the west and rise in the east. Hardly anything to write home about.
People took him seriously, when he basically saved Clinton's bacon in 1996.
Besides, with what do you take issue, regarding what he said?
Do you disagree with his citing the last 8 re-election campaigns, regarding the incumbent losing nearly all the undecided votes ("W" was the only one who gained any).
Plus, this gay "marriage" pandering makes Obama TOXIC for Democrats in certain swing states. Some are hanging on by a thread and the LAST THING they need (especially in states that passed or are going to pass marriage amendments) is Obama and his "evolution".
-
Romney Should Win in a Landslide
By Dick Morris
If the election were held today, Mitt Romney would win by a landslide.
The published polls reflect a close race for two reasons:
1. They poll only registered voters, not likely voters. Rasmussen is the only pollster who tests likely voters, and his latest tracking poll has Romney ahead by 48-43.2. As discussed in previous columns, a study of the undecided voters in the past eight elections in which incumbents sought a second term as president reveals that only Bush-43 gained any of the undecided vote. Johnson in ’64, Nixon in ’72, Ford in ’76, Carter in ’80, Reagan in ’84, Bush in ’92 and Clinton in ’96 all failed to pick up a single undecided vote.
So when polls show President Obama at 45 percent of the vote, they are really reflecting a likely 55-45 Romney victory, at the very least.
Gallup has amassed over 150,000 interviews over all of 2011 and compared them with a like number in 2010. It finds that Obama has a better than 50 percent job approval in only 10 states and the District of Columbia. And his approval has dropped in almost every single state. Even in California, it has fallen from 55 percent in 2010 to
50.5 percent in 2011.
Over the period of May 4-6, I completed a poll of 400 likely voters in Michigan and found Romney leading by 45-43! And Michigan is one of the most pro-Democrat of the swing states.
I also found that Obama’s personal favorability, which has usually run about 10 to 20 points higher than his job approval, is now equal to his job rating. In Michigan, his personal favorability among likely voters is 47-47, while his job rating is 50-48. Romney’s favorability is 49-42.
Obama’s crashing personal favorability reflects the backlash from his recent speeches. In substance, their focus on class warfare and their bombastic, demagogic style are not playing well with the voters. They do not seem in the least presidential.
Nor does his message of attacking Big Oil seem constructive. Voters all distrust Big Oil and would rather see them get punished, but they do not see in repealing their tax breaks a way of lowering prices at the pump or of increasing the supply of oil.
Obama’s trip to Afghanistan looks like grandstanding, and his insinuation that Romney would never have launched the strike looks like a low partisan blow.
Obama cannot summon the commitment he got in 2008 by negatives or partisanship. It was precisely to change the “toxic” atmosphere in Washington that he was elected. To fan it now is not the way to regain the affection of those who have turned on him.
If the election were held today, Obama would lose by at least 10 points and would carry only about a dozen states with fewer than 150 electoral votes.
And the Republicans would keep their Senate seats in Arizona, Texas and Nevada while picking up seats in Virginia, Florida, Indiana, Nebraska, North Dakota, New Mexico, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Missouri and Montana. The GOP will also have good shots at victory in the Senate races in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and — if Chris Shays wins the primary — Connecticut. Only in Maine are their fortunes likely to dim.
The journalists in the mainstream media, who are not politicians and have never run campaigns, do not realize what is happening. The Democrats, as delusional in 2012 as they were in 2010, are too much into their own euphoria to realize it. But America is sharply and totally rejecting Obama and all he stands for and embracing Romney as a good alternative. While few are saying these words, they are the truth.
Morris, a former political adviser to Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and President Bill Clinton, is the author of "Outrage." To get all of Dick Morris’s and Eileen McGann’s columns for free by email, go to www.dickmorris.com.
LANDSLIDE COMING
ENJOY WHAT IS LEFT OF THE OBAMANATION YOU LEFTIST THUGS - ITS ALL ENDING IN A FEW MONTHS.
I agree with the toe sucker.
-
Of course you do you are a fat little man like Morris who needs something to believe in
-
Of course you do you are a fat little man like Morris who needs something to believe in
Meltdown. Ghettobama is going down.
-
Meltdown. Ghettobama is going down.
Your entire life is one big meltdown.
-
Your entire life is one big meltdown.
Wow, you really brought your A game to this thread.
How do you come up with this stuff?
-
Meltdown. Ghettobama is going down.
Maybe but Morris is still a fat little pathetic creep
-
Is this my response to when you changed my name to "gaybear" for the nine hundredth time, after sixty other people did it before you?
BTW, quit stalking me.
-
BTW, quit stalking me.
That sound you all hear are multiple irony meters exploding all over the internet.
-
That sound you all hear are multiple irony meters exploding all over the internet.
Haha.
Anytime I respond to people, somebody says that about me.
I had to give it a shot.
-
Is this my response to when you changed my name to "gaybear" for the nine hundredth time, after sixty other people did it before you?
BTW, quit stalking me.
Fixed.
Happy now? ;D ???
-
Greatbear!
-
CBS poll mittens by three
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57434153-503544/poll-romney-has-slight-edge-over-obama
Landslide coming.
-
CBS poll mittens by three
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57434153-503544/poll-romney-has-slight-edge-over-obama
Landslide coming.
And that's with an oversampling of +6 registered Democrats and using REGISTERED voters. Also, Romney is leading amongst WOMEN. Where is the gender gap? Im with you 33. Im starting to agree with Morris that a landslide is possible.
-
And that's with an oversampling of +6 registered Democrats and using REGISTERED voters. Also, Romney is leading amongst WOMEN. Where is the gender gap? Im with you 33. Im starting to agree with Morris that a landslide is possible.
And, further proof that Obama is on the brink of being whipped, until he said his name is Toby, he just announced that he wants to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act.
No wonder he's in favor of gay "marriage", now. He's spreading his cheeks open for his gay bundlers, in hope they'll shower him with cash and help keep him in the White House.
-
http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-poll-disaster-2012-5
Ha ha ha - obama lemmings like 240 and straw have NO IDEA whats coming.
-
This May Be The Most Disastrous-Looking Poll For Obama Yet
Business Insider ^ | 05/15/2012 | Brett LoGiurato
Posted on Tuesday, May 15, 2012 10:02:50 AM by SeekAndFind
The new CBS/New York Times poll out last evening is, on the surface, the biggest disaster for the Barack Obama campaign at this point in the 2012 election.
Down overall? Check. Voters frustrated with the economy and how things are going? Check. Gay marriage endorsement backfire? Check.
But this might be the worst underlier of all: Obama is even losing among women.
Now, before we delve deeper, we should point out the funky methodology that has some — ranging on the spectrum from the Obama campaign to the National Journal — questioning how the results hold up.
This is a "panel-back" survey — the same voters were polled this time as were polled in mid-April. Only 562 of the original 856 registered voters re-responded to the poll this time around.
Still, the poll oversamples Democrats — among registered voters, the sample pool is composed of 36 percent Democrats, 34 percent Independents and 30 percent Republicans.
Romney's overall lead stands at 46 percent to 43 percent. Last month, the two candidates were deadlocked. There are a few underliers that spell disaster for Barack Obama. First is the women vote. What the heck happened here? Last month, Obama led among women by 6 percentage points. In this poll, he's trailing Romney by 2 points in the women's vote. It's an even bigger shift when you consider other surveys, like last month's CNN poll that found Obama destroying Romney among women by 16 points.
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
-
Is this my response to when you changed my name to "gaybear" for the nine hundredth time,[/b[ after sixty other people did it before you?
BTW, quit stalking me.
No. It wasn't.
You got butthurt over a comment I made about Obama. You are a very sensitive lady.
-
Worse yet, 70% of independents ain't buying Obama's "evolution". Even almost HALF of Democrats know the deal, that this is political pandering.
-
No. It wasn't.
You got butthurt over a comment I made about Obama. You are a very sensitive lady.
You called me gay and a lady?
Well, I don't think we can be friends anymore.
-
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/obama-campaign-new-york-times-poll-biased/543191
LOL!!!!!!
OBAMA IS GOING TO GET LANDSLIDED AND SENT BACK TO KENYA WHERE HE CAME FROM.
-
You called me gay and a lady?
Well, I don't think we can be friends anymore.
LOL. You are funny, man.
-
Alarm Grows Among Dems About Obama’s Chances
By Chris Stirewalt
Power Play
Published May 15, 2012
FoxNews.com
“You can be stylish and powerful, too. That's Michelle’s advice.”
-- President Obama telling graduates to temper but preserve their interest in clothing during his commencement address at Barnard College, a women-only college of New York’s Columbia University.
It has taken months of bad news, but Democrats increasingly believe that President Obama might just lose his re-election bid.
The latest wake-up call comes in the form of a New York Times/CBS poll showing Republican Mitt Romney in the lead not just among registered voters overall, but with women and independents.
You need money to win Ohio, but it may not be worth the price of all this gay pride to get it. As the Times poll showed, a huge majority believe Obama’s rhetorical reversion was about politics, not a personal moral journey.
-
The Times/CBS survey is unique in that the pollsters called back the same phone numbers they had a month before. In April, Obama and Romney were dead even. Now, Romney leads by 3 points overall. That’s still within the margin of error -- a statistical tie.
But the shifts with women, moderates and independents are all statistically significant. Obama lost 5 points with each of those demographics.
Team Obama has for months been warning Democrats not to be overconfident and warning of a close election, with the president increasingly sounding the alarm for donors and activists in recent campaign appearances.
Since the general election season kicked off in earnest in the last week of March, Obama has had an almost unbroken string of losing weeks, starting with his overheard conversation with former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev.
There was the back-and-forth with the Supreme Court over his health law, the attack by one of Obama’s advisers on Ann Romney, the GSA Vegas scandal, the hookers in Cartagena and then the baffling case of the gay marriage half-reversion.
Some of the problems were just bad luck (hookers), some were just blunders (hot mic) but much of the rest has been about Obama trying to galvanize his base coalition and secure the massive donations he needs to finance the most expensive campaign in history.
His trip to New York on Monday was the best example yet. Obama delivered a groaner of a speech at Barnard College in which he did everything but shout “girl power” at the end.
And then in an appearance on a left-leaning ladies chat show, ABC’s “The View,” Obama rhapsodized about his partial reversion to previous support for gay marriage in advance of attending a fundraiser with his party’s fundraising shop for “gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender” Democrats that featured Ricky Martin, he of Menudo, bikini briefs and “She Bangs.”
You need money to win Ohio, but it may not be worth the price of all this gay pride to get it. As the Times poll showed, a huge majority believe Obama’s rhetorical reversion was about politics, not a personal moral journey. Even those who are fine with gay marriage, may find it unseemly to see Obama waving the rainbow flag so vigorously in pursuit of cash.
While Obama was in New York, he also stopped by to scoop up some money from Wall Streeters, including some private equity folks -- an industry his campaign was simultaneously describing as parasites and vampires.
If you wonder why Obama felt the need to single out JP Morgan Chase and its CEO for praise despite a $2 billion shellacking the firm took on its own investments, fundraisers like these are a big part of the answer.
All of this pandering may be necessary to keep Obama’s campaign dreadnaught moving ahead, but it comes at a cost, especially when so much of it is contradictory or confusing.
Obama believes marriage is a human right regardless of the gender of one’s preferred spouse, but thinks states out to be able to suppress that human right. Okay.
Obama thinks Romney is a vampire, but is happy to take the money of his rival’s fellow bloodsuckers? Gotcha.
David Brooks, a New York Times columnist who is quite taken with Obama, writes in today’s paper that while Americans think Obama is doing a bad job on the economy and that the country is off track, Obama stands a good chance of being re-elected because of his demeanor: an “ESPN” brand of post-modern machismo cool.
When Obama supporters like Brooks make argument like these, they are engaged in willful self-deception.
There has been nothing very cool about the past 7 weeks for Obama. The president has twisted himself into a policy and rhetorical pretzel to win the support and money he needs from the members of the Democratic coalition.
The Times poll tells the tale: Obama’s nuzzling of the base, beseeching of donors and policy contortions have given Romney the chance to start winning over the narrow band of undecided persuadable voters.
If Democrats don’t want to see Obama defeated, they had better suck it up. Obama is not the superman they believe him to be, nor is his campaign the masterwork they have been led to believe.
The president knows how tight a spot he is in. His supporters are just now realizing it.
The Day in Quotes
“See, the question is not whether things will get better -- they always do… The question is whether together, we can muster the will -- in our own lives, in our common institutions, in our politics -- to bring about the changes we need.”
-- President Obama talking about the economy in a commencement address at Barnard College, a women-only college of New York’s Columbia University.
“I’ll ask Michelle when I get home.”
-- President Obama in an interview with the hosts of “The View,” a women-only chat show on ABC, answering comedienne Joy Behar’s question about “the controversial sex book that’s on millions of women’s bedside tables.”
“Well look, first of all, JP Morgan is one of the best managed banks there is. Jamie Dimon the head of it is one of the smartest bankers we got and they still lost $2 billion dollars and counting precisely because they were making bets in these derivative markets.”
-- President Obama in an interview with the hosts of “The View,” a women-only chat show on ABC, praising mega-bank JP Morgan Chase and its CEO but calling for additional financial sector regulations. The firm lost $2 billion of its own money on risky investments.
“67 Percent”
-- Portion of voters in the latest CBS News/New York Times who thought President Obama’s partial reversion to support for gay marriage last week was “mostly for political reasons.” Twenty-four percent said it was “mostly because he thinks it is right.”
"However, I depart from the president on the state-by-state approach. If you consider this to be a civil right, and I do, I don't think civil rights ought to be left up to a state-by-state approach.”
-- Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C., on MSNBC discussing the president’s partial reversion on gay marriage.
“Especially when I come to New York, sometimes people go around and say, ‘I don't know anybody who is not supporting you, Barack.’ I say, ‘You live in Manhattan, man.’”
-- President Obama at a fundraiser hosted by former pop singer Ricky Martin and the Democratic Party’s Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Leadership Council.
“And we’ve done some extremely good things, especially as it relates to the ‘Dreamers,’ to make sure that they’re not taken away in the middle of the night. There’s a lot more that can be done. There’s more the president is going to do administratively. And that should happen fairly quickly.”
-- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in an interview with Spanish-language cable network Univision discussing President Obama’s efforts to implement the failed DREAM Act, a limited amnesty program for certain illegal immigrants, by executive action.
“‘Self-deport?’ What the heck does that mean? I have no doubt Hispanics have been alienated during this campaign. But now there’s an opportunity for Gov. Romney to have a sincere conversation about what we can do and why.”
-- Gov. Susana Martinez, R-N.M., quoted by Newsweek magazine about presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney’s plan to increase restrictions on illegal immigrants in hopes that they will leave the country voluntarily.
“He promised us the same things he’s promising the United States. And he’ll give you the same thing he gave us. Nothing. He’ll take it all.”
-- Former union steelworker Pat Wells, whose former employer, GST Steel in Kansas City, went bankrupt after a failed turnaround attempt by Romney’s former firm, Bain Capital, in a new television ad from the pro-Obama political action committee, Priorities USA.
“If that’s not the American Dream, I don’t know what is.”
-- A steelworker at Steel Dynamics, a non-union operation in Ft. Wayne, Ind. that Mitt Romney’s former firm, Bain Capital, helped launch and now employs 6,000 workers, appearing in a campaign video for Romney.
“Absurd.”
-- A former aide to Hillary Clinton in her presidential campaign talking to Buzzfeed about President Obama’s policy at high-dollar fundraisers that guests must surrender their cell phones.
And Now, A Word From Charles
“We're deeply opposed to the militarization of civil society. We have all kinds of aversion to it. This is importing it because it's cheap, easy, silent. [The use of remote-controlled aircraft for domestic surveillance is] something that you can easily deploy. It will be I think the bane of our existence. Stop it here. Stop it now. Strong letter to follow.”
-- Charles Krauthammer on “Special Report with Bret Baier.”
Chris Stirewalt is digital politics editor for Fox News, and his POWER PLAY column appears Monday-Friday on FoxNews.com.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/15/alarm-grows-among-dems-about-obamas-chances/#ixzz1ux8JZ0FT
-
Shock Poll: Romney now leads among women
Washington Examiner ^ | MAY 15, 2012 | Paul Bedard
Posted on Tuesday, May 15, 2012 11:30:57 AM by RobinMasters
President Obama’s claim that the GOP is mounting a war on women has proven to be a failure. A month into his assault on the Republicans and Mitt Romney, the new CBS-New York Times poll shows that the GOP presidential candidate now leads among women--and men.
Since April, women have gone from strongly backing Obama to endorsing Romney. In April, Obama held a 49 percent to 43 percent lead among women. That has now flipped to 46 percent backing Romney with 44 percent for Obama, an 8-point switch.
Ironically, Romney’s support among men has dropped, but he still edges Obama 45 percent to 42 percent.
And here’s a surprise: Despite the media hyping the so-called war on women, no major outlet today noticed Romney’s new lead with women voters.
“This is unbelievable,” said conservative consultant Greg Mueller. “The CBS story manages to not mention the change in women numbers,” he said, adding sarcastically. “No media bias here -- Obama is getting fluffy stories about his commencement speech to women at Barnard -- so we better bury the reality.”
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
-
Shock Poll: Romney now leads among women
Washington Examiner ^ | MAY 15, 2012 | Paul Bedard
Posted on Tuesday, May 15, 2012 11:30:57 AM by RobinMasters
President Obama’s claim that the GOP is mounting a war on women has proven to be a failure. A month into his assault on the Republicans and Mitt Romney, the new CBS-New York Times poll shows that the GOP presidential candidate now leads among women--and men.
Since April, women have gone from strongly backing Obama to endorsing Romney. In April, Obama held a 49 percent to 43 percent lead among women. That has now flipped to 46 percent backing Romney with 44 percent for Obama, an 8-point switch.
Ironically, Romney’s support among men has dropped, but he still edges Obama 45 percent to 42 percent.
And here’s a surprise: Despite the media hyping the so-called war on women, no major outlet today noticed Romney’s new lead with women voters.
“This is unbelievable,” said conservative consultant Greg Mueller. “The CBS story manages to not mention the change in women numbers,” he said, adding sarcastically. “No media bias here -- Obama is getting fluffy stories about his commencement speech to women at Barnard -- so we better bury the reality.”
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
Who's doing the "teabagging" now, Obama?
-
Shock Poll: Romney now leads among women
Washington Examiner ^ | MAY 15, 2012 | Paul Bedard
Posted on Tuesday, May 15, 2012 11:30:57 AM by RobinMasters
President Obama’s claim that the GOP is mounting a war on women has proven to be a failure. A month into his assault on the Republicans and Mitt Romney, the new CBS-New York Times poll shows that the GOP presidential candidate now leads among women--and men.
Since April, women have gone from strongly backing Obama to endorsing Romney. In April, Obama held a 49 percent to 43 percent lead among women. That has now flipped to 46 percent backing Romney with 44 percent for Obama, an 8-point switch.
Ironically, Romney’s support among men has dropped, but he still edges Obama 45 percent to 42 percent.
And here’s a surprise: Despite the media hyping the so-called war on women, no major outlet today noticed Romney’s new lead with women voters.
“This is unbelievable,” said conservative consultant Greg Mueller. “The CBS story manages to not mention the change in women numbers,” he said, adding sarcastically. “No media bias here -- Obama is getting fluffy stories about his commencement speech to women at Barnard -- so we better bury the reality.”
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
Have to say - EH's legs look great in that pic.
-
So he's losing with women and has already lost independents and crossover Republicans. He probably lost "the Catholic" vote. Alienated the military, small business, and "the wealthy."
But he has locked up "the gay" vote, which isn't going to help given that they make up about 1 percent of population and are a statistically insignificant voting bloc.
-
So he's losing with women and has already lost independents and crossover Republicans. He probably lost "the Catholic" vote. Alienated the military, small business, and "the wealthy."
But he has locked up "the gay" vote, which isn't going to help given that they make up about 1 percent of population and are a statistically insignificant voting bloc.
He has the 240, lurker, andre, straw vote though!
-
He has the 240, lurker, andre, straw vote though!
He still has a lot of disciples still drinking the Kool-Aide.
-
So he's losing with women and has already lost independents and crossover Republicans. He probably lost "the Catholic" vote. Alienated the military, small business, and "the wealthy."
But he has locked up "the gay" vote, which isn't going to help given that they make up about 1 percent of population and are a statistically insignificant voting bloc.
Don't forget the sliver of black votes. Some will stay home; others (kicking and screaming) will actually give Romney a try.
-
Don't forget the sliver of black votes. Some will stay home; others (kicking and screaming) will actually give Romney a try.
You think so? I think he decided blacks can kiss his rear end over him finally the truth about homosexual marriage, because they're going to vote for him anyway.
-
Gallup State Numbers Predict Huge Obama Loss?
Gallup released their annual state-by-state presidential approval numbers, and the results should have 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue very worried. If President Obama carries only those states where he had a net positive approval rating in 2011 (e.g. Michigan where he is up 48 percent to 44 percent), Obama would lose the 2012 election to the Republican nominee 323 electoral votes to 215.
http://conservativebyte.com/2012/05/gallup-state-numbers-predict-huge-obama-loss
-
Gallup state numbers predict huge Obama loss
by
Conn Carroll Senior Editorial Writer
Gallup released their annual state-by-state presidential approval numbers yesterday, and the results should have 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue very worried. If President Obama carries only those states where he had a net positive approval rating in 2011 (e.g. Michigan where he is up 48 percent to 44 percent), Obama would lose the 2012 election to the Republican nominee 323 electoral votes to 215.
Gallup adds:
Overall, Obama averaged 44% job approval in his third year in office, down from 47% in his second year. His approval rating declined from 2010 to 2011 in most states, with Wyoming, Connecticut, and Maine showing a marginal increase, and Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Minnesota, New Jersey, Arizona, West Virginia, Michigan, and Georgia showing declines of less than a full percentage point. The greatest declines were in Hawaii, South Dakota, Nebraska, and New Mexico.
-
You think so? I think he decided blacks can kiss his rear end over him finally the truth about homosexual marriage, because they're going to vote for him anyway.
Well, Bush went from 8% of the black vote in 2000 to 11% of the black vote in 2004. 11 states put marriage amendments on the ballot on election day 2004; two states (Louisiana and Missouri) did their earlier in the year, because the Dems didn't want this issue to help Bush get re-elected.
Now, we have Obama saying he wants to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. If that happens, it effectively legalizes gay "marriage" nationwide, because DOMA keeps states from recognizing other gay "marriage" licenses.
There are enough black people in the swing states who are NOT going to let New York, Massachusetts, DC, and the other handful of places define marriage within their borders.
-
Well, Bush went from 8% of the black vote in 2000 to 11% of the black vote in 2004. 11 states put marriage amendments on the ballot on election day 2004; two states (Louisiana and Missouri) did their earlier in the year, because the Dems didn't want this issue to help Bush get re-elected.
Now, we have Obama saying he wants to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. If that happens, it effectively legalized gay "marriage" nationwide, because DOMA keeps states from recognizing other gay "marriage" licenses.
There are enough black people in the swing states who are NOT going to let New York, Massachusetts, DC, and the other handful of places define marriage within their borders.
Makes sense. I hope you're right. I really worry about the future of my country if that man is reelected.
-
Makes sense. I hope you're right. I really worry about the future of my country if that man is reelected.
If this jerk gets re-elected the entire economy will collapse immediately as it will signal 4 more years of communism and treachery
-
I thought it was already going to collapse anyway? You mean all the crying you did his first term was for nothing since it won't happen until his second one?
Does that mean doctors won't be walking off their jobs with their black duffel bags to torch cities across the country until the second term?
-
In June of 2004 Kerry was leading Bush by 6-points in a Gallup Poll
http://www.gallup.com/poll/110548/gallup-presidential-election-trialheat-trends-19362004.aspx
The last time an incumbent president was up for election. Kerry also led in July before Bush generally had a small advantage in Gallup up until the election.
-
Polls don't mean shit at this point. Only for those trying to prop up their hopes and egos.
::)
-
In June of 2004 Kerry was leading Bush by 6-points in a Gallup Poll
http://www.gallup.com/poll/110548/gallup-presidential-election-trialheat-trends-19362004.aspx
The last time an incumbent president was up for election. Kerry also led in July before Bush generally had a small advantage in Gallup up until the election.
Bush regained the lead in August 2004 and never looked back.
Exactly what is Obama going to do to regain the lead and keep it, especially when he's afraid to talk about the most important issue of this election?
-
Bush regained the lead in August 2004 and never looked back.
Exactly what is Obama going to do to regain the lead and keep it, especially when he's afraid to talk about the most important issue of this election?
Well, Bush ran on the God platform back in 2004. That helped tremendously.
Who knows what the political pundits will come up with.
-
Bush regained the lead in August 2004 and never looked back.
Exactly what is Obama going to do to regain the lead and keep it, especially when he's afraid to talk about the most important issue of this election?
He could take action to ensure the economy is no longer the most important issue of the election.
Attack Iran, for example. The neocons would be wetting their pants with joy, romney would adopt a 'me too!' attitude, and the shock-and-awe coverage on FOX would be all they cared about.
just an example, but he's an incumbent and they have the power to guide national policy, events and discussion. Remember that IRAQ was the main issue when Mccain won, and by the fall, the ECONOMY was #1. It could change in a few months - it did in 2008.
-
Well, Bush ran on the God platform back in 2004. That helped tremendously.
Who knows what the political pundits will come up with.
They'd better come up with something....QUICKLY!!
The groveling-before-the-gays strategy ain't working.
-
They'd better come up with something....QUICKLY!!
The groveling-before-the-gays strategy ain't working.
I don't know... It's not a bad platform really.
I can see it working... especially since the pro-gay people are gaining overall from a percentage standpoint.
-
The political/economic enviornment was not as bad when Bush was running for re-election. Also, keep in mind that the beginning of the Iraq insurgency and Abu Graib really hurt Bush. Despite what Dems want to believe, Romney is a better AND more likable candidate than Kerry was.
Also, Obama has been under 50% approval far longer than Bush was.
Kerry and the Dems used a very flawed strategy. They couldnt take a clear position in regards to the Iraq War. You had Kerry trying to imply that Bush got us into the war under false pretenses. But Kerry voted for it. He wanted it both ways and that's why he lost. That made it easier to tag him with the flip flopping charge. It would have been a far better stratagy to attack Bush on the management of the war.
-
He could take action to ensure the economy is no longer the most important issue of the election.
Attack Iran, for example. The neocons would be wetting their pants with joy, romney would adopt a 'me too!' attitude, and the shock-and-awe coverage on FOX would be all they cared about.
just an example, but he's an incumbent and they have the power to guide national policy, events and discussion. Remember that IRAQ was the main issue when Mccain won, and by the fall, the ECONOMY was #1. It could change in a few months - it did in 2008.
There was an economic COLLAPSE! That's why the economy was the number one issue.
NOTHING, I repeat, NOTHING Obama can do will take the focus off the economy as issue #1. And, Lord only knows, he and his minions have been trying: Contraception, "war on women", dogs, gay "marriage", bullying.
Iran? PLEASE!! His war-weary supporters would LYNCH him, if that happens.
As dumb as it is for him to divert from the economy, the LAST PLACE you want to go is the very spot where your opponents THRIVE: Social issues (particularly, marriage).
I don't know... It's not a bad platform really.
I can see it working... especially since the pro-gay people are gaining overall from a percentage standpoint.
Yep!! It gained so well, that just last week, the gay "marriage" supporters got beat up for the 32nd time.
At least 7 of the swing states have passed marriage amendments. This is a loser for Obama and the polls keep reflecting that, not to mention that pesky 0-32 record gay "marriage" supporters have.
-
There was an economic COLLAPSE! That's why the economy was the number one issue.
NOTHING, I repeat, NOTHING Obama can do will take the focus off the economy as issue #1. And, Lord only knows, he and his minions have been trying: Contraception, "war on women", dogs, gay "marriage", bullying.
Iran? PLEASE!! His war-weary supporters would LYNCH him, if that happens.
I guess we will see. I believe that if he coudl convince a foreign country wanted to destroy us, or spike oil prices (rememebr even FOX was repeating that nonsense that it was their fault prices were rising), I could see the moderates getting behind him.
And yes, the bedwetting liberals will excuse any war obama starts. Just as they supported his intervention in Libya. You think they'll vote romney over obama beccause obama starts a war?
I coudln't put it past obama. He's pretty cold hearted so far, coming at romney every week with a new issue. You think he wouldn't start some small 'skirmish' in order to stay in office? Sheeit, if any prez is down for an october surprise to keep his job, it'll be obama.
-
I think its a crap shoot at this point, but if anything, Obama seems to be losing ground on Romney.
Just my observations.
-
There was an economic COLLAPSE! That's why the economy was the number one issue.
NOTHING, I repeat, NOTHING Obama can do will take the focus off the economy as issue #1. And, Lord only knows, he and his minions have been trying: Contraception, "war on women", dogs, gay "marriage", bullying.
Iran? PLEASE!! His war-weary supporters would LYNCH him, if that happens.
As dumb as it is for him to divert from the economy, the LAST PLACE you want to go is the very spot where your opponents THRIVE: Social issues (particularly, marriage).
Yep!! It gained so well, that just last week, the gay "marriage" supporters got beat up for the 32nd time.
At least 7 of the swing states have passed marriage amendments. This is a loser for Obama and the polls keep reflecting that, not to mention that pesky 0-32 record gay "marriage" supporters have.
When those votes are all being presented along side republican primaries, you can pretty much guarantee how that would go.
But let's be clear... The country according to most polls is completely reversed on gay marriage from where it was 12 years ago.
-
I thought mormons were allowed to have multiple wives?
-
I thought mormons were allowed to have multiple wives?
Nobody seems to care that he's mormon.
Except idiots.
-
I thought mormons were allowed to have multiple wives?
The fundamentalists... The "New Mormons" are excommunicated if they practice polygamy.
-
Polls don't mean shit at this point. Only for those trying to prop up their hopes and egos.
::)
Polls dont mean shit.period. If we cant even decide whos gunna be on the ticket why would we think we'd ever have a non rigged election?
-
I meant the whole "I believe marriage is between 1 woman and 1 man" - doesn't that disagree with his religion?
-
When those votes are all being presented along side republican primaries, you can pretty much guarantee how that would go.
But let's be clear... The country according to most polls is completely reversed on gay marriage from where it was 12 years ago.
Judging opinions on gay "marriage", based on polls, is the equivalent of judging a team's regular season record , based on its preseason record. The Detroit Lions went 4-0 in 2008 preseason. How did their regular season go?
Besides, we've seen this mess before now. On average, support for traditional marriage plays out about 5-7 points better than what the polls show.
Two weeks before the 2008 election, poll after poll said that Californians were in favor of gay "marriage" and against Prop. 8, to the tune of 49-44. Guess how that turned out.
Polls in Florida said that gay "marriage" was more acceptable too, that Floridians were in favor of it. Guess what happened on gameday: Amendment 2 passed, 62-38 (and this was the ONE situation were gay supporters could win without winning, because Florida requires a 60% supermajority to pass an amendment). Gay activists couldn't even get 41% of Florida voters to side with them.
Liberals love to cite these polls but don't have the balls to put their money where their mouths are. Bring up a referendum and they'll SQUEAL like stuck pigs. Why?
They have LOST, every time this goes to the voters...with the lion's share being BLOWOUTS (see North Carolina last week). Minnesota and Maryland are on deck this year. Maryland legalized gay "marriage" earlier this year; but the law doesn't take effect until next year....IF it survives. Considering that California and Maine REVERSED gay "marriage" laws made just months prior, in 2008 and 2009 respectively, I don't like the gay activists' chances in Maryland, which has a population makeup similar to that of NC.
Why don't you ask the gay "marriage" supporters there, if those polls are going to hold up in six months. Can you say 0-34? I knew that you could!!!
Edit - To make my point about marriage amendments passing 5-7 points higher than the polls suggest, A PPP poll, taken at the end of April, said that people supported NC's Amendment 1 by a margin of 55-41. The actual margin by which it passed: 61-39.
-
Jindal On Obama’s Experience: He ‘Never Ran a Lemonade Stand’
abc ^ | 5/16/2012 | By Arlette Saenz
Posted on May 16, 2012 6:33:13 AM EDT by tobyhill
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal criticized President Obama‘s experience before he became president in an interview Tuesday, and defended Mitt Romney, who has recently come under attack by Obama’s campaign for his record at Bain Capital.
“President Obama hasn’t run anything before he was elected President of the United States. Never ran a state, never ran a business, never ran a lemonade stand. This job’s too important for on the job training,” Jindal said during an interview on FOX News’ “America’s Newsroom” Tuesday.
Jindal contrasted Romney’s experience with Obama’s record, arguing that, “In contrast, Mitt Romney’s been a successful governor, a successful businessman. He’s got the executive experience.”
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
-
Free Republic
Browse · Search Pings · Mail GOP Club
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.
Mitt Romney's Poll Surge Might Be Bigger Than It Looks
US News and World Report ^ | May 15, 2012 | Peter Roff, contributing editor
Posted on May 16, 2012 12:49:54 AM EDT by 2ndDivisionVet
The latest CBS News/New York Times poll shows President Barack Obama and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney in a dead heat in the race for the White House.
Given that Obama has had a relatively good week and Romney something of a bad one, this poll is a real shocker. Asked for whom they would vote were the election held today, 46 percent of the nearly 600 registered voters surveyed said Romney while 43 percent said Obama. Given that the error margin is plus or minus four points, it looks like the race is all tied up.
Actually, Romney may be in better shape than the poll suggests. The same survey conducted in April showed each man with 46 percent of the vote while the polls from March and February showed the president ahead.
What is particularly interesting is this is a poll of registered voters, meaning it's a survey representing the entire universe of those who may cast ballots in the upcoming election. Thanks to things like "motor voter," there are far more Democrats in the pool of registered voters than Republicans and, unlike surveys of so-called "likely voters," many of them may not bother to vote. It is not too much of an inference, therefore, to think that Obama may be losing the country—and that's because he has failed to get a handle on the nation's economic troubles.
Unemployment is down from where it had been under Obama, to 8.1 percent, but that's not because the economy is creating jobs. It's because, as this simple analysis shows, large numbers of people have simply stopped looking for work. "In April," wrote Tyler Durden on Zerohedge.com, "the number of people not in the labor force rose by a whopping 522,000 from 87,897,000 to 88,419,000," which he says is the highest number ever recorded. The labor force participation rate, meaning the people who are working or looking for work, is now at 64.3 percent, a 30-year low.
With numbers like that, with Obama having wiped out 30 years of job creation under presidents of both parties, is it any surprise that 62 percent of respondents in the CBS News/New York Times poll "cited the economy as the most important issue in the presidential election"?
"Concern over the budget deficit ranked a distant second at 11 percent, followed by health care at 9 percent. Seven percent picked same-sex marriage, 4 percent cited foreign policy and 2 percent chose immigration," according to an analysis of the numbers conducted by CBS.
The response of the White House and Obama's campaign to the numbers has been to attack the way the survey was conducted—which is really their only choice since they can't dispute what the numbers say. The president's deputy campaign manager, Stephanie Cutler, told NBC's Chuck Todd, "We can't put the methodology of that poll aside, because the methodology was significantly biased." When pressed, Cutler called the sample "biased."
Maybe so, but that doesn't get around the fact that 67 percent of respondents—remember these are registered voters, not likely voters—rated the condition of the national economy as either "fairly bad" or "very bad." And 63 percent said they thought things would stay the same or get worse.
Equally disturbing for the White House, and perhaps the reason why the Obama campaign, its political allies, and its friends in the media have suddenly unleashed the attack squad against the former governor, is that this same poll found Romney leading among independents, among men and among women, 46 percent to 44 percent for the president—still within the margin of error but an indication that any bounce the Democrats might have gotten over accusations the GOP was engaged in a "war on women" has dissipated.
Team Obama needs a new strategy. It doesn't take a college degree to figure out that just about the only thing left is to try and make Romney radioactive, which means a nasty and negative summer is in the offing. It will be interesting to see if the same journalists and Washington "deep thinkers" who call out the Republicans every time they say something uncomplimentary will be as hard on the Democrats as they "go nuclear" on Romney.
-
Election 2012: North Carolina President
North Carolina: Romney 51%, Obama 43%
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
Mitt Romney has moved out to an eight-point lead over President Obama in North Carolina after the two men were virtually tied a month ago.
The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Voters in the Tar Heel State shows the putative Republican nominee earning 51% of the vote to Obama’s 43%. Two percent (2%) like some other candidate, and four percent (4%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
That’s a big change from last month when Romney posted a narrow 46% to 44% lead over the president in Rasmussen Reports’ first survey of the race in North Carolina. Democrats have signaled North Carolina’s importance as a key swing state by deciding to hold their national convention in Charlotte this summer.
Romney has held a slight lead over the president nationally for over a week now in the daily Presidential Tracking Poll following the release of a disappointing jobs report for April.
Voters nationally regard the economy as far and away the most important issue in the upcoming election, and just 11% of North Carolina voters now describe the U.S. economy as good or excellent. Forty-seven percent (47%) rate it as poor. Thirty-one percent (31%) say the economy is getting better, but 41% think it is getting worse.
The president leads overwhelmingly among those who give the economy positive marks, while Romney is far ahead among the much larger group that views the economy as poor.
Eighty-eight percent (88%) of North Carolina Republicans now support Romney, compared to 76% of Democrats in the state who back Obama. Nearly one-in-five North Carolina Democrats (18%) now favor the Republican. The GOP challenger holds a modest 49% to 45% lead among voters not affiliated with either party, but the two men were tied with 38% support each among this group a month ago.
(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.
The survey of 500 Likely Voters in North Carolina was conducted on May 14, 2012 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 4.5 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.
Last week, 61% of North Carolina voters last week approved a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between only a man and a woman. The next night, Obama became the first U.S. president to publicly endorse gay marriage. At the same time, North Carolina’s Democratic Party is embroiled in a divisive leadership spat.
Obama edged Republican John McCain 50% to 49% in the 2008 election to become the first Democrat to carry North Carolina since Jimmy Carter in 1976. Now 46% approve of the job Obama is doing as president, while 54% disapprove. The latter finding is up four points from a month ago. The new numbers include 28% who Strongly Approve of the president’s job performance and 45% who Strongly Disapprove.
Fifty-four percent (54%) of voters in the state share a favorable opinion of Romney, including 23% who regard him Very Favorably. The former Massachusetts governor is seen unfavorably by 43%, with 23% who hold a Very Unfavorable view of him. This marks an increase of several points in both his Very Favorables and Very Unfavorables from last month.
Just 22% of Tar Heel voters think the federal government has the constitutional authority to force everyone in the country to buy or obtain health insurance, a central element of the president’s national health care plan. Forty-three percent (43%) at least somewhat favor a law that includes such a mandate, while 53% are at least somewhat opposed. This includes 19% who Strongly Favor the law and 38% who Strongly Oppose it.
Obama earns 75% support from those who Strongly Favor such a law. Ninety percent (90%) of those who Strongly Oppose it prefer Romney.
Fifty-two percent (52%) of all North Carolina voters would like to see the U.S. Supreme Court overturn the national health care law, while 35% would rather see the high court uphold the legality of the measure. Forty-eight percent (48%) believe the court will overturn the law, but 32% think it will be upheld. Those numbers are similar to the national average.
In combined polling of the key swing states of Florida, North Carolina, Ohio and Virginia, Obama holds a slight edge over Romney. The president also leads Romney in Nevada, Ohio, Wisconsin, California and New Mexico. He is nearly tied with his GOP challenger in Florida, Virginia and Pennsylvania but trails him in Missouri, Montana, Arizona and Nebraska.
Additional information from this survey and a full demographic breakdown are available to Platinum Members only.
LANDSLIDE COMING!!!!!!
-
link please
-
Online message boards for independent, grass-roots conservatism on the web
Free Republic
Browse · Search Pings · Mail GOP Club
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.
Mitt Romney's Poll Surge Might Be Bigger Than It Looks
US News and World Report ^ | May 15, 2012 | Peter Roff, contributing editor
Posted on May 16, 2012 12:49:54 AM EDT by 2ndDivisionVet
The latest CBS News/New York Times poll shows President Barack Obama and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney in a dead heat in the race for the White House.
Given that Obama has had a relatively good week and Romney something of a bad one, this poll is a real shocker. Asked for whom they would vote were the election held today, 46 percent of the nearly 600 registered voters surveyed said Romney while 43 percent said Obama. Given that the error margin is plus or minus four points, it looks like the race is all tied up.
Actually, Romney may be in better shape than the poll suggests. The same survey conducted in April showed each man with 46 percent of the vote while the polls from March and February showed the president ahead.
What is particularly interesting is this is a poll of registered voters, meaning it's a survey representing the entire universe of those who may cast ballots in the upcoming election. Thanks to things like "motor voter," there are far more Democrats in the pool of registered voters than Republicans and, unlike surveys of so-called "likely voters," many of them may not bother to vote. It is not too much of an inference, therefore, to think that Obama may be losing the country—and that's because he has failed to get a handle on the nation's economic troubles.
Unemployment is down from where it had been under Obama, to 8.1 percent, but that's not because the economy is creating jobs. It's because, as this simple analysis shows, large numbers of people have simply stopped looking for work. "In April," wrote Tyler Durden on Zerohedge.com, "the number of people not in the labor force rose by a whopping 522,000 from 87,897,000 to 88,419,000," which he says is the highest number ever recorded. The labor force participation rate, meaning the people who are working or looking for work, is now at 64.3 percent, a 30-year low.
With numbers like that, with Obama having wiped out 30 years of job creation under presidents of both parties, is it any surprise that 62 percent of respondents in the CBS News/New York Times poll "cited the economy as the most important issue in the presidential election"?
"Concern over the budget deficit ranked a distant second at 11 percent, followed by health care at 9 percent. Seven percent picked same-sex marriage, 4 percent cited foreign policy and 2 percent chose immigration," according to an analysis of the numbers conducted by CBS.
The response of the White House and Obama's campaign to the numbers has been to attack the way the survey was conducted—which is really their only choice since they can't dispute what the numbers say. The president's deputy campaign manager, Stephanie Cutler, told NBC's Chuck Todd, "We can't put the methodology of that poll aside, because the methodology was significantly biased." When pressed, Cutler called the sample "biased."
Maybe so, but that doesn't get around the fact that 67 percent of respondents—remember these are registered voters, not likely voters—rated the condition of the national economy as either "fairly bad" or "very bad." And 63 percent said they thought things would stay the same or get worse.
Equally disturbing for the White House, and perhaps the reason why the Obama campaign, its political allies, and its friends in the media have suddenly unleashed the attack squad against the former governor, is that this same poll found Romney leading among independents, among men and among women, 46 percent to 44 percent for the president—still within the margin of error but an indication that any bounce the Democrats might have gotten over accusations the GOP was engaged in a "war on women" has dissipated.
Team Obama needs a new strategy. It doesn't take a college degree to figure out that just about the only thing left is to try and make Romney radioactive, which means a nasty and negative summer is in the offing. It will be interesting to see if the same journalists and Washington "deep thinkers" who call out the Republicans every time they say something uncomplimentary will be as hard on the Democrats as they "go nuclear" on Romney.
-
link please
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/north_carolina/election_2012_north_carolina_president
-
Sorry bro.. i gotta ask from sources from you from now on. You know how you can get with the lying and the shitty sources... youre pretty solid on this one.. No lying at all... good for you .
-
I thought it was already going to collapse anyway? You mean all the crying you did his first term was for nothing since it won't happen until his second one?
Does that mean doctors won't be walking off their jobs with their black duffel bags to torch cities across the country until the second term?
333 and the rest of the neocons have no long-term memory apparently
-
Online message boards for independent, grass-roots conservatism on the web
US News and World Report douche
-
US News and World Report douche
Blahhhhhh! That is another "lying and the shitty" source. Only valid sources are from the left and Jon Stewart.
-
Blahhhhhh! That is another "lying and the shitty" source. Only valid sources are from the left and Jon Stewart.
Those from the left are as crap as those from the right.
Steward however is the best source these days
-
Blahhhhhh! That is another "lying and the shitty" source. Only valid sources are from the left and Jon Stewart.
stewart just compares videos.. no lying in that...
Dario.. you need to relax cuz..
-
US News and World Report douche
dont get mad at me because your sources are hella fucked sometimes.. i gave you credit for this one.. relax tough guy..
-
Election 2012: North Carolina President
North Carolina: Romney 51%, Obama 43%
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
Mitt Romney has moved out to an eight-point lead over President Obama in North Carolina after the two men were virtually tied a month ago.
The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Voters in the Tar Heel State shows the putative Republican nominee earning 51% of the vote to Obama’s 43%. Two percent (2%) like some other candidate, and four percent (4%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
That’s a big change from last month when Romney posted a narrow 46% to 44% lead over the president in Rasmussen Reports’ first survey of the race in North Carolina. Democrats have signaled North Carolina’s importance as a key swing state by deciding to hold their national convention in Charlotte this summer.
Romney has held a slight lead over the president nationally for over a week now in the daily Presidential Tracking Poll following the release of a disappointing jobs report for April.
Voters nationally regard the economy as far and away the most important issue in the upcoming election, and just 11% of North Carolina voters now describe the U.S. economy as good or excellent. Forty-seven percent (47%) rate it as poor. Thirty-one percent (31%) say the economy is getting better, but 41% think it is getting worse.
The president leads overwhelmingly among those who give the economy positive marks, while Romney is far ahead among the much larger group that views the economy as poor.
Eighty-eight percent (88%) of North Carolina Republicans now support Romney, compared to 76% of Democrats in the state who back Obama. Nearly one-in-five North Carolina Democrats (18%) now favor the Republican. The GOP challenger holds a modest 49% to 45% lead among voters not affiliated with either party, but the two men were tied with 38% support each among this group a month ago.
(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.
The survey of 500 Likely Voters in North Carolina was conducted on May 14, 2012 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 4.5 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.
Last week, 61% of North Carolina voters last week approved a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between only a man and a woman. The next night, Obama became the first U.S. president to publicly endorse gay marriage. At the same time, North Carolina’s Democratic Party is embroiled in a divisive leadership spat.
Obama edged Republican John McCain 50% to 49% in the 2008 election to become the first Democrat to carry North Carolina since Jimmy Carter in 1976. Now 46% approve of the job Obama is doing as president, while 54% disapprove. The latter finding is up four points from a month ago. The new numbers include 28% who Strongly Approve of the president’s job performance and 45% who Strongly Disapprove.
Fifty-four percent (54%) of voters in the state share a favorable opinion of Romney, including 23% who regard him Very Favorably. The former Massachusetts governor is seen unfavorably by 43%, with 23% who hold a Very Unfavorable view of him. This marks an increase of several points in both his Very Favorables and Very Unfavorables from last month.
Just 22% of Tar Heel voters think the federal government has the constitutional authority to force everyone in the country to buy or obtain health insurance, a central element of the president’s national health care plan. Forty-three percent (43%) at least somewhat favor a law that includes such a mandate, while 53% are at least somewhat opposed. This includes 19% who Strongly Favor the law and 38% who Strongly Oppose it.
Obama earns 75% support from those who Strongly Favor such a law. Ninety percent (90%) of those who Strongly Oppose it prefer Romney.
Fifty-two percent (52%) of all North Carolina voters would like to see the U.S. Supreme Court overturn the national health care law, while 35% would rather see the high court uphold the legality of the measure. Forty-eight percent (48%) believe the court will overturn the law, but 32% think it will be upheld. Those numbers are similar to the national average.
In combined polling of the key swing states of Florida, North Carolina, Ohio and Virginia, Obama holds a slight edge over Romney. The president also leads Romney in Nevada, Ohio, Wisconsin, California and New Mexico. He is nearly tied with his GOP challenger in Florida, Virginia and Pennsylvania but trails him in Missouri, Montana, Arizona and Nebraska.
Additional information from this survey and a full demographic breakdown are available to Platinum Members only.
LANDSLIDE COMING!!!!!!
Obama just handed North Carolina and at least two other swing states to Romney, with his gay-pandering.
Whoever is running the Obama re-election campaign needs to be SHOT!!
-
Obama just handed North Carolina and at least two other swing states to Romney, with his gay-pandering.
Whoever is running the Obama re-election campaign needs to be SHOT!!
Anyone voting for obama for a second term is beyond stupid. Not a single reason these fools can give to award Il Douche w 4 more years after these past 4 years.
-
Judging opinions on gay "marriage", based on polls, is the equivalent of judging a team's regular season record , based on its preseason record. The Detroit Lions went 4-0 in 2008 preseason. How did their regular season go?
Besides, we've seen this mess before now. On average, support for traditional marriage plays out about 5-7 points better than what the polls show.
Two weeks before the 2008 election, poll after poll said that Californians were in favor of gay "marriage" and against Prop. 8, to the tune of 49-44. Guess how that turned out.
Polls in Florida said that gay "marriage" was more acceptable too, that Floridians were in favor of it. Guess what happened on gameday: Amendment 2 passed, 62-38 (and this was the ONE situation were gay supporters could win without winning, because Florida requires a 60% supermajority to pass an amendment). Gay activists couldn't even get 41% of Florida voters to side with them.
Liberals love to cite these polls but don't have the balls to put their money where their mouths are. Bring up a referendum and they'll SQUEAL like stuck pigs. Why?
They have LOST, every time this goes to the voters...with the lion's share being BLOWOUTS (see North Carolina last week). Minnesota and Maryland are on deck this year. Maryland legalized gay "marriage" earlier this year; but the law doesn't take effect until next year....IF it survives. Considering that California and Maine REVERSED gay "marriage" laws made just months prior, in 2008 and 2009 respectively, I don't like the gay activists' chances in Maryland, which has a population makeup similar to that of NC.
Why don't you ask the gay "marriage" supporters there, if those polls are going to hold up in six months. Can you say 0-34? I knew that you could!!!
Edit - To make my point about marriage amendments passing 5-7 points higher than the polls suggest, A PPP poll, taken at the end of April, said that people supported NC's Amendment 1 by a margin of 55-41. The actual margin by which it passed: 61-39.
Yes, during a republican primary vote... How many Dems do you think got out during that Primary?
-
Yes, during a republican primary vote... How many Dems do you think got out during that Primary?
I'm not sure. But, 35% of the voters who passed NC's amendment were Democrats. Black voters went for the amendment over a 2-to-1 margin. This happens NEARLY EVERY TIME.
But, just to shoot down your suggestion of lack of Democrats being a factor in these amendment votes, look at Missouri's amendment in 2004.
The Dems bumped up the vote on the amendment to May, to keep it from generating votes for Bush. Furthermore, 60% of the voters were Democrats. The amendment passed 71-29.
North Carolina's amendment 1 vote was moved to May, for much the same reason.
And, lest you forget, there was PLENTY of Democrat turnout in 2008, when Prop. 8 passed in California. Same goes for Amendment 2 in Florida and Amendment 102 in Arizona.
There ain't ONE SINGLE gay "marriage" support who will put their money where their mouths are and test those polls, where it truly counts: The BALLOT BOX.
Cite them all you want; the reality shoots those polls to pieces, time and time again.
-
I'm not sure. But, 35% of the voters who passed NC's amendment were Democrats. Black voters went for the amendment over a 2-to-1 margin. This happens NEARLY EVERY TIME.
But, just to shoot down your suggestion of lack of Democrats being a factor in these amendment votes, look at Missouri's amendment in 2004.
The Dems bumped up the vote on the amendment to May, to keep it from generating votes for Bush. Furthermore, 60% of the voters were Democrats. The amendment passed 71-29.
North Carolina's amendment 1 vote was moved to May, for much the same reason.
And, lest you forget, there was PLENTY of Democrat turnout in 2008, when Prop. 8 passed in California. Same goes for Amendment 2 in Florida and Amendment 102 in Arizona.
There ain't ONE SINGLE gay "marriage" support who will put their money where their mouths are and test those polls, where it truly counts: The BALLOT BOX.
Cite them all you want; the reality shoots those polls to pieces, time and time again.
Again,
You are citing stuff from 8 years ago.
The trend is simply that this is another thing, similar to abortion that is going to end up happening... Its just the nature of old people dying and young people growing up.
-
Again,
You are citing stuff from 8 years ago.
The trend is simply that this is another thing, similar to abortion that is going to end up happening... Its just the nature of old people dying and young people growing up.
I'm also citing stuff from 4 years ago, 3 years ago, and 8 DAYS AGO.
The pattern hasn't changed. Gay "marriage" supporters cite all these polls, claiming more people support their cause. But, they are SCARED TO DEATH, to put it on the line at the ballot box. That was the case 8 years ago; that's the case NOW!!
Polls say people support it; amendment (one-man-one-woman definition) goes to the ballot box; gay "marriage" supporters get clobbered.....same old story.
Lest you forget, in the last four years, two blue states REVERSED gay "marriage" laws, just six months after they were passed or ordered by the state court.
I know the usual liberal tenet is "just wait until they all die off". But the reality is that gay "marriage" only sticks in states with left-winged courts/legislatures in non-referendum states.
As long as this goes to the ballot box, it's game over for gay "marriage". You know it and they know it.
-
I'm also citing stuff from 4 years ago, 3 years ago, and 8 DAYS AGO.
The pattern hasn't changed. Gay "marriage" supporters cite all these polls, claiming more people support their cause. But, they are SCARED TO DEATH, to put it on the line at the ballot box. That was the case 8 years ago; that's the case NOW!!
Polls say people support it; amendment (one-man-one-woman definition) goes to the ballot box; gay "marriage" supporters get clobbered.....same old story.
Lest you forget, in the last four years, two blue states REVERSED gay "marriage" laws, just six months after they were passed or ordered by the state court.
I know the usual liberal tenet is "just wait until they all die off". But the reality is that gay "marriage" only sticks in states with left-winged courts/legislatures in non-referendum states.
As long as this goes to the ballot box, it's game over for gay "marriage". You know it and they know it.
Kind of like interracial marriage only stuck there?
You do realize that these votes are effectively the same.
-
Good ads.
-
Kind of like interracial marriage only stuck there?
You do realize that these votes are effectively the same.
Not even close. And, in case you didn't know, interracial marriage was actually legal in most states. The major issue was specifically whites with non-whites.
Besides, what we're talking about is these polls, regarding same-sex "marriage". They don't reflect the reality of the situation. That has been proven nearly THREE DOZEN TIMES. It was proven yet again, just last week.
And with at three states with marriage amendments on the ballot this November, it will be proven yet again. What's your excuse going to be when gay "marriage" goes 0-35?
-
Good ads.
This is precisely why Obama is so fired up about gay "marriage".
-
Good ads.
2nd ad speaks for itself.
-
Not even close. And, in case you didn't know, interracial marriage was actually legal in most states. The major issue was specifically whites with non-whites.
Besides, what we're talking about is these polls, regarding same-sex "marriage". They don't reflect the reality of the situation. That has been proven nearly THREE DOZEN TIMES. It was proven yet again, just last week.
And with at three states with marriage amendments on the ballot this November, it will be proven yet again. What's your excuse going to be when gay "marriage" goes 0-35?
I am not making excuses... I'm simply saying that it will eventually be an issue which is overturned EXACTLY like whites to non-whites... Which as you know, WAS done in many states and which is now OVERTURNED in those states.
The fact you cannot see that this is very similar is eerily scary.
-
I am not making excuses... I'm simply saying that it will eventually be an issue which is overturned EXACTLY like whites to non-whites... Which as you know, WAS done in many states and which is now OVERTURNED in those states.
The fact you cannot see that this is very similar is eerily scary.
Keep telling yourself that it will eventually be overturned. Some gay activists don't even believe that. In fact, they cite that apathy as one of the reasons they keep losing at the ballot box.
There's no inevitability to legalizing gay "marriage". Can it happen? YES! Is it a lock? NO!
AEI Young Bloggers: Why Young Voters Won’t Tip the Gay Marriage Debate Anytime Soon
The landslide passage of Amendment One in North Carolina, which defines marriage as between one man and one woman, should give some pause to those who believe that young voters will be enough to tilt the balance in the near future in favor of gay marriage.
Conventional wisdom holds that support for gay marriage is tied to demographic change, and there is some truth to this. On average, opposition among voters falls with age. However, this does not mean that majority support for the legalization of same-sex marriage is inevitable. There is a difference between opposing something less stridently and actually supporting it, and all the evidence available from both the results in last Tuesday’s vote on Amendment One in North Carolina and Public Policy Polling’s final poll before the vote show that voters under 30 opposed the amendment only marginally.
... If 18- to 30-year-old voters did in fact split almost evenly on Amendment One, this casts some doubt on the theory that gay marriage will ride to acceptance due to overwhelmingly supportive young voters. While young voters do seem more supportive of gay marriage, and support increases the younger the demographic in question, the operative word is supportive. Only moderately in favor of gay marriage themselves, young North Carolinians were in no position to outvote their older neighbors.
In fact, even if nobody over age 45 had voted Tuesday, the amendment still would have passed by around 8 percentage points, according to the adjusted data above.
Therefore, any strategy of waiting for demographics to realize the maximalist position of gay marriage advocates across the country looks to be, at the very least, a lengthy endeavor. States on the margins, like California and Washington, where initial bans commanded marginal majorities, might support gay marriage in the near future. But on a wider scale, movement on the issue, though real, is likely to be far too slow to bring about dramatic change nationally anytime soon.
In fact, it is quite possible that gay marriage will lose traction this November. Both Maryland and Minnesota have referenda on the ballot, and both share enough demographic similarities with North Carolina to make it likely that they will also ban gay marriage. Maryland has a large number of African-Americans who, while unlikely to turn on President Obama because of his embrace of gay marriage, are equally unlikely to accept his views on the issue. Minnesota has one of the most conservative pools of voters between the ages of 30-44 in the nation—they have even voted more Republican than their elders in recent decades. -- AEI's American.com
http://www.nomblog.com/23091/
-
In fact, even if nobody over age 45 had voted Tuesday, the amendment still would have passed by around 8 percentage points, according to the adjusted data above.
Interesting stat. Really undercuts the notion that this is a generational thing.
-
Interesting stat. Really undercuts the notion that this is a generational thing.
I don't buy that made up statistic at all to be honest.
It will happen... JUST like interracial dating and marriage.
-
I don't buy that made up statistic at all to be honest.
It will happen... JUST like interracial dating and marriage.
Really? Are we then going to start changing the defition of a dog? Are we going to start saying dogs are cats? Its scary that you seem so sure that a 1000 years biblical term is going to change.
-
Really? Are we then going to start changing the defition of a dog? Are we going to start saying dogs are cats? Its scary that you seem so sure that a 1000 years biblical term is going to change.
You are trying to mix adults with rational thought with cats and dogs?
This is why I hate this discussion... All of a sudden people start bringing in animals and shit and it's ridiculous.
-
You are trying to mix adults with rational thought with cats and dogs?
This is why I hate this discussion... All of a sudden people start bringing in animals and shit and it's ridiculous.
The definition of marriage has always been man and a woman.
If people who want gay marriage will at least be honest and say that they are trying to expand that definition to include same sex couples, fine there is an argument to be made, but at least be honest about it.
That is why gays typically have such a hard time getting sympathy for this marriage thing.
Personally I dont give a damn and think gays getting married is more a freak show than anything else and greatly look forward to day time "Gay Divorce Court" and reality shows showing gay marriages melting down, but they should at least be honest.
-
The definition of marriage has always been man and a woman.
If people who want gay marriage will at least be honest and say that they are trying to expand that definition to include same sex couples, fine there is an argument to be made, but at least be honest about it.
That is why gays typically have such a hard time getting sympathy for this marriage thing.
Personally I dont give a damn and think gays getting married is more a freak show than anything else and greatly look forward to day time "Gay Divorce Court" and reality shows showing gay marriages melting down, but they should at least be honest.
Again, at one time, marriage was considered abominable even if it was interracial... The bible even says so.
It will change... It's been changing... Once it is completely changed, will the crazy kook christians on the board commit suicide?
Doubtful.
-
Again, at one time, marriage was considered abominable even if it was interracial... The bible even says so.
It will change... It's been changing... Once it is completely changed, will the crazy kook christians on the board commit suicide?
Doubtful.
I just want to get some copy right or something on "Gay Divorce Court" or "Fire Island Shore" or some shit and make millions and millions on gay marriages ending in chaos.
Would make for great reality TV
-
What's really pathetic is about all this is that Obama had to do only three things to get re-elected:
1. Drop the Health Care crap after Scott Brown won Ted Kennedy's seat.
2. Adopt Simpson-Bowles, fight fot it and get it passed, which he would have been able to do.
3. Approve the Keystone Pipeline.
If he had done those things he would be cruising to re-election.
-
Romney Fundraising Nearly Matches Obama’s
by Keith Koffler on May 17, 2012, 7:41 am
Mitt Romney raised $40.1 million in April, just a little bit shy of the $43.6 million raised the same month by President Obama, the New York Times reports.
Romney’s take is a huge $12.6 million step up from his March fundraising total, while Obama’s represents a nearly $10 million decline.
Romney could easily have eclipsed Obama in April except for a technicality. Romney’s emergence as the presumptive GOP candidate in April made him able to raise money jointly with the Republican National Committee, in the same way Obama does with the Democratic National Committee. Donations to the RNC and DNC are capped at a higher total, but Romney didn’t hold his first combined event with the RNC until April 14.
Money raised by the candidates for the DNC and the RNC is almost indistinguishable from money raised for themselves, since both of the party committees plan to spend nearly all of their money on the presidential race.
Romney’s now proven ability to fundraise in the same league as Obama and the proliferation of well-financed GOP Super-PACs suggests that Republicans should have no fear of repeating the 2008 debacle of being vastly outspent by Obama.
Romney is also not fairing too poorly in the “man of the people” race, as his campaign says that 95 percent of his donations were for $250 or less.
The Obama campaign said 98 percent of its donations were for less than $250.
-
Romney Fundraising Nearly Matches Obama’s
by Keith Koffler on May 17, 2012, 7:41 am
Mitt Romney raised $40.1 million in April, just a little bit shy of the $43.6 million raised the same month by President Obama, the New York Times reports.
Romney’s take is a huge $12.6 million step up from his March fundraising total, while Obama’s represents a nearly $10 million decline.
Romney could easily have eclipsed Obama in April except for a technicality. Romney’s emergence as the presumptive GOP candidate in April made him able to raise money jointly with the Republican National Committee, in the same way Obama does with the Democratic National Committee. Donations to the RNC and DNC are capped at a higher total, but Romney didn’t hold his first combined event with the RNC until April 14.
Money raised by the candidates for the DNC and the RNC is almost indistinguishable from money raised for themselves, since both of the party committees plan to spend nearly all of their money on the presidential race.
Romney’s now proven ability to fundraise in the same league as Obama and the proliferation of well-financed GOP Super-PACs suggests that Republicans should have no fear of repeating the 2008 debacle of being vastly outspent by Obama.
Romney is also not fairing too poorly in the “man of the people” race, as his campaign says that 95 percent of his donations were for $250 or less.
The Obama campaign said 98 percent of its donations were for less than $250.
Link please
-
Link please
www.drudgereport.com
-
www.drudgereport.com
Thanks.. just did a look up on that source... fairly solid
-
I just want to get some copy right or something on "Gay Divorce Court" or "Fire Island Shore" or some shit and make millions and millions on gay marriages ending in chaos.
Would make for great reality TV
If you were smart, you would go ahead and jump on godaddy and purchase those domain names and any similar ones as well. So when it does occur you can sell the domain names to whatever sponsor is going to be produce those shows.
-
If you were smart, you would go ahead and jump on godaddy and purchase those domain names and any similar ones as well. So when it does occur you can sell the domain names to whatever sponsor is going to be produce those shows.
That is pretty smart - good call.
My favorite example of this is the guy who knew jetblue was sponsoring the Red Sox new minor league complex and bought jetbluepark.com. Turns out, that's what the park got named, so he made the link go to yankees.com.
Just checked it, and now it's going to making fun of the sox problems last season. www.jetbluepark.com
-
Domain names are cheap. You can buy literally every .com, .net, etc.. for any combination of themed ideas for under 1K.
Then just sit on it and wait.
-
Domain names are cheap. You can buy literally every .com, .net, etc.. for any combination of themed ideas for under 1K.
Then just sit on it and wait.
Yeah, we've had discussion how we missed out on millions by not registering go.com, computer.com, business.com, even though we were in the business.
-
For a long time, sex.com was the domain that was sold for the highest amount. At least that was what was reported, if the sale actually went through.
But there are some that are in the 7 figure range for being sold. Not bad when all it took was 5 minutes and $15 for another person to sit down and claim it.
-
For a long time, sex.com was the domain that was sold for the highest amount. At least that was what was reported, if the sale actually went through.
But there are some that are in the 7 figure range for being sold. Not bad when all it took was 5 minutes and $15 for another person to sit down and claim it.
It's insane. One five minute move and you can retire rich. I remember business or computer going for around 7M, but I could be way off.
-
It's insane. One five minute move and you can retire rich. I remember business or computer going for around 7M, but I could be way off.
With the traffic being generated in the SMM Himdenpedo thread - maybe we should buy up a few of those?
-
Romney Fundraising Nearly Matches Obama’s
by Keith Koffler on May 17, 2012, 7:41 am
Mitt Romney raised $40.1 million in April, just a little bit shy of the $43.6 million raised the same month by President Obama, the New York Times reports.
Romney’s take is a huge $12.6 million step up from his March fundraising total, while Obama’s represents a nearly $10 million decline.
Romney could easily have eclipsed Obama in April except for a technicality. Romney’s emergence as the presumptive GOP candidate in April made him able to raise money jointly with the Republican National Committee, in the same way Obama does with the Democratic National Committee. Donations to the RNC and DNC are capped at a higher total, but Romney didn’t hold his first combined event with the RNC until April 14.
Money raised by the candidates for the DNC and the RNC is almost indistinguishable from money raised for themselves, since both of the party committees plan to spend nearly all of their money on the presidential race.
Romney’s now proven ability to fundraise in the same league as Obama and the proliferation of well-financed GOP Super-PACs suggests that Republicans should have no fear of repeating the 2008 debacle of being vastly outspent by Obama.
Romney is also not fairing too poorly in the “man of the people” race, as his campaign says that 95 percent of his donations were for $250 or less.
The Obama campaign said 98 percent of its donations were for less than $250.
That's a great haul for Romney. Obama is in real trouble.
-
Romney Registers Personal Best 50% Favorable Rating
Up from 39% in February, but one of lowest for a presumptive nominee
by Jeffrey M. Jones
PRINCETON, NJ -- Fifty percent of Americans now have a favorable opinion of presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney, up from 39% in February and his highest by 10 percentage points. His current 41% unfavorable rating, though, leaves him with a net score of +9, after being at -8 in February. In roughly half of the 28 measurements Gallup has taken of Romney since 2006, more Americans have viewed him negatively than positively.
See all election 2012 data >
The spike in Romney's favorable rating in the May 10-13 USA Today/Gallup poll is predictable, given that he has become the presumptive Republican nominee. Presidential candidates typically get a spike in their favorable ratings in the wake of winning the nomination. Gallup's prior measurement of Romney, in February, came as Rick Santorum was surging in the polls after a series of primary and caucus wins that made him Romney's main challenger.
Republicans and independents are fueling the rise in Romney's favorable rating, with Democrats' views of him unchanged. Eighty-seven percent of Republicans now view him favorably, up from 65% in February. His favorable rating among independents is 11 points higher, and independents now view Romney more positively (48%) than negatively (43%).
As a result of the increase, Romney's favorable rating nearly matches President Obama's 52%. Obama has a 46% unfavorable rating. Obama's favorable rating has ranged between 50% and 55% since January 2011. It was 64% after he clinched the 2008 Democratic nomination, and reached a personal high of 78% just before he was inaugurated in January 2009.
Romney's Favorable Rating Low Compared With Those of Prior Nominees
Although Romney's favorable rating is improved, it ranks among the lowest for recent nominees in the first Gallup poll conducted after they wrapped up the presidential nomination. Gallup has tracked favorable ratings of presidential candidates using the current question format since 1992. Only Bill Clinton, at 38% in March 1992, had a lower favorable rating than Romney currently does, partly because Clinton was still unfamiliar to a substantial minority of Americans (23%) after wrapping up the 1992 Democratic nomination. Clinton's rating improved in the months that followed as he became better known, reaching 50% in May.
John Kerry (60%) and Bob Dole (57%), who -- like Romney and Clinton -- faced incumbent presidents in the election, had higher favorable ratings after they became the presumptive nominees for their respective parties.
John McCain had the highest favorable rating of any recent nominee -- 67% in March 2008.
-
Romney's Favorable Rating Low Compared With Those of Prior Nominees
Although Romney's favorable rating is improved, it ranks among the lowest for recent nominees in the first Gallup poll conducted after they wrapped up the presidential nomination. Gallup has tracked favorable ratings of presidential candidates using the current question format since 1992. Only Bill Clinton, at 38% in March 1992, had a lower favorable rating than Romney currently does, partly because Clinton was still unfamiliar to a substantial minority of Americans (23%) after wrapping up the 1992 Democratic nomination. Clinton's rating improved in the months that followed as he became better known, reaching 50% in May.
John Kerry (60%) and Bob Dole (57%), who -- like Romney and Clinton -- faced incumbent presidents in the election, had higher favorable ratings after they became the presumptive nominees for their respective parties.
John McCain had the highest favorable rating of any recent nominee -- 67% in March 2008.
THIS is what matters. 1 in 10 voters who liked mccain doesn't like Romney. ANd mccain still lost.
AND you have to think his numbers won't go UP when he starts explaining on a nat'l stage why he endorsed the Ryan plan or wants to shut down planned parenthood. He's already got those voters who suport this position (all 9 of you). But wait til old people hear about the ryan plan, and women hear about the PP stuff. I'm not talking political wizards, I'm talking idiots who don't decide til oct who they're voting for.
-
Romney's Favorable Rating Low Compared With Those of Prior Nominees
Although Romney's favorable rating is improved, it ranks among the lowest for recent nominees in the first Gallup poll conducted after they wrapped up the presidential nomination. Gallup has tracked favorable ratings of presidential candidates using the current question format since 1992. Only Bill Clinton, at 38% in March 1992, had a lower favorable rating than Romney currently does, partly because Clinton was still unfamiliar to a substantial minority of Americans (23%) after wrapping up the 1992 Democratic nomination. Clinton's rating improved in the months that followed as he became better known, reaching 50% in May.
John Kerry (60%) and Bob Dole (57%), who -- like Romney and Clinton -- faced incumbent presidents in the election, had higher favorable ratings after they became the presumptive nominees for their respective parties.
John McCain had the highest favorable rating of any recent nominee -- 67% in March 2008.
THIS is what matters. 1 in 10 voters who liked mccain doesn't like Romney. ANd mccain still lost.
AND you have to think his numbers won't go UP when he starts explaining on a nat'l stage why he endorsed the Ryan plan or wants to shut down planned parenthood. He's already got those voters who suport this position (all 9 of you). But wait til old people hear about the ryan plan, and women hear about the PP stuff. I'm not talking political wizards, I'm talking idiots who don't decide til oct who they're voting for.
WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY?????
240 - WHY DO YOU KEEP FORCING ME TO REFUTE YOUR BS?
http://www.gallup.com/poll/154703/Romney-Registers-Personal-Best-Favorable-Rating.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_content=morelink&utm_term=All%20Gallup%20Headlines%20-%20Politics
-
youre actually refuting your own BS.
You see, that paragaph i posted was from your article.
-
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls
Romney leading is gallup, rasmussen, and mason dixen.
-
Obama ended April with $115 million in bank
Posted by
CNN Political Unit
(CNN) - President Barack Obama's campaign ended the month of April with over $115 million in the bank, federal campaign filings posted Friday showed.
The campaign had $115,157,432.79 cash on hand after raising $25.7 million that month. Combined with other Democratic efforts, including the Democratic National Committee, they raised $43.6 million in April, slightly more than the $40.1 million GOP candidate Mitt Romney and his allies raised. Romney ended the month with $104 million cash on hand.
But Obama's campaign did report debt: $1,200 owed to a Nebraska company for telemarketing.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/18/obama-ended-april-with-115-million-in-bank/
-
Good commentary.
Media hysteria a sign Obama's in trouble
By Michael Goodwin
Published May 16, 2012
New York Post
An important change is happening in the presidential race — the belief that Mitt Romney could actually win is spreading. There is a growing confidence among his supporters, and the polls are starting to pick up a shift in his favor.
There is another indicator, however, and it is far more reliable. The left-leaning media is getting hysterical, launching over-the-top attacks on Romney and moving to protect President Obama as they see the public turning away from their man.
A CNN anchor compared Romney’s statement that “marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman” to George Wallace’s statement in 1963 that he favored “segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.”
An MSNBC guest compared Ann Romney to Hitler and Stalin.
The New York Times, faced with the fact that its own poll showed 67 percent of voters suspect Obama supported gay marriage mostly for political reasons, buried the story on the bottom of Page 17. And not until the 16th paragraph did it mention that the poll found Romney leading Obama by three points.
Then there’s the Newsweek cover that slapped a rainbow halo on the man it called “the first gay president” — an image that captures the quest to grant Obama messiah status.
The echo-chamber quality to the hysteria is of a piece with media cheerleading on the president’s gay-marriage stance, the lack of curiosity about how it came to pass, and what it means for the election.
Pundits and headline writers widely hail him as “brave” and “courageous” for “evolving” to yes, but Obama had little choice after Vice President Joe Biden announced his own support. True courage comes only when the choice is voluntary and there is another option. Acting when you have no other option is not courageous.
Moreover, the fact that Biden apologized to Obama for forcing him out is barely noted by the kudo chorus. The apology sequence doesn’t fit with the narrative of Obama “courage,” so the press ignores it.
Strange, too, that Obama declared gay marriage a civil right, but insisted it should be left to the states. His political allies are scratching their heads over that one — it’s a civil right or it’s not — but the media haven’t pursued that incoherent angle either.
Nor do his cheerleaders seem curious about whether he will support Harry Reid and others who want to include a call for gay marriage in the party’s official campaign platform.
A further twist adds more confusion. Obama said the law designed to leave it to the states — the Defense of Marriage Act, signed by Bill Clinton — is “unconstitutional.” So, is he going to propose another version? Nobody seems to care.
Whatever you believe about gay marriage, and I happen to support it, the media double standard is doing Obama more harm than good. Accusing Romney of using his stance as a “wedge issue” while painting Obama as a hero for his doesn’t pass the smell test.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/05/16/media-hysteria-sign-obama-in-trouble/?intcmp=obinsite
-
I hope Obama goes down in history as the worst US president evar.
That is, if the media will allow him to be remembered for what he did (actually, didnt do), and not as they "wanted him to be".
-
I hope Obama goes down in history as the worst US president evar.
That is, if the media will allow him to be remembered for what he did (actually, didnt do), and not as they "wanted him to be".
Worst ever? He's like the fourth best ever. Did you see that thread a while back where he put himself in rarefied air?
-
Good commentary.
Media hysteria a sign Obama's in trouble
I love the definition of 'hysteria' these days.
Oh, they're being mean to obama this week and suddenly it's hysteria. No, 911 was hysteria. Shock n Awe as we destroyed baghdad was hysteria.
Fox writes a piece on how everyone is poo-poo'ing obama and suddenly its hysteria. a tad dramatic.
-
Worst ever? He's like the fourth best ever. Did you see that thread a while back where he put himself in rarefied air?
Oh yeah, I forgot.
Its weird though, I cant really recall ever hearing any other president in history try and claim how great of a president they were... especially not the ones that would be considered our Presidential "greats", like Washington or Lincoln.
-
I love the definition of 'hysteria' these days.
Oh, they're being mean to obama this week and suddenly it's hysteria. No, 911 was hysteria. Shock n Awe as we destroyed baghdad was hysteria.
Fox writes a piece on how everyone is poo-poo'ing obama and suddenly its hysteria. a tad dramatic.
Doesnt suprise me your in here on full damage control for Obama.
Que
"He's an illegal kenyan"
-
Oh yeah, I forgot.
Its weird though, I cant really recall ever hearing any other president in history try and claim how great of a president they were... especially not the ones that would be considered our Presidential "greats", like Washington or Lincoln.
I don't remember it happening either. He thinks way too highly of himself.
-
A CNN anchor compared Romney’s statement that “marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman” to George Wallace’s statement in 1963 that he favored “segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.”
Really? That's taking it a wee bit too far.
An MSNBC guest compared Ann Romney to Hitler and Stalin.
I don't watch MSNBC, but I call bullshit. I just find it hard to believe that such a statement was actually made and this isn't media hyperbole in taking something and playing 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon with it. Do we actually have the specific, actual quote in question, because I can't think of any context in which such a comparison would make sense except perhaps to say that "Ann Romney shares a common trait with Hitler and Stalin: they are all genetically human!!!"
-
Really? That's taking it a wee bit too far.
I don't watch MSNBC, but I call bullshit. I just find it hard to believe that such a statement was actually made and this isn't media hyperbole in taking something and playing 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon with it. Do we actually have the specific, actual quote in question, because I can't think of any context in which such a comparison would make sense except perhaps to say that "Ann Romney shares a common trait with Hitler and Stalin: they are all genetically human!!!"
You avatar is the lulz.
-
Really? That's taking it a wee bit too far.
I don't watch MSNBC, but I call bullshit. I just find it hard to believe that such a statement was actually made and this isn't media hyperbole in taking something and playing 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon with it. Do we actually have the specific, actual quote in question, because I can't think of any context in which such a comparison would make sense except perhaps to say that "Ann Romney shares a common trait with Hitler and Stalin: they are all genetically human!!!"
I don't know, but would not surprise me at all. You should read the left-wing hate speech thread.
-
I don't know, but would not surprise me at all. You should read the left-wing hate speech thread.
It might be hard to find considering the fact that there are 500-1000 right-wing hate speech threads, most started by you know who.
-
It might be hard to find considering the fact that there are 500-1000 right-wing hate speech threads, most started by you know who.
hateful rhetoric comes from both sides, but only one side denies that fact...
-
hateful rhetoric comes from both sides, but only one side denies that fact...
Is that natural?
-
Is that natural?
sure is, its very natural to project negative attributes on to others while justifying the same behavior when you do it.
Ever been cut off on the road before and thought to yourself, "that persons an ass hole"?
ever been running late and cut someone off and thought to yourself "im running late so I have to" or "I wouldnt have cut them off if they werent going so slow"?
you project negative attributes on others and excuse your behavior with situational circumstances.
Although a person who is self aware realizes this and will correct it, I guess there just arent that many self aware ppl on that one side eh?
Lesson over, now you can say you learned something from getbig
-
http://www.gallup.com/poll/150743/Obama-Romney.aspx
Mittens up by three.
-
sure is, its very natural to project negative attributes on to others while justifying the same behavior when you do it.
Ever been cut off on the road before and thought to yourself, "that persons an ass hole"?
ever been running late and cut someone off and thought to yourself "im running late so I have to" or "I wouldnt have cut them off if they werent going so slow"?
you project negative attributes on others and excuse your behavior with situational circumstances.
Although a person who is self aware realizes this and will correct it, I guess there just arent that many self aware ppl on that one side eh?
Lesson over, now you can say you learned something from getbig
Right. The side you disagree with is inferior. Give me some more statements like this.
All liberals believe...
Why do libs always....?
You're very enlightening.
-
Right. The side you disagree with is inferior. Give me some more statements like this.
All liberals believe...
Why do libs always....?
You're very enlightening.
LMAO I never said they were inferior, do you often put words in other ppls mouths?
-
LMAO I never said they were inferior, do you often put words in other ppls mouths?
Are you drunk?
Try keeping up with the conversation.
-
Are you drunk?
Try keeping up with the conversation.
Can you give me three things you think Obama deserves a second term on?
-
Are you drunk?
Try keeping up with the conversation.
LOL not at all, are you inferring I said someone was inferior?
-
A CNN anchor compared Romney’s statement that “marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman” to George Wallace’s statement in 1963 that he favored “segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.”
Yeah that was stupid. I saw that clip. Even if the two were comparable, what's his point? In 200 years poeple might think Im immoral for eating meat.
-
sure is, its very natural to project negative attributes on to others while justifying the same behavior when you do it.
Ever been cut off on the road before and thought to yourself, "that persons an ass hole"?
ever been running late and cut someone off and thought to yourself "im running late so I have to" or "I wouldnt have cut them off if they werent going so slow"?
you project negative attributes on others and excuse your behavior with situational circumstances.
Although a person who is self aware realizes this and will correct it, I guess there just arent that many self aware ppl on that one side eh?
Lesson over, now you can say you learned something from getbig
Well said. :)
-
LMAO I never said they were inferior, do you often put words in other ppls mouths?
hateful rhetoric comes from both sides, but only one side denies that fact...
-
hateful rhetoric comes from both sides, but only one side denies that fact...
and you got that I feel that one side is inferior?
so does that mean you feel that ppl who dont believe in gay marriage are inferior to you then?
or are they just differences in opinion?
a difference of opinion doesnt mean the other side is inferior, is that something liberals believe?
-
Free Republic
Browse · Search Pings · Mail News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.
Biden's Words Fall on Deaf Ears in Ohio
Townhall.com ^ | May 20, 2012 | Salena Zito
Posted on May 20, 2012 7:30:07 AM EDT by Kaslin
YOUNGSTOWN, Ohio – Dave Betras is known in “The Valley” for his colorful language and his political antics and drama. Last Wednesday, however, when Vice President Joe Biden visited a local industrial park, Betras was all about numbers.
“Oh, the valley is going to turn out big for Barack Obama this year, big!” he said, spreading his arms wide for emphasis. The chairman of Mahoning County’s Democrats pointed to the shipping warehouse of M7 Technologies, a local manufacturer, filled with people waiting to hear Biden speak. “Turn-out like today, a full room,” Betras, 52, said.
If his job is to turn out Obama supporters on Election Day, he may want to check on their allegiances before he buses them to the polls. Many of the Youngstown attendees at Biden’s event do not support him or the president.
Bob McClain and his wife, Myra, went to M7 Technologies to support their friend’s family business. Neither supports the Obama-Biden ticket.
“We are friends of the owners – that is why we came, to show support for the Garvey family,” said McClain. At 71, he’s retired but volunteers full-time as a counselor for Mahoning Valley small-business owners.
“Our vote is going for who is best to lead on the economy. That is Romney, for us,” said Myra as her husband nodded.
Richard Furillo stood with his son Matthew at his son’s place of employment; a lifelong Democrat, he voted for Obama in 2008 but won’t again. “I don't know why I did it but I cannot stand anymore ‘change,’ ” he said, referring to the president’s old campaign slogan.
Father and son both said they attended the event to support the company.
“This is a once-in-a-lifetime chance to see a sitting vice president,” added Matthew, also a Democrat. He, too, said he will vote for Romney.
Standing beside them, Jeff Cunningham echoed their sentiments: “The biggest challenge in this country is creating jobs that last, jobs that sustain families.” The 36-year-old valley native said his vote will be for Romney.
Montgomery “Monty” Deruyter sat several rows from where Biden stood, addressing the crowd. The 43-year-old father of two started working at M7 as a machinist two months ago; uncertainty is driving him to favor Romney.
“I hold both parties at arm’s length but trust Romney’s business skills to lead on the economy,” he said.
They were only five of more than a score of people interviewed who said they will not vote for Obama in November; they were the audience members not captured by TV cameras, who sat respectfully during Biden’s 30-minute populist speech while the party faithful – gathered up and bused in by Betras – leaped up every time Biden’s voice pitched several decibels.
Even then, discontent was voiced among those faithful – and worry that some of the community have no reason to vote for the president next fall.
Joe Louis Teague, 70, a black community icon who has run several failed campaigns for local office, is in charge of coordinating the Obama campaign’s voter registration in the Mahoning Valley. He is worried about the black vote because “people are discouraged.”
Black-on-black crime is out of control; drugs and poor parenting are at the heart of that problem, he said.
“I am going to be honest, I think he could have done more,” he said of the first black president’s attention to the black community. “I think he needs to do more.”
As Biden switched between fiery class-warfare rhetoric and whispers about his upbringing in neighboring Pennsylvania, two things stood out: no mention of coal or Marcellus shale natural gas – the resources that are bringing prosperity back to this region – and his rhetoric about middle-class resentment.
“They don’t get it! They don’t get who we are!” he shouted after one pitch about how Republicans don't understand the little guy in places such as Ohio and Pennsylvania.
That’s an interesting take from Biden, considering Obama's “understanding” of those same gun- and Bible-clinging embittered voters that he famously described at a high-dollar San Francisco fundraiser in 2008.
It probably is why last week’s Quinnipiac poll showed only one percentage point advantage for Barack Obama over Mitt Romney in the Buckeye State.
-
and you got that I feel that one side is inferior?
so does that mean you feel that ppl who dont believe in gay marriage are inferior to you then?
or are they just differences in opinion?
a difference of opinion doesnt mean the other side is inferior, is that something liberals believe?
If you want to claim that you're an American, and that you believe in freedom, then, yes, you know they have the same rights.
No two ways about it.
Do you hate freedom?
-
If you want to claim that you're an American, and that you believe in freedom, then, yes, you know they have the same rights.
No two ways about it.
Do you hate freedom?
they do have the same rights, they are free to marry any person of the opposite sex just as I am.
I find it hillarious that you toe the liberal line about opposing views being based in hate and ignorance.
Anytime someone disagrees with you they are racist, homophobic, bible clinging hate mongers...
-
they do have the same rights, they are free to marry any person of the opposite sex just as I am.
I find it hillarious that you toe the liberal line about opposing views being based in hate and ignorance.
Anytime someone disagrees with you they are racist, homophobic, bible clinging hate mongers...
The funny thing is that libs typically never debate the merits of an issue but merely call names and seek to shut down debate after they call their little names.
-
The funny thing is that libs typically never debate the merits of an issue but merely call names and seek to shut down debate after they call their little names.
And, they always love democracy, until they LOSE as a result of it (i.e. the 32 times they've been dropped on this gay "marriage" stuff).
The Supreme Court says that there's no constitutional violation by defining marriage as one man and one woman. The people vote and make their voices loud and clear. Yes, whiners like Garebear go through their usual tirade.
The Wisconsin libs are doing the same thing. Democracy was great ("Tell me what democracy looks like.....THIS IS WHAT DEMOCRACY LOOKS LIKE!"). But, now that the DNC won't give them any money, to watch Barrett lost to Walker AGAIN, they're blubbering like kindergarten kids, deprived of their graham crackers and milk.
-
Walker is going to win in a landslide. How dare he try to reign in spending!
-
And, they always love democracy, until they LOSE as a result of it (i.e. the 32 times they've been dropped on this gay "marriage" stuff).
The Supreme Court says that there's no constitutional violation by defining marriage as one man and one woman. The people vote and make their voices loud and clear. Yes, whiners like Garebear go through their usual tirade.
The Wisconsin libs are doing the same thing. Democracy was great ("Tell me what democracy looks like.....THIS IS WHAT DEMOCRACY LOOKS LIKE!"). But, now that the DNC won't give them any money, to watch Barrett lost to Walker AGAIN, they're blubbering like kindergarten kids, deprived of their graham crackers and milk.
So, by your definition, we should still have Jim Crow laws in the south and interracial marriage should be illegal.
-
The funny thing is that libs typically never debate the merits of an issue but merely call names and seek to shut down debate after they call their little names.
Wow just wow you just made yourself the BIGGEST Liberal on this board then
-
Pro-Obama super PAC fund-raising lags behind rival
Posted by
CNN Political Unit
(CNN) - The super PAC supporting President Barack Obama's re-election reported raising just under $1.6 million in April, well below the amount raised by the group supporting Obama's rival Mitt Romney.
Priorities USA Action also reported having $4.7 million cash on hand at the end of April, slightly more than half of the amount in Restore Our Future's war chest. Restore Our Future is supporting Romney's bid for the White House. Both groups recently filed April fund-raising numbers with the Federal Election Commission.
Labor groups donated big to the pro-Obama group in April. The largest contribution came from the National Air Traffic Controllers Association, which gave the organization $1 million. Other groups putting money into Priorities included the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices, a group affiliated with the plumbing industry, and the National Association of Social Workers.
In total, Priorities spent about $1.9 million in April, about a million dollars less than Restore Our Future spent last month.
In February, the president's re-election campaign announced it would urge donors to contribute to Priorities USA. The move represented a reversal of Obama's position on the third-party spending giants, which were made increasingly possible by the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the Citizens United case.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/21/pro-obama-super-pac-fund-raising-lags-behind-rival/
-
Who are the polls favoring as of now?
-
Failed War on Women: Romney Now Leads Obama Among Married Women by 17 Points
Jammie Wearing Fools ^ | May 22, 2012 | Jammie
Posted on May 22, 2012 2:33:48 PM EDT by Free ThinkerNY
Just a statistical blip, I guess. Of 21 points.
On several measures, the presumptive Republican nominee is gaining ground on President Obama even as the president has slipped in some areas, according to a new ABC News-Washington Post poll out today.
Which candidate better understands the economic problems of average Americans?
Back in February Obama led Romney on that question by 17 percentage points. But the former Massachusetts governor has managed to cut the president’s advantage roughly in half — down to an 8 point gap.
And who’s more to blame for the tough economy — President George W. Bush or President Obama?
By a 49 to 34 percent margin more Americans still say Bush, but that 15 point divide has narrowed since January when it stood at 25 points.
(Excerpt) Read more at jammiewf.com ...
-
Failed War on Women: Romney Now Leads Obama Among Married Women by 17 Points
Jammie Wearing Fools ^ | May 22, 2012 | Jammie
Link to the poll they used? I couldn't find "Jamming Wearing Fools" on Rasmussen or Gallup - thanks!
-
Link to the poll they used? I couldn't find "Jamming Wearing Fools" on Rasmussen or Gallup - thanks!
I think he has copy and paste fatigue.
-
2000 DEM VP NOMINEE NOT SUPPORTING OBAMA
Lieberman tells Hannity he could see voting for Romney
WASHINGTON – Joe Lieberman, the 2000 Democratic vice presidential nominee with Al Gore, says he is not supporting Barack Obama for re-election, though he is undecided about how he will vote in November.
Lieberman, now an independent senator from Connecticut, made the statement on Sean Hannity’s nationally syndicated radio show today.
The interview has been posted on Hannity’s website.
“I’m happy not to be involved in electoral politics this year,” he said.
Asked if would vote, Lieberman said he will go to the polls and, like many other Americans, make a final decision closer to the election.
Lieberman lost a primary bid in 2006 to retain his Senate seat, but ran successfully as an independent. He continues to caucus with Senate Democrats.
http://www.wnd.com/2012/05/2000-dem-vp-nominee-not-supporting-obama/?cat_orig=politics
-
:). Obama has dragged the dems over the cliff and they refuse to see it.
-
2000 DEM VP NOMINEE NOT SUPPORTING OBAMA
Lieberman tells Hannity he could see voting for Romney
WASHINGTON – Joe Lieberman, the 2000 Democratic vice presidential nominee with Al Gore, says he is not supporting Barack Obama for re-election, though he is undecided about how he will vote in November.
Lieberman, now an independent senator from Connecticut, made the statement on Sean Hannity’s nationally syndicated radio show today.
The interview has been posted on Hannity’s website.
“I’m happy not to be involved in electoral politics this year,” he said.
Asked if would vote, Lieberman said he will go to the polls and, like many other Americans, make a final decision closer to the election.
Lieberman lost a primary bid in 2006 to retain his Senate seat, but ran successfully as an independent. He continues to caucus with Senate Democrats.
http://www.wnd.com/2012/05/2000-dem-vp-nominee-not-supporting-obama/?cat_orig=politics
how is this news? Lieberman endorsed mccain on 2008. Everyone acting surprised?
-
Hecklers Mar Romney Visit to Inner-City Charter School in Phila. ("get out" of black neighborhood
The Washington Post ^ | Thursday, May 24, 2012 | Philip Rucker
Posted on May 27, 2012 11:42:37 AM EDT by kristinn
When Mitt Romney came to an inner-city charter school here Thursday to promote his new education agenda, he received something of a history lecture about the persecution of blacks in America and the struggles of African American children to meet the academic achievements of their white counterparts.
Seeking to broaden his appeal heading into the general election, Romney was venturing for his first time in this campaign into an impoverished black neighborhood to hear the concerns of local educators and community leaders. But here in the streets of West Philadelphia, the emotion surrounding his contest with the nation’s first black president was raw, as dozens of neighborhood residents shouted, “Get out, Romney, get out!”
SNIP
Outside, meanwhile, some brick row houses across from the school were boarded up. Police had cordoned off a full city block to protect Romney and his entourage. Residents, some of them organized by Obama’s campaign, stood on their porches and gathered at a sidewalk corner to shout angrily at Romney. Some held signs saying, “We are the 99%.” One man’s placard trumpeted an often-referenced Romney gaffe: “I am not concerned about the very poor.”
Madaline G. Dunn, 78, who said she has lived here for 50 years and volunteers at the school, said she is “personally offended” that Romney would visit her neighborhood.
“It’s not appreciated here,” she said. “It is absolutely denigrating for him to come in here and speak his garbage.”
SNIP
When he visited a classroom where the kids in the elementary school choir were standing, swaying and clapping to the beat of Kirk Franklin’s “I Smile,” Romney appeared charmed but did not dance with them. Rather, he tapped one of his toes slightly and bobbed his head, but did not catch the rhythm..
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Fng brainwashed morons.
-
Hecklers Mar Romney Visit to Inner-City Charter School in Phila. ("get out" of black neighborhood
The Washington Post ^ | Thursday, May 24, 2012 | Philip Rucker
Posted on May 27, 2012 11:42:37 AM EDT by kristinn
When Mitt Romney came to an inner-city charter school here Thursday to promote his new education agenda, he received something of a history lecture about the persecution of blacks in America and the struggles of African American children to meet the academic achievements of their white counterparts.
Seeking to broaden his appeal heading into the general election, Romney was venturing for his first time in this campaign into an impoverished black neighborhood to hear the concerns of local educators and community leaders. But here in the streets of West Philadelphia, the emotion surrounding his contest with the nation’s first black president was raw, as dozens of neighborhood residents shouted, “Get out, Romney, get out!”
SNIP
Outside, meanwhile, some brick row houses across from the school were boarded up. Police had cordoned off a full city block to protect Romney and his entourage. Residents, some of them organized by Obama’s campaign, stood on their porches and gathered at a sidewalk corner to shout angrily at Romney. Some held signs saying, “We are the 99%.” One man’s placard trumpeted an often-referenced Romney gaffe: “I am not concerned about the very poor.”
Madaline G. Dunn, 78, who said she has lived here for 50 years and volunteers at the school, said she is “personally offended” that Romney would visit her neighborhood.
“It’s not appreciated here,” she said. “It is absolutely denigrating for him to come in here and speak his garbage.”
SNIP
When he visited a classroom where the kids in the elementary school choir were standing, swaying and clapping to the beat of Kirk Franklin’s “I Smile,” Romney appeared charmed but did not dance with them. Rather, he tapped one of his toes slightly and bobbed his head, but did not catch the rhythm..
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Fng brainwashed morons.
Useful hypnotized idiots.
-
Free Republic
Browse · Search Pings · Mail News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.
Veterans Give Romney Big Lead Over Obama (58% to 34%)
Gallup ^ | 05/27/2012 | Frank Newport
Posted on May 28, 2012 9:57:30 AM EDT by SeekAndFind
PRINCETON, NJ -- U.S. veterans, about 13% of the adult population and consisting mostly of older men, support Mitt Romney over Barack Obama for president by 58% to 34%, while nonveterans give Obama a four-percentage-point edge.
These data, from an analysis of Gallup Daily tracking interviews conducted April 11-May 24, show that 24% of all adult men are veterans, compared with 2% of adult women.
Obama and Romney are tied overall at 46% apiece among all registered voters in this sample. Men give Romney an eight-point edge, while women opt for Obama over Romney by seven points. It turns out that the male skew for Romney is driven almost entirely by veterans. Romney leads by one point among nonveteran men, contrasted with the 28-point edge Romney receives among male veterans.
The small percentage of female veterans in the U.S., in contrast to their male counterparts, do not differ significantly in their presidential vote choice from the vast majority of women who are not veterans.
The proportion of U.S. men who are armed forces veterans rises dramatically among those who are 60 and older. The military draft was in force in the U.S. from shortly before the U.S. entry into World War II until the early 1970s. A majority of men now 70 to 89 served in the military, including almost three-quarters of those aged 80 to 89. Less than a fifth of men younger than 50 have served in the military. There is little variation in military service among women across these age groups.
-
PRINCETON, NJ -- U.S. veterans, about 13% of the adult population and consisting mostly of older men, support Mitt Romney over Barack Obama for president by 58% to 34%, while nonveterans give Obama a four-percentage-point edge.
too bad only 13% of the population are veterans. Given a higher number, we'd have two vets running every time.
Buncha schoolgirl draft dodgers been in office for the last 30 years.
-
So, by your definition, we should still have Jim Crow laws in the south and interracial marriage should be illegal.
The definition of marriage is one man and one woman. Interracial marriage, consisting of a MAN of one race and a WOMAN of another doesn't violate that.
-
too bad only 13% of the population are veterans. Given a higher number, we'd have two vets running every time.
Buncha schoolgirl draft dodgers been in office for the last 30 years.
I personally feel that if every politican had to serve a term in the military in a combat MOS, things would be a lot better. Or a helluva lot worse. Lulz.
-
Hecklers Mar Romney Visit to Inner-City Charter School in Phila. ("get out" of black neighborhood
The Washington Post ^ | Thursday, May 24, 2012 | Philip Rucker
Posted on May 27, 2012 11:42:37 AM EDT by kristinn
When Mitt Romney came to an inner-city charter school here Thursday to promote his new education agenda, he received something of a history lecture about the persecution of blacks in America and the struggles of African American children to meet the academic achievements of their white counterparts.
Seeking to broaden his appeal heading into the general election, Romney was venturing for his first time in this campaign into an impoverished black neighborhood to hear the concerns of local educators and community leaders. But here in the streets of West Philadelphia, the emotion surrounding his contest with the nation’s first black president was raw, as dozens of neighborhood residents shouted, “Get out, Romney, get out!”
SNIP
Outside, meanwhile, some brick row houses across from the school were boarded up. Police had cordoned off a full city block to protect Romney and his entourage. Residents, some of them organized by Obama’s campaign, stood on their porches and gathered at a sidewalk corner to shout angrily at Romney. Some held signs saying, “We are the 99%.” One man’s placard trumpeted an often-referenced Romney gaffe: “I am not concerned about the very poor.”
Madaline G. Dunn, 78, who said she has lived here for 50 years and volunteers at the school, said she is “personally offended” that Romney would visit her neighborhood.
“It’s not appreciated here,” she said. “It is absolutely denigrating for him to come in here and speak his garbage.”
SNIP
When he visited a classroom where the kids in the elementary school choir were standing, swaying and clapping to the beat of Kirk Franklin’s “I Smile,” Romney appeared charmed but did not dance with them. Rather, he tapped one of his toes slightly and bobbed his head, but did not catch the rhythm..
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Fng brainwashed morons.
Let me get this straight: Romney visit an inner-city school to talk with black people, we have a handful of black buffoons chanting for him to get out.
Obama won't come anywhere NEAR an inner-city school (or an inner-city anything); yet, these morons would vote for him anyway.
Well, I look at it this way. If Romney can get about 7-10% of the black vote on his side, Obama is going to get destroyed. While I wouldn't waste any major time or money on the black electorate, if Romney can pick off some black people who actually have some sense, he's on his way to taking Obama to the woodshed and whipping his "Hope-and-Change" backside, until it glows in the dark.
-
Let me get this straight: Romney visit an inner-city school to talk with black people, we have a handful of black buffoons chanting for him to get out.
Obama won't come anywhere NEAR an inner-city school (or an inner-city anything); yet, these morons would vote for him anyway.
Well, I look at it this way. If Romney can get about 7-10% of the black vote on his side, Obama is going to get destroyed. While I wouldn't waste any major time or money on the black electorate, if Romney can pick off some black people who actually have some sense, he's on his way to taking Obama to the woodshed and whipping his "Hope-and-Change" backside, until it glows in the dark.
Que Benny calling you an uncle tom, or something equally retarded.
-
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/80235712-a8b7-11e1-a747-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1wE4BKPSS
The reckoning is coming. Even Ft knows Ghettobama is going down.
-
I personally feel that if every politican had to serve a term in the military in a combat MOS, things would be a lot better. Or a helluva lot worse. Lulz.
how many GOP 2012ers served? I think Newt dodged, Romney was a missionary, Cain I dont think served? huntmann, bachman, no.
Was Ron paul the only man on that stage who served? And was he the only one saying hte US war machine needs to come home and protect our borders and stop losing our brave soldiers over oil? etc etc
The only man who served was the one who wasn't the chickenhawk saying "bomb bomb iran..."
-
how many GOP 2012ers served? I think Newt dodged, Romney was a missionary, Cain I dont think served? huntmann, bachman, no.
Was Ron paul the only man on that stage who served? And was he the only one saying hte US war machine needs to come home and protect our borders and stop losing our brave soldiers over oil? etc etc
The only man who served was the one who wasn't the chickenhawk saying "bomb bomb iran..."
There are tons of neo con intellectuals who are themselves war veterans or who have kids serving in the military. What is your point?
-
how many GOP 2012ers served? I think Newt dodged, Romney was a missionary, Cain I dont think served? huntmann, bachman, no.
Was Ron paul the only man on that stage who served? And was he the only one saying hte US war machine needs to come home and protect our borders and stop losing our brave soldiers over oil? etc etc
The only man who served was the one who wasn't the chickenhawk saying "bomb bomb iran..."
Pretty ironic
-
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/80235712-a8b7-11e1-a747-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1wE4BKPSS
The reckoning is coming. Even Ft knows Ghettobama is going down.
And Mitt Fucking Romney is youre Wrecking ball?..Seriously.. This is what youre going with? This is your BIG RECKONING? Fuckin weak bro... fucking weak
-
And Mitt Fucking Romney is youre Wrecking ball?..Seriously.. This is what youre going with? This is your BIG RECKONING? Fuckin weak bro... fucking weak
Lol flip-flop Romney is now a wrecking ball :D
-
And Mitt Fucking Romney is youre Wrecking ball?..Seriously.. This is what youre going with? This is your BIG RECKONING? Fuckin weak bro... fucking weak
Just remember tool - you, like the rest of Team Kneepad - had no idea how bad the mid-terms were going to be and i called that almost a year in advance.
Walker will win Wisconsin next week, Brown will win in Mass, Romney is going to win, the GOP will gain seats in both the house and possibly take the Senate too.
Obama is the best thing EVER to happen to the GOP. The funny thing too is that you hopeless morons hitched your wagon to failbama and can't reverse course now to the cliff he is dragging you over.
-
Just remember tool - you, like the rest of Team Kneepad - had no idea how bad the mid-terms were going to be and i called that almost a year in advance.
Walker will win Wisconsin next week, Brown will win in Mass, Romney is going to win, the GOP will gain seats in both the house and possibly take the Senate too.
Obama is the best thing EVER to happen to the GOP. The funny thing too is that you hopeless morons hitched your wagon to failbama and can't reverse course now to the cliff he is dragging you over.
Ok so name some policies where Romney will be different to Obama so he can prevent this?
And please no commie bla bla shit its really getting old
-
Ok so name some policies where Romney will be different to Obama so he can prevent this?
And please no commie bla bla shit its really getting old
Simple - even if Romney DOES NOTHING he still is better than obama who has scared business to the point of holding on to everything and not hiring.
If we want to the economy to come back - obama has to go.
and yes - when you elect a racist socialist/communist like obama - dont act all surprised when businesses wont hire.
-
There are tons of neo con intellectuals who are themselves war veterans or who have kids serving in the military. What is your point?
ehhhh it seemed like most of the Bush cabinet either got deferrments or spent a month flying planes in Alabama. I dont think a very large % of the people planning and leading the iraq war had spent any time on the ground in viet nam or in combat...
-
There are tons of neo con intellectuals who are themselves war veterans or who have kids serving in the military. What is your point?
Haha.
Funniest thing I read all day.
Thanks.
-
Haha.
Funniest thing I read all day.
Thanks.
Obama is out neo-conning the neo-cons. I'm sure you love that.
-
Simple - even if Romney DOES NOTHING he still is better than obama who has scared business to the point of holding on to everything and not hiring.
If we want to the economy to come back - obama has to go.
and yes - when you elect a racist socialist/communist like obama - dont act all surprised when businesses wont hire.
Ok so name ONE policy where Romney will be different to Obama so he can prevent this?
-
ehhhh it seemed like most of the Bush cabinet either got deferrments or spent a month flying planes in Alabama. I dont think a very large % of the people planning and leading the iraq war had spent any time on the ground in viet nam or in combat...
There are people who've retired in the military that have not had so much as a spitball, hurled toward them. Sometimes, it's the luck of the draw.
As long as you've served in a combat area (which is somewhat large in the Middle East), you're considered a combat veteran.
-
Ok so name ONE policy where Romney will be different to Obama so he can prevent this?
LOL!!!!
Romney would not wage a war on coal.
Romney would not have communists on the NLRB
Romney already said he will appoint Scalia/Alito like judges to the SC
Romney signed on to the Ryan budget
Romney would not have a socialist thug leading the DOL
Romney would not have a neo-terrorist like eric holder as AG
Romney would not wage a war on fossil fuels
Romney would not go to war w the catholic church
Romney would not set out the EPA to collapse business.
You want more. I cant stand romney - but 95er please - he is way better than obama by a factor of 1,000,000
-
Just remember tool - you, like the rest of Team Kneepad - had no idea how bad the mid-terms were going to be and i called that almost a year in advance.
Walker will win Wisconsin next week, Brown will win in Mass, Romney is going to win, the GOP will gain seats in both the house and possibly take the Senate too.
Obama is the best thing EVER to happen to the GOP. The funny thing too is that you hopeless morons hitched your wagon to failbama and can't reverse course now to the cliff he is dragging you over.
And this Tsunami has done nothing.. Absolutley nothing they are at like 12%. And they are a non factor. Mannnnnn you are fucking weak as a fuck. Keep holding on. I said id vote for Ron Paul, but you idiots cant get your heads out of your asses to nominate a real candidate. You got Mitt fuckin Romney. You and i know, this is weak as a fuck
-
And this Tsunami has done nothing.. Absolutley nothing they are at like 12%. And they are a non factor. Mannnnnn you are fucking weak as a fuck. Keep holding on. I said id vote for Ron Paul, but you idiots cant get your heads out of your asses to nominate a real candidate. You got Mitt fuckin Romney. You and i know, this is weak as a fuck
While romney is a rino - You got Obama, a communist/socialist
CHECKMATE
-
While romney is a rino - You got Obama, a communist/socialist
CHECKMATE
How?
-
LOL!!!!
Romney would not wage a war on coal.
Romney would not have communists on the NLRB
Romney already said he will appoint Scalia/Alito like judges to the SC
Romney signed on to the Ryan budget
Romney would not have a socialist thug leading the DOL
Romney would not have a neo-terrorist like eric holder as AG
Romney would not wage a war on fossil fuels
Romney would not go to war w the catholic church
Romney would not set out the EPA to collapse business.
You want more. I cant stand romney - but 95er please - he is way better than obama by a factor of 1,000,000
So Romney wants to pollute more?
He didnt sign the Ryan budget and even if he did thats just ridicilous pandering for the rich saying fuck you to everyone else
This is just BS and you know it. Be specific
-
So Romney wants to pollute more?
He didnt sign the Ryan budget and even if he did thats just ridicilous pandering for the rich saying fuck you to everyone else
This is just BS and you know it. Be specific
LOL So you got nothing at all but more obama kneepadding and bogus nonsense.
Where is obamas budget again?
-
-
LOL!!!!
Romney would not wage a war on coal.
Romney would not have communists on the NLRB
Romney already said he will appoint Scalia/Alito like judges to the SC
Romney signed on to the Ryan budget
Romney would not have a socialist thug leading the DOL
Romney would not have a neo-terrorist like eric holder as AG
Romney would not wage a war on fossil fuels
Romney would not go to war w the catholic church
Romney would not set out the EPA to collapse business.
Romney ain't changing shit, you know that, right? "Neo terrorist"? Shit man, stop being a drama queen with all these rush limbaugh one-liners. "Race terrorists" hahaha oh brother, take a midol sister, you're menstrating all over the flat bench press while the men are trying to lift.
"Wage a war on fossil fuels" - obama still sucking opec/saudi dick. Nothing changes with romney.
Obama isn't "going to war" with catholic church - when he takes away their tax-free status, THAT is war. Youre bitching about birth control? insignificant wedge issue.
Romney ain't gonna close the EPA - bush used them to his advantage, didnt close htem.
-
Romney ain't changing shit, you know that, right? "Neo terrorist"? Shit man, stop being a drama queen with all these rush limbaugh one-liners. "Race terrorists" hahaha oh brother, take a midol sister, you're menstrating all over the flat bench press while the men are trying to lift.
"Wage a war on fossil fuels" - obama still sucking opec/saudi dick. Nothing changes with romney.
Obama isn't "going to war" with catholic church - when he takes away their tax-free status, THAT is war. Youre bitching about birth control? insignificant wedge issue.
Romney ain't gonna close the EPA - bush used them to his advantage, didnt close htem.
FLAN terrorists anyone?
-
This Is The Mitt Romney-Karl Rove Path To The White House
Brett LoGiurato|48 minutes ago|876|4
Mitt Romney has a much-talked about fundraiser today with Donald Trump, and the Las Vegas Sun's Jon Ralston takes a look at some internal campaign documents from the Romney campaign heading into the event.
Among the documents is the campaign's embrace of the Karl Rove electoral strategy, which he dubbed the "3-2-1 strategy" in a Wall Street Journal op-ed last week.
Basically, the strategy is a Herman Cain-ized, "9-9-9" way to say that Romney needs to win a lot of states this election that were blue in 2008. Here's one of the paths Rove wrote about last week in the Journal, visualized thanks to 270towin.com:
270towin.com
The complicated plan is threefold: First, Romney has to win back three Republican strongholds that went for Barack Obama in 2008: Indiana (realistically likely), North Carolina (somewhat likely) and Virginia (somewhat unlikely, as of now).
The second part of the plan is flipping back two states that flipped Democratic from 2004 to 2008: Florida and Ohio.
Finally, the last part of the plan is the "1." Pick one state, any state, and Romney will win. The most likely candidates there are New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado, or Nevada.
Of these, the one with the juiciest storyline is Wisconsin. We're one week away from Gov. Scott Walker's recall election, and Wisconsin has the potential to be a wild card on a national scale if Walker prevails over the effort to recall him.
That said, taking a look at the Real Clear Politics map, this strategy will not be simple. Indiana leans for Romney, but the other five states are toss-ups at best (Florida, Ohio) and leaning Obama at worst (Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania).
Nevertheless, here's Rove: "The odds now narrowly favor a Romney win."
Please follow Politics on Twitter and Facebook.
Follow Brett LoGiurato on Twitter.
Ask Brett A Question >
Tags: Mitt Romney, Barack Obama, 2012 Election, Election 2012, Karl Rove, Donald Trump, Electoral College | Get Alerts for these topics »
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/mitt-romney-karl-rove-electoral-path-to-the-white-house-2012-5#ixzz1wHSvbjka
-
Lol flip-flop Romney is now a wrecking ball :D
A cotton ball would be a wrecking ball, when aimed at "flip-flop" Obama, who's still groveling before the gays for campaign cash.
-
A cotton ball would be a wrecking ball, when aimed at "flip-flop" Obama, who's still groveling before the gays for campaign cash.
why are you jesus people always so worried about the gays, :D :D
-
why are you jesus people always so worried about the gays, :D :D
Apparently, you're too busy with your identity crisis to get the point, namely Obama supporters (i.e. yourself, via your other post name) calling Romney a flip-flopper while remaining mush-mouthed about Obama's convenient evolution on gay "marriage".
-
Apparently, you're too busy with your identity crisis to get the point, namely Obama supporters (i.e. yourself, via your other post name) calling Romney a flip-flopper while remaining mush-mouthed about Obama's convenient evolution on gay "marriage".
Your hate won't win.
-
Why Obama Will Lose in a Landslide
Townhall.com ^ | May 30, 2012 | Wayne Allyn Root
Posted on Wednesday, May 30, 2012 10:16:29 AM by Kaslin
Most political predictions are made by biased pollsters, pundits, or prognosticators who are either rooting for Republicans or Democrats. I am neither. I am a former Libertarian Vice Presidential nominee, and a well-known Vegas oddsmaker with one of the most accurate records of predicting political races.
Neither Obama nor Romney are my horses in the race. I believe both Republicans and Democrats have destroyed the U.S. economy and brought us to the edge of economic disaster. My vote will go to Libertarian Presidential candidate Gary Johnson in November, whom I believe has the most fiscally conservative track record of any Governor in modern U.S. political history. Without the bold spending cuts of a Gary Johnson or Ron Paul, I don’t believe it’s possible to turnaround America.
But as an oddsmaker with a pretty remarkable track record of picking political races, I play no favorites. I simply use common sense to call them as I see them. Back in late December I released my New Years Predictions. I predicted back then- before a single GOP primary had been held, with Romney trailing for months to almost every GOP competitor from Rick Perry to Herman Cain to Newt- that Romney would easily rout his competition to win the GOP nomination by a landslide. I also predicted that the Presidential race between Obama and Romney would be very close until election day. But that on election day Romney would win by a landslide similar to Reagan-Carter in 1980.
Understanding history, today I am even more convinced of a resounding Romney victory. 32 years ago at this moment in time, Reagan was losing by 9 points to Carter. Romney is right now running even in polls. So why do most pollsters give Obama the edge?
First, most pollsters are missing one ingredient- common sense. Here is my gut instinct. Not one American who voted for McCain 4 years ago will switch to Obama. Not one in all the land. But many millions of people who voted for an unknown Obama 4 years ago are angry, disillusioned, turned off, or scared about the future. Voters know Obama now- and that is a bad harbinger.
Now to an analysis of the voting blocks that matter in U.S. politics:
*Black voters. Obama has nowhere to go but down among this group. His endorsement of gay marriage has alienated many black church-going Christians. He may get 88% of their vote instead of the 96% he got in 2008. This is not good news for Obama.
*Hispanic voters. Obama has nowhere to go but down among this group. If Romney picks Rubio as his VP running-mate the GOP may pick up an extra 10% to 15% of Hispanic voters (plus lock down Florida). This is not good news for Obama.
*Jewish voters. Obama has been weak in his support of Israel. Many Jewish voters and big donors are angry and disappointed. I predict Obama's Jewish support drops from 78% in 2008 to the low 60’s. This is not good news for Obama.
*Youth voters. Obama’s biggest and most enthusiastic believers from 4 years ago have graduated into a job market from hell. Young people are disillusioned, frightened, and broke- a bad combination. The enthusiasm is long gone. Turnout will be much lower among young voters, as will actual voting percentages. This not good news for Obama.
*Catholic voters. Obama won a majority of Catholics in 2008. That won’t happen again. Out of desperation to please women, Obama went to war with the Catholic Church over contraception. Now he is being sued by the Catholic Church. Majority lost. This is not good news for Obama.
*Small Business owners. Because I ran for Vice President last time around, and I'm a small businessman myself, I know literally thousands of small business owners. At least 40% of them in my circle of friends, fans and supporters voted for Obama 4 years ago to “give someone different a chance.” I warned them that he would pursue a war on capitalism and demonize anyone who owned a business...that he’d support unions over the private sector in a big way...that he'd overwhelm the economy with spending and debt. My friends didn’t listen. Four years later, I can't find one person in my circle of small business owner friends voting for Obama. Not one. This is not good news for Obama.
*Blue collar working class whites. Do I need to say a thing? White working class voters are about as happy with Obama as Boston Red Sox fans feel about the New York Yankees. This is not good news for Obama.
*Suburban moms. The issue isn’t contraception…it’s having a job to pay for contraception. Obama’s economy frightens these moms. They are worried about putting food on the table. They fear for their children’s future. This is not good news for Obama.
*Military Veterans. McCain won this group by 10 points. Romney is winning by 24 points. The more our military vets got to see of Obama, the more they disliked him. This is not good news for Obama.
Add it up. Is there one major group where Obama has gained since 2008? Will anyone in America wake up on election day saying “I didn’t vote for Obama 4 years ago. But he’s done such a fantastic job, I can’t wait to vote for him today.” Does anyone feel that a vote for Obama makes their job more secure?
Forget the polls. My gut instincts as a Vegas oddsmaker and common sense small businessman tell me this will be a historic landslide and a world-class repudiation of Obama’s radical and risky socialist agenda. It's Reagan-Carter all over again.
But I’ll give Obama credit for one thing- he is living proof that familiarity breeds contempt.
-
Your hate won't win.
Come with something original, instead of this bumper sticker spiel.
While you're at it, try addressing Obama "flip-flopping", for once.
-
May 30, 2012 12:00pm
Romney Rebounds Among Women, While Obama’s Favorability Slips
Image Credit: Chris O'Meara/AP Photo|Steven Senne/AP Photo
A sharp advance among women has boosted Mitt Romney to his highest favorability rating of the presidential campaign – albeit still an unusually weak one – while Barack Obama’s personal popularity has slipped in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll.
Obama still beats Romney in favorable ratings overall, by an 11-point margin, 52 vs. 41 percent. But that’s down from 21 points last month, giving Romney the better trajectory. And both get only even divisions among registered voters, marking the closeness of the race between them.
See PDF with full results, charts and tables here.
This survey comes after a period in which Romney’s chief GOP competitors withdrew from the Republican race and lined up behind his candidacy. Romney clinched his party’s nomination in Texas last night.
All Romney’s gains have come among women – up by 13 percentage points in personal popularity from last month, while Obama’s lost 7 points among women. (Views among men have been more stable.) Obama’s rating among women, 51 percent favorable, still beats Romney’s 40 percent – but again that margin is far smaller than what it was six weeks ago.
An ABC/Post poll last week found improvement for Romney in vote preferences among married women. This survey finds that his gains in personal favorability, instead, come predominantly among unmarried women, who saw him uncommonly negatively earlier this spring.
This poll, produced for ABC by Langer Research Associates, finds that Obama’s ratings among all adults are slightly positive, 52-45 percent favorable-unfavorable, vs. 56-40 percent last month. Romney is numerically underwater (albeit not by a significant margin), 41-45 percent – but up from his 35-47 percent score last month. Forty-one percent favorable is a new high for him, by a scant 2 points from January. It’s his first foray above the 40 percent line.
Romney’s 35 percent favorability in April was the weakest on record for a presumptive presidential nominee in ABC/Post polls in primary seasons since 1984. While he’s since gained 6 points overall, he’s still less popular than most previous eventual nominees at this stage of a presidential campaign. Only one has been this low in comparable data – but that one, Bill Clinton in 1992, did go on to win.
Obama’s popularity, meanwhile is the same as George H.W. Bush’s in June 1992, the year Bush lost re-election. On the other hand Obama’s rating is 2 points from Ronald Reagan’s in early 1984 and George W. Bush’s in 2004, both re-election winners.
GROUPS – In addition to women, Romney’s gained 9 points among moderates from a month ago (albeit just to 39 percent favorable, vs. Obama’s 58 percent in this group) and 9 points among Republicans (to 78 percent favorable).
In addition to losing ground among women, Obama’s popularity has dropped by a slight 8 points, to 45 percent, among independents, classically the swing voters in presidential elections. Fifty-two percent of independents see him unfavorably, putting him numerically underwater in this group for the first time since December. Romney is at 40-46 percent favorable-unfavorable among independents, also numerically in negative territory.
Neither candidate manages majority popularity among registered voters. Obama’s slipped to a 49-48 percent favorable-unfavorable rating in this group, after achieving majority favorability among registered voters in three of the past four months. Romney’s at 44-44 percent, up 8 percentage points in favorable ratings among registered voters since March, albeit not quite at a new high; he hit 45 percent, his best to date, in January.
Differences between registered voters and the general public reflect slightly higher voter registration among Republicans.
Finally, while Obama’s clearly had a tougher month than his GOP opponent, he retains bragging rights in one area beyond overall favorability – strength of sentiment. His strong critics and his strong fans are roughly evenly divided, at 31 and 29 percent, respectively. Romney, for his part, is seen more strongly negatively than strongly positively by a 9-point margin, 24 vs. 15 percent. But again, that’s eased from a 17-point gap in March.
METHODOLOGY – This ABC News/Washington Post poll was conducted by landline and cell phone May 23-27, 2012, among a random national sample of 1,021 adults. Results have a margin of sampling error of 3.5 points. The survey was produced for ABC News by Langer Research Associates of New York, N.Y., with sampling, data collection and tabulation by SSRS/Social Science Research Solutions of Media, Pa.
WAR ON WOMEN - FAIL
-
Four more years?: U.S. can't afford it
About The Tribune-Review
The Tribune-Review can be reached via e-mail or at 412-321-6460.
By the Tribune-Review
Published: Tuesday, May 29, 2012, 6:46 p.m.
Updated: Wednesday, May 30, 2012
As summer bows and presidential politics heat up, Barack Obama's erstwhile campaign themes of "hope" and "change" will surely morph into fear and loathing.
Indeed, it promises to be a long, hot summer, campaign-wise, for Team Obama as it bounces from one disingenuous claim to another, from demanding "fairness" in tax gouging to shore up government's unsustainable spending to demonizing presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney for being -- what else? -- successful.
But "run" as it will, the Obama campaign cannot hide from the incumbent's abysmal record.
Should the U.S. Supreme Court uphold ObamaCare, Mr. Obama's signature legislative "accomplishment," government's reach will extend into 17 percent of the U.S. economy, beginning next year with new taxes on investment income.
And don't expect any kind of correction in government's spending and spiraling debt from an administration that has increased annual spending from $3 trillion in 2008 to $3.5 trillion in 2010 and is on course to grow it to $5.5 trillion in less than a decade, writes Pete du Pont for The Wall Street Journal. Reforming the sinkholes of entitlement spending (Social Security, Medicare) would be moot, as would be any energy policy that taps America's vast natural resources.
Four more years of President Obama? America cannot afford it.
http://triblive.com/opinion/1881103-74/obama-spending-campaign-government-trillion-afford-america-cannot-summer-35
-
Romney takes lead in Ohio : Rasmussen Romney 46%, Obama 44%
Rasmussen Reports ^
Posted on Thursday, May 31, 2012
Mitt Romney has inched ahead of President Obama in Ohio, taking the lead in the key battleground state after the president has led there for several months.
The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Ohio Voters shows Romney with 46% support to Obama’s 44%. Six percent (6%) like some other candidate, and five percent (5%) remain undecided.
(Excerpt) Read more at rasmussenreports.com ...
-
David Axelrod To Romney Protesters: 'You Can't Handle The Truth!'
Grace Wyler|May 31, 2012, 12:23 PM|741|20
Courtesy of CNN
Senior Obama campaign advisor David Axelrod just lost his cool on a group of rowdy Mitt Romney supporters protesting his press conference on the steps of the Massachusetts State House.
"You can't handle the truth, my friends!" Axelrod yelled at the protesters. "If you could handle the truth, then you would quiet down."
Flanked by a crew of Massachusetts Democrats, Axelrod attempted to open up the Obama campaign's new front against Romney, attacking his record as governor of Massachusetts.
But this morning's remarks were drowned out by the protesters, made up mostly of Romney campaign staffers and volunteers, who booed, blew bubbles, and shouted things like "Solyndra!" "Cory Booker!" "Elect Mitt!" and "Go Home!"
"You can shout down speakers my friends, but it’s hard to etch a sketch the truth away," Axelrod told the chanters. He later called the debacle "the great pageant of democracy."
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/david-axelrod-to-romney-protesters-you-cant-handle-the-truth-2012-5#ixzz1wTHI5XMt
:D
-
Skip to comments.
Rasmussen: Romney now up in Ohio (also in Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia)
Hotair ^ | 06/01/2012 | Ed Morrissey
Posted on Thursday, May 31, 2012 2:19:42 PM by SeekAndFind
Not just in Ohio, Rasmussen states, but also in Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia. In case you haven’t been keeping score, those are four states that Barack Obama won in 2008, and which Mitt Romney must take away to have a shot at the Presidency in November. According to the latest from Rasmussen, Romney’s on his way. After just one month of focusing all his efforts on Obama, Romney now has leads in all four swing states:
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows Mitt Romney with 46% of the vote to President Obama’s 45%. …
Romney has inched ahead of Obama in Ohio, taking the lead in the key battleground state after the president has led there for several months. This also marks a continuing shift in the critical Core Four states – Ohio, Florida, North Carolina and Virginia – with the Republican now leading in all four for the first time in Rasmussen Reports polling this year.
Only the Ohio numbers are fresh, actually, but they are critical. “Inched” is probably a good description for Ohio; Romney leads only by two, 46/44. The low level of support for Obama as an incumbent with Romney only now winning the GOP nomination is probably the bigger story. Rasmussen has a D/R/I sample in this survey of 34/31/35, which is much better for Democrats than the 36/37/28 that turned out in the 2010 midterms. If anything, this poll might undersample Republicans. Romney leads Obama among independents by a wide margin, 47/35, a disastrous outcome for Obama in Ohio. The gender gap actually tilts slightly in Romney’s favor, with a 51/39 lead among men and a 41/48 deficit among women. Romney wins majorities among the two older age demos, while losing younger voters by 21 points, 32/53. Obama loses or ties in all income demographics except the under-$20K demo, winning that 57/31.
Some of the questions on this survey produce rather amusing results. For instance, 55% of respondents say they’re choosing between the lesser of two evils rather than out of enthusiasm for Romney or Obama, with the majority of Democrats enthused and two-thirds of Republicans and independents resigned to their vote.
Two-thirds say that the process has not produced the best possible candidates, with that judgment more or less consistent across partisan lines. Among more traditional measures, Romney leads on the economy by nine points, and that will undoubtedly worsen if the jobs numbers slide tomorrow and the next couple of months, as it looks like they might. His favorability is low at 48/50, but Obama’s job approval is worse at 46/54. Among independents, it’s an absolutely horrid 35/65, with 45% of independents strongly disapproving of Obama’s performance.
Losing a grip on Ohio in and of itself isn’t a campaign-ender for Obama. The problem will be whether that trend spills over into Pennsylvania and Virginia, as well as Wisconsin. If Obama loses those states as well as Florida and Virginia, the election will be over before the Central Time Zone states close their polls on Election Day.
-
Come with something original, instead of this bumper sticker spiel.
While you're at it, try addressing Obama "flip-flopping", for once.
Your hate won't win because the momentum of the nation has already achieved critical mass among the citizens of the United States.
Your thoughts are archaic at best and a will become a blight up on your conscience should you, one day, adopt principles of fairness and equal rights.
You justify your hate through a doctrine which enslaved a people for four hundred years and then spat upon them when the chains were lifted.
Your children, should you have any and should they become aware of how you behaved at this critical moment in history, will be ashamed.
There, that's a bit long for a bumper sticker, wouldn't you say?
-
Your hate won't win because the momentum of the nation has already achieved critical mass among the citizens of the United States.
Your thoughts are archaic at best and a will become a blight up on your conscience should you, one day, adopt principles of fairness and equal rights.
You justify your hate through a doctrine which enslaved a people for four hundred years and then spat upon them when the chains were lifted.
Your children, should you have any and should they become aware of how you behaved at this critical moment in history, will be ashamed.
There, that's a bit long for a bumper sticker, wouldn't you say?
The snide elitist who helps the children of China's ruling elite further oppress their countrymen while making 100x what the average Chinese makes is quite the smug little dirtbag.
How much of your paycheck do you give back to help the poor in China? I'm guessing 0%.
-
You justify your hate through a doctrine which enslaved a people for four hundred years and then spat upon them when the chains were lifted.
Pretty sure Mcway is black(ish). At least going by Benny B's incessent claims of "Uncle Tom" and "House Negro" anytime Mcway doesnt tow the line.
So this sentence is kinda hilarious.
-
Your hate won't win because the momentum of the nation has already achieved critical mass among the citizens of the United States.
Your thoughts are archaic at best and a will become a blight up on your conscience should you, one day, adopt principles of fairness and equal rights.
You justify your hate through a doctrine which enslaved a people for four hundred years and then spat upon them when the chains were lifted.
Your children, should you have any and should they become aware of how you behaved at this critical moment in history, will be ashamed.
There, that's a bit long for a bumper sticker, wouldn't you say?
LOL @ you slurring a black man. Moron.
-
Your hate won't win because the momentum of the nation has already achieved critical mass among the citizens of the United States.
Your thoughts are archaic at best and a will become a blight up on your conscience should you, one day, adopt principles of fairness and equal rights.
You justify your hate through a doctrine which enslaved a people for four hundred years and then spat upon them when the chains were lifted.
Your children, should you have any and should they become aware of how you behaved at this critical moment in history, will be ashamed.
There, that's a bit long for a bumper sticker, wouldn't you say?
What momentum of the nation? The citizens have said, LOUD AND CLEAR, how they feel about this issue THIRTY-TWO TIMES, at the ballot box where it counts, not biased ridiculous polls.
Not a single gay "marriage" supporter (including YOU) are willing to put that notion of yours to the test on election day. In fact, people like you were citing these polls, three weeks ago, as North Carolina EASILY passed its marriage amendment.
Four states vote on this issue in November. And, I'm sure you'll be citing the polls, talking about the "momentum of the nation", staring down the barrel of 0-36.
BTW, I already have children and the ones old enough to understand this issue are as appalled by the notion of this garbage of gay "marriage" as I am.
And, you STILL have yet to address Obama convenient flip-flopping....ahem...evolution. Try that one on for size.
-
Pretty sure Mcway is black(ish). At least going by Benny B's incessent claims of "Uncle Tom" and "House Negro" anytime Mcway doesnt tow the line.
So this sentence is kinda hilarious.
No "ish", just black, proud, and (unlike the spineless Benny) CONSERVATIVE!!
;D
-
No "ish", just black, proud, and (unlike the spineless Benny) CONSERVATIVE!!
;D
Where is Benny to defend his threads? V
-
Where is Benny to defend his threads? V
Hiding on G&O, irritating people, who have told him time and time again to take his foolishness to this forum (where he can be picked apart, properly).
-
Hiding on G&O, irritating people, who have told him time and time again to take his foolishness to this forum (where he can be picked apart, properly).
The meltdowns on the left are so funny lately.
-
What momentum of the nation? The citizens have said, LOUD AND CLEAR, how they feel about this issue THIRTY-TWO TIMES, at the ballot box where it counts, not biased ridiculous polls.
Not a single gay "marriage" supporter (including YOU) are willing to put that notion of yours to the test on election day. In fact, people like you were citing these polls, three weeks ago, as North Carolina EASILY passed its marriage amendment.
Four states vote on this issue in November. And, I'm sure you'll be citing the polls, talking about the "momentum of the nation", staring down the barrel of 0-36.
BTW, I already have children and the ones old enough to understand this issue are as appalled by the notion of this garbage of gay "marriage" as I am.
And, you STILL have yet to address Obama convenient flip-flopping....ahem...evolution. Try that one on for size.
Forty years ago, "gay bashing" was not even considered a hate crime. That changed.
Twenty years ago, someone could be kicked out of the military because they were found to be gay. That changed.
Last year DADT was repealled. A huge change.
The next generation of voters is incredibly against your oppressive paradigm.
The course of history is clear.
Your talk of a referendum of hate is especially ironic given the fact that, with any ounce of integrity of admission on your part, the Jim Crow South would have existed for decades past 1964 if it were simply left to a vote. Do you support racist laws such as those given it was put to a vote?
What if we had just let Georgia vote on whether or not to have slavery or get rid of it in 1863? Which way do you think that would have gone? Would you have been a slave yourself but been silent because "that's the majority".
A consitutional democracy must operate with a special protection for minorities. I believe you know and understand this, but you're just not being honest about it here.
As to Obama, of course he can't simply put forth equality all at once. There are too many narrow-minded people, like yourself, and this has to be done gradually.
Jesus Christ, by your definition Abraham Lincoln was a "flip flopper", since he didn't come in to the White House saying he was going to go to war with the South.
I'm saddened to hear that you have taught your children to hate from day one. You haven't learned much from history.
Maybe you should go and pray that god keeps your power for oppression a little longer, since it seems to bring you such happiness.
-
LOL @ you slurring a black man. Moron.
Look. I don't fear or hate black men. That's your "thing".
When a man is wrong, he's wrong. I'm not afraid to tell him.
So save it.
-
Forty years ago, "gay bashing" was not even considered a hate crime. That changed.
Twenty years ago, someone could be kicked out of the military because they were found to be gay. That changed.
Last year DADT was repealled. A huge change.
The next generation of voters is incredibly against your oppressive paradigm.
Where is the next generation, on game day (that is, election day). 32 times, the next generation has had the opportunity to stand and be counted on this issue. And 32 times, they've been either MIA or they didn't vote the way the polls predicted they would.
The course of history is clear.
Your talk of a referendum of hate is especially ironic given the fact that, with any ounce of integrity of admission on your part, the Jim Crow South would have existed for decades past 1964 if it were simply left to a vote. Do you support racist laws such as those given it was put to a vote?
I'm sorry! Where were the amendments to vote on Jim Crow laws again? Or did you forget that by the time the Supreme Court did its things, most of the states has desegregated ON THEIR OWN?
What if we had just let Georgia vote on whether or not to have slavery or get rid of it in 1863? Which way do you think that would have gone? Would you have been a slave yourself but been silent because "that's the majority".
A consitutional democracy must operate with a special protection for minorities. I believe you know and understand this, but you're just not being honest about it here.
As to Obama, of course he can't simply put forth equality all at once. There are too many narrow-minded people, like yourself, and this has to be done gradually.
Nice try. Obama lied his keister off in 2008. Then, once he got into office, he showed his true colors. He looked pastor Rick Warren dead in the eye, after being asked what the definition of marriage is. Obama said, it's one man and one woman.
Jesus Christ, by your definition Abraham Lincoln was a "flip flopper", since he didn't come in to the White House saying he was going to go to war with the South.
I'm saddened to hear that you have taught your children to hate from day one. You haven't learned much from history.
Maybe you should go and pray that god keeps your power for oppression a little longer, since it seems to bring you such happiness.
In other words, this is the usual liberal flap that lying and flip-flopping is OK, as long as you land on the left-winged side of things.
What I've taught my children that marriage is comprised of man and woman, not the perversion of two guys or two girls playing house with each other.
What I've learned from history is that this garbage only become and remains legal, when the power to vote is suppressed by the left and tied up in political wranglings. Once the people (of all ages, races, creeds, colors, and religions) vote on it, it's all over for gay "marriage".
-
[ Invalid YouTube link ]
-
Team Obama Finds Romney Hard Target to Hit
Townhall.com ^ | June 1, 2012 | Scott Rasmussen
The Obama campaign's early attempts to attack Mitt Romney's record at Bain Capital or present him as too extreme to be president have not worked out all that well so far. The early stumbles have created a flurry of commentaries wondering what's wrong with the team that performed so flawlessly in Election 2008.
The answer may have nothing to do with the Obama campaign and have everything to do with the fact that Romney appears to be a tougher target than anticipated.
On the Bain Capital front, 44 percent of voters say Romney's business experience there is primarily a reason to vote for him, and only 33 percent see it as a negative. More importantly, though, a solid majority of voters believes that venture capital firms are better at job creation than new government programs.
That creates a major challenge for the Obama team: How can they go after Romney as a venture capitalist without appearing to attack the free market system that Americans wholeheartedly embrace?
Adding to the challenge for the president is that attacking venture capital firms reinforces a perception that he is already too far to the left on economic issues.
Most voters think cutting government spending will be good for the economy but feel the president wants more spending instead. Seventy percent of voters believe the president is politically liberal. That figure includes 46 percent who say he is very liberal. That's not where you want to be perceived in a center-right nation.
Overall, 43 percent of voters consider themselves conservative and just 26 percent liberal. Mostly, though, voters are pragmatic rather than ideological, and there is a distrust of those who are seen as strongly ideological. Only a modest number of voters describe themselves as either very conservative or very liberal, leaving more than seven out of 10 voters closer to the center.
That's where they perceive Romney to be. Fifty-six percent of voters see Romney as either politically moderate or somewhat conservative.
This creates another major challenge for the Obama team: How can they paint Romney as ideologically extreme when voters see the president as the more ideological candidate?
Obviously, all of these perceptions could shift over the course of the campaign. The president will try to convince voters he is a pragmatist rather than an ideologue. His team will try to paint Romney as out-of-touch with the concerns of day-to-day voters and to portray his business career as insensitive and predatory. Political junkies will continue to obsess over tactical decisions made by the campaign.
But the underlying reality is that Team Obama has a difficult hand to play. The economy matters more than campaign tactics, and the indicators at the moment are mixed at best. Additionally, most Americans believe that the president's instincts lead in the wrong direction when it comes to finding solutions.
-
Team Obama Finds Romney Hard Target to Hit
Townhall.com ^ | June 1, 2012 | Scott Rasmussen
The Obama campaign's early attempts to attack Mitt Romney's record at Bain Capital or present him as too extreme to be president have not worked out all that well so far. The early stumbles have created a flurry of commentaries wondering what's wrong with the team that performed so flawlessly in Election 2008.
The answer may have nothing to do with the Obama campaign and have everything to do with the fact that Romney appears to be a tougher target than anticipated.
On the Bain Capital front, 44 percent of voters say Romney's business experience there is primarily a reason to vote for him, and only 33 percent see it as a negative. More importantly, though, a solid majority of voters believes that venture capital firms are better at job creation than new government programs.
That creates a major challenge for the Obama team: How can they go after Romney as a venture capitalist without appearing to attack the free market system that Americans wholeheartedly embrace?
Adding to the challenge for the president is that attacking venture capital firms reinforces a perception that he is already too far to the left on economic issues.
Most voters think cutting government spending will be good for the economy but feel the president wants more spending instead. Seventy percent of voters believe the president is politically liberal. That figure includes 46 percent who say he is very liberal. That's not where you want to be perceived in a center-right nation.
Overall, 43 percent of voters consider themselves conservative and just 26 percent liberal. Mostly, though, voters are pragmatic rather than ideological, and there is a distrust of those who are seen as strongly ideological. Only a modest number of voters describe themselves as either very conservative or very liberal, leaving more than seven out of 10 voters closer to the center.
That's where they perceive Romney to be. Fifty-six percent of voters see Romney as either politically moderate or somewhat conservative.
This creates another major challenge for the Obama team: How can they paint Romney as ideologically extreme when voters see the president as the more ideological candidate?
Obviously, all of these perceptions could shift over the course of the campaign. The president will try to convince voters he is a pragmatist rather than an ideologue. His team will try to paint Romney as out-of-touch with the concerns of day-to-day voters and to portray his business career as insensitive and predatory. Political junkies will continue to obsess over tactical decisions made by the campaign.
But the underlying reality is that Team Obama has a difficult hand to play. The economy matters more than campaign tactics, and the indicators at the moment are mixed at best. Additionally, most Americans believe that the president's instincts lead in the wrong direction when it comes to finding solutions.
Ok,....blah blah.. wanna put your money where your mouth is... want to make a friendly bet?
-
Ok,....blah blah.. wanna put your money where your mouth is... want to make a friendly bet?
Fine - here is the deal -
If Obama wins - I change my AV to a Obama pic and if mittens wins you change your AV to a romney one - for 3 months.
Ok?
-
Fine - here is the deal -
If Obama wins - I change my AV to a Obama pic and if mittens wins you change your AV to a romney one - for 3 months.
Ok?
Thats good all good with me
-
[ Invalid YouTube link ]
I like this. Not an attack ad, short on specifics, but it's good. I wish they could both campaign like this, but they'll both have to get in the mud.
-
Thats good all good with me
Deal
-
[ Invalid YouTube link ]
-
May Jobs Report: TKO for the Candidate of Hope?
Prepare to be uninspired as Obama takes the only course available to him: going negative.
By Michael Hirsh
Updated: June 1, 2012 | 2:44 p.m.
June 1, 2012 | 1:58 p.m.
AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall
President Obama speaks about jobs for veterans on Friday at Honeywell Automation and Control Solutions Global Headquarters in Golden Valley, Minn.
Friday’s devastating jobs report for May should be greeted by rites of mourning at the White House—not necessarily for Barack Obama’s presidency, at least not yet, but rather for the man who once billed himself as the Candidate of Hope.
The grim longer-term message of the May numbers, which came in at a much-lower-than-expected 69,000 jobs and raised the unemployment rate to 8.2 percent, is that the positive economic trend that the Obama camp was hoping for as it swings into November is very unlikely to happen now. For the third year in a row, a spring slowdown has shattered the hopes and spiked the frustrations of the Obama White House, which is trying to manage a historically tepid recovery from the Great Recession. The report was punctuated by a big stock market drop in which the Dow gave back its gains on the year.
(RELATED: Economy Adds Just 69,000 Jobs in May)
With only several more jobs reports left before the election, pretty much all that can be hoped for is nothing worse. “It seems like the best bet, if Europe doesn’t implode, is that we’re going to remain in the status quo,” says Harry Holzer, a professor of public policy at Georgetown University and a former chief economist for the Labor Department.
While it’s too early to say, based on polls, it’s reasonable to ask whether President Obama should now be viewed once again as the underdog in this race. The president’s best chance to win now, therefore, may be to go negative in a much bigger way than he’s already done: If he is no longer the Candidate of Hope, in other words, Mitt Romney should be seen as the Candidate of Nope.
(RELATED: Economy Is Slowing; Obama Can't Help)
“The argument is that, if you take Romney at his word, he will end up supporting what House Republicans want: tax cuts for the rich and austerity for everyone else,” Holzer says. “It will look more like Europe and Britain. Obama should make the case that while the economy is tepid under him, under Romney it would probably be backsliding.”
So prepare not to be inspired: This will be a campaign of “If Worse Comes to Worst.” Could Shepard Fairey come up with a poster image for that?
Romney, not surprisingly, pounced on the new numbers, calling them a “harsh indictment” of Obama’s policies and reminding voters that the economy has now spent a record 40 months at 8-percent-plus unemployment. Sketching out an argument we will no doubt hear endlessly for the next five months—"Jobs is Job One of the president"—Romney told CNBC that Obama and his team simply misread how severe the downturn was, got fatally distracted by "Obamacare," and proved wrong in expecting unemployment to be “in the sixes” by now.
What can be done? Romney was asked. “The most significant thing we can do in the near term is to get a new president.”
(PICTURES: How Do Obama's and Obama's Records on the Workforce Compare?)
The president seems to have little choice now but to make middle-class voters, especially women, African-Americans, and Latinos, even more scared of what Romney will do to their futures than what he, Obama, has already appeared to do to them. That’s not an easy sell, but it’s one that has been made slightly easier by the GOP candidate’s embrace of right-wing proposals such as Rep. Paul Ryan’s budget plan—which a Congressional Budget Office study showed would effectively eliminate the entire U.S. government except for defense, Social Security, Medicare, children’s insurance, and interest payments. Romney’s jobs record as governor of Massachusetts was also not very strong.
There have already been signs of this negative approach; now it will inevitably become more pronounced. As John Heilemann wrote last Sunday in New York Magazine, even before the new jobs report, “2008’s candidate of hope stands poised to become 2012’s candidate of fear.” The tack carries some risk, because so much of Obama’s self-identification was as a “transformational” figure who touted himself as different from typical politicians. In Politico, Glenn Thrush wrote recently that the negativism in the Obama campaign, about Romney’s tenure at Bain Capital especially, was alienating independent voters and only uniting hitherto unenthusiastic Republicans around Romney.
Democratic strategist Stan Greenberg says that while Obama has no choice but to frighten voters about a Romney presidency, he also needs to do a better job of articulating his own vision for the economy—even as he drops not-so-subtle reminders of how much of his economic program, such as infrastructure investments, has been stymied by GOP opposition on Capitol Hill. “People aren’t looking for a depressed future. They still want signs of hope,” says Greenberg. “The jobs number reinforces even more that the voters want bigger changes in the economy.”
In a speech in Minnesota on Friday, the president sought to do just that, telling the audience that “Congress should have passed a bill a long time ago to put thousands of construction workers back on the job, building our roads and our bridges.” He added that “Congress has not acted on enough” of his ideas. “There is no excuse for it.”
Greenberg adds that the Obama team can try to make clear to voters that “the Great Recession was unique on scale of damage and length of recovery, and that the euro crisis has made recovery even harder.” But he says the campaign also needs to understand that because of the uniqueness of the crisis, “It needs a unique strategy.”
The May jobs report, while fairly bleak across the board, is not utterly without hope: One reason unemployment rose to 8.2 percent is that more people rejoined the workforce. In addition, lower gasoline prices and interest rates could still boost the economy—and people’s hopes—by November. But probably not enough to persuade very many people that it is Barack Obama who embodies those hopes.
Want to stay ahead of the curve? Sign up for National Journal’s AM & PM Must Reads. News and analysis to ensure you don’t miss a thing.
As if obama has been anything but negative since taking office?
-
Lexington
The war over class war
Economic misunderstanding, not overblown rhetoric, is the real problem with the president
Jun 2nd 2012 | from the print edition
IT DOES not take much to be accused of waging class warfare in America. The charge was levelled last year at Mitt Romney, of all the unlikely leftist agitators, when he suggested that certain tax breaks should be available only to those who earned less than $200,000. Rick Santorum, one of Mr Romney’s rivals for the Republican nomination, though he had promised never to use the word “class”, earned a similar rebuke for pointing out that he came from humble origins, supposedly an implicit contrast with Mr Romney, whose father was a governor and cabinet secretary.
For those who see such comments as tantamount to storming the Bastille, Barack Obama’s recent behaviour might bring to mind St Petersburg in 1917. According to Mr Romney, he is attacking nothing less than capitalism and the free-enterprise system. An article in Forbes magazine calls Mr Obama a “socialist in the European reform-Marxism tradition” although not, to be fair, “a communist of the cold war tradition”. John McCain, whom Mr Obama defeated to win the presidency in 2008, detects “class warfare at its worst”.
The main evidence of Mr Obama’s proletarian sympathies is a couple of advertisements recently released by his campaign depicting Bain Capital, the private-equity firm Mr Romney founded and ran for 15 years, as a rapacious corporate raider. In one, downtrodden former employees of a steel mill in which Bain Capital invested describe the firm as a “vampire” which “sucked the life” out of the business, leaving them not only without work but without the health insurance or pensions they had been expecting. In another advertisement, a woman laid off from an office-supply factory asserts that Mr Romney “doesn’t care anything about the middle-class or the lower-class people.”
These ads are unfair, of course, ignoring as they do Bain Capital’s many successful investments, fudging Mr Romney’s role and leaving out many mitigating details. It might be possible to argue that Bain’s financial engineers miscalculated in some instances, extracting too much profit from firms under their control and saddling them with ultimately ruinous debts. But the Obama campaign’s hatchet men are much vaguer and more sweeping, painting a picture of Mr Romney as a callous asset-stripper—a claim for which there is little evidence. Several Democrats have criticised the ads as misleading and misguided—most notably Cory Booker, the Democratic (and black) mayor of Newark, New Jersey, who described as “nauseating” the fixation of the two campaigns with awkward moments from the candidates’ past.
However, Mr Obama is not the first to raise such charges: during the primaries, all Mr Romney’s Republican rivals did. One of them, Rick Perry, denounced Bain Capital’s approach as “vulture capitalism”. Nor are such gibes unusually incendiary for an American presidential campaign. Al Gore made “the people versus the powerful” one of the themes of his bid for the White House. Harry Truman had a much more virulent turn of phrase, fulminating against the “Republican gluttons of privilege” who had “stuck a pitchfork in the farmer’s back”.
By contrast, even as Mr Obama seeks to cast himself as the champion of the middle class and to make “fairness” the central theme of the campaign, he is careful to say that he does not want to demonise profits or success, and believes that the vast majority of people in financial services are well intentioned. He himself, he often notes, is a member of the 1%. In the speech in which he first framed the election as a choice between unfettered capitalism and a fairer, more regulated version, he still laboriously affirmed that “the free market is the greatest force for economic progress in human history”. His talk of raising the top tax bracket to just under 40%, and making sure that millionaires pay at least as high a rate as their secretaries, is a far cry from François Hollande, let alone Robespierre.
Mr Obama has even managed to choke out a few kind words about private equity, which, he says, is “a healthy part of the free market”, manned, in many cases, by “folks who do good work”. He claims he has no problem with the industry itself, but simply does not consider it a good proving ground for future presidents (unlike, say, community organising). Mr Romney’s contention that his experience in business will help him get the jobless back to work is flawed, Mr Obama’s argument runs, since private equity exists “to maximise profits, and that’s not always going to be good for communities or businesses or workers”.
What’s fairness, anyway?
The disclaimers are more than a little disingenuous, since Mr Obama often does seem to suggest that financiers are greedy wreckers from whom America’s economy must be saved. But that aside, and in spite of the Republicans’ bluster, his rhetoric is hardly illegitimate or extreme. America’s middle class is struggling. Median incomes are stagnant, while the rich have been getting richer. It is easy to argue that the average Joe is not getting a fair shake—or at least not the same shake he used to. The question is whether voters care most about that, or whether they simply want to see the economy humming again, equitably or not.
In that case, the election will revolve not around fairness, but competence. Mr Romney is fond of saying that Mr Obama has no idea how the economy works and how jobs are created. The way the Obama campaign talks about Bain Capital suggests that his criticism is correct. Mr Obama, as noted above, likes to insinuate that there is a conflict between pursuing profits and creating jobs. In the long run, however, in a competitive economy, that is nonsense. Only profitable firms can sustain any jobs, and the more profitable they are, the more money they have to invest in new ventures with new workers. Mr Obama is guilty not of rhetorical excess but of economic muddle. That is far more worrying.
Economist.com/blogs/lexington
-
By Karl Rove
May 31, 2012
Why 2012 Is Not 2004
Unlike Bush, Obama is seen as an unusually weak chief executive.
President Barack Obama and Gov. Mitt Romney may be dead even in the polls, but some pundits insist the president will prevail on Election Day because 2012 is the new 2004.
The story line goes like this: President George W. Bush had roughly the same numbers at this point in 2004 that Mr. Obama has today. Mr. Bush went on to win a narrow victory by building a massive ground game that focused on the GOP's base and by relentlessly attacking his opponent, Sen. John Kerry. Mr. Obama is executing the same strategy. What worked for Mr. Bush, the theory goes, will work for Mr. Obama.
The only problem is the theory is based on a false premise.
True, there are some similarities between 2004 and 2012. Mr. Obama's current job approval and personal favorability ratings are roughly the same as Mr. Bush's in 2004. So are the head-to-head matchups: In mid-May 2004, Mr. Bush trailed Mr. Kerry in Gallup, 46%-48%, while in the most recent Gallup tracking Mr. Obama is tied with Mr. Romney, 46%-46%.
But there are crucial differences between the two elections. It is a myth that 2004 was all about maximizing Republican turnout. The Bush campaign also successfully sought to win as many independents as possible and to poach elements of the Democratic coalition. In the end, Mr. Bush received 44% of the Hispanic vote, carried the largest share (24%) of the Jewish vote for any Republican since 1988, nearly erased the gender gap with 48% of the women's vote, and was supported by 11% of black voters, up from 8% in 2000.
If Mr. Obama makes this election mostly about energizing the Democratic base—as he clearly intends to—he will further alienate swing voters who elected him in 2008 and then turned on his policies with a vengeance in 2010.
A second big difference is that the 2004 election was a referendum on whether Mr. Bush was keeping America safe. Remember "security moms"—that post-9/11 voting bloc of mostly white, married women with children? In a late September 2004 CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, 62% of voters approved of Mr. Bush's handling of terrorism while 36% disapproved. In the Election Day exit polls, 58% said they did not trust Mr. Kerry to handle terrorism. Mr. Bush won 84% of these security-minded voters, Mr. Kerry just 15%.
The 2012 election will be a referendum on Mr. Obama's performance not against terrorism, but on the economy. Only 42% in the May 20 ABC News/Washington Post poll approve of Mr. Obama's handling of the economy while 55% disapprove.
Meanwhile, the economy is seen as a strong point for Mr. Romney. When asked "Which candidate do you trust to do a better job handling the economy?" Mr. Romney polls as high or higher than Mr. Obama. It's unclear that negative attacks on Mr. Romney by Team Obama will materially change Mr. Romney's standing, especially if effectively rebutted or deflected.
But the most important difference between the two elections is this: In the April 2004 ABC News/Washington Post poll, 64% said they saw Mr. Bush as a strong leader; 36% said he was not. Today, just 51% see Mr. Obama as a strong leader; 48% do not.
Among the greatest political assets any president has is the public's perception of him as a leader. If voters see an incumbent president as strong and effective, many will vote for him even if they don't fully agree with him on some important issues.
But this president is perceived by many, even some in his own party, as indecisive, too willing to outsource the writing of key legislation to Congress, too eager to lead from behind, too political, too calculating, and too ready to discard frequently voiced promises. Most importantly, he appears hostage to events rather than in control of them.
Playing into the impression of Mr. Obama as an unusually weak chief executive is his practice of blaming the nation's challenges on everything from his predecessor to a tsunami in Japan to ATMs to the Arab Spring to airport check-in kiosks to Fox News to Super PACs to the Supreme Court. The blame game can work for maybe a year; after that, it is (rightly) seen as weak and whiny.
A president is strongest when he takes more responsibility and less credit. Too frequently, Mr. Obama does the opposite. The self-portrait the president has painted is of a weak liberal, buffeted by events. That will make this election more like 1980—when Ronald Reagan defeated an ineffectual Jimmy Carter—than 2004.
This article originally appeared on WSJ.com on Wednesday, May 30, 2012.
________________________ ___________________
-
Panicky Ed Schultz Predicts: If Romney Wins, There'll 'Never Be a Democratic President Again'
NewsBusters ^ | 5/31/2012 | Jack Coleman
Posted on June 1, 2012 5:26:05 PM EDT by kingattax
In a related development, the Republican National Committee is extending heartfelt thanks to Ed Schultz for his help with their get-out-the-vote efforts. Further confirmation that the June 5 recall election in Wisconsin has liberals more spooked than usual was provided yesterday courtesy of radio host and MSNBC flamethrower Ed Schultz.
Departing from trademark bluster, Schultz warned that victory for Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker could foreshadow President Obama's defeat in the fall -- and a permanent GOP lock on the presidency
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
-
Allen West: Obama 'Desperate' After Jobs Numbers (video Allen West interview)
Newsmax ^ | 6/1/2012 | Paul Scicchitano and Kathleen Walter
Posted on June 1, 2012 5:47:59 PM EDT by Signalman
Florida Congressman Allen West believes that today’s dismal jobs report will back President Barack Obama into a corner and make him a “desperate person” with the election now five months away.
“When you’re a desperate person — much the same as a cat being cornered – you’re going to come out and really fight even stronger,” predicted West in an exclusive interview with Newsmax shortly after the Labor Department reported that employers had created only 69,000 jobs in May — the fewest in a year — while the unemployment rate ticked up. Together, the news fueled fears that the economy is heading in the wrong direction under Obama's stewardship.
“I think that the president’s policies are failing the American people,” explained West. “We have now hit 40 consecutive months of unemployment in the United States of America at or above 8 percent.”
GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney quickly labeled the jobs numbers “devastating news for American workers and American families,” while House Speaker John Boehner said it’s clear that Americans are in a “desperate spot.”
“It is now clear to everyone that President Obama’s policies have failed to achieve their goals and that the Obama economy is crushing America’s middle class,” Romney said.
House Republican Policy Committee Chairman Tom Price of Georgia said that the jobs report reflects economic growth in America that continues to “disappoint and underperform.”
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
-
What's this? Obama longs for GOP rival like McCain
Google/AP ^ | June 2, 2012 | JULIE PACE, AP
Posted on Saturday, June 02, 2012 9:50:03 AM by Innovative
President Barack Obama seems to think that the world of politics would be better if someone like John McCain were running for the White House.
It's all a way of drawing a contrast with Obama's current GOP rival, Mitt Romney, and trying to convince crucial independent voters that the former Massachusetts governor is outside the mainstream.
But Obama's flattering memories of McCain conflict with their campaign clashes of 2008. Back then, Obama hammered his rival as "out of touch" with many of the problems facing people in the United States.
Today's platitudes also conceal the reality of Obama's current dynamic with McCain. The senator is one of the president's staunchest critics on everything from health care to foreign policy, and he's a vocal Romney supporter.
Obama's take on McCain has become a standard part of his fundraising appeal to donors. As the general election heats up, the Obama campaign is relishing more opportunities to try to turn its former foe into an asset.
When Romney didn't condemn his supporter Donald Trump for raising more questions this week about the president's citizenship, the Obama campaign dug up old video clips of McCain correcting supporters in the 2008 who said they were scared of Obama and one clip of a supporter who thought he was an "Arab."
"As the Republican nominee, John McCain stood up to the voices of extremism in his party," an Obama Internet video says. It then asks why Romney won't do the same.
(Excerpt) Read more at google.com ...
-
Panicky Ed Schultz Predicts: If Romney Wins, There'll 'Never Be a Democratic President Again'
NewsBusters ^ | 5/31/2012 | Jack Coleman
Posted on June 1, 2012 5:26:05 PM EDT by kingattax
In a related development, the Republican National Committee is extending heartfelt thanks to Ed Schultz for his help with their get-out-the-vote efforts. Further confirmation that the June 5 recall election in Wisconsin has liberals more spooked than usual was provided yesterday courtesy of radio host and MSNBC flamethrower Ed Schultz.
Departing from trademark bluster, Schultz warned that victory for Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker could foreshadow President Obama's defeat in the fall -- and a permanent GOP lock on the presidency
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
This may be the dumbest statement I've ever heard.
20 years ago Bill Clinton was marching down his way to the white house and one of the most successful presidencies of the 20th century.
Seems absolutely insane to say some retarded prediction like this.
-
This may be the dumbest statement I've ever heard.
20 years ago Bill Clinton was marching down his way to the white house and one of the most successful presidencies of the 20th century.
Seems absolutely insane to say some retarded prediction like this.
Its retarded, but I do think it could be another 12 years until another Democrat takes the White House, and 30 years before we have one like Obama.
-
Obama's Former 'Car Czar' Freaks Out About His Intrade Odds Tanking
Brett LoGiurato|Jun. 4, 2012, 9:39 AM|365|2
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
We told you about Barack Obama's tanking Intrade odds over the weekend. Looks like the Obama team has noticed as well.
Obama surrogate Steve Rattner — the President's former head of the auto task force — was on Morning Joe today, and what was notable was his freak out about the usually steady Intrade odds plummeting on Friday and over the weekend.
Here's the chart Rattner showed on Morning Joe:
MSNBC/screenshot
As you can see, Obama's Intrade odds were holding steady around 58 to 59 percent until the jobs report hit on Friday. Then came that amazing, drastic plunge. Here's Rattner breaking it down:
"Intrade, that those of us follow and many of us like, it tends to be a good predictor of things. This has been one of the most remarkable things I've seen on Intrade. Because Intrade tends to move very, very slowly, particularly as you're a long way away from an election. And it was holding Barack Obama rock steady in this 58 to 60 percent range.
"And on Friday, it went down to 53 percent in the blink of an eye. That's something you don't see Intrade do very often. So Intrade is scared."
This morning, Obama's odds are up 0.6 percent to 53.6.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-surrogate-steve-rattner-freaks-out-about-collapsing-intrade-odds-2012-6#ixzz1wpxOhlf0
-
http://www.gallup.com/poll/155030/Romney-Edges-Obama-Battle-Middle-Income-Voters.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_content=morelink&utm_term=All%20Gallup%20Headlines%20-%20Politics
LOL at people thinking obama is going to win.
-
Romney sees jump in voters who hold positive view of him
By Jonathan Easley - 06/04/12 09:30 AM ET
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/230651-romney-sees-jump-in-voters-who-hold-positive-view-of-him
Mitt Romney is viewed favorably by 48 percent of voters in a new CNN-ORC poll, a huge jump for the presumptive GOP presidential nominee.
Only 42 percent of voters in the poll have a negative view of Romney, who held only a 34 percent favorability rating in CNN's poll in February. Romney still trails President Obama in favorability. Obama is at 56 percent positive and 42 negative in the CNN-ORC poll.
Still, the figures are encouraging for Romney, particularly after a report Friday found the economy added only 69,000 jobs in May. The dismal figures helped Romney double down on his arguments that Obama is ill-equipped to handle the economy.
Obama leads Romney 49 to 46 overall, according to the CNN-ORC poll.
In an ABC News-Washington Post poll released last week, Romney was still slightly underwater in favorability. But that poll also showed Romney making gains in favorability — it was the first time he topped 40 percent favorability in this campaign cycle in the ABC poll.
The CBS-ORC poll of 1,009 American adults was conducted between May 29 and May 31 and has a 3.5 percent margin of error.
________________________ ________________________ ____
The trend here is what is important.
-
33, I thought you said all year intrade doesn't matter shit.
now you're a disciple, huh? ;)
-
GOP attacks celebrity support for Obama
By David Nakamura, Monday, June 4, 6:42 PM
President Obama dined last month with 150 guests at George Clooney’s California cottage. He exchanged quips in January with Spike Lee in the director’s New York City townhouse.
Last fall, Obama entertained megastar Lady Gaga, who was seated in the front row of a Silicon Valley fundraiser in six-inch heels and a towering blond bouffant.
Obama’s popularity with Hollywood glitterati is again on display as his campaign mobilizes its vast fundraising apparatus to amass cash in a campaign that is shaping up to be the most expensive in U.S. history.
If Obama was the candidate of cool in 2008, when celebrities such as musician Will.I.Am produced viral campaign videos , he has even more aggressively employed star power to open pocketbooks, build buzz and, perhaps most notably, deploy celebrities to target specific constituencies.
Yet Obama’s glamorous elbow-rubbing carries significant risks as he struggles to convince voters that he is focused single-mindedly on their economic concerns. And it is triggering attacks from his Republican rivals, who contend that the president is more interested in hobnobbing with Hollywood to help his campaign than he is in helping ordinary Americans.
On Monday, the Republican National Committee released a Web video called “Meanwhile,” which flashes unemployment numbers for various groups — women, Latinos, African Americans, youth — under clips from an Obama campaign video from last Friday of Vogue Editor Anna Wintour talking about hanging out with “Sex and the City” star Sarah Jessica Parker and first lady Michelle Obama. The bustling sounds of New York City streets give way to crickets chirping at the end of the RNC version, along with the tag line: “Obama’s focused on keeping his job. But what about yours?”
Although Obama faced similar accusations in 2008, the charges are potentially more dangerous this time given that he is a sitting president responsible for managing the economy, rather than being just one of 100 senators. Yet the Obama campaign sees Hollywood as a powerful and necessary ally, able to both raise large amounts of money and also speak directly to important subgroups of voters who identify with the famous. On Monday, as his celebrity ties became an issue, Obama hosted rock star Jon Bon Jovi on Air Force One on the way to fundraisers in New York.
The fundraiser with Wintour and Parker, for example, is part of an effort to appeal to women; the reelection team next week is offering supporters a chance to win a raffle (entry fee $3) to attend the New York City event. In a fundraising e-mail to supporters Monday, Michelle Obama called Parker “a loving mom, an incredibly hard worker, and a great role model” and added: “She’s one of those people you can’t help but admire.”
The RNC response video mocked the timing of the Obama video’s release. The video “highlights how out of touch President Obama and his campaign are after releasing a glitzy fundraising video featuring Vogue chief Anna Wintour the same day as a dismal jobs report,” RNC spokeswoman Kirsten Kukowski said, referring to a Labor Department report that showed the economy added just 69,000 jobs in May.
The Obama campaign struck back quickly, pointing out that Romney appeared last week with developer Donald Trump, host of the television show “The Apprentice.” Trump’s controversial comments questioning Obama’s birth place overshadowed the event.
“It’s kind of humorous that they would take that tack,” David Axelrod, Obama’s senior campaign adviser, said Monday. “When Mr. Trump went off the deep end again, [Romney] did not rebuke him because he said he needed to get 50.1 percent of the vote.”
Furthermore, Axelrod added, Romney has sought fundraising help other famous names, including musicians Kid Rock and Ted Nugent.
“I don’t think they have a whole lot of standing on this issue,” Axelrod said.
Still, Romney’s drawing power among Hollywood’s elite pales in comparison to Obama’s. At a Beverly Hills fundraiser last week, Romney’s biggest-name guests were former “Happy Days” star Scott Baio and actor Jon Voight, who is also Angelina Jolie’s father.
Obama has drawn support from Hollywood’s biggest names and biggest bundlers, including moviemaking titans Jeffrey Katz enberg and Steven Spielberg. The fundraiser last week at Clooney’s house — for which the campaign also held a raffle for ordinary supporters — included actors Tobey Maguire, Jack Black and Salma Hayek and singer Barbra Streisand. The campaign walked away with a whopping $15 million, its largest single-event total, including the raffle and $40,000-per-plate tickets for 150 guests.
In many cases, the Obama campaign has used celebrities to target specific constituencies. Eva Longoria, a campaign bundler who is a constant presence at Obama events, is popular among Hispanic women. Last month, Obama was introduced at a New York event by openly gay singer Ricky Martin, just days after the president expressed support for same-sex marriage.
Martin told the crowd that he admires “the courage he showed last week in affirming his belief in marriage equality. That is the kind of courage we expect from our president and that is why we support him.”
The attacks on Obama’s fascination with celebrities are not new. In 2008, Republican rival John McCain endorsed a video called “Celebrity” that mocked Obama’s popularity and included images of Britney Spears and Paris Hilton.
“He’s the biggest celebrity in the world. But is he ready to lead?” the ad intoned.
That ad did little to damp Obama’s appeal, especially among young voters. John Weaver, a Republican strategist who had called the McCain video “childish,” said Monday that the RNC attack also would have little effect on voters.
“They’re trying to influence opinion leaders and journalists,” Weaver said. “But no voter cares about this issue, and it will not shape the opinion of any voters. What matters is whether the employment situation will improve.”
Yet for the Obama campaign, the need to recapture the enthusiasm of 2008 has grown more urgent with the economy still struggling. Heather Smith, president of the youth-oriented Rock the Vote, said there are 25 million unregistered voters under 30 years old, a far higher number than at the same time four years ago.
“All our polling shows an increased level of frustration with the pace of change, with the control of money and corporate interests in our political process,” she said, citing the Occupy Wall Street and tea party movements as offshoots of that frustration.
“The question for the president will be not whether he uses celebrity spokespeople, but how he uses them and what kind of message they convey,” Smith added. “People are worse off than they were four years ago. So it’s not just a straight to camera ‘go vote’ campaign. They need to leverage celebrities to actually talk about the issues.”
Obama’s celebrity surrogates have begun to help in that regard, a la Martin’s comments on same-sex marriage. But in many cases, the praise has been more effusive the other direction.
“We raised a lot of money because everybody loves George,” Obama told supporters at the Clooney event.
“They like me,” the president said. “They love him.”
Staff writers Amy Gardner and Nia-Malika Henderson contributed to this report.
-
Defecting From Obama
By Jack Kelly
www.realclearpolitics.co m
President Barack Obama is racing down the trail blazed by Sen. George McGovern, who in 1972 was buried by the largest popular vote landslide in American history. (President Lyndon Johnson in 1964 won a slightly higher percentage of the popular vote than Richard Nixon did in 1972, but LBJ's margin over Sen. Barry Goldwater was smaller.) Sen. McGovern was too far to the left, swing voters thought, and not very competent -- an image reinforced by the shambles his supporters made of the Democratic national convention.
Swing voters are forming a similar opinion about President Obama, who sometimes seems as if he's deliberately trying to dismantle the coalition that elected him in 2008.
• Mr. Obama won the Jewish vote by an astounding 52 percentage points. But -- thanks chiefly to his policies toward Israel and Iran -- he's lost more support among Jews (16 percentage points) than among any other ethnic group, according to a Pew survey in February.
• Mr. Obama won the Catholic vote 54 percent to 45 percent. Four years earlier, Sen. John Kerry got only 47 percent of Catholic votes -- and he's Catholic.
The president's share of the Catholic vote is sure to shrink, thanks to the administration's plans to force Catholic institutions to offer birth control and abortion-inducing drugs in their health insurance policies and to Mr. Obama's embrace of gay marriage. Pennsylvania Democratic state committeewoman Jo Ann Nardelli cited her concerns about gay marriage when she announced May 23 that she has turned Republican.
Not just Catholics are upset. In Mississippi last week, seven local elected officials cited the president's gay marriage stance as the reason they are switching from the Democratic Party to the GOP.
• People in upscale suburbs -- which have been trending Democratic since 1992 -- tend to be more liberal on social issues. Mr. Obama won half the votes of voters with household incomes of more than $100,000. But these people haven't liked Mr. Obama's economic policies or his class warfare rhetoric. They voted Republican, 58 percent to 40 percent, in 2010.
Moderate Democrats don't like the class warfare rhetoric either. Newark Mayor Cory Booker, who is black and an Obama surrogate, described as "nauseating" the president's attack ads on Bain Capital, Mitt Romney's old firm. Mr. Obama's rhetoric was criticized also by former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, and by former Rep. Harold Ford Jr., who is black and was the Democratic nominee for the U.S. Senate in Tennessee in 2006.
Blue-collar workers whose jobs are threatened by Obama administration regulatory policies are not assuaged by anti-business rhetoric.
• In 2008, Mr. Obama's pledge to be a racial healer won him many votes. That pledge -- like most of his others -- remains unfulfilled. Former Rep. Artur Davis, who is black and was the Democratic candidate for governor of Alabama in 2010, revealed Tuesday that he may run for office in his new home state of Virginia as a Republican in part because the president has "lapsed into a bloc-by-bloc appeal to group grievances when the country is already too fractured."
• Mr. Obama lost among veterans to war hero John McCain by just 10 percentage points in 2008. This year, vets prefer Mitt Romney by 24 points, according to a fresh Gallup poll.
Heaping self-inflicted wound upon self-inflicted wound, the president has lost enthusiasm for his candidacy among environmentalists and gay marriage advocates by clumsily embracing their causes. The Democratic National Convention, to be held in Charlotte, N.C., this year, may become the biggest fiasco since the rowdy McGovern convention in Miami Beach.
Though Americans in 1972 emphatically rejected Sen. McGovern, they didn't reject the Democratic Party. The GOP gained a paltry 12 seats in the House, leaving Democrats with a post-election majority of 242-192. Democrats gained two seats in the Senate.
But if President Obama goes down this year, he'll drag lots of Democrats in Congress with him. They're identified too closely with his failed policies to avoid sharing blame. Fifty-six percent of Americans disapprove of the job House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi is doing, according to a poll by a Democratic pollster May 10. The same firm found a week later that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is under water, too, with an 18 percent approval rating.
Though few other Democrats suffered when Sen. McGovern tanked, the election produced much bitterness and recrimination within the party. Come November, those may seem to Democrats the salad days.
Jack Kelly is a columnist for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and The Blade of Toledo, Ohio.
-
And to think believe actually believe this garbage. :-\
-
Trouble.
Zogby: Obama Facing 'Serious Crack' in His Youth Base
Wednesday, 06 Jun 2012
By Jim Meyers and Kathleen Walter
Respected pollster John Zogby tells Newsmax that the younger voters who massively supported Barack Obama in 2008 could now be a “serious crack” in his base going into the November election.
Zogby says his most recent polls show Obama essentially tied with Republican challenger Mitt Romney. Analyzing the presidential race among several demographic groups, he says in an exclusive interview with Newsmax.TV: “Obama right now in his favor is doing very well among Latinos and is likely to do very well among Latino voters. They not only were critical to him in 2008, but we’re expecting two million more Latino voters in 2012. It’s not likely that Republicans are going to do well with Latino voters under any circumstances.
“Number two, he had 95 percent of the African-American vote in 2008. He will get that again.
“The creative class, 35 million strong who work in the world of ideas and who helped tilt a lot of formerly red states blue, they are turned off by issues like contraception and some of the elements of social conservatism that came out during the Republican debates.
“The fly in the ointment for Barack Obama is young people, 18 to 29 years old. He won massively among that group. This is a completely different group this time around. [There has been] three and a half, almost four years of recession for this group, a lot of hopeless. Watch a battleground play out in the fall, not between Romney and Obama on college campuses but between Obama and Gary Johnson, the libertarian, who I think speaks to a lot of frustration of young people.
“Johnson could be a threat to Obama’s campaign.
“The young vote represents a serious crack” in Obama’s base. “He really needs to put all those four groups back together, and young people are that one group.
“He got 67 percent of 18-to-29-year-olds in 2008. I have him polling around 45, 46 percent of that group. It’s going to be very hard for him to win. Every young person that does not turn out to vote for Obama or votes for Gary Johnson is a problem for Obama.”
Asked what will be the deciding factor in the presidential election, Zogby responds: “The economy of course is extremely important. The price of gasoline is by most accounts off the table. If it shoots back up it’s troubling.
“The real issue is going to be anxiety over the economy, not just where the numbers are but what people feel the numbers might be — a European crisis, an emerging market crisis, something globally that could have an impact on us.
“At the same time a real issue is going to be moderates versus social conservatives. A real problem Mitt Romney has is that 16 percent of evangelical Christians are undecided, and a third of those undecided evangelicals tell us they will never vote for a Mormon.
“I don’t know what never means, but at least for now that’s troublesome.”
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/zogby-obama-youth-base/2012/06/06/id/441409
-
Karl Rove's grand slam (Leftist crying in his Schlitz beer over fundraising)
The Hill ^ | May 31, 2012 | Brent Budowsky
Posted on June 6, 2012 10:03:17 PM EDT by 2ndDivisionVet
It is far too early to predict the election returns for November. Forecasts today are subject to dramatic change based on events yet to happen, but:
If the election were held today I now believe Mitt Romney and the Republicans would win it because more of their voters would be motivated to vote and more of their large donors are motivated to donate. Romney would win the White House with a narrow victory. Democrats would gain House seats but fall short of regaining control. Even if Senate Democrats retain nominal control they would not be able to pass significant legislation without the permission of ever-filibustering Republicans. At least one of the liberal Supreme Court justices is likely to leave before the end of the next president's term, and if that president is Romney, the right could control the court for a generation.
I believe these outcomes would be a disaster for America. I will do what I can to oppose them in columns and in a 5,000-word e-book I am writing that will put the consequences of the election in brutally stark terms that I hope will energize supporters of the president and Democrats. But I believe today that the most likely outcome is a Romney victory, and warn the president and all Democrats of the grave consequences of the current enthusiasm gap among large donors and grassroots voters.
Which brings me to Karl Rove, who has inspired the wealthy donors of the ideological right, the Republican Party and many of the most corrupted and powerful special interests who will donate between $1 billion and $1.5 billion before the carnage of this campaign is fully done.
The inability of Democrats to play in the same league as Karl Rove financially is a humiliating debacle that might be unprecedented, measured by comparing wealthy donors of one party to wealthy donors of the other, in the history of presidential politics. This parallels an enthusiasm gap of voters that creates what I believe is the current Republican edge in the election.
The president and Democrats seem befuddled by how to react to the Citizens United decision, while Karl Rove understands with crystal clarity. Rove mobilizes his army, rallies his wealthy, organizes his venture and puts his money in the bank.
The large donors of the right and Republicans give a damn far more than the large donors of the left and Democrats.
The armies of the right and Republicans have generals with the clarity, vision and will to win of Karl Rove while the armies of the left and Democrats do not.
The will to win of the large donors of the right is powerful and seemingly unlimited while Warren Buffett, the wealthiest Democrat in the land, does comparatively modest fundraisers and sings folks songs at his annual meeting, while many other wealthy Democrats give modest donations compared to the right and gratuitously opine about why they will not do more.
The issue following the Citizens United decision was a no-brainer from the beginning. It is not hard to explain simultaneously attacking the Citizens United decision, and all it represents about the corruptions of our politics, and supporting the Occupy Wall Street movement, while also calling on the wealthiest Democrats to meet the challenge from Rove and his donors on the right by giving equally massive (and equally affordable for wealthy Democrats) donations to Priorities USA, Majority PAC, House Majority PAC and other independent and party groups.
So far the president and Democrats have done neither. Their treatment of Occupy Wall Street ranged from ambivalent to shabby. Their attacks against Citizens United were impotent and timid. Their inability to effectively compete against Rove is pathetic and inexcusable.
Democrats today are neither winning the issue nor raising the money. This is the triumph of Rove's grand slam and the tragedy of the anemic Democratic response that is a failure of their not having the will to fight for principles they believe in, or the will to win the war that Rove and Republicans are waging.
For today the president and Democrats must urgently rally their voters, workers and donors with a new-found sense of urgency and mission. Stay tuned next week for a grand chessboard move I will propose for the president. Karl Rove has hit a grand slam in the fifth inning. It is time for Democrats to swing for the fences.
*******
Budowsky was an aide to former Sen. Lloyd Bentsen and Bill Alexander, then chief deputy majority whip of the House. He holds an LL.M. degree in international financial law from the London School of Economics. He can be read on The Hill’s Pundits Blog and reached at brentbbi@webtv
-
Poll: Barack Obama in dead heat with Mitt Romney in Michigan as popularity slips
11:33 AM, June 7, 2012 |
Comments
By Dawson Bell
Detroit Free Press Lansing Bureau
President Barack Obama’s popularity in Michigan has slipped in recent months, leaving him in a dead heat with Republican challenger Mitt Romney, according to a new poll of state voters by EPIC-MRA of Lansing.
The poll, released this morning to the Free Press and four TV stations, shows Romney leading Obama 46%-45%, a reversal from the last EPIC poll in April which showed Obama ahead 47%-43%.
Obama’s personal and job approval numbers also have slipped, with 46% of Michiganders saying they have a favorable opinion of the president, and 41% approving of the job he’s doing.
EPIC co-founder John Cavanagh said the softening in support for Obama is likely related to a robust TV advertising campaign by pro-Romney PACs which have been critical of his handling of the economy. Perhaps most troubling for the Democratic president is a decline in support from independent voters, Cavanagh said.
The EPIC results are in sharp contrast to a poll by North Carolina-based Public Policy Polling late last month which showed Obama leading Romney in Michigan 53%-39%, prompting PPP Director Tom Jensen to suggest the president “won’t have to worry too much about holding Michigan for Democrats” in the fall.
Romney, however, also remains unpopular with many voters (43%), compared to 41% who view him favorably.
EPIC asked poll respondents as well how their views might be affected by Obama’s recent announcement of support for same-sex marriage, and Romney’s opposition to the federal government bailouts of the auto industry. Same sex marriage prompted 12% to say they would be more likely to vote for Obama, while 34% said they would be less likely. Romney’s position on federal aid to GM and Chrysler made 18% of voters more likely to support him, and 39% less likely.
Asked what their presidential preference would be in light of those positions, the head-to-head results flipped, with Obama ahead 46%-45%.
Both are well within the poll’s margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points. The telephone survey of 600 likely voters was conducted June 2-5.
Contact Dawson Bell: 517-372-8661 or dbell@freepress.com
-
Purple Poll: Romney Leads in OH and FL (O leads CO and VA)
Purple Strategies ^ | Purple Strategies
Posted on Thursday, June 07, 2012 3:42:00 PM by tellw
CO: Obama: 48% Romney: 46% Not sure: 5%
VA: Obama: 49% Romney: 46% Not sure: 5%
OH: Obama: 45% Romney: 48% Not sure: 8%
FL: Obama: 45% Romney: 49% Not sure: 6%
The PurplePoll is fielded and analyzed by Purple Insights, the research division of Purple Strategies, the bipartisan public affairs firm.
Fielded 5/31-6/5, using automated telephone interviews and RDD sample. Total weighted N size=2000 likely voters, margin of error +/-2.2. Each regional and state-level sample has margins of error of +/-4.0. Sample size for OH, FL, VA and CO is 600.
(Excerpt) Read more at purplestrategies.com ...
-
Purple Poll: Romney Leads in OH and FL (O leads CO and VA)
Purple Strategies ^ | Purple Strategies
Posted on Thursday, June 07, 2012 3:42:00 PM by tellw
CO: Obama: 48% Romney: 46% Not sure: 5%
VA: Obama: 49% Romney: 46% Not sure: 5%
OH: Obama: 45% Romney: 48% Not sure: 8%
FL: Obama: 45% Romney: 49% Not sure: 6%
The PurplePoll is fielded and analyzed by Purple Insights, the research division of Purple Strategies, the bipartisan public affairs firm.
Fielded 5/31-6/5, using automated telephone interviews and RDD sample. Total weighted N size=2000 likely voters, margin of error +/-2.2. Each regional and state-level sample has margins of error of +/-4.0. Sample size for OH, FL, VA and CO is 600.
(Excerpt) Read more at purplestrategies.com ...
That's not good at ALL, especially when you factor in the Morris rule, regarding nearly all of "Not sure" or undecided going against the incumbent.
-
Purple Poll: Romney Leads in OH and FL (O leads CO and VA)
Purple Strategies ^ | Purple Strategies
Posted on Thursday, June 07, 2012 3:42:00 PM by tellw
CO: Obama: 48% Romney: 46% Not sure: 5%
VA: Obama: 49% Romney: 46% Not sure: 5%
OH: Obama: 45% Romney: 48% Not sure: 8%
FL: Obama: 45% Romney: 49% Not sure: 6%
The PurplePoll is fielded and analyzed by Purple Insights, the research division of Purple Strategies, the bipartisan public affairs firm.
Fielded 5/31-6/5, using automated telephone interviews and RDD sample. Total weighted N size=2000 likely voters, margin of error +/-2.2. Each regional and state-level sample has margins of error of +/-4.0. Sample size for OH, FL, VA and CO is 600.
(Excerpt) Read more at purplestrategies.com ...
So let me guess... the polls in CO and VA are false.. but Florida and Ohio are spot on correct?
-
So let me guess... the polls in CO and VA are false.. but Florida and Ohio are spot on correct?
I think VA is going to be harder tha colorado due to all the govt worker parasites in Northern VA.
-
So let me guess... the polls in CO and VA are false.. but Florida and Ohio are spot on correct?
No, it means Obama is in BIG trouble, across the board.
A sitting president with number this low, this late, is a recipe for disaster.
The fact that the brilliant, post-racial, all-but-deified Obama is neck and neck with the winner of supposedly the worst GOP field in history said volumes.
Remember, this race was supposed to be accademic; Obama killed Osama!!
-
http://www.gallup.com/home.aspx
OUCH ! ! ! !
Polling at 45% is a DISASTER
-
Right now it looks like Romney has the McCain states, Florida, Indiana, and North Carolina in the bag. The only question marks right now are Viriginia, Ohio, and the other swing states. Romney now only needs Virginia, Ohio, and one of the other swing states to win. And that's the most pessimistic view.
-
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/obama-jessica-alba-dianna-agron-private-breakfast-334820
fuck Obama. This is the worst piece of fucking trash EVER to hold public office.
-
Right now it looks like Romney has the McCain states, Florida, Indiana, and North Carolina in the bag. The only question marks right now are Viriginia, Ohio, and the other swing states. Romney now only needs Virginia, Ohio, and one of the other swing states to win. And that's the most pessimistic view.
And, thanks to Obama's buffoonery (with a healthy assist from his liberal brethren), Wisconsin and Michigan are now swing states.
-
Obama Meets With Millionaires, Raises Millions During Trip to San Francisco
SF Weekly ^ | 6/7/12 | Erin Sherbert
Posted on June 7, 2012 7:20:22 PM EDT by jimbo123
Amid all the crowds, traffic street closures, and protesters in downtown, President Barack Obama managed to shake down San Francisco for another $2 million in less than four hours yesterday afternoon.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.sfweekly.com ...
-
Wisconsin-sized polling error could mask Romney sweep of battleground states
The Daily Caller ^ | 06/07/2012 | Meagan Clark and Gage Smith
Posted on June 8, 2012 6:16:08 AM EDT by Publius804
Former Gov. Mitt Romney would collect at least 72 of the 110 electoral votes available in eight battleground states if President Barack Obama’s current polling numbers, as reported by The Huffington Post, are overstated by a mere one percent.
Romney would win that electoral majority in Colorado, Iowa, Missouri, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, Florida and Wisconsin if there is a one percent undercount and if undecided voters there split evenly between Romney and Obama.
That would give the former Massachusetts Gov. at least 253 — just a few votes shy of the 270 he will need to claim the White House.
But if the undecided voters break for Romney by two-thirds, Romney would win all those states’ 110 votes, pushing him well above the 270 margin and earning Obama a helicopter ride home to Illinois.
“It’s a good reminder that small shifts in votes can play a big role in electoral votes,” Trey Grayson, director of Harvard’s Institute of Politics, told The Daily Caller.
Grayson predicted that the battleground states are “likely to break together,” resulting in a strong showing for one candidate or the other. “A lot of these states have things in common,” he said, including Midwestern geography and higher than average populations of white voters.
Some Democratic-leaning organizations are concerned that the polls may overstate Obama’s support. “This is going to be a very tough year to poll,” MSNBC host Chris Matthews said Wednesday.
Tuesday’s recall vote in Wisconsin, in which incumbent Gov. Scott Walker prevailed by 6.8 percentage points, was a good indicator of how badly some pre-election polling can perform.
A June 3 poll by the Democratic-aligned Public Policy Polling firm underestimated Walker’s support by nearly 4 points. It showed Walker at 50 percent, only three points ahead of his Democratic challenger, Tom Barrett.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
-
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/06/08/democrats-jittery-over-obama-s-sputtering-2012-campaign.html
Ha ha ha - panic setting in.
Be worried you leftists, be very worried.
-
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/06/08/liberals-threaten-not-to-vote-in-november-over-disappointment-with-obama
LMFAO ! ! ! ! ! Landslide coming.
-
How important is it for polling organizations to include the correct proportions of self-identified Republicans and Democrats in their polls? The short answer is: Extremely.
In this hyper-partisan age, the partisan ratio can not only determine the poll’s top-line results, but also shape the ensuing media interpretation of what it all “means.” That interpretation defines the expectations game, which, in turn, affects fundraising, voter enthusiasm, and turnout.
According to a spate of recent polls conducted by Marist/NBC News, Democrats hold strong or even commanding leads in three key U.S. Senate races: Florida (up 4 points), Virginia (up 6), and Ohio (up 14). In three other swing states — Colorado, Nevada, and Iowa — recent Marist/NBC News polls found President Obama and Governor Romney locked in a dead heat.
Are Republican prospects really that much rosier in these swing states out West and on the Plains than they are in the East and industrial Midwest? The discrepancy, it seems, may be due to the percentage of self-identified Democrats and Republicans in the survey samples.
In Marist’s survey of the Florida Senate race, for example, Democrats in the sample outnumbered Republicans by 8 percentage points (43 to 35 percent). In Ohio, the Democratic advantage was 9 points (37 to 28 percent); in Virginia, the spread was considerably smaller (31 to 29 percent). In contrast, two of the three polls that found the presidential race to be neck and neck sampled significantly more Republicans. Marist actually included more Republicans than Democrats in the Colorado and Iowa polls — a 4-point advantage in Colorado (35 to 31 percent) and a 1-point spread in Iowa (35 to 34 percent). In the Nevada survey, Democrats outnumbered Republicans by only 2 points, as in Virginia (40 to 38 percent).
So what partisan baseline should polling organizations use? After all, baselines can determine the shape and outcome of important Washington policy debates, whether the discussion is about budgets, taxes, or polls. Did the Gang of Six propose the largest tax increase or the largest tax cut in human history? The answer depends on the baseline one uses. Tell me your baseline, and you’ve told me everything I need to know about your analysis.
I have found that the most reliable baseline on party identification, both nationally and at the state level, comes from the extensive polling conducted by the Gallup Organization. Each year Gallup collapses the 350,000-plus interviews it has conducted throughout the year into one overall snapshot of party affiliation. In February, Gallup released the results of 353,492 such interviews conducted during 2011, including more than 1,000 in each of the 50 states and an enormous number in the states surveyed by Marist/NBC News: 18,090 people were interviewed in Florida, 13,172 in Ohio, 9,927 in Virginia, 7,105 in Colorado, 4,439 in Iowa, and 2,730 in Nevada. If volume counts, Gallup’s data mine of interviews is sheer gold.
In reviewing all this data, Gallup identified an important national trend:
In the last four years, the political leanings of Americans have increasingly moved toward the Republican Party after shifting decidedly Democratic between 2005 and 2008. In 2008, Democrats had one of the largest advantages in party affiliation they have had in the last 20 years. . . . Prior to that, the parties were more evenly balanced.
The net result of the movement is that the nation looks to be essentially even in terms of its party loyalties headed into a presidential election year. Clearly, President Obama faces a much less favorable environment as he seeks a second term in office than he did when he was elected president.
The partisan divide, Gallup found, has narrowed not only nationally, but in almost every state as well. Gallup’s 2008 surveys of state-level party identification found that the terrain in all the states Marist surveyed was decidedly pro-Obama and pro–Democratic Party. The Democratic advantage ranged from 9 percentage points (in Virginia and Florida) to 11 points (in Nevada and Colorado) to an overwhelming margin of 18 points (in Ohio and Iowa).
The intervening years, as the table above(? How about below?) depicts, have not been kind to the president and his party. Whatever the cause of this shift, the two parties now are essentially at parity in all six of these states.
Here are the results:
Marist, however, uses Democratic to Republican ratios in two of its Senate polls — Florida (8-point Democratic edge) and Ohio (9-point advantage) — that are more in keeping with the state of play in 2008 or 2009 than that of today. Marist’s 2-point Democratic advantage in its Virginia Senate poll is closer to Gallup’s finding of a 1-point GOP lead, but it still bestows more of an advantage on the Democratic candidate than seems warranted.
The share of Republicans in Marist’s Iowa poll is 5 points more favorable than the Gallup finding, so that one Marist poll may overstate things in the GOP’s direction. But in both Colorado and Nevada, the partisan breakdown follows Gallup’s numbers almost exactly.
If all polling organizations were to use Gallup’s party-identification findings in their surveys, some Republicans would be added and some Democrats subtracted from the samples (except occasionally, as in the Iowa poll). The top-line political conclusions would no doubt tilt slightly more in the Republican direction.
The polling results on policy questions, meanwhile, would depict a nation that is more consistently right of center on everything from social issues such as abortion to economic issues relating to the size and scope of government. The journalists who report on these polls and the headlines accompanying their handiwork would highlight different narratives from the ones they do today. Most significant, there would be fewer Election Day “surprises” that prompt the disappointed to mutter darkly about special interests or rigged elections.
– Michael G. Franc is vice president of government studies at the Heritage Foundation.
-
Hemmoraging supporters.
Gallup Poll: Jewish Support for Obama Plummets
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/gallup-obama-loses-jewish/2012/06/10/id/441803
-
Obama will win....the have-nots vastly outnumber the haves. More than half of all Americans receive some sort of check from the US government. Demographics alone will soon ensure a permanent Democratic majority in both Executive and Legislative branches. The big media markets, Hollywood, academia, and many of the very rich support Democrats. Dems also support the very same wars and policies of "warmonger" Bush but are shielded from overt criticism that the Repubs could only dream of.
-
Obama will win....the have-nots vastly outnumber the haves. More than half of all Americans receive some sort of check from the US government. Demographics alone will soon ensure a permanent Democratic majority in both Executive and Legislative branches. The big media markets, Hollywood, academia, and many of the very rich support Democrats. Dems also support the very same wars and policies of "warmonger" Bush but are shielded from overt criticism that the Repubs could only dream of.
cant tell if serious
-
LMFAO ! ! ! ! ! Landslide coming.
So you think Romney will beat Obama by a LANDSLIDE?
-
So you think Romney will beat Obama by a LANDSLIDE?
Its not even going to be close.
Its not about Romney. Its A B O and a referendum of the horrible Barack Kardashian presidency
-
So you think Romney will beat Obama by a LANDSLIDE?
Of course but then again he also believed in death panels, Sarah Palin etc etc...
-
Its not even going to be close.
Its not about Romney. Its A B O and a referendum of the horrible Barack Kardashian presidency
Would you like make a bet on that.... we already have one bet...lets make another bet... you set the terms... i say that IF Romney wins, it wont be by a landslide.
Lets define Landslide first.
-
Would you like make a bet on that.... we already have one bet...lets make another bet... you set the terms... i say that IF Romney wins, it wont be by a landslide.
Lets define Landslide first.
5 POINTS?
-
Daily Presidential Poll - Ras (Romney +3)
RasmussenReports ^ | 6/11/12 | Scott Rasmussen
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows Mitt Romney attracting 47% of the vote, while President Obama earns 44%. Five percent (5%) prefer some other candidate, and four percent (4%) are undecided.
...
A president’s Job Approval rating is one of the best indicators for assessing his chances of reelection. Typically, the president’s Job Approval rating on Election Day will be close to the share of the vote he receives. Currently, 47% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the president's job performance. Fifty-two percent (52%) at least somewhat disapprove (see trends).
...
Intensity of support or opposition can have an impact on campaigns. Currently, 28% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-one percent (41%) Strongly Disapprove, giving him a Presidential Approval Index rating of -13 (see trends).
(Excerpt) Read more at rasmussenreports.com ...
53 - 46 to Romney in November is my guess.
-
5 POINTS?
is that a landslide?
-
is that a landslide?
Against Barack Kardashian who has 24/7 365 media support and backing, hundreds of millions of dollars in support, etc? Absolutely.
-
Against Barack Kardashian who has 24/7 365 media support and backing, hundreds of millions of dollars in support, etc? Absolutely.
Who is that....
Aye look man. If we are going to discuss something, Use real names like a real person.. tha fuck is wrong with you.. Grow the fuck up and quit acting like a child.
Now, were going to try this again. Give me a working definition of LANDSLIDE that is EQUAL to both sides.
-
Against Barack Kardashian who has 24/7 365 media support and backing, hundreds of millions of dollars in support, etc? Absolutely.
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=428089.0
-
Who is that....
Aye look man. If we are going to discuss something, Use real names like a real person.. tha fuck is wrong with you.. Grow the fuck up and quit acting like a child.
Now, were going to try this again. Give me a working definition of LANDSLIDE that is EQUAL to both sides.
"Barack Kardashian" is our empty headed vapid idiot celeb president who seems to love hollywood more than the WH.
-
"Barack Kardashian" is our empty headed vapid idiot celeb president who seems to love hollywood more than the WH.
Again, when we discuss something, put on your big boy hat and talk like an adult. Use real names, regular proper punctuation, caps lock usage etc. Act like an adult so I can attempt to take you serious. This shit, "FFFFFFUUUUUCCCCCPOPOPOPO DSFFF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!", isnt going to fly. Youre a grown ass man but you act like a temper tantrum throwing scitzo with trying to have a conversation about politics. Again, grow up.
-
Daily Presidential Poll - Ras (Romney +3)
RasmussenReports ^ | 6/11/12 | Scott Rasmussen
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows Mitt Romney attracting 47% of the vote, while President Obama earns 44%. Five percent (5%) prefer some other candidate, and four percent (4%) are undecided.
...
A president’s Job Approval rating is one of the best indicators for assessing his chances of reelection. Typically, the president’s Job Approval rating on Election Day will be close to the share of the vote he receives. Currently, 47% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the president's job performance. Fifty-two percent (52%) at least somewhat disapprove (see trends).
...
Intensity of support or opposition can have an impact on campaigns. Currently, 28% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-one percent (41%) Strongly Disapprove, giving him a Presidential Approval Index rating of -13 (see trends).
(Excerpt) Read more at rasmussenreports.com ...
53 - 46 to Romney in November is my guess.
Exactly 4 years ago, Obama led McCain by 5 points in the Rassmussen polls:
http://donklephant.com/2008/06/11/rasmussen-obama-leads-mccain-by-5
Obama – 49%
McCain – 44%
-
Against Barack Kardashian who has 24/7 365 media support and backing, hundreds of millions of dollars in support, etc? Absolutely.
"Culture of Victimhood" = Obama has the media and all we have is the #1 cable news network & #1 news website drudge spewing conservative rhetoric.
-
In other words, it's a statistical tie... I am and am not surprised, to be honest. I'm surprised, because I'd have expected a bit more reaction to Obama's ridiculous statements on the economy. I'm not surprised, because I think that statistical ties will be the norm all the way up until election night.
-
In other words, it's a statistical tie... I am and am not surprised, to be honest. I'm surprised, because I'd have expected a bit more reaction to Obama's ridiculous statements on the economy. I'm not surprised, because I think that statistical ties will be the norm all the way up until election night.
I heard it takes about a week or so for those things to show up in polling.
-
Nearly four years after enthusiastic younger voters poured into polling booths to help push Barack Obama over the finish line and into the Oval Office, their hope has turned to fear and pollster John Zogby says that they are ready to give up on politics.
“I truly am worried about today's twenty-somethings,” he frets. “They are our global generation and I have seen them move from hope and grand expectations for themselves and their world to anxiety and disillusionment. We can't afford to lose them,” he adds.
Zogby previewed his remarks to the League of Women Voters 50th anniversary convention Monday night with Secrets. His worry: that younger voters will stop voting.
He is calling on the League of Women Voters to help stop that trend by engaging younger voters, especially women. “You are needed more than ever,” he says of the group. “I see from your mission that you 'encourage' and I think we all need to move into crisis mode and use the word 'engage'. Especially young women.”
A fan of youth-friendly social media, Zogby suggests a game plan to target first-time voters. “They should receive a voter registration form with their high school diploma or GED certificate. You need to build up your Twitter and Facebook friendship list.”
While an old institution, Zogby says that the League can still inspire. “I know the demographics of LWV -- no different from those of so many organizations. And I know that your core of activists in communities is dwindling or remaining static. There are new ways to engage people -- and new topics. Young people care about new democracies and women entrepreneurs. Your website and information has to be a source of this vital and inspiring information,” he says.
Despite growing apathy, he adds that younger Americans “want to be involved in their world, they want to help others progress while they post the kind of experience that will help them move to their next project in the gig economy. LWV doesn't need a new vision or a new MO, it needs to adjust the way it engages young people on their own turf."
http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/washington-secrets/2012/06/zogby-disillusioned-young-voters-dropping-out/717996
-
Nearly four years after enthusiastic younger voters poured into polling booths to help push Barack Obama over the finish line and into the Oval Office, their hope has turned to fear and pollster John Zogby says that they are ready to give up on politics.
“I truly am worried about today's twenty-somethings,” he frets. “They are our global generation and I have seen them move from hope and grand expectations for themselves and their world to anxiety and disillusionment. We can't afford to lose them,” he adds.
Zogby previewed his remarks to the League of Women Voters 50th anniversary convention Monday night with Secrets. His worry: that younger voters will stop voting.
He is calling on the League of Women Voters to help stop that trend by engaging younger voters, especially women. “You are needed more than ever,” he says of the group. “I see from your mission that you 'encourage' and I think we all need to move into crisis mode and use the word 'engage'. Especially young women.”
A fan of youth-friendly social media, Zogby suggests a game plan to target first-time voters. “They should receive a voter registration form with their high school diploma or GED certificate. You need to build up your Twitter and Facebook friendship list.”
While an old institution, Zogby says that the League can still inspire. “I know the demographics of LWV -- no different from those of so many organizations. And I know that your core of activists in communities is dwindling or remaining static. There are new ways to engage people -- and new topics. Young people care about new democracies and women entrepreneurs. Your website and information has to be a source of this vital and inspiring information,” he says.
Despite growing apathy, he adds that younger Americans “want to be involved in their world, they want to help others progress while they post the kind of experience that will help them move to their next project in the gig economy. LWV doesn't need a new vision or a new MO, it needs to adjust the way it engages young people on their own turf."
http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/washington-secrets/2012/06/zogby-disillusioned-young-voters-dropping-out/717996
Thank GOD those dumb kids are staying at home!!! What arrogance they have thinking they are experienced and worldy enough to vote. Fucking dumbshits dont know what life is all about. By the way, I feel the same for Ron Paul dick sucking college Losertarian conservatives as well. Douche bags all of them. My rant here is bipartisan.
-
Thank GOD those dumb kids are staying at home!!! What arrogance they have thinking they are experienced and worldy enough to vote. Fucking dumbshits dont know what life is all about. By the way, I feel the same for Ron Paul dick sucking college Losertarian conservatives as well. Douche bags all of them. My rant here is bipartisan.
I have one loser in the gym who works at EMS and is a crunchy lib. Dude wore an obama shirt one night and got mocked and laughed at loudly. Never seen this idiot wear the shirt again.
2008 - Hope & Change
2012 - Blame & Complain
-
Thank GOD those dumb kids are staying at home!!! What arrogance they have thinking they are experienced and worldy enough to vote. Fucking dumbshits dont know what life is all about. By the way, I feel the same for Ron Paul dick sucking college Losertarian conservatives as well. Douche bags all of them. My rant here is bipartisan.
I never believed the younger Ron Paul supporters were going to show up in Novemer en masse. Not that many of them anyway. At least not enough impact the election.
I was talking to a college kid the other day and he told me he and his classmates can't stand Obama. Not sure if they are all going to vote, but sounds like a number of them will be supporting Romney or staying home.
-
What arrogance they have thinking they are experienced and worldy enough to vote.
It's not arrogance to exercise a right guaranteed by the Constitution to - whether you're experienced or worldly enough, whatever that is supposed to mean.
Fucking dumbshits dont know what life is all about.
Yeah. Fucking dumbshits...
Let's ask an expert in "what life is all about". Tell us MM2K, what metric should we use to determine who knows enough to qualify to vote? Since you know what life is all about, your opinion on this subject is extremely important. ::)
By the way, I feel the same for Ron Paul dick sucking college Losertarian conservatives as well. Douche bags all of them. My rant here is bipartisan.
No, your rant is retarded.
-
It's not arrogance to exercise a right guaranteed by the Constitution to - whether you're experienced or worldly enough, whatever that is supposed to mean.
Yeah. Fucking dumbshits...
Let's ask an expert in "what life is all about". Tell us MM2K, what metric should we use to determine who knows enough to qualify to vote? Since you know what life is all about, your opinion on this subject is extremely important. ::)
No, your rant is retarded.
MM2k bitch slapped right there
-
Free Republic
Browse · Search Pings · Mail News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.
Is The Romney Campaign Getting In David Axelrod's Head?
BuzzFeed ^ | 6/11/2012 | Zeke Miller
Posted on June 12, 2012 3:41:02 AM EDT by tellw
Obama adviser David Axelrod offered some clear signs that Mitt Romney’s attacks on him are taking their toll, twice referring to reaction he’s received from Romney operatives in Boston in a 75 minute discussion at the 92nd Street Y in Manhattan Monday night.
Axelrod, the most visible face on the calm, cool, and collected Obama campaign had been rattled at a press conference two weeks ago on the steps of the Massachusetts State Capitol blocks from Romney headquarters when he faced bubbles and chants of “Solyndra.”
President Barack Obama’s senior adviser and political guru responded to moderator John Heilemann’s poll of the room that all but four people in attendance voted for Obama in 2008 by saying: “We have a very nice room here…not like those folks up in Boston.”
Later, joking about hypothetical Romney trackers in the audience recording his every word, Axelrod added, “At least they’re letting me speak.”
Axelrod’s unprompted asides suggested Romney’s in-person and social media guerilla campaign is taking hold — at least in the cubic foot of space above Axelrod’s shoulders.
Beyond the from the now-infamous press conference, the Romney campaign has deployed campaign staffers to infiltrate Obama campaign events to tweet about empty seats and spin the president’s comments while he’s still in the room. On Twitter, Romney operatives swarm over nearly every Axelrod television appearance to point out flaws and needle him over inconsistencies.
Romney aides frequently brag when Axelrod grows frustrated with their efforts. “We’re in his head,” one staffer said triumphantly after the Massachusetts press conference.
It remains to be seen whether the Twitter wars or surrogate fights will have any impact beyond the tweet-obsessed Acela corridor.
But the Romney effort is part of a larger effort to energize the base by showing the campaign has fight — something conservatives doubted McCain had four years ago. Also, Boston’s theory goes, if they can get in Axelrod’s head, the vaunted Chicago operation might just slip-up.
-
PPP poll shows Romney ahead in North Carolina
ABC ^ | June 12 2012
Left-leaning pollster PPP said Tuesday that its latest survey of potential North Carolina voters shows Mitt Romney leading President Barack Obama for the first time since October.
Public Policy Polling said Romney leads 48 percent to 46 - a gain of seven points on Obama since April, when the President led by a 49-44 margin
(Excerpt) Read more at abclocal.go.com ...
-
Obama is at a disadvantage right now because he is basically topped off right around 45% and that number just isn't gonna get bigger between here and November. He has his committed voters (blacks, welfare reciepents, far left liberals) but how could he possibly gonna convince more voters on board with him after 3.5 years of utter incompetence, racking up record debt and a piss poor economy.
The key is gonna be Romney and how he avoids making "shoot yourself in the foot gaffes" going forward, which he most likely will cause he's a bright guy. I think the 40 years of experience in leadership/politics will finally show in their first national debate when Obama has ZERO to elevate his position and Romney will be there to stick it up his ass which he does best as a successful leader in business and which he will do in front of Millions of people. Obama will be standing there like a little bitch and have to take it.
-
More trouble for Obama. He won Iowa by ten points in 08.
http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/rasmussen-obama-romney-election/2012/06/12/id/442055
-
It's not arrogance to exercise a right guaranteed by the Constitution to - whether you're experienced or worldly enough, whatever that is supposed to mean.
Yeah. Fucking dumbshits...
Let's ask an expert in "what life is all about". Tell us MM2K, what metric should we use to determine who knows enough to qualify to vote? Since you know what life is all about, your opinion on this subject is extremely important. ::)
No, your rant is retarded.
Ok, so 20 year olds are wiser than 40 year olds. GOT IT. They were so wise that they voted overwelmingly for one of the worst presidents we have ever had. Sorry, but I remember in 2008 how sanctimonious the Youtube kids were. And there are even reports that thier parents got excited about Obama just because thier kids were.
-
More trouble for Obama. He won Iowa by ten points in 08.
http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/rasmussen-obama-romney-election/2012/06/12/id/442055
No wonder the lefties are dredging up old stories about Romney's missionary work and the draft. Three states that Obama won by double digits in 2008 are NOW toss-ups (Michigan, Wisconsin, and Iowa). Oregon may be next.
Time for some more gay-groveling for Mr. Hope-and-Change.
And you REALLY KNOW IT'S BAD, when Obama Girl doesn't want to dry-hump the president's cardboard cutout anymore. ;D
'Obama Girl' over crush
President Barack Obama appears to have lost the support of one of his biggest fans.
Amber Lee Ettinger, who rose to Internet stardom as 'Obama Girl' in 2008 when she posted a video online expressing her admiration for the then US senator, is yet to give the President her support this time around.
Ettinger told US politics website The Daily Caller that she wasn't as excited about Obama as she was during his first election campaign and has refused to endorse him for re-election in November.
'At this point I'm keeping that to myself,' she told The Daily Caller.
'If I'm not making videos, I'm not sure it's anyone's business who I'm voting for this time around.'
Ettinger's 'Crush on Obama' video has received more than 20 million hits on YouTube since 2007.
It was among a series of Obama Girl videos that have been viewed more than 100 million times.
http://www.skynews.com.au/offbeat/article.aspx?id=760495&vId=
-
Ok, so 20 year olds are wiser than 40 year olds.
Some are, most aren't, although I would hesitate to call most 40 year olds wise by any objective standard. But we're getting carried away. What's wisdom got to do with voting? Is wisdom a prerequisite for voting?
GOT IT.
I can't be sure, but I think what you "GOT" is the shit you pulled out of your ass. I'd recommend you wash your hands with a good anti-bacterial soap.
They were so wise that they voted overwelmingly for one of the worst presidents we have ever had. Sorry, but I remember in 2008 how sanctimonious the Youtube kids were. And there are even reports that thier parents got excited about Obama just because thier kids were.
What's wisdom got to do with voting? We've already established that it isn't a prerequisite for voting.
As for falling for the lofty rhetoric of a somewhat charismatic† politician? What's new? This shit happens almost every election cycle - sometimes on the left, sometimes on the right. The names change, the slogans change and the faces change. The lies don't. And whether the lies are coming from someone with a (D) or someone with an (R) makes absolutely no difference at all.
† To be perfectly clear, I said charismatic - as in someone who exercises a compelling charm that inspires devotion in others. I certainly believe that description fits him, but that doesn't mean I agree with him. The fact is that I disagree with his politics and with most of his positions (with, perhaps a handful of rare exceptions on issues that are really no-brainers, such as pushing to improve math & science curricula in high-schools and offering tax credits to students attending University for all four years of their program – provided, I would add, that they are in good academic standing)
-
Why?
Do you feel comfortable re-electing a President who has illegally assassinated an American citizen, signed a bill into law granting him the power to indefinitely detain American citizens, stated that he can spend money against Congress's will, and questioned the power of the Supreme Court to review laws?
YES
-
I have one loser in the gym who works at EMS and is a crunchy lib. Dude wore an obama shirt one night and got mocked and laughed at loudly. Never seen this idiot wear the shirt again.
2008 - Hope & Change
2012 - Blame & Complain
Not only do we not believe the story about that shirt, but we also don't believe that you go to the gym.
-
Obama is at a disadvantage right now because he is basically topped off right around 45% and that number just isn't gonna get bigger between here and November. He has his committed voters (blacks, welfare reciepents, far left liberals) but how could he possibly gonna convince more voters on board with him after 3.5 years of utter incompetence, racking up record debt and a piss poor economy.
The key is gonna be Romney and how he avoids making "shoot yourself in the foot gaffes" going forward, which he most likely will cause he's a bright guy. I think the 40 years of experience in leadership/politics will finally show in their first national debate when Obama has ZERO to elevate his position and Romney will be there to stick it up his ass which he does best as a successful leader in business and which he will do in front of Millions of people. Obama will be standing there like a little bitch and have to take it.
Obama has been the president for 4 years he has a wealth of experience so WTF are you talking about? :)
-
YES
That is why you are an Obama SLAVE.
-
Just a steady stream of bad news for the president.
Slumping poll numbers.
http://www.moneynews.com/Economy/reuters-poll-economic-obama/2012/06/12/id/442089
Ballooning deficit.
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/BGOVTOP-BNALL-BNSTAFF-BNTEAMS/2012/06/12/id/442098
-
Rasmussen: Romney up in Wisconsin, 47/44
Hotair ^ | 06/13/2012 | Ed Morrissey
Posted on Wednesday, June 13, 2012 12:35:05 PM by SeekAndFind
Earlier today, National Journal's Josh Kraushaar warned that Mitt Romney was poised to breach the Blue Wall --- Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. A new Rasmussen poll of likely voters in Wisconsin corroborates Kraushaar's analysis. Mitt Romney has moved to a narrow lead over Barack Obama in the immediate aftermath of the recall election, 47/44:
The latest Rasmussen Reports statewide telephone survey of Likely Voters shows Romney with 47% of the vote to Obama’s 44%. Five percent (5%) prefer some other candidate, and four percent (4%) are undecided.
Prior to this survey, Obama's support in the state has ranged from 45% to 52%, while Romney has earned 41% to 45%. Last month, the numbers were Obama 49%, Romney 45%. The president led his likely Republican challenger by 11 points in March - 52% to 41%.
Just last week Republican Governor Scott Walker won a special recall election prompted by Democrats outraged over his successful move to limit collective bargaining rights for some unionized public employees in order to reduce Wisconsin’s budget deficit.
Wisconsin hasn’t gone Republican since the 1984 Ronald Reagan landslide over Walter Mondale. It came close two of the past three cycles, however, with George Bush only losing the state by a few thousand votes in each of his two elections. However, Obama won Wisconsin handily in 2008, 56/43, so a 3-point deficit with less than five months to go sends a big red flag flying, perhaps over the entire Midwest and Rust Belt.
Obama is hampered in Wisconsin by a 47/52 approval rating — slightly worse than the national numbers we see from Gallup, but not extraordinarily worse. Men have a much stronger disapproval at 37/59, while women give him a narrower positive rating at 53/46 — but 39% strongly disapprove, as do 50% of men. Independents disapprove by a significant margin at 41/56.
These numbers get reflected in the head-to-head matchups as well. Romney has a 15-point lead among men, while Obama has an eight-point lead with women, giving Romney the edge in the gender gap. Independents give Romney a 5-point edge at 43/38, but 38% is a very low number for an incumbent President in a heretofore friendly state.
That’s not the only demographic problem Obama has. He only carries the under-40 vote by just four points, 44/40, while Romney gets 51% of the other two age demographics in Wisconsin. Romney leads by 16 points among voters with children still at home, 49/33, and only trails by four (45/49) among those who don’t. Obama only leads in two of six income categories — under $20K (65/33), and $40K-60K (49/41). The $20K-40K demo is a virtual tie, with Romney taking a one-point edge (45/44), and Romney wins all the other income demos by double digits. In fact, Obama can’t get to 40% in any of the remaining income brackets.
Some might wonder whether Rasmussen oversampled Republicans to get this result. The D/R/I on this poll is 34/32/34, while the turnout in last week’s recall election was 34/35/31. If anything, the poll slightly undersamples Republicans, although this turnout model is a reasonable one to use for the November election.
Looks like the Wisconsin recall is turning out to be a huge backfire on the unions, Democrats, and Barack Obama. It may also hint at a Blue Wall collapse in five months.
-
Rasmussen: Romney up in Wisconsin, 47/44
Hotair ^ | 06/13/2012 | Ed Morrissey
Posted on Wednesday, June 13, 2012 12:35:05 PM by SeekAndFind
Earlier today, National Journal's Josh Kraushaar warned that Mitt Romney was poised to breach the Blue Wall --- Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. A new Rasmussen poll of likely voters in Wisconsin corroborates Kraushaar's analysis. Mitt Romney has moved to a narrow lead over Barack Obama in the immediate aftermath of the recall election, 47/44:
The latest Rasmussen Reports statewide telephone survey of Likely Voters shows Romney with 47% of the vote to Obama’s 44%. Five percent (5%) prefer some other candidate, and four percent (4%) are undecided.
Prior to this survey, Obama's support in the state has ranged from 45% to 52%, while Romney has earned 41% to 45%. Last month, the numbers were Obama 49%, Romney 45%. The president led his likely Republican challenger by 11 points in March - 52% to 41%.
Just last week Republican Governor Scott Walker won a special recall election prompted by Democrats outraged over his successful move to limit collective bargaining rights for some unionized public employees in order to reduce Wisconsin’s budget deficit.
Wisconsin hasn’t gone Republican since the 1984 Ronald Reagan landslide over Walter Mondale. It came close two of the past three cycles, however, with George Bush only losing the state by a few thousand votes in each of his two elections. However, Obama won Wisconsin handily in 2008, 56/43, so a 3-point deficit with less than five months to go sends a big red flag flying, perhaps over the entire Midwest and Rust Belt.
Obama is hampered in Wisconsin by a 47/52 approval rating — slightly worse than the national numbers we see from Gallup, but not extraordinarily worse. Men have a much stronger disapproval at 37/59, while women give him a narrower positive rating at 53/46 — but 39% strongly disapprove, as do 50% of men. Independents disapprove by a significant margin at 41/56.
These numbers get reflected in the head-to-head matchups as well. Romney has a 15-point lead among men, while Obama has an eight-point lead with women, giving Romney the edge in the gender gap. Independents give Romney a 5-point edge at 43/38, but 38% is a very low number for an incumbent President in a heretofore friendly state.
That’s not the only demographic problem Obama has. He only carries the under-40 vote by just four points, 44/40, while Romney gets 51% of the other two age demographics in Wisconsin. Romney leads by 16 points among voters with children still at home, 49/33, and only trails by four (45/49) among those who don’t. Obama only leads in two of six income categories — under $20K (65/33), and $40K-60K (49/41). The $20K-40K demo is a virtual tie, with Romney taking a one-point edge (45/44), and Romney wins all the other income demos by double digits. In fact, Obama can’t get to 40% in any of the remaining income brackets.
Some might wonder whether Rasmussen oversampled Republicans to get this result. The D/R/I on this poll is 34/32/34, while the turnout in last week’s recall election was 34/35/31. If anything, the poll slightly undersamples Republicans, although this turnout model is a reasonable one to use for the November election.
Looks like the Wisconsin recall is turning out to be a huge backfire on the unions, Democrats, and Barack Obama. It may also hint at a Blue Wall collapse in five months.
Not to mention, he's lost Obama Girl. If Chris Matthews loses that thrill up his leg, it's all over!! ;D
-
Obama has been the president for 4 years he has a wealth of experience so WTF are you talking about? :)
I'm talking about FACTS.
Obama has ZERO leverage going into a National debate.
The economy is in neutral with zero signs of going forward because businesses have no clue what he is going to do with tax policies in the future so they are basically sitting on their hands.
His attorney general should sitting in a jail cell right now and is openly mocked by at least one Senator, with more to follow. That situation is hanging over Obama like a vulture.
Bill Clinton is publicly going around and criticizing him.
The AFL-CIO just dropped him, so there goes a few hundred thousand, potentially a few MILLION votes...white and hispanic blue collars are jumping off his platform in droves.
Fellow democrats are beginning to distance themselves. Obama couldn't even show his face in Wisconsin because it would have made the drubbing the Democrats took that much worse.
All Obama has is the blacks who vote for him solely because his skin color is the same as theirs, the hardcore liberals and some of the entitlement welfare crowd with a few hardcore Union households sprinkled in. Basically 45% on a GOOD day and at this point it's looking like closer to 43 or 44% being cast in steel, definitely going to vote Obama regardless.
What the fuck is he going to possibly say on that stage in the fall without looking like the incompetent jerkoff that he has evidently proven himself to be??
And he is going against up against a guy who LOVES nothing more than to be the dominant guy in the room and put someone weaker in his place, and he has all the leverage to do so in this case.
I'm not some hard core right winger by any stretch but how can anyone refute ANYTHING I have written here.
-
Wow - how long until he is under the bus?
-
I'm talking about FACTS.
Obama has ZERO leverage going into a National debate.
The economy is in neutral with zero signs of going forward because businesses have no clue what he is going to do with tax policies in the future so they are basically sitting on their hands.
His attorney general should sitting in a jail cell right now and is openly mocked by at least one Senator, with more to follow. That situation is hanging over Obama like a vulture.
Bill Clinton is publicly going around and criticizing him.
The AFL-CIO just dropped him, so there goes a few hundred thousand, potentially a few MILLION votes...white and hispanic blue collars are jumping off his platform in droves.
Fellow democrats are beginning to distance themselves. Obama couldn't even show his face in Wisconsin because it would have made the drubbing the Democrats took that much worse.
All Obama has is the blacks who vote for him solely because his skin color is the same as theirs, the hardcore liberals and some of the entitlement welfare crowd with a few hardcore Union households sprinkled in. Basically 45% on a GOOD day and at this point it's looking like closer to 43 or 44% being cast in steel, definitely going to vote Obama regardless.
What the fuck is he going to possibly say on that stage in November without looking like the incompetent jerkoff that he has evidently proven himself to be??
And he is going against up against a guy who LOVES nothing more than to be the dominant guy in the room and put someone weaker in his place, and he has all the leverage to do so in this case.
I'm not some hard core right winger by any stretch but how can anyone refute ANYTHING I have written here.
And, he's even losing some black votes, because of the lousy numbers among blacks in terms of unemployment AND his gay "marriage" debacle. It's to the point, where Obama doing cheesy R&B ads to court fleeing African-American voters.
-
And, he's even losing some black votes, because of the lousy numbers among blacks in terms of unemployment AND his gay "marriage" debacle. It's to the point, where Obama doing cheesy R&B ads to court fleeing African-American voters.
That ad had be snapping my fingers to the beat laughing very VERY loudly.
-
And, he's even losing some black votes, because of the lousy numbers among blacks in terms of unemployment AND his gay "marriage" debacle. It's to the point, where Obama doing cheesy R&B ads to court fleeing African-American voters.
He might lose some of the black vote but I bet he still gets 90% pretty easily.
Just look on this forum, you got guys like Option D and Wiggs who are otherwise pretty smart dudes but for whatever reason they will defend this incompetent bum to the very end regardless of massive amounts of evidence that he is doing an EPICALLY horrible job.
I can't explain it, but it is what it is.
-
He might lose some of the black vote but I bet he still gets 90% pretty easily.
Just look on this forum, you got guys like Option D and Wiggs who are otherwise pretty smart dudes but for whatever reason they will defend this incompetent bum to the very end regardless of massive amounts of evidence that he is doing an EPICALLY horrible job.
I can't explain it, but it is what it is.
Even so, that's devastating for Obama, especially if those losses are in certain swing states. Remember that Bush got 11% of the black vote in 2004. If Romney gets that (and the working-class white vote), Obama is DOOMED.
Now, it's getting to the point where all the left can do is, you guessed it, blame Bush:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/06/13/msnbcs_mika_brzezinski_im_hoping_blaming_bush_will_work.html
-
Even so, that's devastating for Obama, especially if those losses are in certain swing states. Remember that Bush got 11% of the black vote in 2004. If Romney gets that (and the working-class white vote), Obama is DOOMED.
Now, it's getting to the point where all the left can do is, you guessed it, blame Bush:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/06/13/msnbcs_mika_brzezinski_im_hoping_blaming_bush_will_work.html
I would be SHOCKED if Obama got less than 90% of the black vote even with the gay marriage and unemployment issue but you might be onto something. It isn't something I have thought too much about but it will be interesting to watch.
-
I would be SHOCKED if Obama got less than 90% of the black vote even with the gay marriage and unemployment issue but you might be onto something. It isn't something I have thought too much about but it will be interesting to watch.
Remember that there were 13 marriage amendments on the ballot in 2004 (11 on election day). There are four this time around. But, Obama "evolved" (i.e. he sold out, because his gay campaign bundlers read him the riot act) in favor of gay "marriage".
As stated earlier, it's where those black voters are that counts. Obama can kiss North Carolina goodbye. And Florida will be next.
-
Remember that there were 13 marriage amendments on http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=post;quote=6154359;topic=421639.475;num_replies=481;sesc=5369a5c4d355af355fc2100404ac3406the ballot in 2004 (11 on election day). There are four this time around. But, Obama "evolved" (i.e. he sold out, because his gay campaign bundlers read him the riot act) in favor of gay "marriage".
As stated earlier, it's where those black voters are that counts. Obama can kiss North Carolina goodbye. And Florida will be next.
Is the POTENTIAL for a Mondale '84 type loss there for Obama even though he is going against a candidate like Romney who is no Ronald Reagan? Or is that overstating it?
-
Remember that there were 13 marriage amendments on http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=post;quote=6154359;topic=421639.475;num_replies=481;sesc=5369a5c4d355af355fc2100404ac3406the ballot in 2004 (11 on election day). There are four this time around. But, Obama "evolved" (i.e. he sold out, because his gay campaign bundlers read him the riot act) in favor of gay "marriage".
As stated earlier, it's where those black voters are that counts. Obama can kiss North Carolina goodbye. And Florida will be next.
[/quote
Is the POTENTIAL for a Mondale '84 type loss there for Obama even though he is going against a candidate like Romney who is no Ronald Reagan? Or is that overstating it?
I'd say more a repeat of 2008 in reverse.
-
Is the POTENTIAL for a Mondale '84 type loss there for Obama even though he is going against a candidate like Romney who is no Ronald Reagan? Or is that overstating it?
Maybe just a bit! But, I want to see a massacre. Beatdowns take away most of the liberals' excuses for losing, not all, but most.
-
And, he's even losing some black votes, because of the lousy numbers among blacks in terms of unemployment AND his gay "marriage" debacle. It's to the point, where Obama doing cheesy R&B ads to court fleeing African-American voters.
Your "religion" is your justification for hate.
-
Your "religion" is your justification for hate.
There is nothing in MCWAYs post to suggest that he is full of hate in the least bit. I feel that we are simply discussing the current political landscape as it stands. If you are capable of making a point without using the word "racism" or "hate" I would love to hear it.
-
There is nothing in MCWAYs post to suggest that he is full of hate in the least bit. I feel that we are simply discussing the current political landscape as it stands. If you are capable of making a point without using the word "racism" or "hate" I would love to hear it.
MCWAY uses quotation marks for things he doesn't agree with. I was attempting to do the same.
Denying others rights is hate.
I'm truly sorry this had to be spelled out for you.
-
MCWAY uses quotation marks for things he doesn't agree with. I was attempting to do the same.
Denying others rights is hate.
I'm truly sorry this had to be spelled out for you.
What you don't get is you can't deny anyone anything, until that thing is defined. And, that's the gist with marriage: HOW IS IT DEFINED?
The longstanding definition is one man and one woman. The issue is whether this issue should be changed to accomodate homosexuals, and if so, where does that change end?
One man, two women? Two men, one woman? Three women? Four women and one man?
Or do adults have to be involved at all? A boy and a woman? A girl and a man? Three girls and two men?
What about relatives closer than first or second cousins? Same-sex siblings? Opposite sex siblings?
There is nothing in MCWAYs post to suggest that he is full of hate in the least bit. I feel that we are simply discussing the current political landscape as it stands. If you are capable of making a point without using the word "racism" or "hate" I would love to hear it.
Garebear is like many gay "marriage" supporters, who act like spoiled brats. You "hate" them, unless you cater to them and give them what they want how they want it.
And, he has to have it spelled out for him that Obama's pandering to gays is going to have him bleed yet more voters, including African-American ones. If there's one bipartisan issue, it's that marriage is one man and one woman (as is evident by the lopsided losses gay "marriage" supporters take, when state marriage amendments go on the ballot).
-
What you don't get is you can't deny anyone anything, until that thing is defined. And, that's the gist with marriage: HOW IS IT DEFINED?
The longstanding definition is one man and one woman. The issue is whether this issue should be changed to accomodate homosexuals, and if so, where does that change end?
One man, two women? Two men, one woman? Three women? Four women and one man?
Or do adults have to be involved at all? A boy and a woman? A girl and a man? Three girls and two men?
What about relatives closer than first or second cousins? Same-sex siblings? Opposite sex siblings?
Garebear is like many gay "marriage" supporters, who act like spoiled brats. You "hate" them, unless you cater to them and give them what they want how they want it.
Is that really the best you can come up with? THAT'S it for your justification?
Yes, I'm a spoiled brat. I want equal rights for human beings. You must "cater" to me.
You're the one asking for special treatment, that other people live by the rules of your "religion".
-
Is that really the best you can come up with? THAT'S it for your justification?
Yes, I'm a spoiled brat. I want equal rights for human beings. You must "cater" to me.
You're the one asking for special treatment, that other people live by the rules of your "religion".
If you don't like my religion, try that Islam stuff (BTW, if you live in their country, you have to live by the rules of their religion).
Or, you could be an atheist. But, last time I checked, guys like Stalin and Hitler weren't all that cool with it either.
And, as usual, you missed the point by a country mile. To what right are you referring? How is that right defined? And why is anyone obligated to change the definition of it?
-
I've yet to see gearbare make a decent point on anything without sound like a whiny little white boy bottom bitch. It's hard to take anything "he" says serious. I've got a few veins in my 14 inch sleeveless shirt arms so I'm tough grrrrr!!! ::)
-
If you don't like my religion, try that Islam stuff
Shit is shit, no matter how you cut, slice or dice it.
Or, you could be an atheist.
Great choice. But then who would tell you what's good and force you to do it? ::)
But, last time I checked, guys like Stalin and Hitler weren't all that cool with it either.
Not this "bad people were atheist" bullshit again... Stalin attended seminary on a scholarship and did extremely well before he was expelled. Hitler, at least publicly, also praised Christian culture, going so far as to state that his Christian beliefs pointed him to a Jesus Christ, whom he called his "Lord and Savior."
Now, on the subject of gay marriage, I've already stated my viewpoints before: I think that there should be civil unions available to consenting adults which afford one all the legal benefits a marriage currently offers; religions could then perform marriages according to their own rules and regulations, with the marriage then automatically being recognized as a valid civil union.
-
Shit is shit, no matter how you cut, slice or dice it.
That might explain why I'm not an atheist or a humanist.
Great choice. But then who would tell you what's good and force you to do it? ::)
Hmmm....humanist/communist leaders didn't have a problem doing that to people.
Not this "bad people were atheist" bullshit again... Stalin attended seminary on a scholarship and did extremely well before he was expelled. Hitler, at least publicly, also praised Christian culture, going so far as to state that his Christian beliefs pointed him to a Jesus Christ, whom he called his "Lord and Savior."
Richard Dawkins was an altar boy in the Espicopalian church. Does that mean his current atheist beliefs are void?
Between the two of them, they racked up a body count that made the Crusade and Jihads look like a Jello wrestling match. And, they all did it in the name of making their governments (and ultimately themselves) the deity of their respective countries.
For this reason, and others, I've long deduced that atheism simply put is man worshipping himself. But, that's another issue for another thread.
Now, on the subject of gay marriage, I've already stated my viewpoints before: I think that there should be civil unions available to consenting adults which afford one all the legal benefits a marriage currently offers; religions could then perform marriages according to their own rules and regulations, with the marriage then automatically being recognized as a valid civil union.
And, therein lies my point. You've confined this civil unions/gay "marriage" stuff to adults. WHO ARE YOU to say that it should just be adults. I'm sure the NAMBLA crew (many of whom also support gay "marriage") might disagree with your assessment.
Shouldn't they have the right to unite with young boys? And, does limiting civil unions to adults make you the "bigot" that gay activists claim other people are, who say marriage is one man and one woman?
-
Hmmm....humanist/communist leaders didn't have a problem doing that to people.
Leaders, in general, don't have a problem telling people what to do ;)
Richard Dawkins was an altar boy in the Espicopalian church. Does that mean his current atheist beliefs are void?
No, but that's not the point I was trying to make. See below.
Between the two of them, they racked up a body count that made the Crusade and Jihads look like a Jello wrestling match. And, they all did it in the name of making their governments (and ultimately themselves) the deity of their respective countries.
You ascribed the actions of Stalin or Hitler to atheism. They did not rack up the body count in the name of atheism or because of any atheism dictum. The crusades and jihad (and other "holy wars") on the other hand... ;)
And, therein lies my point. You've confined this civil unions/gay "marriage" stuff to adults. WHO ARE YOU to say that it should just be adults. I'm sure the NAMBLA crew (many of whom also support gay "marriage") might disagree with your assessment.
I would confine civil unions to adults, yes. Just like we already require that any other contract that is entered into must be entered into by consenting adults in order to be valid.
Shouldn't they have the right to unite with young boys? And, does limiting civil unions to adults make you the "bigot" that gay activists claim other people are, who say marriage is one man and one woman?
It's not about a right to unite with anybody. It's about who has the legal authority to enter into legally binding contracts. Adults do (with some exceptions) and children do not. It really is a simple principle.
-
Leaders, in general, don't have a problem telling people what to do ;)
No, but that's not the point I was trying to make. See below.
You ascribed the actions of Stalin or Hitler to atheism. They did not rack up the body count in the name of atheism or because of any atheism dictum. The crusades and jihad (and other "holy wars") on the other hand... ;)
Sure they did. That atheist dictum is that man must create his own heaven on earth, because there is no God. And, apparently that attempt of creating their own heavenly utopia meant whacking a few million people (their own and several others). With Hitler, in particular, the goal was to have, as he put it, the swatiska replace the cross, for Germany's salvation.
I would confine civil unions to adults, yes. Just like we already require that any other contract that is entered into must be entered into by consenting adults in order to be valid.
It's not about a right to unite with anybody. It's about who has the legal authority to enter into legally binding contracts. Adults do (with some exceptions) and children do not. It really is a simple principle.
Again, who are you to "discriminate" against letting kids enter these type of contracts?
It's a simple principle that man and woman should comprise a marriage. But, some folks tend to have a problem with that.
-
Sure they did. That atheist dictum is that man must create his own heaven on earth, because there is no God. And, apparently that attempt of creating their own heavenly utopia meant whacking a few million people (their own and several others). With Hitler, in particular, the goal was to have, as he put it, the swatiska replace the cross, for Germany's salvation.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but there is no "atheism dictum." There is a secret handshake though. ;D
Again, who are you to "discriminate" against letting kids enter these type of contracts?
It's not me. We, as a society, have decided that one cannot enter into legally binding contracts until one reaches the age of majority. You're free to call that discrimination if you like.
It's a simple principle that man and woman should comprise a marriage. But, some folks tend to have a problem with that.
Folks tend to have problems with all sorts of things... some stupid, some not.
What people call their relationship isn't much of a concern to me; what is a concern (and quite troubling) is the notion that religious authorities should be forced to perform "marriages" against the beliefs of a particular religion or religious denomination, because I don't believe that people should be forced to act at the point of the government's proverbial gun.
I think that civil unions make sense, because right now marriage (whether by a Priest or a Judge) affords the couple certain legal benefits (such as rights of survivorship, hospital visitation rights, healthcare decision rights, etc.) which are not available to all members of our society. It is those rights that I think it's perfectly rational to make available to all consenting adults (your cries about discrimination notwithstanding) in the form of civil unions.
But I am genuinely curious to understand your objection. Do you object to the word "marriage"? Or do you object to the concept of a civil union? Is there something specific about civil unions that you object to?
-
That might explain why I'm not an atheist or a humanist.
Hmmm....humanist/communist leaders didn't have a problem doing that to people.
Richard Dawkins was an altar boy in the Espicopalian church. Does that mean his current atheist beliefs are void?
Between the two of them, they racked up a body count that made the Crusade and Jihads look like a Jello wrestling match. And, they all did it in the name of making their governments (and ultimately themselves) the deity of their respective countries.
For this reason, and others, I've long deduced that atheism simply put is man worshipping himself. But, that's another issue for another thread.
And, therein lies my point. You've confined this civil unions/gay "marriage" stuff to adults. WHO ARE YOU to say that it should just be adults. I'm sure the NAMBLA crew (many of whom also support gay "marriage") might disagree with your assessment.
Shouldn't they have the right to unite with young boys? And, does limiting civil unions to adults make you the "bigot" that gay activists claim other people are, who say marriage is one man and one woman?
Do you believe in Jesus? I mean REALLY believe?
-
I can't believe these stupid anti-obama threads keep going to 20 pages with all your sycophants posting with you
-
I can't believe these stupid anti-obama threads keep going to 20 pages with all your sycophants posting with you
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/elections
Romney is going to win Michigan.
Barakadashian is going down harder than barney frank and perez hilton.
-
LMFAO!!!!!
Romney is running a RUTHLESS camapign against the obamunist.
OBAMA AD OF 2008
ROMNEY AD OF 2012
[ Invalid YouTube link ]
-
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
-
Rasmussen: Romney 269, Obama 243
You consider that a landslide? lol
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!!
-
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.
-
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 ...
-
yeah, track records are what matters.
romneycare, assault weapons ban... these are the kinds of legislative achievements romney shoudl be talkin about.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Carville all over Obama.
http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/Carville-Obama-economicgrowth/2012/06/13/id/442218
-
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.
-
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?
-
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?
-
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
-
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).
-
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.
-
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-ŕ-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.
-
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-ŕ-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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
"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.
(http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/never_7f2fae_212781.jpg)
-
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.
LOL... so ridiculous. Even if a license wasn't required in some states 70 years ago that's hardly an argument that a license shouldn't be required today.
70 years ago, in the early '40s, there were significantly fewer vehicles on the road and a significantly smaller and less complex road network. Additionally, the number of miles traveled by vehicles was also dramatically lower than it is today; one reference I found says that in 1940's all cars combined traveled about 20 billion miles per year; in the late '90s that figure was and 2,500 billion miles per year and traffic codes were basically non-existent.
People who lived in Mass were deprived of their right to spend their $ any way they wanted.
People who lived in Massachusetts could move. Or lobby their elected officials. Or seek to overturn the law, using whatever means the Constitution of the State provides.
They were deprived of their right. Because 51% of the population said it was okay?
Did the State Constitution prohibit the State from exercising the powers it exercised?
What happens when 51% of the people who live in the state say we should deprive ppl of other rights?
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has a Constitution which imposes limits on what the Government can and cannot do.
I just LOVE how suddenly romneycare is okay now. It sucked back then, it sucks now.
I don't like Romneycare. I agree that it sucks and never thought it "ok". But that has nothing to do with whether the State could pass the relevant legislation - it could and did. And what Massachusetts did says nothing about whether similar Federal legislation would be constitutional.
Obamacare is romneycare in all 50 states. It's wrong to force americans to buy anything cause their neighbors outnumber them.
The Government of the State of Massachusetts has powers, under its Constitution, that the Government of the United States does not have, because the United States Constitution limits the Federal Government and reserves all powers not granted to it for the States and the People.
-
"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.
States' rights means that the citizens of that state get to determine certain policies.
Here's a news flash. No law or statute passed has 100% support. 51% of the electorate is all it takes to pass laws and amendments directly, unless a state's constitution say otherwise (my home state of Florida requires 60% supermajority for an amendment to be passed).
-
LOL... so ridiculous. Even if a license wasn't required in some states 70 years ago that's hardly an argument that a license shouldn't be required today.
70 years ago, in the early '40s, there were significantly fewer vehicles on the road and a significantly smaller and less complex road network. Additionally, the number of miles traveled by vehicles was also dramatically lower than it is today; one reference I found says that in 1940's all cars combined traveled about 20 billion miles per year; in the late '90s that figure was and 2,500 billion miles per year and traffic codes were basically non-existent.
What does that have to do with anything? Seriously... There is no real correlation except one where you feel "safety" needs to be addressed.
Did we need to license people to ride horses? How about jump out of planes?
It's control in the guise of safety and I can't stand it.
It's absolutely not a necessity and they have people, such as you, warped into believing you need to be "licensed" for everything.
Just a way to take your hard earned dollar... nothing more.
-
Democratic Pollster: Obama's Negative Tone And Messaging Is Going To Lose Him Michigan
Business Insider ^ | June 14, 2012 | Brett LoGiurato
Posted on June 14, 2012 10:46:57 PM EDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Michigan has become a clear swing state in the 2012 election, a new poll released Thursday by Michigan polling agency Foster McCollum White and Associates found.
And a Democratic pollster warned that if President Barack Obama doesn't change his message and tone in the campaign, he will be in severe danger of losing the state — and the election — to Republican nominee Mitt Romney.
The poll shows that Obama's lead in Michigan — much like in fellow Midwestern state Wisconsin — has all but evaporated. He has just more than a point lead in the state, a similar finding to an EPIC-MRA poll last week that gave Romney a slim lead. Here's a nice pie-chart breakdown (Obama actually rounds up to 47 percent):
(GRAPH AT LINK)
Why the slip in Michigan, a state where one recent poll by Public Policy Polling found Obama leading by an astounding 14 points? Eric Foster, president of Foster McCollum and White, told Business Insider that it's because of Obama's tone and message in the campaign thus far....
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
-
What does that have to do with anything? Seriously... There is no real correlation except one where you feel "safety" needs to be addressed.
It has to do with a lot, not the least of which is that the government has a legitimate interest in controlling who gets to operate a motor vehicle on its public roads.
Did we need to license people to ride horses?
So if we didn't need to do X, with X involving locomotion it means we don't need to do Y since Y also involves locomotion?
How about jump out of planes?
Getting pulled over midair would be cool.
It's control in the guise of safety and I can't stand it.
It's establishing a minimum level of competency to operate a motor vehicle on roads owned by the State.
It's absolutely not a necessity and they have people, such as you, warped into believing you need to be "licensed" for everything.
Ooh... people such as me. Another person who can't go for thirty seconds without throwing a veiled ad hominem.
-
It has to do with a lot, not the least of which is that the government has a legitimate interest in controlling who gets to operate a motor vehicle on its public roads.
Getting pulled over midair would be cool.
It's establishing a minimum level of competency to operate a motor vehicle on roads owned by the State.
Ooh... people such as me. Another person who can't go for thirty seconds without throwing a veiled ad hominem.
I said such as you, because you are arguing "for" the licensing.
Why would you argue for something if you didn't believe in it?
That's not "ad hominem" at all.
Fact. You are arguing for it.... Hence, people such as you, are FOR it. I'm not attacking you, I'm simply stating that if you argue "for" one side, you must AGREE with that side.
Do you disagree?
Please explain why then.
-
I said such as you, because you are arguing "for" the licensing.
I'm not arguing for licensing. I'm saying that the government's position is that there is a compelling government interest in issuing drivers licenses to allow the operation of motor vehicles on what are, essentially, the government's roads. While I agree with that position to some degree, there is a significant difference between that and arguing for licensing.
Why would you argue for something if you didn't believe in it?
Again, I didn't argue for licensing. Stating the positions that Governments adopted in requiring licensing of drivers hardly qualifies as me arguing for licensing.
Fact. You are arguing for it....
You're either confused or fact doesn't mean what you think it means. See above.
Hence, people such as you, are FOR it. I'm not attacking you, I'm simply stating that if you argue "for" one side, you must AGREE with that side.
Are you serious? That's completely and utterly false. Again, I can argue for something without necessarily agreeing with that side. I argue, for example, that the assholes from Westboro Baptist Church have the right to protest even though I find their particular message despicable. I also argue that anabolic steroids are useful enhancers of athletic performance too; it doesn't mean I demand their use by athletes - or that I even support their use.
Do you disagree?
Do I agree with what? The need for licensing? I have no strong feelings, one way or the other. I think that there is no fundamental right to operate a motor vehicle on public roadways. I think that having to demonstrate a minimum standard of competency in order to operate a motor vehicle on public roadways is sensible. Is a government-issued license the only means to ensure that? No. Is a government-issued license an effective way of enforcing such a minimum standard? Probably, although I'm sure it's not ideal.
-
I'm not arguing for licensing. I'm saying that the government's position is that there is a compelling government interest in issuing drivers licenses to allow the operation of motor vehicles on what are, essentially, the government's roads. While I agree with that position to some degree, there is a significant difference between that and arguing for licensing.
Again, I didn't argue for licensing. Stating the positions that Governments adopted in requiring licensing of drivers hardly qualifies as me arguing for licensing.
You're either confused or fact doesn't mean what you think it means. See above.
Are you serious? That's completely and utterly false. Again, I can argue for something without necessarily agreeing with that side. I argue, for example, that the assholes from Westboro Baptist Church have the right to protest even though I find their particular message despicable. I also argue that anabolic steroids are useful enhancers of athletic performance too; it doesn't mean I demand their use by athletes - or that I even support their use.
Do I agree with what? The need for licensing? I have no strong feelings, one way or the other. I think that there is no fundamental right to operate a motor vehicle on public roadways. I think that having to demonstrate a minimum standard of competency in order to operate a motor vehicle on public roadways is sensible. Is a government-issued license the only means to ensure that? No. Is a government-issued license an effective way of enforcing such a minimum standard? Probably, although I'm sure it's not ideal.
Your statements certainly give the implication that you agree with the governments stance.
If that's not true, then ok. I simply responded based upon what I perceived was your position.
All there is to it
-
Your statements certainly give the implication that you agree with the governments stance.
If that's not true, then ok. I simply responded based upon what I perceived was your position.
All there is to it
I neither agree nor disagree wholly.
As I said, I do believe that there is a compelling government and public interest to ensure the drivers are well-versed in the rules of the road and that they have a minimum standard of competency in the operation of a motor vehicle. A government-issued driver's license is probably not an ideal solution (I believe that the functions of government should be very limited) but replacing it with some else is not something that really concerns me for two reasons:
(a) I think that the current system operates reasonably well - at least as far as I can tell - and I feel the charges associated with the issuance of a license are (at least in my state) more than reasonable, especially considering the increased costs that the State had to incur to comply with the REAL ID act.
(b) There are other issues that I feel are more important and that I would prefer to have addressed; when it comes right down to it, drivers licenses just aren't high on my priority list.
-
[ Invalid YouTube link ]
ouch.
-
180 not going to be happy.
http://www.suntimes.com/guy-switches-from-2008-obama-fan-to-2012-romney-backer.html
-
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/elections
Obama at 45 in gallupand RAS.
-
[ Invalid YouTube link ]
ouch.
That's a great ad.
-
Yes, Pennsylvania Is Still a Swing State (Romney expands playing field)
New Republic ^ | 06/19/2012 | William Galston
Posted on Tuesday, June 19, 2012 10:25:27 AM by SeekAndFind
The past month has seen the momentum of the 2012 presidential election shift significantly. The national race is now in a virtual dead heat, and most key swing states are within the margin of error. And most important, it appears that Mitt Romney has expanded the playing field to include some states previously thought to be securely in President Obama’s column—including, in my view, Pennsylvania.
I base these conclusions on an analysis of surveys conducted since the beginning of June. Here’s what they show. (When there are multiple surveys, as there are in most cases, these figures represent averages.)
Wisconsin is an unexpected addition to the list. It’s hard, though, to think of a state whose politics are more volatile this year. The most recent presidential surveys may reflect the extraordinary Republican mobilization that kept Scott Walker in the governor’s mansion, and these passions may cool. Or they may not.
In my view, which I first ventured last month, it makes sense to consider adding Pennsylvania to the list, even though Obama carried it by more than 10 points in 2008. The latest Quinnipiac survey gives the president a 6-point edge (46-40), but his support remains well below 50 percent, as it has in most previous surveys for the past six months.
Obama’s job approval among Pennsylvanians stands at only 46, versus 49 percent who disapprove of his performance as president. Forty-eight percent think he deserves to be reelected, while 47 percent do not. And 56 percent are dissatisfied with the way things are going in their state, versus 43 percent who are satisfied.
(Excerpt) Read more at tnr.com ...
-
pretty sad we're in the middle of a great depression and obama is still leading by 6 in Penn, where so many ppl are unemployed.
i highly doubt Jeb would be training Obama by six points right now...
-
June 19, 2012
Mitt Romney's in It to Win It
By Ebben Raves
Mitt Romney will beat President Obama in this fall's election, most likely by a substantial margin. There. I said it. I may have a plate full of hat in my future, but I doubt it.
Pundits will give you the usual reasons for a Romney victory, but it all boils down to two things: first, Romney took the time to build an organization and second, and most important, he wants to win. Tea Party patriots and constitutional conservatives would be smart to learn a lesson from this.
While many conservatives were swooning over the latest firebrand candidate to carry their cause, Romney was already running out the clock before the game even started. Since before the 2008 election, he has been steadily building a campaign Team, networking, collecting endorsements and raising money. He knew how the system worked and used it to his advantage. The Tea Party movement has only been in existence since 2009, and then made the mistake of not coalescing behind a single candidate early enough in the race to counter Romney. We swung for the fences and struck out. Team Romney took walks, stole bases, hit singles and scored runs. The lesson that needs to be taken from this is that the Tea Party must start building their bench right now in order to have one of their own win the presidency. Although there are some admired personalities, none of them possessed what it took to beat Romney.
Some may point to Obama's meteoric rise from obscurity and argue that all it takes is a well run campaign and a weak opponent to win. This would be a false argument. You would have to discount the fact that the Democratic Party has shifted to a party run by the far left in all its forms: elitist intellectuals, communists, crony capitalists, and race baiters. The mold was poured and Obama fit perfectly. He was the one they were waiting for.
What may be the most important factor favoring Mitt Romney, though, is that it is becoming increasingly clear that he actually wants to win. Initially, many of us were worried that Romney would play hardball in the primaries and then lay down in the general election. McCain did this in the last election by making too many of Obama's flaws off limits. Many of us waited for that strike that never happened. Many of us voted for Palin because at least she was not afraid to fight and we knew it. As evidenced by Romney's quick rebuttal of the dog on the roof, the nimble timing of the Solyndra speech and his bus honking the horn at an Obama rally, he's not afraid to get under the president's skin. He is aware of his own weaknesses and stays away from them but is not afraid to fight back.
Why is this important? We need to look no further than Patton's speech to the Third Army in 1944. "Americans love to fight, traditionally. All real Americans love the sting and clash of battle." Despite the efforts of the politically correct to breed this out of us, there are many of us left to whom these words still ring true. Ron Paul's people were not afraid to fight, to use any tactic necessary to win, and made gains rarely seen against the Republican establishment. Barack Obama played hardball to stun Hillary in the caucuses. Her people, especially many white, traditional Democrats, never had a chance. Neither Paul's nor Obama's people were afraid to bend or even break the rules. The difference was one group had the majority of the party behind it.
Tea partiers speak in reverent tones of the patriots who took part in the original Boston Tea Party, but many would be appalled at the antics of the real Sam Adams. The original patriots knew what was at stake and were not afraid to do what it took to win. They built their organizations and weren't afraid to upset people. They didn't play nice.
Mitt Romney is not the choice of many conservatives, but helping him win accomplishes two things: it removes very dangerous people from the knobs of power in this country and it buys time to build a real organization. Worst case, it is still preferable to be in a bus doing ninety miles an hour heading towards the cliff than to actually be over it. Meantime, Mitt Romney may surprise us and govern as a conservative or he may not, but one thing seems sure, he is in it to win it.
Ebben Raves is a veteran, constitutional conservative activist, Project Appleseed instructor and speaker who teaches American history and has been a guest on several talk radio shows. He can be reached at ebshumidors@yahoo.com.
Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2012/06/mitt_romneys.html at June 19, 2012 - 03:38:49 PM CDT
-
pretty sad we're in the middle of a great depression and obama is still leading by 6 in Penn, where so many ppl are unemployed.
i highly doubt Jeb would be training Obama by six points right now...
Again - the typical obama voter does not care about the state of the economy as most obama voters are single issue voters who would care nothing if the nation was in flames.
1. 95ers
2. Radical abortion voters
3. Gays
4. public sector employees
5. college marxist professors
6. racist minorities
7. Enviro-marxists
8. jews
9. guilt ridden white leftists
-
Again - the typical obama voter does not care about the state of the economy as most obama voters are single issue voters who would care nothing if the nation was in flames.
1. 95ers
2. Radical abortion voters
3. Gays
4. public sector employees
5. college marxist professors
6. racist minorities
7. Enviro-marxists
8. jews
9. guilt ridden white leftists
what % of the population is this little list you made here?
-
what % of the population is this little list you made here?
Probably 40-45%
-
Probably 40-45%
so why doesn't he lose the election? the other 55-60% support romney, right?
why dont polls reflect this?
-
June 19, 2012
Mitt Romney's in It to Win It
By Ebben Raves
Mitt Romney will beat President Obama in this fall's election, most likely by a substantial margin. There. I said it. I may have a plate full of hat in my future, but I doubt it.
Pundits will give you the usual reasons for a Romney victory, but it all boils down to two things: first, Romney took the time to build an organization and second, and most important, he wants to win. Tea Party patriots and constitutional conservatives would be smart to learn a lesson from this.
While many conservatives were swooning over the latest firebrand candidate to carry their cause, Romney was already running out the clock before the game even started. Since before the 2008 election, he has been steadily building a campaign Team, networking, collecting endorsements and raising money. He knew how the system worked and used it to his advantage. The Tea Party movement has only been in existence since 2009, and then made the mistake of not coalescing behind a single candidate early enough in the race to counter Romney. We swung for the fences and struck out. Team Romney took walks, stole bases, hit singles and scored runs. The lesson that needs to be taken from this is that the Tea Party must start building their bench right now in order to have one of their own win the presidency. Although there are some admired personalities, none of them possessed what it took to beat Romney.
Some may point to Obama's meteoric rise from obscurity and argue that all it takes is a well run campaign and a weak opponent to win. This would be a false argument. You would have to discount the fact that the Democratic Party has shifted to a party run by the far left in all its forms: elitist intellectuals, communists, crony capitalists, and race baiters. The mold was poured and Obama fit perfectly. He was the one they were waiting for.
What may be the most important factor favoring Mitt Romney, though, is that it is becoming increasingly clear that he actually wants to win. Initially, many of us were worried that Romney would play hardball in the primaries and then lay down in the general election. McCain did this in the last election by making too many of Obama's flaws off limits. Many of us waited for that strike that never happened. Many of us voted for Palin because at least she was not afraid to fight and we knew it. As evidenced by Romney's quick rebuttal of the dog on the roof, the nimble timing of the Solyndra speech and his bus honking the horn at an Obama rally, he's not afraid to get under the president's skin. He is aware of his own weaknesses and stays away from them but is not afraid to fight back.
Why is this important? We need to look no further than Patton's speech to the Third Army in 1944. "Americans love to fight, traditionally. All real Americans love the sting and clash of battle." Despite the efforts of the politically correct to breed this out of us, there are many of us left to whom these words still ring true. Ron Paul's people were not afraid to fight, to use any tactic necessary to win, and made gains rarely seen against the Republican establishment. Barack Obama played hardball to stun Hillary in the caucuses. Her people, especially many white, traditional Democrats, never had a chance. Neither Paul's nor Obama's people were afraid to bend or even break the rules. The difference was one group had the majority of the party behind it.
Tea partiers speak in reverent tones of the patriots who took part in the original Boston Tea Party, but many would be appalled at the antics of the real Sam Adams. The original patriots knew what was at stake and were not afraid to do what it took to win. They built their organizations and weren't afraid to upset people. They didn't play nice.
Mitt Romney is not the choice of many conservatives, but helping him win accomplishes two things: it removes very dangerous people from the knobs of power in this country and it buys time to build a real organization. Worst case, it is still preferable to be in a bus doing ninety miles an hour heading towards the cliff than to actually be over it. Meantime, Mitt Romney may surprise us and govern as a conservative or he may not, but one thing seems sure, he is in it to win it.
Ebben Raves is a veteran, constitutional conservative activist, Project Appleseed instructor and speaker who teaches American history and has been a guest on several talk radio shows. He can be reached at ebshumidors@yahoo.com.
Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2012/06/mitt_romneys.html at June 19, 2012 - 03:38:49 PM CDT
Good commentary. I agree with this, except for the extremist language and the margin of victory.
The Tea Party will help Romney.
-
SEIU To Focus On 8 Battleground States [Will Spend $85M: ACORN By Another Name!]
Wall St. J ^ | June 19, 2012 | Melanie Trottman
Posted on June 19, 2012 9:20:35 PM EDT by Steelfish
June 19, 2012 SEIU To Focus On 8 Battleground States
By Melanie Trottman
The Service Employees International Union said it will spend a similar amount of money to re-elect President Barack Obama as it did in 2008, but will reach out to three times as many potential voters this year with a focus on eight battleground states.
The union spent about $85 million in 2008 and “this year will look similar,” said political director Brandon Davis.
“But that’s not where our advantage is. Our advantage quite frankly is on the ground,” Mr. Davis told reporters on a conference call Tuesday afternoon.
The union plans to make 13 million phone calls, knock on more than three million doors and hold more than one million conversations with potential voters in battleground states including Colorado, Florida, New Hampshire, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin. That’s fewer states than the 14 it targeted in 2008, underscoring its strategy to deepen and expand its reach in key locations.
The union hopes to rely on 100,000 volunteers and 750 full-time campaign workers in battleground states. It plans to expand its reach in part by contacting more non-union members and sharpening its focus on registering Latinos and African-Americans, said SEIU officials.
Organized labor is facing the prospect of weakening political power and declining membership as state lawmakers cut benefits and bargaining rights of public-sector union workers. Still, unions remain one of the Democratic party’s most loyal supporters, using their funding and network of members to generate votes.
“We will have the final word when we speak up with our votes,” said Eliseo Medina, SEIU’s international secretary treasurer.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.wsj.com ...
-
[ Invalid YouTube link ]
ouch.
Lol brutal.
-
[ Invalid YouTube link ]
-
[ Invalid YouTube link ]
I like it. :)
-
Tightening up.
http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/romney-obama-pew-poll/2012/06/21/id/443080
-
Monday, June 25
General Election: Romney vs. Obama
Gallup Tracking
Obama 45, Romney 46
Romney +1
General Election: Romney vs. Obama
Rasmussen Tracking
Obama 45, Romney 47
Romney +2
-
brutal underachieving, mr romney.
even dems agree obama is failing at damn near everything, and he's clinging to a 1-2 point lead. splendid.
-
brutal underachieving, mr romney.
even dems agree obama is failing at damn near everything, and he's clinging to a 1-2 point lead. splendid.
::) ::)
-
brutal underachieving, mr romney.
even dems agree obama is failing at damn near everything, and he's clinging to a 1-2 point lead. splendid.
Like I said 2 weeks ago, better get used to calling Obama, Mr. 45 cause he ain't getting over that number between now and November.
-
Hypocrisy.
-
Poll: Romney up big in battleground states
The Hill ^ | July 3, 2012 | Jonathan Easley
Posted on Friday, July 06, 2012 12:09:23 AM by 2ndDivisionVet
Mitt Romney has a sizeable lead in 15 battleground states, according to a CNN/ORC poll released late Monday.
The Republican candidate leads President Obama 51 percent to 43 in 15 states that will be critical in determining the outcome of the 2012 election.
Obama won 12 of these battleground states in 2008 — Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin — and will need to keep about half of those in 2012 if he’s to secure reelection. The poll also included Missouri, Indiana and Arizona as battleground states.
That’s good news for Romney, showing he has a base of support in those states, though the blanket poll of 534 registered voters doesn’t give an indication of which candidate leads in an individual state, or by how much.
Two polls released last week showed Obama with an edge in several swing states. An NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey found Obama leading Romney 50 percent to 42 among likely voters in 12 battlegrounds, and a Quinnipiac University poll found Obama leading Romney by 9 points in Ohio, 6 in Pennsylvania and 4 in Florida.
Obama holds a slim lead over Romney nationally in the CNN/ORC poll, 49 percent to 46, which is within the poll’s margin of error and unchanged from the same poll in May.
Democrats, however, have seen a spike in enthusiasm since the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the bulk of Obama’s healthcare law. Fifty-nine percent of those polled they were very enthusiastic about voting, up from only 46 percent in March, while Republican enthusiasm has remained steady at 51.
And despite most polls showing Obama’s healthcare law to be unpopular, voters say Obama would do a better job on healthcare than Romney, 51 percent to 44.
CNN polled 1,390 registered voters across the country and 534 registered voters in 15 battleground states. It was conducted between June 28 and July 1 and has a 2.5-point margin of error.
-
what are the internals?
-
Dead heat.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Gallup-daily-dead-heat/2012/07/14/id/445335
-
Skip to comments.
July Panic for Obama — For Good Reason
washingtonpost.com ^ | 07/15/2012 | Jennifer Rubin
Posted on July 15, 2012 6:24:55 PM EDT by BarnacleCenturion
Why has the Obama team been publicly wailing about losing out to Mitt Romney in the money race? Why would the president accuse his opponent of not merely being wrong or unqualified but criminal? After all, the polls are tied, so why so much worry in Obamaland?
...
The Associated Press reports: “President Barack Obama’s campaign has spent nearly $100 million on television commercials in selected battleground states so far, unleashing a sustained early barrage designed to create lasting, negative impressions of Republican Mitt Romney before he and his allies ramp up for the fall.” Think of it like the Confederacy’s artillery barrage on the third day of Gettysburg before Pickett’s charge — you have to in essence disable the other side before the charge begins or its curtains.
Virtually all of the ads were viciously negative, and judging from the number of Pinocchios they’ve racked up, continually and materially false.
But it didn’t work. Romney and Obama are still deadlocked.
...
It’s not too early to say that Obama’s vital signs look dicey. Over the past 33 months, his job approval has been lower than George W. Bush’s at a comparable time in his presidency for all but one week. Bush averaged above 50 percent in the quarter before his successful reelection campaign, while Obama has been stuck in the 46-48 percent range for months. And the famous “wrong track” measure now stands at 63 percent, versus 55 percent in the days preceding the vote in 2004. If these two numbers don’t improve for Obama, his presidency will be in jeopardy. And they probably won’t — unless the economy perks up noticeably.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
-
.
-
.
Cult of personality.
-
http://www.c-span.org/Events/Mitt-Romney-Rallies-in-Wisconsin-with-Gov-Walker-Rep-Ryan/10737431672
Good speech.
Fuck Obama - the farthest left criminal communist thug EVER to hold office.
-
http://www.bizpacreview.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=news.details&ArticleId=752893&returnTo=barney-bishop
Why this Democrat will be voting for Mitt RomneyBy: Barney BishopSource: Barney Bishop Consulting
Date: July 17, 2012
In 1992, I was the executive director of the Florida Democratic Party. I managed political operations for the Democrats in one of the largest swing states in our nation.
Our nominee, Bill Clinton, went on to win the presidency, and he fostered eight prosperous years in our nation’s history. He delivered balanced budgets and surpluses that reduced the nation’s debt.
Clinton was the type of Democrat I’ve supported my whole life, fiscally conservative while still focused on the needs of the hard-working middle class. Clinton famously declared, “The era of big government is over.” Barack Obama is a completely different kind of Democrat.
In every challenge that faces our nation, Obama sees a solution that can only come with another government-spending program. He fails to harness the ingenuity of entrepreneurs; instead he actually places obstacles, like burdensome regulation, in front of their path to progress.
For decades, I have been fortunate to work at the intersection of business and government policy. I have seen firsthand how decisions made by our elected officials can either foster growth or grind our economy to a halt. Perhaps no better Obama policy reflects the extreme level of economic interference than the heavy-handed nationalization of our health care. Instead of expanding choice and free-market opportunities for families, it limits options and place a new tax on individuals.
With Obama’s failed stimulus program and other reckless spending, the nation’s debt has increased more in his first term than it did during the eight years of George W. Bush’s presidency. This unsustainable spending spree has jeopardized the country’s credit worthiness and could ruin the economy for future generations.
Worse still, is the Obama campaign's persisting narrative that economic investment is bad or should be punished. Specifically, the attacks on the work Mitt Romney did in private equity demonstrate a dangerous lack of understanding of how important risk-taking investors are in the U.S. economy. Companies are created and grow precisely because of the funding of private investors. If we want jobs in America , we need to reward and encourage these investments, not make them the basis of hyperbolic attacks.
Contrary to the failed Obama policies, informed by his experience in the private sector, Mitt Romney has a plan for cutting and capping the government’s spending to bring us balanced budgets. He gets that job creators need less regulation and stable tax policy in order to invest and grow. Romney also understands that when America ’s families get back to work, they will have what they need to raise their children and own a home.
I am a Democrat, and I plan to remain a Democrat. But, in this election, I will be voting for the candidate I see best fit to restore our nation to economic greatness. I’m voting for Mitt Romney.
Related Information
Categories: Opinion, Barney Bishop
-
http://www.businessinsider.com/consumer-confidence-one-major-sign-obama-could-lose-election-2012-7
5 more bad jobs reports and obama is done.
-
http://www.businessinsider.com/consumer-confidence-one-major-sign-obama-could-lose-election-2012-7
5 more bad jobs reports and obama is done.
Why do voters in Ohio, FL, Virgina, and Iowa still prefer obama in polls?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html
-
[ Invalid YouTube link ]
-
lol great video!!
parts of it were a little shaky, but amusing nonetheless.
-
[ Invalid YouTube link ]
This was pretty good
If Romney wasnt such a joke Obama would be out of here. He is so full of shit
-
This was pretty good
If Romney wasnt such a joke Obama would be out of here. He is so full of shit
Yep. But romney was really just the guy who bought the nomination.
-
Skip to comments.
Poll: Voters Blame Obama for the Economy
politico.com ^ | 7/18/12 | BYRON TAU
Posted on July 18, 2012 7:49:29 PM EDT by BarnacleCenturion
Voters by and large believe that President Obama's economic policies have contributed to the persistent malaise in the economy, according to a new poll.
The CBS/New York Times survey finds that 64 percent of voters believe that Obama's policies have contributed significantly or somewhat to the persistent weakness in the economy.
...
Obama's relentless assault on Mitt Romney's business record are also showing no real signs of significantly shaping the race. Sixty percent of voters say that Bain makes no difference, while 23 percent say it makes them less likely to vote for him. Seventy-three percent of voters say that Romney's wealth makes no difference.
Romney gets better marks on handling the economy, with 49 percent of voters saying he would do a better job than Obama. Romney also has an advantage among voters on the budget deficit, taxes, and illegal immigration. Voters trust Obama more on foreign policy and social issues. Obama has only a one point advantage over Romney on handling of terrorism issues, 44 to 43 percent.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
-
Romney really taking a beating. ::)
Obama lead disappears in Virginia
Posted by
CNN's Kevin Liptak
(CNN) - President Barack Obama's single digit lead over Mitt Romney in the crucial battleground state of Virginia has disappeared, according to a new poll.
The Quinnipiac University survey indicated Virginians split 44%-44% for the two presidential candidates. The race has tightened since March, when Obama led Romney 50%-42%, and the beginning of June, when Obama was ahead 47%-42%.
Independent voters in the state are similarly split, with 40% saying they'd vote for Obama and 38% backing Romney.
"Virginia voters are sharply split along gender and political lines about the presidential race. The two candidates equally hold their own political bases and are splitting the key independent vote down the middle," Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute, wrote in a statement accompanying the poll's release.
Virginia is shaping up to be a key battleground in November. Obama won the state by roughly five points in 2008, becoming the first Democrat to take the state in a presidential election since 1964, but it's considered a toss up in 2012. The commonwealth carries 13 electoral votes.
Obama made a campaign swing through Virginia at the end of last week, making stops in several of the state's distinctive regions. He began in Hampton Roads, in the southeastern part of the state, which has a heavy military presence and a large African-American population. He continued through to the capital, Richmond, and on to Roanoke, both situated in the central, more conservative part of the state.
Obama finished his tour in the northern Virginia exurbs, a part of the state that votes increasingly Democratic. Romney's last campaigned in Virginia in late June.
In Thursday's poll, voters gave Romney an edge on his handling of the economy, with 47% saying he would do a better job on improving the nation's economic health. But Obama's pledge to raise taxes on top earners is popular in Virginia, with 59% saying they support the measure.
A gender divide persists in Virginia, where Obama has the support of 46% of women, while Romney takes 46% of men. Fifty five percent of White voters in the Old Dominion State go for Romney, while African-Americans overwhelmingly support Obama over Romney, 88%-1%.
"Virginia voters are sharply split along gender and political lines about the presidential race. The two candidates equally hold their own political bases and are splitting the key independent vote down the middle," Brown wrote.
The race for U.S. Senate in Virginia is also knotted up, with voters split nearly evenly between Republican George Allen, a former governor and senator from the state, and Tim Kaine, a former governor and chairman of the Democratic National Committee. The poll indicated Allen at 46% and Kaine at 44%.
The Quinnipiac University poll was conducted by telephone from 1,673 registered voters between July 10-16. The sampling error was plus or minus 2.4 percentage points.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/19/obama-lead-disappears-in-virginia/
-
Poll: Presidential race in dead heat
Posted by
CNN's Ashley Killough
(CNN) – A new poll released Wednesday indicates the presidential race is still locked up between Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama, less than four months before Election Day.
According to a new CBS News/New York Times survey, Romney holds a slight edge over Obama, 47% to 46%. The margin falls well within the sampling error.
However, not everyone has made up their mind. The poll indicates that one in five voters say they could change their decision by November.
Also of note, most voters say Romney’s wealth and history at the private equity firm Bain Capital will make no difference in their vote. Seventy-three percent said his wealth will not be a factor, while 60% said his time at Bain will not make a difference.
The results come after several weeks of intense scrutiny over Romney’s personal financial portfolio, as well as his tenure at the firm. Obama’s campaign and top Democrats have repeatedly called on Romney to release more tax returns than the two years’ worth of tax information he has already made public, pressuring him to answer questions about his offshore accounts.
Romney, however, has vowed not to make public any more tax returns, saying it will simply give Democrats information for them to “distort” and use against him.
"I'm simply not enthusiastic about giving them hundreds or thousands of more pages to pick through, distort, and lie about," he said Tuesday in an interview with National Review Online.
CBS News/New York Times interviewed 1,089 adults over the phone between July 11 and July 16, 942 of whom said they were registered to vote, with a sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/18/poll-presidential-race-in-dead-heat/
-
Zogby: Romney Leads Among Middle Class Voters
Thursday, 19 Jul 2012
By Todd Beamon
Mitt Romney is leading President Barack Obama among middle income voters, according to a study of JZ Analytics survey results since January.
The former Massachusetts governor leads Obama by 6 points – 42 percent to 36 percent – among voters making $50,000 to $75,000 a year. This group is a larger part of the JZ Analytics sample, 21 percent, and is the group that regularly provides the winner in presidential elections dating back to 1972, Zogby said.
“An incumbent presently winning only 36 percent of the voters in the $50,000 to $75,000 income range spells potential trouble for him,” Zogby said.
Voters among this group have been hardest hit by the loss of manufacturing jobs throughout the country, Zogby said.
Based on the aggregated numbers, Romney is outperforming Arizona Sen. John McCain’s totals in 2008 among this voter group, Zogby said. McCain won this income group by just 1 point, 49 percent to 48 percent.
Romney also leads the president by 3 percentage points – 47 percent to 44 percent – among likely voters earning $100,000 a year or more. This highest income category represents about 13 percent of all likely voters and is critical to a Romney victory, according to pollster John Zogby.
The results were based on an analysis of a total sample of 5,300 likely voters surveyed online and by telephone since January.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/zogby-middle-class-voters/2012/07/19/id/445865
-
-
This Is The Poll That Should Really Scare Barack Obama
Grace Wyler|Jul. 19, 2012, 10:43 AM|2,887|27
AP
Everyone in the political world is buzzing about a new New York Times/CBS poll that has Mitt Romney leading President Barack Obama by one point, and shows the incumbent slipping on economic issues and — most alarmingly — in favorability.
Although the poll isn't exactly good news for Obama, all of the numbers are still within the statistical margin of error, so Chicago probably isn't panicking yet.
But there is another new survey out today that should really scare the Obama campaign.
A new Quinnipiac poll from Virginia shows that Romney has caught up with the Obama in the Old Dominion state, and is now in a dead heat with the President at 44 percent to 44 percent.
That compares to a 50-42 percent lead for Obama in March, and a 47-42 percent Obama lead last month.
As we have pointed out before, the 2012 presidential election will likely come down to just a handful of battleground states, so national polling numbers don't matter as much as those in key swing states.
Virginia, with its 13 electoral college votes, is one of those states with the potential to determine the outcome of the election for either candidate. Obama took the state in 2008 with 52.7 percent of the vote, becoming the only Democrat to win Virginia since Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964, and Republicans are eager to put the Old Dominion back in their column.
And this poll shows that it is going to be a dogfight to win over Virginia voters, particularly key independents.
"Virginia voters are sharply split along gender and political lines about the presidential race. The two candidates equally hold their own political bases and are splitting the key independent vote down the middle," Peter Brown, assistant director of Quinnipiac University's Polling Institute said in a release.
"One small edge that President Barack Obama has is likability. Voters have a slightly more favorable opinion of the president than they do Gov. Mitt Romney," Brown added. "But neither man is exactly Mr. Popularity: Romney has a negative 39 - 42 percent favorability, compared to Obama's divided 46 - 48 percent. One of them is going to win the White House, but neither would get elected Prom King."
Now find out which other states could swing the election >
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-romney-tie-virginia-poll-2012-7#ixzz215dOW5Wj
-
Khalid al mansour helped to put barrack hussein obama through harvard law school.
Barrack hussein obama has very extensive ties to pakistan.
Barrack hussein obama is ineligeble for the presidency.
Barrack hussein obama studied at a madrasa as a young man and learned to memorize the koran.
And you are an idiot
-
And you are an idiot
Watch and learn jackass. Again - you know nothing about the messiah you kneepad
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/19/mitt-romney-virginia_n_1685486.html
Meltdown. LMFAO
Leftists crying again.
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/19/mitt-romney-virginia_n_1685486.html
Meltdown. LMFAO
Leftists crying again.
Obama shot himself in the foot with his comments in Roanoke last week... What a fucking moron.
-
Not much return on investment.
Obama spends nearly $30 million more than Romney in June
Posted by
CNN Political Unit
(CNN) – Documents filed with the Federal Election Commission Friday show President Barack Obama's presidential campaign raised $46 million in June and spent $58 million.
Meanwhile, his Republican challenger Mitt Romney brought in $33 million through his campaign, and spent $27.5 million. The Republican candidate's spending last month was nearly doubled from in May, when his campaign spent just over $15 million.
The filings from Friday indicated that the Romney campaign finished June with $22.5 million cash on hand, while Obama's campaign had $97.5 million in the bank.
Earlier this month both organizations released their joint fund-raising numbers with their respective party committees. Those figures showed the Republicans bringing in approximately $100 million, compared to the $71 million raised by Obama and the Democrats.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/20/obama-spends-nearly-30-million-more-than-romney-in-june/
-
Rasmussen: Bain Attacks Not working
Friday, 20 Jul 2012
By Scott Rasmussen
Over the past few weeks, President Barack Obama and his campaign team have launched a furious attack on Mitt Romney's record as head of Bain Capital, a highly successful venture capital firm.
There is clear evidence that the attacks have had some impact. Forty-one percent of voters now see Romney's record in the private sector primarily as a reason to vote for him, but an equal number see that record as a reason to vote against the GOP challenger. That negative perception is up 8 points over the past couple of months.
Yet while raising negative perceptions of Romney's record in business, the Bain attacks have failed to bring about any change in the overall race for the White House. For weeks, the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll has shown the president's support stuck between 44 percent and 46 percent every day. Romney's numbers are in a similar rut -- 44 percent to 47 percent.
One reason for the lack of impact is that the Bain attacks have not reached a point where they raise doubts about Romney's character. Sixty-seven percent of voters believe the former governor of Massachusetts is at least as ethical as most politicians. Comparing Romney to other politicians may not be setting the bar very high, but that's his peer group these days. Using the same standard, the president doesn't measure up quite as well: Just 60 percent believe he is at least as ethical as most politicians.
Perhaps even more important, though, is that voters are trying to look forward rather than back. Regardless of what Romney did in his private sector past, voters have come to see a clear distinction between the candidates on the trade-offs between economic growth and economic fairness. It's not a distinction about a laundry list of issues or a particular legislative strategy; it's a distinction about the role the government should play in the economy.
Voters overwhelmingly think it's important to create an environment that encourages economic growth. Nearly as many believe it's important for the government to create an environment that ensures economic fairness. But if there's a choice to be made, voters have a very strong preference for making growth the priority. Sixty-two percent of voters hold that view, while just 30 percent think using government to ensure fairness is more important.
Republicans and unaffiliated voters see growth as more important. Democrats are evenly divided.
That's a perspective that puts the president squarely on the defensive. Most voters believe Obama places a higher value on ensuring economic fairness. Two-thirds think Romney shares the public priority placing economic growth at the top of the list.
Adding to the incumbent's political challenge is the fact that just 19 percent of unaffiliated voters think the president is committed to emphasizing growth over fairness.
The president's attacks on Romney's time at Bain Capital have succeeded in raising some doubts about the challenger, but by highlighting his role as a venture capitalist, the attacks also have reinforced the belief that Romney sees economic growth as his top priority. There is nothing better for the challenger than a race where he is seen as the candidate of economic growth.
http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/rasmussen-bain-attacks-campaign/2012/07/20/id/446070
-
Rasmussen: Bain Attacks Not working
Friday, 20 Jul 2012
By Scott Rasmussen
Over the past few weeks, President Barack Obama and his campaign team have launched a furious attack on Mitt Romney's record as head of Bain Capital, a highly successful venture capital firm.
There is clear evidence that the attacks have had some impact. Forty-one percent of voters now see Romney's record in the private sector primarily as a reason to vote for him, but an equal number see that record as a reason to vote against the GOP challenger. That negative perception is up 8 points over the past couple of months.
Yet while raising negative perceptions of Romney's record in business, the Bain attacks have failed to bring about any change in the overall race for the White House. For weeks, the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll has shown the president's support stuck between 44 percent and 46 percent every day. Romney's numbers are in a similar rut -- 44 percent to 47 percent.
One reason for the lack of impact is that the Bain attacks have not reached a point where they raise doubts about Romney's character. Sixty-seven percent of voters believe the former governor of Massachusetts is at least as ethical as most politicians. Comparing Romney to other politicians may not be setting the bar very high, but that's his peer group these days. Using the same standard, the president doesn't measure up quite as well: Just 60 percent believe he is at least as ethical as most politicians.
Perhaps even more important, though, is that voters are trying to look forward rather than back. Regardless of what Romney did in his private sector past, voters have come to see a clear distinction between the candidates on the trade-offs between economic growth and economic fairness. It's not a distinction about a laundry list of issues or a particular legislative strategy; it's a distinction about the role the government should play in the economy.
Voters overwhelmingly think it's important to create an environment that encourages economic growth. Nearly as many believe it's important for the government to create an environment that ensures economic fairness. But if there's a choice to be made, voters have a very strong preference for making growth the priority. Sixty-two percent of voters hold that view, while just 30 percent think using government to ensure fairness is more important.
Republicans and unaffiliated voters see growth as more important. Democrats are evenly divided.
That's a perspective that puts the president squarely on the defensive. Most voters believe Obama places a higher value on ensuring economic fairness. Two-thirds think Romney shares the public priority placing economic growth at the top of the list.
Adding to the incumbent's political challenge is the fact that just 19 percent of unaffiliated voters think the president is committed to emphasizing growth over fairness.
The president's attacks on Romney's time at Bain Capital have succeeded in raising some doubts about the challenger, but by highlighting his role as a venture capitalist, the attacks also have reinforced the belief that Romney sees economic growth as his top priority. There is nothing better for the challenger than a race where he is seen as the candidate of economic growth.
http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/rasmussen-bain-attacks-campaign/2012/07/20/id/446070
Ras now has Obama up by 1 point....I don't think its the Bain issue....however the offshore bank account and his whimsical refusals to see tax records is killing him.
-
Obama also spent 30 million more last month than Romney on negative attack ads.
-
The Hill Poll: Voters blame president most for slow economic recovery
By Sheldon Alberts - 07/23/12
Two-thirds of likely voters say the weak economy is Washington’s fault, and more blame President Obama than anybody else, according to a new poll for The Hill.
It found that 66 percent believe paltry job growth and slow economic recovery is the result of bad policy. Thirty-four percent say Obama is the most to blame, followed by 23 percent who say Congress is the culprit. Twenty percent point the finger at Wall Street, and 18 percent cite former President George W. Bush.
The results highlight the reelection challenge Obama faces amid dissatisfaction with his first-term performance on the economy.
The poll, conducted for The Hill by Pulse Opinion Research, found 53 percent of voters say Obama has taken the wrong actions and has slowed the economy down. Forty-two percent said he has taken the right actions to revive the economy, while six percent said they were not sure.
Obama has argued throughout the presidential campaign that his policies have made the economy better. He says recovery is taking a long time because he inherited such deep economic trouble upon taking office in 2009.
“The problems we’re facing right now have been more than a decade in the making,” he told an audience last month in Cleveland.
Obama’s campaign, under the slogan “Forward,” has sought to steer voter attention less toward current and past economic performance and more toward questions about Republican Mitt Romney’s work in the private sector economy. It has launched attacks on the challenger’s role as head of the private equity firm Bain Capital, casting him as a jobs “outsourcer” whose firm shipped thousands of U.S. positions overseas.
The Hill Poll, however, shows the extent to which voters hold Obama responsible for the economy and reveals his vulnerability should the election become primarily a referendum on his economic management.
It finds that voters strongly believe more could have been done by the White House and in Congress to achieve growth in the economy and employment.
While 64 percent of voters consider this downturn to be “much more severe” than previous contractions, barely one quarter (26 percent) say the agonizingly slow pace of the recovery was unavoidable.
While voters feel Obama carries a greater portion of the blame than others, the poll found almost 6-in-10 are unhappy with the actions of Republicans in Congress who have challenged the president on an array of policy initiatives.
Fifty-seven percent of voters said congressional Republicans have impeded the recovery with their policies, and only 30 percent overall believe the GOP has done the right things to boost the economy.
The tension between a Republican-controlled House of Representatives and a Democratic-run White House has also featured in Obama’s campaign strategy.
In his economic speech last month in Cleveland, Obama cast the 2012 election as a chance to choose between two competing visions for the nation.
“What’s holding us back is a stalemate in Washington between two fundamentally different views of which direction America should take,” he said. “This election is your chance to break that stalemate.”
Romney agrees that the election is a choice between two radically different views of America, but he characterizes it as a contest between his own vision of an industrious people free to achieve their dreams and Obama’s faith in big government.
If there is a silver lining for Obama in the poll results, it’s that centrist voters, who may well decide the 2012 outcome, tend to blame Republicans in Congress more than the president for hindering a more robust recovery.
Twenty-six percent of centrists cited Congress as most to blame for U.S. economic woes, compared to 20 percent who blame Obama.
Similarly, 53 percent of centrists said Obama has taken the right actions as president to boost the economy, compared with 38 percent who said he had taken the wrong steps.
Seventy-nine percent of centrist voters said Republicans had slowed the economy by taking wrong actions. Only 13 percent of centrists credited GOP lawmakers with policies that have helped the economy.
The poll found sharp differences in opinions along racial lines, with 94 percent of African-Americans saying Obama had taken the right actions on the economy, compared to 34 percent of white voters.
The Hill poll was conducted July 19 among 1,000 likely voters, and has a 3 percentage point margin of error.
http://thehill.com/polls/239377-the-hill-poll-majority-of-voters-blame-president-for-bad-economy
-
The base vote of obama that is anywhere from 40-47% who are mostly leeches and parasites don't feel the impact of his communist policies.
The Hill Poll: Voters blame president most for slow economic recovery
By Sheldon Alberts - 07/23/12
Two-thirds of likely voters say the weak economy is Washington’s fault, and more blame President Obama than anybody else, according to a new poll for The Hill.
It found that 66 percent believe paltry job growth and slow economic recovery is the result of bad policy. Thirty-four percent say Obama is the most to blame, followed by 23 percent who say Congress is the culprit. Twenty percent point the finger at Wall Street, and 18 percent cite former President George W. Bush.
The results highlight the reelection challenge Obama faces amid dissatisfaction with his first-term performance on the economy.
The poll, conducted for The Hill by Pulse Opinion Research, found 53 percent of voters say Obama has taken the wrong actions and has slowed the economy down. Forty-two percent said he has taken the right actions to revive the economy, while six percent said they were not sure.
Obama has argued throughout the presidential campaign that his policies have made the economy better. He says recovery is taking a long time because he inherited such deep economic trouble upon taking office in 2009.
“The problems we’re facing right now have been more than a decade in the making,” he told an audience last month in Cleveland.
Obama’s campaign, under the slogan “Forward,” has sought to steer voter attention less toward current and past economic performance and more toward questions about Republican Mitt Romney’s work in the private sector economy. It has launched attacks on the challenger’s role as head of the private equity firm Bain Capital, casting him as a jobs “outsourcer” whose firm shipped thousands of U.S. positions overseas.
The Hill Poll, however, shows the extent to which voters hold Obama responsible for the economy and reveals his vulnerability should the election become primarily a referendum on his economic management.
It finds that voters strongly believe more could have been done by the White House and in Congress to achieve growth in the economy and employment.
While 64 percent of voters consider this downturn to be “much more severe” than previous contractions, barely one quarter (26 percent) say the agonizingly slow pace of the recovery was unavoidable.
While voters feel Obama carries a greater portion of the blame than others, the poll found almost 6-in-10 are unhappy with the actions of Republicans in Congress who have challenged the president on an array of policy initiatives.
Fifty-seven percent of voters said congressional Republicans have impeded the recovery with their policies, and only 30 percent overall believe the GOP has done the right things to boost the economy.
The tension between a Republican-controlled House of Representatives and a Democratic-run White House has also featured in Obama’s campaign strategy.
In his economic speech last month in Cleveland, Obama cast the 2012 election as a chance to choose between two competing visions for the nation.
“What’s holding us back is a stalemate in Washington between two fundamentally different views of which direction America should take,” he said. “This election is your chance to break that stalemate.”
Romney agrees that the election is a choice between two radically different views of America, but he characterizes it as a contest between his own vision of an industrious people free to achieve their dreams and Obama’s faith in big government.
If there is a silver lining for Obama in the poll results, it’s that centrist voters, who may well decide the 2012 outcome, tend to blame Republicans in Congress more than the president for hindering a more robust recovery.
Twenty-six percent of centrists cited Congress as most to blame for U.S. economic woes, compared to 20 percent who blame Obama.
Similarly, 53 percent of centrists said Obama has taken the right actions as president to boost the economy, compared with 38 percent who said he had taken the wrong steps.
Seventy-nine percent of centrist voters said Republicans had slowed the economy by taking wrong actions. Only 13 percent of centrists credited GOP lawmakers with policies that have helped the economy.
The poll found sharp differences in opinions along racial lines, with 94 percent of African-Americans saying Obama had taken the right actions on the economy, compared to 34 percent of white voters.
The Hill poll was conducted July 19 among 1,000 likely voters, and has a 3 percentage point margin of error.
http://thehill.com/polls/239377-the-hill-poll-majority-of-voters-blame-president-for-bad-economy
-
Deficit: Obama Campaign Takes In $46 Million in June, Spends $58 Million
Townhall.com ^ | July 23, 2012 | Guy Benson
At first blush, associating Barack Obama with deficits of any sort seems like a complete non-story. After all, this is the president who has presided over four consecutive trillion-plus dollar deficits after pledging to slice that number in half by the end of this term. He's also the man whose unanimously rejected FY 2013 budget would literally never balance, generating additional deficits as far as the eye can see. Nevertheless, seeing red ink splattered on Obama's re-election campaign's balance sheet still feels strange. This group once boasted that it would raise a billion dollars for this cycle -- and despite Obama's recent implications to the contrary, the facts show that his operation widely outspent his opponent's in the last election. So what to make of this?
President Obama outspent Mitt Romney 2 to 1 in June even as Mr. Romney far outraised him, according to campaign reports filed on Friday with the Federal Election Commission, leaving Mr. Obama and the Democratic Party with significantly less cash on hand than Mr. Romney and the Republicans as polls show a head-to-head race. Mr. Obama and the Democratic National Committee spent $70.8 million in June, including about $38 million on television advertising, as the president’s campaign sought to batter Mr. Romney over his ties to Bain Capital, the private equity firm. Mr. Romney and the Republican National Committee spent $38.8 million, including about $11 million on television advertising — more than double what Mr. Romney’s campaign spent in May but far less than Mr. Obama.
In terms of direct contributions, the Obama campaign "reported more than $46 million in June and total spending of $58 million," a $12 million gap. Still, as Kevin reported over the weekend, Obama's claim of being victimized by overwhelming Republican money isn't exactly accurate. The president continues to crush Romney in spending, overall and in swing states. Much of this advantage can be attributed to campaign laws, which do not permit Romney to spend his recent cash spike until after he officially becomes the Republican nominee in late August. With the law and the calendar on his side for the moment, Obama has poured roughly $100 million into (overwhelmingly negative) ads, hoping to define his opponent in voters' minds. Obama donors may be wondering about their return on investment. National Journal notices that polling trends suggest that Obama hasn't managed to seize the moment:
The first round of polls is out after President Obama’s Bain attacks against Mitt Romney and the results aren’t good news for the White House. By themselves, the national toplines are discouraging enough: Romney holds a (statistically-insignificant) 47 to 46 percent lead in the new New York Times/CBS poll, and the president is stuck at 47 percent in recent polls by Fox News and NPR. But beneath the head-to-head numbers, the results foreshadow tough times ahead for Obama. Voters appear to be processing the worsening economic news belatedly, and their pessimism shows. In the CBS/NYT poll, Obama’s job approval dropped to 44 percent, with only 39 percent approving of his economic performance -- down five points from April. For the first time since January, more voters now think the economy is getting worse. Nearly two-thirds of voters now place some blame on the president for the weak economic conditions, with 34 percent giving him “significant” responsibility, and an outright 52 percent majority of independents believe Obama will “never improve” the economy. These aren’t numbers that victories are made of.
Another red flag for Team Obama is the president's crumbling favorability ratings, a troubling departure from his previous strength:
Note well that Obama is underwater on the favorability question, generally his strong suit, by double digits. More Americans are developing a poor overall perception of Obama the man, independent from their misgivings about his leadership...Obama's favorability with independents is -- wait for it -- 28/52 (!), with Romney actually above water at 32/31.
The question the media should be asking is not how much Obama's Bain attacks are hurting Romney; it's whether Obama's Bain attacks are hurting Obama. I'll leave you with this related nugget, reported by the Weekly Standard over the weekend. Remember The One's big May re-elect kickoff event in Columbus? His campaign spent nearly $93,000 to rent a large arena -- and ended up with thousands of empty seats:
This turnout fell well short of Chicago's expectations:
"The Obama campaign expects overflow crowds ... as part of carefully orchestrated optics. Aides want to portray the president as still highly popular among young people and still able to energize large crowds."
Hyped expectations, disappointing results, huge expenditures and resulting deficits. Sound familiar?
-
The base vote of obama that is anywhere from 40-47% who are mostly leeches and parasites don't feel the impact of his communist policies.
will he win in novemeber? Mccain got 47% last time, didn't he?
-
will he win in novemeber? Mccain got 47% last time, didn't he?
I don't know - Romney is running a terrible campaign, obama is running a burn all bridges campaign, obama wont get the turnout like he did, will the VEEP pick matter?, 5 more bad jobs reports impact?, will the debates matter? Any black swan events in the next few months?,
A lot of weird shit going on this election cycle.
Obama should lose by 70-30 in a sane world, but we dont live in a sane world anymore. If Obamugabe were a while politician from boston running on his disastrous record he would have been primaried and/or lose massively.
The Demos know Obama has been a disaster, but they can't risk alienating the black vote by dumping obama, due to future elections.
Romney sucks and does not energize the base but he does not scare indes.
Everything is all fucked up this election cycle.
-
I don't know - Romney is running a terrible campaign, obama is running a burn all bridges campaign, obama wont get the turnout like he did, will the VEEP pick matter?, 5 more bad jobs reports impact?, will the debates matter? Any black swan events in the next few months?,
A lot of weird shit going on this election cycle.
Obama should lose by 70-30 in a sane world, but we dont live in a sane world anymore. If Obamugabe were a while politician from boston running on his disastrous record he would have been primaried and/or lose massively.
The Demos know Obama has been a disaster, but they can't risk alienating the black vote by dumping obama, due to future elections.
Romney sucks and does not energize the base but he does not scare indes.
Everything is all fucked up this election cycle.
One of your more sensible posts.
And I agree completely.
-
33, I guess what i'm saying is this...
You're saying 5 more jobs reports will have some big impact... But it's been 41 straight months of shiity job reports, dude. And obama still leading or tied in everything. People willing to bet millions are sure obama will win.
-
33, I guess what i'm saying is this...
You're saying 5 more jobs reports will have some big impact... But it's been 41 straight months of shiity job reports, dude. And obama still leading or tied in everything. People willing to bet millions are sure obama will win.
The bad jobs reports will depress obama turnout.
-
The bad jobs reports will depress obama turnout.
yet they don't affect polls. I dont konw if your logic holds up.
-
yet they don't affect polls. I dont konw if your logic holds up.
That is because to actually vote those lazy parasites and locusts that make up the obama core base have to get their bedroom slippers on and stagger in their drunken stupor down to the polling place.
Less likely this time around.
-
That is because to actually vote those lazy parasites and locusts that make up the obama core base have to get their bedroom slippers on and stagger in their drunken stupor down to the polling place.
Less likely this time around.
Why do you think intrade, 538, and others oddsmakers organizations are betting hundreds of millions of $ on obama winning?
Are they all suddenly stupid (after being accurate up until now?)
-
Why do you think intrade, 538, and others oddsmakers organizations are betting hundreds of millions of $ on obama winning?
Are they all suddenly stupid (after being accurate up until now?)
Intrade had the mandate going down 75%.
-
Intrade had the mandate going down 75%.
if you had to bet your gun collection - does romney defeat obama, 333386?
-
Intrade had the mandate going down 75%.
and it would have, if the complete unthinkable would have happened - John Roberts flipped.
That's ONE MAN. We're talking about 100 million voters. trends that big are way easier to predict, than what one man will do.
-
if you had to bet your gun collection - does romney defeat obama, 333386?
Can't tell yet. I think its 50/50 at this point TBH.
Romney is running a milquetoast panzie ass campaign and Obama has his core base of racists, leeches, govt workers, communists, gays, etc.
Right now I see it as 47-47 - and the middle 6-8% deciding this.
-
Can't tell yet. I think its 50/50 at this point TBH.
Romney is running a milquetoast panzie ass campaign and Obama has his core base of racists, leeches, govt workers, communists, gays, etc.
Right now I see it as 47-47 - and the middle 6-8% deciding this.
That's pretty much every election since 1988.
-
Can't tell yet. I think its 50/50 at this point TBH.
Romney is running a milquetoast panzie ass campaign and Obama has his core base of racists, leeches, govt workers, communists, gays, etc.
Right now I see it as 47-47 - and the middle 6-8% deciding this.
Hey, it's ALWAYS 47 to 47, with the middle 5% deciding the election lol.
nate silver said the ppl that hate obama already know they do, and they proudly tell pollsters they are voting against him.
Romney's negatives aren't known to this middle 5% or 6% of voters yet.
-
Hey, it's ALWAYS 47 to 47, with the middle 5% deciding the election lol.
nate silver said the ppl that hate obama already know they do, and they proudly tell pollsters they are voting against him.
Romney's negatives aren't known to this middle 5% or 6% of voters yet.
Obamatron just spent 100 Million on negative ads against mittens and it didnt do squat.
-
.
-
Romney is so clean and well-spoken.
-
Obamatron just spent 100 Million on negative ads against mittens and it didnt do squat.
See, you say it didn't do squat.
I can say it was VERY effective. Another bleak jobs report, and voters were offered an alternative who is one of the best finance minds in the nation (Romney).
And they didn't bite. They didn't jump. If the worst Obama would do was COMPLETELY NULLIFY ANY VOTER MARKET SHARE among a guy who PERFECT to fix the economy, I'd say his campaign was VERY effective.
Remember, romney only gets 2 big bumps.. .when he first won the nomination (which was quelled with this ad campaign) and when he chooses a veep (and you know the dems have something planned for that too).
-
See, you say it didn't do squat.
I can say it was VERY effective. Another bleak jobs report, and voters were offered an alternative who is one of the best finance minds in the nation (Romney).
And they didn't bite. They didn't jump. If the worst Obama would do was COMPLETELY NULLIFY ANY VOTER MARKET SHARE among a guy who PERFECT to fix the economy, I'd say his campaign was VERY effective.
Remember, romney only gets 2 big bumps.. .when he first won the nomination (which was quelled with this ad campaign) and when he chooses a veep (and you know the dems have something planned for that too).
Romnay and Obama have both been in the mid 40's for months. The ads did nothing whatsoever but get obama 12 million in deficit last month.
-
Oh My: New Poll Shows Obama's Bain Attacks Failing Miserably
Townhall.com ^ | July 23, 2012 | Guy Benson
As Katie notes below, two new polls contain exceedingly worrisome news for Team Obama. The first survey shows that voters are now assigning significantly more economic blame to President Obama (34 percent) than to President Bush (18 percent). Congress -- control of which is split -- and Wall Street also shoulder some blame, at 23 and 20 percent, respectively. Most troubling for Obama is Americans' general assessment of his economic policies:
The poll, conducted for The Hill by Pulse Opinion Research, found 53 percent of voters say Obama has taken the wrong actions and has slowed the economy down. Forty-two percent said he has taken the right actions to revive the economy, while six percent said they were not sure. While 64 percent of voters consider this downturn to be “much more severe” than previous contractions, barely one quarter (26 percent) say the agonizingly slow pace of the recovery was unavoidable.
In other words, twice as many people believe Obama has impeded our recovery than say its historically sluggish pace was inevitable. The silver lining for Obama is that many voters also express discontent with Congressional Republicans on these matters, but as the "blame" numbers indicate, the buck is finally beginning to stop on the president's desk. The other bombshell poll comes from USA Today/Gallup. It shows conclusively that Obama's scorched-earth and factually inaccurate campaign of vilifying Romney's leadership at Bain Capital has been a flop of epic proportions (bear in mind that this is a survey of adults; not likely, or even registered, voters):
By more than 2-1, 63%-29%, those surveyed say Romney's background in business, including his tenure at the private equity firm Bain Capital, would cause him to make good decisions, not bad ones, in dealing with the nation's economic problems over the next four years. The findings raise questions about Obama's strategy of targeting Bain's record in outsourcing jobs and hammering Romney for refusing to commit to releasing more than two years of his tax returns. Instead, Americans seem focused on the economy, where disappointment with the fragile recovery and the 8.2% unemployment rate are costing the president.
Indeed, this data certainly does "raise questions" about Obama's slash-and-burn strategy, to put it very kindly. Team Obama has spent $100 million on television ads in recent months (76 percent negative), hoping to exploit their closing window of advantage when it comes to primary cash on hand. They've dipped into the red for two consecutive months in order to maintain this huge spending edge. In the process, they've outspent Romney 3-to-1 on swing state ads. Why? They are determined to define Mitt Romney is a secretive, dishonest, greedy, outsourcing vulture capitalist. The NYT/CBS News poll last week indicated that Obama's standing on both job approval and favorability have actually eroded over this period, despite (or perhaps because of) the relentless, inaccurate attacks. Today's poll shows another disastrous return on investment for Chicago. After tens of millions in ads firing directly at Romney's business background and wealth, Americans view Romney's resume as a positive by a two-to-one 34-point margin. And there's this:
The Democratic attacks on Romney seem to have had limited effect on voters' assessments of him. In February, 53% said the former Massachusetts governor had the personality and leadership qualities a president should have; now 54% do.
The public's estimation of Romney's "personality and leadership qualities" has gone up as he's been pounded mercilessly by Obama's attacks. Obama supporters will hang their hats on findings that Obama still bests his opponent on likeability and empathy questions, but I suspect they're not going to like too much else. Efficiency, enthusiasm, role of government -- bing, bang, boom:
Romney has the edge when it come to being able to "get things done," and the broad landscape seems tilted in his favor: Republicans and Republican-leaning independents are much more enthusiastic about the election, an important factor in persuading supporters to vote. By 18 points, 51%-33%, they report being more enthusiastic than usual about voting. In contrast, Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents by four points say they are less enthusiastic than usual, 43%-39%. A record number of Americans express skepticism about the activist role of government Obama espouses; 61% say the government is trying to do too many things that should be left to individuals and businesses. That's the highest number since Gallup began asking the question in 1992.
Why, I think Mitt Romney has a point to make on that bolded sentence. And last but certainly not least, voila:
Republican challenger Mitt Romney scores a significant advantage over President Obama when it comes to managing the economy, reducing the federal budget deficit and creating jobs...
Romney holds "significant advantages" on the economy and job creation? But I thought he was a heartless outsourcing jobs killer! Oops. Gallup hasn't released the specific head-to-head numbers yet (I'm told they're coming soon), so we'll keep you posted. I'll leave you with one last scrumptious data point, this time from Rasmussen:
Seventy-two percent (72%) of Likely U.S. Voters believe that people who start small businesses are primarily responsible for their success or failure. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that only 13% disagree.
Americans to Obama: Actually, yes, we did build that.
-
Obama's Excessive Spending Worries Some Democrats
Monday, 23 Jul 2012
By Todd Beamon
The Obama campaign has spent $15.3 million on polling alone in this election cycle — in a pattern of high spending that has some Democrats concerned.
According to The Wall Street Journal, 778 campaign staffers for President Barack Obama received payroll checks in June, accounting for $2.9 million in wages before tax costs, records show. To date, the Obama camp has spent more than $25 million on payroll.
It spent $38.2 million on media buys last month, bringing its total this election to more than $72 million, The Journal reports.
About $2.6 million was spent on polling in June alone. In addition, some $4 million has been invested in polling this election, with the Democratic National Party adding $11.3 million on opinion surveys since the start of 2011.
That means, the Obama campaign, in conjunction with the DNP, has so far $15.3 on polling alone.
But some Democrats are concerned about the high Obama overhead – particularly as GOP challenger Mitt Romney continues to best him in fundraising. So far, Romney and the Republican Party have raised $170 million as of June 30, compared with $147 million for the president.
“The burn rate, the investment in infrastructure and polling, is great if you've got the resources to follow through,” said pollster Douglas Schoen, who served former President Bill Clinton. “It's unclear to me whether the president has the resources.”
Romney also stands to benefit from spending by independent super PACs, which are free to collect contributions of unlimited size. These outside groups are expected to raise hundreds of millions of dollars for TV ads attacking President Obama.
http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/obama-campaign-spending-election/2012/07/23/id/446290
-
:). Obama running his campaign like he does the nation _ in deficit. Go figure.
-
Romnay and Obama have both been in the mid 40's for months. The ads did nothing whatsoever but get obama 12 million in deficit last month.
Romney's grand entrance to the national stage. Poof. No impact. Nullified by obama's spending.
Not only that, but he has taken the ONLY thing Romney was running on - his business experience - and tainted it irreversibly. Romney brings it up now, and we're instantly reminded (right or wrongly) about the outsourcing, the lying about the dates he left, the fetus removal, etc.
So yeah, he went 12 mil in debt to destroy romney's biggest weapon. At the same time, romney's #2 "cause", ending obamacare, is gone now. And #3, illegal immigration? Also neutralized.
So in 6 weeks, Obama has gone into debt 12 mil while destroying ROmney on the top 3 issues he was campaigning on. And you're happy? lol
-
Why do people bother pasting extremely partisan articles.
Pro tip: No one reads that shit.
I have never posted anything like it anywhere, because it's so pointless.
Does it take a big brain to see that?
-
See, you say it didn't do squat.
I can say it was VERY effective. Another bleak jobs report, and voters were offered an alternative who is one of the best finance minds in the nation (Romney).
And they didn't bite. They didn't jump. If the worst Obama would do was COMPLETELY NULLIFY ANY VOTER MARKET SHARE among a guy who PERFECT to fix the economy, I'd say his campaign was VERY effective.
Remember, romney only gets 2 big bumps.. .when he first won the nomination (which was quelled with this ad campaign) and when he chooses a veep (and you know the dems have something planned for that too).
So effective Virginia had a 7 point swing in his favor last month.
Do you spew this bullshit in an attempt to convince yourself it's true?
100 million spent and he lost ground. Only a jerk-off like yourself would paint that as a positive.
-
So effective Virginia had a 7 point swing in his favor last month.
Do you spew this bullshit in an attempt to convince yourself it's true?
100 million spent and he lost ground. Only a jerk-off like yourself would paint that as a positive.
Full day of hate radio today?
-
Full day of hate radio today?
I don't have the time nor the interest to either watch or listen to political shows. Unlike you (special education), I get my political info strictly from reading.
How does it feel helping a few over-privileged Chinese to further oppress their countrymen, scumbag?
-
I don't have the time nor the interest to either watch or listen to political shows. Unlike you (special education), I get my political info strictly from reading.
How does it feel helping a few over-privileged Chinese to further oppress their countrymen, scumbag?
Haha.
Why do you hate capitalism?
-
Free Republic
Browse · Search Pings · Mail GOP Club
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.
Is President Obama Above Water, and If So, Why?
Power Line ^ | July 23, 2012 | John Hinderaker
Posted on July 24, 2012 3:21:22 AM EDT by 2ndDivisionVet
This morning David Gelernter wrote a thought-provoking post titled, “What Keeps This Failed President Above Water?” How can a president with a record as terrible as Barack Obama’s be running essentially even in the polls? I have some thoughts on that question from a perspective that is slightly different from Gelernter’s.
First of all, it is questionable whether Obama is, in reality, above water. He can’t get his approval rating out of the 40s, nor can he get a majority in any head-to-head poll with Mitt Romney, even among registered voters or “adults.” For a sitting president more than three months out from the election, that is a poor performance. The voters’ disgruntlement with Obama shows up in poll after poll. At the moment, Romney leads Obama 46-43 in the Rasmussen Survey. Today a new Gallup/USA Today poll got a lot of attention:
Despite concerted Democratic attacks on his business record, Republican challenger Mitt Romney scores a significant advantage over President Obama when it comes to managing the economy, reducing the federal budget deficit and creating jobs, a national USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds.
By more than 2-1, 63%-29%, those surveyed say Romney’s background in business, including his tenure at the private equity firm Bain Capital, would cause him to make good decisions, not bad ones, in dealing with the nation’s economic problems over the next four years.
USA Today is quick to note that Obama does well in some measures unrelated to the economy:
To be sure, Obama retains significant advantages of his own. By 2-1, he’s rated as more likable than Romney.
Yeah, right. A couple of things are going on there. A great many Americans have only the vaguest impression of Romney and have no idea whether he is likable or not. And saying that Obama is “likable” is a good thing to tell a pollster after you have expressed the opinion that he doesn’t know jack about the economy. “He’s a nice guy, but…”
My guess is that the conventional wisdom will prove correct. Undecided voters will break against Obama in the campaign’s late days, and Romney will win fairly handily. That is, the electoral map will look more like 2004 than 2000.
All of that said, it is remarkable that 40%-plus of Americans say they intend to vote for Obama. Where have they been for the last four years? I think there are several reasons why a president as awful as Obama can command substantial support. The first is that an enormous number of Americans’ fortunes are more closely tied to government spending than to the economy. If you spend $3 to $4 trillion a year, you can buy a lot of votes.
The problem is compounded by the fact that so many Americans don’t pay any income taxes. If you don’t pay income taxes, and if you aren’t especially public-spirited, why, exactly, should you object to the Democrats’ spending spree? This chart from Investors Business Daily illustrates the trend:
Something like 50% of American households cash government checks, and more than 40% pay no income taxes. Do the math; it isn’t surprising that borrow-and-spend has more political appeal than it deserves.
Another factor is sheer partisanship. For millions of people, party loyalty is strong enough to bend perceptions of reality–or at least to bend the manner in which reality is described to pollsters. Thus, throughout the Obama years, African-Americans have rated the economy better than other demographic groups, even though objectively, they have suffered disproportionately. That can only be explained by loyalty to “their guy.” More broadly, Democrats express much more optimism about the economy than Republicans and Independents, as this Rasmussen poll finds:
Democrats have a much more optimistic view of the U.S. economy than either Republicans or unaffiliated adults.
Currently, just 36% of Democrats believe the economy is in poor shape, according to new Rasmussen Reports polling. Nearly twice as many Republicans (67%) offer such a pessimistic view. So do 54% of those not affiliated with either major party.
Put bluntly, if you are delusional about the economy, it makes sense that you might be willing to vote for Obama.
Currently, President Obama is hanging around like a sports team that by rights ought to be losing big, but is only a few points behind. In sports, the team that hangs around often puts on a spurt and wins in the end. In this year’s election, I don’t think Obama will be so fortunate. The fact that he commands as much support as he does is troubling, but reality will win out eventually. Here is a prediction: no liberal commentator will say anything of the sort before November, but as soon as the election results are in, a chorus of liberals will say that it is remarkable Obama performed as well as he did. Given how lousy the economy has been, one would have expected him to get clobbered.
-
To be sure, Obama retains significant advantages of his own. By 2-1, he’s rated as more likable than Romney.
Don't many elections just come down to 'who would you rather share a beer with'?
-
To be sure, Obama retains significant advantages of his own. By 2-1, he’s rated as more likable than Romney.
Don't many elections just come down to 'who would you rather share a beer with'?
I had this conversation just the other day with a very hardline Republican... Even they had to admit that Romney on a personal level is not as "likable" as Obama... Even though Obama is a fuckup.
-
http://www.gallup.com/poll/156194/Democratic-Voting-Enthusiasm-Down-Sharply-2004-2008.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_content=morelink&utm_term=All%20Gallup%20Headlines%20-%20Politics
Most of the polls over sampling demos by +5 are a joke.
-
http://www.gallup.com/poll/156194/Democratic-Voting-Enthusiasm-Down-Sharply-2004-2008.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_content=morelink&utm_term=All%20Gallup%20Headlines%20-%20Politics
Most of the polls over sampling demos by +5 are a joke.
I've noticed that your posts come in waves. There's a good gap of time, than posts will just rain in, BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! Than you lay off for a bit again. ;D
-
I've noticed that your posts come in waves. There's a good gap of time, than posts will just rain in, BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! Than you lay off for a bit again. ;D
After this election is over, i will stop.
-
After this election is over, i will stop.
Keep up the good work! 8)
The resident liberals are ducking into their fox holes for the next wave of posts. Shock and Awe! ;D
-
Love the poster.
(http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/07/25/t1larg.romney.builditsign.jpg)
Mitt Romney attends a business roundtable in California on Monday.
Romney camp, Republicans continue to hammer on 'build that'
Posted by
CNN's Kevin Liptak
(CNN) – Even as Mitt Romney heads abroad for a swing through Europe and Israel, his campaign will continue to push the argument back home that President Barack Obama hurts small businesses with a "big-government" policy approach.
Romney's campaign said Wednesday they would hold twenty-four events in battleground states for small business owners to proclaim "we did build this," a rebuke to a comment Obama made two weeks ago in which he argued successful small businesses got that way with the help of governmental support like roads and educators.
"If you are successful, somebody along the line gave you some help," Obama said at a campaign stop in Virginia on July 13. "There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet."
Bits and pieces of that remark have been used for weeks, both by Romney's campaign in television ads and by the Republican National Committee, which launched an offensive linking the comment to Obama policies they say are anti-business.
Their counterparts at the Democratic National Committee said Tuesday they would respond to the attacks with events in battleground states, which will focus on Romney's own plans for the economy.
"In conjunction with [Obama for America], we're going to turn the page tomorrow on Mitt Romney's trumped up, out of context fact-checked-to-death BS about the President and small business and set the record straight on how Mitt Romney has a horrible record on small business, a failed record on jobs and who is advocating for policies that are great for millionaires, billionaires, big oil and corporate America – but that would devastate small businesses and stifle job growth and small business expansion," DNC spokesman Brad Woodhouse wrote in a email.
Obama's team released a television spot Tuesday pushing back on the attacks, saying they were taking the president's words out of context.
The spot features Obama speaking directly to the camera, refuting the wave of criticism following his remarks. The ad, which largely echoes comments made by the president at a campaign stop in Oakland on Monday, highlights his support for small businesses.
"Those ads taking my words about small business out of context; they're flat out wrong," Obama says in the ad. "Of course Americans build their own business. Everyday hard-working people sacrifice to meet a payroll, create jobs, and make our economy run. And what I said was that we need to stand behind them as America always has. By investing in education, training, roads and bridges, research and technology."
The RNC argued Wednesday that even within context, Obama's remarks were damaging to his political prospects. The group released a video using Obama's full comment, claiming "the more context you get, the worse it sounds."
"President Obama thinks his comments are being taken out of context, but the reality is the context makes it worse," RNC chairman Reince Priebus wrote in a statement. "With more context, it is obvious President Obama doesn't understand that businesses succeed because of the hard work and sacrifice of the American people, not the growth and intrusiveness of government. President Obama thinks he can paint over his latest admission, but he can't cover up four years of anti-business actions."
Mitt Romney, speaking in an interview Monday, made a similar argument.
"I found the speech even more disconcerting than just that particular line. The context is worse than the quote," Romney said on CNBC. "The context, he says, you know, you think you've been successful because you're smart, but he says a lot of people are smart. You think you've been successful because you work hard, a lot of people work hard."
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/25/romney-camp-republicans-continue-to-hammer-on-build-that/
-
pretty weak platform. built upon 'persuasive art'.
I guess he can't talk about obamacare, he can't talk about DREAM, and he looks like shit every time he brings up Bain. And no way he's bringing up that Mass anti-gun, romneycare record.
SO yes, talking about an obama speech really might be his only play right now.
-
Great ad.
[ Invalid YouTube link ]
-
we need marco rubio. open up the borders.
-
July 26, 2012
U.S. Business Owners Now Among Least Approving of Obama
Professional workers are the most approving
by Lymari Morales
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- U.S. business owners' approval of President Barack Obama fell in the second quarter of 2012 to 35%, essentially tying farmers and fishers for the lowest approval among major occupational groups. Overall, professional workers remain the most approving, at 52%.
(http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/-t2xltv5_k2kdktyb4qq3q.gif)
The findings are based on 25,464 interviews conducted with working U.S. adults in Gallup Daily tracking during the second quarter of 2012. Gallup asks employed adults to describe the work they do and then codes each respondent into one of 11 job categories.
Obama's job approval ratings by occupational group clearly relate to election preferences. Gallup previously found that Obama does best compared with likely Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney among voters who are professionals and service workers. Romney does best among voters who work in farming and fishing or construction, or are business owners.
In the overall average for the second quarter of 2012, 47% of working Americans approved of the job Obama is doing as president, and 47% disapproved. This is slightly improved from 45% approval and 48% disapproval in the first quarter.
Across occupational groups, installation and repair workers, as well as clerical and office workers, became significantly more approving of Obama in the second quarter. Business owners were the sole group that became significantly less approving, with their second-quarter approval of 35% reflecting a decline from 41% in the first quarter.
(http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/arrlld8mgueas60r3yciaq.gif)
While there are too few respondents in some occupational groups to report their approval ratings by month, the internal data suggest the decline in business owners' approval of Obama came for the most part between March and April, with approval holding at a lower rate since then. The data precede Obama's much-discussed July 13 comments that small-business owners have had help from others to achieve success. Thus it is not yet clear whether those comments have led to further deterioration in Obama's standing among small-business owners.
Implications
With approval of President Obama trending somewhat higher, but remaining below the historical threshold for re-election, approval among different groups provides a lens of his strengths and weaknesses. While Obama has been able to maintain or increase his approval rating among most occupational groups so far this election year, he has lost ground among business owners.
Although business owners represent just a small subset of the U.S. population, they are of course a critical component of the economy and overall economic optimism in the country. If business owners become more positive about Obama and his plans for the economy, that could potentially boost his approval ratings and broader U.S. economic confidence closer to the levels necessary for him to be well positioned for re-election. Conversely, further deterioration in his approval rating among business owners could certainly add to the perception that Obama is not doing enough to bolster small businesses in the country.
See page 2 for a complete description of each occupational group and for sample sizes.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/156206/Business-Owners-Among-Least-Approving-Obama.aspx
-
[ Invalid YouTube link ]
-
Rove: Obama Is Losing Crucial Independent Voters
Friday, 27 Jul 2012
By Greg McDonald
Political strategist Karl Rove says President Barack Obama’s likeability is his strength in this year’s election, despite the moribund economy, but he is still losing crucial independent voters. Rove also told Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren Thursday GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney’s trips to Israel and Poland could garner him important voting blocs.
“The president is losing among independents today in virtually every public poll, and that’s a problem because he won independents in 2008 by an 8 point margin over Sen. John McCain,” Rove said. “So to be losing them shows a big shift among independents.
“It is a strength that President Obama is liked by so many people,” he said. “They just simply disagree deeply with a lot of what he has done.”
Rove, who was President George W. Bush’s key political strategist and now runs the Crossroads GPS super PAC, predicted that Obama’s would have even a more difficult time holding onto independent voters as the campaign narrows toward November.
“Here’s the problem for President Obama: When it comes to the economy, independents look like Republicans,” Rove said. “That is to say, they are less favorable to the president than Democrats and look a lot more like Republicans when it comes to rating the president poorly on the economy.”
Turning to Romney’s trip to Great Britain, Israel, and Poland, Rove said it would allow the Republican candidate “to look presidential” while drawing sharp contrasts between his own views and how Obama has conducted U.S. foreign policy.
The trips to Israel and Poland, he suggested, could translate into large blocs of votes in November, depending how Romney is received.
“In the greater scheme of things, they don't determine elections. A visit to Poland won’t sway the election,” he said, but added it could have a positive impact on Polish-American voters in some of the nation’s biggest cities.
“Same with the visit to Israel. This is a very important voting bloc,” Rove said. “If Mitt Romney only gets the same percentage of the Jewish vote in Florida that President Bush got in '04, it would cut Barack Obama’s winning margin in Florida by one-third. That's how important the voting bloc is.”
Both countries, he said, have had “the rug jerked out from underneath them” by the president, causing strained relations.
As examples, he cited Obama’s calls for Israel to return to its 1967 borders as a basis for a Middle East peace agreement, and his decision early in his administration to scrap the Pentagon’s plan to deploy a missile system in Europe, with interceptor and radar sites in Poland and the Czech Republic.
Rove also noted that Obama’s reference during a ceremony in May to a “Polish death camp” when he meant to say “Nazi death camp” was particularly upsetting to the Polish people.
“They were already with a chip on their shoulder for good reason [over the missile system],” he said. “Now they have a bigger one.”
Concerning Obama’s statements on Israel’s borders, Rove said, the Israelis view that as a “very problematic policy.”
“This is one of many things that has caused a lot of . . . Jewish-Americans and a lot of Israelis to be concerned about how President Obama views this relationship,” he added.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/obama-romney-rove-independents/2012/07/27/id/446786
-
Rove: Obama Is Losing Crucial Independent Voters
Friday, 27 Jul 2012
By Greg McDonald
Political strategist Karl Rove says President Barack Obama’s likeability is his strength in this year’s election, despite the moribund economy, but he is still losing crucial independent voters. Rove also told Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren Thursday GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney’s trips to Israel and Poland could garner him important voting blocs.
“The president is losing among independents today in virtually every public poll, and that’s a problem because he won independents in 2008 by an 8 point margin over Sen. John McCain,” Rove said. “So to be losing them shows a big shift among independents.
“It is a strength that President Obama is liked by so many people,” he said. “They just simply disagree deeply with a lot of what he has done.”
Rove, who was President George W. Bush’s key political strategist and now runs the Crossroads GPS super PAC, predicted that Obama’s would have even a more difficult time holding onto independent voters as the campaign narrows toward November.
“Here’s the problem for President Obama: When it comes to the economy, independents look like Republicans,” Rove said. “That is to say, they are less favorable to the president than Democrats and look a lot more like Republicans when it comes to rating the president poorly on the economy.”
Turning to Romney’s trip to Great Britain, Israel, and Poland, Rove said it would allow the Republican candidate “to look presidential” while drawing sharp contrasts between his own views and how Obama has conducted U.S. foreign policy.
The trips to Israel and Poland, he suggested, could translate into large blocs of votes in November, depending how Romney is received.
“In the greater scheme of things, they don't determine elections. A visit to Poland won’t sway the election,” he said, but added it could have a positive impact on Polish-American voters in some of the nation’s biggest cities.
“Same with the visit to Israel. This is a very important voting bloc,” Rove said. “If Mitt Romney only gets the same percentage of the Jewish vote in Florida that President Bush got in '04, it would cut Barack Obama’s winning margin in Florida by one-third. That's how important the voting bloc is.”
Both countries, he said, have had “the rug jerked out from underneath them” by the president, causing strained relations.
As examples, he cited Obama’s calls for Israel to return to its 1967 borders as a basis for a Middle East peace agreement, and his decision early in his administration to scrap the Pentagon’s plan to deploy a missile system in Europe, with interceptor and radar sites in Poland and the Czech Republic.
Rove also noted that Obama’s reference during a ceremony in May to a “Polish death camp” when he meant to say “Nazi death camp” was particularly upsetting to the Polish people.
“They were already with a chip on their shoulder for good reason [over the missile system],” he said. “Now they have a bigger one.”
Concerning Obama’s statements on Israel’s borders, Rove said, the Israelis view that as a “very problematic policy.”
“This is one of many things that has caused a lot of . . . Jewish-Americans and a lot of Israelis to be concerned about how President Obama views this relationship,” he added.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/obama-romney-rove-independents/2012/07/27/id/446786
.
-
Rasmussen: Romney Has Same Lead, Same Day That Obama Had in '08
Saturday, 28 Jul 2012
By Patrick Hobin
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama led his Republican rival John McCain by 49 percent to 44 in a Rasmussen Reports daily tracking poll released on July 27, 2008.
Fast forward four years and the GOP's Mitt Romney is holding the exact same lead on the exact same day in the exact same poll, Business Insider points out.
Romney’s five-point lead is the largest by either candidate in just over a month and the numbers closely mirror the 49 to 43 percent advantage Romney has on who voters trust more to handle the economy.
Just 31 percent of likely voters think Obama is doing a good or excellent job handling economic issues, with 48 percent saying he’s doing a poor job on the economy. This comes as consumer confidence fell to a 2012 low this week and the government reported slowing GDP growth.
For June, Obama’s job approval rating was at 47 percent, down two points from May and staying in the narrow range of 47 to 49 percent since the beginning of 2012, according to the Rasmussen poll. In January 2009, 62 percent of voters approved of Obama’s job performance.
Pollster Scott Rasmussen said that in the summer of 2004 President George W. Bush’s approval rating rating was similar to Obama’s. But in 2004, the underlying trends were moving in Bush’s direction.
“The big issue that year was the war on terror,” Rasmussen said. “In the summer of 2004, just 44 percent thought the United States and its allies were winning that war. In the five weeks running up to the election, however, confidence that our side was winning ranged from 49 percent to 52 percent.”
Rasmussen said that for Obama to win, “he will need to improve his own job approval rating between now and Election Day. For that to happen, perceptions of the economy will have to reverse their current downward trend.”
The Rasmussen poll also showed that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton remains the most liked member of Obama’s Cabinet, with 53 percent of likely voters having a favorable opinion of her.
Attorney General Eric Holder is the least-liked Cabinet member, with 47 percent of voters who have an unfavorable opinion of him.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Rasmussen-Obama-same-Romney/2012/07/28/id/446867
-
he should pick rubio and really solidify confidence in his ticket. even tho intrade has rubio at 8% chance of being chosen
(portman 30%, t-paw 27%)
-
Rasmussen: Romney Has Same Lead, Same Day That Obama Had in '08
Doesn't really take into account obama's superior ground game + power of the incumbency. But great little tidbit there.
-
Anxious Obama plans fundraising spree
By Amie Parnes and Justin Sink - 07/31/12
President Obama will host a series of high-dollar fundraisers in the coming weeks and is expected to add more events than usual after the Democratic National Convention.
The string of upcoming events reflects deep worry in Chicago about competing with the tidal wave of cash being raised by outside groups aimed at electing Mitt Romney.
The impetus for more and more big fundraisers just 98 days before the election is also in stark contrast with where Obama was in his matchup against Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in 2008, when he had a substantial financial advantage fueled by individual donations.
Obama has spent a considerable amount of time fundraising in recent days.
On Monday afternoon, he flew to New York to attend a fundraising dinner with 60 attendees at a cost of $40,000 per person. The trip came on the heels of high-dollar fundraisers in Washington, D.C. and Virginia on Friday, after a week of attending several fundraisers on the West Coast — including the campaign’s honey pot in Northern California.
Romney has also continued to attend his fair share of fundraisers, including two check-collecting stops in England and Israel.
But sources close to the Romney campaign say they expect to shift away from constantly hosting fundraisers, moving toward more public rallies and events in the weeks before Election Day, believing the priority at that point should be engaging swing voters with rallies and public appearances.
. . . .
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/241171-anxious-obama-plans-fall-fundraising-spree
-
romneys endorsement of the socialist isr medical system should really help obama. great point man.
-
romneys endorsement of the socialist isr medical system should really help obama. great point man.
really showing up in polls for the messiah too. ::).
-
really showing up in polls for the messiah too. ::).
obama is the incumbent. He can start a war or steal an election. A three point romney lead is a 1 point obama win.
you know that, right/ ;)
-
obama is the incumbent. He can start a war or steal an election. A three point romney lead is a 1 point obama win.
you know that, right/ ;)
BTT election rolls around Obama is going to get landslided. 4 more terrible jobs reports, no hope, no change, no improvement, etc.
-
BTT election rolls around Obama is going to get landslided. 4 more terrible jobs reports, no hope, no change, no improvement, etc.
oh, the last 45 jobs reports have led us to a tie, and suddenly the next 3 are going to matter?
LMAO really dog?
-
oh, the last 45 jobs reports have led us to a tie, and suddenly the next 3 are going to matter?
LMAO really dog?
1980. Carter was leading Reagan at this point.
-
1980. Carter was leading Reagan at this point.
in 1980 hot dogs were 75 cents ???
-
1980. Carter was leading Reagan at this point.
that's before presidents knew they could start wars, or let 911s happen, or steal elections electronically.
It if is less than 3 points apart, obama steals this thing - and you know it, 33.
-
in 1980 hot dogs were 75 cents ???
inflation is a bitch no?
-
Poll: Obama over 50% in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania
Posted by
CNN's Kevin Liptak
(CNN) - President Barack Obama has a majority of voters backing him in three critical battleground states, according to a survey released Wednesday.
The Quinnipiac University/CBS News/New York Times poll showed Obama leading his Republican challenger Mitt Romney in Florida 51%-45%, in Ohio 50%-44%, and in Pennsylvania 53%-42%. Florida and Ohio are considered toss-ups in November's general election, while Pennsylvania is rated "lean Obama" on CNN's Electoral Map.
The poll indicated that only 4% of likely voters in each of the three states had yet to decide on a candidate to support. Among Romney backers, 10% in Florida and Ohio and 9% in Pennsylvania said they could change their mind before November. Eleven percent of Obama's supporters in Florida said they could change their minds, compared to 13% in Ohio and 15% in Pennsylvania.
"If today were November 6, President Barack Obama would sweep the key swing states of Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania and – if history is any guide – into a second term in the Oval Office," Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute, wrote in a statement accompanying the poll's release.
Brown cited better-than-average unemployment rates in Ohio and Florida as possible factors in Obama's lead there, writing that "The president is running better in the key swing states than he is nationally."
Among self-identified independents, Obama edges Romney in Florida 47%-46%, and Ohio 47%-44%. The president's lead among independents in Pennsylvania is more robust, 58%-36%.
A gender gap persists in all three states, where women are more likely to back Obama and men go stronger for Romney.
In all three battlegrounds, an enthusiasm gap persists between the two candidates. Sixty five percent of Obama supporters in Florida say they strongly favor the president, compared to 49% of Romney's backers who say they strongly favor the Republican candidate.
In Ohio, 60% were "strongly supporting" Obama, compared to 42% who said the same for Romney. And in Pennsylvania, 59% were strong supporters of Obama and 41% were strongly supporting Romney.
On the economy, voters are split between Obama and Romney. Forty seven percent of Floridians said Romney would do a better job handing economic issues, compared to 45% who named Obama.
In Ohio, 46% of voters said Obama would better handle to economy, and 45% picked Romney. Pennsylvanians gave Obama higher marks on the economy, with 48% naming the president as better on the economy and 44% naming Romney.
"All this matters because half of all likely voters say the economy is the most important issue to their vote, far ahead of any other issue. The saving grace for Gov. Mitt Romney is that he roughly breaks even with the president on who is best on the economy," Brown said.
The Quinnipiac University/CBS News/New York Times poll was conducted by telephone July 24-30. In Florida, 1,177 likely voters were polled and the sampling error was plus or minus 2.9 percentage points. In Ohio, 1,193 likely voters were called with a sampling error of 2.8 percentage points. And in Pennsylvania, 1,168 likely voters were polled with a sampling error of 2.9 percentage points.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/01/polls-obama-over-50-in-florida-ohio-and-pennsylvania/
-
Poll: Obama over 50% in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania
Posted by
CNN's Kevin Liptak
(CNN) - President Barack Obama has a majority of voters backing him in three critical battleground states, according to a survey released Wednesday.
The Quinnipiac University/CBS News/New York Times poll showed Obama leading his Republican challenger Mitt Romney in Florida 51%-45%, in Ohio 50%-44%, and in Pennsylvania 53%-42%. Florida and Ohio are considered toss-ups in November's general election, while Pennsylvania is rated "lean Obama" on CNN's Electoral Map.
The poll indicated that only 4% of likely voters in each of the three states had yet to decide on a candidate to support. Among Romney backers, 10% in Florida and Ohio and 9% in Pennsylvania said they could change their mind before November. Eleven percent of Obama's supporters in Florida said they could change their minds, compared to 13% in Ohio and 15% in Pennsylvania.
"If today were November 6, President Barack Obama would sweep the key swing states of Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania and – if history is any guide – into a second term in the Oval Office," Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute, wrote in a statement accompanying the poll's release.
Brown cited better-than-average unemployment rates in Ohio and Florida as possible factors in Obama's lead there, writing that "The president is running better in the key swing states than he is nationally."
Among self-identified independents, Obama edges Romney in Florida 47%-46%, and Ohio 47%-44%. The president's lead among independents in Pennsylvania is more robust, 58%-36%.
A gender gap persists in all three states, where women are more likely to back Obama and men go stronger for Romney.
In all three battlegrounds, an enthusiasm gap persists between the two candidates. Sixty five percent of Obama supporters in Florida say they strongly favor the president, compared to 49% of Romney's backers who say they strongly favor the Republican candidate.
In Ohio, 60% were "strongly supporting" Obama, compared to 42% who said the same for Romney. And in Pennsylvania, 59% were strong supporters of Obama and 41% were strongly supporting Romney.
On the economy, voters are split between Obama and Romney. Forty seven percent of Floridians said Romney would do a better job handing economic issues, compared to 45% who named Obama.
In Ohio, 46% of voters said Obama would better handle to economy, and 45% picked Romney. Pennsylvanians gave Obama higher marks on the economy, with 48% naming the president as better on the economy and 44% naming Romney.
"All this matters because half of all likely voters say the economy is the most important issue to their vote, far ahead of any other issue. The saving grace for Gov. Mitt Romney is that he roughly breaks even with the president on who is best on the economy," Brown said.
The Quinnipiac University/CBS News/New York Times poll was conducted by telephone July 24-30. In Florida, 1,177 likely voters were polled and the sampling error was plus or minus 2.9 percentage points. In Ohio, 1,193 likely voters were called with a sampling error of 2.8 percentage points. And in Pennsylvania, 1,168 likely voters were polled with a sampling error of 2.9 percentage points.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/01/polls-obama-over-50-in-florida-ohio-and-pennsylvania/
Please another crap poll over sampling Democrats by ridiculous numbers. Only an idiot believes a poll like that.
-
:)
-
Poll: Obama over 50% in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/01/polls-obama-over-50-in-florida-ohio-and-pennsylvania/
Romney's embarassing behavior overseas is starting to really show.
-
Romney's embarassing behavior overseas is starting to really show.
Idiot - they over sampled Demos by 6 - 11 points.
typical you believe crap polling.
-
Idiot - they over sampled Demos by 6 - 11 points.
link to evidence these polling organizations have got it all wrong?
-
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/01/obama-supporters-barraged-with-pleas-for-cash
LOL - even in the NYT blog he is getting mauled.
-
Poll: Obama over 50% in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania
I'd like to call this one an anomaly, BB, but it appears to be happening all over. We're seeing Romney start to lag in a lot of areas-
Nate Silver; "Ohio polls show trouble for Romney" downgrades Romney chance to 31%
We are seeing the first major shift in the campaign. The significance of this is big because all pollsters have, so far, noted how static the race has become and the likelihood of a big swing back is not great as so few people are undecided.
Here is Silver on Ohio (the whole article is useful, he shows that Romney has almost no chance to win the electoral college without Ohio)
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/27/july-27-ohio-polls-show-trouble-for-romney/
Nowhere was this more apparent than in Ohio, where there were two new polls out on Friday. One of them, from the firm We Ask America, gave Mr. Obama an eight-point lead there. Another, from Magellan Strategies, put Mr. Obama up by two points.
Now Drunken Irishman brings us news of yet another poll (Quinnipac Obama + 6) that shows similar results for Ohio:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/125162820#post20
This would seem to indicate that the outsourcing and outbanking ads are having a huge impact in Ohio.
Note that Nate Silver has downgraded Romney's chances of winning the electoral college to 31%.
There is no reasonable path to an electoral college victory for Romney without Ohio. Portman is the only VP pick that helps in Ohio, so Portman's chances of being on the ticket just went up.
Romney's chances on Intrade have gone below 40 %
http://www.intrade.com/v4/home/
-
LOL at Silver pimping that bogus poll.
Intrade also had the mandate going down by 75% remember?
-
LOL at Silver pimping that bogus poll.
Intrade also had the mandate going down by 75% remember?
you can't tell the diff between betting on the decision of 1 man, vs the voting of 110 million people.
i fear there is applesauce between your ears, laddy.
-
Clinton's Vatican Ambassador, Five More Back Romney for President
Wednesday, 01 Aug 2012
By Martin Gould
Former U.S. ambassadors to the Vatican — including Boston's former Democratic Mayor Ray Flynn — have banded together in support of Republican challenger Mitt Romney as they try to push religious freedom to the center of the presidential debate.
Romney will be “a faithful defender of life in all its seasons,” the six former ambassadors say in a letter outlining why they believe Roman Catholics should vote for the Mormon candidate.
“We are all called to advance the moral teachings of Christianity in the life of our country. Where the stakes are highest — in the defense of life, liberty, and human dignity — we have a duty to act that is greater and more urgent than allegiance to any political party,” they say.
The ambassadors include former Democratic Boston Mayor Ray Flynn who was appointed to the Holy See by President Bill Clinton. The others — all appointed by Republican presidents — are Frank Shakespeare, Tom Melady, Jim Nicholson, Francis Rooney, and Mary Ann Glendon. There is only one other living former ambassador, 96-year-old Clinton appointee Lindy Boggs.
In their letter, the ambassadors say that their concerns in the 2012 election “lie with fundamental rights, beginning with religious liberty.”
“While the current administration has brought our first freedom under direct assault by imposing government mandates that completely disregard religious conscience, Governor Romney believes that freedom to live one’s faith is essential to liberty and human fulfillment. And he has pledged himself to removing those federal mandates immediately,” they write.
“While the current administration has now put its weight on the side of those who propose to redefine the meaning of marriage itself, Governor Romney has stood firm in defending this sacred institution. In the White House, just as he did in the Massachusetts State House, he will defend the institution of marriage before the Congress, the courts, and the country.
“Where the current administration has shown its sympathy for the pro-abortion lobby, Mitt Romney will be a faithful defender of life in all its seasons. And he understands the special duty of people of faith to serve in this cause. As Governor Romney recently said, ‘From the beginning, this nation trusted in God, not man. Religious liberty is the first freedom in our Constitution. And whether the cause is justice for the persecuted, compassion for the needy and the sick, or mercy for the child waiting to be born, there is no greater force for good in the nation than Christian conscience in action.’
“These are the words of a man we believe can be a great force for good in this nation. We are Democrats, Independents, and Republicans, but on this question we are united in faith and in action. We urge our fellow Catholics, and indeed all people of good will, to join with us in this full-hearted effort to elect Governor Mitt Romney as the next President of the United States.”
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Catholics-ambassadors-Vatican-Romney/2012/08/01/id/447252
-
Free Republic
Browse · Search Pings · Mail GOP Club
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.
To win, Obama needs to get white voters to stay home
Hot Air ^ | August 3, 2012 | Howard Portnoy
Posted on August 4, 2012 3:36:33 AM EDT by 2ndDivisionVet
President Obama has met the enemy, and they are us (us, that is, if you are Caucasian). So reads the handwriting on the wall, according to BuzzFeed, which reports:
President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign has spent more than $100 million on advertising over the last 3 months. Much, if not most, of it has been produced to shred Mitt Romney’s reputation and suppress turnout among white voters who might vote for Romney.
That last sentence is worth re-reading. It links to a New York Times op-ed that notes with equal candor, not to mention nonchalance:
He is running a two-track campaign. One track of his re-election drive seeks to boost turnout among core liberal groups; the other aims to suppress turnout and minimize his margin of defeat in the most hostile segment of the electorate, whites without college degrees.
It’s a simple matter of arithmetic, the BuzzFeed article goes on to note. In 2008, black voter turnout reached its highest level ever. Hispanic and “youth” voters (ages 18 to 29) also turned out in record numbers. Obama captured 43% of the white vote, cinching a victory.
But with black unemployment reaching 14.4% in July and unemployment among millennials at 12.7%, enthusiasm is down. The dreaded “white vote” is now expected to account for 75% of ballots cast.
By most analysts’ lights, Obama needs to capture 40% of that voting bloc to win a second term. But a Quinnipiac poll released on July 12 shows him attracting just 29% of non-college-educated white males. Taken together with other recent polls, Obama’s share of the white vote as a whole is well shy of the 40% threshold.
The BuzzFeed piece predicts a “chemical warfare campaign, the war to end all wars” but doesn’t offer specifics on what that might translate to.
In the meantime, one might wonder how Obama supporters countenance speaking in such matter-of-fact terms about voter suppression, which Democrats consider the ultimate sin. The answer is provided in the Times op-ed by Thomas Edsall, who asserts that Obama is merely taking a page out of the Republican handbook. “Over the past two years,” he writes, “Republican-controlled state legislatures have been conducting an aggressive vote-suppression strategy of their own through the passage of voter identification laws and laws imposing harsh restrictions on voter registration drives.”
It is a fascinating admission. He imputes the basest possible motive to supporters of voter IDs laws, and one that is unprovable, to justify behavior that can’t rationalized as anything other cynical and anti-American. Just imagine the reaction if the tables were turned.
-
With convention speakers named, Romney's VP list appears to narrow
Posted by
CNN Political Director Mark Preston
(CNN) – Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez and South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley - three women rumored to be under consideration as Mitt Romney's running mate - will have high profile speaking roles at the Republican National Convention, organizers will announce Monday.
The naming of the three women most likely means that Romney's campaign is no longer vetting their backgrounds, if they ever did.
In addition, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, Ohio Gov. John Kasich, Arizona Sen. John McCain and Florida Gov. Rick Scott will also have prime time speaking roles at the four day event that begins August 27 in Tampa, a GOP official confirms.
The Tampa Bay Times first reported the names of the speakers early Monday morning on its web site.
Names that will not be announced in the first roll out of convention speakers: New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, Ohio Sen. Rob Portman, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan. Romney is rumored to be looking at these five men – specifically Pawlenty and Portman – to join him on the GOP ticket.
The Romney campaign has not said when it will name a vice presidential running mate, but speculation is that it won't happen until after the Olympics end next Sunday. And several other people, in addition to the five named above, are said to be under consideration in this very secretive process.
The GOP official did not say at what specific date and time each person would speak. But in announcing the names as prime time speakers, Romney's campaign appears to be trying to highlight the GOP's ethnic, racial and political diversity.
Also, by stating that Scott will take a high profile role at the convention, the Romney campaign is putting to rest speculation about what role, if any, the politically unpopular governor would play in the convention in his own state. Florida is considered one of the key battlegrounds in the 2012 election.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/06/with-convention-speakers-named-romneys-vp-list-appears-to-narrow/?hpt=hp_t3
-
Obama Campaign Dangerously Low on Cash, Leading to Panic
The Atlanta Black Star ^ | August 5, 2012 | Nick Chiles
Posted on 08/06/2012 8:52:13 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
The Obama campaign has taken a huge risk by burning through hundreds of million of dollars in the early stages of the presidential campaign, opening offices in swing states, registering voters and getting to know local communities, but the expenditures have left the campaign dangerously low on cash heading into the final three months of the campaign.
The analysis of the Obama expenditures by the New York Times shows that the campaign has spent $400 million from the beginning of 2011 to June 30, 2012. That number includes $86 million on advertising, $50 million on hiring Democratic party workers, $46 million on direct mail and postage, $24 million on phones and even $25,000 on flower arrangements. The result is a vast and well-organized network of on-the-ground staff and infrastructure—and a discernible panic among Democrats that the campaign possibly has put itself in danger because the Mitt Romney campaign has far more money, $25 million more cash on hand at the start of July.
And although Romney has spent much of his money from the primaries and has to wait until after the convention to access tens of million dollars he has waiting, he can count on the pro-Romney Super PACs to take up the slack right now.
Obama supporters say the campaign’s fundraising has acquired a sense of urgency, sending out many more alarming emails to donors and scheduling more fundraising stops for the president. The campaign also has asked former President Bill Clinton to help with the fundraising efforts.
“My upcoming birthday next week could be the last one I celebrate as president of the United States, but that’s not up to me—it’s up to you,” the president wrote in an email to supporters last week.
But Obama campaign and Democratic party officials told the Times in interviews that they believed the Obama strategy would prove to be wise when election day has arrived.
“You can pay for direct mail or TV ads at the last minute, but you can’t shortcut long-term volunteer training programs,” said a campaign official. “The relationships we’ve built, the depth of what people know about their communities, our data systems, the training and organization—good luck doing that in less than 100 days.”
-
coachisright.com or didn't happen.
(Come on. Even you have to admit that's funny.)
-
What a difference four years makes.
Obama: Negative ratings in 37 states, but king of DC
August 4, 2012
Gallup has just released Barack Obama’s job approval rating for the first half of 2012, broken down by state, and the news is not encouraging for the president.
Obama’s approval rating is below 50 percent in 37 states, ranging from a 26 percent rating in Utah to a 49 percent rating in Michigan. Obama is at 50 percent or higher in just 13 states, from a 50 percent rating in Minnesota to a 63 percent rating in Hawaii. The president is most popular in Washington DC, where his job approval rating is an astonishing 83 percent.
After DC, Obama’s top ten states are: Hawaii 63 percent; Rhode Island 58 percent; Vermont 56 percent; New York 55 percent; Massachusetts 55 percent; Maryland 55 percent; New Jersey 53 percent; Connecticut 53 percent; California 52 percent; and Washington 51 percent.
Finishing up the 13 states in which Obama has his head above the water: Illinois 51 percent; Delaware 51 percent; and Minnesota 50 percent.
The ten states where Obama’s approval is lowest are: Utah 26 percent; Wyoming 28 percent; Alaska 29 percent; West Virginia 31 percent; Idaho 31 percent; Montana 34 percent; Oklahoma 35 percent; Alabama 36 percent; Tennessee 37 percent; and North Dakota 37 percent.
States where Obama is just below the 50 percent mark are: Michigan 49 percent; Wisconsin 49 percent; Maine 47 percent; Oregon 47 percent; and Iowa, Florida, Virginia, and Pennsylvania — all key electoral states — where Obama is at 46 percent.
“The 50 percent approval mark is significant because post-World War II incumbent presidents who have been above 50 percent job approval on Election Day were easily re-elected,” write Gallup. “Presidents with approval ratings below 50% have more uncertain re-election prospects. Historically, two presidents below 50% in their final approval rating before the election — George W. Bush and Harry Truman — won, and three, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and George H.W. Bush, lost.”
The District of Columbia and the states in which Obama is at 50 percent or above have a combined 188 electoral votes — a solid beginning toward the 270 he needs for re-election. But a number of the states Obama will need to win — Ohio, at 44 percent, and Florida, Virginia, and Pennsylvania, all at 46 percent — are in the iffy mid-40s range.
Obama’s total of 13 states in positive job approval territory is actually a slight improvement from 2011, where he was above water in just ten states.
Finally, a note on Washington DC. Some readers might attribute Obama’s rating there solely to his enduring popularity among black voters, but Washington is no longer a majority-black city. (The black population dipped below 50 percent last year.) Obama is popular with nearly everyone in the capital. Among those who work for the government and for government-related businesses — the permanent bureaucracy centered in Washington DC, northern Virginia and southern Maryland — approval of the president remains very high.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/obama-negative-ratings-in-37-states-but-king-of-dc/article/2504007
-
The Real Poll Numbers
By Dick Morris on August 6, 2012
The media is trying to create a sense of momentum and of inevitability about the Obama candidacy. One benighted Newsweek reporter even speculated about a possible Democratic landslide.
On Friday, I saw the real numbers. These state-by-state polls, taken by an organization I trust (after forty years of polling) show the real story. The tally is based on more than 600 likely voter interviews in each swing state within the past eight days.
The trend line is distinctly pro-Romney. Of the thirteen states studied, he improved or Obama slipped in nine states while the reverse happened in only four. To read the media, one would think that Romney had a terrible month. In fact, the exact reverse is true.
Romney is currently leading in every state McCain carried plus: Indiana, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Nevada, North Carolina, and Colorado. If he carries these states, he’ll have 228 electoral votes of the 270 he needs to win.
To win the election, Romney would then have to carry Florida where he trails by two points, and either Virginia (behind by two) or Ohio where he’s down by only one.
If he carries all three of these states and also wins all the others where Obama is now at 50% or less – Iowa, New Mexico, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey — he will get 351 electoral votes, a landslide about equal to Obama’s 363 vote tally in 2008.
The strong probability is that Romney does, in fact, carry Florida, Ohio, and Virginia and a share of the other states where Obama is below 50% of the vote.
So don’t believe the garbage being put out by the media. The attempt to portray Romney as not catching on and as dropping in the polls is ludicrous. It is, at best, the product of incompetent polling and, at worst, the result of deliberate media bias. But Romney is winning and expanding his lead each week. That’s the real story.
http://www.dickmorris.com/the-real-poll-numbers/
-
Dick Morris :D :D :D :D :D :D i saw the real numbers :D :D
-
The Real Poll Numbers
By Dick Morris on August 6, 2012
The media is trying to create a sense of momentum and of inevitability about the Obama candidacy. One benighted Newsweek reporter even speculated about a possible Democratic landslide.
On Friday, I saw the real numbers. These state-by-state polls, taken by an organization I trust (after forty years of polling) show the real story. The tally is based on more than 600 likely voter interviews in each swing state within the past eight days.
The trend line is distinctly pro-Romney. Of the thirteen states studied, he improved or Obama slipped in nine states while the reverse happened in only four. To read the media, one would think that Romney had a terrible month. In fact, the exact reverse is true.
Romney is currently leading in every state McCain carried plus: Indiana, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Nevada, North Carolina, and Colorado. If he carries these states, he’ll have 228 electoral votes of the 270 he needs to win.
To win the election, Romney would then have to carry Florida where he trails by two points, and either Virginia (behind by two) or Ohio where he’s down by only one.
If he carries all three of these states and also wins all the others where Obama is now at 50% or less – Iowa, New Mexico, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey — he will get 351 electoral votes, a landslide about equal to Obama’s 363 vote tally in 2008.
The strong probability is that Romney does, in fact, carry Florida, Ohio, and Virginia and a share of the other states where Obama is below 50% of the vote.
So don’t believe the garbage being put out by the media. The attempt to portray Romney as not catching on and as dropping in the polls is ludicrous. It is, at best, the product of incompetent polling and, at worst, the result of deliberate media bias. But Romney is winning and expanding his lead each week. That’s the real story.
http://www.dickmorris.com/the-real-poll-numbers/
Morris was one of the few who got the mid terms largely right, but missed by a bit.
But remember the obama sycophants on this board who never saw the mid term disaster coming?
-
coachisright.com or didn't happen.
(Come on. Even you have to admit that's funny.)
New Gallup survey shows Obama’s winning margin has been wiped out by “switchers” to the GOP
coachisright.com ^ | August 7, 2012 | Kevin "Coach" Collins
Posted on Tuesday, August 07, 2012 10:52:46 AM by
A just released Gallup poll survey of voters who voted in 2008 presidential election and indicate they will vote again in November holds some bad news for Barack Obama.
Among the questions asked of its respondents Gallup asked if the person being surveyed was planning to switch his/her Party vote to now support either Republican Mitt Romney or Democrat Barack Obama.
Of those who had voted for John McCain in 2008 5% now supported Barack Obama. Of those original Obama supporters 9% reported their intention to vote for Republican Romney.
When this 9% switch is applied to Obama’s raw popular vote total, the 5% switch is factored against John McCain’s raw vote and both are compared the difference becomes a dead heat with an insignificant 17,000 vote lead for Obama.
The telling data in this report is the 4% undecided – which breaks against the incumbent to a high degree and the 11% that refused to say for whom they voted in 2008. This adds credence to the possibility that a substantial number of 2008 Obama supporters have strong felling of “buyer’s remorse.”
It is, after all very much easier to find someone who says “I voted for Obama but I’m sorry and I won’t do that again,” than to locate a 2008 voter who says “You know, I voted for McCain but I’m sorry. I wish I had voted for Obama.”
Gallup also tells us a high percentage of independents (18%) have switched as have Easterners those with a high school diploma and unmarried men all reporting a 15% switch.
“Independents went to Obama 52/ 44 in 2008 every indication ..these voters who likely make up about 33% of the total turnout have soured on him, this is significant bad news for Barack Obama.
(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...
-
Morris was one of the few who got the mid terms largely right, but missed by a bit.
But remember the obama sycophants on this board who never saw the mid term disaster coming?
The toe sucker usually knows his stuff, although I don't agree with him that this will be a landslide for Romney.
-
The toe sucker usually knows his stuff, although I don't agree with him that this will be a landslide for Romney.
Correct - the tax sponges that make up obama;s base will not go away without a fight. They want their free stuff.
-
its so awesomely coincidental that people who kneepadding bush, mccain and now romney also have access to poll numbers that nobody else does.
-
I can't believe I'm typing this
August 8, 2012 | Marlon Marshall
Posted on Tuesday, August 07, 2012 4:50:18
Friend --
I'm so jealous of you that I can barely write the rest of this email.
Imagine shooting hoops with Carmelo Anthony, Patrick Ewing, Sheryl Swoopes, Kyrie Irving, and Alonzo Mourning. Oh, and you'll get to meet President Obama and Michael Jordan over dinner, too.
Now stop dreaming and make it happen. You and a guest of your choice could join President Obama and some of the greatest basketball stars for a special night at the Obama Classic.
Pitch in $3 or whatever you can, and you'll be automatically entered for a chance to win.
Hit the court with Patrick Ewing and Melo? Trade stories with the President? This is the kind of stuff your kids will tell their kids, and no one will believe it until you show them a photo.
Don't worry if suiting up with hoops stars isn't your thing.
I know you've got a kid or a friend who would love nothing more than to play with their heroes while you cheer them on from a courtside seat.
If you've been waiting for the right moment to chip in and support the President, it's time to get off the bench.
Donate $3 to automatically get your name in the hat:
https://donate.barackobama.com/Obama-Classic
Even though I'm jealous, I hope you win.
Marlon
Marlon Marshall
Deputy National Field Director
Obama for America
No purchase, payment, or contribution necessary to enter or win. Contributing will not improve chances of winning. Void where prohibited. Entries must be received by August 10th, 2012. You may enter by contributing to Obama for America here, or click here to enter without contributing. Two (2) winners will each receive the following prize package: round-trip tickets for winner and a guest from within the fifty U.S. States, DC, or Puerto Rico to a destination to be determined by Sponsor; hotel accommodations; and tickets for winner and a guest to an event with President Obama on a date, at a venue and for a duration to be determined by Sponsor (approximate retail value of all prizes $3,200). Odds of winning depend on number of entries received and timing of entries received. Promotion open only to U.S. citizens, or lawful permanent U.S. residents who are legal residents of 50 United States, District of Columbia and Puerto Rico and 18 or older (or age of majority under applicable law). Promotion subject to Official Rules and additional restrictions on eligibility. Sponsor: Obama for America, 130 E. Randolph St., Chicago, IL 60601.
________________________ _______
-
Romney great line today: "Obama - get your campaign out of the gutter"
-
-
Obama camp: 1,000 attended 'half-full' fundraiser
40
Comments (121) By JENNIFER EPSTEIN | 8/12/12 6:35 PM EDT
CHICAGO -- Republicans quickly jumped on a report that President Obama’s largest fundraiser here Sunday was only “half full,” but the crowd for the event was larger than the Obama campaign had initially anticipated.
“At Obama fundraiser in Chicago. Admission only $51, but room is half full,” New York Times reporter Jodi Kantor wrote on Twitter.
The Romney campaign seized on Kantor’s estimate, as spokesman Ryan Williams tweeted, “Thrill is gone.” The Drudge Report also piled on, linking to Kantor’s tweet, which has been reposted by a few hundred others. (Kantor quickly followed up with additional tweets noting that only some tickets to the event cost $51 and that the campaign said the event was sold out.)
But the crowd for the afternoon fundraiser at the Bridgeport Art Center totaled 1,000, an Obama campaign official said – more than the 850-person estimate the campaign offered earlier in the weekend. Tickets for the Gen44 fundraiser, targeted at younger supporters, started at $51, but many were more expensive.
And, to this reporter and several others in the White House press pool, the room seemed plenty full. There was empty space at the back of the large warehouse space during and immediately after the president's remarks, but the crowd was densely packed to get close to the stage at the front of the room where Obama spoke.
-
Romney great line today: "Obama - get your campaign out of the gutter"
Persuasive Art of peace.
-
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/08/12/romney_heckled_at_paul_ryan_welcome_home_rally_in_wisconsin.html
Romney put this Obama cultist right in his place.
-
"Mr. President, Take Your Campaign Out of the Gutter"
Townhall.com ^ | 8/13/2012 | Guy Benson
Posted on Monday, August 13, 2012 9:58:25 AM by Servant of the Cross
The brand new Romney-Ryan ticket experienced quite a Sunday -- addressing packed rallies in North Carolina, sitting down for a joint interview on 60 Minutes, then wrapping up in Wisconsin for an humongous homecoming rally for Paul Ryan. Official estimates pegged the crowd at roughly 13,000 in Waukesha. This is what enthusiasm looks like: (picture at link)
Ryan got the crowd energized with a sentimental ode to the state that he and his family have called home for generations. He wiped away tears of emotion as the Badger State audience showered him with cheers. After ceding the microphone to Mitt Romney, a handful of Left-wing hecklers attempted to shout over the Republican candidate. The large crowd drowned them out with chants of "USA," then Romney let loose. He directly chided one of the disruptive attendees, then parlayed the rebuke into a stinging indictment of Barack Obama's relentlessly negative and dishonest campaign. The gathered throng erupted:
"There's no question that if you follow the campaign of Barack Obama, he's going to do everything in his power to make this the lowest, meanest negative campaign in history. We're not going to let that happen. This is going to be a campaign about ideas...Mr. President, take your campaign out of the gutter; let's talk about the real issue that America faces."
Romney proceeded to run down a litany of Obama's policy failures and promised to turn the country around, if elected. This is the most focused and electric I've ever seen Mitt Romney, having covered him for more than a year. The Ryan pick -- reportedly made over some Romney advisers' early objections -- has galvanized the candidate, as well as the electorate. The GOP ticket has raised more than $5 million just online since Ryan's Saturday morning roll-out. Game on.
-
:)
-
Poll: GOP more engaged in 2012
Politico ^ | 13 Aug 2012 | Poll: GOP more engaged in 2012
Posted on Mon Aug 13 2012 13:16:45 GMT-0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) by mandaladon
More Republicans than Democrats are engaged in the presidential contest and voter turnout could decrease compared with the 2008 election, according to a Gallup poll on Monday.
Seventy-four percent of Republicans said they’re thinking about the election “quite a lot,” compared to 61 percent of Democrats, the USA Today/Gallup survey found. More Republicans than Democrats are engaged in the presidential contest and voter turnout could decrease compared with the 2008 election, according to a Gallup poll on Monday.
Seventy-four percent of Republicans said they’re thinking about the election “quite a lot,” compared to 61 percent of Democrats, the USA Today/Gallup survey found.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
-
-
His timing was good. Automatically changed the conversation. This will force the president to talk about the economy, and his record.
-
His timing was good. Automatically changed the conversation. This will force the president to talk about the economy, and his record.
And his tax plan... Which is not going to sit well with a lot of voters... especially those older voters who are thinking about their medicare benefits.
I think Ryan is an alright guy... but he's out of touch with the older voters.
-
And his tax plan... Which is not going to sit well with a lot of voters... especially those older voters who are thinking about their medicare benefits.
I think Ryan is an alright guy... but he's out of touch with the older voters.
I understand this.. but something has to change. Someone is going to have to start making sacrifices somewhere.
-
I understand this.. but something has to change. Someone is going to have to start making sacrifices somewhere.
This is another left wing lie. The same crap was said about Rubio in Florida. 180 was melting down daily over it and was pushing Crist hard.
Remember how that worked out?
Ryan does not scare seniors. The hard leftist fanatics who can't defend obama's disastrous record are grasping at anything at this point.
-
I understand this.. but something has to change. Someone is going to have to start making sacrifices somewhere.
That may be true and I'm hardly against sacrifices, but there's a constant understanding that you can't touch medicare and social security right?
What part of the Ryan plan cuts defense?
-
The hard leftist fanatics who can't defend obama's disastrous record are grasping at anything at this point.
Was it you that said and posted all over this forum that Obama was a homosexual who was not born in the United States?
-
Was it you that said and posted all over this forum that Obama was a homosexual who was not born in the United States?
Homo - yes.
Born outside of usa - most likely.
-
That may be true and I'm hardly against sacrifices, but there's a constant understanding that you can't touch medicare and social security right?
What part of the Ryan plan cuts defense?
I don't think anything can be off limits. But I do believe there is plenty to cut that doesn't involve those 2, yes. So much waste in the government it's ridiculous.
-
I don't think anything can be off limits. But I do believe there is plenty to cut that doesn't involve those 2, yes. So much waste in the government it's ridiculous.
That's my feeling as well.
I believe most people would agree that there is a ton of waste... but why on earth would ryan start with Medicare?
What is he thinking?
-
That's my feeling as well.
I believe most people would agree that there is a ton of waste... but why on earth would ryan start with Medicare?
What is he thinking?
Big, easy target maybe?
-
www.realclearpolitics.co m
Romney +2 Gallup +3 Ras
-
Big, easy target maybe?
Easy, but not smart... not smart at all.
-
The Most Divisive Campaign in American History
FrontPage Magazine ^ | August 14, 2012 | Daniel Greenfield
Posted on Tuesday, August 14, 2012
- FrontPage Magazine - http://frontpagemag.com -
The Most Divisive Campaign in American History
Posted By Daniel Greenfield On August 14, 2012 @ 12:30 am In Daily Mailer,FrontPage | 1 Comment
In 1980, when President Reagan asked Americans, “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?” it was still possible to campaign on a theme as simple as the job performance of the other guy. But now, 32 years later, the campaign hinges on a much more fundamental split among the voting population.
Romney appeals to voters who are dissatisfied with the last four years. Obama appeals to voters who are dissatisfied with America.
This basic gap was obscured in the 2008 campaign by the window trappings of inspiration. Among all the plastic pillars and stolen quotes from poets who stole them from sermons, it was harder to see that the underlying theme of the campaign was dissatisfaction with America. But in 2012, Obama can no longer run as a reformer or an optimist.
The coalition that he committed to last year is a coalition of those who are unhappy with America, not in the last four years, but in the last two-hundred years. Its core is composed of groups that fear democracy and distrust the will of the people. There is no optimism here, but a deeply rooted pessimism about human nature and the country as a whole. It is the Democratic Party’s coalition against democracy.
After 2010, the numbers were crunched, and it was clear that Obama and the Democrats could not win a mainstream campaign. Instead, they targeted narrow groups, stirred up conflicts over issues aimed at that group, whether it was union pensions, racism or birth control. There was no more pretense of a national election, only a frenzied rush to polarize as many groups as possible and join them together into an acrimonious coalition, not so much for anything, as against Republicans.
There isn’t any inspiration here. Just paranoia over everything from gay marriage to abortion to racial profiling to illegal immigration. A dozen illegal benefits being handed out with the explicit threat that they will be lost if Romney wins. A dozen mini-civil wars being stirred up to divide Americans and set them at each other’s throats for the benefit of the Obama campaign.
From Occupy Wall Street to Wisconsin, from Trayvon Martin to Chick-fil-A, the goal of these manufactured conflicts has been to divide and conquer the electorate by emphasizing group rights over individual economic welfare.
Obama can’t win on the economy. He can’t win on foreign policy. He can’t win on any aspect of his administration. All he can do is stir up violence and then promise to heal the country in his second term while winking to all the representatives of the grievance groups. It’s not a new game, but the Democratic Party has never played it quite this baldly in a national election. And if it succeeds, then national politics will have finally been reduced to the level of a Chicago election.
We were expected to believe that the typical Obama voter in 2008 was hoping for a better country, but in 2012 there is no more hope, only hate and fear. The typical Obama voter is not acting as an American, but as a representative of an entitled group looking to secure and expand those entitlements at the expense and the detriment of the country at large.
To vote for Obama after years of grotesque economic mismanagement that has no precedent in history, that exceeds the worst actions of Andrew Jackson or Ulysses S. Grant, is not the instinct of an American, but a selfish greedy looter scrambling to grab a few dinner rolls off the tray while the ship is going down. There is no policy justification for voting for a man with the worst economic and foreign policy record in the country’s history. There is no American justification for voting for him. Only the UnAmerican motivation of carving up a dying country into group fiefdoms privileging identity politics over the common good.
This is an UnAmerican campaign. It is an Anti-American campaign. It is a campaign by those who hate and fear what America was and who resent having to care about anyone outside their own group. Its group jingoism, its dog whistles and special privileges are repulsive and cynical, treating the people of a great nation like a warren of rats eager to sell each other out for a prize from the Cracker Jack box of identity politics entitlements.
There is not a single Obama voter anywhere in the land who believes that another four years of him will make this country better. Not a single one from coast to coast. No, what they believe is that he will make the country a worse place for those people that they hate. That he will have four more years to sink their ideas deeper in the earth, regardless of how many families go hungry and how many fathers kill themselves because they can no longer take care of their families. What they believe is that Obama will grant their group more special privileges and the rest of the country can go to hell.
In his DNC keynote address in 2004, Obama said, “There is no Black America or White America or Latino America or Asian America, there is just the United States of America.” And now he has completely disavowed it. He isn’t campaigning to lead the United States of America, instead he is running for the presidency of a dozen little Americas, Trayvon Martin America, Abortion America, Illegal Alien America, Sharia America, Gay Marriage America, Starbucks America and any others you can think of. And if he can collect enough of these little Americas together, then he may get the privilege of running the United States of America into the ground for another four years.
Obama has never been the President of the United States of America. He has been the president of Washington, D.C., of Wall Street and of Solyndra. He has been the President of Green America and of Chicago. He has been the President of Warren Buffett, George Soros, Bill Gates, Penny Pritzker and James Crown. He is the President of George Clooney, Harvey Weinstein and Anne Hathaway. And now, facing disaster, he still isn’t running to be President of a country, but of a dozen little countries with money from freshly bailed out Green America and Wall Street, not to mention Hollywood.
The Obama campaign is not accidentally divisive. It did not stumble into divisiveness. It is not even divisive as a byproduct of its real aims. Divisiveness is its aim. Divisiveness is the only way that a divisive administration can hold on to power. The anger and the violence are not an accident, they are the whole point. Set one group against another, feed the hate, massage the grievances and very soon there is no longer a nation but a handful of quarreling groups being roped into a mutual alliance to reelect their lord protector whose appeal is that of the outsider becoming the insider.
Bain is a metaphor whose details don’t truly matter. The target audience for that swill doesn’t really care where Romney was when a steel plant was shut down. It doesn’t care that like so many private equity bigwigs, the man who actually was in charge is one of Obama’s bundlers. This isn’t about truth, it’s about menace. The Bain message is that Romney is a man who takes things away. That is the image that the UnAmerican alliance is meant to take away. The ominous sense that Obama’s era of giving them things is about to come to a close and Romney’s era of taking away things will begin.
It doesn’t take much prompting for the UnAmericans to come to this conclusion. Thieves are always looking over their shoulders. They always expect to have their ill-gotten gains taken away from them. And that is Obama’s true achievement. Like Tammany Hall, he has corrupted a massive section of the population and made it complicit in his criminality. What the old political machines did to cities or small groups of vested interests, the Zero has done to tens of millions, if not a hundred million people, who want him in power not because they think he’s the best man for the job, but because he’s their crook. The middle man for a crime ring that begins with him and ends with them.
The true insidious evil of the man is that he is the face of a machine of power and privilege that turns Americans into UnAmericans, that corrupts and degrades every ideal and principle, suborns every office and picks every pocket, while wrapping that thievery in the flag and every bit of history that it can filch. The Hussein Way is the clearest expression of the rot at the heart of the Democratic Party, the marriage of leftist agitation and powermongering with the old urban political machines for a level of abuse usually seen only in banana republics.
The abomination in Washington is a welfare-state technocracy that mixes crony capitalism with radical social policy. It steals from everyone and gives back to some. It plays the game of divide and conquer with the panache of marketing executives knowing that the worse the economy is, the more likely everyone is to look in everyone else’s mouth. Its worst aspect is its insistence on cloaking its cynicism as righteousness, wrapping every ugly means in the glorious flag of the ends when the truth is that its means are its ends.
Divide and conquer isn’t just a means to the greater end of giving Zero Hussein another four years. And perhaps another four years after that. It’s also the end. Every tyrant from Joseph Stalin to Saddam Hussein knew that a divided people are easier to rule. The more you divide them, the less likely they are to give you any trouble when you’re raiding their last pennies to pay for the latest Green gimmick that your billionaire backers have thrown up all over Wall Street.
Obama is the ultimate Post-American figure passing himself off as the embodiment of all that is truly American. But the UnAmericans got the real message in 2008 and in 2012 there is no other message. There is no more hope and faith, and the ones who have been waiting for are the UnAmericans who think that they are about to come into their own, when they are little more than pawns being used to rob and destroy a great nation.
This is the Post-American, Anti-American and UnAmerican campaign to divide up, carve up and toss aside the laws and traditions of the United States and replace them with the power of arrogance. It is the last stand of a beleaguered nation facing barbarians inside its gate. Every previous election was a contest between two American candidates who wanted to preside over the United States.
This is an election contest between the United States and an emerging Post-American order. That entity will be an American EU run by unelected bureaucrats, governed by politically correct technocrats and upheld by corrupt financial pirates disguising the collective bankruptcy with numbers games so elaborate that they make every billion-dollar con game and pyramid scheme that has come before seem as simple as child’s play.
The entity is already here. Its czars are running things in D.C., and its judges are dismantling both constitutional government and democratic elections. It creates a crisis and then makes sure that it doesn’t go to waste. It has excellent design skills and terrible planning skills. It has all the money in the world and none at all. It is the Post-American America, and 2012 is its big referendum. The one that will decide whether this Post-American America, this horrid graft of E.U. governance and Mussolini economics, Soviet propaganda and FDR volunteerism, Tammany populist criminality and U.N. foreign policy will be permitted to devour the United States of America.
Obama cannot win an American election. But he isn’t running in an American election. He’s running in a Post-American election.
Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.
-
Skip to comments.
Romney slams Obama in tough new speech
The Hill ^ | AUGUST 14, 2012 | Emily Goodin and Justin Sink
Posted on August 14, 2012 9:20:31 PM EDT by RobinMasters
Mitt Romney used a tough new campaign speech to personally blast the Obama campaign on Tuesday, saying comments earlier in the day from Vice President Biden are "what an angry and desperate Presidency looks like."
"Mr. President, take your campaign of division and anger and hate back to Chicago," Romney said while campaigning in Ohio.
Romney was responding to Biden's suggestion that the GOP ticket's economic policies would “put y’all back in chains."
The vice president made the remark while campaigning in Virginia, during a discussion of Wall Street regulation.
"They’ve said it. Every Republican’s voted for it. Look at what they value and look at their budget and what they’re proposing. Romney wants to let the — he said in the first 100 days, he’s going to let the big banks once again write their own rules — unchain Wall Street," Biden said. "They’re going to put y’all back in chains. He’s said he’s going to do nothing about stopping the practice of outsourcing."
Romney repeatedly and harshly criticized Team Obama for the remarks.
"His campaign and his surrogates have made wild and reckless accusations that disgrace the office of the Presidency. Another outrageous charge came a few hours ago in Virginia. And the White House sinks a little bit lower," Romney said.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
What a freaking sleezebag Obama is running for. A second term based on slime and attacks.
-
I like how every 4 years, people in this country re-learn that political campaigns are all dirty and about mudslinging.
The US has the shortest average attention span per capita of any nation in the world I bet.
-
I understand this.. but something has to change. Someone is going to have to start making sacrifices somewhere.
Just not the rich huh?
-
.
-
Just not the rich huh?
Valid point.
-
I like how every 4 years, people in this country re-learn that political campaigns are all dirty and about mudslinging.
The US has the shortest average attention span per capita of any nation in the world I bet.
+100
-
Artur Davis Former Obama Campaign CoChair Stumps for Romney: Highly Educated Black Turns GOP
Maggie's Notebook ^ | 8-15-12 | Maggie@MaggiesNotebook
Posted on August 15, 2012 8:20:10 PM EDT by maggiesnotebook
Former Democrat Alabama Congressman Artur Davis stepped to the stage and seconded Obama's 2008 presidential nomination. He served as Obama's campaign co-chair in 2008. Today Davis is a Republican and in Virginia campaigning for Mitt Romney. He served in Congress from 2003 to 2011. He was the first Congressman to endorse Obama, and the first from the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) to demand that Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) surrender his gavel as head of the House Ways and Means Committee in the wake of his many-tentacled scandals. He is the only member of the CBC to vote against ObamaCare, and as so, was the representative of one of the most heavily Democratic districts in the country. When he ran for Alabama Governor in 2010 he lost. Blacks refused to support him.
Photo: Artur Davis
"I think the Obama administration has candidly gone too far to the left. You can raise all kinds of questions on whether that's good politics or not," Davis told Wolf Blitzer. "Obviously the election will determine that." Davis will appear at an Arlington event today, where he will "discuss Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan’s bold ideas to strengthen the middle class and deal with our long-term debt," a Romney insider tells Buzzfeed. Source: Newser
America gets it, without Romney at the helm, something foul this way comes.
WKRG5:
Davis said he had hoped Obama's presidency would make a huge dent in race relations, as well as move the Democratic Party further to the center.
In 2010, Davis made an unsuccessful bid for governor of Alabama. In May he announced he was switching to the GOP, leaving the door open to a future political bid as a Republican.
Davis said in June that he thinks his one time political party was becoming more unwelcoming towards Southern conservative Democrats.
Davis graduated Magna Cum Laude from Harvard and Cum Laude from Harvard Law School. As a four-term Democrat US congressman, he chaired the Democratic Coalition but voted against partial birth abortion and for prohibiting minors from crossing state lines for abortion. He was pro-Israel, favors reducing America's independence on foreign oil and energy but tends to have other more liberal stances in some areas involving the EPA. He voted against legislation (Renewable energy Standards) that required electrical suppliers to provide 15% of their energy through renewable resources. (Much of this paragraph comes from SourceWatch)
From on the Issues, he is against human cloning. He voted for TARP and most of Obama's bailout measures, but voted 'no' on the GM and Chrysler bailouts. He voted to Constitutionally define marriage as one-man-one-woman, yes for making the PATRIOT ACT permanent, and has historically supported the NAACP. His voting records seems to show him tough on drugs, not fond of labeling crime as "hate" crimes, and is considered by the NEA, pro-public schools although he believes parents should have the choice of Charter or public schools.
Grumpy Opinions points out that we don't hear a peep from Oprah these days, although she lost all conservative or even moderate cred years before The Won appeared on the scene. I welcome Artur Davis to the fight.
-
Artur Davis Former Obama Campaign CoChair Stumps for Romney: Highly Educated Black Turns GOP
Maggie's Notebook ^ | 8-15-12 | Maggie@MaggiesNotebook
Posted on August 15, 2012 8:20:10 PM EDT by maggiesnotebook
Former Democrat Alabama Congressman Artur Davis stepped to the stage and seconded Obama's 2008 presidential nomination. He served as Obama's campaign co-chair in 2008. Today Davis is a Republican and in Virginia campaigning for Mitt Romney. He served in Congress from 2003 to 2011. He was the first Congressman to endorse Obama, and the first from the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) to demand that Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) surrender his gavel as head of the House Ways and Means Committee in the wake of his many-tentacled scandals. He is the only member of the CBC to vote against ObamaCare, and as so, was the representative of one of the most heavily Democratic districts in the country. When he ran for Alabama Governor in 2010 he lost. Blacks refused to support him.
Photo: Artur Davis
"I think the Obama administration has candidly gone too far to the left. You can raise all kinds of questions on whether that's good politics or not," Davis told Wolf Blitzer. "Obviously the election will determine that." Davis will appear at an Arlington event today, where he will "discuss Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan’s bold ideas to strengthen the middle class and deal with our long-term debt," a Romney insider tells Buzzfeed. Source: Newser
America gets it, without Romney at the helm, something foul this way comes.
WKRG5:
Davis said he had hoped Obama's presidency would make a huge dent in race relations, as well as move the Democratic Party further to the center.
In 2010, Davis made an unsuccessful bid for governor of Alabama. In May he announced he was switching to the GOP, leaving the door open to a future political bid as a Republican.
Davis said in June that he thinks his one time political party was becoming more unwelcoming towards Southern conservative Democrats.
Davis graduated Magna Cum Laude from Harvard and Cum Laude from Harvard Law School. As a four-term Democrat US congressman, he chaired the Democratic Coalition but voted against partial birth abortion and for prohibiting minors from crossing state lines for abortion. He was pro-Israel, favors reducing America's independence on foreign oil and energy but tends to have other more liberal stances in some areas involving the EPA. He voted against legislation (Renewable energy Standards) that required electrical suppliers to provide 15% of their energy through renewable resources. (Much of this paragraph comes from SourceWatch)
From on the Issues, he is against human cloning. He voted for TARP and most of Obama's bailout measures, but voted 'no' on the GM and Chrysler bailouts. He voted to Constitutionally define marriage as one-man-one-woman, yes for making the PATRIOT ACT permanent, and has historically supported the NAACP. His voting records seems to show him tough on drugs, not fond of labeling crime as "hate" crimes, and is considered by the NEA, pro-public schools although he believes parents should have the choice of Charter or public schools.
Grumpy Opinions points out that we don't hear a peep from Oprah these days, although she lost all conservative or even moderate cred years before The Won appeared on the scene. I welcome Artur Davis to the fight.
Thanks for the update from Maggie's Notebook.
-
Thanks for the update from Maggie's Notebook.
:D
-
Poll: Ryan Bump Gives Romney Lead in Swing States Ohio, Fla., Va.
Thursday, 16 Aug 2012
By Martin Gould
Mitt Romney is leading in three of the four most crucial swing states according to a series of new polls released late Wednesday.
The surveys from Purple Strategies — which covers only so-called “purple” states, those neither strongly red Republican nor blue Democrat — puts the GOP contender up in Ohio, Florida and Virginia, but has President Barack Obama leading in Colorado.
However, all four polls put the two candidates within three percentage points of each other, showing just how close the race for the White House has become.
Urgent: Does Paul Ryan Really Help Defeat Obama? Vote in Exclusive Poll
The polls are the first comprehensive surveys to have been conducted since Romney chose Paul Ryan as his running mate and suggest he has received a small positive bump from his selection.
Daily tracking polls from both Rasmussen Reports and Gallup also put Romney slightly ahead nationally, although the RealClearPolitics conglomerate Poll of Polls — which does not include the Purple Poll as it was not conducted nationally — still has Obama with a three-point lead.
Overall, the four Purple polls taken together show Romney with a single-point lead of 47 percent to 46, reversing July’s figures when Obama led by 47 percent to 45.
Purple Strategies said Romney has received a huge boost among independent voters, now holding an 11 percentage point lead in that group, up from five points in July.
“Taken as a whole, these data indicate a small bump in the immediate aftermath of the Ryan announcement,” Doug Usher, Purple Strategies’ managing partner for research, said “Nonetheless it is also the first sign of positive momentum for the Romney campaign that we’ve seen in the PurplePoll in the last few months.”
According to Purple’s figures, Romney is up by three percentage points in Virginia, two in Ohio and one in Florida. Obama leads by three points in Colorado. The polls were conducted among 600 likely voters in each state with a margin of error of 4 points.
The overall figures show that Obama and Romney are neck and neck in how the voters see them. The president has a 47 percent approval rate with 49 percent disapproving. Romney’s figures are 45 percent in favor and 48 percent against.
But Ryan holds a significant lead over Vice President Joe Biden in the same category. His figures are 45 percent in favor and 39 percent against, while Biden’s are 41 percent in favor and 48 percent against.
On other questions:
• Obama and Biden hold a double digit lead when it comes to which team will better protect Medicare — except in senior-heavy Florida where they only have a single-point advantage over Romney and Ryan;
• The Romney team wins in all four states when respondents are asked which will bring “real change” to Washington;
• Voters still believe that the economy is getting worse with more than 40 percent in all four states giving that option rather than getting better or staying the same;
• The vast majority of voters — 90 percent or higher in each state _ have already made up their mind which way they will vote in November;
• Voters are evenly divided about the Romney-Ryan budget plans with roughly half in each state believing it will reduce the deficit and help the economy with the other half thinking it will bring tax breaks for the rich and end Medicare.
“While the inclusion of Paul Ryan has provided positive movement for the ticket overall, a debate about Medicare reform appears likely to harm the GOP ticket in the longer term,” said Usher.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/romney-ryan-swing-states/2012/08/16/id/448753
-
And leading in Wisconsin.
LANDSLIDE COMING
-
Poll: Ryan Bump Gives Romney Lead in Swing States Ohio, Fla., Va.
Thursday, 16 Aug 2012
By Martin Gould
Mitt Romney is leading in three of the four most crucial swing states according to a series of new polls released late Wednesday.
The surveys from Purple Strategies — which covers only so-called “purple” states, those neither strongly red Republican nor blue Democrat — puts the GOP contender up in Ohio, Florida and Virginia, but has President Barack Obama leading in Colorado.
However, all four polls put the two candidates within three percentage points of each other, showing just how close the race for the White House has become.
Urgent: Does Paul Ryan Really Help Defeat Obama? Vote in Exclusive Poll
The polls are the first comprehensive surveys to have been conducted since Romney chose Paul Ryan as his running mate and suggest he has received a small positive bump from his selection.
Daily tracking polls from both Rasmussen Reports and Gallup also put Romney slightly ahead nationally, although the RealClearPolitics conglomerate Poll of Polls — which does not include the Purple Poll as it was not conducted nationally — still has Obama with a three-point lead.
Overall, the four Purple polls taken together show Romney with a single-point lead of 47 percent to 46, reversing July’s figures when Obama led by 47 percent to 45.
Purple Strategies said Romney has received a huge boost among independent voters, now holding an 11 percentage point lead in that group, up from five points in July.
“Taken as a whole, these data indicate a small bump in the immediate aftermath of the Ryan announcement,” Doug Usher, Purple Strategies’ managing partner for research, said “Nonetheless it is also the first sign of positive momentum for the Romney campaign that we’ve seen in the PurplePoll in the last few months.”
According to Purple’s figures, Romney is up by three percentage points in Virginia, two in Ohio and one in Florida. Obama leads by three points in Colorado. The polls were conducted among 600 likely voters in each state with a margin of error of 4 points.
The overall figures show that Obama and Romney are neck and neck in how the voters see them. The president has a 47 percent approval rate with 49 percent disapproving. Romney’s figures are 45 percent in favor and 48 percent against.
But Ryan holds a significant lead over Vice President Joe Biden in the same category. His figures are 45 percent in favor and 39 percent against, while Biden’s are 41 percent in favor and 48 percent against.
On other questions:
• Obama and Biden hold a double digit lead when it comes to which team will better protect Medicare — except in senior-heavy Florida where they only have a single-point advantage over Romney and Ryan;
• The Romney team wins in all four states when respondents are asked which will bring “real change” to Washington;
• Voters still believe that the economy is getting worse with more than 40 percent in all four states giving that option rather than getting better or staying the same;
• The vast majority of voters — 90 percent or higher in each state _ have already made up their mind which way they will vote in November;
• Voters are evenly divided about the Romney-Ryan budget plans with roughly half in each state believing it will reduce the deficit and help the economy with the other half thinking it will bring tax breaks for the rich and end Medicare.
“While the inclusion of Paul Ryan has provided positive movement for the ticket overall, a debate about Medicare reform appears likely to harm the GOP ticket in the longer term,” said Usher.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/romney-ryan-swing-states/2012/08/16/id/448753
-
GALLUP DAILY
Aug 13-15, 2012 – Updates daily at 1 p.m. ET; reflects one-day change
Obama Approval
44%
-1
Obama Disapproval
50%
+1
Presidential Election
Romney
47%
-
Obama
45%
-
7-day rolling average
ddddduuuhhhhooooooo!!!!!!!
-
GALLUP DAILY
Aug 13-15, 2012 – Updates daily at 1 p.m. ET; reflects one-day change
Obama Approval
44%
-1
Obama Disapproval
50%
+1
Presidential Election
Romney
47%
-
Obama
45%
-
7-day rolling average
ddddduuuhhhhooooooo!!!!!!!
youre one of those kids that have never played any sports... this post sums it up
-
youre one of those kids that have never played any sports... this post sums it up
hhhmmmm -
All American Hammer Thrower in high school.
Top Hammer Thrower in NYS jr and Sn years in HS
Farthest throw in the Discus in my county Sr ywear HS.
3 years Kykoshin Karate
1 year BJJ
4 years my current art.
5 bodybuilding shows
Just to name a few. Yeah - no sports for me buddy.
-
10 years NFL
5 years NHL
4 years NBA
see where i'm going with this,you can be anybody you want on the internet :D :D :D
-
10 years NFL
5 years NHL
4 years NBA
see where i'm going with this,you can be anybody you want on the internet :D :D :D
Ask TA
-
(http://peoplescube.virtualestates.netdna-cdn.com/images/Ryan_Math_Force_Field.jpg)
-
(http://peoplescube.virtualestates.netdna-cdn.com/images/Ryan_Math_Force_Field.jpg)
What math?
He is on record as saying he doesn't know the numbers... So apparently he doesn't DO math.
-
What math?
He is on record as saying he doesn't know the numbers... So apparently he doesn't DO math.
Obama's Debt Panel Commissioner Erkine Bowles disagrees with that
-
Obama's Debt Panel Commissioner Erkine Bowles disagrees with that
So now we are using Obama's people to verify that the Republican budget is mathematically factual?
-
hhhmmmm -
All American Hammer Thrower in high school.
Top Hammer Thrower in NYS jr and Sn years in HS
Farthest throw in the Discus in my county Sr ywear HS.
3 years Kykoshin Karate
1 year BJJ
4 years my current art.
5 bodybuilding shows
Just to name a few. Yeah - no sports for me buddy.
;D
-
hhhmmmm -
All American Hammer Thrower in high school.
Top Hammer Thrower in NYS jr and Sn years in HS
Farthest throw in the Discus in my county Sr ywear HS.
3 years Kykoshin Karate
1 year BJJ
4 years my current art.
5 bodybuilding shows
Just to name a few. Yeah - no sports for me buddy.
I was the first person from my hometown to place in a state chess tournament.
WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSSSSSSS SSSSSSSSHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
-
Free Republic
Browse · Search Pings · Mail News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.
No-bama 2012: Young voters fed up with economy
wnd.com ^
Posted on August 19, 2012 12:37:11 AM EDT by tsowellfan
Young voters – the ones who so notably turned out for Barack Obama in 2008 – are fed up with being unemployed, and many are beginning to turn against the president’s big-government solutions to America’s economic woes.
One group tracking this turnaround is Generation Opportunity, or GO, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that seeks to mobilize Americans aged 18-29 toward “real solutions” to joblessness and the flailing economy.
GO boasted this past week that its family of Facebook pages – with names like “We Like Small Government” and “Gas Prices Are too D— High” – have topped over 4 million “likes” and growing, fueled by a young demographic that polls show is increasingly disillusioned with Obama’s economic policies.
“Every day, young Americans search for meaningful, full-time jobs in a career of their choice and, instead, experience first-hand the stark reality imposed by the poor economy,” states Paul. T. Conway, president of GO and a former chief of staff of the U.S. Department of Labor. “Rather than resorting to pessimism, however, young adults are taking a harder look at who and what is creating barriers to economic opportunity...
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Only an abject fool would vote for Obama again.
-
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/08/19/niall-ferguson-on-why-barack-obama-needs-to-go.html
Wow. Libtards going to explode.
-
5 bodybuilding shows
BBing is not a sport. HTH.
-
BBing is not a sport. HTH.
As if that's the only thing I do. ::) ::).
Right now between my RushFit and Bas Rutten hybrid workouts I am in the best shape I have been almost ever.
-
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-campaign-was-trawling-warm-bodies-fill-half-empty-kick-rally_650295.html
LMFAO.
toto - it's not 2008 any more.
-
In the most shocking survey this election cycle, a poll released today finds Mitt Romney leading President Barack Obama by 14 percentage points among likely Florida voters.
Foster McCollum White & Associates, Baydoun Consulting and Douglas Fulmer & Associates, of Dearborn, Mich., questioned 1,503 likely Florida voters Friday and found Romney, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, leading Obama 54%-40%. The poll has a margin of error of +/-2.53%.
Although recent Florida polls have been trending slightly in Romney’s direction (+2% and +1% in the most recent surveys), the jaw-dropping 14-point gap is a shocker. Future polls will determine if this result is ahead of the curve or merely an outlier.
In the U.S. Senate race in Florida, the poll found Rep. Connie Mack IV, R-Fort Myers, leading incumbent Bill Nelson 51%-43%.
(Excerpt) Read more at news-press.net ...
TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Front Page News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; Click to Add Topic
-
In the most shocking survey this election cycle, a poll released today finds Mitt Romney leading President Barack Obama by 14 percentage points among likely Florida voters.
33, do you consider this poll to be an outlier?
(It is by definition - but I figured since you agreed with it, you'd let your emotions take over)
-
http://www.gallup.com/poll/154559/US-Presidential-Election-Center.aspx
Obama is in trouble.
-
http://www.colorado.edu/news/multimedia/cu-study-says-analysis-election-factors-points-romney-win
Ddduuuhhhoooooo!
-
University of Colorado model predicts Romney win in November
The Washington Times ^ | 22 Aug 2012 | Valerie Richardson
Posted on August 22, 2012 8:53:53 PM EDT by mandaladon
DENVER — A University of Colorado economic model that has correctly predicted the last eight presidential elections shows Mitt Romney emerging as the victor in 2012.
Ken Bickers, professor of political science at the University of Colorado Boulder, and Michael Berry, political science professor at the University of Colorado Denver, announced Wednesday that their state-by-state analysis shows the Republican capturing a majority of electoral votes.
"Based on our forecasting model, it becomes clear that the president is in electoral trouble," said Mr. Bickers, who also serves as director of the CU in DC Internship Program.
The results show President Obama winning 218 votes in the Electoral College, well short of the 270 required for victory. While the study focuses on the electoral vote, the professors also predict that Mr. Romney will win 52.9 percent of the popular vote to Mr. Obama's 47.1 percent when considering only the two major political parties.
The analysis factors in a host of economic data, including state and national unemployment figures and changes in real per capita income.
"What is striking about our state-level economic indicator forecast is the expectation that Obama will lose almost all of the states currently considered as swing states, including North Carolina, Virginia, New Hampshire, Colorado, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida,” Mr. Bickers said.
While noneconomic factors such as incumbency can play a role in the election's outcome, the professors found that there was no statistical advantage conferred by the location of the party's national convention, the home state of the vice-presidential candidate, or the party affiliation of state governors.
Read more: University of Colorado model predicts Romney win in November - Washington Times
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
-
Abe Lincoln ;)
-
Academic model: Romney will take 52.9% of the vote, 320 electoral votes
HotAir ^ | 08/22/2012 | Allahpundit
Posted on August 22, 2012 9:01:28 PM EDT by nhwingut
Three reasons why: Economy, economy, economy.
Supposedly, the model’s been accurate to within 20 or so electoral votes in every election since 1980. Dude?
Using a state-by-state analysis of unemployment and per-capita income, academics Kenneth Bickers and Michael Berry of the University of Colorado project that Romney will win 52.9% of the popular vote and 320 electoral votes. The political scientists discuss their findings here.
Their forecast suggests that President Obama will lose in almost all of the swing states, including North Carolina, Virginia, New Hampshire, Colorado, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida…
Bickers said much of the polling thus far means relatively little, with much of the electorate still not focused on the race. The academics said their model focuses on the preeminent issue of the economy. Applied retrospectively, the model predicts the correct winner in every presidential contest going back to 1980, they said.
I’m highly skeptical that Romney’s going to come back to take Pennsylvania, even though O’s lead there right now isn’t prohibitive. But like the man says, the model’s usually off by 20 or so EVs. Number of electoral votes Pennsylvania has this year: 20. Golden.
Meanwhile, in the poll of polls…
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
-
Barack Obama’s unserious re-election campaign
By U-T San Diego Editorial Board
Monday, August 20, 2012
With 11 weeks until Election Day, President Barack Obama’s desperation couldn’t be plainer. He wants the campaign to be about anything other than his record, starting with the failure of the $787 billion “stimulus” plan to revive the economy and the deeply unpopular, vastly expensive and utterly flawed botch that is Obamacare.
The most substantive remarks about policy the president typically makes are to reinforce his class-warfare themes by talking about his eagerness to let the Bush tax cuts expire on Dec. 31 for single earners making more than $200,000 a year and families making more than $250,000. Obama depicts this as crucial to bringing the immense federal budget deficit under control. His stump speech emphasizes that unless you agree with him, “you’re not serious about deficit reduction.”
But according to FactCheck.org, a nonpartisan research center run by the Annenberg Public Policy Center, the Obama White House itself says that letting income taxes go up for the wealthy and restoring the estate tax to 2009 levels would reduce the projected $1.2 trillion federal deficit for 2012 by less than 9 percent. Remember, these are the president’s own numbers, and they predict average annual additional revenue of $96.8 billion per year over the next decade if he gets his way.
In other words, letting tax breaks for the wealthy expire doesn’t come close to changing the trajectory of trillion-dollar annual deficits that have the U.S. well on its way to federal budgets in which one-quarter of all spending is just to retire interest on the debt. So much for Obama’s February 2009 vow to cut the deficit in half and to take “responsibility right now, in this administration, for getting our spending under control.”
What would change this trajectory? Two things: 1) an overhaul of entitlement programs for the elderly to contain costs; and 2) a reform of the federal tax and regulatory codes that would encourage job growth and unfetter the free-market economy to work its magic.
Guess who used to agree with the first point and partly agree with the second point? Barack Obama.
But now he’s using the time-dishonored Democratic tradition of telling elderly voters that Republicans want them to die and the more specific new tradition of inferring that GOP rival Mitt Romney’s tax reform proposals are motivated by Romney’s desire to cut his own taxes.
This needs to change. We need to have a substantive debate about the deficit, about entitlements, about how to turn the tax code into an economic engine.
But here’s why that won’t happen: If the president took responsibility, right now, for his record – for the gap between his promises and what he’s accomplished – the election would be over.
Instead, the president believes his unpopularity stems from the failures of others. The last president. House Republicans. Voters who can’t figure out how wonderful he’s been.
This list keeps growing. On Aug. 7, The New York Times reported that Obama didn’t care for the mainstream media coverage of him. And on Monday, Politico reported Obama was down on some members of his campaign team and administration over the state of his re-election campaign.
It’s not his fault, you see. It never is.
Print page
© Copyright 2012 The San Diego Union-Tribune, LLC. An MLIM LLC Company. All rights reserved.
-
(http://thepeoplescube.com/peoples_resource/image/thumb/14552)
-
Kazan you are cracking me up dude. ;D
-
Looks like a pretty big "Ryan bounce" in this poll.
Fox News poll: Race for the White House tightens
By Dana Blanton
Published August 23, 2012
FoxNews.com
Less than a week before the Republican convention begins, the race for the White House is a virtual tie. According to a Fox News poll of likely voters, the Mitt Romney-Paul Ryan ticket receives the backing of 45 percent, while the Barack Obama-Joe Biden ticket garners 44 percent.
The poll, released Thursday, is the first Fox has conducted among likely voters this year, which means an apples-to-apples comparison can’t be made to previous polls. Likely voters are eligible/registered voters who will most likely cast a ballot in this year’s presidential election.
This is also the first Fox poll to ask about the top and bottom of the major party tickets: Democrats Obama and Vice President Joe Biden against Republicans Romney and Paul Ryan. Romney announced his vice presidential pick of Wisconsin Rep. Ryan on August 11.
Both tickets have already gained the support of many of their key voting blocs. Romney has the edge among white Evangelical Christians (70-18 percent), white voters (53-36 percent), married voters (51-38 percent), men (48-40 percent) and seniors (50-41 percent).
Obama has the advantage among black voters (86-6 percent), women (48-42 percent), lower income households (53-35 percent), young voters (48-39 percent) and unmarried voters (55-34 percent).
Independents back Romney by 42-32 percent (one in four is undecided). Independents were vital to Obama’s 2008 victory, backing him over Republican John McCain by 52-44 percent (Fox News exit poll).
About one voter in ten is undecided or says they’ll vote for someone other than Obama and Romney. Among just those voters, 55 percent disapprove of the job Obama is doing and only 17 percent think the country has changed for the better in the last four years.
Among undecided voters Romney is viewed more negatively than positively by 28 percentage points, while Obama is viewed more negatively by 12 points.
The poll shows Romney supporters are more enthusiastic. By an 11 percentage-point margin the challenger’s backers are more likely to be “extremely” interested in the election, and by 10 points they’re more likely to think it’s “extremely” important their candidate wins.
Meanwhile, voters think neither candidate is sticking to the high road. Small majorities say Romney (58 percent) and Obama (57 percent) will say and do just about anything to win in November.
On the big issue of last week, slightly more voters trust the Democratic ticket (by three points) to do a better job protecting Medicare and ensuring it’s there for future generations.
When asked who they trust to improve the economy and create jobs, voters favor the Republican ticket by two points -- a surprisingly slim margin in light of President Obama’s negative ratings on the issue.
By 54-42 percent, more voters disapprove than approve of Obama’s handling of the economy. His overall job performance stands at 46 percent approve and 50 percent disapprove.
In addition, by a 17-point margin voters say the country has changed for the worse in the last four years rather than for the better (46-29 percent). One in four says it hasn’t changed much either way.
A slightly larger number of voters say they will be more confident their financial situation will improve if Romney (38 percent) is elected than if Obama is re-elected (33 percent). Still, majorities don’t have confidence things will get better for their family either way.
All in all, 51 percent of likely voters view Obama favorably and 46 percent unfavorably. For Romney it’s 49 percent favorable and 44 percent unfavorable.
The vice presidential running mates are on roughly equal footing with each other. Some 46 percent of voters have a favorable opinion of Biden, while 45 percent view Ryan positively. One in five likely voters isn’t familiar enough with Ryan yet to have an opinion.
By a 10-point margin, voters are more likely to say Ryan than Biden is the “stronger” vice presidential candidate. Even so, voters are just as likely to say they would feel “comfortable” with Biden (45 percent) as with Ryan (46 percent) if they had to step in as president
Obama’s favorable rating is down six points and Biden’s is down nine points from the favorable ratings they had when elected in November 2008.
Still, none of the current slate of candidates can match the former first couple. About two-thirds of voters have a favorable opinion of former President Bill Clinton (65 percent) and Sec. of State Hillary Clinton (64 percent).
And lastly, by a wide 46-point margin, voters think most members of the media want Obama (61 percent) to win the election rather than Romney (15 percent).
The Fox News poll is based on live telephone interviews on landlines and cell phones from August 19 to August 21 among 1,007 randomly-chosen likely voters nationwide. Likely voters are registered voters who are considered most likely to vote in the November presidential election. The poll is conducted under the joint direction of Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R). For the total sample, it has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/23/fox-news-poll-race-for-white-house-tightens/
-
Fox News poll of likely voters: Romney 45, Obama 44 (D+4 Sample)
Hotair ^ | 08/23/2012 | AllahPundit
Posted on August 23, 2012 7:48:37 PM EDT by SeekAndFind
Decent sample too: D+4, although I think actual turnout on election day might be a smidge narrower than that.
Romney leads by nine points among seniors and by 10 points among independents, and Romney voters are 11 points more likely to be "extremely" interested in the election than Obama supporters and 10 points more likely to say it's "extremely" important that their candidate wins. Second look at optimism?
About one voter in ten is undecided or says they’ll vote for someone other than Obama and Romney. Among just those voters, 55 percent disapprove of the job Obama is doing and only 17 percent think the country has changed for the better in the last four years.
Among undecided voters Romney is viewed more negatively than positively by 28 percentage points, while Obama is viewed more negatively by 12 points…
On the big issue of last week, slightly more voters trust the Democratic ticket (by three points) to do a better job protecting Medicare and ensuring it’s there for future generations.
When asked who they trust to improve the economy and create jobs, voters favor the Republican ticket by two points --- a surprisingly slim margin in light of President Obama’s negative ratings on the issue.
The good news is that the remaining undecideds out there take a dim view of The One’s presidency — unsurprisingly, or else they wouldn’t be undecided, right? The bad news is that Romney isn’t closing the deal yet. His favorable rating among them is gruesome, and among the overall electorate that’s a depressingly thin lead on the economy. But maybe that’s out of his hands: Some chunk of voters is surely still reserving judgment on O’s economic performance, waiting to see if there are any signs of real growth before election day. If he gets two more bad jobs reports, Romney’s margin on that question will open without him needing to utter a word.
As for Medicare, see why I said in the last post that it bears watching seniors vs. near-seniors?
It’s a 10-point swing from ages 55-64 to ages 65 and up. The only reason Obama leads on the Medicare question overall is because of the insanity of the under-35 group, a lower-turnout demographic. In fact, here’s the age breakdown on the question, “How important is it to you that the presidential candidate you are supporting win the election?”
Older, pro-Republican voters (as noted above, Romney leads by nine among seniors) are considerably more motivated than younger, pro-Obama ones (O leads by 13 among voters under age 35). Makes me wonder what sort of desperate youth pander The One might have waiting for September. Student-loan forgiveness, here we come!
One more data point for you. The first column is “fair,” the second “unfair”:
-
Kazan you are cracking me up dude. ;D
he's cracking up all right...
-
Strassel: The Silent Second-Term Agenda
Despite the Democrats' shellacking in 2010, the president moved left. Re-election in November will reinforce his view that he was correct to do so.
By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL
President Obama has a reputation for talking, but not necessarily for saying much. He has achieved new levels of vagueness this election season. Beyond repeating that he's in favor of making the "rich" pay for more government "investment," he hasn't offered a single new idea for a second term. This is deliberate.
The core of the Obama strategy is to make Americans worry that whatever Mitt Romney does, it will be worse. That's a harder case for Mr. Obama to make if he is himself proposing change. And so the Obama pitch is that this election is a choice between stability (giving Mr. Obama four more years to let his policies finally work) and upheaval (giving Mr. Romney four years to re-ruin the nation).
The pitch is profoundly dishonest. While the choice between four more years of Obama status quo and Mr. Romney is certainly vivid, it isn't accurate. The real contrast is between Mr. Romney's and Mr. Obama's future plans. And while the president hasn't revealed what those plans are, there is plenty of evidence for what a second term would look like.
Let's dispense with the obvious: An Obama second term will be foremost about higher taxes and greater spending. The president has been clear about the former and will consider victory in November a mandate to raise taxes on higher-income Americans and small businesses—at the least.
Meanwhile, no matter how the coming budget sequester sorts out, nobody should forget why it came into being: It was the result of Mr. Obama's refusal to consider any real changes to Social Security or Medicare. There will be no reason to budge in a second term. Absent reform to these drivers of debt, and given Mr. Obama's ambitions to further "invest" in education, energy and infrastructure, a second term means proposals for even broader and bigger tax hikes—and not just for his favorite targets. Continued and growing deficits are likely as well.
Enlarge Image
Coughlin/ZUMAPRESS.com
The president greets well-wishers at Kennedy International Airport, Aug. 22.
.
Presidents often use re-election to revive leftover policy objectives. A New Yorker magazine article in June noted: "The President has said that the most important policy he could address in his second term is climate change." Such an unpopular policy focus might seem crazy if Republicans hold the House, but then again Mr. Obama will want an issue where he can press his advantage and blame an obstinate GOP. The president has to date been unconcerned by how his agenda hurts congressional Democrats; he's unlikely to begin caring once he has been re-elected.
Yet since the probable outcome of his approach would be continued gridlock, his real efforts will be devoted to fine-tuning the regulatory apparatus he has designed specifically to go around Congress—as the administration has done the past two years. The Environmental Protection Agency in particular will resurrect rules it delayed implementing before the election (see: costly ozone regulations) and move to take over new areas like natural-gas fracking.
The same goes for other agencies, from the Labor Department to the Securities and Exchange Commission. The National Labor Relations Board will continue to cement union dominance over employers. The Solyndras will continue. What Mr. Obama cannot accomplish via regulation, he will attempt through executive order—much as he did with his recent immigration directive.
Most voters understand that a second Obama term means the continuation of ObamaCare and the Dodd-Frank financial regulations. But there is also the carte blanche that re-election will give the president to supercharge those laws, which are only now entering key rulemaking periods. The same Obama appointees who have already taken vast liberties with these laws (see: HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius's ObamaCare slush fund) will be crafting the new regulations. The bureaucrats will also have four more years to put in place key civil servants who can be counted on to keep the rules going even past an Obama administration.
It is likely the Supreme Court will offer up another vacancy, and Mr. Obama might finally have his chance to shift the balance of the court. A slew of appellate-court positions are also in limbo as the campaign proceeds; they would be filled by a second-term Obama.
Just as important are the things Mr. Obama will not do. His record gives no indication he will revive America's leadership in free trade. Nor is he likely to restore America's influence in the international arena. And so we will inch closer to a nuclear-armed Iran and the threats that the regime will pose to international peace and order.
None of this is hyperbole. Mr. Obama is open about his tax aims, is proud of his spending and has never apologized for his regulatory ambitions. Despite a shellacking in the midterms, he moved left, and a November victory will reinforce his sense that he was correct to do so.
While Democrats will take careful pains in coming convention weeks to avoid outlining the president's intentions, they are sitting in plain sight. The real choice this fall will be between Mitt Romney's reform agenda and a Supersized Obama. No wonder the Democrats are keeping mum.
Write to kim@wsj.com
-
Free Republic
Browse · Search Pings · Mail News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.
40 Reasons Not To Re-Elect Barack Obama
Townhall.com ^ | August 24, 2012 | John Hawkins
Posted on August 24, 2012 7:46:31 PM EDT by Kaslin
1) Obama took 700 billion dollars out of the Medicare program and put it into his wildly unpopular health care program. This is despite the fact that even Obama has admitted,
Medicare in particular will run out of money, and we will not be able to sustain that program no matter how much taxes go up.
Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan will put that money back into the Medicare program where it belongs, while Obama won't.
2) Barack Obama's stimulus plan cost more than the Marshall Plan, the Louisiana Purchase, and putting a man on the moon — combined and it was a complete and utter failure -- more than 800 billion dollars that accomplished nothing of significance.
3) If Barack Obama is re-elected, Obamacare will go into effect in 2014. This will lead to huge doctor shortages, exploding health care costs, companies dropping insurance, death panels, much longer waits to see a doctor, and a dramatic deterioration in the quality of American medical care.
4) Do you believe that your taxes should go up in the next four years? Well, Barack Obama does,
"Nobody’s looking to raise taxes right now. We’re talking about potentially 2013 and the out years." — Barack Obama
5) Even the left-wingers at Politifact admit that Obama broke his promise to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term.
6) America lost its AAA credit rating for the first time since 1917 on Obama's watch.
7) Even though Barack Obama keeps blaming do-nothing Republicans for his myriad of failures, the Republicans in the House have passed multiple budgets while Barack Obama and the Democrats in the Senate haven't pushed a budget through in the last three years. That's a big deal because passing a budget is one of the most basic duties of Congress. A Congress that can't pass a budget is like a mechanic who can't handle an oil change.
8) Barack Obama called George Bush "unpatriotic" for adding so much to the debt. Yet, Obama added more debt in 3 years and 2 months than Bush did in both terms.
9) "Do you think it’s okay for Barack Obama’s campaign contributors at Solyndra to receive a 535 million dollar government loan, approved by one of Obama’s fundraisers, even though it was known that the company was in trouble and there was an excellent chance it wouldn’t be able to pay back the loan?"
10) Barack Obama is touting his interference on behalf of his union cronies at General Motors and Chevrolet as a big "success." The cost of that "success" for the taxpayers? 25 billion dollars.
11) Obama selected Tim Geithner, a man who was a tax cheat, to be his Treasury Secretary. That's bad enough, but then Obama spent his whole first term lobbying for tax increases and accusing other people of being greedy for wanting to keep more of their own money. When even the Treasury Secretary refuses to willingly pay all of his taxes, maybe the problem is that you're spending too much, not taxing the American people too little.
12) Under the "Cash for Clunkers" program, Obama spent 3 billion so he could buy and destroy perfectly functional cars. This was mind-numbingly stupid, but it was supposed to at least cause a major spike in auto sales and improve gas efficiency. The program is now almost universally recognized as a failure on every count.
13) Barack Obama put an end to NASA's manned space flight. In other words, because of Obama we no longer even have the same capabilities that we had in 1969. Meanwhile, NASA Administrator Charles Bolden says the "foremost" mission of NASA is now Muslim outreach. Yes, really.
14) Despite the fact that Obama had a disastrous first term, he hasn't even put forth a second term agenda. After one of the worst four year runs of any President in American history, Obama's message to the voters is, "Trust my judgment when it comes to deciding what we'll do differently."
15) "If you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, ‘Well, it must be ’cause I was just so smart.’ There are a lot of smart people out there. ‘It must be because I worked harder than everybody else.’ Let me tell you something: If you’ve got a business, that–you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.” -- Barack Obama
16) After BP had a massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, Obama exacerbated the crisis and dramatically slowed down the clean-up with his incompetent handling of the whole affair. Obama performed so poorly that even James Carville and Chris Matthews were publicly criticizing him.
17) "No, no. I have been practicing…I bowled a 129. It’s like — it was like Special Olympics, or something." — Barack Obama. Classy!
18) We were told that George W. Bush was a cowboy who was making the world hate us. Yet, as Chuck Norris notes,
The Washington Times reports that, according to a poll by even two left-leaning groups, “A majority of Americans say the United States is less respected in the world than two years ago and believe President Obama and other Democrats fall short of Republicans on the issue of national security.”
In February 2012, Gallup reported that “Americans continue to express much greater dissatisfaction than satisfaction with the United States’ position in the world, and their views have improved little since hitting a low point in 2008.”
19) "But I don’t want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking. I want them to get out of the way so we can clean up the mess. I don’t mind cleaning up after them, but don’t do a lot of talking." — Barack Obama. In 2008, Barack Obama ran as a moderate, bipartisan reformer who was going to change the tone in Washington. He has governed as a hyper-partisan, arrogant, divisive, polar opposite of the man he pretended to be in 2008.
20) Although liberals and conservatives disagree on who's to blame for Obama's poor performance as President, there seems to be general agreement that he hasn't done very well. Of course, you can't tell Obama that.
Oprah: What grade would you give yourself, for this year?
Obama: Um, good solid B+
…Oprah: So B+, what could you have done better?
Obama: Well B+ because of the things that are undone. Health care is not yet signed. If I get health care passed we tip into A minus.
21) Despite claiming to be in favor of traditional marriage to get elected, Barack Obama betrayed Christians by coming out in favor of gay marriage.
22) The First Amendment rights of the Catholic Church are being violated under Obamacare. Despite its long recognized religious opposition to contraceptives and abortifacients, Obama is demanding that Catholic hospitals go against their faith to remain open. Every last Catholic bishop in the United States opposes Obama's anti-Christian policy and it will likely lead to numerous Catholic hospitals shutting down if Obama is re-elected.
23) Barack Obama despicably played the race card by telling Hispanic Americans that Republicans were their "enemies."
And if Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, we’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us, if they don’t see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election, then I think it’s gonna be harder – and that’s why I think it’s so important that people focus on voting on November 2.
The President of the United States shouldn't be trying to pit different groups of Americans against each other based on the color of their skin.
24) "The Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home. . . . What I think we know — separate and apart from this incident — is that there is a long history in their country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately, and that’s just a fact." — Barack Obama on the arrest of his friend, Henry Louis Gates.
25) The "Justice Department" helped put guns in the hands of drug cartels via Operation Fast and Furious that were used to kill hundreds of Mexican citizens and at least one American, Brian Terry. After stonewalling a congressional investigation, Barack Obama asserted executive privilege to try to keep the truth from coming out about the biggest scandal since Watergate.
26) We essentially have an open borders policy in America now for illegal aliens who haven't committed felonies in the United States.
27) Barack Obama is illegally trying to implement the DREAM Act by fiat, despite the fact that it failed to get through Congress.
28) The fence on our southern border was supposed to be completed in 2009. Not only has it not been completed, but the virtual fence has been put off until at least 2016.
29) Because Barack Obama is so out of touch, he thinks that "the private sector is doing fine.".
30) Obama has blocked the keystone pipeline and ANWR while he has held up offshore drilling in the Gulf and demonized oil companies. It's hard to say how much more you're paying at the pump because of Barack Obama, but we can be sure the amount is considerable.
31) In 2011, nearly 1 in 7 Americans were on food stamps. Is setting a record for putting the most Americans on food stamps really the sort of achievement that should merit a second term?
32) Despite the billions of dollars that were spent on TARP, U.S. home ownership is at a decade long low. So is the number of Americans who say their home is worth more than they paid for it. Home prices are the lowest they’ve been since 2002.
33) The staggering cost of the new regulations that the Obama Administration has implemented on American businesses over the last 3 1/2 years? 84 billion dollars.
34) Obama sent BILLIONS of dollars of YOUR TAX DOLLARS overseas as part of the stimulus package. The stimulus may have been a complete failure here in America, but I'm sure the companies in China, Spain, and South Korea sure loved pocketing our money.
35) In a more competent administration, what happened with Johnson Controls, Inc would have been a big scandal. That company was given 300 million dollars of stimulus money and used it to create.....150 jobs. That's 2 million dollars per job created. Unfortunately, the Obama Administration has performed so poorly, in so many ways, that this minor disaster has barely even been a blip on the radar.
36) George W. Bush started the TARP program, but Barack Obama supported the program, continued it, and made it worse. The cost of bailing out all those "too big to fail" fatcats who wanted capitalism on the way up and socialism on the way down? At least 34 billion dollars of taxpayer money although that dramatically understates the real cost because many banks paid back the TARP money with other funds that they received from the government.
37) We've had the longest streak of above 8% unemployment under Barack Obama since the Great Depression. Meanwhile, according to the Obama Administration, his stimulus bill was supposed to have produced 5.6% unemployment by now.
38) The terrible jobless numbers don't really give you a sense of how badly Obama has done as President because those who quit looking for jobs are no longer counted in the numbers. We've had the most rapid decline in labor force participation in recent history under Obama -- from 65.7% in 2009 to 63.7% in 2012.
39) Under Barack Obama's leadership, we've had the weakest economic recovery of any country, anywhere in the world since 1970
40) "Look, I’m at the start of my administration. One nice thing about the situation I find myself in is that I will be held accountable. You know, I’ve got four years. And, you know, a year from now I think people are going to see that we’re starting to make some progress. But there’s still going to be some pain out there. If I don’t have this done in three years, then there’s going to be a one-term proposition." -- Barack Obama on the economy in February of 2009
-
he's cracking up all right...
Yeah I'm cracking up ::) coming from the resident constitutional illiterate ::)
-
Listen, voters. It's none of your business that Romney believes that god is a 6 foot 2, flesh and blood man who lives on planet Kolob, believes Jesus was married three times, believes in wearing magic underwear and believes Mormons should baptize dead people. This is a man's religion, for the love of god! You just need to respect it and shut your mouths.
-
Listen, voters. It's none of your business that Romney believes that god is a 6 foot 2, flesh and blood man who lives on planet Kolob, believes Jesus was married three times, believes in wearing magic underwear and believes Mormons should baptize dead people. This is a man's religion, for the love of god! You just need to respect it and shut your mouths.
Lol. And we should not care about obamas horrible record right?
-
Listen, voters. It's none of your business that Romney believes that god is a 6 foot 2, flesh and blood man who lives on planet Kolob, believes Jesus was married three times, believes in wearing magic underwear and believes Mormons should baptize dead people. This is a man's religion, for the love of god! You just need to respect it and shut your mouths.
You know im not a Romney fan but the fairy tale they call the bible is not much better.
-
Yeah I'm cracking up ::) coming from the resident constitutional illiterate ::)
I have never ever seen you admit you were wrong about anything on this board..you just spout nonsense and when called out on it you don't even acknowledge the other guy might have a point..you just go forth with your rhetoric...
hope this helps...but I doubt it
-
I have never ever seen you admit you were wrong about anything on this board..you just spout nonsense and when called out on it you don't even acknowledge the other guy might have a point..you just go forth with your rhetoric...
hope this helps...but I doubt it
Yeah its non sense, but you can't refute it just post just wow...................
Now move along
-
Yeah its non sense, but you can't refute it just post just wow...................
Now move along
sigh... ::)
-
I'm a lifelong Democrat and I might vote for Romney
By Rob Taub
Published August 27, 2012
FoxNews.com
The Sunday breakfast conversation is always lively and usually about sports at the counter of the Highland’s Cafe at 85th Street and Third Avenue, in New York City. However, this week’s talk was all about politics and also extremely animated. The guy to my right had already struck up a conversation with another counter dweller and said: “I’ve always voted Democrat, but I’m worried about my business and Obama’s not showing me anything so I’m gonna give the other guy a chance.”
Like many disgruntled Democrats, he couldn’t utter the name Mitt Romney in public, but it was obvious who he was talking about. The consensus at the counter was clear: forget about social issues and other Republican agendas – we are scared to death about the economy.
The discussion focused on the fact that no one believed the federal government runs efficiently or effectively, so the idea of paying more in taxes to wasteful government agencies is like throwing gasoline on the fire instead of water.
I have conducted my own straw polls in various U.S. cities and I’ve yet to find anyone who believes our government is well run, except for President Obama.
-
I have conducted my own straw polls in various U.S. cities and I’ve yet to find anyone who believes our government is well run, except for President Obama.
Waste and mismanagement are the words frequently used to describe our federal government, yet I can’t recall the president ever championing or even discussing fiscal reform. Yes, Obama established a bipartisan commission in 2010 to address fiscal reform, but it’s not part of his campaign platform, despite deficit spending surpassing more than one trillion dollars per year.
I’ve been a registered voter for 38 years and I’ve always voted Democrat, straight down the line, but I’m unhappy with out of control spending and incompetent bureaucrats who seem to have no concern or regard about how they spend my hard-earned money.
There are many others like me on the fence – a socially liberal but fiscally concerned silent minority, who are close to or have already abandoned President Obama.
So far, rather than running on issues, President Obama has disappointed me by mounting a Karl Rove-style negative campaign.
I never thought it would happen, but for the second time in a week, I’m out in public talking about giving the other guy a chance.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/08/24/im-lifelong-democrat-and-might-vote-for-romney/?intcmp=obnetwork
-
Go watch 2016 - obama is INTENTIONALLY bankrupting us. He does not give one rats ass about this country.
I'm a lifelong Democrat and I might vote for Romney
By Rob Taub
Published August 27, 2012
FoxNews.com
The Sunday breakfast conversation is always lively and usually about sports at the counter of the Highland’s Cafe at 85th Street and Third Avenue, in New York City. However, this week’s talk was all about politics and also extremely animated. The guy to my right had already struck up a conversation with another counter dweller and said: “I’ve always voted Democrat, but I’m worried about my business and Obama’s not showing me anything so I’m gonna give the other guy a chance.”
Like many disgruntled Democrats, he couldn’t utter the name Mitt Romney in public, but it was obvious who he was talking about. The consensus at the counter was clear: forget about social issues and other Republican agendas – we are scared to death about the economy.
The discussion focused on the fact that no one believed the federal government runs efficiently or effectively, so the idea of paying more in taxes to wasteful government agencies is like throwing gasoline on the fire instead of water.
I have conducted my own straw polls in various U.S. cities and I’ve yet to find anyone who believes our government is well run, except for President Obama.
-
I have conducted my own straw polls in various U.S. cities and I’ve yet to find anyone who believes our government is well run, except for President Obama.
Waste and mismanagement are the words frequently used to describe our federal government, yet I can’t recall the president ever championing or even discussing fiscal reform. Yes, Obama established a bipartisan commission in 2010 to address fiscal reform, but it’s not part of his campaign platform, despite deficit spending surpassing more than one trillion dollars per year.
I’ve been a registered voter for 38 years and I’ve always voted Democrat, straight down the line, but I’m unhappy with out of control spending and incompetent bureaucrats who seem to have no concern or regard about how they spend my hard-earned money.
There are many others like me on the fence – a socially liberal but fiscally concerned silent minority, who are close to or have already abandoned President Obama.
So far, rather than running on issues, President Obama has disappointed me by mounting a Karl Rove-style negative campaign.
I never thought it would happen, but for the second time in a week, I’m out in public talking about giving the other guy a chance.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/08/24/im-lifelong-democrat-and-might-vote-for-romney/?intcmp=obnetwork
-
sigh... ::)
-
Go watch 2016 - obama is INTENTIONALLY bankrupting us. He does not give one rats ass about this country.
I'm probably going to watch it.
-
wow
Devastating
[ Invalid YouTube link ]
-
wow
Devastating
[ Invalid YouTube link ]
you do realise that a campaign commercial :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
-
wow
Devastating
[ Invalid YouTube link ]
Great ad, but I hope they can find more than a few people. They need more folks to appear in the ads.
-
you do realise that a campaign commercial :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
and show me McLame voters who will vote for Thulsa Doom this time around?
-
Romney takes lead over Obama with convention "bounce": Reuters/Ipsos poll
By Steve Holland
TAMPA, Florida | Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:37pm EDT
(Reuters) - Mitt Romney has moved into a narrow lead over U.S. President Barack Obama in a small bounce for him from the Republican National Convention, a Reuters/Ipsos poll found on Thursday.
Romney entered the week four points behind Obama in the first installment of a Reuters/Ipsos rolling poll, with Obama leading 46 percent to 42 percent.
But the most recent daily rolling poll gave Romney a two-point lead of 44 percent to 42 percent among likely voters.
The former governor of Massachusetts has been in the spotlight at the convention in Tampa, Florida, and was to make his acceptance speech on Thursday night in the biggest test of his White House bid.
Ipsos pollster Julia Clark said the poll results were proof that Romney is getting a positive outcome from the three-day Republican gathering.
"I'd say the convention is going very well for him," she said.
So-called convention "bounces" are typically short-lived. With Obama to accept his party's nomination for a second term next week at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina, the incumbent could quickly rebound.
But the poll was further evidence of an extremely close race between Romney and Obama as they seek to energize party activists and appeal to undecided voters in battleground states who could determine the outcome of the election on November 6.
The Reuters/Ipsos poll also found signs that Romney's likability rating is slowly improving among voters, two days after his wife, Ann, talked up her husband's personal attributes and declared, "This man will not fail."
While he still trails Obama by almost 20 points on likability, Romney is now at 30 percent for "likable," up from 26 percent on Monday.
And 32 percent reported Romney is a "good person," up from 29 percent on Monday. Obama still leads by 10 points in this category.
Clark said the improvement in polling on his personality traits is important because of how far he lags behind Obama in these areas.
"Any ground that he can gain on this is very critical," she said.
Romney, 65, is basing his campaign for defeating Obama on promises to improve the U.S. economy and reduce its 8.3 percent unemployment rate.
This continues to be Romney's strongest argument, as 76 percent of those polled said the U.S. economy is on the wrong track.
Voters remain split on Romney's vice presidential running mate, Paul Ryan, who delivered a stinging rebuke of Obama during a prime-time convention speech on Wednesday night.
The survey found 47 percent of registered voters had a favorable view of Ryan, compared to 53 percent unfavorable.
For the survey, a sample of 1,481 American registered voters was interviewed online. The precision of the Reuters/Ipsos online polls is measured using a credibility interval. In this case, the poll has a credibility interval of plus or minus 2.9 percentage points for all respondents.
(Editing by Alistair Bell and Jim Loney)
-
Romney leads Obama 16% among whites enough to win the election
The Examiner ^ | August 30, 2012 | Sahit Muja
Posted on August 30, 2012 10:26:55 PM EDT by 2ndDivisionVet
All latest election 2012 polls show Mitt Romney lead Obama average 16%. Gallup Romney 55% Obama 38%, CNN Romney 56 vs Obana 40% and NBC and WSJ Romney 55% vs Obama 40%.
The overwhelming majority of voters in The US are white which accounting for 72 percent of all people living in the United States.
Romney and GOP is offering solutions, Romney gain huge support among white voters after Joe Biden (D) playing the race card last week, stating "They'll put y'all in chains".
The speakers at GOP convention last night were terrific. The GOP is taking the high road by talking about the big issues and offering solutions rather than distractions.
The tone and the quality of the GOP convention will be a a stark contrast to the negativity, anger and extremism that will be in display in Charlotte NC next week.
I'm more interested in substance than style. Look where all of his flowery speeches have gotten us? We're worse off than we were four years ago, and are on the verge of a triple dip recession. Keep the pretty speeches and give me action to fixing the problems!.
Obama is all about rhetoric, but has yet to implement anything of substance to improve the economy.
Ryan's speech set forth the clearest distinctions between those who believe in free people and free markets and those who believe in central planning and redistribution.
Unfortunately, after 4 years of the "drip-drip" of leftist propaganda in schools, in the legacy media, and in Washington, all too many of our citizens are being manipulated, and have delegated their powers of reasoning to people they falsely call their "leaders," but who are in fact our "employees."
It's time to call out the left for advancing false narratives...
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
-
Hill Poll: Voters say second term undeserved, country is worse off
The Hill ^ | 09/04/12 | Sheldon Alberts
Posted on Tuesday, September 04, 2012 8:05:44 AM
A majority of voters believe the country is worse off today than it was four years ago and that President Obama does not deserve reelection, according to a new poll for The Hill.
Fifty-two percent of likely voters say the nation is in “worse condition” now than in September 2008, while 54 percent say Obama does not deserve reelection based solely on his job performance.
Only 31 percent of voters believe the nation is in “better condition,” while 15 percent say it is “about the same,” the poll found. Just 40 percent of voters said Obama deserves reelection.
The results highlight the depth of voter dissatisfaction confronting Obama as he makes his case for a second term at this week’s Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, N.C.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
-
Great ad. Same old lines.
-
Hill Poll: Voters say second term undeserved, country is worse off
The Hill ^ | 09/04/12 | Sheldon Alberts
Posted on Tuesday, September 04, 2012 8:05:44 AM
A majority of voters believe the country is worse off today than it was four years ago and that President Obama does not deserve reelection, according to a new poll for The Hill.
Fifty-two percent of likely voters say the nation is in “worse condition” now than in September 2008, while 54 percent say Obama does not deserve reelection based solely on his job performance.
Only 31 percent of voters believe the nation is in “better condition,” while 15 percent say it is “about the same,” the poll found. Just 40 percent of voters said Obama deserves reelection.
The results highlight the depth of voter dissatisfaction confronting Obama as he makes his case for a second term at this week’s Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, N.C.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
That's interesting... There was a CNN poll that had the exact reverse numbers... saying about 55% of the population thought they were better off.
-
That's interesting... There was a CNN poll that had the exact reverse numbers... saying about 55% of the population thought they were better off.
LOL - post the link and lets see the internals.
Every credible poll has 60 percent plus thinking we are on the wrong track with this disastrous regime in DC
-
History lessons: Romney vs. Obama
UPI.com ^ | 5 Sep 12 | Peter Morici
Posted on Thursday, September 06, 2012 1:52:05 PM
With the U.S. economy sputtering, President Barack Obama would like voters to believe he faces tougher challenges than any president since Franklin Roosevelt and needs two terms to turn things around.
Sadly, the president's problems are so daunting only because his policies aren't up to the task.
One need only look as far back as Ronald Reagan to find a fair but embarrassing comparison for Obama's special brand of statism.
In 1980, Americans were bearing double-digit interest rates and inflation, growing trade deficits on oil and with export juggernauts Japan and newly industrializing economies in Asia and stuck in a malaise of self-doubt quite similar to today.
Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, appointed in August 1979, pushed interest rates even higher to halt runaway inflation, the economy suffered two wrenching recessions and unemployment peaked at 10.8 percent just 22 months into the Reagan presidency.
The Reagan recovery package emphasized putting money and decision-making back into the hands of ordinary citizens and private businesses. Immediate tax cuts, followed by tax reform -- just three personal income tax rates, a top rate of 28 percent and fewer special breaks and loopholes.
He removed Carter-era policies that discouraged domestic oil production and aggressively sought to right-size regulation -- not slash and burn but retaining what was needed to keep business honest and foster competition and jettisoning the rest.
All strikingly similar to former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney's platform.
When Reagan faced voters in 1984, the economy was growing at 6.3 percent and unemployment was down to 7.3 percent -- it ultimately fell to 5 percent, as Old Dutch engineered a 92-month economic expansion.
Not satisfied to rest on his laurels, he pursued free trade, called to task Japan and others for undervalued currencies and negotiated the 1985 Plaza Accord, which increased the value of the yen by more than 50 percent and set the stage for export-led prosperity of the 1990s.
Similarly, Obama inherited an economy crippled by gaping trade deficits -- this time with China and again on oil -- and too much financial chicanery on Wall Street.
Sadly, Obama has avoided confronting China on currency manipulation and the deficit with the Middle Kingdom is up 50 percent since the recent recovery began.
Obama has limited offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, the North Slope of Alaska and Atlantic and Pacific coasts -- no surprise the petroleum trade deficit is up nearly 70 percent since the recovery began.
Every dollar that goes to China or for imported oil that does not return to buy U.S. exports is lost demand for U.S.-made goods and services and together those deficits are costing Americans 10 million jobs.
All this is exacerbated by Dodd-Frank financial reforms, whose bureaucratic burdens are forcing small banks to sell out to their larger brethren on Wall Street, where the deal making, sharp practices and gambling continue seemingly unabated.
Small businesses can't get loans and a day doesn't seem to pass that the financial media doesn't publish a story about federal and New York state regulators chasing some slippery scam or tax dodge begotten by Manhattan's big-bonus aristocracy.
As Obama faces the voters, the economy is growing at a 2.2 percent pace. Unemployment has fallen to 8.3 percent but only because so many adults have quit looking for work altogether. If the adult labor force participation rate was the same today as when Obama took office, the jobless rate would be 11 percent and most economists see little room for improvement on that sad record.
Listen to Romney closely -- he's offering Ronald Reagan's "Morning in America" all over again -- not a replay of the inept Bush administration, as Obama would have voters believe.
Encouraging individual initiative and entrepreneurs, an understandable tax system, producing more American oil, getting a fair deal for U.S. workers competing with China, lowering healthcare costs, and smarter regulation of Wall Street -- it all makes sense.
It's the smart choice.
--
(Peter Morici is an economist and professor at the Smith School of Business, University of Maryland, and widely published columnist.)
Read more: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Analysis/Outside-View/2012/09/05/Outside-View-History-lessons-Romney-vs-Obama/UPI-29801346842639/#ixzz25iGDIpD9
-
No sign of convention bounce for Obama: Reuters/Ipsos poll
Reuters ^
Posted on Thursday, September 06, 2012 4:30:40 PM by Arthurio
CHARLOTTE, North Carolina | Fri Sep 7, 2012 12:13am IST
(Reuters) - So far, U.S. President Barack Obama has not received much of a bounce yet in popular support from the Democratic National Convention, a Reuters/Ipsos poll found on Thursday.
The latest daily tracking poll found Republican Mitt Romney still clinging to a narrow lead of 45 percent to Obama's 44 percent among likely voters. Romney had led by 46 percent to 44 percent in Wednesday's poll.
"We're not seeing a sort of glimmer, at this point, of a bump," said Ipsos pollster Julia Clark.
The online survey included questions to voters on Wednesday before former President Bill Clinton's well-received speech on the convention floor, so Clinton's influence has not yet been taken into account.
Obama's wife, Michelle Obama, delivered an electrifying speech on Tuesday, and those polled for the Thursday poll would have had the chance to have heard her.
(Excerpt) Read more at in.reuters.com ...
-
Poll: Romney up 3 in Ohio, best showing since June
The Hill ^
Posted on Thursday, September 06, 2012 4:32:44 PM by Arthurio
Poll: Romney up 3 in Ohio, best showing since June
By Justin Sink - 09/05/12 08:25 PM ET
Mitt Romney has opened a 3-point lead in the pivotal swing state of Ohio, according to a new poll released Wednesday — the Republican nominee's best showing since June.
The Republican ticket garnered support of 47 percent of those surveyed, versus 43 percent for Democrats, according to a poll released by Gravis Marketing. President Obama has led consistently in the polls since June, although that lead has been usually within the margin of error.
Meanwhile, 10 percent of voters remain unsure in the pivotal contest, or say they would back a third-party candidate.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
-
Zogby: Obama’s Speech Didn’t Help Win Undecideds
Friday, 07 Sep 2012
By Patrick Hobin and John Bachman
President Barack Obama’s speech Thursday night was aimed to energize his supporters to work hard for the next two months, and undecided voters ignored both conventions and will only begin focusing on the race around the time of the debates, expert pollster John Zogby told Newsmax.TV in an exclusive interview.
Zogby, president of JZ Analytics, said Obama’s convention speech “is designed to preach to the choir.”
Watch the exclusive interview here.
“He needed the support and the enthusiasm of the people in the room,” Zogby said. “They needed a rationale for why they should be fired up and go out there and work very hard over the next two months. I was very surprised when I heard news leaks from someone that the president would be talking about specifics. That just is not the venue, you know. Whether it’s a 76,000 seat stadium or 25,000 seat convention hall, that’s just not built for PowerPoint and those kinds of presentations.”
Obama’s speech won’t help him outside his own party, however, according to Zogby.
“Remember we’ve got about 10 percent who are undecided, on the fence, and those are people who are not going to spend the couple of hours watching the Republican or the Democratic National Conventions just yet. They’ll start to focus right around the time of the debates,” he said.
Conventions are becoming less relevant with every election cycle, Zogby said, as reflected in the television coverage.
“No great decisions are made at the conventions,” he said. “The delegates are already lined up. They’re very well-rehearsed and, you know, you can tell by the demand driven major networks who are barely covering them at all. If there was a real desire, you know, on the part of the broad slots of the American people to watch these conventions, you’d see a lot more coverage.”
The new jobs report which shows the economy added 96,000 jobs and unemployment falling from 8.3 percent to 8.1 percent can be viewed two ways, Zogby said.
“Let’s just aggregate those numbers,” the political analyst said. “First of all, it’s 8.3 down to 8.1 and so for those who are just driving by and see it on the bumper sticker, see it very quickly, you can argue good news. For those who hear the term ’96,000 new jobs,’ well, from 4.5 million to now 4.6 million, that’s sort of the top line. That’s going to impress supporters, maybe some of those who are on the fence.”
“For those who are already disinclined to vote for Obama, or leaning against Obama, the interpretation will be well known, which is that jobs are not growing fast enough. Four hundred thousand or so who were in the work force left the work force and gave up. So there’s a little bit of both here for both sides. I suspect, though, that this jobs report doesn’t hurt the president.”
It will ultimately come down to how people feel, Zogby said.
“They’re both very important and, ultimately, it’s going to come down to how people feel and it’s not as simple or uncomplex as it sounds. You have almost two out of three who feel that the nation is headed in the wrong direction but then you also have a significant number who are saying, ‘But just who is Mitt Romney? Who is the GOP? Why should we entrust our vote to them?’ And so you have two actually flawed candidates and they spent a lot of time delineating each other’s flaws.”
Zogby said of Obama uses former President Bill Clinton judiciously, he could help sway undecided voters.
“Bill Clinton has a great way of communicating complex things to voters in a folksy, meaningful way,” Zogby said. “He tells the Obama story better than Obama tells his own story. So in that sense, number one, he set the table perfectly for the president’s speech last night, which, incidentally, was a very good speech. And then number two, if Clinton is used judiciously, not every day, not all day and not to everyone, but used judiciously to some key crowds and high profile events, he could be a tremendous help, particularly with undecided voters.”
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/zogby-obama-speech-election/2012/09/07/id/451104
-
Zogby: Romney Running Worse Than McCain in ‘08
Thursday, 13 Sep 2012
By David A. Patten
President Barack Obama received a surprisingly strong bounce after the Democratic National Convention, and now leads GOP challenger Mitt Romney by nearly 6 points according to a new JZ Analytics poll.
The national poll of likely voters shows Obama leading 47.7 percent to 42 percent, and indicates that Romney is not polling well enough among some conservative demographic groups: NASCAR fans, evangelicals, and the so-called “Walmart voters.”
According to JZ Analytics pollster John Zogby, Romney is in a somewhat worse position than GOP nominee Sen. John McCain was at this point in the 2008 campaign.
“Slightly worse, yes,” Zogby says. “But it’s also fair to say that he’s running against an incumbent who is not posting the greatest numbers in the world.”
Some conservative pundits contend Romney should have a substantial lead in light of the nation’s ongoing economic doldrums under Obama.
“That’s the question: Why isn’t Romney leading by 10 [points]?” Zogby says. “We can speculate on the answers, but that’s the right question.”
Zogby says Romney is not running as well as he should among certain voter segments. Romney leads Obama 53 to 37 percent among voters 65 and older, for example. But Zogby says “he’s going to have to do better” to win.
In a possible indication that Romney has yet to seal the deal with the GOP base, Zogby reports lackluster poll numbers among NASCAR voters, evangelicals, and frequent Walmart patrons -- groups that tend to be reliably conservative.
Romney leads Obama 48.4 to 44.6 percent among voters who shop weekly at Walmart. He narrowly trails Obama among self-identified NASCAR fans, 44 percent to 43 percent.
“That’s a number you would never expect to see,” comments Zogby.
Among “born again” voters, Romney leads Obama by 57 percent to 32 percent. That compares to the 73 percent of evangelical/”born again” voters McCain carried in 2008, according to the Pew Center on Religion and Public Life.
Zogby envisions plenty of opportunities for Romney to narrow the gap, however. Historically, rosy post-convention polls such as Obama’s soon fade after a couple of weeks.
“This 6 point lead, I think, is basking in a glow for Obama,” Zogby tells Newsmax. “It’s still very, very tight in the battleground states.”
Polls generally indicate Romney did not receive a significant boost from the GOP convention. According to Zogby, Romney’s bounce came earlier, when he named Wisconsin GOP Rep. Paul Ryan as his running mate.
The JZ Analytics interactive poll surveyed 1,041 likely voters on September 11 and 12, and has a 3.1 percent margin of error. Zogby says the results indicate Obama still must shore up several weaknesses in order to win.
For example, by a 54 to 34 point margin, voters surveyed say the nation is on the wrong track. And voters say Obama deserves to be re-elected by only a statistically insignificant margin, 46.3 to 45.8 percent.
Zogby also sees slippage for Obama among the so-called “creative class” – the 40 million voters who primarily trade in ideas, technology, intellectual property, and the arts. The poll shows Obama garnering about 53 percent of that vote, compared to over 60 percent in 2008.
Those voters could be decisive difference in swing states such as Colorado, Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia.
Zogby also describes Obama’s numbers as “anemic” among 18 to 29 year-olds. Only 53 percent of those younger voters said they would vote for Obama over Romney -- some 13 points less than Obama’s advantage among that demographic in 2008 against GOP standard bearer Sen. John McCain.
Unlike many pollsters, Zogby uses a polling technique that, at this stage of the election, does not prod undecided voters to name a choice after they initially respond that they are unsure. This may explain why the JZ Analytics poll shows over 10 percent of voters remain undecided – about twice the undecided segment measured in several other recent national polls.
If one in 10 voters is undecided, it would bode well for Romney. Undecided voters tend to break strongly for the challenger over the incumbent.
“He should be in better shape right now, but it’s still very competitive in the battleground states,” Zogby tells Newsmax. “But there are almost two months to go, and he’s running against an incumbent who has his own issues. So anything can happen.”
Other findings from the JZ Analytics poll:
· Romney appears to appeal to a surprising number of 18 to 29 year olds, who may be worried about the spiraling cost of the national debt and Medicare, says Zogby.
· Obama’s edge among African-American voters appears to be holding firm. “Blacks are going to vote heavily for Obama, they’re going to vote in large numbers,” he predicts.
· One in every five independent voters remains undecided. That suggests both candidates still have a lot of work today to win over the swing-voter segment.
· Romney leads Obama among white voters by 52 to 38 percent, according to the poll. McCain attracted over 55 percent of the white vote in 2008. “And we’re probably looking at a lower percentage of white voters this time than last time. So he’s got a double deficit there,” the pollster tells Newsmax.
http://www.newsmax.com/newswidget/romney-campaign-worse-mccain/2012/09/13/id/451773?promo_code=F492-1&utm_source=Newsmax&utm_medium=nmwidget&utm_campaign=widgetphase1
-
Zogby: Romney Running Worse Than McCain in ‘08
I have to believe that CONFIDENCE in Romney is higher than it was in McCain in 2008. He hasn't shown the erratic nature that mccain did. Palin was a very risky pick, suspending his campaign was huge, trying to cancel a debate, the series of moments where he didn't konw his campaign's position, the singing of "bomb iran" from a Presidential candidate....
Romney may not have any poll bounce, but he doesn't have any sink either. If dems don't show to vote, he wins. It's a "win by default" strategy, and I think it is way safer than mccain's strategy in 2008. Romney could never campaign or speak again until Nov, or campaign nonstop, and he'll be just about tied just the same.
-
Friday, September 14, 2012
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows Mitt Romney attracting support from 48% of voters nationwide, while President Obama earns 45% of the vote. Two percent (2%) prefer some other candidate, and five percent (5%) are undecided. See daily tracking history.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
-
Wasn't Johnson polling at 7% in some states?
Where do yall think his votes will go? He'll get 1-3%, but I surely see at least half his supporters choosing 1 of the 2 who can really win it.
-
Gallup: Convention Bounce Fades for Obama
Tuesday, 18 Sep 2012
By Henry J. Reske
The race for president has reverted to pre-convention numbers with President leading GOP challenger by one point in the latest Gallup tracking poll.
Before the Democratic Convention began Obama led Romney 47 to 46 percent among registered voters. Tuesday’s tracking poll showed the race had reverted to those numbers.
In the period after the convention Obama had stretched his lead to as much as seven points, leading Romney 50 to 43 percent.
Convention bounces are typically short-lived. Gallup reports that Romney received no convention bounce.
http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/obama-romney-election-polls/2012/09/18/id/456675
-
Rasmussen Poll: Romney Takes Lead in New Hampshire
Wednesday, 19 Sep 2012
Despite two days of negative coverage over his secretly videotaped remarks during a fundraiser in Florida, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has now taken the lead in the key swing state of New Hampshire, according to a new Rasmussen poll.
The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of likely voters in New Hampshire shows Romney with 48 percent support to President Obama’s 45 percent. Four percent prefer some other candidate, and three percent are undecided.
In June, Obama held a five-point lead over Romney in the Granite State, 48 percent to 43 percent, the polling firm pointed out in their remarks released Wednesday.
New Hampshire now shifts from “leans Obama’ to “toss-up” in the Rasmussen Reports Electoral College Projections.
Obama carried New Hampshire over Republican John McCain 54 percent to 45 percent in the 2008 election. Forty-nine percent (49 percent) of the state’s voters now approve of the job he is doing as president, while 51 percent disapprove. This includes 30 percent who strongly approve and 43 percent who strongly disapprove. This marks little change from June.
Romney, who served as governor of neighboring Massachusetts and was the winner of the state’s Republican Primary in January, is viewed favorably by 50 percent of all voters in the state. That’s up five points from June. But he’s also viewed unfavorably by 50 percent. This includes 32 percent with a very favorable opinion of him and 37 percent with a Very Unfavorable one.
This New Hampshire survey of 500 Likely Voters was conducted on September 18, 2012 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 4.5 percentage points with a 95 percent level of confidence.
The candidates are separated by three points or less when voters in the state are asked who they trust more on several major policy issues. The president is trusted more when it comes to health care and energy policy. Romney has the edge on the economy, taxes and national security.
This is comparable to the closeness of findings nationally, but while Romney has a seven-point lead in voter trust on the economy among voters nationwide, he has only a three-point advantage on that issue in New Hampshire.
Forty-five percent of New Hampshire voters now rate their personal finances as good or excellent, while 11 percent describe them as poor. Twenty-five percent say their finances are getting better, but 41 percent think they’re getting worse.
Romney has a 16-point lead among male voters in the state, while the president leads by nine among female voters. Most voters under 40 favor Obama, but the majority of their elders prefer his Republican challenger.
Both candidates draw strong support from voters in their respective parties. Romney edges Obama 45 percent to 43 percent among voters not affiliated with either of the major parties.
With the addition of New Hampshire, eight states are now Toss-Ups in the Rasmussen Reports Electoral College Projections: Romney also has the slight advantage in Colorado, Iowa, Missouri and Wisconsin; Obama has the edge in Florida, Virginia and Ohio.
Romney is ahead in North Carolina, Indiana, Montana and North Dakota. The president leads in Connecticut, Michigan, New Hampshire, Nevada, New Mexico and Pennsylvania.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/romney-takes-lead-new/2012/09/19/id/456780
-
.
-
Seriously doubt he wins NH, but no one really cares about that state and I believe CNNs map had him winning that already.
-
Club for Growth Refuses to Endorse Romney
Thursday, 20 Sep 2012
By Martin Gould
Mitt Romney’s faltering campaign was hit by more bad news on Thursday when one of the most reliably conservative groups on the political stage — The Club For Growth — made it clear it would not endorse him.
“He’s our only choice for the Republicans now, so we’re not going to criticize him,” Club president Chris Chocola said. “We’re going to hope he exceeds our expectations.”
Instead, Chocola told reporters during a breakfast meeting hosted by the Christian Science Monitor, his group will concentrate on helping Republican Senate candidates get elected.
Chocola pointed out that the Club had not endorsed anyone in the GOP presidential primaries, saying it was “not because we didn’t want to, but because there wasn’t a candidate that we thought we could recommend to our members.”
The winner of those primaries still does not fit that bill, he said. “It’s a mixed bag with Romney. That’s his problem. People don’t really know.
“He’s got a mixed record when it comes to our issues.”
Chocola, who served two terms in the House or Representatives from Indiana, said he does not know whether Romney is really a pro-growth conservative.
One of the Club’s main issues is Romney’s attack on free trade with China. ”He knows better,” Chocola said.
Chocola accepted that Romney’s record as governor of Massachusetts was “pretty good,” saying, “Spending went up 2.1 or 2.2 percent annually when he was governor.”
But Romney’s business background is more a hindrance than a help, Chocola suggested.
“The problem with business guys who run for office is they don’t really want to talk about themselves. They don’t want to try to convince you that they are great. They want to say look at all of the stuff I did.”
He said businesspeople are too worried about results, but in politics, “90 percent of what you do is look like you are doing something, 10 percent is actually doing something.”
“In business, 90 percent of what you do is actually doing something and the other 10 percent is maybe trying to spin it and convince people you are great. So business guys have a very hard time understanding why the results do not speak for themselves.
“They also don’t understand how nasty politics is and how you get attacked for things you never thought you would get attacked for and that really frustrates them.”
He said Romney has evolved somewhat but is still “the business guy who says, ‘Listen, just look at what I did and look at what the other guy did. This is easy.’
“Politics just doesn’t work that way.”
The Club did not formally endorse a candidate in the 2008 presidential race either. Among the Republican Senate candidates it is supporting this year are Richard Mourdock in Indiana, Jeff Flake in Arizona, and Ted Cruz in Texas.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/club-for-growth-romney/2012/09/20/id/456966
-
.
-
Battle for presidency remains close in new CNN poll
Posted by
CNN Political Unit
Washington (CNN) – Two days before the first presidential debate, a new national survey indicates a very close contest between President Barack Obama and Republican nominee Mitt Romney in the race for the White House.
And according to a CNN/ORC International poll, neither candidate appears to have an edge on the economy, which remains the top issue on the minds of Americans and which may dominate Wednesday night's debate on domestic issues in Denver.
Fifty-percent of likely voters questioned in the CNN survey, which was released Monday, say that if the election were held today, they would vote for the president, with 47% saying they would support Romney, the former Massachusetts governor. The president's three point margin is within the poll's sampling error.
Three other national polls of likely voters released in the past 24 hours also indicate a tight race. The other surveys are from ABC News/Washington Post, Politico/George Washington University, and American Research Group. A CNN Poll of Polls which averages all four surveys plus a Fox News poll released late last week puts Obama at 49% and Romney at 46% among likely voters.
In the CNN/ORC poll, the national horse race stands pretty much where it was just before the two back-to-back party conventions in late August and early September.
"That's a strong suggestion that whatever bounce President Obama received from his convention has, as expected, faded away," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "That's why they call them 'bounces'."
. . . .
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/01/battle-for-presidency-remains-close-in-new-cnn-poll/
-
http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-romney-poll-florida-virginia-ohio-marist-nbc-wsj-2012-10
ddduuuhhhooo!!!!!!
-
Poll: Jewish Democrats Abandoning Obama for Romney, Economy, Israel
Israel News Agency / Google News ^ | October 4, 2012 | Karen Levy
Posted on October 4, 2012 10:14:45 PM EDT by IsraelBeach
Poll: Jewish Democrats Abandoning Obama for Romney, Economy, Israel
By Karen Levy
Israel News Agency
New York, New York --- October 4, 2012 ... Jewish Democrats who have voted for Democratic Presidents in the past four Presidential elections are now jumping ship and plan on voting for the economic and foreign policies advocated by US Presidential candidate Mitt Romney.
The INA poll, which was released after the first Presidential debate last night where Mitt Romney clearly buried a depressed and nervous Barack Obama, illustrates that over fifty percent of all democratic voters are now either unsure or committed to voting for the Romney team.
Another poll released last month confirms predictions that Obama was losing up to a quarter of the Jewish votes he got in 2008. The Investors Business Daily/Christian Science Monitor/TIPP Poll gives a breakdown of religion along with other demographic groups.
"American Jews have always picked the liberal side due to their own history of suffering," said Joel Leyden, Director of Jews4MittRomney.com. "American Jews have always perceived the Democratic Party as being more sensitive and understanding to human issues. But after four years of no hope and no change, of unemployment at its worst rate in over 30 years, and with Israel being threatened with nuclear weapons by Iran, the Jewish vote is now going through an historic transition."
President Barack Obama was badly defeated in his first televised Presidential debate last night. Obama faced a confident, knowledgeable and aggressive Mitt Romney who was not intimated by the President's arrogance.
“Mitt Romney took control of the first debate and won it handily on both substance and style," said Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) Executive Director Matt Brooks.
“Last night Americans saw the real Mitt Romney, not the caricature of the negative attack ads and biased media reports. They saw Romney in command of the facts, secure in his principles and demonstrating the leadership and competence that has been missing in the White House for nearly four years."
Brooks added: “Romney made his case effectively on taxes, jobs, protecting the middle class, and health care. But he also gave voice to the enduring values of America, showed how far we have strayed from them under the Obama administration, and pledged to turn America back onto the path of economic growth and opportunity for all.”
All of US major media from CNN, FOX and the New York Times to AP, USAToday and the LA Times agreed that Obama was "rusty", "depressed" "not familiar with the issues" and "passive" when confronted by an articulate Romney.
"Obama is not used to being challenged in public," said Leyden. "He used master sales skills and was the right person at the right place using the right race card when running for his first term. American Jews as all Americans are now suffering. The lack of employment, homes being auctioned by banks, members of the US military not being allowed to vote and recent college graduates joining the unemployment lines have made everyone nervous. When one looks outside the US they see the Middle East in turmoil and America's most loyal ally - Israel - being ignored by the White House."
A Facebook group Jews for Mitt Romney has opened on the Internet and promises to answer many questions that Jewish democrats may have about Mitt Romney. As the Facebook groups states: "Republicans also have a heart. A very large and caring heart for Americans. We believe in enabling people, not making them dependent on government services. But if they need government services - they will be there."
"Barack Obama can ignore Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Jewish children carrying gas masks in Israel but he can't ignore the US public," said Leyden.
"On February 1, 2009, Obama said that his presidency would be a “one-term proposition” if the economy did not recover in three years. As Romney, a documented success in making Massachusetts thrive as governor and US businesses prosper and grow as one of America's most respected business leaders, said last night - the President may own his own airplane and house, but he does not own the facts. The facts illustrate a failed President who has made many promises and has kept none."
-
.
-
A CNN Poll of Polls which averages all four surveys plus a Fox News poll released late last week puts Obama at 49% and Romney at 46% among likely voters.
national numbers are irrelevant. battleground state polls for 11 states or so, are all that matters. We're not concerned with how many people in Texas hate Obama. it's about how people in Penn and OH will vote.
-
.
Lmfao. Bragging over 114 k jobs?
-
Lmfao. Bragging over 114 k jobs?
If you could have any job, what would you go for?
-
If you could have any job, what would you go for?
The movers who haul obamas shit out of the wh in November.
-
Romney Internal Polls: +3 in NH; +4 or 5 in OH
www.race42012.com ^ | October 6, 2012 |
Posted on Sunday, October 07, 2012 7:31:27 AM
Mike Flynn, editor over at Breitbart, is making waves in the Twitterverse by posting some Romney campaign internals he caught wind of:
-
EDITORIAL
For president: Mitt Romney
Posted: Oct. 7, 2012 | 2:04 a.m.
Updated: Oct. 7, 2012 | 10:02 a.m.
No state had a bigger stake in Wednesday's presidential debate than Nevada. No other state has suffered more economic hardship over the past five years. No state has a greater need for jobs than Nevada, which leads the nation with a real unemployment rate of at least 22 percent. No state will benefit more from a real economic recovery.
Nevada is one of a handful of swing states that will decide which man wins the White House one month from now. But Nevadans' impressions of Democratic President Barack Obama and Republican nominee Mitt Romney have been driven largely by negative advertising and stump speeches. Wednesday's debate marked the first time voters saw the men present, defend and contrast their ideas for how to grow the American economy and manage the executive branch of the federal government. Which man's leadership is more likely to spur investment in businesses and encourage companies to hire?
On Wednesday night, Nevadans watched Mr. Romney trounce the president. The evidence Mr. Romney systematically laid out exposed how the president's top-down interventions have virtually paralyzed our economy - and he presented a solution.
Nevadans need a president with a vision and political philosophy capable of restoring ingenuity, competition and excellence to our education and health care systems, of paring back the budget deficit and the explosive growth of our debt, of keeping energy affordable, of bringing back jobs and prosperity not just here, but in every American city with residents who want enough economic security to be able to take a Las Vegas vacation.
The answer is pro-growth tax and regulatory reform. The answer is tax and regulatory certainty for businesses. The answer is growing our way out of the budget deficit with a broader, simpler tax base and reduced rates and deductions for all - especially the risk-taker, the job creator and the entrepreneur. More jobs equals more taxpayers.
Mr. Obama has a much different recipe for lifting the middle class: higher taxes on investors, job creators and small businesses; borrowing money to fund more public-sector jobs and government construction projects; borrowing money to fund more green energy enterprises and projects, which make electricity more expensive, while limiting the oil and coal industries; and pushing more young people to seek a debt-funded college education when they have little hope of landing a job upon graduation.
The suggestion that tax increases and higher energy prices will lift the middle class defies logic. But it's not terribly surprising coming from an administration that's completely lacking in business experience and openly hostile to free-market capitalism. This summer, the president famously said "the private sector is doing fine," and to business owners: "You didn't build that."
In a second Obama term, the national debt would soar past $20 trillion. And Mr. Obama has no plan to address the crushing future costs of Medicare and Social Security.
Mr. Obama has never been the uniting agent of change he promised to be. His two biggest initiatives, the economic stimulus and his health care reform law, were rushed through a Democratic Congress without a single Republican vote, and the electorate responded in 2010 by giving Republicans control of the House. Instead of moving to the center, as President Bill Clinton did after the 1994 Republican Revolution, Mr. Obama has dug in his heels. He shares the blame for Washington's gridlock.
If he won't change course, the country won't, either.
Mr. Romney, however, is a Republican who was elected governor of heavily Democratic Massachusetts. He had to work with Democrats to get things done. His leadership and ability to bring people together saved the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics. As a businessman, his management skills turned failing companies into profitable ones. Mr. Romney vows to do that, again, in Washington.
If we are to avoid a lost decade and a future calamity created by inaction on entitlements and government growth, this nation needs a team of turnaround experts. Mr. Romney has promised to create a Cabinet of private-sector leaders focused on strengthening the country's business climate and making it more competitive. He and his running mate, Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, have dared to put forward ideas to preserve Medicare for current beneficiaries and reform it for future recipients, and they vow to work with Congress to prevent the program's collapse.
Mr. Romney is a fine family man who donates millions of dollars to his church and charity every year. There is not a whiff of scandal about him. This is why his opponents have tried to turn his very successes against him. It's all they have.
Early voting in Nevada begins Oct. 20. Election Day is Nov. 6. Over the last few weeks of this campaign, Nevadans must ask themselves which candidate will embrace policies that will put the people of this state back to work, creating the jobs that lift our incomes, our home values and our hope.
The choice is clear. Only Mitt Romney has the principles and experience needed to put America back on the road to prosperity. The Review-Journal endorses Mitt Romney for president of the United States.
Find this article at:
http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/for-president-173016161.html
-
Romney Internal Polls: +3 in NH; +4 or 5 in OH
www.race42012.com ^ | October 6, 2012 |
Posted on Sunday, October 07, 2012 7:31:27 AM
Mike Flynn, editor over at Breitbart, is making waves in the Twitterverse by posting some Romney campaign internals he caught wind of:
LOL at the mccain internal polls released one day before the election showing a national race of 51% obama, 50% Romney.
how did that one work out? Sorry, but intrade and 538.com are HIGHLY accurate on presidential elections - I have to wonder what 'internal polls' show that the pros cannot find? Cause in light of what mccain claimed on drudge... dudes behind in the race have EVERY motivattion to lie about this
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/07/mitt-romney-swing-states_n_1946330.html
Mittens getting more endorsements than mclame
-
.
-
.
LOL - how about you address obama's lies about the youtube video and Libyia?
-
Electoral College Model Predicts Romney Will Win Even Bigger Than Previously Thought in 2012
October 8, 2012 at 8:57am by Billy Hallowell
In August, TheBlaze told you about University of Colorado Professors Ken Bickers and Michael Berry and their highly-accurate Electoral College prediction model. As you may recall, Bickers and Berry, using their metrics, are able to retroactively predict every presidential win since 1980.
Their 2012 model made headlines two months ago because, despite polling, it found that Republican presidential candidate Romney would win 320 Electoral Votes, stealing the White House away from President Barack Obama. Now, an updated version of their study has come to the same conclusion — but it intensifies the numbers behind a predicted Romney win.
Despite the fact that polls still show a dead-heat race (Obama is currently at 48.2 percent, with Romney capturing 47.3 percent of likely voters in the most recent Real Clear Politics average), an updated election model shows an even larger gap between the Electoral College votes that Romney and Obama are projected to win. According to Bickers and Berry, the Republican challenger is projected to take 330 of the 558 votes, while Obama is expected to capture only 208 of them.
US Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney and his wife Ann. Photo Credit: AFP/Getty Images
With 270 as the major number needed for any candidate to win, this clearly shows Obama far from the mark, sending Romney — at least theoretically — to victory come November. While the model did not change, Bickers‘ and Berry’s analysis is based on updated economic data, which clearly helped sway the projection even further in Romney’s favor.
The University of Colorado Boulder web site has more about how the model works:
.
While many election forecast models are based on the popular vote, the model developed by Bickers and Berry is based on the Electoral College and is the only one of its type to include more than one state-level measure of economic conditions. They included economic data from all 50 states and the District of Columbia. [...]
The Bickers and Berry model includes both state and national unemployment figures as well as changes in real per capita income, among other factors. The new analysis includes unemployment rates from August rather than May, and changes in per capita income from the end of June rather than March. It is the last update they will release before the election. [...]
In addition to state and national unemployment rates, the authors analyzed changes in personal income from the time of the prior presidential election. Research shows that these two factors affect the major parties differently: Voters hold Democrats more responsible for unemployment rates, while Republicans are held more responsible for fluctuations in personal income.
“We continue to show that the economic conditions favor Romney even though many polls show the president in the lead,” Bickers notes. “Other published models point to the same result, but they looked at the national popular vote, while we stress state-level economic data.”
US President Barack Obama speaks during a campaign convert at the Nokia Theater on October 7, 2012 in Los Angeles. Obama is on a three-day trip during which he will campaign in California and Ohio as well as attend the establishment of the Cesar Chavez National Monument. Photo Credit: AFP/Getty Images
According to the prediction, Romney will carry New Mexico, North Carolina, Virginia, Iowa, New Hampshire, Colorado, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida. On the flip side, Obama will take Michigan and Nevada.
Of course, Bickers and Berry caution those wedded to the data. Despite being correct for the past eight elections, there are some factors worth noting. The model has an average error rate of five states and 28 Electoral College votes. Plus, states that are close may end up being impacted by unexpected factors not included in the model.
Now, let’s get back to that record of accuracy mentioned earlier in this piece. The state-based economic data used by the researchers has been available since 1980, according to the university’s web site. When the data is applied to past elections, retroactively, it correctly chooses all of the winners. Most notably, it even correctly estimated the 2000 outcome, when Al Gore won the popular vote, but George W. Bush won the Electoral College.
In the end, though, anything is possible. Slight and unexpected changes could turn the entire scenario on its head. Still, the model — considering its viability — is worth paying attention to.
–
-
LOL - how about you address obama's lies about the youtube video and Libyia?
Right after you address the 533 lies in the past thirty weeks.
Thanks.
-
Right after you address the 533 lies in the past thirty weeks.
Thanks.
Make a list and let's deal with them.
I said both lie many times.
Bro - when obama gets landslided and sent back where he belongs in Kenya are you going to melt down?
-
Make a list and let's deal with them.
I said both lie many times.
Bro - when obama gets landslided and sent back where he belongs in Kenya are you going to melt down?
Why does he belong in Kenya?
-
Why does he belong in Kenya?
Because that is where he said he is from.
BTW - sheer panic setting in
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/08/presidential-polls_n_1947777.html
-
Romney’s Strong Debate Performance Erases Obama’s Lead (Pew Poll: R 49%, 0 45%)
Pew ^
Posted on Monday, October 08, 2012 4:14:56 PM by Arthurio
Mitt Romney no longer trails Barack Obama in the Pew Research Center’s presidential election polling. By about three-to-one, voters say Romney did a better job than Obama in the Oct. 3 debate, and the Republican is now better regarded on most personal dimensions and on most issues than he was in September. Romney is seen as the candidate who has new ideas and is viewed as better able than Obama to improve the jobs situation and reduce the budget deficit.
Fully 66% of registered voters say Romney did the better job in last Wednesday’s debate, compared with just 20% who say Obama did better. A majority (64%) of voters who watched the debate describe it as mostly informative; just 26% say it was mostly confusing.
In turn, Romney has drawn even with Obama in the presidential race among registered voters (46% to 46%) after trailing by nine points (42% to 51%) in September. Among likely voters, Romney holds a slight 49% to 45% edge over Obama. He trailed by eight points among likely voters last month.
The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted Oct. 4-7 among 1,511 adults, including 1,201 registered voters (1,112 likely voters), finds that 67% of Romney’s backers support him strongly, up from 56% last month. For the first time in the campaign, Romney draws as much strong support as does Obama.
(Excerpt) Read more at people-press.org ...
-
Why does he belong in Kenya?
for the same reason 3333 belongs in the Bronx
-
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/10/09/obama-im-only-going-to-win-if-everybody-is-almost-obsessive
melting down. LOL
-
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_swing_state_tracking_poll
Obama better break out those chooms - LANDSLIDE COMING
-
ARG Colorado poll: R 50%, 0 46%
ARG ^
Posted on Tuesday, October 09, 2012 12:41:19 PM by Arthurio
ARG Colorado poll: R 50%, 0 46%
(Excerpt) Read more at americanresearchgroup.co m ...
PANIC AND FEAR SETTING IN
-
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_swing_state_tracking_poll
Obama better break out those chooms - LANDSLIDE COMING
I bet you're the guy who is like "It's ova! It's ova!" when the NY Giants have a 13-10 halftime lead.
-
I bet you're the guy who is like "It's ova! It's ova!" when the NY Giants have a 13-10 halftime lead.
We are in the 4th quarter.
-
We are in the 4th quarter.
Well, if anything it's 13-10 now, or maybe even tied. And 4+ weeks is a lifetime in presidential politics. Definitely still 5 minutes to go in the game.
-
Obama campaign to supporters: Where's our money?
election 2012
October 14, 2012
By: Joe Newby
Subscribe
A creepy solicitation email sent by the Obama campaign on Friday is giving recipients the impression that the campaign is demanding money from those who signed up on the Obama mailing list but have not donated money. On Saturday, the conservative blog Weasel Zippers said the "title of the email makes it even creepier."
“Drew: Here’s your personal record of support,” Weasel Zippers added.
A reader in southern New Jersey sent a copy of the email to Examiner, saying that among other things, it was the first time since 2008 she was identified as a number.
The email reads, in part:
"According to our records associated with this email address -- hopefully it's yours if you're reading this! -- here's your online giving history for this organization:
-- Your supporter ID number is: (redacted)
-- Your most recent online donation was: $0
-- Total amount donated online in 2012: $0"
"It looks like you haven't made an online donation to the campaign yet. If you were waiting for the last minute, you're pretty much there."
A commenter at Weasel Zippers also observed the "supporter ID number."
"The President of the United States allots you an ID number and tells you that you haven't paid money to his campaign? This is so Orwellian that I am totally aghast," the commenter wrote.
"Tonight at midnight is one of the most important deadlines we've faced -- it's one we set ourselves. We're figuring out tomorrow morning what resources we have for the final push and what we can do with them. We're making some of the final decisions of this campaign," the letter adds.
"The President is counting on people like you to step up now, in these last weeks, and this is one of your last opportunities to do it. Don't let him down," wrote Julianna Smoot, Obama for America deputy campaign manager.
"I put myself on both campaign mailing lists and I’ve never received anything like this from Romney, never mind the fact that Team Obama has been known to send out 10+ emails in a single day," the post at Weasel Zippers said.
According to opensecrets.org, Barack Obama has raised $432,197,459, while Mitt Romney has raised $279,343,000. Obama has also outspent Romney by nearly $120 million.
Related:
-
.
-
Poor Romney must be confusing waking up in the morning and not knowing who you are anymore
-
For me that's the biggest problem with Romney. I can understand changing your position on issues, whether because new evidence surface or because you re-examine arguments in support of positions you previously had and are no longer convinced. But he seems to change positions constantly, back and forth with every breath...
-
Romney is evolving. Democrats don't have a problem with their own "evolving".
-
Romney is evolving. Democrats don't have a problem with their own "evolving".
Its bullshit on both sides..
-
Romney is evolving. Democrats don't have a problem with their own "evolving".
I thought you didnt believe in evolution my christian friend ;)
-
Romney is evolving. Democrats don't have a problem with their own "evolving".
I don't mind a politician changing his or her mind on something. I sure have in my lifetime.
However, Mitt Romney is giving no insight to his change and you know it. You can't change your position back and forth every few years.
You know it's a personal fault of his, whether or not you choose to admit it here.
-
I don't mind a politician changing his or her mind on something. I sure have in my lifetime.
However, Mitt Romney is giving no insight to his change and you know it. You can't change your position back and forth every few years.
You know it's a personal fault of his, whether or not you choose to admit it here.
Every few years?
Try days sometimes hours with this guy.
-
I don't mind a politician changing his or her mind on something. I sure have in my lifetime.
However, Mitt Romney is giving no insight to his change and you know it. You can't change your position back and forth every few years.
You know it's a personal fault of his, whether or not you choose to admit it here.
He does what he has to do for political survival. He is a slimey politician, like the rest of them. However, his business success is why people are willing to give him a chance vs the ever failing and flailing obama who can't tie his own shoes wo the aid of a teleprompter
-
Romney is evolving.
Hardly. Changing ones mind is normal, and expected over a lifetime. But that's not what Romney is doing. He's changing his mind back and forth all the time. In other words, he is just saying whatever it takes, to whomever he has to say it to get elected. Frankly, from where I stand, it seems that Romney would happily gargle your balls while getting fisted if it meant he'd get more votes. He's a typical politician.
Democrats don't have a problem with their own "evolving".
So when someone says "I find McDonald's fries to be too salty" do you reply with "Well, you obviously don't have a problem with Burger King's fries and they're salty too!" Well no asshole, I don't, since I don't fucking eat at Burger King. What the fuck kind of ridiculous logic is that?
-
PIERS MORGAN: I believe Mitt Romney might just save America
Daily Mail ^ | 10/15/2012 | Piers Morgan
Posted on Monday, October 15, 2012 10:12:15 AM by SeekAndFind
An extraordinary political earthquake struck America this week. Mitt Romney, widely assumed to be the ‘best of a weak bunch’ of Republican candidates, suddenly overtook Barack Obama in election polls.
Remarkably for someone with a reputation as Mr Dullard, it was his brilliant performance on October 3 at the first of three presidential debates, where he scored the biggest win ever over an oddly downcast Obama, that propelled him into the favourite’s chair.
Should Romney now win on November 6, America will not only have replaced its first black President with its first Mormon President.
It will also have elected the squeakiest-clean man ever to run for the presidency in any country in the world. Imagine for a moment an interview with a British politician that went as follows:
Q: Have you ever drunk alcohol?
A: No.
Q: Have you ever taken drugs?
A: No.
Q: Have you ever had an affair?
A: No.
Q: Have you ever smoked a cigarette?
A: No
Q: Do you ever use swear words?
A: No.
Now imagine that politician was actually telling the truth. Short of Ann Widdecombe, I can’t think of a single MP in our illustrious nation’s history who would be able to answer ‘no’ to more than half these questions.
I’m fairly sure Boris Johnson, the man who might well be our Prime Minister one day, would rack up a resounding 100 per cent ‘yes’ rate.
But when I interviewed Romney for my CNN show, he proudly answered all those questions to me in the firm negative. He is a devout Mormon and takes his faith so seriously that he donates at least ten per cent of his income to the church every year – totalling tens of millions of dollars over the past two decades.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
-
He does what he has to do for political survival. He is a slimey politician, like the rest of them. However, his business success is why people are willing to give him a chance vs the ever failing and flailing obama who can't tie his own shoes wo the aid of a teleprompter
When running a company he made money for the stock holders and screwed everyone else.
Hmmh thats how Bush ran the nation actually.
-
When running a company he made money for the stock holders and screwed everyone else.
When running a company, the goal is to make money for the stockholders. I don't hold that against him.
Hmmh thats how Bush ran the nation actually.
You are comparing apples and oranges.
-
Romney has one bachelor’s degree, one masters degree in finance, one juris Doctor and 5 honorary Ph.d’s while Obama surrenders his law license
http://www.teapartytribune.com/2012/10/15/romney-has-one-masters-degree-in-finance-one-juris-doctor-and-5-honorary-ph-ds-while-obama-surrenders-his-law-license
Can’t take very much more of this source:jsmineset.com
The other day we were having a conversation about Mitt Romney and the subject of his education came up. We found out that Mitt Romney holds a bachelor’s degree fromBrighamYoungUniversi ty, a juris Doctor from Harvard, and a masters of business administration also from Harvard. In addition Mitt Romney holds 5, yes FIVE, honorary Ph,d’s. What do we know about President Obama? He surrendered his law license in 2008 and all his educational transcripts are under seal so that no one can learn about who he is.
What’s a bachelor of arts?
“A Bachelor of Arts (B.A., BA, A.B., or AB), from the Latin artium baccalaureus, is a Bachelor’s degree awarded for anundergraduate course or program in either the liberal arts, the sciences, or both. Bachelor of Arts degree programs generally take three to four years depending on the country, academic institution, and specific majors or minors.” More…
What’s a juris doctor ?
“A J.D./M.B.A. is a dual degree program offered jointly by many law and business schools. The program generally lasts four years (saving one year over completing both degrees separately) and results in the candidate earning both a Juris Doctor degree and a Master of Business Administration degree. Many schools including Northwestern University,[1] Cornell University, Yale University, Columbia University,[2] and the University of Pennsylvania[3] have begun to offer three year programs (saving two years). Students may apply to the joint program before matriculating to either program, or after matriculating to either law school or business school.[4] Graduating J.D./M.B.A. students may choose to practice law, or enter the business world.
Some prominent law firms, like Goodwin Procter and Paul Hastings, give signing bonuses (e.g., $20k[5][6]) to incoming first-year associates who hold JD/MBA degrees. In fact, Goodwin Procter has launched a “JD/MBA initiative” to attract more JD/MBA applicants.“ more…
What’s a masters of business administration?
“The Master of Business Administration (MBA or M.B.A.) is a master’s degree in business administration, which attracts people from a wide range of academic disciplines. The MBA designation originated in the United States, emerging from the late 19th century as the country industrialized and companies sought out scientific approaches to management. The core courses in the MBA program are designed to introduce students to the various areas of business such as accounting, finance, marketing, human resources, operations management, etc. Students in MBA programs have the option of taking general business courses throughout the program or can select an area of concentration and focus approximately one-fourth of their studies in this subject.” More…
What are honorary Ph.d’s or doctorates?
“An honorary degreeor a degree honoris causa (Latin: “for the sake of the honor”) is an academic degree for which a university (or other degree-awarding institution) has waived the usual requirements, such as matriculation, residence, study, and the passing of examinations. The degree is typically a doctorate or, less commonly, a master’s degree, and may be awarded to someone who has no prior connection with the academic institution.
Usually the degree is conferred as a way of honoring a distinguished visitor’s contributions to a specific field, or to society in general. The university often derives benefits by association with the person in question.” more…
Using as a backdrop Mitt Romney’s amazing academic achievements, what do we know about Barack Obama’s academic achievements? A big zero since his first action as president was to sign an executive order to prevent anyone from finding out what he did in school. One of the few things we know is that he surrendered his law license in 2008 that cost a few hundred dollars per year to renew. Just like that he abandoned his license that took many years to realize.
“In addition, prior to June 5, 2012, the Obamas would have been required to pay an annual fee of $289(now $342), and take classes to satisfy the state’s Minimum Continuing Legal Education requirement, in order to keep their licenses active. Lawyers on retirement status, however, don’t have to pay an annual fee or take classes. And lawyers on inactive status also don’t have to take classes, but they do have to pay an annual fee of $105.” More…
What an amazing difference between Mitt Romney and President Obama. The differences are so stark and obvious. Is it any wonder Romney crushed Obama in the debates?
-
Hardly. Changing ones mind is normal, and expected over a lifetime. But that's not what Romney is doing. He's changing his mind back and forth all the time. In other words, he is just saying whatever it takes, to whomever he has to say it to get elected. Frankly, from where I stand, it seems that Romney would happily gargle your balls while getting fisted if it meant he'd get more votes. He's a typical politician.
So when someone says "I find McDonald's fries to be too salty" do you reply with "Well, you obviously don't have a problem with Burger King's fries and they're salty too!" Well no asshole, I don't, since I don't fucking eat at Burger King. What the fuck kind of ridiculous logic is that?
Good post
-
When running a company, the goal is to make money for the stockholders. I don't hold that against him.
You are comparing apples and oranges.
I meant Bush only cared about the uber-rich and fucked everyone else.
It wasnt a 100% serious analogy ;)
-
I meant Bush only cared about the uber-rich and fucked everyone else.
It wasnt a 100% serious analogy ;)
STFU you stupid moron. one of the reasons the lower income people pay no taxes is because bush expanded the EITC.
Bush also cut taxes for everyone who pays taxes.
Fucking tool you are.
-
STFU you stupid moron. one of the reasons the lower income people pay no taxes is because bush expanded the EITC.
Bush also cut taxes for everyone who pays taxes.
Fucking tool you are.
Try reading the second sentence in my post again jack-ass ;)
And please the Bush tax cuts was for the rich dont kid yourself
-
He does what he has to do for political survival. He is a slimey politician, like the rest of them. However, his business success is why people are willing to give him a chance vs the ever failing and flailing obama who can't tie his own shoes wo the aid of a teleprompter
In what ways did his business success benefit him as gov of mass?
-
In what ways did his business success benefit him as gov of mass?
UE was lower when he left, stated ended up in surplus and balance, etc
Notice how Obama and his gang of communist choomers never attackr omney on his record?
-
UE was lower when he left, stated ended up in surplus and balance, etc
Notice how Obama and his gang of communist choomers never attackr omney on his record?
LOL @ communist. Spoken by someone who has absolutely no idea about what communism is.
-
Chuck Todd: With Strong Debate Tomorrow, Romney 'Could Win This Election'
NewsBusters ^ | Mark Finkelstein
Posted on Monday, October 15, 2012 11:36:09 AM by governsleastgovernsbest
Last week, Chuck Todd came in for criticism at NewsBusters for sniffing off a Rasmussen poll favorable to Mitt Romney as "slop." But has yesterday's slop become today's sirloin for the NBC political director? Sure looks like it.
In a remarkable shift, on today's Morning Joe Todd stated that in recent days he has seen a "structural shift" in the polling data in Romney's favor. With a strong performance at tomorrow's townhall-style debate in which he connects with average Americans, Todd declared that Romney could "win this election" and "close out" President Obama, putting him in a hole too deep to recover from in the final debate.
View the video here.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
-
http://www.businessinsider.com/romney-leads-obama-swing-states-2012-10
Landslide coming.
-
Swing States poll: Women push Romney into lead
USA Today (link only) | October 15, 2012 | by Susan Page
Posted on Monday, October 15, 2012 3:42:10 PM
LINK ONLY PER FR POSTING RULES: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2012/10/15/swing-states-poll-women-voters-romney-obama/1634791
GO GET YOUR KLEENEX LIBS!
-
Romney is evolving. Democrats don't have a problem with their own "evolving".
Evolving? Is that what "lying" and "pandering" is?
You just got shit on once again for opening your stupid mouth and showing us a gem of your wisdom like this. Romney's magical underwear must create it's own oxygen in order for you to survive and post with your head that far up his ass.
"HEEHEEHEE"
-
Try reading the second sentence in my post again jack-ass ;)
And please the Bush tax cuts was for the rich dont kid yourself
you seriously need to educate yourself on what is included in the bush tax cuts. if and when they expire it affects both the rich and the middle class. you've obviously never bothered to actually find out what was in them.
for instance, once the bush tax cuts expire forgiveness of debt income will be fully taxable. who do you think that affects the most? the rich? no. it affects mostly lower income and middle class families. did you know this? do you even care?
also why is it that libs like you don't think that the capital gains rate increase won't affect the middle class? I'm a CPA and i prepare tax returns for a living. it affects them. do you think the middle class don't invest their money? i could go on for 10 pages on exactly how these tax cuts affect people across the board. it's beyond comprehension when i see these debates how neither candidate has any basic knowledge of tax policy. Ryan was OK i'll give him that. but i thought he was goign to impress me a little bit and i was sorely disappointed.
he had nothing to say when Biden sat there and cherry picked the bush tax cuts for the provisions that affect the wealthy and he was throwing soft tosses to Ryan and Ryan didn't come back with anything of real substance. on these boards i expect a certain amount of ignorance with regards to tax. a vice presidential debate i do not.
and one more thing. you know how libs talk about the liberal people who make a lot of money and want to pay their fair share? i've never met those people. ever.
-
STFU you stupid moron. one of the reasons the lower income people pay no taxes is because bush expanded the EITC.
Bush also cut taxes for everyone who pays taxes.
Fucking tool you are.
mature
-
mature
Like I said - liberals are beyond reason and hope and deserve to be called names.
If people don't realize that the Bush tax cuts helped everyone who paid taxes than theat level of ignorance deserves to be mocked.
-
Like I said - liberals are beyond reason and hope and deserve to be called names.
If people don't realize that the Bush tax cuts helped everyone who paid taxes than theat level of ignorance deserves to be mocked.
tell yourself what you have to.
-
http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-memo-slams-gallup-polls-2012-10
LOL. Sheer panic setting in.
-
Skip to comments.
RNC Says Memo Blaming Tied Poll on ‘Flaws’ in Gallup Methods Shows Obama Campaign is ‘Panicked’
Politicker ^
Posted on Monday, October 15, 2012 5:25:36 PM by Arthurio
After a new poll out today from Gallup and USA Today showed Mitt Romney pulling ahead of President Barack Obama by strengthening his standing with likely female voters in key swing states, the Obama campaign fired back by releasing a memo written by Josh Benenson of the Benenson Strategy Group consulting firm criticizing “deep flaws in Gallup’s likely voter screen.” Tim Miller, deputy communications director at the Republican National Committee, told Politicker the Obama campaign’s memo shows they are “panicked” with battleground state polls tightening in the wake of President Obama’s widely panned performance in the first presidential debate.
“Since the president’s disastrous debate performance, the panicked Obama campaign’s message has vacillated from Big Bird to false character attacks on Mitt Romney to now nitpicking the crosstabs of bad polls,” Mr. Miller said. “Litigating polls won’t help the president fix his two central problems: he can’t defend his economic record and he has offered no plan for getting people back to work in a 2nd term.”
Mr. Benenson’s memo described the poll showing President Obama and Mr. Romney tied among likely women voters in swing states at 48 percent as an “extreme outlier.” Mr. Benenson pointed to other recent polls of the battleground states that have shown President Obama with an average 10.3 percent lead over Mr. Romney and Gallup’s data on registered female voters in the battleground states, which shows him leading Mr. Romney 52 percent to 44 percent.
(Excerpt) Read more at politicker.com ...
PANIC SETTING IN FOR SURE
-
Here's The Reason Mitt Romney Is Performing Exceptionally Well Among Latinos In A New Florida Poll
Brett LoGiurato|Oct. 15, 2012, 6:39 PM|3,692|17
AP
A new poll among Florida's Latino voters shows that President Barack Obama's lead on Mitt Romney is shrinking, which could spell trouble for the president in the crucial swing state.
Obama leads Romney 51-44 among likely Latino voters in the state, according to a new FIU/Miami Herald/El Nuevo Herald poll. It's a stark difference from the rest of the nation with Latino voters, and it serves as a primary reason that Romney has built a significant, 7-point lead in the state, according to the same poll.
Compare that number to the rest of the nation — Obama leads Latinos by an astounding 67-23 margin, according to the latest tracking poll from the firm Latino Decisions. In its latest Florida poll, Latino Decisions found Obama with a 61-31 lead over Romney.
"We find that Romney performs best in Florida, but not as strong as this poll shows," said Sylvia Manzano, a senior analyst at Latino Decisions. "That suggests some big methodological differences."
One methodological difference is that the FIU poll does not weigh by national origin, whereas Latino Decisions does. FIU Political Science Professor Eduardo Gamarra, who conducted the poll, said in a webcast today that he did not weigh the poll by national origin.
That's important because FIU does not weigh the sample of Cuban-Americans to match Florida's population. Cuban-Americans tend to vote more Republican than other Latinos. In the unidentified sample in the FIU poll, Cuban-Americans were the only demographic that identified as more Republican than Democrat.
"This is not a sample weighed by Cubans," Gamarra said. "If I had weighted more by Cubans, in fact, the vote for President Obama would have been much higher."
That reconciles some of the differences between the Florida polling. The key number for Obama in Florida is 57 percent — that's the share of the Latino vote he won in 2008, according to exit polling.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/florida-latino-poll-obama-trails-romney-2012-10#ixzz29QWZUCda
-
Poll Shows Romney Gaining Ground in Pennsylvania
National Journal ^ | 10/16/2012
Posted on Tuesday, October 16, 2012 6:53:35 AM by My Favorite Headache
President Obama now holds only a narrow lead over Mitt Romney in Pennsylvania, a state thought only a month ago to be safely in the incumbent’s corner, according to a new poll from Quinnipiac University released on Tuesday.
The survey of likely voters conducted from Oct. 12-14, reports the president is ahead of the GOP presidential nominee in the Keystone State by just 4 percentage points, 50 percent to 46 percent. Romney has gained 8 points on Obama since a late-September Quinnipiac poll, when the president led, 54 percent to 42 percent.
The latest survey is representative of national polls that show the race shifting in Romney’s favor since the first presidential debate. As in those polls, his gains correlate with increased favorability ratings. In September, just 41 percent of likely voters saw Romney favorably, while 50 percent saw him unfavorably. Now, a plurality of likely voters in the state see the former governor positively, 46 percent to 44 percent.
Obama’s number remain mostly unchanged: 52 percent see him favorably, while 45 percent don’t. A month ago, 54 percent saw him favorably and 43 percent who didn’t.
The survey also squares with another recent Pennsylvania survey that reported Romney gains. A Muhlenberg College/Morning Call poll of likely voters, conducted from Oct. 10 through Oct. 14 with a margin of error of 5 percentage points, found Obama leading Romney by only 4 points, 49 percent to 45 percent. That was down from an 7-point advantage for the president from the same survey taken in late September.
But another poll conducted on the Philadelphia Inquirer’s behalf by the Democratic firm Global Strategy Group and Republican group National Research, reported Obama held a far more comfortable edge among likely voters. He led by 8 points there, 50 percent to 42 percent, according to the Inquirer survey, taken from Oct. 4-8.
The Quinnipiac poll reported a gargantuan gender gap between support of the two candidates. Romney led among men in the state, 54 percent to 43 percent, while Obama led among women, 57 percent to 39 percent. That’s a net 29-point difference.
Pennsylvania has traditionally been among the country’s most fiercely contested presidential battlegrounds, even as Democrats have won every quadrennial battle there since George H.W. Bush’s victory in 1988. But it has largely been ignored by both campaigns this cycle, who have shifted their focus to new swing states such as Colorado, Nevada, North Carolina, and Virginia. TV-ad spending by either campaign, tracked and compiled by The Hotline, shows Obama’s campaign hasn’t spent a dollar over the air there since July; Romney’s campaign has yet to make a single ad buy in Pennsylvania in the general election.
However, Ann Romney told Philadelphia radio station WPHT on Monday: "You know, the debate was huge and we’ve seen our numbers move all across the country, but in particular, Pennsylvania is in play, so we’re here and we’re fighting."
It’s not surprising that if the general-election race is close, Pennsylvania would be competitive. Obama won the state by 10 points four years ago, but George W. Bush lost it narrowly by just over 2 points in 2004.
Whether the Romney campaign will make a last-ditch effort to win the state remains unclear. Obama’s lead has shrunk, but it remains larger in the Keystone State than in battlegrounds such as Iowa, Ohio, and Virginia. And advertising in Pennsylvania is both expensive and inefficient, particularly in the sprawling Philadelphia media market. An investment capable of moving numbers would likely cost millions of dollars, and advertising in Philadelphia means paying for voters in southern New Jersey and Delaware to see the ads (each part of the city’s media market), both of which are safe Democratic seats.
The Romney campaign has already calculated it can reach 270 electoral votes by winning some combination of Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, Virginia, and Wisconsin. Making a late play for Pennsylvania would siphon money from efforts in each of them — although it’s possible that, for strategic reasons, Romney’s campaign decides to make Obama’s campaign put up ads of its own there.
Quinnipiac University's latest poll surveyed 1,519 likely voters and has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.5 percentage points. The poll used live interviewers, who called land lines and cell phones.
Landslide coming
-
.
-
http://www.gallup.com/poll/158045/voters-equally-favorable-candidates-prior-second-debate.aspx
LOL. Maybe Gaybama hiding behind Hillary's skirt has something to do with this.
-
http://www.gallup.com/poll/158045/voters-equally-favorable-candidates-prior-second-debate.aspx
LOL. Maybe Gaybama hiding behind Hillary's skirt has something to do with this.
LOL at a guy who spends his life on the web surfing politics has to resort to childish arguments like this
-
If Obama pulled half the shit that R and R has, many Republicans on this board would have had a brain aneurism weeks ago.
-
If Obama pulled half the shit that R and R has, many Republicans on this board would have had a brain aneurism weeks ago.
LOL like what? Fast n Furious? Benghazi cover up? Solyndra? Worst DOJ ever?
-
In every election since I've been alive I've always noticed a pretty equal amount of campaign signs in homeowners lawns. This year, I've seen MAYBE 1 or 2 obama/biden signs...
-
LOL like what? Fast n Furious? Benghazi cover up? Solyndra? Worst DOJ ever?
Never mind.
You're not out of the woods yet.
-
In every election since I've been alive I've always noticed a pretty equal amount of campaign signs in homeowners lawns. This year, I've seen MAYBE 1 or 2 obama/biden signs...
In NYC there is literally nothing at all. I have never seen anything like this. Maybe a bumper sticker here or there at best, but no signs, no window stickers, ZILCH
You would not even know an election is three weeks away if you cam to NYC
Obama is going to have TERRIBLE turnout.
-
Never mind.
You're not out of the woods yet.
STFU pedo. No wonder you love Obama - you are a pedo for fucks sake!
-
STFU pedo. No wonder you love Obama - you are a pedo for fucks sake!
That's it?
------------------------------------
-
Romney Is Winning The Battle For Women
The Week|7 minutes ago|6|
Mitt Romney has surged to a 4-percentage-point lead in 12 crucial swing states, largely because he has erased President Obama's lead among women voters, according to a USA Today/Gallup poll released Monday.
The battle for women has been a major focus of both campaigns, and is expected to figure prominently in their closing arguments in Tuesday night's debate and in TV ads during the last three weeks before election day.
As a group, women tend to wait longer than men to choose their candidates, which makes them — especially blue-collar "waitress moms" hit hard by the economy's troubles — a key swing vote. Women overwhelmingly backed Obama throughout the campaign, so why are they suddenly warming to Romney? Here, five theories:
1. Romney showed them he's not crazy
Romney's "humor and authority" in the first presidential debate changed everything, says Tim Stanley at Britain's Telegraph. His pledge to protect Social Security, Medicare, and financial regulation reassured them "that while he is a traditional Republican, he isn't crazy." Romney reinforced that image after stepping off the stage, by saying he has no plans to pursue federal anti-abortion legislation, making it harder for Obama to "portray Romney as an antediluvian conservative who would swap sex-ed classes for chastity belts." Obama might be able to change all that, says Digby at Hullabaloo, if he points out that the real Mitt is all about "destroying Medicare, Medicaid, and calling half the country a bunch of dependent losers he doesn't have to care about."
2. He's blurring where he stands on abortion
"Romney has been blurry on abortion," says Margaret Talbot at The New Yorker. He promised to "preserve and protect a woman's right to chose" when he was running for governor of Massachusetts, then vetoed a bill making emergency contraception more accessible. In this year's GOP primaries, he "declared himself proudly pro-life;" now he insists anti-abortion legislation isn't on his agenda. The truth is that women's issues are among "the starkest differences between the Obama and Romney tickets." Romney's GOP doesn't just want to limit "the right to abortion but, astonishingly, the right to contraception, too." Women can't "pursue education and careers" if you deny them the right to "plan when they will give birth." Romney's hoping they won't notice what he's up to until it's too late.
3. Women are worried about the deficit
Abortion isn't "the losing issue for the GOP" many Democrats think it is, says Laura Vanderkam at USA Today. They're as likely to favor abortion rights as they are to oppose them, and "more women will pay into the Social Security system, for instance, and will send their children to schools, than will ever have an abortion." Besides, we've had Republican presidents and Congresses, and they haven't overturned Roe v. Wade, "so it seems unlikely the next president will be able to institute an immediate nationwide abortion ban, let alone a ban on birth control." The reality this campaign season is that voters, women included, "rank jobs, the economy, and the federal budget deficit as more important than abortion."
4. Romney showed he's a good listener
Republicans, citing internal polls, think they know how Romney won over women, says Mike Allen at Politico: Their focus groups, one GOP insider says, told them that women who watched the first debate found Obama to be "the interesting but arrogant guy that turns them off." Romney "was a reliable father. He showed women that he's a listener." In the first debate, the Republican source said, Obama "was the husband who says: 'That's your problem? Here's the solution.' Mitt was the husband who says: 'Well, you, know I've been thinking about this. I've got some ideas. You wanna talk about them?' Women want to know that you listen to them." Both candidates, Allen says, will try to come cross as "the good husband" in Tuesday's debate.
5. The poll is wrong
The "GOP poll denialists" really were "crazed" when they insisted that pollsters were deliberately skewing their surveys to give Obama an edge, says Jonathan Chait at New York. The Obama campaign, however, is right when it says the USA Today/Gallup poll is malarkey. Poll denialists said pollsters were simply interviewing too many Democrats. Team Obama is saying that Gallup, which found that registered voters prefer Obama by 4 points, is messing up when it calculates who's actually going to show up and cast a ballot on election day. Gallup is giving the GOP a 9-percentage-point edge among so-called likely voters. "Historically, Republicans vote at a higher rate than Democrats. But the difference is usually a couple percentage points, not 9."
This story was originally published by The Week.
Read more: http://theweek.com/article/index/234865/why-women-are-warming-up-to-mitt-romney#ixzz29UXgZo3J
-
.
-
Romney pulls within 1 in *WISCONSIN* (O - 49, R - 48)
Marquette University Law School poll | 10/17/12 | Marquette University
Posted on Wednesday, October 17, 2012 1:35:14 PM by The G Man
No link yet. Obama was up by 11 in same poll 2 weeks ago.
-
Romney Polling Better Than Reagan With Jewish Voters
Frontpage Mag ^ | 10/17/2012 | Daniel Greenfield
Posted on Wednesday, October 17, 2012 5:24:21 PM
The IBD tracking polls have been shifting in and out when it comes to the Jewish vote, but over the last week it’s been a close race between Romney and Obama. And in the last week, Romney has been consistently ahead of Reagan’s share of the Jewish vote. And in some polls, even the share of every Republican in the last 100 years.
While Reagan did receive the highest share of the Jewish vote in the last 50 years, Eisenhower did better in 1956. Hughes and Harding pulled in 43-45 percent in the 1916-1920 elections, but that was before Eastern European immigration processed through the educational systems of the burgeoning liberal state transformed the American Jewish community from a conservative Spanish-German group into what it is now.
New Deal fanaticism gave FDR and Truman a tremendous share of the Jewish vote that began to fall off in the 50s as depression and war gave way to prosperity and suburbanization. Stevenson’s hostility to Israel may have helped bring Eisenhower to nearly Hughes and Harding levels, but it’s likely that comfort and stability played a larger role with Eisenhower picking up 4 percent more in his second election.
Jews chose the JFK/LBJ dynasty over Nixon, but drifted away from McGovern and back to Nixon, so that Nixon in 72 had a higher percentage of the Jewish vote than any Republican until Reagan, giving him the 2nd highest share of the Jewish vote in the last 50 years. Carter had the lowest share of the Jewish vote for a Democrat, so there’s no doubt that his anti-Israel attitude hurt him, but so did the economy. And it’s important to remember that most of Reagan’s 39 percent were also part of Nixon’s 35 percent.
The Jewish vote, like the national vote, is somewhat cyclical. There’s a liberal share of the pie that is unwinnable, but also has no long term future for simple demographic reasons that are already taking hold in New York City. And there is a share that is up for grabs.
The cycle now appears to be shifting away from the Democrats who have blown the economy and the Middle East, both issues of concern to Jewish voters and all voters.
Romney may not beat Reagan’s share of the Jewish vote in the actual election, but right now he’s polling ahead of him. And often ahead of every Republican in the last 100 years.
A shift this major might have all sorts of implications for the future.
-
Report: Obama campaign turning grim on Florida, Virginia, North Carolina — and Colorado?
posted at 5:24 pm on October 17, 2012 by Allahpundit
You need to read way, way, way down into this National Journal piece to find the key bit, but it’s worth it. Says Jay Cost, “I’ve never seen anybody bury a lede like Major Garrett here.”
Let’s bring this treasure chest up to the surface:
What also became clear after the dust began to settle from the rumble on Long Island was the electoral map has narrowed and Obama’s team, while conceding nothing publicly, is circling the wagons around Ohio, Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada. Plouffe said that Obama remains strong in all four states, but he would not discuss the specifics of internal polling or voter-contact analytics, saying only that Obama has “significant leads” in all four places.
It is uncharacteristic of Team Obama to concede any terrain, but Plouffe offered no such assurances about Obama’s position in North Carolina, Virginia, or Florida. Romney advisers have seen big gains in all three states and now consider wins likely, although not guaranteed, in all three. They are similarly upbeat about prospects in Colorado but not confident enough to predict victory. That Plouffe left Colorado off his list of states where Obama’s leading and can withstand a Romney surge might be telling…
Romney, according to RCP, has 191 electoral votes. If you add Florida (29), North Carolina (15), and Virginia (13), that brings his total to 248 electoral votes. Add Colorado (9) –which neither campaign is prepared to claim or concede–and Romney’s total rises to 257 electoral votes. If Romney wins Ohio (18) in addition to these states, he would have 275 electoral votes. If Romney loses Ohio, he would need to win Iowa, Nevada, and New Hampshire to reach 273 electoral votes.
Meanwhile, from CNN’s Peter Hamby:
Peter Hamby✔
@PeterHambyCNN
The buzz from Columbus: Ohio race was reset by Romney's first debate (and he may have even been up heading into debate #2)
17 Oct 12 Reply
Retweet
Favorite
It’s not that Romney has insurmountable leads in FL, VA, and NC, it’s that Team O has to decide how to allocate what’s left of its campaign treasury down the stretch and there are better bets for them than those three states. Triage, in other words. Mitt’s up 4.7 points on average in North Carolina, which would be tough for O to make up, and 2.5 points in Florida, which might be doable but would be hugely expensive in terms of reserving enough ad time to make a dent. I’m a little surprised to see Virginia included — O actually leads there by eight-tenths of a point, although Romney’s (narrowly) won the last three polls, so maybe Obama’s campaign figures it’s not worth resisting that momentum in a state they don’t really need. They do kind of need Colorado, though, and that actually looks tougher than Virginia for them at the moment: Romney leads by seven-tenths of a point and has won six of the nine polls taken since the first debate. If I had to guess, I’d bet they’re looking at Virginia and Colorado now as an either/or situation; if Romney’s lead opens a bit in one rather than the other, that one will be written off and an investment made in the closer state.
Via Gateway Pundit, here’s Karl Rove with a fun fact about that blockbuster Gallup poll today. The most important set of polls in the race thus far, I think, will be the next ones out of Ohio incorporating reaction to last night’s debate. I don’t expect much to change, but if one candidate suddenly picks up a few points, the path-to-270 strategizing is going to change instantly, and maybe dramatically.
Update: Changed the headline from “backing away from” to “turning grim on.” Garrett’s piece implies that Team O might cut those states loose, but doesn’t cite anyone clearly saying that. Read between the lines, though.
-
.
-
Obama’s New Firewall: Ohio, Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada(goodbye N Carolina, Va, Florida)
National Review ^ | October 17, 2012 5:05 P.M | By Jim Geraghty
Posted on Wednesday, October 17, 2012 8:46:51 PM by drewh
Long Island was the electoral map has narrowed and Obama’s team, while conceding nothing publicly, is circling the wagons around Ohio, Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada. Plouffe said that Obama remains strong in all four states, but he would not discuss the specifics of internal polling or voter-contact analytics, saying only that Obama has “significant leads” in all four places.
It is uncharacteristic of Team Obama to concede any terrain, but Plouffe offered no such assurances about Obama’s position in North Carolina, Virginia, or Florida. Romney advisers have seen big gains in all three states and now consider wins likely, although not guaranteed, in all three. They are similarly upbeat about prospects in Colorado but not confident enough to predict victory. That Plouffe left Colorado off his list of states where Obama’s leading and can withstand a Romney surge might be telling.
Chalk one up for Suffolk University Political Research Center’s David Paleologos, which said they would stop polling North Carolina, Virginia, and Florida last week.
Fascinatingly, the description of Plouffe’s comments puts New Hampshire in the “firewall” pile, when the last three polls have Romney up by 4 (ARG) a tie (Suffolk) and Obama ahead by 1 (Rasmussen).
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
-
Obama’s New Firewall: Ohio, Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada(goodbye N Carolina, Va, Florida)
National Review ^ | October 17, 2012 5:05 P.M | By Jim Geraghty
Posted on Wednesday, October 17, 2012 8:46:51 PM by drewh
Long Island was the electoral map has narrowed and Obama’s team, while conceding nothing publicly, is circling the wagons around Ohio, Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada. Plouffe said that Obama remains strong in all four states, but he would not discuss the specifics of internal polling or voter-contact analytics, saying only that Obama has “significant leads” in all four places.
It is uncharacteristic of Team Obama to concede any terrain, but Plouffe offered no such assurances about Obama’s position in North Carolina, Virginia, or Florida. Romney advisers have seen big gains in all three states and now consider wins likely, although not guaranteed, in all three. They are similarly upbeat about prospects in Colorado but not confident enough to predict victory. That Plouffe left Colorado off his list of states where Obama’s leading and can withstand a Romney surge might be telling.
Chalk one up for Suffolk University Political Research Center’s David Paleologos, which said they would stop polling North Carolina, Virginia, and Florida last week.
Fascinatingly, the description of Plouffe’s comments puts New Hampshire in the “firewall” pile, when the last three polls have Romney up by 4 (ARG) a tie (Suffolk) and Obama ahead by 1 (Rasmussen).
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
But, but, but.....Obama won the debate last night!! Hope and change is BACK!! YAAAAY!!!
BTW, weren't North Carolina, Virginia, and Florida the three states where that Suffolk polling place pulled chocks, having deemed them all but a lock for Romney last week?
-
But, but, but.....Obama won the debate last night!! Hope and change is BACK!! YAAAAY!!!
His collapse is underway. In retrospect - romney did far better as time goes on from the debate.
-
.
-
Romney is winning the white vote — by a lot (Most since Ronald Reagan)
Washington Post ^ | 10/18/2012 | Aaron Blake
Posted on Thursday, October 18, 2012 12:30:24 PM by nhwingut
Political analysts (including The Fix) spend a good bit of time these days talking about important voter groups — Latino voters and female voters, in particular.
But all of the focus on these groups has obfuscated one fact: Mitt Romney is performing very, very well among white voters. And in fact, most recent polls show him winning the white vote by more than any GOP presidential candidate since Ronald Reagan.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
-
Romney is winning the white vote — by a lot (Most since Ronald Reagan)
Washington Post ^ | 10/18/2012 | Aaron Blake
Posted on Thursday, October 18, 2012 12:30:24 PM by nhwingut
Political analysts (including The Fix) spend a good bit of time these days talking about important voter groups — Latino voters and female voters, in particular.
But all of the focus on these groups has obfuscated one fact: Mitt Romney is performing very, very well among white voters. And in fact, most recent polls show him winning the white vote by more than any GOP presidential candidate since Ronald Reagan.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Remember what I posted a few months back. If Romney gets at least 62% of white working-class voters, Obama is TOAST, no matter how many blacks, Latinos, Jews, gays, or whatever Obama can muster.
BTW, have you seen RCP lately?
-
It was a foregone conclusion that Romney would attract the "base" if only because the base looks like it would vote for an inanimate carbon rod instead of Obama. But I didn't think he'd get much traction beyond that because generally speaking, I think Romney has ran a pretty lackluster campaign. Couple that with his "inhererent" unlikeability (he just seems to perpetually rub people the wrong way) and I was pretty sure he'd be toast.
But the first debate and (to a lesser extent) the second one have demonstrated pretty clearly for everyone who doesn't have partisan blinders on that behind the unlikeable, wooden Mitt, is actually someone who might be fairly competent.
I expected a bump, but frankly I'm surprised he's getting as much traction as he is.
-
Breaking Tweet: PA Poll: Romney 49 Obama 45
Twitter ^ | 10/18/2012 | NumbersMuncher
Posted on Thursday, October 18, 2012 4:10:42 PM
Tear down this blue wall! Susquehanna: Latest PA statewide, conducted October 11-13, shows Romney leading by 4-points in PA, 49%-45%.
(Excerpt) Read more at twitter.com ...
-
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/north_carolina/election_2012_north_carolina_president
NC landslide in the making
-
.
-
.
a joke but it's 100% right :D you don't have to go any further than this board
-
.
Really? Weren't the Dems, all over the moderator from the first debate?
-
Really? Weren't the Dems, all over the moderator from the first debate?
I do not recall that at all. I recall everyone saying Lehrer let them just go and go.
-
I do not recall that at all. I recall everyone saying Lehrer let them just go and go.
he's quoting hannity and rush, it's all he knows,can't blame him when that's his new source
-
I do not recall that at all. I recall everyone saying Lehrer let them just go and go.
Obama always needs cover from others.
-
Romney For President Announces Military Advisory Council (List at the Link)
Mitt Romney ^ | 17 OCTOBER, 2012 | Mitt Romney
Posted on October 18, 2012 9:05:58 PM EDT by Snuph
Today, Romney for President announced its Military Advisory Council.
“I am deeply honored to have the support ofso many of our most accomplished military leaders,” said Mitt Romney. “Together we will restore our military might and ensure that America can defend and protect our interests, our allies, and our people, both at home and abroad. I will never forget that the greatest responsibility ofan American president is in exercising the role of commander-in-chief. That role is sacred, and when I am president, I will never put my own political interests ahead of our military and our men and women in uniform.”
“I’m proud to be supporting Mitt Romney in this critical election about our nation’s future,” said General Tommy Franks, USA (Ret.), Past Commander, U.S. Central Command. “Governor Romney is committed to restoring America’s leadership role in the world. Instead of playing politics with our military, he will strengthen our defense posture by reversing the President’s devastating defense cuts. The fact of the matter is that we cannot afford another four years of feckless foreign policy. We need level-headed leadership which will protect our interests and defend our values with clarity and without apology.”
“I consider the unprecedented national debt amongst the five greatest threats to the security of our great nation,” said General James Conway, USMC (Ret.), Past Commandant of the Marine Corps. “And yet, I see no indication the current administration, if re-elected, is intent on changing that trajectory. Clearly Defense should bear a portion of the burden in order to regain control of our debt, but the idea of massive military cuts -- at a time of increased global instability—should not even be in the cards. As I listen to Mitt Romney, I am convinced that he 'gets it'.”
Members Of Romney For President Military Advisory Council
(Excerpt) Read more at mittromney.com ...
-
“Governor Romney is committed to restoring America’s leadership role in the world. Instead of playing politics with our military, he will strengthen our defense posture by reversing the President’s devastating defense cuts.”
I'm wondering which cuts, specifically Franks is referring to.
-
Our pick for president: Romney(Orlando Sentinel, endorsed Obama in 2008)
The Orlando Sentinel ^ | Thursday, October 18, 2012 | House Editorial
Posted on Thursday, October 18, 2012 9:55:21 PM
SNIP
Now the president and his supporters are attacking Romney because his long-term budget blueprint calls for money-saving reforms to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, three of the biggest drivers of deficit spending. Obama would be more credible in critiquing the proposal if he had a serious alternative for bringing entitlement spending under control. He doesn't.
Romney is not our ideal candidate for president. We've been turned off by his appeals to social conservatives and immigration extremists. Like most presidential hopefuls, including Obama four years ago, Romney faces a steep learning curve on foreign policy.
But the core of Romney's campaign platform, his five-point plan, at least shows he understands that reviving the economy and repairing the government's balance sheet are imperative — now, not four years in the future.
Romney has a strong record of leadership to run on. He built a successful business. He rescued the 2002 Winter Olympics from scandal and mismanagement. As governor of Massachusetts, he worked with a Democrat-dominated legislature to close a $3billion budget deficit without borrowing or raising taxes, and pass the health plan that became a national model.
This is Romney's time to lead, again. If he doesn't produce results — even with a hostile Senate — we'll be ready in 2016 to get behind someone else who will.
We reject the innuendo that some critics have heaped on the president. We don't think he's a business-hating socialist. We don't think he's intent on weakening the American military. We don't think he's unpatriotic. And, no, we don't think he was born outside the United States.
But after reflecting on his four years in the White House, we also don't think that he's the best qualified candidate in this race.
We endorse Mitt Romney for president.
(Excerpt) Read more at orlandosentinel.com ...
-
I do not recall that at all. I recall everyone saying Lehrer let them just go and go.
The new format for the presidential debate prompted plenty of partisan debate online — as did the performance of the moderator, Jim Lehrer.
Jim Lehrer explained the rules of the debate to the audience prior to the start of the first presidential debate on Thursday in Denver.
Mr. Lehrer’s light touch was widely criticized during and after the debate on Wednesday night, particularly by Democrats who felt that President Obama’s Republican challenger, Mitt Romney, effectively moderated the debate himself. Speaking to CNN after the debate, Stephanie Cutter, the president’s deputy campaign manager, said, “I sometimes wondered if we even needed a moderator because we had Mitt Romney. We should rethink that for the next debate.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/05/us/politics/after-debate-a-harsh-light-falls-on-jim-lehrer.html?_r=0
he's quoting hannity and rush, it's all he knows,can't blame him when that's his new source
Wrong again, Identity-Crisis-Boy. But, thanks for playing. I guess that means you're doubly wrong.
-
http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20121019/OPINION01/210190325/1008/opinion01/Iacocca-America-needs-turnaround-which-why-m-voting-Romney
bbbbooooommmmmm
-
Ohio Is Closer than You Think (Superb analysis!)
National Review Online ^ | 10/20/12 | Josh Jordan
Posted on Saturday, October 20, 2012 10:18:52 AM by
Just a few weeks ago, Ohio was a state that was considered almost every media outlet to be a solid lock for Obama. There’s no need to rehash the actual headlines, but some even suggested Romney give up on Ohio and look elsewhere for a path to victory. Before the first debate, Romney was down 5.6 in RCP’s Buckeye State average. Today he is down 2.5, cutting his deficit by more than half, presumably in large part due to his strong first-debate performance. Here are a few reasons why it’s even closer than that:
Democratic turnout advantage from 2008 probably wasn’t as big as you think: Last cycle was a wave election and Barack Obama took Ohio by 4.6 percent, 51.5 to 46.9. The exit polls showed a split of 39 percent Democrats, 31 percent Republicans, and 30 percent independents. If that had been the actual turnout, according to exit polls’ measurement of how members of each party said they voted, Obama would have won 52.8 to 45.6, for a 7.2 percent margin victory, substantially bigger than the margin by which he actually won. This means that the exit polls were off a little, which is unsurprising since they are, after all, just polls.
But we have actual vote totals to compare these polls to. If you use the exit-poll numbers for reported voting by party and then look at what kind of a turnout by party you’d need to get to the actual state vote tally, you come out with this breakdown: 37.5 percent Democrats, 32.5 percent Republicans, and 30 percent Independents (that gives you a vote of 51.6 percent for Obama and 46.9 percent for McCain — pretty close to actual results). So while the 2008 exit polls show an eight-point Democrat advantage, in reality it was likely closer to five percent. That is a big difference when analyzing current polls.
Romney is up big with independents: In 2008 Obama beat John McCain by 8 percent among independents in Ohio. Of the seven current RCP polls that give independent numbers, Romney is up by an average of 8.7 percent:
That’s a 16 percent swing in independents toward Romney from 2008′s numbers. If you assume equal turnout in 2012 as 2008 (using my number from above) but take Obama’s 8 percent edge with independents and give it Romney, that 4.6 percent 2008 margin becomes a tie. At that point, Romney would win if he chips away at the five-percent turnout advantage from 2008.
The current poll samples have Democratic turnout matching or exceeding 2008 levels: Of the seven current RCP polls in Ohio, the average Democratic advantage in party ID is 5.5 percent. That is, if we assume 2008 advantage was D+5, as explained above, then the average poll in Ohio right now assumes a 2008-level turnout. While anything is possible on November 6, there are not many people on either side thinking Obama can match his 2008 turnout advantage.
Early voting is not as positive for Obama as it was in 2008: This is the last point, but a huge one. Take this quotation, from CNN today: “Four years ago, Democrats made up about 42 percent of the early and absentee vote while Republicans made up 22 percent. Through Wednesday, however, the margin has narrowed: Democrats account for 36 percent of the early and absentee vote while Republicans make up for 29 percent.” The current polls have been seriously inflated for Democrats because they’re reporting Obama with 30+ percent leads in early voting (which is then automatically counted in “likely voter” samples), which seems to be vastly overestimating the Democratic advantage among these voters. As CNN explains, Romney is making huge gains from 2008.
Obama won in 2008 largely because of a healthy lead among independents and a highly enthusiastic base’s turning out votes. Right now Romney is leading big with independents, has a more enthusiastic base, and is drawing crowds in Ohio that rival Obama’s. While he is down 2.5 points in the polls, the average poll is assuming 2008 turnout which is unlikely to repeat itself this year. Adding the fact that early voting is trending more Republican than in 2008, there is a lot of reason for optimism that this race is much closer than the current polls suggest. Not bad for a candidate who was declared dead in the state just a few weeks ago.
-
Ohio Is Closer than You Think (Superb analysis!)
National Review Online ^ | 10/20/12 | Josh Jordan
Posted on Saturday, October 20, 2012 10:18:52 AM by
Just a few weeks ago, Ohio was a state that was considered almost every media outlet to be a solid lock for Obama. There’s no need to rehash the actual headlines, but some even suggested Romney give up on Ohio and look elsewhere for a path to victory. Before the first debate, Romney was down 5.6 in RCP’s Buckeye State average. Today he is down 2.5, cutting his deficit by more than half, presumably in large part due to his strong first-debate performance. Here are a few reasons why it’s even closer than that:
Democratic turnout advantage from 2008 probably wasn’t as big as you think: Last cycle was a wave election and Barack Obama took Ohio by 4.6 percent, 51.5 to 46.9. The exit polls showed a split of 39 percent Democrats, 31 percent Republicans, and 30 percent independents. If that had been the actual turnout, according to exit polls’ measurement of how members of each party said they voted, Obama would have won 52.8 to 45.6, for a 7.2 percent margin victory, substantially bigger than the margin by which he actually won. This means that the exit polls were off a little, which is unsurprising since they are, after all, just polls.
But we have actual vote totals to compare these polls to. If you use the exit-poll numbers for reported voting by party and then look at what kind of a turnout by party you’d need to get to the actual state vote tally, you come out with this breakdown: 37.5 percent Democrats, 32.5 percent Republicans, and 30 percent Independents (that gives you a vote of 51.6 percent for Obama and 46.9 percent for McCain — pretty close to actual results). So while the 2008 exit polls show an eight-point Democrat advantage, in reality it was likely closer to five percent. That is a big difference when analyzing current polls.
Romney is up big with independents: In 2008 Obama beat John McCain by 8 percent among independents in Ohio. Of the seven current RCP polls that give independent numbers, Romney is up by an average of 8.7 percent:
That’s a 16 percent swing in independents toward Romney from 2008′s numbers. If you assume equal turnout in 2012 as 2008 (using my number from above) but take Obama’s 8 percent edge with independents and give it Romney, that 4.6 percent 2008 margin becomes a tie. At that point, Romney would win if he chips away at the five-percent turnout advantage from 2008.
The current poll samples have Democratic turnout matching or exceeding 2008 levels: Of the seven current RCP polls in Ohio, the average Democratic advantage in party ID is 5.5 percent. That is, if we assume 2008 advantage was D+5, as explained above, then the average poll in Ohio right now assumes a 2008-level turnout. While anything is possible on November 6, there are not many people on either side thinking Obama can match his 2008 turnout advantage.
Early voting is not as positive for Obama as it was in 2008: This is the last point, but a huge one. Take this quotation, from CNN today: “Four years ago, Democrats made up about 42 percent of the early and absentee vote while Republicans made up 22 percent. Through Wednesday, however, the margin has narrowed: Democrats account for 36 percent of the early and absentee vote while Republicans make up for 29 percent.” The current polls have been seriously inflated for Democrats because they’re reporting Obama with 30+ percent leads in early voting (which is then automatically counted in “likely voter” samples), which seems to be vastly overestimating the Democratic advantage among these voters. As CNN explains, Romney is making huge gains from 2008.
Obama won in 2008 largely because of a healthy lead among independents and a highly enthusiastic base’s turning out votes. Right now Romney is leading big with independents, has a more enthusiastic base, and is drawing crowds in Ohio that rival Obama’s. While he is down 2.5 points in the polls, the average poll is assuming 2008 turnout which is unlikely to repeat itself this year. Adding the fact that early voting is trending more Republican than in 2008, there is a lot of reason for optimism that this race is much closer than the current polls suggest. Not bad for a candidate who was declared dead in the state just a few weeks ago.
bump
-
Election 2012: Wisconsin President Wisconsin: Obama 50%, Romney 48% (look at early voting)
www.rasmussenreports.com ^ | 10/20/12 | Scott Rasmussen
Posted on Saturday, October 20, 2012 5:32:14 PM by personalaccts
Election 2012: Wisconsin President Wisconsin: Obama 50%, Romney 48% in Politics.Related Articles Daily Presidential Tracking Poll 2012 Electoral College Scoreboard Swing State Tracking: Romney 50%, Obama 46% Florida: Romney 51%, Obama 46% Missouri: Romney 54%, Obama 43% Virginia: Romney 50%, Obama 47% As Romney Gains, Senate Remains Challenging for GOP By Scott Rasmussen
Friday, October 19, 2012
Wisconsin remains a two-point race following Tuesday night’s presidential debate.
The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Wisconsin Voters finds President Obama with 50% support, while Mitt Romney earns 48% of the vote. One percent (1%) likes another candidate in the race. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
This race remains a Toss-Up in the Rasmussen Reports Electoral College Projections. Obama defeated Republican John McCain 56% to 42% in Wisconsin in 2008.
The president posted a similar 51% to 49% lead in the state earlier this month. In surveys in Wisconsin since October of last year, the president has earned 44% to 52% of the vote, while Romney’s support has ranged from 41% to 49%.
Ninety-seven percent (97%) of likely Wisconsin voters say they are certain to vote, and the president leads 50% to 48% among this group.
Wisconsin allows early voting, and among those who have already voted, it’s Romney 54%, Obama 43%. Of those who have yet to vote, 90% say they’ve already decided whom they will support. Obama leads 50% to 49% among these voters.
Both candidates draw more than 90% support from voters in their respective parties in Wisconsin. The president leads by 11 points among voters not affiliated with either of the major parties.
Among all voters in the state, Romney has a 50% to 45% advantage when it comes to whom voters trust more to deal with the economy. Voters are almost evenly divided over whom they trust more to handle national security matters: 47% say Obama, 46% Romney. Among voters nationally, Romney is trusted more by seven points on the economy, while the two candidates run nearly even when it comes to national security.
How did you do in this week’s Rasmussen Challenge? Check the leaderboard.
(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.
This Wisconsin survey of 500 Likely Voters was conducted on October 18, 2012 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 4.5 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.
Thirteen percent (13%) of Wisconsin voters give the U.S. economy good marks, while 44% rate it as poor. Forty-two percent (42%) say the economy is getting better, but 36% think it’s getting worse.
In reacting to the nation’s current economic problems, 39% worry that the federal government will do too much, but slightly more (43%) fear the government will not do enough. Nationally, voters are more evenly divided. Sixty-nine percent (69%) think the government should cut spending to help the economy, while just 16% feel more spending is called for. That’s in line with voter attitudes nationwide.
Fifty-six percent (56%) of Wisconsin voters correctly understand that the United States spends more on the military and national security than any other nation in the world. Eleven percent (11%) don’t think that’s true, but 33% aren’t sure.
Thirty-five percent (35%) say the government spends too much on the military and national security, while 22% think there isn’t enough defense spending. Thirty-seven percent (37%) say the level of spending in this area is about right. This is a more negative assessment of military and national security spending than is found nationally.
Fifty-one percent of voters in Wisconsin approve of the job the president is doing, while 49% disapprove. This includes 35% who Strongly Approve and 42% who Strongly Disapprove, giving the president a slightly better job approval rating than he earns nationally.
Romney is viewed favorably by 49% and unfavorably by 50%. This includes 34% who have a Very Favorable opinion of him and 34% with a Very Unfavorable one.
In addition to Wisconsin, Colorado, Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio and Virginia are Toss-Ups. Obama is ahead in Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Mexico, Pennsylvania and Washington. Romney leads in Arizona, Indiana, Missouri and North Dakota.
Additional information from this survey and a full demographic breakdown are available to Platinum Members only.
Please sign up for the Rasmussen Reports daily e-mail update (it’s free) or follow us on Twitter or Facebook. Let us keep you up to date with the latest public opinion news.
in Politics.
-
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2947912/posts
FL going romney
-
Rasmussen Daily Swing State: R: 50% O:46%
Rasmussen Reports ^ | 10/21/2012 | Rasmussen Reports
Posted on Sunday, October 21, 2012 10:07:03 AM by SoftwareEngineer
The full Swing State tracking update offers Rasmussen Reader subscribers a combined view of the results from 11 key states won by President Obama in 2008 and thought to be competitive in 2012. The states collectively hold 146 Electoral College votes and include Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin. If you do not already have a Rasmussen Reader account, subscribe now.
(Excerpt) Read more at rasmussenreports.com ...
LANDSLIDE COMING
-
Computer model predicts bad news for Obama in Broward, Palm Beach counties
South Florida Sun Sentinel ^ | October 21, 2012 | Anthony Man
Posted on Sunday, October 21, 2012 10:40:42 AM by ConservativeStatement
Computer modeling of economic and political factors by the research firm Moody's Analytics predicts President Barack Obama will perform so badly in the Democratic strongholds of Broward and Palm Beach counties that he'll lose the state's 29 electoral votes on Nov. 6.
Democrats and Republicans agree Obama must run up big margins in the three big South Florida counties if he has any hope of offsetting Republican territory elsewhere and winning statewide.
That won't happen, according to the Moody's Analytics forecast, which projects Obama winning 56.3 percent of the vote in Broward, 50.8 percent in Palm Beach County and 58.7 percent in Miami-Dade County.
(Excerpt) Read more at sun-sentinel.com ...
LANDSLIDE COMING
-
Does not look good for the president.
-
Does not look good for the president.
Further polling (recent as 10/15 - 10/22) is out and the swing state leads, which are all within the M.O.E., are shrinking.
Romney has a healthy lead among national independants and white voters.
This is going to be close.
-
Further polling (recent as 10/15 - 10/22) is out and the swing state leads, which are all within the M.O.E., are shrinking.
Romney has a healthy lead among national independants and white voters.
This is going to be close.
If Romney indeed has a healthy lead among independents and white voters, it will NOT be close. Romney will beat Obama to a pulp.
-
Further polling (recent as 10/15 - 10/22) is out and the swing state leads, which are all within the M.O.E., are shrinking.
Romney has a healthy lead among national independants and white voters.
This is going to be close.
I think it will be close, but at this point Romney appears to be in the driver's seat.
-
Ohio Is Closer than You Think (Superb analysis!)
Romney has never led in the RCP average in Ohio. not yet.
if he wins ohio, he wins the election. Lose ohio, he loses election.
it is as simple as that. he will probably have FL. But without OH, he loses. WISC and IOWA and NH are gonna be obama states, and he's gonna steal penn, be real about it dude.
OHIO or bust. that's it. Romney needs it.
-
Looks like momentum for Romney. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html
-
This is a huge swing. I think a lot of people changed their "likeability" opinion after watching the debates.
Debates deliver favorability edge to Romney; now above 50% in rating
The Washington Times
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
BOCA RATON, Fla. — Mitt Romney crossed a major threshold early this week, moving above 50 percent in his favorability rating with voters, according to the Real Clear Politics average of polls — and for the first time in the campaign he now leads President Obama on that measure.
The Republican presidential nominee has clearly benefited from the debates. He had a 44.5 percent favorability rating at the end of September, before the debates. But by Monday, when he and Mr. Obama faced off for the final debate of the campaign, Mr. Romney’s favorability average was up to 50.5 percent.
Tom Jensen, director of Public Policy Polling, a Democratic firm, said Mr. Romney’s favorability surge “really has been remarkable.”
“It was inevitable that Republicans were going to warm up to him once he became their nominee, but ever since his big victory in the first debate, his numbers with independents have improved a good deal as well,” he said. “We’re actually finding in our national tracking now that Romney’s favorability numbers are better than Obama‘s, which no one could have imagined six months ago.”
Mike McKenna, a Republican pollster, said Mr. Romney used the three 90-minute debates this month, with the largest national audiences he’s ever had, to humanize himself for voters who’d only seen snapshots in campaign commercials. news accounts and negative ads from the Obama campaign.
Mr. McKenna said the Republican candidate’s performances punctured the Obama campaign’s effort to disqualify Mr. Romney in voters’ minds, through a bruising barrage of attack ads aimed at Hispanics, young adults and, chiefly, women voters.
“Six months of work and $400 million of ad buys went up in smoke in about 10 days,” Mr. McKenna said. “With less than 340 hours to go, they are having real trouble with their footing.”
With the presidential debates now behind him, Mr. Romney enters the final two-week stretch of the campaign having turned the election once again into a referendum on President Obama. His measured performance in Monday’s debate capped that off.
While pundits complained that he didn’t leave much daylight between himself and Mr. Obama on many issues, depriving them of the chance to compare and contrast policies, Republicans said Mr. Romney accomplished something deeper — he made himself a palatable alternative to Mr. Obama.
At one point he even swatted away an Obama attack by accusing the president of offering little else.
“Attacking me is not an agenda,” the Republican said.
At the end of Monday’s affair, Mr. Obama summed up the month’s debates by saying they framed the choice between the two candidates.
“You know, over the last four years, we’ve made real progress digging our way out of policies that gave us two prolonged wars, record deficits and the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression,” he said. “And Governor Romney wants to take us back to those policies: a foreign policy that’s wrong and reckless; economic policies that won’t create jobs, won’t reduce our deficit, but will make sure that folks at the very top don’t have to play by the same rules that you do.”
In Monday’s foreign policy debate Mr. Romney hewed closely to the president’s approach when it came to action in Syria, Iran and Afghanistan. Indeed, at one point the president told Mr. Romney the only difference in their positions was “you’d say them louder.”
Instant polls showed Mr. Obama won the debate on points, and commentators on both sides of the aisle skewered Mr. Romney for failing to give a sense of what he’d do differently on world hotspots.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/23/debates-deliver-favorability-edge-romney/
-
Good post, BB.
Biden certainly did not help in the regard and Obama's behavior/tone/demeanor didn't help either.
-
Good post, BB.
Biden certainly did not help in the regard and Obama's behavior/tone/demeanor didn't help either.
Thanks.
Agree about Biden and Obama. They really came across as petty and disrespectful.
-
Thanks.
Agree about Biden and Obama. They really came across as petty and disrespectful.
Are you outraged?
-
Are you outraged?
No. Are you a troll? (Rhetorical question.)
-
.
-
.
-
.
-
.
-
.
The obama agenda, attack romney on big bird, binders, taxes, garbage men to deflect against its own horrible record...
wont work
-
Thanks.
Agree about Biden and Obama. They really came across as petty and disrespectful.
Romney/Ryan was lying through their teeth but you care more for the "tone"
You come across as stupid and uninformed
-
.
-
Romney/Ryan was lying through their teeth but you care more for the "tone"
You come across as stupid and uninformed
"They" were?
-
"They" were?
Yup
-
Virginia Early Voting Tallies Show Trouble for Obama (Cook Political Report data)
Dave Wasserman of Cook Political Report ^ | 10/24/12 | TonyInOhio
Posted on Wednesday, October 24, 2012 4:05:44 PM
Dave Wasserman is one of the head number crunchers at Cook Political Report, and he has been tweeting results from Virigina's early voting period. The numbers look good for Romney and very, very bad for Obama. Here are a several of his tweets with the raw data:
VIRGINIA EARLY VOTE: Up 18.8% in the 86 localities McCain won in '08, but up ONLY 4.4% in the 48 Obama won: http://www.sbe.virginia.gov/sbe_csv/STATS/
Overall, early vote up 9.4% across the board in VA vs this point in '08, but this 14% disparity very troubling #s for @BarackObama
3 of 4 top DECREASES in VA early voting vs '08: 1) Richmond City (-16.8%) 3) Arlington County (-14.0%) 4) Charlottesville City (-10.5%)
In VA's McCain localities, early vote = 95,744 (vs 80,881 at this pt in '08). VA's Obama localities = 152,084 (vs 145,673 in '08)
Huge drop-offs in Richmond, Arlington & C'ville indicative of understandable (yet troubling for Ds) decline in Af-Am, yuppie & college vote
-
French Prime Minister: I want Obama to win
The Local (France) ^ | 24 Oct 2012 17:48 GMT+02:00
Posted on Wednesday, October 24, 2012 10:00:27 PM by DeaconBenjamin
French Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault has broken with diplomatic protocol by openly expressing his hope that Barack Obama wins the upcoming US presidential election.
"If I was an American citizen I wouldn't hesitate to vote for Obama," he told a radio interviewer on Wednesday.
While it is hardly surprising that Ayrault, a Socialist, would support the Democrat candidate in a US election, prudence normally restricts politicians from making such remarks given the possibility they will end up having to deal with their Republican rivals.
Ayrault is not however the first French minister to offer public support for Obama in his neck-and-neck battle with Republican Mitt Romney.
On Tuesday, Bernard Cazeneuve, the European affairs minister, said: "As far as I'm concerned, I totally support it (Obama's re-election) and I would be astonished if the government had any other wish."
President François Hollande was less explicit when he was asked who he would support during a visit to New York at the end of last month, restricting himself to a rhetorical: "Who would you think?"
-
Romney has never led in the RCP average in Ohio. not yet.
if he wins ohio, he wins the election. Lose ohio, he loses election.
it is as simple as that. he will probably have FL. But without OH, he loses. WISC and IOWA and NH are gonna be obama states, and he's gonna steal penn, be real about it dude.
OHIO or bust. that's it. Romney needs it.
Not necessarily. Most recent polls have Romney up in NH (Obama's RCP average lead is under a point).
And he has a legitimate shot as Wisconsin.
If Romney gets those two states he can with without Ohio.
-
obama back up to 60% on intrade as a result of the new polls
Repubs are going to be heartbroken if romney loses, seriously.
Every dem I know is saying "obama might lose bro".
Every repub i know is saying "Romney IS going to win!"
Just as Obama peaked before the debates, it seems like ROmney might be peaking just a week too early.
-
obama back up to 60% on intrade as a result of the new polls
Repubs are going to be heartbroken if romney loses, seriously.
Every dem I know is saying "obama might lose bro".
Every repub i know is saying "Romney IS going to win!"
Just as Obama peaked before the debates, it seems like ROmney might be peaking just a week too early.
Although these polls may predict how people are voting, they say nothing about how much these people actually understand about how things work. For example, people blaming Obama for the poor economy is completely absurd. The economy tanked before Obama took office. Blame the Bush administration for this, if you must blame government. If people really thought the economy would recover in four years, this just goes to show how far their heads are up their asses.
After the great depression, which officially began with the stock market crash in 1929, it took more than 10 years for the economy to recover. Even then, the economy did not fully bounce back until WWII broke out. The stock market didn't recover till the 1950's. Many people lost their jobs during the Great Depression and NEVER GOT THEM BACK. During the Great Depression, the country was hit with an extremely large unemployment rate. By 1933, the unemployment rate had climbed from 3% to 25%. By 1932, over 13 million Americans had lost their jobs. On December 7 1941, Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. The United States responded by borrowing over 1 billion dollars to build up its military. As a result, U.S. manufacturing jumps by 50%. In 1939, the GDP had started to grow again and the unemployment rate was falling. In 1939, the unemployment rates were at 17.2%. By 1942, the unemployment rate was under 5%.
So here we are with the next biggest economic bust since the Great Depression and people are blaming an administration/President which has only been in office for 4 years because it has not yet recovered. Get real folks! Put that in your polls and smoke it.
-
the road to 269 electoral votes (and letting the congress house determine the winner) might be mitt's way to go.
-
Although these polls may predict how people are voting, they say nothing about how much these people actually understand about how things work. For example, people blaming Obama for the poor economy is completely absurd. The economy tanked before Obama took office. Blame the Bush administration for this, if you must blame government. If people really thought the economy would recover in four years, this just goes to show how far their heads are up their asses.
After the great depression, which officially began with the stock market crash in 1929, it took more than 10 years for the economy to recover. Even then, the economy did not fully bounce back until WWII broke out. The stock market didn't recover till the 1950's. Many people lost their jobs during the Great Depression and NEVER GOT THEM BACK. During the Great Depression, the country was hit with an extremely large unemployment rate. By 1933, the unemployment rate had climbed from 3% to 25%. By 1932, over 13 million Americans had lost their jobs. On December 7 1941, Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. The United States responded by borrowing over 1 billion dollars to build up its military. As a result, U.S. manufacturing jumps by 50%. In 1939, the GDP had started to grow again and the unemployment rate was falling. In 1939, the unemployment rates were at 17.2%. By 1942, the unemployment rate was under 5%.
So here we are with the next biggest economic bust since the Great Depression and people are blaming an administration/President which has only been in office for 4 years because it has not yet recovered. Get real folks! Put that in your polls and smoke it.
Post of the day
-
.
-
.
dumb
-
dumb
I don't think it's dumb.
-
I don't think it's dumb.
Yes it is dumb and completely without any logic or fact to mittens' situation.
Typical leftist bull shit "it takes a village"
-
Yes it is dumb and completely without any logic or fact to mittens' situation.
Typical leftist bull shit "it takes a village"
I don't think that's very leftist to be honest.
It is pretty much what we call society.
-
I don't think that's very leftist to be honest.
It is pretty much what we call society.
Romney paid income taxes on the money he now pays capital gains on and people call him greedy and selfish? Fucking please.
-
Romney paid income taxes on the money he now pays capital gains on and people call him greedy and selfish? Fucking please.
I didn't call him greedy nor selfish... but I don't think if you are making over a million dollars that the extra few cents on every dollar OVER 1 million is a huge cost or unbelievable... I mean, let's be honest... If I make a million dollars and you take 400,000 of it in taxes... and I use all my loopholes and only end up paying 15%... So I get to keep 850K of it... Then what's so wrong with that?
I just don't see a problem.
-
I didn't call him greedy nor selfish... but I don't think if you are making over a million dollars that the extra few cents on every dollar OVER 1 million is a huge cost or unbelievable... I mean, let's be honest... If I make a million dollars and you take 400,000 of it in taxes... and I use all my loopholes and only end up paying 15%... So I get to keep 850K of it... Then what's so wrong with that?
I just don't see a problem.
?????
WTF are you talking about.
Who are you to say whats fair or not and what a few cents means to a person?
And what is the govt doing w the money so much better that those who earned it should not be able to keep it?
Personally i favor a flat tax on consumption and that it. Everyone pays the same thing.
-
?????
WTF are you talking about.
Who are you to say whats fair or not and what a few cents means to a person?
And what is the govt doing w the money so much better that those who earned it should not be able to keep it?
Personally i favor a flat tax on consumption and that it. Everyone pays the same thing.
Well, I'm in favor of that too, but we don't have that... THIS is what we have... We have different brackets because SOME people make a SHIT TON less than other people... Pretty simple.
And I'm a fucking CITIZEN of the this country, that's why I get to have an OPINION on what's fair... You don't like it... Waaah!!!
That's what the country is about... We all get a say.
Just because YOU think it's unfair doesn't mean EVERYONE does.
I think its UNFAIR that steroids are fucking illegal, but the COUNTRY says it is, because THEY (OTHER CITIZENS) have deemed them to be illegal... So I have to follow the LAW.
That's how this place fucking works.
-
[ Invalid YouTube link ]
Ask Ben Stein.... He's exactly right... The Extreme rich... And I mean way beyond 250K a year... The reality is that if you make WAY much more money than more people, then you certainly aren't hurt by an extra few cents a dollar.
Ben Stein even corrects them... The highest tax rate was 91% back in the 50s.
-
[ Invalid YouTube link ]
Ask Ben Stein.... He's exactly right... The Extreme rich... And I mean way beyond 250K a year... The reality is that if you make WAY much more money than more people, then you certainly aren't hurt by an extra few cents a dollar.
Ben Stein even corrects them... The highest tax rate was 91% back in the 50s.
Well obama is proposing to jack taxpayers, sngle filier above 200k,
-
Well obama is proposing to jack taxpayers, sngle filier above 200k,
And I believe that is the wrong number... I think it should 1 Million dollars and above... and the extra tax should be only on the 1st dollar over 1 Million and higher.
-
And I believe that is the wrong number... I think it should 1 Million dollars and above... and the extra tax should be only on the 1st dollar over 1 Million and higher.
That's fine - but
1. it doesnt do jack shit on the debt or deficit
2. Obama is promising more spending w that money - not to balance the books.
Thus - Fuck obama until he shows he can be responsible w the money we give him now.
-
dumb
Good response, packed with points as usual.
-
Election 2012: Virginia: Romney 50%, Obama 48% (Rasmussen)
Rasmussen Reports ^ | Thursday, October 25, 2012 | Scott Rasmussen
Posted on Thursday, October 25, 2012 3:35:30 PM by Red Steel
Mitt Romney still earns 50% support in Virginia, but the presidential race remains a toss-up in the Old Dominion.
The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Virginia Voters finds Romney with 50% support to President Obama’s 48%. Only one percent (1%) remains undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
Last week, Romney hit the 50% mark for the first time here, while Obama earned 47% of the vote. With the exception of last week, however, the candidates have been within two points or less of each other in every survey in Virginia since April.
Virginia continues to be a Toss-Up in the Rasmussen Reports Electoral College Projections.
Ninety-two percent (92%) of the state’s voters now say they’ve made up their minds whom they will vote for. That’s up four points from last week. Romney leads 52% to 48% among these voters.
Virginia voters trust Romney more than the president by a 51% to 46% margin when it comes to handling the economy. This is unchanged from a week ago. When it comes to national security and energy policy, it’s a near tie, with Romney posting a one-point edge over Obama in terms of voter trust on both issues. These findings are comparable to voter attitudes nationally.
Forty-eight percent (48%) in Virginia expect the economy to get better if Romney is elected and Republicans take control of Congress. Just 38% think that’s likely if Obama is reelected and Democrats take charge of Congress. If Romney wins, 38% believe the economy will get worse, compared to 42% who feel that will be the case if Obama wins.
How did you do in this week’s Rasmussen Challenge? Check the leaderboard.
(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.
The survey of 750 Likely Voters in Virginia was conducted on October 24, 2012 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 4 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.
Twenty percent (20%) of Virginia voters now consider the U.S. economy god or excellent, while 45% describe it as poor. Thirty-six percent (36%) think the economy is getting better, but 41% say it’s getting worse.
Obama leads among voters who give the economy positive marks, while Romney is well ahead in the larger group that rates the economy as poor.
The Republican challenger leads by 15 among male voters in the state but trails by 10 among female voters. He has a small 49% to 45% advantage among voters not affiliated with either of the major parties.
Romney is viewed favorably by 52% of Virginia voters and unfavorably by 46%. This includes 39% with a Very Favorable opinion of him and 31% with a Very Unfavorable one.
For Obama, favorables are 51% and unfavorables 47%. This includes 39% with a Very Favorable view of the president and 40% with a Very Unfavorable one.
In 2008, Obama was the first Democrat to win Virginia since 1964 when he carried the state with 53% of the vote. Fifty percent (50%) of the state’s voters now approve of the job he is doing as president, while 49% disapprove. He earns Strong Approval from 40% and Strong Disapproval from 42%.
In addition to Virginia, Colorado, Iowa, New Hampshire, Ohio and Wisconsin are Toss-Ups. Obama is ahead in Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, Pennsylvania and Washington. Romney leads in Arizona, Florida, Indiana, Missouri, North Carolina and North Dakota.
-
Rasmussen Poll: Romney Leads Obama in Swing States 50-46
Thursday, 25 Oct 2012
Mitt Romney is now attracting support from 50 percent of voters nationwide, while President Obama earns the vote from 47 percent — an indication that the GOP candidate is holding his lead and momentum after the final debate earlier this week.
More importantly, a new Rasmussen poll shows the Republican leading Obama in the crucial swing states that will determine the election, according to new data released Thursday.
The swing states collectively hold 146 Electoral College votes and include Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin.
In the 11 swing states, Mitt Romney earns 50 percent of the vote to Obama’s 46 percent. Two percent like another candidate in the race, and another two percent are undecided.
This is now the third day in a row - and the fifth time in the past six days - that Romney has hit the 50 percent mark in the combined swing states in a Rassmussen poll.
The survey is conducted on a rolling seven-day basis, and most of the interviews for today’s update were completed before the end of Monday night’s presidential debate. Romney has now held a modest lead for 14 of the last 17 days; Obama was ahead twice, and the candidates ran even once.
The news comes as several new polls indicate Romney is losing ground in the key battleground state of Ohio while holding steady in electoral vote-rich Florida.
Even more surprisingly, an Associated Press-GfK poll released Thursday showed both candidates closing their formidable gender gaps. Romney has erased Obama's 16-point advantage among women, the poll showed. And the president, in turn, has largely eliminated Romney's edge among men.
Those churning gender dynamics leave the presidential race still a virtual dead heat, with Romney favored by 47 percent of likely voters and Obama by 45 percent, a result within the AP poll's margin of sampling error.
Heading into the first presidential debate, Obama was up two in the Rassmussen poll. Heading into the final debate, Romney had a two-point advantage.
“In the swing state of New Hampshire, Romney is up two, while the president has the edge in Nevada. In Ohio, the race is now tied at 48 percent," according to Rasmussen. But a much-discussed Time Magazine poll released Wednesday showed Romney down in Ohio by five points.
Rasmussen Reports Electoral College projections showed the president with 237 Electoral Votes and Romney 235 on Thursday. The magic number needed to win the White House is 270. Seven states with 66 Electoral College votes remain Toss-ups: Colorado, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, Virginia, and Wisconsin.
A president’s job approval rating is one of the best indicators for assessing his chances of reelection, according to Rasmussen. Typically, the president’s job approval rating on Election Day will be close to the share of the vote he receives. Currently, 49 percent of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the president's job performance. Fifty percent at least somewhat disapprove.
Obama could benefit from the economy's improving picture. The housing market is looking a little stronger. Fifty-five percent of homeowners now believe their home is worth more than the mortgage.
Rasmussen Reports polling tends to show less volatility than other polls for a variety of reasons. In 2008, it showed virtually no change during the final 40 days of the campaign.
Then-candidate Obama was between 50 percent and 52 percent in our polling every single day. He generally held a five- or six-point lead, occasionally bouncing up to an eight-point advantage and only once falling below a four point-lead. This stable assessment of the race is consistent with the reality of what we know about voter behavior. Obama won the election by a 53 percent to 46 percent margin.
Intensity of support or opposition can have an impact on campaigns. Currently, 29 percent of the nation's voters strongly approve of the way Obama is performing as president, according to Rasmussen Forty-one percent strongly disapprove, giving him a Presidential Approval Index rating of -12 .
During midterm elections, intensity of support can have a tremendous impact on turnout. That was demonstrated in 2010 when Republicans and unaffiliated voters turned out in large numbers to express opposition to the Obama administration’s policies.
However, in presidential election years, there is a smaller impact on turnout. Still, all indications so far for Election 2012 suggest that Republicans are more engaged and more likely to turn out.
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/rasmussen-swing-states-obama/2012/10/25/id/461496
-
Hey, I've got an idea.
Let's post every poll we see on the internet.
-
Meat Loaf endorses Romney at rally in Defiance
Toledo Blade ^ | October 25, 2012
Posted on Thursday, October 25, 2012 9:58:59 PM by SMGFan
DEFIANCE, Ohio - Mitt Romney rallied a large crowd in the high school football stadium here tonight after surprise musical guest Meat Loaf belted out an endorsement for the Republican presidential nominee to the crowd of 12,000 people.
Mr. Romney ended a three-city tour of Ohio here and then was to stay overnight at the Hilton Toledo Hotel, with no public events planned.
He is expected to fly out of Toledo Express Airport Friday morning to go to a campaign event in another swing state, Iowa, before returning for a rally Friday night in North Canton, Ohio.
Meat Loaf said he has never taken a public stand but said 2012 is the most important election in the history of the U.S.
"One thing you've been taught all your life is never argue politics or religion with your friends. 2012 is different," he said, telling people to argue on Mr. Romney's behalf. "I called three Democrats and got two of them to switch to Romney, so two out of three ain't bad."
Mr. Romney tailored his remarks to middle-aged workers, young people, and parents. He told college students that, "I know the President wants to get college students to come out and vote for him, but if they do, they're making a big mistake. Half of them won't be able to find a job or at least not one consistent with their college degree."
He said they'll also be stuck with "debts wracked up by me and my generation."
He vowed to cut federal spending, cap federal spending as a percentage of the economy, and get the country on track to a balanced budget. He claimed that health insurance costs will skyrocket because of Obamacare, which he said he would repeal.
(Excerpt) Read more at toledoblade.com ...
-
Is Obama's 'firewall' crumbling
Daily Mail ^
Posted on Friday, October 26, 2012 12:26:56 PM by Arthurio
Mitt Romney is now tied with Barack Obama in Wisconsin, one of the 'firewall' states the president hoped would protect him against defeats in Florida and Virginia, according to a new poll.
Rasmussen found that Romney and Obama were tied on 49 per cent in the state, which Obama won in a 14-point landslide in 2008.
Buoyed by internal polling which shows similar numbers, Romney is to head to Wisconsin next week, as first reported by MailOnline last Tuesday. He will hold a rally in the Milwaukee area on Tuesday morning.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2223657/Romney-travel-Wisconsin-desperate-Obama-tries-cling-turf-won-2008.html#ixzz2AQHTy38e Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
-
Gallup: Romney Now Up by 5 Over Obama
Friday, 26 Oct 2012
By Todd Beamon
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has increased his lead over President Barack Obama to 5 points among likely voters in the latest Gallup Daily Tracking Poll.
The former Massachusetts governor now leads Obama, 51 percent to 46 percent, according to the latest survey of 2,700 likely voters conducted Oct. 19-25.
That’s up 2 points from Romney’s lead on Wednesday – and it’s even with the former Massachusetts governor’s lead on Tuesday, the day after his final debate with the president at Lynn University in Boca Raton, Fla.
But among registered voters, the presidential race is a dead heat, at 48 percent each, according to the polling firm.
Gallup is now calling the race a dead heat.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/gallup-romney-obama-election/2012/10/26/id/461669
-
http://nation.foxnews.com/polls/2012/10/26/gallup-releases-bombshell-survey
LANDSLIDE COMING!!!!
-
:D
-
Free Republic
Browse · Search Pings · Mail News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.
Dem warning: Obama could lose Wisconsin
The Washington Examiner ^ | 10/28/12 | Alan Blinder
Posted on October 28, 2012, 5:30:11 PM EDT by markomalley
The Democratic mayor of Denver said Sunday that President Obama could lose the battleground state of Wisconsin if the incumbent’s supporters fail to increase early voter turnout in the Badger State.
“If the election was held today, President Barack Obama would lose the state of Wisconsin because where his base is, we have not turned out the vote early," Mayor Michael Hancock told a Democratic rally. "The suburbs and rural parts of Wisconsin – the Republican base – are voting. President Obama’s base has yet to go vote.
"We've got to get our people to go vote," Hancock said.
Early voting, which began in Wisconsin on Oct. 22, is a central component of Obama’s strategy to win the state. The president won Wisconsin four years ago by 14 percentage points, but recent polls show the race with Republican Mitt Romney tightening, and that is fueling Republican enthusiasm about their chances of seizing the state.
In a later interview with The Washington Examiner, Hancock said he was confident Obama would emerge from Wisconsin victorious.
“There’s a great deal of enthusiasm,” Hancock said. “We expect clearly that President Obama will win the state of Wisconsin.”
But he also said that it’s vital for Obama’s base to make it to the polls in Wisconsin.
“This is a very close race, and the point we’re trying to make is make sure the base shows up, turns out and begins to vote early,” Hancock said. “I saw where the votes were rolling in, and I said we’ve got to make sure that where the president’s base is, they get out and vote.”
Hancock was in Wisconsin to stump for Obama, but the Obama campaign said their surrogates portrayal of where the race stands doesn't match the early voting statistics they've seen.
“We are very grateful that Mayor Hancock came and did what we need to do, which is keep people enthused. He is absolutely right that we have to get our base out,” Joe Zepecki, a spokesman for Obama’s campaign in Wisconsin, said. “But the numbers we are seeing do not back up his assessment that our base is not turning out.”
Zepecki said the campaign remains optimistic nine days from Election Day.
“We are seeing a lot of enthusiasm and a lot of turnout in the places where we need to see it,” Zepecki said. “We’re very confident.”
-
http://nation.foxnews.com/polls/2012/10/26/gallup-releases-bombshell-survey
LANDSLIDE COMING!!!!
From the article: "This year, however, the Democrat advantage has disappeared. 49% of likely voters today identify as GOP or lean GOP. Just 46% of likely voters are or lean towards the Democrats. This is a 15-point swing towards the GOP from 2008 to an outright +3 advantage for the GOP."
That's not bad news, overall. But I have to say, this article must have been written by someone with zero understanding of statistics and not a single idea about what poll numbers mean, especially with differences that fall within the margin of error and how they must be interpreted if they are to make any sense.
-
if we did a national popular vote, romney would win it, lights out.
-
Free Republic
Browse · Search Pings · Mail Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.
Obama going out ugly
Chuck Morse Speaks ^ | Oct 29, 2012 | Chuck Morse
Posted on October 28, 2012 5:22:14 PM EDT by Chuckmorse
The last wretched and pathetic week of the Obama campaign reminds me of the final wimpy gasps of the campaign of Michael Dukakis back in 2008 when dwindling numbers of left-wing Democrats gathered around Hollywood actors. In a sort of be-in experience, they could be heard moaning about how "frightened" they were for the future. Now we have Obama's top 1%er friends over at the mega Ad Agency Goodby Silverstein creating a commercial in which they employ children to sing a "We are the World" type ditty asking us to: "Imagine an America Where strip mines are fun and free. Where gays can be fixed And sick people just die and oil fills the sea."
Here in Boston, we have Boston Phoenix chief political writer David Bernstein predicting that if Romney is elected the atmosphere will become unsustainable within a couple of decades due to the alleged pollution Romney will cause. And, or course, their is the ongoing alleged war against women being waged by the Republicans. Apparently even this, the centerpiece of the campaign, hasn't gone off all that well given that in recent polling indicates that Romney has moved toward closing the gender gap. Maybe women aren't as easily "frightened" as President Obama assumed they would be.
Of course there is the old chestnut, the charge of racism being trotted out by Chris Matthews, a charge that will no doubt grow cacophonous in the final desperate days. Let's examine that very serious charge briefly. Obama won handily in 2008 garnering over 5% over his Republican opponent Senator John McCain. Does this mean that this 4% and over that is now supporting Romney have decided, sometime during these past four years, that they no longer like African-American men and women? Have they decided that since President Barack Obama is African-American, and since they no longer like African-Americans, they can therefore no longer support Obama as President? Oh yes, that must be why Obama has slipped in the polls.
And then there is the charge of Republicans supporting rape. Oh yes, that's a good one. Last I checked it has been liberal judges, appointed by liberal Democrats, who have been handing down lenient sentences for rapists these past several decades. It was liberals who have decriminalized activities that were once considered rape. I would even venture to speculate, and this is sheer unsupported opinion, that the majority of those accused of rape these past several decades have themselves been liberals.
Expect Obama to throw the kitchen sink at Romney in these last decrepit days of his campaign. Perhaps the one mistake made by the Obama people was to go out with that ad accusing Romney of murder last summer. One would think they would've waited 48 hours before the polls opened for that one. Well it backfired.
-
Why Is Obama So Nasty and Vulgar?
PJ Media ^ | 10-28-2012 | Michael Ledeen - Commentary
Posted on Sunday, October 28, 2012 10:21:26 PM by smoothsailing
October 28, 2012
Why Is Obama So Nasty and Vulgar?
Michael Ledeen
Rude, insulting language about Romney (“bullsh****r) from the president. Vulgar sexual innuendo, aimed at seducing young women to vote for him. The vice president asking a bereaved parent about the size of his murdered son’s testicles. It’s quite a spectacle. We’re a fractious people, and our politics have always been full of colorful language, but I can’t recall the current depth of vulgarity. The “politics of personal destruction” have gotten uglier. Does it mean anything? Should we try to understand it?
First, it bespeaks a coarsening of public language. No surprise there (Romney’s gentlemanlyness is more surprising, in fact); for a long time our movies and television have abandoned the rules that banned certain words and phrases. Still, until recently, our political leaders have avoided such vulgarities, at least in their public rhetoric. No more, at least at the highest level of the current Democrat Party.
Second, it shows the shrinking vocabulary of our political life. There are plenty of usable and powerful synonyms of “buls*****r,” but a graduate of Harvard Law School didn’t have any of them on the tip of his tongue. Or perhaps he just preferred the vulgarity.
Third, it is yet another step in the erasure of the line that once divided public and private. We always knew that there was (sometimes) a big difference between public image and private behavior. No man (except maybe Sir Winston) is a hero to his valet, etc. etc. But still, there were proprieties, rules for public decorum, and those who fell from grace in public were criticized and excoriated for falling. No more, at least so far as I can see among the Democrat faithful.
To be sure, there’s a difference between the two parties. When male Republican candidates make disgusting and ridiculous statements about rape, the faithful turn on them, properly so IMHO, but neither Obama nor Biden has come in for punishment for their use of obscenities and vulgarities.
So the rules for proper decorum are out the window, and the former arbiters of good taste are on board, ratifying the changes by their silence. It’s a shame, but there you have it.
But the arbiters–the intellectuals, the elite punditocracy et. al.–can’t dictate standards to the rest of us, even though they often delude themselves into believing they can. The politicians who indulge in the new nastiness clearly believe it’s fine with us, because they think their elitist friends dictate standards to the rest of us. I think they’re wrong. When only EIGHT PERCENT of Americans have a positive view of the media, it tells you something, after all. And when I read about the sudden 7 percent drop in Obama’s approval ratings in three days, I suspect it has something to do with bulls*****r and losing-your-virginity-is-like-voting-for-Barack ads, and Biden’s disgusting remarks [1] to a bereaved father.
It’s a continuation of a process that began with the first debate, in which Obama tip-toed out from behind the curtain on the central stage of Oz, and showed us who he really is. Not a great leader, certainly not a messianic figure. Indeed, as we now see, he’s a bum. It’s a shock to lots of Americans, who previously were willing to grant that the president had his faults but was basically a good man, a nice guy, and a cultured gentleman. He showed them he was none of those things.
I think that was a real shock to a meaningful chunk of the electorate, and it would not have been nearly so potent if it had come from a book or an oped. Its power comes from the fact that Obama showed it himself.
It shouldn’t have been hard to foresee the consequences of his self-revelation. So why did he do it? He’s certainly capable of dissimulation. The One who won the presidency four years ago did not present himself this way. He and his acolytes very carefully portrayed him as a transcendent figure, a new kind of leader, the incarnation of elegance and brilliance. And that succeeded. So what’s up?
I think he’s cracking, and the inner nastiness and vulgarity are on display. He’s losing, and he’s angry, and he can no longer sustain the pretense of elegance and coolness.
Nobody ever said he was disciplined, did they?
Moreover, he is the victim of his own myth, the “I have a special gift” legend that is the core doctrine of his powerful narcissism. He thinks he is so charismatic, and so wonderful, that if we see him in all his splendor, we will love him as he so loves himself.
I think that’s false, and I think the shifts in the polls–people suddenly like Romney, people suddenly turning away from Obama–demonstrate that. We’ll see for sure on the 6th of November.
-
Free Republic
Browse · Search Pings · Mail News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.
Dem warning: Obama could lose Wisconsin
The Washington Examiner ^ | 10/28/12 | Alan Blinder
Posted on October 28, 2012, 5:30:11 PM EDT by markomalley
The Democratic mayor of Denver said Sunday that President Obama could lose the battleground state of Wisconsin if the incumbent’s supporters fail to increase early voter turnout in the Badger State.
“If the election was held today, President Barack Obama would lose the state of Wisconsin because where his base is, we have not turned out the vote early," Mayor Michael Hancock told a Democratic rally. "The suburbs and rural parts of Wisconsin – the Republican base – are voting. President Obama’s base has yet to go vote.
"We've got to get our people to go vote," Hancock said.
Early voting, which began in Wisconsin on Oct. 22, is a central component of Obama’s strategy to win the state. The president won Wisconsin four years ago by 14 percentage points, but recent polls show the race with Republican Mitt Romney tightening, and that is fueling Republican enthusiasm about their chances of seizing the state.
In a later interview with The Washington Examiner, Hancock said he was confident Obama would emerge from Wisconsin victorious.
“There’s a great deal of enthusiasm,” Hancock said. “We expect clearly that President Obama will win the state of Wisconsin.”
But he also said that it’s vital for Obama’s base to make it to the polls in Wisconsin.
“This is a very close race, and the point we’re trying to make is make sure the base shows up, turns out and begins to vote early,” Hancock said. “I saw where the votes were rolling in, and I said we’ve got to make sure that where the president’s base is, they get out and vote.”
Hancock was in Wisconsin to stump for Obama, but the Obama campaign said their surrogates portrayal of where the race stands doesn't match the early voting statistics they've seen.
“We are very grateful that Mayor Hancock came and did what we need to do, which is keep people enthused. He is absolutely right that we have to get our base out,” Joe Zepecki, a spokesman for Obama’s campaign in Wisconsin, said. “But the numbers we are seeing do not back up his assessment that our base is not turning out.”
Zepecki said the campaign remains optimistic nine days from Election Day.
“We are seeing a lot of enthusiasm and a lot of turnout in the places where we need to see it,” Zepecki said. “We’re very confident.”
So much for that vaunted ground game. If Obama is struggling to get early turnout in Wisconsin, as well as Ohio, that landslide you keep predicting may indeed come to fruition.
-
.
-
.
LOL
The bullshit fake naratives you idiots believe in is hysterical.
-
LOL
The bullshit fake naratives you idiots believe in is hysterical.
so romney is not a flipfloper :D :D :D :D :D :D :D get your lips off his nutsack :D
-
so romney is not a flipfloper :D :D :D :D :D :D :D get your lips off his nutsack :D
flip flopper is better than a dedicated communist traitor and piece of kenyan rat turd like obama
-
flip flopper is better than a dedicated communist traitor and piece of kenyan rat turd like obama
How would you know?
You have no idea what Mitt Romney would show up to the White House.
-
How would you know?
You have no idea what Mitt Romney would show up to the White House.
Correct - but i do know what that ghetto mook obama is all about and am glad to take my chances.
-
flip flopper is better than a dedicated communist traitor and piece of kenyan rat turd like obama
Why do you hate succes?
-
NPR: 8-point swing puts Romney in front
October 30, 2012 | 9:28 am
416Comments
Paul Bedard
Washington Secrets
The Washington Examiner
E@SecretsBedard
Popular in Politics
1Obama dispatches election lawyers 'all across the country'
2York: With week to go, Team Romney is upbeat about Ohio
3$1.5B contract in Iraq for Biden’s little brother exposes Obama ahead of debate
4Atlantic City mayor challenges Gov. Christie to ‘mano-a-mano’ confrontation
5Photo: Ground Zero construction site flooded in New York City
AP Photo
A new National Public Radio poll, which had President Obama leading Mitt Romney 51 percent to 44 percent four weeks ago, now has Mitt Romney on top, 48 percent to 47 percent, with the Republican benefiting from his debate performances.
The poll found that among likely voters, 34 percent said Romney's debate performances made them more likely to vote for the challenger while 28 percent said they now are more likely to vote for the president. Among critical independent voters, though, Romney won big, with 37 percent saying they are now more likely to chose him compared to 21 percent for Obama.
But Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg and Republican pollster Whit Ayres found that Obama leads by 4 points in the 12 battleground states that appear ready to pick the winner for the rest of the country next Tuesday. And they suggest that Romney's post-debate surge has "stalled."
The duo surveyed 1,000 likely voters nationwide with an over-sampling in 12 battleground states: Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin. The poll was conducted Tuesday through Thursday (October 23-25). The margin of error is 3 percentage points for the national sample, and 4.5 percentage points for the smaller subsample (462 respondents) in the battleground states. The sample was 35 percent Democrat, 31 percent Republican.
Ayers said that Romney is doing particularly well among independent voters. According to NPR, "most of the gains for Romney have come from independents, who went from favoring Romney by a few points before the debates to favoring him 51% to 39% after the debates."
Ayres added, "So were it not for the debates, I think Obama would be cruising to a victory right now. Because of the debates, this is going to be an incredibly close election."
Romney also beat Obama as the candidate best prepared to handle the issues of jobs, the deficit and taxes, but Obama won on more issues: health care, Medicare, foreign policy and national security.
What's more, those polled said that Obama, by a 55 percent to 44 percent margin, has spelled out a clear agenda for the nation
-
Karl Rove’s prediction: Romney 51, Obama 48
posted at 9:27 pm on October 31, 2012 by Allahpundit
A shot of optimism after a day of eeyorish state polls. How does Rove arrive at this result when eight of the last nine Ohio surveys have O ahead? In two steps: (1) He clearly trusts the national data over the state data, and (2) he cites historical numbers showing that incumbents recently have tended to overperform their national polling on election day by only one percent or so. Obama’s tied with Romney in the RCP national average tonight at 47.4. If, per the historical data, O’s ceiling is therefore at 48 percent, then it follows that most everyone else will break for Romney and that his national advantage will carry him to narrow wins in the states he needs.
As for Ohio:
Adrian Gray, who oversaw the Bush 2004 voter-contact operation and is now a policy analyst for a New York investment firm, makes the point that as of Tuesday, 530,813 Ohio Democrats had voted early or had requested or cast an absentee ballot. That’s down 181,275 from four years ago. But 448,357 Ohio Republicans had voted early or had requested or cast an absentee ballot, up 75,858 from the last presidential election.
That 257,133-vote swing almost wipes out Mr. Obama’s 2008 Ohio victory margin of 262,224. Since most observers expect Republicans to win Election Day turnout, these early vote numbers point toward a Romney victory in Ohio. They are also evidence that Scott Jennings, my former White House colleague and now Romney Ohio campaign director, was accurate when he told me that the Buckeye GOP effort is larger than the massive Bush 2004 get-out-the-vote operation.
Democrats explain away those numbers by saying that they are turning out new young Ohio voters. But I asked Kelly Nallen, the America Crossroads data maven, about this. She points out that there are 12,612 GOP “millennials” (voters aged 18-29) who’ve voted early compared with 9,501 Democratic millennials.
Are Democrats bringing out episodic voters who might not otherwise turn out? Not according to Ms. Nallen. She says that about 90% of each party’s early voters so far had also voted in three of the past four Ohio elections.
In other words, the dam that O’s built among early voters simply isn’t tall enough to hold back the red tide next Tuesday. One caveat to Rove’s point about the national numbers, though: According to RCP, Obama’s either tied or ahead in seven of the last 10 national polls taken. Romney still leads in Rasmussen and Gallup, and in only three of those 10 does Obama reach 49 percent or higher, but things have evened out a bit after Romney’s post-Denver debate surge. Case in point is the new Fox News poll tonight, which has the race dead even at 46 after Romney led by a point in early October. The topline number is not so good for Mitt, but the fundamentals are:
Independents give the edge to Romney by seven percentage points (46-39 percent). That’s down from a 12-point advantage in early October…
Among the subgroup of most interested voters, those who are “extremely” interested in the election, Romney leads Obama by 53-42 percent…
Romney’s supporters continue to be more enthusiastic: 69 percent say it’s extremely important he win, while 59 percent of those backing Obama feel that way.
Romney also leads on this metric, which will hopefully influence a lot of undecideds next week:
How is Obama even when the numbers look that rosy for his opponent? Partly because the partisan split has moved from D+1 in the last poll taken in October to D+5 in this one, which strains credulity as a prospect for election day. This is why it’s so hard to make guesses based on the polls right now — even some of the ones that are in sync, like the national polls showing O inching into a tie, have obvious weaknesses that may make the results questionable.
Rove’s other prediction, incidentally: At least 279 electoral votes, which jibes with Romney political director Rich Beeson telling reporters today that he thinks the campaign can win a few other midwestern states besides Ohio.
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/10/31/karl-roves-prediction-romney-51-obama-48/
-
Why do you hate succes?
He only hates it when the person who is successful is black
-
He only hates it when the person who is successful is black
I read a news article last night which purports that racism with regards to African Americans is actually up in the U.S. since 2008. I suspect there are many folks whose real issue with President Obama is that he is a black man, they just won't admit it.
-
I read a news article last night which purports that racism with regards to African Americans is actually up in the U.S. since 2008. I suspect there are many folks whose real issue with President Obama is that he is a black man, they just won't admit it.
Of course this is certainly a part of it... It's a shame.
I can handle anyone who dislikes his policies... That's fine.
Let's be honest though... Whenever someone talks about "birther" nonsense or that he's from "Kenya", you know full well that they are just being racist.
That's just so blatantly obvious.
-
Yet 94ers are not racist who only vote for Obama because he is black? ???
Of course this is certainly a part of it... It's a shame.
I can handle anyone who dislikes his policies... That's fine.
Let's be honest though... Whenever someone talks about "birther" nonsense or that he's from "Kenya", you know full well that they are just being racist.
That's just so blatantly obvious.
-
Yet 94ers are not racist who only vote for Obama because he is black? ???
If someone votes for Obama only because he's black, of course that's racist.
What's one got to do with the other?
Racism now justifies racism? Since when?
-
If someone votes for Obama only because he's black, of course that's racist.
What's one got to do with the other?
Racism now justifies racism? Since when?
If Obama were white w his record he would not even have won in 2008 primary, let alone be running for re-election.
-
If Obama were white w his record he would not even have won in 2008 primary, let alone be running for re-election.
and if palin looked like madeline albright, she's not on the 2008 ticket.
Did you just wake up in Nov 2012 and realize appearance affects political outcome?
-
If Obama were white w his record he would not even have won in 2008 primary, let alone be running for re-election.
That's because they would have voted in the woman... which would have been sexist.
-
That's because they would have voted in the woman... which would have been sexist.
No - it would be voting for experience vs race.
Obama was the least qualified , least experienced, least capable, least accomplished person running even in the demo primary and only got ahead for one reason - the media narrative and desire to elect the first black potus.
and sadly - we have all gotten fucked royally as a result of the emotional hype and bullshit by putting the equivalent of the mail room boy in the CEO slot with no in between
-
No - it would be voting for experience vs race.
Obama was the least qualified , least experienced, least capable, least accomplished person running even in the demo primary and only got ahead for one reason - the media narrative and desire to elect the first black potus.
and sadly - we have all gotten fucked royally as a result of the emotional hype and bullshit by putting the equivalent of the mail room boy in the CEO slot with no in between
I haven't been fucked... A lot of the country hasn't been fucked.
Wall Street CERTAINLY hasn't been fucked.
Have you been fucked? You just merged offices with a larger firm and became a partner of a bigger money maker didn't you?
Did you get fucked?
-
.
-
No - it would be voting for experience vs race.
Obama was the least qualified , least experienced, least capable, least accomplished person running even in the demo primary and only got ahead for one reason - the media narrative and desire to elect the first black potus.
and sadly - we have all gotten fucked royally as a result of the emotional hype and bullshit by putting the equivalent of the mail room boy in the CEO slot with no in between
Are you fighting mad about this?
-
LOL
The bullshit fake naratives you idiots believe in is hysterical.
that's pottiest, kettliest i have ever heard you say. ;D
Go Mitts!
-
-
.
-
;D
-
I read a news article last night which purports that racism with regards to African Americans is actually up in the U.S. since 2008. I suspect there are many folks whose real issue with President Obama is that he is a black man, they just won't admit it.
you deserve a Nobel prize for this post.....very true..but no none of the conservative idiots on here will EVER admit that this is the case...
President Obama was born in Hawaii and people tried to de-legitimize him by saying he had no experience and that he was not even a citrizen...utterly preposterous since anyone with a brain knows the FBI and the NSA thoroughly vet everyone who runs for national office...IF HE WASN'T A CITIZEN DON'T YOU THINK THE FBI OR NSA WOULD HAVE SAID SOMETHING AND DISQUALIFIED HIM??????????????
yet no one questioned JOHN MCCAIN even though HE WAS BORN IN PANAMA. yes he was born on American soil in panama but he was born in a foreign country,,....Obama was born on U.S. soil....and the funny thing is that many of the same Repubs who castigated Obama wanted to change the rule so Schwarzenegger could run and become president....
And the same people who said Obama had no experience (meaning that he was black) started waving the pompoms when Sarah Palin who is an idiot and had even less experience than Obama, ran for vice prez....
AMAZING
-
Are you fighting mad about this?
good post....and people on her say that Obama couldn't get anything done...how can you get things done with people who personalized the issue and did not want to deal with you????
and the idiots on here who support Romney have fallen for the Republican lie that tax cuts will make the country more prosperous....WOW
-
Of course this is certainly a part of it... It's a shame.
I can handle anyone who dislikes his policies... That's fine.
Let's be honest though... Whenever someone talks about "birther" nonsense or that he's from "Kenya", you know full well that they are just being racist.
That's just so blatantly obvious.
Agreed..and I loved how Barbara Walters called out Trump for his nonsense
-
[ Invalid YouTube link ]
-
I voted for love of country, not revenge, today.
-
I voted for love of country, not revenge, today.
I voted both.
Getting revenge on the communist turd is Love of Country
-
I voted both.
Getting revenge on the communist turd is Love of Country
So the polls are open. Did FEMA get the power on for the polls and not for your apartment?
-
you deserve a Nobel prize for this post.....very true..but no none of the conservative idiots on here will EVER admit that this is the case...
President Obama was born in Hawaii and people tried to de-legitimize him by saying he had no experience and that he was not even a citrizen...utterly preposterous since anyone with a brain knows the FBI and the NSA thoroughly vet everyone who runs for national office...IF HE WASN'T A CITIZEN DON'T YOU THINK THE FBI OR NSA WOULD HAVE SAID SOMETHING AND DISQUALIFIED HIM??????????????
yet no one questioned JOHN MCCAIN even though HE WAS BORN IN PANAMA. yes he was born on American soil in panama but he was born in a foreign country,,....Obama was born on U.S. soil....and the funny thing is that many of the same Repubs who castigated Obama wanted to change the rule so Schwarzenegger could run and become president....
And the same people who said Obama had no experience (meaning that he was black) started waving the pompoms when Sarah Palin who is an idiot and had even less experience than Obama, ran for vice prez....
AMAZING
What's amazing is this revisionist history of yours. I recall an MSNBC reporter confronting New Gingrich about this. Gingrich pretty much picked his talking points apart, particularly about Palin's record: "It's stronger than Barack Obama's. I don't know why you guys walking around, saying this baloney. She has a stronger resume than Obama's.She's been a real mayor; he hasn't. She's been a real governor; he hasn't. She's been in charge of the Alaskan National Guard, he hasn't....
-
What's amazing is this revisionist history of yours. I recall an MSNBC reporter confronting New Gingrich about this. Gingrich pretty much picked his talking points apart, particularly about Palin's record: "It's stronger than Barack Obama's. I don't know why you guys walking around, saying this baloney. She has a stronger resume than Obama's.She's been a real mayor; he hasn't. She's been a real governor; he hasn't. She's been in charge of the Alaskan National Guard, he hasn't....[/b]
commander of the national guard?????????????????????????????????????????????you are reaching you tool
-
Obama is way smarter than Obama.
It takes a retard like Mcway not to pick that up.
-
Obama is way smarter than Obama.
It takes a retard like Mcway not to pick that up.
lol